Maclean's national leaders debate: Thursday, August 6 -- 74 days before the election

195 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Was anyone else as surprised as I was that E. May took the best position on the bombing of Libya? Or does anyone actually care about such things, beyond boosting their own favourite party irrespective of the evidence of their senses?

Harper was evil. Trudeau was as close to Harper as you can get without actually being engaged in a sexual liaison. And Mulcair, most notably in his warmongering pro-NATO stance, was as far from the best traditions of the NDP as you can get without actually renouncing them publicly.

Elizabeth May (and no, I can't see myself ever voting Green) was damn good. She spoke her mind without any visible coaching. She didn't smile non-stop like Mulcair and Harper, or keep her eyes wide open with scotch tape (Mulcair), or have to try to imitate a real member of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species (Trudeau). She was real.

 

Pierre C yr

It was hardly hawkish. No mention of improving the defence budget other than helping veterans. Opposed to the Isis mission. Turning on the Libyan mission once it was changed. Merely a sanctions regime on Russia over Ukraine to add the 2 russian oligarchs Harper is protecting for business interests. Only supporting UN sanctionned missions.

The anti Nato crowd nonsense here is fringe.  Most canadians support the wide ranging alliance and our military that has helped to keep the peace in Europe. Had the NDP held on to that antiquated cold war notion we wouldnt be anywhere near where we are in the polls today. May's weakest performancce was on the foreign file. Are there any murderous, anti democratic, authoritarian oppressive even genocidal regimes she would sanction a fight on if called to do so?

 

 

Unionist

Pathetic.

JKR

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

May attacks Mulcair because he's leading in BC, and she is most competitive in ridings with NDP MPs. Since the Liberals and Conservatives are both pro Keystone, there aren't many voters to convert from those parties. She has more pro-environment votes to gain by tarnishing the NDP's environmental record. Cooperating with the NDP might be better for the environment, but attacking the NDP is better for the Green Party.

Welcome to party politics.

FPTP politics.

Pierre C yr

Unionist wrote:
Pathetic.

 

Take that back into your marxist rathole. You guys have damaged the NDP's progressive agenda for decades with your radical fringe marginal ugly canadian tactics.

Unionist

Pierre C yr wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Pathetic.

 

Take that back into your marxist rathole. You guys have damaged the NDP's progressive agenda for decades with your radical fringe marginal ugly canadian tactics.

Ooo, didn't take much, did it? Just referring to the NDP's support for slaughtering Libyan civilians brought Karl Marx out of his grave.

Did I remember to say:

Pathetic?

Your type of support for the NDP is roughly equal to the support provided by a rope for a hanging person. Unwelcome.

But do carry on. Who knows, you might get appointed to the Senate.

 

socialdemocrati...

I'll count myself among the fringe, then. NATO wouldn't be enough to legitimize a mission.

I'm hoping that Mulcair's argument isn't that we'll follow NATO into every mission, but a more civil way of saying "it's so bad that even NATO won't touch it". 

But that's being pretty blindly optimistic about how much things have changed. It used to be that the UN was basically a tool to push an imperial foreign policy. Now the UN isn't imperialist enough for the imperialists. 

Pierre C yr

The one supporting the slaughter are guys like you who condemn ANY mission that seeks to prevent mass murder and genocide. Ask Chris Hedges, leading progressive voice on these issues. He supported the mission into Kosovo because it was the obvious prevention of another mass murder of muslims after several mass murders by christian serbs.

Your anti Nato anti US everything offering spoken and unspoken support for the worlds worst autocrats in that old neo marxist imperialism conspiracy nonsense when Nato has never taken an inch of foreign ground is the kind of shit Harper thrives on.  He's just hoping some of you nutballs made it through vetting somewhere in the NDP camp so he can sink us again.

A rope? Better to continue to pull the party into a proper moderate position after decades of you cutting us at the knees with buzzsaws. Your garbage was rejected and weeded out at party conventions. Dont like it join the greens or marxists... 

Unionist

Pro-imperialist rantings. This is the face of the enemy.

 

Pierre C yr

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'll count myself among the fringe, then. NATO wouldn't be enough to legitimize a mission.

I'm hoping that Mulcair's argument isn't that we'll follow NATO into every mission, but a more civil way of saying "it's so bad that even NATO won't touch it". 

But that's being pretty blindly optimistic about how much things have changed. It used to be that the UN was basically a tool to push an imperial foreign policy. Now the UN isn't imperialist enough for the imperialists. 

 

Mulcair clearly stated UN humanitarian missions involving Nato. But you talk to guys like unionist and its still imperialist nonsense.

Pierre C yr

Unionist wrote:

Pro-imperialist rantings. This is the face of the enemy.

 

 

Ah the buzz words of the conspiracy theorist nutball. Keep at it. Who cares about truth and humanism right? Imperialism!!

Unionist

Pierre C yr wrote:
He supported the mission into Kosovo because it was the obvious prevention of another mass murder of muslims after several mass murders by christian serbs.

What shameless shit you spew. What filth. How dare you even post here?

The NDP has had its share of fearless heroes, unafraid of admitting their mistakes and making amends. Svend Robinson was among them:

Quote:

Press Release
For immediate release
Thursday, June 8th, 2000

Robinson Condemns Canadian Medal to Nato General Wesley Clark; Calls for Kosovo War Crimes Trial

OTTAWA - Svend Robinson, NDP Foreign Affairs spokesperson and MP for Burnaby-Douglas demanded that Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton reverse the recently announced decision to have the Governor General present the Meritorious Service Cross to US General Wesley Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. Robinson noted the Canadian Forces Decorations and Commendations Advisory Committee (CFDCAC) announced on 18 May its decision to extend the award to Clark for having "exhibited the highest standard of professional dedication in Operation Allied Force."

"It is appalling that the Governor General and the Canadian military would honour Clark, when Amnesty International and others have called for Clark to be put on trial for war crimes committed during NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo and Serbia in the spring of 1999. NATO deliberately bombed the headquarters of Serbian Radio-Television, killing 16 civilians. They deliberately bombed a bridge in Varvarin in broad daylight, killing several civilians. They fired not once, but twice, on a train on the Grdelica bridge, killing 55.

"Canada should be urging the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, Carla del Ponte to reverse her decision not to try top NATO officials for their alleged war crimes."

And much more besides.

Mulcair, lover of NATO and Israel, should be condemned by people who love peace and non-aggression.

How do you like that assessment?

Brachina

"Trudeau was as close to Harper as you can get without actually being engaged in a sexual liaison"

 

 That made me LMAO.

 May did really well over all, but part of that was because she was never meaningfully challenge on her weak points, such her fear of wifi amoung other antiscience issues.

 I will agree May won morally on the issue of War, but when Mulcair used her as a foil against Steven Harper on both the military and Kinder-Morgan, he won those parts on a practical level.

 When Trudeau derailed the debate on what should have been on Proportional Representation to attack Mulcair National Unity it really pissed me off, that was one of the most important topics in this election, and thanks to Trudeau it barely got mentioned, although at least Mulcair made it clear that he supports it.

 I take comfort that Trudeau was ass was utterly kicked on this issue. Hiding behind the robes of the Supreme Court is not answer. And Mulcair landed some really good shots, mocking Trudeau for suggesting the Unity Act was a secret, on how the only people in the election who want it to be about national unity are Trudeau and Gilles, on Trudeau's unwillingness to name a number, and best of all when Mulcair made it clear why that was bad for national unity. Home Run.

 I like that Mulcair promised Biannual meeting with the Premiers.

 The biggest thing of the night was the sevre beating on the economy Harper took on the economy, I mean everyone, even Trudeau, landed blows on Harper on that, it went from his strength, to his greatest weakness. Tom got the best shot in on Harper when he said Harper was the only Prime Minister when asked about the resession has to ask which one. Brutal blow. May gets points for being the most reasonable on the issue of debt.

 Mulcair's more positive highlights, emphasising his experience, like on the issue of the bridge was a really great one, changing the Quebec constitution, ect... Mulcair sounded the most Prime Ministerial.

 May made a good point that we need more debates.

 Trudeau really fucked up his closing statement, which would have otherwise been the highlight of his night, by drawing attention to the not ready meme, show, don't tell Justin, it just reminded people of his weaknesses. Should have just emphasised his positions instead of directly bringing up the he's not ready ads.

 Tom Mulcair's closing statement were great, it refuted Harper's record directly, and emphasised Mulcair's experience in an intential constrast with Trudeau, but indirectly, very cleverly, Trudeau could learn something from it.

 Harper's closing statements were bullshit, but so was what most of what Harper said so no suprise.

 Winner Mulcair, and to a lesser extent then May (although I think Mulcair actually benifited from her preformance), Trudeau was good on the offence, but didn't do well on defence, and the fact that Trudeau and May didn't attack each other at all, will only fuel the rumoured of collison between the two parties, not that May did Trudeau any favours, not attacking Trudeau just reminded Canadians that the real battle was between the NDP and the CPC.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Pierre C yr wrote:
Unionist wrote:
Pathetic.

Take that back into your marxist rathole. You guys have damaged the NDP's progressive agenda for decades with your radical fringe marginal ugly canadian tactics.

The Communist Party has a really good piece about the Social Democratic shithole that is dragging the left into a swamp. It's worth quoting at length. Basically, the biggest barrier to moving politics to the left in Canada, especially in any sort of genuine alternative (Social Democrats are really quite apalling on foreign policy generally, as it exposes their belly crawling pro imperialist approach so fully) , is the Social Democrats like the NDP. And the paradoxical truth is that they do more to shut the door to alternative policies, especially by their abysmal failure to offer actual alternatives to the neo liberal coolaid, etc.

Having made that important remark, it's also to important to remember that the cosmetic differences between the 3 leading parties is, sadly, where the bulk of Canadians are at in terms of their political literacy. The pathetic NDP is the best that many can rise to.

Anyway, kudos for the Communists for speaking truth to power. The NDP sure as hell doesn't.

here is the quote.

CP wrote:

In our view, it is necessary to assess the Mulcair NDP on its own merits. It is abundantly clear that the right opportunist slide of the federal NDP, which dates back decades, has continued and even accelerated under the current leadership. Under Mulcair, the party expunged the “s” word from its constitution at the 2013 convention; it has shifted its Middle East policy in an overtly pro-Israeli position; it now supports increased defense spending; it no longer favours cancelling NAFTA, and has refused to clearly oppose the CETA pact; it has called for cuts to the small-business tax rate and juicy tax breaks for manufacturers; it no longer speaks of nationalization or public ownership, but rather worships at the altar of the ‘market’; and it has given its blessing to the “Monument to the Victims of Communism” monstrosity in Ottawa. The list could go on…

This rightward tilt of the Mulcair NDP toward the murky centre of the bourgeois political spectrum must be sharply criticized. The right opportunist reorientation of the NDP is hardly unique, but in fact tracts the further degeneration of the social democratic parties throughout most of the so-called advanced capitalist countries. For the most part, these social democratic parties have abandoned and betrayed the labour and mass democratic movements which had historically been their social and electoral base. Instead, they have adopted bourgeois ‘free market’ neoliberal policy, and given servile support to the imperialist drive for militarization, aggression and war. In ‘opposition’ these parties advocate tepid social reforms at best, but support the main pillars of the bourgeois system of values and government policy; when in office, they too often renege on prior commitments and instead dutifully implement neoliberal policies, maintaining the capitalist order of domination. This sharp swing to the right by social democracy has created anger and confusion even among its own rank-and-file supporters, and has sown divisions within the ranks in the labour and popular movements, weakening and often undermining the people’s fightback.

While reformism, narrow electoralism and class collaboration are hardly new features of social democracy, the deepening of the systemic crisis of capitalism today brings the abject failure of the social democratic ‘option’ into much sharper relief.

Historically, social democratic illusions about incremental change to ‘reform capitalism’, about the neutrality of the state, and so on, have been one of the main agents blunting the development of revolutionary class consciousness. Today, it is the main subjective factor holding back mass united, militant action needed to confront the capitalist offensive head-on, to move onto the counter-offensive against finance capital and its governments and to win socialism.

Absolutely spot on. "... it is the main subjective factor holding back mass united, militant action needed to confront..." etc.

 

a link for those with a spine.

Brachina

 Mulcair didn't say automatic yes to missions just because they're Nato or UN backed, his point is any future missions must be multilateral, not unilateral missions on behalf of the Americans, if they are to be concidered at all.

Pierre C yr

Why dont you take your vile mischaracterizations and defense of the Putins and Assads and Gadafis and other murderous regimes back into the Ukraine shithole thread in the Canada politics forum with your buddy NDPP. Your non stop attacks on the few and rare and weak democratic efforts in a foreign policy sea of strategic and business interests at helping free millions from the bondage you cant even begin to understand.  You fear oligarchy here? Seee what its results are in that oppressive shithole Russia that you clamor as some kind of twisted 'freedom' fighter. Your hypocrisy makes me sick.

 

Your ignorance irreparable.

 

Unionist wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:
He supported the mission into Kosovo because it was the obvious prevention of another mass murder of muslims after several mass murders by christian serbs.

What shameless shit you spew. What filth. How dare you even post here?

The NDP has had its share of fearless heroes, unafraid of admitting their mistakes and making amends. Svend Robinson was among them:

Quote:

Press Release
For immediate release
Thursday, June 8th, 2000

Robinson Condemns Canadian Medal to Nato General Wesley Clark; Calls for Kosovo War Crimes Trial

OTTAWA - Svend Robinson, NDP Foreign Affairs spokesperson and MP for Burnaby-Douglas demanded that Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton reverse the recently announced decision to have the Governor General present the Meritorious Service Cross to US General Wesley Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. Robinson noted the Canadian Forces Decorations and Commendations Advisory Committee (CFDCAC) announced on 18 May its decision to extend the award to Clark for having "exhibited the highest standard of professional dedication in Operation Allied Force."

"It is appalling that the Governor General and the Canadian military would honour Clark, when Amnesty International and others have called for Clark to be put on trial for war crimes committed during NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo and Serbia in the spring of 1999. NATO deliberately bombed the headquarters of Serbian Radio-Television, killing 16 civilians. They deliberately bombed a bridge in Varvarin in broad daylight, killing several civilians. They fired not once, but twice, on a train on the Grdelica bridge, killing 55.

"Canada should be urging the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, Carla del Ponte to reverse her decision not to try top NATO officials for their alleged war crimes."

And much more besides.

Mulcair, lover of NATO and Israel, should be condemned by people who love peace and non-aggression.

How do you like that assessment?

 

He gave a clear distinction for the 2 state solution, the overwhelmingly preffered choice in progressive circles, in the Israeli Palestinian problem. Totally distinct from Harpers one sided Pro Israel only position.

You're willfully blind.

Unionist

Pierre C yr wrote:

Why dont you take your vile mischaracterizations and defense of the Putins and Assads and Gadafis and other murderous regimes back into the Ukraine shithole thread in the Canada politics forum with your buddy NDPP. Your non stop attacks on the few and rare and weak democratic efforts in a foreign policy sea of strategic and business interests at helping free millions from the bondage you cant even begin to understand.  You fear oligarchy here? Seee what its results are in that oppressive shithole Russia that you clamor as some kind of twisted 'freedom' fighter.

I defend Putin? Assad? Gaddafi?

You're confusing me with someone else. Maybe you're not feeling well.

Quote:
Your hypocrisy makes me sick.

I suspected as much. Luckily we still have universal health care, more or less.

 

Pierre C yr

Been reading that garbage you guys keep on posting in that thread. Get back to it since you seem to like to attack the UN/Nato/US at any and all times over any mission to any shithole on the planet.

Imperialism!!!

Unionist

Pierre C yr wrote:

Been reading that garbage you guys keep on posting in that thread. Get back to it since you seem to like to attack the UN/Nato/US at any and all times over any mission to any shithole on the planet.

Doesn't take a lot of discussion to bring out this kind of imperial racist opinion, does it? You really should buy yourself a decent mirror. In the meantime, any party that embraces opinions like this should just drop all pretence and merge with the HarperCons. Get out of the way - the future is coming, and it really doesn't include opinions like this.

 

Pierre C yr

Ah yes inevitable, the refuge of the scoundrel, libellous accusations. So Im 'racist' against russia because their country is driven into the ground by Putin's kleptocratic regime and his oligarchs? A shithole is a shithole. You dont fix problems by painting lipstick on a pig. People need to know how bad things are in some places before they will pay attention and made to care to help out.

 

 

Pondering

I think May won the battle on Libya and ISIS. She was articulate and knew her facts so her passion only strengthened her message. If any single participant "won" the debate it is May as she made a good case for her inclusion in future debates. I don't think the debate will impact the numbers one way or another so given that Mulcair is the frontrunner it's a win for him from that perspective.

Trudeau's closing speech was awful but I don't think there was anything that could become a damaging clip. The "naive" comment will probably be picked up by the Conservatives for their "not ready" ads but I don't think it will do them any good. I think Trudeau did a good job on C 51 and ISIS. Overall he did great in terms of losing verbal ticks and improving his delivery with the exception of being a little too fast at times and his oddly slow closing speech. I think he accomplished what he needed to accomplish, prove he is still in the running, and he is prepared for the rest of the campaign aside from some minor tweaking. I think it was very good practice for him.

Harper was Harper and I don't think that will work any longer. Listening to him was like watching a rerun. At times he was convincing but he also had a patronizing air and a slight smirk. His just "stay the course" message sounded smug and dismissive of the problems people are facing. His insistence on bragging about how great we are doing and citing numbers sounded smug and tone-deaf as though all Canadians are doing just great when we can see that isn't the case. His message is stale but it is all he has. If this is it he won't pick up any support and he could well lose enough to drop to 3rd place.

Mulcair performed very well. A couple of things to polish up but overall decent. If Mulcair doesn't win the election it will be due to policy not performance.

Overall I think the debate was boring and I think the ratings will be low and the polls will be unaffected because none of them said anything new and the platforms are still sparse. The democracy debate was very shallow, it needed more time and daycare wasn't discussed other than Mulcair saying it was in his platform.

Paul Wells was good but I would have liked him to intervene more in the disputes.

 

 

Because of low ratings for the show I don't think

Brachina

 I thought Mulcair did very well on the issue of Isreal, and was the only leader to bring up the interests of the Palestians at all.

Pierre C yr

She also ignored facts like the mass number of burned bodies found in gov warehouses and of thousands of missing protesters. The problem with the likes of Libya is not knowing how bad things might get if we didnt intervene to cut Gadafi's repression short at the time. Ask the desert tribes how Gadafis dealt with them in the past. His regime was particularly brutal. Hindsight is 20/20 when there was no follow through to help the gov dissidents and part ofthe army who broke with the regime and we let the islamists take over parts of the country... The intervention in Syria was even less, no intervention of any kind for years, and we got Isis over it. No one knows how many people that group killed. 

The interventions in the mid east were fubared for obvious reasons that most analysts have identified easily. Iraq saw the gov totally dismantled. Needlesssly invaded when we could have dislodged Hussein like Bebe Doc in Haiti was decades earlier. Forceful diplomacy. Libya was only a short air campaign with no aid to the fledgling rebel gov. Syria nothing for years while the country turned into another afghanistan. Throughout the Yugoslav and Lebanese lessons ignored in trying to keep together countries made up of disparate groups who dont want to live together and where majority groups dont tolerate minorities.

Because pseudo progressives and some ill founded westerners think autocrats should be allowed to keep these colonial era constructs together by unending force, repression and dictatorial rule. Read Paris 1919.

May's main weakness was the foreign file. Her delivery stayed formidable in the entire debate however. That often hides a weak understanding of some issues.

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Elizabeth May sounded more like a traditional NDP leader than Mulcair. Mulcair sounded more like a traditional soft Liberal leader. Trudeau looked well rehearsed but left you with still no real platform or substance to speak of. Harper was Harper. This whole NATO issue bothers me as well with Mulcair's statement. I would like to see Canada be an international ambassador of peace. If that means withdrawing from NATO, then we need to seriously reconsider bringing back the Waffle movement and getting our party back to some of it's original positions, not that NATO withdrawal was ever a formal NDP position, but we need to get back to our social democratic roots again.

Pierre C yr

Ken Burch wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Pathetic.

 

Take that back into your marxist rathole. You guys have damaged the NDP's progressive agenda for decades with your radical fringe marginal ugly canadian tactics.

It's not as if the party would've broken through in '62, '63, or '65 if only they'd totally towed the Cold War line-or in the Eighties if onlyy they'd cheered Reagan on-or in 2004 if only they had backed Bush on Iraq.  And no Western military missions anywhere on the planet at this point are about freeing anybody-wars of "national interest" can't liberate people.

Canada is not an intrinsically militarist society like the U.S., is.  And most Canadians don't want there to be a militarist consensus between all major parties on Canada's role in the world.

There should at least be the chance to vote for peace.

 

Why not? There were plenty of social democrats winning elections in the 50's and 60's in Europe. Why do we think they are so ahead of us in some ways? They didnt have bombastic positions on such as Nato tho. We have only ourselves to blame for our weak position for so long. We finally get to that reasonable position on a few basic issues and we start winning... Its not rocket science.

And none of them did anything offensive like support a Reagan or some radical right position on an issue. They simply didnt have any stupid ones.

Not every war was a 'national interest'. Yugoslavia wasnt, theres no oil there, and neither was Somalia. We should have gone to Rwanda. You think only right wingers opposed that one? We carry the debt from that genocide like no other. The UN, heck everyone completely failed to stop it. We just stood by and watched...

Theres only shame in this. No one can grandstand and say every time we go overseas to intervene its 'imperialism'. Not in Rwanda it wasnt.

See that statue in front of the UN? The guy weilds a hammer...

 

Ken Burch

Pierre C yr wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Pathetic.

 

Take that back into your marxist rathole. You guys have damaged the NDP's progressive agenda for decades with your radical fringe marginal ugly canadian tactics.

It's not as if the party would've broken through in '62, '63, or '65 if only they'd totally towed the Cold War line(Trudeau, a Liberal rather than a Dipper, won a majority in '68 on a promise to consider pulling Canada out of NATO and almost did so a year later) and backed Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam-or in the Eighties if only they'd cheered Reagan on in Central America and on the nuke buildup-or in 2004 if only they had backed Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Canada is not an intrinsically militarist society like the U.S., is.  And most Canadians don't want there to be a militarist consensus between all major parties on Canada's role in the world.  I have no idea where this huge group of progressive-but-war loving voters you seem to think exists actually dwells in your country.

Besides which, no Western military missions anywhere on the planet at this point(or even any under consideration) are about freeing anybody-wars of "national interest" can't liberate people.

There should at least be the chance, in every election to vote for peace-to vote for the idea that one's country should play a solely positive, compassionate and solidaristic role in the world.  What is it about that idea that so outrages you, Pierre?

Pierre C yr

Misfit wrote:
Elizabeth May sounded more like a traditional NDP leader than Mulcair. Mulcair sounded more like a traditional soft Liberal leader. Trudeau looked well rehearsed but left you with still no real platform or substance to speak of. Harper was Harper. This whole NATO issue bothers me as well with Mulcair's statement. I would like to see Canada be an international ambassador of peace. If that means withdrawing from NATO, then we need to seriously reconsider bringing back the Waffle movement and getting our party back to some of it's original positions, not that NATO withdrawal was ever a formal NDP position, but we need to get back to our social democratic roots again.

 

You need to listen to more of her positions. Shes not a social democrat shes a libertarian. And her party still has far too many market based notions to claim much of any real progressive roots outside some popular ones like student debt.  Peacekeeping only is a nice idea as long as the peacekeepers dont merely go overseas to walk on the bones of the dead. It makes sense in places like Cyprus it makes little sense in places like Rwanda.

 

Pondering

Pierre C yr wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The senate can be reformed without opening the constitution.

I think May is winning by far.

Like what. You cant elect them without opening the constitution.

You can set up a multi-party committee to present multiple candidates to the PM for consideration. Rules for expenses and reporting the purposes of trips can be made more transparent. They could be required to sit on committees not paid extra for it. Rules for expulsion can drawn up and they should be very strict. Pensions can be cut.

Pierre C yr

Pondering wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The senate can be reformed without opening the constitution.

I think May is winning by far.

Like what. You cant elect them without opening the constitution.

You can set up a multi-party committee to present multiple candidates to the PM for consideration. Rules for expenses and reporting the purposes of trips can be made more transparent. They could be required to sit on committees not paid extra for it. Rules for expulsion can drawn up and they should be very strict. Pensions can be cut.

 

Some of these the senate would have to agree to. They manage their own affairs. No province is forced to have elections for senators. If Harper could have done any of this he would have by now rather than face the electorate with the mess its in. The only changes Ive seen done was due to shaming the senators into doing it. It wasnt legislated into place.

Ken Burch

Pierre C yr wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Pathetic.

 

Take that back into your marxist rathole. You guys have damaged the NDP's progressive agenda for decades with your radical fringe marginal ugly canadian tactics.

It's not as if the party would've broken through in '62, '63, or '65 if only they'd totally towed the Cold War line-or in the Eighties if onlyy they'd cheered Reagan on-or in 2004 if only they had backed Bush on Iraq.  And no Western military missions anywhere on the planet at this point are about freeing anybody-wars of "national interest" can't liberate people.

Canada is not an intrinsically militarist society like the U.S., is.  And most Canadians don't want there to be a militarist consensus between all major parties on Canada's role in the world.

There should at least be the chance to vote for peace.

 

Why not? There were plenty of social democrats winning elections in the 50's and 60's in Europe. Why do we think they are so ahead of us in some ways? They didnt have bombastic positions on such as Nato tho. We have only ourselves to blame for our weak position for so long. We finally get to that reasonable position on a few basic issues and we start winning... Its not rocket science.

And none of them did anything offensive like support a Reagan or some radical right position on an issue. They simply didnt have any stupid ones.

Not every war was a 'national interest'. Yugoslavia wasnt, theres no oil there, and neither was Somalia. We should have gone to Rwanda. You think only right wingers opposed that one? We carry the debt from that genocide like no other. The UN, heck everyone completely failed to stop it. We just stood by and watched...

Theres only shame in this. No one can grandstand and say every time we go overseas to intervene its 'imperialism'. Not in Rwanda it wasnt.

See that statue in front of the UN? The guy weilds a hammer...

 

A hammer that represents the means of building a better world...not an implement of destruction.

Social democrats were winning some elections in Europe in the Fifties(actually, they were more often the official opposition in most Europeam countries, not forming government but demonstrating sufficient strength to force the CIA-invented Christian Democratic parties that usually beat them to bring in social democratic policies on workers' rights and the social wage) because Europe had a stronger labour movement and a far-better developed left tradition in politics than Canada ever has-NOT, in particular, because European social democrats were cool with militarism.  How do you explain the overwhelming victories won in that decade by Sweden's Social Democrats, a party that was neutralist and antiwar to the core?  

The NDP did badly in the Nineties and early Zeros because it had unpopular leaders who didn't know how to use television well and strategists who couldn't come up with anything remotely resembling strategy...not because they didn't say, to repurpose the Billy Bragg lyric "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here".  And the Liberal government of that era, right-wing as it was, kept Canadian troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and didn't play any significant role in the "humanitarian" interventions you speak of.  

So no, the NDP never had to "get our war on" to move out of third place.

BTW, Unionist did nothing to deserve the abusive, redbaiting response you flung at him.  He's one of the most decent, principled people we have on this board.  And while he is on the left, he's not a "Marxist"(at least not in the 1950's Stalinist sense you meant to imply).

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

I was less than impressed by Trudeau's Clarity Act tangent... it wasted a great deal of time that could have been directed towards a discussion of PR and Harper's reliance on putting everything, including the kitchen sink, into Omnibus bills. I wish Mulcair had delivered his "the only people interested in this discussion are Justin Trudeau and Gilles Duceppe" line earlier (and I wish Duceppe had been there, I have always found him very refreshing in English language debates). Watching the CBC commentary later, a good deal was made that this was an attempt to appeal to hardline federalist voters IN ONTARIO... it did little but cause eye rolling in large parts of Western Canada...

Ken Burch

Violence can't truly end violence.  The only way to end violence is to create other means of resolving differences.

Pierre C yr

Unionist is arrogant and misinformed. He disparages the NDP over slights and falsehoods, antiquated notions from marginal radical absolutist thinking. The old hate anything american hate Nato crowd. Like the one member I had a beer with in a pub once telling the greek immigrant server 'Ill have any beer except american' because he labbeled any US policy as 'imperialist'. Im glad he left to join the liberals that one. He can chat it up with Sheila Coops. 

Ill call him out on it as he doesnt back his assertions like the one about Quebec mp's getting voted out by the local membership by vetted candidates. Theres no 'tone' in text. I did nothing to be disparaged and labelled as a racist by him.

The hammer symbolizes the violence needed to end violence. The whole image is biblical about how god will come back to turn by force swords into plowshares. It takes a lot of political and even military strength to put an end to violence and, specifically in the UN's basic and too often failed role: Ending genocide. You cant do that with wishful thinking.

Pierre C yr

Ken Burch wrote:

Violence can't truly end violence.  The only way to end violence is to create other means of resolving differences.

 

You dont end genocide with genocide but you can stop it with force. Violence is a big word that encompasses politics not just the military. Some say mandates are the violent application of political force. You think when facing multinationals ruining the planet or dictators bent on mass murder we can always just find a way to negotiate our way out of it?   Any transition towards a less violent world will take time. We wouldnt have less violence had we not opposed the nazis and let them keep europe. You apply force sometimes to avoid worse outcomes. Worse outcomes that themselves seed further violence.

Pierre C yr

bagkitty wrote:

I was less than impressed by Trudeau's Clarity Act tangent... it wasted a great deal of time that could have been directed towards a discussion of PR and Harper's reliance on putting everything, including the kitchen sink, into Omnibus bills. I wish Mulcair had delivered his "the only people interested in this discussion are Justin Trudeau and Gilles Duceppe" line earlier (and I wish Duceppe had been there, I have always found him very refreshing in English language debates). Watching the CBC commentary later, a good deal was made that this was an attempt to appeal to hardline federalist voters IN ONTARIO... it did little but cause eye rolling in large parts of Western Canada...

 

Trudeau gave up on winning in Quebec so hes stoking the separatists issue to win seats in Ontario. Ontario wants a strong federalist leader so he will play that up. Its a cynical ploy. I dont think itll work. Mulcair's federalist credentials are too solid and not everyone thinks the way to deal with separatists is to forever confront them.

Mulcair let Trudeau get away with a few whoppers. I hope he makes up for it.

Ken Burch

There is no possible use of force in the world we live in now that could possibly be compared to the fight against Naziism.  That was a singular event.

Besides, it's likely that IS is a product of the fact that the West hadn't got completely out of the Arab/Muslim world after 2009.  Much of their support was a twisted, wrong-headed form of anti-imperialism.  More Western troops(and let's face it, every Arab and Muslim person in the world sees Western military intervention as imperialist, even if that word bothers you) are very unlikely to be helpful in a situation with that sort of roots.

It sounds as if you are desperate to prove that war can still be progressive and defensible.

That mindset is what led the Kennedy Administration into Vietnam.

Pierre C yr

The idea the nazis were the only time force was necessary is nonsense. Shows you dont realize or understand there are equally violent regimes on the planet since or today. You dont have to do Vietnam when you should have done Cambodia or Rwanda. One is not the same as the other. Nor was Kosovo Iraq or Syria Afghanistan. Now it is tho. It shows how non intervention can be just as bad if not worse. Blaming Syria on the FUBAR Iraq mission and using that as an excuse for non intervention is useless. Its just irrelevant deflection. At the point of the Syrian arab spring and the later infiltration by Isis there was no going back in time getting Bush out of Iraq.

Theres more to murderous state history than nazis then everyone else...

 

 

 

 

Doug Woodard

Pierre C yr wrote:

Misfit wrote:
Elizabeth May sounded more like a traditional NDP leader than Mulcair.

You need to listen to more of her positions. Shes not a social democrat shes a libertarian. And her party still has far too many market based notions to claim much of any real progressive roots outside some popular ones like student debt.  

Pierre, Green Party policy is not "market based." The Green Party wants to use the market as a tool within a social context determined by law and regulation. There are *some* things the market does better than bureaucrats. There are some things that government does better than the market. The market in any case needs government to set and enforce the rules.

Do you know of any other party that has the strengthening of consumer and producer cooperatives as a platform plank? I'd say that's "progressive."

addictedtomyipod

It's a complete waste of time debating Green party policy.  They will not support it in any meaningful way, choosing instead to have MP's vote their conscience or their constituents instead.  This leads to uncertainty on how any votes will be cast in the HOC. 

After the debate I know where E May stands on some issues, but we don't know where any of their candidates do. For example, the party was in favour of keeping the long gun registry, but welcomed with open arms an MP that voted against this position.  Also the claim that they are the party of peace, again Hyer voted in favour of the Iraq bombing mission.  

Voting Green is a crap shoot.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I do not support the Green Party. I think their positions are vague and obscure. What I said was and I'll repeat, Elizabeth May sounded more like a traditional NDP leader than the leader of the NDP during the debate. Mulcair sounded more like a traditional soft Liberal leader than the Liberal party leader. She brought up health care and other social programs, First Nations issues, human rights, poverty, homelessness, low income housing...these are all issues that the NDP normally dominates in at the debates. Mulcair hardly touched on social issues at all.

josh

Pierre C yr wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Pathetic.

 

Take that back into your marxist rathole. You guys have damaged the NDP's progressive agenda for decades with your radical fringe marginal ugly canadian tactics.

McCarthyite tactics by a party hack. Very impressive.

pookie

Mulcair was oddly flat.  And the man cannot read a statement to save his life!  WTH?  No big mistakes, tho.

Trudeau started out well but was too "hot" and needs to dial it back.  His closing statement could have been quite effective but he screwed it up.

May was excellent for most of it.  I'm no Green, but she was by far the smoothest, and the best at communicating really complex info.

Harper did better than I thought.  He is just too experienced at this stage of his career to really muck it up.  And he was not as condescending or hostile as he can sometimes be.  

So.  TIME'S UP!  I wonder what the NDP will decide re other debates??

Caissa

I found the Blue Jays game more entertaining.

Slumberjack

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..after watching the debate i needed to keep reminding myself that getting rid of harper is the goal. i trust none of them nor do i believe any of them can take us to a good place.

MegB

Let's keep the conversation respectful - no more personal attacks please.

Ciabatta2

I was surprised.  Each candidate did well.  May was taken seriously.  Trudeau remained relevant.  Harper didn't come across like a jerk.  Mulcair was statesmanly, save for a few arrogant touches.  They all did what they needed to do.  I think May topped the pack and Mulcair was the least impressive, but they were all in the same range.  Maybe May was a B+ and Mulcair a B-.  I was impressed.

DaveW

a bit late, Meg!!

honestly, this thread brought out everybody to the Left of the real-world electoral NDP (including our pro-Putin contingent)...

in the real world, the NDP is a moderate centre-left parliamentary group, like dozens similar in western Europe, and yes, they are going to regularly side with NATO, as Pierre Cyr points out, just as the CCF-NDP considered then rejected motions at every convention in ther 1970s and 70s to pull out of NATO or NORAD.... will not happen

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..one only needs to assess the current direction and strenght of capital to understand what is needed from polititians. and right now capital is high in dictating the agenda and powerful in making sure that agenda is implemented. to understand this it doesn't matter if your politics are right or left. all parties talk as if they were able to control the banks and corporations but in practice they can't. the libs and cons do so because because that is their bend not because they have any choice in the matter. it's smoke and mirrors and people in general understand this.

Pondering

Pierre C yr wrote:

Trudeau gave up on winning in Quebec so hes stoking the separatists issue to win seats in Ontario. Ontario wants a strong federalist leader so he will play that up. Its a cynical ploy. I dont think itll work. Mulcair's federalist credentials are too solid and not everyone thinks the way to deal with separatists is to forever confront them.

Mulcair let Trudeau get away with a few whoppers. I hope he makes up for it.

No he hasn't. Contrary to popular opinion separatists are a shrinking minority in Quebec. The Sherbrooke Declaration and Unity Act are current NDP policy and Mulcair does pump it up in French. Mulcair is being dishonest by pretending he doesn't talk about it in French.

Pages