What kind of economic platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters?

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
What kind of economic platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters?

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Issues Pages: 
Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.

From your quote, I take it that "jobs" means tar sands.

If so, do you think the NDP will win enough seats in Alberta to compensate for the 58 seats it will lose in Québec, and find enough more somewhere else to form government?

I'd need to see that analysis on paper.

 

mark_alfred

I dunno NR.  Mulcair initially tried to play the jobs card by stating that Harper's excessive subsidies on the oil sector caused an inflated dollar, which hurt the manufacturing industry.  So, the NDP would lessen these and help create jobs in the manufacturing industry by bringing the dollar to its proper level.  However, due to low oil prices, the dollar is now not much inflated, so that argument has been quashed.  And speaking of differing views on pipelines just seems to worry people and feed into the Con's job rhetoric.

I think the NDP needs to focus on childcare and change, rather than playing into areas that the public perceives as the Cons' strength (resource sector jobs).

NorthReport

The NDP's albatross has always been the economic file.

They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.

And no Unionist of course I was not refering to just the tar sands, although the tar sands are and will continue to be part of Canada's economic engine. We do however need a national economic strategy so that we keep the tar sands going, but slow enough that it will provide jobs for the next 100 years, rather than the 20 years, the right-wingers would impose on us if they have their way.

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.

From your quote, I take it that "jobs" means tar sands.

If so, do you think the NDP will win enough seats in Alberta to compensate for the 58 seats it will lose in Québec, and find enough more somewhere else to form government?

I'd need to see that analysis on paper.

 

Aristotleded24

The NDP under Jack actively promoted a Green Collar Job strategy, and I think Mulcair has failed on this file. If he has said anything substantial about how he plans to transition to a green economy (never mind this crap about "regulating pollution" or "making polluters pay,") I have yet to see it.

NorthReport

There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but.........

Quote:
The NDP leader has voiced strong objections to both proposed pipeline projects to move oil to the west coast of BC (*in the case of the Trans Mountain project, he has said that he would not approve the project based on concerns about the existing review process).  If voters interpret this as opposition to both projects, 31% would approve of this position while 42% disapprove. In BC, 35% approve and 44% disapprove. Disapproval is the norm in the rest of the country, except in Quebec, where 42% approve and 29% disapprove of the NDP position. Among NDP voters, 37% would disapprove of opposition to both pipelines.

http://abacusdata.ca/political-leaders-choices-and-voters-perspectives/

I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.

But the NDP has to come out very supportive of jobs or they will not succeed. And there are ways to do it, and yet be supportive of First Nations rights, s well as being protective of the environment. 

The NDP needs to better play the political game.

NorthReport

I was in no way refereing specifically to resource-based jobs. Look at BC as we now have a booming high tech industy that appears to be growing in leaps and bounds. Maybe being the closest geographically to Silicon Valley has something to do with it. Or maybe it's just the Lotusland appeal. 

mark_alfred wrote:

I dunno NR.  Mulcair initially tried to play the jobs card by stating that Harper's excessive subsidies on the oil sector caused an inflated dollar, which hurt the manufacturing industry.  So, the NDP would lessen these and help create jobs in the manufacturing industry by bringing the dollar to its proper level.  However, due to low oil prices, the dollar is now not much inflated, so that argument has been quashed.  And speaking of differing views on pipelines just seems to worry people and feed into the Con's job rhetoric.

I think the NDP needs to focus on childcare and change, rather than playing into areas that the public perceives as the Cons' strength (resource sector jobs).

Adam T

NorthReport wrote:

I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.

But the NDP has to come out very supportive of jobs or they will not succeed. And there are ways to do it, and yet be supportive of First Nations rights, s well as being protective of the environment. 

The NDP needs to better play the political game.

 

Ezra, as opposed to the NDP coming out in favor of unemployment?  

NorthReport

Adam T wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.

But the NDP has to come out very supportive of jobs or they will not succeed. And there are ways to do it, and yet be supportive of First Nations rights, s well as being protective of the environment. 

The NDP needs to better play the political game.

 

Ezra, as opposed to the NDP coming out in favor of unemployment?  

NorthReport

NorthReport wrote:

I was in no way refereing specifically to resource-based jobs. Look at BC as we now have a booming high tech industy that appears to be growing in leaps and bounds. Maybe being the closest geographically to Silicon Valley has something to do with it. Or maybe it's just the Lotusland appeal. 

mark_alfred wrote:

I dunno NR.  Mulcair initially tried to play the jobs card by stating that Harper's excessive subsidies on the oil sector caused an inflated dollar, which hurt the manufacturing industry.  So, the NDP would lessen these and help create jobs in the manufacturing industry by bringing the dollar to its proper level.  However, due to low oil prices, the dollar is now not much inflated, so that argument has been quashed.  And speaking of differing views on pipelines just seems to worry people and feed into the Con's job rhetoric.

I think the NDP needs to focus on childcare and change, rather than playing into areas that the public perceives as the Cons' strength (resource sector jobs).

NorthReport

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP's albatross has always been the economic file.

They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.

And no Unionist of course I was not refering to just the tar sands, although the tar sands are and will continue to be part of Canada's economic engine. We do however need a national economic strategy so that we keep the tar sands going, but slow enough that it will provide jobs for the next 100 years, rather than the 20 years, the right-wingers would impose on us if they have their way.

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.

From your quote, I take it that "jobs" means tar sands.

If so, do you think the NDP will win enough seats in Alberta to compensate for the 58 seats it will lose in Québec, and find enough more somewhere else to form government?

I'd need to see that analysis on paper.

 

Pondering

How about this kind of platform?

The survey found support for progressive policies to reduce the wealth gap cut across traditional political party affiliations.

  • 83 per cent believe political parties should pledge not to introduce any tax cuts that would increase the gap between the rich and the rest of us 
  • 75 per cent said corporate tax cuts should be rolled back .
  • 80 per cent agreed that the highest income tax bracket should be raised.
  • 62% support taxing capital gains and stock options at the same rate as wages to address inequality.

Regular taxpayers seem to be way ahead of many politicians on this issue. A large majority -80 per cent - say the wealth gap has grown in Canada over the past decade, including 76 per cent of Conservative voters.

http://www.taxfairness.ca/en/news/want-close-wealth-gap-canadians-have-a...

The NDP might want to explore why it doesn't seem to be connecting with these people (whose opinions I share).

Adam T

The high tech sector is still a rather small part of the overall B.C economy, and is very small outside of the Lower Mainland.  It is growing quickly but the jobs are often very relocatable, (as we've seen from the film industry, although thanks to the TV part of that sector, the number of jobs in film/tv actually increased in B.C over the last couple years) the sector changes quickly (as we've seen from the swift declines into virtual irrelevance of Blackberry and Ballard Power to name just two), and thus although many of the jobs are high paying, they are probably not all that secure.  Although the people in those industries with high skills can probably find new jobs in the sector very quickly.

In addition to the location near California and Washington state, B.C has a very good education sector, especially BCIT and the film schools.  Also, the scenary probably helps as many high tech jobs don't have resource requirements (i.e bodies of water) that limit where they can be located.

Adam T

NorthReport wrote:

They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.

NorthReport wrote:

I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.  

Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley.  To be sure, the Delta North and Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows ridings were competitve and they were open seats, but while NDP Delta North MLA Guy Gentner was popular he was replaced by Sylvia Bishop who was one of the top vote getters in the 2011 municipal election (and she topped the polls in 2014) and in Maple Ridge, NDP MLA Michael Sather wa mehhh.

The Port Moody riding is historically not NDP (it's a wealthy area), but the NDP MLA was the very popular former mayor.

I believe of significant importance in the NDP loss, in addition to the opposition to the pipeline expansion to Burnaby (btw, even though the pipeline is very unpopular in Burnaby, the NDP could only gain one of the two Burnaby seats held by the Liberals and all 4  Burnaby ridings were close), were these factors:

1.Adrian Dix's 'memo to file' scandal and his ridiculous excuse of it in the debate that he was a young man at the time he did it (he was 40).

2.The Liberals running a huge number of popular mayors, city councillors and school trustees. In contrast just 9 of the NDP non incumbent candidates held prior municipal office.  While the above mentioned Sylvia Bishop in Delta North was an NDP city councillor, the Liberals also ran a city councillor.

mark_alfred

NR, I do agree that the NDP needs something to appeal to those worried about jobs.  Like you say, that's one reason the BC NDP failed, in that they got outplayed by the Libs on the jobs front.  But, jobs federally are largely seen as resource sector jobs (IE, largely the tar sands) and this is not popular in Quebec.  So, I'm not sure what the NDP needs to do to appeal to those who are worried about jobs.

Centrist

Adam T wrote:
I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.  

Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley.

Firstly, the BC NDP vote went up on the North Shore ridings (West Van/North Van) and inner City of Vancouver allowing the BC NDP to pick up Van-PG and Van-Fairview from the BC Libs. The "positive effects" of the "Kinder Morgan Surprise" in the May/13 BC provincial election in Metro Vancouver/mainland BC. However, elsewhere in BC, that became seen as a "symbol" of the BC NDP and a flip-flop, which apparently planted doubts in the electorate about the BC NDP. And the BC Libs took full advantage of that with their "Risky Dix" campaign. 

OTOH, the BC NDP popular vote share went down in all 4 Burnaby provincial ridings for some unknown reason. And I highly suspect that the BC NDP picked up Burnaby-Lougheed from the BC Libs due to an unaffiliated candidate named "Christine Clarke" picking up about 8% of the vote. Suspect that, since she was on the ballot prior to the BC Lib candidate, and was mistaken for CC. Same thing happened in 2009 in Vernon-Monashee with an independent "Gordon Campbell" running also capturing about 8%. Call it the James Green/Jim Green syndrome from Van City muni election 2005 allowing the NPA's Sullivan to win.

And when one goes out to the Metro Vancouver suburbs, the BC NDP lost Delta North and Surrey-Fleetwood. And lost Coquitlam-Mallairdville on election night only to be over-turned in a recount. And riding popular vote shares sank for the BC NDP, for the most part, from the BC interior, the Fraser Valley and the Metro Vancouver suburbs. Maple-Ridge Pitt Meadows (-4.5%). Surrey Newton (-13%), Surrey GT (-15%). And on and on it goes.

Problem is that the right-wing seems to always hijack the economic meme. Economy, jobs, resource development, taxation, balanced budgets... while unfairly painting the BC NDP as "tax and spend", deficits, against everything. And that meme obviously worked throughout Interior BC, the Fraser Valley, and the Metro Vancouver suburbs.

Even today, the BC NDP is having great problems establishing positions on all of these matters with a resurgent BC Green party.

However, federally Tom does not have the same problem in BC as, aside from Nathan's Skeena Bulkley Valley riding, the only other BC mainland seats in play/winnable for the fed NDP are a narrow band from east Vancouver (Van-East/Van-Kingsway), Burnaby South, New Westminster-Burnaby, and Surrey Centre.  5 ridings.

The rest are on Van Isle. But therein lies another problem. With the new riding boundaries, and based upon transposed results, the Cons would have won all ridings north of Victoria in 2008. The Cons riding popular vote share stayed the same in these ridings in '11 but the collapsing Lib/Green vote flowed to NDP.

That won't happen in 2015. With the resurgent Greens on Van Isle and the Lib uptick, the NDP is likely to lose more votes than the Cons allowing the Cons to sneak up the middle in 5 seats. Frankly, I can see a 2 Green/5 Con shut-out on Van Isle as a result.

That's why I have previously stated that Tom should get off the fence on the Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning/tanker traffic and oppose it out right. Would outflank the Greens who are now the only party opposing same.

Adam T

Centrist wrote:

Adam T wrote:
I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.  

Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley.

Firstly, the BC NDP vote went up on the North Shore ridings (West Van/North Van) and inner City of Vancouver allowing the BC NDP to pick up Van-PG and Van-Fairview from the BC Libs. The "positive effects" of the "Kinder Morgan Surprise" in the May/13 BC provincial election in Metro Vancouver/mainland BC. However, elsewhere in BC, that became seen as a "symbol" of the BC NDP and a flip-flop, which apparently planted doubts in the electorate about the BC NDP. And the BC Libs took full advantage of that with their "Risky Dix" campaign. 

OTOH, the BC NDP popular vote share went down in all 4 Burnaby provincial ridings for some unknown reason. And I highly suspect that the BC NDP picked up Burnaby-Lougheed from the BC Libs due to an unaffiliated candidate named "Christine Clarke" picking up about 8% of the vote. Suspect that, since she was on the ballot prior to the BC Lib candidate, and was mistaken for CC. Same thing happened in 2009 in Vernon-Monashee with an independent "Gordon Campbell" running also capturing about 8%. Call it the James Green/Jim Green syndrome from Van City muni election 2005 allowing the NPA's Sullivan to win.

And when one goes out to the Metro Vancouver suburbs, the BC NDP lost Delta North and Surrey-Fleetwood. And lost Coquitlam-Mallairdville on election night only to be over-turned in a recount. And riding popular vote shares sank for the BC NDP, for the most part, from the BC interior, the Fraser Valley and the Metro Vancouver suburbs. Maple-Ridge Pitt Meadows (-4.5%). Surrey Newton (-13%), Surrey GT (-15%). And on and on it goes.

Problem is that the right-wing seems to always hijack the economic meme. Economy, jobs, resource development, taxation, balanced budgets... while unfairly painting the BC NDP as "tax and spend", deficits, against everything. And that meme obviously worked throughout Interior BC, the Fraser Valley, and the Metro Vancouver suburbs.

Even today, the BC NDP is having great problems establishing positions on all of these matters with a resurgent BC Green party.

However, federally Tom does not have the same problem in BC as, aside from Nathan's Skeena Bulkley Valley riding, the only other BC mainland seats in play/winnable for the fed NDP are a narrow band from east Vancouver (Van-East/Van-Kingsway), Burnaby South, New Westminster-Burnaby, and Surrey Centre.  5 ridings.

The rest are on Van Isle. But therein lies another problem. With the new riding boundaries, and based upon transposed results, the Cons would have won all ridings north of Victoria in 2008. The Cons riding popular vote share stayed the same in these ridings in '11 but the collapsing Lib/Green vote flowed to NDP.

That won't happen in 2015. With the resurgent Greens on Van Isle and the Lib uptick, the NDP is likely to lose more votes than the Cons allowing the Cons to sneak up the middle in 5 seats. Frankly, I can see a 2 Green/5 Con shut-out on Van Isle as a result.

That's why I have previously stated that Tom should get off the fence on the Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning/tanker traffic and oppose it out right. Would outflank the Greens who are now the only party opposing same.

 

The Green vote will likely increase in Southern Vancouver Island, although they will take from all parties, not just the NDP.  I doubt the Liberals will do significantly better, even with their uptick.

Adam T

They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.

I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.  

Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley.  To be sure, the Delta North and Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows ridings were competitve and they were open seats, but while NDP Delta North MLA Guy Gentner was popular he was replaced by Sylvia Bishop who was one of the top vote getters in the 2011 municipal election (and she topped the polls in 2014) and in Maple Ridge, NDP MLA Michael Sather wa mehhh.

The Port Moody riding is historically not NDP (it's a wealthy area), but the NDP MLA was the very popular former mayor.

I believe of significant importance in the NDP loss, in addition to the opposition to the pipeline expansion to Burnaby (btw, even though the pipeline is very unpopular in Burnaby, the NDP could only gain one of the two Burnaby seats held by the Liberals and all 4  Burnaby ridings were close), were these factors:

1.Adrian Dix's 'memo to file' scandal and his ridiculous excuse of it in the debate that he was a young man at the time he did it (he was 40).

2.The Liberals running a huge number of popular mayors, city councillors and school trustees. In contrast just 9 of the NDP non incumbent candidates held prior municipal office.  While the above mentioned Sylvia Bishop in Delta North was an NDP city councillor, the Liberals also ran a city councillor.

Edit: the NDP ran 12 candidates who had held municipal office.  They ran 9 who were defeated and 3 who were elected. Of the 7 new MLAs the ones who held municipal office are: Jennifer Rice, Selina Robinson and Gary Holman.

Adam T

More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)

"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."

If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once.  I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."

Pondering

The Manitoba NDP are on board with CETA.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
The Manitoba NDP are on board with CETA.

Can you substantiate this claim? What does this have to do with this thread?

Adam T

I'd miss pointing out your endless stream of outright lies, half truths and misrepresentations of facts.  Oh by the way genius, you misspelled brilliance.

jjuares

Adam T wrote:

More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)

"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."

If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once.  I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."


You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?

NorthReport

Actually the die was cast when the Conservatives did not run a candidate in this riding, and the brain-dead campaign strategy of the BC NDP did nothing to help the former Port Moody Mayor and MLA Trasolini.

How stupid was that, and a hundred more political gaffes throughout the campaign. Look I like the guy up North but seriously he put a BC NDP dagger in many worker's hearts throughout BC, of course with lots of help from your mainstream press, with his fracking moratorium comments. It wasn't Adrian alone that did us in, but situations like this created the buildup to the Kinder Morgan goof. Yea but we won Point Grey - WTF!!!

Adam T wrote:

The Port Moody riding is historically not NDP (it's a wealthy area), but the NDP MLA was the very popular former mayor.

 

Adam T

jjuares wrote:
Adam T wrote:

More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)

"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."

If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once.  I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."

You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?

I missed that. So they mention him precisely twice.

Of course, you didn't mention that in Mulcair's second mention (as "NDP leader") his support for his position is 31/42 which doesn't look like good news to me, (unless you believe that 31% support for the NDP on an issue is good news because it's higher than the around 20% of the vote the NDP has historically received, of course, if you want the NDP to win government, they won't get there with 31% support)  So, there is still precisely ONE piece of good news in that article for the NDP and not the "lots of good news" the pathalogical liar NR claimed there was. 

To be fair, I don't know the person, and NR may be honest on most things. But, when it comes to the NDP I don't think anbody can seriously debate that NR isn't full of B.S

NorthReport

You really need to stop your right-wing foaming at the mouth comments, and I wonder what your real intentions are posting here. 

Adam T wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Adam T wrote:

More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)

"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."

If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once.  I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."

You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?

I missed that. So they mention him precisely twice.

Of course, you didn't mention that in Mulcair's second mention (as "NDP leader") his support for his position is 31/42 which doesn't look like good news to me, (unless you believe that 31% support for the NDP on an issue is good news because it's higher than the around 20% of the vote the NDP has historically received, of course, if you want the NDP to win government, they won't get there with 31% support)  So, there is still precisely ONE piece of good news in that article for the NDP and not the "lots of good news" the pathalogical liar NR claimed there was. 

To be fair, I don't know the person, and NR may be honest on most things. But, when it comes to the NDP I don't think anbody can seriously debate that NR, isn't full of B.S

Adam T

1.I believe (though I haven't checked recently) that the B.C Conservatives received about 2% of the vote in most Lower Mainland ridings.  So, I seriously doubt that it made a difference that they didn't run a candidate in Port Moody (although I believe that 2% of the vote was slightly more than Trasolini lost by, but, of course, not all the Conservative vote would have come from the Liberals).

2.Charlie (or Chuck) Wyse the candidate for Cariboo South (or North) is the 'guy up north'. I don't know if people in the interior, north and coast took his comments seriously or not, but he wasn't a member of caucus and he was immediately rebuted by Adrian Dix and then energy critic (and liekly potential energy minister) John Horgan.  

NorthReport

Adam T wrote:

I'd miss pointing out your endless stream of outright lies, half truths and misrepresentations of facts.  Oh by the way genius, you misspelled brilliance.

jjuares

Adam T wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Adam T wrote:

More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)

"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."

If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once.  I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."

You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?

I missed that. So they mention him precisely twice.

Of course, you didn't mention that in Mulcair's second mention (as "NDP leader") his support for his position is 31/42 which doesn't look like good news to me, (unless you believe that 31% support for the NDP on an issue is good news because it's higher than the around 20% of the vote the NDP has historically received, of course, if you want the NDP to win government, they won't get there with 31% support)  So, there is still precisely ONE piece of good news in that article for the NDP and not the "lots of good news" the pathalogical liar NR claimed there was. 

To be fair, I don't know the person, and NR may be honest on most things. But, when it comes to the NDP I don't think anbody can seriously debate that NR isn't full of B.S


I didn't mention because I have no interest in closely examining the entrails of this or any other poll. My point was simple. You made a big deal about calling someone else essentially a liar when the facts you used to indict him were wrong. You know, glass houses and all that.

NorthReport

More brilliance - gather you really don't really want to be around here much more, do you.

Adam T wrote:

More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)

"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."

If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once.  I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."

Adam T

I didn't mention because I have no interest in closely examining the entrails of this or any other poll. My point was simple. You made a big deal about calling someone else essentially a liar when the facts you used to indict him were wrong. You know, glass houses and all that.

Oh, so you're basically trolling. I don't know that an honest mistake is the same as a lie.  And even 2 mentions of Mulcair doesn't constitute 'LOTS of good news.'