Why do Mulcair and Trudeau dislike each other?

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cody87
Why do Mulcair and Trudeau dislike each other?

Hello everyone, I'm new here (although I've been lurking for a bit) and I thought I'd break the ice by starting a discussion that I haven't seen much (if at all) around here.

 

Trudeau and Mulcair dislike each other. Not to be confused with "they don't like each other." They actively dislike each other. It's not difficult to see, especially in the recent debates. And I don't think it's just partisanship either - I don't remember Layton and Dion being anything like this, for example (I would compare Layton and Ignatieff, but honestly, I don't remember anything about Ignatieff).

 

Trudeau has suggested (this was months back) that he might be open to a coalition, but not with Mulcair as the leader of the NDP. Mulcair is openly dismissive/disrespectful of Trudeau and honestly has made some unwise jabs due to (my best guess here only) this dislike.

 

What gives? The mutual dislike is genuine, and it's personal, not business. I started noticing this a month or so back, but then I remembered Trudeau's comment about no coalition with Mulcair so I know it's been going on longer than that. How long has it been going on?

nicky

I think you are right that Tom and Justin dislike each other. It goes beyond mere political rivalry although that exacerbates it.

They come from very diiferent backgrounds. Justin is a patrician narcisist who in the famous phrase of Jim Hightower "was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." He can't stand the idea that his destiny might be frustrated by a plebian.

Tom on the other hand has worked for everything he has achieved and resents the idea that Justin has never had a real job or achieved anything that wasn't handed to him.

I think at he root of the antipathy is class resentment working in both directions.

KarlL

nicky wrote:

I think you are right that Tom and Justin dislike each other. It goes beyond mere political rivalry although that exacerbates it.

They come from very diiferent backgrounds. Justin is a patrician narcisist who in the famous phrase of Jim Hightower "was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." He can't stand the idea that his destiny might be frustrated by a plebian.

Tom on the other hand has worked for everything he has achieved and resents the idea that Justin has never had a real job or achieved anything that wasn't handed to him.

I think at he root of the antipathy is class resentment working in both directions.

 

What a delightfully balanced perspective.  

Justin Trudeau can't help having been born to PET and Margaret Trudeau.  That was a decision that was already made for him a few years before he watched his first Elmo episode and they, in their turn, can't be blamed for Charles Trudeau or Jimmy Sinclair having making some money. Justin Trudeau's own path, of an English degree and a B.Ed. and teaching math and drama, is hardly Master of the Universe stuff.  

So drop the bitter class warfare crap and judge them on their merits.  It's not like Stephen Lewis or Joe Cressy or Noah Richler toiled much in the trenches,  I am willing to give Tom Mulcair some extra credit for pulling himself up by his bootstraps but the converse, of blaming those with inherited name, wealth or stature is insupportable.

 

Cody87

I don't see how Trudeau is a narcissist. I've heard this claim before though...I've just missed the interviews where he talks about himself. Can you point me to some?

I'm surprised a babbler who evidently thinks so highly of Mulcair (so I assume you are an NDP supporter) doesn't think teaching is a real job?

Trudeau has definitely had it easier than Mulcair though, so that could be why Mulcair doesn't like him...but if so, that means he's never liked Trudeau. As I mentioned I only recently noticed it, and now it's glaringly obvious, so I thought maybe there was some recent point where something happened between them.

Cody87

KarlL wrote:

What a delightfully balanced perspective.  

I'm glad it was said

Quote:

Justin Trudeau can't help having been born to PET and Margaret Trudeau.  That was a decision that was already made for him a few years before he watched his first Elmo episode and they, in their turn, can't be blamed for Charles Trudeau or Jimmy Sinclair having making some money.

You're correct. However, people don't like other people based on logic, and some people absolutely do resent those born to wealth/power. Since the question is why they dislike each other, nicky is actually correct that Mulcair could be one of those people.

I don't, however, believe that Trudeau dislikes Mulcair because he wasn't born to wealth. Even if so, I'm sure Mulcair's wealthy now, he's been in politics for a long time.

Pondering

Trudeau doesn't actively dislike Mulcair and I don't think Mulcair actively dislikes Trudeau either. He is unimpressed and maybe resentful of Trudeau's success.

Cody87 wrote:
Trudeau has suggested (this was months back) that he might be open to a coalition, but not with Mulcair as the leader of the NDP.

That was a shocking misrepresentation by the media of Trudeau's remarks. He had been saying that he was against making a deal on the basis of Canadians being offered clear choices. To commit to a coalition before the election made no sense. He was riding high and the NDP was losing. The NDP who had been categorically against a coalition prior to Trudeau's rise reversed their position tactically. A coalition became their best chance of sitting in government and they wanted to blame Trudeau for not agreeing to one while presenting the NDP as being the one willing to do what it took to depose Harper.

Trudeau had refused to consider a coalition based on the NDP's Sherbrooke Declaration and supposedly more interventionist business policy. As a National Post commentator mentioned, that left a hole big enough for a tractor to get through as those were negotiable differences if Trudeau decided after the election that a coalition was in order.

The media kept pushing on the question until:

Asked on Tuesday whether having someone other than Mulcair as leader would change the dynamic in terms of a coalition between the two parties, Trudeau replied: “I don’t know . . . . Honestly, I don’t want get into hypotheses. Maybe, but maybe not.

“There are no problems in terms of personality,” he told The Canadian Press in an interview from Oakville. “Mr. Mulcair is a veteran politician who has proven himself.

“His style is anchored in the old way of practising politics. Politics needs to be about rallying. And we have very different perspectives on how politics should be practised.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/14/trudeau-might-be-open-to-c...

Of course if there was a different leader it would change the dynamics of the situation possibly for the better or possibly for the worse. He was in no way saying that Mulcair was a barrier to forming a coalition. Mulcair knows it but repeated the falsehood that Trudeau opposed his leadership of the NDP.

From the same article:

Mulcair reiterated his openness last month to a possible coalition with the Liberals if it is necessary to topple Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

The Opposition leader accused Trudeau at the time of putting personal interests ahead of those of Canadians because the Liberal leader had repeatedly expressed his lack of interest in discussing coalitions.

“Whenever we have opened that door, Justin Trudeau slams it shut,” Mulcair said. “My first priority is to get rid of Stephen Harper. The first priority of Justin Trudeau is Justin Trudeau.”

On Tuesday, Trudeau categorically rejected the idea of a coalition.

“I’m not interested at all in any formal arrangement,” said the Liberal leader. “On the contrary, I find that wanting to make arrangements with other parties is putting the desire for power ahead of the interests of Canadians. What Canadians are interested in is having a coherent government.”

Trudeau noted that the two parties have major differences of opinion on economic and constitutional issues.

Mulcair flips back and forth on the coalition notion depending on how he is doing in the polls.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/end-of-story/

 

March 2012,

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party. “N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.

The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

 

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCABREA1O1YH20140225

February 2014,

"We've always said we're ready to work with other parties. We're a progressive party. We want to get results," New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Thomas Mulcair told reporters when asked if he was willing to form a coalition with Trudeau after the election.

He pointed out that he was part of the NDP team that proposed in 2008 to oust Harper - who then had only a minority of seats - by forming a coalition with the Liberal Party, backed with an agreement of support from the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

"We even were willing to make Stephane Dion prime minister of Canada," he said, referring to the then-Liberal leader. "It's the type of water we were willing to put in our wine."

Minutes later, Trudeau told reporters he opposed any formal arrangement with the NDP. Trudeau has battled hard for voters to the left of the Conservatives but has viewed some of the NDP economic ideas as too interventionist.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/17/ndp-liberal-coalition-mulcair-tr...

 

March 2015,

Mulcair suggested in Montreal on Tuesday that the NDP would be willing to form a coalition with the Liberals in order to replace the Tories.

Two weeks ago, he told 300 people at a town hall Q&A session in Nanaimo, B.C., that he had raised the possibility but that the Liberal leader had thumbed his nose at it.

“Almost exactly a year ago, I was at the Irish Embassy – the real Irish Embassy not a bar – and I opened up that door again,” Mulcair said on March 3.

“And Mr. Trudeau slammed the door so hard on my fingers, it wasn’t even funny. And then just before Christmas, I made another overture on that same front, and the Liberals slammed the door on it.”

Mulcair said that Trudeau had said shortly after he won the leadership that “if we do that [form a coalition], then Thomas Mulcair might wind up prime minister of Canada.”

“My priority is getting rid of Stephen Harper. Justin Trudeau’s priority is Justin Trudeau,” Mulcair declared in Nanaimo and again Tuesday in Montreal.

On Tuesday, Trudeau’s office said Mulcair made the meeting up. The NDP say Mulcair was referring to a speech he gave, not a personal meeting.

Mulcair joined in Harper's put downs of Trudeau, the lower Trudeau fell in the polls the more smug Mulcair became. His attitude towards Trudeau is going to bite him in the butt because both Harper and Mulcair are wrong. Trudeau is an intelligent man with excellent political instincts.

Pondering

Mulcair did not have a deprived childhood, the family was well off:

Mulcair was born in 1954 at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. He is the son of Jeanne (née Hurtubise), a school teacher, and Harry Donnelly Mulcair, who worked in insurance.[8] He is the second-oldest of the couple's ten children, and grew up fluently bilingual. His father was of Irish descent and his mother was of French-Canadian, and more distant Irish, ancestry.[9]His maternal great-great-grandfather was the 9th Premier of Quebec, Honoré Mercier,[10] and through his mother, Mulcair is also a three times great-grandson of the 1st post-Confederation Quebec premier, Pierre-Joseph-Olivier Chauveau.[9] Mulcair was raised in the Wrightville district of Hull (now Gatineau) and in Laval, just north of Montreal. He graduated from Laval Catholic High School, and in Social Sciences from CEGEPVanier College.[11]

When Mulcair started law school at 18, he had to borrow money from his sister to buy textbooks. He paid his way through school by working construction jobs, tarring and graveling roofs.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mulcair#Early_life.2C_family.2C_and...

Mulcair comes from a well-off family of professionals that had no problem affording a family with 10 children. If they had a smaller family they would have lived in more luxurious surroundings but they weren't struggling to put food on the table. They chose to have 10 children because they were Catholic. Mulcair is an educated old school conservative trying to leave the impression that his family was poor. They were not.

Trudeau certainly had a priveleged upbringing which he acknowledges. Far from being a playboy he worked at numerous jobs that few wealthy young men would choose to take. He his grateful that his inherited wealth allowed him the freedom to travel and to subsidize his earnings but he didn't inherit as much as I thought he would have. He is a millionaire not a billionaire and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mulcair is just as wealthy or wealthier.

nicky

What a skewered view you have of the world Pondering.
Tom may have come from an obstensively middle class family but means were tight and he had to work all his life. His Dad lost his job and the family had to give up its house and moved instead to the family cottage. The parents had 10 kids to support. Read his biography.
And remind me about Justin's job record? Even Althia Rai in her online hagiography glosses over it. He seems to have been something of a permanent student, dropping out of a geography course to enter politics. He traveled the world for a year and then was a snowboard instructor.He was a teacher for what? Two or three years and much of that as a supply teacher. Then he was a motivational speaker, another position he never would have had if he had a different name.

lagatta

I know "middle class" is overused to meaninglessness in politics nowadays, but Mulcair said he came from a middle-class family, which was the truth. Also true that money was tight at times. I have cousins who grew up in families of 12 and 14, and my first serious sweetheart (who was from Lac St-Jean) from a family of 13. Pressure from the Church and society to produce progeny was still strong at the time; fortunately that changed spectacularly in a very short time not long after Mulcair was born. Québec society was tightly-knit, and people who ARE very poor could have illustrious ancestors and vice versa.

I don't think either hates the other (it was also funny to see Duceppe going after Harper when the plan was obviously to go after Mulcair, as in that case the hatred is palpable) and the fact that their personalities clash does not rule out working together in a coalition government or a looser alliance. They simply have very different personalities.

Remember how well Layton and Duceppe got on during the debates last time? Of course Duceppe hadn't taken on strange dog whistles such as the niqab.

KarlL

I might posit some reasons additional to those given above.

1. Each stands in the way of what the other wants.  And I am talking not about the defeat of Harper but what they want personally and as leaders of their respective political tribes.  Success for one will mean failure for the other.

2. Mulcair sees Trudeau's intellect as significantly inferior to his own.

3. Trudeau doesn't like Mulcair's chippiness and apparent disdain for him.

2. I didn't study zoology or anthropology but I am pretty sure that silverback males are not overfond of younger challengers seeking to best them.

5.  This is I suppose related to #4 but there's probably an aesthetic issue at work here as well.  It shouldn't matter but Trudeau's relative youth, fitness and good looks will be playing a role in his support level and there is a reason for the boxing/canoeing/hiking/t-shirt media opportunities that the Liberals pursue.  

Mulcair is not a an old troll but he is, like me, a rotund, greying man in late middle age.  He will know that part of Trudeau's appeal (as with Jack's) is a perception of vigour and Mulcair would be an unusual male if he had no vanity about that.  I know that Jack Layton was the same age in 2011 as Tom Mulcair is now but there was a difference in the physical energy level that they project.

 

 

KenS

I think there is at least a fair bit of antipathy. Pondering may be right that it is more on Mulcair's side.

I'm pretty sure it will not get in the way of working together. That is 99% a matter of politics and will. To whatever degree they see a reason to work together- and at least some of that is just about inevitable whatever the scenario after the election- the personal stuff just will not matter.

What will always matter is the deep political wariness of the two parties that you just cannot wish away by talking the greater good.

KenS

Most of us who are 60 or 60+ get referred to as "older man" or "older woman" when a third person is trying to describe who you are to someone they are talking to.

We may not be "old people" yet- except to the very young. But you arent going to find anyone calling us "middle aged" anymore.

I doubt there is any vanity in Mulcair's antipathy for Trudeau. The silver spoon grates quite a bit for a lot of people.

 

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

I know "middle class" is overused to meaninglessness in politics nowadays, but Mulcair said he came from a middle-class family, which was the truth. Also true that money was tight at times. I have cousins who grew up in families of 12 and 14, and my first serious sweetheart (who was from Lac St-Jean) from a family of 13. Pressure from the Church and society to produce progeny was still strong at the time; fortunately that changed spectacularly in a very short time not long after Mulcair was born. Québec society was tightly-knit, and people who ARE very poor could have illustrious ancestors and vice versa.

My mother comes from a family of 14 children 4 of whom died from treatable illnesses before the age of 10 because the family couldn't afford medical care. My father's family was small, only 5 children. I have 92 first cousins spread throughout Quebec although my own family was small, only 3 kids. I didn't know them all of course but of those I visited one family literally lived in a two room tar-paper shack with 12 kids and no indoor bathroom on a dirt road. They did have a  water pump in the kitchen, don't know if you have ever seen them but you put water in the top to "prime" the pump. The "bedroom" was two walls lined with bunkbeds. The families mostly worked in lumber, some went in the bush some to lumbermills if they were lucky. My grandfather was illiterate and worked at an abbatoir in Verdun after he could no longer farm. Some became garage mechanics.

Poverty isn't just about how much money you have. My mother, being the oldest girl in her family, didn't get to go to high school even though she was a good student. It was normal to stop after grade school and she was needed at home to help raise the younger ones. Even when she was still in school she had to leave early at lunch time to help prepare lunch for the others. My father would have had to leave school but he was so smart the priests offered to let him attend highschool for free. His father didn't want him to continue because he expected him to start working to help support the family so my dad was a bagboy at Steinburgs from the age of 12. At 16 he had st. vitus dance. When he got back from the war where he had made the rank of sergeant. He went back to work at Steinburgs to work his way through college. My mother defied her family and came to the city to be a factory "girl". 

So, Mulcair's hardluck life "pulling himself up from the bootstraps" don't impress me much. He had to borrow money from his sister for textbooks? Quel horreur! He came from a highly educated family with an illustrious background.

Mulcair started law school at 18. He was/is highly intelligent and comes from a professional family. He didn't struggle to get where he is today. He worked hard for it but it isn't the least bit surprising that he "made it" or that he went into politics. Had he not been demoted out of Cabinet he could easily be leading the Quebec Liberals in place of Couillard today and would have much the same policies.

Mulcair was not politically transformed when he joined the NDP as Jack Layton's Quebec lieutenant. Leading the NDP is his job now and he will do whatever it takes including turning the NDP into another Liberal party to take power. Were it not for Trudeau the transformation would now be complete. The NDP would be the NLP. The party has been hijacked and members don't seem to know it. Layton moved the party to the centre for electability but he was NDP through and through. He was still a socialist at heart. Mulcair is a small c conservative at heart.

nicky

And Justin is sometimes a coservative, sometimes a progressive. It just depends what Gerald Butts tells him to be on any given day.

jjuares

Maybe because Suzuki is right. Trudeau is a "twerp".

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/26/trudeau-dismisses-suzukis-cl...

takeitslowly

generation differences

one is a spoiled brat the other isnt

 

thwhy would any logical thinking person who has to work for a living like justin trudeau?

Pondering

If Trudeau were a spoiled brat he would be living a very different life. He was fortunate in that his wealthy educated background gave him the freedom to pursue travel, atheletic development and interests in environmental geography, literature and teaching. He was fortunate that his name gave him a high profile as a public speaker. None of those things are evidence of a poor character or lack of intelligence.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/26/trudeau-dismisses-suzukis-cl...

Suzuki says he has never spoken to Thomas Mulcair or Stephen Harper about their plans, but he doesn’t think any of the three major parties are dealing with climate change in a serious way. “My feeling is that none of the parties except for the Greens is really taking it seriously,” Suzuki said.

 

jjuares

The interesting thing about the conversation between Justin and Suzuki was how after trying to get Suzuki's endorsement he ended up saying to Suzuki that he did not have to listen to any of his "sanctimonious crap" . Trudeau can say all manner of dumb things. He can be totally scripted. All of that does not matter it seems. But the one thing he can not be is nasty and entitled. He can win as an "affable buffoon" ( I can't remember who said this) but he will not win if the public begins to think he is a nasty buffoon with a sense of entitlement.

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:

generation differences

one is a spoiled brat the other isnt

thwhy would any logical thinking person who has to work for a living like justin trudeau?

Generational differences. Old people tend to get close-minded and judgemental after which they start putting down "young folk".

Logical thinking people who have to work for a living don't vote based on who they "like" they vote based on whose policies they prefer as well a who they think is being upfront with them and who will make the decisions they themselves would make or will give them the most of what they want.

Back to Trudeau versus Mulcair. Neither man would ever work junior to the other. Whichever loses to the other will support the other but they will be looking for a reason not to. If Trudeau becomes PM Mulcair will be furious and no way would he accept being the junior member in a coalition and neither would Trudeau. If either "wins" a minority the government will be supported on a case by case basis. If Harper "wins" a minority they will make an accord to depose him not a coalition.

jjuares

Hmmm
I don't know why but I suddenly thought about the lessons my mom taught me.
Always wear clean underwear in case you are in an accident. Look both ways before crossing the street. Always remember to say thank you and please. But the most important rule she taught me was: ................... DON 'T FEED THE TROLLS.

KenS

I wouldnt put too much emphasis on the Suzuki conversation. Justin should have just eaten it and walked from the phone. But as time goes on, Suzuki gets less and less diplomatic. And being as Justin phoned him, and his exact words were not likely to appear on a public stage, he doesn't have a lot of incentive to overcome the tendencies he knows he has and generally keeps a leash on when he knows it is necessary.

Suzuki is not cruel, but unplugged....

 

I'll bet you that Mulcair or anyone else would know to be very careful to even appear with Suzuki to be crowing about your party's stand. Justin on the other hand..

This was a couple momths ago, and there has been less of this sort of thing erupting around Justin. He does seem to be learning.

KenS

KenS wrote:

I wouldnt put too much emphasis on the Suzuki conversation. Justin should have just eaten it and walked from the phone. But as time goes on, Suzuki gets less and less diplomatic. And being as Justin phoned him, and his exact words were not likely to appear on a public stage, he doesn't have a lot of incentive to overcome the tendencies he knows he has and generally keeps a leash on when he knows it is necessary.

Suzuki is not cruel, but unplugged....

 

I'll bet you that Mulcair or anyone else would know to be very careful to even appear with Suzuki to be crowing about your party's stand. Justin on the other hand..

This was a couple momths ago, and there has been less of this sort of thing erupting around Justin. He does seem to be learning.

 

(and it was Suzuki, not Justin who used the term sanctimonious)

jjuares

KenS wrote:

(and it was Suzuki, not Justin who used the term sanctimonious)


According to Suzuki, Justin used the term "sanctimonious crap". This also makes sense in the context of the conversation with Suzuki lecturing Justin and Justin getting annoyed. But I agree with your general line. It's not important in of itself and Trudeau needs to avoid these moments ( as do all the leaders). But I do think it's funny.

Sean in Ottawa

One feels entitled and doesnot like a person who does not respect that.

The other has earned his position in work, effort, intellect and years and does not like leadership being handed to a person of privilege. Of course I am biased-- no doubt some of what I feel about one of these two is very similar to the other.

Put another way -- people who work hard and take knocks do not like pretty boys. Pretty boys put a lot of effort in looking pretty. They don't like those who write those efforts off as inconsequential.

It is also aggravating to see a person get laurels and attention for doing next to nothing. Remember the cartoon about Mulcair lifting the big weight while Trudeau lifted a tiny one and everyone crowded around Trudeau impressed? There was truth to that as well as humour.

 

nicky

You mean this one Sean?

 

 

Image result for trudeau mulcair cartoon

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:

You mean this one Sean?

Image result for trudeau mulcair cartoon

That is the one.

Even in the cartoon he is understandably pissed. I think the cartoon is exactly about what this thread is addressing.

Sean in Ottawa

I also think that the Liberals have been playing a game saying they would take the high road when they have done anything but. This is an irritant. The Liberals have had an ongoing campaign that is nasty even as Trudeau professed a clean campaign.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
If Trudeau were a spoiled brat he would be living a very different life.

what sorta different life? one where he can charge large for words containing no content because Trudeau is his last name? he does  it now.

one where he gets to be leader of a national party with absolutely NO qualifications?

one where he gets to fly around without a care economically because he's a trust fund baby? oh right he does it too.

you words below indicate really well how much of spoiled brat he is. "pursue travel" like it's a noble endeavour. ffs. shaking head.

Quote:
He was fortunate in that his wealthy educated background gave him the freedom to pursue travel, atheletic development and interests in environmental geography, literature and teaching. He was fortunate that his name gave him a high profile as a public speaker. None of those things are evidence of a poor character or lack of intelligence.

the reality he phoned Suzuki, for endorsement, the night before he wanted the into at an event, and then got pissy with Suzuki and called him 'sanctimonious', when he didn't get what he wanted does indicate and clearly poor character and lack of intelligence. he's obviously gotten whatever he wants in life and can't deal with a 'no'. and he obviously has a problem with resisting impulse because of being never denied a thing in his life.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

one where he gets to be leader of a national party with absolutely NO qualifications?

The qualification for leadership in a democracy is to get elected. Trudeau was elected by members and supporters to lead the party. Canada is not run by a one man band. If the Liberals win the election it will be because people chose the Liberal leader, team and brand. If the NDP loses it will be because they failed to sell theirs.

quizzical

the reality is pondering he would'nt have got the nomination in the first place if his name wasn't Trudeau. the Liberals would never have chosen a no experience or qualifications person if he wasn't who he was.

and no the qualitifaction for leadership aren't to get elected or they shouldn't be.

like really you want Justin representing you on the world stage? ffs Harper is bad enough. talk about laughing stock of the world now just wait if Justin gets any where near it.

 

takeitslowly

justin is more entitled than the clinton.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
the reality is pondering he would'nt have got the nomination in the first place if his name wasn't Trudeau. the Liberals would never have chosen a no experience or qualifications person if he wasn't who he was.

His name got his foot in the door but after that he still had to prove himself.

quizzical wrote:
and no the qualitifaction for leadership aren't to get elected or they shouldn't be.

Then you are talking about some sort of dictatorship. The people have a right to choose who they want to lead them.

quizzical wrote:
like really you want Justin representing you on the world stage? ffs Harper is bad enough. talk about laughing stock of the world now just wait if Justin gets any where near it.

I care more about what happens in Canada and I want marijuana legalized and the Clarity act left alone along with the entire subject of separation. I'm not sold on MMP being more democratic either. I prefer ranked balloting.

If we had a progressive party in Canada they would be leading the charge against TPP and CETA not just making timid criticisms. They would be promoting public transit even if it took deficits to build it abd legalizing marijuana because that would be evidence based decision making.

They would be championing things like http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/17/solar-power-homes_n_8142134.html... and free public transit which we know from epaulo has been proven effective and geo thermal and a gazillion other best practices that have evidence based proven success.

Mulcair must be brilliant to have entered law school at 18 but I don't like his attitude and I don't believe he is a social democrat. I think the NDP has damaged its ability to be a voice for progressives.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, I have to say, the last thing you should comment on is who is a Social Demcorat, considering you vote Liberal. That's like a Rabbi telling his congreagation who he considers Catholic.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The qualification for leadership in a democracy is to get elected.

For good or bad, this is true.

To see it blown up large, just look at Donald Trump's current popularity.  The guy's never held any office (other than the corner office) in his life.  But if enough people vote for him, he'll be President Trump.

And for what it's worth, if Canada were to institute some kind of minimum requirements for electability -- let's say fluency in either English or French, a Master's degree or higher, and at least five years of verified public service in another elected office -- who among us would endorse that?  "Odious!", we'd say, and "classist!" and "racist!" and "elitist!!".

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering -- Trudeau's name is there for consideration and he has not proved himself. Liberal partisans are claiming he should be given the job without doing so.

You cannot on the one hand say he has to prove himself and then ignnore the fact that all we have are Liberals saying how great he is. It is the Liberal party who selected a person with a thin background. It is the Liberal party offended when others say this is not good enough to take you straight to the top.

I do not think that a PM has to be a brain trust so I do not rule out the idea that Trudeau might some day be ready. But please point to a PM who has come in wiht a thinner record of achievement than trudeau and lets compare their background and how well that person did.

The NDP did not make up the fact that Trudeau is a drama teacher who has been a term as an MP but never been in cabinet, never run anything other than a constituency office.

A PM is a big leap from there. It would have been a little better if he had a more relavent and substantial education OR had run something substantial OR had even been around longer as an MP OR even has shown better judgment in the recent past in his commentary. As it stands, it is not unreasonable for people to say he should be a cabinet member or something first not from consituency office to party leader to PM on the strength of teaching drama.

This is a very rapid promotion within the Liebral party and there are good reasons for Canadians to question it. It is clearly obvious that he is trading on his father's name.

I accept that trading on a parent's name is done -- but for some jobs it should open a door to an opportunity -- to the ladder. That does not mean it should lead the person to the top of the ladder without much climbing on their own.

But let us not forget that Trudeau himself did not seem to think he was ready not long before the Liebral party pushed him into this out of desperation. Trudeau clearly wanted to go this direction. I doubt he would have expected this track. He probably himself wanted a stepping stone to cabinet but there was no Liberal government to get that so the Liberal party have pushed him to the top.

It is fitting that we see him on an escalator in a Liberal ad.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
the reality is pondering he would'nt have got the nomination in the first place if his name wasn't Trudeau. the Liberals would never have chosen a no experience or qualifications person if he wasn't who he was.

His name got his foot in the door but after that he still had to prove himself.

he proved himself? really? when? how?

Quote:
quizzical wrote:
and no the qualitifaction for leadership aren't to get elected or they shouldn't be.

Then you are talking about some sort of dictatorship. The people have a right to choose who they want to lead them.

ffs pondering then you're saying someone needs less experience to be PM than to be Chair of a non-profit. the party should get elected in Canada NOT an useless empty party leader. were not NOT americans

Quote:
quizzical wrote:
like really you want Justin representing you on the world stage? ffs Harper is bad enough. talk about laughing stock of the world now just wait if Justin gets any where near it.

I care more about what happens in Canada and I want marijuana legalized and the Clarity act left alone along with the entire subject of separation.

And if you cared about what happens in Canada you would look at the history of the Liberal Party and know nothing good will come from another reign of terror of theirs.

Trudeaus not legalizing marijuana, you knew this when he kicked Joy Davies out.

Quote:
Mulcair must be brilliant to have entered law school at 18 but I don't like his attitude and I don't believe he is a social democrat. I think the NDP has damaged its ability to be a voice for progressives.

you're not a social democrat so why would you care if Mulcair is or not?

i think some progressives have damaged their ability to be a voice for themselves.

i love Mulcair's attitude he's just pissy enough to be real.

Sean in Ottawa

I do like the "real" part. That's why I have already said I like "Angry Tom" When he is addressing something really important he is remarkably effective.

Like in a scrum the communications officer stands behind a politician and gives them a short tap on the elbow when they are getting sidetracked or when it is time to move on.

Sometimes a campaign needs to do that. They also need to make better use of Mulcair's personality. It was a wasted opportunity to have him smile through the first debate. The French debate finally seemed to strike the right balance for his manner -- would be good to see that in English. A little Angry but focussed and appropriate.

I think "pissy" needs controlling but the Angry Tom needs a longer leash becuase it is effective.

BTW -- I assume people saw that the "Angry Tom" is not a thing in Quebec. People expect passion there over the more robotic or sedated look that English Canadian politicians so often get.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Pondering -- Trudeau's name is there for consideration and he has not proved himself. Liberal partisans are claiming he should be given the job without doing so.

He proved himself in the sense that he was elected leader of the Liberal party.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You cannot on the one hand say he has to prove himself and then ignnore the fact that all we have are Liberals saying how great he is. It is the Liberal party who selected a person with a thin background. It is the Liberal party offended when others say this is not good enough to take you straight to the top. 

I'm not offended and I doubt the Liberal party is offended either. The "not ready" thing worked to drive down his numbers but now that we are in the middle of round 2 Trudeau is fighting back and advancing.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I do not think that a PM has to be a brain trust so I do not rule out the idea that Trudeau might some day be ready. But please point to a PM who has come in wiht a thinner record of achievement than trudeau and lets compare their background and how well that person did.

So far those with a fat record haven't been so great. Trudeau has surrounded himself by experts and he is using their collective expertise to make decisions. What matters are his values and the policies he has chosen to promote. I'm supporting him for this election not forever.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The NDP did not make up the fact that Trudeau is a drama teacher who has been a term as an MP but never been in cabinet, never run anything other than a constituency office. 

He was a math and English teacher. He substituted for a drama teacher on leave.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
A PM is a big leap from there. It would have been a little better if he had a more relavent and substantial education OR had run something substantial OR had even been around longer as an MP OR even has shown better judgment in the recent past in his commentary. As it stands, it is not unreasonable for people to say he should be a cabinet member or something first not from consituency office to party leader to PM on the strength of teaching drama. 

This is a very rapid promotion within the Liebral party and there are good reasons for Canadians to question it.

They can question it all they like and they have given Trudeau's severe drop in the polls he has only begun to recover from. They are also free to decide other factors matter more, like policy and cabinet material.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
It is clearly obvious that he is trading on his father's name.

I accept that trading on a parent's name is done -- but for some jobs it should open a door to an opportunity -- to the ladder. That does not mean it should lead the person to the top of the ladder without much climbing on their own.

He was elected leader of the Liberal party and if he wins this election it will be because people voted for him. If they voted for him based on his name that is their right. Everybody gets one vote.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  But let us not forget that Trudeau himself did not seem to think he was ready not long before the Liebral party pushed him into this out of desperation. Trudeau clearly wanted to go this direction. I doubt he would have expected this track. He probably himself wanted a stepping stone to cabinet but there was no Liberal government to get that so the Liberal party have pushed him to the top.

He accepted the challenge because he couldn't sit by and watch Harper destroy Canada. Seems like a good reason to me.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  It is fitting that we see him on an escalator in a Liberal ad.

Yes it is, he is halfway up now and just might make it all the way to the office of the PM.

quizzical

what's with  people admiring those  who are so priviledged they can fail upward?

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
ffs pondering then you're saying someone needs less experience to be PM than to be Chair of a non-profit. the party should get elected in Canada NOT an useless empty party leader. were not NOT americans.

I'm saying that someone who is illiterate and never went to school is still qualified to run for leadership and if that person wins then they have qualified for the position by virtue of being elected.

quizzical wrote:
And if you cared about what happens in Canada you would look at the history of the Liberal Party and know nothing good will come from another reign of terror of theirs.

Yeah, like the Manitoba NDP overseeing the seizing of hundreds of newborn infants from First Nations mothers without justification.

quizzical wrote:
Trudeaus not legalizing marijuana, you knew this when he kicked Joy Davies out.

Just because you concluded that unless Trudeau accepts all marijuana activists as MPs he won't legalize marijuana doesn't make it a fact.

quizzical wrote:
you're not a social democrat so why would you care if Mulcair is or not?

The definition for social democrat is not "votes for the NDP".

Modern social democracy is defined by its commitment to constitutional and representative democracy under the rule of law; support for a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism including inequality, poverty, and the oppression of underprivileged groups;[11] and measures to extend democratic decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere to grant employees and other economic stakeholders co-determination.[12] Social democrats aim to achieve these goals through the provision of universally-accessible public services including education, health care, workers' compensation, child care and care for the elderly.[13] The social democratic movement has strong connections with trade unions and the labour movement, and is supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#cite_note-14

I am definitely a social democrat or rather left of.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
justin is more entitled than the clinton.

"the clinton".

quizzical

Quote:
Modern social democracy is defined by its commitment to constitutional and representative democracy under the rule of law; support for a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism including inequality, poverty, and the oppression of underprivileged groups;[11] and measures to extend democratic decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere to grant employees and other economic stakeholders co-determination.[12] Social democrats aim to achieve these goals through the provision of universally-accessible public services including education, health care, workers' compensation, child care and care for the elderly.[13] The social democratic movement has strong connections with trade unions and the labour movement, and is supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#cite_note-14

I am definitely a social democrat or rather left of.

ya, no you wouldn't be voting Liberal because they believe in none of it.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Quote:
Modern social democracy is defined by its commitment to constitutional and representative democracy under the rule of law; support for a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism including inequality, poverty, and the oppression of underprivileged groups;[11] and measures to extend democratic decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere to grant employees and other economic stakeholders co-determination.[12] Social democrats aim to achieve these goals through the provision of universally-accessible public services including education, health care, workers' compensation, child care and care for the elderly.[13] The social democratic movement has strong connections with trade unions and the labour movement, and is supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#cite_note-14

I am definitely a social democrat or rather left of.

ya, no you wouldn't be voting Liberal because they believe in none of it.

The NDP is no better so I guess you won't be voting for them either.

Cody87

So, it seems like there is a consensus that yes, the two men dislike each other, and that the most obvious/probable cause is Mulcair thinking less of Trudeau due to his privileged upbringing, which in turn causes Trudeau to dislike Mulcair and thenit basically becomes a negative feedback loop.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I also think that the Liberals have been playing a game saying they would take the high road when they have done anything but. This is an irritant. The Liberals have had an ongoing campaign that is nasty even as Trudeau professed a clean campaign.

I wanted to touch on this. You are absolutely correct. Trudeau promised not to go negative, and for the most part HE hasn't. He talks about what he'll do if elected. He's letting others in the party do the dirty work whenever possible (not possible during the debates, for example). It's underhanded, but it's good politics. 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
So, it seems like there is a consensus that yes, the two men dislike each other, and that the most obvious/probable cause is Mulcair thinking less of Trudeau due to his privileged upbringing, which in turn causes Trudeau to dislike Mulcair and thenit basically becomes a negative feedback loop.

It's awesome that we could figure this out for certain, without having to resort to anything empirical, like asking them or whatever.

KarlL

takeitslowly wrote:

justin is more entitled than the clinton.

I am not quite sure what this means.  If you mean by background, Hillary's father was a success in small business but hardly a gazillionaire (and last time I looked, fostering small business success is at the heart of NDP policy). She didn't become the celebrated first commencement speaker at Wellesley College or get through Yale Law School or on Yale Law Review without some smarts and one presumes, some hard work. Hillary was known as a a potential future Senator before she met Bill and was a celebrated children's rights' lawyer, law teacher and director of a legal aid clinic along the way before joining more traditional law firms.

Bill was raised by a widowed nurse who later married a car dealer from whom he took his last name.  He was a scholarship kid through Georgetown, Yale Law and Oxford.  Again, smarts and hard work.

If you mean that Hillary has gone further based on her relationship with Bill than she might have done on her own steam, perhaps.  But she is in fine company with Eleanor Rooseveldt, Libby Dole and a lot of others, including, I would suggest, the degree-less Stephen Lewis and even Rachel Notley.  I would prefer to think that all of these people made their way on a combination of talent and drive.

 

 

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
So, it seems like there is a consensus that yes, the two men dislike each other, and that the most obvious/probable cause is Mulcair thinking less of Trudeau due to his privileged upbringing, which in turn causes Trudeau to dislike Mulcair and thenit basically becomes a negative feedback loop.

It's awesome that we could figure this out for certain, without having to resort to anything empirical, like asking them or whatever.

I said it looks like we have a consensus, not that it has been proven with certainty. And asking a politician a question like this during a tight election campaign is only going to get an honest answer if that answer also happens to be the most politically prudent. Not to mention, if I had the opportunity to ask Trudeau or Mulcair a question (and assuming I thought I'd get an honest answer), I'd ask something more worthwhile.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:

I am not quite sure what this means.  If you mean by background, Hillary's father was a success in small business but hardly a gazillionaire (and last time I looked, fostering small business success is at the heart of NDP policy). She didn't become the celebrated first commencement speaker at Wellesley College or get through Yale Law School or on Yale Law Review without some smarts and one presumes, some hard work. Hillary was known as a a potential future Senator before she met Bill and was a celebrated children's rights' lawyer, law teacher and director of a legal aid clinic along the way before joining more traditional law firms.

Bill was raised by a widowed nurse who later married a car dealer from whom he took his last name.  He was a scholarship kid through Georgetown, Yale Law and Oxford.  Again, smarts and hard work.

If you mean that Hillary has gone further based on her relationship with Bill than she might have done on her own steam, perhaps.  But she is in fine company with Eleanor Rooseveldt, Libby Dole and a lot of others, including, I would suggest, the degree-less Stephen Lewis and even Rachel Notley.  I would prefer to think that all of these people made their way on a combination of talent and drive.

I meant, who is "the clinton"?

Quote:
I said it looks like we have a consensus, not that it has been proven with certainty.

And I'm suggesting that it wouldn't matter if 99% of us agreed.  It's not something one determines by votes.

 

KarlL

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I am not quite sure what this means.  If you mean by background, Hillary's father was a success in small business but hardly a gazillionaire (and last time I looked, fostering small business success is at the heart of NDP policy). She didn't become the celebrated first commencement speaker at Wellesley College or get through Yale Law School or on Yale Law Review without some smarts and one presumes, some hard work. Hillary was known as a a potential future Senator before she met Bill and was a celebrated children's rights' lawyer, law teacher and director of a legal aid clinic along the way before joining more traditional law firms.

Bill was raised by a widowed nurse who later married a car dealer from whom he took his last name.  He was a scholarship kid through Georgetown, Yale Law and Oxford.  Again, smarts and hard work.

If you mean that Hillary has gone further based on her relationship with Bill than she might have done on her own steam, perhaps.  But she is in fine company with Eleanor Rooseveldt, Libby Dole and a lot of others, including, I would suggest, the degree-less Stephen Lewis and even Rachel Notley.  I would prefer to think that all of these people made their way on a combination of talent and drive.

I meant, who is "the clinton"?

Quote:
I said it looks like we have a consensus, not that it has been proven with certainty.

And I'm suggesting that it wouldn't matter if 99% of us agreed.  It's not something one determines by votes.

 

Yes, sorry.  I was responding to the original quote not to your later remark.  

 

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I said it looks like we have a consensus, not that it has been proven with certainty.

And I'm suggesting that it wouldn't matter if 99% of us agreed.  It's not something one determines by votes.

Do you agree that there seems to be a consensus?

Brachina

 Mulcair doesn't like Trudeau because A) Justin has gotten ahead by riding his father's coat tails, insteadcof achieving anything on his own. B) not doing the job Justin was elected to do C) Justin is utterly Phony D) Justin has no principles, he flip flops for advantage at will, E) Justin is a proven fruad, conning charities out of money and then using a tax scam to get taxed at a lower rate. F) he's met Justin, I have a feeling there is a lot more to dislike when you get to know Justin Trudeau.

 As for why Justin hates Mulcair A) Justin hates anyone with intgerity, just look at his nasty treatment of David Suzuki.

Pages