You always have been one to jump up and down at moments in the horse race that go well for the Liberals' or badly for the NDP. Glad to see you aren't about to dissapoint us.
Thomas Mulcair
Thu, 2013-02-28 14:11
#102
Thu, 2013-02-28 14:13
#103
And by the way Debater, its not just about how this looks to a lot of people in the ROC.
Thu, 2013-02-28 14:15
#104
Boom Boom
Considering how nasty the Conservatives are getting - especially Peter Van Loan - you need an attack dog to survive, and I think Mulcair is probably the toughest MP in the House. But Megan Leslie has been just totally awesome as well - if Mulcair wasn't the leader, I'd be equally happy - maybe more so - with Megan as the leader.
I am really impressed with the two of them.
Thu, 2013-02-28 14:15
#105
Arthur Cramer
And by the way Debater, its not just about how this looks to a lot of people in the ROC.
Nailed it! Careful what you wish for Debator.
Thu, 2013-02-28 14:39
#106
KenS is right.
The Conservatives barely grew at all last election (and mostly rotated in a lot of their old guard). The Liberals and Bloc drastically shrunk. Where are there going to be defections? Do they even have anyone left to defect?
The NDP more than doubled its past MP count, and it went from 1 MP in Quebec -- the most in history -- to half their caucus. Considering how hard it's been for any non-Bloc party to navigate that province, the defection is completely foreseeable.
I'm sure the Liberal and Bloc parties both wish they had enough new MPs to even have this kind of problem.
Thu, 2013-02-28 14:47
#107
Boom Boom
The move brings the number of BQ MPs in the House of Commons to five. A 20% increase! Awesome. 
Thu, 2013-02-28 14:55
#108
25% actually. But who's counting...
Thu, 2013-02-28 15:01
#109
Boom Boom
Math was never my strong suit. 
Thu, 2013-02-28 15:08
#110
And by the way Debater, its not just about how this looks to a lot of people in the ROC.
What do you mean? Are you saying it also looks bad in Quebec? I suppose that is possible too.
Thu, 2013-02-28 15:10
#111
Let's not forget that LIBERAL MP Jean Lapierre quit his caucus and co-founded the BQ and worked for the yes side in the 1995 referendum...that qualified him to become Paul martin's Quebec Lieut.!!
Thu, 2013-02-28 15:11
#112
KenS is right.
The Conservatives barely grew at all last election (and mostly rotated in a lot of their old guard). The Liberals and Bloc drastically shrunk. Where are there going to be defections? Do they even have anyone left to defect?
The NDP more than doubled its past MP count, and it went from 1 MP in Quebec -- the most in history -- to half their caucus. Considering how hard it's been for any non-Bloc party to navigate that province, the defection is completely foreseeable.
I'm sure the Liberal and Bloc parties both wish they had enough new MPs to even have this kind of problem.
That's quite a contorted rationalization there!
Of course there could be defections from any of the other parties. The Conservatives have the most MP's in the House and so mathmatically it could have happened to them if someone disliked Harper's leadership. And since the Liberals were supposedly in such dire straights after 2011 it could be argued that some of them would abandon the party and cross the floor to the NDP or Conservatives but that didn't happen. Likewise there could have been defections from the remaining BQ MP's who might have decided to pack it in. That didn't happen either. The NDP is the only party to lose not just one, but now three MP's.
Thu, 2013-02-28 15:14
#113
The move brings the number of BQ MPs in the House of Commons to five. A 20% increase! Awesome.
It's the first good thing to happen to them since 2011.
Hopefully for the NDP's sake it will be a one-time event, otherwise the BQ could start to pick up momentum in Quebec again.
Thu, 2013-02-28 15:30
#114
Would you like another shovel so you can dig faster?
This is one of those times you push past amusing to painful-to-watch.
Thu, 2013-02-28 15:50
#115
Thu, 2013-02-28 16:05
#116
The move brings the number of BQ MPs in the House of Commons to five. A 20% increase! Awesome.
You were almost right. He now equals 20% of their caucus.
Thu, 2013-02-28 16:10
#117
I'm curious how people in Quebec respond to Patry's assertion that the NDP's stance on Quebec, as expressed in Scott's proposed Unity Bill, is too federalist and disrespectful of Quebec. In the rest of Canada, some are claiming the opposite.
Thu, 2013-02-28 16:13
#118
And by the way Debater, its not just about how this looks to a lot of people in the ROC.
Could you break that down by region or province?
Frankly from this coast I suspect that the NDP will just need to say that a sovereignist did not feel comfortable in the federal NDP. It actually might help with those ant-democratic Dippers out here who want a higher threshold. It could be perceived as trying for a balanced approach.
I suspect that you are right though that this is going to bite them badly in Quebec where it seems from afar that many voters last election agreed to an emphasis on non constitutional issues.
Thu, 2013-02-28 16:34
#119
That's not a contorted rationalization. It's just stating the facts. None of the other parties want anything to do with Liberal or BQ rump, and nobody wants to abandon the first Conservative majority in 25 years. The NDP had a historic breakthrough in a province that had been dominated by the BQ for 20 years, so some flameouts are completely expected.
Thu, 2013-02-28 16:43
#120
Speaking of contorted rationalizations...
Anyone find it funny that the Liberals now blame the NDP's Unity Act for courting separatists and alienating separatists at the same time? Woops, I guess the NDP IS a federalist party. What smear is the Liberal party gonna try now?
Liberals have been frustrated that in two years, they still haven't been able to paint the NDP as closet separatists. What's worse, the last time they had anything close to the NDP's support in Quebec was the 1980s.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you can't change the voting system to force Quebec into voting Liberal.
The best the Liberals can hope for is a marginal comeback that blocks the NDP majority. Harper would be happy to implement Trudeau Jr's ideas: no gun registry, less regulation, more oil, more foreign takeovers.
Thu, 2013-02-28 17:22
#121
The NDP is telling its MP's to run away from reporters according to CTV's Richard Madan:
#NDP staffers re-directing MPs to leave HoC from restricted exit, to avoid reporters asking about one of their own joining #BQ
You're still sore about that dud MP we sent your way a while back. How are they working out for the Liberal party?
Thu, 2013-02-28 17:42
#122
Sondage: le NPD semble bien ancré au Québec
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201...
Thu, 2013-02-28 18:20
#123
NDP defection leaves Mulcair facing a mess of his own making
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/michael-den-tandt-ndp-def...
Thu, 2013-02-28 18:28
#124
Den Tandt works for Justin Trudeau - so his columns are predictably pro-Liberal.
Thu, 2013-02-28 18:39
#125
Den Tandt works for Justin Trudeau - so his columns are predictably pro-Liberal.
He works for Trudeau? That's news to me. As far as I know, he's a Conservative. Perhaps you're unaware he works for PostMedia and The Ottawa Citizen?
In any event, all commentators are saying the same thing today about Mulcair - he has been playing with fire for a long time in trying to appeal to sovereigntist voters.
http://globeandmail.tumblr.com/post/44232462469/ndp-mp-claude-patry-defe...
Thu, 2013-02-28 18:58
#126
Arthur Cramer
You know something Gloater, I'm not as inclined to be as nice as everyone else. Stop being a horse's ass. You want to debate fine, but if you are going to talk like a kid, go to the Cartoon Channel. You'll find plenty to do there.
Thu, 2013-02-28 19:01
#127
Now Debator knows better than the CROP pollster.
La forte présence du NPD au Québec n'est pas un accident de parcours, le parti de Thomas Mulcair continue de dominer dans les intentions de vote au Québec, selon la maison CROP dans une enquête réalisée auprès de 1000 internautes du 13 au 18 février.
- from article above in la Presse
Den Tandt works for Justin Trudeau - so his columns are predictably pro-Liberal.
He works for Trudeau? That's news to me. As far as I know, he's a Conservative. Perhaps you're unaware he works for PostMedia and The Ottawa Citizen?
In any event, all commentators are saying the same thing today about Mulcair - he has been playing with fire for a long time in trying to appeal to sovereigntist voters.
http://globeandmail.tumblr.com/post/44232462469/ndp-mp-claude-patry-defe...
Thu, 2013-02-28 19:26
#128
Boom Boom
Funniest line I've heard today was on P&P just about an hour ago: "Don't those Quebec NDP MPs realise they are in a federalist party?" I know, I shouldn't be knocking the party I belong to, but that made me laugh.
(can't remember who said it, though)
Fri, 2013-03-01 01:04
#129
Of course there could be defections from any of the other parties. The Conservatives have the most MP's in the House and so mathmatically it could have happened to them if someone disliked Harper's leadership. And since the Liberals were supposedly in such dire straights after 2011 it could be argued that some of them would abandon the party and cross the floor to the NDP or Conservatives but that didn't happen. Likewise there could have been defections from the remaining BQ MP's who might have decided to pack it in. That didn't happen either. The NDP is the only party to lose not just one, but now three MP's.
I actually agree wtih Debater. Hell truly has frozen over.
Fri, 2013-03-01 08:27
#130
Of course there could be defections from any of the other parties. The Conservatives have the most MP's in the House and so mathmatically it could have happened to them if someone disliked Harper's leadership. And since the Liberals were supposedly in such dire straights after 2011 it could be argued that some of them would abandon the party and cross the floor to the NDP or Conservatives but that didn't happen. Likewise there could have been defections from the remaining BQ MP's who might have decided to pack it in. That didn't happen either. The NDP is the only party to lose not just one, but now three MP's.I actually agree wtih Debater. Hell truly has frozen over.
Actually, suggesting that Liberals could have defected to the NDP is actually not true. Not only do the NDP that every MP who wins under a certain party should not be able to just cross the floor at a win but in fact would not "accept" a defecto. That's called principle and where the walk equals the talk.
The first defection under the interm leader happen because that person didn't want to live in her elected riding and appeared more interested in a free ride - so she went liberal.
Hyde got in a snit because he didn't get a critic position.
The last MP, I don't find his arguments coherent for leaving and crossing.
Fri, 2013-03-01 09:06
#131
The first defection under the interm leader happen because that person didn't want to live in her elected riding and appeared more interested in a free ride - so she went liberal.
Hyde got in a snit because he didn't get a critic position.
The last MP, I don't find his arguments coherent for leaving and crossing.
So none of those three actually counts, right?
Fri, 2013-03-01 09:15
#132
Hyer campaigned for the Greens in Victoria, endorsed Elizabeth May of the Liberals, and said he wanted to continue to vote with the NDP and maybe one day return to the caucus on the day he voluntarily withdrew himself. He made it clear he was angry he hadn't received a critic portfolio.
Lise Ste. Denis didn't want to move to the riding she was elected in and was angry she didn't receive a better critic portfolio. She said as much herself.
Claude Patry said sovereignty was behind us and ran for the NDP. There is video of him explaining (and defending) the Sherbrooke Declaration to voters on the campaign trail. He voted against floor-crossing and criticized the Bloc Quebecois (one of whom's 4 members has the worst attendance record for votes in the House- maybe she has already separated).
If there is one clear message to come out of this, it is that the NDP is not an "entitlement" party. You are not "entitled" to a high profile critic portfolio. You are not "entitled" to snub your constituents or live whereever you want. You are not "entitled" to make up policy on the fly and demand the party change its tune, particularly when you have sung the old one.
I predict the NDP will lose more members or see more retire as the party learns to deal with the idea that the party takes itself, its rules, and its policies seriously now. Remember the days when Bev Desjarlais could vote against gay marriage and defy the party in ever way? Gone. This is a team that wants to govern as a team.
Fri, 2013-03-01 09:17
#133
Harper knows the Cons are going nowhere in Quebec, so I think Harper has written off Quebec voters and is attacking Mulcair because he is from Quebec.
Mulcair calls on Patry to resign seat after defection to Bloc
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/28/pol-mp-claude-patry-ndp-b...
Fri, 2013-03-01 10:23
#134
You are not "entitled" to make up policy on the fly and demand the party change its tune, particularly when you have sung the old one.
This man resembles that remark.
Under Mulcair, the New Democrats have adopted a more open approach to trade deals, one that could rob the Conservatives of one of their preferred lines of attack.
The NDP has already backed one free trade agreement, with Jordan, and is pushing for expedited negotiations on a deal with Japan.
And it's arguing that Canada should give priority to negotiating similar pacts with India, Brazil and South Africa.
Moreover, the party has dropped all talk of rescinding or reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal the NDP has stridently opposed in the past.
And it's urging the World Trade Organization to re-start global trade talks, which the NDP used to protest against.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/15/pol-cp-ndp-trade-policy...
Fri, 2013-03-01 10:47
#135
knownothing
So you think the NDP should oppose all trade deals?
If we do that there is no hope for victory in 2015.
Fri, 2013-03-01 10:57
#136
So you think the NDP should oppose all trade deals?
If we do that there is no hope for victory in 2015.
I do believe kropotkin was simply testing this thesis:
I predict the NDP will lose more members or see more retire as the party learns to deal with the idea that the party takes itself, its rules, and its policies seriously now.]
As for Claude Patry and the Sherbrooke Declaration - I have demonstrated at length and in detail how the Clarity Act and the Sherbrooke Declaration are incompatible. If the NDP now votes against repeal of the Clarity Act (which apparently it will), it is the rest of the caucus that should leave the caucus, not Claude Patry.
Fri, 2013-03-01 11:18
#137
Boom Boom
I'm still trying to get my head around this, but right now it's unthinkable to me that the NDP would vote against repeal of the Clarity Act. If they do, then they've lost Quebec, in my opinion. Every progressive I know in Quebec - and there's a few - despise the Clarity Act. What am I missing here????
ETA: How can you support the Sherbrooke Declaration and vote against repealing the Clarity Act? Sounds like a contradictiion to me. Clearly, there's something I am missing.
Unionist - help me out, pease!
Fri, 2013-03-01 11:42
#138
So you think the NDP should oppose all trade deals?If we do that there is no hope for victory in 2015.
These "trade deals" have absolutely nothing to do with trade, everything to do with inverstors rights, and would never pass if subjected to popular vote in the countries negotiating them. The interests behind the Free Trade Agreement of 1989 almost lost because they had an open debate about the agreement, so now it's basically about bringing them in through the back door with no public consultation whatsoever.
Fri, 2013-03-01 11:50
#139
So you think the NDP should oppose all trade deals?
If we do that there is no hope for victory in 2015.
No I think the NDP should oppose all corporate rights agreements. "Free trade" is not about trade it is about investor rights and giving corporation's the ability to sue democratically elected governments. The NDP used to understand that but Mulcair, who has always supported these kinds of corporate rights agreements, has personally changed the parties policy.
I was responding to the comment that the NDP does not make up policy on the fly based on an MP's personal views especially when those views were held before the person became an NDP MP.
Please refer me to the historic convention resolution that changed the NDP's longstanding opposition to these corporate giveaways. The New Democratic Party seems to be becoming the New Autocratic Party given Tom's leadership style. The member's views are irrelevant if a political advantage is sensed or the leader's views are not in line with party policy.
Tom's has always supported "free trade" and now he expects his party to fall into step with his ideology.
Fri, 2013-03-01 11:50
#140
There is some validity to what A24 says, but the NDP would be painted as oppsed to trade, although ridiculous, and their chances of forming government would be reduced.
Fri, 2013-03-01 12:06
#141
The NDP will be attacked by the MSM no matter what they stand for. Tell me how come the NDP is OO if their stand on corporate rights is going to cost them votes?
Most Canadians do not support these deals whether they are with Honduras or Ecuador or Europe. Mind you I do notice that the only ones that seem to be openly opposed by many are the ones where we are the subordinate partner. The ones signed with dictators in places like Jordan and Honduras that benefit our murderous Canadian corporations while impoverishing the local communities are seen as not so bad.
Fri, 2013-03-01 12:14
#142
knownothing
Most canadians dont even know these deals are happening. That is the point. We need the NDP to win so we can make some positive changes for the longterm of Canada. And Mulcair has done a good job of cozying up to certain establishment interests. This is necessary to win. I still have faith he is going to do some good things in office.
Fri, 2013-03-01 12:25
#143
I'm still trying to get my head around this, but right now it's unthinkable to me that the NDP would vote against repeal of the Clarity Act. If they do, then they've lost Quebec, in my opinion.
The NDP wants to replace the Lack of Clarity Act with its own Unity Act that clearly states that any province that votes 50%+1 in a clean referendum (ie: no issue of massive electoral fraud etc..) has a mandate to negotiate with the federal government - if it so chooses (it goes without saying that a QC gov't trying to negotiate independence based on 50.01% Yes would have a very, very, very weak negotiating position and probably wouldn't bother!) The Unity Act also states that a referendum on sovereignty must have a clear question - for example "Are you in favour of Quebec becoming a sovereign country?" if there is a disagreement as to whether a proposed referendum question is "clear" enough it is to be referred to the QUEBEC Court of Appeal for a judgment. What's not to like?
Fri, 2013-03-01 12:35
#144
Most canadians dont even know these deals are happening. That is the point. We need the NDP to win so we can make some positive changes for the longterm of Canada. And Mulcair has done a good job of cozying up to certain establishment interests. This is necessary to win. I still have faith he is going to do some good things in office.
This reminds me of one of my favourite groups from back in the day.
Fri, 2013-03-01 12:46
#145
You are not "entitled" to snub your constituents or live whereever you want.
Lise St. Denis did not live in her riding prior to the election, and the constituents voted for her knowing that. Why is it that Charlie Angus is "allowed" to live in Toronto,but Lise St. Denis was being forced to move? If people will vote knowing you don't live in the riding, you sould be allowed to live wherever you want.
Fri, 2013-03-01 12:58
#146
Boom Boom
I'm still trying to get my head around this, but right now it's unthinkable to me that the NDP would vote against repeal of the Clarity Act. If they do, then they've lost Quebec, in my opinion.
The NDP wants to replace the Lack of Clarity Act with its own Unity Act
So why vote against the repeal of the Clarity Act, then?? Makes no sense.
Fri, 2013-03-01 13:01
#147
Since when does Charlie Angus "live" in Toronto. As far as i know, he has a home in Timmins and spends a lot of time there. The NDP demanded that any MP who did not already live in their riding at least have an address there and spend the requisite amount of time there. Just be because someone was elected "by accident" doesn't mean they can just spend 99% of her time in montreal doing no work while raking in 157,000/year plus benefits. The role model is someone like Ruth Ellen Brousseau who was the ultimate parachute candidate - but she has a home in Berthier-Maskinonge, spends all her time there when the house isn't sitting and is now a beloved local figure.
Fri, 2013-03-01 13:22
#148
This is good - Mulcair is spending Sunday in Patry riding of Jonquiere-Alma along with Turmel, Dany Morin and Boulerice to talk about the stand the NDP is taking to protect EI. The guy is not afraid to take the bull by the horns and fight back and i like that. Incidentally, the article and mentions that the real reason Patry switched was that he was mad about not being in the shadow cabinet and not being given a higher profile role on the EI issue - tough beans - a caucus of 100 people not everyone gets a high profile role. Seems he was mad that Yvon Godin got to take the lead on the issue and not Patry. Sorry, but from what i can tell Godin is about a thousand time more capable! I guess from Patry's point of view being in the 5 member BQ caucus he can now have fun being critic for about 8 or 9 different departments!
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201...
Fri, 2013-03-01 13:27
#149
Patry was a long time activist on EI issues in his union. I believe that is what he was known for locally. Godin has done a great job on this issue for the NDP since his election in 1997.
Fri, 2013-03-01 13:30
#150
I'm still trying to get my head around this, but right now it's unthinkable to me that the NDP would vote against repeal of the Clarity Act. If they do, then they've lost Quebec, in my opinion. Every progressive I know in Quebec - and there's a few - despise the Clarity Act. What am I missing here????
ETA: How can you support the Sherbrooke Declaration and vote against repealing the Clarity Act? Sounds like a contradictiion to me. Clearly, there's something I am missing.
Unionist - help me out, pease!
If the Clarity Act is as disliked as you say in Quebec, why did Jean Chretien INCREASE his support in the election after he passed the Clarity Act? The Clarity Act was passed in 1998 and in the 2000 Election the Liberals picked up about 7 seats in Quebec, going from 29 to 36, and also beat the BQ in the popular vote.
If Quebecers were offended by the Clarity Act, why did they give Jean Chretien an increased mandate and vote for him in larger numbers than Gilles Duceppe?
Fri, 2013-03-01 13:32
#151
So why vote against the repeal of the Clarity Act, then?? Makes no sense.
What makes no sense?
We've had an extended discussion about this.
The Clarity Act is widely supported in the ROC. Even among its supporters [who only might vote for the NDP], people are not going to like the NDP voting to repeal the Clarity Act. That is the point of the BQ bill: forcing the NDP to choose one or the other.
So the NDP brings out a Unity Bill. You cant answer dilemnas like that with "here is our Sherbrooke Declaration". Now check clauses 24, and on page 14 we have.... right.
Its a question of optics. And they arent small points. We'll pay dearly if we simply vote to repeal the Clarity Act. Emphasize instead the alternative principles [ignore the waving red blanket], emphasizing the crucial ones in your own bill.