NDP #16

All those who want to win the next federal election and defeat the Cons welcome to the NDP. 

Beer is such a priority for our society eh Prime Minister.Instead how bout a law allowing provincial cross-border workers!

Throne speech promises law forcing balanced budgets Also includes $70 billion infrastructure promise, provincial cross-border beer and spirit trade

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/throne-speech-promises-law-forcing-balan...

Balanced budget laws eh? My MP, Kevin Lamoureux distributed a mailer saying that he supported a balanced budget law. The Libs are not the only ones who would promise this. Its undemocratic, ties the hands of future generations, and at the same time gives governments excuses for not providng services to people as is their job. Someone should ask Le Dauphin for his stance on this; he'll probably start mumbling about the "Middle Class", in reply. And given the fact that the Libs hacked and slashed in the name of balancing the budget, this could be big trouble for them as well. This leaves the NDP very well placed if they handle it right.

In principle, I'm not opposed to balanced budget. In practice, Conservatives create debt with huge tax giveaways, and when they finally get kicked out for mismanagement, they leave it to someone else to clean it up. In which case, we're just about ready to try a Conservative government again...

Harper is one smark cookie getting out of town and away from all the possible negative publicity surrounding the PMO-Wright-Duffy scandal

Opposition aims to revive Senate scandal as Commons reopens

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/opposition-aims-to-revive-senate-scandal-...

Getting mad at the Conservatives over the size of the omnibus bill is really boring compared to what's actually IN the omnibus bill. But I think this boring victory might be pretty huge. It might allow the opposition to finally shine a light on what the Conservatives are doing one piece at a time, and the Conservatives won't be able to hide behind corny political spin. ("You're voting against the omnibus? Why do you hate aboriginal women?")

Here's hoping.

With NDP support falling in certain provinces, it could be a risk for NDP MPs to jump to the provincial scene. I am reminded of Judy WL's ill-fated jump to the Winnipeg mayoral race.

Great work NDPers.

Hang this sucker out to dry!

What did PM know, and when did he know it?

[quote]

Did Prime Minister Stephen Harper lie to the House of Commons about the backroom dealings between his chief of staff and Sen. Mike Duffy? It’s not a trivial question, no matter your opinion on the relationship between politicians and the truth.

Last spring, Harper said he didn’t know about the deal between Nigel Wright and Duffy to repay more than $90,000 in inappropriate expense claims. He also said that no one in his office knew about Wright’s decision to write the mysterious cheque.

The PM didn’t say it once or twice, he said it over and over as opposition MPs hammered away at the deal, which is currently under investigation by the RCMP. “It was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy so that Mr. Duffy could reimburse the taxpayers,” Harper told the Commons on June 5. “Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office.”

But there is a problem with that statement, one that led the NDP last Thursday to propose a motion that could lead to the prime minister being found in contempt of Parliament. The problem is that Wright’s lawyers told the RCMP that he did tell other members of the PMO staff: his assistant David van Hemming, Chris Woodcock, the PMO issues manager and Benjamin Perrin, Harper’s legal counsel. Sen. Irving Gerstein, chair of the Conservative Fund Canada, was in the loop.

Wright says he didn’t tell the prime minister, which is significant. But it doesn’t mean the PM didn’t know or was never told.

In the Commons, New Democrat MP Charlie Angus cited the variance between Harper’s statements to the House and the information supplied to the RCMP by Wright: Harper says no one in his office knew about “Mr. Wright’s decision.” Wright says at least three people did.

We still don’t know how much Gerstein and the PMO staffers knew, although Wright suggests they were fully informed.

Harper’s statements relate to “the decision by Mr. Wright,” which he said was Wright’s alone and which he would not have allowed, had he known about it.

To believe that, we must also believe that Wright made the deal with Duffy sometime in February or early March and told no one, including the prime minister. And that he kept mum until Robert Fife at CTV blew the deal wide open with his story on May 15 linking Duffy to Wright.

We must also believe that the chief of staff didn’t tell the prime minister’s lawyer, Perrin. Now teaching law in B.C., Perrin denies he was involved in the decision. But no one said he was involved, just that he was told about it.

We must believe Woodcock didn’t know, even though he was the quick-response political officer in the prime ministerial apparatus during a brewing scandal. He left the PMO to work for another minister and hasn’t spoken about it. Nor has Van Hemming, who is still working in the PMO.

The careful and repetitive wording of the prime minister’s statements leaves open the possibility that the information might still have come to him, just not through his office. Gerstein is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Conservative party, but he is not a PMO official.

It might be a fine distinction. But still, Harper could say that no one in his office told him and still be telling more or less the truth. Wright told the RCMP that Gerstein was deeply involved in the effort to sort out Duffy’s wrongly-claimed expenses and at one point, considered paying the bill with Conservative party funds.

The NDP motion might not succeed in bringing Harper to account, but the larger point is being made. Hard questions are now being asked about what the prime minister knew about the Duffy matter, when he knew it and what he told Canadians.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1161408-leger-what-did-pm-know-and-...

Who gives a tinker's damn about that stuff above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Mulcair Should Toast Provincial NDP Flops

The 'paradox of provincial power' means his MPs' 2015 seats just got a lot safer.

While New Democrats cry in their beer in Nova Scotia after last week's stunningly disastrous election fall from power to third place, and in British Columbia after blowing a "sure thing" election, federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair might want to drink champagne.

That's because despite the loss of party allies, the NDP nationally almost always suffers in provinces run by NDP governments.

Indeed, the paradox of provincial power means Mulcair's NDP Members of Parliament in B.C. and Nova Scotia just saw their seats get a lot safer in the 2015 federal election.

The evidence? Look back to the watershed 1988 federal election in B.C., fought over the Free Trade Agreement with the United States brought in by Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

The NDP in B.C. took 19 of the province's then 32 seats, leaving the Conservatives with 12 and the Liberals just one.

But in 1991, the BC NDP took power provincially under Mike Harcourt and the federal NDP went into a steep decline. 

http://www.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/10/15/Mulcair-NDP-Failure/

If this is true, and besides Harper, who says it isn't, it looks like the Mulcair-led NDP may finally have Harper by his short and curlies.

Mike Duffy claims Harper told him to repay expense money

Quote:

Senator Mike Duffy finally had his say Tuesday, dropping a political bombshell before the entire Senate, by saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper told him to repay his inappropriately claimed expense money.

Before a stunned audience of senators and reporters in the Senate gallery, Duffy said Harper told him, in the presence of his then chief of staff Nigel Wright, it was the perception of the "base" that was important, not what Duffy said about his own innocence. After Duffy said he didn't have the money, he related, "Nigel Wright said, 'Don't worry, I'll write the cheque.'"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-claims-harper-told-him-to-rep...

Mr Prime Minister - your PMO Stinks!!!

Here's more:

Quote:

Duffy also implicated the prime minister's current chief of staff, Ray Novak, in his explosive speech. He said Novak phoned him and told him if he did not resign from the Conservative caucus, he would be thrown out.

Novak, Duffy said, further told him he would then have to appear before the Senate ethics committee and would likely be expelled from the Senate.

Duffy said his wife and his sister were on the line listening to Novak's call.

NDP MP Alex Atamenko, MP for BC Southern Interior, has announced that he will be retiring and not be running in the next election. Best wishes to him! I dunno if the 2015 riding distribution has anything to do with same, as BC Southern Interior will essentially become South Okanagan-West Kootenay in the 2015 election, which the Cons would have won by close to a 6% margin in 2011.

http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/229763391.html

He did a good job as MP. He may also have had the name recognition to carry the new riding. Beyond figuring out who will replace him, I wonder if Harry Lali (recently defeated NDP MLA) might run federally in the neighbouring riding.

Often times babblers discuss the economic positions of the NDP and the direction NDP should take around taxation, and particularly the 1 percenters.

Here's an article and some food for thought. Pimco’s Bill Gross urges ‘privileged 1%’ to pay more taxes

As suggested, and I agree "the “privileged 1 percent,” earning the highest incomes, to support higher U.S. taxes on carried interest and capital gains to help the economy."

And that "the super wealthy “should be paddling right alongside and willing to support higher taxes on carried interest, and certainly capital gains readjusted to existing marginal income tax rates.”

Do a little research into Harry Lali and please let's not go there.

felixr wrote:

He did a good job as MP. He may also have had the name recognition to carry the new riding. Beyond figuring out who will replace him, I wonder if Harry Lali (recently defeated NDP MLA) might run federally in the neighbouring riding.

NorthReport wrote:

Ok Bill C-377, where are you?

Speaker grants NDP request for separate votes on Tory omnibus motion

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/speake...

WOW...  I missed this.   Too much day-job I guess.

Once the senate scandal wanes, this has the potential to significantly deepen discussion about important stuff!

The BC NDP Election Review Panel released some recommendations to the party. Although that's provincial, I think there are some interesting topics that are relevant for the federal party as well. Things that are relevant to the 2011 Orange Wave, and maintaining it in 2015.

There were 47 recommendations. A few of them:

• The 2017 campaign must start with a strong, clear message about why the BC Liberals don’t deserve another term as government. Not answering that basic question will leave voters wondering why a change in the status quo is needed.

• The 2017 campaign needs to include a capacity for local campaigns to highlight either the failures of incumbent government candidates to address important local issues or specific platform commitments designed to build voter support in key ridings

• Campaigns should be inspiring and provide a positive vision for voters to grasp, but they should also draw appropriate contrasts based on differences in policy, record and character

• The 2017 platform must inspire both the Party’s traditional base and potential swing voters. The input from all levels of the Party needs to reflect those priorities and provide clear evidence that the BC NDP has earned the support of voters

• When there are major policy shifts during the course of the campaign, the rationale for those changes must be clearly understood and communicated to all levels of the Party prior to the announced policy change

Lots of other stuff about fundraising and organizing and working with different constituencies, including various language/ethnic groups, aboriginals, and labor. There might be TOO much. You only hope they can act on all of it, and that someone at the federal level can replicate those learnings.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

• The 2017 campaign needs to include a capacity for local campaigns to highlight either the failures of incumbent government candidates to address important local issues or specific platform commitments designed to build voter support in key ridings

What about a capacity for local campaigns to communicate to HQ about the failures of the NDP to address certain issues competently?

One thing I like about Tom Mulcair is that he is focused on the priorities he brings to parliament.  When the Conservatives want to change the channel, Tom Mulcair does not take the bait.  For example, the Conservatives will hold some budget update speech in Calgary this or next week.  Mr. Mulcair will like keep the pressure on the Conservatives about the Senate scandal.

NDP supporters need to stop whining about the labels, as the objective is to win first before anything else, otherwise no matter how important your particular pet issue is, it's not going anywhere unless you first win, and the labels are just a tool used to win.

Middle-class votes sought for 1 big reason

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/middle-class-votes-sought-for-1-big-reas...

----------------------------

2838

No NDP wins, but Mulcair happy with party’s showing in byelections

The NDP — the only major federal party that failed to pick up seats in Monday’s four byelections — is still riding the wave of the orange crush, party Leader Thomas Mulcair told reporters outside the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Mulcair stressed that the NDP saw its “best result ever” in the traditional Liberal riding of Toronto Centre, where his “star” candidate Linda McQuaig took 36 per cent of the vote — up from 30 per cent in 2011. Mulcair also highlighted that NDP support held steady in the Montreal riding of Bourassa, which also went to the Liberals.

“The only result that would have been better would have been to steal one of those safe Liberal seats,” Mulcair said.

--------

At a victory party in Bourassa, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau crowed about his success and took a jab at the NDP.

“Make no mistake, the NDP is no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton. It is the negative, divisive party of Thomas Mulcair,” Trudeau said. “It is the Liberal Party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear.”

The line — which played on the famous death-bed letter that late NDP leader Jack Layton penned to Canadians — did not sit well with the NDP.

“That Justin Trudeau would use Jack Layton’s dying words as a political tool says everything that needs to be said about Justin Trudeau’s judgment and character,” Mulcair told reporters.

Layton’s widow, Toronto-area MP Olivia Chow, also addressed the remarks after question period Tuesday.

“I’m surprised and disappointed that the leader of the Liberal Party chose to use those words,” she told reporters.

http://o.canada.com/news/no-ndp-wins-but-mulcair-happy-with-partys-showi...

Liberal "sleaze" is what comes to mind when I see Trudeau's comments  trying to equate himself with Jack Layton.

Best not dwell on the absurdness of his remarks and focus on the big picture. Liberals, in spite of all the polling hype, but I'm still scratching my head how the Liberals could go from a 29% lead, to blowing the election are,the last time I looked, still sitting in a distant third place role in the House of Commons, the Liberals are not even the Official Oppositon, let alone the government, and LIberals will be fighting it out with the Cons to stay of of third place in the upcoming federal election whenever that occurs. Just keep our eye on the ball and watch and follow our top-notch, bar none, excellent Leader Tom Mulcair.

A good discussion.

Justin Trudeau, Jack Layton and the Future of Cooperation

More recently, it has become clear to some observers (not only me) that the Liberals are orienting themselves economically more towards the right. This is a wise decision on their part, given the current weakness of the Conservative government, and also the availability of seats that should be low-hanging fruit for them that the NDP is unlikely to contest on a priority basis. Think Willowdale, but also Eglinton-Lawrence, York Centre, Thornhill, Newmarket, Vaughan, Oak Ridges, Halton, Oakville, Burlington, Wellington-Halton Hills … pretty much any seat with high average incomes and educational attainments, and no historic working class or social democratic voting traditions.

Even in Toronto Centre on Monday, the Liberal margin was bolstered generously from the Liberal-Conservative swing polls in Rosedale, while the NDP added to its strength south of Bloor and otherwise defended its base vote which should be sufficient to win the seat on its new boundaries in 2015.

To the extent that Justin Trudeau's election night remarks about Jack Layton were premeditated rather than ad-libbed, I'm guessing that this clear on-going effort to usurp the upbeat positioning of Barack Obama, personified by Jack Layton in Canada until his recent death, is a key part of the Liberals' play towards their left flank (along with the legalization of marijuana). Again, it's their best play, particularly given the sunny magnetism and youthful demeanour of their new leader, who is strong on the hustings if not in the House. But it did not prove sufficient to collapse the NDP vote in either of the central Canadian by-election seats.

Where Trudeau went too far on Monday night, was in explicitly trying to claim Jack Layton's mantle so soon after his death (and if you doubt the continued depth of feeling about this on the orange team, you haven't watched how your orange friends' Facebook feeds change every year on May 2, August 22 or any of the other meaningful anniversaries). First of all, it was an over-reach of Quayle-an proportions in the sense that if you have to say you're the next Layton instead of simply showing it, the proposition suddenly becomes ridiculous. Secondly, it showed Trudeau not to be a gracious winner (the way Layton had always been) and incapable of observing the gentleman's convention that election nights are for marking the temporary end of hostilities, to allow the parliamentary process to proceed.

But with more far-reaching consequences, Trudeau's comments touched a nerve within a party that has to this point maintained a disciplined public face of solidarity even as it grappled with its own changing of the guard. He at once thoroughly galvanized his competitors for the centre-left behind leader Tom Mulcair, and caused real damage to any future working relationship between the two opposition parties. These are mistakes the far more strategically adroit Layton would never have made, as he prized above-all his ability to work across party lines.

Looking ahead, there are seats the Liberals' growth at the expense of the Conservatives makes easier for them to win (such as the two-way races listed above), and others where it puts the NDP in a better position to win (Saskatchewan, southwest Ontario, and the interior of BC for example). The shadow cast by unpopular provincial governments mid-term will be felt more by the Liberals in 2015 (think Nova Scotia and BC) than by the NDP (as this past month in Manitoba). If the Liberals pursue their current path, and the government continues to suffer under the weight of its own scandals, they could see the Canadian political spectrum reshaped into a Liberal-vs-NDP contest with the Conservatives holding up the rear as a third party: arguably a better reflection of the range of Canadian political views that we have at present.

On the other hand, if they try to fight on two fronts simultaneously, any mistake could see them squeezed from both sides.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2013/11/justin-trudeau-jack-layton-and-the-fu...

Was there ever any doubt? 

The Liberals have run for decades on being the "Party of Power"; that's why they attracted the John Manleys of this world to their brand.  But the Liberal Party of Canada hasn't delivered power since 2004.  Their supporters are getting desperate.  But I would prefer to eat the Liberals for lunch in an election.  Strategic Voting != Voting Liberal.

Determinant wrote:

But I would prefer to eat the Liberals for lunch in an election.  Strategic Voting != Voting Liberal.

I agree with your first sentence and assume the second is just a misprint.   The Conservatives offer a much clearer opponent to offer an alternative to.  The Liberals are slippery... tell us what they think we want to hear and then follow the policies of the rich.  They are the more dangerous opponent.  So three square meals a day of Liberals would pretty much make me sick...  I'd never know what my next meal would bring.