next
Justin Trudeau Campaign 2015
Fri, 2014-08-22 02:32
#1
Justin Trudeau Campaign 2015
Fri, 2014-08-22 02:36
#2
2015 campaigning is getting started in earnest so I started this thread to gather statements made by Trudeau and attacks made on him.
I'll start off with this one. I think there is going to be a great deal of blind rage inducing. The Harper machine is going after Trudeau with guns blazing.
The statement:
"The biggest threat to global security is the kind of violence and misunderstandings and wars that come out of resource depletion, economic uncertainty, concerns of lack of hope for generations growing up in a world that is getting smaller and seemingly less and less fair," Trudeau responded.
The reaction:
A Tory minister says she finds Justin Trudeau's interpretation of the biggest threat to global security "blind-rage inducing."
"Is that how a grown-up speaks about the biggest threat to global security?" Levant wondered.
But Rempel suggested that, unlike Facebook followers who may disagree with her, Trudeau is unable to articulate and defend a position on foreign policy and instead "spews a diatribe of non sequiturs and platitudes."
"I ask you to imagine this man at the helm of our nation while serious international conflicts arise," she wrote. "How would he position our country? What would the consequences to our nation be? To the international community?
"To weigh these outcomes one first needs to have an informed position and be able to speak to it. Time and again he's demonstrated his inability to do this, but this particular instance is so mind bogglingly ridiculous I have to post it."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/20/michelle-rempel-justin-trudeau-s...
Is Trudeau wrong?
Fri, 2014-08-22 09:22
#3
A pretty good statement by Trudeau. And typical fear and scare mongering by the neo-conservative Conservatives and their Sun media allies.
Fri, 2014-08-22 09:24
#4
Either the Conservatives have lost their bearings completely, or there is a nasty undercurrent in the Canadian political system that is about to come to the surface.
Fri, 2014-08-22 09:31
#5
You mean when they run against a "dope smoking, terrorist loving, elitist"?
Fri, 2014-08-22 09:55
#6
But Rempel suggested that, unlike Facebook followers who may disagree with her, Trudeau is unable to articulate and defend a position on foreign policy and instead "spews a diatribe of non sequiturs and platitudes."
Accurate. A reflection of our dead and empty political culture.
Fri, 2014-08-22 11:01
#7
Either the Conservatives have lost their bearings completely, or there is a nasty undercurrent in the Canadian political system that is about to come to the surface.
I think you're correct [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/harper-rebuffs-renewed-calls-for-... both counts[/url]:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed renewed calls for a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women after the killing of 15-year-old Tina Fontaine in Winnipeg.
"It's very clear that there has been very fulsome study of this particular … of these particular things. They're not all one phenomenon," said Harper. "We should not view this as a sociological phenomenon. We should view it as crime."
But I'll bow out to make room for posts explaining why Trudeau is just Harper with a smile.
Fri, 2014-08-22 11:32
#8
"They're not all one phenomenon," said Harper. "We should not view this as a sociological phenomenon. We should view it as crime."
And as we all know, "This is no time to commit sociology".
Fri, 2014-08-22 13:29
#9
laine lowe
Heh, heh... I forgot about the "committing sociology" gaffe. Harper is such a f*cking idiot.
As for Rempel, in her diatribe about Trudeau's diatribe, not once did she dilineate what she or her party thinks is the biggest threat to global security. From where I'm sitting, it looks like an inconsistent moving target (i.e. the flip flop on China). The only consistent piece of foreign policy is aping the Israeli government's every position and action.
Fri, 2014-08-22 13:37
#10
Another thread to talk about how bad Harper is and to praise Trudeau. Something we really needed. Pondering you have a opened a thread that looks like its sole purpose is to not talk about the NDP.
I started this thread to gather statements made by Trudeau and attacks made on him.
Fri, 2014-08-22 13:43
#11
Heh, heh... I forgot about the "committing sociology" gaffe. Harper is such a f*cking idiot.
As for Rempel, in her diatribe about Trudeau's diatribe, not once did she dilineate what she or her party thinks is the biggest threat to global security. From where I'm sitting, it looks like an inconsistent moving target (i.e. the flip flop on China). The only consistent piece of foreign policy is aping the Israeli government's every position and action.
Pretty clear that she and her party view the Palestinians as the biggest threat to global security.
Fri, 2014-08-22 14:10
#12
Another thread to talk about how bad Harper is and to praise Trudeau. Something we really needed. Pondering you have a opened a thread that looks like its sole purpose is to not talk about the NDP.
I started this thread to gather statements made by Trudeau and attacks made on him.
No, it was to talk about Trudeau and his campaign. Is there a problem with having a thread that doesn't talk about the NDP?
We can rectify the problem. Isn't this the sort of argument the NDP should be presenting?
Fri, 2014-08-22 14:26
#13
Either the Conservatives have lost their bearings completely, or there is a nasty undercurrent in the Canadian political system that is about to come to the surface.
I'll go with they've lost it. Mean below-the-belt attacks rooted in character assasination have served Harper well and have only increased during his majority. Harper hates Pierre Trudeau with a passion and it extends to his son. He knows he is losing and Justin Trudeau is on a roll. Harperites are going to double down on the nasty attacks. I'm expecting a lot of "blind rage" reactions.
Trudeau's strategy is to mostly ignore the content of attacks while keeping his own demeanor calm, reasonable and good natured with an occasional condemnation of negative politics.
I get that the NDP has to criticize Trudeau and the Liberals but they would do well to be cautious not to echo the Conservative approach or they could get tarred by the same brush. There is a fine line they would do well not to cross.
Fri, 2014-08-22 14:55
#14
Well, most of my friends utterly detested Pierre Trudeau (for reasons symmetrically opposite to those of Harper and his acolytes; moreover, some of the older ones, in particular trade unionists (retired now, dead, or in other lines of work) were arrested in October 1970. No, none of them were in the FLQ.
I don't detest Justin at all, just think that he is a spoilt fils à papa "representing" one of the poorest ridings in the Canadian State, and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. What I do detest is the Liberal Party - oh, these days not as much as the HarperCons, to be sure, but they remain an enemy of the working class, standing up for the .0001%
I wish we could better define the term "hater". In political terms, it doesn't mean simply someone who dislikes a person, party or group, but who really has it out for them, and I'd go on to say wishes them ill, in terms much harsher than not wanting them elected. Here is how (internet) haters are defined at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hater_%28Internet%29
This proposes an explanation (by the FBI, not by a "progressive group") of how internet hate can be the precursor of hate crimes.
I'd think that in this case a "hater" would be someone who would applaud the invasion of the Trudeau home, and think "he - or they - hadi it coming".
As for crime, it is most definitely a social phenomenon - one that can be studied by sociologists, criminologists, social historians and researchers in other disciplines. And the rate of disappearance of Indigenous women and girls, several times that of non-Indigenous females, is certainly a most distressing social phenomenon.
"Sociological phenomenon" sounds like bafflegab. Sociology is the study of society.
Fri, 2014-08-22 16:27
#15
montrealer58
Members of my family were also brought in on the War Measures dragnet. They were Union, maybe a bit socialist, but definitely not FLQ. It is thought perhaps that memories of this in Quebec and memories of the National Energy Program in Western Canada should be enough to prevent a Toronto-centric Liberal government from gaining power.
Fri, 2014-08-22 19:50
#16
I don't detest Justin at all, just think that he is a spoilt fils à papa "representing" one of the poorest ridings in the Canadian State, and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. What I do detest is the Liberal Party - oh, these days not as much as the HarperCons, to be sure, but they remain an enemy of the working class, standing up for the .0001%
I don't entirely agree but it is a fair opinion given his background. I agreed with you when he through his hat in the race. I couldn't believe he was a speaker given that his every sentence included an "uuuuuh" or some equivalent within it as well as odd short gasps or breath intake or something. I thought his speech patterns would do him in. If you have been paying attention he has almost conquered it completely.
He did grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He could have chosen any path in life he wanted and he did try his hand at several. Is that wrong? Many young men in his position would have studied law or business and spend their private time partying. He chose to study to become a teacher. Those classes aren't filled with bluebloods and you do need some intellectual ability to succeed. He did teach math and history and at one point was a substitute for a drama teacher for a few months. After successfully teaching for a couple of years he decided it wasn't what he wanted to do with the rest of his life. He returned to university and did a year towards his masters in environmental geography. He then became a speaker and eventually an MP which he has stuck with.
He knows that he grew up privleged and he is grateful for it. His record isn't illustrious but he isn't lacking in intelligence. He is an educated man. The areas he chose to study aren't high prestige and that speaks to his character (for me).
It is true that without his name he would not have even run for the leadership. Name recognition gives people an advantage in getting a foot in the door but you also have to live up to it. His name caught all of our attention. I didn't support him on that basis. I was unimpressed and expected him to fall flat on his face as many of you believed he would.
The difference is that as NDP supporters, or activist types in general, you could never be convinced to support him or the Liberal party under any circumstances. You have no motivation to really think about him as a person before or separate from considering whether or not he is qualified to be PM. He's easy to mock because he doesn't have the type of background we expect in a politician and name recognition did give him a boost, and he is handsome.
But then I started listening to what he had to say, and it made sense. He wasn't afraid to take unpopular stances in Quebec on tuition and nationalism and he did it standing on Quebec soil. I don't always agree with him but I always appreciate his reasoning. It's small things but it all adds up. For example he supported the gun registry but would not reintroduce it because it was too divisive and there are many other issues to be tackled on which we can build consensus.
He keeps saying stuff I agree with, like FN students should get at least the same dollar amount as all other Canadian students and we need to get it right for Canada's future as it is a fast growing demographic.
He illustrated his sincerity in consensus building when he spoke against the Transparency Act being used as a weapon against the FN so he would repeal it. The information should be made public to their respective bands.
Then there is the marijuana legalization issue. He wasn't afraid to support it even though decrim is more widely accepted. Was there some political calculation in taking that position, sure but he still had the guts to do it and it is an evidence based decision.
There's more, but you get my drift. I find that when I disagree with him, for example an exception for TFW in Alberta, I still understand that he is respecting what Alberta wants and the exceptional situation they are in.
His "gaffes" have been minor and I do appreciate his willingness to be candid.
I believe he is sincere in the views he expresses and that he is a caring and thoughtful man with an open mind, a good person. I do feel that he shares my values even if he doesn't share all of my views he is a man of reason therefore can be swayed and I see that as a positive.
The PM doesn't negotiate trade deals, or personally oversee environmental regulations. The PM oversees a team of experts on various portfolios and should make decisions based on the values of Canadians not based on ideology.
I believe that it is the people who have to drive change not political parties. Political parties try to sway people to support them electorally by trying to convince them they will reflect the desires of the people. They may try to sway people on various topics but for the most part they stick with tweaking the status quo.
Right now Trudeau is saying things that in my opinion the NDP should be saying. It's Trudeau that has said you deal with the deficit by growing the economy not by cutting services.
The expected answer to "the greatest global security threat" is "Islamic terrorism" but he didn't give that answer he gave the right answer and he keeps doing that over and over again. He is willing to speak up against conventional wisdom and to be truthful because he trusts Canadians.
Trudeau may not be an intellectual giant but he is far from vacuous.
Sway the public and politicians will follow.
Sat, 2014-08-23 01:10
#17
I don't disagree with much of what you say-- I agree Trudeau is not stupid. I also agree that he is speaking about some important things-- the gap in FN education funding has huge significance for me.
We disagree on crucial points:
First I won't credit Trudeau with all the ideas that he is speaking of. He is surrounded by people who are extremely talented at identifying good policies to come up with. Having worked in communications I remain skeptical of what is said to be the product of the mind of a leader when I know much is crafted by a communications team. This is where Justin is different than his father. When he speaks in a prepared context following a script prepared in advance he says things I appreciate. The problem is when he is unscripted and speaking about a topic not prepared he does not look anywhere near as impressive. His father, on the other hand, was able to speak intelligently on many topics without preparation. My impression remains that Trudeau is delivering excellent political ideas but does not personally pack the conviction or will to make them a reality. At times I find he sounds confused when he is not prepared by the brain trust.
The second problem I have, considering my opinion that much of what he says is crafted politics, is my fear that these are words designed to obtain support rather than the product of deep conviction and commitment by the party. I fear I am looking at a fairly insignificant thinker delivering a sophisticated sales job. I have no confidence that the party of Manley and Ignatieff will suddenly be different in spite of the nice new coat of paint but I can certainly hear the echoes of very fine Liberal promises that go back over much of my life. Many of those promises can be repeated as they remain unfulfilled.
In short, I am not convinced that Trudeau himself is that special when it comes to the issues that matter to me while I grant he puts up a good show. Second, I have no trust in the Liberal Party.
I am not overconfident of the NDP except to say that the NDP has two things going for it when it comes to trust. First on many issues that matter to me the NDP has been consistent over several decades while the Liberals alternately promise and withdraw support for those same priorities. Secondly, even when the NDP's leadership is not the strongest on the issues, I remain confident in the party membership to agitate for better policies. The majority of NDP members have strong convictions. It is from that strength that I feel the leadership can be challenged. The Liberals have many supporters of conviction but they also have a good number of pragmatic souls interested in power and politics more than any particular direction. This is how the Liberals have remained ideologically flexible, a point they take great pride in. But the flip side of ideologically flexible is ideologically untrustworthy.
At the present time Canadian political culture may be at a crossroads. It has been shifting to the right for quite some time. I am hoping for leadership that will encourage a return to not only a more compassionate vision (which the Liberals will do to some respect) but also a vision of a social structure that is based not just on charity and goodwill but social obligations to equality, fairness, and peace. The Liberals do not understand this in spite of their pride in being kinder and their desire for a just society, they lack the sense of social obligation that underpins the vision I support. The Liberals are kinder than the Conservatives but they will not lead a social movement towards a reversal of the selfish individualistic vision that now dominates politics. They wish to give Canadians who are less fortunate the gift of Liberal help and compassion but they don't see the imperative that does not consider this is a gift but rather an obligation based on social and common goods and the rights of all people.
As such, things that I consider essential obligations will only be offered by the Liberals when they consider them to be affordable. And, I feel the Liberals have a habit of overstating their social progressiveness before elections and retreating to much more conservative policies when decisions have to be made.
I find myself discouraged by the idea that Canadians would reject the option of electing a party who is defined by progressiveness even if it sometimes does not deliver the goods to turn to the same party that has been letting us down consistently for decades based on rhetoric that is no more impressive than it ever was.
If Trudeau gets a minority with a strong NDP, he may well bring in the policies he speaks of now and perhaps more. But if he gets a majority, and the NDP are returned to a weak position and he considers the greatest threat to come from the next Conservative leader, I do not expect much. The war on Canadian institutions will stop, the rhetoric will stop and the style of government will be an improvement. But after Harper we need more than an end to the damage and we need more than a kind sounding government. We need repairs to the damage that has been done recently and policies to advance our society. I don’t see the Trudeau Liberals doing that.
I would rather work to elect an NDP government I believe will work to repair the damage and lead us to a better society. Even if that government may not go far enough or quickly enough, I remain more confident that it will at least takes some steps in that direction.
To sum: it is on the issue of trust and confidence based on hopes and experience where you and I differ. As well it is my opinion of the relative characters of the NDP political movement vs the Liberal movement. I am not deaf to the rhetorical things Trudeau is saying that I can appreciate. But Pondering, you place more weight and value in those words than I do. I place greater value in consistency and earned trust as well as my understanding of the membership (political culture) that we are electing.
We share many of the same values but a great difference in terms of the degree of optimism with which I can apply to the latest Liberal mouthpiece's likelihood to deliver on the words I want to hear.
Sat, 2014-08-23 04:25
#18
The second problem I have, considering my opinion that much of what he says is crafted politics, is my fear that these are words designed to obtain support rather than the product of deep conviction and commitment by the party.
Fer chrise sakes. Every political leader in Canada is the same in that regard. Welcome to realpolitik.
When you say you have been in communications, your posts are so long and convoluted I never have any idea about what you are actually trying to say. Seriously.
Sat, 2014-08-23 04:28
#19
double post
Sat, 2014-08-23 18:08
#20
When you say you have been in communications, your posts are so long and convoluted I never have any idea about what you are actually trying to say. Seriously.
Seriously your an idiot. If you took a poll on this board of which posts are most appreciated Sean would likely come out in the top three. You on the other hand would not even make the top hundred.
Sat, 2014-08-23 18:12
#21
Long posts take a lot of time because of the interconnected thoughts involved and the complexities of our own personal reasoning for supporting one view or another. It is possible to have self-conflicted views, or appear to due to recognizing the nuances of a topic. Particularly for party adherents the reasoning is often rooted in history and ideology which is difficult to defend in point form. I'm posting this before my response to Sean's post because it isn't quite finished yet.
The post Sean wrote here was time consuming but more free thought than his latest post on the NDP campaign for 2015 but both take a long time to write. I don't know how much time I spent on my next post which will be a response to his because I write a bit then go do other things. When I am doing something mindless, like washing dishes, I think about posts I have read and my response to them. There is more thinking than writing. Sean's post on the NDP campaign is on the higher end of time consumption. His last post here less so but still an investment.
In my opinion most of Sean's posts are of exceptional quality and highly communicative and thought provoking.
While it is true that to a large extent all political parties craft their messages to obtain support some parties are more ideological than others. Dedication to a more enlightened society through social justice is an ideal carried within the membership of the NDP. Though the leadership may falter Sean believes the membership can steer the ship back on course or at the very least would prevent the NDP leadership, once in power, from sliding even farther right. In contrast Liberal members are generally less progressive than NDP members so when the Liberals shift gears and move even farther to the right there is no one to hold them in check.
I don't agree because Liberal members were unable to stop the Liberal leadership from consolidating power in their hands to the point where they almost destroyed the party. The catastrophic losses of 2011 forced the old guard to give up the reins of power for fear there would be nothing left to have power over.
However progressive the members of the NDP are, they don't control the party. Liberal members don't control their party either but the leadership does have a healthy respect for the need to please members.
In the end analysis I agree with Centrist. Mulcair's statements are not "the product of deep conviction and commitment by the party"; they are "words designed to obtain support". Nevertheless they are still spoken within the context of a party that has traditionally defended the interests of the working class.
Sat, 2014-08-23 20:21
#22
When you say you have been in communications, your posts are so long and convoluted I never have any idea about what you are actually trying to say. Seriously.
Seriously your an idiot. If you took a poll on this board of which posts are most appreciated Sean would likely come out in the top three. You on the other hand would not even make the top hundred.
I agree Centrists comment is way over the top. Sean's posts really are the gold standard and he is very adept at framing issues.
Sat, 2014-08-23 20:49
#23
I have never had the slightest problem understanding Sean's posts, and I'm very fussy about language(s).
Pondering, is there anything wrong with defending the interests of the working class? The only possible criticism I could make is when they are viewed in too short a term. In particular with respect to polluting or otherwise harmful industries. Ecosocialists want to abolish some of these (and yes, there are a lot of auto, arms and other workers in "harmful" industries in their ranks, especially in Europe (the UK and Continental Europe). But the workers must not bear the cost or the brunt of reconversion. They need income protection and often retraining for greener and more socially-useful jobs.
Auto workers' jobs aren't much of a problem, as carfree cities and towns will require far more public transport, and the auto industry reconverted very quickly in wartime. Of course arms workers pose a more difficult problem, but there was a famous case of arms workers in the UK facing redundancies who came up with an array of socially-useful goods their plants could produce, including aids for disabled people, for agriculture and for many other things that are much nicer than killing and maiming people and destroying habitats.
Sat, 2014-08-23 22:09
#24
Either the Conservatives have lost their bearings completely, or there is a nasty undercurrent in the Canadian political system that is about to come to the surface.
I think you're correct [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/harper-rebuffs-renewed-calls-for-... both counts[/url]:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed renewed calls for a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women after the killing of 15-year-old Tina Fontaine in Winnipeg.
"It's very clear that there has been very fulsome study of this particular … of these particular things. They're not all one phenomenon," said Harper. "We should not view this as a sociological phenomenon. We should view it as crime."
But I'll bow out to make room for posts explaining why Trudeau is just Harper with a smile.
Trudeau, Wynne and Selinger blast Harper:
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/trudeau-calls-harper-out-of-touch-fo...
Sat, 2014-08-23 23:40
#25
I will answer Legatta and Sean someday but Centrist you really do owe Sean an apology. You must have had a terrible day, either that or cramps. Legatta is telling the truth. She made me start spelling licence with two c's. If Sean's posts were problamatic she would know.
There is so much free flowing hostility around here I'm wondering if it is some sort of venting therapy to relieve mental stress, or maybe gas. I don't know, something like that. It's not normal. You have no need of trolls. You troll each other. Some poster is just walking along whistling minding their own business, and BOOM somebody picks a fight with them out of the blue.
Sun, 2014-08-24 01:39
#26
I'll take a stab at responding to Centrist. I don't want to get into a feud. I'll just answer without comment on how it was put.
I post on twitter and my posts fit the format -- even with hashtags and links. That is the place for one-off comment. The audience and interaction is huge. If we want to restrict ourselves to just a few words each time, why come here at all? Twitter does it better.
Before Twitter came along babble posts were mostly short, pithy. Little that would try anyone's attention span. But now I engage with more people on twitter than ever drop by this place. This is probably true of just about everyone here who is also on twitter. So I think the enduring value of this place has to be that it is more of a blogging site than a micro blogging one. What you don't get on twitter is the organized argument with detail and progression. I see each post as more of an article than a one-off comment. When I want to just comment without support for it, I'll go to twitter.
Still I get that there are people who want only short interactions. But I feel that I may be more justified in insisting on using the available length as there is no other public place you can do that on these issues while those who want a quick exchange have options. Centrist meet me on twitter if you want just the point. Come here if you want the explanation, argument and ultimately the accountability for that quick point that I make on Twitter.
Still, if I were to tease you, I would say that your patience is probably greater for posts you agree with than those you don't.
Sun, 2014-08-24 01:43
#27
Now for the actual issue raised: I believe that the NDP is more consistent and credible on many policy positions than the Liberals because the NDP is populated by activists who have fought for those positions. While there are people of conviction in the Liberal party, more of the Liberal party's ideas are captured by people thinking "that's a good idea, it might be popular let's try it on." The changes in Liberal priorities reflect changing political realities and opportunities more than they have in the NDP. This is not to deny the desire for more compassion and responsiveness in public policy that often distinguishes Liberals from Conservatives. But Liberals tend not to have detailed convictions to the degree that either the NDP or the Conservatives do.
If you hear a Liberal speaking of betrayal in the Liberal party, usually that would be becuase someone did not get elected-- blew an opportunity. In the NDP it will be a person accusing the leadership of having sold out what some members have devoted their lives to achieve. The Liberal party is more flexible in part due to the more political and expedient nature of their policies. That is why it is fair to say that the policies of the Liberal party are more politically constructed.
This does not mean that the NDP does not have politically crafted rhetoric but the root of the proposal is not rhetorical.
I have heard many Liberals say exactly the same thing except they put it in more flattering and positive terms from their point of view. In fact I have been lectured by many a Liberal about why flexibility and pragmatism leads in their view to better government than conviction and ideology. But flexibility is certainly a political communicator's dream.
Sun, 2014-08-24 01:51
#28
There is so much free flowing hostility around here I'm wondering if it is some sort of venting therapy to relieve mental stress, or maybe gas. I don't know, something like that. It's not normal. You have no need of trolls. You troll each other. Some poster is just walking along whistling minding their own business, and BOOM somebody picks a fight with them out of the blue.
I think you are quite right. We are in tense political times as well and people do get their fruistrations out. I also think that there is a culture of confrontation and that it is refreshing to see posts that are not just advocacy for the team. A good mix of the two is better.
I have seen some threads where a person was not even posting in it and suddenly someone rolls by and attacks them. This is quite deep hostility. This has happened to both Debater and Pondering. At other times I can see some people feel that posts are meant to needle someone when they don't mention that person by name. I suspect sometimes that is true and sometimes it is just mild paranoia. Hard to tell but the anger swings roudn as we all see the posts through our own lenses.
Sun, 2014-08-24 09:39
#29
montrealer58
There is something to be said for technocracy, but it is an attitude for workers in the political system. If I am behind the counter at an election campaign, and a constituent walks in with a problem, it almost always has nothing to do with ideology. Indeed, if they walk in off the street and start yapping about ideology, I tell them we are here to work, and there is a nice pile of volunteer sheets they can call, or why don't they just tele-canvass these two polls over here. Ones who keep talking and will not work are called 'energy vampires'. You wonder if the opposition did not send them in.
A lot of the time they come in with enquiries which do not pertain to the level of government your campaign is campaigning for. If you are a good technocrat, you already know who is 'over there' who can help them out.
If I were lucky enough to get a job in a constituency office, I know I would be spending half my time on immigration enquiries. If I am going to help my people, I have to kiss bum a bit at the Department, no matter who is in office there. The same with my federal/provincial/municipal counterparts.
All that being said, however, does not excuse policy vacuuousness or 'whichever way the wind blows' ideology. As a microbe in the system, I should be technocratic, as being blinded by ideology when we are trying to make the streetcars run on time or whatever does not work.
The way a political party is supposed to work is that the membership debates policy which can come from any source. If you do this well, there is no ambiguity about what the leader is going to do if he or she gains office. Issues are brought up in a convention format (which should be brought up to date), and for the most part, the leadership should work to execute Party policy. In these details is the Devil of bullying, alpha male issues, etc., all of which do not appeal to technocrats who metaphorically like to help old people cross the road.
The last successful Liberal leader was Jean Chretien, who combined alpha male syndrome with a Red Book. By beating down Brazeau in the boxing ring, it is hoped that Trudeau has established his alpha male credentials. Like Mike Harris, Chretien had his Red Book well in advance of the election, and there were other aspects like a divided opposition, for sure. In 2015, the NDP could very well be out in front of the Tories, and the main problem for the Liberals. The Conservatives are going to face erosion from the Greens and the NDP, and stay-at-home-ness from the Evangelical Right. There are going to be calls to split the Conservative Party again. Jean Charest has just reiterated "Never say Never" and there was a nice picture of him laughing with the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney. Maybe Rob Anders can lead the western rump, or they can build a Christian Coalition.
You cannot just announce you are going to be a technocratic party in a policy vacuum. It means that party members would have no hope of discussing and bringing up items of interest to the electorate, and with no hope you might as well stay at home. Technocratic party members can say "Not only do I think we should do X, but I think I have a statistically significant number of instances where doing X may have had its intended result." With no feedback loop in place, volunteers feel like they have no dog in the fight. A sunny smile is going to get frustrating for those who want to get help for a whole bunch of people they care about.
If they have nothing to fight for, Liberals are going to flail. We have seen it exquisitely displayed on this board, like never before. The amount they have to say seems to be inversely proportional to the amount they say.
Sun, 2014-08-24 12:28
#30
You must have had a terrible day, either that or cramps.
Sun, 2014-08-24 17:37
#31
Well, most of my friends utterly detested Pierre Trudeau (for reasons symmetrically opposite to those of Harper and his acolytes; moreover, some of the older ones, in particular trade unionists (retired now, dead, or in other lines of work) were arrested in October 1970. No, none of them were in the FLQ.
I don't detest Justin at all, just think that he is a spoilt fils à papa "representing" one of the poorest ridings in the Canadian State, and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. What I do detest is the Liberal Party - oh, these days not as much as the HarperCons, to be sure, but they remain an enemy of the working class, standing up for the .0001%
1. Lagatta, it's not Pierre Trudeau's fault that a lot of people were arrested in the 1970's. He didn't do the arresting. The police may have gotten over-zealous and brought in some of the wrong people, but everyone was eventually released. Trudeau was asked to use the War Measures Act by the Premier of Quebec and Mayor of Montreal. And it was in response to terrorism & murder of members of the Quebec government such as Pierre Laporte. The vast majority of Quebecers supported Trudeau, including Francophones, and Trudeau won huge majorities in Quebec in every election, even the one he lost to Joe Clark. He holds the record of 74/75 seats, something no other leader is likely to break. There were many positive things that Pierre Trudeau did for equality & civil rights, and he's about as far left a Prime Minister as we're going to get in this country, so I hope you appereciated some of the positives.
2. As for Justin Trudeau, not everyone has to like him, and that's fine, but what I object to are some of the more outlandish attempts to distort him. If he had run in a more wealthy Montreal riding, he would have been accused of just wanting to represent the wealthy, or of being handed a safe seat if he had asked for Mount Royal. So he can't win either way with his critics. Instead, unlike his father who had a much safer entry into politics in Mount Royal, Trudeau ran in a competitive riding against a BQ MP. He was not handed a safe seat like Stéphane Dion or Michael Ignatieff. He had to win the riding largely on his own with his own team since he didn't get much help from Liberal HQ. And he was not given special privileges for being Pierre Trudeau's son. He was not put on the Liberal front bench when he got elected, he was put in the back with the rest of the junior MP's. And unlike his dad who became PM when he won the Liberal leadership, Trudeau has had to do the hard work of taking over a party that was in 3rd place. Incidentally, his younger brother was killed in an avalanche & his mother has had health challenges over the years, so his life hasn't been that of some rich, spoiled prince from a Disney fairytale. Sure he has had some fortunate opportunities in life as a result of being Pierre Trudeau's son, and he admitted that last year in the Liberal leadership. But he's also had some moments of tragedy in his life like any other mortal Canadian.
Sun, 2014-08-24 18:03
#32
Montrealer, I read your post with interest but it will take some thinking time to respond and I still want to respond to Legatta's post which is already hurting my brain so it will be a day or two, or maybe three.
In response to Sean post # 18 at http://rabble.ca/comment/1454684#comment-1454684
The ideology of the Liberals is moderation. This does allow them to adjust to the current mood of the nation and world events. Politicians should be responsive to changing views on topics. The Liberals promoted gay rights but they did so in the context of a public that was primed. It was controversial, but the tide was already turning so all they had to do was encourage it along, and present the arguments already perfected by activists. The Liberals recognized that it was an idea whose time had come. I have confidence that they will legalize marijuana because they recognize this too is an idea whose time has come. It is slightly ahead of the public but easily defended.
I found Trudeau's comment that Harper would be on the wrong side of history thought provoking. The Liberals have a knack for getting just slightly ahead of the public then leading them there putting themselves on the right side of history. There is still a lot of anti-indian prejudice permeating society but there is also a great deal of embarrassment that many live in not much better than third world conditions and that we are being chastised by the UN. It offends our identity as Canadians. The continued revelations of mistreatment in modern times is shaming. First Nations are also getting a great deal of respect for their efforts in protecting the environment. I was shocked that we weren't funding education dollar for dollar. Recent court decisions on FN territorial rights are also evidence of Canada's long history of confrontational relations with the FN. Canadians are ready to be led to a fairer more respectful relationship with the FN. This falls within Trudeau's theme of building consensus.
Watch for issues to be tied to campaign themes: consensus, social licence, evidence -based. These all exist under the broader theme of government as a force for good, a tool for building the society we want. That umbrella theme is also an argument that the NDP should be making.
Trudeau traveled extensively with his father and listened to shop talk all his formative years. He knows he is the boss. He won the leadership with 80% support and reversed the party's fortunes electorally and financially. Nobody is leading him around by the nose; all political leaders have advisers who discuss ideas, that doesn't mean they make the decisions concerning those ideas. It is Trudeau himself who decided to defend federalism on Quebec soil. He may have discussed it with his advisors but he was expressing his philosophy not someone else's. He is criticizing Harper's confrontational relationship with the FN because he believes it is counter-productive. His reasoning on not reviving the gun registry is his not someone else's.
Marijuana legalization is definitely someone else's idea because we have seen the shift in his thinking. I don't see that as a negative. The party voted on it and he examined the idea with an open mind and was convinced there is sufficient evidence and public support to defend it. He adopted the policy and studied the "talking points". That's pretty much the approach I would take if I were PM. I would listen to experts in every area then weigh the pros and cons and decide. Once decided I would learn the "talking points" for my position so I could defend it. (Notice he is not using the libertarian argument.)
Even in defending marijuana legalization I don't have all my ducks lined up in a row with a specific number of talking points and counterpoints to the talking points of the opposite side. That doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about or don't have a valid opinion. As a politician I would have to learn the talking points in a more organized fashion and I would most likely have someone else write them up. Caught off guard on another topic I might not be prepared to give a thoughtful answer on the spot. I may even want to discuss it with associates before venturing an opinion. As potential PM the expectations are higher so the candidate must be prepared on a wide variety of topics but I don't expect a nuanced opinion on all topics on the spot particularly on complex topics.
Justin Trudeau is not the scholar or intellectual his father was but he isn't running against his father he is running against Harper and Mulcair. Of the three Mulcair is the closest to Pierre Trudeau's intellect but his political position on marijuana is ignorant and ill-informed. Seems like he doesn't listen to experts. That is not a good trait in a Prime Minister no matter what party he is leading. I want a PM who will listen to experts then make a decision contextually. I will take someone of average intellect with an open mind over someone of superior intellect with a closed mind or an ideolog.
That does not extend to taking a conciliatory approach to values just as the right of little girls who wear hijabs to play soccer or the principle of dollar for dollar education for FN children, or abortion rights. These are not issues that need to be discussed with experts. On issues such as these I want to know straight up what position the PM takes without any prevarication or sugar-coating.
Trudeau will be getting plenty of air time including unscripted interviews to thoroughly discredit any notion that he is lacking in intelligence or controlled by a backroom cabal. He will also easily dispel the claims that he is an out of touch elite. He already has.
The Liberals do not understand this in spite of their pride in being kinder and their desire for a just society, they lack the sense of social obligation that underpins the vision I support….….As such, things that I consider essential obligations will only be offered by the Liberals when they consider them to be affordable.
Social services are neither a gift nor a government obligation. That can so readily be condemned as entitlement programs that encourage dependence. The issue is what policies will support a strong healthy society, give us the best quality of life as a nation, the best future for our children and ourselves. Affordability is absolutely central to the argument but it has been incorrectly framed. Our economic future depends on strong social programs because it helps people be productive. Countries with national daycare are more productive because more people are in the workforce. Programs helping under-privileged children do not make their parents lazy or spoiled. They interrupt generational welfare patterns.
Trudeau presents two arguments for funding FN education at least equal to all other Canadian children. The first is basic justice, the second is FN children are the fastest growing demographic and if we don't get it right now we will pay in the future and the cost will be much greater.
The Liberals are kinder than the Conservatives but they will not lead a social movement towards a reversal of the selfish individualistic vision that now dominates politics. They wish to give Canadians who are less fortunate the gift of Liberal help and compassion but they don't see the imperative that does not consider this is a gift but rather an obligation based on social and common goods and the rights of all people.
The Liberals are definitely not a social movement. No need to embed arguments in individual versus collective ideology or social movements. It shuts people down when they feel preached at or there is an insinuation that they are selfish if they don't support social programs. Same goes for being told it is immoral to vote for the party of their choice. It get's people's back up. Addressing specific issues focusing on a problem/solution orientation rather than an ideological orientation is far more likely to reap results.
Harper has done enormous damage to the fabric of Canada. Justin Trudeau sees that. It is why he decided to run in 2015 rather than wait for 2019. Under Chretien/ Martin the environment was a low priority so despite Dion's best efforts Kyoto failed in Canada. A year studying environmental geography and Trudeau's personal respect for nature as well as his condemnation of the destruction of environmental protections lead me to believe that he would restore and improve on environmental protection. Dion will be his right hand man on it but this time he will have support partly due to greatly increased support for environmental protection within the general public. This is another issue connected to being on the right side of history. Throughout the world governments are acting on climate change. Canada used to be a leader. It's very clever to tie pipelines to social licence because it is getting increasingly difficult for companies to get. Energy East opposition built-up fast and if a government is unwilling to violently force communities to comply the pipelines will be stopped
The brain trust matters in all areas because they know the pitfalls of federal power. Liberal history gives them the credibility to run a deficit whereas a minority NDP would have to begin by building credibility. I think in practice the NDP would not be able to do more than the Liberals will do if elected therefore being ideologically more progressive won't make any practical difference. I don't want to deal with that argument in this thread because it would need a thread of it's own but that is an aspect of my rationale. I acknowledge it is an unsupported opinion.
Sun, 2014-08-24 18:30
#33
Essentially you have framed much of what I said in a more positive way for the Liberal party without contradicting much of it. These are perspectives and priorities.
Moderation is not itself an ideology. I'll let you consider what that means. It may mean different things to each of us but calling it an ideaology is to miss the point. You can apply any ideology with or without moderation.
Let's agree to disagree when it comes to social justice and social programs. You see it as a value to the whole and not an obligation to all persons. But this is not a universal vision. It is what makes you a Liberal. A conservative views it as somethign to be minimized as with all aspects of governance to allow the wealthy to create more wealth. The Liberal has some vision of the functioning of the system in a general compassionate way (that's where the notion of gift comes). A social democrat considers that a society has an obligation to each member of that society to provide a context of social justice. While you look at entitlement in a negative way (something that conservatives would agree with you on) I consider that there are things that all members of our society are entitled to. I won't try to convince you because my vision and yours are political perspectives. But try to understand that your perspective is not universal any more than mine is. You may also want to try to understand why I would try to convince those who have the same perspective as I do not to cast a vote for the Liberal party given that the Liberals may speak a little better about some of our priorities than might the Conservatives but they lack the foundational perspective that would create the kind of committment to those priorities that the NDP has. The Liberals as you have correctly pointed out feel no obligation to all Canadians. They simply have the desire to have the system operate as a whole better. I can respect your position but I won't agree with it. I will also encourage voters to be informed of the differences.
And we agree that the Liberals are not a social movement -- but the NDP is and it has key objectives to that movement even if the means may change as well as the level of quality of the progress and in fact how much moderation is applied. When you consider the objectives of all parties, I would argue that the NDP is the most moderate of all-- compromising a great deal in order to settle for some progress. The Liberals may look more moderate but that is only true becuase their objectives are different.
One problem with Liberals is they don't recognize where the NDP is coming from. They pretend they are on the same road and keep appealling to NDP supporters claiming the Liberals are a more moderate version of themselves but none of that is true. This is not to say the Liberal road and approach to government is not legitimate but Liberals could admit that it is more than a question of moderation it is even more than a question of direction. It is a fundemental difference in understanding of the map itself.
New Democrats often hate Liberals not becuase they are worse than Conservatives but becuase the Liberals refuse to acknowlege that they are fundamentally different from New Democrats. They have a view of soceity that is as different from New Democrats as the Conservative vision is from their own. I challenge fellow New Democrats who try to return the favour by claiming the Conservatives and the Liberals are the same. There are three very different visions.
Sun, 2014-08-24 19:05
#34
Trudeau traveled extensively with his father and listened to shop talk all his formative years. He knows he is the boss. He won the leadership with 80% support and reversed the party's fortunes electorally and financially.
As if anybody with the last name "Trudeau" would have ever had a tough time winning the leadership of the Liberal Party.
Countries with national daycare are more productive because more people are in the workforce.
And after 12 years of Liberal rule, we moved no closer to national daycare than we were before, and I don't think the public is going to buy it this time. If Trudeau mentions national daycare, I think it will end up helping the NDP, because Mulcair would not only say, "let's do what Quebec is doing across the country," he could also say, "look what the NDP government in Manitoba has done with its child care program."
Harper has done enormous damage to the fabric of Canada. Justin Trudeau sees that. It is why he decided to run in 2015 rather than wait for 2019. Under Chretien/ Martin the environment was a low priority so despite Dion's best efforts Kyoto failed in Canada. A year studying environmental geography and Trudeau's personal respect for nature as well as his condemnation of the destruction of environmental protections lead me to believe that he would restore and improve on environmental protection.
The Bush family in the US also enjoyed nature, particularly at their family resting places of Kennebunkport Maine, and Crawford Texas. I guess by that logic the Bush family could also be trusted to protect the environment?
Sun, 2014-08-24 19:24
#35
Pondering writes:
"Trudeau will be getting plenty of air time including unscripted interviews to thoroughly discredit any notion that he is lacking in intelligence or controlled by a backroom cabal."
I am trying to remember when Justin last subjected himself to an "unscripted interview" and can't think of any interview since he made the comment that Putin might invade Ukraine because Russia did not win the Olympics. When was that? February?
I see plenty of baby tossing and photo ops but not many interviews where he might have to think on his feet.
Sun, 2014-08-24 19:53
#36
As if anybody with the last name "Trudeau" would have ever had a tough time winning the leadership of the Liberal Party.That doesn't negate my point that Trudeau holds the reins of power and ultimately makes the decisions not some invisible "handlers" with a nefarious agenda.
And after 12 years of Liberal rule, we moved no closer to national daycare than we were before, and I don't think the public is going to buy it this time.
I think most people believe that the Daycare bill would have passed had the government not fallen. Harper might even confirm it to point out that "the Liberal party hasn't changed". If he does bring it up I think it might be in the context of starting from scratch with a team to study it and present findings to the House. I don't believe the public will care about 12 years ago. I could be wrong and if I am it will hurt him because a national daycare program is bound to come up. He may say it's a goal but he has to see the books first and then see what Canadians think.
The Bush family in the US also enjoyed nature, particularly at their family resting places of Kennebunkport Maine, and Crawford Texas. I guess by that logic the Bush family could also be trusted to protect the environment?
But they had no interest in environmental geography and the Trudeau family are not tea party types and they use our national parks not private estates. Go ahead and try to convince Canadians that Trudeau cares as little for the environment as Bush does, or that Mulcair cares more. They have both approved pipelines and EE poses a greater threat to the Canadian environment than Keystone does. Mulcair chose labour over environmentalists.
Sun, 2014-08-24 19:56
#37
2. As for Justin Trudeau, not everyone has to like him, and that's fine, but what I object to are some of the more outlandish attempts to distort him.
Maybe you could break with tradition and give us some examples.
If he had run in a more wealthy Montreal riding, he would have been accused of just wanting to represent the wealthy, or of being handed a safe seat if he had asked for Mount Royal. So he can't win either way with his critics.
As usual, making up positions that nobody has taken and then decrying the unfairness of them. No matter where he ran, the criticism would have been the same. That he was a political neophyte cashing in on his famous father's name.
Instead, unlike his father who had a much safer entry into politics in Mount Royal, Trudeau ran in a competitive riding against a BQ MP. He was not handed a safe seat like Stéphane Dion or Michael Ignatieff. He had to win the riding largely on his own with his own team since he didn't get much help from Liberal HQ. And he was not given special privileges for being Pierre Trudeau's son.
You are demented. Nobody thought he would lose. In every election he has been in, he was the heavy favourite to win, based just on his famous heritage, and never on any skills or accomplishments of his own. How could it have been? He had, and still has, none of those things.
He was not put on the Liberal front bench when he got elected, he was put in the back with the rest of the junior MP's.
Why in god's name would anyone have put him on the front bench? He had no experience or accomplishments in any political arena. He still doesn't. When Trudeau entered the Liberal party, it was as a famous intellectual wih a list of accomplishments as long as my arm. There is no comparison.
More importantly, many ambitious MP's have suffered the same fate of being put on the back benches. There's only so much room in the front, no matter how much talent your line up has. The difference is that the hard workers who are passionate about what they do managed to distinguish themselves regardless and move forward. Justin just warmed the seat, and not very often at that. Just like before he was elected, he showed no real interest in politics beyond the ego gratification of campaigning.
And unlike his dad who became PM when he won the Liberal leadership, Trudeau has had to do the hard work of taking over a party that was in 3rd place.
You have this backwards. It was far more difficult for an interloper like Trudeau to take over the most successful political party in Canada while they were riding high and actually in government. Obviously the competition to step straight into the PM's chair was intense, and the fact that he was able to come out on top is a really remarkable testament to the force of his personality and the depth of his intellect and political acumen. It's an extraordinary story and shows clearly what an extraordinary person he was.
By comparison, it was far easier for Justin to scoop up the Liberal leadership after a number of disappointing elections culminating in a total collapse and the worst result in Liberal history. He had no real competition for the job. It was dropped in his lap by virtue of the fact that the Liberal party had sunk so low that Justin was the only Liberal that the public could recognise anymore. Again, only because of his famous dad.
Incidentally, his younger brother was killed in an avalanche & his mother has had health challenges over the years, so his life hasn't been that of some rich, spoiled prince from a Disney fairytale. Sure he has had some fortunate opportunities in life as a result of being Pierre Trudeau's son, and he admitted that last year in the Liberal leadership. But he's also had some moments of tragedy in his life like any other mortal Canadian.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. His qualifications for Prime Minister have nothing to do with this, and yet this is the kind of sappy human interest angle that keeps getting hammered where Justin is concerned because his boosters have nothing else to talk about. They strive to make Justin "likable" and "relatable" because that's literally all he has going for him. But sadly, holding the highest political office in the land is not equivalent to being a talk show host. The qualifications for filling Oprah's shoes are just being charming and popular. Prime Minister is an actual job. A very difficult one that requires a specialised set of skills that Justin has never troubled himself to learn. It can't be taught in a few years. It takes a lifetime of public service and dogged dedication. Justin has none of this. He has nothing at all that would prepare him to actually do the job that he laughably is applying for.
It's been a huge embarrassment to have Harper for our political leader all this time, but only because he is so out of touch with the real character of Canadians. Despite how much I despise him, nobody could say he isn't qualified or that he hasn't spent his whole life devoted to politics. If Justin really does become PM, it will even more of an embarrassment. It would be the same as giving it to Ben Mulroney.
Sun, 2014-08-24 20:21
#38
I have read many times from Trudeau's fans what a great political feat is was for him to win Papineau.
I have therefore looked up the elctoral history of that riding to put this claim in perspective:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/FederalRidingsHistory/hfer.asp?La...
Since 1949 when it was created the Liberals have lost the riding precisely twice. Once was in 1949 when Camillien Houde, the mayor of Montreal, running as an independent eked out a 100 vote lead over the Liberals. The other time was 2006 when Vivien Barbot won it for the Bloq by about 2%.
Trudeau won it in the next election, increasing the Liberal votes by 3%, pecisely the same as the Liberal increase in the popular vote throughout Quebec.
In 2011 Trudeau held on to Paineau but his vote fell by 3% to 38.4%. That incidentally is the lowest percentage ever attained by a Liberal candidate in Paineuau.
Had the popular Barbot not maintained about a quater of the vote Trudeau may well have fallen to the orange crush.
Sun, 2014-08-24 20:42
#39
And after 12 years of Liberal rule, we moved no closer to national daycare than we were before, and I don't think the public is going to buy it this time.I think most people believe that the Daycare bill would have passed had the government not fallen. Harper might even confirm it to point out that "the Liberal party hasn't changed".
Only Liberal partisans are still blaming the fall of the government for the fact that we don't have national child care. And frankly, given how slow the feds have been acting on the child care file, and seeing the progress made here in Manitoba, why wait for a national child care program anyways? I'd be quite happy to see Manitoba join Quebec and PEI to continue building a great child care system without any help from the feds.
He may say it's a goal but he has to see the books first and then see what Canadians think.
In other words, plenty of room to say, "sorry guys, but the books are worse than we thought, so no national day care program for you."
The Bush family in the US also enjoyed nature, particularly at their family resting places of Kennebunkport Maine, and Crawford Texas. I guess by that logic the Bush family could also be trusted to protect the environment?But they had no interest in environmental geography and the Trudeau family are not tea party types and they use our national parks not private estates. Go ahead and try to convince Canadians that Trudeau cares as little for the environment as Bush does
You're the one who brought up the idea that Trudeau cares for the environment on the basis that he spends a great deal of time outdoors, and now you're changing the terms of the arguments. Whether it's national, state, or provincial parks or private estates, I'm sure lots of politicians and businessmen on both sides of the border enjoy spending time outdoors and in nature. That's completely separate from the impact their policies have when they make the key decisions in government and corporate offices.
Sun, 2014-08-24 21:22
#40
Yes, Papineau was well known as a safe Liberal riding. Barbot was a very good MP, very attentive to the needs of people in her riding. (I'm familiar with this not for ideological reasons - I have never voted either for the Bloc or the Libs, though I probably would have voted for Osvaldo Nuñez) but because I have worked for popular associations in the riding.
Marcel Prud'homme was the MP for the riding (then Saint-Denis) for many years. He was a relatively progressive Liberal, and a staunch defender of the Palestinian cause, which resulted in meetings with trade unionists and groupe populaire activists (like me) though we had no use whatsoever for the Liberal Party!
wikipedia:
For most of his career, however, Prud'homme was a backbencher. He was particularly outspoken in his support for Palestinian causes and in his opposition to Zionism and this may have hindered the prospects of his serving in the Canadian Cabinet.[citation needed] In 1989, while in Opposition, he became the Liberal Party's Critic for Arms Control and Disarmament. In 1992, he became Chair of the Quebec Liberal Caucus. On July 1, 1992, Prud'homme was appointed to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada in honour of his long service as a parliamentarian.
Sun, 2014-08-24 22:37
#41
You're the one who brought up the idea that Trudeau cares for the environment on the basis that he spends a great deal of time outdoors, and now you're changing the terms of the arguments. Whether it's national, state, or provincial parks or private estates, I'm sure lots of politicians and businessmen on both sides of the border enjoy spending time outdoors and in nature. That's completely separate from the impact their policies have when they make the key decisions in government and corporate offices.
Trudeau has denounced the muzzling of scientists and the defunding of experimental lakes and Harper's rewrite of the laws regarding waterways. His sincerity is being attacked so I have pointed out that outside of politics there is evidence that he does care about the environment and appreciates it on a personal level.
post 35
I am trying to remember when Justin last subjected himself to an "unscripted interview" and can't think of any interview since he made the comment that Putin might invade Ukraine because Russia did not win the Olympics.
Justin Trudeau on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight: INTERVIEW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf67fcjAKF0
Winnipeg Free Press
Justin Trudeau Free Press interview full highlights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMNCwU4DKbo
Mental health
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf67fcjAKF0
In the last one he speaks of mental health and states that he has accessed therapy for dealing with issues. That is near the end of the video.
Justin Trudeau is a man of moral courage.
ps spam filter doesn't like links so cut and paste.
Sun, 2014-08-24 23:44
#42
can someone tell me Trudeau's opinion on welfare and social assistance like the ODSP?
Mon, 2014-08-25 00:05
#43
He would never have had to express one as a federal politician.
If he ever expressed an opinion either way it would have been news.
It is inconceivable that he would be opposed to social assistance.
Mon, 2014-08-25 17:02
#44
I have read many times from Trudeau's fans what a great political feat is was for him to win Papineau.
I have therefore looked up the elctoral history of that riding to put this claim in perspective:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/FederalRidingsHistory/hfer.asp?La...
Since 1949 when it was created the Liberals have lost the riding precisely twice. Once was in 1949 when Camillien Houde, the mayor of Montreal, running as an independent eked out a 100 vote lead over the Liberals. The other time was 2006 when Vivien Barbot won it for the Bloq by about 2%.
Trudeau won it in the next election, increasing the Liberal votes by 3%, pecisely the same as the Liberal increase in the popular vote throughout Quebec.
In 2011 Trudeau held on to Paineau but his vote fell by 3% to 38.4%. That incidentally is the lowest percentage ever attained by a Liberal candidate in Paineuau.
Had the popular Barbot not maintained about a quater of the vote Trudeau may well have fallen to the orange crush.
You dislike Trudeau so you try to demean any accomplishment by him and try to deny the hard work he has done since his entry into politics.
Papineau used to be a safe Liberal riding, yes. But it no longer was by the time Trudeau ran there. That's the point. He wasn't handed a safe seat that was still voting Liberal by huge margins like Garneau was given in Westmount. In 2004, Pettigrew nearly lost Papineau. In 2006 he ended up losing the seat completely. So in 2008, when Trudeau ran, it was a BQ seat. Papineau has not been a safe seat since 2000. You can see that in your own link when you look at the riding numbers since 2000.
Despite that, Trudeau was the only person in Quebec in 2008 to defeat an incumbent BQ MP (except for the narrow re-count win by Alexandra Mendes in Brossard-La Prairie). That was as a result of hard work of actually going door to door and meeting voters -- not just sitting at home and taking the riding for granted like other Liberal MP's had done.
In 2011, he was able to win the riding again, despite it being the worst election for the Liberals IN HISTORY. Many big names fell that night, including BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe, and many Liberals with safer seats than Justin on West Island (Pierrefonds-Dollard, NDG-Lachine, etc) lost their seats. So that is an accomplishment. He ended up winning by 10 points instead of 3, even if his popular vote went down slightly. You didn't mention any of that in your analysis.
Sun, 2014-08-31 17:06
#45
I wouldn't be too harsh on Trudeau, after all the Liberals are ahead of the Bloc in fund-raising in Quebec.
Sat, 2014-09-13 22:33
#46
I've noticed this article cited triumphantly in a few spots but I think it's really lame so I pretty much ignored it.
It was placed in the Liberal nominees topic so I transported it here for discussion.
Have the Liberals annointed another dud to lead them? Time will tell.
Mulcair says Trudeau not ready to govern
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/09/11/mulcair-steps-up-attacks-on-...
Mulcair:
"They won't tell us what they'll do but they think it's reassuring to tell us that their guy's getting ready," "Yeah, right. Getting ready for what? I'm sorry, prime minister just isn't an entry-level job."
Trudeau's response:
As for the "getting ready to lead" tag line in the last Liberal ad, Trudeau said it was aimed at being honest with Canadians rather than employing "clever attacks" on opponents. It reflected the fact that Liberals are in the process of building a team and a plan, which he said will be ready in time for the next campaign.
Trudeau sounds serious and everyone who's paying any attention knows he is building a powerful team.
Mulcair sounds like Harper. Empty sloganeering not meaningful communication.
Mulcair: "After nine long years of Conservative policies, Canadians just can't afford to wait for someone who's getting ready to take on Stephen Harper," "We're taking on Stephen Harper and his policies right now. The NDP is ready to form a truly progressive government right now."
The Liberal party is ready to form government and there will be no convincing Canadians otherwise. Trudeau will have experienced cabinet ministers and experts in every field and every PM starts out with zero experience being a PM. Values rank high with voters and they feel Justin Trudeau shares theirs.
The podium from which Mulcair spoke was plastered with a sign featuring the party's new slogan: "Change that's ready."
Lame. It increases Trudeau's stature that the NDP is all about him. If everyone is so focused on taking Trudeau down it must mean he's a serious threat.
So, NDP talking point number 1, same as the Conservatives, "Trudeau is inexperienced." Voters care more about values and the economy.
Talking point number 2.
But Mulcair insisted Thursday that there's little to separate the Liberals from the Conservatives. He accused both parties of overseeing a growing gap between rich and poor, of failing to deliver on promises to provide child-care spaces and of preferring to cut taxes for rich corporations rather than preserve funding for health care.
Ho hum, nothing new there. Second verse, same as the first. The daycare mention could remind voters of 2006, not a good idea, or it will simply be meaningless. This just reminds voters that the NDP is not a party of the center and it sounds like the same old rant of every election since the NDP was formed.
Indeed, Mulcair said Trudeau himself has "complacently" argued that Liberals and Conservatives have broadly shared the same values and agenda over the past 30 years.
Yawn, more empty rhetoric that voters will ignore.
The NDP is promising to roll out this fall — a full year ahead of the next scheduled campaign — detailed planks from their eventual platform, including plans for a national child-care program, a federal minimum wage and infrastructure investment. The aim is to further contrast Mulcair's substance with Trudeau's refusal to be nailed down on major policy before the campaign actually begins.
Everybody is doing infrastructure and mentioning daycare could easily remind people of 2006. Federal minimum wage sounds good until you realize it applies to almost no one.
This ploy will fall flat for multiple reasons. Nobody expects the platform until closer to the election. Trudeau was criticized about that for months after his leadership win and people realized the other parties didn't have platforms either. That Mulcair is throwing out a few predictable planks doesn't mean his platform is out. Don't expect a lot of excitement beyond some pundit articles which will probably be about where he intends to get the money.
Overall impression, Mulcair sounds pompous when he compares himself to Trudeau. His bragging about experience as a provincial cabinet minister does not make him seem better prepared, just old, like his chuckling oregano comments about "back in the day". That was when he was a young whippersnapper.
At this rate beating Mulcair is going to get easier not more difficult.
Sun, 2014-09-14 00:32
#47
The daycare mention could remind voters of 2006, not a good idea, or it will simply be meaningless.
Or it might remind voters that the Manitoba NDP have given pensions to childcare workers and has recently announced a plan to expand child care spaces here.
Seriously, the "we'll bring in national daycare" tripe floated by the Liberals is getting really tiresome, considering the amount of times they have promised and failed to deliver on it.
Sun, 2014-09-14 12:42
#48
The daycare mention could remind voters of 2006, not a good idea, or it will simply be meaningless.Or it might remind voters that the Manitoba NDP have given pensions to childcare workers and has recently announced a plan to expand child care spaces here.
Seriously, the "we'll bring in national daycare" tripe floated by the Liberals is getting really tiresome, considering the amount of times they have promised and failed to deliver on it.
It was so funny to see some Liberal MPs get all defensive on Twitter after the NDP childcare mention.
Sun, 2014-09-14 12:55
#49
Ho hum, nothing new there. Second verse, same as the first. The daycare mention could remind voters of 2006, not a good idea, or it will simply be meaningless. This just reminds voters that the NDP is not a party of the center and it sounds like the same old rant of every election since the NDP was formed.
Everybody is doing infrastructure and mentioning daycare could easily remind people of 2006. Federal minimum wage sounds good until you realize it applies to almost no one.
Okay, Pondering, let me get this straight. Mentioning childcare will just remind voters of the NDP's Great Betrayal and Dark Alliance with Harper and people are still so mad the NDP stopped the Liberals from bringing in childcare (which they were totally going to do, guys. They went ten years without doing anything and only moved on the file after they needed Layton's support to govern, but it was just around the corner! They only needed a few more months!) that they will reject the NDP. However, these same voters also think public childcare is a Marxist scheme and won't vote for any party that supports it becuase that is just too left-wing. Which is it?
Also, if someone was mad childcare got scrapped in 2006 wouldn't they vote for the only party that is promising to bring it in now?
Sun, 2014-09-14 14:13
#50
I discovered I was right before I even posted my opinion. This article appeared in the Star last Friday.You may disagree with Mr. Walkom's take on it but this is a very common memory of how things went down in 2005.
Those who don't remember that time will still know that the Liberals had a daycare deal worked out which will accomplish two things. First it will give credibility to any new Liberal daycare plan, second, it will remind people that Liberals have experience in government and the NDP does not.
This time, the New Democrats are making the pledge. Party leader Tom Mulcair announced this week that his party will create a national child care program if it forms government after next year’s federal election........There is a certain irony to this.
In 2005, it was then NDP leader Jack Layton’s decision to pull the plug on Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government that helped kill the closest thing Canada has ever had to a national child care system.
Martin too promised a cross-country program based on the Quebec model. During the final months of his struggling government, he even managed to get all 10 provinces onside with his $5 billion, five-year plan.
But then the NDP, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois joined forces to defeat the Liberals.
Harper won the subsequent election and immediately cancelled Martin’s scheme, putting in its place a cheaper, per-child subsidy for parents
Some child care advocates never forgave the NDP for its role in this.
An article I read before this from 2006 was even more illuminating but I will discuss other aspects elsewhere.
Fake Left, Go RightAn insider’s take on Jack Layton’s game of chance
Pasted from <http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/>
Inside the ndp, the move was divisive. By voting day, it had created a veritable chasm within the broader left community. The federal election “badly tested the relationship” between social movements and the ndp, wrote Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford in the Globe and Mail a few days after Harper’s victory. “ndp strategists precipitated the election, sensing a moment of opportunity to win more seats. But their decision was made over the explicit objection of many progressive movements. They had used the Liberals’ fragile minority position to extract impressive, important gains (child care, new legal protections for workers, the aboriginal deal, and others); they wanted to solidify those victories, and win new ones.” Leaders from these progressive constituencies “all wanted the election later, not sooner.”....
Party could win a majority government. Still smarting over Martin’s successful last-ditch appeal to ndp supporters to vote Liberal to stop Harper during the 2004 election campaign, Layton’s team was determined not to let history repeat itself. Polls indicated that ndp supporters were the most worried about a Conservative government and, the thinking went, many would vote strategically again in the event of a successful campaign to demonize Harper. So, as revealed by ndp press releases, campaign literature, and Layton’s speeches, to prevent erosion of ndp support the party concentrated its fire on the Liberals, only sporadically mentioning the Conservatives in its attacks. The most memorable ndp television advertisement depicted Canadians giving the corrupt Liberals the boot. These messages set the tone. Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, for one, told me that she felt pressure “not to critique Harper,” and that the top priority was “to win more seats for the ndp.” During the election, the Council was involved in the Think Twice coalition, made up of groups that came together to warn Canadians about Stephen Harper’s record. “If the ndp was not going to talk about Harper’s record,” Barlow said, “we felt we had to.”
I bet those progressives remember what happened even better than I do.
I was ready to drop it, never mention it as a factor in the election. I only went fact hunting and argued because I was told that I wasn't worth talking to and was being dishonest.
I was wrong to be ready to drop it and I am no longer willing to. Whether it upsets NDP supporters or not it is a factor in this election.
Sun, 2014-09-14 15:41
#51
Thomas Walkom is either lying or he's ignorant. The NDP did not have the seats to save the Martin govt. This isn't about political allegiance or ideology or "how I remembered it". It is a fact based on the seat counts in parliament.