And in the absence of any imminent national unity crisis, trying to manufacture one comes across as cynical. Especially in the context of a Liberal campaign that's fallen off the rails.
I realize spelling flames are not terribly popular - but typical is not spellt c-y-n-i-c-a-l, it is spelt t-y-p-i-c-a-l.
It's either "spelled" or "spelt". "Spellt" doesn't make the cut.
And in the absence of any imminent national unity crisis, trying to manufacture one comes across as cynical. Especially in the context of a Liberal campaign that's fallen off the rails.
I realize spelling flames are not terribly popular - but typical is not spellt c-y-n-i-c-a-l, it is spelt t-y-p-i-c-a-l.
It's either "spelled" or "spelt". "Spellt" doesn't make the cut.
Fair point. There's a grain of truth to what you're saying.
The Unity vs. Clarity Bill debate will likely get a lot of time from the Libs outside of Quebec, I'm guessing.
They can try...but seriously in the absence of any imminent national unity crisis and with a federalist majority government in Quebec with three years to go in its mandate - its hard to see people getting excited about that issue...seriously, try stopping 100 passerby on the streets of Toronto and if you are liucky maybe 1 will have even heard of the Clarity Act
I think the part that offends Canadians is the special treatment for Quebec in giving only them opt out priveleges, also, raising the issue of separation.
By now Canadians see though the Liberal's desperate attempts to stay relevant.
It will be attack ads such as the the very effective dismantling of Trudeau's readiness to lead meme ads by the Cons that can do the most damage.
I think the part that offends Canadians is the special treatment for Quebec in giving only them opt out priveleges, also, raising the issue of separation.
If Canadians are offended by international law and human rights, they can go fuck themselves. If they know how.
A new 3rd party group called HarpePAC, which is connected to the Conservatives, has launched a Youtube ad against the NDP in BC. In the ad, the narrator claims that the BC NDP governments in the 90s ran BC's economy into the ground and only governed on behalf of the unions. The narrator concludes by saying he doesn't want this repeated at the national level. I've seen the ad at least 3 times over the past week.
Hopefully this attack against the NDP in BC won't stick.
Bruce Anderson wrote an article about HarperPAC, which appeared a couple of days ago in the Globe and Mail.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-supporters-form-poli... supporters form HarperPAC advertising unit to target election rivals[/url]
Supporters of Stephen Harper have formed a political-advertising unit separate from the Conservative Party that will run attack ads, targeting Facebook, Google and Twitter users, to help the Tory re-election effort as a federal ballot approaches.HarperPAC has already produced a spot alleging Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is unqualified to be prime minister and its next project is an ad, aimed at British Columbia voters, that will warn against electing a federal NDP government.
Spokesman Stephen Taylor said HarperPAC doesn’t take direction from Conservative Party national campaign manager Jenni Byrne but it has chosen on its own to focus on B.C., where polls suggest NDP fortunes are rising.
The first shots at the NDP are coming from a group called Working Families (which sounds like a group promoting child labour with a name like that), out in BC, attacking the NDP for its Union Connections.
Shits getting uglier, and this is just only the beginning, who knows how many of these PACs are coming out on behalf of all the Parties, and even.from various.interest groups who are unaligned.
[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tory-attack-ads-aimed-at-ndps-s... this 2012 attack?[/url] mulcairsndp.ca was so embarassingly bad that the Cons have taken it down for a page that just tries to get your contact details.
[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tory-attack-ads-aimed-at-ndps-s... this 2012 attack?[/url] mulcairsndp.ca was so embarassingly bad that the Cons have taken it down for a page that just tries to get your contact details.
Odd. The site http://www.mulcairsndp.ca now has a brief attack about the NDP's child care plan ("Thomas Mulcair announced the NDP would spend $5 billion creating a massive new national, bureaucratic, one-size-must-fit-all child care program") and then says this would be disastrous for Canadian families. Then it presents a petition: "Sign if you agree that parents — not governments — know best how to raise their kids". And there's a really pleasant picture of Mulcair with a big smile on a light background. Odd. If you're not paying close attention and just give it a quick glace, it'd be easy to mistake it for an NDP ad.
This is what the NDP can expect - actually it has already started and Harper took a shot at NDP at his presser today in Quebec
In response a great hockey analogy from the comment section:
Stephen says:June 25, 2015 at 8:10 am
Why do “they need to start doing it,” apart from the fact that it’s in the common interests of the two old-line parties to scare Canadians into believing no other choices exists but Liberal or Conservative?
Your identical marching orders to Team Red and Team Blue give the game away: they’re the same team wearing different colours, like a hockey team that wears darks at home and whites on the road.
Eating the NDP’s lunch in Quebec? Latest Forum poll has NDP at 36% in QC. Some lunch. Playing footsie? The NDP largely eliminated the BQ in the last election, as voters turned to a party that wants to make the federation work. When was the last time Team Red won 50+ seats in QC?
BOIE? Kangaroo Court. Real courts, on the other hand, are looking or have looked into the activities of Mac Harb, Mike Duffy, Dean del Mastro, etc. The list is not a short one.
Big Unions! Horrors! I seem to recall the leader of Team Red speaking about the importance of organized labour in the spring of this year. The Canadian Press reported (Joan Bryden!): “Trudeau has been making a concerted effort of late to woo support from the labour movement, which has traditionally been more aligned with the NDP.” Days later, however, he dispatched Dominic LeBlanc to criticize NDP support for unions. Pick a lane, Justin.
No, I’m afraid these are dogs that won’t hunt.
Do have a good summer, though.
I'm surprised it took Warren Kinsella this long to call for the attacks. He's usually ahead of the curve when it comes to aggressive, hardcore partisan, warroom politics. If he's pushing in that direction, it won't be long before the Libs and Cons come to the same conclusion.
That reply was really solid though. The union thing especially.
Warren is a hard core Chrétien Liberal not many of which are involved any more with the Liberals since Martin's power grab with his ugly putsch. Liberals have been divided for a long, long, time and C51 has divided them even more, and there may not be much left.
Basically for the Liberals it has always been about the Conservatives. The NDP growth has kinda crept up on them, and a lot of Liberals like Kinsella, have been blindsided by the Layton-Mulcair NDP push for government. Harper is more asute than that.
Having said that, although Butts and company have failed miserably so far, I don't underestimate Kinsella, as he successfully ran Chretien's war room, nor Harper, as he has managed to get elected and remain as PM for 9 long years.
It will be like walking through a minefield, but sure as shit, Harper will be attacking the NDP over "terrorism", and actually Harper even did a bit of that today.
It will be like walking through a minefield, but sure as shit, Harper will be attacking the NDP over "terrorism", and actually Harper even did a bit of that today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-says-justin-trudeau-wants...
That aligns with my understanding of the Conservative mind.
They attack the Liberals on things like leadership and corruption, because they can't say the Liberals are necessarily a radical party. Their economic policies are also really similar, and if the Conservatives are trying to cool it on issues like gays and abortion, they have no choice but to focus on "character" issues for the Liberals.
But the Conservatives would LOVE to have an all out "left-right" brawl. Because in their mind, left is radical, and they think that what they offer is closely aligned with what Canadians want. So they say "the NDP wants higher corporate taxes to pay for their huge child care scheme" as if it's a bad thing. Or "the NDP is against Bill C-51 which would protect us from terrorism", as if that's a credible thing to say.
But seeing as it worked in the last Ontario election, we will see a repeat of the right-wing to try and have a Cons-Libs right-wing race, so this is why we are seeing all this full court press of Liberals are the progressives nonsense. Rex Murphy in the National Post aludes to it today.
In this Liberal puff-piece in the Star, Trudeau puts forward some attacks on the NDP: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/25/justin-trudeau-faces-his-m... Interesting that in spite of it being a Star Liberal puff-piece, the article is almost apologetic in tone. It's almost like the Star itself can barely swallow the nonsense that they're spewing about boy-wonder.
Didn't the Toronto Star endorse the NDP last time, in the most nose-holding-est of sad endorsements?
Of concern Conservative MPs are quieting repaying their debts to to House of Commons
If the NDP is going to be attacking Senate finances what about their own debt
What's going on here as it looks like the NDP are going to take a hit with their own house of conmons financial mess
I recall that the Star endorsed strategic voting rather than endorsing the NDP.
Conservative MPs quietly pay off the debts to the House of Commons as Harper probably prepares for a massive attack on the NDP over this
NDP spots political landmine, decides to dance on it
http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/06/ndp-spots-political-landline-decides-t...
Conservative MPs quietly repay money to House administration
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/06/29/conservative-mps-quietly-r...
That definitely seems like a strategic move. It explains why the Conservatives have been hesitant to go after the NDP. They wanted to wash their hands first.
Regardless of the pros and cons, it's bad optics, and the NDP should just pay it off. It concerns me how much Harper gets underestimated because of the media's obsession with Trudeau.
Does paying it back preclude an appeal to a real court? If so I'd agree.
Do we seriously believe if the right-wing parties, Liberals and Conservatives, combined with the right-wing press in Canada, think that have something on the leading NDP that they are not going to milk it for all they can?
NDP battle with BOIE could hurt upcoming campaign
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/06/29/ndp-battle-with-boie-could...
Don't you get it, if the NDP lets the other parties steal money from them the other parties will use that as an admission of guilt and this won't go away, it will get 10 times fucking worse, the right wing parties will have spelt blood and they will unleash ads smearing the NDP, as it was even negiotating at all looks bad, no the NDP has to stay strong and fight this, it will be Harper and Trudeau who will wear this not Mulcair, but only if he stays strong on it. I know people here are uncomfortible, and to be honest its going to get worse, far worse if the NDP gives in, but we have to fight and endore this. Be strong.
It is not only doing what is correct, it is also the perception of doing what is right.
Where is the outcry about Conservative MPs paying back money?
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/06/29/conservative-mps-quietly-r...
I read the Macleans article and I didn't think it was bad at all. http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mulcairs-secret-meetings-with-the...
As a tactic if the Liberals and Tories hope this would make the NDP look bad, its an abject failure, it just makes Mulcair look way more in demand, it also emphasises his creditials, especially on the Quebec and Enviromental files, and it makes him more palitable to swing Tory-NDP voters.
And Soudas' story makes no sense, Tom gave up a $180,000 job because he wanted more money, in order to run for the NDP a Party has had no representation in Quebec, no history of influence in Quebec, polled around single digits in Quebec, in a race few even in the NDP thought he had any hope of winning, and in which case he'd make over $20,000 less then the $180,000 Soudas said he offered him, and likely $100,000's of dollars less then what the Private Sector offered him, because $180,000 wasn't another? Soudas is a fucking tool who doesn't lie very well, I mean at least make the offer sound plausible if your going to lie, I'm just insulted.
And it baffles me that the Harper and Trudeau believe this is anything, but good publicity for Mulcair. Next thing you know someone from the Libs and Tories will angerily accuse Mulcair of being Unsuited for being Prime Minister because he's far too talented and capable to waste as Prime Minister :-)
And so it continues:
Harper's people approached Mulcair and met with him article in Macleans brought to you by guess who?
But Mulcair never met with Soudas interesting and he didn't pursue due to principles.
There was one political party that was not named as the source of this stuff.
I think we know where this is coming from.
Totally. To swing voters who are wary of voting NDP, it makes Mulcair seem more mainstream and respectable.
I assume they believe it will drive NDP stalwarts away from the party, which might have some chance of working if things were going badly, but no long-suffering NDP supporter is going to jump ship now when the party is at an all-time high.
This only supports my contention that Mulcair's opponents are frustrated because they can't figure out a successful angle of attack against him.
Which party is Soudas with now?
Liberals think they going to con the voters making themselves look more left wing than the NDP just like they did in the Ontario election
The bullshit worked there so why wouldn't it work federally as well, eh!
That's interesting. I recall a National Post story that speculated that the Cons would use Mulcair's past flirtations with various different job offers (including being a Con staffer) as attack ads. Yet it is true that Soudas is with the Libs now. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. I doubt the Cons would attack Mulcair for showing a brief interest in working for them (would be counter-intuitive). But it could work for the Libs. IE, sinister deep voice: "Mulcair, the only change he believes in is more money for himself" [shot of gold coins falling slowly interspersed over Mulcair's maniacally smiling face]; print: "Mulcair applies to work with Harper's Conservatives, but leaves feeling their payment of $180,000 isn't enough. Two sides of the same coin, Mulcair and Harper."
I'm guessing the Libs would really have to be in the dumpster to try something like this, though. It would be similar to the desperation of the "soldiers on the street" ad, or the "two sides of the same coin" ad with Layton and Harper (a truly laughable ad, that one was).
I guess Mulcair wasn't familiar with federal politics at the time...
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mulcairs-secret-meetings-with-the...
The Conservative government’s environmental stance was well-known in 2007. As leader of a minority government—the Conservatives first assumed office in February 2006—Harper had already distanced his government from the country’s commitments to the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aiming to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions....
According to sources, Mulcair contacted senior Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) staff to request a meeting with Harper in early 2007. Brodie briefed the Prime Minister and had several of the initial conversations with Mulcair. Brodie passed the file to Harper’s press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, who was tasked with negotiating Mulcair’s title and salary.
“All had been agreed upon. He would be a senior adviser to the Prime Minister on the Environment, and would run for us in the next election. Everything was pretty much agreed to,” Soudas said Monday. The Prime Minister was briefed on these negotiations, Soudas adds.....
The sticking point, Soudas says, was salary. Soudas says he was authorized to go up to $180,000 a year without getting prior authorization from Harper. “He told me he wanted $300,000 a year and that was his bottom line and, basically, I got back to him, saying I couldn’t go higher that $180,000, and I never heard back from him ever again. Two or three months later, he made the jump to the NDP,” Soudas, who has since left the Conservatives, tells Maclean’s.....
Mulcair denies negotiating with Soudas. “I absolutely never spoke with Mr. Soudas at the time,” he says. “I had no intention of running for the Conservatives.
Odd.
+
Odd that Soudas is inferring Mulcair negotiated with him when he did nothing of the kind.
What is Soudas' reputation again?
But Andrew Coyne has a better story to tell in the National Post about something that pertains to now.
Odd.
I don't think it's odd at all. Bear in mind that Mulcair saw how little the federal Liberals did to meet the Kyoto protocol (they did absolutely nothing). The Conservatives in fact have done more on the environment file than the Liberals ever did. That said, in hindsight it's obvious that the Conservatives and Mulcair could never have come to an agreement. But at the time it was at least remotely plausible that there might be a little room for agreement.
Also, the NDP were not a force at this time, and there was no other federalist player around. That he chose to go with the NDP given how obscure a force they were (and given that he was in demand elsewhere) speaks volumes, I feel.
There's nothing absurd that a New Democrat or a Liberal would hear out an offer from the Conservatives. Politics are multidimensional. Gary Doer signed on as ambassador, because he agreed with the Conservatives on energy and trade, even if he had disagreements on labor issues or health care. (That wouldn't be his job.)
I consider Gary Doer's work as U.S. ambassador to be a disappointment. But it's not exactly some sort of smoking gun proving that he was a Conservative all along. He's a New Democrat that disagreed with the Federal party on energy, as a few Western New Democrats have.
I'm sure the Conservatives sincerely thought that they could find some area of overlap with Mulcair. After all, Conservatives were willing to consider a cap and trade system at one point. But of course, they weren't serious about it, and I'm sure talks broke down very quickly.
The fact that Conservatives tried to recruit him kind of makes it silly for them to attack the NDP as "too extreme". If he's so extreme, why treat him as a credible senior level official?
Odd.I don't think it's odd at all. Bear in mind that Mulcair saw how little the federal Liberals did to meet the Kyoto protocol (they did absolutely nothing). The Conservatives in fact have done more on the environment file than the Liberals ever did. That said, in hindsight it's obvious that the Conservatives and Mulcair could never have come to an agreement. But at the time it was at least remotely plausible that there might be a little room for agreement.
Also, the NDP were not a force at this time, and there was no other federalist player around. That he chose to go with the NDP given how obscure a force they were (and given that he was in demand elsewhere) speaks volumes, I feel.
That's a good point and the best I think. I actually don't have a problem with the notion of career politicians. It is a career and I believe that people can want to serve their community, province or country in whatever capacity possible. On the other hand, Macleans does say that Harper was known for being against the Kyoto Accord from 2006 so Mulcair must have been familiar with that. Harper's reform background was well known. I find it difficult to believe he thought the Harper government would attempt to meet the Kyoto Accord or even work towards it. He knew who he was bargaining with. It doesn't mean money was the determining factor. No crime in considering options. I just don't think he is hardcore NDP.
I even heard Mulcair was a member of the Quebec Liberal party. Can anyone confirm?
Odd.I don't think it's odd at all. Bear in mind that Mulcair saw how little the federal Liberals did to meet the Kyoto protocol (they did absolutely nothing). The Conservatives in fact have done more on the environment file than the Liberals ever did. That said, in hindsight it's obvious that the Conservatives and Mulcair could never have come to an agreement. But at the time it was at least remotely plausible that there might be a little room for agreement.
Also, the NDP were not a force at this time, and there was no other federalist player around. That he chose to go with the NDP given how obscure a force they were (and given that he was in demand elsewhere) speaks volumes, I feel.
That's a good point and the best I think. I actually don't have a problem with the notion of career politicians. It is a career and I believe that people can want to serve their community, province or country in whatever capacity possible. On the other hand, Macleans does say that Harper was known for being against the Kyoto Accord from 2006 so Mulcair must have been familiar with that. Harper's reform background was well known. I find it difficult to believe he thought the Harper government would attempt to meet the Kyoto Accord or even work towards it. He knew who he was bargaining with. It doesn't mean money was the determining factor. No crime in considering options. I just don't think he is hardcore NDP.
It may be frustrating but it is more useful to be heard by people who do not have the same opinion as you than those who already do.
Arguably, Mulcair could have done more good if he could move the Conservatives even a little than advising a government that already agreed with him.
You are taking a black and whit position ehre that makes no sense. The Conservatives dumped Kyoto and said they were going to come up with their own plan. Then they reached out to Mulcair. He investigated whether he might be able to influence them at all. He found that he could not. The rest is history and much of that history is very obviously bullshit.
At the time the Conservatives were sayign they were going to create a made in Canada environmental policy. That policy was against Kyoto but it was not clear where it was going or if that direction was completely non-negotiable. The fact they were even tlaking to Mulcair suggests some possibility.
It may well be that both sides realized how impossible this was as they discussed their views. It would have reflected badly on any environmentalist who would have refused to talk to a sitting government and try to persuade them to do better.
I am sure if Suzuki had been invited to meet with them he wold have gone as well. Not becuase he is a closet Conservative but becuase he would not give up a chance to try to improve the direction of the country.
Mulcair seeing what the CPC had to say indicates a loyalty to his country and to the environment.
A new 3rd party group called HarpePAC, which is connected to the Conservatives, has launched a Youtube ad against the NDP in BC. In the ad, the narrator claims that the BC NDP governments in the 90s ran BC's economy into the ground and only governed on behalf of the unions. The narrator concludes by saying he doesn't want this repeated at the national level. I've seen the ad at least 3 times over the past week.
Hopefully this attack against the NDP in BC won't stick.
I saw the ad in questiion again, and it's actually by a group called [url=http://www.workingcanadians.ca/]Working Canadians[/url]. They're a virulently anti-union 3rd party group that is supporting the Conservatives. Their slogan on their homepge is "FIGHT BACK AGAINST UNION BOSSES".
The ads on their site are all attacking Trudeau, though the anti-NDP ad they've been running in BC clearly has their name at the end.
A blog called Pushed to the left and loving it has posted on FB -
"The NDP and Conservatives have got together to make it look as though the MacLean's story was a Liberal idea. How ridiculous.
i'm preparing a timeline of Mulcair's history with the Quebec legislature that paints an entirely different picture of the person they called "the angry man". Still looking for some of that "principle" but so far only hissy fits. I don't blame him not wanting to be a potted plant for Harper but they would never have gotten along. Too much alike. They don't call Mulcair "Harper with a beard" for nothing."
A lot of followers. I find that last statement to be just despicable.
"hissy fit" and they're Liberals saying this?
so much for non-sexist.
Article in Globe: Thomas Mulcair proves a tricky target for attack ads.
Great article, Mark.
Full disclosure: Mulcair wasn't my preferred candidate for leadership. While he's not the "New Labour" charicature that some angry people were using, he was still basically just offering to continue the policies from Jack Layton in 2011, which wasn't good enough for me. Neither Layton nor Mulcair were willing to raise personal income taxes to help invest in Canada.
Funny enough, the news reported Mulcair as this reforming moderate anyway.
And then, 3 years later, the media was saying that Mulcair lied about being a moderate. That Mulcair was sucking up to unions, refusing to unequivocally back corporate trade deals, not willing to do every boneheaded thing to stop the darn terrorists.
The Conservatives and Liberals piled on as usual. The NDP is "too radical".
And then someone had the dumb idea of bringing up Mulcair's conversations with all three Federal parties. The NDP base already figured that out three years ago, and it's already been factored into our voting decisions. But for everyone else, it just undermined the attacks. If this guy is so radical, why would he so much as answer the phone from the other parties?
Briefly this week, Liberals got excited about the surfacing of an old video in which Thomas Mulcair sings the praises of Margaret Thatcher. What could better undermine the NDP Leader’s progressive credentials than footage of him enthusing about the wonders of the free market and the horrors of interventionism?Within a couple of days, even some members of Justin Trudeau’s party were quietly conceding it was not exactly a major blow to Mr. Mulcair’s election prospects. Among Canadians considering voting NDP for the first time, but still worried it’s too dogmatically left-wing, the clip might actually help him.
The NDP's policies haven't changed for almost a decade now. Every MP, including Mulcair, is promising child care, a federal minimum wage, electoral reform, a nation-to-nation approach to aboriginals, and carbon trading.
If the old boys club wants to make that seem moderate... then that means politics have taken a sharp turn back to the left. That would be amazing.
Hey socialdemocraticmiddle, it's the same for me. Mulcair was not my first choice. I was backing Topp. But, after the leadership I was slowly won over when I saw how well Mulcair was attacking Harper, advocating for child care, etc. And yeah, so far the Lib attacks on him not being progressive have backfired. The base has accepted him, and thus the attacks only serve to reassure other people who may have doubts.
Hepburn doing his usual "NDP have lost their soul" dance.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/08/22/five-weak-spots-tha...
Well, seems both the Liberals and Conservatives have decided to take the gloves off (particularly the Conservatives). The attack from both is the NDP are making too many promises and cannot afford them.
Here's the Liberal one: http://www.liberal.ca/thomas-mulcairs-28-billion-hole/ Of interest is that it cites child care as an exorbitant promise that cannot be kept. Presumably, then, the Liberals have no intention of introducing a child care program. They claim there is a $28B hole (either over the mandate or annually -- I'm not sure). I couldn't find any further elaboration on the site, though.
The Conservative site is interesting. They list anything that the NDP has said over the years (with exaggerated totals) and dump it into a presumed commitment grab bag to justify their claim that the NDP is over-budget by $8B (a year, I think). Here's the site: http://www.conservative.ca/8-billion-hole-in-reckless-ndp-spending-plans/ And they have a Scribd document you can browse too. Very thorough, I'll give them credit. Still, like I said, it's a huge grab bag of every utterance from the NDP over the years. The likelihood of every single item listed being in the platform is zero.
Here's from the Conservative website:
Since becoming leader, Mulcair and his NDP team have promised impractical increases in EI spending, a massive government-run daycare scheme that would benefit only a small percentage of Canadian families, questionable investments in green energy, a massive social housing plan, and a $9 billion dollar increase in spending for foreign aid.
This is a clear contrast with the approach of Prime Minister Stephen Harper who has cut taxes for Canadian families while keeping our economy strong.
To me, it sounds great. About time we had a government that didn't neglect stuff.
