*
What does Ed Broadbent really think of Mulcair?
Wed, 2015-08-26 18:38
#1
What does Ed Broadbent really think of Mulcair?
Wed, 2015-08-26 18:40
#2
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/broadbent-questions-mulcair-s-vision-for...
Equality is a core value for the NDP and when social democrats see problems, they react with policies, he said.
Asked whether Mulcair understands what a social democratic party is all about, Broadbent said, "I don't know, that's what I don't know."
He said there is a perception that Mulcair wants to move the NDP toward the centre, a direction Broadbent said would be wrong and counterproductive. The NDP will win government by drawing more people away from the centre, he said.
Wed, 2015-08-26 18:59
#3
Well that was back in 2012. Alexandre Boulerice was also a Topp supporter.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:01
#4
http://www.ndp.ca/news/thomson-justin-trudeaus-inconsistency-economy-sho...
TORONTO- Justin Trudeau continues to show that he isn’t up to the job as he keeps contradicting himself on balancing the budget, said NDP candidate and former Saskatchewan finance minister Andrew Thomson (Eglinton Lawrence) today.
“We’ve had eight straight deficits under Stephen Harper and now Justin Trudeau is promising to run many more,” said Thomson. “The Conservative fiscal and economic policies have taken us into debt and recession. Liberal inconsistencies show that they don’t know how to fix Stephen Harper’s damage to our economy.”
Trudeau is under fire again today for his contradictions on deficits and fiscal responsibility. In January, he dodged questions on the issue. In February 2014, he said the budget will balance itself. In April, he said it would be balanced next year. Yesterday, he said he would not commit to balancing the budget. Today Trudeau was not able to say how many deficit budgets he plans to run.
“While Tom Mulcair has been clear that our first budget will be balanced, Justin Trudeau can’t make up his mind,” said Thomson.
Mulcair is doubling down on promising his first budget will be balanced no matter what.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/ndp-gov-t-wouldn-t-run-a-deficit...
NDP candidate Andrew Thomson, a former Saskatchewan finance minister, said on CBC that some cuts are "inevitable," which the Liberals pounced on as proof of an "austerity" agenda.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:06
#5
The Maggie video was successfully buried by the Mulcair campaign. Had it come out then, a good chance that Mulcair would not have won. He's no social democrat. At best, he's a Liberal. The NDP may end up coming in first in the election. But they would have sold their soul to do so..
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:13
#6
Yes, I think that video could have put Topp over the ... top, though hopefully to be interim before someone more "political" ... but committed to some form of social democracy. You don't have to be a flaming Leninist or even a Waffler to recognize that there are some basic questions of which side you are on... i.e. NOT union busting and strikebreaking. However, it is funny how the Bloc is using this here, considering Duceppe's bromance with contemporary union busting thug PKP.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:14
#7
The making of Mulcair: How the NDP leader became a contender
Broadbent said it looked like Mulcair’s idea of “modernizing” the party would mean it would simply “become another Liberal party.”
The tension could have divided the party. Mulcair knew it. So when he won the leadership he moved quickly, inviting Broadbent to lunch at the parliamentary dining room, where the pair would be seen by others. They had many more meals and phone conversations.
Broadbent was won over. “Those concerns, frankly, that I had are dead in the water now. If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have talked the way I did.”
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:17
#8
But in an interview with the National Observer, Broadbent said that Mulcair possesses "absolutely terrific skills" as a parliamentarian. “He is, I think, head and shoulders above anyone else in the House of Commons in being able to put accountable questioning to Mr. Harper. He zeros in on important issues.”
Broadbent said Mulcair’s ability in the House of Commons and his “overall intelligence” – not something to be under-estimated in a would-be prime minister – were well-known within Quebec, but have really only come to light in the rest of the country in the last nine months or so. “Canadians do see him as having the kinds of qualities that are necessary for a prime minister, the kind of intelligence,” Broadbent says.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:21
#9
alan smithee
The Maggie video was successfully buried by the Mulcair campaign. Had it come out then, a good chance that Mulcair would not have won. He's no social democrat. At best, he's a Liberal. The NDP may end up coming in first in the election. But they would have sold their soul to do so..
Mulcair is a Liberal. And the NDP,much like the PQ,have sold their principles for short term gain.
This is why I have always laughed at and argued with people attacking the LIberals as right wing and worse than Harper. 'Inevitable cuts' , Thatcher , Israel ,increased military spending.
The NDP are a long way from progressive.
It's sad but true. Realizing that I still support ABC. As 'right wing' the Liberals and NDP seem to be,we must remember that Harper is to the right of Atilla The Hun.
A socially and fiscally 'moderate' government is all we can hope for.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:24
#10
Misfit
And where's Judy Rebick to tank the campaign?
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:36
#11
The Maggie video was successfully buried by the Mulcair campaign. Had it come out then, a good chance that Mulcair would not have won.
That is absolute nonsense. Mulcair won because Topp was not a credible candidate. Topp's shortcomings as a candidate included never having held elected office while running for leadership of the second place party, his dishonest, manipulative, and underhanded conduct during his campaign, and painting himself as a left-wing crusader out to save the party from the horrible Blairites even though he served as an advisor to Romanow, who was one of the most openly Blairite Premiers the country had ever seen. It still amazes me that he made it to the final ballot over other people who had held elected office before.
I get the reasons that people have reservations about Mulcair, but the leadership race has been over for 3 years now. Next time the left wants to contest an NDP leadership race, they might want to think seriously about such things as the candidate's experience in public elections and matching the candidate's rhetoric against the candidate's record. And at least Mulcair has been fairly consistent in representing his beliefs while an NDP member from Outrement.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:46
#12
alan smithee
I just wish the NDP was a real socialist party. I wish they could have chosen Bernie Sanders to lead the party even if he is an American.
I'm not sold on Mulcair. I'd like to hear him explicitly outline the official NDP platform in regards to social issues,the economy,the military and on free speech.
So far he's been very vague. What does 'decriminalization' mean? What 'inevitable cuts' is he talking about? Why do we need to increase military spending? etc...
I'm turned off by the Thatcher accolades and his misguided decision to play by Harper's rules.
In short,I'd like Mulcair to prove he's a dipper.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:53
#13
I don't think Mulcair needs to prove anything to us, unless we are looking for a leader to tell us what to do, and expect all the work to be over on election night.
Perhaps my own expectations are a bit lower, but all I'd like is a government we stand a bit of a chance of influencing in the right direction.
I'm not scandalized about these "revelations" about what he did a decade ago as a liberal, or what other people did during a campaign, but neither do I have much interest in hand-wringing over moral and political purity when one looks at the alternative of five more years of helmet head,
They are all politicians, for heaven's sake. Surely none of us were born yesterday. To not be able to see past that to better and worse choices (and yeah, I know for some that is not voting) seems a bit naive to me.
Wed, 2015-08-26 19:59
#14
alan smithee
I don't think Mulcair needs to prove anything to us, unless we are looking for a leader to tell us what to do, and expect all the work to be over on election night.
Perhaps my own expectations are a bit lower, but all I'd like is a government we stand a bit of a chance of influencing in the right direction.
I'm not scandalized about these "revelations" about what he did a decade ago as a liberal, or what other people did during a campaign, but neither do I have much interest in hand-wringing over moral and political purity when one looks at the alternative of five more years of helmet head,
They are all politicians, for heaven's sake. Surely none of us were born yesterday. To not be able to see past that to better and worse choices (and yeah, I know for some that is not voting) seems a bit naive to me.
Praising Thatcher is/was not a progressive act. But I can look passed that if the platform conforms to a progressive agenda.
And I agree,5 more years of helmet head would be a catastrophe. Not voting plays right into Mussolini's hands,it's foolish.
Wed, 2015-08-26 20:00
#15
The Maggie video was successfully buried by the Mulcair campaign. Had it come out then, a good chance that Mulcair would not have won.That is absolute nonsense. Mulcair won because Topp was not a credible candidate. Topp's shortcomings as a candidate included never having held elected office while running for leadership of the second place party, his dishonest, manipulative, and underhanded conduct during his campaign, and painting himself as a left-wing crusader out to save the party from the horrible Blairites even though he served as an advisor to Romanow, who was one of the most openly Blairite Premiers the country had ever seen. It still amazes me that he made it to the final ballot over other people who had held elected office before.
I get the reasons that people have reservations about Mulcair, but the leadership race has been over for 3 years now. Next time the left wants to contest an NDP leadership race, they might want to think seriously about such things as the candidate's experience in public elections and matching the candidate's rhetoric against the candidate's record. And at least Mulcair has been fairly consistent in representing his beliefs while an NDP member from Outrement.
Topp is not the issue. There were better candidates who did, or should have, run. If anything, Topp hurt the left's chances. And obviously the campaign was not that great if they couldn't come up with the video that a Huffington Post reporter was able to unearth.
Wed, 2015-08-26 20:08
#16
Praising Thatcher is/was not a progressive act. But I can look passed that if the platform conforms to a progressive agenda.
Sure, though I am certain we are all guilty of non-progressive acts in the eyes of some others. One person - even the leader - does not make a party or the government.
I am quite prepared to be disappointed in some things an NDP government, should it happen. We are none of us perfect (well I am not, anyway) and that goes double for politics.
Wed, 2015-08-26 20:11
#17
I don't think Mulcair needs to prove anything to us, unless we are looking for a leader to tell us what to do, and expect all the work to be over on election night.
Perhaps my own expectations are a bit lower, but all I'd like is a government we stand a bit of a chance of influencing in the right direction.
I'm not scandalized about these "revelations" about what he did a decade ago as a liberal, or what other people did during a campaign, but neither do I have much interest in hand-wringing over moral and political purity when one looks at the alternative of five more years of helmet head,
They are all politicians, for heaven's sake. Surely none of us were born yesterday. To not be able to see past that to better and worse choices (and yeah, I know for some that is not voting) seems a bit naive to me.
Mulcair is promising his first budget will be balanced and that cuts will be inevidable. That is now not 10 years ago.
Wed, 2015-08-26 20:18
#18
I just wish the NDP was a real socialist party. I wish they could have chosen Bernie Sanders to lead the party even if he is an American.
I'm not sold on Mulcair. I'd like to hear him explicitly outline the official NDP platform in regards to social issues,the economy,the military and on free speech.
So far he's been very vague. What does 'decriminalization' mean? What 'inevitable cuts' is he talking about? Why do we need to increase military spending? etc...
I'm turned off by the Thatcher accolades and his misguided decision to play by Harper's rules.
In short,I'd like Mulcair to prove he's a dipper.
Sorry, but why would one wish that Mulcair prove himself a "dipper", if the NDP is not a real socialist party anyway? What would Mulcair be proving?
Wed, 2015-08-26 20:31
#19
I think "dipper" is the idealized version of "NDP member".
Wed, 2015-08-26 20:33
#20
alan smithee
I just wish the NDP was a real socialist party. I wish they could have chosen Bernie Sanders to lead the party even if he is an American.
I'm not sold on Mulcair. I'd like to hear him explicitly outline the official NDP platform in regards to social issues,the economy,the military and on free speech.
So far he's been very vague. What does 'decriminalization' mean? What 'inevitable cuts' is he talking about? Why do we need to increase military spending? etc...
I'm turned off by the Thatcher accolades and his misguided decision to play by Harper's rules.
In short,I'd like Mulcair to prove he's a dipper.
Sorry, but why would one wish that Mulcair prove himself a "dipper", if the NDP is not a real socialist party anyway? What would Mulcair be proving?
I think he should be distiguishable between a dipper,a Lib or a Con. Some of his comments and some of the promises made so far doesn't sound any different than the Liberals message.Some of it sounds Tory-ish.
I think he should stop being vague and start being explicit and not take my vote for granted.
Wed, 2015-08-26 21:01
#21
[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/448391/elections-federales-sant... lauded the merits of the free market[/url]
Wed, 2015-08-26 22:13
#22
Yeah, I share your concerns, Unionist. You too must be finding that these revelations are really eating away at NDP support in Quebec.
Oh.That's weird .....
Wed, 2015-08-26 22:48
#23
the differenece between the liberals and the NDP is our supporters.
Wed, 2015-08-26 23:17
#24
[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/448391/elections-federales-sant... lauded the merits of the free market[/url]
Some context would help. (I might also have missed something, since French is definitely a second language for me.) I watched and read the general neoliberal ideological comments about how the PLQ would free the market and lower taxes etc. And then he says that in the area of health insurance/coverage, the government needs to prioritze the public's health, and that he is going to vote in favour of a motion that was before the Assembly. But what was the motion? And what was the connection between the broader ideological statement and the topic of health care? Was he advocating in favour of a stronger role for the private sector in the area of health care specifically?
Wed, 2015-08-26 23:17
#25
dp
Wed, 2015-08-26 23:22
#26
the differenece between the liberals and the NDP is our supporters.
According to yesterday's Angus Reid poll, many people consider voting for either the NDP or LPC while far fewer voters consider voting for the CPC and either the NDP or LPC.
http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015.08.26_Fed_New.pdf
Wed, 2015-08-26 23:25
#27
The making of Mulcair: How the NDP leader became a contender
Broadbent said it looked like Mulcair’s idea of “modernizing” the party would mean it would simply “become another Liberal party.”
The tension could have divided the party. Mulcair knew it. So when he won the leadership he moved quickly, inviting Broadbent to lunch at the parliamentary dining room, where the pair would be seen by others. They had many more meals and phone conversations.
Broadbent was won over. “Those concerns, frankly, that I had are dead in the water now. If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have talked the way I did.”
Thanks. Interesting article.
Thu, 2015-08-27 03:12
#28
The making of Mulcair: How the NDP leader became a contender
Broadbent said it looked like Mulcair’s idea of “modernizing” the party would mean it would simply “become another Liberal party.”
The tension could have divided the party. Mulcair knew it. So when he won the leadership he moved quickly, inviting Broadbent to lunch at the parliamentary dining room, where the pair would be seen by others. They had many more meals and phone conversations.
Broadbent was won over. “Those concerns, frankly, that I had are dead in the water now. If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have talked the way I did.”
Thanks. Interesting article.
Indeed -- means this is not something that can be used. Broadbent could also come out and slap that down -- but it may not be good strategy to do so.
The budget issue is important as well. The NDP has the opportunity to move around priorities but if it does not promise a balanced budget it cannot get elected. There is a lot it can do in that context and there is no doubt that corporate taxes would have to go up and any Conservative policies that are not priotities will get scrapped. The NDP does not have an option to run a deficit in their first mandate, however (absent a global economy worse than currently expected). That said if the world economy went suddenly south in a way not currently projected, nobody would hold the NDP to this.
Ironically, the election of an NDP government might damage the dollar a little and that might provide some additional room for the NDP to rebuild a manufacturing capacity. There would only be a brief window to do this.
Some policies the NDP are promising are not particularly expensive -- childcare can boost the employment and help pay for itself. Pharmacare can reduce healthcare costs if brought in as well. First Nations investments in some cases are long term but they may not all be. The key will be the effectiveness and efficiency of these programs. Done badly and the NDP will not be able to pay for them -- done well and they will find that the programs deliver benefits to help pay for other initiatives. NDP priorities tend to be programs the NDP has long claimed can boost the economy or save the government money,
If the NDP gets a majority and a full mandate and is very careful this could work. A minority mandate will be tricky.
Trudeau's coments are made without specifics and the Liberals have not been clear on how deep a decfict they are willing to run.
If Trudeau wants to suggest that he can say that the NDP would spend too little and the Liberals can be more trusted to keep their promises he will have a difficult case to make and risks helping the NDP.The Conservatives and the Liberals, as the NDP pointed out, have their storylines for the NDP at cross purposes allowing Mulcair to say their combined criticism suggests the NDP is balanced in approach.
For the NDP a run from the left govern from the right apporach is not viable. A run from the right and prudent government delivering significant, if more modest, things is a better bet. The key is to have life-changing promises to back that up -- and the NDP includes some of those.
If Mulcair is slightly to the right, this is not horrifying to NDP members who are fed up with opposition and want a chance to govern and bring in some policies even if held back a little for a time. The NDP members will be patient if the NDP can deliver some signature key policies. There is no worry among that the NDP will lose its base to the Liberals and the Liberals, by portraying Mulcair as to the right of them, risk losing more of their base to the NDP. Quite a gamble for Trudeau who has run from the right for the last year and now in desperation is trying to find space to the left of Mulcair (like Wynne did). The problem is the dynamic federally is different and this is a more risky tactic for third place Trudeau than it was for governing Wynne. Further Wynne appeared more to the left than Trudeau ever has. By proclaiming the NDP will govern to the right, the Liberals may well cede one of the last advantages they could have had over Mulcair by letting claim the centre.
By doing this the Liberals are opening a credibility fight with the NDP that they are in a poor position to win. At stake is the believability of the best elements of their own plan.
Lots of time left and both the Liberals and the Conservatives remain dangerous but Trudeau's now weaving all over the political road like a drunk man.
Thu, 2015-08-27 03:32
#29
Most voters aren't focused on the left/right stuff. Trudeau is claiming to have more progressive policies and he has plenty of support on the right for running deficits. To deliver a balanced budget the NDP will have to make cuts. Both parties will be releasing fully costed platforms that will get picked apart in the media. I could be wrong but I think Trudeau's huge economic team that has been meeting for over a year will have a solid plan assembled and ready to be defended.
People are going to be taking a close look at the platforms. We will see which stands up best to the scrutiny.
Thu, 2015-08-27 08:33
#30
I have no doubt that the budget can be balanced and the NDP's priorities put in place, the Tories have so much waste, oil and bank subsidies, tax credits for stuff like hockey equiptment, wars, ect...
Thu, 2015-08-27 08:36
#31
I have no doubt that the budget can be balanced and the NDP's priorities put in place, the Tories have so much waste, oil and bank subsidies, tax credits for stuff like hockey equiptment, wars, ect...
Certainly the NDP cannot have everything it wants without looking at tax policy in the current climate-- however -- the promises are fairly modest at this point in terms of impact on the deficit if brought in well and the NDP knows it would have to measured and frugal at this point. I have no doubt that the budget can be balanced with some care. A few Harper priorities would have to bite it in the first few weeks...
Thu, 2015-08-27 09:46
#32
I just wish the NDP was a real socialist party. I wish they could have chosen Bernie Sanders to lead the party even if he is an American.
I'm not sold on Mulcair. I'd like to hear him explicitly outline the official NDP platform in regards to social issues,the economy,the military and on free speech.
So far he's been very vague. What does 'decriminalization' mean? What 'inevitable cuts' is he talking about? Why do we need to increase military spending? etc...
I'm turned off by the Thatcher accolades and his misguided decision to play by Harper's rules.
In short,I'd like Mulcair to prove he's a dipper.
Sorry, but why would one wish that Mulcair prove himself a "dipper", if the NDP is not a real socialist party anyway? What would Mulcair be proving?
I think he should be distiguishable between a dipper,a Lib or a Con. Some of his comments and some of the promises made so far doesn't sound any different than the Liberals message.Some of it sounds Tory-ish.
I think he should stop being vague and start being explicit and not take my vote for granted.
Okay, so he must prove to be more than a 'dipper' - he must demonstrate that he's a real socialist. Couldn't agree more. Good point. And good luck.
Thu, 2015-08-27 11:42
#33
The post is silly. Broadbent has retracted his statement.
Broadbent was won over. “Those concerns, frankly, that I had are dead in the water now. If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have talked the way I did.”
Mulcair also took concrete steps to help his leadership rivals. He helped them raise funds to clear debts. He reappointed MP Libby Davies, who supported Topp, as deputy leader. He made Cullen house leader, and reappointed Dewar foreign affairs critic.
“It was remarkable,” recalls Cullen. “One of the criticisms was that he was going to be divisive or take names and remember. And the immediate steps that he took were to reach out to the candidates.”
Dewar says that “if there had been acrimony and personally tainted baggage after the fact it could have made it difficult to get back in the game.”
“But he was very savvy and smartly offered key positions to all of us. There was absolutely no evidence of payback.”
A lot of New Democrats didn't support Mulcair as their first pick. Many didn't vote for him at all.
And yet a lot of people were still loyal to the party, and even excited by the rise in the polls. It's simple:
- The policies basically haven't changed. ($15 federal minimum wage, senate abolition, child care, electoral reform, corporate tax increases, cap-and-trade, nation-to-nation approach...)
- The NDP is still composed of numerous talented and principled MPs. Even if you are skeptical of Mulcair, it's not a one-person party.
And those two things are related. The party wouldn't be unified if it were making changes to what they are fighting for, let alone radical changes. Let alone that even skeptics like Broadbent have come around.
The integrity of the NDP MPs is such a stark differentiator from the other parties. You can use the word "Trudeau" or "Harper" as a convenient stand-in for "Liberal machine" or "Conservative machine". But it falls apart when you understand the number of NDP MPs (not to mention other party organizers and activists) who were there long before Mulcair. Even in the implausible nightmare where Mulcair wanted to swerve the whole NDP once in government, he wouldn't have much luck leading 130 to 170 NDP MPs off a cliff. If anything it would be the opposite: 130 to 170 NDP MPs will be committed to the platform they were running under, and will strongly enforce those commitments once in government.
Thu, 2015-08-27 13:02
#34
...And those two things are related. The party wouldn't be unified if it were making changes to what they are fighting for, let alone radical changes...
Having a social democratic party led by an ex-Liberal devotee of Thatcherism is not a radical change?
Thu, 2015-08-27 13:54
#35
Well I presume you know the saying, Rev - there's no zealot like a convert.
I'm more concerned by people who get more entrenched in wooden thinking than those who show they have the capacity to change their minds. It shows they can look at their values critically.
Thu, 2015-08-27 13:59
#36
Well I presume you know the saying, Rev - there's no zealot like a convert.
I'm more concerned by people who get more entrenched in wooden thinking than those who show they have the capacity to change their minds. It shows they can look at their values critically.
Where has he shown that he's changed his mind? He refused to disavow his praise of Thatcherism when given the opportunity.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:12
#37
If Mulcair were to say "Che Guevara was a great man who did great things", nobody would ever confidently point to that and say "SEE? That PROVES Mulcair is a Socialist!".
Well, OK, the Conservatives would. But nobody on the left would be convinced. "He's just saying words!!"
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:20
#38
alan smithee
I'd rather a candidate that literally dances on the graves of Thatcher and Reagan than a supposed social democrat revering them.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:20
#39
@ josh
Stomp on her grave, you mean? That might be satisfying for you and me. Not so prime ministerial for someone trying to convince the undecided that his party's policies are best for the country. Again, is this about demonstrating purity and denouncing enemies of the people, or getting the work done?
If one looks at the point of his comment that government can't replace the market and his explanation of that context when the question was put to him, this isn't quite how some are trying to pigeonhole it.
He's not cut from the same revolutionary cloth as you are? Why should you expect that, and so what?
Again, I am just looking for better policies and a government which might have a more open ear. I sure ain't looking for Che Guevara, whether I agree with some of his policies or not. The point is to form a government for more than five years before getting turfed.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:21
#40
Well you have some in the field you can vote for alan. Good luck.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:25
#41
alan smithee
Well you have some in the field you can vote for alan. Good luck.
Whom would that be? I doubt I'd have much selection if any.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:25
#42
I would expect that the CPC, or the CPC-ML, would have their dancing shoes on in a minute, given the opportunity.
But what if alan wants a candidate who dances on the grave of Thatcher AND wins elections? Why should anyone have to choose between theatrical radicalism and electability? Why must alan waste his vote on a candidate he actually believes in?
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:26
#43
alan smithee
I would expect that the CPC, or the CPC-ML, would have their dancing shoes on in a minute, given the opportunity.
The Conservatives? Are you serious?
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:31
#44
Communist Party of Canada, alan.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:33
#45
Oh right.... no one remembers them. I wonder why. Back when I was in school you couldn't go to a demo without them being all over the place.
Or maybe you mean the Conservative Party of Canada - Mussolini Lite
(edit)
Meaning no disrespect or grave-dancing to the MLs, of course. My heart is pure.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:37
#46
Yes, lots of choice in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada
Of course, if you're worried about wasting your vote due to our FPTP system, then the NDP is the place to temporarily park your vote to get proportional representation, and then you can vote as you like.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:43
#47
alan smithee
Communist Party of Canada, alan.
Thanks for clarifying.
I want a government that reviles the right wing. One that would stand up in Parliament and say 'You've had your turn,now sit down and SHUT UP' No compromises or middle ground. Give them a taste of their own medicine and pass omnibus bill after omnibus bill of left wing policies.
If that's the Communist Party,count me in.
Unfortunately,this election is too important to waste my vote on them. ABC. I live in an NDP riding so guess who I'm voting for even if their values don't reflect every one of mine.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:46
#48
So I notice that this thread was started by Unionist. It leads me to
ponder what do I really think of anyone ? Well except for Unionist of course. I think he is the most wonderful human being on the planet and I just can't say that enough.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:55
#49
@ mark_alfred
Right. There is that unfortunate little problem of everyone else being able to make their choice too, including those no-voters.
@ alan smithee
And "no compromises, you had your turn, sit down and shut up"? Are you sure you shouldn't be voting for Stephen Harper? He raised that tactic to a high art.
Thu, 2015-08-27 14:59
#50
alan smithee
And "no compromises, you had your turn, sit down and shut up"? Are you sure you shouldn't be voting for Stephen Harper? He raised that tactic to a high art.
That's the point. I want the next government to undo EVERYTHING the Cons have done,implement a bonafide social-democratic program. And ignore the Conservatives just like they have done to the over 60% of Canadians who did not and will not vote for them.
Thu, 2015-08-27 15:12
#51
@ josh
Stomp on her grave, you mean? That might be satisfying for you and me. Not so prime ministerial for someone trying to convince the undecided that his party's policies are best for the country. Again, is this about demonstrating purity and denouncing enemies of the people, or getting the work done?
If one looks at the point of his comment that government can't replace the market and his explanation of that context when the question was put to him, this isn't quite how some are trying to pigeonhole it.
He's not cut from the same revolutionary cloth as you are? Why should you expect that, and so what?
Again, I am just looking for better policies and a government which might have a more open ear. I sure ain't looking for Che Guevara, whether I agree with some of his policies or not. The point is to form a government for more than five years before getting turfed.
A strawman and red baiting to boot. But worse than that, a cop out. You're the one who claimed he was a convert.
.