What does Ed Broadbent really think of Mulcair?

Cryptic.

josh][quote=alan smithee wrote:

 

Well then you're obviously Che Guevera. Or at least Stephen Harper. You're supposed to be neo-liberal, but kinder and gentler..

If what I said makes you think I'm Stephen Harper you either (A) didn't bother reading what I said or (B) you don\'t know what you're talking about.

I've been called a Communist (which doesn't offend me) but Stephen Harper? With all due respect and no offense intended but have you been smoking crack?

Red baiting? How? Sorry, but I'm not the one who wasn't aware of who the CPC-ML were.

As I said, this has nothing to do with whether I might agree or disagree with Mr. Guevera's policies, it is a question for me of the policies at hand, and who has the best chance of forming the best government. And making your first policy plank denouncing enemies won't get you too far, IMO, especially in my riding which at this point is too close to call.

And just because Mr. Mulcair hasn't been converted to something far enough left and dictatorial for some people's tastes doesn't mean he hasn't changed his mind.

Or maybe I should have waltzed in screaming about how the left eating itself over ideology is a cancer, and has no place here. Silly me for being a bit more prudent about it.

josh][quote=alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 

Well then you're obviously Che Guevera. Or at least Stephen Harper. You're supposed to be neo-liberal, but kinder and gentler..

If what I said makes you think I'm Stephen Harper you either (A) didn't bother reading what I said or (B) you don\'t know what you're talking about.

I've been called a Communist (which doesn't offend me) but Stephen Harper? With all due respect and no offense intended but have you been smoking crack?

No, but I guess my sarcasm was too cryptic.

OK,I get it now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Evade, deflect, and distract. The surest signs of being unable to defend.

Look josh, you'll notice I'm not holding anyone's nose to the grindstone for actual evidence for casting him as a disciple of Thatcher. Aside from calling it pigeonholing, I think it is kind of naive, and this whole discussion a bit silly, really.

He gave a politician's answer about the bottom line being the best service for the people, and frankly, I think it was an appropriate answer on a number of fronts.

As I said to alan, if he's not your guy there are a number of other parties to choose from.

There was someone on CBC The House a few weeks ago who mentioned that while there were policy differences in some things, the NDP and Liberals had both "drunk the Tory koolaid" on economic policy.

On that, it might be good to remember something Harper is good at besides steamrolling: saying one thing to get elected and then doing something different.

If that smoke gets them elected, I wouldn't mind at all.

Unionist wrote:

Sorry Evening Star, just saw your question - and yes, it's the right question to ask.

In fact, Mulcair (in the Liberal opposition at the time) was speaking to a motion of censure of the PQ government, moved by a fellow Liberal (Julie Boulet), regarding its handling of the relatively new (at the time) public drug insurance plan. The thrust of Mulcair's intervention (like Boulet's before) is to criticize the PQ for being more interested in spending millions on bureaucratic infrastructure than on providing health care services to the population - for example, they point to the shortage of physicians in remote areas and the need to provide incentives, etc. While he lauds the ability of the free market, he does so by contrast with politicians who only talk to functionaries, and not people in the real business, before planning projects. He definitely promotes more, not less, injection of funds into health care. And he doesn't promote privatization of health care.

Shows how comments can be chopped and served up for all kinds of purposes.

Here's his full speech and a pretty sketchy Google Translate version. And here is the full November 8, 2001 proceedings of the National Assembly.

Thanks. I'll read those when I can but I appreciate you clearing that up. Do you have more context for the Thatcher comments, by the way? They were 30s out of context so I tried a little to find a little more but didn't come across more info.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

Uh, if it's an NDP riding, wouldn't you be safe giving your one vote to someone else?

Not this time around. Perhaps in 2020.

Until then,please feel free to defend the right wing party of your choice. I'll stick to the left,thanks.

Quote:

Until then,please feel free to defend the right wing party of your choice.

I'm not sure how encouraging the dissatisfied to vote for a true radical party constitutes supporting the right.

Quote:

I'll stick to the left,thanks.

But are they really left?  Left ENOUGH??

Here's my thinking.  Folk who bemoan the lack of "alternatives" or the lack of a "REAL left party" avert their eyes and studiously ignore the alternatives, and the REAL left parties that already exist.  Because they don't just want a radical left party, they want a radical left party that enjoys the popularity of a centrist party.

And they'll be delighted to support them as soon as everyone else does first.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But are they really left?  Left ENOUGH??

Here's my thinking.  Folk who bemoan the lack of "alternatives" or the lack of a "REAL left party" avert their eyes and studiously ignore the alternatives, and the REAL left parties that already exist.  Because they don't just want a radical left party, they want a radical left party that enjoys the popularity of a centrist party.

And they'll be delighted to support them as soon as everyone else does first.

You have a point. Provincially we have a true leftist party called Québec Solidaire. Their platform is very populist,for the people not the rich.But they can't best 13% support.

I'd say that your average Canadian is centrist but drunk from the fiscal kool-aid constantly served up for them.

As a socialist and leftist,I know I'm on the fringe. But I shouldn't be.

People have a nasty habit of voting against their own self interests and believe their interests are one and the same as the corporations and the filthy rich. It's a sad reality.

So I'll hold my nose and vote for the least conservative party and hope that something,anything I strongly support becomes policy and law.

Quote:

People have a nasty habit of voting against their own self interests and believe their interests are one and the same as the corporations and the filthy rich. It's a sad reality.

I don't think that people's only self-interest is their relationship to the means of production -- and that's pretty much the only interest on which they and the rich could be said to consistently and self-evidently part ways.

People seem to also vote for parties that share their morals, for example.  If it's very important to someone to prevent two men from marrying, I think some of them will suck up a slightly worse tax burden to ensure that.  If it's very important to someone to ensure that "foreigners" aren't here taking all of our good scut jobs, I think some of them will suck up a little income disparity for that.

duncan cameron wrote:

This latest nonsense from the NDP campaign on balancing the budget reminds me of Ed Broadbent giving a speech in Hamilton in the middle of the 1982 recession (something like 750,000 jobs lost) and calling for an attack on the deficit. That convinced me not to join the party. Now I am a member, have been for nearly 15 years and this stuff quoting Andrew Thomson makes my angry. It is in line with the Sask party that did in the legacy of Tommy Douglas when Thomson and Janice MacKinnon were finance ministers and Brian Topp was Deputy Chief of Stafff to Romanow. Of course Sask does not have a central bank, and interest rates were through the roof in those days, but now interest rates are low, and the Bank of Canada exists, so fighting the deficit as the economy tanks thanks to falling oil and commodity prices makes no sense at all. 

Could this be so stupid that the media will back the NDP? I am tempted to think that journalists will go out to talk to economists and find out the NDP is blowing smoke.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/federal-election-2015/1307647-mulcair-says-...’t-come-immediately

Seems like Mulcair and Co. are determined accountants.

Quote:

In that vain,I'd say that people do usually vote against their self interests.

That's all in the same vein I was referring to:  the purely economic one.

If you think it's just stupidity or gullibility on the part of the electorate, show me where people who fundamentally disagree with equal marriage voted for a party that supports it just to get a modest tax break.

If a party were to say "we'll repeal equal marriage, AND we'll hike your taxes to finance a tax break for the 1%" then I think a not-insignificant part of the electorate would say "Right ON!  It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!!!!"

I couldn't say it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

Quote:

I think the NDP has made these budget statements not out of conviction but out of an understanding that their first mandate would have to be a cautious one and the party cannot run a deficit in it -- unless some external factor makes that unavoidable (global economy worse than projected for example or details hidden or wrong in the public accounts).

I'm inclined to agree.  If one of your party's most persisent electoral Achilles' Heels has been the perception that if in power you'd spend like a drunk sailor on shore leave, it's probably not the worst idea to assure the electorate that you won't.

That not spending money you don't have is going to resonate as "common sense" with some voters is just gravy.

And if they wanted to live off the credit card for a little bit, I wouldn't get out my pitchfork.  But I don't think a "socialist" government has the same luxury to spend, spend, spend that a Conservative government has.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think the NDP has made these budget statements not out of conviction but out of an understanding that their first mandate would have to be a cautious one and the party cannot run a deficit in it -- unless some external factor makes that unavoidable (global economy worse than projected for example or details hidden or wrong in the public accounts).

The NDP needed to make this burget committment in order to have a hopd of governing -- and even with this the party is in a position to re-orient the priorities of government within the existing envelope and the party can increase some corporate taxes to help this.

This is a practical, political issue that the party understands and I think most of the membership are comfortable with.

I'll also note that any specific examples of "what would you not do" that Mulcair and the NDP have given thus far involve reversing particular Conservative policies designed to enrich the 1% at the expense of everyone else. I can live with that.

Ultimtately who do we trust more to actually not push through cuts, the NDP or liberals? Liberals can play up the austerity drum all they want but they don't have the record to show that they wouldn't consider it either... Red book anyone?

Canada's NDP Pledges Balanced Budget, Signals Support For Bigger Military

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/27/cane-a27.html

"...Mulcair's unwavering commitment to a 'balanced budget' is aimed at reassuring big business that an NDP government will faithfully uphold their interests. It should be taken by working people as a warning that in response to the deepening capitalist crisis Canada's social democrats will implement brutal austerity measures.

The NDP's platform is so far to the right that the big business Liberals, who served as the Canadian bourgeoisie's preferred party of government for much of the 20th century, are posturing as a 'left' alternative to the social democrats.

The NDP, having largely convinvced the ruling elite of its right-wing economic credentials, now appears to be preparing to open a new front in the election campaign by attacking the Conservatives for failing to spend enough on the military..."

Yes, "bourgeoisie" is a hopelessly outdated term. We're all "middle-class" now.

1798? I think maybe you should retake that history class.

The NDP is not proposing a right wing budget. Why do you think Liberals are getting support from the business elites for their embracing of deficits? Their proposed infrastructure spending would raise profitability. Their whole platform is for the business elite, even the mirage of a tax raise on the top bracket that will actually benefit the 1%. What would not raise profitability is the NDP's pledge to spend more on welfare. The potential for an NDP win is already putting CIBC investor groups in a scare. Now that the Liberals are the preferred choice of a section of the elite (just look at the amount of propaganda being published in support of the Liberals), there is a massive push to have them catipulted into first place. They've already undergone a cosmetic transformation from being opportunists to underdogs who are being "bullied" left and right with attack ads. Are we going to let the Liberal co-opt the anti-Harper vote and bring us Harper-lite, the same way sly Wynne brought us Hudak...

Marco C wrote:

josh wrote:

1798? I think maybe you should retake that history class.

 

French revolution 1789-1799, i just choose 1798 off hand because it falls in those dates... So maybe you should retake history... I guess? whatever...

If you're referring to Marx's use of the term, which apparently you did, 1798 would be about a half a century too soon.

hehehe .....