What does Ed Broadbent really think of Mulcair?

mark_alfred wrote:

...It would be too limiting to peg the NDP as merely "left" or as merely a "social movement".  It is so so much more.  It is the cumulation of history, hard work, and struggle, of so many movements, from the Prairies to BC to Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the North.  From churches and farmers to universities and union halls.  From tears, struggles, bitter rivalries, to joys and occasional victories... 

Well, that's certainly a stirring post, although I think it may be a bit over the top. For me, I don't ask for ideological purity, I don't ask that the leader of the social democratic party campaign on nationlizing the banks, I don't ask that the social democratic powers that be address each other as 'comrade'. I don't ask that they repeat, ad nauseum, the phrase 'ordinary Canadians'.

All I ask is that the leader of the social democratic party not use a rank, terrorist supporting, neo-liberal, union busting paranoid psychotic as a fine example of how to run a country. Is that too much? Is that asking for too much 'ideological purity'?

I guarantee that if Harper was exposed tomorrow by a video in which he praised Ronald Reagan for his economics, those who stand here today defending the same from Mulcair would be spitting their righteous anger. Ideological purity my ass!   

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Is that too much? Is that asking for too much 'ideological purity'?

Used in reference to what he actually said, yes it is ideological purity in my opinion. As is expecting him, years later and working for another party, to do backflips like a trained dog to satisfy those concerns (which of course would never be satisfied even if he did).

Just ask that old eugenics supporter and homophobe (and worse: budget balancer) Tommy Douglas.

(edit)

Oh, look, it's the news flash that has been around for years now:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ndps-tom-mulc...

And even Weisleder says he'd like to see him win the election. Thing is, is this story going to undermine Mulcair's reputation in the eyes of NP readers, or make some reconsider him as an option?

 

 

Weak comparison. There was nothing unique, or ancient, to 2001 that would excuse Mulcair's views on Thatcherism. And he refused to disavow those views when given a chance just last week! As for the lame "ideological purity" charge, if we can have Thatcherite social democrats, how about Marxist Conservatives? I guess Conservatives would be guilty of ideological purity if they objected to a Marxist heading their party. What really bothers those making that charge is not the purity part, but the ideology. Because they don't appear to have any, beyond getting elected.

@ josh

And branding him a Thatcherite is so rock solid.

As I said, he could mea culpa down the street in sackcloth and ashes and it would still be too "weak". Thing is, in the real world the explanation he gave for those comments is probably the best you are going to get. Feel free to deal with them however you wish.

Me, I don't really care if he in fact WAS a supporter of Thatcher. I care about how he works to implement progressive policies in the party he is currently leading.

You think the Conservatives don't have idealogues concerned about Harper? You might want to ask some old Reformers, or some in the anti-choice camp, like Maurice Vellacott and Brad Trost.

(funny how the latter isn't going on about abortion during this campaign)

at least he's not a trust fund baby like Justin, who must be recognized as part of the 1%ers, and Mulcair by your own admission Josh is honest...;)

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Then Josh, why are you even asking for one?

I would like a clarification of his views on Thatcherism.

But you seem to have already decided, and he has already explained the intent of what he said. Given that you think he's cut from the same cloth as Harper can we expect more concerned threads about the pm and what he needs to do for you to vote for him? If it were me I'd just dispense with the hand wringing and figure out what you want to do with your vote. Sorry, but mulcair doesn't owe you a thing 

What would Margaret Thatcher have thought, and done, about proportional  representation and Bill C-51?

I'm wondering how many of the complainers are actual NDPers. Keep your eyes on the ball, people. We have choices among existing parties and leaders. If you want something else, take it up on October 20th.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...Used in reference to what he actually said, yes it is ideological purity in my opinion. As is expecting him, years later and working for another party, to do backflips like a trained dog to satisfy those concerns...

Apparently he's already done backflips once. Why not again? Years later? We're not talking about opinions expressed when he was a college student, or a neophyte politician. Mulcair was fully adult, and a experienced politician when he spoke those words. All I want to hear from him is what made him change his mind.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...Just ask that old eugenics supporter and homophobe (and worse: budget balancer) Tommy Douglas...

Tommy Douglas did endorse eugenics, and indeed wrote his Masters thesis on it. In hindsight, this was wrong, and Douglas himself started to see the wrongness of it when he visited Germany in 1936. By the time he became premier of Saskatchewan in 1944, he not only had abandoned his belief in eugenics, but ignored two Saskatchewan mental health reviews that recommended it. It should also be emphasized that eugenics was seen in those early days as a merciful solution to a problem.

Douglas also made comments about the mental illness of homosexuals, but again, he was not a homophobe. The remarks were made in the context of a debate over the criminlization of homosexuality. At the time, homosexual behaviour was criminal, and Douglas' position (like the Canadian Medical Association) was that homosexuality was a mental health issue, and he argued against it as a criminal issue. There is no evidence that Douglas was homophobic.

As with both of the above instances, they have to be viewed in the context of the times. Certainly Tommy Douglas wasn't the only progressive who started out favouring eugenics. Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb and W.E.B du Bois were all supporters of eugenics. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973.

Unfortunately for Mulcair, no such justifications exist for supporting Thatcherism. It was a vicious program at the time, and there was no doubt about it. Even a short listen to Thatcher would convince anyone what she was about. She certainly made no bones about it, and launched wild attacks against anyone who disagreed with her.

I am willing to accept that Mulcair may have changed his mind. All I'd like from him is an explanation of what made him change his mind. What makes him think, now, that the free market is not the best way to run an economy. Or does he still? And if he does, how does he reconcile the needs of the population with the needs of capital?

Interesting you should mention budget balancing (as counter progressive). Let's just say that for that last many years, the biggest budget deficits in both the USA and Canada have been right-wing governments. If indeed budget deficits are left-wing, Harper must lead the most left-wing government Canada has ever had. You might want to rethink that bit of 'progressive' economics.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh.... so Douglas was taken out of context.

Fancy that.

And all you want is an explanation. So long as it is right explanation obviously, since the one he gave isn't good enough

 

Your description of Douglas as homophobic doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it.

But there is the implication that Mulcair was 'taken out of context'. I guess my question is, what context was he taken out of. Was there a time in history when Thatcherism was considered progressive? Did Thatcher herself describer her policies as left-wing? Was there a period in history when support for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism was considered progressive? Was there a time when opposition to labour unions was believed to be left-wing?

So what sort of context are talking about here? Were Mulcair's comments even made during Thatcher's term? No they weren't. They were made many years after the fact, when no one could claim not to understand what Thatcher was up to. To make a comparison, if Tommy Douglas had espoused eugenics after WW2, adding in his admiration for Hitler's cleansing breeze, I think I would like to hear an explanation of that as well.

And as far as Mulcair repudiating his previous views, I have not heard that at all. I even heard one pundit say Mulcair was 'doubling down' on his prior views.

Remember Mulcair was a minister in Jean Charest's cabinet, and even though Charest was a Liberal in Quebec, he was a Tory federally. So Mulcair has had no problem sharing a political bed with large and small 'c' conservatives. So when did he suddenly get principles? 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...Look, you can spare me the well-crafted rebuttal because it should be clear I am just taking a piss at this point.

That's normally referred to as 'trolling', is it not?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...Believe what you want. I am aware of the concerns over Mulcair, but any I might have (and yes, I have some, obviously) are based on something a bit more substantial than this bit of nonsense.

Well, enlighten us then, what are your 'more substantial' concerns?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...Just the name "Thatcher" is the lightning rod, no? Is there any explanation that would excuse that? If not then what are we dancing around here for?

It is specifically the espousal of Thatcher's policies which causes the concern. When the leader of a ostensibly social democratic party endorses the policies of a vicous right-wing politician, I think a member or supporter of that party has a right to ask whether that leader has changed their mind, and specifically what caused the change of mind.

Further, in the wake of the 2008 world-wide crash, the cause of millions, if not billions, of people being driven into the dirt, deaths aplenty, and nations being forced to accept the overthrow of their democracies, I think one has a right to question the free-market system that brought us to this sorry pass. At a time when people are looking for leadership, where is it? Certainly not coming from Mulcair and the NDP.

And what do I see on this board? Any questioning of the Mulcair/NDP position is "demanding ideological purity"! Good lord!

[/quote]

First of all, why are liberals trying to accuse the NDP of homophobia? Your own stupid party still runs social conservatives who think homosexuality is a sin like Filomena Tassi.

Well we haven't seen pictures of sinking battleships, Augusto Pinochet, starving Bobby Sands, cops splitting heads with truncheons, and all the other things that Mulcair apparently signed off on and is responsible for based on that video clip.

...some of which I have seen on other boards. Maybe we aren't the most progressive kids on the block after all.

At least NDPP is straight on his position, and isn't complaining that Mulcair hasn't given him a good enough answer for the support he isn't going to give him. A breath of fresh air, actually.

Seriously, that is pretty much how I see it radiorahim, except I am not holding my nose, since as I said a few times already I am not expecting a perfect government, and they are bound to disappoint in some things, but I do want to see things move in a better direction than they are going right now.

Unionist wrote:

Um, not kidding... please fix it?

[/quote]

Okay okay:

Better?

Quote:

I think I read somewhere that Ed gave Tom a nice sweater for Christmas but Tom had to take it back because it wasn't the right size.

I read that Ed sold his record player to buy Tom a beard trimmer, and Tom sold his beard to buy Ed a Woodie Guthrie album.