If nothing else, there were not 10 provinces at Confederation.
Sean, you may be right, you may be wrong, but the effect of your argument is to disqualify most francophone leftists from consideration as NDP leadership material. I have no idea if Boulerice wants to be NDP leader one day or not, but anyone in his shows will have used that sort of language, without meaning much by it - it's jsut a standard bit of language in the left in this part of Canada.
If nothing else, there were not 10 provinces at Confederation.
Sean, you may be right, you may be wrong, but the effect of your argument is to disqualify most francophone leftists from consideration as NDP leadership material. I have no idea if Boulerice wants to be NDP leader one day or not, but anyone in his shows will have used that sort of language, without meaning much by it - it's jsut a standard bit of language in the left in this part of Canada.
And yet Trudeau was elected championing the Clarity Act. Maybe the left in Quebec has lost power because they insist on making independence the centre piece of progressiveness. Apparently they think we would be better off if Couillard had even more power.
Quebec elected Couillard to lead the province and Trudeau to lead the country, both of whom are loudly federalist.
If the NDP can't find a francophone federalist among it's ranks in Quebec then none are qualified to run the national party. I don't recall Mulcair ever saying "Canada and Quebec" though maybe he did.
Not sure where else to post about this, but why has the "Possible NDP Leadership" thread been locked?
Maybe Mulcair hacked the site.
If nothing else, there were not 10 provinces at Confederation.
Sean, you may be right, you may be wrong, but the effect of your argument is to disqualify most francophone leftists from consideration as NDP leadership material. I have no idea if Boulerice wants to be NDP leader one day or not, but anyone in his shows will have used that sort of language, without meaning much by it - it's jsut a standard bit of language in the left in this part of Canada.
It is a standard bit of leftist language on the west coast to support Palestian rights and talk about the Israeli ocupation and war crimes. That policy disqualifies most BC leftists and activists from even being nominated. The ones that survive have to change their language and learn not to speak in those terms. If Libby Davies, a left wing BC activist, was told to shut up about one of her passions why should francophone activists be treated any different?
Its not like the federal NDP is a democratic organization like Québec solidaire.
Ok kropotkin, I taske your point!
As a person whose only post was on that thread RE Wood I was wondering the same thing...
Shall we start a new NDP Leadership Thread? I wonder how long it would last before being locked as well?
More bad news for Mulcair: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-approval-ratings-polls-1.3363911
And I'll point out that the polls referenced in that link have NDP support down to the 13-15 % range.
Turn out the lights, the party's over? Maybe it's time for a re-branding of social demacracy in Canada.
The thing from this quote that sticks out for me is Boulerice using the phrase "Canada and Quebec" as though they were 2 separate countries. It doesn't bother me, but it seems a bit unwise for one who may hope to lead a (Canadian) national party some day.
Blame Harper for sponsoring that "Québécois are a nation" motion back in 2006. Until then, we Québécois knew our place.
If the construction "Canada and Quebec" can't ever be used, you will exclude roughly 100% of francophone Quebecers as potential leaders of the NDP.
Not just francophone. National feelings aren't determined by language.
Anyway, the NDP's loss will be the rest of the world's gain.
If the construction "Canada and Quebec" can't ever be used, you will exclude roughly 100% of francophone Quebecers as potential leaders of the NDP.
Not just francophone. National feelings aren't determined by language.
Anyway, the NDP's loss will be the rest of the world's gain.
Seems to me that the people of the nation of Quebec have decided on the one hand not to sign the constitution of Canada and on the other hand can't develop a national consensus as to how the constitution can be amended to meet your national needs. It is up to the people of Quebec to come up with either a seperation plan or a consensus as to how your province should fit into a redrafted constitution. My province signed on to the constitution even though I thought it was inadequate.
The regions outside of Ontario and Quebec have little interest in a duality but if that is what the people of Quebec want then the Premier of the province of Quebec should meet with his counterparts in the other nine provinces and see whether what the people of Quebec want is compatible with the wishes of the other members of our present confederation.
Get back to me when the nation of Quebec is together enough to negotiaate with one voice. Its not our fault that you can't find consensus in your nation. If you want a new two nation relationship then sit down and negotiate it don't present it to those of us who don't belong to your nation as a fait accompli.
What you don't seem to understand it is not Montreal I don't like in the Canada-Quebec duality it is Toronto. I would rather be a separate country than a country that is even more dominated by ridings in Ontario. Cascadia would also be a viable country and a better option than a truncated Canada. (that is Alaska, BC, Washington and Oregon) We share the same west coast culture including overlapping FN's territories.
If the construction "Canada and Quebec" can't ever be used, you will exclude roughly 100% of francophone Quebecers as potential leaders of the NDP.
Not just francophone. National feelings aren't determined by language.
Anyway, the NDP's loss will be the rest of the world's gain.
Seems to me that the people of the nation of Quebec have decided on the one hand not to sign the constitution of Canada and on the other hand can't develop a national consensus as to how the constitution can be amended to meet your national needs. It is up to the people of Quebec to come up with either a seperation plan or a consensus as to how your province should fit into a redrafted constitution. My province signed on to the constitution even though I thought it was inadequate.
The regions outside of Ontario and Quebec have little interest in a duality but if that is what the people of Quebec want then the Premier of the province of Quebec should meet with his counterparts in the other nine provinces and see whether what the people of Quebec want is compatible with the wishes of the other members of our present confederation.
Get back to me when the nation of Quebec is together enough to negotiaate with one voice. Its not our fault that you can't find consensus in your nation. If you want a new two nation relationship then sit down and negotiate it don't present it to those of us who don't belong to your nation as a fait accompli.
What you don't seem to understand it is not Montreal I don't like in the Canada-Quebec duality it is Toronto. I would rather be a separate country than a country that is even more dominated by ridings in Ontario. Cascadia would also be a viable country and a better option than a truncated Canada. (that is Alaska, BC, Washington and Oregon) We share the same west coast culture including overlapping FN's territories.
Sorry I don't get this -- I think that Quebec, when it comes to most of this, does have a consensus as strong as exists in other provinces. While we don't talk about the Constitution much becuase the debate offers few benefits the Feds and Quebec do work.
Quebec has been fairly consistant with what it wants for a long time in terms of the Canadian Constitution. What changes is a combination of the degree of optimism that this is possible and what to do if it is not possible. There is a small minority who could never be satisfied without a state that is independent but for the most part people know what they want.
It is frustrating to see people who don't seem aware about prevailing opinion in Quebec saying they have to get their act together. They have it largely together. At issue is what to do when the rest of Canada does not agree -- and often seems hostile.
But what's significant about Québec is that in the last 2 elections in a row, the large majority of Quebecers have voted for federalist parties.
This is the 2nd election in a row in which the large majority of Quebec seats have gone to parties other than the BQ.
Chantal Hébert wrote about this last month.
Seems to me that the people of the nation of Quebec have decided on the one hand not to sign the constitution of Canada and on the other hand can't develop a national consensus as to how the constitution can be amended to meet your national needs. It is up to the people of Quebec to come up with either a seperation plan or a consensus as to how your province should fit into a redrafted constitution. My province signed on to the constitution even though I thought it was inadequate.
The regions outside of Ontario and Quebec have little interest in a duality but if that is what the people of Quebec want then the Premier of the province of Quebec should meet with his counterparts in the other nine provinces and see whether what the people of Quebec want is compatible with the wishes of the other members of our present confederation.
The people of Quebec are no more interested in constitutional talks as anyone else in Canada. Unfortunately activists and politicians are focused on their own agendas not on the well-being of the 99%.
Seems to me that the people of the nation of Quebec have decided on the one hand not to sign the constitution of Canada and on the other hand can't develop a national consensus as to how the constitution can be amended to meet your national needs. It is up to the people of Quebec to come up with either a seperation plan or a consensus as to how your province should fit into a redrafted constitution. My province signed on to gthe constitution even though I thought it was inadequate.
The regions outside of Ontario and Quebec have little interest in a duality but if that is what the people of Quebec want then the Premier of the province of Quebec should meet with his counterparts in the other nine provinces and see whether what the people of Quebec want is compatible with the wishes of the other members of our present confederation.
The people of Quebec are no more interested in constitutional talks as anyone else in Canada. Unfortunately activists and politicians are focused on their own agendas not on the well-being of the 99%.
People may not be interested in our constitution but that's where much of our freedoms, human rights, liberties, and prosperity are derived from in Canada.
Seems to me that the people of the nation of Quebec have decided on the one hand not to sign the constitution of Canada and on the other hand can't develop a national consensus as to how the constitution can be amended to meet your national needs. It is up to the people of Quebec to come up with either a seperation plan or a consensus as to how your province should fit into a redrafted constitution. My province signed on to gthe constitution even though I thought it was inadequate.
The regions outside of Ontario and Quebec have little interest in a duality but if that is what the people of Quebec want then the Premier of the province of Quebec should meet with his counterparts in the other nine provinces and see whether what the people of Quebec want is compatible with the wishes of the other members of our present confederation.
The people of Quebec are no more interested in constitutional talks as anyone else in Canada. Unfortunately activists and politicians are focused on their own agendas not on the well-being of the 99%.
People may not be interested in our constitution but that's where much of our freedoms, human rights, liberties, and prosperity are derived from in Canada.
The constitution still applies in Quebec whether or not we sign it. Quebec isn't pushing for anything.
I wonder what a "winner's mentality" for the NDP would be? In the campaign before last the main highlight was bank fees. And they gained and won Official Opposition. This time, while keeping the policy from last time of improving the Consumer Protection Act to safeguard us against unfair bank fees, they added national universal child care based on the Quebec model, highlighted MMP, spent an entire week campaigning exclusively on health care (including funding for more doctors, a promise to maintain health care accord transfers to provinces at a minimum of 6% more, and maybe greater) -- the other parties didn't come near the NDP in this, along with greater funding for women's shelters, implementing anti-scab laws, raising the federal minimum wage. So this is a loser's mentality? Sad.
Quebec has been fairly consistant with what it wants for a long time in terms of the Canadian Constitution.
Please tell me what you think the consensus is, I am genuinely interested. If there is one then maybe someone can explain why is it not being proposed by the National Assembly?
Personally I think that what really needs to happen is an attack on the central core of the constitution and no government has been willing to put all of the constitution on the table. We really need to have a debate about all the items in both Sec 91 and 92 and determine in this modern world what is best jurisdiction for them to be under. The powers and taxing authority of municipalities needs to be revisited as well. We also need to determine whether we need ten provinces and three territories or whether another configuration would be more suitable.
We also need to determine whether we need ten provinces and three territories or whether another configuration would be more suitable.
Who wants to break it to them that they're now going to be known as "Saskatchitoba"?
Bob Hepburn wrote a piece today called "Top 10 winners and losers of 2015".
He says that Mulcair's election campaign "may be the worst-run campaign in recent memory".
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/20/top-10-winners-and-...
Bob Hepburn wrote a piece today called "Top 10 winners and losers of 2015".
He says that Mulcair's election campaign "may be the worst-run campaign in recent memory".
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/20/top-10-winners-and-...
Bah! He declared hitchBOT a "loser" for being beheaded! What an insensitive schmuck.
Bob Hepburn wrote a piece today called "Top 10 winners and losers of 2015".
He says that Mulcair's election campaign "may be the worst-run campaign in recent memory".
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/20/top-10-winners-and-...
In recent emeory i can think of several campaigns that were worst run - the Ignatieff Liberal campaign of 2011 and the Dion Liberal campaign of 2008 and the Martin campaign of 2006 were all horrifically incompetent campaigns...and then there was the grand daddy of them all Kim Campbell's ill fated campaign in 1993 when the PCs were reduced to 2 seats!
Bob Hepburn wrote a piece today called "Top 10 winners and losers of 2015".
He says that Mulcair's election campaign "may be the worst-run campaign in recent memory".
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/20/top-10-winners-and-...
In recent emeory i can think of several campaigns that were worst run - the Ignatieff Liberal campaign of 2011 and the Dion Liberal campaign of 2008 and the Martin campaign of 2006 were all horrifically incompetent campaigns...and then there was the grand daddy of them all Kim Campbell's ill fated campaign in 1993 when the PCs were reduced to 2 seats!
I disagree. All those campaigns had serious problems apart from the conduct of the campaign. Only one of them began with a lead although it was very fragile.
In some cases the leader personally was the problem and in others the leader said somethign absolutely stupid.
But the NDP did not go into the campaign with a huge liability. Mulcair was not personally doing that badly going into the campaign. What happened was not just the stupid things he said but a complete wrong direction on the message -- and that is not just the leader but the campaign itself. Mulcair's campaign blew his credibility so badly that he has little to offer now. The focus on the Liberals rather than the NDP platform and what kind of change the NDP would offer was a campaign strategy not some personal inability to speak English, dithering, or being attached to a policy the public could not get behind (carbon tax). It was not a combination of a stupid leader comment and offensive ad (Campbell).
Now it is true that it is Mulcair's effect on the campaign that really blew it -- his emphasis of all the wrong things but that is the leader's role in the campaign as opposed to the leader being an absolute non-starter. He is that now -- but he did not have to be and it is his conduct of the campaign along with the senior decision makers in the party that ruined the result.
I think the difference between the best scenario and what actually happened was greater in the 2015 NDP campaign than it was in any of the examples you give.
Bob Hepburn wrote a piece today called "Top 10 winners and losers of 2015".
He says that Mulcair's election campaign "may be the worst-run campaign in recent memory".
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/20/top-10-winners-and-...
Bah! He declared hitchBOT a "loser" for being beheaded! What an insensitive schmuck.
I think what happened to hitchBOT was more of a tragedy or an unfortunate loss, rather than the robot itself being a 'loser'.
Perhaps it should have been better-worded by Hepburn.
Bob Hepburn wrote a piece today called "Top 10 winners and losers of 2015".
He says that Mulcair's election campaign "may be the worst-run campaign in recent memory".
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/20/top-10-winners-and-...
I think it's worth pulling a few more words from that piece, specifically: "It’s clear Mulcair’s “Smiling Tom” act failed miserably"
And I agree with everything Sean wrote in response to Stockholm, but I'd say regarding Kim Campbell's campaign that it was never going to be about Campbell herself, her communication, their party policies, etc... In that election the PC's were going down in flames no matter what, simply because the public were so angry with Mulroney, and someone's head was going to roll. Campbell took the fall Mulroney was too arrogant to take himself. She and the PC's never had any hope. It was a very different situation than the NDP in 2015.
Bob Hepburn wrote a piece today called "Top 10 winners and losers of 2015".
He says that Mulcair's election campaign "may be the worst-run campaign in recent memory".
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/20/top-10-winners-and-...
I think it's worth pulling a few more words from that piece, specifically: "It’s clear Mulcair’s “Smiling Tom” act failed miserably"
And I agree with everything Sean wrote in response to Stockholm, but I'd say regarding Kim Campbell's campaign that it was never going to be about Campbell herself, her communication, their party policies, etc... In that election the PC's were going down in flames no matter what, simply because the public were so angry with Mulroney, and someone's head was going to roll. Campbell took the fall Mulroney was too arrogant to take himself. She and the PC's never had any hope. It was a very different situation than the NDP in 2015.
Actually the PC party in 1993 under Campbell started in first place and collapsed. This is why of all the comparisons it has the most in common with the NDP campaign this time. The difference in that case is discrete mistakes of the elader and an ad as opposed to the misdirection of the entire NDP campaign, failure to promote the platform and the disconnect in terms of statements from TM that effectively knocked the NDP out of the race.
One of the things that could be true that is in common with both is that while the 2015 NDP and 1993 Conservatives had strong leads at the start but they were more fragile than they thought. In the case of the Conservatives while Campabell had a lot of support the anger with Mulroney was simmering and when she made mistakes and her campaign made mistakes her support plummeted. As well the PC party was more vulnerable to the Reform party than they thought. This year the NDP mas flying high but was more vulnerable to the Liberals than they believed and only a small drop put them uner the Liberals at which point the body of voters who would vote for whichever opposition party could defeat the Cosnervatives shifted.
In both cases the campaigns made errors, the leader made errors and the party and leader misunderstood how weak their support was even though it was at a high level. The difference was that the NDP leader in this case wears the catastrophe more becuase he did not face a simmering problem left over from a previous leader and second becuase it was not just a single catastrophic blunder but a completely failed direction for the campaign, an inability for the leader to hear the people and adjust, and a personal persona that was mismatched. The tone of the NDP campaign was just as off as the content: it was negative when it needed to be positive, fearful when it needed to be hopeful and focussed on other parties rather than the potential of an NDP government. Mulcair's tone deaf doubling down has removed his credibility and branded him to the style and content of messaging that did not work such that he is no longer a viable candidate as leader for the next election.
