What will it take to beat Harper? Thomas Mulcair has a few ideas

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
67
I think the NDP would have to serve two, maybe even three terms as official opposition before Canadians would be comfortable with handing them the reins. This is the NDP's first kick at the can as official opposition, I can't see Canadian's being bold enough to throw them the Country.

And of course there is the Liberal's to consider, if they are to gain back ground that will hurt the NDP's bid significantly.

A third thing to consider is that if the conservatives don't completely shoot themselves in the foot with the majority I would bet a beer that they will be back for a second round.

Not in our lifetime dude.

It was a hate-liberal flashmob kaybek victory for the pee-ers.

I don't think Steve-O or the upgraded future version will be stoopid enough to muck with the con majority for a good while. When they get to three, watch out! :lol:

But keep a Fernie Pale Ale to skunk on the window sill just in case.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Something about this should be appealing to conservatives...

Mulcair positions himself as anti-Topp
NDP leadership; Prairies will vote for him: Nystrom


New Democratic Party leadership candidate Brian Topp is seen by westerners as the Toronto establishment candidate and too close to Canada's powerful union movement, says veteran former NDP MP Lorne Nystrom.

On hand for Outremont MP Thomas Mulcair's official leadership campaign launch Thursday, Nystrom said Mulcair has a better chance in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba than many believe because people there are wary of Topp. "My guess in the Prairies is that (Mulcair) would come out on top in the campaign on the first ballot and the final ballot as well," Nystrom told The Gazette.

"Tom is a populist politician along the lines of Prairie politics such as Tommy Douglas (the NDP's founding father) and John Diefenbaker (the Conservative prime minister) and therefore people from the Prairies will relate to him better than Topp." Nystrom, who sat in Parliament for 30 years and who will act as one of Mulcair's campaign co-chairs, was a key figure at Mulcair's longawaited launch before 300 people at the Côte des Neiges community centre.

While Mulcair is strong in his home province - he announced Thursday he has the support of 29 of the 59-member Quebec caucus, plus four Ontario MPs - the real leadership battleground will be in the West. Until now, Topp, who served as deputy chief of staff to former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, has portrayed himself as the West's friend. Born in Quebec, Topp now lives in Toronto.

Mulcair worked as a lawyer for two years in Manitoba but, Nystrom admits, is less well known. Late Thursday Mulcair's team confirmed it is rapidly preparing a western tour for Mulcair, which could kick off as early as next week.

"The challenge is to get him better known in the West," Nystrom said. "They want to see him. It's normal."

Nystrom's reminder that western NDP members guard their independence jealously appears to be part of Mulcair's strategy to position himself as the anti-establishment candidate, unfettered by union ties and who can widen the NDP's support. That contrasts with Topp, who has spent his career in the party backrooms as a strategist and is union friendly. On Wednesday he was endorsed by the United Steelworkers.

Topp, Nystrom noted, has argued in the past in favour of keeping the 25 per cent of votes the union movement has traditionally had at NDP events even though the party decided to abolish that rule at its convention in 2006. Mulcair has already mused about the NDP party brass wanting to put someone "they wanted" in place and would rally around one candidate.

He returned to the theme at his post-speech news conference.

"It's clear there's a part of the party establishment that has signalled they had their choice, but I think the support I have among MPs is a good sign that we have another idea and there is nothing decided before the start of this race."

He repeated, however, his complaint that the party was not doing enough to make his life as a relative newcomer any easier because it still takes several months for a new NDP member from Quebec to get a card. "The party has an obligation to correct this situation," Mulcair said, noting he is entering the race despite "deep structural challenges" caused by the fact the NDP had less than 2,000 members in Quebec and 90,000 in the rest of the country.

The NDP picks its leaders on a one-member-one-vote basis.

"I call upon volunteers and officials both locally and nationally to help this be a clean and honest campaign and a fair one," he said in his speech. "All Quebecers who want to participate in this race must be able to without exception and without delay. "It's not a complaint. It's a simple observation of a state of fact," he added before the media.

The launch itself - including his site thomasmulcair. ca - was designed to showcase Mulcair as a man with 30 years of political and parliamentary experience that comes with three federal and three provincial election wins.

He was introduced by prominent Montreal lawyer Julius Grey.

And with his family and mother, Jeanne Hurtubise, beaming from the front row, the 56-year-old Mulcair said he was not running to replace the late Jack Layton but to succeed him in his work.

He nevertheless played up his connection to Layton, sprinkling his name repeatedly in the speech.

"This leadership race is about picking the person who is best placed to beat Stephen Harper in the next election," Mulcair said. Later, Mulcair's supporters fanned out among the media to pump up their candidate's chances. "We know Tom can win elections," Nystrom said. "We don't know that about Brian Topp."

"Jack brought us here," added another campaign cochair, New Brunswick NDP leader Dominic Cardy. "Tom will take us the rest of the way." Mulcair's Ontario MPs poured on the praise.

Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MP Wayne Marston said he's brought Mulcair in to speak in his riding and was astounded how easily he connected with people. He said Mulcair's reputation as abrasive and shorttempered is in fact an asset. "When you take on Mr. Harper in the house, if you're a pussycat you're going to get run over," Marston said. "Tom's not a pussycat."

Topp responded to Mulcair's arrival in the same way as he has greeted the four other contenders - on his Twitter account. "Welcome to the race Tom Mulcair," Topp wrote. "Looking forward to a healthy debate about ideas. All on the same team on March 25th" - the day after the NDP leadership vote.

Mulcair positions himself as anti-Topp
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
Yes, they seem to have a good national policy already. I don't think he intends to change any of that.

The dippers have a good national policy? If you want to live in a bankrupt nanny state perhaps. WHere the only people with good paying jobs are government employees.
Those of us in B.C. still remember the dark decade of Dipper mismanagement. NEVER again.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
The dippers have a good national policy? If you want to live in a bankrupt nanny state perhaps. WHere the only people with good paying jobs are government employees.
Those of us in B.C. still remember the dark decade of Dipper mismanagement. NEVER again.

Yep, and didn't Glenny export quite a few jobs (albeit stupid jobs) overseas, building fast cats? :lol:
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
Yep, and didn't Glenny export quite a few jobs (albeit stupid jobs) overseas, building fast cats? :lol:

Other than the drive trains the fat cats were a home grown disaster. They probably could have worked if ideology hadn't trumped common sense. Instead of letting people that know about shipbuilding run the program he let party hacks run the program with predictable results. They even had a welding program set up that only women could take even though there were many certified welders in B.C. on EI. Haste to score political points made for some bad engineering. Like deciding to hang a 50 ton ramp off the bow after the hulls were built because they forgot about how to get cars on and off.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Other than the drive trains the fat cats were a home grown disaster. They probably could have worked if ideology hadn't trumped common sense. Instead of letting people that know about shipbuilding run the program he let party hacks run the program with predictable results. They even had a welding program set up that only women could take even though there were many certified welders in B.C. on EI. Haste to score political points made for some bad engineering. Like deciding to hang a 50 ton ramp off the bow after the hulls were built because they forgot about how to get cars on and off.

Thanks for bringing up a few details I'd forgotten about. Yeah, that welding training for women, kind of fit in with his policy of giving jobs to minorities first, instead of setting up a training program for whoever and if women applied fine, no reason they couldn't be good welders, but no reason why they'd necessarily be better than men. :smile:
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
I'm pretty sure the existing caucus isn't the same one as you mentioned. In fact one is a provincial caucus, and the other one is federal.

And if you want to talk about a bankrupt nanny state, well.. um.. maybe you should just stay inside.

There is no real difference in the NDP between provincial and federal unlike the other 2 parties. That is just how their party is set up.

We don't want to talk about the bankrupt welfare nanny state, we want to eliminate it.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
What will it take to beat Harper? Thomas Mulcair has a few ideas

OTTAWA — The New Democratic Party must prove it can manage money better than the Conservatives if it hopes to form the next government, says NDP MP Thomas Mulcair.

"If the approach that we take is one that shows that we are conscious that there are limits to what government can do, then the NDP will win the next election," Mulcair said in an exclusive interview with iPolitics.ca as he prepared to launch his campaign for the NDP's leadership later Thursday.

"If we continue to say what we should spend money on without saying where we will get money from, then I think that the public might look at us and say, 'Well, we don't think that you are going to be able to do this job.'

"So the trick for us is to convince Canadians that we can and do have a team of men and women who can manage the public purse in the public interest and keep things on target with regard to budget and administration."


However, Mulcair conceded many Canadians are skeptical about the NDP's ability to handle the country's government or the economy — in large part because of the example set by Bob Rae, who served as NDP premier of Ontario before later jumping to the federal Liberals where he is now interim leader.

"Rigorous public administration is going to have to be the hallmark of any NDP government. We're going to be watched. People have a very hesitant view with regard to the NDP's ability to actually manage the public purse, that's mostly because the biggest province we have ever managed had huge problems under Bob Rae."

"On the other hand, and it is important to note, that according to the analysis of the Canada's own Finance Department, it's those provinces with NDP governments such as Saskatchewan under Lorne Calvert and B.C and Manitoba, that have had the best track record in terms of prudent public administration and balanced books."

While the Conservatives talk a lot about being good public administrators, their spending has outstripped inflation during the past five years and now they are poised to "chop wildly" at public spending without regard to maintaining services for Canadians, he said. "My concern is that Stephen Harper is not going to have those priorities. That he is going to cut blindly. Instead of using a scalpel, he'll go after public spending with a rusty machete."


Mulcair is well known as Quebec's former environment minister whose refusal to allow condos to be built in a provincial park triggered his departure from cabinet and for his role in improving the NDP's political fortunes in Quebec.

However, it is his track record as a public administrator in Quebec and Manitoba and as head of the Office des Professions where he took on the province's doctors over the alleged sexual abuse of patients that Mulcair will likely highlight as he sets out on his six-month quest for the NDP's top job.

Mulcair will be one of several candidates vying to succeed Jack Layton, including former party president Brian Topp, who has already garnered the support of several prominent members of the NDP and some of the party's top organizers.


The NDP leadership race was barely underway when Mulcair was targeted by a whisper campaign with anonymous sources telling reporters that he is abrasive, hard to get along with, that he isn't a team player.

Mulcair suspects some within the party see him as a threat.

"I have to be very understanding of the fact that the behaviour that I am witnessing where the old guard in the party, the party brass has simply said we don't want anything to change, we don't like the types of changes we have seen, we want to stay with one of our guys."

When Layton assigned him to the "Quebec Project" to grow the NDPs support in Quebec, it also ruffled feathers, said Mulcair.

"The Quebec project threatened a lot of people. You can imagine that some staffers who had gotten used to having very senior positions without having ever made it a priority to learn a single word of French were feeling threatened. You can imagine that people who were comfortable with a much smaller NDP will always feel threatened by somebody who says, 'No, we can actually do this.'"

Mulcair admits his passion for championing causes he believes in and refusing to back down has also earned him some enemies over the years and may have fed the reputation he is abrasive.

While Mulcair would like to see the NDP "become the biggest tent possible for all the progressive forces in Canada," he doesn't see a merger with the Liberals at the current time. "It would be a huge mistake for the NDP to try to merge with the Liberals," he said. "The best thing we can do is offer our own solutions, connect with the Canadian public, convince them that we have a credible track record, that we have good people who are capable of providing prudent public administration. That is the only thing we should be doing.

"I will never be talking during this campaign, directly or indirectly, about merging with the Liberals."

To grow the NDP's support, Mulcair says the party has to maintain its gains in Quebec and work on provinces like Saskatchewan where the party has support but no MPs. "One of the things that we can do is simply acknowledge the fact that in Quebec we now have lots of trees with few roots. In places where we have deep roots, like Saskatchewan, we no longer have any trees. So we have to find out what's been missing in terms of linking with people on the level of their values. That's what we were able to do in Quebec."

In the end, however, NDP members will have to ask themselves a key question, he said. "The most important thing in terms of the question that people have to be asking themselves is who is the best placed to beat Stephen Harper in the next election."

Mulcair now has six months to try to convince New Democrats he's the one who can do that.

There is simply no way I'm ever voting NDP, unless they bring back Tommy Douglas.... :)

That said, I like what Mulcair says about the necessity of keeping gov't spending under tight control.

I like the fact that Mulcair has some personality, and that he has principles from which he can not be moved.

Unfortunately, the latter is not something that is very advantageous to an ambitious politician.

Also, the thing that will nurture NDP roots in the west is NOT gun control, and Quebec nationalism. The NDP has alienated the west, and they will not return under this guy's leadership. Remember, outside Quebec, the NDP attracted LESS than one out of every five ridings.........and there soon will be 30 more ridings.....all outside Quebec.

Mulcair is extremely vulnerable.

He will be pinned on the "50% + 1" question, and he will be impaled on it.........50% + 1 is not only political insanity, it is not a legal standing, according to the SCOC.

Mulcair looks ridiculous in his attitude towards the Americans in general and the war on terror in particular; this stuff leaves him very open to ridicule by Harper et al........for instance:

He has made statements that make it appear he believes 9-11 was NOT simply a terrorist attack.

He made statements that made it appear he did not believe Seal Team Six killed bin Laden.

And he does NOT have the temperment to control his emotions when challenged.

Mulcair will turn the NDP to an empty, barren wasteland outside Quebec.

You heard it here first.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
There is no real difference in the NDP between provincial and federal unlike the other 2 parties. That is just how their party is set up.

You actually believe that? lol

Anyone who looks at politics in a non-partisan way will see that not only is there a difference between federal and provincial leanings (just look at the differences between a Sask conservative and a federal conservative), but also, these parties a morphing all the time. Again, you can point out the difference between a Mulcair-led initiative and a Layton-led one. Layton (and Topp, btw), would side with unions moreso than Mulcair would.

Please.

I can tolerate fact based arguments, but don't waste my time with the tired, old-man, "NDP are hippies and communist" rants that passes as credible wisdom these days.

He will be pinned on the "50% + 1" question, and he will be impaled on it.........50% + 1 is not only political insanity, it is not a legal standing, according to the SCOC.

Can we clear this up a bit. I'm very foggy on this 50% + 1 issue.

Please try (I beg of you) to help me out where without the right-wing flavouring.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
You actually believe that? lol

Anyone who looks at politics in a non-partisan way will see that not only is there a difference between federal and provincial leanings (just look at the differences between a Sask conservative and a federal conservative), but also, these parties a morphing all the time. Again, you can point out the difference between a Mulcair-led initiative and a Layton-led one. Layton (and Topp, btw), would side with unions moreso than Mulcair would.

Please.

I can tolerate fact based arguments, but don't waste my time with the tired, old-man, "NDP are hippies and communist" rants that passes as credible wisdom these days.



Can we clear this up a bit. I'm very foggy on this 50% + 1 issue.

Please try (I beg of you) to help me out where without the right-wing flavouring.

Clarity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political Science

The former Liberal government asked the SCOC to rule on the right of Quebec to separate after the near miss in 1995.

Quebec nationalists insisted that if they won 50% of the vote plus one vote, that meant they had the right to unilaterally declare independence.

The SCOC disagreed, requiring only that all parties negotiate, and then only if a vote on a clear question wins a clear majority.....and the federal gov't used that judgement, basing the Clarity Act on it.

50% + 1 is not a clear majority. Traditionally, especially on constitutional issues, two thirds or more is required.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
51 is clearly more than 50. That's democratic too.

Hence the disagreement between sides on what "clear" means. It's vague. 51 versus 50 would be clear enough to elect a government...after recounts, to be sure the outcome is clear.

If I had to say what clear is, 50% +1 of eligible voters must vote for secession. Not a simple 50% +1 of those who did vote. For an outcome with such grave consequences, I'd be open to even more conservative definitions of what "clear" means. It's a tricky issue to be sure!
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Wait.. so what you're saying is a Mulcair-NDP could lose because they like democracy.

That's hilarious.

And you don't think that this little stat would have affected the polls when Turmel came into office?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Not so hilarious when the guy who doesn't seem to be a big fan of it got in.

Explain Turmel then?

I'm pretty sure Colpy had this same rant when she was put into office. The big bad clarity wolf turned out to be nothing but piddly winks. And the woman was formerly a separatist, lol

I dunno guys.

I can see where it will have its influence, but Canada is smarter than that.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
51 is clearly more than 50. That's democratic too.

Hence the disagreement between sides on what "clear" means. It's vague. 51 versus 50 would be clear enough to elect a government...after recounts, to be sure the outcome is clear.

If I had to say what clear is, 50% +1 of eligible voters must vote for secession. Not a simple 50% +1 of those who did vote. For an outcome with such grave consequences, I'd be open to even more conservative definitions of what "clear" means. It's a tricky issue to be sure!

Yeah....50% + 1 of eligible voters is certainly better, and I could see the argument that it is clear.......
And it eliminates the problem of voter fraud, so prominent in the 1995 attempt, as that was mostly disqualifying ballots........which in your example, would in fact count as NO votes.......
Makes it easy on the NO voters as well. All they have to do is stay home.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
If I had to say what clear is, 50% +1 of eligible voters must vote for secession. Not a simple 50% +1 of those who did vote. For an outcome with such grave consequences, I'd be open to even more conservative definitions of what "clear" means. It's a tricky issue to be sure!

Thats a big part of why the numbers required for constitutional change are significantly higher: to ensure there is broad based support throughout the country for any such change. I think many of us could agree to 50% + 1 of eligible voters being a clear majority, but Quebec voter turn out isn't great even by our lowering national average. Based on the last election (which was up from the previous Voter turnout inches up to 61.4% - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News# ) Quebec had a 62.2% turnout, so 50% +1 of participating voters would only be 31%... in other words, less than 1/3 of eligible voters. Even using the traditional 2/3 number leaves it at 41.4% of eligible voters (again using the 62.2% turnout). Thats not an overwhelming mandate for deciding the fate of the country.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
51 is clearly more than 50. That's democratic too.

Hence the disagreement between sides on what "clear" means. It's vague. 51 versus 50 would be clear enough to elect a government...after recounts, to be sure the outcome is clear.

By the way, this is a pretty s hitty deal for Quebec if you're a separatist. They should have the right to continue to vote on these matters as long as there is a need. And it shouldn't be based on muddy terminology like "clear". If 51% decide to separate, then they move on to to the next step (whatever that is).

That's democracy - like it or not.

Thats a big part of why the numbers required for constitutional change are significantly higher: to ensure there is broad based support throughout the country for any such change. I think many of us could agree to 50% + 1 of eligible voters being a clear majority, but Quebec voter turn out isn't great even by our lowering national average. Based on the last election (which was up from the previous Voter turnout inches up to 61.4% - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News# ) Quebec had a 62.2% turnout, so 50% +1 of participating voters would only be 31%... in other words, less than 1/3 of eligible voters. Even using the traditional 2/3 number leaves it at 41.4% of eligible voters (again using the 62.2% turnout). Thats not an overwhelming mandate for deciding the fate of the country.

Voter turnout is something we can blame ourselves for. It costs nothing to show up, so if you don't vote when you could, then you deserve to get screwed.

But just to put this hypothetically, one would think that you would have the Quebec vote first, and then a national vote on separation - and then find some way to coalesce the two.

Is that how it's done?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Thats a big part of why the numbers required for constitutional change are significantly higher: to ensure there is broad based support throughout the country for any such change. I think many of us could agree to 50% + 1 of eligible voters being a clear majority, but Quebec voter turn out isn't great even by our lowering national average. Based on the last election (which was up from the previous Voter turnout inches up to 61.4% - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News# ) Quebec had a 62.2% turnout, so 50% +1 of participating voters would only be 31%... in other words, less than 1/3 of eligible voters. Even using the traditional 2/3 number leaves it at 41.4% of eligible voters (again using the 62.2% turnout). Thats not an overwhelming mandate for deciding the fate of the country.

Voter turnout is low for Federal elections, yes. In the 1995 referendum, almost 94% of eligible voters cast ballots, with a little better than 98% being valid ballots. The margin of victory was less than 60,000 votes out of 4.67 million.