babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Mulcair running in Outremont for NDP

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Mulcair running in Outremont for NDP
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 21 June 2007 12:27 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 21 June 2007 01:33 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
a funny riding in many ways:
very French elite enclave, also many students and professors, artistes too, and also very ethnic esp w big vote of Hassidim, Greeks, etc.

lived there for years, and federal riding went Tory for free-trade Mulroney in 1988, first time it had not voted Liberal since ... Confederation

you sense that if an NDP vote were suddenly seen as trendy in Bernard Avenue bistros, it could happen

[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ravijo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11439

posted 21 June 2007 04:43 AM      Profile for ravijo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a bit confused as to whether Harper will call a batch byelection, with ALL of the now vacant seats (Outremont, Toronto-Centre, Willowdale, etc.), or if he's going to stagger them.

Could someone clarify this?

[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: ravijo ]


From: Guelph, ON | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 21 June 2007 05:24 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does he have any chance at winning these seats? If he can win half or more, it's a good move for him.

On the other hand, Harper's political tactic is to have good news come one item at a time, in a steady stream.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 June 2007 05:52 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that the Tories have much chance of winning any of the by-elections. Let's look at them one by one:

Outremont: A Liberal fortress, where there could be a threat from the NDP. In 2006, the Tory candidate (who spent a lot of money and was hyped up in the media) came in a distant fourth and barely beat out the Green Party.

Roberval and Ste. Hyacinthe-Bagot: Historically safe BQ seats. If the Tories were still riding high in Quebec, there would be some chance of them winning one of these - but their support has gone into free-fall in Quebec so it's now probably a race for second place. They could have a slim chance in Roberval since they came in a relatively close second there last time - but still a longshot.

Toronto Centre and Willowdale: Both went Liberal by huge margins in 2006. The Tories are unlikely to even beat out the NDP for second place in TC and Martha Hall Findlay should be an easy winner in Willowdale

Harper doesn't HAVE to call all five by-elections at the same time. In fact he may want to make Findlay and Rae cool their heels for as long as possible and also draw attention to the likely Liberal slaughter in Roberval and Ste. Hyacinthe-Bagot - where Dion could be embarrassed by a Liberal 4th or even 5th place showing. Also, if the Liberals lose Outremont to the NDp it would be a total humiliation for Dion.

Here is my prediction. Harper calls the three Quebec by-elections in mid-July with the vote to be sometime in September. He will hold off on calling the two Toronto by-elections and he has a perfect excuse. Ontario goes to the polls in early October and he will claim that he wants to save the people of Toronto Centre and Willowdale from having to have a federal by-election in the midst of a provincial election campaign. Then he will stall calling those by-elections until after the Ontario election and then set a date in December meaning that Rae and Findlay can't actually take their seats until Parliament comes back from its Xmas break in February 2008.

This is just my personal hunch. But if i were Harper, that is what I'd do!

[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Oppo-Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4159

posted 21 June 2007 06:21 AM      Profile for Oppo-Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, it's "Thomas Mulcair" not "Musclair". I don't suppose we can fix that in the headline, can we?

Outremont is about as close to a Liberal bastion as you are going to find.

In the last election when Liberals were reduced to a handful of seats on the island of Montreal, they held Outremont.

It has been solidly red for the past 40 years with the exception of the PCs having grabbed it in 1988.

That said, Liberal support has been eroding steadily since 1997 and Mulcair, as a former Liberal cabinet minister, may have an extraordinary appeal to the riding's Liberal voters.

Stay tuned.


From: here | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 June 2007 06:26 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Outremont is really not as much of a Liberal "bastion" as you might think. In both 2004 and 2006, they won it by less than 3,000 votes. Liberal margins were vastly higher in the other Montreal ridings that went Liberal. On top of that, the Liberals have never been challenged (since they lost the seat in 1988) by a non-Liberal who can cut into BOTH the BQ/PQ/nationalist vote AND the disaffected federalist non-francophone in the way that Mulcair can.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 21 June 2007 06:28 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Depending on the tenor of the House and wider politics in the Fall session, I can see Harper running out the clock even further than Stock is talking about- into the Spring session and past the April Budget vote for the Toronto by-elections.

He has even more reason to stall on the Quebec elections. Later in the Fall he can hope for a recovery in Quebec, no chance of that by September.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 June 2007 06:34 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Keep in mind that because Lapierre resigned back in January, sometime in the next few weeks, Harper is obliged by law to call the Outremont by-election. According to La Presse, the thinking in Quebec is that the 3 Quebec by-elections will be held on Sept. 17.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 21 June 2007 06:53 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think how late for the Quebec byes depends on what the government plans for the Fall.

If the Fall session is going to be late, or they've run out of goodies to promise Quebec for now, or they don't think there will be time to develop a bounce off Quebec-focused initiatives anyway... the I agree that they'll get it out of the way.

But what if they decide to play footsie with Dumont and launch some autonomist initiative or even just a dialogue?


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 21 June 2007 07:06 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Toronto Centre and Willowdale: Both went Liberal by huge margins in 2006. The Tories are unlikely to even beat out the NDP for second place in TC and Martha Hall Findlay should be an easy winner in Willowdale

Harper doesn't HAVE to call all five by-elections at the same time. In fact he may want to make Findlay and Rae cool their heels for as long as possible and also draw attention to the likely Liberal slaughter in Roberval and Ste. Hyacinthe-Bagot[...]


I'm sorry I haven't been following CDN politics as closely over the last couple of months. I knew Bill Graham and Jim Peterson were not going to run in the next election, but have they actually stepped down as MPs now?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 June 2007 07:07 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, they both resigned their seats yesterday.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 21 June 2007 07:14 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks. I think your analysis makes a lot of sense, then, Stockholm. Although I expect if Harper does proceed in that fashion, Rae and Hall-Findlay should be front and centre in the media, attacking Harper for denying representation to Toronto by delaying the byelections.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 June 2007 07:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They can try that, but when the Liberals were in power, they routinely left ridings vacant for YEARS at a time.

In any case, the fact that all of September and early October will be taken up with the Ontario provincial election campaign gives Harper a perfectly plausible and defensable reason for NOT calling the by-elections in Toronto on the same day in mid-September as the three in Quebec.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
malpeque
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12480

posted 21 June 2007 08:55 AM      Profile for malpeque     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tom interview in today's Gazoo.
From: send lawyers, guns and money | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 21 June 2007 11:20 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Outremont isn't THAT great a Liberal stronghold. The NDP placed in 3rd, about 14 points behind the Liberal candidate last election. I think, considering

1) The NDP's recent growth in the province
2) A dip in support in the province for both the Liberals and Bloc
3) the candidate running in that riding, and
4) the fact that it's a byelection

The NDP are as likely as the Liberals to win the riding in the upcoming byelection. I'd actually put money on it.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 21 June 2007 07:36 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Outremont has changed a lot since Marc Lalonde used to sweep it in 1972-1980:
2006: Liberal 35.2%
2004: Liberal 40.9%
2000: Liberal 47.7%
1997: Liberal 50.1%
1993: Liberal 46.8%
1988: Liberal 34.7%

In a three-way race, let alone a four- or five-way race, who can say?

Since we're discussing the other by-elections too, I agree the Toronto ones will likely wait until after October 10.

So when Parliament resumes in the fall, the Liberals will have a couple of holes to fill on their front bench, which has been 14 men and five women. Who will move up? Karen Redman? Judy Sgro? Maria Minna? The NDP has parity, 3+3.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 22 June 2007 07:43 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The NDP placed in 3rd, about 14 points behind the Liberal candidate last election. I think,

The NDP didn't do that well anywhere in Quebec. The top NDP candidate got around 17-18% of the vote.

How well known is Mulcair in Montreal?

I think we'll get a better sense of the riding after the Liberals nominate (or appoint) their candidate.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 June 2007 07:46 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He was a high profile cabinet minister so he would be as well known as anyone.

I'm sure that the NDP will spend the maximum allowable by law in this byelection and will probably charter buses full of volunteers from Ottawa and Toronto etc...

It also helps that the BQ candidate is a complete unknown who is unlikely to do anywhere near as well as the BQ candidate in Outremont did in the 2006 byelection. I suspect that among BQ voters in a place like Outremont, the NDP would be the overwhelming second choice.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
malpeque
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12480

posted 22 June 2007 08:02 AM      Profile for malpeque     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tom's considered to be a very high profile candidate by Quebec media given his long career of public service. He's also known as a bit of an 'enfant terrible' for his sharp sense of humour and willingness to take on Charest while still in Cabinet. Anyone who's spent time in La Belle Province knows Quebeckers love their enfant terribles.

In addition, he's an experienced and enthusiastic campaigner, a keen political strategist with a strong base of volunteers already in place.

Two other factors come into play; Stock's observation that hundreds of volunteers will pour into the riding (a real NDP strength in recent by-elections) and the fact the Libs are tanking in Quebec under Dion's leadership.

At the end of the day Outremont is very much in play and Tom is looking good.


From: send lawyers, guns and money | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 22 June 2007 08:50 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And Tom Muclair is free to start working the riding now. Part of that means pulling out volunteers and energizing them starting now. And Tom’s work around the province will raise his visibility in Outremont further.

Its essentially a longggg campaign that begins now. The Liberals cannot even come close to matching what the NDP can put on the ground to start, or to sustain. They’ll even be able to outdo the Bloc machine considering the difference in stakes and the Bloc’s morale.

To the degree money matters: signs, billboards, modest pre-election media buys, and campaign HQ costs before the writ is dropped several months from now, do not count in the spending limits.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 June 2007 09:31 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ken,

Don't exagerrate too much. When all is said and done, the entire NDP membership in Quebec amounts to a few hundred people. We have no incumbent MPs with staffs and no core of organizers.

The Liberals - for all their weaknesses in francophone Quebec - still hold a dozen seats in Quebec federally - almost on the island of Montreal and those people all have staff and organization at the riding level that can be funneled into Outremont. Keep in mind that well over a thousand people voted in the Liberal nomination meeting in Papineau - that is way more than the current number of NDP members in Quebec.

So, for all of Dion's weaknesses in Quebec - the Liberals still have vastly more ground resources to draw upon in montreal than the NDP does.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 22 June 2007 02:43 PM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Oppo-Guy:
Outremont is about as close to a Liberal bastion as you are going to find.

It's not a "bastion". The 2006 election was as low as the Liberals have been in Quebec in decades. The margin of victory for the Liberal candidate in Outremont in 2006 was 2,504 votes. By contrast, the Liberal margins in other Montreal seats in 2006 were:
St. Laurent-Cartierville -- 19,220
Mount Royal -- 17,627
Saint Leonard-Saint Michel -- 15,933
Pierrefonds-Dollard -- 13,375
Westmount-Ville Marie -- 11,589
Notre Dame de Grace -- 10,850
Lasalle-Emard -- 9,070

Those are bastions. Even Laval-Les Iles and Bourassa had higher margins of victory for their Liberal candidates than did Outremont.

The Liberals held Outremont in 2006. Any seat the Liberals held in 2006, by definition of holding it in that election, had to be a strong Liberal seat. But "bastion" is too strong an adjective for Outremont.


From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 22 June 2007 03:01 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I did get carried away there didn't I.

But I think that "We have no incumbent MPs with staffs and no core of organizers." overstates the NDP thiness.

We do have some very competent full time organizers in Quebec, and there will be plenty of experienced and professional campaigners who are not far away and have Quebec roots.

While this will also be very important for the Liberals- their motivation just isn't in the same category, largely because it is defensive in nature [let alone the general status and motivation of the Quebec Liberal party].

So I'll back off my exaggeration and say that this basic difference makes up for the huge organizational resource advantage the liberals have.

And they just aren't going to have a rival to the leadership on the ground that Tom Muclair provides.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 22 June 2007 03:16 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Outremont is currently the weakest Liberal seat on the island of Montreal - and possibly in the entire province.

I think much remains to be seen. If Dion appoints one of his apparatchiks, we could get lucky, especially with Mulcair being able to bring in some Lib volunteers and votes.

That being said, for us to have a chance, there has to be a serious 4-way run-off. The Bloc seem to be running someone without much profile, which will hopefully bring them down to the low-20s, and could play into the 4-way split theme. Not sure why they aren't trying to find a stronger candidate, though I would assume that this is a portent of things to come and that come next election, they'll conceded a few Monteal swing seats and concentrate on those seats where the ADQ won provincially...

Unfortunately it looks like the Cons won't be running Mayor Tremblay's brother, which would've helped us out quite a bit. Hopefully they find someone else with some profile. They can't win the seat, but they can siphon away some Liberal and Bloc votes to our advantage.

I'd also like to point out that Stockholm's estimates are very much on the conservative side. Sure this will be an uphill battle, but the Quebec Section is in much better organizational shape than what he desribes. We had a "few hundred members" in the province before Jack became leader. I'd guess we're in the thousands now (again, still low comparitively...) Since that time our vote share has also increased by 4 times... Add to that the volunteers from all over the island, and from Ottawa, plus support from Central Campaign and some experienced organizers to complement our local talent, and things just *might* go our way.


From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 June 2007 03:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't get me wrong. I think that Mulcair can win and there are many factors in the NDP's favour, but we should not underestimate that in the entire Montreal area, the Liberals have vastly more resources to draw on then the NDP does - at least right now.

Montreal is not Toronto where there are many active NDP riding associations and thousands of NDP members, organizers and volunteers all waiting to be funneled into a byelection as we saw in Parkdale-High Park and York South-Weston. It will be a much bigger feat for the NDP to run a classic on the ground campaign in Montreal.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 22 June 2007 06:37 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kingblake:
Outremont is currently the weakest Liberal seat on the island of Montreal - and possibly in the entire province.

They fared even worse in Hull-Aylmer last time out (32.67 vs 29.35 for the Bloc, as opposed to 35.18 vs 29.01 here). Coincidentally or not, H-A might be the next best NDP bet in Quebec, particularly w/Pierre Ducasse running and the neighbour-effect of Paul Dewar in Ottawa Centre...

From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 22 June 2007 07:53 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Unfortunately it looks like the Cons won't be running Mayor Tremblay's brother, which would've helped us out quite a bit. Hopefully they find someone else with some profile. They can't win the seat, but they can siphon away some Liberal and Bloc votes to our advantage.

I thought Tremblay was definitely running for the Conservatives - do you have a media article or other source that says he's dropped out, kingblake? I agree, if true that is really bad news for Mulcair and the NDP, but every media article I've seen indicates Tremblay is 100% confirmed as the Conservative candidate.

Assuming that Tremblay is still in the race, it means the Libs are the last party to field a candidate in Outremont, their alleged "bastion." That fact alone speaks volumes about the plummeting Grit fortunes in Quebec under Dion. The 2 potential candidates I've heard mentioned are Raymond Garneau and former Outremont mayor Utneberg (spelling?). Garneau is a washed-up hack who got creamed in Vaudreuil last election, I think he'd be vulnerable. Does anybody have a sense of how popular Utneberg is in the riding?

quote:
Roberval and Ste. Hyacinthe-Bagot: Historically safe BQ seats. If the Tories were still riding high in Quebec, there would be some chance of them winning one of these - but their support has gone into free-fall in Quebec so it's now probably a race for second place. They could have a slim chance in Roberval since they came in a relatively close second there last time - but still a longshot.

The Tories are running popular Roberval Mayor Denis Lebel and I think they have a pretty decent shot at beating the BQ there. Harper was apparently planning to spend St-Jean Baptiste in Roberval and you know the Tories will spend massive amounts of $$ to take the riding. I think St-Hyacinthe stays BQ but I'd put Roberval in the "too close to call" column with a slight edge to the Conservatives. This was Benoit Bouchard's old riding if memory serves.

quote:
Keep in mind that because Lapierre resigned back in January, sometime in the next few weeks, Harper is obliged by law to call the Outremont by-election. According to La Presse, the thinking in Quebec is that the 3 Quebec by-elections will be held on Sept. 17.

He has no choice politically but to hold the 3 Quebec by-elections on the 17th or before. I agree he may wait on the Ontario seats and anything that keeps Bob Rae out of the House of Commons for as long as possible is fine by me...

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 22 June 2007 11:00 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remember that it's a byelection, a party that would normally be spread thinly in a general election can pool their resources and achieve an extrordinary result.
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 23 June 2007 09:56 AM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:
I think St-Hyacinthe stays BQ but I'd put Roberval in the "too close to call" column with a slight edge to the Conservatives. This was Benoit Bouchard's old riding if memory serves.
[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


And going even further back, St-Hy was Claude Wagner's old riding. In light of that + the ADQ factor, I can't necessarily see CPC pussyfooting w/St-Hy, even...

From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 June 2007 10:05 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure the CPC will try as hard as they can, but the fact remains that every poll shows their support in Quebec has dropped like a stone since the last election and the fact that over the summer there is likely to be a drip, drip, drip of Quebecers dying in Afghanistan won't help either.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 23 June 2007 03:01 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, note that the Cons placed a strong 2nd in '06, with 37% of the vote (up from 8% in '04), and that despite M Gauthier's local history and profile. Without a Bloc incumbent, the riding is in play. (For the record, the Libs dropped from 23% in '04 to 7% in 06...)
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 June 2007 03:39 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but the PQ easily won Roberval in the provincial election and the ADQ made no inroads in that region at all.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 23 June 2007 10:34 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm sure the CPC will try as hard as they can, but the fact remains that every poll shows their support in Quebec has dropped like a stone since the last election and the fact that over the summer there is likely to be a drip, drip, drip of Quebecers dying in Afghanistan won't help either.

When thinking generally, I was inclined to think the Cons would spend the summer figuring out rabbits for the hat in Quebec, and stall the byes the absolute limit if necessary.

But thinking specifically, to push their Quebec numbers up they would have to do something like make a definitive announcement of the end of the Afghan engagement, and something as big as a substantial autonomist initiative with the ADQ.

IF they would do either or both of these, I think they have learned the lesson of playing all their cards early. Bad as they want these seats, they have to think about a general election.

So whatever they decide to do in Quebec, I think it will be gradual. And they may indeed just go for September or even earlier before bad news accumulates.

[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 25 June 2007 06:59 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As kingblake correctly predicted (thanks for the PM, BTW), Marcel Tremblay is NOT running for the Conservatives in Outremont. While that might be seen as bad news for Mulcair, it is still amazing that neither the Libs nor governing Tories have fielded a candidate in this looming by-election which could go to any of the 3 main parties.

Speaking of Tom Mulcair, he absolutely SMOKED Gerard Kennedy and Cons candidate Steve Gilchrist on today's "Mike Duffy Live." Kennedy was trying to exploit Dion's pathetic attempt to rouse anglo anger at the "nation" motion, and Mulcair's answer was perfect: "I was fighting separatists in the trenches for 13 years in the National Assembly - I have no lessons to take from politicians who sit on the sidelines and lecture from other provinces" To see GK sputter and stumble on his answer was just priceless.

I really think TM has a good chance to take Outremont for the NDP.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 25 June 2007 07:07 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I happened to switch on Mike Duffy just as Mulcair was ripping Kennedy a new one, calling Dion and Kennedy "Quebec-baiters". It reaffirmed my faith in humanity. Seriously.
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Charles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 200

posted 25 June 2007 07:15 PM      Profile for Charles   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's on the CTV web site but those of us on Macs can't see it without a GD windows media player; can anyone post the clip here?
From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 25 June 2007 07:21 PM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Flip4Mac - Free download plays windows media on a mac.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 June 2007 06:16 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
t is still amazing that neither the Libs nor governing Tories have fielded a candidate in this looming by-election which could go to any of the 3 main parties.

I think Outremont will really be a race between the Liberals and the NDP (and to a lesser extent the BQ). I don't think the Conservatives will be a factor there at all. They got less than 10% of the vote in the last election and the riding is full of the kind of left leaning intelligentsia that would never vote Conservative. This seat is the Montreal equivalent of Trinity-Spadina.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 26 June 2007 04:07 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And above all, if we're looking at 3 Quebec byelections at once, this is #3 in the CPC pecking order. They're not going to waste resources that'd be better spent in Roberval (extrapolating from the last fed result) and St-Hy (extrapolating from the ADQ result)...
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 26 June 2007 04:39 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Could somebody show me where I could find yesterday's mike duffy live? I'd really like to see this Muclair character.
From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 June 2007 05:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
go to www.ctv.ca and click on new and there is a link on the right side of the page to Mike Duffy Live
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 26 June 2007 07:04 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't have an option to watch previous shows...!
From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 26 June 2007 09:09 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please tell me there's an archive (or at least a transcript) floating around somewhere...
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
john
Citizen
Babbler # 47

posted 27 June 2007 05:59 AM      Profile for john     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This should work: Mike Duffy Live, June 25: Strategy Session (Mulcair, Kennedy, Gilchrist)

[ 27 June 2007: Message edited by: john ]


From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 27 June 2007 12:33 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks John.

May I ask how you got to the previous shows? It's not easy to find them from Duffy's main page.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
john
Citizen
Babbler # 47

posted 28 June 2007 05:10 AM      Profile for john     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No secret archive dump at CTV.ca, sadly. Just Googled this: +"June 25" +"Mike Duffy Live" ... pulled the day-old page from the Google cache ... and found video links there.
From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ravijo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11439

posted 28 June 2007 07:44 AM      Profile for ravijo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mulcair called Kennedy a "couch potato"! That's awesome.

The context: Tom Mulcair fending off Kennedy's allegation that his federalism policy is lax. Mulcair, rightly so, reminds Kennedy that he campaigned for federalism on the front lines during the referrendum, and he is not to be lectured by out-of-province couch potatoes who make declarations from afar (words to that effect.

I'm warming up to this Mulcair fellow. Unfortunately, he has not really shown his cards in terms of policy. It'd be unfortunate if he wanted to pull the party into liberal policies.


From: Guelph, ON | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 28 June 2007 08:41 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It'd be unfortunate if he wanted to pull the party into liberal policies.

Doesn't work that way.

And if Summerville for example was labouring under a similar misconception, maybe that was why he was gone so fast.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ravijo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11439

posted 28 June 2007 08:46 AM      Profile for ravijo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Doesn't work that way.

And if Summerville for example was labouring under a similar misconception, maybe that was why he was gone so fast.


All I'm saying is that I hope that this guy's legitimately left... someone with his gusto and eloquence would make a fantastic socialist.


From: Guelph, ON | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 28 June 2007 09:21 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Safe to say he's not a socialist.

it is a social democratic party. I don't quibble with people using the term interchangeably.

But is sometimes applied as a label with implied expectations.

If Muclair, or Tom King, were to correct you and say I am a social democrat, is that just essentially a minor disspointement to you?

Or do you take that as an indication of someone sort of 'on parole' in your eyes?

For what its worth, the only reason I'm willing to say I'm a socialist is because I know the term is used interchangeably with social democrat.

If it is a shorthand or jargon for 'real socialist', I'm not a socialist either.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
TheGup
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12691

posted 28 June 2007 03:00 PM      Profile for TheGup     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly, I find the attitude that Canadians who do not live in Quebec cannot comment on affairs in the province to be both intellectually lazy and dishonest. It it as much my federation as any Quebecer's, and I have just as much right to talk about how to make such a federation stronger.

This attitude that no one from out of province can work with Quebecers has led to this belief that there is a "favourite son" and it also led to the decimation of the Liberals in Quebec.

We need people like Gerard Kennedy (and I never thought I would say those words - the guy is a blowbag) who will stand up to intellectually dishonest people like this Mulcair guy and say, "No. It's as much my country as it is yours, and where you were born doesn't give you more right to talk about it than me."


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 June 2007 03:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except that Gerard Kennedy has contributed ZILCH to the debate on national unity. Plus he speaks French like my ass chews gum.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheGup
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12691

posted 28 June 2007 03:14 PM      Profile for TheGup     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So?

And his contribution to the national debate involves being a Canadian citizen.

And you don't need to speak French to have an opinion.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 June 2007 03:18 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the clip, john.

I didn't get Mulcair's answer to the "who is part of the nation" question. He seemed more interested in scrapping. I'm in the thick of it (as an Outremont resident) and I'll watch things carefully. But Mulcair, in my book, has always been a Liberal. We shall see.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 June 2007 03:27 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In Quebec provincial politics, if you are a federalist, the Quebec Liberal Party is the only game in town - regrettably.

If you are a leftwing federalist you can either vote Liberal or spoil your ballot.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mayakovsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5171

posted 28 June 2007 04:25 PM      Profile for mayakovsky     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of us vote QS, stockholm. I have voted for the person I thought was the best candidate although we don't agree on the national question. I make no bones about being a federalist and I live in one of the bluest ridings there is.
From: New Bedford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 28 June 2007 06:42 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Straw man, Gup. Nowhere does he say that "people outside of Quebec have no stake in Quebec/Canada". What he does say is that Quebeckers are tired of naval-gazing Ontario politicians cynically playing the 'national unity' card, whipping up hysteria about hidden seperatists, and accusing anybody who refuses to jump on the bandwagon (including people who are there on the ground) of 'feeding seperatism'.

Any word on whether QS will be helping out? Something tells me they would've preferred to campaign for, say, Leo-Paul, than they will be for Tom.... Just curious.


From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 June 2007 09:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kingblake:

Any word on whether QS will be helping out? Something tells me they would've preferred to campaign for, say, Leo-Paul, than they will be for Tom.... Just curious.


Good question. Although Léo-Paul is not (apparently) a sovereignist, he is a radical leftist and very popular in trade union and left-wing circles. That helped him score high in 2006 (around 18% if memory serves...).

I don't know what QS will do, but Mulcair is certainly no leftist - Lauzon would likely attract more QS sympathies.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 28 June 2007 10:15 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't heard Mulcair say anything that goes against party policy (unlike Sommerville, who made it known from day one that he was in the party to change our economic policy). I have heard him very vocally say that he agrees with our stance on Afganistan (and that Dion is a hypocrite for wanting the mission to continue for another 2 years) and that the NDP is the only party that has a serious plan to tackle climate change.

I'm not uncomfortable with any of that.

In any case, I'm not so sure we want this thread to become a "is he really a leftist?" thread.


From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 28 June 2007 10:18 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does the QS take any position on federal election races?

I wouldn't have thought they ran federally, but unionist mentions Leo-Paul's vote share in 2006.

If they run, that in itself eliminates my quetion.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 28 June 2007 10:33 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The way that 'not really a leftist' is used around here the NDP is chock a block full of us already. Which I imagine is one reason unionist and others keep their distance.

It's a bigger issue than the race in Outremont.

And there are practical limits to the effect he can have on the NDP. If he were ever to decide he doesn't like where the centre of gravity is in the NDP, he'll leave and/or be an embarrasment. [Seems the leaving type.]

I think what really bothers people in these parts is to see a lot of hopes placed on someone who is clearly going to be another pragmatist voice for the NDP. You'd rather it be someone else.

Fair enough. But maybe leave it there.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 June 2007 06:08 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI: Leo-Paul Lauzon made a big show of saying that he was more than happy to step aside and let Mulcair be the NDP candidate in Outremont and said that he might run in another riding in the next election (Laurier-Ste. Marie???)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 29 June 2007 07:16 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This recent Mulcair interview on macleans.ca gives some indication of his political orientation. It's very mainstream NDP with an environmental focus. If elected, I think TM will be very much like a Judy W-L or Alexa M - on the centre-right within caucus but certainly totally onside Jack's direction on key issues like Afghanistan and Kyoto. In other words, I wouldn't support him for leader and would likely disagree on some issues, but he's still well within the NDP tent without disgracing our principles.

There's no comparison with Summerville whatsoever - Paul S wanted to turn the NDP into the fed Liberals and Tom M hates Dion and the LPC with a passion, and rightly so. Paul wanted to change major chunks of our policy and Tom is out there selling Jack and the NDP "as is" to Quebec voters.

quote:
I don't know what QS will do, but Mulcair is certainly no leftist - Lauzon would likely attract more QS sympathies

I doubt you'll see QS officially endorse Mulcair, but its hard to see who else the QS voters would go for in the by-election - now that the BQ has backed Harper in 2 successive budgets, Marois is turning the PQ into an ADQ clone, and Elizabeth May has made the Greens into Liberal cheerleaders. Mulcair's themes will be "Non à la guerre/oui à Kyoto" and no other party/candidate can speak to Afghanistan and climate change with as much credibility as the NDP and TM.


quote:
FYI: Leo-Paul Lauzon made a big show of saying that he was more than happy to step aside and let Mulcair be the NDP candidate in Outremont and said that he might run in another riding in the next election (Laurier-Ste. Marie???)

Lauzon could make a very good showing in Laurier Ste-Marie, esp if Duceppe retires from politics before the next election.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kathlyna
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13972

posted 29 June 2007 07:20 AM      Profile for Kathlyna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find it rather hypocritical that the NDP people in parliament have been criticizing the other parties for "crossing the floor" instead of running for re-election under their new colours, but don't seem to mind accepting a Liberal into their midst. That of course is typical of their sanctimonious behaviour.
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 June 2007 07:33 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mulcair did not "cross the floor". He was never a federal Liberal member of parliament in the first place - so there was no floor to cross

He was a Quebec Liberal member of the Quebec National Assembly and the NDP does not exist in Quebec provincial politics.

Now that he has moved into federal politics, he has chosen the federal party that he agrees with and he is trying to win a Liberal held seat in a byelection.

This is the way the system should work.

People have every right to choose which party they want to be part of. What they do NOT have any right to do is to get elected as an MP running under the banner of one party and then switch to another party without getting that switch ratified by the voters - something that to me borders on criminal behaviour


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kathlyna
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13972

posted 29 June 2007 07:49 AM      Profile for Kathlyna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Mulcair did not "cross the floor". He was never a federal Liberal member of parliament in the first place - so there was no floor to cross

He was a Quebec Liberal member of the Quebec National Assembly and the NDP does not exist in Quebec provincial politics.

Now that he has moved into federal politics, he has chosen the federal party that he agrees with and he is trying to win a Liberal held seat in a byelection.

This is the way the system should work.

People have every right to choose which party they want to be part of. What they do NOT have any right to do is to get elected as an MP running under the banner of one party and then switch to another party without getting that switch ratified by the voters - something that to me borders on criminal behaviour



The point is Mulcair WAS a Liberal. Now, as a prospective NDPer he is badmouthing the very party and people he was representing before. Pathetic!....As far as I'm concerned, this is HYPOCRISY. I find it almost amusing to watch the NDP members in Question Period. They never stand up to make a criticism of the Conservatives, without being sure to include the Liberals as being equally guilty of whatever the crime is.

From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 June 2007 07:56 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know why I even both responding to such crap. Does Dion's office pay you to post 100% fictitious Liberal talking points here???

Mulcair was never a federal Liberal. The Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party have not had any formal ties since the 1960s. You might have forgotten that the current Quebec Liberal Premier of Quebec - Jean Charest - was previously leader of the federal Progressive Conservative. He never "crossed the floor" because he was never the supporter of any rival to the Quebec Liberals in the first place. Jack Layton was even a Quebec Liberal in the early 1970s - so what??

All of that being said, there is nothing wrong with people having an "epiphany" and switching parties - as long as they are prepared to run for parliament under their new chosen banner as opposed to shitting on the voters who had elected them for another party - the way someone like Garth Turner or David Emerson did.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 29 June 2007 07:59 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jack Layton was even a Quebec Liberal in the early 1970s - so what??

And don't forget Stephane Dion's membership in the PQ, and his time knocking doors for Rene Levesque in the 1976 provincial election...


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 29 June 2007 09:12 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did Mulcair ever actively support the federal Liberals? I don't know, but some basic googling turned up nothing. The Quebec (provincial) Liberals and the Federal Liberals are two different parties.

But even if he did support the federal Liberals, and now supports the federal NDP, that is not "hypocrisy". That is called changing your mind about who you support. Most people do that at one time or other. Winston Churchill changed parties at least twice.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 29 June 2007 09:28 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The point is Mulcair WAS a Liberal. Now, as a prospective NDPer he is badmouthing the very party and people he was representing before.

Lets be clear about how this happened. First, Tom Muclair quit the Quebec Liberals over irreconcilable differences. And he was clear what those were.

This was before he went to the NDP.

In provincial politics he had, and has, nowhere else he belonged.

A lot of provincial party Quebec Liberals have a strong and frequently expressed antipathy to the federalL iberal Party in general, and more so to Stephane Dion.

Tom Muclair has always been one of these- so he is not suddenly turning around and "badmouthing the very party and people he was representing before," now that he is in the NDP. Not only did he not represent the federal Liberal Party, he expressed his negative opinion of them when he was a Quebec Liberal.

On top of being consistent with the general stand of plenty of Quebec Liberals, Tom Muclair in particular has always liked the NDP, and he has a long time personal relationship with Jack Layton.

If he was going to switch to federal politics, the Liberal Party was never an option for Tom Muclair.

Previous posters dispensed with your argument that this is a floor crossing, and you persist with saying that it amounts to that.

Talking point dead end.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
bekayne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11876

posted 29 June 2007 09:34 AM      Profile for bekayne        Edit/Delete Post
First post here. Around 2002, Mulcair appeared on Don Newman's show a few times as a supporter of Allan Rock on panels discussing the federal Liberal leadership.
From: Kelowna, BC | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 June 2007 09:49 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

First, Tom Muclair quit the Quebec Liberals over irreconcilable differences. And he was clear what those were.

I agree that there is nothing hypocritical or undemocratic about Mulcair's switch. In any event I care far less about a person's party banner (that should be fluid, because parties can betray) than about their stands and principles.

But I think it's a stretch to say Mulcair had "irreconcilable" differences and was "clear" about them. When he quit the cabinet rather accept a shuffled portfolio, he actually offered no explanation. Those only came much later. Mulcair, like many politicians, has a serious ego (doesn't hide it well), and as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on what his motives are.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 June 2007 09:54 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
Does the QS take any position on federal election races?

I wouldn't have thought they ran federally, but unionist mentions Leo-Paul's vote share in 2006.


They don't run federally. I think you misunderstood my post. Léo-Paul ran for the NDP. When I said he would attract more "QS sympathies" than Mulcair, I meant QS voters' sympathies - not official QS support.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 29 June 2007 10:21 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It occurs to me that I've never actually heard Tom Muclair "bad mouthing" the federal Liberals since he joined the NDP.

Granted I'm no close observer of Quebec politics. But obviously neither is Kathlyna who keeps talking about said 'badmouthing'.

What I see that makes it to the national anglo media is Muclair talking up the NDP, and criticises the Liberals only when asked the inevitable 'why aren't you running for the Liberals' questions.

He talks more about the Bloc being a dead end that is now reduced to supporting the Conservatives. I think a fair characterization of Muclair on the Liberlas is that as much as possible he ignores them.

Of course, if you are a Liberal, such audacity amounts to 'bad mouthing'.

Where did I hear the word 'sanctimonious'?

-----

It's true what unionist said that Muclair did not give his reasons for quitting right away. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt that a lot of that would have to do with not wanting to undermine the government any more before the election.

And I'm sure ego snit had it's role. We wouldn't have many leaders left in civil life if we didn't make allowances for inflated egos.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 June 2007 10:33 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
KenS, it's not a major point, but repeat after me:

"Mull-Care"

not

"Moo-Claire"!

And please correct the spelling in the title.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 29 June 2007 12:21 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a child I won spelling bees.

Its been all downhill since. If I write more than two paragraphs in a post, chances are I had to edit it [and thats after having looked it over before sending].

And now I don't even read properly. I originally spelled the title Musclair, and had to change it once already. That was carelessness. Turns out I'm also ignorant- never noticed it wasn't Muclair.

Wouldn't help that I've never heard the name spoken.

So what's the roots of the name anyway? Irish?

I know he's an anglo, but the name still looks vaguely French to me. But there really aren't all that many Quebecois names, and I've never seen it before.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 June 2007 12:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is of Irish descent and has nine siblings!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 29 June 2007 01:39 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
His father is Irish and his mother is francophone.

http://stpatricksociety.com/Nuacht_March_2005.pdf

quote:

Tom’s great-grandfather was
an immigrant from Limerick in Ireland who arrived in Canada
during the Great Famine and his grandfather, also Thomas
Mulcair, had a tailor shop on Notre-Dame Street in Montreal.

Tom’s mother taught for many years at Boys’ Farm in
Shawbridge. She is a direct descendant of former Quebec Premier
Honoré Mercier. Tom and his wife Catherine, a psychologist,
have been married for 29 years and have two sons.



From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 29 June 2007 05:50 PM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I need to brush up on my Montreal geography. So Outremont riding includes the former city of Outremont plus the Mile End but not the Plateau (which is in Duceppe's riding). Is St. Laurent generally considered the borderline between the Mile End and the Plateau. The city of Outremont then is a strange mixture of wealthy Quebecois and Hassidic Jews and the rest of the riding is very, very mixed?

Couldn't Duceppe's riding arguably be the "Trinity-Spadina" of Montreal, Stockholm?

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 June 2007 06:18 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not really. Trinity-Spadina includes some relatively wealthy areas like the Annex full of upper middle class NDP voting intellectuals. Laurier-Ste. Marie has no single family homes at all. It is a very poor working class riding through and through.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 29 June 2007 06:44 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Park Avenue would be the dividing line, rather than St Laurent. The riding also includes parts of Cote-des-Neiges, which I would caracterize (correct me if I'm wrong) as a working-class newer immigrant communitiy, with a significant Arab population.

I'd join with people who haven't heard Mulcair criticize the Fed Libs very much, but with one exception: he's a very vocal critic of Stephane Dion, whether it's on the environment or Afghanistan.


From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 June 2007 06:59 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Usually, people complain that the NDP criticizes the Liberals too much. Now some say it's not enough. I guess you just can't win.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 29 June 2007 08:30 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kathlyna:

NDP members in Question Period . . . never stand up to make a criticism of the Conservatives, without being sure to include the Liberals as being equally guilty of whatever the crime is.

Why not? The Liberals usually are equally guilty - and often even more guilty.

For example, as appalling as the Conservative climate change policy is, it sure beats naming your dog Kyoto and then going on vacation.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 June 2007 04:17 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP's national dream

quote:
“Tommy Douglas used to say, ‘Dream no little dreams,'” Mr. Layton said. “I think it would be fair to say an NDP breakthrough in Quebec is one of those bigger dreams, and Tom is definitely a dream come true.”

But at the same time as they are excited by Mr. Mulcair's potential, some NDP diehards are questioning his left-wing credentials. And Mr. Mulcair is already drawing distinctions between himself and his new party, particularly on the question of Israel. [...]

On this issue, Mr. Mulcair distances himself from his new party. Over the course of a two-hour interview in Outremont, it is the only subject with which he struggles.

“My wife's family, like a lot of European Jews, suffered a lot during the war,” he said, offering further details but requesting discretion. “My strong support for Israel shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that I don't realize there are huge problems.”

His position on the Middle East is not the only one that strays from the views of the party's base, which, as last year's convention showed, can tend toward the dogmatic.

Like a school of piranhas devouring a fresh victim, the Canadian left has been picking apart Mr. Mulcair's record.

Discussions on websites such as enmasse.ca, popular with young New Democrats, reveal a great deal of excitement about the star candidate. At the same time, they question whether he is really one of them if he could sit in a Charest cabinet that fought a major battle with the province's unions. His 2004 call for a debate on the bulk export of fresh water to the United States is also raising alarms.

Other observers are also surprised to see Mr. Mulcair join the NDP. “If you asked me before he joined the New Democrats, I would have said he was on the centre-right,” said Alain Noël, a political science professor at the University of Montreal.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 June 2007 05:53 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sounds good to me.

Anyone with any experience in government will inevitably have had run ins with public sector unions. There are several NDP MPs who were MPPs in Ontario in the Rae years and voted for the "social contract" (as did Marilyn Churley) and we know that NDP governments in Saskatchewan and BC have frequently dealt with public sector labour unrest etc...

One thing that is a bit odd in the article is the implication that New Democrats chose Layton as leader because he promised a breakthrough in Quebec. That's not how I remember it at all. Layton was seen as someone who would rebuild the party in the urban centres of Ontario and BC etc...the fact that he could speak French was regarded as a bonus (particularly compared to Bill Blaikie who could not), but there was never much talk about winning seats in Quebec in the short-term.

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 June 2007 07:36 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Anyone with any experience in government will inevitably have had run ins with public sector unions. There are several NDP MPs who were MPPs in Ontario in the Rae years and voted for the "social contract" (as did Marilyn Churley) and we know that NDP governments in Saskatchewan and BC have frequently dealt with public sector labour unrest etc...

"Run-ins" may be inevitable, but suppressing free collective bargaining, crusing strikes, and imposing non-negotiated contracts really is on the monstrous side, at least in the eyes of the U.N. and the ILO.

In Mulcair's case, the cabinet decisions he participated enthusiastically in (though today he claims to be "uncomfortable") were particularly anti-democratic. They were the subject of complaints to the ILO in fact:

Fighting to overturn denial of human rights and labour rights by the Charest government

quote:
Quebec public-sector workers are turning to labour agencies and tribunals, at home and abroad, to force the province's Liberal government back to the bargaining table in their fight to overturn the collective agreement forced on them last December.

The unions claim their rights were violated when the government of Premier Jean Charest cut off negotiations and rammed special legislation through the legislature, enforcing salary levels and working conditions for close to 500,000 workers who face stiff fines and penalties if they defy the law. [...]


To say that "well, the NDP does stuff like this too" is a pretty odd defence IMHO. Anti-worker is anti-worker, no matter who is on the legislating end.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 30 June 2007 07:42 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist,

Did Mulcair not eventually leave the Charest liberals over his ideological disagreemants with his leader?


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 June 2007 07:49 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not bas simple as saying you are either pro-worker or anti-worker. One problem is that in the past when "worker-friendly" governments come to power, the next thing you know public sector unions start demanding 30% wage increases overnight etc...

I remember the early 80s in Quebec when the supposedly pro-worker PQ government endured general strikes and having Levesque burned in effigy etc...


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 June 2007 07:52 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Unionist,

Did Mulcair not eventually leave the Charest liberals over his ideological disagreemants with his leader?


Which ideological disagreements? Mulcair had no disagreements over the anti-union policy of the Charest government. He had no disagreements about taking steps to privatize water. He left the cabinet when he was demoted, and gave no reasons at the time. Today, we are all discussing to see whether there are any "ideological" disagreements (which is not the same as "political" ones) between Mulcair and the Liberal Party of Québec. My personal jury shows no sign of reporting back any time soon.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 June 2007 07:57 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
One problem is that in the past when "worker-friendly" governments come to power, the next thing you know public sector unions start demanding 30% wage increases overnight etc...

Are you running for president of the Chamber of Commerce or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business? Even given your normal style of exaggeration and imaginary concoction, this one is particularly foul.

quote:
I remember the early 80s in Quebec when the supposedly pro-worker PQ government endured general strikes and having Levesque burned in effigy etc...

"Endured general strikes"? The second Lévesque PQ mandate crushed workers' strikes and imposed "decrees" in lieu of freely negotiated collective agreements. They stopped short of jailing the heads of the central union bodies (as Bourassa did ten years before), but just barely.

Unlike you, I condemn anti-worker repression and cancellation of democratic rights wherever I see them.

The fact that the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and PQ have all resorted to such barbaric and illegal measures (now probably also unconstitutional, given the Supreme Court's recent decision) doesn't mean (as you appear to suggest) that this is the "Canadian way". It means that all these actions must be condemned by society, no matter what pretentious "friendly to worker" party label some unscrupulous self-serving politicians choose to wear.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 June 2007 07:58 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If "unionist" ever starts to say anything good about the NDP - then I'll start to worry that the party is on the verge of losing official party status.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 June 2007 08:03 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If "unionist" ever starts to say anything good about the NDP - then I'll start to worry that the party is on the verge of losing official party status.

What pathetic falsehoods you utter. I praise the NDP all the time - on the environment, on Afghanistan, for stands which you abhor (their occasional strong stands on Israel, for example), on their coming to terms with the Québec national question at the last convention (which no other federal party has done), on the anti-scab issue (federally - not provincially), etc. And, I either caution them when they falter, or condemn them when they betray.

You, on the other hand, check to see the party label before you compliment or condemn. Don't worry, you're not alone.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 30 June 2007 08:48 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Unlike you, I condemn anti-worker repression and cancellation of democratic rights wherever I see them.

The fact that the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and PQ have all resorted to such barbaric and illegal measures (now probably also unconstitutional, given the Supreme Court's recent decision) doesn't mean (as you appear to suggest) that this is the "Canadian way". It means that all these actions must be condemned by society, no matter what pretentious "friendly to worker" party label some unscrupulous self-serving politicians choose to wear.


I'm with unionist on this one, but as the discussion as shown, this is not a "Mulcair" issue but an overall NDP issue. We have MPs like Penny Priddy who sat in the BC NDP cabinet for 10 years in the 1990s and supported BC Benefits, which imposed a 3-month waiting period for welfare, cut benefits for single employable, forced young people to take training or they would get cut off, etc. In real terms, welfare rates were higher under the Vander Zalm Socreds then under the NDP. And of course, Christopherson and Matthysen didn't resign when Rae ripped up collective agreements, imposed the Social Contract, etc during the Ontario NDP gov't of 1990-1995.

So the question for me is not whether Mulcair is a "true NDPer" but what that term actually means in practice. I have long advocated separate fed and prov NDP memberships as I would have quit the Ontario NDP in the 1990s but wanted to support Svend for NDP leader in 1995.

I'm generally happy with Jack's direction, with a few exceptions like the criminal justice platform, and from what I see so far, so is Mulcair. It is certainly unfair to impose some purity test on Mulcair that we don't for the BC, Manitoba and Ontario NDP MPs who sat in governments who did reprehensible things (along with a lot of other very progressive policies of course). As unionist says, just because it has the NDP label on it doesn't mean it's any better than the same policy with a PLQ label on it.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 June 2007 08:52 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
YOu said it very well WCL. I guess my point is that we should not single out Mulcair for any tests of ideological purity, when we never do the same for people like Tony Martin, Dave Christopherson, Irene Mathyssen, Marilyn Churley, Judy W-L or Penny Priddy who were also part of provincial governments that might have done things we didn't all agree with.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 June 2007 10:23 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
One thing that is a bit odd in the article is the implication that New Democrats chose Layton as leader because he promised a breakthrough in Quebec. That's not how I remember it at all . . .there was never much talk about winning seats in Quebec in the short-term.

No contradiction there. One of my campaign talking points for Jack was that, as he said, "I'm not from Toronto, I'm from Montreal." He promised to work for a breakthrough in Quebec, not in the short-term, but in the longer-term, yes.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 June 2007 11:02 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
we should not single out Mulcair for any tests of ideological purity, when we never do the same for people like Tony Martin, Dave Christopherson, Irene Mathyssen . . .

I'm no purist, but like most New Democrats it's important to me that Howard Hampton has apologized for the so-called "social contract" which was opposed not just by labour but by a very strong vote at the party's provincial council.

Is anyone like those three MPs still defending it?

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 30 June 2007 04:46 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Not really. Trinity-Spadina includes some relatively wealthy areas like the Annex full of upper middle class NDP voting intellectuals. Laurier-Ste. Marie has no single family homes at all. It is a very poor working class riding through and through.

Then is there *anything* comparable to LSM in Toronto at all? It seems more a Hamiltonian or Windsorian kind of riding, then...

From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 June 2007 05:02 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It might be kinda like Davenport - but it also contains the gay village in montreal and it is very francophone with minimal numbers of immigrants
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 30 June 2007 05:19 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
About a year ago now, I remember asking Irene Mathyssen about Bob Rae and the social contract and she gave me a real animated response.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I realize that such a statement is open to interpretation, but I took that to mean that she would not be making the same mistake twice.

Take that how you will.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 June 2007 05:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by redflag:
... she would not be making the same mistake twice.

Take that how you will.


I take it the next one will be different?


[Edited by Michelle to change redflag's name]

[ 22 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 30 June 2007 07:05 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I take it the next one will be different?


Well, everyone makes mistakes. It's a part of life. The thing that will be interesting is to see if she meant what she said in the way that I interpreted it.

That is to say that she will never again vote for legislation that tramples on the right of workers to bargain for their wages.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 30 June 2007 07:24 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
It might be kinda like Davenport - but it also contains the gay village in montreal and it is very francophone with minimal numbers of immigrants

Except that LSM feels quite "central" compared to Davenport (as such seats go, Rosemont might be more Davenport-esque).

Ultimately, it might just be a fluke result of the way the urbanity of these constituencies developed over time (which weirdly ties Montreal in more with Hamilton than Toronto)--and add to that, the "gentrificatus interruptus" of separatist politics...


From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 July 2007 08:25 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's nothing like Hamilton. Montreal is a big cosmopolitan city. But it has historically had a lot of very slummy areas in the east end and Laurier-Ste. Marie includes the core of that.

Toronto never had any one side of town that was always considered ther wrong side of the tracks (ie: east Vancouver, North Winnipeg etc...)

I guess if I really had to pick a riding in English Canada that is at all like LSM, it would be a place like Vancouver East


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 01 July 2007 09:49 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And at 104 posts, I guess we'll give Stockholm the last word.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca