• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
Awesome, that's just Liberal fan-fucking-tastic!!  I'm so glad the mouth breathers were able to vote these assholes in with a majority.  You start letting the banks rob from their customers over $100K you give them that inch and they'll take a mile down the road.  Thanks, Capt. Sunshine ways... so relieved you're here with your peeps to save us all.  Guess he's not smarter than a 5th grader after all.
 
cavalryman said:
A writer who can't even spell Cyprus?  :dunno:

You would not believe the number of times I've been caught out by spellcheck or autocorrect. Sadly, "layers of editors and fact checkers" in the sorts of organizations that still have any rarely make up for this either....
 
It's actually straight from a study done in the 2013 Budget.  It was a Conservative plan.  The Liberals and Conservatives are virtually the same party when it comes to economic matters.

Anyway, bail in is better than bailout.
 


We are going in a new direction here, and in the other political threads.

If people are going to participate in this thread, they have to ensure their points are factual.

No more name calling, vitriol or baiting. Trolling is out. Proper names and titles only in the first instance. (PM Trudeau, Stephen Harper, etc) which may be followed by Trudeau, Harper for the rest of the post

We are going to stick to the issues. That's it, that's all. Anything else runs the risk of being deleted without notification or explanation.

Lastly, by way of a small explanation, this is a military site, of mostly military people, who come here to discuss military topics. If you want to spend your day arguing politics, there's plenty of sites out there that cater to that subject.

This is not one of them.

From this point on, Moderators who contribute to this thread will not moderate them and vica versa.

---Staff---
 
iPolitics is noting a large percentage drop in the Prime Minister's approval ratings:

Trudeau’s “honeymoon” now fading: EKOS
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s hold on the Canadian psyche appears to be returning to more normal levels, an EKOS poll suggests.

The Liberals have dropped 12 percentage points since the beginning of the year when it comes to support for the direction it is taking Canada, according to the poll conducted following the federal budget for iPolitics.

EKOS president Frank Graves said the decline comes after Trudeau’s government posted near record levels of support in the early days of its mandate.

“It was more of a nuclear honeymoon that was well beyond normal. It appears that it is starting to fade a bit and they are coming back to earth.”

EKOS found the percentage of respondents who felt the Liberal government was headed in the right direction had dropped from 68 per cent near the beginning the year to 56 per cent. While the number of people who felt the government is headed in the wrong direction rose from 32 per cent to 44 per cent, it was still outweighed by the number of respondents who felt Trudeau’s government was headed in the right direction.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/03/trudeaus-nuclear-honeymoon-now-fading-ekos/ (More here)

Interesting to see some of the regional divide in the results. I'm not sure how much of the decline in Ontario is due to the PM's policies, or the absolute destruction the Ontario Liberals have made of the province's economy.
 
How some socialists complain the NDP isn't socialist ENOUGH!
In the run-up to this weekend’s federal New Democratic Party (NDP) convention, Canada’s pseudo-left has stepped up its efforts to promote this discredited big business party as an instrument for opposing austerity and even fighting for socialism.

The claim that the NDP can be a vehicle of working class struggle is preposterous. But that is no obstacle for the likes of Fightback, the International Socialists (IS), Socialist Action, and the NDP’s moribund Socialist Caucus. However, it does require that they shamelessly distort, falsify and lie about the political record, social composition, and class orientation of the NDP.

All these groups have sought to portray the NDP’s “Harper lite” campaign in the 2015 federal election as a misstep at odds with NDP traditions and largely attributable to the politics of party leader, Tom Mulcair, an ex-Quebec Liberal cabinet minister and self-avowed admirer of Margaret Thatcher, and a small coterie of his advisors and party officials.

On the role the unions have played in the NDP’s lurch to the right over the past three decades, their suppression of the class struggle, longstanding promotion of the Liberals as a “progressive ally”, and support for the abortive 2008 NDP-Liberal coalition—all these groups are studiously silent.

Pointing to the examples of British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and the self-professed “democratic socialist” candidate for the US Democratic Party presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders, the pseudo-left groups are urging the NDP to dump Mulcair and “turn left.” If the NDP patterns itself after Corbyn and Sanders, it will become, like them, a pole of attraction for workers and youth seeking an alternative to capitalist austerity, the electoral fortunes of Canada’s social democrats will revive, and the NDP can fulfill its mission as a workers’ party, fundamentally opposed to the big business Liberal and Conservatives ... or so claim Fightback, Socialist Action and the other pseudo-left groups.

The reality is that the NDP, ever since its founding in 1961, has been a pro-capitalist party closely tied to the right-wing trade union bureaucracy. Over the past three decades, like its social democratic counterparts internationally, the NDP has abandoned even its rhetorical commitment to reformist policies, embraced balanced budgets and capitalist austerity and helped revive militarism, supporting Canada’s participation in one US-led war after another ...
You get the idea ...
 
It will certainly be interesting if they formally adopt the LEAP manifesto as some members want them to.
 
If I remember correctly one of Prime Minister Harper's aims was to eliminate the middle from Canadian politics.  He went after the Liberals.

It seems to me that the Liberals may be on the verge of producing the political divide that he wanted. The Liberals have moved so far to the left, in popular perception, that the NDP is contemplating moving even farther to the left, to the point of unelectable irrelevance.
 
Chris Pook said:
If I remember correctly one of Prime Minister Harper's aims was to eliminate the middle from Canadian politics.  He went after the Liberals.

It seems to me that the Liberals may be on the verge of producing the political divide that he wanted. The Liberals have moved so far to the left, in popular perception, that the NDP is contemplating moving even farther to the left, to the point of unelectable irrelevance.

Absolutely. Harper is going to achieve his goal of a 2 party system, but he had the wrong target in mind. The NDP was a ticking timebomb since Jack Layton took over, they could only hold back the hard socialists for so long.
 
Took the words right out of my mouth.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-blasted-brazillian-columnist-1.3526593
 
jollyjacktar said:
Took the words right out of my mouth.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-blasted-brazillian-columnist-1.3526593

quote-o-wad-some-pow-r-the-giftie-gie-us-to-see-oursels-as-others-see-us-it-wad-frae-mony-a-blunder-free-robert-burns-304122.jpg


To a louse.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Took the words right out of my mouth.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-blasted-brazillian-columnist-1.3526593

Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations. 
 
And more on the NDP's formation of a circular firing squad:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-chris-hall-leadership-ndp-1.3525911

Mulcair and the NDP head into couples therapy at convention
NDP leader faces a divided party, with some calling for his departure and others standing behind him
By Chris Hall, CBC NewsPosted: Apr 08, 2016 5:00 AM ET|Last Updated: Apr 08, 2016 10:09 AM ET

Chris Hall
National Affairs Editor

Chris Hall is the CBC's National Affairs Editor, based in the Parliamentary Bureau in Ottawa. He began his reporting career with the Ottawa Citizen, before moving to CBC Radio in 1992, where he worked as a national radio reporter in Toronto, Halifax and St. John's. He returned to Ottawa and the Hill in 1998.

Related Stories

■Tom Mulcair and the NDP try to figure out where to go next
■The Pollcast: The future of the NDP and Tom Mulcair
■Mulcair not worried about MPs rebelling against his leadership
■Tom Mulcair will 'do everything' to keep oil in the ground if party tells him to
■Windsor, Essex MPs express support for Mulcair ahead of convention
■Dominic Cardy refuses to endorse Tom Mulcair, skips party convention
■Mulcair not worried about MPs rebelling against his leadership
■NDP should embrace Leap Manifesto, riding associations say ahead of party convention


Whatever the outcome of this weekend's vote on Tom Mulcair's leadership, it's already apparent that the NDP is a party deeply divided — not just over whether he deserves to stay in the job, but over where the party needs to go.

One can't be separated from the other.

Mulcair, as we already know, led the New Democrats to a devastating result in the 2015 election. The party lost votes, over half its seats and its status as the Official Opposition in the House of Commons.
■Dominic Cardy refuses to endorse Tom Mulcair, skips party convention
■Proposed NDP resolutions reveal grassroots itching to shift to the left
■NDP should embrace Leap Manifesto, riding associations say
■Mulcair not worried about MPs rebelling against his leadership

Worse still, the Liberals vaulted over the NDP in large part because Justin Trudeau out-performed Mulcair during the campaign.

But there's a growing sense inside the party that the Liberals really usurped the NDP as the party of choice among progressive voters, with the most obvious example being Trudeau's willingness to run deficits to invest in infrastructure, indigenous communities and health care.

Heading into the weekend, the list of those who want a change at the top includes the party's youth wing, its socialist caucus and the president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

In a letter released this week, the youth wing urged NDP members to support "a new direction and new style of leadership."

It complains that young New Democrats were forced in the last campaign to argue against legalization of marijuana, against Mulcair's participation in a debate on women's issues and, well, on a host of other issues that ran counter to what young people believe.

A more progressive approach

For those who want Mulcair out as leader, the arguments amount to something like this: They want someone who's more progressive. More hip. More engaging. They see Mulcair as too top-down in his approach, a leader unwilling to listen or compromise.

In an interview with CBC's Peter Mansbridge on Wednesday, Mulcair went out of his way to signal a willingness to listen to grassroots members — even on proposals to keep fossil fuels in the ground to fight climate change, a contentious idea in Alberta, the province hosting this weekend's convention.

On the other side are some of the country's largest public and private sector unions, among them the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the United Steelworkers, who insist Mulcair remains the right person to lead the party. They see him as bright, experienced, principled and tough.

"I see Tom as a real fighter," CUPE's national president, Mark Hancock, said this week on the podcast edition of CBC Radio's The House. "He's a scrapper. He's somebody I want to have in my corner if I'm going into a dispute."

Somewhere in the middle is Mulcair's own caucus. There's no open rebellion, but neither are his MPs doing much to openly line up behind him.

It's an uncomfortable spot for a political leader who has spent the past few months accepting blame for the NDP's poor showing in the last campaign, and appealing for a second chance.

Under the party's constitution, Mulcair only needs the support of 50 per cent plus one of the 1,500 delegates expected in Edmonton this weekend to stave off a leadership race.

Mulcair says that's clearly not enough. And there, at least, he's getting no blowback.

The numbers game

Party president Rebecca Blaikie has mused that Mulcair probably needs 70 per cent, a figure others in the party insist is the minimum for Mulcair to claim the "moral authority" to stay.

And even then it could be a compromise of sorts. Some New Democrats quietly say they don't believe Mulcair can lead the party into the next election, but they don't want him to leave quite yet, when there's no obvious successor.

Either way, it's uncharted territory for a party with no history of deposing its leaders.

And if you're a Mulcair backer there's an added cause for concern. Nearly twice as many delegates as expected registered for this weekend's convention. It's unlikely, say party insiders, that the greater than expected turnout is among New Democrats interested in maintaining the status quo.

Looking for signs

With that in mind, here are some things to watch for this weekend in Edmonton as a gauge of how Sunday's leadership review might go:
■How many speakers at the microphones focus on the past election's failures as opposed to focus on where the party needs to go? A collective inability to stop rehashing the 2015 campaign would indicate Mulcair has failed to convince members he can lead the party forward. How many will defend him? Many insiders are looking at the resolutions in Section 7 dealing with internal party democracy. If people really want to vent against Mulcair, that's where they'll do it.
■How hard will delegates push the convention to adopt the so-called Leap Manifesto as party policy? The document drafted by activist writers Naomi Klein and Ai Lewis calls for the rejection of all new pipelines and fracking, the scrapping of trade deals and a focus on "localized, ecologically based agriculture" as part of a drive to an economy that will rely exclusively on renewable energy.
■Discussions were underway before the convention to bring forward a resolution that would have the party endorse the principles of the manifesto with a commitment to work on ways to incorporate some — but not all — of the proposals as party policy. Mulcair is part of those discussions. How delegates who are demanding a more progressive agenda react to what's agreed upon will be another gauge.
■What will Mulcair say in his speech to delegates? What tone will he strike on Sunday morning immediately before voting begins on the leadership review? A common view is that it's now up to Mulcair "to seal the deal" on his leadership. Everyone knows what happened in 2015. The goal in that speech has to be to convince people that he's the right choice to lead the NDP forward.

"He has to show he can raise money, bring in new members and identify those progressive issues that will distinguish the NDP under Tom Mulcair from the Liberals under Justin Trudeau,'' says one insider.

Mulcair's supporters argue a willingness to run deficits is no measure of how progressive your policies are. They say the NDP remains the only party that would scrap the Conservatives' anti-terrorism law. It's the only party opposed to a military role in Iraq. And the only party with a plan to tax corporations more heavily, or to propose universal, $15-a-day child care.

It's no easy task. The sting of 2015 remains sharp. Rebuilding for a future four years away is still too distant.

As the British historian Lord Acton famously observed, "The long term versus the short term argument is the one used by losers."

It may well be the best argument Mulcair has, as he tries to hold on to his job, and to keep his party from the kind of divisive public quarrelling that eventually doomed the Liberals to the opposition benches a decade ago.
 
Remius said:
Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations.

Amnesty spoke out against the Tories as well, it isn't a partisan plot. The Globe ran a similar article attacking the source, instead of the ideas, including trying to smear all Brazilian newspapers as "traditionally right-wing".
 
Remius said:
Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations.

They, Amnesty excepted, as I said, take the words right out of my mouth for how I feel about the subject matter.  I'm not alone in this either.
 
Remius said:
Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations.

Remius, I don't believe the articles were quoted for validation.  In my mind they were merely quoted because of the opinion.  I agree that Vilma's opinion doesn't matter. Just as mine doesn't. I can still agree with her opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top