Tag Archives: Thomas Mulcair

Mulcair to resign after election?

Chantal Hebert is suggesting this in her latest column.

I guess because I have always assumed that Mulcair would not win this election and that the Orange Wave was a one off election result, that he would hold on.  Then again, I am not a partisan New Democrat and kind of missed this.

If — as the polls are suggesting — he leads the NDP back to third place, Mulcair is unlikely to get another kick at the election can.

The New Democrats have a long and unbroken record of federal defeats and almost as long a history of giving their leaders a second or even a third chance. But a defeat this time would feel different to many party loyalists for they were asked to put quite a bit of water in their ideological wine on the way to their latest bid for government.

To make matters worse, if the NDP ends up back in third place, it will not be because it stood against the Conservative anti-terrorism act or opposed Canada’s military role in its mission against Islamic extremists in the Middle East, or even because it stood against a niqab ban.

From the New Democrat perspective, those would all be good hills to die on.

What has really ailed the Mulcair campaign has been an excess of prudence and a failure to cast the party as a compelling, convincing agent of change. On that score, the Liberals did not steal the ground from under the feet of the New Democrats. The latter left it vacant for Trudeau to occupy.

Whether Mulcair himself would want to stay on for very long if he is defeated in the election is an open question.

Over the campaign, the NDP leader has sometimes been hard-pressed to conceal his contempt for the skills of his Liberal rival. It is hardly a given that he would want to play second fiddle to Trudeau in opposition to another Conservative government or that he could be a happy camper propping up a minority Liberal government.

Also, if you are Harper or Mulcair, columns like these are the worst thing you want to read anytime but especially this close to the election.

After one week of the campaign, here is what I think I know.

As I am at most times early in a campaign, I am struggling with who to vote for.  Here are my thoughts so far after watching the Maclean’s Leader’s Debate and the first week of the campaign.

Conservative Party

  • Stephen HarperStephen Harper lies a lot.  An incredible amount.  I actually can’t think of a Prime Minister that lies has much as he does about his record.  My only comparison might be Tony Blair (who lied over crazy things).  Is what they mean by “absolute power corrupts absolutely”?
  • C-51 really bothers me.  I don’t believe it makes Canadians even safer and it takes away important oversight over our CSIS and the RCMP.  It also creates silos which is the kind of organizational mess that allowed the attacks of 9-11 to begin.  What is even worse, is that this isn’t just my thoughts on security but have been written about extensively but top US intelligence leaders.  Harper could have learned from others but chose not to.
  • The shenanigans over the campaign stops.  I need to be invited to a campaign event to attend?  It’s weird.  I like to take the kids out to see leaders as they pass through town but now I have to be a committed Conservative supporter to see the Prime Minister in an election campaign?  And I can’t post photos on social media?  What kind of thinking leads to that.
  • Stephen Harper’s big promise today?  A travel ban on travelling to tourist areas!  So what happens if I want to do humanitarian work there (I had friends working in Afghanistan long before 9/11 and they were doing good work with local farmers).  What happens if I have friends and family there that are not terrorists?  Since when has any Canadian government told it’s citizens where they can travel.  How does that make Canada safer?  Also since when does where I travel decide if I am innocent or guilty.  This is going down a dark path.
  • Whoever gave Harper the advice that he could just not appoint senators is an idiot.  Again, is he being serious or is he going after uneducated voters that this appeals to.  I just don’t know.
  • Okay, I’ll just call this now, Stephen Harper is a deeply paranoid Prime Minister.
  • Of course his promise to never have a Netflix tax.  Also, anyone else find it a little weird that a law and order Prime Minister likes Breaking Bad.  Anyone think that he actually watches or knows what Breaking Bad is?  I thought so. 

New Democratic Party

  • Thomas MulcairThe Sherbrook Declaration which says that the country can be broken up with a vote of 50% plus one goes against my core beliefs and the Supreme Court of Canada.
  • The NDP plan to abolish the senate sounds great (well actually it sounds stupid) when said on a campaign trail but why are we making, “re-opening the constitution” a campaign platform.  Did we have so much fun at Meech Lake, Charlottetown and the subsequent Quebec referendum that we want to do this again?
  • I am not impressed with the $15 an hour national wage.  I think it is poorly thought out policy.  Actually it was the kind of poorly thought out but populist policies that the NDP were known for and I had hoped they had left behind.
  • Tom Mulcair talking about climate change is a little like hearing Stephen Harper talk about the economy.  A lot of bravado but not much of a plan.
  • I have always been disgusted that the NDP opened those satellite offices across the country in clear violation of the rules and won’t pay back the money.  Apparently the Liberal Party and the Conservatives aren’t the only one that feel entitled to imaginary entitlements.
  • Linda McQuaig’s comments on the oilsands.  Really the NDP are going to shut down the oilsands and plunge Alberta and probably Saskatchewan into a depression for years?  This is why it is hard to take the NDP seriously most elections.  I don’t trust them to manage the economy.  Of course it’s hard to beat Harper’s economic record but the NDP seem to be trying.
  • I hate the NDP stance of deferring to the United Nations on military actions.  In theory that sounds great but in practice it gives Russia a veto on whether or not you act.  In case the NDP haven’t noticed, there is a madman in charge of Russia and that seat on the UN Security Council.

Liberal Park

  • Justin TrudeauHate that Trudeau voted for C-51.  Just hate it.  Either Liberal Party advisors are playing politics with an important issue or are idiots.  Or both.
  • I know I am the outlier on this but I thought Trudeau was poor in the debates.  I thought it was weird he didn’t tell me what he believed, only what the Liberal Party believed.  It’s not a big thing but I thought it was strange.  According to the polls, I was wrong about this anyways, most thought he won.
  • Trudeau’s faith in the ability of the senate to be restored is noble.  For all of the NDP and the Conservatives rhetoric that it can not, in truth, no one has ever tried.   At least Trudeau is going to try.
  • Trudeau’s foreign policy isn’t so much a thought out foreign policy but just plain naïve.  While Harper’s doesn’t make sense, doing the opposite of craziness doesn’t make it sane.  It is just stupid in another direction.  His views on Syria and ISIS are naïve and goes against any form of common sense.  Of course the US and Harper’s plan aren’t that effective right now either. 

This is separate from all three parties but in the U.S. in both the GOP and the Democratic party, they have adults who spend their lives on making careful and well thought out policy decisions.  In Canada, we seem to leave those decisions to political hacks which is why we get these half baked policy ideas that make no sense to anyone other than pollsters.  When talking about foreign policy, defense, or the economy, those wise voices creating policy, tend to be important and we really lack that here.

I don’t know how  I am going to vote but none of the three campaigns get me that excited and to be honest, seem to be doing what Allan Gregg said after the 1988 campaign.  The Tories went after the really stupid voters.  Sadly that worked and it seems like all three parties are targeting that demographic right now.

In other words, the left won’t be uniting soon

This got ugly quickly

"That Justin Trudeau would use Jack Layton’s dying words as a political tool says everything that needs to be said about Justin Trudeau’s judgment and character," Mulcair said.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow, Layton’s widow, focused her reaction on Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"I’m quite surprised that the leader of the Liberals used my late husband’s words, but at the end of the day Stephen Harper is the prime minister," Chow said.

"If we are to have a better country, and certainly Canadians deserve a lot better, we need to focus on Stephen Harper. Yes, we are the party of love, hope and optimism and let’s be hopeful. Let’s not be fearful of each other, but let’s train our eyes on the real problem, which is Stephen Harper’s government."

Trudeau, however, was unapologetic, accusing the NDP of being nasty and divisive in the hard-fought campaigns, which saw all three major parties use aggressive tactics.

In other words, it is okay for the NDP to use Layton’s dying words as a political tool but not Justin Trudeau.  I am glad we got that straight.

NDP Miffed At Justin Trudeau for Stealing Headlines

Doesn’t this mean that the Liberals are doing a better job than the NDP?

OTTAWA – The NDP is steamed about media attention lathered on Justin Trudeau and a party that fell out of public favour over the sponsorship scandal while the official opposition struggles to get ink.

The Liberal leader puts a bong in the window and stumps to tax pot and he’s suddenly prime ministerial after the last guy behind the wheel drove the party into the history books with the worst electoral showing ever, they say.

New Democrats can point to a summer tweet by Trudeau about his wife’s pregnancy that made the front page as another example of adoration.

The Liberals are betting the farm on their leader’s popularity.

Privately, New Democrats grumble about the media love-in and why news outlets don’t press the third-place party and expose its weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

The NDP spent the summer often being the only opposition party to challenge the Conservatives – its news releases flooding media inboxes and its critics standing before microphones.

Thomas Mulcair spent the better part of the House recess rolling out ideas and initiatives and teeing off on Senate spending abuses.

“When you go into a scrum and look at the body language of the reporters there, they act like groupies. It’s fascinating to watch,” a party official said about Trudeau’s extended honeymoon since his anointment in April.

Other New Democrats are optimistic that interest in Trudeau is waning and that next week’s resumption of Parliament after a month-long prorogation will remind Canadians why the Grits sit in a corner in the Commons.

Pro tip: Winning political parties also don’t allow process stories like this to be written.

The missed opportunity

Why Harper’s foes need to get off the pot by Paul Wells

Liberals, you see, are quite sure every Canadian is a Liberal whose vote was stolen by Conservative skullduggery in the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011. Canadians, in this view, think marijuana use is harmless fun, and they will blame politicians who want to harsh the national buzz. So a Liberal friend of mine was genuinely surprised when she plunked herself down behind the Liberal party table at a local community event and got her ear bent by voters, many of them from immigrant communities, asking why Trudeau was soft on drugs.Ja

The realization that many Canadians believe illegal drugs should stay illegal is one surprise awaiting the Liberals. Another is that a lot more Canadians have complex, conflicting or frankly hypocritical views on drug policy— but that it’s not drug policy that will determine their next vote. Millions will vote based on their best guess about which party will best ensure a strong economy whose bounties improve their own life and their family’s. And Justin Trudeau just spent a month talking about something else.

This is something else that Liberals cannot understand: the notion that most Canadians are no longer properly grateful for the work Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did to clean up deficits in the 1990s. In fact, a growing number of Canadians, even the ones who don’t smoke a lot of pot, have dim memories of the 1990s or none at all.

This helps explain a Harris-Decima poll from the end of August that inquired about respondents’ opinions of the national political parties. Trudeau’s net favourable impression is way higher than Harper’s and a fair bit higher than NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s. Respondents were likelier to believe Trudeau “shares your values.” He’s having a strong year in the polls. But Harper still has a slight edge over both Trudeau and Mulcair on “judgment,” and on “economic management” it was a blowout: 39 per cent prefer Harper to only 20 per cent for Trudeau and 15 per cent for Mulcair.

Trudeau hasn’t the faintest intention of campaigning in the 2015 election with pot legalization as his main plank. But changing deep-seated attitudes toward a party takes time. And because the Liberals took two years to pick a leader after the 2011 elections, Trudeau only has three summers to define himself before facing voters, and he pretty much just blew one.

For much the same reason, I’m not sure Tom Mulcair picked the right issue when he used part of his summer to travel coast-to-coast campaigning for Senate abolition. For reasons explained elsewhere in this issue, Canadians are angry at the Senate right now. That’s not the same as believing any party has the ability, once in power, to do much about it. His Senate tour illustrates a little-noticed difference between Mulcair and his predecessor Jack Layton. Layton came from Toronto city politics. He hadn’t the faintest interest in constitutional tinkering. The NDP stood for abolishing the Senate, as it always had, and Layton never talked about it. Mulcair comes from Quebec provincial politics, where a generation grew up believing that if you have no constitutional scheme to peddle you cannot be serious.

Layton’s prosaic fascination with voters’ kitchen-table preoccupations helped him supplant the Liberals as the first choice for voters eager to block the Conservatives. Next time around that vote will be up for grabs again. Mulcair and Trudeau both plan to try to take Harper’s economic credibility away from him. They haven’t gotten around to it yet, but they believe they have time. Harper’s opponents always believe they have plenty of time.

Does it matter who we vote for federally?

Michael Den Tendt doesn’t think so

Which leads us back to this: Be it resolved, there is now a single homogeneous Canadian political culture, expressed via the three main party shadings. How long until platforms themselves become irrelevant? Partisans will argue their own beloved expression of Canadian liberal democracy is not only best, but distinct – as the Tories, Grits and NDP were a generation or two ago, when they disagreed about country-changing issues such as North American free trade, in 1988, or membership in NATO, in 1968.

But tick through the list of assumptions at the heart of the state today – from socialized health care to capital punishment, abortion or free trade, deficits or tax rates – and you find unanimity. The Conservatives must be for gay rights, or be written off as reactionary by the majority. The New Democrats must be for industry and thrift, or be written off as loopy dreamers by that same majority.

This convergence can create a mash-up, as political parties struggle to create differentiation amid their essential drab sameness. Thus, John Baird’s defence of gay rights in Russia doesn’t go far enough, says the NDP’s Paul Dewar. He must crank it up to 11, like the guitar amplifier in Rob Reiner’s Spinal Tap. The Liberals, meantime, are beginning a two-year effort to implant the idea, by every means other than saying it, that they can be more conservative than the Conservatives when it comes to economics, and more new and democratic than the New Democrats when it comes to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. “Tough on crime” is still exclusive Conservative territory – but only because it’s one of the few old planks they haven’t ditched in the hunt for centrist votes. And, to be frank, it’s not popular enough for the other parties to bother to steal.

Taken together, this still-unfolding spectrum collapse sets up a contest of almost pure personality in 2015. Through the next 24 months, Harper will seek to recast himself as more constructive; Mulcair, happier; and Trudeau, more solid. The ad war will be personal as never before, culminating in televised debates understood by all to be winner-take-all. And the pollsters, perhaps as never before, will be flying blind. Interesting times.

Are the NDP the new Liberals?

Chris Selley wonders if the NDP have lost their way in their pursuit of power

Canadian politicians are no strangers to politicizing tragedies. Stockwell Day used to needle Paul Martin for not issuing commiserative or condemnatory press releases quickly enough. This week, Stephen Harper, unsurprisingly, wasted no time accusing Mr. Trudeau of trying to “rationalize” and “make excuses for” violence.

But then came a novel twist. On CBC’s Power and Politics, NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison piled on. “Anybody who heard those statements from Mr. Trudeau has to be mystified about how he seems to be worrying about the mental state of the people who produced the bombing,” he said, arguing we should instead be “focused on the victims.”

So, there you have it. The party of Ms. McDonough, who played the flute of caution amidst the post-9/11 war drums, the party of Jack Layton, who voiced well-founded concerns over the Afghanistan mission and was branded “Taliban Jack” for his troubles, is now the party that competes with the government to condemn foreign terrorism in the bluntest possible terms. Should terrorists ever strike here in Canada, we can only hope our Official Opposition still has sufficient gumption to ask some tough questions in the fevered aftermath.

A superficial cut?

Chantal Hébert on whether or not Claude Patry’s defection to the Bloc Quebecois is a big deal or minor distraction to the NDP

Self-interest is almost always a factor in the decision to cross the floor but the Hill can also be a lonely place and more than one MP has become estranged from his party for lack of camaraderie or, in the case of French-language MPs, linguistic isolation.

It is too early to tell whether jumping ship will improve Patry’s chances of surviving the next election. By then, the Parti Québécois could be back in opposition in the National Assembly, or going through pre-referendum manoeuvres on the basis of a governing majority.

Jonquière—Alma has been out of the Bloc fold for the better part of a decade. The riding switched to the Conservatives before falling to the NDP. It can no longer be considered a sovereigntist stronghold.

What is certain is that Patry is going back to his comfort zone. His decision to run under the NDP banner in 2011 pitted him against the Bloc-aligned local union leadership and his spell under a federalist banner apparently did not dent his sovereigntist convictions.

Perspectives on the so-called unity debate are strikingly different in the federal capital and in the nationalist stronghold of the Saguenay. The transition from one venue to the other often involves a rude awakening.

In the immediate, Patry’s defection looks more like a paper cut than a puncture wound for the NDP. There is not currently on the Quebec radar a simmering anti-NDP backlash over the issue of referendum rules, or solid signs of an imminent revival of the Bloc Québécois.

But Patry’s move is still a stark reminder to his former New Democrat colleagues from Quebec that the luck of the draw has more to do with their positions in the Commons than their merits.

With only a few exceptions, there will be no safe NDP seats in Quebec in 2015 and indeed precious few safe seats of any kind at all.

While the NDP membership numbers improved to 12,300 during the federal leadership race, there are not a lot of NDP members in Quebec.  There are actually more NDP members in Saskatchewan than there is in Quebec despite the population difference which makes me wonder if the NDP can hold on to their gains in Quebec, especially is Justin Trudeau’s numbers hold and with a resurgent PQ holding power (and assuming providing organizational support).  My feeling right now is that you could see Quebec losing most of the seats it gained in Quebec in the next election and the reduced to third place in the House of Commons.

I don’t think Patry’s defection is a serious threat to Mulcair but the bigger problem for the NDP is building the political machine needed to hold these seats.

So much for the Dutch Disease comments hurting the NDP in Saskatchewan

According to this Ipscos/Reid poll, the NDP are only two points behind the Conservatives.

Among the regional findings:

  • In Ontario, the NDP (40%) is ahead, followed by the Conservatives (34%) while the Liberals are securely in third place (22%), followed by the Green party (4%).
  • In Quebec, the NDP (40%) continues to dominate, followed by the Bloc (26%), while the Tories (18%) and Liberals (15%) struggle to compete.
  • In Alberta, the Tories (67%) are well ahead, and are trailed by the NDP (24%), while the Liberals (5%) and Greens (5%) are at the bottom.
  • In B.C., the Tories (37%) are competing with the NDP (35%), while the Liberals are in third, (21%) and the Greens are last (7%).
  • In Saskatchewan/Manitoba, the Tories are first (45%), while the NDP (43%) run a close second, and the Liberals (10%) run third. The Greens are last (2%).
  • In Atlantic Canada, the NDP (38%) are in front, followed by the Liberals (30%), the Tories (26%) and the Greens (6%).

For the survey, a randomly selected sample of 1,099 adult Canadians was interviewed online throughout the Ipsos online panel. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Before someone jumps all over me because it was an online poll… I am not saying it’s an election result, I am just saying it is interesting.

At least Mulcair is consistent

He runs his personal finances the same way he would run the country’s

New Democratic Party leader Tom Mulcair and his wife have repeatedly refinanced their home west of Montreal, gradually increasing the debt on the property over a series of 11 mortgages, land records show.

Mulcair’s office will not explain why the couple have loaded more and more financing onto the West Island home they’ve lived in since the early 1980s, saying only that it’s a “private matter.”

It is unclear why Mulcair would need to refinance the modest two-garage home in Beaconsfield so many times, bumping the value of the mortgage from $58,000 to $300,000.

Before he became leader, Mulcair enjoyed a successful and well-paid career as a government lawyer and, later, a cabinet minister in the Quebec National Assembly. His wife, Catherine Pinhas, is a psychologist practicing in Montreal. Both their children are now adults with jobs — one is a police officer, the other an engineer.

Mulcair was hit with a judgment from a defamation case in 2005 after he accused former Parti Québécois minister Yves Duhaime of influence peddling. He was ordered to pay Duhaime $95,000, plus legal costs.

He left provincial politics in 2007 and ran for the NDP in a byelection later that year. Even then, he stood to collect on a pension from his years as an MNA. When he was elected that fall, he began earning an MP’s salary that was then set at $150,800.

But in January 2009, he and Pinhas financed the home for the 11th time. They took out a $300,000 mortgage with the Royal Bank of Canada and then paid off the previous $249,000 mortgage from three years earlier.

Then again, he is scraping by on about $225,000 a year so who can blame him.

Thomas Mulcair loves global warming

Of course the other problem with this story is that is a four car garage on his house.  Umm, so much for being lectured by Thomas Mulcair on the environment.  It’s a do as I say, not as I do kind of thing I guess.  Maybe he has to re-mortgage so often to put gas in his cars.