The So Called "Progressive" Liberals

Debater wrote:

Perhaps not a merger, but more of an electoral co-operation agreement of the type Joyce Murray & Nathan Cullen were proposing?

I would support this only if there were a written agreement by all parties to implement proportional representation as soon as they were elected, so that this sort of horrible compromise would never again be necessary.

Geoff wrote:

While Trudeau might say now that he will not work with the NDP, once the ballots are counted, and assuming we are in a minority situation, he will change his tune out of necessity.  Cooperating with Harper is a non-starter for any party.

Having said that, the various options for cooperation between the Libs and the NDP that are being proposed will likely do more to re-elect Harper than defeat him.  Once any merger/cooperation plan is agreed upon and made public, we will, in effect, have a two-party race.  Then, I fear that so-called "blue" Liberals will balk at the prospect of working with the NDP and will, instead, hold their noses and support the Conservatives.  That could only be good news for the Tories.

After the election, we must cooperate as necessary to make a minority government work; Canadians will rightly expect that of whoever wins the race.  However, let's not hand Harper another term by reducing the number of options open to voters before we go to the polls.

This is the most sensible post I have read in a long time.

It sounds like it should make sense. The problem is we've already had this scenario, and against all logic, the Liberals did side with the Conservatives over and over, supporting their agenda while pretending to be acting independently. It's not much of a strectch to assume they'll make the same mistakes in another minority. I expect that the Liberals will do exactly what they did last time: assume that allying with the NDP will give them too much credit, and try to angle for advantage while sitting on their hands in parliament.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

For a whole generation Quebec politics did not divide between left and right but between sovereigntist and federalist. The names of the parties are irrelevant. So the garbage about Mulcair being a Liberal is just that. He was a member of the only significant federalist party in Quebec until a right wing option came along.The cohabitation betwen left and right is well known to anyone who knows anything about Quebec. How about Parizeau-Levesque?

The only time Mulcair's background as a Liberal is raised is when the Liberals are condemned as the scum of the earth.  You just confirmed that Mulcair is a political opportunist. He wanted to be a politician even if it meant joining and representing a right wing party. If he had been offered the Liberal leadership role do you really think he would refuse it? He would be happy to be leading the Federal Liberal party if he could and he would have accepted the leadership role for the provincial Liberals too. I don't condemn him for any of this. It has gotten common for politicians to move between parties. But, when people post as if the NDP is pure versus the nefarious Conservatives and Liberals then other people are going to point out that Mulcair was recently a Liberal.

Mulcair and the inner circle leading the NDP is not as leftest as the members of the NDP. As far as I can tell the environment and possibly Quebec nationlism are Mulcair's priorities. So, when NDP members or supporters act all high and mighty as though they are morally superior they will be reminded that they are being led by a Liberal that never denouced his past.

Debater wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Mulcair has made it clear that he is willing to cooperate with the Liberals after the next election.  Trudeau has made it clear that he will not cooperate with the NDP.  I'm assuming then that he supports Conservatives instead.

This is what is so disingenious about some of the posts here.

You are totally re-writing Mulcair's statements & history over the past 2 years.

When Mulcair ran for the NDP leadership, he said he had no interest in engaging in electoral co-operation or working with the Liberals, in direct contrast to NDP contender Nathan Cullen.

Then Mulcair said the following year while he was on tour in the Maritimes that the Liberals were 'on their way to the graveyard'.

It was only after Justin Trudeau arose to the top of the polls and was consistently beating Mulcair that earlier this year he flip-flopped and said he was open to working with the Liberals after a potential election.  I already linked a piece by Rex Murphy here last month denouncing Mulcair for his ambiguous positioning on this issue.

Trudeau was clear from Day 1.  Since the NDP & Mulcair had shown no desire to work with the Liberals and were wishing for the downfall of the Liberal Party, Trudeau said he didn't want to merge or co-operate with the NDP before an election.  He made it clear he opposed the electoral co-operation plan of Joyce Murray.

The only one being disingenuous, as always, is you.

There was no flip-flop. You are trying to compare completely different things. You know they are different but you pretend not to because it serves your weasely propagandist agenda to do so. Mulcair, quite rightly, ruled out a PRE-ELECTION alliance because it's stupid, undemocratic and wouldn't achieve its goals anyway. He never ruled out a POST-ELECTION coalition if the parliament that canadians elect requires one. These are completely seperate situations that have nothing to do with each other.

I have already pointed this out to you once, and as always, you ignored it, waited a little while, and then just made the same spurious accusation all over again. You do this because you are a fundamentally dishonest person and not a thing that you write here can be taken seriously. As I said before, if the shoe fits.

Um. No. The NDP don't want the Liberals to be successful because they are a different party, and the LIberals don't want the NDP to be successful for the same reason. You don't really get how this politics stuff works, do you?

Could someone tell me which policies Mulcair has pulled the NDP to the right with?  

I keep reading this nonsense spewed out from posters here and no one ever gives an example.

Mulciar's NDP wants national childcare, a national pharmacare plan based on BC's plan, raise corporate taxes, improve CPP, close tax cheater loopholes, find offshore tax evaders, reverse bad policies implemented by Harper, lower OAS retirement back to 65 and pro-representation in our voting system. These are some examples and not one of these are 'right-wing'.  Nothing has changed since Layton, even the policy on the Middle East.

Depends on how you define "works with". Going on a case by case basis was what they claimed to be doing in the last minority parliament, and in practice that meant supporting the Conservative's entire agenda, with few exceptions. So I won't be holding my breath waiting for JT to get behind some progressive legislation, because I'd die.

It is true that Justin has ruled out a formal coalition and Mulcair hasn't, but that's not what makes the NDP superior. They are superior for a number of reasons, but most important is the fact that they have never stolen billions of dollars from the Canadian public like the criminal Liberals have. That's pretty obviously superior to me, but I admit it's not exactly a high bar or anything.

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Could someone tell me which policies Mulcair has pulled the NDP to the right with?  

I keep reading this nonsense spewed out from posters here and no one ever gives an example.

Mulciar's NDP wants national childcare, a national pharmacare plan based on BC's plan, raise corporate taxes, improve CPP, close tax cheater loopholes, find offshore tax evaders, reverse bad policies implemented by Harper, lower OAS retirement back to 65 and pro-representation in our voting system. These are some examples and not one of these are 'right-wing'.  Nothing has changed since Layton, even the policy on the Middle East.

Layton brought the party farther to the right and Mulcair is keeping it there. Everything you are listing was discussed in the Liberal leadership race and lots of it will probably land in the platform.

Liberals, support Keystone because it has social license and has passed environmental studies. They don't support Northern Gateway because it doesn't have social license. They will not support Energy East without social license. Mulcair came out enthusiastically for Energy East and only qualified his support later if at all.

Mulcair supports some sort of increased corporate taxation but didnt' say how much and doesn't intend to raise taxes on the rich. Trudeau claims the same but talks about closing loopholes rather than raising corporate taxes.

Trudeau supports legalization of marijuana, Mulcair supports decrim for small amounts and futher study.

I think that is why there is so much emphasis on the Liberals being "liars", otherwise there is not much difference between the Liberals and the NDP.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

For a whole generation Quebec politics did not divide between left and right but between sovereigntist and federalist. The names of the parties are irrelevant. So the garbage about Mulcair being a Liberal is just that. He was a member of the only significant federalist party in Quebec until a right wing option came along.The cohabitation betwen left and right is well known to anyone who knows anything about Quebec. How about Parizeau-Levesque?

The only time Mulcair's background as a Liberal is raised is when the Liberals are condemned as the scum of the earth.  You just confirmed that Mulcair is a political opportunist. He wanted to be a politician even if it meant joining and representing a right wing party. If he had been offered the Liberal leadership role do you really think he would refuse it? He would be happy to be leading the Federal Liberal party if he could and he would have accepted the leadership role for the provincial Liberals too. I don't condemn him for any of this. It has gotten common for politicians to move between parties. But, when people post as if the NDP is pure versus the nefarious Conservatives and Liberals then other people are going to point out that Mulcair was recently a Liberal.

Mulcair and the inner circle leading the NDP is not as leftest as the members of the NDP. As far as I can tell the environment and possibly Quebec nationlism are Mulcair's priorities. So, when NDP members or supporters act all high and mighty as though they are morally superior they will be reminded that they are being led by a Liberal that never denouced his past.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

I did not say that Mulcair is an opportunist.

I did say that he participated on the federal side in a system that was split federal-sovereigntist and that this says nothing about a right left split as there was no right left split in Quebec parties when he did this.

Forget the names. The Quebec system did not divide itself in the way federal parties do when he was with the Quebec Liberals.

Had Parizeau been a federalist he might have been a Conservative. Had Levesque he could have been NDP.

Any party link comparison between federal and provincial when it comes to Quebec is bunk.

That's what I did say.

So Mulcair has not changed parties-- I think he would be a provincial Liberal today even if he felt on the left of that party. And there is no conflict.

There are others who actually have changed parties and I accept that you can evolve and that does not make you an opportunist.

Now for the straight talk: Mulcair did not join the NDP just for the leadership there was no indication there would be an opening there any time soon when he did. In fact it was the Federal Liberals who would have more likely provided that opportunity. At the time he joined the NDP he could easily have joined the Liberals and could have been a leadership contender. I'll remind you that most observers at that time thought Trudeau was too young and had not proved anything and would not run for a while.

Trudeau had to speed up his run for the leadership because the party was so badly off that if he did not do it then there might not be a Liberal party for him later when he was more experienced.

Why exaggerate?

Many people here said that Layton moved the party to the right-- not right wing just closer to the centre. It was a topic of debate as to whether it would work.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

For a whole generation Quebec politics did not divide between left and right but between sovereigntist and federalist. The names of the parties are irrelevant. So the garbage about Mulcair being a Liberal is just that. He was a member of the only significant federalist party in Quebec until a right wing option came along.The cohabitation betwen left and right is well known to anyone who knows anything about Quebec. How about Parizeau-Levesque?

The only time Mulcair's background as a Liberal is raised is when the Liberals are condemned as the scum of the earth.  You just confirmed that Mulcair is a political opportunist. He wanted to be a politician even if it meant joining and representing a right wing party. If he had been offered the Liberal leadership role do you really think he would refuse it? He would be happy to be leading the Federal Liberal party if he could and he would have accepted the leadership role for the provincial Liberals too. I don't condemn him for any of this. It has gotten common for politicians to move between parties. But, when people post as if the NDP is pure versus the nefarious Conservatives and Liberals then other people are going to point out that Mulcair was recently a Liberal.

Mulcair and the inner circle leading the NDP is not as leftest as the members of the NDP. As far as I can tell the environment and possibly Quebec nationlism are Mulcair's priorities. So, when NDP members or supporters act all high and mighty as though they are morally superior they will be reminded that they are being led by a Liberal that never denouced his past.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

I did not say that Mulcair is an opportunist.

I did say that he participated on the federal side in a system that was split federal-sovereigntist and that this says nothing about a right left split as there was no right left split in Quebec parties when he did this.

Forget the names. The Quebec system did not divide itself in the way federal parties do when he was with the Quebec Liberals.

Had Parizeau been a federalist he might have been a Conservative. Had Levesque he could have been NDP.

Any party link comparison between federal and provincial when it comes to Quebec is bunk.

That's what I did say.

So Mulcair has not changed parties-- I think he would be a provincial Liberal today even if he felt on the left of that party. And there is no conflict.

There are others who actually have changed parties and I accept that you can evolve and that does not make you an opportunist.

Now for the straight talk: Mulcair did not join the NDP just for the leadership there was no indication there would be an opening there any time soon when he did. In fact it was the Federal Liberals who would have more likely provided that opportunity. At the time he joined the NDP he could easily have joined the Liberals and could have been a leadership contender. I'll remind you that most observers at that time thought Trudeau was too young and had not proved anything and would not run for a while.

Trudeau had to speed up his run for the leadership because the party was so badly off that if he did not do it then there might not be a Liberal party for him later when he was more experienced.

I did not mean to infer that you said he was opportunistic, but rather that your description of why he joined the Liberals in the first place, accepting their right wing policies simply because they are the only federalist party. There is also the alternative of not becoming a politician if no party reflects your views. I also did not mean it as an insult to him but rather that being a politician is to some extent a profession, so if you want to be in politics you can end up working for different parties, especially in Canada because the parties are so close to one another which is my primary point.

I take your point about platforms but don't think it's entirely fair. Dion's carbon tax hurt him even though it was good policy. Being right is not enough. But I do agree that they need to be doing something to differenciate themselves more.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Layton brought the party farther to the right and Mulcair is keeping it there.

In other words, you admit that Mulcair has not moved the party anywhere. Good luck trying to convince people that Layton was a closet right-winger.

Quote:

I think that is why there is so much emphasis on the Liberals being "liars", otherwise there is not much difference between the Liberals and the NDP.

Even if that was the only difference (it isn't), it would be more than enough. How telling that you think honesty is so irrelevent.

You misunderstood me, You use it as a general insult because insults are all you have. It's like a schoolyard taunt. It's impotent as a political argument to sway people.

Debater wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

The only one being disingenuous, as always, is you.

There was no flip-flop. You are trying to compare completely different things. You know they are different but you pretend not to because it serves your weasely propagandist agenda to do so. Mulcair, quite rightly, ruled out a PRE-ELECTION alliance because it's stupid, undemocratic and wouldn't achieve its goals anyway. He never ruled out a POST-ELECTION coalition if the parliament that canadians elect requires one. These are completely seperate situations that have nothing to do with each other.

I have already pointed this out to you once, and as always, you ignored it, waited a little while, and then just made the same spurious accusation all over again. You do this because you are a fundamentally dishonest person and not a thing that you write here can be taken seriously. As I said before, if the shoe fits.

1.  You love Mulcair & hate Trudeau and have trouble looking at them objectively.  You are not able to see Mulcair's opportunism, only Trudeau's.

2.  I have already pointed out to you that what I said about Mulcair is not just *my* interpretation of the coalition flip-flop, but of those in the media.  Mulcair has been ambiguous and contradictory on the subject and I already posted this clip for you earlier in the year of Rex Murphy calling out Mulcair on what is seen as a flip-flop.

Since you seem to have missed it the first time around, I'll post the Rex Murphy clip for you again.

Rex Murphy: Conventions, Coalitions, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr735Zprq9I

3.  It is wrong of you to call me a 'fundamentally dishonest person', and you should apologize for doing so.  I don't expect you to do so, however.

1.I don't love Mulcair or hate Justin. But I won't try explaining it to you because the subtlety of real political opinions is a little over your head. All you understand is partisan talking points. It's why the only way you can conceive of someone who constantly challenges your misrepresentations is if they are a mindless partisan like you. It's the only thing you understand.

2. Oh, Rex Murphy said so! Well, I guess that settles everything. I mean, I obviously missed the part where he was elected pope and was imbued with the infalliblity clause, but still, it is Rex Murphy!! How could he be wrong?

I guess I'll have to repeat myself from the last time you brought this up, since you never actually read anything anyone writes, but just use their words as a launch for your next round of Liberal talking points. I'm from Newfoundland, just like Rex is, and I've been watching his career for a looong time. He has never been anything but a dunderhead with a big vocabulary, whose opinions are ill-conceived and uneducated. My friend actually got on CBC one time for making fun of his empty-headed assertion that global warming must be a myth because we were having a cold winter. The man is an idiot and always has been.

But back to you. Clearly you and logic are not close companions or you would know you're breaking one of the rules of logical discourse, which is that appeals to authority do not an argument make. Almost all of your "arguments" (to use the term loosely) eventually come back to "some pundit agrees with me". You know why you resort to such weak tactics? because you have no actual arguments. If you had them, you would make them, but you don't. Appeal to authority, despite its illegitimacy, isn't just a last resort for you, it's the only resort. You have nothing else.

As I've had to point out again and again, Mulcair ruled out a pre-election alliance with the Liberals that would reduce voter choice. He never ruled out a post-election coalition once parliament had been elected. Those are two completely separate things that you continue to pretend are the same so you can dishonestly characterise it as a "flip-flop". It can't be a flip-flop because it's not the same question. It is two different questions that have different answers. So you trying to obscure this is patently dishonest and reflects poorly on your character. Sadly, it is par for the course from you.

3. Why would I apologise when I'm so clearly correct? I just explained how dishonest you are above, and just as I predicted in my last post you didn't address it, because, as I said, you have no argument. Let's see you deal with the substance of my post for a change, "Debater". That should be good for a few laughs.

addictedtomyipod wrote:

  I find him vacuous, self-serving, lacking in intelligence, elitist, opportunistic and frankly unqualified for the job of PM.  At least some substance should be a requirement for PM of a country.

Sounds like Harper minus the tyranny.

Pondering-- you crossed a line there.

A lot of discussions here can be heated. Don't add calling people names to the mix.

It also wipes out any possible credibility you have and destroys your argument.

You don't get to reciprocate. Using "ugly" suggests an appearance attack which is definitely wrong even if you mean metaphorical.

Perhaps to bring the topic back to the actual thread, how about this:

Trudeau is now saying that the Liberals will NOT commit to a national child care program or to implement the Kelowna Accord.

Hmmm...after years of blaming (falsely) the NDP for Martin not bringing in these initiatives (despite the Liberals having had 13 YEARS in power to do so), the Liberals finally show their true colours.

So, progressives:

Want a party that will implement national day care?

want a party who will actually deal with First Nations justice?

NDP will.

Liberals won't.

Atlas wrote:

Perhaps to bring the topic back to the actual thread, how about this:

Trudeau is now saying that the Liberals will NOT commit to a national child care program or to implement the Kelowna Accord.

Hmmm...after years of blaming (falsely) the NDP for Martin not bringing in these initiatives (despite the Liberals having had 13 YEARS in power to do so), the Liberals finally show their true colours.

So, progressives:

Want a party that will implement national day care?

want a party who will actually deal with First Nations justice?

NDP will.

Liberals won't.

That sounds like campaign material -- Would not shock me to see that sort of argument during campaign.

Could someone please provide a link to Trudeau's comments on Day Care and Kelowna. And by the way Pondering, why are prominent Aboriginal activists like Russ Diablo oppossed to the Kelowna Accord?

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Could someone please provide a link to Trudeau's comments on Day Care and Kelowna. And by the way Pondering, why are prominent Aboriginal activists like Russ Diablo oppossed to the Kelowna Accord?

 

*Trudeau said a new Liberal government couldn’t pledge at this point to re-introduce the $5 billion Kelowna Accord for First Nations development, or the national child care plan, both brought in by the Liberal government of Paul Martin.

 

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=10106945

Nope, no Day Care. Nope, no Accord but some other gimmick. Deficits?i guess that means voting LPC means rolling the dice and hoping for the best. Justin, you weasel, either you believe and are committed to something or not. We know what the NDP will do. What a Knave this guy is!

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Could someone please provide a link to Trudeau's comments on Day Care and Kelowna. And by the way Pondering, why are prominent Aboriginal activists like Russ Diablo oppossed to the Kelowna Accord?

I have no idea. I don't imagine there is 100% consensus in any group. In any case Trudeau would not impose an accord that the FN people don't want. At the time that it was proposed I believe it was popular. Almost a decade has past since then so I have no expectations of the Liberals picking up where they left off. New leader new era. I will judge present day Liberals by present day conditions.

I'll tell you what, Pondering, why don 't YOU find out?

One other thing, judging other people's past actions (Tom Mulcair) and basing judgements based on that, doesn't 't seem to be a problem, for you.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Could someone please provide a link to Trudeau's comments on Day Care and Kelowna. And by the way Pondering, why are prominent Aboriginal activists like Russ Diablo oppossed to the Kelowna Accord?

I have no idea. I don't imagine there is 100% consensus in any group. In any case Trudeau would not impose an accord that the FN people don't want. At the time that it was proposed I believe it was popular. Almost a decade has past since then so I have no expectations of the Liberals picking up where they left off. New leader new era. I will judge present day Liberals by present day conditions.

I'll tell you what, Pondering, why don 't YOU find out? One other thing, judging other people's past actions (Tom Mulcair) and basing judgements based on that, doesn't 't seem to be a problem, for you.

I didn't bring Russ Diablo up. It's up to you to make your point if you have one. I judge Trudeau and Mulcair by their respective actions past and present, and no, it's not a problem for me. I am not sure how else I am supposed to judge them. It is because of Mulcair's past actions that I believe he feels strongly about protecting the environment.

I don't judge the Liberal party as a monolithic entity, nor the NDP for that matter.

Total Cop-Out Pondering. You have nothing.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

  Total Cop-Out Pondering. You have nothing.

If you made a point to respond to I missed it.

As I said in reply to another one of your posts, oh Brother!c

DP