PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Mulcair interview with Peter Mansbridge



Strewth
09-09-2015, 07:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr6HK--HH5s&feature=youtu.be
Still watching...

RangeBob
09-09-2015, 08:27 PM
The purpose of the Senate is to stabilize legislation between governments, to do what's right rather than what's popular and thus avoid the perils of mob rule, and


Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, called the Senate a place of "sober second thought.

Mulcair said that:
a) he won't appoint any senators, and
b) he expects the senators to rubber stamp anything the House Of Commons adopts, because the House Of Commons MPs are elected.

I wonder if the Governor General will stop signing Bills.

RangeBob
09-09-2015, 08:29 PM
@16:20, was he a little annoyed there?

At least, unlike Trudeau, he didn't spend most of the interview holding his testicles.

When were these interviews done? I ask because the weather looked similar, and all three were asked the same question last so I would have thought that Peter Mansbridge thus gave Tom Mulcair an advantage if Mulcair had heard the question before, but from his answer I suspect he hadn't.

soulchaser
09-09-2015, 09:05 PM
The purpose of the Senate is to stabilize legislation between governments, to do what's right rather than what's popular and thus avoid the perils of mob rule, and

Mulcair said that:
a) he won't appoint any senators, and
b) he expects the senators to rubber stamp anything the House Of Commons adopts, because the House Of Commons MPs are elected.

Hmmmm......

Good luck with "b" Tommy especially if you have a minority.

And who will be the Government leader in the Senate if he won't appoint Senators?

How will the Committees work with no NDP Senators?

In Majority HOC - Senate committee chairs and majority of committee members from the party with the HOC majority.

In minority HOC - Senate chair from governing party in the HOC with majority of senate committee members from HOC opposition parties.

CPC and Liberal Senators can tie up NDP legislation at committee for a looooooooooong time.

soulchaser
09-09-2015, 09:07 PM
@16:20, was he a little annoyed there?

At least, unlike Trudeau, he didn't spend most of the interview holding his testicles.

When were these interviews done? I ask because the weather looked similar, and all three were asked the same question last so I would have thought that Peter Mansbridge thus gave Tom Mulcair an advantage if Mulcair had heard the question before, but from his answer I suspect he hadn't.

I assume they would have all been done on the same day.

killer kane
09-09-2015, 09:24 PM
And you can assume that there will be a whole pack of uber lefty "Useful Idiots" appointed to the senate if tommy commie gets in.

Prairie Dog
09-09-2015, 11:30 PM
That was very hard for me to watch. Never in my 54 years have I disliked, dare I say hated a politician as much as I do Mulcair. I wouldn't trust him to tell me the sun is shining. In my opinion that SOB lies so much he has to get somebody else to call his dog for him.

RangeBob
09-10-2015, 12:05 AM
I have a feeling I should watch it again to list what his promises are. I just don't want to.

Meanwhile, YouTube comments


I suspect that the Conservatives are going to lose, not because the Conservatives are terrible people, but because Stephen Harper overstayed his welcome. Justin Trudeau is a famous for being famous pretty boy that knows/understands very little. I'm going to vote for Mulcair, but Harper would be a second choice. Yes, Justin Trudeau is that bad.


He had me till near the end. Too bad he did a really good job but it did seem like Peter took it pretty easy on him. I just can't believe he plans to pull all the troops. There are 62 counties involved in trying to stop ISIS. I do not think just bombing the crap out of the place is the answer but I do think we need to stay and help train the locals. We have really good professional military and they do a great job in this role. Just leaving is not an answer. I think I will have to go Liberal.


I like his charisma and his clarity of speech, but he's dodging quite a few questions. I'm not sure why though the questions he's dodging are worth dodging. Just say that if a 2008-like recession were to occur, you will do what the Harper government and what you wanted to do, that is to spend money to get the economy rolling again. Just say it. Just say that's if a referendum were to occur, use the 50.1% margin as the victory threshold. Just fucking say it.


THIS is a Prime Minister


Great interview. Thoughtful. Strong. PM in waiting.


couldn't give a "clear" plan.....or give a clear answer to any of the questions......wow, more concerned about ousting Prime Minister Stephen Harper than anything he proposes on his weak platform.......

Foxer
09-10-2015, 12:27 AM
It was better than trudeau's. But he did hurt himself by dodging questions i think - and questions where the answer was obvious but he just wouldn't say it outright. That kind of thing makes people question his honesty. And I think he will anger some people who didn't think harper was so bad with some of his comments. The iraq thing ... I think there's a lot of people who think we SHOULD be there and that if we aren't and isis takes over the region then we'll be fighting them here before long.

The economy - he just seemed a little weak.

Doug_M
09-10-2015, 05:39 AM
CPC senators and Senate Liberals can tie up NDP legislation at committee for a looooooooooong time.

Remember, JT "released" them. :rolleyes:

What bothered me about the interview was PM's soft touch. Mulcair has often put the blame on the federal government for Ontario's manufacturing job losses when most if not all of the blame lies squarely with the provincial gov hiking taxes and hydro rates among other things. But did PM challenge him on that? No. And all through this campaign Mulcair has said the Conservatives mismanaged the budget by running deficits yet in the interview he says he believes they need to be run during recessions and he supported that when it happened in 2008. But did PM challenge him on that? Of course not.

My take is that most media is ABC with a preference for the NDP simply because they believe they have the best chance to win.

awndray
09-10-2015, 06:04 AM
When were these interviews done? I ask because the weather looked similar, and all three were asked the same question last so I would have thought that Peter Mansbridge thus gave Tom Mulcair an advantage if Mulcair had heard the question before, but from his answer I suspect he hadn't.

I assume they would have all been done on the same day.



Logistically it took us across the country, three cities in four days — from a park in Gatineau, Que. across from Parliament Hill, to a quiet ranch house in Delta, B.C., to the Laurentians outside Montreal and the tiny town of Ste.-Anne-Des-Lacs. The Elizabeth May interview, because of Green Party scheduling issues, won't be done until later this week and will air on Friday night.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-leaders-interviews-mansbridge-1.3217557

soulchaser
09-10-2015, 06:25 AM
I have a feeling I should watch it again to list what his promises are. I just don't want to.

Meanwhile, YouTube comments

I lol'd at CarlBell's comment that he's voting Liberal because Mulcair plans to pull out of the ISIS mission.

Pssssst - Carl - Trudeau and the Liberals voted against the ISIS mission.

soulchaser
09-10-2015, 06:26 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-leaders-interviews-mansbridge-1.3217557

Thanks for that

RangeBob
09-11-2015, 03:38 AM
I saw a television commercial for Tom Mulcair today, in which he had a photo of his parents family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPbjXbt9qtk

About 10 seconds in, he talks about how his parent's family "lived within our means", implying he does the same, and a federal NDP government will do the same.

But
- his mortgage
- NDP $2.7 million

soulchaser
09-11-2015, 06:22 AM
I saw a television commercial for Tom Mulcair today, in which he had a photo of his parents family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPbjXbt9qtk

About 10 seconds in, he talks about how his parent's family "lived within our means", implying he does the same, and a federal NDP government will do the same.

But
- his mortgage
- NDP $2.7 million

And his almost $35 billion in promises.

harbl_the_cat
09-11-2015, 10:07 AM
Ugh... government childcare...

WTF with this stupid climate change nonsense.

Well, good that in the first 30 seconds he lost my vote (not that he ever had it in the first place).

I have to admit, he does sound more the statesman than Trudeau.

This definitely is a race between the Tories and NDP though. He has some good economic policies.

NDP balanced budgets HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Hmm... my intuition is he is going to be able to tap into a lot of support from Millennials. He does seem like the kind of Baby Boomer parent poorer adult Millennials would mind staying at at home with. I think that's going to hurt the Tories pretty badly.

As I've said all along, Trudeau seems like the obnoxious, condescending high school teacher or University professor every young adult remembers and hates.

Mulcair does seem like a kind, father/grandfather figure. I think young voters could bring the NDP into power.

Foxer
09-11-2015, 10:08 AM
Hmm... my intuition is he is going to be able to tap into a lot of support from Millennials.

Harbl... sigh. Next time just leave it at the first version of that post.

harbl_the_cat
09-11-2015, 10:11 AM
Harbl... sigh. Next time just leave it at the first version of that post.

I'm writing it as I'm watching it.

But seriously, as a Millennial voter, the I'm voting CPC is because I'm wealthy, a gun owner, entrepreneur, employed white collar professional with an established career. Most of my generational peers are NOT.

In discussions I've had with them, ALL the points Mulcair is hitting on are issues they care about and in such a way that resonates with them.

harbl_the_cat
09-11-2015, 10:15 AM
His ISIS position is woefully irresponsible.

harbl_the_cat
09-11-2015, 10:16 AM
Minority government - a bit of weaselling that will piss off older voters.

That said, I would NOT be surprised to see a "New Democratic Liberal Party" with Mulcair as the leader formed after this election.

Whoa... a lot of talk about forming a coalition.

Prairie Dog
09-11-2015, 10:18 AM
I'm writing it as I'm watching it.



Finish watching it and then comment.

harbl_the_cat
09-11-2015, 10:21 AM
My perception: A lot of high-minded idealism, but not with Obama style empty rhetoric designed to stir up emotion (Trudeau's was full of it).

From that interview, I believe Mulcair will be the leader of the opposition at a minimum, leader of a majority government at best. He won't have my vote, and I would be comfortable with him leading the opposition, but my impressions with the people around me are that his message WILL resonate and be quite popular.

Foxer
09-11-2015, 10:23 AM
But seriously, as a Millennial voter, the I'm voting CPC is because I'm wealthy, a gun owner, entrepreneur, employed white collar professional with an established career.

Then you're not voting as a 'millenial' voter - you're voting as a wealthy, a gun owner, entrepreneur, employed white collar professional with an established career voter. Would it make a difference if you were genx or any other generation? No - the rest of that stuff is relevant, your usual ageisms are utterly not. Millenials are not some homogenous group for gods sake who all think alike.

If you're saying YOUNGER voters tend to vote ndp more than older voters - welcome to the last 200 years for god's sake. Young people have CONSISTENTLY voted to the left more than older voters regardless of generation. All those older people who are voting cpc right now? They voted trudeau in their youth unless they voted ndp. That's just the way of things, that has nothing to do with 'millenials' or the like. Young people are inexpeienced and idealistic and are more apt to vote for the left, older people have the benefit of experience and a more pragmatic view of the world and will be more apt to vote right. That's not 'this' election, that's every election.

FALover
09-11-2015, 10:30 AM
Cant watch the interviews. My BS tolerance is low and I cant stand the sight of Tom or Justine. Maybe if I just listened to the Q&A's I might get through them without having an chit hemorrhage.:mad1:

harbl_the_cat
09-11-2015, 10:38 AM
Then you're not voting as a 'millenial' voter - you're voting as a wealthy, a gun owner, entrepreneur, employed white collar professional with an established career voter. Would it make a difference if you were genx or any other generation? No - the rest of that stuff is relevant, your usual ageisms are utterly not. Millenials are not some homogenous group for gods sake who all think alike.

If you're saying YOUNGER voters tend to vote ndp more than older voters - welcome to the last 200 years for god's sake. Young people have CONSISTENTLY voted to the left more than older voters regardless of generation. All those older people who are voting cpc right now? They voted trudeau in their youth unless they voted ndp. That's just the way of things, that has nothing to do with 'millenials' or the like. Young people are inexpeienced and idealistic and are more apt to vote for the left, older people have the benefit of experience and a more pragmatic view of the world and will be more apt to vote right. That's not 'this' election, that's every election.

What I'm saying is for this election, I expect the "Young" to go NDP and desert the Liberals and potentially, just as happened in Alberta, we might get a majority NDP government.

You got to remember, even if voter turnout rates among young voters is consistent with past established precedents, there are more young people who are becoming eligible voting age as a percentage of the population than there has been since the 1960's.

This is why I've been focusing on this topic non-stop for the past year or so, because in the next coming few elections (and likely for the next several decades, since the generation after the Millennials is smaller than them), the Millennials will have the numbers to decide who gets into power.

See for yourself, everyone under the 10-30 year old bars are the Millennials. We're now in the point where most of those in that grouping are able to vote. Justin Trudeau himself said in his interview "I'm a different generation than my father." Mulcair said "I don't believe we should pass debts on to future generations."

Trudeau and Mulcair are NOT in my generation (and definitely not those a few years younger than me) - but Mulcair's message resonates, whereas Trudeau's seems cocky and arrogant.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Pyramideca2010.jpg

I am friends with people of all living generations today. The difference between our generations are VERY pronounced and I am certain voting patterns and preferences are predictable along generational lines.

Mathematics and logic are not ageism, Foxer.

Strewth
09-11-2015, 12:43 PM
^Your graph is correct harbl, but you should interpose it with one that shows the amount of voters by age; here's an estimate from Elections Canada:
http://www.elections.ca/res/rec/part/estim/38ge/images/image002_e.gif

I'm going to be quite curious to see this same information released after the 2015 election...I'm going to be ageist, and guess that the "milenial" voter turnout will be lower.

harbl_the_cat
09-11-2015, 01:03 PM
^Your graph is correct harbl, but you should interpose it with one that shows the amount of voters by age; here's an estimate from Elections Canada:
http://www.elections.ca/res/rec/part/estim/38ge/images/image002_e.gif

I'm going to be quite curious to see this same information released after the 2015 election...I'm going to be ageist, and guess that the "milenial" voter turnout will be lower.

I agree.

That's why I've said all along, the Boomers (the 48 - 68+) bars will mostly be the ones who decide this election, but in the coming years, their percentage of the total population of eligible voters will drop as they die off from old age, whereas the block of Millennials voters will continue to grow as they all turn 18 (by 2020 or so) AND have increased voter turnout as most of us age and enter mid-life.

The Tories might get away this election with the large block of Boomer voters, but 2020 and beyond, they'd better watchout. If the left unites, it won't be a close race in future elections.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/04/06/Young-Voters-Could-Defeat-Harper/


Young Voters Could Defeat Harper, So Why Don't They?

Julie Van de Valk is just the type of young person that Canada's major progressive political parties want to attract. There's just one problem: she's not impressed by any of them. Van de Valk, 20, is a third-year geological engineering student at the University of British Columbia. In her spare time she helps run a campaign to divest the school's endowment from oil and gas companies. Climate change is so urgent that "it's not something we can wait another day to address," she told The Tyee.

Van de Valk does not fit the prevailing stereotype of Millennials: lazy, apathetic and uninformed. She's so passionate about global warming she spent a recent Saturday knocking on doors in Vancouver as part of a Storm the Riding campaign to raise awareness of climate solutions. But Van de Valk refrained that day from endorsing a specific political party. None of them, in her opinion, "are addressing climate change with the type of leadership that people who understand the issue want to see."

Millennials like Van de Valk have become the largest demographic in North America. Study after study suggests 18 to 34-year-olds are more progressive than members of older generations on many issues -- including climate change. Yet they're the least engaged with the current political system. Less than 40 per cent of young people cast a ballot in Canada's 2011 federal election. If 60 per cent had voted, pollster Nik Nanos has calculated, Stephen Harper likely wouldn't have won a majority government.

The implications go further. "The decline of voting in the 21st century may become as striking a phenomenon as the decline of church attendance in the latter part of the 20th," read a recent Globe and Mail op-ed. Van de Valk plans to vote in the 2015 federal election. But she's uninspired by her options. "People of my generation, we want to see a politician commit 100 per cent to a brighter future," she said. "I will not be out knocking for a political party until there's one [whose vision] I can buy into."

'Within our reach'

Van de Valk grew up in Waterloo, Ontario. All throughout high school she was "keen on environmental sustainability," she said. After moving west for university, she began working with UBCC 350, an offshoot of the global climate change network 350.org. Van de Valk liked that the group's ultimate goal of limiting global warming to safe levels was paired with tangible short-term actions -- like pressuring UBC to divest from oil and gas firms. "The theory of change made sense to me," she said.



Her convictions grew stronger last March, when a group of 70 academics released a report arguing that it's feasible for Canada to make a full transition to clean energy by 2035. "It isn't out of reach," she said. Many other members of Van de Valk's generation feel the same. A Strategic Communications poll from last year suggested that 42 per cent of Millennials in B.C. "strongly agree" the province can both grow the economy and fix the climate, as opposed to 32 per cent of people over age 55.

That finding is supported by a survey of Millennials just released by the Broadbent Institute. About 56 per cent of young Canadians think the environment should be prioritized over jobs, it suggested, compared to 46 per cent of people above age 35. Millennials also voiced strong support for socially liberal governments that increase spending on education and health care. "More young voters support elements of a progressive political agenda than older voters," a report on the polling data read.

Its author wasn't surprised to see a generation gap in political attitudes. What truly struck University of Saskatchewan political studies professor David McGrane was how uniform Millennial respondents were in their thinking. "Youth, no matter where they lived were to the [political] left of the national average," he told The Tyee. Yet this generation is also the least likely to make its voice heard during elections. Why? "We've been having trouble finding an answer to that question," McGrane said.

'Relevant to youth'

So has pollster Nik Nanos. Last year, he worked with former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page to guess what the outcome of Canada's 2011 election might have been if more youth had actually voted. A 20 per cent increase in Millennial turnout could have prevented Harper from winning a majority, they calculated. It might also have broadened the political conversation. "What we find is that [young people's] concerns are much more diverse than older Canadians," Nanos told CBC last year.

But instead of that happening, only 38 per cent of people below age 30 bothered to cast a ballot, compared to 60 per cent of the broader population. Elections Canada later commissioned a study to better understand why youth turnout was so low. "[Millennials] were generally less interested in politics, less likely to view voting as a civic duty, and more likely to feel that all political parties were the same and that no party spoke to issues relevant to youth," its National Youth Survey concluded.

This isn't unique to Canada. A major survey last year from the Pew Research Center suggested 50 per cent of U.S. Millennials see themselves as "political independents." Under 40 per cent of older respondents felt the same. By and large, Boomers grew up in an era when personal identity was more closely associated with specific political parties. "I don't feel that connection," Van de Valk said. "In my lifetime I've never really seen leadership in any party that extends past the four year election cycle."

Canada's 2015 election is no exception, she said. At least, not when it comes to climate change. Harper's Conservatives have warned climate action could be "job-killing." But the Liberals and NDP haven't offered Van de Valk a very inspiring alternative. Neither party has clearly articulated to her how it would drastically reduce carbon emissions and shift Canada to clean energy. Meanwhile, both have offered qualified support to the oilsands. "That doesn't do it for me," she said.

Fixing the system

Canada, after all, is set to miss its 2020 climate target by 20 per cent. Van de Valk knows Millennials like her will inherit the consequences of today's inaction. She also knows decisive climate policies have been implemented in places like China and Europe -- and that they're possible in Canada. What she craves is bold leadership. She doesn't care which political party shows it. "It is a huge fault of our democratic system that we look at climate change from a partisan perspective," she argued.

Her statement could apply to a broad range of gridlocked issues. Inequality, criminal justice, poverty -- the list goes on. "One reason young people are so disengaged from politics is they grew up in a system that can't seem to work," said Sam Gilman, CEO and co-founder of Common Sense Action, a Millennial think-tank and advocacy group with chapters on 40 college campuses across the U.S. Its logic is simple: make politics about solutions instead of partisanship, and more young people will engage.

"Our generation is different from previous generations in the sense that we care about collaborating," Gilman said. Common Sense Action is explicitly bipartisan. It recently merged with another Millennial group called Run for America in the hopes of electing a new generation of solutions-focused Democrats and Republicans in the 2016 House of Representatives election. "There aren't leaders stepping across the aisle to advance solutions to problems we face in our communities," Gilman said.

He has a long way to go. Youth turnout was just 20 per cent in the recent U.S. midterm elections, while polarization in Congress is at all time highs. Nothing similar to Common Sense Action's bipartisan election effort exists in Canada, where the gulf between left and right is rapidly growing. But if it did, Van de Valk is a likely supporter -- especially on the issue dearest to her. "We want to move away from the idea that climate change is associated with a specific party," she said. "Really it's something that all Canadians care about." [Tyee]

TyDavidson
09-11-2015, 03:06 PM
@16:20, was he a little annoyed there?

At least, unlike Trudeau, he didn't spend most of the interview holding his testicles.

When were these interviews done? I ask because the weather looked similar, and all three were asked the same question last so I would have thought that Peter Mansbridge thus gave Tom Mulcair an advantage if Mulcair had heard the question before, but from his answer I suspect he hadn't.

All the interviews were done last week then the cbc ran them one each night this week so Mulcair wouldn't have seen the other's first

FALover
09-11-2015, 03:26 PM
If all those millenials? genexs? labeled groups could cast a vote with their 'smart phone' or other 'device' the results would be totally unpredictable.

Doug_M
09-11-2015, 03:33 PM
If all those millenials? genexs? labeled groups could cast a vote with their 'smart phone' or other 'device' the results would be totally unpredictable.

Elizabeth May would become PM.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RangeBob
09-11-2015, 03:59 PM
Elizabeth May would become PM.

Someone mentioned it would be fun if Elizabeth May did not get a seat but Bruce Hyer did, which would make Bruce Hyer the leader of the Green Party.