thomas-mulcair-100

Thomas Mulcair’s NDP

Seven Months, 131,000 members, 69,000 votes, 4 ballots, Thomas Mulcair: 57%. This past weekend in Toronto, the federal New Democrats elected the next leader of their party and Her Majesty’s Leader of the Loyal Opposition. Riding the so-called Orange Wave to an unprecedented 103 seats in the 41st General Election, NDP spirits were buoyed at convention despite the purpose of their task, to replace the much-beloved Jack Layton, who passed away last year.

For all of the hype and hope, the convention was marred by low voter turnout. Out of 131,000+ members, only 69,000 of them voted and many of those votes were aggravated over the course of the day of voting as voting systems jammed. For comparison’s sake, in 2004, 67,000 votes were cast for Stephen Harper’s leadership among Conservatives on the first ballot. As press gallery reporters look to flat-tires on campaign buses as metaphors for electoral viability, the voting issues did not help Canadians see confidence in the NDP.

In the end, NDP members chose Thomas Mulcair, however, today the party is divided. Mulcair’s chief rival, Brian Topp, was the pick of many Layton loyalists, organized labour and the old-guard of the party. Indeed, Ed Broadbent’s characterization of Mulcair during the leadership race has caused division among the ranks.

Thomas Mulcair was seen as a darkhorse candidate from Quebec. His bio describes him as a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister, and reports have linked his interests to Conservative Party candidacy, Mulcair can be described as a political chameleon. Many will doubt his sincerity as a leader of social democrats. Maclean’s magazine recently opined that he is more accurately described as a Liberal that would rather defend the status quo than agitate for social change. His supporters weren’t the dyed-in-the-wool NDP partisans, but more so they were those attracted to the spectacle of politics.

Will Thomas Mulcair lead the NDP to greater electoral fortunes? In 2003, the conservative family was split between two major parties: the Progressive Conservatives under Peter MacKay and the Canadian Alliance under Stephen Harper. Mulcair may see a path to victory by building a formal coalition of sorts between the Liberal Party and the NDP. With mergers and cooperation, Stephen Harper was the ideologue, while the PC party the centrists. If polarization of the electorate is to serve the NDP, the formula may not be correct as Mulcair is leading as a non-ideological centrist perhaps looking to broker an arrangement with a weaker centrist party.

Politically who benefits and loses from a Mulcair victory?

Mulcair’s appeal to a certain part of the NDP’s traditional base may be shaky. Mulcair is seen more of a patrician than a man-of-the-people. Critics have called him cold and arrogant. To connect with blue-collar (Joe and Jane Lunch-bucket) types, the French-cuff-shirted image Mulcair carries may benefit the Conservatives. Mulcair risks losing touch with the type of middle-class clock-punching Sun-reading populists.

Geographically, the Mulcair NDP will be very competitive in Quebec further retrenching the traditional positions of the Liberal Party and the Bloc. The last bastions of strong Liberal support are Montreal and Toronto. Mulcair’s riding is in downtown Montreal. Westerners will perceive an urban elitist Quebecker lecturing their region on energy policy and the oilsands. Mulcair was a former resource minister in Charest’s cabinet who allegedly resigned on environmental principles. Pipeline politics is not only a major factor in the American Presidential election cycle, but here too in Canada. The Northern Gateway pipeline is a major sticking point in BC and Alberta. Mulcair’s leadership will fix the geographic and issue focal point too far East and too far disconnected for Western sentiment. Where the NDP is competitive therefore, is not where the Conservatives are competitive. Under Mulcair’s leadership, the NDP is competitive where they find the Liberals as their chief rival.

The NDP and the Conservatives see common goal in the elimination of the Liberal Party. Mulcair can help achieve this by showing impressive opposition to Stephen Harper’s government in a majority leaving the over-covered Liberal Party with less airtime. He can also start appealing to common left-leaning principles to make them the brand of the NDP. Viable electability for the NDP will not just come through recasting the Conservative scandal-of-the-week to the Ottawa press (a strategy that failed Ignatieff) but voters will be attracted to specific hallmark policies that the NDP now must craft for more than 25% of the electorate (and haphazard Quebec voters). Mulcair must avoid the elitist label and speak on pocketbook issues in order to protect NDP gains.

Winning with only 57% of the vote on the final ballot and with a bellicose Topp holding on to the bitter end just to oppose a Mulcair leadership, the victor has fences to mend in his party. Though a new party leader has the prerogative of filling his office with his own loyalists, he’ll have to handle the inevitable departure of senior figures with as much grace as possible. Mulcair also faces the possibility of losing the labour segment of the NDP base. Though CUPE eventually endorsed the new NDP leader, most of the other unions supported Topp (some were for Nash then Topp). The Liberal strategy moving forward should be to capture disgruntled union stakeholders and bring them into Liberal decision making processes. The CAW famously left Layton for Martin during the 2004 election and a former socialist premier of Ontario might be the one to bring them back into the smaller red tent.

The Conservative strategy on Mulcair will be to encourage those that dislike Harper to fall into Mulcair’s camp at the expense of the Liberals because the Harper Tories still see the Liberals as their chief rivals. As for the votes the Conservatives can get, their main message will be jobs and the economy and tht theirs is the only party that is focusing on the same while the other parties focus on special interests and themselves.

Comments

comments

  • Canadiansense

    Excellent POV.
    Muclair needs to drop the anti-global trade, anti-Oil sands ideology for pragmatic solutions. Can he bring the socialists into the modern world? Nah. 

  • Anonymous

    I have watched the coverage on the CBC network in particular the talking heads.We Conservatives better be aware that our government network is really an arm of the left wing in Canada. When I see Solomon on Power and Politics and his continuous put down of the Conservative talking head and to watch the others giggle with glee it tells me we Conservatives better be aware of the future. Our national network is out to destroy the Conservative party and their new darling on the left is Mulcair. Conservatives can continue to win elections providing we stick together . The future of our country is at stake.We have to fight fire with fire and continue to question the politic position of our Natiional network

  • Jon_s38

    Budget cuts coming to the CBC in a few days… so a bit of satisfaction in that. Plus, not to far off — perhaps May, maybe June — the Information Commissioner will be holding another presser to deliver another scathing indictment of the state broadcaster with the documents she currently has in her possession and has so since December (can’t be too much longer). And when that day arrives, we can pathetically watch as the CBC ignores the story, filing no reports and with no focus on the issue by Solomon, along with their allies in the Consensus Media. But SNN will be on top of it. And Canadians will see once and for all how the others cherry-pick the stories they want to cover. Their credibility will continue to erode as a result.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tongejonathan Jonathan Tonge

    I don’t think the anti-oil sands is an ideology. The Athabasca river is a glacier river and it supports much of the northern ecosystem. It does not run clean like before. 

    Saying that we can pollute at all costs is not modern, it’s draconian. It’s yesterday. It’s selfish. 

    The modern world is about making educated decisions based on real, transparent information. Turning the planet into Mars is not something that benefits our children. We are here for only a generation. One generation. The damages we are doing will last thousands, sometimes millions of years. Why tarnish the land for future generations. They will have NO oil left in just one more generation, yet will have all the damage. What will they think of your idea of modern then?  We are leaving the future with considerably less resources than what we had. And we are spitting in their face, leaving them with land that will bear no fruit, fresh air or water. We are so spoiled.

    And as for socialists, I consider myself a very strong conservative. A libertarian. I’m the first to be against both union and corporate power. I am for a small government, a conservative one. One that does not tell people what to do, yet protects the rights of people, environment and animals. A government that knows its a service provider, not a place where Canadians ask what they need to believe in. A government that provides services that are efficient and technologically advanced, or otherwise privatizes itself so it does not hold back the economic evolution of our country. 

    But in none of this, do I say, we should steal from our children. We make investments for them. Not steal. Oil sands is not an investment.  At its current pace, it is a disaster. 

  • Anonymous

    What’s that old adage, give them enough rope….. Mulcair is a hot head and it won’t take much to put him over the top. Given the chance the hyperbole will flow like Niagara Falls and show the rest of Canada what the NDP are really all about. If in fact Mulcair can hold his tongue long enough to convince doubters he ‘s just one of the guys then that bigot Libby Davies will chime in to fill in the blanks.

    The problem with being the official Opposition is that everyone actually starts listening, as I said, give him enough rope.

  • Gabby in QC

    Evan Solomon does not interview Conservative guests, he engages in junior league debates. He also omits relevant information about the experts whose opinion he relies on to make his point against Conservative guests.

    For example …

    During the March 26 segment of the CBC’s Power and Politics, retired ADM of Supply Operations Service Mr. Alan Williams was once again called upon by Solomon to comment on the F-35 purchase, which Mr. Williams continues to criticize. One of the criticisms is that there was supposedly no competitive process in signing the MoU for the F-35s.What both Mr. Solomon and his guest have neglected to tell the CBC audience is that Mr. Williams was involved in the purchase of those 4 British subs which have yet to be operable. Why didn’t Solomon draw on Mr. Williams’ expertise on the wisdom of purchasing those subs? Solomon did a couple of stories on the inoperability of those subs, but Mr. Williams’ name was never brought up.After all, Mr. Williams was convinced the British submarines Canada bought in 1998 and which have yet to be operable was a great acquisition. In criticizing the F-35 program, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Williams, and the opposition claim there was no competitive process. Well, it appears there was no competitive process to purchase the British subs either, and Mr. Williams seems to have been OK with that lack of competitive process at the time.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1424553&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=38&Ses=1#Int-981499
“Mr. Alan Williams: The acquisition of the Victoria Class submarines was an innovative lease-to-own arrangement for four submarines that we will operate for the next twenty to thirty years — submarines that will ably fill the military’s requirements, and represent excellent value for Canadians. …… Typically, competition is our preferred way of doing business, without any question. We like to take the requirements and open them up to the marketplace and have companies go at each other to get us the best price to meet our needs. This case was slightly unique in the sense that the requirements were clear and a unique opportunity presented itself. Clearly, there wasn’t anything else used out there, and there wasn’t anything else in our budget that we could afford. This was it.
…”Why was the purchase of those British duds … sorry, I mean subs … OK without the benefit of a competitive process but it is not OK now in the case of the F-35s, which I understand Mr. Williams himself signed on to in the MoU in 2002?Mr. Solomon likes to talk about transparency, waving about “secret” documents. Should he not have been completely transparent and divulged to his audience what other procurement decision Mr. Williams was involved in, like the defective British subs, thus giving his audience a fuller picture of his expert witness?Full disclosure: I’m far from being a procurement expert but I like to have the full story on the experts Evan Solomon relies on to shape and sway public opinion.

  • DougM

     I don’t think the anti-oil sands is an ideology.

    While I share the same beliefs you espouse, I disagree with your point above.  Liberal MP Karryganis admitted outright that the point of Dion’s “Green Shift”   was to move money from the West to the Liberal strongholds in the east.  Knowing the Liberal history, it was clearly to futher lock out the Liberal unfriendly West from developing and growing as it has.   The Liberals still believe unshakably that they must divide and conquer and indeed they have done well in the past with just that mechanism.   So the attack on the Oil sands is, at leat to some extent if not a major one, a calculated move to shut down the economic power in the west and much of the east has swallowed that Koolaid. 

          I think most people now recognise Kyoto as about the dumbest thing to come out of the Liberal party since Cretin ran a campaign on abolishing the GST and NAFTA.  It didn’t include the major polluters, it would have wrecked us economically (which is why the Liberals never implemented it and pollution rates actually rose under their watch) if our closest trading partner didn’t sign on, and it essentially put us in a position where we would have been paying China to produce more Nuke Subs.   Its really kind of difficult to imagine packing that much stupidity into one piece of Legislation.  Hopefully we will move to something a bit more effective and credible in the decades to come.  

               But with that said here’s a comparison.  “Suggest to someone that we shut down Toronto – completely.   Nothing that emits pollution to be permitted.  Most people look at you like yo’ve just grown an additional head.  Yet its not the Oil sands that create the smog and crap coloured dome over Toronto, but the millions of people on the Gardiner Expressway and Coal fired Electrical plant etc pumping that pollution into the sky.   Shutting down the oil sands would have the same impact on the West (again, the NEP did it once before) as shutting down Toronto, but its surprising how many can see one and consider the other to be outrageous.  That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to do better – in both Toronto and Alberta, but right now Alberta is the economic strength in the country.  Killing the goose that laid the golden egg is great for the Liberals but very bad for the country.   And that assumes that the country would survive the attempt to shut down the fields – there’s a lot of Westerners who wouldn’t stand for it.    Toronto may well find itself funding the rest of the country alone. 

           This country is about 75% wilderness.  BC alone constitutes the same land mass as all of Europe.    David Suzuki not withstanding,  we have a long way to go before we live in the atmosphere Toronto does.

  • Exiled Maritimer

    Just a small correction 
    “The Athabasca river is a glacier river and it supports much of the northern ecosystem. It does not run clean like before. “I used to live in Fort Mac and those black spots on the river banks are oil seeping out. Natural seeps. Oil sheens skim the water and that is before it gets to the plants. The FN used to use the bitumen to patch their canoes. Sorry, it did not run clean beforeI also know engineers working in the patch. Environmental safeguards are a religion because minor incidents are taken out of context by Big Green fund raising organizations using dishonest tactics to fleece the sheeple. Fort Mac will have an apparent black eye as long as there is money to be taken from well meaning but ignorant environmentally uneducated.

    The anti-oil sands is not an ideology – its a money making opportunity.

  • LMRobin

    Exiled Maritimer, I agree 100% with your statement.  There is a little river in the north east area of Saskatchewan, the Carrot River, where oil pools on it.  The oil is naturaly occurring from the shale oil structure in the area.  This formation is one of the largest in the world, hard to extract, but natural leaching is happenning. 

  • Canadiansense

    I do not live Alberta, but I will defend their right to develop their natural resources. I don’t presume they r being irresponsible or reckless based on a poorly written National Geographic article.

    The media, opposition parties use junk science in attacking Canada’s wealth, namely its Oil Sands. I am not interested in raising taxes, sending it to the  UN so they can build new coal plants. I am not interested in setting up a Robin Hood wealth redistribution scheme in an attempt to lower Earth’s temp by 2 degrees.
    I have no evidence those entrusted to safeguard Alberta’s environment r prevented from laying fines if a violation has occurred. Tougher regulations were recently passed including monitoring.

    I am familiar with the sensationalist pile on when a few ducks died. How many more die from those Giant Fans on migratory paths? Death by oil is a Front page national crisis. Windmills killing wildlife, no problem.

    The fanaticism of the Green/Socialist movement is an ideology. We can agree to disagree. Fossil fuel is REAL, and fairy tales about an alternative that is cost effective does not exist TODAY. 

    The current government has signed 9 Free trade deals since. The NDP have voted against EVERY single trade deal. The NDP r not interested in pipelines or tanker traffic on Northern region of our West coast.

    NEP-Lite
    Thomas recently cited QC can take the oil and refine at a discount to Brent prices. Why should Albertans sell oil at a discount from world prices? U believe Hydro Quebec provides discounts to other provinces?

    Why keep Oil sands land locked with no pipeline to United states?
    Mackenzie, Keystone, Northern Gateway targeted by NDP.

    Natural gas, shale, oil is a direct competitor and is available in very large amounts. Quebec Hydro has blocked other provinces from expanding and building a competitive Hydro project.

  • Anonymous

    Some high-grade crude right here, folks:

    – the point of Dion’s “Green Shift”   was to move money from the West to the Liberal strongholds in the east.
    –  …  the attack on the Oil sands is, at leat to some extent if not a major
    one, a calculated move to shut down the economic power in the west and
    much of the east has swallowed that Koolaid. 
    – I think most people now recognise Kyoto as about the dumbest thing to come out of the Liberal party

    Talk about Koolaid….  And where’s Kyoto, Doug?

    here’s a comparison.  “Suggest to someone that we
    shut down Toronto – completely.   Nothing that emits pollution to be
    permitted.  Most people look at you like yo’ve just grown an additional
    head.  Yet its not the Oil sands that create the smog and crap coloured
    dome over Toronto, but the millions of people on the Gardiner Expressway
    and Coal fired Electrical plant etc pumping that pollution into the
    sky.   Shutting down the oil sands would have the same impact on the
    West ([gratuitous whine removed]) as shutting down Toronto, but
    its surprising how many can see one and consider the other to be
    outrageous.

    I thought I could discern the faint pulse of a plausible argument in there, but it’s been smothered by the stoopid:
    coal-fired plants? Really? there’s only one coal-burner that’s barely within 2 hours drive from Toronto (Nanticoke), and it’s only running at 50%, and due to be on NG by 2014. I’ll call this one a mulligan.
    – how can any rational comparison be made between the ecological effects of getting, processing, moving and burning oil, and the byproducts of a big city? What – do the Albertans all ride bikes to work and live in zero-footprint communes?

    It should go without saying that big cities are the most efficient places to conduct business and perform services. Canadian big cities could be even more efficient and less polluting if certain governments would get off their anti-East arses and properly invest in (preferably Canadian designed and made) urban transit.

    Yet its not the Oil sands that create the smog and crap coloured
    dome over Toronto

    If the CPC oil-mania draws attention and resources from the infrastructure of the rest of Canada, then… yes, it does.

    Despite being an implausibly strained comparison…. your whole stance isn’t just a straw-man, it’s a straw-castle. Who has talked about shutting down the oil-sands? With links. Cos it’s just about no-one.

    The concern being expressed is over the headlong, government-subsidized way in which the oilsands are being processed and sold. (and the jingoistic arrogant bullsh!t being spread around to support this).  What’s wrong with pulling back a little, being a little more “conservative” in the way the industry is being developed, so the process is kept cleaner and the resource benefits Canada for more than the projected 100 years?

    Last question – why are we in such a hurry (and subsidizing, even) to sell so much, so fast, when it still costs more than other oil to produce, and anyone knows that it will be worth much more, just a little bit later?

    we have a long way to go before we live in the atmosphere Toronto does

    With phasing out of coal generation and government-mandated improvements in vehicle efficiency and lowered emissions, Toronto’s air quality has steadily improved. Regardless, Toronto’s air on the smoggiest August day is still preferable to the fog of bitter ignorance that surrounds you.

  • Anonymous

    Some high-grade crude right here, folks:

    – the point of Dion’s “Green Shift”   was to move money from the West to the Liberal strongholds in the east.
    –  …  the attack on the Oil sands is, at leat to some extent if not a major
    one, a calculated move to shut down the economic power in the west and
    much of the east has swallowed that Koolaid. 
    – I think most people now recognise Kyoto as about the dumbest thing to come out of the Liberal party

    Talk about Koolaid….  And where’s Kyoto, Doug?

    here’s a comparison.  “Suggest to someone that we
    shut down Toronto – completely.   Nothing that emits pollution to be
    permitted.  Most people look at you like yo’ve just grown an additional
    head.  Yet its not the Oil sands that create the smog and crap coloured
    dome over Toronto, but the millions of people on the Gardiner Expressway
    and Coal fired Electrical plant etc pumping that pollution into the
    sky.   Shutting down the oil sands would have the same impact on the
    West ([gratuitous whine removed]) as shutting down Toronto, but
    its surprising how many can see one and consider the other to be
    outrageous.

    I thought I could discern the faint pulse of a plausible argument in there, but it’s been smothered by the stoopid:
    coal-fired plants? Really? there’s only one coal-burner that’s barely within 2 hours drive from Toronto (Nanticoke), and it’s only running at 50%, and due to be on NG by 2014. I’ll call this one a mulligan.
    – how can any rational comparison be made between the ecological effects of getting, processing, moving and burning oil, and the byproducts of a big city? What – do the Albertans all ride bikes to work and live in zero-footprint communes?

    It should go without saying that big cities are the most efficient places to conduct business and perform services. Canadian big cities could be even more efficient and less polluting if certain governments would get off their anti-East arses and properly invest in (preferably Canadian designed and made) urban transit.

    Yet its not the Oil sands that create the smog and crap coloured
    dome over Toronto

    If the CPC oil-mania draws attention and resources from the infrastructure of the rest of Canada, then… yes, it does.

    Despite being an implausibly strained comparison…. your whole stance isn’t just a straw-man, it’s a straw-castle. Who has talked about shutting down the oil-sands? With links. Cos it’s just about no-one.

    The concern being expressed is over the headlong, government-subsidized way in which the oilsands are being processed and sold. (and the jingoistic arrogant bullsh!t being spread around to support this).  What’s wrong with pulling back a little, being a little more “conservative” in the way the industry is being developed, so the process is kept cleaner and the resource benefits Canada for more than the projected 100 years?

    Last question – why are we in such a hurry (and subsidizing, even) to sell so much, so fast, when it still costs more than other oil to produce, and anyone knows that it will be worth much more, just a little bit later?

    we have a long way to go before we live in the atmosphere Toronto does

    With phasing out of coal generation and government-mandated improvements in vehicle efficiency and lowered emissions, Toronto’s air quality has steadily improved. Regardless, Toronto’s air on the smoggiest August day is still preferable to the fog of bitter ignorance that surrounds you.

  • Anonymous

     The media, opposition parties use junk science in attacking Canada’s wealth, namely its Oil Sands.

    once upon a time, Canada’s wealth used to be its people.

  • Anonymous

     The media, opposition parties use junk science in attacking Canada’s wealth, namely its Oil Sands.

    once upon a time, Canada’s wealth used to be its people.

  • DougM

     Some high-grade crude right here, folks:

    Liberal MP Karryganis admitted outright that the point of Dion’s “Green
    Shift”   was to move money from the West to the Liberal strongholds in
    the east. 

    Blow it out your ear – It was the Liberal MP who admitted it –  take it up with him – but the GS was part of the reason the Liberal tanked – seems a whole heap of people didn’t like that Koolaid- maybe it was just your flavour.

    And where’s Kyoto, Doug?

    Where it belongs, with the Liberals – in the toilette

    What – do the Albertans all ride bikes to work and live in zero-footprint communes?

    Nope, but it ain’t them whining like gut-shot dogs at the success of others – its you nanny state Occupy-anything-but-a-job ingrates.

    Canadian big cities could be even more efficient and less polluting if
    certain governments would get off their anti-East arses and properly
    invest in (preferably Canadian designed and made) urban transit.

    So do it – hint – whining won’t make it happen.

    If the CPC oil-mania draws attention and resources from the infrastructure of the rest of Canada, then… yes, it does.

    Bull and tough. I lived there.  From Oshawa to Windsor, they created jobs for high school drop outs that paid $70k a year depending on a low Canadian dollar and the fact that God’s grace had put them next to the American Big Three.    The Unions made sure competitive and efficiency were dirty words and openly planned to strike different companys every year to extort even more.  The manufacturing in Ontario can no longer depend on that with predictable results.   Its really rough that the West won’t screw themselves to keep Tranna on top but C’est la vie.  The smart Companies (apparently there are some) are already finding that they can make money manufacturing for the Oil sands.  Gee isn’t that terrible?  Canadian companys manufacturing for other Canadian companys instead of the American Auto industry which then you piss on the west for fueling for you.    If you can get over your snot- nosed Tranna superiority complex, you might find the natural evolution of a Country was a good thing – but then dinosaurs have never done well at evolution.

    With phasing out of coal generation and government-mandated improvements
    in vehicle efficiency and lowered emissions, Toronto’s air quality has
    steadily improved.

    Not sure why all you Nanny state syncophants can’t do really anything without the Government mandating it for you.  I guess we should be pleased you can actually wipe your butts without help, but someday you will meet someone with a mind.  Often they will use it in a singular fashion to do something on their own.    The Oil sands have been finding ways to increase their productivity and reduce impact for decades and are doing better and better.

    Regardless, Toronto’s air on the smoggiest August day is still preferable to the fog of bitter ignorance that surrounds you.

    Oh yeah, that’s rich!  I’m the ignorant one!  Pot, kettle, black.  But good! Stay there and live in it!  Breathe deep. 

  • Anonymous

     Seems you’ve posted again with your arse instead of your brain, but I suspect there’d have been little difference anyway.

    big nebulous cloud of  incoherent East-bashing

    Rock yourself to sleep with your anti-union fables and ‘Nanny state syncophants’ if you must.  Unions and manufacturers -both parties- were free to make whatever agreement suited them; often they were both short-sighted in their choices. Yet the companies still made money when the sun shone.

    then you piss on the west for fueling for you

    Christmas ideas for DougM – a globe, an atlas of Canada, and a pipeline prospectus or two. The west is NOT fuelling the east, you m0r0n,  the west is fuelling the states; the East imports. Not that this is necessarily evil. But it’s reality, something you’ve detached from.

    I hope you get over your piles or whatever else is bothering you.

  • Anonymous

     Where’s Kyoto, Doug?

  • Anonymous

     Who’s demanding the shut-down of the oil sands? With links, please.

  • DougM

     With the Liberals – In the toilette where it belongs.

  • DougM

     That’s just too obtuse to reply to – figure out what your friends mean by “google”

  • Anonymous

    There’s a difference between being critical of something and seeking its demise.

    It makes your arguments so much cooler, though, if you can pretend that the left is “against” the oil sands.