it took me by surprise when mulcair came out in favour of the tpp a few weeks ago out of a clear attempt to appear more centrist; now, he's changed his mind as a clear electoral strategy. he's in favour of it if he thinks it will win him votes, and opposed to it if he thinks it will win him votes.

in principle, i think that opposing the tpp is the correct electoral strategy. it will get them the most seats. but, what will they actually do?

see, i'm not opposed to people changing their minds; i'm not into "strong leadership", i'm into fact-based analysis. but, the result of the party changing it's mind twice now, both times obviously to position themselves to win votes, is that i still don't know where they stand. this was one of the first questions i put down: where do they stand on this?

if they are to be taken at their word, the fact that they haven't read it means they actually don't know what their position is on the deal. if i'm really into fact-based analysis, that actually sounds good in principle.

but, i couldn't imagine them claiming they support it, then rejecting it. i could imagine them coming up with an obfuscated position that makes it seem like they oppose it unless you're paying close attention, and then supporting it. as it is, the only specifics i've heard are with supply management. so, does that mean he'll support it if it has some language about supply management that he likes, forcing maude barlow to issue a press release correcting his language? i don't have a crystal ball or anything, but the future is sometimes easily predictable.

give me a flow chart. put your conditions down. tpp is not conscription; you can't do this, not necessarily thing, it's too complicated. give me your conditions and let me see if i agree with them....

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-trade-ndp-1.3255051