babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
High loonie causing harm says Mulcair
May 6, 2012 - 7:11am
V
High loonie causing harm says Mulcair
What are the politics of this.
How is it going to work.
Discuss.
There is no point fulminating about the lack of truth in what the Alberta and Harper governments say and will say.
The question is whether and how this works for the NDP.
I said during the campaign that I was pissed how some of Mulcair`s statements on the issue (not these) were leaving juicy targets.
They are still there, and this does not directly address disarming them.
But I`m glad to see he is going out first on it. That was an essential minimum. And with him going out, presumably there is a larger communications plan.
But McQueens response is tame, and not very effective, compared to what we will hear from the Harper Cons. Tit for tat verbal exchanges are not the critical issue. Those are easy to win.
Maverick prof says oil belongs to country 2007
Right-rightists say we can't nationalize the highly profitable oil industry because it's much too lucrative.
sigh
She's identified the strategy for us. Maybe old-style politics is the key. How many voters are there in Alberta, and how many in Ontario? We came, we saw, and we conquered in 2015.
FirstPastThePost is a dirty, dirty game. Yes it is, Diana McQueen.
I think Fidel is right. In fact across the nation there are few places that have been booming outside of sask and alberta with the rising dollar. It doesn't just hurt manufacturing, it hurts forestry, fishing, anything that we sell that isn't an essential outside of our borders. Our whole region of close to 500,000 has been decimated because of the rise in the dollar. Our wines, agriculture, manufacturing, tourism have all been hurt badly by the petro dollar. Once Mulcair has his foot on the neck of harper he may even detail why it hurts sask and alberta in the longrun, enviro damage, hollowing out their other industries, bloated housing market, etc. In 3 years time the Harpernomics will come home to roost in alberta. I think the NDP are counting on it. It doesn't even have to be a major turn. Sure we will see the Sunmedia brainwashed still blame it on the left, but some will see that if oil drops to 70 a barrel, a few layoffs and gas still at 1.10 that it isn't in our best interest to make our entire economy based on O I L.
I saw Twitter light up last night with Albertans angry over his comments. Or more precisely, the spin on his comments. (Sample headline: "Mulcair takes aim at oilsands.")
General observation first. We have a media that is almost entirely onside with the governing party and virtually united in its hostility towards the NDP. This means any statement from a party representative that rises above bland and offensive to none will become ammunition against us. That's the nature of our uneven playing field. But I don't believe Mulcair should retreat to mouthing sweet nothings. Standing for something, even when it's "provocative" to opinion shapers, is a large part of why we've supplanted the Liberals. Continuing to say things some in the opposing camps of media and government will demonize is part of winning while remaining true to ourselves.
Specific to how these comments work for the NDP, the cold truth is that the path to power for the party is by a breakthrough in Ontario, not in Alberta. (Also, I believe it's not only smart politics but in the best traditions of the party for Mulcair to champion labour and the manufacturing sector.) My only measure for the wisdom of Mulcair's remarks will be the popular vote in Ontario.
Yeah, me too, right on, JeffWells! I wish we had "like" buttons here...
It is about truth telling as well.
The reason some I think are so angry about this is that it is true--
We need to face the fact that the interests of one part of the coutnry are being pitting against those of another-- it is not unreasonable to ask for a compromise to get the most nationally.
Problem is there are some who want no compromise at all.
Mulcair corrects people everytime they sy he is against development-- he just says all I am asking is that it be done sustainably with respect for the environment and with the greatest net gain for jobs across the country. What is so wrong with that?
Just discovered this:
There seems to be a pessimism in financial circles these days which is usually a precurser to investers rushing back to the US dollar. Watch for the Cdn dollar to drop over the next 6 months.
We have no choice. If we lose this debate, we lose the election.
We HAVE to educate the electorate on a pretty complex economic disorder.
I'd like to think that there's some common sense out there that helps us: the electorate knows that Canadian jobs depend on our ability to export our goods to other countries, and might have even considered that an expensive dollar hurts our exports.
The problem is the common sense against us: that the Alberta oil money is benefiting all of Canada. (Really? I'm still waiting for my cheque.)
If we can get people to understand that foreign investment is pouring into oil, and that's what's heating up our dollar, and that's what's killing our exports, we win. That's the dutch disease in a nutshell.
I'm not too proud to play up a little bit of nationalistic populism. It's a sell-out to American business interests. It's a foreign takeover. Mortgaging our future to outside influences. All of those messages are true, and all of them are good politics.
The Conservatives are trusted for being able to handle the economy. I'm not sure how this will relate to that.
I usually don't have a problem with an interchange that goes along this nature:
1) One person says something true
2) The other person attacks this true thing because of some other quality
In this case, what mulcair said is both true and so obviously true almost anyone would agree. Now it may be right that it is divisive or any other quality labeled onto it. But it is right. And over time as long as you have one guy saying true things and the other side defending with flack then people are going to gravitate to the guy saying true things.
There are 2 fallacies with this argument:
1) The fallacy that the NDP can win government in Ontario at the exclusion of Western Canada. Remeber that Reform got its start out West and became a strong political player simply because it had a lock on this region. The reason Harper was able to win his majority is because he was able to hold is Western seats while expanding in Ontario. Conversely, an NDP surge in Western Canada would have denied Harper his majority. It's also bad politics and bad for the country. A party that is shut out from large regions of the country, as the Liberals were shut out of Western Canada and the Conservatives are shut out of Quebec, not only risks things going really badly when the electoral cycle turns around, but a political party that would govern at the expense of entire regions is unfit to govern. Additionally, if Ontario and Quebec throw out Harper while the West votes Conservative, you will see the rise of Reform II and it will be openly separatist.
2) The fallacy that Mulcair's arguments have to hurt the NDP in Alberta. Throughout the last 8 years, there have been so many comments on public message boards that the NDP doesn't "get Alberta" and that the NDP is sure to be shut out, yet under Jack the NDP kept on growing more and more votes in Alberta. Provincially, the NDP also campaigned on processing more bitumen locally in Alberta, which would mean less oil to be exported in the pipelines. This on top of how Alberta's economy is sending the cost of living, especially the cost of energy, through the roof. I bet lots of Albertans are looking around wondering why their energy bills are so high when the province in which they live is an energy superpower.
There is one BIG fallacy.
The tradeoff is NOT Alberta versus seats in the manufacturing belt`of Ontario and Quebec.
It is Alberta, hinterland BC, SK, good part of MB and Northern Ontario versus the manufacturing belt seats.
And while it does not HAVE to be an either or tradeoff, it is foolish to not accept that there is a fundamental tension around which parlaying logical arguments is in itself going to do squat for keeping you from being backhanded by playing wround that high voltage tension.
I think Harper has been a disaster for Ontario - and other provinces as well, but especially Ontario - and I'm totally flummoxed as to why Ontario votes for his party.
The Conservatives will be looking to root the visceral notion that Mulcair and the NDP are willing to cause job losses in the West so that we can pander to our base in Quebec.
Fortunately nobody in Caucus is stupid enough to think anything of the notion being bandied around here that this is `shrewd move`.
But (thankfully) at least not intending to play this attention will not be enough to keep us from being burnt badly by this.
Resource workers in BC and their families who sometimes vote for the NDP are going to see those ads too. A good many of them who know that the high dollar does not help them, will not make the connection between that and the attack ads [that will not talk about the dollar].
There are antidotes to that, but they have piss all to do with 'explaining how things work', and everything to do with hard work we have not done and only might be in the position to do.
And that 'shrewd move' would fan the flames.
Because as epressed by people here, it would lead to people in the West resenting and remembering what the NDP is willing to do, versus workers in the East who only might remember the NDP was trying to do something about our jobs.
I said at the outset that I'm fine, and hopeful, for how Mulcair has started on this. But all we have is the fact that he has opened up- which had to happen. (Waiting to have it dropped at our door would have been a guaranteed disaster.)
We have no indidcation of anything except the fact of an opening. And the idea most people here have of where it goes from that opening, is flat out dangerous.
Cdn dollar is already under par as forecast.
It goes back and forth around par.
No one has forecast a downward trend to substantialy below par.
I havent heard anyway talk about where the line of substantial effects is. But even a dollar settling around say 94 cents, would not make much difference. And I have seen no one forecast even that much of a change. As likely as that is going to 1.05 and staying there.
But it's not just Ontario where the high dollar hurts jobs. It's Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick!
They should have created more prosperity in Alberta and the prairies if they wanted more votes overall. Too late for them to worry about it now.
I agree this is a topic that needs to be discussed. However, Conservatives can - and are - spinning this as "NDP hates Alberta & Sask". I am also seeing data that oil/gas-related manufacturing and construction is doing very well in western Canada.
Mulroney's government gave money to wineries to grow better grapes. This resulted in better Canadian wine, and saved the industry from complete wipe-out after Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately as the Canadian dollar rose, manufacturing bases were caught like frogs in hotter water. I feel the NDP should put forward solid public policies to help saving and growing local manufacturing industries (creative), instead of howling at currency appreciation (passive).
A high dollar may be good for the richest one percent and foreign capital but not for workers. Nobody tells manufacturing powerhouse China how to manage their currency in favour of international capital. Harper is a weakling by comparison.
We've lost 600,000 good paying full-time jobs since 2000. What Mulcair has to do is promise jobs for Central and Eastern Canada. The NDP has to sell hope for the future to the large majority.
Mulcair was quite direct in that interview in saying it was not against Alberta, but on the issue of all resource industries.
I get that there are regional dynamics, and that we need to pay attention to them, but seeing everything through that lens is a divisive tactic best left to Harper.
And regarding the good professor in post #4. That's a nice bit of gasoline for the fire. Resources are a provincial jurisdiction.
The trade off is different than many seem to think. A hurting Ontario brings down Alberta as much as a hurting Alberta brings down Ontario.
The NDP has to put what needs to be done as something good for Alberta.
We have a twisted economy which is true but there is plenty of interest for the West in what the NDP would like to do and that must be explained in their terms.
Each part of the country must have public policy shaped to help them and that does not need to be to exclude someone else.