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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Since this thread is about Mulcair and somehow we have some posts about Turkey, let`s add this as a side note:
Mulcair`s wife`s family immigrated to France from Turkey. In Turkish, they are called Sefarad (Sephardic Jews).
New article by James Laxer.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/james-laxer/2012/05/ndp-road-travelled-2...
The NDP seriously needed that Quebec breakthough, which unfortunately some did not understand, and Mulcair's Quebec connection was crucial to that.
Thanks Caissa for that interesting and informative article by Laxer.
I don't think we needed it. I think we could have played the long game. But there's no question that it's nice to be in first place already. I think it's going to take almost as much work to maintain it as it would have taken to build it. So keep working is what we'll do.
Long overdue, would probably have to be done Canadawide, and which would probably benefit public health care more than any other issue.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1177014--walkom-why-...
Speaking as One Who Lacked Understanding: unrepentant.
Fine with where we are, leader and all that. But unrepentant for "lack of understanding".
[and this crust that we were... "some" he intones...]
Laxer has written that one before. He just tacked 3 new paragraphs onto the other 100, with barely a segway to get current.
Hard to disagree with this paragraph.
Whatever.
It is unfortunate that we even have political parties, or these bs election campaigns, where money rules, but we do. Life is rough!
Mulcair is on the correct path here. The price of a barrel of oil is less than $100 yet gas at the pumps in Vancouver this morning is quite close to $1.50 a litre - that's right, $1.48 to be exact.At least those of you shopping for another car get yourselves at a hybrid
Tar sands development means 'game over for climate'http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2012/05/10/game_over_for_cli...
Nothing succeeds like success!
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/05/11/lawrence-martin-the-dippers-on-top-wh...
Great new slogan for the party. It highlights exactly what its goals are.
Any ideas on how Mulcair is going to stop the tar sands from being developed? Its all well and good to say look there is an elephant in the room it is another thing to explain how to remove it. How will he get to send oil back east instead of across the border? The percentage of our production going to the states must now remain so he can't set up a program to divert tar sands bitumen to domestic markets without increasing production.
It is tooooo extreme to talk about free trade and besides Mulcair is a proponent of the idea even if he doesn't like some details. If he doesn't say he is going to reopen the trade deals then his hands are tied.
However I predict great electoral success for Tom. Nothing succeeds like success even it doesn't bring any change.
How much is Canada spending on solar energy?
In some ways feel sorry for the Albertans. They are going to have an environmental mess to clean up for the rest of their lifetimes, they are becoming the planet's worst climate-change deniers, and even the Heritage Fund has been so depleted there will be nothing left but financial grief for future generations.
Then they will all want to move to BC - OMG!
;;
I don't think Mulcair said anything about stopping the tar sands entirely. Instead, he wants tar sands development slowed down and done sustainably, whatever that means.
James Laxer wrote:
During the 2006 election campaign, many trade unionists and social activists were furious with Jack Layton and the NDP for failing to critique the consequences of a Conservative victory in the election. They were angry that the NDP chose the late fall of 2005 to join the Conservatives and the Bloc in bringing down the Martin government and precipitating an election. They believed that this decision put in peril a number of reforms to which the Martin Liberals had agreed, including a national child-care program. The 2006 federal election "badly tested the relationship" between social movements and the NDP, wrote Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford in the Globe and Mail a few days after Harper's election victory."
However, the NDP joined to take down the Liberals but it didn't matter because both the Cons & Bloc plus 2 independents already had the "correct number of votes" to defeat the Liberals (and NDP) numbers combined. And that is what continually gets misrepresented, the numbers, for obviously partisan reasons.
So if you were a political party, knowing that both the Cons & Bloc were going to bring down the "corrupt" liberals, and that polls were telling you that it was a popular move, where would you stand?
Paul Martin was already saying he would pull the plug (supposedly) in 6 weeks, and both the last ditch pledge to do national childcare (which would have been undone as it wasn't even up and running) sure wasn't a good reason, and ditto for the money for First Nations - none of it had happen.
If the Paul Martin govt was serious about "staying alive for 6 more wks) he would have accepted Layton's next requests for the NDP. He rejected it out of hand so he could run on these not yet implemented social programs and take the progressive vote. Personally, I just wish that Laxer would write more honestly rather than coming across as a bitter waffle. He has so much to offer but loses my respect (for what its worth) each time he re-asserts a Liberal mythmaking of "misplaced victimhood".
I'm so sick of this persistent lie about the this national child care program as there never was a national child care program put in place by the Liberals.
So the election happened 6 weeks before Martin wanted it to happen - big friggin' deal!
The reality is, if the Liberals had not been involved in the sponsorship scandal, and the Liberals did not have a politically brain- dead leader in Paul Martin and his entourage, and lots of them are still there btw, none of this would have happened.
There is one reason and one reason only why the Harper Cons are in power - corrupt lyin' Liberals
Personally I think this is BS and nothing more than an attempt to create divisions within the NDP, and antagonism towards the NDP from Cdn voters, but nevermind Mulcair’s East-West gambit cynical, but potentially effectivehttp://www.canada.com/news/Tandt+Mulcair+East+West+gambit+cynical+potent...
She is by far the most popular of all the councillors - if she does go for it she'll win!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/13/nl-...
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Look+other+side+petrodollar+c...
I guess my question is when has an Alberta premier ever delivered on environmental issues?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1177845--tim-harper-...
So what's the point of the secrecy apart from some investor making an unethical kiilng on the stock market?
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120513/harper-secret-liberals-120413/
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/05/thomas-mulcair-and-energy-mccarthyism
http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/05/fight-the-right/
Just heard Mulcair endorsing a candidate for mayor of St. John's NL.
Are people here ok with this? Is it right for a federal leader to endorse a mayoral candidate so clearly and obviously?
I think we would be all over Harper if he did this.
I am trying to make up my mind on this but admit that first reaction is not comfort. I think it may be a mistake.
Even if it doesnt on balance sound that bad- this sounds like the sort of thing that brings all sorts on unintended and unpredicatble consequences. And one of those a federal leader could very easily step intot: there may be multiple candidates in and close to the NDP intending to run or musing about it. What a way to alienate activists.
But Mulcair is an honourable man and shall be the next PM ( after 187 threads dedicated to the topic.)
'Not unethical' is sure a low bar.
And not the question being asked.