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.
Mulcair - thread # 10
May 14, 2012 - 5:59pm
;;
finois,
Appreciated your positively refreshing comments in post #93 in the previous thread
Economics dividing Canadians between Tory, NDP camps
http://www.canada.com/news/Economics+dividing+Canadians+between+Tory+cam...
That's well observed about Redford, Brachina.
Mulcair's being accused of threatening national unity (Dion chimed in tonight) for his mild critique of the runaway energy sector must be our most bitterly ironic Canadian fact, given how the secession of Quebec would be Harper's crowning achievement.
Mulcair is making some small communications mistakes:
1) He should get out of municipal politics -- this is not worth it.
2) He needs to speak to the energy and environmental file differently. This current discussion was predictable and avoidable.
The NDP could ahve had a western person speak to this first-- detailing the damage to western manufacturing and environment rather than doing an East against West type comment. Better yet, he should have announced an NDP Western economic diversification plan showing how the NDP could help the west do better without gutting environmental legislation etc. The approach was wrong and divisive.
There is no reason or benefit in linking the poor economy in the East with the boom in the West in the terms he has. Now if he slows the development in the West to help the environment he will be accused of doing it to help the East. This was a major blunder and one he will face for years.
The NDP will need to put on the table regional economic plans for the different types of economy in each region. They must be well-thought out and costed. They must contribute to local well-being and economic as well as environmental sustainability. And he should shut up about comparing one part of the country to another on any of this. That's a loser.
As for what was said-- instead of saying that he could have:
1) warned about the dangers of a petro economy, lack of diversification
2) insisted on having multi-sector multi-region plans for every part of the country (not too late to do this and in fact this might be the best way for him to recover)
3) promised the West that an NDP plan would leave equal economic activity in place in the event of any change due to environmental stewardship. Alberta will make as much money for example; still have the stuff in the ground spending it more slowly; and gain from new industries and opportunities.
YOU heard Peter Julian say that. Everyone else hears what Mulcair says on the subject- period.
As Sean pointed out- thats the way it will always be, now that Julian or Cullen did not take the lead on this.
Thinking that he can fix it fast with a visit to Fort McMurry is sad. Not to mention that Redford is not interested in olive branches. We have to beat the Redfords as much as the Harper and Smiths. [Which does not mean attacking them. And in principle, the optics of offering an olive branch you know will be refused might be useful. But not likely even that.]
The idea that that this can be rapidly snuffed is funny, if it wasn't sad.
Or, to put it another way, if you are going to insist on owning the flow and naming of threads about the NDP, how about naming them something that does not grate on a lot of us.
Like What Do You Think About How Goes the NDP? or whatever.
Minimum point: it is NOT just about Mulcair, or Mulcair's leadership.... no matter how central he obviously is.
The title of this one I find vastly superior to the previous 9, Ken.
Not as bad.
But Jack Layton's name was never in every thread about the NDP.
That said, there were at times a number of overlapping threads about the NDP.... they would start over some issue in particular, and all end up talking about the same thing.
So I do prefer having only one thread at a time that blends in everything that is 'whither the NDP' and 'how's it going' and what you like and dont like. And if having Mulcair's name in the thread title sets them off, so be it.
And having one catch all thread that changes the topics of the moment with developments as they arise, does not preclude having another one focused on a 'bigger' and/or more durable topic. Like we just had over Mulcairs comments on the petrodollar and manufacturing jobs.
And after that discussion pretty much runs its course for the time being- as far as being able to keep a dedicated thread going- the continuation of the topic naturally migrates to this ongoing catch-all succesion of threads.
Works reasonably well.
So much negativity. How sad!
??
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/14/nl-...
Agreed.
Might be nice to just have threads about, you know, issues.
We're doing a decent job talking about issues even in these threads. But so many times they devolve into "yay NDP" vs "argh NDP" camps. Let alone making the NDP all about Mulcair now, which doesn't really square nicely with an egalitarian party.
Ironically I don't think "Yay NDP" is good for the NDP at all.
For those pro NDP constructive criticism and suggestions is more useful than unconditional praise. Even tough criticism is useful. You can't improve if everyone says all is well.
Criticism even harsh criticism is not the end of the world. Far better than being irrelevant.
BTW-- I love that the NDP are announcing the public hearings across the country. I called for this a few weeks ago. Seems someone is on the same wavelength. This is exactly the kind of response needed.
I hope they return with something like my other suggestion as well-- regional economic plans designed to lift the entire country in a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable way...
Expect roadkill to reach dinner table: NDP
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/05/15/19760976.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/as-an-indus...
I vehemently disagree with you Sean in Ottawa.
First of all, since this exact narrative was a key component of Mulcair's leadership platform that he was elected on, I can't imagine what kind of world we'd be living in that just says "now that you won on that platform just put it away and stop talking about it, because Harper/Wall/Clark don't like it." I just want to posit to you what would happen if other promises and assurances Mulcair had made that are more "traditional NDP", how quickly so many people on this forum would jump on him for breaking his leadership promises and being disingenuous about his intentions.
Sean: "The NDP could ahve had a western person speak to this first-- detailing the damage to western manufacturing and environment rather than doing an East against West type comment."
Well, that would involve putting the genie back in the bottle. He went coast to coast preaching this message as far back as last October. I can tell you, the talk of "hollowing out our manufacturing sector" was part of his repertoire from the day his campaign launched. He talked about it in every town and city from Halifax to Edmonton (yes, Edmonton), so its not like he wasn't blatantly clear. Now, the fact that the right wingers weren't really paying attention doesn't mean that they can't go back and read media from the campaign and find out...I think it is an assault on Mulcair's integrity to suggest he should take this major platform and policy point from the campaign and hand it to someone peripheral to launch in the areas it might see some opposition in high places. THAT would be seen right through for the transparent and cowardly play it would be.
Personally, I like that Mulcair is willing to call it as he sees it, and stick to his message in the face of criticism. That's the only way you can change minds is if you're honest and consistent in what you believe and how you express it. It is especially important because it is true! That is courage and integrity. A lot of the problems with the NDP in general, and certain other candidates in the leadership race in particular, was a reluctance to say anything that may be deemed as controversial or that would lock-in a policy direction or value proposition to the electorate that the Party would have to stick to into the future. It cast the view of the NDP as being weak, accomodating, and even lacking in integrity. Part of the reason I supported Mulcair for leader is because of this unwavering courage to say what he believes, even in the face of large audiences in very different regions who would be more or less responsive depending on the crowd.
Sean wrote:
As for what was said-- instead of saying that he could have:
1) warned about the dangers of a petro economy, lack of diversification
2) insisted on having multi-sector multi-region plans for every part of the country (not too late to do this and in fact this might be the best way for him to recover)
3) promised the West that an NDP plan would leave equal economic activity in place in the event of any change due to environmental stewardship. Alberta will make as much money for example; still have the stuff in the ground spending it more slowly; and gain from new industries and opportunities.
On point #1, I think that is EXACTLY what he did do - and is still doing. It is mostly our opponents from SUN media, the PC's and the Western Conservative premiers trying to make this a regional fight, and casting it as an attack on the west, which it clearly isn't. We cannot control what our opponents do, we can only consistently point out that they are wrong (and very scared).
On point #2, I have no doubt the NDP will do this at an appopriate time, but 3 years out from an election is a bit early. Also, will anyone pay attention to it or remember it in 3 years, when East vs. West framing presents a wonderful opportunity to sell newspapers?
On point #3. I think you can say all those things, and Mulcair has presented how his ideas would be GOOD for the west - but the point is, the Conservatives and the oil interests are always going to be better placed to focus on the divisive side of the ledger. I think you can do all that - and they have done some - but it simply won't get published or talked about. Moreover, if it did, it would be seen as defensive and would be subject to unfair scrutiny that would be used to in fact verify the complaints of Wall/Clark etc, as in "if this is such a good vision for Canada why do you have to present all this hedging and reassurance"...basically a "methinks thou dost protest too much." I think it is better to just jump in with both feet and say what you know to be true rather than hedging or appearing to waffle (especially after saying it so plainly during the leadership campaign, anything like this would be seen as capitulation, acknowledging the divisiveness that the right are fabricating, or signal waffling or backtracking to the media, even if it wasn't).
I would much rather see Mulcair stand on the facts, and show that the rapid oil development is actually hurting Alberta and the west at the price of rapid economic growth matched by rapid environmental destruction, and growing social problems and inequality - a fact even Redford had to acknowledge and speak to in her recent campaign.
It seems like it's the easterners who are most concerned about this western "backlash" against the NDP. Well, at least easterners on babble.
There isn't much of a backlash to be had. The NDP currently has 3 NDP MPs between Ontario and BC. We lost Bill Blaikie's seat from 2008. Niki Ashton and Pat Martin are extremely safe. I'd say that even if this strategy were played extremely poorly and the right-wing DID re-frame it as an attack on the West, I can't imagine that it loses us much of anything.
That being said, I agree this isn't about East vs. West. It's about Oil vs. every other part of the economy. If the Conservatives want to make Canada the next Saudi Arabia, then we have to forge the strongest possible argument against it.
Did he ever consult with the Innu, who are opposing this in federal court?
The NDP critic on P&P tonight said this story was exaggerated to get people's attention. No roadkill. You have to wonder what this does for NDP credibility.
http://www.ndp.ca/press/conservative-changes-will-allow-roadkill-on-your-table-ndp
Conservative changes will allow roadkill on your table: NDP
OTTAWA - Proposed changes to Meat Inspection Regulations (MIR) will leave Canadians wondering if the meat they buy is actually safe, because of the Conservatives' reckless cutting spree. Private inspectors, who may not be qualified, will now be able to inspect meat. Worse, these changes to meat inspection rules also change what meat is acceptable - meaning already-dead meat and crippled animals' meat will be okay for processing for Canadians' tables.
"First the Conservatives will let private inspectors monitor meat, and now they're essentially allowing road kill-ready meat into the food supply," said Malcolm Allen, NDP Critic for Agriculture and Agri-Food. "Even scarier is the fact that we won't know how long animals have been dead before processing - or even that the meat will be inspected at all."
NDP Deputy Critic for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier-Maskinongé), voiced concerns that these changes have been tried before - with disastrous results. "In the 1970s, Quebec had no meat processing regulations, meaning already-dead and crippled animals' meat entered the food supply, causing the "rotten meat" scandal. The industry collapsed, and federal regulations were created as a result."
The strength of our federal meat inspection rules must not be weakened. The NDP is echoing the calls of industry workers to keep our meat inspection system regulated, and safe for Canadians. The Conservative government must stop gambling with Canadians' health and safety.
Well according to the NDP website, credibility does not mean much.
Oh I agree - the Cons have zero credibility on the issue, and the NDP blew it by making it sound like we will be getting 'road kill', which is total nonsense.
It is truly amazing that all these highly educated and well paid people keep making dumb-ass mistakes.
The calm before the attack-ad storm
http://m.calgarysun.com/2012/05/14/the-calm-before-the-attack-ad-storm
Ugh i hate attack ad. If they attack our ndp leader soon then cons will lose on their over 100 seats in next election, like robocalls, lie/fraud f-35, attacks ads, cuts cuts cuts, riot police in toronto 2010?, come more more chaos stuff.... geez, Harper is true dictator, is he? since he prime minister, its undemocratic!
man early elections immidately! it feel like we suffer and want depise harper!
I feel very embarrassed we have Stephen Harper as prime minister that what he doing in Canada, when world see it.
Dion declined to accuse Harper of favouring Alberta in 2008
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Stephane Dion rejected oilsands attack on Harper in 2008 election campaign/6622052/story.html
Not matter how bad they mess up in Opposition, I'd still favour the NDP over the Cons and Libs, especially now that they have a reasonable shot at taking power. I just hope they don't screw up too much.