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
I love to see Mulcair taking on the more extreme conservatives such as Christy Clark (supposedly a Liberal), Brad Wall, Joe Oliver, Allison Redford, Joe Oliver, Harper himself, and others, but he needs to watch his step with the electorate he wants to win over. But I think, nevertheless, that there are going to be votes ripe for the picking in both Saskatchewan and Alberta who may be tiring of voting Conservative, especially as Harper gets more extreme.
wow, bc, alberta and sask premiers attack within a few days of each other, all using roughly the same language of "division", all subsequently followed up with echoing media, all times perfectly to pick up the cycle once the other dies down - seems pretty clear what the plan is here.
i think Mulcair is right 'bout this dam being a green source of energy. i know flooding vast tracks of land isn't a happy source for some. IMV it's better than fracking, burning coal or oil and nuclear. damage is reversable at least.
Who has ever advocated waffling?
The minority opinion here is that it is unwise HOW this was broached, and that consequesntly there will be a needless price to pay.
But that is for how it is done, not if it is done. [But that has been pointed out before.]
Anyway, where is this advocacy for waffling? An example would be good.
[Qualifier: maybe I have forgotten someone once advocating waffling. But you said 'some', and the common thread to criticism has not been to advocate waffling or backtracking.]
You are speculating the NL Innu support the Quebec Innu having a say in the negotiations. If you want to make the claim look it up. My guess would be that they are silent on the subject... meaning they are going their own way, whatever that is.
Spreading that message needs to be done. But that is a medium and long term focus project, and wont do a thing to repel the attacks that are now.
meanwhile the rest of us across the country dismiss the media as Harper's messengers too. nobody younger than 80 believes the media anymore unless it's celebrity news. stackin Mr Rex Murphy's Cross Canada checkpoint call ins is only pissing more people off.
Mulcair dismisses Western premiers as Harper's 'messengers' in oil sands debate
LOL
As if the attacks were not going to come, no matter what Mulcair says or does.
Let's stop being scardy cats. If the Greeks can stand up to the austerty bs in Europe, the least the NDP can do is standup to non-sustainable resource development
your guess is better than my speculation or somethin? 'cause your words are rude. for no reason even.
at least my "speculation" is based on 1st hand knowledge of Peoples to Peoples actions between themselves. where does your guess come from?
First Peoples ask other First Peoples before using or even going on other Peoples territory. in this instance it makes no sense that they would'nt speak to their brethern about the way to proceed. it would be expected that the NL Innu would be going their own way. it would also be expected hunting guests who use their land speak to them about what they were doing 'bout potential lost access.
i am up for being proven wrong 'bout this. you can look it up if you think your guess is better than my informed speculation.
I didnt say they wouldnt speak to them about it. I contradicted your guess that they would make sure the Quebec Innu had a seat in the nation to nation negotiations.
you're contradicting somethin i never once said.
I think Wall was the one who started "the spat" though. I don't think Mulcair would try and pick a fight with provincial leaders, even though it may be unaviodable as you pointed out.
oh, and since no one posted it, here is the story about Mulcair's so-called "endorsement".
As far as I can tell, she hasn't even said she is running for mayor yet. This may amount to nothing at all.
Redford fumbles the oil sands file
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason...
I hope that in all the rah-rahs and self-congratulations that people have noticed that we are on the defensive in the wake from Mulcair opening up the 'petrodollar question'.
Yes, at least a great deal of it is utterly predictable. The MSM is what it is.
But that does not mean that all of it was all unavoidable, that the only alternative was to say nothing.
And leaving aside the discussion of how best to do it, etc... which is always endless....
Ultimately, you have to stop being on the defensive. What is said in the MSM is not everything, and we do not yet know how people in their living rooms and kitchens, bars and commnity halls will be relating to this.
There is no evidence yet it is going badly. But hearing what you want to hear in the echoe chamber is not evidence either.
Defensiveness - where? The msp. Ha! ha! ha!
At least once in a while you have to call right-winger's bluff just like Greece is doing in Europe and now Angela Merkel may be backing down just as if we keep the pressure on Harper may well back down as well. Definitely worth a shot or we will be run over by a steamroller The only kind of talk bullies understand is a tough response.
-----------------------------------
Why does the EU care about how we extract our oil - do we even export it there or is it the overall global warming issue that concerns them?
Sorry, my some comment was an example of my passive-agressiveness showing. I'll be more direct.
I think changing his tone and having proxies speak for Mulcair would be tantamount to waffling, as it looks the same in the average person's eyes. I think McGuinty looked absurd backtracking his comments, when all he was doing was defending his province's interests. So I think (although correct me if I'm wrong) that people including yourself and Sean in Ottawa have advocated for Mulcair to take a different tone, or a different strategy in this respect, while agreeing with the substance will lead to him pursuing a strategy that will look like waffling.
I think such a change is simply dancing on the head of a pin and it's far too cutesy-cutesy to work in reality against a take no prisoners opponent like Harper. I respect, appreciate and think Mulcair's more direct approach will be more effective and I don't think he's being so blunt as to be off putting. I think you are overthinking this (although I realize that is an ironic sentance). I think his approach is indicative of the (to take a page from the Harper Conservatives electoral slogan book) the strong leadership we've been looking for.
The fact is that Mulcair is the opposition leader and commands a whole lot more attention than any of his allies he could muster up, which is why I think his approach is more effective than having MP's, MLA's or non-governmental actors speaking for him would be (which is what they're doing anyways). I think the Liberals tried it that way already, albiet with a more direct approach on boutique and periferal issues, which is one of many reasons why they were so ineffective. I think it also played into the air of insincerity that surronded them, which is what I think a soft peddled approach would lead to.
Additionally, Mulcair and the federal NDP don't have a whole lot of provincial allies since BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are run by c/Conservatives or Liberals in name only, whereas Ontario and PEI are run by l/Liberals and Manitoba (and I guess you might argue this point
) Nova Scotia are the only two provinces run by New Democrats.
Agreed. I dont advocate backtracking or attempting a dissapearing act.
What I have said is that this was not approached right- that the consequences were predictable.
I believe it was Sean that suggested having Western voices be the ones that initiate this. Cullen and Julian come to mind.
I'm not advocating backtracking now. And I doubt Sean is either.
And I dont even know where to start as a suggestion for fixing the problem. At this point, it would be a multi-staged communications offensive. I could probably figure out some starting points if I applied my mind, but its really not my place.
But the first step is to discuss whether there is a problem. Looking at better ways to have started, even if they are not viable any more, is a start to figuring out what will work.
[As to where I would have started- not initiate ging here at all. Straight into climate change, cap and trade, green economy, what is in it for everybody. What the HarperCons and oild companies are doing instead. Run into all thisheavy flak along the way of course. But that is a different horse.]
Another thing that is happening is that Jack Layton had ever so slowly raised the NDP's credibility on matters economic and fiscal. But that was very contingent and fragile.... it is still NOT a good terrain for us. It had only got to the point it doesnt need to bite us. That is no small thing, but it has its limits.
And Mulcair has heedlessly bulled his way out to where we are at an INHERENT disadvantage- and NOT just with the MSM.... with a great many people who voted for us in 2011, let alone the like-minded we need even more of.
Now im piss off my MP Leona Aglukkaq on UN rapporteur. She is not even representing Nunavut at all, I read on Nunatsiaqonline news Nunavutian comments on it and they finally wake up now. I glad.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674aglukkaq_slams_un_env...
Jack raised the NDP's credibility on our historicaly disadvantaged terrain by carefuly nurturing an accumulation of little victories.
The best of these was featuring the rollback of corporate tax giveaways. Anybody can advocate raisng taxes. Jack did it deftly enough to win at it. Those kind of little victories add up in the credibility deficit column.
Mulcair seems to think he can go out on this terrain where we still labour under a handicap, and lecture his way into winning hearts and minds.
KenS
You are forgetting one simple thing. The NDP is now Official Opposition and as such our approach will now be quite different than when we were a 4th place party.
- one of the comments to the Wells article above
I think it was brilliant for McQuinty and Mulcair to bring up the petrodollar and Dutch Disease. Yes, a lot of people in the west and elsewhere will be pissed off, but even more will think about the issue and possibly even fall into different camps than the Conservatives as a result. I think it's possible that folks may start to tire of the Con's emphasis on the tar sands and pipelines - and when they do, the Greens, Libs, and NDP will all likely benefit. As for those who get pissed off, tough cookies.
Not quite so simple. I think there are plenty out here who do oppose the runaway exploitation of the oilsands, but still see the ignorance and irony of someone from down east blaming all their financial woes on the west.
I think it is a mistake and a distraction to turn it into a regional issue. And as I said, I thought Mulcair was careful in his CBC interview to steer away from that.
Buying into the fact that it is an East-West issue plays right into Harpers' hands.
Would you expect, never-elected by BCers, Christy Clark, who is on her way out the door, to say anything different?
Can't a Canadian though express their opinion regardless of where they live in Canada?
For goodness sakes, I live in the West, and I think I am not the only one out here who is opposed to unthinking explotation of our resources. Or are Peter Lougheed and I the only ones?
My sentiments exactly, finois!
The same applies here in Nova Scotia.
When we elected our first NDP government here in 2009, I knew that there would be unpopular decisions made...such is the legacy of six generations of Liberal/Tory rule that we had to put with here.
However, I am confident that any NDP government is a sustatial improvement on whatever came before, as will be a Mulcair-led federal NDP governement, even though I know that they would have to make decisions that seem to be unpopular.
The polls have show that the Dexter government still has the favour of the electorate, and I know that Mulcair will be an excellent P.M.
did anyone else listen to what Leona said in the House 'bout the UN's guy yesterday? when she was carrying on with her negative adjectives she included the ridiculous condemnation he is an 'academic'. that's all i needed to hear to know it came from someone other than herself.
listened to my mom enough to know republican propaganda when i hear it.
@ North Report
I'm in the west. I agree with you.
But it is one thing to fight to stop development of the oil sands. It is quite another for the most populous and powerful region of Canada to moan and complain that they can't sell their widgets because the west is making too much money.
Sale of resources is just one factor in the value of the dollar, and the value of the dollar is just one factor in the state of the manufacturing sector.
Edit: Someone already expressed this.
I think Kinsella's wrong. I think for the Liberals, the Conservatives felt the Liberal brand was strong, but the leader was vulnerable. With the NDP, the feeling is the opposite. So, the attacks are on the NDP brand, rather than the leader.
Further, the Liberals are always potentially strong in Ontario, which is where the Conservatives want to do well to win. So, if the NDP are shot down too much, then the Liberals could affect the Tories' chances in Ontario. By not shooting down the NDP too much, the Liberals are kept at bay in Ontario.
The Conservatives will only directly attack the NDP via attacking Mulcair head on if they feel that Mulcair and the NDP are seriously threatening Tory prospects in Ontario, which they currently don't feel is the case yet. So Kinsella would only be right if polling shows that the NDP are biting into the 905 seats of the Tories, which right now isn't happening.