Mulcair - thread # 10
Comments
Someone mentioned Mulcair holding out an olive branch to the Western premiers.
Only problem is, they wouldnt be interested. Why kick a gift horse in the mouth.
Nothing beats running against Ottawa. With a soulmate as PM, that doesnt work.
Now they have another Ottawa whipping boy.
Next up: Adrian Dix will be sharing in the enhtusiasm expressed here about all the benefits that will come from drawing the line in the sand.
(And bearing in mind that Dix has staked out the same substantive positioning on pipelines and oil and gas development. But that does not mean he is going to be thanking Mulcair for his approach. I doubt if any of the MLAs who supported Mulcair for leader are liking this.)
Just on the oil sands and East-West relations issue...
NO ONE thinks we should back down from this fight. EVERYONE is concerned with winning this fight. So how do we win?
We're trying to move the Overton Window on every issue, to make our views seem more reasonable and make Conservatives seem more extreme. The debate over taxes is a fair comparison.
By the time the 1990s rolled around, the media was beating a steady drum in favor of tax cuts and welfare reform. Just to defend the social safety net and ask for taxes to remain the same was considered bold leftward opposition, if not outright extremism. Jack Layton came along in 2003 and began to parse the issue: maybe the public would accept "no new taxes, and roll back taxes to previous rates for corporations". At the time, it was a minority position. But it's become more sensible as people hate the idea of "corporate welfare" (an unintended side effect of making welfare a dirty word). By 2004 and 2008, even our U.S. counterparts were talking about selectively raising corporate taxes. Now, with the occupy movement in full force, inequality is back on the agenda. The idea of outright increasing taxes on the wealthy is seen as a reasonable position to take. If Barack Obama is for it (and if Warren Buffet is for it), then higher taxes can't be all that radical, can it?
I'm crossing my fingers that Mulcair has done the same strategic calculus on the tar sands.
The environment wasn't really a top-of-mind issue in the 1990s. By 2003, Mulcair took his appointment as a Provincial Minister of the Environment, and made it his issue. Then, Al Gore's movie came out, and it undeniably made a lot of people more concerned about the environment. (I can even say that it made me care about the environment more than I had ever before, considering that my top priorities were poverty and race issues, not to mention the surge in U.S. imperialism under George Bush.) Now the Tar Sands have undergone massive development, and it's literally a WORLDWIDE controversy right in our backyard. There's huge international pressure to slow down the tar sands (if not outright stop it). Even in the U.S. there was enough resistance to the tar sands that Obama at least postponed the decision on the Keystone Pipeline. I'm not optimistic that he'll come down on the environment's side in 2003, but at least it shows that public opinion IS moving on this issue.
So what's Mulcair doing? He's trying to persuade those last few people caught in the middle. He'll NEVER get the oil companies on his side, let alone most of the people who work for oil companies. But there are a lot of people who say "yeah, the oil sands do a lot of damage... but we need the money, and it's good for Canada, right?" Mulcair is saying "actually, not only is it bad for the envionment... but for most people in all other sectors of the economy, it's hurting you too."
The key to winning this argument IS to avoid the regional framing. This wasn't a regional attack, but Conservatives will want to make it one, to make Mulcair seem "divisive" and "unfit to lead". This HAS to be framed from east-vs-west to oil companies vs everyone else. And a big part of that, IMO, is pointing to the fact that it's foreign companies who are benefiting the most.
Norway is comparable as an economy to what Alberta would be if it was independent. Petrodollar effects in Canada absolutely pale by comparison.
what do you mean by the last part? do you mean Canada's size dellutes the effect? i know a higher dollar effects the timber industry badly. i know a higher dollar negatively effects small business people 'cause petroleum prices just go higher.
Alberta has no manufacturing sector to speak of.
@ quizzical #91
I live in Saskatchewan. I am not arguing that the west makes too much money. What I am saying is that McGuinty's argument linking the oil sands with Ontario manufacturing is a bad move on a number of levels.
If we want to get a handle on the situation in the tar sands, I think it is far more productive to focus on issues of environmental threat, royalties, as well as the economic implications of exporting raw resources.
Not only are these other lines of attack not entirely accurate, they sound petulant, they drive wedges, and they distract from the environmental issue by turning it into a regional one.
Mulcair managed to point out that the tar sands had some effect on the dollar, and that Canada should be enforcing its environmental regulations on resource extraction, while at the same time pointing out that his argument was respect to the resource sector, not one part of the country against another.
McGuinty was not quite as careful, and wound up having to eat his words.
'kay Smith. I getcha now. t'anks for extending what ya meant.
big oil has left environmental disasters behind them around the world . My great aunt and uncle visted many Eastern block countries when they went on a trip to Moldova and they couldn't believe the mess left there. i gonna go look see if the internet has anything on it actually. 'cause i think ads need to be developed showing big oils impact on countries around the world including our own tar sands. people have to start getting it. looked and big oil has just left a mess everywhere.
i know humans never believe anything bad is goin ta happen to us but something needs to tell the deniers of truth we ain't that special. they would make and want to make the same mess here and walk away.
How to make Canada the laughing stock
Canada pledges oil and gas pollution rules by 2013 at climate conference"So it's clear that more needs to be done to put Canada on a path to meet its target," said M.J. Mace from St. Lucia, who spoke for the alliance, showing a chart that said Canada was not on the right track and would see annual emissions rise to 33 per cent above 1990 levels by 2020.
Scientists and governments from around the world have agreed that greenhouse gas emissions from consumption of fossil fuels, deforestation and other land-use changes are causing dangerous changes to the atmosphere that could cause irreversible damage to the planet and global economy.
They say countries must dramatically reduce emissions to avoid average global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Naderev Sano, a climate change commissioner from the Philippines, also questioned the motives behind Canada's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the world's only legally binding treaty on global warming.
Saint-Jacques replied that it was a "political" decision based on an assessment that the agreement wasn't the best path forward since the Canadian government believed it didn't adequately address rising emissions from emerging economies.
The ambassador also noted that the government still has "interest" in measures to put a price on carbon dioxide pollution through market mechanisms since some provinces are implementing or exploring this option within their own climate change plans.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Canada+pledges+pollution+rule...
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Canada+pledges+pollution+rule...
I find Wells reasonable enough, though I can't really pin him down politically.Is it wise to get into a spat with the Premiers, if it's avaoidable? No.
But, is it avoidable? Probably not, especially if one considers the political landscape where in these Premiers are all Harper allies, or at least in Redford's case while they may have somewhat of a personal antipathy towards each other based on political competition they have a common interest in promoting the oil sands, which overrides the former concern.
Additionally, I find this very annoying "The West" complex tiresome as it really means certain narrow interests within Alberta and even more marginal interests within BC and Saskatchewan that take their cues from Calgary. These types of people will always be in favour of a somewhat radical position within confederation, even a so-called moderate like Redford who promises to "work with" (or something) the rest of the country. So, I've gotta ask who really cares what they have to say on this matter? In so far as they're always going to complain and accuse you of "attacking" them if you don't become one of their puppet regiemes or sacrifice your interests to meet theirs, like Brad Wall's Saskatchewan or Christy Clark's BC you can't win if you play their game by their rules. So why bother? If Mulcair were to take some people's advice on this matter he'd look just as weak, ineffective and pathetic as Dion and Ignatieff.
Besides, one of the puppet regiemes will be falling soon anyways. Clark's bizzare attempt to advocate for Redford's pro-oil position will do nothing to save her doomed re-election prospects. In fact, I'd say they'd weaken them even more. Though I'm sure she thinks it might save a seat or two from going NDP or Conservative in the next provincial election and keep the Liberals relevant.
It could eventually cycle its way back around to hurt these Western Premiers, as the sure-fire kiss of death for any politician in Western Canada is to be seen as taking Ottawa's message back home.
(And bearing in mind that Dix has staked out the same substantive positioning on pipelines and oil and gas development. But that does not mean he is going to be thanking Mulcair for his approach. I doubt if any of the MLAs who supported Mulcair for leader are liking this.)
Wow Ken. You do realize that we are going to actually have to fight to win government right? We aren't the opposition to kiss Harper's ass. How bout quit whining about Mulcair and keep our eyes on the prize?
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Mulcair+should+apologize+oilsand...
I think there's some justifiable criticism for Mulcair's messaging here. Making the "disease" metaphor the message lent a certain righteousness to Conservative indignation. And going after the premiers as Harper's "messengers" was unfortunate. (It's disrespectful and unnuanced, and alienates a potential tactical ally in Redford.) Nevertheless, on the whole I'm damn proud that Mulcair has stood his ground, and staked it on an economic argument that the party in the past has been far too timorous to make.
The key to winning this argument IS to avoid the regional framing. This wasn't a regional attack, but Conservatives will want to make it one, to make Mulcair seem "divisive" and "unfit to lead". This HAS to be framed from east-vs-west to oil companies vs everyone else. And a big part of that, IMO, is pointing to the fact that it's foreign companies who are benefiting the most.
Those are my thoughts as well. The Conservatives and their allies are trying to frame this as Mulcair trying to divide the country. I think he has to make it clear that isn't what he's trying to do, but I don't think he has yet. I don't know how he can do that, but we've got three and a half years. We have time I hope...
Jeesus. Anyone see Rex Murphy tonight? I wanted to put my foot through the TV. Are the Cons paying him to take down Mulcair?
Actually, aside from Murphy's assessment of the tar sands and the economy (which was boneheaded) I thought he offered Mulcair some very good advice.
Mulcair's comment about the western premiers being Harper's messengers was absolutely ignorant, and hurt no one but himself. It doesn't matter that he is right to take on the issue of the tar sands. That response was stupid, and something I would expect from Harper.
I don't often agree with Rex Murphy, but if one can park the ego and ignore his scorn, and just listen to his points, he is right on this one, IMO. Mulcair would do well to pay attention.
Mulcair goes for the jugular, just like Pierre Trudeau used to. Calling Brad Wall "Harper's Messenger" was a brilliant putdown, and just endeared Mulcair more to me. I'm starting to believe Mulcair might actually have what it takes to bring the NDP to government. The royal jelly.
Yes, and I agree with you about the Trudeau part. You might recall what happened between him and the west.
It's not just that it is a distraction from the issue, and insulting. It is completely false; there have been enough issues on which Harper and Wall have not been on-side.
Don't get me wrong; I am not an apologist for the tar sands, the Sask Party or Alberta's PCs. But I would really hate to have the brand new leader of the opposition fuck things up royally just because he lets his temper and ego get in the way of rational thinking.
I love to see the PM shoot himself in the foot with that fatal flaw. It is not so endearing to watch in someone who is supposed to be promoting politics closer to my own.
Boom Boom wrote:Jeesus. Anyone see Rex Murphy tonight? I wanted to put my foot through the TV. Are the Cons paying him to take down Mulcair?
Actually, aside from Murphy's assessment of the tar sands and the economy (which was boneheaded) I thought he offered Mulcair some very good advice.
Mulcair's comment about the western premiers being Harper's messengers was absolutely ignorant, and hurt no one but himself. It doesn't matter that he is right to take on the issue of the tar sands. That response was stupid, and something I would expect from Harper.
I don't often agree with Rex Murphy, but if one can park the ego and ignore his scorn, and just listen to his points, he is right on this one, IMO. Mulcair would do well to pay attention.
Except that Christy Clark is Harper's messenger. Her whole positioning on every issue is to echo Harper, simply to curry favor with small c conservatives and save the deck chairs on the titanic that is her government. I say this as a British Columbian who sees her promoting Alberta's interests ahead of the province she is allegedly Premier of. The fact that the Quebecois Mulcair said it far more politely than I would is hardly a crime, but then again we westerners are masters at false outrages and being offended at just about anything, thus undermining just offences.
Calling Brad Wall "Harper's Messenger" was a brilliant putdown, and just endeared Mulcair more to me. I'm starting to believe Mulcair might actually have what it takes to bring the NDP to government. The royal jelly.
Mulcair makes people here feel good. And when it comes down to it, that's all it takes. That's all that matters.
@ Vansterdam Kid
Perhaps your premier is; you would know better than me. But by the same token, although Brad Wall shares a lot of Harper's politics he does not think and act the same way in all things, and he certainly doesn't take marching orders from him.
And you can probably parse the results of the Alberta election as well as I can.
So although I think Mulcair is doing quite well - certainly better than the media paints him - on the tar sands issue, he clearly did not do his homework before he made that pointless cheap shot. And I think he undid some of the efforts he had made to not make this a regional issue.
(edit)
And I agree with you about just offenses. Thing is, there are quite enough of Brad Wall's actions to criticize Brad Wall for. Acting like the PM is the puppet master over what is to a great degree a matter of provincial jurisdictions, where the provincial leaders have made most of the bad decisions is just overreaching and stupid.
The one concession I could make on this issue is that Mulcair could have probably targeted Clark in particular since she's weak and may not even survive until the next election, while ignoring Wall and Redford for tactical reasons as they're better positioned. So while I like the idea that he called Wall out, it was probably a useless gesture in and of itself. So while I could grant your point that Redford and Wall are not necessarily trained seals on other issues, they have a versed interest in echoing Harper's position on energy exports and they are conservatives so they will line up with Harper more than Mulcair on average. If they want to be baby's about a slight that's their problem and nothing can be done about it. The fact is that both have an interest in promoting a petro-oriented economy, far more than the Premiers of other provinces and pointing this out is simply reality, even if 'ideally' the argument should be framed in a non-regional basis though we all know it is - and sometimes the interests of one region overrides others. For now, Calgary is Canada's new capital and it's conservatives themselves who have been saying this!
More recently, NDP leader Tom Mulcair was targeted with a similar firestorm — including by the Canada West Foundation’s Roger Gibbins this week in the Citizen (“Mulcair’s bad economic prescription,” May 8). In media interviews last week, Mulcair made two obvious and empirically defensible statements: Canada’s currency has been driven upward by the oil boom, and that escalation entails significant regional and sectoral side effects. For this he was targeted as divisive and destructive, advocating (in Gibbins’ overheated language) economic “mayhem.” The stridency of these attacks is disturbing. By cranking up the rhetoric instead of examining real arguments, it is these defenders of the bitumen boom who throw gasoline on regionalist fires — not McGuinty or Mulcair. The Conservative government already paints opponents of new bitumen pipelines as foreign-financed subversives. Now it seems that questioning the broader economic impacts of unlimited bitumen exports is equally seditious. There is no doubting the statistical correlation between oil prices and the loonie. Econometric analysis indicates that since the turn of the century, oil prices explain 86 per cent of the dollar’s rise. The precise reasons for this correlation are unclear. It certainly is not due to a strong trade balance. In fact, Canada has experienced a deepening international payments deficit in recent years, because non-petroleum exports are falling faster than our energy exports surge (see graph). My own research suggests it is foreign takeovers of petroleum companies and reserves, not current production and export of the stuff, that is driving the loonie up. ... Methinks the bitumen boosters doth protest too much, with their loud attempt to suppress any debate over the potential downsides of Canada’s current energy strategy — which consists of scraping as much bitumen, as quickly as possible, and exporting it raw. Are there important national spinoff benefits generated by the petroleum boom in Alberta? Absolutely. But are there also important costs and risks associated with this economic strategy based on the unregulated extraction and export of a non-renewable resource? Certainly. Could we do a better job of managing those costs and risks? Undoubtedly … unless we continue pretending they don’t exist. Sensible policy analysis considers both the costs and the benefits of any policy choice. Where bitumen is concerned, however, even acknowledging that a coin has two sides is now denounced as unpatriotic and divisive. It’s time to end this energy McCarthyism, and have a genuine discussion about our future national energy strategy. Our goal should be to maximize the benefits, and minimize the costs, of this precious endowment of a non-renewable resource — and it’s not at all clear that the current Klondike-style approach is the best way to do that.
@ Vansterdam Kid
Yes, I'd agree with that.
Not that it matters, butI do remember Wall striking first; he said something critical about Mulcair the week after he was elected, if I remember correctly.
And I don't have a problem with Mulcair criticizing the premiers when blame is due. It is the "trained seal" implication that was a bad mistake. Short of having something that proved the point, I mean.
I'm crossing my fingers that Mulcair has done the same strategic calculus on the tar sands.
The environment wasn't really a top-of-mind issue in the 1990s ....... Now the Tar Sands have undergone massive development, and it's literally a WORLDWIDE controversy right in our backyard. There's huge international pressure to slow down the tar sands (if not outright stop it). Even in the U.S. there was enough resistance to the tar sands that Obama at least postponed the decision on the Keystone Pipeline.
So what's Mulcair doing? He's trying to persuade those last few people caught in the middle. There are a lot of people who say "yeah, the oil sands do a lot of damage... but we need the money, and it's good for Canada, right?" Mulcair is saying "actually, not only is it bad for the envionment... but for most people in all other sectors of the economy, it's hurting you too."
I dont know about elevating it to 'strategic calculus', as if this is finely honed stuff. But yes, that would be the intention.
But first, it's not calculation. It's intention. Intention that sounds good on paper, because it fills in the holes.
If it works. Saying it does not of itself fill in the holes.
Delivery and how you get there is everything.
And setting up a calculation for your opponents that is sacrifice Western jobs for Eastern jobs... you just cant paint enough lipstick on that pig.
Speaking of BC and Christy Clark.
Yes, she's weak.
And objectively, knocking the Canadian dollar down a peg by cooling the tar sands boom is not going to hurt BC, if anything, it might help.
So, if this is all so good, we should be seeing the BC NDP stepping onto this bandwagon with Mulcair.
Don't hold your breath.
The key to winning this argument IS to avoid the regional framing. This wasn't a regional attack, but Conservatives will want to make it one, to make Mulcair seem "divisive" and "unfit to lead". This HAS to be framed from east-vs-west to oil companies vs everyone else. And a big part of that, IMO, is pointing to the fact that it's foreign companies who are benefiting the most.
Those are my thoughts as well. The Conservatives and their allies are trying to frame this as Mulcair trying to divide the country. I think he has to make it clear that isn't what he's trying to do, but I don't think he has yet. I don't know how he can do that, but we've got three and a half years. We have time I hope...
There is the possibility that what Mulcair said is just the first step in some planned larger roll out. It is increasinly looking less likely: we're now days into being heavily on the defensive, with no end in sight. This has even managed to displace the NDP fighting the Budget Omnibus Bill [brilliant side effect there]. So it seems unlikey they would still be waiting on rolling out the rest.
And I really doubt it was in the plans to have this trun into a big deal that displaces the omnibus bill fight.
I LOVE THIS TAR SANDS FIGHT
IT WILL BRING THE GREENS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN TOTAL TO US.
It is leaving the liberals on the sidelines.
They are splitting even more. Some supporting Mulcair as on p&p yesterday and others siding with harper. They are attacking us, but it is MULCAIR'S VISION that is being discussed.
Our male numbers are going up as Men seem to be warming up to Mulcair's strength of purpose
Our Ontario numbers are going up thanks to his support and Horwath's local strength
A win in BC is really crucial for this puzzle to work out.. Brian Topp should help that.
Forever an optimist, but i expected the slurs from big oil and big corps.
i'm just glad we have someone on the front lines finally taking the FIGHT TO THEIR BACKYARDS.
Being attacked does not count as people discussing your vision.
What gets remembered by the observers- and they are the ones that count- is the attacks and attacking. The vision you put out gets lost in that. So there is actually no such thing as a succesful defence.
[There is actually a successful defence- one that buys you time and keeps you above water until you change the channel to what you got into this to talk about.]
Merely that you are not losing- which I think is true of Mulcair- is not a succesful defense. If what people remember most is the attacks, and they are not seeing them as wrong, then you lose even if you are 'unbowed'.
Its too early to say we are losing at this. But its delusional to say that we are winning.
Jim Stanford on the dutch disease... He was on CBC the other day debating this. He was great. On the same page as Mulcair and defended him.
Yeah, saw that on P&P. He was debating that idiot from Carleton University who always parrots Harper's talking points. Stanford is great.
who is it that's moaning? and is "the west" as you divide it really making too much money? could ya provide some facts on that or is it your speculation? here in BC we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada. Alberta is full of Bcers and easterners making some money and sending it home.
did ya tell Norway this yesterday when they slowed their petrol productrion 'cause it was driving their kronar too high and hurting their manufacturing sector?