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-led NDP (thread #11)
May 18, 2012 - 9:23am
;;
Mulcair agrees to oilsands visit
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/17/mulcair-agrees-to-oilsands-visit
Maybe he should visit the students' strike as well.
That is where you are dead wrong.
Mulcair is keep us on the front pages and the Liberals off.
Doesn't the way the recent Environics poll was treated by the media tell you anything?
I think he was in the Earth Day / May Day / Student's Strike parade in Montreal. I'll have to check.
ETA: yes, he was. But I don't see any comment from him on the student's strike.
Mulcair is definitely not Jack.
To young Canadians: All my life I have worked to make things better. Hope and optimism have defined my political career, and I continue to be hopeful and optimistic about Canada. Young people have been a great source of inspiration for me. I have met and talked with so many of you about your dreams, your frustrations, and your ideas for change. More and more, you are engaging in politics because you want to change things for the better. Many of you have placed your trust in our party. As my time in political life draws to a close I want to share with you my belief in your power to change this country and this world. There are great challenges before you, from the overwhelming nature of climate change to the unfairness of an economy that excludes so many from our collective wealth, and the changes necessary to build a more inclusive and generous Canada. I believe in you. Your energy, your vision, your passion for justice are exactly what this country needs today. You need to be at the heart of our economy, our political life, and our plans for the present and the future.
Well, who expects Mulcair to be another Jack Layton? I don't. I certainly don't expect to see another Pierre Trudeau, either. I think it's just hugely unfair not to mention unrealistic to compare Mulcair to the previous leader.
Actually, I think it is the most apt and extremely fair comparison Boom Boom. I think it is fair to see how all of the CCF/NDP leaders stack up against each other. Some have been stellar while others have been found wanting. On the issue of civil rights so far Mulcair seems to be found wanting.
-Don't worry bb, some folks it seems will never ever get over the leadership race, particularly some Johnny-come latelys to the NDP.
Well, I agree with you that Mulcair's silence on the student's strike is deafening. I'm really in the dark about why I haven't read anything in the news about him commenting on the strike yet. Does anyone here have a link to Mulcair saying anything about the Quebec situation?
He is indeed keeping us on the front pages. And what is it that most people see there?
Do you see much about the omnibus bill? Sting of that should still be very freash.
Hear about the launch of the NDP's hearings on the Cons hiding everything in the omnibus bill? I'm sure it made the back pages somewhere.
As for the Liberals, we can keep them out of sight with one hand tied behind our back. And with the Mulcair the divisive narrative, Bob Rae is getting one of his few opportunities of late to chime in.
Thats a hoot !!
Smile away as I go pull weeds.
When asked whether his rookie MPs were actually allowed to speak out about Quebec's ongoing student strife, Mulcair simply said the file was his own.
In naming his shadow cabinet, Mulcair made himself the intergovernmental affairs critic - which means that issue and any other issue relating to Quebec falls on his plate.
"I'm the spokesman on it," Mulcair said in Monday's interview. "I'm the intergovernmental affairs spokesman in our caucus so it's my file."
However, he brushed aside accusations that his young party members were being stifled, a charge made especially by the Bloc Quebecois and its sister party in Quebec City.
Mulcair said there had been a, "lively discussion on the NDP's long-standing policy to have the federal government re-engage on post-secondary education and research," last weekend at an NDP meeting in Drummondville, Que.
Mulcair said the party has a coherent policy on federal funding for post-secondary education that should come without conditions, as per the party's Sherbrooke Declaration.
"We're all full-square behind that the idea that the federal government has to play a more active role on post-secondary education," Mulcair said in Monday's interview.
Mulcair pointed to an NDP private-member's bill that aims to establish certain guidelines and conditions for post-secondary funding to both social assistance programs and education funding.
"We're leaving the largest ecological, economic and social debt in history," Mulcair said.
"To know that the average student in Canada is borrowing $30,000, just to get a bachelor's degree, how is a young couple supposed buy a house with $60,000 debt?"
That is ridiculous. How long was Layton the NDP leader - and how long has Mulcair been in the job? Give your head a shake.
I shook my head and Mulcair's silence on Quebec and the egregious Bill has still not gone away. Any other helpful suggestions, Boom Boom?
Even after re-reading the Sherbrooke Declaration, I'm having trouble reconciling these two paragraphs. Is the NDP promoting condition-free for federal education funding or isn't it?
My beef with Mulcair is not the things he is willing to stand on or not- we never really get what we want on that from any leader, and we have not had time yet to see where Mulcair is on the continuum of that.
My beef is the wisdom he uses in making his basic political choices.
Tom Mulcair had a nice honeymoon. And as far as I am concerned- I think he earned it. He was impressing people. There are not a lot of demands on you during the honeymoon, but it still takes savvy to use it well.
So he could segue from that honeymoon to take the fight over what the Cons are ramming down us as we speak, into living rooms and meeting halls.
Or he could take it and open up this can of worms.
What do you think?
Door # 1 ? Or door # 2 ?
What are your expectations here? My own are simple: Mulcair can make a phone call to Charest and ask that this Bill be withdrawn, and Mulcair can certainly lend his support to the protest movement. Beyond that, what?
I don't think Thomas Mulcair will heed any advice I could give him regarding which door to open, Ken - and that's a good thing.
I agree with Caissa 100% that he needs to do more in regard to the Quebec issue of students and tuition. He should be on the phone daily to Charest to express his outrage (maybe he is - we don't know what goes on behind closed doors). I'm not paying as much attention to the budget and other fights because I only have so much time to take in all of this stuff.
Personally, I see progress on the oil sands issue.
Before, the mainstream media had framed the debate as "the economy vs the environment". And the economy always won. Something about a giant recession, about Conservatives representing a focus on "pocketbook issues" and "managing the crisis". Something about the rise of the West, and the value the oil sands poses to the rest of Canada.
Now, I still see the same oil company shills beating the drum. But I also see enough commentators beating the opposite drum, that maybe the oil sands AREN'T good for the economy. I also see articles doing a decent job of representing Mulcair's message. And when I read the comments section, I'm seeing big L liberals agreeing with Mulcair's message.
I suppose I could concede that we're not winning this issue. But we're not losing either. The polls are probably oblivious to this issue, and if anything, it's giving us a boost.
It's Harper who is on the defense. This is a direct challenge to the idea that Harper represents reliable, objective financial management. You do have a few conservatives who have found the dismissive "ah, Mulcair's just being divisive, he'd better apologize" defense. But you have a lot of conservatives who are now trying to explain their way around the Dutch Disease. There are plenty of articles about the actual substance of the debate, and you don't have to look on Rabble to find them. Mulcair is keeping the pressure on: "we're not against any province, we're for sustainable development everywhere. Why is Harper so silent?"
The dual concepts of the dutch disease and sustainable development are entering the broader conversation. It's gone from unthinkable and radical, to sensible and reasonable. It's only a hop skip and a jump to making it the basis for a new economic policy. But it doesn't happen overnight.
I'll leave that question to better-informed folk than myself, as I really don't know.
On the tuition fight, I thought Mulcair said "this is a provincial issue", and as far as his federal role is concerned, there should be more funding for post secondary education. Not sure there's much more to say here without wading into a Quebec VS. ROC nightmare.
This is true. Also true = Jack is dead.
Oh my G-d. When did that happen?
Why should that be any different from Mulcair taking a stand on the Muskrat Falls Hydro matter, or the Alberta tar sands? Or health care funding which impacts the provinces? Or transfer paymnents? Provincial matters and federal matters often overlap. It's called "intergovernmental affairs" and Mulcair is the NDP person responsible for this file.
So much pontificating on what a leader should be doing, and so little relationship to the facts.
NDP making inroads among traditional Conservative demographics
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/05/17/drew-anderson-ndp-making-inroads-amon...
Care to expand on that patronizing and condescending remark?
Boom Boom here is what I get from his statements. For instance in his aside to you he seems to imply that someone like you who admits to not being part of the Orange Wave should just shut your pie hole. I suspect he might not have remembered that you were a BQ supporter. Now the other quote seems to be addressed to people like me who have worked for the party for decades but don't show the proper devotion to our new saviour.
Who is doing that? Articles from Jim Stanford and other usual suspects- writers who would rush to support, no matter what. So that tells us nothing about what is brewing out there.
Look to Paul Wells, Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne, Bruce Anderson and the like. These are people with their own biases and so forth, but who acknowledge the substance of what is happening. They arent driven by their pre-dispositions. Any one of them is often off the wall. But if you are doing something for which you can expect to be making gains, at least one of them is going to say so. They are all either saying nothing about what Mulcair is doing, or scratching their heads- "how is this supposed to work for the NDP?"
If you cant buy that kind of metric, then something other than what the people are saying who would come to your aid no matter how bad things looked.
Polling is not going to show effects, if any, for quite a while.
And I would argue that the potential damage, if it comes, will not be in the near future.
That what we are seeing now is a pre-cursor. [And what we are seeing now is not over yet. Even for me, certain as I am that it is not going well so far, the horses are not in yet.]
Your notion that if anything it will give us a boost is based on what?
Sorry, but I think the notion that Harper is on the defensive is positively delusional. I will readily concede that my understanding of the trouble in this may be extreme. But Harper, defensive on this? ??
It's only a direct challenge to Harper's strong suits if you believe as Mulcair must, that you can lecture your way into winning this one. People need to disabuse themselves of that.
It is possible to win that argument. But you dont win it by having the best lecture. At best, lecturing on this has no effect. At worst, it sends things the other way. And so far, Mulcair has just delivered a lecture... the intended content of which is not so far getting through as the primary message.
So what is it Harper is supposed to be on the defense about?
He's in his lair, rubbing his hands in glee. Waiting for the right moment to strike. So far, they are just trash talking to keep the story going.
We agree that this doesnt happen overnight. And I have said many times that it isnt expected to have sprung forth in front of as soon as Mulcair tosses it out on the stage. The question is whether we are moving in the right direction.
Most of the appearances of 'sustainable development' have been quotes of Mulcair embedded in the stories of the storm he has stirred up. They dont have magical powers. In the context they are getting out there, no one is being exposed to or learning anything they didnt already know. If they didnt get it before, nothing is being added now.
"Dutch disease" has entered the parlance. But it is as 'that thing Mulcair talks about'. Which in turn is....
Section 93 of the constitution makes schools the exclusive domain of the provinces. There's not much more the Federal Government can do (or should do) other than improve funding for education.
Energy is one of those messy areas, like health care, that involve some interaction between the two. Here, the Federal Government can take a more assertive role. And so we should.
A side rant:
Here's the reality of government. You can, theoretically, have an opinion on everything. But the more opinions you have, the more enemies you make. So it's best to avoid taking stances on issues that you have no power over. I find the "they have no power over that" maxim to be the fact that a lot of lefties have the hardest time with. ("Yes that's really the responsibility of another government, but if they screamed from the highest mountain top that this was wrong, it would give a voice to those of us fighting for justice!") But that's just how power is doled out by fundamental law. If you get in a car accident, you direct any complaints about your car to your mechanic, and you direct any complaints about your legs to your doctor. Your doctor might really care that your mechanic screwed up your transmission, but he's smart not to get involved beyond "well, let's take care of your legs so you can go see your mechanic."
/end rant.