babble-intro-img
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)

108 replies [Last post]

Comments

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

I've never been to the tar sands myself, but maybe some operations need to be put out of business, the major polluters for sure.

That there is a problem is seen in stories like this:  Syncrude guilty in ducks trial. The part of the story that caught my eye, actually, was this: "...the 12-square-kilometre pond, which contained toxic, oily bitumen byproduct. "


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

I know one area where Mulcair's NDP are definitely winning, and that is in keeping the NDP on the front pages, while Liberals are being relegated to the back pages of the msp. This should have been a big day for the Liberals what with the judge overturning the Etobicoke Centre election results. Clearly cementing ourselves as the Official Opposition at least for now, in the eyes of the Canadian voters, is perhaps the most important thing we are doing at this time. 


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Is this the reason the Cons are being so vocal about the tarsands?

Conservatives silent on contents of unreleased 2007 pension report

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/17/conservatives-silent-on-contents...

 


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

The Cons if not anything else, are at least entertaining - the comedy shows should have fun with this one.

Hilarious! Laughing

 

Harper government funded study arguing Canada suffers from ’Dutch Disease’

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-government-funded-st...


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

In the same way that Toronto mayor Ford's show of displaying initial reticence over gay pride and then his showing up at a PFLAG event to condemn homophobia had everyone showering him with praise, I think Mulcair is playing the oil sands the same way.  He's the influential but reluctant eastern environmentalist who needs to be won over to the pride of the oilsands, and thus his agreement to go there sets the stage for a similar encounter to what Ford had with the PFLAG event.  Mulcair can go there and be very impressed with some of the work, etc., and have them eating out of his hand.  Besides comments on the Dutch disease and the need to do more than merely exporting raw bitumen, he really hasn't slammed the oild sands very harshly.  He's left himself a lot of wiggle room to be nice to them. 

So, I think this will be a winner for him and the NDP.  There's a good article in the Globe about it, where he focusses more on attacking polluters.  Good stuff.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

A refreshingly thoughtful discussion of oilsands challenges

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/A%20refreshingly%20thoughtful%20dis...


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

So who funds "Ethical Oil"?  Shell? Esso? Chevron? Cons?

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/why-dont-political-bloggers-wan...


Ippurigakko
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

I just want to say,

I think tarsand need stop and shut down because it will highly poverty and unemployment in canada, most of aboriginal communities and First Nations/Inuit are highly suicide rates than average Canadian, this govt need help poverty and suicide prevention.

 


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Stephen Harper seeks to put the abortion issue to rest

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1177081--hebert-step...


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Simpson of the Globe poo-poos Mulcair's argument of Dutch disease, feeling it's not a winner for him.  I don't quite agree with Simpson. 

During the leadership campaign, I supported Topp over Mulcair, because I felt Mulcair's focus on the environment was a loser -- IE, it seemed to open the door too much to an environment vs the economy argument, and I felt that the economy would win such an argument (and thus I preferred Topp's focus on the economy).  However, I will say that Mulcair has cleverly shifted the focus of the debate from being the environment vs the economy, to being one of whether inadequate focus on the environment has hurt the economy or not (via so-called Dutch disease).  I'm still not convinced this is a winner, but it's certainly better than simply being a debate about the environment vs the economy, which Dion's Green Shift became.  So, I am encouraged by this.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

At least Mulcair has joined the great Canadian battle

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/98023-meek-at-least-mulcair-has-joi...

Still, the man’s onto something here.

By staking out territory far to the left of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mulcair has managed — within the space of two short months or so — to render the Liberals as irrelevant as the middle ground they have traditionally occupied in Canadian politics.

This may change once the former “natural governing party” picks a new leader, but don’t hold your breath. The federal Grits have demonstrated little capacity for renewal since the good old days when the little guy from Shawinigan was throttling protesters and running the nation on a strategy that was all about hard-ball politics and hard-boiled practicality — with the odd principle thrown into the mix to confuse us.

Say what you like about Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the man governs Canada on the basis of a set of beliefs that his actions demonstrate more clearly than his words reveal. And in his “show, don’t tell” government, the first principle is Canadian self-reliance.

This explains the government’s bid to reform Employment Insurance in a way that weeds out “repeat offenders” — often seasonal workers who go on the dole annually. It is also consistent with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s comment this week that there’s no such thing as a bad job. The underlying EI and Flaherty messages are the same: “Look after yourself, people.”

A similar message is being transmitted to the provinces. Flaherty’s proposal to transfer per capita funding to the provinces for health care — regardless of the age of their population — is a case in point. Nova Scotia, with its older, sicker, costlier population, is being asked to look after its own and fend for itself in doing so.

In case you missed it, then, Mr. Harper will not be stepping up on behalf of national standards of care, or equitable access to medical services for all Canadians. This is one trumpet the prime minister won’t blow.

With social programs tucked firmly into provincial jurisdiction, Harper and his ministers are free to celebrate Canada’s resource economy. So Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is speeding up the environmental review process for new projects; opening up the Arctic to energy exploration, as the government announced this week; and offering zero apologies to critics of Canada’s approach to climate change and economic growth.

This is exactly where Mulcair decided to step into the breach, by attacking rapid resource development that he says is inflationary and destructive of other sectors of the economy.

Now, Mulcair’s intervention was not handled with great finesse, and I don’t get the political calculation that seems to make an enemy of the West.

At the same time, though, Harper has left lots of room for a political opponent who promotes balanced growth of the economy; celebrates Canada’s social safety network; and doesn’t leave the fate of all workers to the glories of a free-market economy or the cost of a one-way ticket to Fort McMurray.

If I’ve got him right, Mulcair recognizes he’s in a war for Canadian values, not in a skirmish over the oilsands. This should make for some sharp, clear, divisive debate in the years leading up to the next election.

For my money, then, Thomas Mulcair’s decision to stand on Canada’s traditional left-of-centre high ground — rather than slide around in the murky, muddy centre — should make Canadian politics worth the price of admission for the next few years.


madmax
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2008
The winner of this debate will be the party that most effectively frames the argument. If its about the Oil Fields and Manufacturing Mulcair has edge. If argument is framed as a National Unity and he is fingered.. Harper has edge. East vs West = Harper win Economic Viablility and Sustainability = Mulcair I noticed that the argument got turned to a National Unity argument and Mulcair continued on about the Economics.... He needed to calm the waters.... not agitate them... There is an argument that can be won or lost and its going to be a winner take all in 2015 and the public will choose Security and status quo over fear and doubt.

Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
No way I'd bet on Steven "Firewall" Harper vs. Mulcair on National Unity. In fact the right wing maybe overplaying its cards, helping Mulcair marginalize the liberals. The worst comments such as Western seperation may actually do the Tories damage out west. Add to that EI attacks alienating the Altantic region and northern regions were seasonal work is important, either attacks on Penisons, Institutions, and Veterans alienating seniors, and the enbridge pipeline and changes to fisheries (which even managed to piss off the leader of the BC tories), will damage them in BC. Sask will yield seats either way thanks to redistrubion, Manitoba has no oil and the right tactics could win us more seats there. And of course Ontario and Quebec are worried about manufactering and forestry sectors. On top of that the Tories are in constant scandal mode. Actually I'm starting to wonder if Mulcair's "mistakes" are really baiting the Tories to attack a false weakness, one that will bite the Tories in the arse.

NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Brad Lavigne and Brain Topp are now gone, right?

Who are the backroom folks running the NDP now?


Ippurigakko
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

Mulcair on cannabis/drug policy

http://www.facebook.com/notes/dana-larsen/thomas-mulcair-statement-on-ca...

 

Anyone happy now?


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Rebecca Blaikie is the president of the NDP and Chantal Vallerand is the National Director.  For a list of other backroom folks, see http://www.ndp.ca/federal-council


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Redford challenges Mulcair to visit Alberta's oil sands

I think that from now on we're going to see the opposite of pot stirring from Redford and the Alberta PC's. This first occured to me with the two Fort Mac MLAs playing so nice with Mulcair.

There is no election to posture for, so not mush to gain in beating the stick.

And a great deal to lose. The bigger picture is Alberta's contstant and global PR offensive around the tar sands, and even within Canada.

"Lets be reasonable about this" has always been central to that PR.

I think that it is good there will be one less voice in the yapping chorus, but beyond that, we shouldn't it to go so far as to help.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

madmax wrote:
East vs West = Harper win Economic Viablility and Sustainability = Mulcair I noticed that the argument got turned to a National Unity argument and Mulcair continued on about the Economics.... He needed to calm the waters.... not agitate them....

Agreed that if its framed around national unity [Mulcair is divisive] then we cant win. It doesnt matter how many logical arguments you can martial about what Harper has done to fan the flames.

But people are being too facile about shifting it to the economic. As if by the very fact of raising it, the logic of Tom's arguments [which in themselves are by no means unassailable] is a challenge to Harper's supremacy on matters economic and fiscal.

For one thing, ist not just Harper's supremacy. It is the NDP's baggage that magnify any weak points in the logical case Tom makes. [With all arguments made by nature having weak points.... even without the 'unfair' and ideological attacks.]


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Mulcair's visit to Alberta should be on his own terms, not Redford's. Why walk into a trap?


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Boom Boom wrote:

Mulcair's visit to Alberta should be on his own terms, not Redford's. Why walk into a trap?

Nope. I think it is fair. All she is doing is challenging him to go see what he is talking about.

If he can't go there he should find another line of work. It is no trap; it is his job to act in the interests of the people of Alberta just as much as any other part of Canada.

Maybe Brian Mason can give him a few pointers.

 


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012

Boom Boom wrote:

Mulcair's visit to Alberta should be on his own terms, not Redford's. Why walk into a trap?

Its not a trap, Alison Redford is just smarter then then Christy Clark who is an utter fool. Here's the thing when your the Premier or Prime Minister, part of your responsiblities is to try and have good relations with the leaders of other governments without idealogical predudice. For example say Redford decides to go to war with Mulcair who will likely be the next Prime Minister. What could be conquences of that from her perpective? Well first off Mulcair doesn't need Alberta to win government as some have suggested he could play Ontario against Alberta to win his majority amoung other tactics (not that I think this is his actual goal, but it occurs to people as a strong winning tactic, so its probably occurred to Alison) That is a scenerio Alison Redford dreads as it would be very bad for Alberta. She may be a PC, but she's an Albertan first and she realizes that a freud with Canada's next Prime Minister would not go we'll for Alberta. So for sake of her Proviance she gives Mulcair a slap on the wrist and an olive branch because that's who professional leaders do things. Its very important to Alberta's future to make nice with Mulcair and Harper. Its why NDP provinicial leaders like Premiers Greg Slinger and Darrel Dexter as well as soon to be Premier Adrian Dix amoung others treat Harper with respect and diplomancy instead of going on the attack, which is Mulcair's responiblity. Its why if Mitt Romeny becomes President a Prime Minister Mulcair will try to find common ground instead of trying to beat him on behalf of the American democracts. In summary Alison Redford will want peace with Mulcair because Alberta doesn't have much clout with the NDP as it is and frued,would hurt Alberta. Brad Wall on the hand wants Harper's job and is willing to scarifice the interests of Sask to get it. Christy Clark is just a fool, this isn't even her battle, she's just hoping to win points with BC con voters. Of course BC elects lots federal NDPers so BC has no reason to be concerned. Plus she'll be gone soon.

finois
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2004

This visit to the OILSANDS is the opportunity we have been waiting for.

This issue has had huge coverage and there will be large press in tow to cover his visit.

Hopefully, the party will insure that besides MSM there is a large contigent of enviromental and independent media with him.

The rest of the world as well as Canada will then be able to see what's up there as well as help make Mulcair the environmental champion.

However, it is vital the ndp brain trust see this as the opportunity it is. Both to reach a compromise that redford can sell against Harper and pushing for sustainable development supporting the best environmental stewardship corporation with further contracts

This is very dicey grounds, but if Mulcair visits and opens this issue up to a conversation this could be a win. The oil industry is being favored at the expense of other sectors. Even other business men know this. Mulcair will have allies as this rolls out.

BUT THE BRAIN TRUST NEEDS TO PLAY THIS CAREFULLY

 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

That.

But even bigger: Alberta's top PR need is prettifying the tar sands. They have an enormous amount invested in this. And they are not going to jeopardize it for the sake of the short lived benefits of some cheap anti-Ottawa and central Canada shots that they do not need.

Christy Clark is a whole different story: if your cards are terrible, you play them anyway. [Better than the alternatives. "Any day you aren't dead..... "]


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

mark_alfred wrote:

Rebecca Blaikie is the president of the NDP and Chantal Vallerand is the National Director.  For a list of other backroom folks, see http://www.ndp.ca/federal-council

I worked like a devil during the Fed election for Blakie. My feeling is she really isn't interested in hearing what anyone outside of the party insiders think about anything. I won't go into it, but I told them they were going to lose if they didn't do some things that needed to be done, and I was right. There was no reason to lose Winnipeg North. It was just plain irresponsible behaviour on behalf of the establishment of the Winnipeg North in crowd and her campaign. I am stil pretty mad about too. I dropped 15 polls, gave them money, and scruiteneerd. The least they could have done was give me a serious listen. On top of that they brought in some jerk from Ontario to run the campaign who knew NOTHING about Winnipeg North. Man we could have use SIO or Ari24's help. They would have go it.

So, don't expect the party insiders to listen much. They never have, and NEVER WILL be interested in WHAT WE THINK. They don't care. Period.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

KenS wrote:

I think that from now on we're going to see the opposite of pot stirring from Redford and the Alberta PC's.

She was not at all reserved in levelling criticism toward Mulcair this morning on CBC radio, so I think you're wrong in your guess of how much pot stirring we'll see from her.  The pot was thoroughly stirred in that interview.


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Yeah, what do you expect? Harper is PM of Alberta, and the rest of the Canada can go to hell as far as they are concerned. This isn't Canada, its the Republic of Albertastan!


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Caissa wrote:

Maybe he should visit the students' strike as well.

I agree.  I am hoping to hear something from him.  The student strike in Quebec is the most important movement by citizens for social democracy that is going on anywhere in North America now.

 

PS, I wrote a comment on a Globe opinion piece by Margaret Wente.  Her opinion piece was very critical of the student movement in Quebec.  Most comments were sympathetic to her point of view.  My comment was pro-student, yet even so it did garner more approval than disapproval (last count 10 to 9), which on this site is a rarity.  So I think people can see things clearly if given some actual facts to relate to.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Mulcair is on CTV's Question Period.

Mulcair was fantastic. He's explaining that the Conservatives are determined to reap huge profits from the tar sands without paying any attention whatsoever to the clean-up that is required afterwards - that's what all this is about.

TThe Conservative and Liberals fuckheads are twisting and mis-stating what Mulcair said - of coourse they are, because they're afraid of the NDP gaining credibility and popularity.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, what do you expect? Harper is PM of Alberta, and the rest of the Canada can go to hell as far as they are concerned. This isn't Canada, its the Republic of Albertastan!

That is not that much different than how some people portray Ontario and Quebec, and it is just as productive.

Alison Redford, Brad Wall and Stephen Harper  didn't make Tom Mulcair go after the tar sands in the way that he did; he did that all by himself. And I presume he is not a stupid man; if he goes there I expect he can find what he needs to address their spin with a bit more moral authority and credibility in his pocket.

As for those Albertans, not all of them fit the easy stereotype:

http://cwf.ca/commentaries/are-albertans-really-paying-for-quebec-s-soci...

 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments