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 #12)

120 replies [Last post]

Comments

madmax
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2008
NR, Could you put a small comment next to your links. Sometimes you do , sometimes you don;t It is helpful if you do.

6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

NorthReport wrote:

Have you ever seen rich people volunteer to share their resources? Just not gonna happen, so I wouldn't take the braying of Alberta and Sask leaders too seriously, as their whinning was to be expected. Trudeau did the right thing in the 80s with the NEP, and Mulcair is doing the right thing now. And I tend to agree with JKR that we need to reconsider our political structures in Canada and perhaps, apart from Quebec, eliminate our provincial governments are they are a colossal waste of money and time.

Kinda funny to hear Saskatchewan being referred to as "rich people" seeing as we're still paying off the debt left over by Grant Devine, and we still have a lower per capita income that the two central Canadian provinces.

And why on earth would you want to take a political system that is already top-heavy and vulnerable to authoritarian control, and make it even more vulnerable by removing two whole levels of government - the provincial and the municipal, which is currently under provincial jurisdiction? You might want to note the differences, however slight, between the political climates in different provinces before going through with that plan. 

Me, I have no desire to pay HST or private insurance, so I am just fine with having strong and separate provincial governments, thank you.

 


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

It is always about money, isn't it.

We would do fine with municipal and federal governments, except Quebec needs its provincial government, and get rid of these unelected fiefdoms like Metro Vancouver. Harper is basically crippling our federal government, and we are only 35 million. Surely we can have national programs.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

All about the money? Hey, I'm not the one who started talking about rich people.

I don't know about down east, but the four western provinces all have quite distinct political landscapes, to a great degree shaped by our provincial governments. And frankly, I don't get the sense of the argument to remove them, since the federal and provincial systems have always functioned as a sort of check and balance on each other

If anything, I think we would probably do better with a few city-states  like they have overseas. Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal would all be fine candidates.

 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

an ON MP Tony Clemment was on AB tv tonight. guess he was speaking in Calgary 'bout this. tryin to tell his audience AB tar sands help all Canadians 'cause he is from Ontario and he knows.

he speech should be taken apart exposing the lies IMV.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008
love is free
Offline
Joined: May 21 2012

it seems like opinion pieces in all the canadian papers these days are divided evenly between condemnation of the quebec students, a broader anti-quebec line as equalization negotiations approach, and ludicrous anti-mulcair articles accusing him of being everything from anti-canada to a raving lunatic.  it's at the point where i can't even browse national newswatch anymore without becoming bored and depressed.  even reading left-wing sites gets me down.

sometimes, even when things have never been better for your side, politics is just a bummer.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

And it always will.

 

Economic unity beats out crime as hot issue, poll finds

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economic-unity-beats-out-cr...


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008
Semi-rogue Tory MP shouldn’t underestimate caucus unrest

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/24/matt-gurney-semi-rogue-to...


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

NorthReport wrote:

And it always will.

 

Economic unity beats out crime as hot issue, poll finds

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economic-unity-beats-out-cr...

Does anyone find it odd how nanos phrased the question?

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W12-T538E.pdf

In past surveys, it's always been "name your top issue". And the issues are simple one or two word answers: health care, crime, education, or "jobs/economy".

This time, it's "strengthening Canada's economic union". Which the globe and mail reports as "economic unity".

I'll be the first to say economic unity sounds nice. I'm tired of just focusing on "growth", when most Canadians don't ever see the fruits of that growth. A little unity is long overdue. I might even call it "solidarity".

But considering the timing of the oilsands debate... I can't help but feel that "economic unity" is code for "STFU and let foreign companies looting our natural resources and leaving us with the mess. Criticizing them is divisive."

Am I missing some other reason behind the choice in wording?


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008
Mulcair’s ‘Dutch’ Remarks Bring Economic Policy to Focus

 

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/mulcairs-dutch-remarks-bring-econ...


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Agitators, eh! 

Well you have to hand it to Harper at least for for being brazen.

Tories say ‘professional agitators’ behind robo-calls legal fight

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-say-professional-agi...


finois
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2004

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

And it always will.

 

Economic unity beats out crime as hot issue, poll finds

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economic-unity-beats-out-cr...

Does anyone find it odd how nanos phrased the question?

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W12-T538E.pdf

In past surveys, it's always been "name your top issue". And the issues are simple one or two word answers: health care, crime, education, or "jobs/economy".

This time, it's "strengthening Canada's economic union". Which the globe and mail reports as "economic unity".

I'll be the first to say economic unity sounds nice. I'm tired of just focusing on "growth", when most Canadians don't ever see the fruits of that growth. A little unity is long overdue. I might even call it "solidarity".

But considering the timing of the oilsands debate... I can't help but feel that "economic unity" is code for "STFU and let foreign companies looting our natural resources and leaving us with the mess. Criticizing them is divisive."

Am I missing some other reason behind the choice in wording?

Nanos must have a direct line to Con talking points.

Having some knowledge of this science, i can't see a pro con issue poll being better framed for their benefit.

In my opinion we should start calling his polls WHAT THEY REALLY APPEAR TO BE " propoganda tools" for the HARPER GOVERNMENT rather than true information polling.


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

Canadians split over NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s opinion of Alberta’s oil sands: poll

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25/canadians-split-over-ndp-leader-thomas-mulcairs-opinion-of-albertas-oilsands-poll/


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005
NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

The headline should read: More Canadians than not support Mulcair's position on Canada's economy!!! 

New poll suggests Canadians split over NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's energy views

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/new-poll-suggests-canadians-spli...

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests slightly more Canadians disagree than agree with Mulcair — 45 per cent compared to 41 per cent 


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Not everyone is a Mulcair groupie like you, NR. Laughing


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008
NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Make the polluter pay - what's wrong with that?

The NDP position on the environment: Make the polluter pay

Peter Julian, National Post  May 25, 2012 – 4:57 PM ET

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25/the-ndp-position-on-the-e...


knownothing
Offline
Joined: Mar 24 2011

If Mulcair really wants to make an impression on Albertans he should drive up to Fort Mac on that infamous highway north from Edmonton( as opposed to flying in a plane or helicopter)...that would really give em something to talk about


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001


I think Mulcair is dropping the ball on the protests in Quebec.  I'd agree that as long as the issue was about tuition fees it's not in the federal balliwick, and it was a wise policy to remain mum on the subject.  However, the unconstitutionality of Bill 78 has transformed that protest into something larger, and something that invades the federal scene.

I always get into trouble with this subject, and I will gladly admit that Quebec politics is not my forte.  However, I will venture into these shark infested waters.  Bleeding. 

BUT it seems to me that one of the contributing factors, perhaps a big contributing factor to the growth of separatism was the Federal Government's and ROC indifference to Duplessis' "Padlock Law", which everyone regarded as a violation of the British North America Act, but allowed it to stand for twenty years before the Supreme Court finally struck it down. People in Quebec, I believe, looked upon this and wondered what was the point of being in a Confederation? 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But, continuing on with that thought, we have a similar situation today.  Certainly a federal leader should be wieghing in on an unconstitutional law aimed at crushing disent?  And should Mulcair not be giving voice to that?

Just, you know, wonderin'.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Harper has big and powerful foreign allies.

Harper is right: Foreign radicals are after the oil sands

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-capla...

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Tommy_Paine wrote:

BUT it seems to me that one of the contributing factors, perhaps a big contributing factor to the growth of separatism was the Federal Government's and ROC indifference to Duplessis' "Padlock Law", which everyone regarded as a violation of the British North America Act, but allowed it to stand for twenty years before the Supreme Court finally struck it down. People in Quebec, I believe, looked upon this and wondered what was the point of being in a Confederation? 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, you're wrong and i am correcting you. If people in Quebec were really all that averse to the Padlock Law - why do you think they kept re-electing Duplessis and his band of criminals in the Union nationale election after election for 20 years??? In the 50s no one in Quebec was pleading with Ottawa to disallow the Padlock Law - they were busy trying to simply defeat Duplessis in a provincial election and he just kept winning over and over again. The Padlock law was finally repealed when the strongly federalist Jean Lesage won power in 1960 and ushered in the Quiet Revolution. Keep in mind that when the Padlock Law was brought in, Quebec was still an extremely conservative devoutly Catholic society where p[eople LIKED the idea of the government cracking down on communists and Jehovah's Witnesses.


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001


Point taken, Stockholm, however I think it's error prone to interpret the re-election of a corrupt politician with general pubic opinion, and it doesn't cover what the future leaders were thinking at the time.  Your refutation is somewhat incomplete, but I appreciate and value it all the same, and give it some weight.

Be that as it may, even if my historical references are off, isn't Bill 78 something Mulcair-- and other federal leaders-- should be wieghing in on?

 


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012

Tommy_Paine wrote:


Point taken, Stockholm, however I think it's error prone to interpret the re-election of a corrupt politician with general pubic opinion, and it doesn't cover what the future leaders were thinking at the time.  Your refutation is somewhat incomplete, but I appreciate and value it all the same, and give it some weight.

Be that as it may, even if my historical references are off, isn't Bill 78 something Mulcair-- and other federal leaders-- should be wieghing in on?

 

Bill 78 is a horrible law, but still a proviancal law. The fact that it violates charter rights does make it within the courts juristiction however. Mulcair has shown his support as best he can without interfereing in provincially. He's calling for 800 million dollars in education transferes to lower student debt nationally. He called for both sides to come back to the bargaining table. Much more and he'd be interfering in the business national assembly. Now if Harper did send in the military or even the RCMP to stop the protests then Mulcair could act more directly, which by that I mean,condeme it or a even filabuster it. Not much more then that. Of course the dynamic changes if Harper is stupid enough to use the war measures act. I shudder to think where that would lead. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that after decades of PQ/BQ complaining about the Ottawa interfering in Quebec's business they're upset because the leader of the federal NDP leader won't interfer? Am I the only one that finds it strange that the PQ leader attacking the federal NDP? Who wants to bet the NDP ends up being discussed a surprising amount during the next Quebec election, even during the debates. I see Pauline turning to Amir and attacking him for his NDP membership.

CanadaApple
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2011

Tommy_Paine wrote:


Point taken, Stockholm, however I think it's error prone to interpret the re-election of a corrupt politician with general pubic opinion, and it doesn't cover what the future leaders were thinking at the time.  Your refutation is somewhat incomplete, but I appreciate and value it all the same, and give it some weight.

Be that as it may, even if my historical references are off, isn't Bill 78 something Mulcair-- and other federal leaders-- should be wieghing in on?

 

Perhaps, but keep in mind that the HoC is on a break this week, so it's been pretty low-key for Federal Politics aside from the EI changes. I don't think I've even seen or heard Mulcair on TV since last sunday, and then it was all about his Dutch Disease comments.  And I don't think Bill 78 started getting alot of attention until after that. So we'll have to wait and see if Mulcair makes a comment on it. IIRC, Intergovernmental Affairs is under his name in the Shadow Cabinet, so he very well might.


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Kinda funny to hear Saskatchewan being referred to as "rich people" seeing as we're still paying off the debt left over by Grant Devine, and we still have a lower per capita income that the two central Canadian provinces.

And why on earth would you want to take a political system that is already top-heavy and vulnerable to authoritarian control, and make it even more vulnerable by removing two whole levels of government - the provincial and the municipal, which is currently under provincial jurisdiction? You might want to note the differences, however slight, between the political climates in different provinces before going through with that plan.

Most Canadians are being ripped off by our broken federal system. The biggest problem with our federal system is that it  didn't make non-renewable resources a federal jurisdiction. By making non-renewab;e resources a provincial jurisdiction, our system has created a system of inherent inequality and division. Unfortunately, the equalization program guarantee in the constitution has not been up to the task providing sufficient provincial equality. If Canada's non-renewable resource wealth and royalties were a federal jurisdiction or if Canada's equalization program assured that all provinces had comprable revenues, our federal system would benefit all Canadians. But our federal system does not meet one of those two criteria and because of that we have a broken federal system akin to the EU's broken system, where some jurisdictions like Germany benefit while others like Greece don't.

 

Concerning per capita GDP, Saskatchewan is in 2nd place after Alberta.

List of Canadian provinces and territories by gross domestic product

Quote:

Per capita GDP - 2010

1 - Alberta - $70,826
2 - Saskatchewan - 60,878
3 - Newfoundland - 55,138
4 - Ontario - 46,303
5 - BC -  44,847
6 - Manitoba - 43,950
7 - Quebec - 40,394
8 - New Brunswick - 39,117
9 - Nova Scotia - 38,475
10 - PEI - 34,937

 

Nova Scotia Alternative Budget 2012 - CCPA

Quote:

Per Capita Provincial Program Spending, 2009 [page 10]

1 - Newfoundland - $11,717
2 - Alberta - 10,479
3 - Saskatchewan - 10,173
4 - PEI - 9,908
5 - Quebec - 9,271
6 - New Brunswick - 8,955
7 - Manitoba 
8 - Nova Scotia - 8,390
9 - BC - 8,118
10 - Ontario - 7,266

Here in Canada, the people who live in provinces that represent approx 75% of the population are disadvantaged by our broken federal system.

A few changes would rebalance the federation, including:

- Non-renewable resource corporations should not be able to deduct provincial resource royalties from their federal tax.
- The equalization program should treat non-renewable resource royalties like other sources of income.
- The equalization program should insure that all provinces have comprable financial resources.
- Provinces that benefit from non-renewable reources should put their winfall income into a sovereign wealth fund as Norway has.

If our federal system doesn't start working better, it would benefit most Canadians if their province dissolved itself and handed their jurisdiction and debt to the federal government.


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005

Instead of just defending against attacks that the NDP is "anti-West" the NDP could play up the fact that Harper and the Conservatives have been anti Ontario-Quebec-BC-Manitoba-Nova Scotia-New Brunswick-PEI.


Very Far Away
Offline
Joined: Sep 20 2011

JKR wrote:

Instead of just defending against attacks that the NDP is "anti-West" the NDP could play up the fact that Harper and the Conservatives have been anti Ontario-Quebec-BC-Manitoba-Nova Scotia-New Brunswick-PEI.

 

Well said.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ JKR

My comment was about wages, not GDP. 

Though I have to thank you because I must have had some old data. You are right: Saskatchewan wages are higher than those in Ontario; it just happened for the first time ever in Canadian history this year. Obviously things are broken and need to be fixed right away.

Quebec wages are in fact lower - on par with those in Manitoba.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1092250--saskatchewa...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr79-eng.htm

And actually, it wasn't an attack on Mulcair being anti-west. It was about the portrayal of Saskatchewan as "rich". when we have been at the mercy of the company store for most of confederation, and in some things, still are. Certainly the interests of regions outside Central Canada have never been assumed to be the same as Canadian interests. But when things start getting a little tight for Ontario, well then clearly things are unfair, and we need to fix it.

But what mystifies me even more is the notion that getting rid of the federal-provincial separation of power is a good thing - considering our federal government is currently being run out of one guy's office. There are plenty of situations in which a bad thing has been prevented by that separation, and part of the reason why things are not going so well currently is because we have a federal government which is not interested in enforcing its end of those powers.

It's a terrible idea, and I don't see that any case has been made for it. And again, given the historical context, it seems quite hypocritical to me. 

 


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