Mulcair - thread # 10

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Mulcair - thread # 10

;;

NorthReport

finois,

Appreciated your positively refreshing comments in post #93 in the previous thread

NorthReport

Economics dividing Canadians between Tory, NDP camps

http://www.canada.com/news/Economics+dividing+Canadians+between+Tory+cam...

Brachina

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/14/nl-...

like I said before Mulcair's popularity in Quebec gives him the room to reach out to other parts of the country.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Mulcair+over+west/660817...

Interesting point on the fact that the attack on Mulcair isn't coming from Alberta Premier Alison Redford.

Three reasons for this:

1) Harper bet on the wrong horse when so many of his Alberta members allied with Wildrose and it appears that it may have cost him a key provincial.

2) Alison had to appeal to the left this time and she doesn't want to alienate them.

3) She attacked Wildrose over climate change and the enviroment so now its too late to switch sides.

If Mulcair can talk to Alison and use her to calm things down he will have successfully defanged Wall, Clark, and Harper on this issue and strengthed his position out West. Best of all for Alison it will give her revenge against the federal Tories betrayal.

JeffWells

That's well observed about Redford, Brachina.

Mulcair's being accused of threatening national unity (Dion chimed in tonight) for his mild critique of the runaway energy sector must be our most bitterly ironic Canadian fact, given how the secession of Quebec would be Harper's crowning achievement. 

Sean in Ottawa

Mulcair is making some small communications mistakes:

1) He should get out of municipal politics -- this is not worth it.

2) He needs to speak to the energy and environmental file differently. This current discussion was predictable and avoidable.

 

The NDP could ahve had a western person speak to this first-- detailing the damage to western manufacturing and environment rather than doing an East against West type comment. Better yet, he should have announced an NDP Western economic diversification plan showing how the NDP could help the west do better without gutting environmental legislation etc. The approach was wrong and divisive.

There is no reason or benefit in linking the poor economy in the East with the boom in the West in the terms he has. Now if he slows the development in the West to help the environment he will be accused of doing it to help the East. This was a major blunder and one he will face for years.

The NDP will need to put on the table regional economic plans for the different types of economy in each region. They must be well-thought out and costed. They must contribute to local well-being and economic as well as environmental sustainability. And he should shut up about comparing one part of the country to another on any of this. That's a loser.

As for what was said-- instead of saying that he could have:

1) warned about the dangers of a petro economy, lack of diversification

2) insisted on having multi-sector multi-region plans for every part of the country (not too late to do this and in fact this might be the best way for him to recover)

3) promised the West that an NDP plan would leave equal economic activity in place in the event of any change due to environmental stewardship. Alberta will make as much money for example; still have the stuff in the ground spending it more slowly; and gain from new industries and opportunities.

 

Brachina

I don't think its half as serious as that. Peter Julian has already pointed out that the West is losing manufacturing jobs for example.

Also Mulcair is headed out to Fort McMurry Alberta so I'm betting he plans to snuff this so called West vs. East idea fast. As I said above the best way to calm things down is an olive branch to Alison Redford.

I will say if Iposos' number in Ontario are correct it appears that ironically it has bumped the NDP up in Ontario, if the NDP can fix things out West and I believe the opportunity is there this could be a net gain.

KenS

Caissa wrote:

Do we really need a 10th one is this series with the Federal election being so far away?

Or, to put it another way, if you are going to insist on owning the flow and naming of threads about the NDP, how about naming them something that does not grate on a lot of us.

Like What Do You Think About How Goes the NDP? or whatever.

Minimum point: it is NOT just about Mulcair, or Mulcair's leadership.... no matter how central he obviously is.

 

KenS

YOU heard Peter Julian say that. Everyone else hears what Mulcair says on the subject- period.

As Sean pointed out- thats the way it will always be, now that Julian or Cullen did not take the lead on this.

Thinking that he can fix it fast with a visit to Fort McMurry is sad. Not to mention that Redford is not interested in olive branches. We have to beat the Redfords as much as the Harper and Smiths. [Which does not mean attacking them. And in principle, the optics of offering an olive branch you know will be refused might be useful. But not likely even that.]

The idea that that this can be rapidly snuffed is funny, if it wasn't sad.

Caissa

The title of this one I find vastly superior to the previous 9, Ken.

KenS

Not as bad.

But Jack Layton's name was never in every thread about the NDP.

That said, there were at times a number of overlapping threads about the NDP.... they would start over some issue in particular, and all end up talking about the same thing.

So I do prefer having only one thread at a time that blends in everything that is 'whither the NDP' and 'how's it going' and what you like and dont like. And if having Mulcair's name in the thread title sets them off, so be it.

KenS

And having one catch all thread that changes the topics of the moment with developments as they arise, does not preclude having another one focused on a 'bigger' and/or more durable topic. Like we just had over Mulcairs comments on the petrodollar and manufacturing jobs.

And after that discussion pretty much runs its course for the time being- as far as being able to keep a dedicated thread going- the continuation of the topic naturally migrates to this ongoing catch-all succesion of threads.

Works reasonably well.

KenS

??

Laughing  Laughing

 

NorthReport

Mulcair says NDP's Quebec caucus fully behind Muskrat Falls

NDP leader describes cabinet representative Peter Penashue as 'parroting' Harper talking points

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/14/nl-...

NorthReport

So much negativity. How sad!

 

socialdemocrati...

Caissa wrote:

The title of this one I find vastly superior to the previous 9, Ken.

Agreed.

Might be nice to just have threads about, you know, issues.

We're doing a decent job talking about issues even in these threads. But so many times they devolve into "yay NDP" vs "argh NDP" camps. Let alone making the NDP all about Mulcair now, which doesn't really square nicely with an egalitarian party.

Sean in Ottawa

Ironically I don't think "Yay NDP" is good for the NDP at all.

For those pro NDP constructive criticism and suggestions is more useful than unconditional praise. Even tough criticism is useful. You can't improve if everyone says all is well.

Criticism even harsh criticism is not the end of the world. Far better than being irrelevant.

 

BTW-- I love that the NDP are announcing the public hearings across the country. I called for this a few weeks ago. Seems someone is on the same wavelength. This is exactly the kind of response needed.

I hope they return with something like my other suggestion as well-- regional economic plans designed to lift the entire country in a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable way...

NorthReport

Expect roadkill to reach dinner table: NDP

 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/05/15/19760976.html

NorthReport
mtm

I vehemently disagree with you Sean in Ottawa.

First of all, since this exact narrative was a key component of Mulcair's leadership platform that he was elected on, I can't imagine what kind of world we'd be living in that just says "now that you won on that platform just put it away and stop talking about it, because Harper/Wall/Clark don't like it."  I just want to posit to you what would happen if other promises and assurances Mulcair had made that are more "traditional NDP", how quickly so many people on this forum would jump on him for breaking his leadership promises and being disingenuous about his intentions.

Sean: "The NDP could ahve had a western person speak to this first-- detailing the damage to western manufacturing and environment rather than doing an East against West type comment."

Well, that would involve putting the genie back in the bottle.  He went coast to coast preaching this message as far back as last October. I can tell you, the talk of "hollowing out our manufacturing sector" was part of his repertoire from the day his campaign launched.  He talked about it in every town and city from Halifax to Edmonton (yes, Edmonton), so its not like he wasn't blatantly clear.  Now, the fact that the right wingers weren't really paying attention doesn't mean that they can't go back and read media from the campaign and find out...I think it is an assault on Mulcair's integrity to suggest he should take this major platform and policy point from the campaign and hand it to someone peripheral to launch in the areas it might see some opposition in high places.  THAT would be seen right through for the transparent and cowardly play it would be.

Personally, I like that Mulcair is willing to call it as he sees it, and stick to his message in the face of criticism.  That's the only way you can change minds is if you're honest and consistent in what you believe and how you express it.  It is especially important because it is true! That is courage and integrity.  A lot of the problems with the NDP in general, and certain other candidates in the leadership race in particular, was a reluctance to say anything that may be deemed as controversial or that would lock-in a policy direction or value proposition to the electorate that the Party would have to stick to into the future. It cast the view of the NDP as being weak, accomodating, and even lacking in integrity.  Part of the reason I supported Mulcair for leader is because of this unwavering courage to say what he believes, even in the face of large audiences in very different regions who would be more or less responsive depending on the crowd.

Sean wrote:

As for what was said-- instead of saying that he could have:

1) warned about the dangers of a petro economy, lack of diversification

2) insisted on having multi-sector multi-region plans for every part of the country (not too late to do this and in fact this might be the best way for him to recover)

3) promised the West that an NDP plan would leave equal economic activity in place in the event of any change due to environmental stewardship. Alberta will make as much money for example; still have the stuff in the ground spending it more slowly; and gain from new industries and opportunities.

On point #1, I think that is EXACTLY what he did do - and is still doing.  It is mostly our opponents from SUN media, the PC's and the Western Conservative premiers trying to make this a regional fight, and casting it as an attack on the west, which it clearly isn't.  We cannot control what our opponents do, we can only consistently point out that they are wrong (and very scared).

On point #2, I have no doubt the NDP will do this at an appopriate time, but 3 years out from an election is a bit early. Also, will anyone pay attention to it or remember it in 3 years, when East vs. West framing presents a wonderful opportunity to sell newspapers?

On point #3. I think you can say all those things, and Mulcair has presented how his ideas would be GOOD for the west - but the point is, the Conservatives and the oil interests are always going to be better placed to focus on the divisive side of the ledger. I think you can do all that - and they have done some - but it simply won't get published or talked about. Moreover, if it did, it would be seen as defensive and would be subject to unfair scrutiny that would be used to in fact verify the complaints of Wall/Clark etc, as in "if this is such a good vision for Canada why do you have to present all this hedging and reassurance"...basically a "methinks thou dost protest too much."  I think it is better to just jump in with both feet and say what you know to be true rather than hedging or appearing to waffle (especially after saying it so plainly during the leadership campaign, anything like this would be seen as capitulation, acknowledging the divisiveness that the right are fabricating, or signal waffling or backtracking to the media, even if it wasn't).

I would much rather see Mulcair stand on the facts, and show that the rapid oil development is actually hurting Alberta and the west at the price of rapid economic growth matched by rapid environmental destruction, and growing social problems and inequality - a fact even Redford had to acknowledge and speak to in her recent campaign.  

Vansterdam Kid

NorthReport wrote:

So much negativity. How sad!

 

It seems like it's the easterners who are most concerned about this western "backlash" against the NDP. Well, at least easterners on babble.

socialdemocrati...

There isn't much of a backlash to be had. The NDP currently has 3 NDP MPs between Ontario and BC. We lost Bill Blaikie's seat from 2008. Niki Ashton and Pat Martin are extremely safe. I'd say that even if this strategy were played extremely poorly and the right-wing DID re-frame it as an attack on the West, I can't imagine that it loses us much of anything.

That being said, I agree this isn't about East vs. West. It's about Oil vs. every other part of the economy. If the Conservatives want to make Canada the next Saudi Arabia, then we have to forge the strongest possible argument against it.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Mulcair says NDP's Quebec caucus fully behind Muskrat Falls

Did he ever consult with the Innu, who are opposing this in federal court?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Expect roadkill to reach dinner table: NDP

 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/05/15/19760976.html

The NDP critic on P&P tonight said this story was exaggerated to get people's attention. No roadkill.  You have to wonder what this does for NDP credibility.

Todrick of Chat...

http://www.ndp.ca/press/conservative-changes-will-allow-roadkill-on-your-table-ndp

Conservative changes will allow roadkill on your table: NDP

OTTAWA - Proposed changes to Meat Inspection Regulations (MIR) will leave Canadians wondering if the meat they buy is actually safe, because of the Conservatives' reckless cutting spree. Private inspectors, who may not be qualified, will now be able to inspect meat. Worse, these changes to meat inspection rules also change what meat is acceptable - meaning already-dead meat and crippled animals' meat will be okay for processing for Canadians' tables.

"First the Conservatives will let private inspectors monitor meat, and now they're essentially allowing road kill-ready meat into the food supply," said Malcolm Allen, NDP Critic for Agriculture and Agri-Food. "Even scarier is the fact that we won't know how long animals have been dead before processing - or even that the meat will be inspected at all."

NDP Deputy Critic for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier-Maskinongé), voiced concerns that these changes have been tried before - with disastrous results. "In the 1970s, Quebec had no meat processing regulations, meaning already-dead and crippled animals' meat entered the food supply, causing the "rotten meat" scandal. The industry collapsed, and federal regulations were created as a result."

The strength of our federal meat inspection rules must not be weakened. The NDP is echoing the calls of industry workers to keep our meat inspection system regulated, and safe for Canadians. The Conservative government must stop gambling with Canadians' health and safety.

 

 

 

 

Well according to the NDP website, credibility does not mean much.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Oh I agree - the Cons have zero credibility on the issue, and the NDP blew it by making it sound like we will be getting 'road kill', which is total nonsense.

Todrick of Chat...

 

It is truly amazing that all these highly educated and well paid people keep making dumb-ass mistakes.

NorthReport
Ippurigakko

Ugh i hate attack ad. If they attack our ndp leader soon then cons will lose on their over 100 seats in next election, like robocalls, lie/fraud f-35, attacks ads, cuts cuts cuts, riot police in toronto 2010?, come more more chaos stuff.... geez, Harper is true dictator, is he? since he prime minister, its undemocratic!

man early elections immidately! it feel like we suffer and want depise harper!

I feel very embarrassed we have Stephen Harper as prime minister that what he doing in Canada, when world see it.

6079_Smith_W

Dion declined to accuse Harper of favouring Alberta in 2008

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Stephane Dion rejected oilsands attack on Harper in 2008 election campaign/6622052/story.html

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Not matter how bad they mess up in Opposition, I'd still favour the NDP over the Cons and Libs, especially now that they have a reasonable shot at taking power. I just hope they don't screw up too much.

Todrick of Chat...

Boom Boom at the rate the NDP as going right now, they will screw it up a lot.

This is basic communications and messaging and it has been a mess up for over a year.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

And the Muskrat Falls thing - has Mulcair thrown the Innu under the bus?  I need to know, because I live in the middle of two large Innu communities here on the Quebec coast, and my NDP MP is Innu.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I haven't seen anything recently from Mulcair on Quebec's Plan Nord, by the way. Or on the Romaine River Hydro Project, which the Innu oppose.

KenS

Call your MPs office BB- they can tell you.

Here's my guess- they'll say that Muskrat Falls is contingent on settling with the Innu.

finois finois's picture

Mulcair and the caucus are going to make some decisions that some of us don't like.

Moving to government puts the NDP in this position.

To downgrade our movement because some decisions are not 100% pure is unfair and unwise.

What counts is where we have to conceed and where we have to never surrender.

Harper and his brain trust acheived his evil vision by gradually winning over middle canadians and then moving forwward with his basic underlying right wing agenda. We must make the compromises in order for us to maintain and progress on many other fronts.

My family are kayakers and i hate the concept of any river being damned, rerouted or screwed around with. But Canadians will never vote for a party or leader which seems unable to make some very difficult decisions even those that hurt some of it's traditional base. But trust me, power will be worth it, if it sends most of this Con group out to pasture. Getting some NDP JUDGES, supreme court nominees, putting a few Cons in their new prisons for election fraud and corruption.

We should all continue to push for every one of these issues. But remember Canadians will reward us for this strategy in the face of a uncompromising con majority. Mulcair is taking THE BATTLE into the sections of society that never voted for us. Let's give him the room to maneuver and judge what he does when we have power.

i would consider a Mulcair Government with the cabinet he would have to be a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT.

 

 

janfromthebruce

NorthReport wrote:

 

The calm before the attack-ad storm

 

http://m.calgarysun.com/2012/05/14/the-calm-before-the-attack-ad-storm

I'm thinking that the Harper group is getting others to do his dirty business because to attack now would make them look petty and cheap and reinforce their present frame - angry and cheap politics. Basically this govt is eliminating all diverse progress voices so that the NDP gets isolated, as the lone cry so to speak, and that the major voices will be the Harper Cons and their allies in prov govts, and their lobby groups and their right-wing think tanks.

think about it - their strategy right now is about defunding or muting those progressive voices.

Stockholm

Boom Boom wrote:

And the Muskrat Falls thing - has Mulcair thrown the Innu under the bus?  I need to know, because I live in the middle of two large Innu communities here on the Quebec coast, and my NDP MP is Innu.

Life anyone has "thrown the Innu under a bus" it's the current Tory MP for Labrador Peter Penashue who is leader of the Innu and won his seat largely thanks to almost unanimous support from the Innu community!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, Stock, and I note Mulcair has taken a shot at him. But two wrongs don't make a right. Where in any of these two articles on Muskrat Falls does Mulcair make any mention of negotiating with the Innu? Maybe I need new glasses, my eyesight isn't what it was.

ps: I've already raised this with my MP, but I'm keeping our conversation private.

KenS

Unless I'm mistaken BB, everyone- even the governments of Canada and NL- acknowledges that negotiations with the Innu have to be completed before the project could proceed.

The Innu would understandably not be happy that their negotiations do not come first, but that does not mean they are being ignore. Even less that, thee steam roller will proceed without them.

Even with[if] land claims settled.... there are a LOT of issues with Muskrat Falls, on which it cab fail. So it is no surprise that politicains- Mulcair included- address those. Most of them after all have nothing to do with aboriginal negotiations.

 

And you dont have to be secretive about what your MP says. You can make comments of your own without referring to or even implying they come in part from what he or she said.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

finois wrote:

Mulcair and the caucus are going to make some decisions that some of us don't like.

I agree with all of the points you made, but the NDP is the party with a social and environmental conscience, and I don't see any reference by Mulcair to having had any discussions with the Innu in that article where he came out in full support of the Muskrat Falls project.

Maybe he did and it wasn't reported. I'm corresponding with my MP on this matter.

JeffWells

finois wrote:

Mulcair and the caucus are going to make some decisions that some of us don't like.

Moving to government puts the NDP in this position.

To downgrade our movement because some decisions are not 100% pure is unfair and unwise.

 

I take your point, but I think we should avoid words like "pure" here. I've seen it thrown in the faces of critics of Obama, as though they were lily-white, naive lambs who don't understand the real world, when their bottom line is not so much that the president do good as that he not make things worse.

It's a tired metaphor, but New Democrats understand mixing some water in with the wine. Most of us, though, won't take water and call it wine. I don't believe Mulcair is expecting that of us, but I think the membership needs to always keep a watch on the leadership's direction. And that's been the case for every leader.

KenS

Crossposted- but I think you are going off half cocked BB.

Like other environmentalists in Nova Scotia who would be expected to like the green power coming here- I do not think Muskrat Falls should happen.

But I do not beleive the Innu have said definiteively they do not want it. They have said they want their rights acknowedged and settled.

So it is not as if Mulcair is saying the NDP supports it, and even implicitly- who care what the Innu think.

KenS

JeffWells wrote:

New Democrats understand mixing some water in with the wine. Most of us, though, won't take water and call it wine.

Like.

But I have to say, I dont know about that "most of us"...

Maybe revise to say we should not be asked to take water and call it wine.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

In the meantime, I have these two pages still in front of me, and wondering if there's a piece of the puzzle that I'm not seeing:

Quebec Innu want to stop Muskrat Falls hydro

Mulcair says NDP's Quebec caucus fully behind Muskrat Falls

 

I'd be grateful if someone can sort this out for me and I can put this matter to rest. Smile

KenS

You'll notice it says Quebec Innu oppose project.

I do not know what is said by the Labrador Innu who the NL government is negotiating with [or supposed to negotiate with].... but no land in Quebec will be flooded, so the Quebec Innu would have no status in negotiations. That doesn't make them chopped meat, but it is a relevant fact pertinent to how you are presenting the question.

 

And you're welcome.

After all, someone around here has to defend Mulcair from the sore losers.

KenS

I'm not just saying legalese Boom Boom.

But YOU have been saying THE Innu, as if they all speak with one voice, and they are being rolled over.

It is not laudable if the Quebec Innu are just being ignored, but the Quebec Innu in particular being ignored is not the same thing as what you have been suggesting.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

But Ken, it impacts traditional Innu hunting territory - Innu move back and forth between borders. There should be some sensitivity to this, not just legalese.

I think this probably new territory for the NDP in Quebec, the party will have had experience on aboriginal issues elsewhere, but it looks to me like the Quebec NDP have a steep learning curve ahead.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Okay, I'll think on that for a while. Smile

KenS

And as far as the 'legalese' goes... you cant have it both ways.

Aboriginals negotiate as soverign nations. And those legal entitities and the power they hold are not the same as cultural-linguistic entities. They only MIGHT be the same. As is always true with sovereign nations, there is an all or nothing territorial line drawn somewhere.

In this case, one defined aboriginal peoples has jurisdiction over the land that may be flooded- not all Innu people. There are both practical powers and limitations that go with that internationaly accepted practice of sovereignty.

NorthReport

Pages

Topic locked