NDP leadership 63

And since Mulcair has explictly and repeatedly linked carbon pricing and the tar sands to help for eatern manufacturing jobs, take a guess where we can count on the dots being very effectively connected if Mulcair becomes leader.

NDP plans on economic cooling of its job killing carbon tax to drive down the Canadian dollar.

Fewer jobs in the West so there can be more jobs for Quebec.

Attack ads dont even have to have more than a shred of selective truth to them to be effective.

But we would be walking right into this one.

It is not very credible in the first place to argue that serious carbon pricing and the ending of subsidies for the tar sands is not going to cause net job losses in the west. But the coup de grace to that hope of credibility is holding out  as a benefit the decrease in the Candian dollar.

And there are plenty of textual references about the benefits to eastern manufacturing jobs.

Thats what you get when economics gets abstracted from the dymanic nature of politics and its messaging.

An attack ad message would be crafted more effectivley than my clumsy wording above- which is there to show the gift Mulcair has offered up.

It would not be hard for the Conservatives to aim that in a way that there would be no negative consequences in Ontario. And Harper Crew will keep writing off most of Quebec when there is a lot be gained in doing it.

Nor would that kind of attack just hurt us in the West. It would be used to open up further our existing vulnerabilities as economic managers... doing the opposite of what Mulcair is always saying we need to do: "We have to convince Canadians that we're capable of managing a G7 country"

malcolm - if we're thinking about government, really coming to power, we need to think about what leader can stand in front of the canadian and quebec people with the credibility to present and defend well-considered plans for pushing canada forward.  we need a pragmatic progressive touchstone, someone who can articulate - day in and day out - precisely how and why we should lead the country.  i don't under-estimate bob rae for a second, the guy is incredibly charismatic, and he's precisely at his best in the sort of conservative fatigue that we can pretty easily anticipate come next election.  what we need, for our next leader, is someone who'll utterly dominate the news with his attacks/presentation of alternatives to the current government; someone who'll lock down our quebec seats; someone who canadians can see leading the country; someone who, once elected, won't send turn a generation of voters against the ndp (as in 1990s bc and ontario). 

like i've said, i'm hard left, but we need to focus more on the long game, on shifting the political center in canada to something more in line with the political center in quebec or europe.  the next election is about consolidation, extinguishing the lpc, and a clear shot at power..  we can't, in our insistence on consistency and purity, elect a leader who'll see us relegated to irrelevance yet again - if jack has a legacy, it's this absurd, lucky, unexpected, and still completely logical re-ordering of quebec and urban voting patterns toward a more ideological turn.  we'll win government if we can convince these people to stick with us and then convince a few dozen suburban and rural seats that we're with them, rock solid.  the sask example is actually informative precisely in this way: when the party withers to the noyau dur, we lose.

flight from kamakura wrote:

malcolm - if we're thinking about government, really coming to power, we need to think about what leader can stand in front of the canadian and quebec people with the credibility to present and defend well-considered plans for pushing canada forward.  we need a pragmatic progressive touchstone, someone who can articulate - day in and day out - precisely how and why we should lead the country.  i don't under-estimate bob rae for a second, the guy is incredibly charismatic, and he's precisely at his best in the sort of conservative fatigue that we can pretty easily anticipate come next election.  what we need, for our next leader, is someone who'll utterly dominate the news with his attacks/presentation of alternatives to the current government; someone who'll lock down our quebec seats; someone who canadians can see leading the country; someone who, once elected, won't send turn a generation of voters against the ndp (as in 1990s bc and ontario). 

like i've said, i'm hard left, but we need to focus more on the long game, on shifting the political center in canada to something more in line with the political center in quebec or europe.  the next election is about consolidation, extinguishing the lpc, and a clear shot at power..  we can't, in our insistence on consistency and purity, elect a leader who'll see us relegated to irrelevance yet again - if jack has a legacy, it's this absurd, lucky, unexpected, and still completely logical re-ordering of quebec and urban voting patterns toward a more ideological turn.  we'll win government if we can convince these people to stick with us and then convince a few dozen suburban and rural seats that we're with them, rock solid.  the sask example is actually informative precisely in this way: when the party withers to the noyau dur, we lose.

That's all very nice.  Can you please explain to me what exactly it is you're responding to?  Because you are not responding to anything I have ever said on rabble since I first joined in March 2004.

Yes, we need to elect a leader that can face the nation in 2015.  Weher have I ever said otherwise, and what exatly does this have to do with anything I've said on this thread?  Suggesting that we do not yet know which candidates will finish in the top 3/5 is NOT the same as saying we should elect a leader who is feckless in the face of Conservative attack ads.  (And in any event, was there any logical reason to asume that Michael Ignatieff would prove so useless as a retail politican and so mealy mouthed in the face of negative ads?)

I've been advocating for, Oh, about 25 years now that the NDP needs to focus on the long game and be prepared to make incremental progress.

In other words, FFK, I don't know who or what you're responding to, but it sure in hell isn't to me or to anything I have ever written here (or anywhere else for that matter).

Having been threatened with ex-communication by the powers of babble - and what an interesting experience it is to stand before the crowd while being dressed down - may I, without fear or favour, enter one more piece of observation from Eric Reguly, G & M columnist. That's someone who not only isn't afraid to read the business pages, but who helps write them.

"Giving Keystone XL the go-ahead would be a huge blow to Canada's diversification strategy, such as it is (and this reader can find none), and the efforts to create value-added businesses and high-paying skilled jobs."

Canada has the money to install processors for such commodities, says Reguly in this month's Business Report. "Canada's large pension funds are among the most powerful investors onthe planet, but they's rather pump money into European infrastructure than Canadian refineries...Withe the Canadian dollar falling again, oil prices stubbornly high in spite of looming recessions, and technology that is improving, the risks of building upgraders and refineries are declining...Expanding the oil sands should be contditional on upgrading the output somewhere in Canada - Alberta or the refinery complexes in Montreal and Sarnia, Ontario, which rely on imported oil."

Eric REguly doesn't know, apparently, that a part of the pipeline running across the Ontario countryside is being readied to carry Alberta crud south by a smaller version of the XL.

And there won't be a mass of people offering themselves up for arrest on Parliament Hill, because that isn't the Canadian way.

The Canadian way is to talk it all out, endlessly, in concerned venues such as this - threatening to silence those who dare to bring real-world events to bear on debate that's gone peurile with unfair charges - until the moment for action has safely passed and the moral authorities can pride themselves in having put down any social democratic spark of relevancy.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Comparing the remaining pur-et-dur of the Saskatchewan section of the party to the folks who've run the last 3 federal elections is a big stretch. One of the things that killed the Liberals is that they kept changing horses and teams, and never built up any organizational memory and proficiency as a team.

I don't think anyone is saying that the staff team for the federal party is not focused on winning. I--and I think others--are talking about party members who feel more comfortable with a leader who speaks more to the base than to the people we need to win over.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Keeping the team together is a sine qua non for me now, along with someone who has more arrows in their strategic quiver than just attack, attack, attack.

The Team has changed wildly over the last four elections and will likely change as much going forward under any leader (except perhaps Brian Topp).

As for the idea that any of the candidates have nothing "in their strategic quiver" except "attack, attack, attack", from watching this race I'd say the only place that is an issue is in the spin coming from certain campaigns. Watch the candidates. They've all demonstrated a great deal more skill than just "attack, attack, attack". (Again, except perhaps Brian Topp.)

KenS wrote:

And since Mulcair has explictly and repeatedly linked carbon pricing and the tar sands to help for eatern manufacturing jobs, take a guess where we can count on the dots being very effectively connected if Mulcair becomes leader.

 

NDP plans on economic cooling of its job killing carbon tax to drive down the Canadian dollar.

Fewer jobs in the West so there can be more jobs for Quebec.

 

Attack ads dont even have to have more than a shred of selective truth to them to be effective.

But we would be walking right into this one.

It is not very credible in the first place to argue that serious carbon pricing and the ending of subsidies for the tar sands is not going to cause net job losses in the west. But the coup de grace to that hope of credibility is holding out  as a benefit the decrease in the Candian dollar.

And there are plenty of textual references about the benefits to eastern manufacturing jobs.

 

Thats what you get when economics gets abstracted from the dymanic nature of politics and its messaging.

Now Mulcair's proposal has gone from non-existent to a quote-unquote "gift" to Stephen Harper?

For heavens sake...

Stephen Harper is giving billions in handouts to big oil and gas companies at the expense of destroying our environment, gutting Southern Ontario's manufacturing base and costing Canadians hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs.

That's a fight I want to have.

This isn't about the West. It's about Stephen Harper's friends in the oil patch.

No one is proposing a carbon tax except Stephane Dion. That's an obvious, outright lie. Stephen Harper's getting desparate.

That's a fight I want to have.

Quebec, Quebec, Quebec?

And giving Mulcair--a guy who fought two refrendums while Stephen Harper was writing letters about building a firewall around Alberta and who helped decimate the Bloc Quebecois--a chance to wrap himself in the Canadian flag?

That's a fight I definitely want to have.

Generally, except there's been no organized freeping of the poll from our end.  (Not to imply there may not have been disorganized freeping, but I've seen nothing encouraging our people to go there and vote.)

Of course, it had always struck me that the initial wins for first Cullen and then Dewar reflected a bit of freeping, organized or not.

ottawaobserver wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

The Team has changed wildly over the last four elections and will likely change as much going forward under any leader (except perhaps Brian Topp). As for the idea that any of the candidates have nothing "in their strategic quiver" except "attack, attack, attack", from watching this race I'd say the only place that is an issue is in the spin coming from certain campaigns. Watch the candidates. They've all demonstrated a great deal more skill than just "attack, attack, attack". (Again, except perhaps Brian Topp.)

The key people have not changed wildly over the last four elections, and to read or hear any account of how the party did what it did over this period of time, the very first thing anyone says is how the continuity was essential to it all. That you don't (a) know this, or (b) seem to think it matters, makes me worry.

Yes, the key people have changed--massively. There have been three different National Directors, three different National Campaign Directors, three different Quebec Campaign Directors and three Chiefs of Staff. There have been almost as many changes in other positions as well. There's been a form of continuity, but people have moved around, been promote, been fired and just moved on. That will likely continue in more or less the same fashion under any leader.

And I also disagree that it is "the key people" who matter. There are dozens of staffers in the party. I think it's folly to think the fate of the party is in two or three people's hands and who the hell knows what those people will do under different potential leaders (Except presumably Brian Topp)?

(Though, I don't know why you'd care what I know or think :).)

ottawaobserver wrote:

As to the second comment, everyone who spins in favour of Mr. Mulcair argues that we need someone strong who can attack Harper. If you'll pardon my borrowing the line from two campaigns ago, I think we need a new kind of strong; not that kind, so I will be looking for other approaches from him and the other candidates, personally.

What are you talking about when you say "everyone who spins in favour of Mr. Mulcair"? Who are these people you're talking about? What I hear over and over again from Mulcair supporters is that we need to DEFEAT Stephen Harper.

I can only recall a few times when someone has used the word "attack" on these boards and in at least two (if not three) cases you immediately jumped on that word advancing the spin that has been put forward by the Topp campaign that Mulcair is some one note attack dog (Note: I'm saying that's what Topp's campaign has been spinning, not that you're spinning).

But why speculate? Mulcair is running a campaign right now. He's run three for the NDP before. He's done copious amounts of media in between. And he's never been a one note attack dog. Jack Layton went on the "attack" plenty in the Houser of Comons. I see absolutely no evidence that Mulcair would be any more on the attack than Layton was.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I feel this is an opportunity to take the discussion in a more productive direction.

Its not a discussion when you make literally dozens of assertions, with hundreds and hudreds of words, declaring that you have proven/demonstrated things when all you have done is make assertions riddled with factual errors and interpretive leaps of faith.

But since we have been over and over most of your extremely long excursis, I will just leave that be.

But in the latter one-fifth or so of all of those text blocks, there are quite a few more assertions that are at least somewhat new, and more central to the politics of giving policy legs:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Jack Layton promoted our climate change plan actively and I feel he communicated its details as thoroughly as any normal member of the public would ever understand.

Thats interesting. Since you, let alone the public dont know some of the major pillars of the plan.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Opinion research shows the public is willing to bear the cost of addressing climate change.

All the little bit of opinion research has established is some predicatble answers to questions that are abstractions to people, not posed in the context of how 'ballot questions' would appear in a real rough and tumble debate.

More relevant would be polls that asked people during the election what they thought of the Dion Liberal climate change plan, which would not be pretty.

That is what has to be withstood, and we have not been tested on it. When we are, it is going to be AT LEAST as challenging as Topp's tax plan. It rasies a lot more revenue, and DIRECTLY impacts and puts at risk a lot more jobs.

I think we can do it.

But asserting that we have already cleared public opinion and have a mandate is foolish and dangerous.

ETA on related post #115 and the gift Mulcair has given to the Conservatives if he becomes Leader: you don't understand attack ads. You do not debate their elements. There will be some that you cannot avoid unless you want to hide all the time, those you disarm [and first of all through anticipation and counterpreparation]. But the first rule is that you do not heedlessly hand out opprtunities for attack ads.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

I can only recall a few times when someone has used the word "attack" on these boards and in at least two (if not three) cases you immediately jumped on that word advancing the spin that has been put forward by the Topp campaign that Mulcair is some one note attack dog (Note: I'm saying that's what Topp's campaign has been spinning, not that you're spinning). But why speculate? Mulcair is running a campaign right now. He's run three for the NDP before. He's done copious amounts of media in between. And he's never been a one note attack dog. Jack Layton went on the "attack" plenty in the Houser of Comons. I see absolutely no evidence that Mulcair would be any more on the attack than Layton was.

That is ostensibly a nanswer to Ottawa Obsever. But its a display of how you are obtuse [so what if they did not exactly use the precise word attack?], and misrepresent what people say.

Unfortunately you snow that under hundreds and hundreds of words bult on top of what had been a simple concept... which makes replying to you not feasible.

I am wordy and guilty of this sort of thing in my own right. But even when I keep comments brief and focused, a blizzard follows from you. One cannot discuss a blizzard.

In this case, there is a simple reply to your bit of substance in all those words and misrepresentation:

Of course Mulcair is mister nice guy during the race- a lot of us said at the outset that he would be.

At the same time, the narrative was established by his campaign, and reinforced repeatedly by his supporters, that Mulcair's pointiness is one of the things the NDP needs for 'dealing with Harper'. You have here [again] trivialized the legimate and considered questioning of that into "Mulcair is nothing but an attack dog."

Closing for length.