Tom Mulcair is Canada's next Prime Minister
V
Still all early criticisms are useful information and advice.
That a policy or way of communicating is attacked means the party has to consider:
1) is this just the ravings of an opponent?
or
2) is there some way of communicating our position better?
3) can we be better prepared-- if so how?
4) are there positions we can take that are still consistent with our principles that could improve things?
Usually there is something instructive in a criticism.
So here is the immediate question inspired by that article:
If indeed an unavoidable NDP position could somehow damage something that Alberta (and other Western provinces) wants or is working on, what can do to show that this province is better off with us?
-- can we better explain the environmental benefits of our position?
-- what can we do to show that the Alberta economy can win under an NDP national government-- if we don't have an answer to that why run candidates in that province?
How is an environmentally responsible position better for Alberta?
How is a policy of developing the product of the Oil sands in Canada rather than exporting it raw better for Alberta?
What alternatives do we offer the people of Alberta in other areas when we propose slowing down the development of the oil sands?
How can we express that we are not just looking to see Canada overall better off but we also want Alberta and Saskatchewan to be individually better off and we have policies that will accomplish that?
What is our relationship with rural Canadians and how can we improve that-- what do they need that they are not getting? Same question to those in cities-- what are they not getting?
The party should not dismiss what this person is saying just because he is a Conservative. We should answer him. Even if we cannot convince him, this will help us convince others and improve our positions so that we deserve to convince others.
This is not rest of the country against Alberta. We are talking about taking some of the economic benefits Alberta enjoys away from them. We are responsible for discussing what we put back.
Don't get mad at these attacks-- consider them opportunities to discuss, to learn, to change in some cases. That is how you earn support. The fact that we are being addressed and discussed is an opportunity that we should not throw away by dismissing the conversation.
If we don't participate in what is an essential discussion in one part of Canada, we write off any notion of being a national party.
Perhaps this post could be relevant to the communications thread I started.
Woo! Hoo!
Read this and imagine what it would be like to read articles like this on a daily basis in the mainstream press.
Thomas Mulcair: An NDP leader who passes the Ralph Klein beer test and Tory fear test
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2012/03/thomas-mulcair-ndp-...
"We can also expect the Conservative media (which nowadays is pretty well all of it) ... to sow discord within NDP ranks"
not sharing your - or Climenhaga's - apparent enthusiasm...
actually? the first thing I heard this morning re Mulcair (via CBC Radio News, speaking of "the Conservative media"), was from a Conservative cabinet member, who seemed to wanna sow anything but 'discord within NDP ranks' - indeed, it should serve to unite them: "Mulcair is far left... far left... far, far left..."
Murray Dobbin also begs to differ. According to his Tyee article, today, NDPers (and increasing numbers of Canadians in general, sadly) simply aren't paying attention.
( http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Mourn-Mulcairs-Win/ )
and, if memory serves, George W. Bush was widely hailed as passing much the same 'beer test', wasn't he?... how'd that work out?
Murray Dobbin also begs to differ. According to his Tyee article, today, NDPers (and increasing numbers of Canadians in general, sadly) simply aren't paying attention.
Huh. I think he's missing the point on the Quebec issue and why many progressives (like me) voted for Mulcair. It's not because we like him, but because we want to retain and expand the influence of the dozens of progressive MPs elected in Quebec last year. To me, it's important enough to make me swallow my reservations and vote for a leader who is to the right of me. Let's not forget, although many progressives from Quebec hate him and see him as being some kind of far-right figure, in the context of the ROC he is still pretty progressive.
Now, let's all sit back and watch him do some fucked up stuff that will make me regret voting for him :/
No wonder Dobbin is upset. Dobbin is a Liberal, and he knows Mulcair will now be putting the final nails in the LPC coffin. 
The reality is the NDP far exceeded expectations during the last election. Now we are so close we can taste the power of becoming the federal government, and we have a leader who likes to win. What more could a longtime NDP supporter like me ask for.
"...and let's not forget that it was none other than Brian Topp and Brad Lavigne who spearheaded efforts to make the exact same change to the party constitution last year. This is part of what made me skeptical that the "polarity" between Topp and Mulcair was ever really about ideology."
I agree up to a point. Topp's efforts last year to replace the preamble of the NDP Constitution with a few platitudes about equality did indeed cast doubt on his credentials as a standard-bearer of the left.
However, by nailing his colours to the mast of social democratic principles, the nature and significance of Topp's mandate (had he won the leadership) would have been very different from Mulcair's. Under Topp, or any of the other candidates (save Singh), the left would have been in a stronger position to defend what remains of the party's historic commitment to democratic socialism.
Mulcair has a much freer hand to re-invent the party. And, of course, the media are already writing the script for him.
"No wonder Dobbin is upset. Dobbin is a Liberal, and he knows Mulcair will now be putting the final nails in the LPC coffin."
The idea that Murray Dobbin carries any brief for the LPC is arrant nonsense. A good starting point is his scathing portrait of Paul Martin in Paul Martin: CEO for Canada.
http://www.quillandquire.com/reviews/review.cfm?review_id=3633
and for good measure, I'm taking that last post to the new thread 
Here's a question: What does Mulcair need to do as far as policy to win Saskatchewan and Manitoba? I assume it would take a different tact to win Sask/Man then it would to win Alberta. Thoughts?
The first thing is to stop talking about the 1990s-2000s Sask NDP as an example of successful NDP government. The vast majority of the province is currently very down on the provincial NDP. Even a significant number of NDPers (myself included) are disillusioned. This is one place where I actually think Layton went wrong quite often. He would constantly refer to the Sask NDP as a successful example of working / effective NDP government. I would cringe each time I heard him say this.
Murray's artical was a completely unethical hacket job based more on the fact his choice didn't win. Saying Mulcair is closer to Harper economically then Jack and then repeating tories lies and making Mulcair out to be so right wing, he may as well as compared him to Mike Harris. Murray made a fool of himself here, he reeked of sour grapes, and the way he played it with questions of whether cacus can push Mulcair to the left means he never has to give Mulcair credit for any progressive actions Mulcair makes.
The truth is Mulcair is to the left of either NDP Premier.
Murray's column is a hacket job that makes Topp and Broadbents attacks seem like the bff with Mulcair.
Here's a question: What does Mulcair need to do as far as policy to win Saskatchewan and Manitoba? I assume it would take a different tact to win Sask/Man then it would to win Alberta. Thoughts?
The first thing is to stop talking about the 1990s-2000s Sask NDP as an example of successful NDP government. The vast majority of the province is currently very down on the provincial NDP. Even a significant number of NDPers (myself included) are disillusioned. This is one place where I actually think Layton went wrong quite often. He would constantly refer to the Sask NDP as a successful example of working / effective NDP government. I would cringe each time I heard him say this.
I don't live in Sask, I heard they made some tough cuts, but I don't know what sort of bad things did they do?
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Mourn-Mulcairs-Win/
If you read Murray Dobbin's post yesterday you'd think the party died on the cutting room floor. The fact is that the party has elected someone we feel can win. Our party has never been one about politics, but more about ideas and debating. Jack started to chance this culture when he became leader in 2003 and I believe Thomas will finish the job Jack started. Our party now is more alive then ever and the Libs and Cons are scared. If you see Bob Rae on twitter or in the house you see it that he realizes he's in trouble. The attacks against Mulcair are not surprising except for in their word usage. Divisive? The Harper government has been the most divisive government we've ever had. Opportunistic? Hardly, and everyone knows why.
No, I believe fully that we have chosen the right leader for the right time. He's shown that he can be calm and collected when he needs to be and I'm sure we will see him "hit to hurt" sooner or later.
Tom has my confidence and I am assured by his fairth in OUR party that he will bring us to victory in 3-4 years (don't forget constitutionally we are suppose to have an election every FIVE, not Four years)..
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Mourn-Mulcairs-Win/
If you read Murray Dobbin's post yesterday you'd think the party died on the cutting room floor. The fact is that the party has elected someone we feel can win. Our party has never been one about politics, but more about ideas and debating. Jack started to chance this culture when he became leader in 2003 and I believe Thomas will finish the job Jack started. Our party now is more alive then ever and the Libs and Cons are scared. If you see Bob Rae on twitter or in the house you see it that he realizes he's in trouble. The attacks against Mulcair are not surprising except for in their word usage. Divisive? The Harper government has been the most divisive government we've ever had. Opportunistic? Hardly, and everyone knows why.
No, I believe fully that we have chosen the right leader for the right time. He's shown that he can be calm and collected when he needs to be and I'm sure we will see him "hit to hurt" sooner or later.
Tom has my confidence and I am assured by his fairth in OUR party that he will bring us to victory in 3-4 years (don't forget constitutionally we are suppose to have an election every FIVE, not Four years)..
Yes, Harper ignored his election date legislation when he had a minority, so do we have any reason to think he won't ignore it when he has a majority?
I think it is one thing to hold an election early especially in a minority but to hold it later with that legislation in place would create a constitutional crisis in my view with real reason to ask the GG to force the vote.
The legislation effectively calls the election for the fixed date and an earlier vote supersedes that but to hang on and cancel that date without a vote would open the government to court challenges to force the election. For Harper, already not looking like a democrat, this would be devastating. I think an election will happen by the fixed date or possibly that Spring but definitely not later. The excuses to go in the Spring could be the number of provincial elections likely in that fall or some other conflict in time.
CFL
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3