Mulcair - thread # 10

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.