Mulcair - thread # 10

Should we be getting worried about this?

I find Wells reasonable enough, though I can't really pin him down politically.

Is it wise to get into a spat with the Premiers, if it's avaoidable? No.

But, is it avoidable? Probably not, especially if one considers the political landscape where in these Premiers are all Harper allies, or at least in Redford's case while they may have somewhat of a personal antipathy towards each other  based on political competition they have a common interest in promoting the oil sands, which overrides the former concern.

Additionally, I find this very annoying "The West" complex tiresome as it really means certain narrow interests within Alberta and even more marginal interests within BC and Saskatchewan that take their cues from Calgary. These types of people will always be in favour of a somewhat radical position within confederation, even a so-called moderate like Redford who promises to "work with" (or something) the rest of the country. So, I've gotta ask who really cares what they have to say on this matter? In so far as they're always going to complain and accuse you of "attacking" them if you don't become one of their puppet regiemes or sacrifice your interests to meet theirs, like Brad Wall's Saskatchewan or Christy Clark's BC you can't win if you play their game by their rules. So why bother? If Mulcair were to take some people's advice on this matter he'd look just as weak, ineffective and pathetic as Dion and Ignatieff.

Besides, one of the puppet regiemes will be falling soon anyways. Clark's bizzare attempt to advocate for Redford's pro-oil position will do nothing to save her doomed re-election prospects. In fact, I'd say they'd weaken them even more. Though I'm sure she thinks it might save a seat or two from going NDP or Conservative in the next provincial election and keep the Liberals relevant.

Its amusing to see all these Tory pundits claiming that Mulcair is being "divisive" for daring to be anything less than a cheerleader for the oil sands. Harper sets the standard for divisiveness with his attacks on Quebec, his francophobia, his dismissal of Atlantic Canada for having a "culture of entitlement", his labelling of anyone who disagrees with him as an "enemy of Canada" etc...

knownothing wrote:

We just have to keep doing what we are doing. Mulcair has opened a national debate about resources and the eocnomy. We could not have asked for a better start. Let the Big Oil henchmen take their shots, they are finished. They wont be able to do to Mulcair what they did to Dion because people are sick of Harper and his band of crooks.

I like your enthusiasm, but I think if the NDP or Mulcair waffles on this (like some appear to be councilling) they will easily be able to do what they did to Dion and Ignatieff. Either that or if the NDP or Mulcair focuses on irrelevancies and decides to shy away from real issues like this.

KenS wrote:

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.

this post and your 1st  'bout this IMV are on the money.

Quebec Innu are going on public record and looking for a judicial statement for a reason 'bout their hunting those lands proposed to be flooded in Labrador. 

from the  Quebec Innu against link

According to the panel, "the project would be unlikely to deliver benefits to aboriginal communities in Quebec and the project's impact on their current use of land and resources for traditional purposes would be adverse."

they're looking for a legal seat at the table. as it should be. i would bet the NL Innu are on board for the Quebec Innu getting legal statements of their right to have recompense for having lost use of it. they don't have to follow white man's borders is what they believe and want to prove it legally.

we should be in support of them both in the ND's.

wow, bc, alberta and sask premiers attack within a few days of each other, all using roughly the same language of "division", all subsequently followed up with echoing media, all times perfectly to pick up the cycle once the other dies down - seems pretty clear what the plan is here.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

.... I think if the NDP or Mulcair waffles on this (like some appear to be councilling)..... 

Who has ever advocated waffling?

The minority opinion here is that it is unwise HOW this was broached, and that consequesntly there will be a needless price to pay.

But that is for how it is done, not if it is done. [But that has been pointed out before.]

Anyway, where is this advocacy for waffling? An example would be good.

[Qualifier: maybe I have forgotten someone once advocating waffling. But you said 'some', and the common thread to criticism has not been to advocate waffling or backtracking.]

knownothing wrote:

Thats why it is so important for all NDPers to spread the message of sustainable development and repel the Tory attacks to give Mulcair and the NDP confidence to stand for these positions

Spreading that message needs to be done. But that is a medium and long term focus project, and wont do a thing to repel the attacks that are now.

I didnt say they wouldnt speak to them about it. I contradicted your guess that they would make sure the Quebec Innu had a seat in the nation to nation negotiations.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Is it wise to get into a spat with the Premiers, if it's avaoidable? No.

But, is it avoidable? Probably not, especially if one considers the political landscape where in these Premiers are all Harper allies, or at least in Redford's case while they may have somewhat of a personal antipathy towards each other  based on political competition they have a common interest in promoting the oil sands, which overrides the former concern.

I think Wall was the one who started "the spat" though. I don't think Mulcair would try and pick a fight with provincial leaders, even though it may be unaviodable as you pointed out.

oh, and since no one posted it, here is the story about Mulcair's so-called "endorsement".

As far as I can tell, she hasn't even said she is running for mayor yet. This may amount to nothing at all.

I hope that in all the rah-rahs and self-congratulations that people have noticed that we are on the defensive in the wake from Mulcair opening up the 'petrodollar question'.

Yes, at least a great deal of it is utterly predictable. The MSM is what it is.

But that does not mean that all of it was all unavoidable, that the only alternative was to say nothing.

And leaving aside the discussion of how best to do it, etc... which is always endless....

Ultimately, you have to stop being on the defensive. What is said in the MSM is not everything, and we do not yet know how people in their living rooms and kitchens, bars and commnity halls will be relating to this.

There is no evidence yet it is going badly. But hearing what you want to hear in the echoe chamber is not evidence either.

KenS wrote:

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

.... I think if the NDP or Mulcair waffles on this (like some appear to be councilling)..... 

Who has ever advocated waffling?

The minority opinion here is that it is unwise HOW this was broached, and that consequesntly there will be a needless price to pay.

But that is for how it is done, not if it is done. [But that has been pointed out before.]

Anyway, where is this advocacy for waffling? An example would be good.

[Qualifier: maybe I have forgotten someone once advocating waffling. But you said 'some', and the common thread to criticism has not been to advocate waffling or backtracking.]

Sorry, my some comment was an example of my passive-agressiveness showing. I'll be more direct.

I think changing his tone and having proxies speak for Mulcair would be tantamount to waffling, as it looks the same in the average person's eyes. I think McGuinty looked absurd backtracking his comments, when all he was doing was defending his province's interests. So I think (although correct me if I'm wrong) that people including yourself and Sean in Ottawa have advocated for Mulcair to take a different tone, or a different strategy in this respect, while agreeing with the substance will lead to him pursuing a strategy that will look like waffling.

I think such a change is simply dancing on the head of a pin and it's far too cutesy-cutesy to work in reality against a take no prisoners opponent like Harper. I respect, appreciate and think Mulcair's more direct approach will be more effective and I don't think he's being so blunt as to be off putting. I think you are overthinking this (although I realize that is an ironic sentance). I think his approach is indicative of the (to take a page from the Harper Conservatives electoral slogan book) the strong leadership we've been looking for. 

The fact is that Mulcair is the opposition leader and commands a whole lot more attention than any of his allies he could muster up, which is why I think his approach is more effective than having MP's, MLA's or non-governmental actors speaking for him would be (which is what they're doing anyways). I think the Liberals tried it that way already, albiet with a more direct approach on boutique and periferal issues, which is one of many reasons why they were so ineffective. I think it also played into the air of insincerity that surronded them, which is what I think a soft peddled approach would lead to.

Additionally, Mulcair and the federal NDP don't have a whole lot of provincial allies since BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are run by c/Conservatives or Liberals in name only, whereas Ontario and PEI are run by l/Liberals and Manitoba (and I guess you might argue this point ) Nova Scotia are the only two provinces run by New Democrats.

Another thing that is happening is that Jack Layton had ever so slowly raised the NDP's credibility on matters economic and fiscal. But that was very contingent and fragile.... it is still NOT a good terrain for us. It had only got to the point it doesnt need to bite us. That is no small thing, but it has its limits.

And Mulcair has heedlessly bulled his way out to where we are at an INHERENT disadvantage- and NOT just with the MSM.... with a great many people who voted for us in 2011, let alone the like-minded we need even more of.

Jack raised the NDP's credibility on our historicaly disadvantaged terrain by carefuly nurturing an accumulation of little victories.

The best of these was featuring the rollback of corporate tax giveaways. Anybody can advocate raisng taxes. Jack did it deftly enough to win at it. Those kind of little victories add up in the credibility deficit column.

Mulcair seems to think he can go out on this terrain where we still labour under a handicap, and lecture his way into winning hearts and minds.

Boom Boom wrote:

As for those who get pissed off, tough cookies.

Not quite so simple. I think there are plenty out here who do oppose the runaway exploitation of the oilsands, but still see the ignorance and irony of someone from down east blaming all their financial woes on the west.

I think it is a mistake and a distraction to turn it into a regional issue. And as I said, I thought Mulcair was careful in his CBC interview to steer away from that.

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.

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.

 

 

My sentiments exactly, finois!

The same applies here in Nova Scotia.

When we elected our first NDP government here in 2009, I knew that there would be unpopular decisions made...such is the legacy of six generations of Liberal/Tory rule that we had to put with here.

However, I am confident that any NDP government is a sustatial improvement on whatever came before, as will be a Mulcair-led federal NDP governement, even though I know that they would have to make decisions that seem to be unpopular.

The polls have show that the Dexter government still has the favour of the electorate, and I know that Mulcair will be an excellent P.M.

did anyone else listen to what Leona said in the House 'bout the UN's guy yesterday?  when she was carrying on with her negative adjectives she included the ridiculous condemnation he is an 'academic'. that's all i needed to hear to know it came from someone other than herself.

listened to my mom enough to know republican  propaganda when i hear it.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But it is one thing to fight to stop development of the oil sands. It is quite another for the most populous and powerful region of Canada to moan and complain that they can't sell their widgets because the west is making too much money.

who is it that's moaning? and is "the west" as you divide it really making too much money? could ya provide some facts on that or is it your speculation? here in BC we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada. Alberta is full of Bcers and easterners making some money and sending it home.

Quote:

Sale of resources is just one factor in the value of the dollar, and the value of the dollar is just one factor in the state of the manufacturing sector.

did ya tell Norway this yesterday when they slowed  their petrol productrion  'cause it was driving their kronar too high and hurting their manufacturing sector?

[/quote]

Norway is comparable as an economy to what Alberta would be if it was independent. Petrodollar effects in Canada absolutely pale by comparison.

Just on the oil sands and East-West relations issue...

NO ONE thinks we should back down from this fight. EVERYONE is concerned with winning this fight. So how do we win?

We're trying to move the Overton Window on every issue, to make our views seem more reasonable and make Conservatives seem more extreme. The debate over taxes is a fair comparison.

By the time the 1990s rolled around, the media was beating a steady drum in favor of tax cuts and welfare reform. Just to defend the social safety net and ask for taxes to remain the same was considered bold leftward opposition, if not outright extremism. Jack Layton came along in 2003 and began to parse the issue: maybe the public would accept "no new taxes, and roll back taxes to previous rates for corporations". At the time, it was a minority position. But it's become more sensible as people hate the idea of "corporate welfare" (an unintended side effect of making welfare a dirty word). By 2004 and 2008, even our U.S. counterparts were talking about selectively raising corporate taxes. Now, with the occupy movement in full force, inequality is back on the agenda. The idea of outright increasing taxes on the wealthy is seen as a reasonable position to take. If Barack Obama is for it (and if Warren Buffet is for it), then higher taxes can't be all that radical, can it?

I'm crossing my fingers that Mulcair has done the same strategic calculus on the tar sands.

The environment wasn't really a top-of-mind issue in the 1990s. By 2003, Mulcair took his appointment as a Provincial Minister of the Environment, and made it his issue. Then, Al Gore's movie came out, and it undeniably made a lot of people more concerned about the environment. (I can even say that it made me care about the environment more than I had ever before, considering that my top priorities were poverty and race issues, not to mention the surge in U.S. imperialism under George Bush.) Now the Tar Sands have undergone massive development, and it's literally a WORLDWIDE controversy right in our backyard. There's huge international pressure to slow down the tar sands (if not outright stop it). Even in the U.S. there was enough resistance to the tar sands that Obama at least postponed the decision on the Keystone Pipeline. I'm not optimistic that he'll come down on the environment's side in 2003, but at least it shows that public opinion IS moving on this issue.

So what's Mulcair doing? He's trying to persuade those last few people caught in the middle. He'll NEVER get the oil companies on his side, let alone most of the people who work for oil companies. But there are a lot of people who say "yeah, the oil sands do a lot of damage... but we need the money, and it's good for Canada, right?" Mulcair is saying "actually, not only is it bad for the envionment... but for most people in all other sectors of the economy, it's hurting you too."

The key to winning this argument IS to avoid the regional framing. This wasn't a regional attack, but Conservatives will want to make it one, to make Mulcair seem "divisive" and "unfit to lead". This HAS to be framed from east-vs-west to oil companies vs everyone else. And a big part of that, IMO, is pointing to the fact that it's foreign companies who are benefiting the most.

@ quizzical #91

I live in Saskatchewan. I am not arguing that the west makes too much money. What I am saying is that McGuinty's argument linking the oil sands with Ontario manufacturing is a bad move on a number of levels. 

If we want to get a handle on the situation in the tar sands, I think it is far more productive to focus on issues of environmental threat, royalties, as well as the economic implications of exporting raw resources. 

Not only are these other lines of attack not entirely accurate, they sound petulant, they drive wedges, and they distract from the environmental issue by turning it into a regional one.

Mulcair managed to point out that the tar sands had some effect on the dollar, and that Canada should be enforcing its environmental regulations on resource extraction, while at the same time pointing out that his argument was respect to the resource sector, not one part of the country against another.

McGuinty was not quite as careful, and wound up having to eat his words.

KenS wrote:

 

(And bearing in mind that Dix has staked out the same substantive positioning on pipelines and oil and gas development. But that does not mean he is going to be thanking Mulcair for his approach. I doubt if any of the MLAs who supported Mulcair for leader are liking this.)

 

Wow Ken. You do realize that we are going to actually have to fight to win government right? We aren't the opposition to kiss Harper's ass. How bout quit whining about Mulcair and keep our eyes on the prize?

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Mulcair+should+apologize+oilsand...