NDP #15

1097 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

''

NorthReport

Mulcair assails Harper's anti-labour policies  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/try-it-now/?articleId=5799723

 

 

 

 

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

While both campaigns are aimed at defining a political opponent in negative terms, the difference is that Dion had proposed a carbon tax, while Mulcair has not.

Cons typically answer this by saying that Mulcair is putting forward a carbon pricing scheme which will ultimately raise prices for consumers.

NorthReport

And the NDP's response is that the NDP opposes the Cons attacking Canadian workers and supports decent but responsible, for the environment, jobs for Canadians, and it is long overdue for the 1% to start paying their fair share of taxes.  

Who do Canadians think paid the 50 billion dollars that the Canadian right-wing governments stole from the employment insurance fund and used to lower taxes for the 1%?

Workers and businesses, that's who. 

addictedtomyipod

NorthReport wrote:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Craig+McInnes+Conservative+attac...

But lie and lie again is exactly what the Conservatives in Ottawa are doing in the radio attack ads now running across the country denouncing NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s “carbon tax” plan.

According to the ads, Mulcair wants to bring in a carbon tax that will take $20 billion out of the pockets of Canadians, add 10 cents to the cost of a litre of gas and “make everything you need cost more.”

“We can’t afford Mulcair’s NDP, we just can’t,” the ads conclude.

 

 

 

If the ad sounds familiar, it’s because it’s similar to the assault that was launched on then Liberal leader Stephane Dion for what the Conservatives called his “tax on everything.”

While both campaigns are aimed at defining a political opponent in negative terms, the difference is that Dion had proposed a carbon tax, while Mulcair has not.

10759

 

Regulations would also cost corporations money, something that is never mentioned anywhere. Except we may never see Harper regulate anything that stands in the way of profit.

Elizabeth May supports a revenue neutral carbon tax over cap and trade.  She says Mulcair's claim that it isn't a progressive tax is wrong.  Here in BC we see that this type of carbon tax costs everyone money (except the lowest income levels) and isn't revenue neutral at all.  I disagree with May.

 

NorthReport

Tks nicky from another thread,

 

It was indeed a great speech but two things immediately strike me as I began to watch this video:

- the emptiness of the stage on his right

- the amazin' standing ovation Mulcair received upon his arrival unfortunately is missing

nicky wrote:

Here is a link to the speech Tom made last week to the BC Federation of Labour.

 

http://langleylec.blogspot.ca/2012/11/bcfed-convention-speech-by-federal...

 

 

NorthReport

 

 

Harper and his minions never cease with their lies but nevertheless the NDP has to remember the kiss theory

 

- "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"

 

Like how much a deficit are these Cons, you know these  brilliant fnancial mis-managers of our economy, running up!!!

 

 


Joe Oliver tries to explain the farce

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/29/joe-oliver-tries-to-explain-the-farce/

NorthReport

Rest assured Harper has been planning for the next election every single day since the last election

How to win an election: Plan ahead

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/07/how-to-win-an-election-plan-ahead/

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Andrew Coyne says the NDP and the Tories are the same. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/03/andrew-coyne-populist-politics/

Is he working for Trudeau now?

NorthReport

Andrew Coyne is just another in a long line of political pundits who occasionally get it right, but more often than not, get it wrong.

Typical of many of the chattering classes who say wonderful things about Jack Layton now that he is gone, and who can no longer be a thorn in the side of their beloved political right-wing Lbs, Greens or Cons. 

Didn't he and most other pundits, Canadian and Americans both, forecast a very tight race for Obama, when it was nothing of the sort, and never ever was. 

Oftentimes their problems are quite similiar to Fox News - way too often they believe their own nonsense. 

Fortunately Andrew is preaching to the shrinking converted, and is very old school, and certainly not where it is at, nor where it is going, politically these days. His ship has sailed.

 

theleftyinvestor

Honestly though, is a blindly populist approach how we want to see the NDP continue to grow? Myself I am one for principles over populism. I feel that the transition in BC from Carole James' to Adrian Dix's NDP has seen them back away gently from some of their more inane populism and actually talk about vision and ideas - and it's working really well.

Of course with Coyne as the messenger it's easy to just chalk it up to bias, but I think it's a useful red flag. If the NDP goes too far into rallying people for the wrong reasons, it could either backfire or result in some unwelcome allies. I've often spoken about how, during the HST fight, BC New Democrats woke up one day to find themselves in bed with Bill Vander Zalm. And the walk of shame was not pretty.

felixr

Coyne's critique of the NDP in that article depends heavily on the fact that the NDP does not share his same love of "free-market" mechanisms to solve problems. Economic conservatives with progressive social values like Coyne (but not Coyne himself) need to be courted. I think the key is to show that the NDP knows how to make the market work better by supporting the work force and having a well enforced, light regulatory system. Economic moderation, investment in the people.

janfromthebruce

And don't forget, Coyne's sister - a la Deborah (who is the mother of a Trudeau offspring) is running for the Liberal leadership. So perhaps it's a early Christmas prez for her!

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
Truth be told if the left was really that opposed to NAFTA still, we'd be challenging it in the courts for being unconstitutional as it violates provincial juristicion.

No kidding. Really. Stupid left, eh? Buncha hypocrites.

Oh, the Canadian constitution gives the federal government sole jurisdiction over "the regulation of trade and commerce". See Section 91:

Quote:

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

[...]

  • 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

See? The "left" might be hypocrites, but at least they don't waste their precious time and money going to court to challenge the Constitution, eh?

 

 

socialdemocrati...

Populism is a pretty useless label, slightly more useful than "conservatism" or "liberalism". It means too many different things to different people. And for a lot of those people, their idea of it is incoherent.

I think Andrew Coyne is the first person I've heard try to twist out the idea that populism is actually elitist. Up is down. Hot is cold. If government stops doing things for the people, the people will have more. If only we could slash the repressive schemes of social security and health care!!!!! Damn you populism!!!!!

I've always contrasted "populists" with "technocrats". Technocrats believe that government should only be entrusted to super smart people, and that the lowly voters get to decide once every four years who is smart enough to make decisions for them. Populists believe that government is representative, and that voters express their will by picking people who resemble them, and that those voters are constantly engaged in every decision.

But again, populism is a useless label that means different things to different people.

JKR

felixr wrote:

Coyne's critique of the NDP in that article depends heavily on the fact that the NDP does not share his same love of "free-market" mechanisms to solve problems. Economic conservatives with progressive social values like Coyne (but not Coyne himself) need to be courted. I think the key is to show that the NDP knows how to make the market work better by supporting the work force and having a well enforced, light regulatory system. Economic moderation, investment in the people.

I think Coyne makes a good point. If the NDP was sticking to their principles they would support increased fuel efficiency standards. By playing the "taxes are too high" card the NDP is accepting the Conservatives argument that raising taxes and pricing pollution are against the public interest.  NDP'ers support lessening global climate change. Increased fuel standards are clearly part of that.

felixr

JKR wrote:

felixr wrote:

Coyne's critique of the NDP in that article depends heavily on the fact that the NDP does not share his same love of "free-market" mechanisms to solve problems. Economic conservatives with progressive social values like Coyne (but not Coyne himself) need to be courted. I think the key is to show that the NDP knows how to make the market work better by supporting the work force and having a well enforced, light regulatory system. Economic moderation, investment in the people.

I think Coyne makes a good point. If the NDP was sticking to their principles they would support increased fuel efficiency standards. By playing the "taxes are too high" card the NDP is accepting the Conservatives argument that raising taxes and pricing pollution are against the public interest.  NDP'ers support lessening global climate change. Increased fuel standards are clearly part of that.

If you put it that way it makes sense, but I think Coyne was being rather disingenuous. Taking a stance designed to point out the Tories' hypocrisy on "raising taxes on everything," while at the same time being consistent with one's principles because the Tory policy will likely increase emissions (as Coyne points out) rather than decrease them (as the NDP plan, formerly the Tory plan proposes) as Coyne concedes the NDP plan would, seems like decent politics to me. The thing is, if the Tories want to crucify the NDP on a cap and trade plan in the next election, the NDP shoudn't give them a free pass. They shouldn't allow the Tories hypocrisy and flaws on the same issue to get a free ride. While it may look like gamesmanship to some observers, it is about keeping the Tories in their same difficult position of not having anything substantial to attack the NDP with. In the meanwhile, fatigue and disillusion with the Tories is pretty high. If Mulcair can bring his personal popularity numbers up and maintain discipline in the caucus as the party courts social progressives with fiscally conservative views, then the NDP will form a majority government in 2015.

I see the "left" coalition for power as being a chair that needs three legs to stand: economic & social progressives (the NDP base), economic progressives & social conservatives (the "blue collar" NDP vote), and economic conservatives & social progressives (the elusive Liberal-Tory swing vote).

If the NDP can put together enough of each leg of the stool, the coalition will stand and the party will win. Once in power, the NDP can govern as far to the left as public opinion will permit. Past polling seems to suggest that could be pretty far.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

felixr wrote:

If the NDP can put together enough of each leg of the stool, the coalition will stand and the party will win. Once in power, the NDP can govern as far to the left as public opinion will permit. Past polling seems to suggest that could be pretty far.

In the last 40 years no provincial NDP government has governed to the left of their party platform, most have governed to the right of what they had proposed in opposition. But you believe that the federal NDP lead by a former Liberal with no socialist principles is going to govern to the left of their rhetoric in opposition.  

I believe lord.  Pass the collection plate.

felixr

This will be a first time NDP federal government. Sometimes these first time governments are very progressive: see Saskatchewan, BC, and Manitoba for reference. NS and Ontario are huge disappointments.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes in BC Barrett was progressive but that was in the '70's.  I wish I had your faith but I don't. After working hard to install NDP governments in both Sask. and B.C. during the 1990's I was bitterly disappointed when balancing the books became the priority over everything else. In BC that included necessary services for my disable son.  I think the Mulcair NDP might be marginally better than a Liberal government but I will be surprised if they do better than that. Tom Mulcair is no Dave Barrett.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K:

" I think the Mulcair NDP might be marginally better than a Liberal government but I will be surprised if they do better than that. Tom Mulcair is no Dave Barrett."

K, I voted for Mulcair as I thought he had the most depth and was the most articulate, combined with the fact that out of a pretty dry bunch of candidates, he came closest to having any "fire". But, all I can say is you couldn't be more right. Davey Barrett would have made a great leader! That convention result was a disaster of the first order. I guess I thought that when Mulcair said he'd bring the centre to the NDP, it didn't occur to me he meant he would do that by becoming the Liberals.

I am beginning to think I don't know much about anything.

theleftyinvestor

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I've always contrasted "populists" with "technocrats". Technocrats believe that government should only be entrusted to super smart people, and that the lowly voters get to decide once every four years who is smart enough to make decisions for them. Populists believe that government is representative, and that voters express their will by picking people who resemble them, and that those voters are constantly engaged in every decision.

But again, populism is a useless label that means different things to different people.

Fair enough...

To me, "populist" has a bright and a dark side. There is the part that means listening to people, giving them a voice and championing their causes. And then, in turn, people feel represented and support you because of it. That, I like. When people say that Jack Layton was a populist, this is what comes to mind for me.

But the flipside is, if that predominates as a mechanism for generating public policy, then you risk bypassing principles and presenting an incoherent or unprincipled platform. So the shadier side of populism is just saying or doing things that you think people will support you for, even if what you're saying just isn't consistent or isn't doing right by the voters. For me the BCNDP anti-carbon tax and anti-HST crusades exemplified this - a lot of self-IDed progressives I knew around me felt incredibly uncomfortable with that whole sordid affair.

Debater

What will be interesting to see is whether Mulcair can have the same emotional resonance with voters that Layton had.  Mulcair does not have the natural charisma of Layton, Trudeau or Obama.  And Mulcair's angry outburst at Van Loan and the Conservatives today in the House of Commons didn't help.

As much as many of us feel like socking a Conservative sometimes, Mulcair needs to control his anger or he risks losing voters.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

 And Mulcair's angry outburst at Van Loan and the Conservatives today in the House of Commons didn't help.

As much as many of us feel like socking a Conservative sometimes, Mulcair needs to control his anger or he risks losing voters.

A lack of context makes your post very misleading. His "angry outburst" was in defense of a colleague who was subjected to a charging Tory minister uttering obscenities and threats. It is interesting when you compare it to the Trudeau's outburst. Trudeau's use of obscenity did not involve a physical threat nor was it in response to an obscenity directed at him. The connotations associated with "outburst" would better fit his intemperate remarks.

I appreciate the fact that you reliably provide the Liberal spin on these matters and as such really do make a good contribution. However, Trudeau's recent incoherence has perhaps started to tarnish his natural charisma"and maybe that will provide an object lesson as to the limitations of charisma.

felixr

-

felixr

Debater wrote:
Mulcair does not have the natural charisma of Layton, Trudeau...

I almost shit myself laughing when I read this!

Thank Heavens Mulcair doesn't have Trudeau's "charisma" unless by charisma you mean foppish good looks. Laughing

Also,

Debater wrote:

As much as many of us feel like socking a Conservative sometimes,

Do you work in the House of Commons Mr. Debater? Because this reads like Vikileaks 2.0

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You know Debater, knock of the "Mulcair is angry" LPC talking points. It is tiresome, patronizing, and frankly, offensive. By the way, it is also so silly as to be laughable.

As others have said, worry about your own, first,  pal.

Ippurigakko

DebateR "As much as many of us feel like socking a Conservative sometimes, Mulcair needs to control his anger or he risks losing voters."

 

well Mulcair wont losing from voters because your future leader Justin is too RIGHT, not true leftist. I can see Liberal is very closely related to Conservative's values and they are cousin not NDP.

Brachina

Mulcair gets in crap for defending his friend and responsiblity Nathan non violently and Justin Trudeau beats the snot out of a senior citizen for fun and get applauded for it. And Mulcair gets called the angery one as if some one going after a friend isn't perfectly justifiable.

PS Validation errors are a pain.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Brachina wrote:
Mulcair gets in crap for defending his friend and responsiblity Nathan non violently and Justin Trudeau beats the snot out of a senior citizen for fun and get applauded for it. And Mulcair gets called the angery one as if some one going after a friend isn't perfectly justifiable. PS Validation errors are a pain.

 

Brachina, what is this about?

Brachina

The kurrffle vs. the boxing match against the senator.

Unionist

LOL! The senator just turned 38 last month. That makes him a "senior citizen"? He's just a young asshole. Younger than Trudeau in fact. Plenty of time for both of them to grow up and change their ways.

felixr

It's easy to forget how hard Jack worked for his likeability. Here's Jack talking to irredeemable Liberals:

link 1

link 2

I couldn't find the video of Mansbridge poking Layton over his wife. He asked her what she said to him about including Elizabeth May in the debates and, IF I recall correctly, implied Chow was a political lightweight earlier in the interview.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NDP has abandoned their historic opposition to these corporate agreements that in double speak are called free trade agreements. To chicken to bring up anything of substance in opposition to the corporate medias spin. Reading  this article reminds me why I don't belong to the party any longer and have no real reason to vote for them. They are just another party that wants to fit into Wall Street's global hegemony as a Ready Aye Ready partner.

Note that they talk about the fact that the trade deals in Central and South America are not beneficial to Canada but they fail to note that Canadian mining companies n those countries are running rough shod over the local indigenous populations as they plunder and murder in the name of free trade.  The Mulcair NDP is a liberal party in everything except name when it comes to foreign policy and trade policy. Of course as a Westerner I remember that it was voters in Alberta and Quebec that gave Mulroney the seats for the original free trade agreement when it was rejected by two thirds of the electorate.  Mulcair's views on trade have not changed and apparently the leaders views are all that counts.

Quote:

The NDP has already backed one free trade agreement, with Jordan, and is pushing for expedited negotiations on a deal with Japan.

And it's arguing that Canada should give priority to negotiating similar pacts with India, Brazil and South Africa.

Moreover, the party has dropped all talk of rescinding or reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal the NDP has stridently opposed in the past.

And it's urging the World Trade Organization to re-start global trade talks, which the NDP used to protest against.

"The NDP have always been and are very vigorously pro-trade," NDP trade critic Don Davies insisted in an interview.

Still, he conceded there's some truth to the Tory charge that — until recently — New Democrats haven't seen a single free trade deal they could bring themselves to support.

"I think our position in the past on trade deals has been to look at a trade deal, find three or four things we don't like and then vote against it," Davies said.

"I'm not sure that that's the proper way to proceed because any trade deal has pros and cons to it ... There's going to be costs to our economy and benefits to our economy."

But all that has changed under Mulcair. Now, Davies said the party's policy is to weigh the pluses and minuses of each deal and determine if "overall it's a net benefit" to Canada.

That said, the NDP are not about to go all gung-ho, supporting trade deals with just anybody. New Democrats intend to be more selective and strategic than the Conservatives, whom Davies accuses of recklessly signing deals with any willing partner — nine of them since 2006, including Colombia, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, and Honduras, which Davies said are "not key economies with any kind of strategic value for Canada."

 

 

janfromthebruce

felixr wrote:

It's easy to forget how hard Jack worked for his likeability. Here's Jack talking to irredeemable Liberals:

link 1

link 2

I couldn't find the video of Mansbridge poking Layton over his wife. He asked her what she said to him about including Elizabeth May in the debates and, IF I recall correctly, implied Chow was a political lightweight earlier in the interview.

I remember watching the video of Jack with Mansbridge here and thinking this was the 1st time that I witnessed Mansbridge interview Jack respectfully and not see a face of disdain and contempt - that was when I knew the NDP was doing really well - and that Mainbridge found a new respect for Jack. It was true - Jack worked hard at relationship building and no matter how the MSM treated him, he always showed them positive regard, not pandering and accepting being treated disrespectuflly but always forthwith.

clambake

Does anyone know where to find a clip of Mulcair's speech with the caucus today?

janfromthebruce

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair Passionately Defends Canada

 

There's the clip on utube clambake!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

As Mulcair says last year there were 563 buy outs of Canadian firms by foreign interests.  The NDP opposed one.  That's right and they bragged about the fact they supported 562.

The NDP is  a party of "free trade" not its opposition. They just don't like government controlled coronations. Apparently any capitalist corporation is just fine according to Canada's "left wing" alternative. 

felixr

janfromthebruce wrote:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair Passionately Defends Canada

 

There's the clip on utube clambake!

I've rarely seen so strong an opposition in Ottawa.

clambake

Thanks for the clip, Jan! Though the one I was referring to was outside parliament with the caucus where he said progressives should rally behind the NDP banner. Thought CPAC would have it.

FYI - 1 hour interview with Tom on Sun ''News'' @ 6 EST

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

felixr wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair Passionately Defends Canada

 

There's the clip on utube clambake!

I've rarely seen so strong an opposition in Ottawa.

I keep being told on the Huff Post that the NDP is doing nothing in Opposition, and most of the posters on the Winnipeg Free Press say the NDp is an incredibly ineffective Opposition. I know how people feel here. Are we wrong about how the NDP is doing? Can anyone explain these kinds of reactions?

David Young

The Huff Post is so biased towards the Liberals that to accept anything they say as fact is stretching the imagination.

If Mulcair walked on water, the headline on the Huff Post would read...

THOMAS MULCAIR CAN'T SWIM!!!!

Ignore what the Huff Post says.

 

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Truth be told if the left was really that opposed to NAFTA still, we'd be challenging it in the courts for being unconstitutional as it violates provincial juristicion.

No kidding. Really. Stupid left, eh? Buncha hypocrites.

Oh, the Canadian constitution gives the federal government sole jurisdiction over "the regulation of trade and commerce". See Section 91:

Quote:

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

[...]

  • 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

See? The "left" might be hypocrites, but at least they don't waste their precious time and money going to court to challenge the Constitution, eh?

 

 

I know the trade and other treaties are federal juristiction, but NAFTA goes beyond federal juristiction and intrudes upon areas that are provincial juristiction. The Federal right to create treaties does not give it lincience to use those treaties to violate provincial juristiction and interfer with a provincial ability to deal with its juristiction as it pleases.

Here's a hypothetical example, say we sign a trade treaty with Pakistan that gives healthcare companies unfettered access to Canada's healthcare system and immunity to respecting provincial laws on healthcare. This would be a gross violation of provincial juristiction and unconstitutional. Treaties are federal juristiction, but are not meant to be a loophole to violating provincial turf.

theleftyinvestor

But if the same treaty gives Pakistan the right to sue governments, they can take on the provinces themselves :P

Brachina

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1302809--mallick... Heather makes some really good points about Mulcair and his approach of Good Offense instead of staying on the defence. Also Maclean's has Mulcair as the 4th most powerful person in Ottawa after Harper, the Chief of the Supreme Court and I think Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney. Mulcair's Chief of Staff Gerbert was 9th. I like what I hear about the man. I read the physical copy at Chapters so I don't have a link for that.

NorthReport

Mulcair's NDP holding its own against Harper's Cons

Hamilton Spectator
Dec 18/12

janfromthebruce

Kiss

clambake

Pat Martin is going crazy on Twitter right now :/

Brachina

Yeah the guys at huff are on something if they think he's done nothing, everybody else, and we're not talking Dipper fans, can see the impact Mulcair has had.

Mulcair as official opposition leader is having more of an impact during a Tory Majority then the folding chair Liberals had during Minorities.

Unionist

clambake wrote:

Pat Martin is going crazy on Twitter right now :/

Tweeting while impaired. I'm betting Mulcair disciplines (or turfs) him this time.

Pages

Topic locked