Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

Tom and Adrian have nothing against LNG...they both thjink that there need to be rigorous environmental assessments of all LNG projects while Christy wants open season!

Brachina

 The second point misunderstsnds how to deal with Dutch disease. Its not stop resource industy,  its to make internalize costs for stuff like pollution.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Any rigorous environmental review must include an assessment of the climate change potential and that plus its inherent polluting potential to water supplies means no fracking and no LNG. That is a fine outcome.

Aristotleded24

Brian Glennie wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Tom and Olivia are both in the Vancouver area today helping Adrian Dix. Mulcair is at a union conference wondering why the federal Liberals are in hiding in BC and not out here supporting Premier Christy Clark. 

I bet they aren't there at the request of Adrian Dix.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bcvotes2013/story/2013/04/20/bc-ndp-surrey... clearly didn't mind.[/url] Judging by the comments on that article, I don't think his visit is going over that badly either.

NorthReport

 No idea what that means but sure sounds quite intriguing. Let's guess who you think invited them to participate - John Cummins? Laughing

Brian Glennie wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Tom and Olivia are both in the Vancouver area today helping Adrian Dix. Mulcair is at a union conference wondering why the federal Liberals are in hiding in BC and not out here supporting Premier Christy Clark. 

 I bet they aren't there at the request of Adrian Dix. 

janfromthebruce

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Tom and Olivia are both in the Vancouver area today helping Adrian Dix. Mulcair is at a union conference wondering why the federal Liberals are in hiding in BC and not out here supporting Premier Christy Clark. 

I bet they aren't there at the request of Adrian Dix.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bcvotes2013/story/2013/04/20/bc-ndp-surrey... clearly didn't mind.[/url] Judging by the comments on that article, I don't think his visit is going over that badly either.

Yes, I went through about 9 columns of comments and over 90% are positive with negative posts challenged on validity.

PrairieDemocrat15

knownothing wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Tom can use the boost in BC. Smart political move on Mulcair's part to get some exposure by standing with Dix.

It is only fair. By 2015, Dix will be at midterm. Vaughan Palmer and the rest of the media will whip up the anti-NDP sentiment in BC over the next two years so that they will most likely become a liability to Mulcair by that point.

How pesimistic of you. The election hasn't even been held yet and you're assuming the NDP will be hated in two years.

There are no media outlets that support the NDP but hasn't stopped them from being sucessful before. Winning is harder for the only non-corporate party in the country, but its not impossible.

To quote John Diefenbaker: "everyone is against me, except the people." Basically the same for the NDP.

KenS

I find it interesting that Trudeau is getting from the Cons the 'he is in this for Quebec, not Canada' tarring that I thought Mulcair was going to get from them.

Possibly Tom did not get it because it is risky to do unsubstantiated drive by smears to a public figure with some gravtitas 'earned capital'

I had thought the Cons might still work on that one [more than the odd pot shot they have been doing] with Tom, but I dont think they can run the same game when they are doing it to Trudeau.

knownothing knownothing's picture

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

knownothing wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Tom can use the boost in BC. Smart political move on Mulcair's part to get some exposure by standing with Dix.

It is only fair. By 2015, Dix will be at midterm. Vaughan Palmer and the rest of the media will whip up the anti-NDP sentiment in BC over the next two years so that they will most likely become a liability to Mulcair by that point.

How pesimistic of you. The election hasn't even been held yet and you're assuming the NDP will be hated in two years.

There are no media outlets that support the NDP but hasn't stopped them from being sucessful before. Winning is harder for the only non-corporate party in the country, but its not impossible.

To quote John Diefenbaker: "everyone is against me, except the people." Basically the same for the NDP.

Please, pessimistic? Realistic how bout?

The media is already all over them. Just wait two years, the BDNDP will have about as good of a public image as the NSNDP. It is nothing against the organization. There is nothing they could do to stop it. It is simply about who owns the media and how they use the media to protect their interests. The media is being somewhat respectful now because they know there is no way the NDP is going to lose. But I am willing to bet within a month of taking office the media will have some scandal ready to go.

I never said that winning was impossible. I just said that the media will use the midterm status of the BC NDP against Mulcair in the federal if they can, and they will.

janfromthebruce

KenS wrote:

I find it interesting that Trudeau is getting from the Cons the 'he is in this for Quebec, not Canada' tarring that I thought Mulcair was going to get from them.

Possibly Tom did not get it because it is risky to do unsubstantiated drive by smears to a public figure with some gravtitas 'earned capital'

I had thought the Cons might still work on that one [more than the odd pot shot they have been doing] with Tom, but I dont think they can run the same game when they are doing it to Trudeau.

Well Ken, Trudeau Jr. stepped into that himself with a taped quote of saying Quebecors are better than the rest of Canadians or something to that effect.

socialdemocrati...

KenS wrote:

I find it interesting that Trudeau is getting from the Cons the 'he is in this for Quebec, not Canada' tarring that I thought Mulcair was going to get from them.

Possibly Tom did not get it because it is risky to do unsubstantiated drive by smears to a public figure with some gravtitas 'earned capital'

I had thought the Cons might still work on that one [more than the odd pot shot they have been doing] with Tom, but I dont think they can run the same game when they are doing it to Trudeau.

It's possible the Conservatives recognize that the NDP's path to relevance is now though Quebec. If they can make Trudeau competitive there, it keeps the Liberals and New Democrats wasting resources battling each other. That gives Conservatives an easier ride through Ontario, which they need for power.

KenS

I have to admit that I dont think real live politicos ever try to put into play something complicated/indirect.

But I also think it doesnt make any sense in this particular case. Sometimes a kick in the shins for Trudeau is just a kick in the shins for Trudeau. I don't see this helping him in Quebec- where his appeal is that nebulous new/fresh/oh what else thing that may or may not amount to anything in particular.

But to the degree that maybe Harper crew did some looking at how this would play in Quebec: the main thing is just one of many licks to cut Justin down to size, and if a by-product is that it helps him against the NDP in Quebec, that works for  them.

 

KenS

For the Cons, I think the NDP in Quebec is a sideshow. No matter how strong the NDP is in Quebec, if they dont get more traction in the rest of the Canada, they are a contained and essentially toothless threat.

Brachina

If Justin's numbers start spiralling back down it won't help him in Quebec.

knownothing knownothing's picture

The NDP already hold 43 seats outside of Quebec and are looking like more than a "toothless threat" in BC, Ontario, and the Maritimes.

Aristotleded24

knownothing wrote:

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

knownothing wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Tom can use the boost in BC. Smart political move on Mulcair's part to get some exposure by standing with Dix.

It is only fair. By 2015, Dix will be at midterm. Vaughan Palmer and the rest of the media will whip up the anti-NDP sentiment in BC over the next two years so that they will most likely become a liability to Mulcair by that point.

How pesimistic of you. The election hasn't even been held yet and you're assuming the NDP will be hated in two years.

There are no media outlets that support the NDP but hasn't stopped them from being sucessful before. Winning is harder for the only non-corporate party in the country, but its not impossible.

To quote John Diefenbaker: "everyone is against me, except the people." Basically the same for the NDP.

Please, pessimistic? Realistic how bout?

The media is already all over them. Just wait two years, the BDNDP will have about as good of a public image as the NSNDP. It is nothing against the organization. There is nothing they could do to stop it. It is simply about who owns the media and how they use the media to protect their interests. The media is being somewhat respectful now because they know there is no way the NDP is going to lose. But I am willing to bet within a month of taking office the media will have some scandal ready to go.

I never said that winning was impossible. I just said that the media will use the midterm status of the BC NDP against Mulcair in the federal if they can, and they will.

The unpopularity of the Dexter government has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with Dexter essentially governing as far right as the Liberals or Conservatives. Yes, it will be tough, but as long as Dix remains focused and keeps communicating with the people, then his government should remain popular.

KenS

I'll rephrase that Branchina.

The NDP is doing fine in the rest of Canada. But if they do not get traction to move on to more, then the Cons can live very well with an NDP strong in Quebec... because they are not a threat if they are not getting traction to make strong gains in the rest of Canada.

KenS

The NS NDP are not doing that badly with the media or with general public image... pundits by and large seem to think they are at least as good a prospect as the alternatives.

It is a very big chunk of their own base that strongly dissaproves of the Dexter government.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Yeah except for those polls that have Dexter among the least popular premiers in the country

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It is not surprising that as Dexter moves to the centre or centre right on issues the MSM pundits start cutting him some slack. It is also not surprising that disillusioned NDP supporters are abandoning the party since for them winning was never enough they actually thought they were working for change. When you lose your support base you quickly fall into the running for the least popular leader in the country.

NorthReport

Hilarious! 

A question of difference between Mulcair and Trudeau

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/04/22/scrums-a-question-of-difference-betwe...

janfromthebruce

Pretty sad that two hours after an important ruling concerning the PBO by the courts and Trudeau is unprepared for press conference. “I’m not aware of the court’s decision yet".

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Hilarious! 

A question of difference between Mulcair and Trudeau

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/04/22/scrums-a-question-of-difference-betwe...

After two years of continued exposure like this, I feel the shine will have worn off of Mr. Trudeau. 

janfromthebruce

Trudeau was "clueless"

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Hilarious! 

A question of difference between Mulcair and Trudeau

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/04/22/scrums-a-question-of-difference-betwe...

Crap you ninja'd me, I just posted the Link in the Trudeau thread before reading this one. Well it relates to both topics.

socialdemocrati...

kropotkin1951 wrote:
It is not surprising that as Dexter moves to the centre or centre right on issues the MSM pundits start cutting him some slack. It is also not surprising that disillusioned NDP supporters are abandoning the party since for them winning was never enough they actually thought they were working for change. When you lose your support base you quickly fall into the running for the least popular leader in the country.

Nailed it. Hope the relevent politicos are learning the right lessons.

Hunky_Monkey

I haven't been in agreement with all of the Dexter government's decisions.  But take a minute to consider the financial hole he inherited.  

One example makes this crystal clear... last year the Conservatives were in office, they received over $450 million in offshore revenue and budgeted that for program spending... health and education spending.  

What did the Dexter NDP government receive this year?  $25 million.  The government had to backfill almost a half billion is spending thanks to the economic genius of the former government.

We're seeing some of the fruits of some tough choices including restoring dental coverage to children that the Tories and Liberals cut when in office and covering insulin pumps for those under 19. 

socialdemocrati...

I still don't know how to battle the most ruthless, conniving type of conservatism.

Conservatives focus on balancing the budget ONLY when in opposition.

When they're in government, they do EVERYTHING they can to give out unsustainable tax cuts.

This is the strategy:

Norquist explained why he believed that there would be a permanent Republican majority in America.

One person interrupted, as I recall, and said, “C’mon, Grover, surely one day a Democrat will win the White House.”

Norquist immediately replied: “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”

(And God knows that "Democrats" in America haven't governed like supposed progressives for almost 50 years.)

If a supposedly progressive government inherits a huge debt created by Conservative tax theft, how are they supposed to react?

I honestly don't know the answer. I believe Tommy Douglas was onto something when he recognized how government debt essentially cedes government power to the banking system. So I'm for balanced budgets, if only as a matter of self-defense.

The problem is what do you do when the other parties create debt, so that they effectively sabotage future governments?

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
It is not surprising that as Dexter moves to the centre or centre right on issues the MSM pundits start cutting him some slack. It is also not surprising that disillusioned NDP supporters are abandoning the party since for them winning was never enough they actually thought they were working for change. When you lose your support base you quickly fall into the running for the least popular leader in the country.

And interesting enough how the Blairite-dominated sections of the Nova Scotia and Manitoba NDP are touted as models of success, when both NDP Premiers right now have a net disapproval rating from the public.

Brian Glennie

Hey Hunky.  Any thoughts/predictions re: Mulcair vrs. Harper vrs. Trudeau? 

KenS

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I still don't know how to battle the most ruthless, conniving type of conservatism.

Conservatives focus on balancing the budget ONLY when in opposition.

'''''''''

The problem is what do you do when the other parties create debt, so that they effectively sabotage future governments?

The answer is simple: as you pointed out the central part of the neo-con 'starve the beast' is cutiing taxes. So, when social democrats get back in power, you have to raise taxes.

Kind of obviously, the political execution of that is not simple. But, because it is essential you do this, you figure out where are your political opportunities. And you create them. No matter how difficult, you figure it out. Because otherwise you are caught in that box you just described, and what point is there to social democratic politics if you can't figure that out?

I want to insist on establishing that point: even if its hard and risky, do it. Because otherwise you have nothing.

As it turns out, at least in our current national political scene, it isnt that hard. Brian Topp and Nathan Cullen are both certified members of the pragmatists club. And in the leadership race, they said we can do this now.

Tom Mulcair disagreed, so we are where we are. But I dont think that amounts to a permanent 'road not taken'.... even while Tom is leader.

KenS

Rule # 1: at least do not shoot self in foot.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I haven't been in agreement with all of the Dexter government's decisions.  But take a minute to consider the financial hole he inherited.  

One example makes this crystal clear... last year the Conservatives were in office, they received over $450 million in offshore revenue and budgeted that for program spending... health and education spending.  

What did the Dexter NDP government receive this year?  $25 million.  The government had to backfill almost a half billion is spending thanks to the economic genius of the former government.

We're seeing some of the fruits of some tough choices including restoring dental coverage to children that the Tories and Liberals cut when in office and covering insulin pumps for those under 19. 

So what does the Dexter Crew do?

When they come in, despite contrary promises, they raise the HST 2%. They manage that well politically. That puts back in over $300 million annually in that big revenue hole. And since that revenue trend didnt go from $450 to $25 million in one year, that is manageable. With the deficit being wrestled down, pundits and public alike accept the HST hike.

And what does Dexter Crew do? They decide reversing the HST hike is a political necessity. So lets go and create a new over $300 million revenue hole.

Brilliant.

And so much for the argument that its all driven by 'having no real choice'.

KenS

I'll take Tom Mulcair over Dexter any day of the week.

Not strictly an apples to apples comparison because Dexter is governing. But take me back in a time machine to what I thought of the prospects of a Dexter government [not nearly as bad as what I see now that it has happened], and compare that to how I see the prospects with Tom Mulcair... that is apples to apples.

At least there is reason for hope with Tom Mulcair.

socialdemocrati...

KenS wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I still don't know how to battle the most ruthless, conniving type of conservatism.

Conservatives focus on balancing the budget ONLY when in opposition.

'''''''''

The problem is what do you do when the other parties create debt, so that they effectively sabotage future governments?

The answer is simple: as you pointed out the central part of the neo-con 'starve the beast' is cutiing taxes. So, when social democrats get back in power, you have to raise taxes.

There's a deeper problem than even the "can we actually raise taxes?"

If Conservatives have been in power for 4, let alone 8 years of unsustainable tax cuts... You're don't just have a deficit. You have a debt that's 8X the deficit.

So you want to raise taxes, and balance the budget. That's great. You've elimated the deficit. But you now have an 8X debt still hanging around, with huge interest payments.

And with those interest payments, the bankers have you by the balls.

Or am I being paranoid?

Mulcair's overtures against austerity are reason to be hopeful. But if I remember my childhood correctly, Bob Rae tried to focus more on unemployment than the deficit, until the banks put him in vicegrips.

janfromthebruce

Well the banks, and corporate Ontario put the Rae NDP in vice grips. No matter what, the business sector was going to let the NDP govern, and all of Rae's pandering was never going to change that.

KenS

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If Conservatives have been in power for 4, let alone 8 years of unsustainable tax cuts... You're don't just have a deficit. You have a debt that's 8X the deficit.

....

Or am I being paranoid?

Yes.

The serious problem is structural deficits, including those that have been manufactured on purpose.

Wrestle down the structural deficit means having sustainable revenues balancing sustainable spending levels.

With that done, the debt from accumulated annual deficits is a manageable problem.

josh

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I still don't know how to battle the most ruthless, conniving type of conservatism.

Conservatives focus on balancing the budget ONLY when in opposition.

When they're in government, they do EVERYTHING they can to give out unsustainable tax cuts.

This is the strategy:

Norquist explained why he believed that there would be a permanent Republican majority in America.

One person interrupted, as I recall, and said, “C’mon, Grover, surely one day a Democrat will win the White House.”

Norquist immediately replied: “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”

(And God knows that "Democrats" in America haven't governed like supposed progressives for almost 50 years.)

If a supposedly progressive government inherits a huge debt created by Conservative tax theft, how are they supposed to react?

I honestly don't know the answer. I believe Tommy Douglas was onto something when he recognized how government debt essentially cedes government power to the banking system. So I'm for balanced budgets, if only as a matter of self-defense.

The problem is what do you do when the other parties create debt, so that they effectively sabotage future governments?

You point out their devious strategy.  Over and over.  You don't fall into their trap, where austerity ends up becoming an end in itself.  You can't out-austerity conservatives because even if you win the argument, it does you no good.  The result is that you've made it politically difficult to increase spending.  Even if you raise taxes, people will expect it to go only to balancing the budget.

 

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I haven't been in agreement with all of the Dexter government's decisions.  But take a minute to consider the financial hole he inherited.

Tough times reveal your true character, and it's what governments do in the tough times that really matter. You like to point to Tommy Douglas balancing the budget, but he did so while expanding government services for the people, and he inherited a province with huge deficits. Yes, you may have been handed a horrible deck of cards, but it's up to you how you play them.

Also remember that here in Manitoba, the Filmon PC government at the time was faced with cuts to federal transfer payments, and they cut health care and other government services. So if it's okay for Dexter to respond to a structural deficit by cutting services, we have to cut some slack for Filmon for cutting services in Manitoba.

socialdemocrati...

You're right, Ken. If you can balance the budget, interest payments on debt are probably not nearly as bad as the borrowing cost of further deficits.

I think josh has the right approach too. You have to go on the attack. Accuse the Conservatives of ruining the budget in bad faith. For all their BS about "fiscal conservatism", they're STILL nowhere closer to balancing the budget, or creating jobs, or making this economy into anything worth bragging about.

Hunky_Monkey

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I haven't been in agreement with all of the Dexter government's decisions.  But take a minute to consider the financial hole he inherited.

Tough times reveal your true character, and it's what governments do in the tough times that really matter. You like to point to Tommy Douglas balancing the budget, but he did so while expanding government services for the people, and he inherited a province with huge deficits. Yes, you may have been handed a horrible deck of cards, but it's up to you how you play them.

Also remember that here in Manitoba, the Filmon PC government at the time was faced with cuts to federal transfer payments, and they cut health care and other government services. So if it's okay for Dexter to respond to a structural deficit by cutting services, we have to cut some slack for Filmon for cutting services in Manitoba.

And it took him how many years to bring in Medicare?  

There has been many differences between the Dexter approach and that of the Tories and Liberals... Dexter didn't cut funding to transition houses by 20%... he didn't pay thousands of nurses to leave Nova Scotia or broke collective agreements like the Liberals... and the list goes on.

I think the HST hike brought in around $200 million in new revenue... not sure how much the province lost with taking the provincial portion of the HST off home heating or income tax cuts for seniors.

But now the corner has been turned, we're seeing more progress on issues especially items like the expanision of dental coverage that the Tories and Liberals cut.  

 

Brachina

Well I have had my disagreements with some of Dexter's choices, but its not to late to strive for better and remember we're New Democracts.

Brachina
janfromthebruce

Brachina wrote:
">http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

Mulcair is very strong speaking and goes straight for them. I remember listening to Jack, he always suggested you "go straight for them" - don't back down. Very impressive.

knownothing knownothing's picture

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair defends his criticism of Supreme Court investigation

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/29/ndp_leader_thomas_mulcair_...

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

“It’s a clear indication that the Supreme Court had no intention all along of ever dealing with this issue seriously,” Mulcair said.

So his MP's can't stand with the people of Quebec and bang pots but he can get in to a public fight with the Supreme Court of Canada over decades old claims that mean next to nothing to anyone outside of Quebec. He has really lost it on this file.  He is bringing the SCC into disrepute with innuendo calling into question their INTENT on a file. I think he is surrounded by too many advisers that see the political game through the lens of one province. He has just handed the Liberals a club to beat him and the party. I may not have liked his past and some of his policies but I always thought he was a shrewd politician, it appears I was wrong on that.

Brachina

Almost no one outside Quebec gives a shit about this one way or the other so Mulcair has a free hand to appease Quebec concerns. Dions fear mongering is disgusting and dishonest as usual.

Seriously though almost one in the ROC is paying the attention to this, so don't worry Kropto. Most people start reading about this stuff eyes glaze over.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

When people outside of Quebec hear that Mulcair is calling into question the integrity of the SCC they will notice that even if they don't bother with the fine details of why he said it. You are right that no one will care about the actual issue itself but they do care about the perception that politicians are interfering with the judiciary.

You seem to think that "appeasing" Quebec concerns and hoping that no one else notices is good strategy.  For your parties sake I hope your view is not shared by his advisers. The Conservatives have already tried to stick him with that slur in the West and Ontario.  It seems to me that if the federalists in Quebec think that he is "appeasing" the separatists he is handing his lunch to Trudeau and saying I hope you enjoy dining out on it. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I find this case incomprehensible. Unless Mulcair and his advisors have some information that is not available to the rest of us, there seems to be no upside to pressing this matter. Perhaps Bora Laskin and Bud Estey may have held indiscreet conversations with various members of her Majesty's Privy Council at the time of the patriation (over 30 years ago), but they are both highly regarded in the legal profession as excellent judges. No impropriety or unfairness in any of their decisions is alleged. This is the most disappointing move I've seen yet by Mulcair, and it discourages me to think that he and his team could think it is a good idea.

Brachina

The leader of the LPQ supports Mulcair's position on releasing the documents.

I don't know we'll see where this goes, I trust Mulcair's instincts on Quebec and I just don't see average people giving a shit either way, and Mulcair made it clear that his complain wasn't about a ruling, but an adminstive issue. Not that I see this being a serious issue outside the pundits.

mark_alfred

Quote:
The NDP plans to instead take their fight to the House of Commons by calling for all-party support for a motion calling on the federal government to publish all relevant documents.

Always good to have more information, I figure.  I imagine that there must be some credibility to the claims made by historian Frédéric Bastien that two former judges -- chief justice Bora Laskin and justice Willard Estey -- "interfered in the political process by sharing details of deliberations with British and Canadian officials."

Pages

Topic locked