At Home in Hespeler

NDP leader Thomas Muclair hit the oil patch last week, finding himself amazed at the size of the thing and spouting nonsense economics.

As Jen Gersen points out in the National Post, his arguments are full of holes. One part of his argument in particular was stunning in how little economic knowledge was required to make it:

The second argument Mr. Mulcair made was that the profits of oil companies were being falsely inflated by the federal government’s refusal to enforce existing environmental legislation. Mr. Mulcair believes that if we started to crack down on oil sands environmental offenders, those costs would be internalized, profits would come down, and that would balance out the currency and thus, the economy

Is this what these guys think, currency fluctuates up and down based on profit margins? No wonder the envy-class yearn for the days of a weak dollar. Sadly, a weak dollar just means a fundamentally weak economy.

The currency’s value is a product of how much comes into the country and how much of it leaves the country – supply and demand. The reason the currency is high now, Mr. Muclair’s Dutch disease, is, in part, because the oil patch is selling so much of it’s oil internationally.

Increasing the fines paid for ignoring environmental law – and if Mr. Muclair has evidence that the laws of the land are being ignored without consequence he should bring it forward – cuts into the profits of those being fined, yes. But it doesn’t decrease one penny the amount of money coming into the country (unless, of course, companies decide to not invest in Canada lest they get on the radar of an envious governing class).

The NDP leader proves with his talk about devaluing the currency to make us stronger (NDP slogan, “strength through weakness”) that he has little grasp of macroeconomics. His solutions to the “problem” show he has even less of a grasp on microeconomics. Good thing there’s all those other branches of economics for him to get a handle on.

Economic Fundamentalism oil sands, Thomas Muclair

It’s a classic bully maneuver: taking the victims arm and punching the victim with his own hand, meanwhile saying, “why are you punching yourself?” As the middle boy of 3, I’ve been both victim and aggressor in this classic game of making you feel bad about yourself, all the while being able to legitimately say, “I never touched him.”

Last week I used the “punching yourself” motif to describe NDP leader Thomas Muclair, because it seemed apt. Why wasn’t that bully Stephen Harper beating up on Muclair, Warren Kinsella asked, so I answered.

Never beat on someone who’s beating on himself I suggested:

Perhaps they feel it’s better to let Muclair define himself his own image…

Just a few days later, that same Warren Kinsella has read, digested and seemingly agreed with me:

A few days ago, this writer questioned the whereabouts of the Conservative party’s anti-Mulcair attack ads…

Stephen Harper, looking down at his opponent as he hollers away on an Ottawa street corner, knows the answer.

“We don’t need any ads to scare voters away from this guy,” you can picture Harper musing. “He’s doing that all on his own.”

You don’t have to be Stephen Harper to know the answer, you just have to read the same people Stephen Harper reads.

The Media Following My Lead. Stephen Harper, Thomas Muclair, Warren Kinsella

Earlier in the week Warren Kinsella penned a piece in Sun Media suggesting it was strange the Big mean Stephen Harper Conservatives have not run a negative ad on new NDP leader Thomas Muclair… yet:

So where, in all of this, is the Conservative attack on their real enemy, Thomas Mulcair?

It’s not like they don’t have a reason to attack. According to the latest national polls, the Conservatives are no longer merely tied with the NDP. For the first time ever, the New Democrats actually are ahead of Stephen Harper’s party.

But still, the Cons do not attack. Apart from a poorly conceived swing at Mulcair’s caucus, only silence emanates from the Harper war room. No one knows why. Here’s one theory: With the Liberals, all of the Conservative attacks were centred on character, not policy. The Tory ads took something that was personal to a succession of Grit leaders, and made it political. But with Thomas Mulcair? Nothing.

It is all very odd. The Cons have nothing to fear from the third-place Libs, yet attack; from the Dippers, there is now much to worry about, but they do nothing. Why the change in strategy? The likeliest explanation is the Tory war room has yet to settle on a character-based attack that will work. Until then, Mulcair should enjoy his holiday from pain. It’s pleasant. But it isn’t going to last.

The attack is coming.

But perhaps the “Tory war room,” has made an other assessment, that once Canadians get a good look at Thomas Muclair, they won’t like what they see. Perhaps they feel it’s better to let Muclair define himself his own image:

What’s more interesting is Mulcair’s response. On Tuesday, he told Postmedia News the premiers of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan (and presumably everybody else, including that notorious Stephen Harper sycophant, Stephane Dion) are merely acting as Harper’s “messengers,” that he (Mulcair) is right, they’re wrong, and he won’t respond to mere premiers since his fight is with Harper.

That prompted Paul Wells of Macleans.ca to humourously observe the idea of premiers Wall, Clark and especially Redford waiting by the “Harperphone” for instructions could only come from Mulcair, who believes anyone who disagrees with him must be part of a conspiracy. (If Mulcair starts twirling ball bearings and musing about who stole his quart of strawberries, run!)

Why get accused of being mean when half the political establishment is accusing your opponent of being out of touch?

NDP, Silly Politicians Lorrie Goldstein, Stephen Harper, Thomas Muclair, Warren Kinsella