NDP - thread #14

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDP - thread #14

;;

NorthReport

 

Alberta budget backs Mulcair: NDP  Laughing

 

Spring report supports notions about so-called Dutch disease

 

The federal New Democratic Party is citing information in Alberta's 2012 budget to support leader Thomas Mulcair's argument that a high dollar caused by booming natural resource exports is hurting Canadian manufacturers.

A section of the provincial government's spring budget, titled Risks to Alberta's Economic Outlook, refers positively to the importance of the oilsands to Alberta's economy. But the report notes the province's manufacturing sector is challenged by the high dollar, which in turn is linked to natural resource exports.

"The Canadian dollar remains elevated, buoyed by high commodity prices. An appreciation of the Canadian dollar could hurt exporters," it states.

In another section the authors noted that "manufacturing companies will continue to be challenged by a strong Canadian dollar and moderate external demand," though it added that "they should benefit from growth in energy and agricultural sectors."

B.C. New Democrat MP Peter Julian, who accompanied Mulcair to Alberta this week, said the statements support Mulcair's notions about the so-called Dutch disease.

The term first was coined by the Economist magazine in the 1970s to describe the problems then experienced by the Netherlands, where offshore gas sales pumped up the currency and hurt manufacturers.

Mulcair has maintained that the Canadian dollar, artificially inflated by oilsands exports by companies that don't pay the full cost of their pollution, have caused the loss of 250,000 manufacturing jobs in recent years.

Many critics have ridiculed Mulcair's argument and suggested he's deliberately dividing Western Canada from the rest of the country to win votes in Ontario and Quebec.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford didn't meet with Mulcair during the NDP leader's visit, suggesting before his arrival that a meeting would be premature.

"Once he's actually seen the oilsands, once he's actually been briefed, then I'm prepared to try to have a constructive conversation with him," she said.

"So we'll see how it goes, but I think he's got some work to do first."

While academic studies on the Dutch disease have resulted in conflicting results, Julian said Mulcair is supported by studies such as those by the Pembina Institute and the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

- from today's Calgary Herald - Google's link does not appear to be working at the present time.

 

NorthReport

 

Harper's extremely generous benefits for the unemployed

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/harpers-extr...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Alberta Premier Allison Redford wrote:
"So we'll see how it goes, but I think he's got some work to do first." 

Pot, meet kettle.

theleftyinvestor

So Harper has no qualms about depriving Canadians of EI benefits they paid for already, nor about depriving workers of their bargaining rights, but is happy to hand out well-paid jobs to unemployed Conservatives.

I see the making of a "You had an option, sir" moment in the 2015 election debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_had_an_option,_sir

Ironically, Turner had planned to attack Mulroney over the patronage machine that the latter had allegedly set up in anticipation of victory. He launched what appeared to be the start of a blistering attack on Mulroney by comparing his patronage machine to that of the old Union Nationale in Quebec. However, Mulroney successfully turned the tables by pointing to the recent raft of Liberal patronage appointments. He apologized for originally making light of them, and demanded that Turner apologize to the country for making "these horrible appointments." Turner replied that he "had no option" except to let the appointments stand. Mulroney famously responded:


You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir — to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians.

Turner was visibly shaken by this riposte from Mulroney, and could only repeat, "I had no option." Mulroney called Turner's admission "an avowal of failure" and "a confession of non-leadership." He angrily told Turner, "You had an option, sir. You could have done better."

The exchange led most of the papers the next day, with most of them paraphrasing Mulroney's counterattack as "You had an option, sir — you could have said 'no.'"

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Quite sad really, to have a prime minister ignore such scientific evidence. 

Harper, Tory MPs challenge Kent on climate science, letters reveal
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Harper+Tory+challenge+Kent+cli...

NorthReport

 

Mulcair blames Harper for East-West divisions

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/02/pol-mulcair-speech-rall...

NorthReport

Well that didn't take long - don't mess with rich people's wealth is what Flanagan is really saying, as the rich have no intention of sharing it.

Mulcair, Trudeau, another NEP: the threat to Canadian unity

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/mulcair-trudeau-another-nep-th...

Sean in Ottawa

I am so annoyed with the media having dropped the practice they had many years ago of identifying insiders, party hacks and spokespeople on their articles. So those who are very political remember who all these people are and recognize that most of those attacking the NDP in the media are in fact Conservative party spokespeople being given free advertising. Many others don't know this and think the NDP must being doing something so bad to be condemned all around.

I think all people who have been associated directly with a political party by having been an MP or employee of an MP or the party should be identified in the press. The media used to do this when they had at least some integrity.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Well that didn't take long - don't mess with rich people's wealth is what Flanagan is really saying, as the rich have no intention of sharing it.
Mulcair, Trudeau, another NEP: the threat to Canadian unity

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/mulcair-trudeau-another-nep-th...

The article states that the NDP are proposing that "there should be a carbon tax to raise federal revenue".  This is one area where I do feel the NDP have steered in the wrong direction.  Any carbon pricing scheme should be exclusively for green initiatives, which was the NDP's former position, and not for general revenue, which seems to be its current position.  I predict this will become a problem in the future campaign.

janfromthebruce

I agree with Mark. A carbon tax to raise federal revenue reminds me of the Dion Libs election campaign from the past - I didn't like it at that time and nor did the public. I prefer the money going to green initiatives.

theleftyinvestor

janfromthebruce wrote:

I agree with Mark. A carbon tax to raise federal revenue reminds me of the Dion Libs election campaign from the past - I didn't like it at that time and nor did the public. I prefer the money going to green initiatives.

Dion's idea was not to raise revenues but to use the money to give tax breaks.

Mulcair could easily use it for federal revenues while still satisfying the green criterion, as long as he channels the money towards everything environmental that was previously cut by Harper. Transit funding, government scientists, environmental enforcement, you name it.

madmax

The NDP does not support a carbon tax. That is another regressive tax that is normally fronted by Green Party and Liberal Party platforms.

They have nothing to do with environment and everything to do with taxation.

Carbon Tax is failed policy and failed politics.

Policywonk

madmax wrote:
The NDP does not support a carbon tax. That is another regressive tax that is normally fronted by Green Party and Liberal Party platforms. They have nothing to do with environment and everything to do with taxation. Carbon Tax is failed policy and failed politics.

The Federal NDP. The BC NDP supports a carbon tax, but directed towards environmental initiatives and addressing inequality. Opposing it in BC was a political failure, particularly because it was BC NDP policy before and after the 2009 election campaign. The Federal NDP might support putting a price on carbon, but through cap-and-trade.

madmax

The Federal NDP does not support a Carbon Tax.

Perkins

I think it's a very bad idea for the NDP to support cap and trade instead of a carbon tax. Cap and trade systems are VERY convoluted, give large amounts of money to the banks (due to transaction fees, etc.), and have been an easy target for massive fraud and corruption. CBC's Ideas radio program addressed its terrible pitfalls in its "Demon Coal" documentary series (episode 2 of the series, to be precise).

We should get behind James Hansen's "fee and dividend" proposal which is very simple, effective, and progressive - the carbon fees collected are divided up equally and returned to all citizens equally. Most Canadians, especially poorer Canadians, would be better off under this proposal.

 

Perkins

The simplicity of Hansen's plan is what makes it work. It can be explained in one sentence, and many more people will benefit than will lose from the initiative. Dion's politically fatal mistake with his green shift was to make it convoluted, distributing the money to a whole bunch of initiatives. His mistake was not to realize that green initiatives should be funded out of general revenues, not a carbon tax. Unfortunately, the NDP's current cap and trade policy is awful because: (1) it is very regressive since prices will rise and there is no proposal (yet) on how to alleviate the effect of the price increases on the poor and lower middle class; (2) Cap and trade doesn't work very well due to the ease of defrauding the system (see previous post); (3) Mulcair seems to be treating the proposed system as a cash cow. Also, the main beneficiaries of the cap and trade system are the banks, certain corporations, and whoever receives the additional revenue collected. Politically and environmentally, the convoluted cap and trade proposal is not very smart.

quizzical

Perkins wrote:
We should get behind James Hansen's "fee and dividend" proposal which is very simple, effective, and progressive - the carbon fees collected are divided up equally and returned to all citizens equally. Most Canadians, especially poorer Canadians, would be better off under this proposal.

maybe it's too early in the morning for fine comprehension but why bother collecting at all if e1 is going to get it back?

Perkins

Hi quizzical,

Thanks for the question - I should have explained it better.  Let's say Canada has two people - one person is responsible for a large quantity of carbon emissions and pays $9000 in carbon taxes, and the other person is responsible for fewer emissions and pays $1000 in taxes.  Annually, both would receive $5000 back (Hansen's proposal has a monthly cheque sent out or a monthly direct deposit).  Both people would likely spend the money on less carbon intensive products, as they cost relatively less than the others.

mark_alfred

Poorer Canadians are less able to adapt via retrofitting their homes, etc., without government intervention.  And seems that rather than having the incentive to improve (provided via the opportunity to sell permits that would be possible to environmentally efficient companies in cap and trade, who thus could lower prices to consumers) businesses would simply pass expenses onto consumers with this Hansen thing.  So, I'll take cap and trade over any sort of carbon flat tax scheme any day. 

I heard the CBC program you referred to, and one of the main issues seemed to be companies who were defrauding cap and trade systems.  The need here is for better regulation of the system, rather than throwing away standards (caps).  For example, it's like restaurants:  the fact that some restaurants are dirty is not an argument to do away with standards of cleanliness, rather it's an argument for more inspectors.

Brachina

Tom wants to target younger voters, were talking about teenagers who will be of voting age in 2015. I think this is a wonderful idea.

Perkins

I think that Tom Mulcair is well aware of the potential pitfalls of cap and trade.  He is very knowledgable on the subject.  It's possible that he thinks that Harper and the MSM have "poisoned the well" in terms of the high political cost of proposing a carbon tax.  However, if anyone can sell the carbon fee and dividend proposal, it's Tom. 

@mark_alfred:  I disagree with your criticism of the Hansen proposal.  It would have a far greater wealth redistribution effect (mainly benefiting the poor and lower middle class) than the inherently regressive cap and trade system.  Don't confuse Hansen's proposal with the type of carbon tax supported by right wingers such as Andrew Coyne who aren't in complete denial about climate change.  They support a carbon tax only in its most regressive form in which it is accompanied by income tax cuts.  They would likely have a fit over the carbon fee and dividend plan.

Brachina

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections-canada-sides-with-t...

Elections Canada disgusts me, making the NDP sound corrupt, when the NDP inquired as to what it was doing was okay with elections Canada before it did it. Its funny how EC has the money and time to nail the NDP, but massive Tory corruption, including electoral fraud, some how slides by. I'm sicken by EC, just sickened. I think EC needs to be imvestiagated.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Quebec has this amazing program called RénoVillage  which allowed me to renovate my home at low cost. The Municipality receives a list of low income people living in its jurisdiction who need help to retrofit their homes, and puts these folks on a list and goes down the list as quickly as money is made available. I'm still doing renovations to the house and other buildings on my property - it's taking a long time because you can only apply to RénoVillage the one time, and I instead got a low-cost loan from my co-op (Desjardins) to finish the rest of the work.

Ippurigakko

Brachina, how about Mayrand resigns?

Vansterdam Kid

There was an interesting article about why so many working class voters vote against their economic interests in the Guardian today. I think it applies to Canada too and I think Mulcair (and a party led by him) would be more effective in countering these problems, which is why I think some on the left are so skeptical of him, as he doesn't appeal to them in the way a traditional left-wing leader would (or in their opinion should).

Aristotleded24

Vansterdam Kid wrote:
There was an interesting article about why so many working class voters vote against their economic interests in the Guardian today. I think it applies to Canada too and I think Mulcair (and a party led by him) would be more effective in countering these problems, which is why I think some on the left are so skeptical of him, as he doesn't appeal to them in the way a traditional left-wing leader would (or in their opinion should).

Only problem is that he doesn't offer any solutions.

Vansterdam Kid

It's a medical anaylsis of the problem, not a solution in the traditional sense.

But, assuming you buy the problem I think the solutions are fairly obvious and when it's less of a pain in the ass for me to type this, I'll get to them

.

Stockholm

It's an interesting article but very American. In the US you have this phenomenon of so many "white working class" people voting GOP. In Canada it's a very different situation. Here haing a low income is the biggest predictor of voting NDP and having a high income is correlated with voting Tory. Of course there are SOME working class people who vote Conservative, but most do not. Why else do you think the NDP sweeps Hamilton and Windsor while the Toies keep winning Oakville?

Doug

I wouldn't say it's all social conservatisml. If you're run off your feet with work, aren't getting wage increases and your pension sucks, it looks like the grass is undeservedly greener in the public sector and cutting that and reducing your taxes might be the only way you'll get ahead. Further to that, the right really does a much better job of speaking to people's aspirations than the left does - getting a better job, opening a business, ensuring the success of your children and so on.

mark_alfred

Regarding Mulcair's comments on the oilsands, he frequently said that his issue was with Harper's Conservatives, and not with the western provincial Premiers.  The issue he cited with the Conservatives is that they are not properly enforcing current regulations on companies extracting bitumen from the oilsands.  Does anyone know specifically what he is talking about here?  What current statutes and regulations are not being properly enforced by the Tories?

Brachina

Ippurigakko wrote:

Brachina, how about Mayrand resigns?

It'd be a start, but truthfully I think the problem is bigger then any one man. Compare the shitty way the federal election was run and the way the Ontario election, which was so smooth and together, it was a pleasure voting.

Maynard should be fired and replaced by the guy running the Ontario elections who would be tasked with fixing EC till it runs as smoothly as Ontario does.

Brachina

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

There was an interesting article about why so many working class voters vote against their economic interests in the Guardian today. I think it applies to Canada too and I think Mulcair (and a party led by him) would be more effective in countering these problems, which is why I think some on the left are so skeptical of him, as he doesn't appeal to them in the way a traditional left-wing leader would (or in their opinion should).

Agreed. Mulcair addresses fairness via. Via fairer taxes (aka why don't these guys pay,thier fair share) and making people clean up thier own mess (aka polluter pay), Authority/Sactity via fighting against Tory corruption and disrepect for parliament and other institutions, Liberity via fighting against the internet snooping state (in fact I believe a NDP MP recently accused Harper of trying to build a nanny state), Loyalty via the fight over Dutch Disease, abit most seeming to be in central Canada's favour hence to boost to Ontario's support, and of course care (pretty much most NDP policies).

mark_alfred

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

There was an interesting article about why so many working class voters vote against their economic interests in the Guardian today. I think it applies to Canada too and I think Mulcair (and a party led by him) would be more effective in countering these problems, which is why I think some on the left are so skeptical of him, as he doesn't appeal to them in the way a traditional left-wing leader would (or in their opinion should).

Thanks for the link to the interesting article, VK.  While the article is largely American, I think there is some of that reality here in Canada as well. 

I think a part of it is that much of the rhetoric of the left has been co-opted by the right.  For instance, years ago "freedom" and "liberty" were terms associated with the left.  Be free from dress codes!  Freely grow your hair!  Freely wear casual clothing and not a suit (or skirt)!  Burn your brassiere!  Feminism and women's liberation!  Freedom of choice (aka pro-choice)!  Free from military service!  Men and women CAN freely sit together in pubs*!  Women are free to vote!  Workers are free to organize!  Free to love your own sex!  etc.

The right, on the other hand, was associated with words like "responsibility", "honour", "obligation", "duty", and other various non-fun sort of things.  For instance, "it is your duty to serve on the army", "dress honourably", "it is your obligation to be a virgin before marriage", etc.  So, easy to see why the "common man/woman" began voting for more left leaning (fun-leaning) parties, especially as religion became less prevalent in people's lives.

But, today, things are reversed.  When we think of "responsibility", "honour", "obligation", or "duty", it's usually in terms of helping the poor, protecting the environment, paying higher taxes, paying more for "fair trade", etc.  When we think of "freedom" or "liberty", we think of free trade (allegedly bringing business opportunities and greater employment), freedom from the constraints of political correctness, joining the army to fight for freedom, freedom to just shop at Wal~Mart** without some socialist preaching at us, freedom from taxes, freedom from red-tape***, freedom to wear high-heels (for women, anyway), etc.  So, easy to see now why the common man/woman now would consider switching from the formerly fun-leaning but now more responsibility-leaning left parties and start voting for the newly fun-leaning right parties.  It's all about the ideas that we associate between the two of them.

I think Layton was aware of this, and strove to offer more than mere responsibility.  He focussed much on freedom, IE freedom from bank service charges, etc.  Still, I think even more focus should be put on this.  For instance, take the recent issue about "gay-straight alliance" clubs in Ontario.  The issue was that the Ontario government, in the Safe Schools Act, mandated that students would have the right, if they so chose, to name an anti-bullying club a "gay-straight alliance".  The Catholic School Board objected, saying that they approved of anti-bullying clubs, but could not approve of a name such as "gay-straight alliance".  This conflict came to be interpreted as the Liberal government limiting freedom by directing how such anti-bullying clubs would be named (a frequent question was "what about victims of bullying who are not gay?") and the Catholic School Board representing "freedom" by opposing this.  This interpretation of the conflict is completely ludicrous, given that the bill does not direct the naming of the clubs, but simply contains a provision to ensure the FREEDOM of the students, if they so wish, to name the clubs "gay straight alliances".  However, generally it is understood that the government is being RESPONSIBLE to the gay community by limiting the FREEDOM of the Catholic Church to not limit the freedom of the students to name the clubs as they wish.  This understanding, as bizarre as it is, shows how prevalent the association with "freedom" that right-wingers are, and how associated with more mundane things like "responsibility" that left wingers are.  In fact, it should be seen as the government ensuring that students have full freedom to protect all and to name their clubs however they wish, even against repressive forces who would deny them such freedom.  But it's not seen that way.  Rather it's seen as left-wing=responsibility for gay rights (having to limit the chuch's "freedom" to ensure it) and right-wing=freedom (standing up for the church against government directives).  Granted, this particular example is nonetheless a winner for the left-wing, but it still is a good example of how terminology formerly associated with the left-wing has been co-opted by the right in the public consciousness.

The other issue, of course, is the redefining of "economic interest".  More working class people had manufacturing jobs back when most things were manufactured in Canada (clothing, etc.), and these jobs were unionized.  Now, most working class people are in retail or service, which relies more heavily on the free market.  Thus, as things are now, it's not unreasonable for people to think that a less regulated society equals better job prospects.  I'm glad Mulcair is starting to address this issue with his Dutch disease comments.  Hopefully more will be offered to assure working people that their economic interests are better served by the social democratic NDP than the free market Liberals or Conservatives.  We'll see.

*note, it wasn't that long ago, maybe 60 or so years, that men and women in Conservative old Ontario were segregated in pubs, much the same way that washrooms are still segregated today.  When I travelled to England in my youth, I was expressing some dismay at what I felt were some odd customs there when an older Englishman recognized my Toronto accent and stated, "you're one to talk, coming from the backward society of Canada where men and women can't even have a pint together in the pubs!"  I assured him that we were no longer as backwardly conversative as that -- and I also apologized and acknowledged that yes, nothing I encountered in England was as bizarre as what he encountered in Canada.

**or McDonalds, or any other chain that most people feel comfortable in (I personally love CoffeeTime -- heck, I would live there if they let me).

***anyone who's had to apply for a government service like welfare or ODSP knows how utterly frustrating it can be to deal with them.  The urge to want to lash out back at the government becomes very strong after such dealings.

mark_alfred

Brachina wrote:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections-canada-sides-with-t... Elections Canada disgusts me, making the NDP sound corrupt, when the NDP inquired as to what it was doing was okay with elections Canada before it did it. Its funny how EC has the money and time to nail the NDP, but massive Tory corruption, including electoral fraud, some how slides by. I'm sicken by EC, just sickened. I think EC needs to be imvestiagated.

 

In fairness to Elections Canada, they also have been pretty thorough in investigating Tory misdeeds, including even raiding Tory offices at one point.  Anyway, it does point to one unsettling factor about the NDP and that is fundraising.  While Tories can almost brush off Elections Canada investigations given their massively successful fundraising machine, I'm guessing that such investigations are more dire to the NDP.  Of the three main parties, the NDP is dead last when it comes to fundraising, even being outdone by the Liberals.  Observe the numbers from the Elections Canada website for the quarterly return of March 2012:

Cons:    5,003,586.09 from 36,269 contributers (so, 137.96 per contributer)
Libs:    2,332,773.71 from 22,867 contributers (so, 102.01 per contributer)
NDP:    1,996,989.42 from 21,981 contributers (so, 90.85 per contribuer)
Greens:    258,444.49 from 3,846 contributers (so, 67.20 per contributer)

Hopefully the next quarter will be better.  But if it continues like this, then the NDP will never be able to win.  In the same way that those who believe in big business - law and order - turn back the clock and create a Dickens' tale for us now sort of society are willing to contribute to the champions of their vision (Libs and Cons), I'd say that those who believe in a more egalitarian society should show the same commitment and contribute at least $20 a month toward the NDP*.

*those on social assistance should only contribute to the provincial wing of the NDP, since federal tax donations are non-refundable (IE, they're only good for reducing income taxes, but if you aren't paying income taxes, then you won't see anything from them, whereas you will get a credit from the provincial donations -- at least in Ontario you will.)

Brachina

http://canadiantrends.blogspot.ca/2012/06/gm-jobs-to-be-sent-abroad-to-u...

The blog makes some good points, but I disagree that dutch disease isn't responsible. I believe the value of our resource wealth is partially responsible for our housing bubble so one can concider it a strain of dutch disease, with symtoms beyond a high dollar and the economic effects of a high dollar. One fear I have is the housing bubble bursts just as we win government and we end up wearing Tory stupidity. It wouldn't be the first time the right did this to the left.

socialdemocrati...

I think that's a good observation about moral language. These things aren't hard categories. The oilsands vs. the environment could be liberty vs. care -- which is how the Conservatives want it. But there's also the language of responsibility and fairness: who is making all the money, and who is going to pay for the environmental and economic damage (see: dutch disease). Even if these moral values are somewhat fixed, the way we apply that morality to the world is a matter of perspective.

Not to get too theoretical... but the underpinnings of our democratic society are still rooted in the French enlightenment: "liberty, equality, solidarity". I tend to think of those as primary colors: red, blue, and yellow.

In my experience, liberty has gotten most of the airplay in the past 30 years. I still care very much about equality and solidarity. But I've learned not to fight with those who don't care. Liberty still THE most powerful trump card in the West.

It just so happens that Liberals and Conservatives focus on a very narrow definition of liberty: freedom from government. But these days, most of us aren't being stomped on or locked up by the government. (Not yet, anyway.) The forces that take away our freedom are much more subtle, and much more widespread.

How much freedom do you have when your choice is between two equally shitty cell phone companies? Three equally shitty gas stations? Four equally shitty banks with the same unnecessary fees?

How much freedom do you have when there are no jobs, and someone says "if you do a three month training internship and perform really well, MAYBE we'll hire you?" (By the way, if you want the job, pee in this cup.)

How much freedom do you have when your company asks you to work until midnight with no overtime pay, and if you say no they'll just replace you with a cheap outsourced worker from a country with no environmental or labor standards?

Not to say we can't frame those issues in terms of equality (everyone should be able to keep up with the cost of living) or solidarity (take care of each other) or any other moral value. But you may as well become fluent in moral language, so that you can describe these issues in their full moral scope. That's the only way to show everyone how backwards our culture has become.

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

It just so happens that Liberals and Conservatives focus on a very narrow definition of liberty: freedom from government. But these days, most of us aren't being stomped on or locked up by the government. (Not yet, anyway.) The forces that take away our freedom are much more subtle, and much more widespread.

How much freedom do you have when your choice is between two equally shitty cell phone companies? Three equally shitty gas stations? Four equally shitty banks with the same unnecessary fees?

How much freedom do you have when there are no jobs, and someone says "if you do a three month training internship and perform really well, MAYBE we'll hire you?" (By the way, if you want the job, pee in this cup.)

How much freedom do you have when your company asks you to work until midnight with no overtime pay, and if you say no they'll just replace you with a cheap outsourced worker from a country with no environmental or labor standards?

Agreed.  This is what will bring the NDP to power, I feel.  People will get fed up and throw the Cons out.

 

Policywonk

Perkins wrote:

I think that Tom Mulcair is well aware of the potential pitfalls of cap and trade.  He is very knowledgable on the subject.  It's possible that he thinks that Harper and the MSM have "poisoned the well" in terms of the high political cost of proposing a carbon tax.  However, if anyone can sell the carbon fee and dividend proposal, it's Tom. 

@mark_alfred:  I disagree with your criticism of the Hansen proposal.  It would have a far greater wealth redistribution effect (mainly benefiting the poor and lower middle class) than the inherently regressive cap and trade system.  Don't confuse Hansen's proposal with the type of carbon tax supported by right wingers such as Andrew Coyne who aren't in complete denial about climate change.  They support a carbon tax only in its most regressive form in which it is accompanied by income tax cuts.  They would likely have a fit over the carbon fee and dividend plan.

I'm in support of cap and dividend (or cap and share). In terms of cap and trade, I'm not clear it can be written off as inherently regressive; the devil is in the details. This one seems to be working:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/05/495282/rggi-states-cut-co2-b...

Brachina

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-reveal-cos... This practically has globe and mail and Tory drool all over it. I hate who ever came up with the ad. Making this out to be some big corruption scandal is disgusting, especially if Mulcair has a letter from EC stating that the NDP did nothing wrong. Anyway to fundraising ideas why doesn't the party throw some fundraising concerts and stuff, which would support and promote Canadian artists while raising funds from those that normally don't donate political. Same with ideas like art exibitions, tickets cost a donation and if you've already maxed out your contribution you can get free tickets. How about bake sales? Some other ideas/questions is for the NDP,to offer some sort of rebate of the none tax deductible portion of the donation? Like say a low income Canadian donates 400 dollars and after he/she gets the money back or saved on thier income taxes, can the NDP rebate the difference so it costs the donor nothing over the long term? Also can the NDP or a third party loan people who donate money the money with which to donate to be payed back with tax savings?

Edit: I meant headline, not ad, fruedian slip.

Brachina

On a happier note, it appears that the Altantic Premiers have made an alliance against Harper's EI reforms. Its ironic that Harper has done more to create a hostile East West relations then Mulcair has for all the attacks on Mulcair.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/atlantic-premiers-band-togeth...

Brachina

Even Tasha's reading the writing on wall. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/search/Talking+tough+Europe/6742257/story....

Tasha's interptation of what happens if Harper loses the battle over Austerity is better then Iversons, it won't cause brand confusion between the NDP and the Tories, but it could lead some of the Tories far right vote to stay home and thier populist vote to shift to the NDP, maybe even help unify the antiharper vote.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/search/Note+steer+clear+stimulus/6742226/s...

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/search/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2...

Nice touch at the end where the Tories try accuse the NDP of attacking Barack Obama because the NDP opposes outsourcing enviromental monitoring to American government. There is no word in the English,language to discribe how stunned that is.

NorthReport

What, have some class and step aside until investigation is completed - not on your life! 

Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro denies election spending wrongdoing

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Conservative+Dean+Mastro+denies+elec...

Ippurigakko

Tom Mulcair looks like Mackenzie King doesn't he?

prime ministerial.

I heard King was the 3rd best prime minister in Canada.

I can imagine if Mulcair dont have beard he'd looks like him!

Dont you think?

knownothing knownothing's picture

Ippurigakko wrote:

Tom Mulcair looks like Mackenzie King doesn't he?

prime ministerial.

I heard King was the 3rd best prime minister in Canada.

I can imagine if Mulcair dont have beard he'd looks like him!

Dont you think?

 

Hopefully he doesn't inherit all of King's attributes

Doctor Manderly

Concription if necessary...but not necessarily conscription....Smile

Brachina

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-refusal-to-help-bail-...

See that bloody smear on the floor, that's Canada's international reputation bleeding to death like road kill after Harper once again ran over it.

We the EU falls, the ripples will cause a politically crippled US to fall, which combined will cause us to fall, even the,Tories admit this, but when asked to help fight this, the Tories respond is it Europes problem. Way to protect the Canadian economy. I do agree the structural problems in Europe need addressing, but Europe needs enough time for Germany to,dump her lady of Austerity, Merkel.

Btw why did Nash contradict Mulcair, especially since Mulcair is right. Anyone else find Nash to be a disappointing Finance critic so far? I hope she gets shuffled to industry and Peter Julian gets finance back. I mean Nathan Cullen as house leader appears to be eclipsing her on matters of finance which seems odd. If not Julian how about Linda Duncion or Megan
Leslie in Finance?

Speaking of which Nathan appears to be a major player, especially when it comes to PR in cacus. I'd even say he's one of our star players right now.

NorthReport

Brace yourselves BCers, as this will soon be coming to a place near where you live and or vacation.

And so much for fresh drinking water - how long will they have to boil water in that area? And I suppose the animals are just "collateral damage"

Sustainable - don't think so. Quite sad indeed but good ammo for Mulcair here.

'My place is destroyed': Albertan in wake of Red Deer River oil spill

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/my-place-is-destroyed-alber...

 

 

NorthReport

Canadians are already paying for it right now - just ask the people in the Red Deer area today.

Canadians will pay for Harper's approach to environment: former Tory

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Canadians+will+Harper+approach...

 

Pages

Topic locked