NDP Leadership 74

Layton was as careful to say he would cancel the deal as he was to he was to say that he didn't oppose buying F-35s just not now- the priority should be on warships- because the planes don't need to be replaced until 2016. The only other thing Layton said is that the NDP wanted a review of Canada's Defence Policy when asked point blank at a campaign event by a woman with a son in the Air Force whether or not Layton planned to purchase F-35s at that later date and especially given that they were what the Canadian Forces had determined to be "the best" replacement..

You are making the same mistake as Topp but unlike him, I assume you are doing it honestly. The figure of 35% is an average for the combined state and federal corporate tax rate for the United States. In Canada, the combined provincial and federal corporate tax rates will drop to an average of about 34% after the corporate tax reductions the Conservatives are bringing in in the next federal budget.

I agree with you that it would be great if the NDP would get on board with supporting legalisation. The policy could be as simple as getting Health Canada to delist marijuana so that the provinces could develop their own regulations. However, I have not heard any leadership candidate mention anything on marijuana and since at least the Halifax convention (2009), the NDP seems to run away from the question of marijuana policy as if it was some kind of contagious disease.

Seems Hebert is only a right-winger when she writes something negative about the NDP...

 

wage zombie wrote:

 

 

I think the economy is fundamentally changing, and I don't see the NDP candidates offering much substance to address this.  I haven't read Topp's paper, maybe he talks about it.  Additionally, we seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place--there's a lot that we can't do with NAFTA in place, and it doesn't seem like anyone thinks we can really get out of it.

Frankly, I'd say policies like giving every school aged child a tablet computer (which would actually be pretty cheap to do) would go a lot further towards pointing things in the right direction than talking about our manufacturing base.

 

Yes the economy is changing and will never be the same as before. However, giving everyone a computer or even training everyone in the latest computer technologies is not THE solution either (although it may be part of it). If we cannot compete in manufacturing, do you expect that we can compete with computer programers and technologists in India earning $4-5,000 a year? Or for that matter in financial services, which resulted in a bloated industry in terms of both costs and employment levels while the boom lasted, or even in the legal profession, where much of the routine work is already farmed out by computers to countries like India at a small fraction of North American costs?

Only fields such as health care where the service has to be offered locally can avoid this globalization process. Many such services are government-run (health, police, fire, and education to some extent). Therefore we now see the attack on the public sector  as privileged workers. We need to focus on rebuilding the middle class by adding good paying jobs instead of always being on the defensive, fending off attacks on those who still have decent paying work.

China spent $221 billion in 2009 and is planning on spending $1.7 trillion in the next five years o

n green technologies. In 2009, the United States government allocated $2.3 billion in tax credits for green industries. Many of these are manufacturing industries.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/8904733/China-unveils-1-trillion-green-technology-programme.html

 

http://economyincrisis.org/content/us-neglecting-green-industries-its-own-expense                                                        

 We need to maintain a innovative manufacturing base that has a major green component because the resource, financial and professional sectors will not provide enough jobs to maintain a substantial middle class. We can start by refusing to sell the vast majority of our natural resources to foreign countries unless we also get manufacturing jobs here (the sale of raw logs abroad is a good example of what not to do). We also need to capture some of the growing green industries (even a small fraction will generate many jobs in a country with Canada's population). Both Britain and the United States have paid dearly for abandoning their industrial bases (look at the long depressed US Midwest and the British Midlands) in favour of banking computer-based economies whose bubbles have now burst. A diversified economy still is the best way of reducing the effects of economic fluctuations. 

Who cares what a pundit is saying? They almost always miss the point. Voters don't think in left-right. They think in terms of who made their lives better, who kept their promises, who looked out for people like them, and who didn't. I doubt very many people even know that a seat just flipped hands. Those that do are either partisans who cheer blindly for their team, or the actual local voters, who are annoyed.

If you want to understand how things are going to pan out in 2015, you need a much more sophisticated analysis, or a hell of a lot more humility to look at long-term trends instead of weekly gossip.

Good idea. Let's talk about jobs again.

Manufacturing jobs are still important for a lot of reasons.

We still have a decent number of skilled workers in manufacturing areas, particularly in automotive. They have skill, and need jobs.

The world is always going to need people to manufacture *something*, whether it's cars, canned foods, or solar panels.

We need some manufacturing base just as a natural security concern. Do you really want to be reliant on a totalitarian nation like China to supply most of our machinery and equipment?

As Brian Topp pointed out eloquently, we have something worse than the "dutch disease", where oil exports are driving up our dollar and killing our manufacturing base. We're also doing that for other raw resources, like lumber and aluminum. Resource economies are extremely low skilled, low paying, and volatile. We need a value-added manufacturing economy where we actually use our own oil, lumber, and aluminum, instead of selling it at commodity prices.

I'm a member of the "creative class" myself, but the idea that we're all gonna be "knowledge workers" is just unrealistic and dangerous.

Just watched the "telejournal" and they did not even mention this event!

Perhaps we should all write to Radio-Canada and complain...

A piece in Friday's Globe Business Report poiints out that Quebec's jobless rate is suddenly soaring, pointing to the need for New Democrats to advance a solution to economic malaise. "It's almost as if the recession has cought up with Quebec. Economists are at a loss to explain why the province, which limped through the slump but didn't suffer the extent of job losses as elsewhere in Canada, is suddenly seeing deep cuts...While a single month of job losses could be dismissed as a statistical blip, three consecutive months of declines - from October to December at a cost of almost 70,000 positions - can't be...Its unemployment rate has risen to 8.7 per cent from 7.3 per cent in September, above the nationalaverage and the highest in more than two years... "A confluence of factors appear to be at play, from still-weak U.S.demand to the wind-up of government spending on infrastructure and global challenges slamming the provinces forestry and manufacturing sectors...some say a high cost of doing business is another key factor. Unit labour costs or the costs of producing here, with wages of $25 or $30 an hour, is not as viable for these businesses as it used to be, because of technology and emerging markets," said one economist. Still to come, federal government plans to cut "thousands of public sector jobs" in the Ottawa-Gatineau area. "Numbers so far suggest Quebec has stalled, not fallen into a recession. The province grew just 1.3 per cent in the third quarter of last year at an annualized rate, compared with an annual rate of 3.5 per cent for all of Canada...The weakness is centered in the private sector. Five months of head-count declines in the private sector amount to 103,000 positions, the worst drop ever, according to Stefane Marion, chief economist at National Bank of Canada."

The question is how you encorage innovation and development.

And a good starting place is to recognize that the main action is not at the GMs, Fords, and GEs of the economy.... even all those have and use high tech and innovation. So stop tayloring government programs as if you are aiming at them.

Targeted innovation and R&D incentives are nice.

But from where I have sat at the lower reaches of the economy, those programs are notoriously unsuited to your business. And your main problem is being starved for capital. [For which second best freer access to loan financing is better than nothing, but is often a noose waiting to close on you later.]

Why I am endorsing Paul Dewar: Charlie Angus

 

My name is Charlie Angus. For the last seven years I've proudly served my community as an MP for Timmins-James Bay in Northern Ontario. 

 

I got involved in politics because of Jack Layton. He shared with me his vision for a more caring Canada and asked me to help build that dream. 

 

It's been some months since our friend Jack passed, and, as New Democrats, we're asking ourselves how we can build on his work and our breakthrough last May. 

 

For me, the answer is clear. Paul Dewar connects with families and their priorities and is the best person to carry on Jack's work. 

 

He brings to the table the kind of ideas, energy and leadership that a majority of Canadians want from their government. 

 

This is a Real Majority that works hard to pay their taxes, send their kids to school and build a future for their family. They're people that want health care to be there for them, when they need it. They want education and job opportunities for young people. And they want to know our seniors are being looked after

 

The Real Majority includes those communities that are being ignored by the Harper Conservatives - like the people of Attawapiskat.

 

But the Real Majority isn't benefiting from Stephen Harper's majority government. Mr. Harper's priority has been tax breaks for banks and oil companies. As New Democrats, we know that's wrong.

 

Paul wants Canadians to believe again that their government can make a positive difference in their lives - that working together, we can find solutions to the problems families face

 

I share Paul's optimism and I know he can lead us there

 

Right now, Paul's reaching out to the grassroots of our party, in communities across the province - and he's building an incredible team. Just last week, respected environmentalist, lawyer and the only opposition MP in Alberta, Linda Duncan, joined our team. 

 

Now, I want you to be a part of it. Join Paul's team and speak up for the Real Majority.

It can't happen without you. 

 

Charlie Angus 

 

P.S. Read the op-ed Paul and I published today on how we're going to win the next 70 seats needed to form a Real Majority. Click here to read it now.

I'm with oo. Anyone that does the research will find out how cheap an NDP membership is. The challenge is to get them interested, not to show how cheap a date the NDP is. I've used the it only costs $x argument before, but only after I know someone is interested (e.g. only ever votes NDP) and needs a poke to get off the fence.

You can buy a drink in Toronto for $5

Wow, my opinion of Charlie Angus is taking a nosedive. It's not just empty rhetoric - it's wrong.

"Works hard to pay their taxes" is false. Taxes are deducted at source, unless he's talking about the middle-class self-employed (because the poor don't pay income tax). You get what's left over after taxes are deducted. Or is it sales tax and property tax (for the lucky young home-owners)?? Why is he talking about paying taxes at all??

Folks don't "work hard ... to send their kids to school". Tuition is free - unless he's talking about textbooks and other fees. But why not talk instead about the expense of raising kids in general? Such as child care, so that parents (i.e. primarily women) are freed from the home so they can go "work hard"??

As for "build a future for their family" - that's the empty rhetoric part.

And how does all this distinguish Paul Dewar from the other candidates? They don't "connect" with "families and their priorities" as well as Dewar? They won't be able to "carry on Jack's work" as well?

Pretty shameful stuff. Not worthy of Charlie Angus. Maybe worthy of Paul Dewar.

 

According to this article, Mulcair intends, if he were to become prime minister, to keep the French citizenship he acquired by virtue of being the spouse of a French citizen.

Scandale! I'm outraged!

(Not.)

The same article provides the interesting anecdote that his wife once ran for the UMP in France (i.e., Sarkozy's party).

good write-up

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

The only relevance the citizenship thing has in the NDP is whether the Cons could use it against Mulcair as Leader. Anything is possible. But that is well beyond the line of where we want to go. [And it would be a double edged sword if the Cons wanted to go there.]