Rachel Notley Says Jagmeet Singh Is Throwing Working Class People Under The Bus

While I hope we can one one day achieve a world where we just leave the oil in the ground and fuel our economy from more sustainable sources, the current reality is that we need to extract and use oil and shipping it through a pipeline is a lot safer than many other means.

Personally I would have preferred if Jagmeet saved some more wiggle room for himself rather than throwing one of the only two current provincial NDP governments under the bus. But this is probably what he needs to do if he wants to run in Burnaby.

Unlike other parties federal and provincial NDP share the same member list. If you are a member of NDP you are automatically a member of provincial as well as federal parties. As far as membership goes, essentially it is one party where the members of different provinces chose thier own leader.

I could be totally off base with my understanding of how it works, please correct me if I am wrong.

So NDP members in one province are against NDP members of another province. Basically it is an internal war.

Question is who do the NDP membership of Alberta support, Notley or Singh. 

If they support Notley then Singh doesnt have the confidence of big segment of the party.

If they support Singh then Notley doesnt enjoy the confidence of the membership which chose her as leader and she should step down.

robbie_dee wrote:

While I hope we can one one day achieve a world where we just leave the oil in the ground and fuel our economy from more sustainable sources, the current reality is that we need to extract and use oil and shipping it through a pipeline is a lot safer than many other means.

Another climate change denyer. Who needs a habitable planet compared to jobs in the oil industry. If we burn the tar sands at the expanded rate proposed by the pipeline expansion we will bake the planet. That is not an opinon that is a fucking fact.  Maybe you should use science as a guide and not a version of "reality" pushed by the corporate media.

What do you call an NDP leader who wins an election? 

- A Liberal.    Or in case of Alberta, a progressive conservative.

Sorry to ask a pointed question, but your opinions boil down to one issue which I agree it is a pretty overriding issue. However I pay only passing interest in Alberta politics and I can think of a many areas where the NDP has been quite progressive.  I am totally okay with someone saying that the Notley has lost them due to the Tarsands pipeline, but to say she is identical to the crazy nutcase that leads the conservative party is just wrong.

Mm tradesmen have to go to school for years. even the dirt work guys know more than the edumacated often.

just stop with your classist bs.

quizzical wrote:

in the meantime the biggest oil shill doing things absolutely corruptly Justin gets a pass by smithee. typical liberals.

Oh. Did I go against 'progressive' orthodoxy by not taking an obligatory shot at Trudeau even though he has nothing to do with the point I was making? Yeah. OK.

Who the fuck is giving Trudeau a free pass? I'm talking specifically about Notley because she's a supposed New Democrat and should not be acting the way she is. I'm also talking about people who tried to argue against me about Notley. Now it's confirmed for everyone to see.

I suggest you invest in a clue before commenting. And YOU are a typical NDP hyper- partisan living in denial.

Not sure what sort of place some imagine Alberta is, but if you can't go there and see for yourself, this information is readily available online:

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr67j-eng.htm

They even make moving pictures there, you know. But then Alberta isn't alone when it comes to myths about the resource sector as economic engine. B.C. has it just as bad, as do many of our provinces even if it isn't about oil.

And I heard Singh on The Sunday Edition last week. He said Notley was doing what was best for Alberta, and Horgan was doing what was best for B.C. He laid the blame squarely on Justin Trudeau.

..behind the tarsands project and pipelines are transnational corporations that move around the world stripping countries of their wealth..by hook or by crook. the processes used to achieve this is never, i repeat never in the interests of the peoples of a country even though some benefit.

..in particular, in canada, at the center of this corporate pillage are the indigenous folk, their territories and their rights. i have no doubt that all on babble understand this yet this issue, which is at the center, is constantly being framed in other terms. in this case the "working class". as if the distruction of indigenous rights is not coming from the same forces that are destroying working class rights. the very same forces that are enforcing austerity. the same forces that created the environmental crisis.

..why are those connections not being addressed in a meaningful way in this discussion? why is it not acknowledged that the indigenous struggles around the pipelines are saving our asses? why isn't it acknowledged that there are alternatives? over and over again folks on babble have posted alternatives yet it is like that never happened. and someone says prove it..what alternatives like that hasn't been answered many times.

quizzical wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

quizzical wrote:

in the meantime the biggest oil shill doing things absolutely corruptly Justin gets a pass by smithee. typical liberals.

Oh. Did I go against 'progressive' orthodoxy by not taking an obligatory shot at Trudeau even though he has nothing to do with the point I was making? Yeah. OK.

Who the fuck is giving Trudeau a free pass? I'm talking specifically about Notley because she's a supposed New Democrat and should not be acting the way she is. I'm also talking about people who tried to argue against me about Notley. Now it's confirmed for everyone to see.

I suggest you invest in a clue before commenting. And YOU are a typical NDP hyper- partisan living in denial.

your point is bs. if you're calling Notley a right wing oil shill then Trudeau is well beyond

you also obviously have no idea who NDP people really are.

just because they obviously no longer play to the nonNDPers game who want them to be some kinda purity driven party or other phoney shit to keep them out doesn't mean anyone is being a shill.

Your comment is pure bullshit. I've been wailing away at Notley for at least a month because she's a New Democrat and acting like a capital C Conservative. I have been talking about her specifically.

I  don't share your horseshit dogma where I am obligated to trash the Liberals and never question the NDP.

Notledy is an embarrassment for a New Democrat. She shouldn't even be referred as one.

And accusing me of making people pass a ' purity' test? LOL..You have a lot of nerve,hypocrite.

Sorry. Unlike you and a majoority of New Democrats,I prefer the Liberals over the Coonservatives and I always will until the day comes that they become as socially conservative as our current CPC.

So spare me your sanctimonious trite. Maybe get off your high horse and look at reality even if it doesn't fit your dogmatic garbage.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

While I hope we can one one day achieve a world where we just leave the oil in the ground and fuel our economy from more sustainable sources, the current reality is that we need to extract and use oil and shipping it through a pipeline is a lot safer than many other means.

Another climate change denyer. Who needs a habitable planet compared to jobs in the oil industry. If we burn the tar sands at the expanded rate proposed by the pipeline expansion we will bake the planet. That is not an opinon that is a fucking fact.  Maybe you should use science as a guide and not a version of "reality" pushed by the corporate media.

I appreciate that you are honest with your intentions and that, as far as you are concerned there are no amount of safety precautions that could be taken nor any combination of policies  that Alberta could adopt to get "social license" to build this pipeline because you think the oil should stay in the ground. Do you drive a car that uses gasoline? In addition to paying higher gas prices (because less oil on the market means gas will get more expensive), would you be willing to pay higher taxes so the federal government could compensate Alberta residents for the lost opportunity to exploit their natural resources (i.e. by subsidizing the development of more non-extractive industries)? I know these questions may sound facetious but I'm actually being serious. I agree with you that climate change is a real and serious problem. I just think that if we are going to pursue the solutions you suggest we should get real about what it is going to cost to do so.

robbie_dee wrote:

I appreciate that you are honest with your intentions and that, as far as you are concerned there are no amount of safety precautions that could be taken nor any combination of policies  that Alberta could adopt to get "social license" to build this pipeline because you think the oil should stay in the ground. Do you drive a car that uses gasoline? In addition to paying higher gas prices (because less oil on the market means gas will get more expensive), would you be willing to pay higher taxes so the federal government could compensate Alberta residents for the lost opportunity to exploit their natural resources (i.e. by subsidizing the development of more non-extractive industries)?

Gasoline prices in BC are projected to go up if the Kinder Morgan pipeline goes through.  So nice try, but it's wrong.

..prior to being elected both notley and the ndp were effective critics of the oil industry. this relationship changed to a partnership once they came to power. this tells me a force greater than the ndp altered that relationship. we saw this in greece.

..about a year ago, maybe more, i posted details of a campaing initiated by the fed ndp and the clc. 1 million new jobs in the renewable sector the campaing screamed. there was/is an alternative for the alberta ndp. building a refinery maybe 2 is another real option that directly relates to the pipeline opposition yet the alta ndp is talking about investing in the km pipeline. these are terrible choices coming from an ndp gov. something is very wrong that has nothing to do with purity. the purity argument is being used as a weapon to detract from these terrible decisons. 

epaulo13 wrote:

..prior to being elected both notley and the ndp were effective critics of the oil industry. this relationship changed to a partnership once they came to power. this tells me a force greater than the ndp altered that relationship. we saw this in greece.

..about a year ago, maybe more, i posted details of a campaing initiated by the fed ndp and the clc. 1 million new jobs in the renewable sector the campaing screamed. there was/is an alternative for the alberta ndp. building a refinery maybe 2 is another real option that directly relates to the pipeline opposition yet the alta ndp is talking about investing in the km pipeline. these are terrible choices coming from an ndp gov. something is very wrong that has nothing to do with purity. the purity argument is being used as a weapon to detract from these terrible decisons. 

Maybe I am giving Notley and her team too much credit but I just suspect that if there really was a way to create a comparable number of jobs for a comparable public cost through renewable energy, the ANDP would have pursued that instead of getting tied up in knots fighting their friends in order to build a pipeline. I could be wrong, though, maybe they have been captured by the oil industry or otherwise are just acceding to crasser political considerations.

robbie_dee wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..prior to being elected both notley and the ndp were effective critics of the oil industry. this relationship changed to a partnership once they came to power. this tells me a force greater than the ndp altered that relationship. we saw this in greece.

..about a year ago, maybe more, i posted details of a campaing initiated by the fed ndp and the clc. 1 million new jobs in the renewable sector the campaing screamed. there was/is an alternative for the alberta ndp. building a refinery maybe 2 is another real option that directly relates to the pipeline opposition yet the alta ndp is talking about investing in the km pipeline. these are terrible choices coming from an ndp gov. something is very wrong that has nothing to do with purity. the purity argument is being used as a weapon to detract from these terrible decisons. 

Maybe I am giving Notley and her team too much credit but I just suspect that if there really was a way to create a comparable number of jobs for a comparable public cost through renewable energy, the ANDP would have pursued that instead of getting tied up in knots fighting their friends in order to build a pipeline. I could be wrong, though, maybe they have been captured by the oil industry or otherwise are just acceding to crasser political considerations.

..lets look at the cost then. i'll start with this piece which cost as much 50 billion are talked about. then we can move on to the cost to indigenous folk.

Oilsands Tailing Ponds Ticking Time Bomb for Canadians

Alberta has failed to protect taxpayers from billions in cleanup costs.

Having a mortgage is a hassle. All those pesky requirements like property assessments, down payments and monthly payments.

Imagine if you could just tell the bank how much money you think you owe them and that you’ll settle up 70 years after you move out. Wouldn’t that be easier?

That is essentially the deal Suncor has been granted by the Alberta government regarding the ballooning liability from their oilsands tailing ponds and related reclamation requirements.

Like all other operators in the industry, every year Suncor presents the Alberta taxpayer with an estimate of what the corporation thinks it will cost to reclaim the artificial lakes of toxic sludge it has created, in Suncor’s case since mining began in1967. No supporting documentation required.

Thanks for the links epaulo I will read them.

Off topic but just curious - why do you always start your comments with two dots ".." ? Does this have a specific meaning I don't understand or is it just a stylistic choice (or something else, I don't know)?

:)

:)

Maybe someone could start a thread on format guidelines (and fighting the guideline powers).  I am in the midst of a generational fight with my daughter over how many spaces between sentences.

One space, for sure. However, outside of a formal context, I still use two en dashes (--) instead of an em dash (–), as if I were typing on a typewriter. Why? Force of habit, plain and simple.

Quote:

I am in the midst of a generational fight with my daughter over how many spaces between sentences.

That's a proxy fight between typewriters (monospacing) and computers/word processors (proportional spacing).

I learned to type on an IBM Selectric, so my old habits die hard.  A full line break between paragraphs, and two spaces after a period/colon, though for some reason I've forgotten the old habit of spaces indenting the start of a paragraph.

Two spaces after a period is still a thing, though, unsurprisingly.

epaulo13 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Back on topic: I agree with your points, epaulo. And as for the "you want the UCP to win?" argument, the question must be asked: What do Albertans want the most? That becomes a more important social conversation than a purely electoral one.

As for asking Alberta not to develop its resources or to abandon its legal right to convince the federal government to build pipelines across other provinces' territory: I agree with finding creative ways whereby all Canadians could restore any losses suffered. I would see that as being through alternative economic development. But we have many such needs in many communities, and I also think we should be aiming at reducing economic gaps (which for example is the supposed idea behind equalization payments).

..yes that social conversation could have been/could be going on led by the ndp in alta. i've posted several innovative projects proposed by albertans in the alta thread over the years. they represent an alternative to the corporate extraction model that is now going on. but that's not the route the ndp took i might add. it's important to understand why. how is it that they have accepted 1.5% royalties on profits which is one step above giving it away.

..and yes to an alternative economic development and reducing economic gaps. for me this is part of the struggle for environmental justice. 

Mighty Middle wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but to obtain a Trades Qualification is a relatively long process involving a mixture of schooling and on the job training. The on the job training isn't just some foreman telling you what to do, it is a registered apprenticeship program requiring the employer to attach the apprentice to a journeyman in the specific trade.

Yes of course you have to go through an apprenticeship program, but you do the apprenticeship IN High School as part of the credits and then continue AFTER you graduate. So no college is necessary.

http://www.youthcareer.ca/RAP.php

But my point is the same. These "trades" oil sands workers have learned through high school and an apprenticeship are not transferrable to the green/clean energy sector.

I'm pretty sure there are places where solar panels are put together on something like an assembly-line basis.  Would a person really have to have a university education to do that?  Or to do the basic construction work on windmill farms?