NDP Leadership 74

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
NDP Leadership 74

V

Issues Pages: 
KenS

Nash: Making Canada a global leader in innovation

Topp: Three steps to promote jobs and access to capital

link @ bottom of page Download the policy paper

Interesting that each of them emphasised the parts of the economy they know best.

Unsurprising. Except that both of them also have worked in the NDP on policy that was not so focused on their own production of ideas and vision. Maybe not so surprising their own campaigns would be different, but still interesting. You can bet that should either become Leader, these ideas will be just starting points that a team sets to work on- both developing and picking apart.

KenS

Two bits of advice for Brian on reading his paper.

First, get well brother.

For this paper, there is too much text. Like Peggy's: graphs and tables rather than footnotes. [And maybe just lose the footnotes, whatever else is done.]

The latter point is more central, and not really about the discussion paper per se.

We know in politics that the vision and larger message is the main event.

In the case of both the taxation [and social equality] initiative, and the democratic reform initiative, the few key proposals are both the specifics AND they capture the vision and meaage.

I do not think that works in this package. The specific proposals are solid means for geting results, but they do not as a message in themselves capture the full meaning.

The background part of the paper does that. As it did in the earlier papers. But the background material is only for the policy wonk oriented. And even for us, there has to be a summarising and capturing 'picture'. The spefic proposals play that role in the earlier initiatives. But that's harder to do in this case.

I think Brian Topp has to distill what is in the background part of the paper into a message that can be touched on and reinforced in short bits as are available in the debates.

KenS

Brian is up against something in delivering that message emphasising growth in small and medium size enterprises.

The news and the public imagination is captured by what happens with the manufacturing plants, the paper mills and the mines. You see that reflected in concerns expressed here.

But the structure of employment and economic activity is changing. Even within sectors, the shift is to work in smaller enterprises. [And not that is not just 'lose your job at GM, and go to work at WalMart'.] Most people who pay any attention have heard that.

But it has not really sunk in.

Peggy Nash's focus on innovation and R&D taps into the popular image of everything happening at auto plant and the pharmaceutical and biotech labs.

Not only is the economic growth in the small and medium sized enterprises. So too- even if maybe a lesser degree- is the innovation and R&D. But who knows that? Who sees it? What exposure does it get?

More to the point: what does any of it have to do with Brain Topp's capital access proposals?

A lot actually. But I dont think the messaging strategy is to 'explain' that. At least, that is not what the messaging needs most and first.

If Brian can pull off making this idea connect, there are substantial 'bonus points' in populist appeal. The aspirations of entrpreneurs have broad appeal in the NDP's support universe. The mixed feelings about that common on this board are far from the norm.

 

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/article/1278841--bringing-parkda...

Quote:
A skilled negotiator and self-described bridge builder, Nash is seeking the leadership with the economy at the heart of her campaign.

"I think what we are seeing in our country is a real weakening of our economy. We have the greatest level of inequality that we have seen since the 1920s."

She said she has laid out the framework for an economic plan that offers better economic management than the current government and calls on government to work with business, communities and labour to all pull in the same direction with the goal of creating good jobs and development right across the country.

Nash said she believes if we create quality jobs and have people who are paying taxes and companies that are paying taxes that generates the funds needed to invest in social programs.

NorthReport

http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/52263-mp-s-defection-bad-sig...

Quote:
The NDP was always going to take a hit as the result of Layton’s untimely death. But that hit has been compounded by a leadership campaign that is increasingly at cross-purposes with Quebec’s centrist tradition and fluid mood. The first working day of the new year, for instance, found Brian Topp giving an interview on Radio-Canada’s Montreal drive-in show.

One of Topp’s campaign mantras has been that New Democrats need not become more like the Liberals to win power. More recently, he has sharpened his aim to take shots at rival Thomas Mulcair’s past as a provincial Liberal minister. He expanded on that theme on Radio-Canada.

The problem is that precious few Quebecers signed up for a fight to the finish between the Liberals and the NDP or for a left-wing crusade last May. More than a third of the party’s 2011 supporters voted for Jean Chretien in 2000. A significant number are poised to vote for the new right-of-centre Coalition Avenir Quebec in the next provincial election.

It was Layton’s ecumenical approach to politics that drew so many Quebec voters to the NDP. Based on his 2008 advocacy of a governing arrangement with the Liberals, he seemed best placed to reach out of the partisan box and build a progressive coalition sturdy enough to take on the Conservatives. For many Quebecers — and St-Denis is one of them — that dream died with him.

 

NorthReport
NorthReport

Don Davies knows which issues to focus on

http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=13293

 

adma

Something we must, of course, remember re leadership endorsements, tussles, etc: a lot will depend on second-and-third-ballot support which we cannot second-guess (providing that there *is*, unlike in 2003, more than one ballot)

KenS

Chantal Hebert wrote:

[highlight by NR]

The NDP was always going to take a hit as the result of Layton’s untimely death. But that hit has been compounded by a leadership campaign that is increasingly at cross-purposes with Quebec’s centrist tradition and fluid mood.

To hear Hebert tell it, Quebec is more centrist than the rest of Canada. If anything, the opposite is true.

As if not being as centrist as possible is the route to rack and ruin in Quebec. LSD's defection may well be a sign and warning for the NDP of Quebec's fluidity... but only in the most general sense that exists already. It is NOT as Hebert would have it a warning that if the NDP is not unambiguously centrist, that fluidity should have us looking over our shoulders at the Liberals.

I think its a safe bet that LSD is not going to be re-elected in 2015. Since she doesnt even care to try at being a reasonably good consituency politician, she wasnt a good prospect for getting re-elected if she had stayed in the NDP either. And you can bet there isnt going to be some big Liberal wave  across Quebec that carries her. What will Hebert say then that LSD is an indicator of?

But Hebert has never payed attention to politics on the ground.

socialdemocrati...

My impression of the Liberal leadership convention is that they're not trying for Progressive Conservatives anymore. They are still a buzz about the Occupy movement, as if they just discovered inequality. And I guess watching all of Quebec go orange helps them look towards progressive concerns. Add to that a Harper majority, and suddenly there's a lot of Liberals who have found a bit of purpose.

Very few resolutions about how to "save" (privatize) social security or build a corporate donor base. A lot of policies reacting to Harper: the census, the wheat board, and so on. 3/4 of their delegates voted to legalize marijuana.

The main problem will be when their progressive concerns come up against the leadership from Bay Street, and the corporate donor base. Of course, there's also the huge trust gap.

Point is that in 4 years, we could find ourselves competing on very similar ground. We need to remember what we offer that's different from the LPC.

doofy

Ken S,

I think what Hebert meant by "centrist" was that QCers did not shift dieologically to the left in the last campaign; she did not mean QCers were "centrist" relative to the rest of Canada.

Personally, I would agree with this assessment. If the NDP was the precusror of a massive leftward shift in the population, Quebec Solidaire would have been doing much better provincially.

NorthReport

Lawrence Martin just stated on CPAC that if Mulcair wins it is bad news for the Liberals in Quebec. What a revelation.  LOL

wage zombie

KenS wrote:

Brian is up against something in delivering that message emphasising growth in small and medium size enterprises.

The news and the public imagination is captured by what happens with the manufacturing plants, the paper mills and the mines. You see that reflected in concerns expressed here.

But the structure of employment and economic activity is changing. Even within sectors, the shift is to work in smaller enterprises. [And not that is not just 'lose your job at GM, and go to work at WalMart'.] Most people who pay any attention have heard that.

But it has not really sunk in.

Peggy Nash's focus on innovation and R&D taps into the popular image of everything happening at auto plant and the pharmaceutical and biotech labs.

Not only is the economic growth in the small and medium sized enterprises. So too- even if maybe a lesser degree- is the innovation and R&D. But who knows that? Who sees it? What exposure does it get?

This is something that quite worries me.

When asked about how Mulcair would address economic equality, I think one of his supporters here replied that the way to address economic equality is to bring back the manufacturing base.  And I think Nash is taking a similar approach.

I think this is wrongheaded, because I don't think those jobs are ever coming back.  Not only will the quantity of jobs never come back, but the quality (compensation) will never come back either.  Unions have relinquished benefits for new and future workers as a negotiation tactic.

Additionally, I wonder about the strategy of being an export economy.  Germany did great, for a while, as an export economy.  But the reality is the way that most of Europe was able to afford those German goods was through loans from German banks.  And that has led to the debt crisis.  China, too, is able to be an export economy by lending the US money to buy its products.  These are not sustainable strategies.

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.

The economy is never going to be the same as it was.  I want to know what will most people be doing as a job 10 years from now, and I don't see any candidates able to effectively answer this question.

wage zombie

Chantal Hebert wrote:

The problem is that precious few Quebecers signed up for a fight to the finish between the Liberals and the NDP or for a left-wing crusade last May. More than a third of the party’s 2011 supporters voted for Jean Chretien in 2000. A significant number are poised to vote for the new right-of-centre Coalition Avenir Quebec in the next provincial election.

More than a third of the party's 2011 supporters voted for Chretien in 2000 in Quebec?  I suspect that would hold across the board in Canada, I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher.

What an irrelevant point.  Since when do we talk about who people voted for over a decade ago?

ETA: From where I'm sitting, Chretien being such a good politician was really the only reason people voted Liberal in the last 20 years.  It wasn't because of the Liberal policies, which were always markedly different from their promises.  Rather than looking for the next Pierre Trudeau, I don't know why they weren't ever looking for the next Jean Chretien (who they were so stupid as to ditch).

KenS

doofy wrote:

I think what Hebert meant by "centrist" was that QCers did not shift idologically to the left in the last campaign.

Beg to differ on that. Both her words, and the thrust of the whole article suggest she meant "centrist, period. In other words, Quebec voters are centrist- she said that- and the NDP dare not stray from that.

I agree that there is nothing in the shift that says that it is necessarily an expression of 'left,' or even social democratic. But it is a leap from that to, 'it was centrist, and the NDP better position itself there.'

 

writer writer's picture

"The fact is that we are the exact opposite of what Prime Minister Harper is doing to the country. He's dividing people, encouraging us to blame each other, and causing us to resent each other. That's not the way that Canada should be. It's very un-Canadian." – Romeo Saganash

NorthReport

Great quote writer.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture


The specifics of Nash's plan:

Quote:

Under my leadership, the NDP - and the next government - will take practical steps to build policies that will motivate the investment needed for innovation-led growth and job creation right across our country. To provide new, proven, and practical approaches to fostering an innovative economy, I will:
 

1. Launch a new Canada Innovation Fund to provide targeted support for specific R&D projects and new product programs at qualifying high-tech firms - a portion of the proceeds from ending oil and gas subsidies and a review of corporate tax rates will be used to cover the budget of this Fund.
 

2. Provide pre-commercial and commercial fiscal support through a new Canada Development Bank for focused, sector-oriented projects and programs - the Bank will be capitalized by government, operate as an arms-length business, and offer leveraged and preferential loans to qualifying projects.
 

3. Implement expanded investment tax credits accessible only to companies that actually invest in high-tech new machinery and equipment - essential to realizing the benefits of innovation.
 

4. Improve systems to commercialize the R&D that takes place in Canadian universities and other public institutions while ensuring continued support for basic research.
 

5. Build market support for innovative Canadian products and services using tools such as domestic procurement policies; and ensure international trade deals signed by Canada do not put any of our drivers of innovation at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.
 

6. Bring together champions of Canadian innovation from the private sector, universities, scientific community, venture finance, labour, and other stakeholders to build sector planning networks that identify innovation challenges and opportunities, mobilize resources, and implement concrete strategies.
 


Other than Cullen's joint party nominations for ridings, I'm really enjoying and enthusiastic about all of the policies and initiatives released from all of the leadership candidates so far.
Looking forward to kicking Liberal/Conservative ass in 2015 with our great NDP team.

Howard

OnTheLeft wrote:


The specifics of Nash's plan:

Quote:

Under my leadership, the NDP - and the next government - will take practical steps to build policies that will motivate the investment needed for innovation-led growth and job creation right across our country. To provide new, proven, and practical approaches to fostering an innovative economy, I will:
 

1. Launch a new Canada Innovation Fund to provide targeted support for specific R&D projects and new product programs at qualifying high-tech firms - a portion of the proceeds from ending oil and gas subsidies and a review of corporate tax rates will be used to cover the budget of this Fund.
 

2. Provide pre-commercial and commercial fiscal support through a new Canada Development Bank for focused, sector-oriented projects and programs - the Bank will be capitalized by government, operate as an arms-length business, and offer leveraged and preferential loans to qualifying projects.
 

3. Implement expanded investment tax credits accessible only to companies that actually invest in high-tech new machinery and equipment - essential to realizing the benefits of innovation.
 

4. Improve systems to commercialize the R&D that takes place in Canadian universities and other public institutions while ensuring continued support for basic research.
 

5. Build market support for innovative Canadian products and services using tools such as domestic procurement policies; and ensure international trade deals signed by Canada do not put any of our drivers of innovation at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.
 

6. Bring together champions of Canadian innovation from the private sector, universities, scientific community, venture finance, labour, and other stakeholders to build sector planning networks that identify innovation challenges and opportunities, mobilize resources, and implement concrete strategies.
 



Other than Cullen's joint party nominations for ridings, I'm really enjoying and enthusiastic about all of the policies and initiatives released from all of the leadership candidates so far.
Looking forward to kicking Liberal/Conservative ass in 2015 with our great NDP team.

Paid for by?

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Regardless of who are next leader is, I'm confident that an NDP government will cancel these multi-billion dollar boondoggles such as mega prisons and F-35 figther jets we don't need, while raising corporate tax rates, implementing a more progressive system of taxation/higher taxes on higher income earners, legalizing/regulating/taxing cannabis (another referendum/ballot initiative is apparently coming this year in California, we should catch up to them by 2015) which is already a multi-billion dollar industry with cannabis arguably being one of our largest cash crops, etc.  

dacckon dacckon's picture

I guess we'll have to wait till the end to see how their plans are costed.

doofy

Remember Ken S, that "centrist" in QC is not the same thing as "centrist" in the ROC.

Jack Layton's 2011 campaign was in tune with the broad centre of QC politics. As Hebert points out, people did not vote for the NDP b|c they thought the Liberals were too right wing, but because Layton was the most effective "anti-Harper" champion. For example, he was the only party leader who promised to bring about a 2008-style coaltion, which was very popular in QC.

The next leader should have that same "travaillons ensemble" approach. Unfortunately, with his attacks on Mulcair, Topp seems to have distanced himself from that kind of style, which could make him  vulnerable in QC.

Howard

OnTheLeft wrote:

I'm confident that an NDP government will cancel these multi-billion dollar boondoggles such as...F-35 figther jets

By redirecting the funds to building Navy warships like Layton did. By the way, Layton didn't say the F-35s should be built, just that they didn't need to be built/purchased until 2016 (when your hypothetical NDP government would be in power).

OnTheLeft wrote:
 while raising corporate tax rates,

Layton was careful to never call for the raising of corporate tax rates, just the cancellation of planned reductions to the corporate tax rate.

OnTheLeft wrote:
 legalizing/regulating/taxing cannabis (another referendum/ballot initiative is apparently coming this year in California, we should catch up to them by 2015) which is already a multi-billion dollar industry with cannabis arguably being one of our largest cash crops, etc.  

The NDP position, if I am not mistaken, has been decriminalisation, which basically means the drug gangs can sell to a larger market because their customers don't have to worry as much about getting arrested/having their reputations ruined by legal troubles. Same goes for small level possesion by dealers. Instead of jail time, people get fines, which like their traffic fines and parking tickets, they don't pay, backing up the court system. I don't know if the NDP position was even included in the 2011 platform. Anyone else know the details?

KenS

doofy wrote:

Remember Ken S, that "centrist" in QC is not the same thing as "centrist" in the ROC.

Dont be obtuse.

Take the following test.

Who of the following do you think quaifies according to Hebert's implied criteria as sufficiently centrist to be successful in Quebec?

a.] Peggy Nash

b.] Tom Mulcair

c.] Brian Topp

Hint, read the column again. North Report got it and highlighted it: the thrust of the article is that a contributing reason that LSD defected to the Liberal Party is that at least some of the candidates in the leadership campaign show signs of taking the NDP more to the left than did Jack Layton, and which is what Quebecers are comfortable with.

writer writer's picture

And yet, magically, Romeo Saganash is not even a passing mention for Hebert. Because ... because ... because ... oh, there doesn't even need to be a mention of why, does there? I mean, just because he's perfectly fluent and from Quebec as much as anyone on the planet can *be* from Quebec and he doesn't use divisive rhetoric, and hasn't criticized Mulcair; why, the pundits don't need to account for what role he may be able to play. Because he can't play any. They've decided. With all their knowledge, sympathy and connection to the NDP and its vision for Canada, they've decided.

As leader, how would you build caucus solidarity?

KenS

I'm not sure writer, but I think Hebert only mentions Topp in passing, and negatively.... sort of the representative of what is wrong with the NDP.

I am the one that mentioned those 3- because they are the ones that would come to mind as having some kind of more or less ideological positioning most widely attributed to them.

The column isnt about the candidates. It is about what is wrong with the NDP, and no wonder LSD defected.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Howard wrote:

By redirecting the funds to building Navy warships like Layton did. By the way, Layton didn't say the F-35s should be built, just that they didn't need to be built/purchased until 2016 (when your hypothetical NDP government would be in power).


"Hypothetical" or not, I think that is the goal for the majority on this board.
Regardless:
Quote:

The Canadian military should concentrate on peacekeeping and not making war, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.
And he said that means scrapping the $16-billion F-35 jet fighters deal along greater attention to Canada's naval needs.
"The New Democrats' defence priorities will focus our military resource on ... defending and protecting Canadians, assisting people when disaster strikes at home or abroad and providing support for peacekeeping and peace building around the world," he said.
"This defence plan starts with making Canada's joint support ships a procurement priority, not fighter jets," he said.
"For five years Stephen Harper has failed to produce the ships we need to patrol the world's longest shoreline. Canada's supply ships have reached the end of their operation lives. Instead of focusing on F-35 fighter jets, I'll get the job done when it comes to building joint support ships for our naval forces," he said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/971625
 
Howard wrote:
Layton was careful to never call for the raising of corporate tax rates, just the cancellation of planned reductions to the corporate tax rate.

Quote:

2.5 Setting the Corporate Tax Rate at Below the USA 's
 

  • We will keep Canada's corporate tax rate competitive by

ensuring that our combined federal/provincial Corporate

Income Tax rate is always below the United States' federal

corporate tax rate.

 

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf

 

The US corporate tax rate in 2011 was 35%, so boosting our corporate tax rate from 16.5% to approximately 34% would be a very substantial and significant start.

 

Howard wrote:
The NDP position, if I am not mistaken, has been decriminalisation, which basically means the drug gangs can sell to a larger market because their customers don't have to worry as much about getting arrested/having their reputations ruined by legal troubles. Same goes for small level possesion by dealers. Instead of jail time, people get fines, which like their traffic fines and parking tickets, they don't pay, backing up the court system. I don't know if the NDP position was even included in the 2011 platform. Anyone else know the details?

Yes that is the NDP's position, however there is a very strong push from the grassroots for legalization, regulation and taxation, and I know that Libby Davies and quite a few others are sympathetic on this issue. Besides, I think if California moves ahead on this issue, not only will many other states follow, but Canadians will also want to get on board, in which they already are:

Quote:

As was the case two years ago, a majority of Canadians (53%) support the legalization of marijuana. People in British Columbia (61%), Alberta (59%) and Ontario (57%) hold the highest level of support for the legalization of cannabis.

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.15_Drugs_CAN.pdf

 

Howard

OnTheLeft wrote:

Howard wrote:

By redirecting the funds to building Navy warships like Layton did. By the way, Layton didn't say the F-35s should be built, just that they didn't need to be built/purchased until 2016 (when your hypothetical NDP government would be in power).


"Hypothetical" or not, I think that is the goal for the majority on this board.
Regardless:
Quote:

The Canadian military should concentrate on peacekeeping and not making war, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.
And he said that means scrapping the $16-billion F-35 jet fighters deal along greater attention to Canada's naval needs.
"The New Democrats' defence priorities will focus our military resource on ... defending and protecting Canadians, assisting people when disaster strikes at home or abroad and providing support for peacekeeping and peace building around the world," he said.
"This defence plan starts with making Canada's joint support ships a procurement priority, not fighter jets," he said.
"For five years Stephen Harper has failed to produce the ships we need to patrol the world's longest shoreline. Canada's supply ships have reached the end of their operation lives. Instead of focusing on F-35 fighter jets, I'll get the job done when it comes to building joint support ships for our naval forces," he said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/971625

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..
OnTheLeft wrote:

Howard wrote:
Layton was careful to never call for the raising of corporate tax rates, just the cancellation of planned reductions to the corporate tax rate.

Quote:

2.5 Setting the Corporate Tax Rate at Below the USA 's
 

  • We will keep Canada's corporate tax rate competitive by

ensuring that our combined federal/provincial Corporate

Income Tax rate is always below the United States' federal

corporate tax rate.

 

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf

 

The US corporate tax rate in 2011 was 35%, so boosting our corporate tax rate from 16.5% to approximately 34% would be a very substantial and significant start.

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.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Howard wrote:
The NDP position, if I am not mistaken, has been decriminalisation, which basically means the drug gangs can sell to a larger market because their customers don't have to worry as much about getting arrested/having their reputations ruined by legal troubles. Same goes for small level possesion by dealers. Instead of jail time, people get fines, which like their traffic fines and parking tickets, they don't pay, backing up the court system. I don't know if the NDP position was even included in the 2011 platform. Anyone else know the details?

Yes that is the NDP's position, however there is a very strong push from the grassroots for legalization, regulation and taxation, and I know that Libby Davies and quite a few others are sympathetic on this issue. Besides, I think if California moves ahead on this issue, not only will many other states follow, but Canadians will also want to get on board, in which they already are:

Quote:

As was the case two years ago, a majority of Canadians (53%) support the legalization of marijuana. People in British Columbia (61%), Alberta (59%) and Ontario (57%) hold the highest level of support for the legalization of cannabis.

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.15_Drugs_CAN.pdf

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.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/52263-mp-s-defection-bad-sig...

Quote:
The NDP was always going to take a hit as the result of Layton’s untimely death. But that hit has been compounded by a leadership campaign that is increasingly at cross-purposes with Quebec’s centrist tradition and fluid mood. The first working day of the new year, for instance, found Brian Topp giving an interview on Radio-Canada’s Montreal drive-in show. [..] For many Quebecers — and St-Denis is one of them — that dream died with him.

Hebert's a right-winger who predicted the demise of the NDP in the last election, and generally spoke against Layton when he was alive.  So, we'd be best to ignore her inane pontifications now.  Other reports state that people in St-Denis' riding of Saint-Maurice - Champlain are quite upset with her move to the Liberals.

Hunky_Monkey

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

dacckon dacckon's picture

I've never seen the star write anything positive about the NDP, its mostly negative. I was very shocked when they backed the NDP last election.

jerrym

 



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-...

 

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

 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. 

doofy

I re-read Hebert's article, Ken S, and she does not say anything about "centrism" until the last paragraph. There, she takes Topp to task for casting aspersions on Mulcair's loyalties, something Layton (obviously) never did. There is nothing about the NDP moving to the right in the piece.

I don't agree w/ Hebert on eveything.  This particular article was not one of her best; it was long on criticizing the NDP for "not being ready for prime time" and short on pointing out the inconcicentices inherent in LSD's decision. But Hebert does have a sense of where QCers are at, a far more accurate sense than (if I may say so w/out offending poeple) the Anglophones on this board who rely on various candidates own self-promotion.

And before anyone imitates Capstick's facile dismissal ("well, no QC pundit predicted that the NDP would win 59 seats in QC"), I would say again that Layton himself did not predict 59 seats, or he would not have allowed LSD to run in St. Maurice, or REB in Berthier.

socialdemocrati...

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.

Howard

Can we stop talking about Hébert's column? It wasn't even that good. As for her political loyalties, she is a left-of-centre Québec liberal. If she prefers Mulcair, good for her.

socialdemocrati...

Howard wrote:
Can we stop talking about Hébert's column? It wasn't even that good. As for her political loyalties, she is a left-of-centre Québec liberal. If she prefers Mulcair, good for her.

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.

NorthReport

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Candidates+hold+debate+Montreal/5999...

 

Quote:
Talk of a cross-Canada plan to alleviate poverty and homelessness gave Mulcair pause and resulted in the only moment in which one candidate took a position different from the others.

The Sherbrooke Declaration advocates an “assymetrical” federalism in which the Quebec nation would have control over how it spends federal transfers. “The Sherbrooke Declaration speaks of straightforward transfer of funds with no conditions,” Mulcair said.

doofy

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

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

KenS

KenS wrote:

The news and the public imagination is captured by what happens with the manufacturing plants, the paper mills and the mines. You see that reflected in concerns expressed here.

But the structure of employment and economic activity is changing. Even within sectors, the shift is to work in smaller enterprises. Most people who pay any attention have heard that.

But it has not really sunk in.

This point got taken up primarily as manufacturing versus other sectors. [See post 35 and 39 for example.]

The point is giant businesses and mega-projects versus small and medium enterprises. The places of employment that count the jobs in the hundreds and thousands, even though we all know growth is in the small and medium enterprises.

And that is true of manufacturing also. It is not all auto plants and paper mills, or suppliers of those. And that is not where jobs and economic growth is. No one is advocating ignoring the auto plants, just calling attention to the fact that economic agendas cannot act as if auto plants and paper mills ARE the Canadian economy.

And that there is a flip side of that. Peggy Nash's agenda is easy to be catchy because it does fit into the popular assumptions. Brian Topp's agenda does not.

KenS wrote:
 

Not only is the economic growth in the small and medium sized enterprises. So too- even if maybe to a lesser degree- is the innovation and R&D. But who knows that? Who sees it? What exposure does it get?

More to the point: what does any of it have to do with Brain Topp's capital access proposals?

A lot actually. But I dont think the messaging strategy is to 'explain' that. At least, that is not what the messaging needs most and first.

If Brian can pull off making this idea connect, there are substantial 'bonus points' in populist appeal. The aspirations of entrpreneurs have broad appeal in the NDP's support universe. The mixed feelings about that common on this board are far from the norm.

Gaian

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."

nicky

Reminder about two Mulcair events in Toronto this week:

 

 

Le message en français suivra

Thomas Mulcair is coming back to Toronto.

 

Join Tom Tuesday night at The 519 or join us after the Toronto-area leader's debate on Wednesday night at Duffy's Tavern.

 

The 519 Church Street Community Centre

 

DATE: This Tuesday, January 17th

TIME: 7:00pm

LOCATION: 519 Community Centre, 519 Church Street, Toronto, Ontario

(Refreshments will be provided)

 

Toronto-Area Leader's Debate

 

DATE: This Wednesday, January 18th

TIME: 7:00pm to 9:00pm

LOCATION: Bloor Collegiate Institute, 1141 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario

 

Duffy's Tavern

 

DATE: This Wednesday, January 18th

TIME: 9:00pm

LOCATION: Duffy's Tavern, 1238 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario

KenS

jerrym wrote:

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).

China spent $221 billion in 2009 and is planning on spending $1.7 trillion in the next five years on green technologies. In 2009, the United States government allocated $2.3 billion in tax credits for green industries. Many of these are manufacturing industries.

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.... A diversified economy still is the best way of reducing the effects of economic fluctuations.

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.]

JKR

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

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'd say most people view themselves as being "right" or "left" and about a quarter switch between the parties.

The parties main policy differences centre around their varying degrees of support of capitalism. Voters also have varying degrees of support for capitalism and vote accordingly.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

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.

Wilf Day

Here's a statement worth debating on "joining" a party, and whether the NDP should advertise that it costs only $5 or $10 for any supporter to have a vote in our leadership race?

Quote:
“When it comes to political parties [people] want to date, not marry,” one delegate explained during the debate. Party officials hope that as many as a million Canadians will hook up with the Liberals to choose the next leader in the spring of 2013.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/liberals-take...

ottawaobserver wrote:

Actually, Wilf, if they did that, there would be a snarky story almost right away about how the NDP was giving it away, and *anyone* could join and that just de-legitimizes the NDP leadership race. Of course, when the Liberals give it away and pre-de-legitimize their own leadership race, the media laps it up, and pronounces the idea a genius one. No-one said life was fair, but I'm pretty sure the party doesn't do as you suggest for pretty much that exact reason.

So the Liberals aim to give it away to anyone who wants to sleep around.

Can the NDP match that?

You can hook up with the NDP for only $5 or $10?

In fact, you can. I know Greens who joined in order to vote for Jack Layton in 2003.

Are we too shy to say so?

Are New Democrats political wallflowers?

Should this promiscuous topic have its own thread?

Howard

Wilf Day wrote:

Here's a statement worth debating on "joining" a party, and whether the NDP should advertise that it costs only $5 or $10 for any supporter to have a vote in our leadership race?

Quote:
“When it comes to political parties [people] want to date, not marry,” one delegate explained during the debate. Party officials hope that as many as a million Canadians will hook up with the Liberals to choose the next leader in the spring of 2013.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/liberals-take...

ottawaobserver wrote:

Actually, Wilf, if they did that, there would be a snarky story almost right away about how the NDP was giving it away, and *anyone* could join and that just de-legitimizes the NDP leadership race. Of course, when the Liberals give it away and pre-de-legitimize their own leadership race, the media laps it up, and pronounces the idea a genius one. No-one said life was fair, but I'm pretty sure the party doesn't do as you suggest for pretty much that exact reason.

So the Liberals aim to give it away to anyone who wants to sleep around.

Can the NDP match that?

You can hook up with the NDP for only $5 or $10?

In fact, you can. I know Greens who joined in order to vote for Jack Layton in 2003.

Are we too shy to say so?

Are New Democrats political wallflowers?

Should this promiscuous topic have its own thread?

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.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

We may be a cheap date, but you still have to *at least* buy us a drink first.

Pages

Topic locked