Rachel Notley calls Leap Manifesto 'naive' 'ill-informed' & 'tone-deaf'

424 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel
Rachel Notley calls Leap Manifesto 'naive' 'ill-informed' & 'tone-deaf'

====

Regions: 
terrytowel

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is repudiating the controversial Leap Manifesto, but says she doesn't feel the provincial NDP needs to split from the federal party.

The Leap Manifesto proposes Canada immediately start moving away from fossil fuels and stop building new projects like pipelines.

"These ideas will never form any part of our policy," Notley said Monday. "They are naive, they are ill-informed, and they are tone-deaf."

Despite this, she said the provincial wing of the NDP will not split from the federal party. She said provincial and federal parties often disagree.   

"To be clear, this document has not been adopted. It's simply going to be discussed," Notley said. "And we will engage in that discussion and we will make darn sure that the points I made at convention are heard from Nanaimo to Cape Breton and everywhere in-between."

Notley's remarks come one day after delegates at the NDP convention in Edmonton decided to move ahead with discussion of the Leap Manifesto. The document will be discussed at riding associations across the country over the next two years. 

Notley declined to comment on what effect the ongoing discussions will have on the perception of her party in Alberta. 

"That is a huge hypothetical because this document was not adopted," she said. "And so I'm just not going to answer hypothetical questions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/rachel-notley-calls-leap-manifest...

Unionist

Gee. I always thought campaigning from the left and governing from the right was the prerogative of the Liberal party.

 

Policywonk

terrytowel wrote:

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is repudiating the controversial Leap Manifesto, but says she doesn't feel the provincial NDP needs to split from the federal party.

The Leap Manifesto proposes Canada immediately start moving away from fossil fuels and stop building new projects like pipelines.

"These ideas will never form any part of our policy," Notley said Monday. "They are naive, they are ill-informed, and they are tone-deaf."

Despite this, she said the provincial wing of the NDP will not split from the federal party. She said provincial and federal parties often disagree.   

"To be clear, this document has not been adopted. It's simply going to be discussed," Notley said. "And we will engage in that discussion and we will make darn sure that the points I made at convention are heard from Nanaimo to Cape Breton and everywhere in-between."

Notley's remarks come one day after delegates at the NDP convention in Edmonton decided to move ahead with discussion of the Leap Manifesto. The document will be discussed at riding associations across the country over the next two years. 

Notley declined to comment on what effect the ongoing discussions will have on the perception of her party in Alberta. 

"That is a huge hypothetical because this document was not adopted," she said. "And so I'm just not going to answer hypothetical questions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/rachel-notley-calls-leap-manifest...

I suspect that not all of the Alberta NDP membership is opposed to at least discussing the Leap Manifesto. We do need to start moving away from fossil fuels immediately, and have needed to for decades. The longer we wait to make the transition the more difficult it will be and the less chance of success before catastrophic climate change is unavoidable (it may be unavoidable already, but if we do not act now the chances of avoiding it will continue to diminish and consequences will be even more extreme). The debate needs to be how to do it not when to do it. I appreciate Rachel's predicament, and while it may be perceived as a disaster for the Alberta NDP that the Leap Resolution was adopted yesterday, I believe it would have been a far greater disaster had the resolution not been adopted. The job of the NDP must be to reconcile physical reality with political reality, not to ignore physical reality. I hope that the political reality will change over the next few years to the point that the political space even in Alberta for major elements of the Leap Manifesto will be much greater. Let's hope the catastrophe Stephen Lewis predicts between 2030 and 2050 does not come sooner, but that the acceptance of the possibliy becomes far more widespread quickly. 

Debater

I think Rachel Notley is making it clear she has no plans to run for Federal Leader.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I suspect that not all of the Alberta NDP membership is opposed to at least discussing the Leap Manifesto.

Maybe we just need to replace the "oil patch" with the "solar patch", and promise them plenty more $100k/year jobs and massive provincial revenues.  I doubt if it's specifically the smell of crude oil that they like so much.

Unionist

I've lived in Manitoba. That's when I quit. Long ago.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think it's easy enough to dismiss this as "Alberta-ness", but what if the Leap Manifesto had said:

- "let this be the last day we pull fish from our waters!" -- I think that Atlantic provinces might have a quarrel with that.

- "in 2016, the digital age, we have no more need of paper!" -- I think BC might have a quarrel with that.

- "we should move toward a gluten-free diet!" -- I think Saskatchewan might have a quarrel with that.

I'm not giving my full-throated agreement to Notley on this, but I can kind of see how this is a sticky wicket for them. 

jjuares

I for one am glad that we won't be building any pipelines soon. I believe it is really important that we continue to buy as much oil from the Saudis as possible. That way they can buy our LAV's and crush all those silliy dissidents in their country. Also the east can continue to rail oil into their communities. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think it's easy enough to dismiss this as "Alberta-ness", but what if the Leap Manifesto had said:

- "let this be the last day we pull fish from our waters!" -- I think that Atlantic provinces might have a quarrel with that.

Maybe if that had been done we would have a much healthier fishing industry on the east coast.

"These downtown Toronto political dilettantes come to Alberta and track their garbage across our front lawn," he said.

...

The government has been touting its new climate change plan as social licence to build new pipelines while respecting the environment.

Phillips said the plan was "under-appreciated" by delegates at the conference.

"It's possible that the message hasn't gotten all the way through to downtown Toronto," she said.

The message got through all right so it appears Alberta remains in denial. Burning oil causes climate change. We must move off of fossil fuels. It's not a Toronto thing it's a Canada thing. We aren't going to sacrifice the planet to appease Alberta.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Unionist wrote:
I've lived in Manitoba. That's when I quit. Long ago.

My bad.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Unionist wrote:

Gee. I always thought campaigning from the left and governing from the right was the prerogative of the Liberal party.

In provinces where the NDP has become one of the two main governing parties, the NDP governs more like Liberals (and in BC, the BC Liberals govern like Conservatives).

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

"These downtown Toronto political dilettantes come to Alberta and track their garbage across our front lawn," he said.

...

The government has been touting its new climate change plan as social licence to build new pipelines while respecting the environment.

Phillips said the plan was "under-appreciated" by delegates at the conference.

"It's possible that the message hasn't gotten all the way through to downtown Toronto," she said.

The message got through all right so it appears Alberta remains in denial. Burning oil causes climate change. We must move off of fossil fuels. It's not a Toronto thing it's a Canada thing. We aren't going to sacrifice the planet to appease Alberta.

 

Not to mention that the strongest opposition to fossil uel extraction and pipelines is among indigenous peoples, and after that BC and Quebec. Toronto is down the list lia bit.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think it's easy enough to dismiss this as "Alberta-ness", but what if the Leap Manifesto had said:

- "let this be the last day we pull fish from our waters!" -- I think that Atlantic provinces might have a quarrel with that.

I'm not giving my full-throated agreement to Notley on this, but I can kind of see how this is a sticky wicket for them. 

Actually her comments were more along the lines of, "we have to keep the farm fishing industry because it creates jobs and BC coastal communities need jobs." You know shortsighted and positively in favour of planet destroying industry.

lagatta

I actually agree with Notley on one point. If the Manifesto had been written just a bit later it would ALSO have put more emphasis on the boom and bust economics of petroleum and the number of ghost towns and lost hopes in its wake. If I recall the manifesto did speak of (re)conversion and not making workers bear the brunt of the exit from oil, but perhaps it could be more explicit.

And you've never heard any scathing criticism of the Saudis until you've heard it from people from other Arab countries. They look down on the Saudis as lazy, uncultured yokels laying claim both to a big gob of dead organic matter and to the Holy places of Islam. I have Palestinian and Lebanese friends who have worked there, and God, do they hate the Saudis.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
I for one am glad that we won't be building any pipelines soon. I believe it is really important that we continue to buy as much oil from the Saudis as possible. That way they can buy our LAV's and crush all those silliy dissidents in their country. Also the east can continue to rail oil into their communities. What could possibly go wrong with that?

We are already buying less and less oil from the Saudis. Most of our oil comes from the US, around 3/4s, and some comes from South America. I don't know what the Saudi percentage is but it is low and getting lower. We are trying to lessen our use of oil therefore current supplies are already more than we need. There is no reason for oil by rail. We need to stop that too. The reason for sending oil east is not for local consumption it's for export. The point is to reach tidewater not supply Canadians. Pipelines or rail is a false dichotomy. We can choose neither. We can choose to start weaning ourselves off of oil and soon and as quickly as possible.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

"These downtown Toronto political dilettantes come to Alberta and track their garbage across our front lawn," he said.

...

The government has been touting its new climate change plan as social licence to build new pipelines while respecting the environment.

Phillips said the plan was "under-appreciated" by delegates at the conference.

"It's possible that the message hasn't gotten all the way through to downtown Toronto," she said.

On behalf of Mr. Magoo, he didn't actually write that.  Walk it back, maybe?

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
I for one am glad that we won't be building any pipelines soon. I believe it is really important that we continue to buy as much oil from the Saudis as possible. That way they can buy our LAV's and crush all those silliy dissidents in their country. Also the east can continue to rail oil into their communities. What could possibly go wrong with that?

We are already buying less and less oil from the Saudis. Most of our oil comes from the US, around 3/4s, and some comes from South America. I don't know what the Saudi percentage is but it is low and gettinglower.


Nope, oil from Saudi is increasing substantially.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/as-politicians-gloat-about...

Debater

Here's Gil McGowan's interview on Power & Politics:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686671167

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
I for one am glad that we won't be building any pipelines soon. I believe it is really important that we continue to buy as much oil from the Saudis as possible. That way they can buy our LAV's and crush all those silliy dissidents in their country. Also the east can continue to rail oil into their communities. What could possibly go wrong with that?

We are already buying less and less oil from the Saudis. Most of our oil comes from the US, around 3/4s, and some comes from South America. I don't know what the Saudi percentage is but it is low and gettinglower.

Nope, oil from Saudi is increasing substantially.
">http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/as-politicians-gloat-about...

I guess the price cuts changed that direction. Even so, we need to reduce that not replace it by another source. Over the long run the eastern oil refineries will have to shut down probably starting in Quebec.

Alberta with have to be satisfied with what it is selling now rather than trying to expand the industry. It's time to start transitioning.

Geoff

To implement the green energy provisions Leap Manifesto will require that we ensure there will be employment for those who are displaced by the move away from fossil fuels.

We're not going to get support from energy workers in Alberta or anywhere else, if they are threatened with losing their homes or their life's savings. Consequently, concrete job-creating proposals must be part of the plan.

 

jjuares

It looks like Trudeau is going to get these pipelines built. In fact it is a top priority for him.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

Pondering

Also from your link:

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/as-politicians-gloat-about...

Meanwhile, refineries in Quebec — where mayors led by Montreal’s Denis Coderre are fighting Energy East — are relying heavily on imports from the United States, a lot coming on oil trains, even as President Barack Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline to frustrate imports of “dirty” Canadian oil....

Meanwhile, refineries in Quebec — where mayors led by Montreal’s Denis Coderre are fighting Energy East — are relying heavily on imports from the United States, a lot coming on oil trains, even as President Barack Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline to frustrate imports of “dirty” Canadian oil.

The primary objectors to EE are the people along its path who consider the risk of a spill too great. Complaining about the US or the Saudis will do nothing to change that. Build a refinery in the west. If not Alberta then Saskatchewan or Manitoba or just continue using current export channels.

NDPP

jjuares wrote:
It looks like Trudeau is going to get these pipelines built. In fact it is a top priority for him.
">http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

Remember Dan Gagnier...

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
To implement the green energy provisions Leap Manifesto will require that we ensure there will be employment for those who are displaced by the move away from fossil fuels.

We're not going to get support from energy workers in Alberta or anywhere else, if they are threatened with losing their homes or their life's savings. Consequently, concrete job-creating proposals must be part of the plan.

This is the crux of the matter when it comes to winning people over to a green economy.    It has to go from the theoretical, to the practical.   Having spent several decades helping workers deal with the fall-out from the FTA and NAFTA, I have some considerable sympathy for Alberta energy workers.

On the one hand, we have to move off of the fossil fuel economy over the next few decades or we're all in deep shit.   On the other hand, we need to have "buy in" from the folks who are going to see their jobs disappear.    And until we start developing practical proposals to green the economy, the right-wing is going to play the "jobs" game...even though we all know very well that the right-wing does not and has never ever given a shit about jobs.

One of the quickest ways to generate jobs relatively immediately, is to do environmental retrofits of existing buildings.  A rather obscure former city councillor in Toronto by the name of Jack Layton pioneered this approach in the 1990's.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't understand why people are not thinking about the poor coal miners. Where is their advocacy group? If we need to keep digging up bitumen why do we need to give up on mining coal?

Given the fact that Calgary's oil and gas industry is one of our BC Liberal Premier's main sources of revenue and were Harpers biggest allies I am extremely pissed to hear a NDP Premier shilling for them. I mean really, WTF.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
I don't understand why people are not thinking about the poor coal miners. Where is their advocacy group? If we need to keep digging up bitumen why do we need to give up on mining coal?

I dunno, because perhaps a socialist approach to climate change means that you treat the folks you're going to throw out of work humanely...and have a concrete plan to do so because otherwise they become your enemy.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

No green plan threw the oil workers out of work. When the market throws them out of work we now should abandon our dreams of a green future? There was no national emergency when BC was stripped of its forest industry over the last twenty years because of soft wood lumber rules that see our logs exported raw and our forest licenses untied from requirements to mill locally. We need to think about workers by building the green infrastructure not building pipelines through BC to get to tidewater so that the inevitable oil spill will kill off what remains of our fishery jobs.

jjuares

I believe that it is really important that as social democrats it is our job to really screw over selected groups of workers. First up should be those who work in the oil industry. Lets face it, if they have concerns about their disappearing jobs it is only because they don't really understand the way we do. I mean even if they were able to read the LEAP manifesto would they be able to understand it with all those big words. And all those who champion their concerns like Notley should obviously be treated with our undisguised contempt. I mean my God who does this woman think she is?

Debater

jjuares wrote:
It looks like Trudeau is going to get these pipelines built. In fact it is a top priority for him.
">http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

As it is for Rachel Notley.

Most politicians are in favour of pipelines -- that's the problem.

Aristotleded24

A few thoughts.

Apparently, one argument for allowing pipelines from Alberta is to remove a right-wing line of attack that Notley can't build a pipeline. Let's run with that, and assume that the NDP is defeated in 2019. Then that right-wing government fails to build pipelines. What then?

The second thing is that this is being framed as an east-Alberta issue. Isn't there a great deal of opposition to the pipelines in BC? Last time I looked on a map BC is west of Alberta. Hasn't Christy Clark recently started to talk tough against pipelines from Alberta? Isn't there an irony that Clark can use this club against the BC NDP to block their chances of election next year? To say nothing of any internal opposition to pipelines that might arise from within Alberta? Furthermore, why is Notley pushing these pipelines when she said she would effectively stop pushing Keystone so hard, and Albertans still elected her?

As for jobs, how are jobs created within Alberta by piping the oil out of the province? I know that the head of the Alberta Federation of Labour was very harshly critical of Notley's not changing the royalty regime for oil companies.

But who knows? Perhaps green energy is going to take off in Alberta beyond everyone's wildest expectations that people will forget all about pipelines.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
I believe that it is really important that as social democrats it is our job to really screw over selected groups of workers. First up should be those who work in the oil industry. Lets face it, if they have concerns about their disappearing jobs it is only because they don't really understand the way we do. I mean even if they were able to read the LEAP manifesto would they be able to understand it with all those big words. And all those who champion their concerns like Notley should obviously be treated with our undisguised contempt. I mean my God who does this woman think she is?

I'm sure carriage makers and blacksmiths had a terrible time with the move to cars but you can't halt progress.

Alberta has every right to develop the oil sands but people in other provinces have every right to refuse pipelines.

Alberta has gone through many boom bust cycles. It is not the fault of the rest of Canada that Alberta is now in the bust part of the cycle and the oil industry is on a long decline. It's just the way it is.

I think Canadians are more than willing to pick up costs of transition to new industries just as we did for other areas of the country when they had loss or weakening of their industries. Oil is not the only possible way for Albertans to make money.

Aristotleded24

radiorahim wrote:
On the one hand, we have to move off of the fossil fuel economy over the next few decades or we're all in deep shit.   On the other hand, we need to have "buy in" from the folks who are going to see their jobs disappear.    And until we start developing practical proposals to green the economy, the right-wing is going to play the "jobs" game...even though we all know very well that the right-wing does not and has never ever given a shit about jobs.

[url=http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/oilsands-workers-call-on-albe... mean like what these guys are proposing?[/url]

Quote:
Green energy is finding champions in Alberta oil and gas workers, and the provincial government says it’s willing to listen to what they have to say.

A company called Iron & Earth is asking the provincial government to help support its Solar Skills campaign, a project that aims to train 1,000 electricians from the oilsands sector to install solar panels on 100 public buildings, making their skills marketable across the energy sector.

“Now is definitely the time to be launching this organization,” said Iron & Earth founder Lliam Hildebrand, who came up with the idea during lunchtime discussions with fellow oil workers who felt oil and gas tradespeople could become the workforce behind Alberta’s renewable energy sector.

“My dream is that one day I’ll be able to go to my union hall and have a renewable energy job to choose from.”

jjuares

Aristotleded24 wrote:

A few thoughts.

Apparently, one argument for allowing pipelines from Alberta is to remove a right-wing line of attack that Notley can't build a pipeline. Let's run with that, and assume that the NDP is defeated in 2019. Then that right-wing government fails to build pipelines. What then?

The second thing is that this is being framed as an east-Alberta issue. Isn't there a great deal of opposition to the pipelines in BC? Last time I looked on a map BC is west of Alberta. Hasn't Christy Clark recently started to talk tough against pipelines from Alberta? Isn't there an irony that Clark can use this club against the BC NDP to block their chances of election next year? To say nothing of any internal opposition to pipelines that might arise from within Alberta? Furthermore, why is Notley pushing these pipelines when she said she would effectively stop pushing Keystone so hard, and Albertans still elected her?

As for jobs, how are jobs created within Alberta by piping the oil out of the province? I know that the head of the Alberta Federation of Labour was very harshly critical of Notley's not changing the royalty regime for oil companies.

But who knows? Perhaps green energy is going to take off in Alberta beyond everyone's wildest expectations that people will forget all about pipelines.


First, pipelines allow a higher number of customers and higher prices. Alberta does not get the world price you see listed. There are many reasobs for this including a lack of markets. The lack of funds and customers limits revenues and ironically enough levels may prevent the government from phasing out coal plants like it intends to do. But I am sure the oil that comes in on railcars and tankers from overseas has absolutely no carbon footprint so I can understand why Alberta oil should be shut down. Lets keep sending money to Nigeria where its done such great things for the people or like I said Saudi Arabia so they can buy our arms to suppress the Shia.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
I believe that it is really important that as social democrats it is our job to really screw over selected groups of workers. First up should be those who work in the oil industry. Lets face it, if they have concerns about their disappearing jobs it is only because they don't really understand the way we do. I mean even if they were able to read the LEAP manifesto would they be able to understand it with all those big words. And all those who champion their concerns like Notley should obviously be treated with our undisguised contempt. I mean my God who does this woman think she is?

I'm sure carriage makers and blacksmiths had a terrible time with the move to cars but you can't halt progress.

Alberta has every right to develop the oil sands but people in other provinces have every right to refuse pipelines.


Pipelines are a federal responsibility.

Rev Pesky

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't understand why people are not thinking about the poor coal miners. Where is their advocacy group? If we need to keep digging up bitumen why do we need to give up on mining coal?...

This may come as a bit of a shock, but coal is an essential part of the manufacture of steel. You know, that metal stuff they use to make wind turbines. So the huge investment in wind turbines, as detailed in a supporting document of the Leap Manifesto, pretty much assures that coal miners will do well throughout.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The message got through all right so it appears Alberta remains in denial. Burning oil causes climate change. We must move off of fossil fuels. It's not a Toronto thing it's a Canada thing. We aren't going to sacrifice the planet to appease Alberta.

The Trudeau Liberals will:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-trudeau-convinced-...

Quote:

Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality.

The prime minister has been convinced by his finance minister, Bill Morneau, and other influential voices around the cabinet table that the pipelines have to be built to achieve the ambitious economic growth targets his government has set.

Caissa

I envision the Leap Manifesto being amended over the 2 years of discussion.

ETA: How can you take a document seriously that contains a split infinitive? Wink

Second ETA: This is so much better written than the  Leap Manifesto. http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/CCF/ReginaManifesto.htm

terrytowel

Stephen Lewis calls Rachel Notley remarks ('naive' 'ill-informed' & 'tone-deaf') dismiss the Leap Manifesto 'gratuitously'.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686674482

Go 3:35 into video

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

ETA: How can you take a document seriously that contains a split infinitive? Wink

Indeed! And I was surprised, if not shocked, that you posted in [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/who-should-ndp-choose-interim-... other thread[/url], given the erroneous use of the nominative case instead of the accusative in the very first word of the thread title!

Quote:
Second ETA: This is so much better written than the  Leap Manifesto. http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/CCF/ReginaManifesto.htm

Agreed. Just need to gender-neutralize and update it a bit, and it's good to go.

Caissa

If a moderator could change that to "Whom" it would be less cringe worthy.

It needs to be made clear to all that the NDP has not, I repeat "has not" adopted the Leap Manifesto.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

It needs to be made clear to all that the NDP has not, I repeat "has not" adopted the Leap Manifesto.

Nothing is clear - blame the bureaucrats who organize these conventions and the delegates whose role is to raise and drop their hands.

Example: This is from a rabble blog yesterday authored by "Various":

Quote:
We are heartened by the news that the New Democratic Party of Canada has passed a resolution to "recognize and support" The Leap Manifesto as a "statement of principles that is in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party." The party did not adopt the Leap Manifesto: it has started a process of debating it in electoral districts across the country.

So, let's say a delegate is enthusiastically in favour of the theses of the Leap Manifesto being debated in all ridings - even though the delegate doesn't understand or support much of what's in the document, and is looking forward to discussion and clarification. Should the delegate vote "YES" - committing her to "recognize and support" that the manifesto is "in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party"? Why??

And do we then blame outside observers for confusion about whether or not the convention has adopted (as opposed to merely "supported") the Leap Manifesto??

The same foolishness surrounds the leadership issue. Did 52% of the delegates really want Mulcair gone? And when? And did the other 48% really mean to give him a vote of support?

For that matter: What is the text of the Leap Manifesto resolution that was adopted? And where is the text of the leadership review resolution?

I'm not saying they're not available somewhere online. I wasn't in Edmonton. I could spend an hour or two searching for these texts.

Isn't it important to know exactly what people were voting on?

I'd appreciate if anyone has these two texts handy.

 

Policywonk

Rev Pesky wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't understand why people are not thinking about the poor coal miners. Where is their advocacy group? If we need to keep digging up bitumen why do we need to give up on mining coal?...

This may come as a bit of a shock, but coal is an essential part of the manufacture of steel. You know, that metal stuff they use to make wind turbines. So the huge investment in wind turbines, as detailed in a supporting document of the Leap Manifesto, pretty much assures that coal miners will do well throughout.

Metallurgical coal is an essential part of the manufacture of steel from iron ore. Recycled steel can be made with electric arc furnaces. Lower quality coal used to make electricity is not essential and can and is being phased out. If you do not make the distinction between metallurgical coal and non-metallurgical coal then the argument is misleading.

Policywonk

Unionist wrote:

Caissa wrote:

It needs to be made clear to all that the NDP has not, I repeat "has not" adopted the Leap Manifesto.

Nothing is clear - blame the bureaucrats who organize these conventions and the delegates whose role is to raise and drop their hands.

Example: This is from a rabble blog yesterday authored by "Various":

Quote:
We are heartened by the news that the New Democratic Party of Canada has passed a resolution to "recognize and support" The Leap Manifesto as a "statement of principles that is in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party." The party did not adopt the Leap Manifesto: it has started a process of debating it in electoral districts across the country.

So, let's say a delegate is enthusiastically in favour of the theses of the Leap Manifesto being debated in all ridings - even though the delegate doesn't understand or support much of what's in the document, and is looking forward to discussion and clarification. Should the delegate vote "YES" - committing her to "recognize and support" that the manifesto is "in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party"? Why??

And do we then blame outside observers for confusion about whether or not the convention has adopted (as opposed to merely "supported") the Leap Manifesto??

The same foolishness surrounds the leadership issue. Did 52% of the delegates really want Mulcair gone? And when? And did the other 48% really mean to give him a vote of support?

For that matter: What is the text of the Leap Manifesto resolution that was adopted? And where is the text of the leadership review resolution?

I'm not saying they're not available somewhere online. I wasn't in Edmonton. I could spend an hour or two searching for these texts.

Isn't it important to know exactly what people were voting on?

I'd appreciate if anyone has these two texts handy.

The Leap Manifesto resolution was a combination of the Vancouver East resolution (slightly modified) and the Toronto Danforth resolution in the resolutions link that was posted before Convention. The leadership review resolution is to have a leadership vote within a year. Convention suspended that portion of the constitution to allow for up to two years. I suspect that it will be sometime next year, possibly in the fall.

swallow swallow's picture

radiorahim wrote:

Quote:
To implement the green energy provisions Leap Manifesto will require that we ensure there will be employment for those who are displaced by the move away from fossil fuels.

We're not going to get support from energy workers in Alberta or anywhere else, if they are threatened with losing their homes or their life's savings. Consequently, concrete job-creating proposals must be part of the plan.

This is the crux of the matter when it comes to winning people over to a green economy.    It has to go from the theoretical, to the practical.   Having spent several decades helping workers deal with the fall-out from the FTA and NAFTA, I have some considerable sympathy for Alberta energy workers.

On the one hand, we have to move off of the fossil fuel economy over the next few decades or we're all in deep shit.   On the other hand, we need to have "buy in" from the folks who are going to see their jobs disappear.    And until we start developing practical proposals to green the economy, the right-wing is going to play the "jobs" game...even though we all know very well that the right-wing does not and has never ever given a shit about jobs.

One of the quickest ways to generate jobs relatively immediately, is to do environmental retrofits of existing buildings.  A rather obscure former city councillor in Toronto by the name of Jack Layton pioneered this approach in the 1990's.

Would agree with this. And I think there are historical precedents. 

Slavery in the West India, US South and elsewhere had to go. Campaigners started to use economic arguments, and the workers affected (in Manchester, UK, and elsewhere) started to get on board for moral reasons, once campaigners started to accept that their jobs were worth something. The UK campaign to end the slave trade (and later, slavery) was initially derided as naive, ill-informed and unpatriotic, but it won out. 

Workers in places like Manchester would later stand with India's independence campaign, even though it meant the decimation of the British cotton milling industry. 

I recall the Cruise Missile Conversion Project, which argued that weapons factories in Toronto should not be closed down, but converted to peaceful production. 

In my reading, the Leap folks are trying to move the campaigns against pipelines from a the moral, environmentalist argument into the green jobs direction. This is, as radiorahim says, very Layton-esque in some ways.

Unionist

Policywonk wrote:

The Leap Manifesto resolution was a combination of the Vancouver East resolution (slightly modified) and the Toronto Danforth resolution in the resolutions link that was posted before Convention.

Thanks, Policywonk - I'm familiar with both of those very different resolutions - but what did the delegates actually approve? Did they "recognize and support" the manifesto as per Vancouver East, but not Toronto-Danforth?? Words matter.

Quote:
The leadership review resolution is to have a leadership vote within a year. Convention suspended that portion of the constitution to allow for up to two years. I suspect that it will be sometime next year, possibly in the fall.

Right. So there was nothing in the wording of the resolution suggesting that Mulcair leave - whether now, or next year, or ever.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

The Leap Manifesto resolution was a combination of the Vancouver East resolution (slightly modified) and the Toronto Danforth resolution in the resolutions link that was posted before Convention.

Thanks, Policywonk - I'm familiar with both of those very different resolutions - but what did the delegates actually approve? Did they "recognize and support" the manifesto as per Vancouver East, but not Toronto-Danforth?? Words matter.

Quote:
The leadership review resolution is to have a leadership vote within a year. Convention suspended that portion of the constitution to allow for up to two years. I suspect that it will be sometime next year, possibly in the fall.

Right. So there was nothing in the wording of the resolution suggesting that Mulcair leave - whether now, or next year, or ever.


Yes, he is the under no obligation to leave now but if he wants to continue after the leadership election he must run again.

Policywonk

Unionist wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

The Leap Manifesto resolution was a combination of the Vancouver East resolution (slightly modified) and the Toronto Danforth resolution in the resolutions link that was posted before Convention.

Thanks, Policywonk - I'm familiar with both of those very different resolutions - but what did the delegates actually approve? Did they "recognize and support" the manifesto as per Vancouver East, but not Toronto-Danforth?? Words matter.

Quote:
The leadership review resolution is to have a leadership vote within a year. Convention suspended that portion of the constitution to allow for up to two years. I suspect that it will be sometime next year, possibly in the fall.

Right. So there was nothing in the wording of the resolution suggesting that Mulcair leave - whether now, or next year, or ever.

The Toronto Danforth resolution was about the discussion, the Vancouver East about the values and vision, Convention voted for both in the same resolution as they were combined in the panel. 

 

Unionist

Policywonk wrote:

The Toronto Danforth resolution was about the discussion, the Vancouver East about the values and vision, Convention voted for both in the same resolution as they were combined in the panel. 

Do you - or does anyone - have the text? Because if convention voted to "support" the manifesto (as Vancouver East's version says), then the MSM can be forgiven for missing the distinction between "support" and "adopt".

Policywonk

Unionist wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

The Toronto Danforth resolution was about the discussion, the Vancouver East about the values and vision, Convention voted for both in the same resolution as they were combined in the panel. 

Do you - or does anyone - have the text? Because if convention voted to "support" the manifesto (as Vancouver East's version says), then the MSM can be forgiven for missing the distinction between "support" and "adopt".

The Vancouver East language was softened slightly to say that the high-level vision and values of the manifesto are in keeping with those of the Party. Convention was not voting on the specifics of the manifesto. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jjuares wrote:

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:

I believe that it is really important that as social democrats it is our job to really screw over selected groups of workers. First up should be those who work in the oil industry. Lets face it, if they have concerns about their disappearing jobs it is only because they don't really understand the way we do. I mean even if they were able to read the LEAP manifesto would they be able to understand it with all those big words. And all those who champion their concerns like Notley should obviously be treated with our undisguised contempt. I mean my God who does this woman think she is?

I'm sure carriage makers and blacksmiths had a terrible time with the move to cars but you can't halt progress.

Alberta has every right to develop the oil sands but people in other provinces have every right to refuse pipelines.

Pipelines are a federal responsibility.

So you don't agree with First Nations rights to oppose industrial projects on their unceded territories or the right of municipalities to oppose federal projects. Seems like a very narrow view of our Constitution. Mind you both the Liberals and Tories agree with you and seem to be willing to ram through pipelines at the behest of the Calgary oil sector.

If the NDP doesn't support First Nations rights and citizen control then what does it stand for?

Your argument is applicable to selling arms to Saudi Arabia. If we cancel that deal it will put many good union jobs at risk so we should not only allow it but we should promote arms sales given the high paying jobs the industry creates. After all if we don't sell them the arm they will buy them from somewhere else.

Pages