What kind of economic platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters?

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

Adam T wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Yes, I can see the logic of your position. I am sure you have only made the one mistake. It would be churlish of someone to point out that the one mistake you made was also the basis for you calling another poster a name. So I won't do that of course. (Although I did notice that even before that post you were calling that same poster another name. )But of course we have already established that you are justified in doing so because of the number of comments you have found to be erroneous. The only concern I would have is what if another individual comes along who hasn't even made the one "honest mistake" that you have made and because of that sits in judgement of you and decides to call you a name. Not that that will ever happen of course.

1.It reads like you're still trolling, or perhaps just trying to be funny. It's hard to tell given that you are so not funny.  In fact, you're painfully unfunny.

2.I wonder if you'd mind the fact checking if NR wasn't a New Democrat who you agree with.  Do you have a problem with me, or with the fact that I point out his cheerleading for the NDP is often based on B.S? Or more accurately, his cheerleading for anybody but the Liberals, including, it seems, the Conservatives.

3.Given that I've already told you (and him) to see if you can find any other factual mistakes or 'right wing' comments in my posts, I think it's pretty clear that I have no problem with anybody 'sitting in judgement' of me.

I await your findings.

BTW, I believe the next college semester starts in September.  I really highly recommend you take a course in logic.

 

 

 


Well of course I am still trolling after all your original description was accurate. And you are right I am painfully unfunny except for my troll ears which are extremely funny. The "agree with" problem I am not so sure about. I am sure I could find lots of areas that I agree with NR and many areas I probably disagree with him about. Actually I didn't think there was lots of good news for Mulcair in this poll. I thought it was a mixed bag.There was some but of course he is going to interpret it in a way that fits his prejudices. It's cognitive dissonance. In much the same way you tried to draw a difference between your factual error and his questionable interpretation of the poll results. You have resorted to saying he does it all the time but I have only done it once even though yours is the more flagrant error and his is the more debatable one.
As for having a "problem" with you, please banish the thought. You have given me suggestions about how I can improve my cognitive ability. How thoughtful of you. You sound like wonderful human being and a great person to know.

Adam T

Pondering wrote:

All the provinces had to sign off on CETA:

I don't believe that is correct. From the reading of what you posted, it sounds like the provinces were consulted on CETA but they had no veto over it.

 

Adam T

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So what kind of platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters? Is there any hope for this thread? Perhaps we can start a thread somewhere in reactions or somewhere where people can aruge and attack each other without mercy, and we can actually have meaningful discussions in these other threads?

Just a thought. I thought that even though each of us brings unique prespectives that we are all essentially on the same side here.

First, I don't think we're all on the same side. There are New Democrats, Liberals and even the occasional Conservative posting here and we disagree on many things.

In partial answer to your question though,

1.The first place to start is obviously a massive investment in infrastructure, far more than what the Conservatives have proposed and are presently doing.  Not just on roads and bridges, but especially on public transportation (bullet trains?), and such works. On the CBC one of the more conservative commentators suggesting a $500 billion infrastructure fund. The decline in the price of oil will make the projects cheaper both from the decline itself and the fact that many construction workers should be freed up.  It also helps keep interest rates low.

2.Since the private sector doesn't seem to be doing it, a massive investment in research and technology, or as much as possible anyway, given the limited number of scientists and engineers.  The payoff would be that the researchers would be allowed to start up companies with their inventions.

All of this financed through a 1 or 2% increase in corporate taxes and an 1 or 2% increase in income taxes.

Just for starters.

Third, although the NDP wouldn't propose it, they should also do away with interprovincial trade barriers.

 

Aristotleded24

Adam T wrote:
In partial answer to your question though,

1.The first place to start is obviously a massive investment in infrastructure, far more than what the Conservatives have proposed and are presently doing.  Not just on roads and bridges, but especially on public transportation (bullet trains?), and such works. On the CBC one of the more conservative commentators suggesting a $500 billion infrastructure fund. The decline in the price of oil will make the projects cheaper both from the decline itself and the fact that many construction workers should be freed up.  It also helps keep interest rates low.

2.Since the private sector doesn't seem to be doing it, a massive investment in research and technology, or as much as possible anyway, given the limited number of scientists and engineers.  The payoff would be that the researchers would be allowed to start up companies with their inventions.

All of this financed through a 1 or 2% increase in corporate taxes and an 1 or 2% increase in income taxes.

Just for starters.

Third, although the NDP wouldn't propose it, they should also do away with interprovincial trade barriers.

Agree generally with points 1 and 2. Can you give specific examples of interprovincial trade barriers that are problematic? Would not that issue be better resolved among the provinces rather than federal intervention anyways?

Adam T

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Agree generally with points 1 and 2. Can you give specific examples of interprovincial trade barriers that are problematic? Would not that issue be better resolved among the provinces rather than federal intervention anyways?

 

While the figures on the costs to consumers of interprovincial trade barriers put out by business are likely grossly inflated, there are specific problems such as differing regulations on gasoline content, meaing companies have to produce gasoline differntly for each province, thereby raising the cost of production.

In addition to rules favoring local workers for public works (which you probably favor but which inhibit both specialization and economies of scale), by far the worst interprovincial trade barrier is the protection from competition for professionals by preventing many from working outside their province.  

Provincial governments, out of parochial interest will never eliminate interprovincial trade barriers.

I'd also eliminate dairy and poultry marketing boards which significantly raise the cost of these items for consumers mainly for the benefit of, not small family farmers, but a relatively small handful of mostly very wealthy corporate farms. I'm sure the NDP would never agree to that.

Adam T

jjuares wrote:
Well of course I am still trolling after all your original description was accurate. And you are right I am painfully unfunny except for my troll ears which are extremely funny. The "agree with" problem I am not so sure about. I am sure I could find lots of areas that I agree with NR and many areas I probably disagree with him about. Actually I didn't think there was lots of good news for Mulcair in this poll. I thought it was a mixed bag.There was some but of course he is going to interpret it in a way that fits his prejudices. It's cognitive dissonance. In much the same way you tried to draw a difference between your factual error and his questionable interpretation of the poll results. You have resorted to saying he does it all the time but I have only done it once even though yours is the more flagrant error and his is the more debatable one. As for having a "problem" with you, please banish the thought. You have given me suggestions about how I can improve my cognitive ability. How thoughtful of you. You sound like wonderful human being and a great person to know.

Some of that is almost funny.  

Saying "lots of good news" when there was one piece of good news and one piece of not so good news, is a far more 'flagrant error' than saying "Mulcair was mentioned once" when he was mentioned twice.

Intellectual dishonesty may be excused as 'cognitive dissonance' but that doesn't mean it should't be pointed out when it occurs.  I suppose I really should just ignore everything NR posts like, I suspect, many people around here do.

Here is a perfect example of what your doing: http://youtu.be/fM1YaAwOPuQ Jon Stewart interviewed by Chris Wallace.

Wallace finds one example of a 'liberal' reporter misrepesenting a story and says "see they do it too!" While it sounds like what Diane Sawyer said is a complete fabrication and is wrong, it's one case.  Faux News, in contrast, clearly has a policy of altering the facts to fit their right wing agenda. I'm not sure why Stewart didn't come out and say that exact thing, but I'm making that point.

It's also ironic that they would use Diane Sawyer as an exemplar of 'liberal media bias' for, while the seeming misreporting of that story on the Republican Arizona governor may have had some negative consequences, Sawyer herself was at least at one time a Republican who worked in the Nixon White House (and on the Ford transition team).

I  don't care if a person is a liberal, a conservative, or a 'socialist'  as long as they present their case honestly.

 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Would the mods please try and fix the problem that was created with post #37 and thanks.

Hey NR,

The coding problem is in post #36 - you put an extra [ / quote ] at the beginning of the text you were quoting. Just edit that out and hopefully the thread will be fine.

By the way: You can tell Adam T that he spelled "pathological" wrong. Also, that the abbreviation for bullshit is not "B.S":

Adam T wrote:

 So, there is still precisely ONE piece of good news in that article for the NDP and not the "lots of good news" the pathalogical liar NR claimed there was. 

To be fair, I don't know the person, and NR may be honest on most things. But, when it comes to the NDP I don't think anbody can seriously debate that NR isn't full of B.S

And my message to Adam T is control his temper or else surf to another site.

And use spellchek more offen.

 

NorthReport

==================

NorthReport

Thanks Unionist

I removed post #36 but the problem is still there.

oldgoat

Adam your posts continue to be hostile and offensive.  You bring more toxicity to threads than you do substance.  You are taking a three day break, after which thankfully you will be Catchfire and Meg's problem

Pondering

Adam T wrote:

Pondering wrote:

All the provinces had to sign off on CETA:

I don't believe that is correct. From the reading of what you posted, it sounds like the provinces were consulted on CETA but they had no veto over it.

Harper would never have included them if he didn't have to. He doesn't have the right to impose conditions in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The E.U. was shocked that provinces actually have more rights than E.U. states. For example, Harper was unable to impose a national securities regulator.

Harper was forced to negotiate with the provinces and give them compensation or exemptions where demanded because he can't impose the deal unilaterally. He didn't offer compensation just to be nice.

The Nova Scotia government was also NDP for a time during the negotiations. There is buy in by all the provincial premiers and the PM that this is not something Canadians themselves should have much of a say in.

I see the new battlefront on democracy to be information-based. Many politicians are of the opinion that we choose a representative who is then authorized to make all our decisions for us as they are our betters. Democracy is limited to voting. Withholding as much information as possible from us allows them to do this more smoothly between elections and to more easily justify their record.

Many people agree that they don't understand the complexities of free trade and managing the economy so do feel they have to choose the person/party they think can best manage these affairs and leave it up to them. To some extent that is correct but with more information people can understand a lot more.

As an example (having nothing to do with free trade), for years Quebecers have paid a full 30% corruption surcharge on construction contracts. With open data people that wanted to could see that extra 30% charge and answers would have been demanded much sooner even if we don't understand the complexities of procurement.

If I see that roads in Ontario just over the border last 5 years longer I am going to want to know why that is.

I would argue that automatic maximum access to information is more significant to democracy than the method through which we elect representatives or which party is elected.

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Naomi Klein on fracking, Indigenous rights and Canada's federal election

quote:

Klein shared her thoughts with The Vancouver Observer recently on the climate crisis and how Canadians can take back control from federal politicians who are failing to protect the environment. 

Fossil fuels and the resource economy

“I feel like one of the reasons why this book is resonating in Canada the way it is is that people realize they have governments that badly mismanaged their futures by relying so heavily on extractive industries. That reliance, for a long time, there was a feeling that this is a dirty deal we’ve made, which is why we’re doing so well. But people are realizing that this deal has made them really vulnerable.

“I was in Alberta when the price of oil dropped. This has made them extremely vulnerable in the same way that Christy Clark’s reliance on LNG has made BC very economically vulnerable. That very seductive promise of easy money has a flip side -- these are volatile industries. Not only are we breaking international commitments, but we are also damaging our economy in many ways.

"We’ve already seen this in Ontario. The extractive boom has been hugely damaging to our manufacturing economy...I think the takeaway is we need to be building regenerative economies, not extractive, and that means getting away from extractive resources that are so volatile.”....

quote:

Our relationship with nature must change

“As Indigenous people take a leading role in resisting the extractive industries — which is happening obviously most powerfully in BC - there’s also an important cross-pollination of ideas that is not just about opposing a pipeline but is also about a shift in how we see ourselves and our relationship to nature,” Klein said.

“The allure of fossil fuels is the promise that you can transcend the natural world. That’s always been the intoxicating promise. You know, the quotes I have in the book about when the commercial steam engine is that you can build factories and no longer be at the mercy of winds. No longer be at the mercy of moving water to power your water wheels. This was always an illusion. 

In her book, Klein writes about the Earl of Liverpool, who penned in a meeting to memorialize James Watt in 182: “Be the winds friendly or be they contrary, the power of the steam engine overcomes all difficulties...Let the wind blow from whatever quarter it may.. you have the power and the means, by the Steam Engine, of applying that force in the proper time and in the proper manner."

But Klein argues that this transcendence of the natural environment was always an illusion.

“We were never free from nature. We’ve always been a part of it and in dialogue. It’s just that what fossil fuels created was a delayed response so that the impact of our actions are now coming to us centuries after that first carbon was burned, right?," she said....

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/changes-everything-author-naomi-kl...

janfromthebruce

oldgoat wrote:

Adam your posts continue to be hostile and offensive.  You bring more toxicity to threads than you do substance.  You are taking a three day break, after which thankfully you will be Catchfire and Meg's problem

Kiss

NorthReport

I would like to try and bring this crucial topic back on track. The fact that was so disrupted out to tell you something. Oh, and by-the-way Ken we are on the same side, you can rest assured of that.

Mulcair and his team I'm sure are well aware of the NDP economic albatross. I just see promoting jobs as an effective way to win elections. once you are in power, if you are the NDP, you can make the correct decisions to be respectful of climate change issues, etc.

NorthReport

I would like to try and bring this crucial topic back on track. The fact that was so disrupted out to tell you something. Oh, and by-the-way Ken we are on the same side, you can rest assured of that.

Mulcair and his team I'm sure are well aware of the NDP economic albatross. I just see promoting jobs as an effective way to win elections. once you are in power, if you are the NDP, you can make the correct decisions to be respectful of climate change issues, etc.

NorthReport

I would like to try and bring this crucial topic back on track. The fact that it was so disrupted out to tell us something. Oh, and by-the-way Ken, we are on the same side, you can rest assured of that.

Mulcair and his team I'm sure are well aware of the NDP economic albatross, and promoting jobs is an effective way to win elections.

Once you are in power, if you are the NDP, you can make the correct decisions to be respectful of climate change issues, etc.

NorthReport

Elwin Hermanson says wheat quality not down since end of monopoly

Reuters reported more complaints from buyers since 2012 dismantling of Canadian Wheat Board

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elwin-hermanson-says-wheat-quality-not-d...

Ken Burch

Unionist wrote:
.else surf to another site.

And use spellchek more offen.

 

I remember Spelchek.  One of the greats of the NHL.   Helped the Leafs win their last Stanley Cup, IIRC.  Sad part is, he was with the Blackhawks at the time.

Red Andy

From Sunday's National Post:
"Michael Den Tandt: Tom Mulcair is Ottawa’s best Parliamentarian — and yet he’s the only party leader likely to lose his job"

I think that, despite media and individual fascination with charisma, youth and the meme of dynasty (Trudeau), a lot of people - like myself, were willing, ready and wanting to support the idea of Mulcair & the NDP in government. However, Mulcair's strategies have presented some obstacles to his party's growth:
a) as this article discusses, the strategy to focus on Parliament - which does play to his strengths but, beyond partisans, nobody else gives a damn;
b) the party's decision to focus on the economy as the ballot question. While clear positions are necessary, this is perceived Harper turf and Mulcair will never gain credibility for it;
c) the party's decision NOT to focus on the environment as THE ballot question. This would separate the NDP from everyone else except the Greens;
d) the party's position as just one more stalwart supporter of that far-right, racist, militaristic Israeli govt. under Netanyahu. Such a shame!
e) finally, the party's and Mulcair's handling of the alleged sexual improprieties of two Liberal MPs. He and the Party showed themselves ready and even eager to play politics with the issue.

These are the issues I will contemplate in terms of supporting the NDP in 2015.

PrairieDemocrat15

Regarding CETA: It touches on several areas that fall under provinical jurisdiction meaning provincial legislation will need to be introduced to give effect to many aspects of the agreement. Europe, worried that provinces may not make the necessary legislative changes to make them compliant with CETA, demanded they sign off on the treaty. As a result, Ottawa has consulted extensivly with the provinces on CETA, and federal negotiators followed provinical instructions in areas that fall under their negoitation. Manitoba (and any other province of that matter) had no choice but to play ball in order to get the best deal possible under the circumstances. It remains to be seem that, if the agreement turns out to be very bad, Manitoba will refuse to sign off and make the legislative changes to bring it into effect. However, the optics of Canada's only NDP government standing alone against the CETA (which the media, the Lib-Cons, and most municipalities support) would be terrible, especially for a government that is on the ropes politically and currently engaged in a leadership crisis.

trotwood73

Well here's something that might add to the credibility of Mulcair and the NDP managing the Canadian economy....

I was just watching the daily noon panel on RDI (the French language CBC Newsworld). They were discussing Mulcair and the NDP caucus meeting currently taking place. One of the panellists raised the point that the currently sinking oil price is proving Mulcair's claims in the spring of 2012 that the Canadian economy was suffering from Dutch Disease due to our petro-dollar  (a quick reminder : Canada Dutch Disease? Flaherty Slams Mulcair For Suggesting Petro-Dollar Hurting Manufacturing).

The panel went even so far as to criticize Mulcair from not raising this in some of his recent press conferences! But I think that would be a stupid move. Nobody likes an opposition leader who says "I told you so!".  

 

NorthReport

Mulcair can though raise it at the appropriate time during the actual election campaign.

____________________

So the 3 amigos have the following respective problems heading into the election:

Harper is a warmonger

The economic policy of Mulcair's party has been discredited by the right-wing mainstream press.

Trudeau is not ready to govern.

Question: What does the NDP have to do to win?

Answer: Is a simple one  - Have a sound jobs and economic platform!

 

Pages