Ontario Greens pick new leader

I stand corrected on the 'no bank bailout here.'

I had forgot about this quiet number.

One reason it was so quiet is that despite the big numbers it wasn't remotely on the scale of what happened in the US. The $700billion TARP was just the start in a multi trillion shoveling of money that is not loan guarantees- it's 'invested' like gone, the same as is the auto bailout funds: only to return to government coffers when/if there is some equity in the resurrecetd and reinvented entities.

Its still a bailout for sure- but the scale of comparison is off. [Note Duncan didn't make one like that.]

More to the point with the discussion here: now that I remember this happened, I vaguely remember that the NDP may have taken a few pokes at it. But despite the big numbers involved, it was not in the league of the Chrysler and GM bailouts- by risk, scale or public policy implications.

True about subsidizing the banks. But thats really a comment on the capitalist system, not one on the bailout in particular.

 

Lets not get into pointless hair splitting.

But these days, when the word "bailout" is used- the model people have is definitely the shuffling of money at the US banks without much of a structure, let alone plan; no idea how much will come back or in what form, etc. Or the much more modest version of the auto bailout.

Yes, the Canadian government did do that bailout. But substantively speaking, its more like a slight rachet up from business as usual... and not the kind of anything goes, whats next bailout.

There's a huge difference in degree here. At the very least in public perception, but I don't think only in that.

Where from what I have said do you stretch to make the rhetorical 'question' [statement] do I think that is how the system should work. The discussion has been about how it works, and secondly about labels being used... not about how it should work.

Still on the theme of how things work- its not a given the housing bubble will burst here. [And slow price declines don't have remotely similar consequences.] The lefts habit for overblown statements don't help the cause of public education.

There is plenty of case to be made that the financial system is subsideized by all of us, always has been. And that there is a clear line between that and the collapse of the financial sector where citizens get to pay for repairing the damage, and its all being reloaded for the fat cats to reap the wealth on the next ride up while we backstop them.

I'm of the opinion you don't overstate things as impending disasters. We do that on a regular basis. 

Doug wrote:

Okay, so there wasn't that much picking involved:

 

Toronto businessman and entrepreneur Mike Schreiner is the new leader of the Green Party of Ontario.

Mr. Schreiner was the only candidate running to replace outgoing leader Frank de Jong.

He was confirmed to the position Saturday evening at the party's leadership convention in London.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarios-greens-pick-mike-s...

 

Will he be running in my constituency? If not, then he's irrelevant to me.

hsfreethinkers wrote:

We are subsidizing the banks in a big way. Not only do we allow them to create debt money (money out of nothing) and charge interest on it, we also make the risks public while keeping profits private: [URL=http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/10/22/BubbleWillBurst/index.html]Why Canada's Housing Bubble Will Burst[/URL]

I agree that we are subsidizing the banks.  But Dobbin's article on why we have a housing bubble is mostly hyperbole.  It's heavily based on a letter that investment banker David Lepoidevin sends to clients and prospective clients, hoping to drum up business.

I also don't think the term 'bailout' is correct in terms of what happened with the banks.  The CMHC is buying insured mortgages.  In other words, these are mortgages where we are already on the hook for defaults.  It was mostly a shell game to make the bank's balance sheets look better so they could keep borrowing and lending.

 

So nice to see this thread return to the original topic :-)

To understand Mike, you have to understand that he was put in place by David Scrymgeor, former federal PC candidate, National Director of the federal PC party, and now GPO CFO.

My own opinion is that David is concentrating on turning the GPO into a "professional" political party, not necessarily a "conservative" party. 

Part of professionalism is filing off the rough edges of your platform. And making sure your leader is also easily-digestible.

I could not have said it better myself. 

hsfreethinkers wrote:

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

 

Lol. I don't know much about the GPO, but I wasn't impressed with this blog post: [URL=http://www.gpo.ca/node/1896]Ontario NDP chooses a new Leader[/URL], particularly this passage:

Lawson Hunter, GPO President wrote:

The party remains on the left, with lots of references to social democrats, scab labour, social progressives, and corporate elite - we've heard it all before. Despite the nod towards a 'green economy' (for the NDP that only means protecting union jobs and using steel in a 'buy Ontario' kind of mentality) the NDP has shown that it's not ready to grow into the new reality. The environment, not left/right politics and economic philosophy is what we have to focus on.

So their plan is to ignore social and economic reality, yet fix the environment?

The NDP simply realizes that a US Democrat bill for buy American in that country's stimulus plan coupled with Stephen Harper's buy American plan to uphold FTA-NAFTA, and in addition to the Ontario Liberals' plan to do absolutely nothing while spending millions on consultants every day is not a good stimulus plan for Canadian workers. Canada's largest provincial economy has bled tens of thousands of good paying union jobs since McGuinty pledged to stop the bleeding. We need new blood in both Ottawa and Toronto. Canadian voters are not falling for the lazy-faire attitude in Canada's political halls of powerlessness, and the polls indicate as much.

hsfreethinkers wrote:

So their plan is to ignore social and economic reality, yet fix the environment?

I think your statement neatly summarizes the perspective divide between the Green Party and the others.  The way that senior governments have operated in Canada has, at best, paid lip service to the environment.  In particular, economic growth has always been top priority - even for NDP governments (IMV).  Of the advances in social policy since WWII, those that were adopted most readily were those that advanced the economy.  Examples are the feminist revolution which effectively doubled the potential labour force and racial tolerance which facilitated our raiding of underdeveloped countries of some of their most highly educated people.  The environment has always come last and has been treated as a luxury.  We can save the spotted owls but only after everything else is looked after.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that environmental legislation has been primarily focused on creating parks (which are thereafter treated as economic output generators via tourism) and reacting to environmental problems that have been ignored for so long they are starting to have noticeable negative economic consequences.

The Green perspective (at least as I understand it) is that without a healthy environment, there is no economic or social reality.  Our environment is the ultimate reality.  For generations, the messaging, explicit or implicit, from our political leaders has been something like "Of course we think the environment is important but first we need to ensure we have a strong economy.  Then we can afford to fix the environment".  From a green perspective (and, I believe from a Green perspective), this is upside-down, inside-out thinking.

So when Greens talk about the "new reality", I think that's what they're trying to say.

disclaimer: I'm not now nor have I ever been a member of the Green Party.  Or any party.  Although I have been to parties.  And I did inhale.

 

ReeferMadness wrote:

So when Greens talk about the "new reality", I think that's what they're trying to say.

I follow, but one problem I'm having with the GPC is to try to get a better sense of where they are on economic justice issues. For example, the CCPA has shown how inequality has increased significantly over the last few decades. I've come to realise we need to reduce inequality for the health of our society, not to mention our democracy. I'm not sure that the Green Party appreciates the extent to which our current plight can be attributed to neoliberal policies. I'm skeptical that tinkering with neoliberalism is going to do the job on the environment, and we don't have time to experiment. Those are important words and issues that the former GPO President dismissed with a "we've heard it all before".

I agree that GP has a hard time expressing economic justice policy. 

But every Green understands that when the environment goes bad, poor people hear about it first. Usually in distant lands.. 

John Ogilvie (GP) wrote:

When the federal NDP defends the Oshawa auto plants against restructuring and emission reductions, you've lost me.

 

Then you have lost me too? While it may be political wise to strategically paint this picture. It is false but popular myth. There is little doubt that the Federal CPC and LPC hand out corporate welfare with no strings attached.

The NDP has positioned themselves properly on these issues. Automotive emissions reductions actually creates jobs and if the money is invested in Canada it creates the jobs HERE. My vehicle has 3 catalytic converters on it and is made in Ontario.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Is the Green Party that new progressive force? Maybe. I'm discouraged lately, but life is long.

You want it to be something it is not. You want to impose your values upon the party. However, continue with the Union bashing. This keeps the Green Party Aligned with the Progressive Liberal and Conservative Parties. LOL.

hsfreethinkers wrote:

So their plan is to ignore social and economic reality, yet fix the environment?

Its a different approach from the NDP. The Green Party social and economic realiy is a vision shared by Neo Liberal economic policies. That is the policies currently supported by the CPC and the LPC.

 

 

Lord Palmerston wrote:

John Ogilvie (GP) wrote:

"NDP: scrap the carbon tax"

It's quite comical how NDP partisans here insist that they oppose the carbon tax on the grounds that it represents market ecology and suggest the neoliberal cap and trade system as the alternative.

Quite right and to the heart of the matter, milord.  A carbon tax would have an immediate, revolutionary affect on the standard economic growth model, with concomitant political effects to the status quo.  It's a real game changer that, not only addresses the imperative of global warming at its source, it also creates a new paradigm of power.  Cap and trade looks to be nothing more than another derivative ponzi scheme that hopes to capitalize on the current crisis by straddling the old order, while attempting to harness the new regime.  By kicking the can further down the road, cap and trade will no doubt end in both failure and catastrophe, should worst-case senarios about climate change prove accurate.  To this point, all argument is existential. Vote Green!

The immediately above series of quotations aptly mixes common myths lefties have about carbon pricing possibilities, and the real life politics rather than pipe dream wishes that come with them.

[1] All carbon pricing methods are based in 'the market system'. That should be: 'Duh'. So it is delusional this common idea among NDP partisans that the carbon tax is inherently more 'capitalistic' than cap and trade.

But the fact that is a delusion does not make the opposite true.

[2] There is nothing the least bit revolutionary about the carbon tax in itself. Carbon tax without prior aggressive green spending initiatives is indeed nothing more than a misplaced faith in what market price mechanisms will achieve essentially of their own accord. And whatever the carbon tax fits into in some overall package in their minds, Canadian lefties are inclined to support and preach the virtues of carbon tax political agendas that actually exist. And do so willfully oblivious or waving away that said actual carbon tax agendas come joined at the hip with tax cuts that make aggresive green spending initiatives fiscally impossible- the same green spending initiatives that are required to make a carbon tax something more than faith in what market pricing will do.

Mike Schreiner, the new leader of the Green Party of Ontario will be on Global at 6:60 tonight:

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/ontario/features/focus_ontario/index.html

KenS wrote:

The immediately above series of quotations aptly mixes common myths lefties have about carbon pricing possibilities, and the real life politics rather than pipe dream wishes that come with them.

[1] All carbon pricing methods are based in 'the market system'. That should be: 'Duh'. So it is delusional this common idea among NDP partisans that the carbon tax is inherently more 'capitalistic' than cap and trade.

But the fact that is a delusion does not make the opposite true.

[2] There is nothing the least bit revolutionary about the carbon tax in itself. Carbon tax without prior aggressive green spending initiatives is indeed nothing more than a misplaced faith in what market price mechanisms will achieve essentially of their own accord. And whatever the carbon tax fits into in some overall package in their minds, Canadian lefties are inclined to support and preach the virtues of carbon tax political agendas that actually exist. And do so willfully oblivious or waving away that said actual carbon tax agendas come joined at the hip with tax cuts that make aggresive green spending initiatives fiscally impossible- the same green spending initiatives that are required to make a carbon tax something more than faith in what market pricing will do.

KenS: While you're correct in pointing out that carbon taxes are offset by tax cuts elsewhere, my understanding of such 'tax shifting' is that the result is revenue neutral, and would not affect mandated program spending in areas such as health care, for example.  You're also right, to some extent, about a reliance on pricing mechanisms to produce sustainability. However, that in itself would not preclude "green spending initiatives" elsewhere-- they simply may not be as "aggressive" as you might prefer.  But that is an ongoing debate.  Personally, I think the crux of the problem lies with 'monopoly capitalism', whereby, corporate entities that are 'too big to fail' are conduits of macro policy.  While government should remain the biggest player in the game, a larger role isn't necessarily better.

As for carbon taxes not being revolutionary, in and of themselves, I think you underestimate what affect European gasoline and diesel prices would have in North America.  Imagine if U.S. gas prices were 5 or 6 dollars per gallon!  Not to mention having to pay the true cost of electicity, as coal-fired generation is phased out. Other than protecting the most vulnerable from the inevitable restructuring of the economy, I don't know what else government can do to re-establish some semblance of eqilibrium. It will never be a perfect world.

KenS:

Thanks for your well-considered and respectful response (which is appreciated here).  I share your concern about the shortcomings of tax shifting.  It does beg certain questions about future revenues and expenditures, I think. It may also be part of what I meant about it not being a perfect world, although I don't recall making any sort of reference to 'great', or aspirations thereof. 

As for your comment about Europeans opting for horsepower over fuel economy, when provided with greater fuel effeciency; I don't believe that's accurate, because European fuel prices, and tax policy, are just too prohibitive (high performance status symbols notwithstanding).

Your analysis about such tradeoffs is most applicable to North America, where the true costs of energy are not reflected in the price, and probably won't be for some time.  That's why I think that the whole business of caps and carbon credits is a mug's game-- it would need to be rigged to keep the ball rolling.  It's a knee-jerk reaction to the present crisis, and I'm very skeptical about the politics involved in implementing something meaningful and effevtive.  There are just too many oxen to be gored.

KenS: as usual, you have made a valid point that is well taken with regard to European driving preferences, but I think it's useful to keep in mind that, after the stock market cresh of '87, world oil prices dropped to $10 US per barrel.  How North American and European governments, and the automakers themselves, responded to this development (through the 90's, especially) has determined where we are today, most lamentably with the near demise of the Detroit Big Three (which, incidentally, had a near lock on the most profitable segments of the N.A. market back in the 90's).  Whither dreams of pick-ups and SUV's with 500 h.p. ...and 10-15k profit margins that more than covered so-called legacy costs?

With Copenhagen a bust, and with the meagre measures that Obama plans to propose almost sure to stall in the U.S. Senate, is it audacious to ask whether there's still hope for change?