As for Gary Doer, as ambassador, he is the voice of the goverment, nothing more and nothing less. If he were to say, "fuck harper is wrong", he would get removed from his position in 5 minutes.
Substitute "Mulroney" for "Harper", and would you get Stephen Lewis in the 1980s? (And I suppose he was practically "Third Way" relative to the Waffle.)
Just think if John Smith had lived we'd all be talking derisively about "Smithism" rather than Blairism.
I doubt that. John Smith, even though he was from the right-wing of the Labour Party, never had Tony Blair's choking hatred of all that Labour stood for, nor Blair's obsession with kissing the arse of every "aspirational" moneygrubber in the UK.
Blair never HAD to move the party any further right than it was under Smith. A Labour victory in 1996 or 1997 was already assured in the aftermath of the exchange-rate crisis. The voters of Britain weren't demanding that Labour treat his own party's core supporters as an enemy and a menace.
Who wanted to expunge socialism from the preamble? Answering that question could be another way of answering this question.
This tag is getting boring. The delegates at the founding convention ranked four proposed party names. On the first count, it was New Party 1, New Democratic Party 2, Social Democratic Party 3, Democratic Socialist Party 4. (NDP overtook New Party on the third count.)
I have no doubt that, if someone had moved an amendment from the floor to change "socialist" to "social democratic" in the preamble, it would have carried, and we would never had been stuck in this ancient debate.
I think there may be times when it is difficult to tell the difference between what is pragmatic, and what is perfidy. But most often it is a manufactured argument put forward by the perfidious to hide their betrayal. "I am being pragmatic." It's pragmatic to do what you can for the working people you claim to represent, under the realities and constraints of the real world. It is perfidy to adopt policies in government that run contrary to the interests of the people who you claimed to represent during a campaign.
For Doer, who championed initiatives to curb green house gas emissions, and fight for Canadian jobs all the way back to the Free Trade debate being a shill for Keystone to build a pipeline to help Americans stall any emission reductions, AND by the way, export crude so Americans can enjoy the employment of turning it into fuel instead of Canadians refining it, is not being "pragmaitc" it's being a traitor to working Canadians-- and to himself.
Sure, some other appointed amabsador would do it if Doer wouldn't. But if Doer wasn't of a perfidious nature, he'd opt for someone else doing it.
This isn't about being an ideological purist. It's about being true.
"Blairism," as I understand the concept, is about selling out principles in order to win electios.
Unfortunately, on this thread, it seems to mean "wanting to win elections."
There is a difference - and progressives who don't want to win elections are moral cowards who prefer the luxury of sniping from the sidelines. There is nothing noble about self-imposed irrelevance. It is cowardice, pure and simple.
We make change by winning elections. Sometimes, yes, we may forget why we are trying to win elections. Sometimes we fail.
But I am sick to death of this bullshit meme that wanting to win elections is inherehntly unprincipled.
Not inherently unprincipled. But it does become unprincipled if it becomes the be all and end all. Winning without a strong set of radical principles, held without apology, isn't really worth anything.
It would be worthless to elect an NDP government and then have that government send troops to a Middle East war while imposing an austerity budget, demonizing activists, and bashing unions at home.
@Ken Burch:
You hit the nail on the head; sounds like Obama when you put it that way.
@Laine Lowe:
You are welcome. I am a little relieved to see I am not the only one who feels that way. The Provincial election has been called here and I'll drop my usual 10 - 15 polls and inside scruitineer on election night and of course want to win. But, honestly, once the election is over, no one will care what I think or where I am. I guess that is why my folks gave up and left the party. They voted NDP the rest of their lives, but I know both of them were very depressed at what the party became. As life long North End Winnipeg CCFers and New Dems, it killed them watching the party move closer to the center.
Funny how the cycle comes around and now that I am older, I feel the same thing. I didnt' get it when I was a kid. I would discuss this with them. Now I do. Still, we are much, much, much better off with a New Dem option for which to vote, especially one so close to actually governing. I guess time will tell, as it always does.
@ Tommy_Paine
I get your point about pragmatism and perfidy, and with respect to political parties and their actions, I agree in part. Though as I said, I think aligning one's ideals with a political party is always a balancing act. The only ones that are perfect and never fuck up are the ones that have never actually had to do anything.
Perhaps you are just using Gary Doer's decision to be Harper's mouthpiece as an example of a Faustian bargain. But since he has popped up elsewhere I just want to make sure no one makes any unintended inferences about untrustworthy NDPers who are on the edge of taking over the party.
Just to be clear, all indications are that he has no intention of running, and is probably not a potential leader:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Doer+pursue+friends/5309924/story.html
And he is currently working for the Harper government, and anything that comes out of his mouth is Harper's policy and not that of the NDP.
And the only comments I have read from NDP representatives were against the project's expansion.
Well of course it must be painful. But manitoba is a right-wing province. Look at their platform for the next four years. They bring up they brought hockey to Winnipeg. Not just once in the platform. Its pure populism in order to survive. Its so cheap and pathetic to bring up the jets, and yet they do it in desperation.
I also agree that the NDP can be more progressive and it can be more pragmatic in achieving victory. Progressives have to fight for policies in the correct manner and propose things that are backed by facts. Its easy to convince people about policies if you show them that they have already been created in other parts of the world.
"It is not what you say that matters but the manner in which you say it; there lies the secret of the ages."
They bring up they brought hockey to Winnipeg. Not just once in the platform. Its pure populism in order to survive. Its so cheap and pathetic to bring up the jets, and yet they do it in desperation.
How much economic activity does it create to have the Jets in Winnipeg?
Who wanted to expunge socialism from the preamble? Answering that question could be another way of answering this question.
This tag is getting boring. The delegates at the founding convention ranked four proposed party names. On the first count, it was New Party 1, New Democratic Party 2, Social Democratic Party 3, Democratic Socialist Party 4. (NDP overtook New Party on the third count.)
I have no doubt that, if someone had moved an amendment from the floor to change "socialist" to "social democratic" in the preamble, it would have carried, and we would never had been stuck in this ancient debate.
I think there would still be a debate, but after a few attempts to change social democratic to democratic socialist the party would move on to more useful debates, like what we really stand for, not how we label ourselves.
Who wanted to expunge socialism from the preamble? Answering that question could be another way of answering this question.
This tag is getting boring. The delegates at the founding convention ranked four proposed party names. On the first count, it was New Party 1, New Democratic Party 2, Social Democratic Party 3, Democratic Socialist Party 4. (NDP overtook New Party on the third count.)
I have no doubt that, if someone had moved an amendment from the floor to change "socialist" to "social democratic" in the preamble, it would have carried, and we would never had been stuck in this ancient debate.
WD:
thanks for the historical update; I had never heard those details about choice of the party name ...
The real problem with the effort to remove the "s word" was that it was an effort to kill a dream:
Yes, everyone knows that an NDP government wouldn't bring in socialism, at least not anytime soon. But the "s word" at least keeps the dream of someday, somehow building a different world, a world actually free of greed, arrogance, inequality and militarism, alive in the heart. "Social democracy", on the other hand means(in the present circumstances) settling for making the existing misery slightly less miserable(at best) or reducing the argument to "it's enough to have US making the cuts, appeasing the bazillionaires and sending your kids off to die in the right-wing Middle Eastern wars". It's a slap in the face to those who actually want to work to make life different.
Social democracy used to be about something. It's no longer clear that it means anything at all. And that's sad, because a most if not all rank-and-file social democrats, in terms of their own personal convictions, are better than that. It's the "social democratic" leaders who have surrendered, and done so globally.
They bring up they brought hockey to Winnipeg. Not just once in the platform. Its pure populism in order to survive. Its so cheap and pathetic to bring up the jets, and yet they do it in desperation.
Hey! What's right-wing about hockey? It's the working-class game of Canada just as much as football is the working-class game of the world outside North America.
@ Ken Burch
I disagree. You are talking about words and labels here. And frankly those who claim to be socialists who have governed without a democratic electoral system have fucked up a fair bit too.
So no, I don't agree with your generalization. Do I I see points of NDP policy I would like to see changed? Of course. But that is quite independent of my feelings about the democratic electoral system.
Sorry, I am afraid I have to agree with that old war criminal Winston Churchill when it comes to that question.
You can't seriously be saying that "social democrats" support a democratic electoral system but "socialists" don't. That's a pretty despicable thing to say. "Socialist" does not equal Stalinist. And your implication that it is is Cold War rhetoric straight out of 1947. Dude, the "Red tyrants" are all gone now...and they are never coming back. Uncle Joe and The Great Helmsman are gone. The Wall is down. Chill.
BTW, you do realize that I've probably made more left-wing anti-Stalinist posts than anybody else here on Babble, don't you? If you're implying that I'm anti-democratic you're way the hell out of line.
And I made it clear that a lot of rank-and-file social democrats are better than their surrenderist-defeatist leaders, and that my post was not a personal attack on everyone who self-identifies as a social democrat. The issue is those who have taken over control of what the term means and have no reduced to always saying "we can't actually DO any of those things!"
Social democracy used to be great. In the age of austerity...does it still mean anything? Does a social democratic government that imposes the kind of cuts the Greek and Spanish government have imposed still have any right to claim to be "social democratic"? Clealy, we can assume that no pro-worker economic or social policies will ever be brought in again by PASOK or the PSOE. Once you've done those kind of cuts, it's game over. There's no restoration of the social wage that ever occurs later.. And there's no longer any difference(in the eyes of the non-millionaire)between those parties and the "capitalist" parties they supposedly oppose.
Your fight is with those who have debased the term "social democracy" by surrendering to the banks. Not with socialists.
Look Ken Burch, I don't exactly know where you are coming from, so I can hardly say. But if your beef is with "democratic socialists" I can only assume your alternative is those who are not particular about working through the democratic system. I don't think I said anything about you personally, but please feel free to explain your position better if you wish.
But you are making an argument based on words and labels, and in my opinion tarring all those who want to work through that system with certain policies, and the actions of certian people. Yes my fight is with those who have debased the name of democratic socialism, but it is also with those who seem intent on kneecapping the struggle against them.
Again, if we're basing this on labels, there isn't a political philosophy in the world that is free from abuse and mistakes - at least not those which have ever held power. That is unfortunately what happens when you are dealing with real people in the real world.
I consider myself a radical democratic socialist...to me, this is a position to the left of "social democracy", since it involves actually working for a socialist transformation of society through the democratic system(a goal that the pro-austerity, anti-labour and pro-militarist social democratic party leaders of this generation seem to have abandoned, and to have replaced with a policy of reducing their parties to being just-barely "not right-wing". I also support nonviolent resistance methods when people are working for radical change while being stuck in a non-democratic political system, and recognize that there may be situations in which, if a "democratic" political system has become hopelessly corrupt, activism and rebellion outside the limits of electoral politics may become necessary(something that, I hope at least, most rank-and-file "social democrats" would be willing to accept in desperate circumstances). Nothing in that equates to opposition to democracy or support of tyranny, and hardly anyone who identifies as any sort of socialist these days is working for the establishment of a dictatorship. Those who are are so tiny in number as to be politically irrelevant, and have nothing to do with political reality in any form.
My objection was with your seeming implication that those who objected to the removal of the "s word" were somehow acting out of opposition to democracy. Support for socialism as opposed to social democracy does NOT equate to support of dictatorship versus support of political democracy. You tarred socialists by implying that we AREN'T willing to work through the democratic system. And it's presumptuous to say that those who objected to the removal of the word "socialist" from the NDP objected to it because of a wish to turn Canada into a police state or something. I doubt Tommy Douglas or even David Lewis would have accepted the argument that socialism is inherently anti-democratic.
Finally, did you MISS the part where I made a clear distinction between social democratic "leaders" and rank-and-file social democrats?
No, Ken Burch, I wasn't objecting to the removal of the word "socialism". I object to it myself.
I object to the notion that the entire movement be tarred with the motives of those who wanted to remove it. After all, it did not pass.
Near as I can tell there was a clear decision and this is settled for the time being, no?
“People wanted to try and find a refinement and modernization of the language to capture what our values are. There was no disagreement about the values. It was about the nature of the label, so (delegates) said: ‘Well let’s talk about that some more,’ ” said Layton. “Our opponents may try to paint that as some kind of identity crisis. I think that would be ridiculous.”
And I didn't attack the entire movement...I made a distinction between the rank-and-file and the leaders. If you want to revive social democracy as a real, worthwhile concept, you and those like you need to be standing up to the so-called leaders(defeating that motion was a start). OK?
You need to make clear that social democracy needs to be, at the very least, anti-austerity, pro-labour and antiwar(if not pacifist, at least limiting the use of force to territorial defense from outside invasion).
Most left-leaning social democrats do (Linda McQuaig, Murray Dobbin, Mel Hurtig, the few remaing here) but OC we have the same problem getting people off their duffs as socialists do. The deeper problems are similar, in that both have to deal with low operating budgets, hostile and misleading press, and a lot of people who appropriate the name for ulterior motives -even more who can't tell the difference anymore.
Re the subject at hand, I agree with D-Squared in that it's still premature to talk about who's likley to do this or that, but out of the potential contenders mentioned I'd say that Saganesh, Cullen and Julian are the least likely to further "Blairize" the party. Julian probably has the best chance of winning at present, but Saganesh could be a rising star. If Pierre Ducasse decides to run again, now that he has a realistic chance of winning, he could be a future contender, as he's still young enough. Libby I'm afraid does need better French. Those to me would be the ones the party's leftwing could look at. I can't comment on Leslie or Caron, as I know next to nothing about them.
I'd say that Saganesh, Cullen and Julian are the least likely to further "Blairize" the party. Julian probably has the best chance of winning at present, but Saganesh could be a rising star. If Pierre Ducasse decides to run again, now that he has a realistic chance of winning, he could be a future contender, as he's still young enough. Libby I'm afraid does need better French. Those to me would be the ones the party's leftwing could look at. I can't comment on Leslie or Caron, as I know next to nothing about them.
Erik, what do you think about Charlie Angus? I remember his news conference about the G8 slush fund, and I'm wondering if that conference was part of a longer term agenda, maybe practicing for that role of hitting the Conservatives on their weaknesses, which is an absolute must in the next leader.
Unfortunately I don't know much about Angus either. (don't spend as much time as I should following inner party politics anymore) but if he has a nose for going after the government on issues theyre vulnerable on then I'd have to say that's a big plus. I don't entirely buy that Layton won so much support simply by being nice. Or that anyone who follows him has to follow the same supposed recipe for success. Layton was smart enough to network with alot of people personally -rare nowadays- but was also seen as a man of principle (by most voters) and had a prior reputation in the TO area as an effective activist and organizer. He also benefitted from the anti-Liberal attack ads put out by the Tories and the inability of the Ontario Liberals to put fwd any alternative let alone coherent vision. So Angus might be a possibility too, I won't be making my mind up till I can survey the whole field.
(oh yes, sorry for calling you by your EM name -middleage is when we learn how to accept fading memories...among other limits)
oh yes, sorry for calling you by your EM name -middleage is when we learn how to accept fading memories...among other limits
That's okay, I have been called worse. Although it would be nice to see more of you on EM as well! 
:) I've been thinking of making that move myself. One good thing about mid-life crisis, they're a good time to rethink what yopuve been doing for longer than you can remember....
(luckily for us middleagers, our acquired wisdom and experience can still outmaneuver most quick witted twenty year olds...)
Just to be clear, all indications are that {Doer} has no intention of running, and is probably not a potential leader:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Doer+pursue+friends/5309924/story.html
And he is currently working for the Harper government, and anything that comes out of his mouth is Harper's policy and not that of the NDP.
I am sick of hearing this repeated: it really goes to show how effective the Cons are at planting stories and getting the snowball they want bulding momentum intil it becomes a fait accompli. Exactly what they want. People just don't analyse news stories anymore, they just take them at face value.
Read Cons planting Doer stories: http://rabble.ca/comment/1275547
Like all good lies, there's just enough truth in there to give it a veneer of credibility (eg. French). But think about it: does Doer's "loyalty to Harper" ring true? Or that Ottawa is a longer commute from Doer's family in Winnipeg than Washington? Or the "unnamed friend" close to Doer?
What would a story like this do to the motivation of people thinking of recruiting Doer to run? Who would benefit most if Does stayed out of the race?
And if you don't think the PMO plants news stories, politics is the wrong hobby for you.
Near as I can tell there was a clear decision and this is settled for the time being, no?
No. I was there. Brian Topp said the proposed preamble needed to be made more inspiring and poetic, and should be reworked by the federal council. Despite his appeal, a lot of people still voted for it. But then the motion to shut the door on any co-operation with the Liberals was defeated. At my table lots of delegates were ready to slam the door on the Liberals but still ready to change socialist to social democratic, until Topp spoke. Without his surprise appeal, I'm pretty sure it would have gotten two-thirds.
@ psmith:
Yes, I'm amazed that Smith_W is still flogging this stupid myth about Gary Doer being beyond the pale because he's Harper's mouthpiece in Washington.
Right, just like Stephen Lewis was Brian Mulroney's mouthpiece in the United Nations!
The fact is that all the crap that Doer is making headlines over these days - i.e. the tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline - is crap that the NDP has no problem with!
It's all very convenient to say Doer is just delivering Harper's message, as if that's such a hard thing for a New Democrat politician to do, but how and where are any of the other potential leadership candidates actually disagreeing with Doer?
@ psmith
I guess Steve's bagman didn't make it to the National Post before press time. THey list him as a possible, though they correctly note that he is working for the prime minister, not the New Democrats.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/24/13-possible-ndp-leadership-candi...
That other post of yours reads like you want him to run for the position. In any case, he hasn't declared, and thre is no indication that he will.
@ M.Spector
The federal party has spoken out against the Keystone project for years, And I think Alberta provincial leader Brian Mason was in the front pages last week opposing it, Or maybe it was just a sleazy ploy to get votes.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Alberta+leader+jumps+into+Keystone...
And as for why the party is dealing with the issue rather than denouncing heretics? I don't know. Which seems like the most productive strategy to you? But I said already, the Harperites and Liberals would love it if they did.
And maybe, just maybe, the unnecessary step of going after Doer could be seen as interference in the upcoming election, even if that announcement psmith is expecting does not come.
Or maybe they should denounce him for costing them votes by doing this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/09/08/mbvotes-green-do...
@ Wilf Day
Thanks for the clarification.
Is there any reason to assume that Doer has some cosmically magical appeal that NO other possible NDP leadership candidate could ever equal? Is he even all that well known outside of Manitoba? And did he do anything there that no other provincial NDP leader could possibly have done? The last thing the party needs is to set up a "it's Doer or the door" assumption about the NDP's future. The guy isn't THAT good.
And it's a dangerous habit for any party to keep assuming that any one figure is going to personally be the key to electoral deliverance. A lot of Dippers got that way about Stephen Lewis for awhile...and I'm not really sure that he had that much more to offer than anybody else. As Jack Layton's untimely passing reminds us, a party that depends on the personality of a leader ends up in great peril if anything happens to that leader.
And ultimately, it's a mindset that suggests that the party's values could NEVER win popular support on their merits, that NDP gains in seats and votes "don't really count", and that the views of the public can never really be changed, will always be basically center to center-right no matter the election results. Why should the NDP accept what is, in the end, a Tory/Liberal meme about politics and about itself as a party?
It's far more constructive and effective for NDP supporters to actually believe that their party and their values could actually win the argument in the court of public opinion, rather than having to be snuck in through the beneficence of a "leader", who wins votes solely on her or his own personal appeal, and who is somehow above the party itself.
I wasn't opposing the jets or the money it will bring, I'm just saying that the NDP in Manitoba has to sustain itself with populism in order to get re-elected. That's just the way it is for the moment, although I hope it changes eventually.
@ psmith:
Yes, I'm amazed that Smith_W is still flogging this stupid myth about Gary Doer being beyond the pale because he's Harper's mouthpiece in Washington.
Right, just like Stephen Lewis was Brian Mulroney's mouthpiece in the United Nations!
The fact is that all the crap that Doer is making headlines over these days - i.e. the tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline - is crap that the NDP has no problem with!
It's all very convenient to say Doer is just delivering Harper's message, as if that's such a hard thing for a New Democrat politician to do, but how and where are any of the other potential leadership candidates actually disagreeing with Doer?
[foaming]And he's doing all of this while Premier of NDP Manitoba!!![/]
I can remember you doing some fancy footwork yourself defending a red chamber filled with old line party hacks and some to most of whom were rejected by the voters. Like a dog whose found a bone, there's no taking it from him.
I wasn't opposing the jets or the money it will bring, I'm just saying that the NDP in Manitoba has to sustain itself with populism in order to get re-elected. That's just the way it is for the moment, although I hope it changes eventually.
That won't work.
Near as I can tell there was a clear decision and this is settled for the time being, no?
No. I was there. Brian Topp said the proposed preamble needed to be made more inspiring and poetic, and should be reworked by the federal council. Despite his appeal, a lot of people still voted for it. But then the motion to shut the door on any co-operation with the Liberals was defeated. At my table lots of delegates were ready to slam the door on the Liberals but still ready to change socialist to social democratic, until Topp spoke. Without his surprise appeal, I'm pretty sure it would have gotten two-thirds.
I was there too, and I doubt it would have gotten two-thirds. But that's moot because it was referred, and people never got the chance to vote for or against it. I actually wasn't surprised. Brian had been getting an earful and understood that it was as much about content as language (and not just about the change from Democratic Socialism to Social Democratic), although I'm not sure he understands even yet that much of the discontent had to do with the lack of prior consultation.
The federal party has spoken out against the Keystone project for years
Show me.
You must be thinking of the Enbridge pipeline, which is a different thing.
And as for why the party is dealing with the issue rather than denouncing heretics? I don't know.
The federal party is not dealing with the Keystone issue.
Who said they should denounce heretics? I referred to the absence of any disagreement by the NDP with Doer's pro-Keystone propaganda.
The only denunciation of Doer coming from the NDP is from those NDP supporters who are furiously trying to disassociate the party from him for whatever reason – despite the fact that the party itself regards him as one of their elder statesmen, and has never said anything against the Keystone pipeline!
You also have to keep in mind that one leader cannot singlehandedly Blairize the party or save it from Blairism singlehandedly. It has to do with the larger political contexts. Jack Layton, when he ran, was considered to be on the left of the party and had the support of Svend Robinson and Libby Davies, but under his watch, the NDP disappointed on the inheritance tax, NATO, crime and punishment, and Libya. The question to me is, instead of asking any particular leader to be our saviour, to try and reach out, advocate an alternative vision that people can buy into, and not be afraid of that vision. One of the ways could be through independent media, like rabble.ca, The Real News, and The Tyee. I think that's a much more productive approach.
The federal party has spoken out against the Keystone project for years
Show me.
You must be thinking of the Enbridge pipeline, which is a different thing.
And as for why the party is dealing with the issue rather than denouncing heretics? I don't know.
The federal party is not dealing with the Keystone issue.
Who said they should denounce heretics? I referred to the absence of any disagreement by the NDP with Doer's pro-Keystone propaganda.
The only denunciation of Doer coming from the NDP is from those NDP supporters who are furiously trying to disassociate the party from him for whatever reason – despite the fact that the party itself regards him as one of their elder statesmen, and has never said anything against the Keystone pipeline!
You are wrong, and a little searching proves it.
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=c1c1f739-bf41-42...
The Alberta NDP is also against it.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Alberta+leader+ju...
Now if you are saying the federal NDP needs to be more assertive and current in their opposition I would agree with you.
@ M Spector
I just provided you with an article on Brian Mason's comments last week. Is he not in the NDP? Do they all have to line up at the podium like at the oscars and say the same thing?
Here's Jack Layton talking about it last year:
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=c1c1f739-bf41-42...
And his comments earlier this year regarding oil subsidies:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CDQQFjAFOAo&url=http...
And Layton's comments (2007?) about the National Energy Board approving the Keystone project without going to parliament. Sorry to copy the whole thing, but it is no longer on their website:
National Energy Board recommendation to approve Keystone Pipeline should be rejected and referred to House Committee for hearings
OTTAWA – The New Democratic Party of Canada is demanding that the Harper Conservatives reject today’s decision by the National Energy Board (NEB) that the Keystone Pipeline be approved. The proposed Keystone project would see unrefined heavy crude be exported from Alberta through a pipeline to Illinois, exclusively to serve U.S. markets.
Decisions of the NEB are forwarded to the federal cabinet for final determination. At its hearings, the NEB essentially ignored the relevant study by Michael McCracken of Informetrica Ltd., which forecast that the potential of creating 18,000 new value-added jobs could be lost to Canada if the 3000 kilometre pipeline is approved.
With so many value-added jobs and environmental issues at stake, the Harper Government cannot be allowed to slide this past the Canadian people while Parliament is not sitting and without a proper debate,” said NDP Leader Jack Layton. “Energy security, environmental ramifications, and the creation of good long-term jobs shouldn’t be at the mercy of a singular NEB decision.”
The Keystone Pipeline would have the capacity of exporting as much as 540,000 barrels per day of oil from Hardisty, Alberta to Southern Illinois.
We need to take a hard look at why our government would so readily accept thousands of refining jobs being created in the U.S., but not here,” said NDP MP-elect Thomas Mulcair. “What does it mean for Canadian refineries, in places like Sarnia and Montreal? This is a Canada-wide issue.”
Alberta Clipper” and the “Southern Lights Project” - are now proceeding through the NEB approvals process. Unfortunately, the NEB considers each project in isolation.
The consequences of these kinds of decisions are multi-faceted and inter-linked and the NEB process is inadequate for giving proper consideration,” said NDP Energy critic Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic). “The Standing Committee on Natural Resources should hold hearings on the consequences of these pipelines as soon as Parliament returns.”
The NDP applauds the efforts of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which has been involved in opposing the project approvals in NEB proceedings.
So not only are they speaking about it now, they were speaking about it when it was a matter on the table here in Canada.
I'll grant you that Layton raised some critical questions about Keystone over a year ago. Nothing since, and now that he's gone, there's nobody in the federal party saying anything about the issue.
Brian Mason does not speak for the federal NDP, which is what I was talking about and what this thread is about.
There is nothing about Keystone on the federal NDP website.
This has become a hot issue within the last year. The biggest environmental protest action in North America in the past year took place in Washington two weeks ago. In Canada activist social movements are planning a major protest over Keystone in Ottawa in two weeks' time. The silence of the NDP has been deafening.
Yes the party should officially denounce this pipeline.
We'll need some focus for this witch hunt to get anywhere.
@ M. Spector
Since Layton died two weeks ago, you mean? and during the time that they have been busy with a funeral and sorting out the procedure for their upcoming election?
And Alberta NDP leader Brian Mason isn't a worthy bearer of the message even though he's getting headlines for it? I should think as the NDP representative for the province where the oil is coming from he is the one who can speak with the most authority on the issue.
But as you wish. Would you like special sauce and an order of fries with that too?
Though it makes me wonder why you are concerned about Gary Doer, since back when he did speak for the party he was only one of those provincial ones who you don't seem to think matter.
And Layton raised the oil issue in the election, M/ Spector. I just posted it.
Or you might want to read some of the statements and motions from Edmonton Strathcona MP Linda Duncan: http://electlindaduncan.ca/topics/archived-news/
Is this nothing? First you said that they had never said anything period, and then you said nothing recent.
http://openparliament.ca/hansards/2373/64/only/
Romeo Saganash is the natural resources critic. If you are not satisfied why not write him? Or perhaps Nathan Cullen, the associate critic for western Canada natural resources.
Regarding the original question posed for this thread, I'd say Pat Martin.
Advocating a merger = total sell out of social democracy, organized labour etc for Liberal corporate tendencies.
You arent following the question. The question is which potential LEADER.
IF Pat Martin runs, and it remains to be seen whether he will even make a show of trying, it will just be to run up the flag of merger.
And like I said, if there is going to be a proper witch hunt, some minimal focus is required.
Uh, yes I am following the question.
Martin has said that if no other leadership candidate proposes a merger, then he will run.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/128701343.html
Martin is a potential candidate like all of the other potential candidates.
And maybe, just maybe, the unnecessary step of going after Doer could be seen as interference in the upcoming election, even if that announcement psmith is expecting does not come.
You assume that I am expecting a particular announcement. You are wrong.
All I am saying is that Doer has not taken himself out of the running, and we shouldn't count him out either until he does (neither should we count him in until he declares he is running). There have been no comments from Doer and everything out there is pure speculation and innuendo at this point.
People on this board and elsewhere repeating assumptions that Stevie H wants everyone to assume will only helps Stevie H.
You assume that I am expecting a particular announcement. You are wrong.
All I am saying is that Doer has not taken himself out of the running, and we shouldn't count him out either until he does (neither should we count him in until he declares he is running). There have been no comments from Doer and everything out there is pure speculation and innuendo at this point.
People on this board and elsewhere repeating assumptions that Stevie H wants everyone to assume will only helps Stevie H.
I thought he said he wasn't interested?
(neither should we count him in until he declares he is running)
I think that was my point. Glad to see we agree on this.
You arent following the question. The question is which potential LEADER.
IF Pat Martin runs, and it remains to be seen whether he will even make a show of trying, it will just be to run up the flag of merger.
And like I said, if there is going to be a proper witch hunt, some minimal focus is required.
..people are perfectly capable of running their own which hunt. they don't need a leader to tell them how. eta: how about responding to the legit concerns people have such as #33 & #37
