NDP Leadership 74

I think Dewar has made a mistake too.

 

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/01/leadership-2012-roun...

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

 

Don Davies knows which issues to focus on

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

 

Ken S,

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

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

KenS wrote:

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

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

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

But it has not really sunk in.

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

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

This is something that quite worries me.

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

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

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

I think the economy is fundamentally changing, and I don't see the NDP candidates offering much substance to address this.  I haven't read Topp's paper, maybe he talks about it.  Additionally, we seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place--there's a lot that we can't do with NAFTA in place, and it doesn't seem like anyone thinks we can really get out of it.

Frankly, I'd say policies like giving every school aged child a tablet computer (which would actually be pretty cheap to do) would go a lot further towards pointing things in the right direction than talking about our manufacturing base.

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

Great quote writer.

KenS wrote:

Nash: Making Canada a global leader in innovation

Topp: Three steps to promote jobs and access to capital

The specifics of Nash's plan:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OnTheLeft wrote:

Howard wrote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Layton was as careful to say he would cancel the deal as he was to he was to say that he didn't oppose buying F-35s just not now- the priority should be on warships- because the planes don't need to be replaced until 2016. The only other thing Layton said is that the NDP wanted a review of Canada's Defence Policy when asked point blank at a campaign event by a woman with a son in the Air Force whether or not Layton planned to purchase F-35s at that later date and especially given that they were what the Canadian Forces had determined to be "the best" replacement..

OnTheLeft wrote:

Howard wrote:

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

Quote:

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

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

ensuring that our combined federal/provincial Corporate

Income Tax rate is always below the United States' federal

corporate tax rate.

 

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

 

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

You are making the same mistake as Topp but unlike him, I assume you are doing it honestly. The figure of 35% is an average for the combined state and federal corporate tax rate for the United States. In Canada, the combined provincial and federal corporate tax rates will drop to an average of about 34% after the corporate tax reductions the Conservatives are bringing in in the next federal budget.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Howard wrote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

I agree with you that it would be great if the NDP would get on board with supporting legalisation. The policy could be as simple as getting Health Canada to delist marijuana so that the provinces could develop their own regulations. However, I have not heard any leadership candidate mention anything on marijuana and since at least the Halifax convention (2009), the NDP seems to run away from the question of marijuana policy as if it was some kind of contagious disease.

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

 

wage zombie wrote:

 

 

I think the economy is fundamentally changing, and I don't see the NDP candidates offering much substance to address this.  I haven't read Topp's paper, maybe he talks about it.  Additionally, we seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place--there's a lot that we can't do with NAFTA in place, and it doesn't seem like anyone thinks we can really get out of it.

Frankly, I'd say policies like giving every school aged child a tablet computer (which would actually be pretty cheap to do) would go a lot further towards pointing things in the right direction than talking about our manufacturing base.

 

Yes the economy is changing and will never be the same as before. However, giving everyone a computer or even training everyone in the latest computer technologies is not THE solution either (although it may be part of it). If we cannot compete in manufacturing, do you expect that we can compete with computer programers and technologists in India earning $4-5,000 a year? Or for that matter in financial services, which resulted in a bloated industry in terms of both costs and employment levels while the boom lasted, or even in the legal profession, where much of the routine work is already farmed out by computers to countries like India at a small fraction of North American costs?

Only fields such as health care where the service has to be offered locally can avoid this globalization process. Many such services are government-run (health, police, fire, and education to some extent). Therefore we now see the attack on the public sector  as privileged workers. We need to focus on rebuilding the middle class by adding good paying jobs instead of always being on the defensive, fending off attacks on those who still have decent paying work.

China spent $221 billion in 2009 and is planning on spending $1.7 trillion in the next five years o

n green technologies. In 2009, the United States government allocated $2.3 billion in tax credits for green industries. Many of these are manufacturing industries.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/8904733/China-unveils-...

 

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

 We need to maintain a innovative manufacturing base that has a major green component because the resource, financial and professional sectors will not provide enough jobs to maintain a substantial middle class. We can start by refusing to sell the vast majority of our natural resources to foreign countries unless we also get manufacturing jobs here (the sale of raw logs abroad is a good example of what not to do). We also need to capture some of the growing green industries (even a small fraction will generate many jobs in a country with Canada's population). Both Britain and the United States have paid dearly for abandoning their industrial bases (look at the long depressed US Midwest and the British Midlands) in favour of banking computer-based economies whose bubbles have now burst. A diversified economy still is the best way of reducing the effects of economic fluctuations. 

Who cares what a pundit is saying? They almost always miss the point. Voters don't think in left-right. They think in terms of who made their lives better, who kept their promises, who looked out for people like them, and who didn't. I doubt very many people even know that a seat just flipped hands. Those that do are either partisans who cheer blindly for their team, or the actual local voters, who are annoyed.

If you want to understand how things are going to pan out in 2015, you need a much more sophisticated analysis, or a hell of a lot more humility to look at long-term trends instead of weekly gossip.

Howard wrote:

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

Good idea. Let's talk about jobs again.

Manufacturing jobs are still important for a lot of reasons.

We still have a decent number of skilled workers in manufacturing areas, particularly in automotive. They have skill, and need jobs.

The world is always going to need people to manufacture *something*, whether it's cars, canned foods, or solar panels.

We need some manufacturing base just as a natural security concern. Do you really want to be reliant on a totalitarian nation like China to supply most of our machinery and equipment?

As Brian Topp pointed out eloquently, we have something worse than the "dutch disease", where oil exports are driving up our dollar and killing our manufacturing base. We're also doing that for other raw resources, like lumber and aluminum. Resource economies are extremely low skilled, low paying, and volatile. We need a value-added manufacturing economy where we actually use our own oil, lumber, and aluminum, instead of selling it at commodity prices.

I'm a member of the "creative class" myself, but the idea that we're all gonna be "knowledge workers" is just unrealistic and dangerous.

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

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

A piece in Friday's Globe Business Report poiints out that Quebec's jobless rate is suddenly soaring, pointing to the need for New Democrats to advance a solution to economic malaise.

"It's almost as if the recession has cought up with Quebec. Economists are at a loss to explain why the province, which limped through the slump but didn't suffer the extent of job losses as elsewhere in Canada, is suddenly seeing deep cuts...While a single month of job losses could be dismissed as a statistical blip, three consecutive months of declines - from October to December at a cost of almost 70,000 positions - can't be...Its unemployment rate has risen to 8.7 per cent from 7.3 per cent in September, above the nationalaverage and the highest in more than two years...

"A confluence of factors appear to be at play, from still-weak U.S.demand to the wind-up of government spending on infrastructure and global challenges slamming the provinces forestry and manufacturing sectors...some say a high cost of doing business is another key factor. Unit labour costs or the costs of producing here, with wages of $25 or $30 an hour, is not as viable for these businesses as it used to be, because of technology and emerging markets," said one economist.

Still to come, federal government plans to cut "thousands of public sector jobs" in the Ottawa-Gatineau area.

"Numbers so far suggest Quebec has stalled, not fallen into a recession. The province grew just 1.3 per cent in the third quarter of last year at an annualized rate, compared with an annual rate of 3.5 per cent for all of Canada...The weakness is centered in the private sector. Five months of head-count declines in the private sector amount to 103,000 positions, the worst drop ever, according to Stefane Marion, chief economist at National Bank of Canada."

Why I am endorsing Paul Dewar: Charlie Angus

 

My name is Charlie Angus. For the last seven years I've proudly served my community as an MP for Timmins-James Bay in Northern Ontario. 

 

I got involved in politics because of Jack Layton. He shared with me his vision for a more caring Canada and asked me to help build that dream. 

 

It's been some months since our friend Jack passed, and, as New Democrats, we're asking ourselves how we can build on his work and our breakthrough last May. 

 

For me, the answer is clear. Paul Dewar connects with families and their priorities and is the best person to carry on Jack's work. 

 

He brings to the table the kind of ideas, energy and leadership that a majority of Canadians want from their government. 

 

This is a Real Majority that works hard to pay their taxes, send their kids to school and build a future for their family. They're people that want health care to be there for them, when they need it. They want education and job opportunities for young people. And they want to know our seniors are being looked after

 

The Real Majority includes those communities that are being ignored by the Harper Conservatives - like the people of Attawapiskat.

 

But the Real Majority isn't benefiting from Stephen Harper's majority government. Mr. Harper's priority has been tax breaks for banks and oil companies. As New Democrats, we know that's wrong.

 

Paul wants Canadians to believe again that their government can make a positive difference in their lives - that working together, we can find solutions to the problems families face

 

I share Paul's optimism and I know he can lead us there

 

Right now, Paul's reaching out to the grassroots of our party, in communities across the province - and he's building an incredible team. Just last week, respected environmentalist, lawyer and the only opposition MP in Alberta, Linda Duncan, joined our team. 

 

Now, I want you to be a part of it. Join Paul's team and speak up for the Real Majority.

It can't happen without you. 

 

Charlie Angus 

 

P.S. Read the op-ed Paul and I published today on how we're going to win the next 70 seats needed to form a Real Majority. Click here to read it now.

Wilf Day wrote:

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

Quote:

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

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

ottawaobserver wrote:

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

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

Can the NDP match that?

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

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

Are we too shy to say so?

Are New Democrats political wallflowers?

Should this promiscuous topic have its own thread?

I'm with oo. Anyone that does the research will find out how cheap an NDP membership is. The challenge is to get them interested, not to show how cheap a date the NDP is. I've used the it only costs $x argument before, but only after I know someone is interested (e.g. only ever votes NDP) and needs a poke to get off the fence.