"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Issues Pages:
What kind of economic platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters?
Fri, 2015-01-02 13:29
#1
What kind of economic platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters?
Fri, 2015-01-02 14:17
#2
I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.
From your quote, I take it that "jobs" means tar sands.
If so, do you think the NDP will win enough seats in Alberta to compensate for the 58 seats it will lose in Québec, and find enough more somewhere else to form government?
I'd need to see that analysis on paper.
Fri, 2015-01-02 14:19
#3
I dunno NR. Mulcair initially tried to play the jobs card by stating that Harper's excessive subsidies on the oil sector caused an inflated dollar, which hurt the manufacturing industry. So, the NDP would lessen these and help create jobs in the manufacturing industry by bringing the dollar to its proper level. However, due to low oil prices, the dollar is now not much inflated, so that argument has been quashed. And speaking of differing views on pipelines just seems to worry people and feed into the Con's job rhetoric.
I think the NDP needs to focus on childcare and change, rather than playing into areas that the public perceives as the Cons' strength (resource sector jobs).
Fri, 2015-01-02 14:57
#4
The NDP's albatross has always been the economic file.
They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.
And no Unionist of course I was not refering to just the tar sands, although the tar sands are and will continue to be part of Canada's economic engine. We do however need a national economic strategy so that we keep the tar sands going, but slow enough that it will provide jobs for the next 100 years, rather than the 20 years, the right-wingers would impose on us if they have their way.
I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.
From your quote, I take it that "jobs" means tar sands.
If so, do you think the NDP will win enough seats in Alberta to compensate for the 58 seats it will lose in Québec, and find enough more somewhere else to form government?
I'd need to see that analysis on paper.
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:00
#5
The NDP under Jack actively promoted a Green Collar Job strategy, and I think Mulcair has failed on this file. If he has said anything substantial about how he plans to transition to a green economy (never mind this crap about "regulating pollution" or "making polluters pay,") I have yet to see it.
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:01
#6
There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but.........
The NDP leader has voiced strong objections to both proposed pipeline projects to move oil to the west coast of BC (*in the case of the Trans Mountain project, he has said that he would not approve the project based on concerns about the existing review process). If voters interpret this as opposition to both projects, 31% would approve of this position while 42% disapprove. In BC, 35% approve and 44% disapprove. Disapproval is the norm in the rest of the country, except in Quebec, where 42% approve and 29% disapprove of the NDP position. Among NDP voters, 37% would disapprove of opposition to both pipelines.
http://abacusdata.ca/political-leaders-choices-and-voters-perspectives/
I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.
But the NDP has to come out very supportive of jobs or they will not succeed. And there are ways to do it, and yet be supportive of First Nations rights, s well as being protective of the environment.
The NDP needs to better play the political game.
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:04
#7
I was in no way refereing specifically to resource-based jobs. Look at BC as we now have a booming high tech industy that appears to be growing in leaps and bounds. Maybe being the closest geographically to Silicon Valley has something to do with it. Or maybe it's just the Lotusland appeal.
I dunno NR. Mulcair initially tried to play the jobs card by stating that Harper's excessive subsidies on the oil sector caused an inflated dollar, which hurt the manufacturing industry. So, the NDP would lessen these and help create jobs in the manufacturing industry by bringing the dollar to its proper level. However, due to low oil prices, the dollar is now not much inflated, so that argument has been quashed. And speaking of differing views on pipelines just seems to worry people and feed into the Con's job rhetoric.
I think the NDP needs to focus on childcare and change, rather than playing into areas that the public perceives as the Cons' strength (resource sector jobs).
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:08
#8
I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.
But the NDP has to come out very supportive of jobs or they will not succeed. And there are ways to do it, and yet be supportive of First Nations rights, s well as being protective of the environment.
The NDP needs to better play the political game.
Ezra, as opposed to the NDP coming out in favor of unemployment?
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:15
#9
I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.
But the NDP has to come out very supportive of jobs or they will not succeed. And there are ways to do it, and yet be supportive of First Nations rights, s well as being protective of the environment.
The NDP needs to better play the political game.
Ezra, as opposed to the NDP coming out in favor of unemployment?
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:21
#10
I was in no way refereing specifically to resource-based jobs. Look at BC as we now have a booming high tech industy that appears to be growing in leaps and bounds. Maybe being the closest geographically to Silicon Valley has something to do with it. Or maybe it's just the Lotusland appeal.
I dunno NR. Mulcair initially tried to play the jobs card by stating that Harper's excessive subsidies on the oil sector caused an inflated dollar, which hurt the manufacturing industry. So, the NDP would lessen these and help create jobs in the manufacturing industry by bringing the dollar to its proper level. However, due to low oil prices, the dollar is now not much inflated, so that argument has been quashed. And speaking of differing views on pipelines just seems to worry people and feed into the Con's job rhetoric.
I think the NDP needs to focus on childcare and change, rather than playing into areas that the public perceives as the Cons' strength (resource sector jobs).
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:22
#11
The NDP's albatross has always been the economic file.
They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.
And no Unionist of course I was not refering to just the tar sands, although the tar sands are and will continue to be part of Canada's economic engine. We do however need a national economic strategy so that we keep the tar sands going, but slow enough that it will provide jobs for the next 100 years, rather than the 20 years, the right-wingers would impose on us if they have their way.
I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.
From your quote, I take it that "jobs" means tar sands.
If so, do you think the NDP will win enough seats in Alberta to compensate for the 58 seats it will lose in Québec, and find enough more somewhere else to form government?
I'd need to see that analysis on paper.
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:32
#12
How about this kind of platform?
The survey found support for progressive policies to reduce the wealth gap cut across traditional political party affiliations.
- 83 per cent believe political parties should pledge not to introduce any tax cuts that would increase the gap between the rich and the rest of us
- 75 per cent said corporate tax cuts should be rolled back .
- 80 per cent agreed that the highest income tax bracket should be raised.
- 62% support taxing capital gains and stock options at the same rate as wages to address inequality.
Regular taxpayers seem to be way ahead of many politicians on this issue. A large majority -80 per cent - say the wealth gap has grown in Canada over the past decade, including 76 per cent of Conservative voters.
http://www.taxfairness.ca/en/news/want-close-wealth-gap-canadians-have-a...
The NDP might want to explore why it doesn't seem to be connecting with these people (whose opinions I share).
Fri, 2015-01-02 15:56
#13
The high tech sector is still a rather small part of the overall B.C economy, and is very small outside of the Lower Mainland. It is growing quickly but the jobs are often very relocatable, (as we've seen from the film industry, although thanks to the TV part of that sector, the number of jobs in film/tv actually increased in B.C over the last couple years) the sector changes quickly (as we've seen from the swift declines into virtual irrelevance of Blackberry and Ballard Power to name just two), and thus although many of the jobs are high paying, they are probably not all that secure. Although the people in those industries with high skills can probably find new jobs in the sector very quickly.
In addition to the location near California and Washington state, B.C has a very good education sector, especially BCIT and the film schools. Also, the scenary probably helps as many high tech jobs don't have resource requirements (i.e bodies of water) that limit where they can be located.
Fri, 2015-01-02 16:12
#14
[quote=NorthReport]
They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.
[quote=NorthReport]
I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.
Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley. To be sure, the Delta North and Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows ridings were competitve and they were open seats, but while NDP Delta North MLA Guy Gentner was popular he was replaced by Sylvia Bishop who was one of the top vote getters in the 2011 municipal election (and she topped the polls in 2014) and in Maple Ridge, NDP MLA Michael Sather wa mehhh.
The Port Moody riding is historically not NDP (it's a wealthy area), but the NDP MLA was the very popular former mayor.
I believe of significant importance in the NDP loss, in addition to the opposition to the pipeline expansion to Burnaby (btw, even though the pipeline is very unpopular in Burnaby, the NDP could only gain one of the two Burnaby seats held by the Liberals and all 4 Burnaby ridings were close), were these factors:
1.Adrian Dix's 'memo to file' scandal and his ridiculous excuse of it in the debate that he was a young man at the time he did it (he was 40).
2.The Liberals running a huge number of popular mayors, city councillors and school trustees. In contrast just 9 of the NDP non incumbent candidates held prior municipal office. While the above mentioned Sylvia Bishop in Delta North was an NDP city councillor, the Liberals also ran a city councillor.
Fri, 2015-01-02 16:26
#15
NR, I do agree that the NDP needs something to appeal to those worried about jobs. Like you say, that's one reason the BC NDP failed, in that they got outplayed by the Libs on the jobs front. But, jobs federally are largely seen as resource sector jobs (IE, largely the tar sands) and this is not popular in Quebec. So, I'm not sure what the NDP needs to do to appeal to those who are worried about jobs.
Fri, 2015-01-02 18:17
#16
I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley.
Firstly, the BC NDP vote went up on the North Shore ridings (West Van/North Van) and inner City of Vancouver allowing the BC NDP to pick up Van-PG and Van-Fairview from the BC Libs. The "positive effects" of the "Kinder Morgan Surprise" in the May/13 BC provincial election in Metro Vancouver/mainland BC. However, elsewhere in BC, that became seen as a "symbol" of the BC NDP and a flip-flop, which apparently planted doubts in the electorate about the BC NDP. And the BC Libs took full advantage of that with their "Risky Dix" campaign.
OTOH, the BC NDP popular vote share went down in all 4 Burnaby provincial ridings for some unknown reason. And I highly suspect that the BC NDP picked up Burnaby-Lougheed from the BC Libs due to an unaffiliated candidate named "Christine Clarke" picking up about 8% of the vote. Suspect that, since she was on the ballot prior to the BC Lib candidate, and was mistaken for CC. Same thing happened in 2009 in Vernon-Monashee with an independent "Gordon Campbell" running also capturing about 8%. Call it the James Green/Jim Green syndrome from Van City muni election 2005 allowing the NPA's Sullivan to win.
And when one goes out to the Metro Vancouver suburbs, the BC NDP lost Delta North and Surrey-Fleetwood. And lost Coquitlam-Mallairdville on election night only to be over-turned in a recount. And riding popular vote shares sank for the BC NDP, for the most part, from the BC interior, the Fraser Valley and the Metro Vancouver suburbs. Maple-Ridge Pitt Meadows (-4.5%). Surrey Newton (-13%), Surrey GT (-15%). And on and on it goes.
Problem is that the right-wing seems to always hijack the economic meme. Economy, jobs, resource development, taxation, balanced budgets... while unfairly painting the BC NDP as "tax and spend", deficits, against everything. And that meme obviously worked throughout Interior BC, the Fraser Valley, and the Metro Vancouver suburbs.
Even today, the BC NDP is having great problems establishing positions on all of these matters with a resurgent BC Green party.
However, federally Tom does not have the same problem in BC as, aside from Nathan's Skeena Bulkley Valley riding, the only other BC mainland seats in play/winnable for the fed NDP are a narrow band from east Vancouver (Van-East/Van-Kingsway), Burnaby South, New Westminster-Burnaby, and Surrey Centre. 5 ridings.
The rest are on Van Isle. But therein lies another problem. With the new riding boundaries, and based upon transposed results, the Cons would have won all ridings north of Victoria in 2008. The Cons riding popular vote share stayed the same in these ridings in '11 but the collapsing Lib/Green vote flowed to NDP.
That won't happen in 2015. With the resurgent Greens on Van Isle and the Lib uptick, the NDP is likely to lose more votes than the Cons allowing the Cons to sneak up the middle in 5 seats. Frankly, I can see a 2 Green/5 Con shut-out on Van Isle as a result.
That's why I have previously stated that Tom should get off the fence on the Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning/tanker traffic and oppose it out right. Would outflank the Greens who are now the only party opposing same.
Fri, 2015-01-02 18:27
#17
I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley.
Firstly, the BC NDP vote went up on the North Shore ridings (West Van/North Van) and inner City of Vancouver allowing the BC NDP to pick up Van-PG and Van-Fairview from the BC Libs. The "positive effects" of the "Kinder Morgan Surprise" in the May/13 BC provincial election in Metro Vancouver/mainland BC. However, elsewhere in BC, that became seen as a "symbol" of the BC NDP and a flip-flop, which apparently planted doubts in the electorate about the BC NDP. And the BC Libs took full advantage of that with their "Risky Dix" campaign.
OTOH, the BC NDP popular vote share went down in all 4 Burnaby provincial ridings for some unknown reason. And I highly suspect that the BC NDP picked up Burnaby-Lougheed from the BC Libs due to an unaffiliated candidate named "Christine Clarke" picking up about 8% of the vote. Suspect that, since she was on the ballot prior to the BC Lib candidate, and was mistaken for CC. Same thing happened in 2009 in Vernon-Monashee with an independent "Gordon Campbell" running also capturing about 8%. Call it the James Green/Jim Green syndrome from Van City muni election 2005 allowing the NPA's Sullivan to win.
And when one goes out to the Metro Vancouver suburbs, the BC NDP lost Delta North and Surrey-Fleetwood. And lost Coquitlam-Mallairdville on election night only to be over-turned in a recount. And riding popular vote shares sank for the BC NDP, for the most part, from the BC interior, the Fraser Valley and the Metro Vancouver suburbs. Maple-Ridge Pitt Meadows (-4.5%). Surrey Newton (-13%), Surrey GT (-15%). And on and on it goes.
Problem is that the right-wing seems to always hijack the economic meme. Economy, jobs, resource development, taxation, balanced budgets... while unfairly painting the BC NDP as "tax and spend", deficits, against everything. And that meme obviously worked throughout Interior BC, the Fraser Valley, and the Metro Vancouver suburbs.
Even today, the BC NDP is having great problems establishing positions on all of these matters with a resurgent BC Green party.
However, federally Tom does not have the same problem in BC as, aside from Nathan's Skeena Bulkley Valley riding, the only other BC mainland seats in play/winnable for the fed NDP are a narrow band from east Vancouver (Van-East/Van-Kingsway), Burnaby South, New Westminster-Burnaby, and Surrey Centre. 5 ridings.
The rest are on Van Isle. But therein lies another problem. With the new riding boundaries, and based upon transposed results, the Cons would have won all ridings north of Victoria in 2008. The Cons riding popular vote share stayed the same in these ridings in '11 but the collapsing Lib/Green vote flowed to NDP.
That won't happen in 2015. With the resurgent Greens on Van Isle and the Lib uptick, the NDP is likely to lose more votes than the Cons allowing the Cons to sneak up the middle in 5 seats. Frankly, I can see a 2 Green/5 Con shut-out on Van Isle as a result.
That's why I have previously stated that Tom should get off the fence on the Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning/tanker traffic and oppose it out right. Would outflank the Greens who are now the only party opposing same.
The Green vote will likely increase in Southern Vancouver Island, although they will take from all parties, not just the NDP. I doubt the Liberals will do significantly better, even with their uptick.
Fri, 2015-01-02 22:32
#18
They need to be very political about this and not scare off potential voters by coming across as anti-jobs. We all know how well that turned out in BC for the BC NDP.
I don't know how this has become to be seen as gospel.
Although I'm sure it played a factor in the B.C Interior, it does not explain why the NDP lost Delta North or the Port Moody riding won in the byelection in 2012 or Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the more NDP friendly northern part of the Fraser Valley. To be sure, the Delta North and Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows ridings were competitve and they were open seats, but while NDP Delta North MLA Guy Gentner was popular he was replaced by Sylvia Bishop who was one of the top vote getters in the 2011 municipal election (and she topped the polls in 2014) and in Maple Ridge, NDP MLA Michael Sather wa mehhh.
The Port Moody riding is historically not NDP (it's a wealthy area), but the NDP MLA was the very popular former mayor.
I believe of significant importance in the NDP loss, in addition to the opposition to the pipeline expansion to Burnaby (btw, even though the pipeline is very unpopular in Burnaby, the NDP could only gain one of the two Burnaby seats held by the Liberals and all 4 Burnaby ridings were close), were these factors:
1.Adrian Dix's 'memo to file' scandal and his ridiculous excuse of it in the debate that he was a young man at the time he did it (he was 40).
2.The Liberals running a huge number of popular mayors, city councillors and school trustees. In contrast just 9 of the NDP non incumbent candidates held prior municipal office. While the above mentioned Sylvia Bishop in Delta North was an NDP city councillor, the Liberals also ran a city councillor.
Edit: the NDP ran 12 candidates who had held municipal office. They ran 9 who were defeated and 3 who were elected. Of the 7 new MLAs the ones who held municipal office are: Jennifer Rice, Selina Robinson and Gary Holman.
Fri, 2015-01-02 23:05
#19
More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)
"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."
If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once. I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."
Fri, 2015-01-02 23:13
#20
The Manitoba NDP are on board with CETA.
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:30
#21
The Manitoba NDP are on board with CETA.
Can you substantiate this claim? What does this have to do with this thread?
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:31
#22
I'd miss pointing out your endless stream of outright lies, half truths and misrepresentations of facts. Oh by the way genius, you misspelled brilliance.
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:39
#23
More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)
"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."
If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once. I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."
You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:53
#24
Actually the die was cast when the Conservatives did not run a candidate in this riding, and the brain-dead campaign strategy of the BC NDP did nothing to help the former Port Moody Mayor and MLA Trasolini.
How stupid was that, and a hundred more political gaffes throughout the campaign. Look I like the guy up North but seriously he put a BC NDP dagger in many worker's hearts throughout BC, of course with lots of help from your mainstream press, with his fracking moratorium comments. It wasn't Adrian alone that did us in, but situations like this created the buildup to the Kinder Morgan goof. Yea but we won Point Grey - WTF!!!
The Port Moody riding is historically not NDP (it's a wealthy area), but the NDP MLA was the very popular former mayor.
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:55
#25
You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)
"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."
If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once. I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."
I missed that. So they mention him precisely twice.
Of course, you didn't mention that in Mulcair's second mention (as "NDP leader") his support for his position is 31/42 which doesn't look like good news to me, (unless you believe that 31% support for the NDP on an issue is good news because it's higher than the around 20% of the vote the NDP has historically received, of course, if you want the NDP to win government, they won't get there with 31% support) 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
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:56
#26
You really need to stop your right-wing foaming at the mouth comments, and I wonder what your real intentions are posting here.
You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)
"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."
If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once. I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."
I missed that. So they mention him precisely twice.
Of course, you didn't mention that in Mulcair's second mention (as "NDP leader") his support for his position is 31/42 which doesn't look like good news to me, (unless you believe that 31% support for the NDP on an issue is good news because it's higher than the around 20% of the vote the NDP has historically received, of course, if you want the NDP to win government, they won't get there with 31% support) 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
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:56
#27
1.I believe (though I haven't checked recently) that the B.C Conservatives received about 2% of the vote in most Lower Mainland ridings. So, I seriously doubt that it made a difference that they didn't run a candidate in Port Moody (although I believe that 2% of the vote was slightly more than Trasolini lost by, but, of course, not all the Conservative vote would have come from the Liberals).
2.Charlie (or Chuck) Wyse the candidate for Cariboo South (or North) is the 'guy up north'. I don't know if people in the interior, north and coast took his comments seriously or not, but he wasn't a member of caucus and he was immediately rebuted by Adrian Dix and then energy critic (and liekly potential energy minister) John Horgan.
Sat, 2015-01-03 00:57
#28
I'd miss pointing out your endless stream of outright lies, half truths and misrepresentations of facts. Oh by the way genius, you misspelled brilliance.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:01
#29
You call him O'Reilly for HIS dishonesty. Oh the irony. But here is the kicker. You say this is an example of his "dishonesty" because the article mentions Mulcair only once. Yeah sure but in the next paragraph they call him the NDP leader. Now I wonder who the article is referring to? Could it be Mulcair? Because if it is your claim about Mulcair being referred to only once is totally false. So your "precisely" comment reflects on someone's dishonesty but not NR's. Hmmmm, let's see if you can figure out who that can be?More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)
"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."
If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once. I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."
I missed that. So they mention him precisely twice.
Of course, you didn't mention that in Mulcair's second mention (as "NDP leader") his support for his position is 31/42 which doesn't look like good news to me, (unless you believe that 31% support for the NDP on an issue is good news because it's higher than the around 20% of the vote the NDP has historically received, of course, if you want the NDP to win government, they won't get there with 31% support) 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
I didn't mention because I have no interest in closely examining the entrails of this or any other poll. My point was simple. You made a big deal about calling someone else essentially a liar when the facts you used to indict him were wrong. You know, glass houses and all that.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:06
#30
More brilliance - gather you really don't really want to be around here much more, do you.
More evidence of NR's dishonesty (can I at least call him O'Reilly after Bill O'Reilly like Al Franken used to call his radio show the O'Franken Factor?)
"There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but........."
If you read the article, while the news in it for Mulcair is good, he is mentioned precisely once. I'm not sure how that translates to "lots of good news."
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:07
#31
[/quote] I didn't mention because I have no interest in closely examining the entrails of this or any other poll. My point was simple. You made a big deal about calling someone else essentially a liar when the facts you used to indict him were wrong. You know, glass houses and all that.[/quote]
Oh, so you're basically trolling. I don't know that an honest mistake is the same as a lie. And even 2 mentions of Mulcair doesn't constitute 'LOTS of good news.'
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:12
#32
You are on to something here Ari, but the NDP cannot come across as being opposed to jobs and expect to win. It is used against the NDP effectively every election so we need to counter it.
The NDP under Jack actively promoted a Green Collar Job strategy, and I think Mulcair has failed on this file. If he has said anything substantial about how he plans to transition to a green economy (never mind this crap about "regulating pollution" or "making polluters pay,") I have yet to see it.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:13
#33
You really need to stop your right-wing foaming at the mouth comments, and I wonder what your real intentions are posting here. Or do you consider anybody who dares to question your questionable methods 'right wing'?
1.I'd like you to post a single right wing comment I made, yet alone a 'foaming at the mouth' one. Or do you consider anybody who questions your questionable methods as right wing?
I have nothing against anybody on either the left or the right who makes points that are backed up with factual evidence and honesty. A few years ago I used to spend part of my day fact checking a poster named 'Corey' on the politics1.com message board (the site no longer has a message board) who was as hyper partisan a Republican as you are as hyper partisan a New Democrat. Like with you, I found everything he posted was riddled with factual mistakes and outright lies.
As to 'my real intentions'. I like to think I've shown myself knowledgable enough of the Canadian and B.C political situation to show to people that I am capable of having a discussion on the issues. I'm not sure why you'd question it. I don't doubt the sincerity of your motives to promote the NDP, I just question your honesty in doing it.
In your 'defense'. At least, unlike Corey, you seem to have ideological views. I never could figure out why he was a Republican supporter. and when I brought it up, at least a half a dozen other posters there wondered as well.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:19
#34
wa,
The BC NDP were not really against jobs, but had you asked most workers in BC during the 2013 BC election they would have said the BC NDP are against jobs, and against good paying ones at that.
The problem is that the enemy, the owners of the mainstream media, and we all know that. The NDP, because the meme has already been created in voter's minds that the NDP are weak on economics, has to be particularly careful about not coming out as opposed to jobs.
NR, I do agree that the NDP needs something to appeal to those worried about jobs. Like you say, that's one reason the BC NDP failed, in that they got outplayed by the Libs on the jobs front. But, jobs federally are largely seen as resource sector jobs (IE, largely the tar sands) and this is not popular in Quebec. So, I'm not sure what the NDP needs to do to appeal to those who are worried about jobs.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:22
#35
Another huge area that the left has ceded in the past to the right-wing Liberals, Conservatives, and Greens is Canadian seniors. Seniors are a huge pool of voters that the NDP needs to solicit, and Seniors know economics better than most.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:34
#36
wa,
The BC NDP were not really against jobs, but had you asked most workers in BC during the 2013 BC election they would have said the BC NDP are against jobs, and against good paying ones at that.
The problem is that the enemy, the owners of the mainstream media, and we all know that. The NDP, because the meme has already been created in voter's minds that the NDP are weak on economics, has to be particularly careful about not coming out as opposed to jobs.
I was recently cleaning up and I found a bunch of old newspaper articles from when the NDP was in power in the 1990s. Like a lot of the media they spent most of their time bashing the NDP for real or imagined scandals. I also found some articles from the 1980s that criticized the then Social Credit government for their real or imagined scandals AND their economic policies (especially Marjorie Nicholls). (I suspect you have no idea who she is).
The media hardly discusses any issues in elections beyond the horserace and real and alleged scandals for either the government or the NDP.
In specific cases, the writers for the mainstream media were hardly Liberal friendly. Vaughn Palmer wrote a lot of columns bashing them and the Vancouver Province endorsed the NDP in 2009. That's the best I can do given that neither Vancouver paper made an endorsement in 2013.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:58
#37
Another huge area that the left has ceded in the past to the right-wing Liberals, Conservatives, and Greens is Canadian seniors. Seniors are a huge pool of voters that the NDP needs to solicit, and Seniors know economics better than most.
Sat, 2015-01-03 01:59
#38
wa,
The BC NDP were not really against jobs, but had you asked most workers in BC during the 2013 BC election they would have said the BC NDP are against jobs, and against good paying ones at that.
The problem is that the enemy, the owners of the mainstream media, and we all know that. The NDP, because the meme has already been created in voter's minds that the NDP are weak on economics, has to be particularly careful about not coming out as opposed to jobs.
NR, I do agree that the NDP needs something to appeal to those worried about jobs. Like you say, that's one reason the BC NDP failed, in that they got outplayed by the Libs on the jobs front. But, jobs federally are largely seen as resource sector jobs (IE, largely the tar sands) and this is not popular in Quebec. So, I'm not sure what the NDP needs to do to appeal to those who are worried about jobs.
Sat, 2015-01-03 02:02
#39
Would the mods please try and fix the problem that was created with post #37 and thanks.
Sat, 2015-01-03 02:07
#40
There is lots of good news here in this latest survey out today for Mulcair and the NDP but.........
The NDP leader has voiced strong objections to both proposed pipeline projects to move oil to the west coast of BC (*in the case of the Trans Mountain project, he has said that he would not approve the project based on concerns about the existing review process). If voters interpret this as opposition to both projects, 31% would approve of this position while 42% disapprove. In BC, 35% approve and 44% disapprove. Disapproval is the norm in the rest of the country, except in Quebec, where 42% approve and 29% disapprove of the NDP position. Among NDP voters, 37% would disapprove of opposition to both pipelines.http://abacusdata.ca/political-leaders-choices-and-voters-perspectives/
I strongly suggest that the NDP coming out 4-square for jobs in the next election campaign will push them over the top and they will form the government.
But the NDP has to come out very supportive of jobs or they will not succeed. And there are ways to do it, and yet be supportive of First Nations rights, s well as being protective of the environment.
The NDP needs to better play the political game.
Will you please stop acting like no one but you cares about reducing unemployment? Or that the NDP hasn't said enough on that because small-g greens have too much say in the party?
It's much more likely that the NDP wasn't "pro-jobs" enough because its leaders were obsessed with not offending the financial sector, and deferred to that sector's insistence that keeping inflation down and not challenging "free market" decisions which discarded hundreds of thousands of former workers in the name of "high short-term rate on investment" for the few.
Sat, 2015-01-03 02:16
#41
Much of the media is pretty hard on whoever is in power, to the degree that the largely fluff they focus on makes then hard. Whining about the media, like whining about the ref in sports, is for losers.
Sat, 2015-01-03 02:18
#42
the Vancouver Province endorsed the NDP in 2009.
2009? Are ya sure? I believe that was actually 1991? When the Province endorsed the BC NDP under Mike Harcourt? First and last time a major paper ever endorsed the BC NDP in an election campaign IIRC.
(Just a side note. Adam I recall you from years back on the provincial BC Babble threads esp. the BC NDP threads. You always seemed to be a reasonable and good contributor. Back then ya never ya a negative demeanour against other contributors. Then ya disappeared from Babble for many years. All of a sudden you are back. Welcome back.
Appreciate your input as always but lay-off NR. He`s also been here for years as well. We all have a different approach to posting and different thoughts. We are all human. In any event, let`s just all get along. Even when we agree to disagree. Ya in? :) )
Sat, 2015-01-03 02:21
#43
the Vancouver Province endorsed the NDP in 2009.2009? Are ya sure? I believe that was actually 1991? When the Province endorsed the BC NDP under Mike Harcourt? First and last time a major paper ever endorsed the BC NDP in an election campaign IIRC.
(Just a side note. Adam I recall you from years back on the provincial BC Babble threads esp. the BC NDP threads. You always seemed to be a reasonable and good contributor. Then ya disappeared from Babble for many years. All of a sudden you are back. Welcome back.
Appreciate your input as always but lay-off NR. He`s also been here for years. We all have a different approach to posting and different thoughts. We are all human. In any event, let`s just all get along. Even when we agree to disagree. Ya in? :) )
Thanks,
I'll lay off calling NR names, but I won't lay off pointing out when he posts something incorrect. BTW, why does everybody call NR 'he'? I've never seem NR mention their sex. Maybe I've just missed it.
I mentioned in the Manitoba opinion polls thread that I came back to post a Manitoba opinion poll and also to post a link on the U.K polling thread and then I decided to stay.
I'm pretty sure about the Provinces endosring the NDP in 2009, though, like a lot of things, I can't find a link to it. I remember it because The Vancouver Province endorsed the NDP while the Vancouver Sun endorsed the Liberals and a lot of people commented it was funny because they both are owned by the same company.
Sat, 2015-01-03 02:58
#44
I didn't mention because I have no interest in closely examining the entrails of this or any other poll. My point was simple. You made a big deal about calling someone else essentially a liar when the facts you used to indict him were wrong. You know, glass houses and all that.[/quote]
Oh, so you're basically trolling. I don't know that an honest mistake is the same as a lie. And even 2 mentions of Mulcair doesn't constitute 'LOTS of good news.'
[/quote]
Now I am a troll and NR is full of BS. I also notice that we have an attribution error here. When NR makes a questionable interpretation he is full of BS but when you make an error it's an "honest mistake". Thanks for clearing that up.
Sat, 2015-01-03 03:10
#45
The Manitoba NDP are on board with CETA.Can you substantiate this claim? What does this have to do with this thread?
The title of the thread is " What kind of economic platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters?" so I think my comment is more pertinent than those focused on BC provincial politics.
All the provinces had to sign off on CETA:
If one country is negotiating a treaty with a union of 27 countries, you might think that those 27 countries would have by far the most people in the negotiations. Not true for CETA: In some negotiations of the free trade deal between Canada and the European Union, Canadians have greatly outnumbered Europeans, one participant told the Tyee.
The reason Canada sent so many people is that the provinces have a say in CETA, and they will be heavily affected by the deal. The treaty will open up public procurement not only at the national level, but also at the provincial and local level. CETA is going much further in this regard than any previous trade agreements signed by Canada.
The outcome isn't what the provinces and municipalities had hoped for. CETA will likely severely crimp if not end "buy local" strategies at all levels of government in Canada.
Newfoundland is threatening to back out:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/province-has-leverag...
Despite deteriorating relations with Ottawa over the CETA deal, the Newfoundland and Labrador government isn't walking away just yet.
According to a cabinet minister who sat at the negotiating table, the province has a case to push ahead on a $400-million fishery fund.
There has been disagreement over what the province was promised in exchange for giving up minimum processing requirements.
Paul Davis has been threatening to pull out of the deal if the federal government doesn't live up to their promises.
This link shows that the NDP did fight hard for Manitoba.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/09/ceta-canada-eu-free-trade_n_1660...
OTTAWA — Canadian provinces are either ill-equipped or incompetent when it comes to defending their rights in a massive and overarching free trade agreement Canada is currently negotiating with the European Union, says a lawyer who has studied leaked drafts of the text.
“The provinces are selling us out and they are not doing their homework,” Steven Shrybman, an international trade and public interest lawyer, told The Huffington Post Canada....
Though Ottawa will sign off on the final agreement, for the first time provincial negotiators are at the table. Municipalities, as creatures of the provinces, are represented by provincial negotiators.
In a legal brief prepared for CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Shrybman studied the list of items Canada sought to exempt from international competition. He found that while the European Union had asked for blanket exemptions to protect many public utilities in various sectors, most provinces and the territories have not done the same.
“There is a dramatic disparity between what the Europeans have put on the table and what we have put on the table,” Shrybman said. “They are preserving their ability to govern in the public interest in far more ways then we have.”
Paul Moist, CUPE’s national president, said the union was sharing the legal brief as a “wake-up” call for premiers.
“Why are European member countries seeking exemptions for their water and their public transit systems and we are not, are there not red flags being raised by the conduct of the Europeans?" he asked......
Under NAFTA rules, any rights granted to European corporations under CETA would also automatically apply to North American companies.
I hadn't heard about that last bit.
Canada’s initial offers, leaked earlier this year and circulated by the Trade Justice Network and Reseau quebecois sur l’integration continentale (RQIC), show wide variations between the provinces. Manitoba, for example, wants to limit market access to foreign providers and investors in fishing, forestry, food, liquor, beer and wine retail trade, agriculture, energy, recreational services and insurance. Other provinces, including Ontario, Quebec and B.C., sought few or no restrictions.
It does seem like Manitoba did more to protect itself than other provinces did but they still approved it investor clauses and all. All the provinces had to because it encroaches on their powers. Interesting the way all the criticism has been directed at Harper alone for the secretiveness of this process when all the provincial premiers were directly involved including an NDP premier.
So to answer the question posed by the thread title What kind of economic platform does the Mulcair-led NDP require that will be palatable to the voters?
This: http://www.taxfairness.ca/en/news/want-close-wealth-gap-canadians-have-a... suggests to me that a far more progressive economic platform than is on offer would be palatable to voters.
Sat, 2015-01-03 03:28
#46
I didn't mention because I have no interest in closely examining the entrails of this or any other poll. My point was simple. You made a big deal about calling someone else essentially a liar when the facts you used to indict him were wrong. You know, glass houses and all that.
Oh, so you're basically trolling. I don't know that an honest mistake is the same as a lie. And even 2 mentions of Mulcair doesn't constitute 'LOTS of good news.'
[/quote] Now I am a troll and NR is full of BS. I also notice that we have an attribution error here. When NR makes a questionable interpretation he is full of BS but when you make an error it's an "honest mistake". Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]
Given that saying Mulcair was mentioned once, when it was actually twice doesn't negate my argument in any way, and is really nothing more than nitpicking, I'd say your post was a troll. BTW, I didn't say you were a troll, I said you were trolling and that your post was a troll. There is an obvious difference.
If you can find a pattern of me making honest mistakes post them. I don't think one honest mistake proves anything. In contrast, I can find a 'questionable interpretation' from NR in practically every post he makes, or at least, practically every post that isn't just a posting of an article (often in a flood and usually several days old)
Sat, 2015-01-03 03:28
#47
Now I am a troll and NR is full of BS. I also notice that we have an attribution error here. When NR makes a questionable interpretation he is full of BS but when you make an error it's an "honest mistake". Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]I didn't mention because I have no interest in closely examining the entrails of this or any other poll. My point was simple. You made a big deal about calling someone else essentially a liar when the facts you used to indict him were wrong. You know, glass houses and all that.Oh, so you're basically trolling. I don't know that an honest mistake is the same as a lie. And even 2 mentions of Mulcair doesn't constitute 'LOTS of good news.'
If you can find a pattern of me making honest mistakes post them. I don't think one honest mistake proves anything. In contrast, I can find a 'questionable interpretation' from NR in practically every post he makes.
[/quote]
We have already cleared that up . When you make an error it's an honest mistake but we shouldn't extend that courtesy to others. In fact you are perfectly within your rights to name call when you disagree with a post. Sounds reasonable to this troll. See we have come to an agreement and perhaps we can leave it at that.
Sat, 2015-01-03 03:31
#48
1.It seems you can't see a difference between a person making a mistake once, and a person repeatedly making a 'mistake'.
2.It seems you can't tell that saying a post is a troll does not mean saying the person is always a troll.
Might a suggest you enroll in a logic course.
Sat, 2015-01-03 04:00
#49
1.It seems you can't see a difference between a person making a mistake once, and a person repeatedly making a 'mistake'.
2.It seems you can't tell that saying a post is a troll does not mean saying the person is always a troll.
Might a suggest you enroll in a logic course.
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 names on a regular basis. Not that that will ever happen of course.
PS sorry about the troll comment. You said I was trolling so I of course misinterpreted that. I thought the action of trolling made someone a troll. Silly me. You must have to have funny ears to be a troll.
Sat, 2015-01-03 04:07
#50
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.[/quote]
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.
Sat, 2015-01-03 04:07
#51
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.