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

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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

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

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

In partial answer to your question though,

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

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

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

Just for starters.

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

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

NorthReport wrote:

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

Hey NR,

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

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

Adam T wrote:

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

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

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

And use spellchek more offen.

Adam T wrote:

Pondering wrote:

All the provinces had to sign off on CETA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0

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

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

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

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

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

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