the truth is that everything good about canada is because of the liberal party. The liberals introduced the healthcare system (I know the NDP takes some credit because of the miniority situation, but without the liberal government decision, it wouldnt have been implemented). The liberals introduced official languages, charter of rights/freedoms, pension, unions, cbc, canadian flag, child tax benefit, gay marriage act. What have the NDP ever done? Whine about everything.
Justin Trudeau Campaign 2015
Sat, 2015-01-24 15:55
#852
Sat, 2015-01-24 16:12
#853
Arthur Cramer
the truth is that everything good about canada is because of the liberal party. The liberals introduced the healthcare system (I know the NDP takes some credit because of the miniority situation, but without the liberal government decision, it wouldnt have been implemented). The liberals introduced official languages, charter of rights/freedoms, pension, unions, cbc, canadian flag, child tax benefit, gay marriage act. What have the NDP ever done? Whine about everything.
Oh brother!
Sat, 2015-01-24 17:44
#854
I certainly think he did what he thought was the right thing for the business interests who supported him. Whether or not he thought it was the right thing for the majority who ultimately got hurt from the cuts is anyone's guess. In the same vein, Harper is doing what he thinks is the right thing for those who supported him, and whether or not he cares if it's the right thing for the majority is anyone's guess.You are right, it's anyone's guess so it can't be assumed that he was acting in bad faith rather than making decisions to the best of his ability based on what he had been taught.
That is the same defense that police officers use whenever they are accused of using excessive force, even if there is material evidence proving the police to be out of line. Does the fact that they defend themselves in those circumstances mean it's unfair to accuse them of acting in bad faith? Heck, George W Bush and Brian Mulroney acted on visions they thought were the right thing for their countries, I guess they should get a pass too?
Sat, 2015-01-24 18:01
#855
Left Turn
The Liberal daycare plan never passed (along with the Kelowna accord) because the government fell. Here are a few links that discuss it.
Ok, I was mistaken about the the Liberals childcare plan actually passing. I do however distinctly remember the BC Liberals saying that they would spend the money on tax cuts.
Sat, 2015-01-24 20:06
#856
I certainly think he did what he thought was the right thing for the business interests who supported him. Whether or not he thought it was the right thing for the majority who ultimately got hurt from the cuts is anyone's guess. In the same vein, Harper is doing what he thinks is the right thing for those who supported him, and whether or not he cares if it's the right thing for the majority is anyone's guess.You are right, it's anyone's guess so it can't be assumed that he was acting in bad faith rather than making decisions to the best of his ability based on what he had been taught.
That is the same defense that police officers use whenever they are accused of using excessive force, even if there is material evidence proving the police to be out of line. Does the fact that they defend themselves in those circumstances mean it's unfair to accuse them of acting in bad faith? Heck, George W Bush and Brian Mulroney acted on visions they thought were the right thing for their countries, I guess they should get a pass too?
Your analogy doesn't work because the police officer is not doing what the suspect wants them to do. What you seem to be suggesting is that political parties should go against the will of the people.
The scary part is that oligarchs don't actually seem to understand that they are destroying the source of their wealth for score cards registering wealth they will never spend.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/davos-oligarchs-fea...
But even the architects of the crisis-ridden international economic order are starting to see the dangers. It’s not just the maverick hedge-funder George Soros, who likes to describe himself as a class traitor. Paul Polman, Unilever chief executive, frets about the “capitalist threat to capitalism”. Christine Lagarde, the IMF managing director, fears capitalism might indeed carry Marx’s “seeds of its own destruction” and warns that something needs to be done....
Escalating inequality has also been a crucial factor in the economic crisis of the past seven years, squeezing demand and fuelling the credit boom. We don’t just know that from the research of the French economist Thomas Piketty or the British authors of the social study The Spirit Level. After years of promoting Washington orthodoxy, even the western-dominated OECD and IMF argue that the widening income and wealth gap has been key to the slow growth of the past two neoliberal decades. The British economy would have been almost 10% larger if inequality hadn’t mushroomed. Now the richest are using austerity to help themselves to an even larger share of the cake.....
These two cases underline that increasing inequality and poverty are very far from inevitable. They’re the result of political and economic decisions. The thinking person’s Davos oligarch realises that allowing things to carry on as they are is dangerous. So some want a more “inclusive capitalism” – including more progressive taxes – to save the system from itself.
But it certainly won’t come about as a result of Swiss mountain musings or anxious Guildhall lunches. Whatever the feelings of some corporate barons, vested corporate and elite interests – including the organisations they run and the political structures they have colonised – have shown they will fight even modest reforms tooth and nail. To get the idea, you only have to listen to the squeals of protest, including from some in his own party, at Ed Miliband’s plans to tax homes worth over £2m to fund the health service, or the demand from the one-time reformist Fabian Society that the Labour leader be more pro-business (for which read pro-corporate), or the wall of congressional resistance to Barack Obama’s mild redistributive taxation proposals.
They are trapped in a destructive pattern of behavior. The question is if we can stop them before we become Greece.
Sun, 2015-01-25 01:44
#857
The liberals introduced [..] unions [..]
I think you're mistaken on this. My understanding is the Grits are the merchant business party, whereas the Tories are the aristocratic elite party. The Grits had no interest in seeing employees unionized. The Tories did, feeling the hardships many workers suffered were wrong, and likely too felt it was a good way to weaken the Grits. So, they gave workers the right to form unions and collectively bargain workplace contracts. Specifically, it was John A. MacDonald (a Tory, first prime minister) who enacted The Trade Unions Act on behalf of striking workers at the Toronto Globe. This was opposed by George Brown, a Grit, who was a politician and also an editor at the Toronto Globe. link
Sun, 2015-01-25 02:01
#858
Like I said back in October 2014, Trudeau's Liberals will campaign to the right. It's not going to work. A lot of recent stories now are about his lack of commitment to important issues. A recent headline is Trudeau won't commit to auto strategy.
Yes, because everyone wants to push him into releasing aspects of his platform early but he isn't falling for it. This will increase as the election approaches but Trudeau understands politics. Pre-election period the goal is to keep people open to voting for you or wanting to vote for you. Trudeau is going gangbusters in that department.
Trudeau's platform will include policy on all the major files which will neuter all the "no policy" arguments. Even if I hated Trudeau and was wildly supportive of Mulcair it wouldn't change my assessment of how the election will likely play out or why.
Pundits have little sway although some headlines get through and do shape public opinion that way. Partisans for all three parties are not part of the equation and I suspect article comments, message boards and pundits draw their primary audience from partisans or people who have already made up their mind or close to it and pundits have to say something every week to keep readership up.
Swing voters and the undecided wait for the campaigns to start.
Yeah. There's been enough hints for me recently that the Liberal platform will be way too right-wing for me. While I always vote NDP, there are times when I've felt that Liberals wouldn't be too bad. Not this time. Trudeau's been pretty clear in his statements where he stands on most issues, and it's quite to the right. Besides marijuana legalization and being against income splitting (both good things), Trudeau is basically the same as Harper. Why would anyone who wants a change in government vote for that? There's so much more that needs to be done.
One reason Trudeau is doing well is the name. It's a brand. For instance, experiments have been done where crappy rotgut wine is put into a bottle with a recognized fancy label and name, whereas expensive quality wine is put into a bottle that's labelled as a cheap bargain brand. Upon sampling it, the majority of people, even trained sommeliers, chose the cheap wine in the fancy-brand bottle over the decent expensive wine in the bottle with the bargain-brand label. Brand names often win over quality. The challenge this election is to have people realize quality over the rotgut of Trudeau.
Sun, 2015-01-25 02:41
#859
I certainly think he did what he thought was the right thing for the business interests who supported him. Whether or not he thought it was the right thing for the majority who ultimately got hurt from the cuts is anyone's guess. In the same vein, Harper is doing what he thinks is the right thing for those who supported him, and whether or not he cares if it's the right thing for the majority is anyone's guess.You are right, it's anyone's guess so it can't be assumed that he was acting in bad faith rather than making decisions to the best of his ability based on what he had been taught.
That is the same defense that police officers use whenever they are accused of using excessive force, even if there is material evidence proving the police to be out of line. Does the fact that they defend themselves in those circumstances mean it's unfair to accuse them of acting in bad faith? Heck, George W Bush and Brian Mulroney acted on visions they thought were the right thing for their countries, I guess they should get a pass too?
Your analogy doesn't work because the police officer is not doing what the suspect wants them to do. What you seem to be suggesting is that political parties should go against the will of the people.
Is there anyone else who can do a better job than me explaining to Pondering why "I thought I was doing the right thing" is a feeble excuse?
Sun, 2015-01-25 09:15
#860
If Paul Martin wanted to do the right thing he should have paid his taxes.
Sun, 2015-01-25 09:40
#861
Your analogy doesn't work because the police officer is not doing what the suspect wants them to do. What you seem to be suggesting is that political parties should go against the will of the people.Is there anyone else who can do a better job than me explaining to Pondering why "I thought I was doing the right thing" is a feeble excuse?
This is all so irrelevant to the topic of Trudeau's campaign, isn't it?
Sun, 2015-01-25 10:02
#862
Is there anyone else who can do a better job than me explaining to Pondering why "I thought I was doing the right thing" is a feeble excuse?
Martin doesn't need an excuse. He didn't commit any crimes. To this day there is widespread support for his economic policies which were in line with what other countries were doing. You are condemning him for not going against conventional wisdom. Martin isn't even running. It has no bearing as Trudeau isn't hiding his opinions as things come up. We know who his economic advisors are and voters will have a chance to evaluate his platform when it comes out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/andreas-krebs/medicine-hat-homelessness_b_6...
How This Conservative Mayor Became a Champion for the Homeless
Mayor Ted Clugston of Medicine Hat, Alberta has become the reluctant spokesperson for a controversial approach to reducing homelessness. Reluctant because just a few years ago, he opposed the initiative....
Mayor Clugston describes himself as a fiscal conservative. "I was raised that if you want to get anywhere in this world, you have to get an education, you have to work hard, you have to show up," he told me.
When it comes to the homeless, he used to think that they just weren't working hard enough. "I used to say 'I have to get up in the morning, why don't they?' Up until a month ago, anyone could get a job in Alberta."...
Third, the people who changed his mind were patient and determined to get through to him. Clugston described the staff at the Medicine Hat Community Housing Association as "the most caring, understanding people around. They aren't in it for themselves, and they don't get paid very well. But they care."
The mayor's change of opinion was partly due to his own personal political commitment to fiscal conservativism, and the realization that housing the homeless would save taxpayer dollars. "Treating homelessness as an acute problem was costing $100,000 per year, but once you treat it as a chronic problem that drops to $20,000," he said.
The other motivation for Clugston's change of heart was a shift in his view of homelessness. Rather than viewing homeless people as too lazy to get a job, he began seeing homelessness as a symptom of both a disease -- mental illness -- and of the stigma faced by those suffering from it....
While the mayor may be receiving accolades from media around the country, and even internationally, not everyone in Medicine Hat is happy about their mayor becoming a champion for the homeless.
"My brother, who is a family physician, is like 'Would you quit solving this homeless problem because it's driving me nuts!' All the other doctors in town, and some of his patients, are asking him when I became a socialist, and he has to defend me," Clugston said.....
But it's not just about listening -- it's also about determining what tack is most likely to influence they way they think about the issue. "For some people it would be emotions, like it's unconscionable to let people sleep on the street. For some people it's dollars and cents. And for some people, it's the mental illness issue." Above all, when the mayor is discussing this -- or any controversial issue -- he keeps his cool.
Just because someone doesn't share your political philosophy doesn't mean they are bad people.
You still take no responsibility for the NDP's 3rd place position. It's Trudeau's fault, or the MSM, or vapid voters, but never Mulcair's or the NDP executive's fault. What you are really saying is the NDP can only win if the Liberals are failing.
Sun, 2015-01-25 10:12
#863
Like I said back in October 2014, Trudeau's Liberals will campaign to the right. It's not going to work. A lot of recent stories now are about his lack of commitment to important issues. A recent headline is Trudeau won't commit to auto strategy.
Yes, because everyone wants to push him into releasing aspects of his platform early but he isn't falling for it. This will increase as the election approaches but Trudeau understands politics. Pre-election period the goal is to keep people open to voting for you or wanting to vote for you. Trudeau is going gangbusters in that department.
Trudeau's platform will include policy on all the major files which will neuter all the "no policy" arguments. Even if I hated Trudeau and was wildly supportive of Mulcair it wouldn't change my assessment of how the election will likely play out or why.
Pundits have little sway although some headlines get through and do shape public opinion that way. Partisans for all three parties are not part of the equation and I suspect article comments, message boards and pundits draw their primary audience from partisans or people who have already made up their mind or close to it and pundits have to say something every week to keep readership up.
Swing voters and the undecided wait for the campaigns to start.
Yeah. There's been enough hints for me recently that the Liberal platform will be way too right-wing for me. While I always vote NDP, there are times when I've felt that Liberals wouldn't be too bad. Not this time. Trudeau's been pretty clear in his statements where he stands on most issues, and it's quite to the right. Besides marijuana legalization and being against income splitting (both good things), Trudeau is basically the same as Harper. Why would anyone who wants a change in government vote for that? There's so much more that needs to be done.
One reason Trudeau is doing well is the name. It's a brand. For instance, experiments have been done where crappy rotgut wine is put into a bottle with a recognized fancy label and name, whereas expensive quality wine is put into a bottle that's labelled as a cheap bargain brand. Upon sampling it, the majority of people, even trained sommeliers, chose the cheap wine in the fancy-brand bottle over the decent expensive wine in the bottle with the bargain-brand label. Brand names often win over quality. The challenge this election is to have people realize quality over the rotgut of Trudeau.
I think I see a right wing vote split coming up.
Sun, 2015-01-25 10:30
#864
Yeah. There's been enough hints for me recently that the Liberal platform will be way too right-wing for me. While I always vote NDP, there are times when I've felt that Liberals wouldn't be too bad.
If he wins it will be because of his economic policies. Isn't it a good thing that he is differenciating himself from the NDP?
One reason Trudeau is doing well is the name. .... The challenge this election is to have people realize quality over the rotgut of Trudeau.
Everyone I speak to thinks Mulcair looks far more prime ministerial and he has high personal approval-ratings.
The NDP is wasting it's time trying to convince people it is moderate enough to lead while simultaneously insisting that the Liberals and Conservatives are "the same". Insisting they are "the same" whether you think they are or not makes the NDP seem extreme.
The NDP is no Syriza. The NDP under Mulcair is nothing more than a weak Liberal party that wants to tinker around the edges.
Sun, 2015-01-25 10:56
#865
Yeah. There's been enough hints for me recently that the Liberal platform will be way too right-wing for me. While I always vote NDP, there are times when I've felt that Liberals wouldn't be too bad.If he wins it will be because of his economic policies. Isn't it a good thing that he is differenciating himself from the NDP?
If he wins it will be because of money and branding. I would have preferred the Liberals had a reasonable leader like Rae. Good things can happen when they have reasonable leaders (think Pearson). J Trudeau is barely different from Harper in the policies he's promoting. So hopefully those that want true change can see through the money and branding.
Sun, 2015-01-25 12:04
#866
The goal of the oligarchs is to ease off enough to prevent revolt or economic collapse. This is a recent Freeland article in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/even-super-rich-see...
Just three years later, inequality hasn’t merely become a subject fit for polite company, it has become de rigueur. It was a central preoccupation at a conference on inclusive capitalism at the Mansion House and Guildhall last May. The event was organised by Lady Lynn de Rothschild and the opening speaker was Prince Charles. And at Davos, income inequality has gone from taboo to top of the agenda........
......Until now, these winners in our winner-take-all economy have backed a set of political measures – weaker unions, deregulation, lower taxes – which have exacerbated the distributional impact of the new economy.
As even Davos Man has realised, that is not sustainable. The weak economic growth that much of the western industrialised world is currently experiencing suggests that an economic system that hollows out the middle class will struggle to grow. And the vicious political polarisation should make us worry that an economy that produces cheap goods but even cheaper jobs will ultimately erode mass democracy.
Some think a violent confrontation between the new economy’s winners and losers is inevitable. As Nick Hanauer, an American technology billionaire, warned last year: “If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us.” He’s right. After all, the last time we negotiated a comparable political and economic transition – the Industrial Revolution – it took economic depression, two world wars and communist revolutions in Russia and China before we were able to establish a new, economically and politically sustainable status quo.
That is a very high cost indeed. Which is why the smartest plutocrats understand it is in their best interest to work to build a 21st-century version of inclusive capitalism. For our own sakes, we should give them a chance to join the rest of us in figuring that out.
The Liberals and the NDP share the goal of making capitalism "more inclusive" within Canada but basically accepting the status quo on the big questions like the oil sands. In my opinion the Liberals can do a better job working within the system than the NDP can.
There is no way to predict for sure what the Liberal platform will contain but there are clues.
Trudeau's economic advisory team are an illustrious bunch that represent every area of the country and every economic sector. I predict will present a very credible and attractive plan.
Who is on the NDP economic advisory team?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/10/tom_mulcairs_conservative_...
J Trudeau is barely different from Harper in the policies he's promoting. So hopefully those that want true change can see through the money and branding.
And Mulcair is barely different from Trudeau in the policies he is promoting which is why the NDP has to focus so much on the past and the "Liberals are liars" mandra. The NDP's big fall roll-out of platform planks landed with a big fat thud.
The NDP is no Syriza.
Sun, 2015-01-25 12:24
#867
Do you think maybe that Paul Martin thought he was doing the right thing in following the conventional wisdom of the times?
Manufactured or otherwise the will of the majority was followed. So again, the route to change lies in changing public opinion first. That doesn't occur through pumping any political party. It comes through changing public opinion then inspiring a political party to support public opinion. Marijuana is a good example of that. Change isn't coming because some political party adopted it as an issue. Political parties are responding to public opinion.
[/quote]
Wow! That's like going to a doctor and asking him/her to treat your illness with what is popular as opposed to what actually works.
Counting on/hoping public opinion changes to support the right direction probably means the politician and/or their party only cares about getting re elected. This intensifies during the Western Governments Popularity Contest-election for short!
God help us if human rights don't become "popular"! in your system.
Sun, 2015-01-25 12:56
#868
J Trudeau is barely different from Harper in the policies he's promoting. So hopefully those that want true change can see through the money and branding.And Mulcair is barely different from Trudeau in the policies he is promoting which is why the NDP has to focus so much on the past and the "Liberals are liars" mandra. The NDP's big fall roll-out of platform planks landed with a big fat thud.
On the contrary, there's significant differences. From an earlier post:
Fact:
- Trudeau doesn't support proportional representation - 1. He supports alternate vote/preferential ballot, which is far inferior. Mulcair does support proportional representation. We need to ensure that all votes count, and stop dithering.
- The Liberal's expected childcare proposal (and Trudeau may not even follow through on this - 2) will be far inferior to the NDP childcare proposal. Parents need affordable childcare. The Quebec model has been a success, and the NDP offering finances to the provinces for childcare in the same way as the federal gov't does with the Canada Health Act will be a great thing. Our health care is fantastic (thanks to Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson -- and Trudeau ain't Pearson!) and with an NDP government, our childcare will likewise be fantastic.
- Trudeau has preached a similar approach to the Conservatives on the climate - 3, in that he'll set up no national standard for carbon pricing. Mulcair and the NDP have always supported a national cap and trade policy (see s. 23 of the NDP Policy Book).
- Mulcair believes in ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes. Trudeau's Liberals do not - 4.
The best option should be chosen by voters. The NDP are simply a better option than are the Liberals or the Conservatives (unless you're a part of the wealthy 1%, then by all means vote for either the Liberals or the Conservatives, since these parties have your financial best interests at stake, otherwise for the rest, the NDP is the choice to make).
ETA: White Cat had some astute observations of just how right wing Trudeau is in another thread: link [thread: Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile; post 1247; January 23, 2015 - 11:51pm] Recommended reading.
Sun, 2015-01-25 13:12
#869
ETA: White Cat had some astute observations of just how right wing Trudeau is in another thread: link [thread: Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile; post 1247; January 23, 2015 - 11:51pm] Recommended reading.
Bah! I tested the link on a different browser, and of course it doesn't work. I wish Babble would fix the comment links function so they'd actually work (the links rely on page #s, which aren't standard between different devices). Anyway, here's the post:
Trudeau Jr. is now taking the Stephen Harper approach to climate change with some platitudes thrown in for good measure:
Justin Trudeau says carbon pricing should be left to provinces
I think Pierre Trudeau would despise Justin as a federal leader. Pierre believed in a strong federal government. Justin supports Harper's decentralized version as well as the low-tax small-government mantra.
Quick recap. Trudeau is RIGHT of Harper on: EI tax cut for corporations; Chinese foreign investment in the tarsands; Tempororay Foreign Workers (wants Harper's restrictions loosened on last two.)
Trudeau is the SAME as Harper on: carbon pricing/climate change; resource exports to China as "future of the Canadian economy"; FIPA; corporate tax cuts; free trade; dilbit pipelines and tankers; harsh cuts to EI benefits; etc.
Things Justin has in common with his father: DNA (although I'm beginning to wonder...)
BTW, this election is shaping up to be a farce. If one is critical of Trudeau's position on any issue, the Stop Harper! hystericals act like you insulted their mommy. Politics is too much like religion: check your brain at the door...
Sun, 2015-01-25 14:18
#870
Wow! That's like going to a doctor and asking him/her to treat your illness with what is popular as opposed to what actually works.
Counting on/hoping public opinion changes to support the right direction probably means the politician and/or their party only cares about getting re elected. This intensifies during the Western Governments Popularity Contest-election for short!
God help us if human rights don't become "popular"! in your system.
Doctors do follow the conventional wisdom of the day. The primary focus of the NDP is to get elected. Their response to the misconduct allegations proved it.
It's not "my system". It's what happens. Hitler was elected and supported by the people. Democracy can be a dangerous thing.
Radical change can only be achieved through mass social discontent. In that moment people decide which direction to take, left or right, the choice Greece is making right now. In my opinion mass social discontent can be achieved without a country going into a self-destructive spiral.
I don't see the current NDP as a vehicle for doing that. The farther right the Liberals move the closer the NDP follows right on their heels.
Efklidis Tsakalotos: Syriza’s programme is a transitional one. It wants to start the process of not only reversing the policies of austerity but also dismantling some of the central pillars of the neo-liberal order. As with all transitional programmes the goal is to open up fissures for more radical polices. Whether we in Europe can achieve this depends on the extent that social movements are inspired to make use of the opportunities that arise to broaden the agenda in favour of a more participatory, institutionally-diverse, and socially just economy. Left-wing governments can do only so much. Social transformations, especially in the modern era, need the active engagement of millions. Parties and governments of the Left must see their role as catalysts of these wider developments. What is certain is that we are living in interesting times!
Neither the Liberals nor the NDP are catalysts.
Sun, 2015-01-25 14:31
#871
Trudeau doesn't support proportional representation - 1. He supports alternate vote/preferential ballot, which is far inferior. Mulcair does support proportional representation. We need to ensure that all votes count, and stop dithering.
I prefer AV but right now Canadians do not support a change to either.
The Liberal's expected childcare proposal (and Trudeau may not even follow through on this - 2) will be far inferior to the NDP childcare proposal. Parents need affordable childcare. The Quebec model has been a success, and the NDP offering finances to the provinces for childcare in the same way as the federal gov't does with the Canada Health Act will be a great thing. Our health care is fantastic (thanks to Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson -- and Trudeau ain't Pearson!) and with an NDP government, our childcare will likewise be fantastic.
The Quebec model has been changed and I suspect the Trudeau model will be better than Mulcair's but that will be revealed in his platform at which point people will decide for themselves.
Trudeau has preached a similar approach to the Conservatives on the climate - 3, in that he'll set up no national standard for carbon pricing. Mulcair and the NDP have always supported a national cap and trade policy (see s. 23 of the NDP Policy Book).
I suspect Trudeau has something up his sleeve but either way carbon pricing is a drop in the bucket when what we have to deal with is the oil sands. Neither Trudeau nor Mulcair is addressing that issue.
Mulcair believes in ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes. Trudeau's Liberals do not - 4.
But he won't say what that is. Trudeau will also be altering the tax system which will be reflected in his platform. Which of us is right will be proven soon enough. Personally I think you will be reverting to "the Liberals are liars".
Sun, 2015-01-25 15:01
#872
This is the truth about carbon taxing. It's window dressing.
But climate change is a global phenomenon, requiring global action. Whether Alberta, Quebec or any province brings in a carbon tax is frankly immaterial: it won’t make a dime’s worth of difference to the planet. Neither would a national program, come to that — on its own. But Canada is at least morally obliged to do its part (as perhaps in time it will be legally): to share in the costs of reducing global carbon emissions.
http://www.canada.com/news/national/Coyne+Justin+Trudeau+appears+backing...
What he doesn't say is that the oil sands can't expand expotentially and much will have to be left in the ground. Tinkering with carbon pricing is too little too late. It's window-dressing to appear as though something is being done and to give cover to the oil sands now that companies are belatedly realizing they can't just force them through.
Sun, 2015-01-25 15:28
#873
Re: Post #869 -- I've heard this theme from some other Liberal supporters (some friends who primarily work in retail). The theme being that "mass social discontent" and "radical change" is somehow required. Often too out of their mouths they speak of making unions illegal and allowing "the will of the people" to be realized. One Liberal I talked to went on about how making unions illegal would allow for conditions to truly motivate the masses to rise up and build something better -- but until then, until a true "catalyst" could be found, of course, the Liberal Party was the best choice(?) Odd. I think some of JT's weird statements, like, "There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar," appeals to these people.
However, I suspect that most people simply desire peace, order, and good government, regardless of political preference. So Trudeau's campaign of being quite explicit about some stands (IE, marijuana legalization), quite concealed about others (IE, whether his party would support an auto strategy or not), but otherwise mostly echoing the general Conservative viewpoints, will begin to wear on people once they start paying attention. I think the Libs are aiming to be seen as responsible conservatives with an open-mind, but I believe instead they'll simply be seen as a bit unhinged.
Sun, 2015-01-25 15:48
#874
Re: Post #869 -- I've heard this theme from some other Liberal supporters (some friends who primarily work in retail). The theme being that "mass social discontent" and "radical change" is somehow required. Often too out of their mouths they speak of making unions illegal and allowing "the will of the people" to be realized.
To say nothing of the vast human toll that such a collapse would extract on the general population. When countries collapse like that, then radical outside-the-mainstream solutions and movements gain traction. Sometimes we get lucky with what we're seeing in the results of the Greek elections. Sometimes we get unlucky, like what we saw happen in Germany and Italy in the 1920s and '30s. Is it really worth the price?
Sun, 2015-01-25 16:09
#875
I've heard this theme from some other Liberal supporters (some friends who primarily work in retail). The theme being that "mass social discontent" and "radical change" is somehow required. Often too out of their mouths they speak of making unions illegal and allowing "the will of the people" to be realized. One Liberal I talked to went on about how making unions illegal would allow for conditions to truly motivate the masses to rise up and build something better -- but until then, until a true "catalyst" could be found, of course, the Liberal Party was the best choice(?)
Nothing but a strawman argument from start to finish. I specifically stated:
In my opinion mass social discontent can be achieved without a country going into a self-destructive spiral.
but until then, until a true "catalyst" could be found, of course, the Liberal Party was the best choice(?)
Not necessarily. It just means the NDP is not automatically the best party to vote for based on what they could achieve in the next four years.
I think some of JT's weird statements, like, "There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar," appeals to these people.
It was an off the cuff remark followed by his admiration of northern Canada's consensus systems. You are really reaching to suggest that this indicates a desire to be a dictator.
So Trudeau's campaign of being quite explicit about some stands (IE, marijuana legalization), quite concealed about others (IE, whether his party would support an auto strategy or not), but otherwise mostly echoing the general Conservative viewpoints, will begin to wear on people once they start paying attention.
Once they start paying attention Trudeau will have his platform out.
I think the Libs are aiming to be seen as responsible conservatives with an open-mind, but I believe instead they'll simply be seen as a bit unhinged.
Well then you have nothing to worry about as voters won't vote for a party or leader they see as even a bit unhinged. In that case we will more than likely be ushering in Harper for another term, maybe even with a majority.
Sun, 2015-01-25 16:13
#876
I think the Libs are aiming to be seen as responsible conservatives with an open-mind, but I believe instead they'll simply be seen as a bit unhinged.Well then you have nothing to worry about as voters won't vote for a party or leader they see as even a bit unhinged. In that case we will more than likely be ushering in Harper for another term, maybe even with a majority.
Ah yes, there's a red door, there's a blue door. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsyFgXts9yg]Where have I heard this before?[/url]
Sun, 2015-01-25 16:24
#877
What he doesn't say is that the oil sands can't expand expotentially and much will have to be left in the ground. Tinkering with carbon pricing is too little too late. It's window-dressing to appear as though something is being done and to give cover to the oil sands now that companies are belatedly realizing they can't just force them through.
I agree. And still this is the only policy being offered in this election that addresses climate change at all. Pretty sad statement on your beloved Liberals, isn't it?
Even this nearly useless half-measure is miles ahead of anything the Libs will give us. What a moribund state your party is in, policy-wise. Nothing to offer anyone but empty speeches. Nothing to distinguish them politically except a pretty rookie as their front man. If I gave a shit about the proud history of the Liberals, I would burst into tears.
Sun, 2015-01-25 17:43
#878
The Liberal's expected childcare proposal (and Trudeau may not even follow through on this - 2) will be far inferior to the NDP childcare proposal. Parents need affordable childcare. The Quebec model has been a success, and the NDP offering finances to the provinces for childcare in the same way as the federal gov't does with the Canada Health Act will be a great thing. Our health care is fantastic (thanks to Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson -- and Trudeau ain't Pearson!) and with an NDP government, our childcare will likewise be fantastic.The Quebec model has been changed and I suspect the Trudeau model will be better than Mulcair's but that will be revealed in his platform at which point people will decide for themselves.
Trudeau has already said that he feels there's not enough money to proceed with their resolution on child care (but maintaining tax cuts for corporations is another story) and so they will "start the process again" (meaning dither for another 12 years just like last time they were in power.) He's a right-winger, and so he wants to avoid "fixed costs", irrespective of the party resolutions. So he dismissed resolution 3 (childcare).
Mon, 2015-01-26 00:18
#879
Trudeau has already said that he feels there's not enough money to proceed with their resolution on child care (but maintaining tax cuts for corporations is another story) and so they will "start the process again" (meaning dither for another 12 years just like last time they were in power.) He's a right-winger, and so he wants to avoid "fixed costs", irrespective of the party resolutions. So he dismissed resolution 3 (childcare).
He didn't say there isn't enough money to proceed he said they have a different plan.
Resolutions are non-binding.
Mon, 2015-01-26 03:11
#880
Trudeau has already said that he feels there's not enough money to proceed with their resolution on child care (but maintaining tax cuts for corporations is another story) and so they will "start the process again" (meaning dither for another 12 years just like last time they were in power.) He's a right-winger, and so he wants to avoid "fixed costs", irrespective of the party resolutions. So he dismissed resolution 3 (childcare).
He didn't say there isn't enough money to proceed he said they have a different plan.
Resolutions are non-binding.
Really? I find that very surprising that Trudeau could just contradict a priority resolution passed by the Liberal member delegates at their most recent biennial convention. I guess Trudeau can rule by fiat. Since they're non-binding, it means the Libs may not even bother to have marijuana legalization included in their platform.
It's very different for the NDP. In the NDP, the leader does not have such power. The power is with the members at Convention. From the NDP Constitution:
5. Authority of Conventions
Conventions are the supreme governing body of the Party and shall have final authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution.
Mon, 2015-01-26 03:25
#881
Trudeau has already said that he feels there's not enough money to proceed with their resolution on child care (but maintaining tax cuts for corporations is another story) and so they will "start the process again" (meaning dither for another 12 years just like last time they were in power.) He's a right-winger, and so he wants to avoid "fixed costs", irrespective of the party resolutions. So he dismissed resolution 3 (childcare).
He didn't say there isn't enough money to proceed he said they have a different plan.
Resolutions are non-binding.
Really? I find that very surprising that Trudeau could just contradict a priority resolution passed by the Liberal member delegates at their most recent biennial convention. I guess Trudeau can rule by fiat. Since they're non-binding, it means the Libs may not even bother to have marijuana legalization included in their platform.
It's very different for the NDP. In the NDP, the leader does not have such power. The power is with the members at Convention. From the NDP Constitution:
5. Authority of Conventions
Conventions are the supreme governing body of the Party and shall have final authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution.
Gary Doer repeatedly ignored NDP resolutions on anti-scab legislation in Manitoba and he was rewarded with increasing seat numbers each election, so I don't see what would be so unprecedented for Justin to ignore such policy proposals as well.
Tue, 2015-01-27 22:11
#882
I agree. And still this is the only policy being offered in this election that addresses climate change at all. Pretty sad statement on your beloved Liberals, isn't it?
Even this nearly useless half-measure is miles ahead of anything the Libs will give us.
It's not nearly useless. It's useless. It's like offering someone a bucket to bail out the Titanic. It means you aren't serious. We cannot look to the political parties on climate change. I get that to get elected they have to support the oil sands. I'm not going to pat the NDP on the back for paying lip service to the issue. If they want special credit on the environmental file they have to be honest with Canadians about what we have to do. If they are not then they are no better than the Liberals on the environmental file.
Tue, 2015-01-27 22:18
#883
Ah yes, there's a red door, there's a blue door. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsyFgXts9yg]Where have I heard this before?[/url]
Straw man. I didn't say anything about red doors and blue doors. Since Trudeau became leader the NDP has been solidly in 3rd place. They just aren't in contention. Maybe that will change but right now the Conservatives and Liberals are vying for first place.
Tue, 2015-01-27 22:21
#884
Really? I find that very surprising that Trudeau could just contradict a priority resolution passed by the Liberal member delegates at their most recent biennial convention. I guess Trudeau can rule by fiat. Since they're non-binding, it means the Libs may not even bother to have marijuana legalization included in their platform.
I'm surprised you didn't know that. Trudeau's support of legalization is not because the Liberal party passed a resolution. Perhaps it prompted him to reconsider his position but by no means was he bound by it.
Tue, 2015-01-27 22:25
#885
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/samuel-getachew/justin-trudeau-federal-elec...
Trudeau is the most impressive, practical, and smart political leader since the Jean Chrétien era. Since taking over a near-bankrupt, third place, humiliated party less than two years ago, he has made it a growing political movement. The party is now well-organized, better funded, and has attracted strong candidates and volunteers that truly represent the new Canada. This was not achieved by way of political anointment or appointment, but by way of a fair and open political organization and competition.
Trudeau has the luck of being underestimated, like Jean Chrétien was, and the intelligence to turn to experienced people the way Pierre Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson did. Perhaps like all Liberals, there is the will to win in his blood. Given his family pedigree, perhaps the will to win is not only powerful but predestined. Yet if he achieves victory, it will not be just because of his last name, but because he works hard, performs well, knows his weaknesses, and plays to his strengths.
Tue, 2015-01-27 22:56
#886
Since Trudeau became leader the NDP has been solidly in 3rd place. They just aren't in contention.
This would be true for the Liberals if it were the Liberals in third place, but it isn't true for the NDP. As I've pointed out many times, Liberal is a default option for millions of Canadians. If they haven't made up their mind or haven't taken the time to think things through or get enough info, then they'll answer Liberal because it's the "safe" option. Voting NDP is the "risky" option, simply because they haven't done it before (it's actually the other way around, but we're talking about perception, not reality).
Only someone with no understanding of this phenomenon, or someone with an agenda to push like yourself and Debater, would judge them on the same level when their political situations are so very different. The Liberals always go up between elections, due to their "safeness" but don't always hold those votes come e-day. Because of this default status, they are capable of holding large amounts of support right until the very end, when people finally take a closer look and decide not to stick with them. Obviously, the last election is the prime example, but the phenomenon is pretty consistent. It's just usually not that dramatic.
However, now we have seen that it can be that dramatic given the right circumstances. And in the exact inverse of the Liberals' political dynamic, the NDP can often carry a lot of good will with the public that doesn't bear any visible fruit until voters are forced to make up their minds, just like what happened in 2011. That's why it's hilarious to see you and the other shills bleating over and over "It's impossible for the NDP to surge ahead in the campaign! It's impossible!" Um, not only was it never impossible, but the NDP just had a surge exactly like that in the very last election. It seems to me that you guys are trying so hard to convince somebody, anybody that it can't happen precisely because you have finally seen that it can happen, and you are terrified by that reality, taking refuge in denial.
In other words, methinks the Liberal doth protest too much.
Tue, 2015-01-27 23:07
#887
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/samuel-getachew/justin-trudeau-federal-elec...
Trudeau is the most impressive, practical, and smart political leader since the Jean Chrétien era. Since taking over a near-bankrupt, third place, humiliated party less than two years ago, he has made it a growing political movement. The party is now well-organized, better funded, and has attracted strong candidates and volunteers that truly represent the new Canada. This was not achieved by way of political anointment or appointment, but by way of a fair and open political organization and competition.
Trudeau has the luck of being underestimated, like Jean Chrétien was, and the intelligence to turn to experienced people the way Pierre Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson did. Perhaps like all Liberals, there is the will to win in his blood. Given his family pedigree, perhaps the will to win is not only powerful but predestined. Yet if he achieves victory, it will not be just because of his last name, but because he works hard, performs well, knows his weaknesses, and plays to his strengths.
taken straight from libpo they are to trudeau what sun media is to harper.
Wed, 2015-01-28 01:24
#888
This thread needs to be closed