Maclean's national leaders debate: Thursday, August 6 -- 74 days before the election

195 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2015-08-07 11:04

Pondering

Pierre C yr wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The senate can be reformed without opening the constitution.

I think May is winning by far.

Like what. You cant elect them without opening the constitution.

You can set up a multi-party committee to present multiple candidates to the PM for consideration. Rules for expenses and reporting the purposes of trips can be made more transparent. They could be required to sit on committees not paid extra for it. Rules for expulsion can drawn up and they should be very strict. Pensions can be cut.

Some of these the senate would have to agree to. They manage their own affairs. No province is forced to have elections for senators. If Harper could have done any of this he would have by now rather than face the electorate with the mess its in. The only changes Ive seen done was due to shaming the senators into doing it. It wasnt legislated into place.

There can be no elected Senate because it would give the Senate democratic legitimacy changing it's nature and the PM would have to accept an elected Senator if that became the norm. That doesn't mean an advisory committee would be rejected by the Courts.

Harper didn't want to reform the Senate he wanted a triple E senate or no senate.

Fri, 2015-08-07 12:26

#153

NorthReport

Macleans set Mulcair up - Canada's Official Oopposition Leader is the only participant that did not have a dedicated camera on him.

Fri, 2015-08-07 12:37

#154

NorthReport

Fri, 2015-08-07 12:41

#155

nicky

Every member of the National Assembly , Liberals included, voted against the Clarity Act and in favur of a position similar to the Sherbrooke Declaration.

Harper had his finest moment last night scolding Trudeau for bringing up the subject and, as Mulcair put it, "scratching that sore."

Pondering can continue in her ponderous praise of Trudeau but it is clear he wants to kick a sleeping dog because he perceives an electoral advantage in Ontario and the West Island.

It is plain that he is willing to sacrifice his diminishing support, now in fourth place, in Francophone Quebec for some paranoid votes elsewhere.

Perhaps he is worried about losing seats in Allophone Montreal like NDG-Westmount, Dorval, Bourassa,Ville Marie and hopefully Papineau.

Fri, 2015-08-07 12:46

#156

Slumberjack

Yes, Trudeau seems to have so little to go on that he's been reduced to dredging up stuff from the archives that ought to remain buried.

Fri, 2015-08-07 12:51

#157

jjuares

In the short term Trudeau's clarity act ploy may help him in Ontario and the west but hurt him in Quebec. To me some of his points seemed close to Quebec bashing. It may also help the Bloc. I has never liked the clarity act- too un- democratic.

Fri, 2015-08-07 12:58

#158

Brachina

Rabble's own Karl Nenemberg had the best analysis of the night, heads of shoulders above the pathetic and clueless punditry class.

Fri, 2015-08-07 13:09

#159

jjuares

The other interesting debate was on Libya and our intervention. It seemed at one point we were going to have an interesting discussion here about when Canada should participate in interventions. However, that got derailed when Unionist and Pierre started with their nasty personal attacks. However, it remains an interesting question. Is every NATO and U.S. intervention in of itself not worthy of our support. No question the vast majority of these interventions seem to make a bad situation worse, much worse in fact. But does that mean we should never look at the merits of each one?

Fri, 2015-08-07 15:58

#160

Ken Burch

jjuares wrote:
In the short term Trudeau's clarity act ploy may help him in Ontario and the west but hurt him in Quebec. To me some of his points seemed close to Quebec bashing. It may also help the Bloc. I has never liked the clarity act- too un- democratic.

It is also an implicit insult to sovereigntists...the "clear majority" provision implies that an elections division run by a sovereigntist government couldn't be trusted to count the votes accurately in a close referendum vote-never mind that it was exactly such a government that announced a wafer-thin defeat for independence in the 1996 referendum, an announcement which should have proved that sovereigntists are just as committed to democratic legitimacy any anybody else.

They might just as well have named it "The 'We Know Your Kind' Act".

Fri, 2015-08-07 15:58

#161

Slumberjack

jjuares wrote:
No question the vast majority of these interventions seem to make a bad situation worse, much worse in fact. But does that mean we should never look at the merits of each one?

Maybe just one. I thought we already did and saw that they were all bullshit?

Fri, 2015-08-07 17:59

#162

bekayne

Ray Heard was not impressed:

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.ca/2015/08/ray-heard-sunnews-networ...

Fri, 2015-08-07 18:11

#163

Left Turn

DaveW wrote:
and yes, they are going to regularly side with NATO, as Pierre Cyr points out, just as the CCF-NDP considered then rejected motions at every convention in ther 1970s and 70s to pull out of NATO or NORAD.... will not happen

FYI, the NDP passed a resolution at its convention in 1965 to withdraw from NATO. It had a 30 year "sunset" clause, meaning that it expired in 1995. It was not renewed.

So no, withdrawing from NATO is not far to the left of traditional NDP policy. Withdrawing from NORAD may be, but withdrawing from NATO isn't.

Fri, 2015-08-07 20:04

#164

terrytowel

moving post to federal election thread, place in wrong thread.

Fri, 2015-08-07 20:43

#165

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

jjuares wrote:
In the short term Trudeau's clarity act ploy may help him in Ontario and the west but hurt him in Quebec. To me some of his points seemed close to Quebec bashing. It may also help the Bloc. I has never liked the clarity act- too un- democratic.

It is also an implicit insult to sovereigntists...the "clear majority" provision implies that an elections division run by a sovereigntist government couldn't be trusted to count the votes accurately in a close referendum vote-never mind that it was exactly such a government that announced a wafer-thin defeat for independence in the 1996 referendum, an announcement which should have proved that sovereigntists are just as committed to democratic legitimacy any anybody else.

They might just as well have named it "The 'We Know Your Kind' Act".

So I guess Mulcair should shut up about the over 5000 votes rejected in his riding which has a lot of anglophones.

If there is a 30% turnout the NDP would have us separate if 16% of Quebecers voted to separate. That is why the Supreme Court said the validity of the referendum would have to be discussed in the HoC.

Fri, 2015-08-07 21:10

#166

quizzical

"if there was a 30% turnout"......reallly??????

and what 5000 votes rejected?

Fri, 2015-08-07 21:35

#167

mark_alfred

From Tyee's Election Debate awards:

Quote:

Best at giving viewers an excuse to go to the washroom: Trudeau

Seriously? Quebec separation is what we discuss during debate on the health of Canada's democracy? We have muzzled scientists, laws that critics say prevent Canadians from voting, compromised government agencies, and a government that will not answer questions from the media, and Trudeau brings up an issue that hasn't been an issue in more than 10 years.

You know those stories about how there's a massive surge of water use during NHL playoff intermissions? Let's see something like that for this debate. I'd wager that when separation came up, people went to the flush in record numbers or, out of nostalgia, went to listen to a Pearl Jam CD. Because that's who was top of the charts the last time anyone in English Canada gave a grilled cheese about the issue. -- JN

Fri, 2015-08-07 21:52

#168

NDPP

Left Turn wrote:

DaveW wrote:
and yes, they are going to regularly side with NATO, as Pierre Cyr points out, just as the CCF-NDP considered then rejected motions at every convention in ther 1970s and 70s to pull out of NATO or NORAD.... will not happen

FYI, the NDP passed a resolution at its convention in 1965 to withdraw from NATO. It had a 30 year "sunset" clause, meaning that it expired in 1995. It was not renewed.

So no, withdrawing from NATO is not far to the left of traditional NDP policy. Withdrawing from NORAD may be, but withdrawing from NATO isn't.

The pretended ignorance to the steady, rightwards march of the NDP and its relentless overturning of longstanding arguably 'progressive' NDP positions, of which the NATO question is just one, even by some who know this very well and have discussed here the implications of these rightward shifts, is most disturbing.

'We are a proud member of NATO.' - Mulcair

At least St Jack offered up some milquetoast and pap ("We are going to change NATO from within!') to mark the radical shift in NDP policy from Canada should withdraw from NATO, to the NDP now proudly proclaiming:

'We are a proud member of NATO'.

No true progressive can or should support such a position or vote for such a party.

It is too late in the day for lesser evilism, especially when the lesser is so obviously diminishing.

NDP = No Difference Party

Fri, 2015-08-07 22:04

#169

quizzical

whatever, what party we going to vote for then the Liberals or Cons?

it's offensive thinking by yourself to underestimate what we know and what our choices are in the face of our knowing what we have to choose from.

btw you've NO right to detemine what is progressive or not, k?!

Fri, 2015-08-07 22:34

#170

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

jjuares wrote:
In the short term Trudeau's clarity act ploy may help him in Ontario and the west but hurt him in Quebec. To me some of his points seemed close to Quebec bashing. It may also help the Bloc. I has never liked the clarity act- too un- democratic.

It is also an implicit insult to sovereigntists...the "clear majority" provision implies that an elections division run by a sovereigntist government couldn't be trusted to count the votes accurately in a close referendum vote-never mind that it was exactly such a government that announced a wafer-thin defeat for independence in the 1996 referendum, an announcement which should have proved that sovereigntists are just as committed to democratic legitimacy any anybody else.

They might just as well have named it "The 'We Know Your Kind' Act".

So I guess Mulcair should shut up about the over 5000 votes rejected in his riding which has a lot of anglophones.

If there is a 30% turnout the NDP would have us separate if 16% of Quebecers voted to separate. That is why the Supreme Court said the validity of the referendum would have to be discussed in the HoC.

So people who don't show up effectively have their votes added to the " No " column". Who could argue with that?
You do realize that the turnout for the last referendum in 1995 was a tad higher than your example. It was 93.5% . Hey, but if we are just pulling numbers out of the air, what if the turnout was lower than the 30% in your example, let's say one. And I don't mean one percent either. I mean One single person showed up to vote. I know that this example is ever so slightly more ridiculous than your example but let's go with it. And the single voter was Gilles Duceppe! I think we need a special law to prevent this happening as well. Let's call this the Duceppe Act.

Fri, 2015-08-07 22:54

#171

pookie

jjuares wrote:
The other interesting debate was on Libya and our intervention. It seemed at one point we were going to have an interesting discussion here about when Canada should participate in interventions. However, that got derailed when Unionist and Pierre started with their nasty personal attacks. However, it remains an interesting question. Is every NATO and U.S. intervention in of itself not worthy of our support. No question the vast majority of these interventions seem to make a bad situation worse, much worse in fact. But does that mean we should never look at the merits of each one?

Ok. That was pretty funny.

Fri, 2015-08-07 23:20

#172

NorthReport

Wasn't there another Ray Heard who maybe wrote for the Montreal Star way back?

bekayne wrote:

Ray Heard was not impressed:

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.ca/2015/08/ray-heard-sunnews-networ...

Fri, 2015-08-07 23:27

#173

NorthReport

Hey, hot off the presses.

Liberal media complex pollster Forum Reseach say LIberals won debate.

Who knew!

Sat, 2015-08-08 01:37

#174

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Wasn't there another Ray Heard who maybe wrote for the Montreal Star way back?

bekayne wrote:

Ray Heard was not impressed:

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.ca/2015/08/ray-heard-sunnews-networ...

Same guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Heard

Sat, 2015-08-08 01:38

#175

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Hey, hot off the presses.

Liberal media complex pollster Forum Reseach say LIberals won debate.

Who knew!

Toronto only poll

http://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-seen-as-strongest-candidate-by-toronton...

Sat, 2015-08-08 01:41

#176

mark_alfred

I believe Trudeau is wrong in his interpretation of the SCC decision ("nine supreme court justices said one vote is not enough to break up this country"). Many point to the references of "simple majority" not being adequate (rather than "clear majority"). However, the term "simple majority" is referring to a majority vote on it's own not being sufficient for secession. It is not a reference to the size of the majority. In fact, the decision states the following:

Quote:
Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole.

Thus, "simple majority", (from the statement "Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule") refers to any majority -- IE, 50%+1, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or even a 100%. To simply have a majority in a democratic vote ("by however strong a majority") without having negotiations between the two parties (Quebec and Canada), is insufficient for secession (IE, they cannot unilaterally secede). The decision also states:

Quote:
The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others. The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed.

I feel it could be open for both sides to agree that if over half of the voters chose secession in a democratic vote in response to a clear question, then that could be considered the beginning of a process to negotiate sovereignty association (and likewise, if over half chose to stay, then it's no to secession). I feel it would be a bad message to require a substantially higher proportion of the voters beyond 50% (IE, "it must be 70% of voters who are unhappy before you can leave" would be bizarre). There's an article here that echoes my thoughts, using some events in Scotland as an example. Also, too, regarding Scotland, there recently was a secession referendum there that set majority at 50%+1 (secession was rejected -- the no side won). It's just the right way to do it. Trudeau refusing to state what he feels the majority requirement should be was gutless on his part.

Sat, 2015-08-08 01:49

#177

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

bekayne wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Hey, hot off the presses.

Liberal media complex pollster Forum Reseach say LIberals won debate.

Who knew!

Toronto only poll

http://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-seen-as-strongest-candidate-by-torontonians-in-1st-debate-poll-1.2507699

That is bull! I don't buy it. Bull. Pure bull! There is no way that the NDP is going to collapse in Ontario. Anyone who starts buying this now is simply buying into the Lib frame.

Sat, 2015-08-08 07:18

#178

josh

bekayne wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Hey, hot off the presses.

Liberal media complex pollster Forum Reseach say LIberals won debate.

Who knew!

Toronto only poll

http://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-seen-as-strongest-candidate-by-toronton...

Taken between 10 and 3 on a Friday. Textbook time to poll people.

Sat, 2015-08-08 07:51

#179

pookie

mark_alfred wrote:

I feel it could be open for both sides to agree that if over half of the voters chose secession in a democratic vote in response to a clear question, then that could be considered the beginning of a process to negotiate sovereignty association (and likewise, if over half chose to stay, then it's no to secession). I feel it would be a bad message to require a substantially higher proportion of the voters beyond 50% (IE, "it must be 70% of voters who are unhappy before you can leave" would be bizarre). There's an article here that echoes my thoughts, using some events in Scotland as an example. Also, too, regarding Scotland, there recently was a secession referendum there that set majority at 50%+1 (secession was rejected -- the no side won). It's just the right way to do it. Trudeau refusing to state what he feels the majority requirement should be was gutless on his part.

Of course it would be open to both sides to agree. That's always the case. The SCC was outlining the principles, consistent with our entire constitution, that would apply in the more likely event that the parties do not agree.

Sat, 2015-08-08 08:35

#180

Stockholm

Arthur Cramer wrote:

bekayne wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Hey, hot off the presses.

Liberal media complex pollster Forum Reseach say LIberals won debate.

Who knew!

Toronto only poll

http://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-seen-as-strongest-candidate-by-torontonians-in-1st-debate-poll-1.2507699

According to that poll NDP support is up about 5 points across the gta since 2011 and the NDP leads in the city of Toronto, what's not to like?

That is bull! I don't buy it. Bull. Pure bull! There is no way that the NDP is going to collapse in Ontario. Anyone who starts buying this now is simply buying into the Lib frame.

Sat, 2015-08-08 09:15

#181

mark_alfred

Stockholm wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

bekayne wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Hey, hot off the presses.

Liberal media complex pollster Forum Reseach say LIberals won debate.

Who knew!

Toronto only poll

http://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-seen-as-strongest-candidate-by-torontonians-in-1st-debate-poll-1.2507699

According to that poll NDP support is up about 5 points across the gta since 2011 and the NDP leads in the city of Toronto, what's not to like?

That is bull! I don't buy it. Bull. Pure bull! There is no way that the NDP is going to collapse in Ontario. Anyone who starts buying this now is simply buying into the Lib frame.

Yeah, seems odd that everyone who saw the debate ranked Elizabeth May quite highly, yet this poll has her performance chosen as best by the least amount of people. That said, Toronto is a bastion of Lib support. The NDP ranks high in smaller working class centres like Hamilton and also up north.

Sat, 2015-08-08 09:31

#182

Paladin1

The only positive thing for me to come out of that debate was learning that the NDPs $15.00 an hour minimum wage won't help those that really need it. I read that it will only effect 1% of people receiving minimum wage. Sneaky.

Sat, 2015-08-08 09:57

#183

mark_alfred

Paladin1 wrote:

The only positive thing for me to come out of that debate was learning that the NDPs $15.00 an hour minimum wage won't help those that really need it. I read that it will only effect 1% of people receiving minimum wage. Sneaky.

This seems to be a Liberal talking point. The minimum wage increase applies to all (100%) federally regulated employees. So, workers in Canada Post, banks, military, etc., will have this minimum wage standard. It will make a difference on about 100,000 people's income. Granted, most workers are provincially regulated. But, it sets a standard for other provincial governments. Alberta will be raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour. Again, this begins to set a standard of a decent minimum wage for people, helping move things in this direction in other provinces. It's a significant thing.

There's a good article on Rabble about it: llnk

Sat, 2015-08-08 09:58

#184

Misfit

It's not sneaky at all. I'm uneducated yet I understood right away the difference between Federal and Provincial employment jurisdiction. How can that be? And why arent the Conservatives making an issue and only the Liberals? Gee, who is being sleazy here? It's not the NDP nor the Conservatives...

Sat, 2015-08-08 10:35

#185

Paladin1

Thanks for the informative post Mark.

I think the biggest issue with this is that most people making minimum wage seem to think this $15/hour will automatically apply to them when it won't. It seems like a sneaky way to get votes.

Sat, 2015-08-08 11:05

#186

Brachina

The no one won the debate crowd is by far the highest, so suspect that the debate won't have much impact at least in the GTA.

Sat, 2015-08-08 11:52

#187

mark_alfred

Paladin1 wrote:

Thanks for the informative post Mark.

I think the biggest issue with this is that most people making minimum wage seem to think this $15/hour will automatically apply to them when it won't. It seems like a sneaky way to get votes.

The reality is that the provincial (and municipal governments) have more direct impact on our lives than do the federal government, given what they each control (IE, what is under their jurisdiction). The importance of having a federal social democratic government rather than a right-wing government (IE, the NDP rather than the Libs or Cons) in control is the large financial resources that the federal government controls. The federal government funds many things under provincial control, like health care. The NDP have promised more resources for public transit and have promised to, over eight years, help fund a million affordable child care spaces.

Raising the minimum wage in federally regulated jobs will give about a 100,000 people a raise. Not a huge number, but certainly better than the ZERO amount of people that the Libs or Cons will give a raise to. And as mentioned, it also helps set a standard for other jurisdictions (IE, the provinces -- one of which, Alberta, under Notley's NDP, will also be raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour).

Regarding seeming "sneaky", the NDP have always said it was for federally regulated jobs. But yes, I do understand people's confusion.

Talking about "sneaky", the Lib's alleged tax cut for "middle class" funded by a tax increase on the rich (those over $200G), could also be seen as "sneaky". People earning $44G or less see nothing. Those earning at the top of the bracket and beyond up to $200G (so, $90G to $200G) get the full benefit of the tax cut (comes to about $670, I think). Those at the lower end of the bracket see less (IE, $50G gets a cut of $79.50, $60G gets a cut of $229.50, etc., until the max cut of $670 is reached by those earning $90G or more).

The Lib site is far less clear on this, though (it says, "A Liberal government will cut the middle class income bracket by 7% (from 22% to 20.5%) and introduce a new tax bracket of 33% for incomes over $200,000. That means you could save nearly $670 per person every year!"). The reality is you need to earn $89,400 before you get the full $670, and if you're earning $44G or less you save nothing.

Given my income, I get nothing from it. Most people get nothing from it. But that's not the image the Libs wish to convey. Still, it's not a bad idea taxing those who are rich more and cutting taxes on those who are less rich. But in this case, it's a transfer of wealth from the rich to the upper middle class. It seems to me there's far better things that government could do to help out than merely institute a tax cut for some (via a tax increase on some). For instance, if the NDP were to use the revenue from their proposed corporate tax increase to fund a tax cut to some, I'd be disappointed. I feel using it to help fund their goal of creating a million affordable child care spaces is a better option.

Sat, 2015-08-08 11:58

#188

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

Toronto is a bastion of Lib support. The NDP ranks high in smaller working class centres like Hamilton and also up north.

No surprise then that the Libs are advertising heavily on CP24

Sat, 2015-08-08 12:15

#189

bekayne

mark_alfred wrote:

Yeah, seems odd that everyone who saw the debate ranked Elizabeth May quite highly, yet this poll has her performance chosen as best by the least amount of people.

But it's still quite a bit above the number of actual Green supporters in Toronto

Sat, 2015-08-08 12:30

#190

Pondering

Misfit wrote:
It's not sneaky at all. I'm uneducated yet I understood right away the difference between Federal and Provincial employment jurisdiction. How can that be? And why arent the Conservatives making an issue and only the Liberals? Gee, who is being sleazy here? It's not the NDP nor the Conservatives...

You are far from uneducated if you already knew that up until 1996, when the NDP and Liberals voted to end it, there used to be a federal minimum wage that applied to a subset of workers.

Or perhaps you are saying you knew nothing about the earlier federal minimum wage, because you are so familiar with the separation of powers between the federal and provincial governments that you knew right away a federal minimum wage would only apply to federally regulated industries.

The reality is most people are about as politically educated as I am or less. I first assumed it would apply to all workers which made it a big deal and a major platform plank. Then when I heard it only applied to federal workers, I thought that mean federal government workers. Later still I found out that it really applies to all federally regulated industries so that includes airport workers but not truck drivers. My final understanding is I don't care about the details all I need to know is that it won't affect most minimum wage workers.

Most people will first understand it as a minimum wage that will apply to everyone whether you call it a federal minimum wage or a national minimum wage.

When they find out otherwise they will see it as bait and switch and resent the notion that they should know better so it's their fault if they didn't understand what the NDP was promising.

Sat, 2015-08-08 12:54

#191

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

The reality is most people are about as politically educated as I am or less.

I can't find the picture but this reminds me of a meme I seen. It went along the lines of

I haven't read the article but let me tell you how pissed off this headline makes me.

Many people don't bother taking the time to read an actual article before commenting on it and i think that same behavior extends to politics and back and forth headlines. It's degenerated our politics into a sort of reality TV/facebook attention span thing.

Sat, 2015-08-08 23:17

#192

jerrym

Paladin 1 wrote

Quote:

The only positive thing for me to come out of that debate was learning that the NDPs $15.00 an hour minimum wage won't help those that really need it. I read that it will only effect 1% of people receiving minimum wage. Sneaky.

A federal minimum wage of $15 raises the question why can't this occur in my province, just as the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is triggering this question elsewhere in the US and stimulating other American jurisdictions to introduce it, after decades of minimum wage stagnation there. It also gives low wage workers in Canada and the US an incentive to vote for a party that will introduce a $15 minimum wage.

A number of other American jurisdictions have raised their minimum wage significantly in response to pressure created by the growing number of cities and states introducing a $15 minimum, so there is evidence that a $15 minimum can have a major effect beyond its own jurisdiction.

Quote:

Over the last two years, several cities and now the entire state of New Yorkeither have or are in the process of enacting a $15 minimum wage for various workers. Here’s a look at the cities that have enacted huge pay increases, and the ones that could still be to come.

New York

How it Happened: A wage board appointed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo presented a recommendation Wednesday to increase the minimum wage for fast food workers to $15 per hour across the state, up from the current $8.75. Cuomo has enthusiastically backed the initiative.

The Plan: In New York City, the minimum wage will increase to $10.50 by the end of this year, then increase incrementally each year to reach $15 by 2018. In the rest of the state, the increments will be smaller and $15 will be reached by 2021. The wage increases apply only to fast food chains with at least 30 locations in the U.S.

The Effect: None yet, since the measure still must be approved by the state’s labor commissioner. Experts predict other types of businesses that employ low-wage workers, like retailers or landscapers, will have to increase wages to compete with fast food restaurants.

Seattle

How it Happened: Mayor Ed Murray made increasing the minimum wage one of his first priorities when taking office at the start of 2014. In May of that year, he put forth a proposal to increase the city’s minimum wage from Washington state’s rate of $9.32 to to $15 over several years. The city council approved the measure a month later.

The Plan: Workers at large businesses with 500 or more U.S. employees will see their wages hit $15 per her hour by 2017. Workers at businesses with fewer than 500 U.S. employees will reach that rate by 2021. After the hikes, large businesses will have to keep increasing wages to keep pace with inflation.

The Effects So Far: The first stage of Seattle’s plan went into effect in April 2015, with large businesses raising their minimum wage to $11 per hour and small businesses’ wages rising to $10. So far, the effects are largely anecdotal. Some local restaurants have raised prices from 4 to 21%. In nearby SeaTac, where the minimum wage for some workers jumped to $15 per hour last year, there hasn’t been any measurable economic fallout.

San Francisco

How it Happened: City residents voted by a large majority to raise the city’s minimum wage from $10.74 to $15 last November.

The Plan: Wages have already jumped to $12.25, and will increase to $15 by 2018. After that, the minimum wage will increase every year at a rate tied to the consumer price index.

The Effects So Far: This year’s wage increase boosted the pay for as many as 86,000 workers, most of whom were women and minorities, according to one estimate. However, at least one local bookstore said it would close due to the increased costs.

Los Angeles

How it Happened: The Los Angeles city council voted in May to increase the local minimum wage to $15 by 2020, up from the current $9. This week the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors also voted to increase the minimum wage to $15 for people working in unincorporated parts of the county.

The Plan: Workers will earn $10.50 per hour starting next year, with incremental increases until they make $15 in 2020. The hikes are delayed by a year for workers at businesses with 25 or fewer employees. After reaching $15, annual minimum wage increases will be tied to the consumer price index.

The Effects So Far: Because many cities in L.A. County, like Pasadena and Long Beach, haven’t yet committed to matching the county’s wage increase, prices for goods and services at stores very close to one another could become highly skewed.

Washington, D.C.

How it Might Happen: Residents of the nation’s capital will vote next year on whether to increase the minimum wage to $15 from the current $10.50.

The Plan: The minimum wage would increase to $15 per hour by 2020 and would afterward be tied to increases in the consumer price index.

http://time.com/3969977/minimum-wage/

Sun, 2015-08-09 06:47

#193

Left Turn

NDPP wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

DaveW wrote:
and yes, they are going to regularly side with NATO, as Pierre Cyr points out, just as the CCF-NDP considered then rejected motions at every convention in ther 1970s and 70s to pull out of NATO or NORAD.... will not happen

FYI, the NDP passed a resolution at its convention in 1965 to withdraw from NATO. It had a 30 year "sunset" clause, meaning that it expired in 1995. It was not renewed.

So no, withdrawing from NATO is not far to the left of traditional NDP policy. Withdrawing from NORAD may be, but withdrawing from NATO isn't.

The pretended ignorance to the steady, rightwards march of the NDP and its relentless overturning of longstanding arguably 'progressive' NDP positions, of which the NATO question is just one, even by some who know this very well and have discussed here the implications of these rightward shifts, is most disturbing.

'We are a proud member of NATO.' - Mulcair

At least St Jack offered up some milquetoast and pap ("We are going to change NATO from within!') to mark the radical shift in NDP policy from Canada should withdraw from NATO, to the NDP now proudly proclaiming:

'We are a proud member of NATO'.

No true progressive can or should support such a position or vote for such a party.

It is too late in the day for lesser evilism, especially when the lesser is so obviously diminishing.

NDP = No Difference Party

Clearly withdrawing from NATO is far to the left of current NDP policy. I never claimed it wasn't.

DaveW falsely claimed that calling for withdrawal from NATO is far to the left of any position ever held by the NDP. I was setting the record straight.

I want the NDP to get back to calling for withdrawal from NATO. That is likely not possible given the current trajectory of the party. Which is all the more reason to create a new mass party to the left of the NDP.

Unfortunately, advocating for a mass left-of-NDP party either gets you denounced as ultraleft in most progressive circles these days, or ignored. Which is why I don't every really bring up the subject here at babble.

Sun, 2015-08-09 07:37

#194

NDPP

It wasn't always so bad. It's almost all right-wingers now for some reason. Which is why the NDP is doing so well. Obviously. Yes, the thing is rotten to the core and if elected into office will sellout like nobody's business. No question. Remember Bush to Obama? 'Change you can believe in'? Expect something similar. They voted unanimously for the destruction of Libya. They're 'fervent' supporters of baby-burning Israel. And love and support the US-installed Nazi oligarchy in Kiev almost as much. And will be putty in the hands of big business.

So let's hope they win.

And some time thereafter, hopefully in the not too distant future, the prospects of which you speak may improve quite dramatically.

Sun, 2015-08-09 09:18

#195

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I expect an NDP government to be a carbon copy of a Liberal government.

Still a step up from what we have now.

Maclean's national leaders debate: Thursday, August 6 -- 74 days before the election

Pages