Donald Trump & NAFTA

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let me continue this -- the NDP could point out that the economy is weak and he could slamm the Liberal economic policies which run after the political concept of middle class while leaving many out in the cold and providing no basis for Canada to do well. Canada is making few investments in science and research, is unprepared for what woudl happen if NAFTA fails. No we do not need to stand up to Trump differently. We need to offer a back up plan for the economy and policies that will defend vulnerable workers while also investing in other possibilities.

I don't think the NDP should spend alot political capital in describing a north america without the NAFTA agreement. 

1.your gambling that the deal will fail.  NDP has limited resources I think better used in some less risky area.

2.I think the party split internally on the value of NAFTA.  Any talk should general until trump makes a decision. I am sorry I meant to say the until liberals decide.   

this is a recipe for failure,

We need a backup plan. We need it becuase every other party to NAFTA is looking at one. The Trump Administration seems to want this and the US is preparing for it. Mexico is already prepared for it.

I do not see why you think I am gambling that it will fail. I am saying we need a plan if it does just like we need one it it is a success. Either could happen.

 

When it comes to negotiation, having a plan means a stronger position and looking less like we will take anything. Showing we can conceive of life without NAFTA gives Canada a better position at the table.

Simply saying Tudeau should stand up to Trump with no specifics on how is not practical.

A split in the NDP is not a big problem -- when it comes to planning for either possibility.

First thing first I am trying not to personalize any criticism the ideas that you represent.  

If the NDP makes big plans and investments into a world after the NAFTA.  I think it will frighten the public and nobody wants to a barer of bad news. Maybe the NDP can go talk about regardless if we accept or reject there will negative change.  Plus if the public gets frightened they push the liberals to accept the worse deal.  If the public folds then the americans will give enough even worse terms knowing the Canadian has no fight into and will sign any deal offered.   I think we can agree a north america without NAFTA would be a different place.

I think what your saying is responsible move but I dont know any party wants to go into straight talk mode.

There is a difference between what you communicate and how:

The NDP, instead of saying the PM should stand up to Trump in some unknown way that they cannot even articulate, could say -

"In uncertain trade times Canada has to be prepared for anything. This includes a more diverse set of trading arrangements and a plan to benefit from our own markets.Will the government disclose that it has a fallback plan to strengthen Canada's negotiating position through alternative trade partners, what it offers as alternate trade markets to reduce the reliance on NAFTA, and a robust industrial and jobs plan for the Canadian economy to benefit the most from our own markets."

Such a position seeks alternatives rather than just opposes. These alternatives include options to please both those who want a pull out of NAFTA and those who are nervous of doing so but expect the government to have a fallback plan when all NAFTA partners except Canada are speaking openly about the possible end of the agreement. Such a position would strengthen Canada's position in trade talks. It would call attention to the government's two weaknesses: 1) their inability to produce a plan to exploit Canada's market as an alternative to NAFTA (domestic jobs and industrialization plan) and 2) its inability to signal that Canada is not a hostage, having no plan to survive without NAFTA.

Alternatley the NDP could choose to back the government position or call for a pull out of NAFTA -- both are positions I do not support at this time -- but they represent substance as does the middle position. The demand that Trudeau stand up to Trump is a silly meaningless position from a leader of a party that looks like it does not know what to do but wants  to oppose anyway. It looks rather like the Conservative position on border crossers -- a criticism without any alternative. Canada sadly needs a lot of help in alternatives to Liberal policy. This policy is not that good in a number of areas. The NDP should back away from empty rhetoric and actually propose things. An independent industrial plan and a jobs plan for difficult trimes is not a new NDP position, even as it is timely now. You don't have to scrape the bottom to have this to demand. Alternative trade arrangements are also an important point -- the NDP which says it is not against trade ought to say what a good trade agreement looks like: This would have the worker first, environment central attributes that trade agreements proposed by capitalists always leave out. Such a plan would be populist in nature but from the left. Too many left voters oppose trade agreements by supporting protectionist bullies like the US right becuase the left is never good at describing what their anti- NAFTA position looks like. The NDP must also acknowledge what to do about global arrangements. NAFTA came ahead of those. Free trade agreements provide less than they used to in light of these. Canada could propose alternatives to the globalization regime from a worker and environmental point of view. There are no countervail options for governments trading with countries with minimum wages below theirs and environmental standards below theirs. Countries ought to be able to have a tarrif of value equal to the cost benefits other countries provide in lower labour and environmental regulation. With these you can have real competative international trade that does not send us to the bottom on environment and labour. The NDP wines about standing up etc. as it has for two decades but it fails to propose what a real alternative arrangement can look like.

Singh needs to do this or be as successful as previous federal NDP leaders in his reach for the PM's chair.

If the NDP cannot propose substantive differences rather than rhetoric, then they are not worth one sent in support. As supporters and members people here can press the party for such meaningful positions.

.This is quite the role reversal I have asking for accountability of the NDP but I seem to be opposite position.  Call cynical but I think the NDP is the most risk averse party on offer.  The NDP is careful because one bad decision they will be under official party status, the libs and cons have the money, historical brands, more resources.  If they make a mistake they will be not thrown into the gutter, unlike the NDP which against the wall all the time.  I don't the NDP or Singh will get ahead of the news in regards to NAFTA talks.  Its like I harp on ndp to start adding its lexicon to working people or working poor instead always using always the middle class.  If they can not even to go on the limb and start use different language I don't think they will lead  the country in the NAFTA debate.  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I just went to the NDP website.  Nothing has changed. New leader, new trash.

Also on the NDP site you have an invitation to talk about Jagmeet rather than what kind of coutnry we should have. That's digusting.

You have options to give money and to help -- no options to contribute to a discussion about where we are going. The NDP can take that website to hell becuase that's where they are going if they keep this up.

Singh does not need a seat. He does need to make a place for members and the public to be involved in the movement.

I am no longer a member. I did not vote in the recent leadership. This is why. I will join when the party is not a closed shop spouting propaganda and when it opens to the participation of ideas from its members rather than money.

I am not against them and I will give them a chance. I will defend them here from unreasonable attacks and Liberal propaganda. I will not support them with a vote or money if they do not wake up and provide a role for citizens to participate other than talking about the dear leader, sending cash and knocking on doors.

Sorry NDP members but this is harsh -- and it needs to be if the party is going to be relevant. I am not interested in a conscience that is out of touch from the people. I want a party in touch with the people and capable of governing. You don't get this asking your memebrs to talk about Jagmeet.

Members here -- you do not service to this party by promoting failure. If you want to do well electorally you need a party better than this. You get there byu getting mad and criticizing not by acting like lemmings.

 

I share your feeling of disappointment of the NDP, but I came back from the greens give one try.

progressive17 wrote:

For a single individual, I assume that the poverty line is $18,000 a year. An "average household income" is 3 to 4 times that, depending on what province you live in. "Middle Class" used to be divided into "Lower Middle" (unskilled workers with decent jobs which have largely disappeared) and "Upper Middle" (skilled workers and professionals). Now "Middle Class" is something between the poor and the rich, no matter whether you are living on debit or credit...

Tax should be based on good data -- the poverty line is a joke in Canada now given the differences between communities. The ratios are also not necessarily still true given that costs are not all proportionate.

The median income for an individual is barely $40,000. The middle class tax cut went from 0 to the max starting at pennies for those at $44,000 and maxing out at $70,000 going with that max up to $207,000 and diminishing quickly to zero by $210,000. The mid may point for those who got the maximum benefits was something around $110,000. Again all individual -- so if a couple had same income this midpoint would be a family income of around $220,000 per year with a bottom at $90,000 and top at $400,000. This is no where near what anyone would call middle except in a meaningless term designed to be political.

When I approach the Liberals about this they did not disagree. Their only defence was the benefits to families with children.

By $200,000 you are in the top 1% of Canadians yet those people got the full benefit whereas the people earning the Canadian median income got nothing.