Energy policy is the NDP's Achilles heel

171 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Energy policy is the NDP's Achilles heel

',,,,,',,,,,,,'',

NorthReport

Although there may not be much support for this here I basically agree

NorthReport

Michael Den Tandt wrote an article in the postmedia news
today

I'll have to post the link later unless somebody wants to link to it sooner

NorthReport

Unless you win the election and your political party can enact various pieces of legislation forget about getting your point of view represented in government
and this where many NDP supporters fall down and lose track of the big picture which is to win the election

Right-wing Liberals and Conservatives never ever forget that and that is why they always win and that is why we have right-ring policies in Canada

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:
... many NDP supporters fall down and lose track of the big picture which is to win the election Right-wing Liberals and Conservatives never ever forget that and that is why they always win and that is why we have right-ring policies in Canada

I thought the big picture was to change policies, not win government.

Winston

North Report,

By your reasoning we should say whatever it takes (or even nothing at all) in order to win. I, on the other hand, tend to think leadership is about making a principled stand and convincing others it is right. I believe this is exactly what Mulcair is doing with his energy policy.

There is already one vapid, unprincipled, Trudeau-led Liberal Party; I will take a pass on your suggestions.

Aristotleded24

Winston wrote:
North Report,

By your reasoning we should say whatever it takes (or even nothing at all) in order to win. I, on the other hand, tend to think leadership is about making a principled stand and convincing others it is right. I believe this is exactly what Mulcair is doing with his energy policy.

There is already one vapid, unprincipled, Trudeau-led Liberal Party; I will take a pass on your suggestions.

What suggestions has he made? All he's done is to spam the board by opening this thread with a statement that has nothing backing it up and no information.

As to the question, I've consistently said that I want to hear more from Mulcair about how we build the green energy economy, because that is ultimately what will reduce demand for fossil fuels, and will reduce demand for infrastructure for fossil fuels, which will make things like Keystone, Northern Gateway, Line 9, and rail transport of rail less necessary.

socialdemocrati...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Letter+Mulcair+right+oppose+Keys...

Keystone XL will lead to an imminent surge in oil extraction, and almost guarantees we miss our emissions targets. Opposition to Keystone buys the planet some much needed time.

I'm not going to quote an article commending the Liberals for moving to the center, and criticizing Mulcair for not. But you know the NDP is doing the right thing when they're angering the right-wing special interests.

NorthReport

Well some of you at least have lived to my expectations in the opening comments.

Energy policy is NDP's Achilles heel

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Energy+policy+Mulcair+Achilles+heel/92903...

Unfortunately the author of this article is dead-on, some here are dead wrong, and if the NDP don't get a serious grip on the jobs issue long before the next election, the NDP will be dead in the water come election time. Sorry, but ignoring what happened in the recent BC election just doesn't cut it.

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
Unfortunately the author of this article is dead-on, some here are dead wrong, and if the NDP don't get a serious grip on the jobs issue long before the next election, the NDP will be dead in the water come election time. Sorry, but ignoring what happened in the recent BC election just doesn't cut it.

It would be nice if you would, for once, actually engage in a rational discussion, but your arrogant over-the-top assertions that "The NDP MUST do as I say or else it is DOOMED!" is not productive at all. And no, saying that doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that there are energy issues the NDP needs to address, as I did upthread. So why not actually talk with us? What is your opinion on some of these things? How do you think the NDP should address this issue?

How do you factor that the NDP is in direct competition for environmental voters with the Green Party, that the Greens will be seen as taking a harder line on the environment than the NDP no matter what, and that if the NDP is seen to "betray" the environment, that many environmentalists will go Green, and that could cost a great number of NDP seats in competitive ridings?

Above all else, we live in a democracy. Winston is right that we should present our vision for the country clearly and honestly, and let the voters decide. And should they reject that vision, and instead vote for parties that support Keystone XL, the gutting of the Canadian Wheat Board, the raising of OAS to 67, the end of public health care, public education, and public housing, reduced funding for municipal infrastructure (and the list goes on), well, that's the public's decision, shame on them, and they will simply have to suffer the consequences.

Skinny Dipper

I think energy policy would be the NDP's Achilles Heel if Tom Mulcair and other NDPers were to imitate Justin Trudeau by being pro Tar-Sands all the way.  I don't think the party would gain any new supporters from the oil industry.  The party would lose its environmental supporters.  If the party can find the right balance between environmental and energy policies, then the NDP may gain support in the next federal election.

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Energy+policy+Mulcair+Achilles+heel/92903...

Unfortunately the author of this article is dead-on...

OH REALLY?

the author of this article wrote:
Liberal economic centrism has the capacity to inherit and assume some of the Harper government's small-c conservative economic policies...

... the centre has shifted right. Trudeau understands this and is capitalizing on it. Mulcair, despite his talk of centrism, does not and is not.

If the NDP jumps off a cliff and embraces the "small-c conservative economic policies" of the Liberals, then we really are dead in the water.

Thank God most of us think that the NDP should stand for something.

NorthReport

Labels, labels, labels, are getting quite tiresome. Reminds me of the he said, she said nonsense.

What matters is whether or not you get elected, and once elected what you do with the power.

And the way to get elected is to talk about things people want, not what they don't want. 

But maybe NDPers don't want to get elected and have actual power. Perhaps they are afraid of it, and feel more comfortable just attacking from the sidelines.

No courage involved in doing that, that's for sure.

 

 

 

socialdemocrati...

If you didn't agree with the article, then why did you post it?

Do you think the NDP should adopt small-c conservative economic policies or not?

Do you support the NDP's economic policy? Or the Liberal-Conservative economic policy?

 

 

 

NorthReport

Actually it does not sound like you actually want to win.

If you are going to win you have to hunger for it. I don't hear very much of that here.

What I hear mainly is woe is me, Stepher Harper is our PM.

Boo, fucking hoo!

How many times does it need to be repeated.

Run against jobs and you are doomed to oblivion.

What's not to understand here?

But don't take my work for it read the follwing instead.

Flawed federal leaders battle to a draw

Mulcair: If Canada’s democracy had a church, it would be the House of Commons and in 2013 the NDP leader seized control of the pulpit. Day in and day out, Mulcair kept the prime minister on his toes with a consistency that none of his recent predecessors ever achieved. In so doing, Mulcair restored some meaning to the accountability function of Parliament.

But that did not translate into more support for the NDP. The party’s share of the vote melted in two Manitoba byelections last month. That more than cancelled out a modest increase in Toronto Centre.

As for Mulcair’s 2013 policy year, overshadowed by the Senate issue, it will mostly be remembered for the fact that he kept his powder dry on the Canada-Europe trade deal. He has also offered support for pipeline projects that could see more Alberta oil flow from west to east. Those were essentially defensive moves that were only groundbreaking because they went against the natural instincts of the NDP of the recent past.


http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1174557-h-bert-flawed-federal-leade...

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

Actually it does not sound like you actually want to win.

Please.

We need a change in economic direction. I don't know if you've noticed, but turning Canada into a petro-state has decimated our value-added manufacturing industries.

On the other hand, YOU don't sound like you actually disagree with Trudeau's vision for the economy.

So what is it that you care about that's stopping you from voting Liberal? There aren't many things left once you take the economy off the table. Proportional representation?

NorthReport

Do you not understand there is a very good reason the NDP has never ever won a federal election. You please try thinking about that.

Winston

Yes, there is exactly one reason why the NDP was never able to win a federal election. Due to myriad reasons (Catholic Church, Union Nationale, our own tone-deafedness, etc) we were never able to break into Quebec and, as a result, were never seen as a credible contender.

I would say this is no longer the case.

NorthReport wrote:

Do you not understand there is a very good reason the NDP has never ever won a federal election. You please try thinking about that.

quizzical

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf

i went and looked..... NR  is all washed out in his premises

NorthReport

I guess you missed what happened in BC in May, 2014, eh!

Centrist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
As to the question, I've consistently said that I want to hear more from Mulcair about how we build the green energy economy

Just from a BC perspective, but "Green Energy" in BC includes run-of-river hydro, windfarms, and perhaps even BC Hydro's Site C dam. But many environmentalists are opposed to these green energy sources in BC and even the BC NDP is opposed to same as these sources of "green energy" are expensive (as opposed to fossil fuels) and increase consumer's hydro bills. I also understand that the "green energy" policies in Ontario have resulted in skyrocketing electrical bills.

And these sources of green energy are all paid for by the private sector. The government does not provide capital expenditures for same. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
How do you factor that the NDP is in direct competition for environmental voters with the Green Party, that the Greens will be seen as taking a harder line on the environment than the NDP no matter what, and that if the NDP is seen to "betray" the environment, that many environmentalists will go Green, and that could cost a great number of NDP seats in competitive ridings?

Again back to BC and the May, election. The BC Libs basically swept interior BC, the Fraser Valley, Metro Vancouver suburbs, the North Shore, and the south and west side of the City of Vancouver itself as a result of spooking potential NDP voters and portraying BC NDP as being anti-everything in terms of resource development. (coal mines, base metal mines, coal ports, natural gas fracking/development, pipelines, LNG terminals, etc.)

The BC NDP increased their vote in inner city Vancouver but many of these voters are provincial NDP supporters/federal Liberal voters (Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood is a strong example of same).

The problem with a perception of pandering to environmental voters is that the federal NDP will see its potential tent in BC narrowly defined to the City of Vancouver and Victoria. (aside from South Burnaby/New Westminster, and North Surrey due to demographics). And the fed Lib's strength in BC has also always been the City of Vancouver and Victoria - so we have the fed NDP, fed Libs, and fed Greens all vying for the same voters in the same confines leaving the fed Cons with basically everything else. Not good.  

quizzical

NorthReport wrote:
I guess you missed what happened in BC in May, 2014, eh!

no i caught it....i call it karma dusted with hubris

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
As to the question, I've consistently said that I want to hear more from Mulcair about how we build the green energy economy

Just from a BC perspective, but "Green Energy" in BC includes run-of-river hydro, windfarms, and perhaps even BC Hydro's Site C dam. But many environmentalists are opposed to these green energy sources in BC and even the BC NDP is opposed to same as these sources of "green energy" are expensive (as opposed to fossil fuels) and increase consumer's hydro bills. I also understand that the "green energy" policies in Ontario have resulted in skyrocketing electrical bills.

And these sources of green energy are all paid for by the private sector. The government does not provide capital expenditures for same.

All the more reason to have a well thought out green energy policy, so that there is an alternative to corporate greenwashing.

Centrist wrote:
Again back to BC and the May, election. The BC Libs basically swept interior BC, the Fraser Valley, Metro Vancouver suburbs, the North Shore, and the south and west side of the City of Vancouver itself as a result of spooking potential NDP voters and portraying BC NDP as being anti-everything in terms of resource development. (coal mines, base metal mines, coal ports, natural gas fracking/development, pipelines, LNG terminals, etc.)

The BC NDP increased their vote in inner city Vancouver but many of these voters are provincial NDP supporters/federal Liberal voters (Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood is a strong example of same).

The problem with a perception of pandering to environmental voters is that the federal NDP will see its potential tent in BC narrowly defined to the City of Vancouver and Victoria. (aside from South Burnaby/New Westminster, and North Surrey due to demographics). And the fed Lib's strength in BC has also always been the City of Vancouver and Victoria - so we have the fed NDP, fed Libs, and fed Greens all vying for the same voters in the same confines leaving the fed Cons with basically everything else. Not good.

So really, what are you trying to say here? That either the NDP needs to support pipeline expansion, or someone else who supports pipeline expansion will win? In either case, pipeline expansion goes ahead, so what's the point in even trying?

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

I guess you missed what happened in BC in May, 2014, eh!

I caught it. Did you?

Dix changed his mind about the pipeline at the last second. Something you're now asking Mulcair to do.

And on top of that, you're now saying that the NDP is "running against jobs". You believe Harper is for jobs, and the NDP isn't.

Harper's approach to pipelines guarantees zero value-added jobs. It's a resource giveaway to the U.S. that also guarantees we miss our emissions targets, putting the planet on a path to ruin.

Thank God you're not in charge of the NDP campaign. Or else the slogan would be "Harper is right about jobs. Fuck the environment. PLEEEEEEASE vote NDP anyway."

Centrist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
So really, what are you trying to say here? That either the NDP needs to support pipeline expansion, or someone else who supports pipeline expansion will win? In either case, pipeline expansion goes ahead, so what's the point in even trying?

Firstly, I have already stated my position regarding the transport of bitumen. It's nasty stuff. That said it's all about political positioning and the 2015 election campaign.

The SK NDP supports both fracking and the Keystone pipeline. They are on the same page as the fed Cons and Libs. Only the fed NDP and Greens oppose same (not sure where fed NDP stands on fracking actually).

The fed NDP supports an east-west Canada pipeline and I'm sure that the Cons and Libs are also on the same page. Now herein lies the problem - BC and the same pipeline debate that played out in the May BC election, which also deals with resource development in general. BTW, BC Building Trades Unions are all supportive of the 2 BC pipelines. (Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan). The fed Cons are already in the media here pointing out the fed NDP's inconsistent position on the proposed East-West pipeline and BC's 2 proposed pipelines.

Let's look at the very controversial Northern Gateway pipeline. Strong environmental opposition and public opinion against. But public opinion has turned in favour on Northern Gateway as witnessed by the Insights West poll from a couple of weeks ago (compared to their results from about 6 months ago).

And then late last week another public opinion poll by the Lib's internal pollster who apparently predicted the may election bang-on days before voting day:

1. Northern Gateway Pipeline currently:

Support: 47%
Oppose: 44%

2. If federal review panel recommends Northern Gateway Pipeline proceed:

Support: 57%
Oppose: 39%

3. If Northern Gateway Pipeline Then Meets BC's 5 Conditions:

Support: 63%
Oppose: 35%

IF those results are correct, the Cons are the political beneficiary while the fed NDP, Libs and Greens split the remaining 35% of those opposed, which I suspect strongly resides in the City of Vancouver proper and the City of Victoria. And the less controversial Kinder Morgan twinning is also opposed by the BC NDP and I suspect most BC NDP MPs based upon Kennedy Stewart's opposition to same, for example.

That brings in the whole narrative of anti-resource development (coal mines, base metal mines, coal ports, LNG, natural gas fracking, natural gas pipelines etc.) that IMHO turned interior BC, Metro Vancouver suburbs, etc. against the BC NDP. If the Cons paint the fed NDP with the same brush then the fed NDP's tent will be confined to the City of Vancouver, Victoria, south Burnaby, New Westminster, and North Surrey on voting day in 2105.

And the fed NDP will be battling the fed Libs and Greens for the same pool of voters. It's the same simple "Jobs" v. "Environment" debate that played out in the BC election albeit the Cons have the NDP, Libs, and Greens battling for almost the same pool of voters. Allows the Cons to sweep BC again, aside from urban Vancouver and Victoria.

PS. Tomorrow the NEB announces their recommendation on the Northern Gateway Pipeline, which will no doubt dominate the news.

 

socialdemocrati...

And of course the NEB will be for the Northern Gateway, given Harper's influence over what's supposed to be an independent decision making process.

I don't think those numbers are as firm as people say they are. They have moved in the past few months, but they could easily move back if people lose faith in the NEB's impartiality.

I'd also be careful about embracing the BC Liberal analysis of the BC election. Remember: Dix had a 20 point lead. Dix was attacked on ethics and refused to fight back. Dix had almost no campaign message other than "we're not the government you've hated so much". And even if you want to focus narrowly on the pipeline issue, which was only one factor, you have to remember that the NDP was quietly skeptical about the pipeline. What changed is when they flip flopped from waiting to the report, to just slamming it outright. People can respect pipeline opposition, and they can respect pipeline criticism. But they can't respect a flip flopper.

Policywonk

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And of course the NEB will be for the Northern Gateway, given Harper's influence over what's supposed to be an independent decision making process.

I don't think those numbers are as firm as people say they are. They have moved in the past few months, but they could easily move back if people lose faith in the NEB's impartiality.

I'd also be careful about embracing the BC Liberal analysis of the BC election. Remember: Dix had a 20 point lead. Dix was attacked on ethics and refused to fight back. Dix had almost no campaign message other than "we're not the government you've hated so much". And even if you want to focus narrowly on the pipeline issue, which was only one factor, you have to remember that the NDP was quietly skeptical about the pipeline. What changed is when they flip flopped from waiting to the report, to just slamming it outright. People can respect pipeline opposition, and they can respect pipeline criticism. But they can't respect a flip flopper.

I think that's a better analysis of what happened. Of course the NDP failed to remind people at every opportunity why they hated the Liberal government so much and didn't give enough reasons to vote for us instead. As for energy policy being the achilles heel of the NDP, the Conservative and Liberal policies will be the achilles heel of Canada (you can't both be environmentally sound and gung-ho for develoment of the bitumen sands), if the world does decide to tackle climate change seriously. If the world doesn't we're toast anyway. Concentrating on resource extraction is bad economic policy anyway.

NorthReport

The NDP has to learn to say "yes" to jobs and are not going to win elections this way.

But that doesn't matter as it seems many NDPers don't seem to really care about winning elections anyway.

Tom Mulcair's NDP firmly against Northern Gateway pipeline

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-s-ndp-firmly-against-norther...

 

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I don't think those numbers are as firm as people say they are. They have moved in the past few months, but they could easily move back if people lose faith in the NEB's impartiality.

Do you remember the pipeline bombings that hit northern BC and northern Alberta a few years ago? Nobody came forward to identify those responsible, in spite of reward offers from the RCMP. I find it implausible that this bombing could have been carried out without someone else knowing who is responsible, to say nothing of how the rumour mill tends to operate in the types of small communities up there. That leads me to conclude that more people question the benefit of pipelines than what we are led to believe.

I'll also add that these pipelines have to cross First Nations territory, so pipeline construction will run into roadblocks there.

Centrist wrote:
And then late last week another public opinion poll by the Lib's internal pollster who apparently predicted the may election bang-on days before voting day:

1. Northern Gateway Pipeline currently:

Support: 47%
Oppose: 44%

2. If federal review panel recommends Northern Gateway Pipeline proceed:

Support: 57%
Oppose: 39%

3. If Northern Gateway Pipeline Then Meets BC's 5 Conditions:

Support: 63%
Oppose: 35%

What would public opinion polling in Canada said about extending marriage benefits to same sex couples? What would public opinion polling in the United States said about extending civil rights to African Americans?

Some issues are far to important to be decided on public opinion polls. Environment and climate change is one of them.

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP has to learn to say "yes" to jobs and are not going to win elections this way.

The NDP IS saying yes to jobs. To the tune of thousands of refining jobs in Canada.

You prefer Harper's job strategy?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Properly communicated energy policy does not have to be a liability.

NorthReport

So the northern gateway pipeline project has been given the green light

And the ndp wants to run against jobs

Maybe they don't really want to win the next election

Too bad

NorthReport

So the northern gateway pipeline project has been given the green light

And the ndp wants to run against jobs

Maybe they don't really want to win the next election

Too bad

NorthReport

So the northern gateway pipeline project has been given the green light

And the ndp wants to run against jobs

Maybe they don't really want to win the next election

Too bad

NorthReport

So the northern gateway pipeline project has been given the green light

And the ndp wants to run against jobs

Maybe they don't really want to win the next election

Too bad

NorthReport

So the northern gateway pipeline project has been given the green light

And the ndp wants to run against jobs

Maybe they don't really want to win the next election

Too bad

socialdemocrati...

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But don't keep repeating the lie that running against Harper means that the NDP is "running against jobs".

NorthReport

The ndp is running against jobs no doubt about it
They are opposed to every single major energy project in Canada

socialdemocrati...

I'm not sure if you're lying, or just openly dismissive of the facts. But the NDP is FOR the East-West pipeline. Which keeps more jobs in Canada compared to Keystone or Northern Gateway, not to mention more value-added refining jobs. (Besides ensuring a more sustainable timeline for oil extraction than Keystone or Northern Gateway.)

Centrist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I'd also be careful about embracing the BC Liberal analysis of the BC election. Remember: Dix had a 20 point lead. Dix was attacked on ethics and refused to fight back. Dix had almost no campaign message other than "we're not the government you've hated so much". And even if you want to focus narrowly on the pipeline issue, which was only one factor, you have to remember that the NDP was quietly skeptical about the pipeline. What changed is when they flip flopped from waiting to the report, to just slamming it outright. People can respect pipeline opposition, and they can respect pipeline criticism. But they can't respect a flip flopper.

Actually, I don't think that the BC NDP ever had a 20 point lead - those "leads" were from the "opt-in" online panels of both Ipsos and Angus Reid. The same Ipsos and Angus Reid that gave the BC NDP an 8-point lead the day prior to e-day - when e-day showed a 13% reversal or a 5% Lib win.

I have previously stated that I don't have much use for opt-in online panel polls or robo-polls. I still prefer live telephone surveys in terms of accuracy. The problem is that the only pollster that utilized same was the unknown Oracle Research, albeit they basically nailed the Prince George and Kamloops ridings in their riding polls - which did not mesh with the provincial results of either Ipsos and Angus Reid.

Don't forget that the BC NDP bettered their result in the City of Vancouver (increasing their vote share and gaining two seats) and the BC NDP increased their popular vote share on Vancouver's North Shore as well as gaining a Burnaby seat. The Libs, OTOH, lost votes and seats in the City of Vancouver, Burnaby, and Victoria to the NDP and Greens.

And that was the spill-over effect from Dix announcing the BC NDP's opposition to Kinder Morgan twinning and tanker traffic on Earth Day. It was already common knowledge that the BC NDP quietly opposed Kinder Morgan and tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet. The mayors of both Van City and Burnaby strongly came out against Kinder Morgan. The BC Libs painted the BC NDP as "anti-everything" - resource development, coal mines, base metal mines, pipelines, LNG, etc. Even some BC NDP candidates came out against specific resource developments during the campaign. Spooked many voters actually.

OTOH, the Libs bettered themselves in the Metro Vancouver suburbs by increasing their vote share and almost taking Coquitlam-Mallardville from the NDP, taking the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows seat and greatly increasing their vote share in BC's interior - also taking Fraser-Nicola from the BC NDP.

We are now seeing the head of the BC Building Trades as well as head of the BC Fed on the same stage as dunce Clark with LNG and even some BC Building Trades affiliate heads joing Clark on her recent trip to Asia. Never seen that before.

All of the BC Building Trades support both the Northern Gateway pipeline as well as the Kinder Morgan twinning and LNG. Even today, the umbrella org. Canada Building Trades Unions applauded the NEB's decision on Northern Gateway.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/20/6017523/canadas-building-trades-unions.html

And that's where the BC political schism now seems to exist. An urban, progressive, environmentally-conscious voter and a suburban, exurban, rural voter that is more focused on resource development and the high-paying employment that entails. It seems that the latter voter is increasingly moving from the NDP to the Cons unfortunately.

NorthReport

"""""""

NorthReport

"@""""""

NorthReport

There are 2 reasons building trades went to Asia with Clark

1 she has consistently said yes to jobs

2 she won the election and if the LNG projects even 1 or 2 go ahead the bc ndp might as well close up shop as the bc liberals will be in power for the next 25 years

Sorry but there is a fundamental reason why
The federal ndp has never ever been elected and with their current policies will never ever get elected
They have got to learn to say yes to jobs yes to jobs and yes to every single job to start with
It is just not good enough to say yes to one pipeline and no to another one
As the opposition will just focus on the no to jobs ndp

You are so wrong sd

First the ndp has to say yes to all jobs and then can say as Clark did yes under certain conditions but it was always yes tk jobs with the hard-hated premier every day of the campaign

Politically Dix, topp, James, and others were brain-dead tk the realities of the bc election
Do you really want to have a repeat performance federally so the federal ndp can have the second worst
Election result in Canadian political history following the worst one which was the 2013 bc election

NorthReport

As long as the ndp are not saying yes to all jobs Organized labour should cut the embilical cord with the ndp and let them find some other sucker to fund their election campaign
Maybe the ndp should go to the environmentalists to fund their campaigns in the future because they sure as he'll are not representing working people by saying no to jobs

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:
yes to jobs ... learn to say yes to jobs yes to jobs and yes to every single job ... the no to jobs ndp ... yes to all jobs ... always yes tk jobs ... the ndp are not saying yes to all jobs ... saying no to jobs ... "@""""""

You live in a cartoon world.

Have you even heard of the Dutch Disease? Stephen Harper is saying "no" to manufacturing jobs, all for a short term payoff from foreign oil investors. This has operated on a grand scale (in combination with the effects of globalization) to destroy manufacturing, especially in Ontario and Quebec.

And these tradeoffs also operate on a local scale, between low-value resource extraction jobs versus a more diversified economy, including value-creating manufacturing jobs.

We have been very clear: New Democrats stand with British Columbians and oppose the Northern Gateway project because it puts our jobs and our BC coastline at risk," NDP MP Peter Julian said.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/environment/enbridge-northern-gateway-p...

I never thought I'd see the day where a supposed New Democrat is pushing the Harper jobs strategy, where we let the oil investors take over, and hope that wealth somehow trickles down to the rest of us who have no friends in the oil industry.

NorthReport

It appears that some folks do not realize how things have changed, and buzz-words are not going to reverse that. The West is a powerhouse now, and gaining more and more power every day. And this power is based primarily on resources, and the related jobs that go with the resource extraction. 

To not be in favour of these resource-based jobs is to sign a dealth warrant for the NDP politically, in the West, if not elsewhere as well. 

Centrist

SD, IMHO, you have a good and balanced political mind and I always enjoy your comments! That said, I agreeably disagree with some of your observations. And that's good! Makes one think a bit more outside the box. FWIW, the May BC election has changed my mind on many issues. Fer instance:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Have you even heard of the Dutch Disease?

Problem with that comment is that BC's 10 - 15 major proposed LNG facilities (even if only 3 - 5 go ahead) will have the same impact in terms of "Dutch Disease" as the AB oil sands. And Tom's previous statements in New Brunswick that "fracking is evil" might be more fodder for the Cons, in BC, as the Cons will attempt their "wedge" issues with the NDP during the 2015 campaign. Because fracking is the major modus operandi of natural gas drilling in BC to supply LNG terminals. 

Up until the late '90's, the BC NDP was focused upon the unionized, blue-collar worker. Obviously it is apparent that the BC NDP is now focused upon BC's strong environmental movement. And I think that is the wrong tangent to take - away from its blue-collar roots. 

BTW, the Canadian Dollar has been declining from its above par status and today sits at .94 U.S. and is forecast to decline further. So the "Dutch Disease" meme is a moot point IMHO. Tom should stay away from same.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day where a supposed New Democrat is pushing the Harper jobs strategy, where we let the oil investors take over, and hope that wealth somehow trickles down to the rest of us who have no friends in the oil industry.

Forget Harper. Think about the BC Building Trades Unions, which also support the same projects. Why is that? For instance, just one proposed LNG facility will require many "cryogenic" welders. Do you know what the average annual salary of a cryogenic welder is?:

In Australia, competition for workers spawned resort-style extras that didn’t stop wage inflation. Welders of cryogenic equipment earn as much as A$500,000 (US$454,000) a year, Kotzot said — more than three times the average annual salary of a U.S. lawyer.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/12/09/canadas-labour-shortage-threatens-50b-lng-plans/?__lsa=c395-cb14

That's a logical reason why so many support these projects. Again, just sayin'.

NorthReport

sd, to follow your advice would relegate the federal NDP to probable oblivion similiar to what is now happening to the BC NDP who might be lucky enough to end up third place in the next BC election.

I'm not talking through my hat pal, I saw first hand what the anti Kinder Morgan pipeline comments by Dix did to the construction worker vote in this province. They were all set to vote NDP before the election was called, but the anti-job rhetoric of the BC NDP killed all possibilities of that happening.  

NDPers have to clue into jobs, jobs, and more jobs. 

You can go chase environmentalists all you want, and that is exactly what Dix and his cronies did, and he now know the result of those brilliant tail wagging the dog policies.

PrairieDemocrat15

Centrist wrote:

Up until the late '90's, the BC NDP was focused upon the unionized, blue-collar worker. Obviously it is apparent that the BC NDP is now focused upon BC's strong environmental movement. And I think that is the wrong tangent to take - away from its blue-collar roots. 

The entire New Democratic Party gave up on blue-collared people decades ago. Although they are left of the other parties economically, the focus of the party since the 1990s has been on social issues (Aboriginal, womens', LGBT, minority rights and the environment); causes that at best don't really resonate with most working people and at worse turn them away from the party.

The same goes for rural people, who were once supported left-wing parties. However, over time the left in Canada (NDP and to a lesser extent the Liberals) and elsewhere in the western world began to challenge the social conservative hegemony in politics. The NDP led the way on womens', aboriginals', minorities/immigrants', and LGBT issues. I agree with the party's stance on these social issues and think they are just causes; however, a lot of rural and blue-collar people are socially conservative and are turned off by these progressive policies, so they turn to the Conservative Party even though they used to (and may still) have leftist economic inclinations.

There is a more developed intellectual discussion of this phenomenon in Britain. See Blue Labour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Labour

http://tangledupinblue.co.uk/

JKR

I think one reason the BC NDP did so poorly in the 2013 BC election was that they tried to re-run the federal NDP's succesful 2011 election campaign. Unfortunately for the BC NDP and the people counting on the BC NDP, the NDP's positions in these two elections was diametrically different. In 2011 the federal NDP was in third place and came through the middle under the radar as the Liberals and Conservatives concentrated primarily on bashing each other and didn't pay attention to the NDP until after the election debates. So the federal NDP made a major breakthrough by running a very optimistic positive and non-negative campaign. So it made some sense that in 2013 Dix and Topp would try to run the same kind of winning election campaign here in BC. But there was major differences in the position the NDP found itseld in between the federal and provincial scenes. The election here in BC was a two-party race not a multi party race and the BC NDP was in first place here by 20 points and the BC Liberals were running attack ads against them for a year before the election. In hindsight running a cheerful, non-negative, under the radar campaign here was not the way to go. The BC NDP should have gone negative from the start against a very unpopular sitting government. So "fighting the last war" cost the BC NDP and more importantly, BC'ers in general, very dearly.

The lessons from the BC election should be used by the federal NDP but we should also remember that the federal scene is different than the BC scene. "Fighting the last war" doesn't work especially when translating federal and provincial politics. The politics in Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and Ontario are different from resource based areas in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and BC. What may work in the seat rich areas east of Manitoba probably won't work nearly as well west of Manitoba. In any case the NDP should come up with very strong job policies be it in manufacturing, green jobs, tourism, health care, education, transportation, small businesses, etc.... The NDP will need to be the party of jobs but not necessarily resource jobs.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
The lessons from the BC election should be used by the federal NDP but we should also remember that the federal scene is different than the BC scene. "Fighting the last war" doesn't work especially when translating federal and provincial politics. The politics in Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and Ontario are different from resource based areas in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and BC. What may work in the seat rich areas east of Manitoba probably won't work nearly as well west of Manitoba. In any case the NDP should come up with very strong job policies be it in manufacturing, green jobs, tourism, health care, education, transportation, small businesses, etc.... The NDP will need to be the party of jobs but not necessarily resource jobs.

I read Dead Centre by Jamey Heath, and he goes on about this point (and I'm giving my own spin) that the proper way to conduct a campaign is to not approach as if it's one election, but several elections in different regions happening simultaneously. Of course you need some co-ordination so that your regional messages don't undermine each other, but a one-size-fits-all approach to the country clearly does not work.

Pages