Energy policy is the NDP's Achilles heel

171 posts / 0 new
Last post
Centrist

JKR wrote:
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.

I agree in some respects. But come on... the Lib's Iggy was not very likeable by the public at large v. "Le Bonn Jack". In that vein, during the BC campaign itself, I don't think it is too hard to compare the uncomfortable-loooking Dix v. the smilin' dunce Clark respectively in that regard. Leader "likability" during a campaign does matter to many voters and it does swing seats!!! However shallow that may seem.

JKR wrote:
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. 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.

Makes sense to go that route IF the BC NDP was actually indeed ahead of the Libs by 20 points! As I stated above regarding the highly-publicized Ipsos and AR "opt-in" online panel polls - highly doubtful. More like 10% - if that. Attack ads by the Lib's 1 year before obviously had no effect as the BC NDP, just like Tom now, brilliantly dumped upon the BC Libs during the spring, 2013 legislative session with the "Ethnogate" scandal in its prime. The MSM was fully on the NDP's side and the Libs were on the ropes!

The NDP also had to overcome fears expressed by many in the MSM (to voters in general) about previous alleged economic/taxation mis-steps by the 1990's BC NDP in order to JUST gain another 5% of the popular vote from 42% in 2009 in order to gain the crown. So the strategy was to stay "above the fray" so to speak, which is politically laudable.

Even then, Dix and many NDP MLAs took negative shots in the MSM at the Libs and, during the last week of the campaign, engaged in negative radio and TV advertsing against the Libs. Wasn't good enough when the BC Libs had already framed the BC NDP as "anti-everything" in terms of resource development and the employment opportunites thereto. "It's about the economy, stupid" as Clinton stated.

Problem was that the MSM also picked up on NDP candidates, such as Charlie Wyse in Cariboo South, stating that the BC NDP "would place a moratorium on natural gas fracking" for 2 years. Natural gas had been a major cash-cow for the BC treasury and is now mostly "fracked" in BC. The same natural gas fracking that would supply potential BC LNG terminals. Not good. Spooked many voters.

JKR wrote:
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.

And therein lies the problem. Government does not create jobs. It can only provide the positive environment for the private sector to create those jobs. IMHO. And the private sector already creates those jobs that you refer to.

In BC, for example, we have BC Hydro's proposed Site C dam, proposed Prosperity Mine in the Cariboo, proposed Raven Mine on Van Isle, proposed Ajax Mine in Kamloops, proposed Coal Port at Surrey-Fraser Docks, proposed Northern Gateway/Kinder Morgan dilbit pipelines, proposed LNG terminals, proposed LNG pipelines, proposed 4-fold increase in natural gas fracking as a result, etc., etc., etc. All are resource-developments and all are opposed by many environmental groups while all are also concurrently supported by the BC Building Trades Unions.

I know many federal NDP MPs/provinclal MLAs and party activists opposed to same. We are talking about major employment opportunities here in BC that would mostly be high-paying, unionized jobs. I believe that the strong BC environmental movement in BC is putting too much pressure on the BC NDP and fed NDP, which is reflected in their positions, which in turn is resulting in the public perception that the NDP in BC is "anti-everything" in terms of major resource development. Never was that way in decades gone by.

I much prefer the political, fiscal, taxation, and resource development policies of the SK and MB NDP myself!

wage zombie

We need green jobs over brown jobs, but people need to be drawn a picture in order to understand where the green jobs are coming from and what they will consist of.  If "brown jobs vs green jobs" is interpreted and understood as "brown jobs vs no jobs" then we will lose.

NorthReport

sd

The anti-jobs strategy of the Dix-Topp brain trust cost us the election in BC. It was a simple one-two punch and we did it to ourselves.

First it was Charlie Wise's comments on fracking (read no LNG jobs) and then Dix's comments (done in conjunction wirth a couple of Lower Mainland candidates) about the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline (read: no pipeline jobs) that cost us the election. 

FWIW these kind of jobs are similiar to those of jobs which we used to have in the logging industry before that industry went South because of the mismanagement of our forests. You know the $100,000 to $150,000 a year jobs.

Go to any building trade executive and ask him/her what impact those comments had on their membership's vote in the last BC election, as prior to those comments, a lot of union members were prepared to vote en masse for the BC NDP. 

Yes Clark campaigned in a hard hat throughout the campaign but we did it to ourselves.

We have been screwed over once by the BC NDP brain trust who quite frankly can't fight their way out of a wet paer bag. I'm just not prepared tho have history repeat itself federally without at least putting up a fight.

And if the NDP are not goiny to fight for our jobs then we need to stop the cash flow to the NDP and invest our money elsewhere.

Do you seriously think any building trade union now wants to see any of their member's money going to the BC NDP?

Policywonk

wage zombie wrote:

We need green jobs over brown jobs, but people need to be drawn a picture in order to understand where the green jobs are coming from and what they will consist of.  If "brown jobs vs green jobs" is interpreted and understood as "brown jobs vs no jobs" then we will lose.

Short term and long term.

NorthReport

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Canada has a resource-based economy. always has been, and will continue for a long time to be.

JKR wrote:

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.

NorthReport

This column is quite the howler. She's such a hoot! Laughing

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-a...

socialdemocrati...

You obviously never lived in Ontario. Manufacturing used to form the base of our economy. Not to mention, there aren't exactly a lot of lumberjacks and fishermen in Toronto. Oil has been a recent development, and one that coincided with the absolute decimation of the Ontario manufacturing industry. Ontario went from a province that gave out transfer payments to a province that takes in transfer payments.

That's the Dutch Disease in action. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of manufacturing job losses can be attributed to that dynamic, which is no trivial amount. Big oil might villify anyone who brings that up, but it doesn't make it any less of an economic fact, having appeared in that pinko rag "The Economist". Which isn't to say that the dollar falling back down will bring the jobs back. Just that the more the dollar gets jacked up on an oil binge, the more jobs we'll continue to lose elsewhere. (Which will inevitably lead to a country where the resource sector pays for the rest of us collecting unemployment benefits.)

And yes, the economy "always has been" rigged this way. I thought the whole point of voting NDP was to change that.

What's the point of voting NDP then?

Stockholm

NorthReport wrote:
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

So basically you're saying the NDP should ignore the 60% of so of British Columbians who oppose Northern Gateway and instead take a "Sarah Palin-style" approach of "drill baby drill" and just blindly support any big oil development anytime anywhere no matter how unpopular and environmentallly destructive - just to scrounge a handful of jobs out of it (btw: its been estimated that if Northern Gateway is built it might yield about 50 (FIFTY) permanent jobs at most. Gee maybe while you're at it - you should also advocate that the NDP come out in favour of clear cutting the entire province of BC and eliminate every single last stand of old growth forest in the province all for the sake of development at ANY cost. After all Ronald Reagan once said "A tree is a tree. How many do you need to look at?"

You spend all your time endlessly dumping on the NDP not for being enough of a cheerleader for the oil and gas and mining sector. if that's the way you feel, why do you bother to identify as an NDP supporter at all? Why don't you just join the Conservative party and then you can yell "drill baby drill" to you hearts content and be in a party where EVERYONE just wants to cater to the oil and gas lobby for short term jobs and money with no regard for any environmental consequences whatsoever. Just go to conservative.ca and I'm sure they'd be happy to welcome you to their fold.

BTW: No one seriously expects Northern gateway to ever get built. Theer are too many court challenges and too many conditions etc...Christy Clark won the election in part by defusing the issue by faking opposition to NGP and making people think she would stop the pipeline.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
You obviously never lived in Ontario. Manufacturing used to form the base of our economy. Not to mention, there aren't exactly a lot of lumberjacks and fishermen in Toronto. Oil has been a recent development, and one that coincided with the absolute decimation of the Ontario manufacturing industry. Ontario went from a province that gave out transfer payments to a province that takes in transfer payments.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I would like to add some historical context here. One key reason that manufacturing grew so strong in southern Ontario and Quebec is that the country had been traditionally set up to support it. Confederation absolutely devastated the economies of the Atlantic provinces, which had previously relied on trade with Caribbean island nations. It was so destructive that the result was anti-Confederation sentiment which nearly drove Nova Scotia out of Canada, PEI did not join Confederation until 1873 (even though the Confederation Conferences were in Charlottetown) and Newfoundland did not join until 1949. Moving out West, when the Prairie provinces were settled, it was so that they could provide agricultural wealth for the benefit of Confederation. There were also tarrif policies enacted which made farm equipment from the US more expensive, which forced Prairie farmers to rely on machinery that was made in Central Canada. This is, in short answer, where the sentiment of "Western alienation" came from, and is also connected to the fact that every province has had issues with Confederation and threatening to separate at one point, my own province of Manitoba theatening to separate at the barrel of a gun. One of the consequences of these policies was a lack of economic diversification in BC and Alberta, which left these economies heavily dependent on resource extraction. And as you rightly point out, even in these regions, resource extraction does not provide stable, reliable work for the long term.

It's not to take away your point about the impact that the resource economy has on the rest of the country, but I wanted people to see the bigger picture.

wage zombie

NorthReport wrote:

We have been screwed over once by the BC NDP brain trust who quite frankly can't fight their way out of a wet paer bag.

I have heard this before, and you have said it many times.  But if it were true, then how would they maintain their control over the party?

NorthReport

The majority of bcers now support northern gateway

For goodness sake they want the jobs
Have you seen the latest unemployment figures for bc

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:
The majority of bcers now support northern gateway For goodness sake they want the jobs Have you seen the latest unemployment figures for bc

Actually it depends as usual on how the question is asked. Not all of the supporters realize that it's not for oil but for diluted bitumen, which is a differenct kettle of fish. Of course bcers want the jobs. But more fossil fuel infrastructure is rank insanity, except to support a transition to a sustainable economy based on the sustainable use of renewable resources.

Brian Glennie

NorthReport wrote:

The anti-jobs strategy of the Dix-Topp brain trust cost us the election in BC. It was a simple one-two punch and we did it to ourselves.

I wonder if Dix hired Topp. Did Adrian need help from Ottawa?

NorthReport

Whoever hired him it was a mistake. You don't bring a non-BCer in to run an election campaign in BC. Just doesn't make sense.

The BC  Liberal campaign manager could not understand why Dix was going into some ridings as there was no hope there for the BC NDP.

There obviously was seriously flawed polling being done on behalf of the BC NDP, or the polling was being ignored by the campaign team. I have heard some horror stories about what happened in relation to the internal polling.

Stockholm

NorthReport wrote:

There obviously was seriously flawed polling being done on behalf of the BC NDP, or the polling was being ignored by the campaign team. I have heard some horror stories about what happened in relation to the internal polling.

...said the celibate priest to the couple wanting advice on how to improve their sex life.

janfromthebruce

And to be above board, Dix did the flipflop on Kinder Morgan ON HIS OWN and it had nothing to do with Topp. In fact, that turned the campaign team on its head.

socialdemocrati...

Aristotleded24 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
You obviously never lived in Ontario. Manufacturing used to form the base of our economy. Not to mention, there aren't exactly a lot of lumberjacks and fishermen in Toronto. Oil has been a recent development, and one that coincided with the absolute decimation of the Ontario manufacturing industry. Ontario went from a province that gave out transfer payments to a province that takes in transfer payments.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I would like to add some historical context here. One key reason that manufacturing grew so strong in southern Ontario and Quebec is that the country had been traditionally set up to support it. Confederation absolutely devastated the economies of the Atlantic provinces, which had previously relied on trade with Caribbean island nations. It was so destructive that the result was anti-Confederation sentiment which nearly drove Nova Scotia out of Canada, PEI did not join Confederation until 1873 (even though the Confederation Conferences were in Charlottetown) and Newfoundland did not join until 1949. Moving out West, when the Prairie provinces were settled, it was so that they could provide agricultural wealth for the benefit of Confederation. There were also tarrif policies enacted which made farm equipment from the US more expensive, which forced Prairie farmers to rely on machinery that was made in Central Canada. This is, in short answer, where the sentiment of "Western alienation" came from, and is also connected to the fact that every province has had issues with Confederation and threatening to separate at one point, my own province of Manitoba theatening to separate at the barrel of a gun. One of the consequences of these policies was a lack of economic diversification in BC and Alberta, which left these economies heavily dependent on resource extraction. And as you rightly point out, even in these regions, resource extraction does not provide stable, reliable work for the long term.

It's not to take away your point about the impact that the resource economy has on the rest of the country, but I wanted people to see the bigger picture.

Wanted to quote this well-thought out response. Found it very interesting.

The economy is a complicated thing. It's interconnected. A sugar rush somewhere gives you a headache somewhere else. This is why a Federal government even exists. But it's also why there's regionally-oriented frustrations with the federal government.

NorthReport

Inaccurate Jan as Dix most certainly did not just make that decision alone, or even out of the blue. It was in the planning for some time leading up to the announcement, and there were several people involved.

janfromthebruce wrote:

And to be above board, Dix did the flipflop on Kinder Morgan ON HIS OWN and it had nothing to do with Topp. In fact, that turned the campaign team on its head.

Gonzaga

Er, another 2 cents worth. (1) The anti-jobs strategy is government cuts and budget-balancing (federally in particular), which not only eliminates jobs directly but takes money out of the economy and pushes down consumer demand, thus leading to employment losses, private debt, and bankruptcies; (2) gold-rush energy policy may or may not be an election winner, but it's suicidal from an environmental perspective; (3) there's an article on Rabble today with Infometrica's comparison of the potential jobs in processing bitumen in Canada and in building the pipeline; (4) I hope a few of us noticed the IPCC report. Pretty important.

NorthReport

Governments need to balance their budgets as it is not their personal funds to screw around with. Furthermore in the society in which we now live, no one is going to get elected on an unbalanced budget platform.

If you don't want oil industry jobs, you had better come up with training so apprentices earn while they learn  (and screw this university debt nonsense), and replace those jobs with other $100,000 to $150,000 a year jobs. Otherwise it is just not gonna happen.

socialdemocrati...

So if we HAVE to balance the budget.

If we CAN'T raise taxes to balance the budget.

If we HAVE to cut spending to balance the budget, even though that will cut jobs.

If we HAVE to let big oil decide which jobs we get, which jobs we export, and which industries we destroy.

Why isn't Stephen Harper the best Prime Minister in Canadian history? Is it the Senate?

NorthReport

FWIW

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s year-end interviews show some of his old mojo

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Prime+Minister+Stephen+Harper+...

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

Governments need to balance their budgets as it is not their personal funds to screw around with. Furthermore in the society in which we now live, no one is going to get elected on an unbalanced budget platform.

If you don't want oil industry jobs, you had better come up with training so apprentices earn while they learn  (and screw this university debt nonsense), and replace those jobs with other $100,000 to $150,000 a year jobs. Otherwise it is just not gonna happen.

If you don't want extinction (which is a worst case scenario) you had better think about phasing out fossil fuels as soon as possible. The oil industry jobs won't last forever regardless of the path we take.

Perkins

I think it's very important for everyone to know the statistics regarding the economic importance of Canada's energy sector (from NRCan website - http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics-facts/1239):

-in 2010, the oil and gas extraction sector made up a grand total of between 3 and 4% of Canada's GDP.

-The energy sector, excluding service stations and wholesale trade in petroleum products, provided direct employment for 264 000 people in 2010, or 1.8% of employment in Canada.

Please don't embrace Harper's warped perspective that Canada is an "energy economy."  This sector is still a relatively puny part of the Canadian economy.  Pipelines aren't everything.  Although the energy sector shouldn't be discounted, it should be remembered that it provides relatively little employment for Canadians.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..so here they sit at our gates. the corporations. to suck us dry, polute our land, steal our wealth and divide our people with their money. dix had it right. he saw the future and named it. no pipelines for tar sands. and maybe a cleaner world. sharing our resources. this is something to fight for. our very aggressive colonial and racist canadian state continues to oppress first peoples everyday of the week but more so in order to carry out resource extraction. another very good reason to fight. edit

BC LNG bigger than Tar Sands? Export licences face Cabinet review\

quote:

However, it is important that we do not let this overshadow the NEB’s approval of four more LNG export licenses, reaching 7 total approved licenses, involving a mind-boggling 109.18 million tonnes per annum (mtpa.) of natural gas. That’s a staggering total gross volume of 2905.5 million tonnes over 25 years, requiring a massive increase in hydraulic fracturing in BC to feed these LNG plants and tankers.

http://commonsensecanadian.ca/bc-lng-bigger-tar-sands-export-licences-fa...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..if it's jobs we want we need to stick in the proper formula. building pipelines and shipping resources out as a job creator is very poor. and the cost is enormous. unneccessarily high. 

B.C. Election: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' Iglika Ivanova talks economy, equality and elections

(audio)

http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/media-mornings/2013/05/bc-election-canad...

Centrist

epaulo13 wrote:
..if it's jobs we want we need to stick in the proper formula. building pipelines and shipping resources out as a job creator is very poor. and the cost is enormous. unneccessarily high.

That contradicts Tom's statment to the BC media today:

"Mulcair said he’s not going to oppose the Kinder Morgan project, which submitted its National Energy Board application last week. He said the NDP recognizes the importance of getting Canadian oil and gas to the B.C. and Atlantic coasts to avoid dependence on the U.S. market."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mulcair+confident+face+sinking+polls/9316226/story.html#ixzz2oGKdWYxW

While it contradicts the provincial BC NDP position, at least it parallels both the fed Con's and Lib's position, which will mitigate against any wedge issue.

Policywonk

Centrist wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:
..if it's jobs we want we need to stick in the proper formula. building pipelines and shipping resources out as a job creator is very poor. and the cost is enormous. unneccessarily high.

That contradicts Tom's statment to the BC media today:

"Mulcair said he’s not going to oppose the Kinder Morgan project, which submitted its National Energy Board application last week. He said the NDP recognizes the importance of getting Canadian oil and gas to the B.C. and Atlantic coasts to avoid dependence on the U.S. market."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mulcair+confident+face+sinking+polls/9316226/story.html#ixzz2oGKdWYxW

While it contradicts the provincial BC NDP position, at least it parallels both the fed Con's and Lib's position, which will mitigate against any wedge issue.

Actually his statement says nothing about jobs directly, and he is more against the assessment process rather than for the project. Kinder-Morgan is less of an issue as a pipeline (as there is an existing pipeline that the proposal is to twin, albeit with a spill history), but probably as much of an issue with tanker traffic as Northern Gateway.

janfromthebruce

NorthReport wrote:

Inaccurate Jan as Dix most certainly did not just make that decision alone, or even out of the blue. It was in the planning for some time leading up to the announcement, and there were several people involved.

janfromthebruce wrote:

And to be above board, Dix did the flipflop on Kinder Morgan ON HIS OWN and it had nothing to do with Topp. In fact, that turned the campaign team on its head.

We are going to agree on disagreeing. Everything I have read is that Dix made that decision on his own and it was not in the planning nor an announcement timing issue.

quizzical

Policywonk wrote:
Actually his statement says nothing about jobs directly, and he is more against the assessment process rather than for the project. Kinder-Morgan is less of an issue as a pipeline (as there is an existing pipeline that the proposal is to twin, albeit with a spill history), but probably as much of an issue with tanker traffic as Northern Gateway.

i don't know why e1 is thinking it's ok 'cause it's "twinning". the use of 'twinning' is nothing but propaganada. has anyone here even looked at the project maps?

in some locations it goes beside the current 50 year old pipe and is on the current right of way. in others it goes elsewhere. there's too many creeks, marshes and bogs where the old line goes they say. in this application they're getting lots more right of way than they currently have.

and i'll repeat; imv, where they say they're "twinning" it'll turn out to be all new larger pipe replacing the 50 year old crappy pipe. it'll be an all new pipeline in all but it's name.

socialdemocrati...

As much as I reject the premise of this thread, I do accept that energy poicy is a major issue, and that communicating it is hard. The easiest messages are the hard corporate rights "more oil = more jobs" and the hard environmentalist "shut down the tar sands". But if you talk to most environmentalists, they're practical, and have positions more like "develop more sustainably and buy more time for clean energy to come online. And if you talk to any economist worth a damn, they'll warn you about market failures, including the Dutch Disease, not to mention the cost of destroying the environment that so many other industries depend on. It's hard to communicate the complexities of the issue in a concise way, let alone in a hostile media climate.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..even before the tar sands we where in trouble enviromentally. we were on a path like a snowball rolling down the hill. the tarsands is now a part of that snowball. and it's what is the extreme. nobody on the electoral front is doing anything about that.

eta..where's the democracy when important decisions are being taken. and it's as bad inside the ndp as it is out. once before when the free trade agreement was fought in an election. that passed as debate/education. that passed for democracy when more people voted against yet here we are. again we have an election coming up and still no democracy no education. no full discloseure. no or meaningless participation. my point begining upthread is that resistance is all we have really. this is my city at the end of that pipeline. so fuck anyone if they think they can just come create disaster here because some politicos say they can.

 

NorthReport

What you are reading, and what actually happened, according to at least some MLAs are 2 different things. Basically no one is really taking responsibility for the loss, and that's a shame, but seems to be the trend in our no-accountability era. It is of no consequence now however as the BC NDP are relegated to the political sidelines in BC indefinitely. 

janfromthebruce wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Inaccurate Jan as Dix most certainly did not just make that decision alone, or even out of the blue. It was in the planning for some time leading up to the announcement, and there were several people involved.

janfromthebruce wrote:

And to be above board, Dix did the flipflop on Kinder Morgan ON HIS OWN and it had nothing to do with Topp. In fact, that turned the campaign team on its head.

We are going to agree on disagreeing. Everything I have read is that Dix made that decision on his own and it was not in the planning nor an announcement timing issue.

NorthReport

That Maclean's article commenting on the polling is discouraging for the NDP. Perhaps it just miught have something to do with saying "yes" to jobs

The NDP has to run on a "yes" platform if they want to win.

NorthReport

 Well said, and a very good reason for being a member of a constructioin union, as union members can move readily from jobsite to jobsite to follow the work, and not have to start over with each new contractor. And of course the pension plan and group benefits are portable as it is administered by the unions, and not the contractors/employers.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
You obviously never lived in Ontario. Manufacturing used to form the base of our economy. Not to mention, there aren't exactly a lot of lumberjacks and fishermen in Toronto. Oil has been a recent development, and one that coincided with the absolute decimation of the Ontario manufacturing industry. Ontario went from a province that gave out transfer payments to a province that takes in transfer payments.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I would like to add some historical context here. One key reason that manufacturing grew so strong in southern Ontario and Quebec is that the country had been traditionally set up to support it. Confederation absolutely devastated the economies of the Atlantic provinces, which had previously relied on trade with Caribbean island nations. It was so destructive that the result was anti-Confederation sentiment which nearly drove Nova Scotia out of Canada, PEI did not join Confederation until 1873 (even though the Confederation Conferences were in Charlottetown) and Newfoundland did not join until 1949. Moving out West, when the Prairie provinces were settled, it was so that they could provide agricultural wealth for the benefit of Confederation. There were also tarrif policies enacted which made farm equipment from the US more expensive, which forced Prairie farmers to rely on machinery that was made in Central Canada. This is, in short answer, where the sentiment of "Western alienation" came from, and is also connected to the fact that every province has had issues with Confederation and threatening to separate at one point, my own province of Manitoba theatening to separate at the barrel of a gun. One of the consequences of these policies was a lack of economic diversification in BC and Alberta, which left these economies heavily dependent on resource extraction. And as you rightly point out, even in these regions, resource extraction does not provide stable, reliable work for the long term.

It's not to take away your point about the impact that the resource economy has on the rest of the country, but I wanted people to see the bigger picture.

NorthReport

Actually the BC NDP recent disaster was a blessing not so much in disguise for the federal NDP.

Saying " no" to jobs kills you at the ballot box.

No one here is suggesting that environmental issues don't count, or that First Nations land claims don't count, but the federal NDP has to learn to say first  "yes" to jobs, and also deal with the envoronmental and First Nations issues as well. 

But, and it is a huge but, the opening phase has to be We support this or that jobs project.

You can add-on conditions just like Premier Clark has done in BC (which are a facade as everyone knows she will support N Gateway), but if you want to win, which should be the nature of the exercise, you first have to say, pure and simple, "yes" to jobs.

Saying "yes" to jobs regularly will put you into government, something which has been sadly lacking on the federal scene for close to 150 years. 

It doesn't matter if it was Frank Howard, NDP MP who planted many of the progressive ideas that the PET government enacted, the LPC took all the credit.

how sweet it would be if Canada could finally celebrate it's 150 year of existence with an NDP government.

Stockholm

Thank you very much. You have now proven to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that you know absolutely NOTHING about what went on behind the scene in the BC NDP campaign.

As the saying goes "those who talk do not know and those who know do not talk"

NorthReport wrote:

Inaccurate Jan as Dix most certainly did not just make that decision alone, or even out of the blue. It was in the planning for some time leading up to the announcement, and there were several people involved.

janfromthebruce wrote:

And to be above board, Dix did the flipflop on Kinder Morgan ON HIS OWN and it had nothing to do with Topp. In fact, that turned the campaign team on its head.

NorthReport

Just love these folks from outside a province who claim to know what was going on.

But let's face it, no one wants to be tagged witrh the worst political election defeat in the history of Canada, so of course those involved are going to be telling the truth about it, and the last place you will find out what happened isi in the press.

The BC NDP are dead in the water at least for now, and if even a coiuple of the LNG plants go ahead, they may as well close up shop because people want those jobs. 

Dix, James, Topp and others consulted as well, they all blew it royally.

 

NorthReport

Northern Gateway has Ottawa scrambling to avoid lawsuits

A totem pole on the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation that was a gift from the Lummi Nation in Washington state, frames the Chevron Burnaby Oil Refinery in the distance after the totem was unveiled during a ceremony in North Vancouver, B.C., on Sunday September 29, 2013. The totem pole is meant to be a symbol of cross-border unity among Coast Salish nations opposing the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and expanded oil tanker traffic. (DARRYL DYCK/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Within three hours of the Joint Review Panel’s announcement giving conditional approval for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, the Lake Babine First Nation threatened the lawsuit it has been preparing for months.

The band has already retained one of the top aboriginal law experts in Canada, setting the stage for a court fight the federal government is working feverishly behind the scenes to stave off.

Jack Woodward literally wrote the book on native law in Canada. His Consolidated Native Law Statutes, Regulations and Treaties has been in publication since 1989. He will represent Lake Babine and says of all the opponents of the project, even those with better financial means, the law gives First Nations more leverage.

“The only people with constitutional rights to fight are the First Nations,” Mr. Woodward noted in an interview.

The Crown is legally obligated to consult, and sometimes to accommodate First Nations on land and resource decisions that could impact their aboriginal interests. But the law of the land has not set out precisely how that should take place or at what point that duty is fulfilled.

In tacit acknowledgment of that looming question, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has promised to talk with First Nations before taking the ultimate decision on the pipeline to cabinet. His office is now sending out letters to the 45 aboriginal communities along the path of the pipeline or the oil tanker route offering consultation in the next six months.

Unresolved land claims along the pipeline route in British Columbia open the door to court challenges, potentially throwing a wrench in the time-sensitive need to find new markets for Alberta’s landlocked oil. Enbridge could win regulatory approval and still face a veto in all but name thanks to the uncertainty.

Generally, First Nations have no explicit veto power, but top native law experts believe multiple court challenges to this project are inevitable. These cases will rely heavily on the argument that the Crown has not fulfilled its obligations to consult. Since 2007, Ottawa has used the regulatory review process on natural resource projects such as Northern Gateway to stand as its aboriginal consultations.

The question will be raised, does that amount to good-faith negotiations?

 

 

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/northern-gateway-ha...

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

Just love these folks from outside a province who claim to know what was going on.

But let's face it, no one wants to be tagged witrh the worst political election defeat in the history of Canada, so of course those involved are going to be telling the truth about it, and the last place you will find out what happened isi in the press.

The BC NDP are dead in the water at least for now, and if even a coiuple of the LNG plants go ahead, they may as well close up shop because people want those jobs. 

Dix, James, Topp and others consulted as well, they all blew it royally.

To be fair, the initial perception was that Dix made the decision on his own, later it came out that he had consulted a small group of people. If the campaign had been conducted competantly there would have been no perceived need for a change, as the Liberals would have been on the defensive, as they were at the end of the legislative session. And you are confusing natural gas pipelines and LNG with bitimen pipelines.

Stockholm

My understanding is that Dix made the Kinder Morgan announcement completely on his own and told no one in advance that he was going to make it. He had taken responsibility for the defeat and has resigned as leader, so I see little point in pursuing a witch hunt when the witch has already been burned at the stake

genstrike

Lets assume for the moment that NorthReport is right and in order to get elected, the NDP must support any resource development plans that come down the pipe - regardless of the environmental, social, and broader economic costs.

It seems to me, then, that we have two choices:

1. "Say no to jobs" and let the Conservatives win.  They will then make a mess of the country with irresponsible resource development.

2. "Say yes to jobs" and the NDP might win.  Then, we get the NDP making a mess of the country with irresponsible resource development.

Clearly, then, for anyone concerned about the broader impacts of tar sands development, the electoral game is rigged and the only winning move is not to play - instead of trying to fix things in the electoral system where we can't win, we're better off trying to find ways to support things like the blockades in Elsipogtog.

NorthReport

Dix

Very nice guy, but disaster as a leader and election strategist.

But let's cut the nonsense.

Dix was far from alone in making that Kinder Morgan announcement, as it was in the works and being planned for days if not weeks.

Dis has not yet resigned as Leader, he is still the Leader, which is still very much part of the problem. Adrian should have resigned election nite, he didn't, and he should be doing it today. It is still a problem for many of those who actually live in BC.

Stockholm wrote:
My understanding is that Dix made the Kinder Morgan announcement completely on his own and told no one in advance that he was going to make it. He had taken responsibility for the defeat and has resigned as leader, so I see little point in pursuing a witch hunt when the witch has already been burned at the stake

janfromthebruce

Dix has said he made that announcement on his own. There has not been any other, besides NRs opinion that disputes that. Dix has said he will step down and obviously the membership and the executive have agreed. I do understand he was very effective in the assembly. I'm glad the NDP does not act like Liberals in just turfing their leaders out.

KenS

NR, you treat it as if Dix made that decision, took the initiative, totally on his or totally not.

He may well have not made the decision totally on his own, on the spot, and without talking to anybody.

But all the indications are that at the very least it was his idea. And to confirm that, you can bet 100% that if it had been someone else's idea- be that Brian Topp or anyone else- they would have taken the fall for it. There are a ton of practical reasons why that is required [not least because if the Leader takes responsibility, but its not true, the insider truth of who was responsible gets out anyway..... and then the name of the political operative is really dirt. Backroom players recover from the most serious of mistakes. But they dont recover from people finding out they did not fall on the sword].

KenS

And just to clarify and bring this back to the actual topic:

There are two things operative in the Kunder Suprise:

1. One is NR's thesis that you dont dare ever question the benefits of the alleged jobs bonanzas.

2. Is the question of HOW you do it.

 

Everyone agrees that the BCNDP made a grievous mistake with how the Kinder Surprise was decided and done. 

That says nothing one way or the other about NR's radical thesis.

 

While I thing that NR's radical thesis deserves dismisal... I agree that energy policy is one of the majr Achilles Heels for the NDP- provincially and federally. It takes care, smarts and hard prep work to not get bit by it, let alone win at it.

And the NDP in general does not do that. But what NR suggests, and Centrist in the more thoughtful way, is one of the forms of not doing the work required... rather just leaping one way or the [extreme] other.

Gonzaga

Sorry I'm so late replying to NorthReport's post in which NR says "Governments have to balance their budgets," or something like that. Guess what? Governments don't have to balance their budgets at all! Look over the New Economic Perspectives website and work through the MMT Primer. The fact is the federal government, as a currency issuer, doesn't have to balance its budget at all. The federal "debt" isn't a debt, it's an accounting issue. The NDP doesn't acknowledge this officially of course, any more than the Conservatives or Liberals do, but it's likely that the Conservatives at least are fully aware of it, since their godfather Milton Friedman wrote on the subject. 

That means that full employment is in fact fully attainable at any time, without the need to destroy the environment. "Jobs" don't depend on anything, except political will and an understanding of how the economy works. How good those jobs might be depends to some extent on the real production of the economy. 

On the other hand, only the federal government can run permanent deficits with no consequences. Provincial governments do have to balance their budgets, kind of. Actually if the federal government keeps interest rates close to zero it's not such a big deal, but since provincial governments depend on the federal government to set those interest rates, provincial governments are constrained. But since they don't age or die, they never have to pay their debts, and that counts for something. 

Anyway, North Report's thesis is preposterous. Kind of the equivalent of Swift's "Modest Proposal." I wonder if it's not a big joke--especially when NR couples it with the Conservative jobs=GHGs arguments. But oh well.

KenS

Gonzaga wrote:

Sorry I'm so late replying to NorthReport's post in which NR says "Governments have to balance their budgets," or something like that. Guess what? Governments don't have to balance their budgets at all!

The thesis is preposterous, but not for that reason.

Even if we agree that budgets have to be balanced, there are lots of choices how that is done. Non of them are perfect. They all have their pros and cons. Picking the best available mix is what you do. It is bogus to say that any single choice is necessitated by 'balancing the budget'.

Not to mention that those who use that rationaization for doing / not doing whatever, without skipping a beat turn around and do or propose something else that makes balancing the budget more difficult.

Most of all, balancing the budget is a different topic... and what you think on one of those topics does not have a lot to do with what you think about the other.

NorthReport

It is not complicated at all, and many of the previous posts are the main reason why the NDP does not, and will not win elections, plain and simple.

GS,

The NDP if elected would do a better job than either the Liberals or or the Cons concerning protecting the environment or First Nations rights,, and if you haven't grasped that by now..... 

 

 

 

 

KenS

Where or  is what is to be this "better job"? .... if as you advocate, everytime the Cons or Liberals say "more jobs", the NDP says "Yes, sir."  no matter what the consequences.

?? 

Because every time potential environmental damage or trampling of First Nations rights is raised, the answer is not "more profits". It is "Lots of Jobs."

Pages