Rachel Notley calls Leap Manifesto 'naive' 'ill-informed' & 'tone-deaf'

424 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

Here's the link that Rachel Notley posted on Twitter:

My thoughts on the Leap Manifesto: #yestopipelines

https://www.facebook.com/rachelnotley/posts/10153990073256427

https://twitter.com/RachelNotley/status/719638784048934913

Caissa

I think you would find solid support for a pipeline here in NB.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:

I believe that it is really important that as social democrats it is our job to really screw over selected groups of workers. First up should be those who work in the oil industry. Lets face it, if they have concerns about their disappearing jobs it is only because they don't really understand the way we do. I mean even if they were able to read the LEAP manifesto would they be able to understand it with all those big words. And all those who champion their concerns like Notley should obviously be treated with our undisguised contempt. I mean my God who does this woman think she is?

I'm sure carriage makers and blacksmiths had a terrible time with the move to cars but you can't halt progress.

Alberta has every right to develop the oil sands but people in other provinces have every right to refuse pipelines.

Pipelines are a federal responsibility.

So you don't agree with First Nations rights to oppose industrial projects on their unceded territories or the right of municipalities to oppose federal projects. Seems like a very narrow view of our Constitution. Mind you both the Liberals and Tories agree with you and seem to be willing to ram through pipelines at the behest of the Calgary oil sector.

If the NDP doesn't support First Nations rights and citizen control then what does it stand for?

Your argument is applicable to selling arms to Saudi Arabia. If we cancel that deal it will put many good union jobs at risk so we should not only allow it but we should promote arms sales given the high paying jobs the industry creates. After all if we don't sell them the arm they will buy them from somewhere else.


Interesting you should bring up First Nations. Joe Barrett pointed out 15 ( or 16) FN groups had signed deals with various pipeline producers. Now of course as was made abundantly clear to me, someone as who was there, these groups just don't understand so we can simply disregard them in favour of FN groups who agree with LEAP. As for selling arms to the Saudis, our purchases of their oil has increased by something like 30 percent over the last three years. Which is great because this enlightened government now has the means to buy our LAV's and give the Shia and the people in Yemen the treatment they so obviously rrichly deserve. I am so thankful that we make a point of doing everything we can to make sure the Saudis have the largest market share possible both nationally and internationally. I mean,what was Rachel thinking that revenue to close down the dirty coal plants of Alberta would be considered more important than teaching dissidents in the ME a lesson.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I've said it before and I'll say it again..Provincial wings of Federal parties are far differen t from their federal parent parties. With the exception of the Conservatives which go from far-right to extreme-right.

I'm not surprised by Notley's words. She's just another Alberta politician. The NDP banner she uses does not reflect the federal NDP. But these days,maybe it does.

Rev Pesky

Policywonk wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't understand why people are not thinking about the poor coal miners. Where is their advocacy group? If we need to keep digging up bitumen why do we need to give up on mining coal?...

This may come as a bit of a shock, but coal is an essential part of the manufacture of steel. You know, that metal stuff they use to make wind turbines. So the huge investment in wind turbines, as detailed in a supporting document of the Leap Manifesto, pretty much assures that coal miners will do well throughout.

Metallurgical coal is an essential part of the manufacture of steel from iron ore. Recycled steel can be made with electric arc furnaces. Lower quality coal used to make electricity is not essential and can and is being phased out. If you do not make the distinction between metallurgical coal and non-metallurgical coal then the argument is misleading.

That is correct, and if you didn't need electricity for that electric arc furnace, all would  be well. Unfortunately, electric arc furnaces require a fair bit of electricity. Courtesy Wikipedia:

Quote:
To produce a ton of steel in an electric arc furnace requires approximately 400 kilowatt-hours per short ton or about 440 kWh per metric tonne; the theoretical minimum amount of energy required to melt a tonne of scrap steel is 300 kWh (melting point 1520 °C/2768 °F). Therefore, a 300-tonne, 300 MVA EAF will require approximately 132 MWh of energy to melt the steel, and a "power-on time" (the time that steel is being melted with an arc) of approximately 37 minutes. Electric arc steelmaking is only economical where there is plentiful electricity, with a well-developed electrical grid. In many locations, mills operate during off-peak hours when utilities have surplus power generating capacity and the price of electricity is less.

In order to get 132 MWh of electricity would require, given standard calculations for wind turbine output (25% of capacity) 4 times 132 capacity, which equals  528 MW of wind turbine capacity. Given a single turbine capacity of 8 MW, which is the largest wind turbine available, that means in order to run this relatively small steel remanufacture you're going to have to install 66  8MW wind turbines.

Now, those wind turbines are pretty big. The tower is 720 feet tall, and the turbine has 260 foot blades (pardon the imperial measure, but that is the units in which it is given)

So in order to supply the required elctricity for one scrap steel remanufacturing electric arc furnace you're going to need 66 of the largest wind turbines available to date, a pretty fair size piece of land to accomodate same, and then be prepared to operate the plant on the schedule of the wind.

Those wind turbines need around 500 cubic yards of concrete each, so you're looking at 66 x 500 = 33,000 cubic yards of concrete as well. Needless to say, cement, a major ingredient in concrete, requires a lot of energy to make. 

That elecric arc furnace may not be that green after all.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jjuares wrote:

 Interesting you should bring up First Nations. Joe Barrett pointed out 15 ( or 16) FN groups had signed deals with various pipeline producers.

I guess you just don't get the fact that there are many First Nations and that each has constitutional rights regardless of whether other First Nations agree with what they want for their territories. It is a very dismissive viewpoint to say that some FN's will accept pipelines so ergo all FN's are bound by the minority of FN's who side with the oil industry.

It seems clear to me that you either respect FN's rights to determine their future or you don't.  I would never dismiss FN's who believe the benefits of oil subsidies outweigh the risks anymore than I would dismiss the FN's that oppose any pipelines going through their territory.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

I think you would find solid support for a pipeline here in NB.

Beyond the Irving family?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jjuares wrote:

As for selling arms to the Saudis, our purchases of their oil has increased by something like 30 percent over the last three years. Which is great because this enlightened government now has the means to buy our LAV's and give the Shia and the people in Yemen the treatment they so obviously rrichly deserve. I am so thankful that we make a point of doing everything we can to make sure the Saudis have the largest market share possible both nationally and internationally.

I think that if  Canada continues to actively engage in sanctions against other nations then the Saudi's should top the list for their war crimes but go ahead throw some more bitumen into the water to muddy it. It will sink to the bottom and be out of sight and hardly noticeable.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Tidal power is the answer in the region I live in. There are various types being used around the world including Australia and South Korea. The type of power that will be the most efficient and provide the highest benefits varies from region to region. That is the thing about renewable energy it requires that jobs be created in every region of the country.

Caissa

To answer your question, Unionist, "yes."

ETA: Have you been following Saint John's latest shitstorm? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/irving-oil-saint-john-bylaw-1.3530241

Caissa

An interesting contibution to the debate by Kelly Lamrock. http://kellylamrocksrazor.blogspot.ca/2016/04/a-call-to-new-democrats-let-us-reason.html

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 Interesting you should bring up First Nations. Joe Barrett pointed out 15 ( or 16) FN groups had signed deals with various pipeline producers.

I guess you just don't get the fact that there are many First Nations and that each has constitutional rights regardless of whether other First Nations agree with what they want for their territories. It is a very dismissive viewpoint to say that some FN's will accept pipelines so ergo all FN's are bound by the minority of FN's who side with the oil industry.

It seems clear to me that you either respect FN's rights to determine their future or you don't.  I would never dismiss FN's who believe the benefits of oil subsidies outweigh the risks anymore than I would dismiss the FN's that oppose any pipelines going through their territory.


That was my point.I never claimed that all supported it. In fact I cited the number ( 15 or 16 I couldn't remember which this speaker said). So please don't put words in my mouth. At the debate it was Leapers who were pretending that FN groups are speaking with one voice. They were the ones saying that pipelines were opposed by FN. By doing so they were marginalizing those FN voices that did not support their project. Colonialism at its best. Oh, the irony.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pipelines are a federal responsibility.

Yes they are but that doesn't mean they can be forced through provinces that don't want one. Do you plan on sending in the military to force it through Quebec?  Albertans don't seem to get that governments, neither provincial nor federal, can force this pipeline through Quebec. Try, and it won't be about oil it will be about sovereignty over Quebec land and protecting the nation from Canada.

Separatist/sovereignist sentiment is way down but that is because a majority of Quebecers feel that we are comfortably in control of Quebec. That Canada does not impose its will on us in any significant manner. There is some friction but very little. If Canada tries to physically force a pipeline through Quebec it will be fought physically. The student protests would pale in comparison. Even people who don't much care about the pipeline would support the protests on principle. Even the unions would support the protesters.

jjuares wrote:
Interesting you should bring up First Nations. Joe Barrett pointed out 15 ( or 16) FN groups had signed deals with various pipeline producers. Now of course as was made abundantly clear to me, someone as who was there, these groups just don't understand so we can simply disregard them in favour of FN groups who agree with LEAP.

The oil companies can go ahead and build the pipelines on the land of those groups who have agreed. Nobody is stopping them.

jjuares wrote:
As for selling arms to the Saudis, our purchases of their oil has increased by something like 30 percent over the last three years. Which is great because this enlightened government now has the means to buy our LAV's and give the Shia and the people in Yemen the treatment they so obviously rrichly deserve. I am so thankful that we make a point of doing everything we can to make sure the Saudis have the largest market share possible both nationally and internationally. I mean,what was Rachel thinking that revenue to close down the dirty coal plants of Alberta would be considered more important than teaching dissidents in the ME a lesson.

That 3 year increase is due to the Saudi sale prices not a shortage of oil from other sources. Aside from that it takes a different kind of refinery to refine bitumen.

We don't need Alberta oil to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia nor to stop importing oil from them. Newfoundland exports around 50% of its oil. If the point is to displace imports it makes much more sense to refine all the oil from Newfoundland in New Brunswick. It's a heck of a lot closer than Alberta and it wouldn't have to cross Quebec.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pipelines are a federal responsibility.

Yes they are but that doesn't mean they can be forced through provinces that don't want one. Do you plan on sending in the military to force it through Quebec?  Albertans don't seem to get that governments, neither provincial nor federal, can force this pipeline through Quebec. Try, and it won't be about oil it will be about sovereignty over Quebec land and protecting the nation from Canada.

Separatist/sovereignist sentiment is way down but that is because a majority of Quebecers feel that we are comfortably in control of Quebec. That Canada does not impose its will on us in any significant manner. There is some friction but very little. If Canada tries to physically force a pipeline through Quebec it will be fought physically. The student protests would pale in comparison. Even people who don't much care about the pipeline would support the protests on principle. Even the unions would support the protesters.

jjuares wrote:
Interesting you should bring up First Nations. Joe Barrett pointed out 15 ( or 16) FN groups had signed deals with various pipeline producers. Now of course as was made abundantly clear to me, someone as who was there, these groups just don't understand so we can simply disregard them in favour of FN groups who agree with LEAP.

The oil companies can go ahead and build the pipelines on the land of those groups who have agreed. Nobody is stopping them.

jjuares wrote:
As for selling arms to the Saudis, our purchases of their oil has increased by something like 30 percent over the last three years. Which is great because this enlightened government now has the means to buy our LAV's and give the Shia and the people in Yemen the treatment they so obviously rrichly deserve. I am so thankful that we make a point of doing everything we can to make sure the Saudis have the largest market share possible both nationally and internationally. I mean,what was Rachel thinking that revenue to close down the dirty coal plants of Alberta would be considered more important than teaching dissidents in the ME a lesson.

That 3 year increase is due to the Saudi sale prices not a shortage of oil from other sources. Aside from that it takes a different kind of refinery to refine bitumen.

We don't need Alberta oil to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia nor to stop importing oil from them. Newfoundland exports around 50% of its oil. If the point is to displace imports it makes much more sense to refine all the oil from Newfoundland in New Brunswick. It's a heck of a lot closer than Alberta and it wouldn't have to cross Quebec.


Newfoundland is an interesting case. The Come By Chance refinery has a codicil in its sale agreement which disallows it from selling its product to other provinces. Anyways the province only produces 300 000 b/d and it is quickly running out. That is why they have signed that electric agreement with NS. As for pipelines, yes, you are right it would be politically impossible to build one against the wishes of a province, FN or its people. It is apparent Trudeau is going to try. It will take great political skill to get the social license. I wouldn't bet against him on a file like this.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..as naomi klein has stated more than once, the idea for the leap was based on the struggles against extraction in bc. the very same bc where no party represented folks when it came to protecting the land, water, climate, rights or environmental justice. they began to organize themselves. to make decisions for themselves and then instituted powerful defences. this included not only proposing but creating alternatives. all this began a number of years ago and today it is embedded deeply in many communities. this reality is what was brought to toronto where the leap was formed.

..and this reality will not go away any time soon and was successful in ousting many tories in the last election. the indian act created bands have been used federally and provincially in many instances against the wishes of the people and their hereditary leaders to garner legitimacy. even though the scc has ruled these bands have no authority over the greater native lands. and now the abuse of first nation in alberta continues under the cover of the need for jobs. it’s a divide and conquer strategy and this is not acceptable. if the tar sands project is to continue this has to be addressed in a meaningful way.

..while the issue may be new to the ndp it is not for the communities involved in these struggles across canada. those within the ndp need to learn from these struggles if it wants to be taken serious today. without consultation the federal ndp announced that pipelines where a priority a couple year back. both manitoba and alberta ndp governments signed an agreement with the other provinces prioritizing pipelines. again without meaningful consultations. this is a recipe for disaster. this undemocratic approach to very serious issues is so very wrong in so many ways it threatens their relevance as an alternative.
 

Unionist

Thanks very much, mark_alfred. So as I surmised (but wasn't sure till now), the convention did adopt a resolution that begins with:

Quote:
The NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto...

No matter what follows, you'll have a hard time arguing, "but we didn't adopt it!" What was the need to use such language? I like the Leap Manifesto, but I sure wouldn't want a convention voting to "support" it (even just its "high level principles" being in accord with our aspirations and values blah blah) without lots of preparation, study, discussion... Such a statement should come after the "meaningful opportunity to debate" and the "pre-convention policy process leading up to 2018".

This resolution was a blunder. It should have just been the two "be it resolved", with no preamble. Not worth risking splitting the party, and handing ammunition to our enemies, just because someone wanted high-sounding phrases to accompany the actual proposal.

 

Policywonk

mark_alfred wrote:

The combination of the two resolutions from Vancouver East and Toronto Danforth was (from what I found online) the following:

the resolution wrote:
The NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that is in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party. We recognize and embrace the opportunity to confront the twin crises of inequality and climate change with an inspiring and positive agenda — to transform society as we transition to an economy beyond fossil fuels. The specific policies in the manifesto can and should be debated and modified on their own merits and according to the needs of various communities, but the goal of transforming our country according to the vision in the manifesto is entirely in line with the core beliefs and tradition of NDP.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party looks forward to meaningful opportunity to debate [the Leap Manifesto] in riding associations across the country;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT these discussions be part of a pre-convention policy process leading up to 2018.

This was a combination of the Vancouver East resolution 2-19-16 LEAP MANIFESTO (the prelude) and part of the Toronto-Danforth resolution 2-05-16 LEAP MANIFESTO ("THEREFORE, BE IT...").  I got this from a letter that was circulating on social media by Craig Scott.  The letter futher stated, "The process mandated here must include a robust online mechanism. This will ensure broad grassroots participation in policy and election platforms."

So, I believe the quote in this post ("the resolution") is what was voted on and passed at convention.

No, the Van East Resolution is part of the Be it Resolved, as it is in the resolutions book, and the language has been softened a bit.

 

 

NorthReport

Protests are nothing new to BC, but our duly-elected PM together with our duly-elected Premiers of Alberta and BC are going ahead with the pipelines with First Nations support. 

Policywonk

Unionist wrote:

Thanks very much, mark_alfred. So as I surmised (but wasn't sure till now), the convention did adopt a resolution that begins with:

Quote:
The NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto...

No matter what follows, you'll have a hard time arguing, "but we didn't adopt it!" What was the need to use such language? I like the Leap Manifesto, but I sure wouldn't want a convention voting to "support" it (even just its "high level principles" being in accord with our aspirations and values blah blah) without lots of preparation, study, discussion... Such a statement should come after the "meaningful opportunity to debate" and the "pre-convention policy process leading up to 2018".

This resolution was a blunder. It should have just been the two "be it resolved", with no preamble. Not worth risking splitting the party, and handing ammunition to our enemies, just because someone wanted high-sounding phrases to accompany the actual proposal.

 

If the Party refuses to take meaningful action on Climate Change that will split the Party. The Danforth resolution was useless because without the whereases it could apply to anything. If the high level principles and values don't represent the Party than we have bigger problems.

 

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

Protests are nothing new to BC, but our duly-elected PM together with our duly-elected Premiers of Alberta and BC are going ahead with the pipelines with First Nations support. 

Northern Gateway won't happen, there is still much more First Nations opposition than support to pipelines and as far as I know Crusty's public position is still that the Kinder Morgan doesn't meet BC's conditions. 

Policywonk

Unionist wrote:

Thanks very much, mark_alfred. So as I surmised (but wasn't sure till now), the convention did adopt a resolution that begins with:

Quote:
The NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto...

No matter what follows, you'll have a hard time arguing, "but we didn't adopt it!" What was the need to use such language? I like the Leap Manifesto, but I sure wouldn't want a convention voting to "support" it (even just its "high level principles" being in accord with our aspirations and values blah blah) without lots of preparation, study, discussion... Such a statement should come after the "meaningful opportunity to debate" and the "pre-convention policy process leading up to 2018".

This resolution was a blunder. It should have just been the two "be it resolved", with no preamble. Not worth risking splitting the party, and handing ammunition to our enemies, just because someone wanted high-sounding phrases to accompany the actual proposal.

 

Get the actual resolution before you comment further.

Caissa

Whereases usually have no standing in a resolution.

NorthReport

Right, and Site C isn't going ahead, nor are any of the LNG projects and the required accompanying pipelines being built because of protests. Meanwhile back in the world outside of the NDP people want jobs. Only when there is a realistic alternative to those jobs will resource extraction be slowed down. 

NorthReport

Right, and Site C isn't going ahead, nor are any of the LNG projects and the required accompanying pipelines being built because of protests. Meanwhile back in the world outside of the NDP people want jobs. When there is a realistic alternative to those jobs resource extraction be slowed down. 

Unionist

Policywonk wrote:

If the Party refuses to take meaningful action on Climate Change that will split the Party. The Danforth resolution was useless because without the whereases it could apply to anything. If the high level principles and values don't represent the Party than we have bigger problems.

I totally agree. But then, pass a resolution, after sufficient debate and study, that embarks on "meaningful action" on Climate Change. Don't pass something ambiguous and then spend time "clarifying" that, "well, we didn't actually adopt the Leap Manifesto..." Foresee problems and head them off.

Policywonk wrote:

Get the actual resolution before you comment further.

My bad. I saw mark_alfred's quote of "the resolution" and concluded, too hastily, that that was it. You're absolutely correct. I'd like to see the actual resolution. Amazing how many people have commented and screamed and accused in the media without ever quoting it. Now I'm one of them Cry.

So:

Does anyone have the text of the Leap Manifesto resolution that was passed at Convention?

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Whereases usually have no standing in a resolution.

You know, Caissa, if you adopt a resolution that starts, "WHEREAS our Party supports capital punishment", and finishes "BE IT RESOLVED that we launch a wideranging conversation on how to fight crime with no preconceived notions" - you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to just read the part after the whereases.

 

mark_alfred

Policywonk wrote:

No, the Van East Resolution is part of the Be it Resolved, as it is in the resolutions book, and the language has been softened a bit.

See http://edmonton2016.ca/sites/all/themes/edmonton2016/images/EDM2016-Dele... and look at resolution 2-19-16 LEAP MANIFESTO.  It's Vancouver East.  It was Craig Scott's idea to put the 2 year time consideration on it (Scott being a lawyer), and so the "Be it Resolved.." stuff comes from his riding association, that being Toronto Danforth.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Northern Gateway won't happen, there is still much more First Nations opposition than support to pipelines and as far as I know Crusty's public position is still that the Kinder Morgan doesn't meet BC's conditions.

..and clake's position on kinder morgan came after this ruling.

B.C. government failed to properly consult First Nations on Northern Gateway pipeline, court rules

The B.C. Supreme court has ruled that the province "has breached the honour of the Crown by failing to consult" with the Gitga'at and other Coastal First Nations on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

quote:

B.C. government 'playing politics'

Though the governing B.C. Liberals had agreed to the streamlined process — and even trumpeted it as something that would reduce "byzantine bureaucratic practices" and help create jobs, the province had also formally opposed the pipeline.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

Thanks very much, mark_alfred. So as I surmised (but wasn't sure till now), the convention did adopt a resolution that begins with:

Quote:
The NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto...

No matter what follows, you'll have a hard time arguing, "but we didn't adopt it!" What was the need to use such language? I like the Leap Manifesto, but I sure wouldn't want a convention voting to "support" it (even just its "high level principles" being in accord with our aspirations and values blah blah) without lots of preparation, study, discussion... Such a statement should come after the "meaningful opportunity to debate" and the "pre-convention policy process leading up to 2018".

This resolution was a blunder. It should have just been the two "be it resolved", with no preamble. Not worth risking splitting the party, and handing ammunition to our enemies, just because someone wanted high-sounding phrases to accompany the actual proposal.

Agreed.  It also makes it difficult to argue social license when challenging government pipeline plans, since you've already declared that social license simply cannot exist for such projects. 

I should note here that the language is from the letter Craig Scott circulated.  I haven't seen the officially passed resolution yet.  So, possibly, the wording is different.  I don't think there's been a published copy of the passed resolutions posted on line yet.

ETA:  just noticed some of the posts above pointed out that what I posted isn't necessarily the exact resolution that was passed at convention. 

I found a twitter account of someone who took photos of each resolution that was passed.  I'll look through it and see if I can find the Manifesto one that was passed.

NorthReport

2-19-16 LEAP MANIFESTO Vancouver East BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that is in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party. We recognize and embrace the opportunity to confront the twin crises of inequality and climate change with an inspiring and positive agenda – to transform society as we transition to an economy beyond fossil fuels. The specific policies in the manifesto can and should be debated and modified on their own merits and according to the needs of various communities, but the goal of transforming our country according to the vision in the manifesto is entirely in line with the core beliefs and tradition of the NDP.

http://edmonton2016.ca/sites/all/themes/edmonton2016/images/EDM2016-Dele...

josh

Clearly, the resolution supports the "principles" of the manifesto, not necessarily the specific recommendations.  But that won't stop the media and political opponents from ignoring the distinction.

mark_alfred

Okay, I actually think that despite what Craig Scott's letter said about combining the Vancouver East resolution with the Toronto Danforth resolution, it seems that in the end they simply went with the Toronto Danforth resolution and dropped the Vancouver East one.  I got this from a tweet from twitter account @hoverbeaver

https://twitter.com/hoverbeaver/status/719193640053026817

 

So, it appears I was mistaken.  Note, I still don't know for sure, since my source on this is @hoverbeaver.  Again, Scott was clear in the letter beforehand, but perhaps they just decided to go with his Toronto-Danforth resolution in the end.  Again, I don't really know.  But @hoverbeaver does not show any sign of the Vancover East resolution on the LEAP Manifesto.

NorthReport

NDP brothers and sisters left between a manifesto and a premier

New Democrats dump Tom Mulcair, then invite debate between Rachel Notley and the Leap Manifesto

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-leap-notley-wherry-1.3531464

 

NorthReport

Has the NDP become redundant?: The greatest threat to the NDP may be that the Liberal Party has become a second, more effective New Democratic Party

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/04/12/has-the-ndp-become-...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Protests are nothing new to BC

..i disagree with this statement. the alliances and other formations developing in bc go way beyond protest. and they encompass many interests plus reach across canada. these alliances will take us into the future and are the foundations of our development to towards a different way of making decisions. as well as they are the defence against the ever deepening crisis of capitalism. the leap represents just one of those formations.  

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
No green plan threw the oil workers out of work. When the market throws them out of work we now should abandon our dreams of a green future? There was no national emergency when BC was stripped of its forest industry over the last twenty years because of soft wood lumber rules that see our logs exported raw and our forest licenses untied from requirements to mill locally. We need to think about workers by building the green infrastructure not building pipelines through BC to get to tidewater so that the inevitable oil spill will kill off what remains of our fishery jobs.

So, when folks are thrown out of work due to changes in economic policy your attitude is that they should be thrown to the wolves of the capitalist marketplace?    And I thought that this was a pro-worker left-wing board.

Quote:
">http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/oilsands-workers-call-on-albe...

The linked article above that documents a programme that retrains electricians to do solar installations is exactly the kind of approach that should be taken.   

There needs to be many different approaches...but the general approach needs to be about creating "climate jobs".    Sometimes it'll be about using old technologies, sometimes using current tech and some problems are going to need new tech.  

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

radiorahim wrote:

Quote:

No green plan threw the oil workers out of work. When the market throws them out of work we now should abandon our dreams of a green future? There was no national emergency when BC was stripped of its forest industry over the last twenty years because of soft wood lumber rules that see our logs exported raw and our forest licenses untied from requirements to mill locally. We need to think about workers by building the green infrastructure not building pipelines through BC to get to tidewater so that the inevitable oil spill will kill off what remains of our fishery jobs.

So, when folks are thrown out of work due to changes in economic policy your attitude is that they should be thrown to the wolves of the capitalist marketplace?    And I thought that this was a pro-worker left-wing board.

I do not want pipelines built so WTF does have that have to do with whether I support programs to help workers transition to greener jobs. I think we need to put workers to work building tidal power and retrofitting houses and commercial buildings if you really want to discuss the issues.

The fact that I oppose Notley's desire to move filthy bitumen to tidewaters in BC is unrelated to how to deal with oil sector workers thrown out of work by the marketplace. If they want to export the planet destroying substance I think they should build the bitumen port in Thunder Bay or maybe even Toronto instead of Vancouver. That way the people of Quebec and the people of BC will not have pipelines going through their provinces.  We know Sask favours pipelines and if the government in Manitoba changes then there is a clear path to a port near you. Of course the people of Ontario might not like oil tankers carrying bitumen on the Great Lakes but who cares, right? Whats a little bitumen spill among friends of the workers anyways.

 

Rev Pesky

The word from John Horgan, leader of the BCNDP:

John Horgan on the Leap Manifesto

Quote:
B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan wants to form a common front with the Alberta NDP government in opposition to the federal party’s proposed policy manifesto aiming to wean Canada off fossil fuels by 2050.

...Mr. Horgan told reporters on Monday that the so-called Leap Manifesto, which also calls for an end to stop all new infrastructure projects aimed at increasing extraction of non-renewable resources, does not reflect the values of British Columbians.

...Speaking at the annual convention of the BC Building Trades unions,  Labour Minister Shirley Bond (BC Liberal Party - Rev Pesky) said the Leap Manifesto is an attack on jobs and the NDP is tacitly supporting it.

...Ms. Bond also told the union delegates gathered in Victoria she will work with them to win approval for major energy projects including the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG plant near Prince Rupert, an $11.4-billion liquefied natural gas terminal on Lelu Island, which the NDP opposes.

...Tom Sigurdson, executive director of the BC Building Trades, warmly thanked Ms. Bond for her remarks and invited her to attend the national trade union convention in May...

Apparently both the Liberal and NDP parties in BC believe the voters are more interested in jobs than a green manifesto. So either they're out of touch with the population, or the promoters of the Leap Manifesto are.

Bear in mind also that the Leap Manifesto is about as mild as it's possible to be. It doesn'ty really say anything other than we should look after each other.

By the way, where's Elizabeth May these days? This seems like it's something the Green Party would be interested in.

 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
I do not want pipelines built so WTF does have that have to do with whether I support programs to help workers transition to greener jobs. I think we need to put workers to work building tidal power and retrofitting houses and commercial buildings if you really want to discuss the issues.

I am not a supporter of pipelines.

However, if you want to get from where we are now to where we would like to be, there are some steps in the middle.

And, having a rather dismissive and callous disregard for what happens to dislocated workers in that process is not one of those steps.

And yes I would really like to discuss the issues of how we build a green economy.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
Apparently both the Liberal and NDP parties in BC believe the voters are more interested in jobs than a green manifesto. So either they're out of touch with the population, or the promoters of the Leap Manifesto are.

Framing this discussion as "jobs vs. a green economy" is wrong IMHO.

And, a green economy can't be a capitalist economy IMHO.   Capitalism will always seek short term immediate profits over anything else.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

radiorahim wrote:

And, having a rather dismissive and callous disregard for what happens to dislocated workers in that process is not one of those steps.

And yes I would really like to discuss the issues of how we build a green economy.

Being stridently anti-tar sands does not make me callous about workers. So please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
Being stridently anti-tar sands does not make me callous about workers. So please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I didn't need to put words in your mouth.   Your anti-worker tone is pretty clear to me.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

radiorahim wrote:

Quote:
Being stridently anti-tar sands does not make me callous about workers. So please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I didn't need to put words in your mouth.   Your anti-worker tone is pretty clear to me.

That is a personal insult.

Unionist

The superficially rancorous exchange above between radiorahim and kropotkin1951 - both of them very obviously champions of protection of the environment and the rights of workers - illustrates starkly the criminal negligence of the NDP in improvising resolutions about the Leap Manifesto. Once again, this was the criminal behaviour of the back-room handlers - those who dictate everything the party does. The members really should grasp power and wield it.

Unionist

Oh by the way you too, chill out, relax, reflect, shake hands - we're all in this together. There are enough real disputes in the world without inventing superficial ones just for the fun of it.

This is not a suggestion.

 

NorthReport

Lots of construction workers care about the environment and would love green jobs but they just are not seeing them. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..there are also construction workers and other trade unionist involved in the anti pipeline struggles and the leap.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Lots of construction workers care about the environment and would love green jobs but they just are not seeing them. 

I would go one better and say that holds true of most construction workers. That is why it is not anti-worker to demand at least one party that puts the environment and jobs on equal footing. I agree with Notley that the Leap Manifesto is somewhat naive but I think that exporting the tar sands gunk to the rest of the world is a crime against humanity.

We need a party that promises to build the green infrastructure not one that promises to build pipelines.

NorthReport

In an era where decent jobs are hard to come by, LEAP is coming across as a job-killer and so far at least 3 NDP provincial leaders are against it. 

Leap manifesto a bad fit for B.C. says NDP leader John Horgan'

It doesn't reflect the values of British Columbians,' says NDP leader

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/leap-manifesto-a-bad-fit-...

Unionist

Excellent! Thanks again, mark_alfred.

So now we're left with this "rabble blog" by "Various" [sic] which spreads misinformation:

Quote:
We are heartened by the news that the New Democratic Party of Canada has passed a resolution to "recognize and support" The Leap Manifesto as a "statement of principles that is in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party."

If they're confused, one can perhaps understand how the MSM is allowed full rein to do its dirty work.

And get this: the blog post is signed by "Avi Lewis, Naomi Klein, Bianca Mugyenyi, Katie McKenna & Martin Lukacs".

Who volunteers to give them the bad news that they misconstrued what happened at convention (which at least some of them allegedly attended)?????

Pages