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

424 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

There was a ski resort in North Eastern USA that wanted to expand but the environmentalists were opposed. So the ski resort owners planted thousands of trees elsewhere and got their expansion. 

mark_alfred

ETA:  My original post below is innaccurate.  To explain, Craig Scott had sent out a letter before the convention that was signed by him, Libby Davies, Janet Solberg, and Avi Lewis that had a combined motion with languarge including "recognizes and supports" (noted below).  But this is not what was submitted to and passed at convention.  Instead, it was 2-05-16 LEAP MANIFESTO by Toronto Danforth Riding Association.  See it here:  http://edmonton2016.ca/sites/all/themes/edmonton2016/images/EDM2016-Dele...

 

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.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

A modern day plenary indulgence!

NorthReport

Canada's Oil and Gas Push 'Wishful Thinking' against Climate Realities: Harvard Prof

Naomi Oreskes says our fossil fuel strategy 'doesn't add up.'

"It's an equation that doesn't add up," the Harvard climate professor said with a smile in an interview with the Tyee on Monday. "It's like when [U.S. President] Obama talked about the 'all of the above' energy policy. In theory, that sounds great, but it doesn't work."

The globally influential climate change thinker, historian of science, and co-author of Merchants of Doubt was in Vancouver for a public talk at the Vogue Theatre Tuesday night put on by UBC's Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.

She talked up the urgency of acting to avoid catastrophic global warming -- and talked down Canada's apparently oil-friendly climate strategy.

Oreskes said Canada cannot seriously address climate change while also building more giant pipelines to deliver Alberta's oil sands bitumen or British Columbia's fracked natural gas to proposed export terminals on both coasts.

"If Trudeau can say we're going to do all these things," she said, "that says to me that they have not truly assimilated what is at stake here."

 

http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2016/04/06/Canada-Oil-Gas-Push-Wishful-Thinking/

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

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

That is because we are still relying too much on oil. If all the government subsidies going to the oil industry went to green industries the jobs would appear. Even if they didn't, that doesn't mean we should build pipelines until we can figure out something else for oil workers to do.

The pipelines have to be stopped period. That creates a secondary problem which is employing people who would have been employed in the oil industry. The oil industry has been crying for workers for years insisting that temporary workers are a requirement for Alberta. Those jobs don't need to be replaced. Those people just won't come or will return home and jobs can be created for them there instead of in Alberta.

That the oil industry is not continuing to expand does not mean it is on its deathbed. Alberta can continue using all the pipelines that already exist. With low prices it isn't financially beneficial enough to ship by rail so that means Alberta is stuck at current production rates not that the oil sands are immediately shutting down. It's just expansion that is blocked.

Trudeau is going to put all his charm and political weight behind getting that pipeline through. He will try to buy his way through provinces. Premiers and mayors might even get on board through political wheeling and dealing. It doesn't matter. The environmental movement has never had the support of power politicians. We stopped Harper's strong arm tactics. Now Trudeau is going to try the soft sell. The latest argument I heard was that the profits from the pipeline will fund the green shift. People who feel strongly enough about the environment to be swayed are not going to fall for that argument.

There is no acceptable deal that will convince "enviromentalists" to allow the pipeline through Quebec. I put "environmentalists" in quotes because it's regular people not just environmental activists opposing the pipeline.

The right is correct to be afraid of the education system. Since the 70s grade school teachers on up have been teaching about protecting the environment. In the 80s and 90s the teaching of "environmentalism" strengthened. Young people today can't be snowed. Certainly anyone under 40 gets "it".  It isn't a hippie thing anymore. It's a reality thing.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

When we talk about retaining "jobs" in the oil sector, are we actually just talking about those specific workers who maintain drills and drive trucks and such, and how many of them are we really talking about?  If it's not that many then just pay half of them to dig holes and the other half to fill them in again.

I had the sense that by "jobs" we really meant "a flourishing economy that would support lots of other jobs".  I'm sure that the guy who tightens bolts on a pipeline could transition to tightening bolts on a geothermal turbine, or whatever, but what's going to replace those old oil revenues?

I'm not saying this as the long form of "drill, baby, drill".  but I think there may be more to it than just "jobs vs. Gaia" or "Notley vs. Klein".

NorthReport
josh

After reading that, I wonder how many strawmen can dance on the head of a pin.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

But nobody moved from carriages to cars because someone wrote a "Vegan Manifesto" that proclaimed that enslaving horses was backward and wrong.  The move to cars was obvious.

And governments didn't have to make massive investements in these new "car" technologies to kickstart it, because the move to cars was obvious.  That was the "progress" you're referring to.

Right now, I'm not sure that the jump to tidal-energy powered city transit is that same kind of obvious.  And if it really is just "progress", then parties and politicians shouldn't need to swear blood oaths to it, nor catalyze it with massive injections of munnee.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

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)?????

Victims of a bait and switch?  It's interesting that Scott had a write up on Facebook afterword that referred to the resolution as "a combined Toronto-Danforth / Vancouver East resolution".  Yet from what I see, it clearly was only the Toronto-Danforth resolution.  Both the delegate that was there whom I know and the twitter user I referred to earlier who apparently was also there reported the same thing.

ETA:  the Facebook link may not work.

Policywonk

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

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)?????

Victims of a bait and switch?  It's interesting that Scott had a write up on Facebook afterword that referred to the resolution as "a combined Toronto-Danforth / Vancouver East resolution".  Yet from what I see, it clearly was only the Toronto-Danforth resolution.  Both the delegate that was there whom I know and the twitter user I referred to earlier who apparently was also there reported the same thing.

I was at the panel where the priority of the Danforth resolution was moved up, the Vancouver East resolution was added and then the wording softened. I think the Alberta people were too busy ensuring there was no anti-pipeline resolution coming to the floor from another panel. Strange, especially since it talked about the north coast, not the south coast.

mark_alfred

Policywonk wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

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)?????

Victims of a bait and switch?  It's interesting that Scott had a write up on Facebook afterword that referred to the resolution as "a combined Toronto-Danforth / Vancouver East resolution".  Yet from what I see, it clearly was only the Toronto-Danforth resolution.  Both the delegate that was there whom I know and the twitter user I referred to earlier who apparently was also there reported the same thing.

I was at the panel where the priority of the Danforth resolution was moved up, the Vancouver East resolution was added and then the wording softened. I think the Alberta people were too busy ensuring there was no anti-pipeline resolution coming to the floor from another panel. Strange, especially since it talked about the north coast, not the south coast.

Well, the wording I saw reported from the delegate I know who was there matched the Toronto Danforth resolution, rather than anything that was modified or merged.  Do you feel there was something different that was voted on and passed from the Toronto Danforth resolution?

Policywonk

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

But nobody moved from carriages to cars because someone wrote a "Vegan Manifesto" that proclaimed that enslaving horses was backward and wrong.  The move to cars was obvious.

And governments didn't have to make massive investements in these new "car" technologies to kickstart it, because the move to cars was obvious.  That was the "progress" you're referring to.

Right now, I'm not sure that the jump to tidal-energy powered city transit is that same kind of obvious.  And if it really is just "progress", then parties and politicians shouldn't need to swear blood oaths to it, nor catalyze it with massive injections of munnee.

No, but some people realized that with the growth of cities there would be just too much horse manure if everyone had a horse and buggy.

Policywonk

mark_alfred wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

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)?????

Victims of a bait and switch?  It's interesting that Scott had a write up on Facebook afterword that referred to the resolution as "a combined Toronto-Danforth / Vancouver East resolution".  Yet from what I see, it clearly was only the Toronto-Danforth resolution.  Both the delegate that was there whom I know and the twitter user I referred to earlier who apparently was also there reported the same thing.

I was at the panel where the priority of the Danforth resolution was moved up, the Vancouver East resolution was added and then the wording softened. I think the Alberta people were too busy ensuring there was no anti-pipeline resolution coming to the floor from another panel. Strange, especially since it talked about the north coast, not the south coast.

Well, the wording I saw reported from the delegate I know who was there matched the Toronto Danforth resolution, rather than anything that was modified or merged.  Do you feel there was something different that was voted on and passed from the Toronto Danforth resolution?

I know it was different.

 

mark_alfred

Hmm.  The mystery continues then.  Maybe we do "support and recognize" the LEAP.  Time will tell, I guess.

Unionist

Excuse my critical remark, but what a farce. Even delegates at convention don't know whether or not they voted to "support" the manifesto. But it's good enough to have a fight to the finish between the pro-oil and pro-environment factions.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

May the best fundamentalist win.

NorthReport

The NDP does have a website, out of date as usual - maybe they could publish the recording secretary's minutes of the convention, eh! Smile

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP does have a website, out of date as usual - maybe they could publish the recording secretary's minutes of the convention, eh! Smile

Or at least the text of amended resolutions.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

May the best fundamentalist win.

Do you really think May is a fundamentalist?

Unionist

Policywonk wrote:

Get the actual resolution before you comment further.

Looks as if that might shut me up forever, the way the conversation is going.

NorthReport

As for the NDP, while it didn’t adopt the Leap Manifesto in Edmonton, the party agreed to discuss it at the riding level. 

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/12/the-ndp-takes-a-little-holiday-from-reality/

mark_alfred

I found the video of when the resolution was presented (on CPAC).

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/cpac-special/episodes/47338099

It begins at 10:45 of the video.  This is the motion that was read out:

Quote:

Therefore be it resolved the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that speaks to 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 and all parts of Canada, but the goal of transforming our country according to the vision of the manifesto is harmony with the core beliefs and tradition of NDP.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER 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 in the lead up to 2018.

It's similar to what was in the letter that Scott sent out, but a few words were different.  While it still has the "recognizes and supports" line, it changed "high-level statement of principles that is in line with the aspirations, history, and values of the party" to "high-level statement of principles that speaks to the aspirations, history, and values of the party."  Significant difference, I feel.

Odd that some delegates were under the impression that the resolution was the same as the Toronto-Danforth resolution.  Did they also hand out a printed copy of the resolutions?  Because if they did, and if some thought it was the same resolution as the Toronto-Danforth 2-05-16 resolution, then that's kinda fucked.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I guess this answers the other question. Why doesn't the party follow convention policy? Apparently because no body knows WTF was passed.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:
...That is because we are still relying too much on oil. If all the government subsidies going to the oil industry went to green industries the jobs would appear. Even if they didn't, that doesn't mean we should build pipelines until we can figure out something else for oil workers to do....

Unfortunately the subsidies that everyone is referring to is not cash money. As pointed out by the IMF the largest part of the 'subsidies' are things like the cost of traffic congestion. There are subsidies in foregone revenues, which could be used, but of course if the oil companies no longer produce, they are no more 'foregone' revenues either. People are fond of talking about the oil industry subsidies as though it's cash the government is handing them, and if we just took that money we could turn it to green purpose. That is not what's happeing.

NDPP

Video Raises Question Whether Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Principal Secretary Supports LEAP Manifesto

http://www.straight.com/blogra/675976/video-begs-question-whether-prime-...

Of course that was then and this is now...

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

radiorahim wrote:

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.

While there are opponents of fossil fuels (and other environmentally destructive industries) who have a callous disregard for what happens to dislocated workers, Kropotkin1951 is clearly not one of them.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:
...That is because we are still relying too much on oil. If all the government subsidies going to the oil industry went to green industries the jobs would appear. Even if they didn't, that doesn't mean we should build pipelines until we can figure out something else for oil workers to do....

Unfortunately the subsidies that everyone is referring to is not cash money. As pointed out by the IMF the largest part of the 'subsidies' are things like the cost of traffic congestion. There are subsidies in foregone revenues, which could be used, but of course if the oil companies no longer produce, they are no more 'foregone' revenues either. People are fond of talking about the oil industry subsidies as though it's cash the government is handing them, and if we just took that money we could turn it to green purpose. That is not what's happeing.

Brad Wall is asking Trudeau for money to close down and clean up dead wells while the oil companies are sitting on piles of money.

mark_alfred

This probably isn't important.  But stuff like this does drive me crazy sometimes.  So, I pursue it.

I checked out the CPAC video, and found stuff that contradicted what the riding association delegate reported to me.  So, I wrote her about it:

Quote:
Hi MB. I mentioned this to some other politicos on another social media space, and received some different feedback. So, I checked the CPAC website, and found a video of when the resolution was presented. See link below. At 10:45 of the video is where the resolution is presented at the convention. It (verbally anyway) is not the resolution that you reported above as being presented. It is more akin to the resolution that Craig Scott had sent out in his letter. There are a few significant differences from his letter, though, the main one being that Craig (I assume) changed the line "of principles that is in line with" to "of principles that speaks to". I think this may be okay with me, but I'll have to sleep on it to be sure (the "in line with" version was certainly problematic to me). But, your reporting of the resolution was completely different from what was evident audibly in the reading of the resolution from the video. So, did you receive a different printed version of the resolution? I also saw a delegate who reported passed resolutions (in detail, with photos) on Twitter who echoed what you reported here (that being @hoverbeaver). So, I don't doubt you at all. But, it does make me think that something was procedurally wrong with how this resolution was handled, in that maybe what was presented in print was quite different from what was presented audibly. http://www.cpac.ca/.../pro.../cpac-special/episodes/47338099

ETA:  I heard back from her. 

Quote:
The video from the debate would be the most accurate. Many resolutions were amended. I had assumed the one I copied from our digital version would be up to date, but apparently not. Sorry for that.

josh

The document begins from the assumption that climate change poses a grave threat to the future of the world.

This might have been a radical position once. It is not now. Politicians, including those running Canada's federal and provincial governments, accept it.

So do virtually all climate scientists.

In December, the world's governments declared in Paris that unless fossil fuel emissions are reduced to zero by the latter half of this century, climate change will result in catastrophic damage — including flooding, famine and massive population displacement.

The authors of the Leap Manifesto agree. They argue that Canada's carbon emissions can be reduced to zero by 2050. 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/13/middle-of-the-road-leap-ma...

 

NorthReport

You can have the best ideas in the world but if you don't do your homework ahead of time, like lobbying, etc. you make it much harder to sell than it needs to be. The fact that the most successful NDP politician in Canada expressed serious concerns appears to be a major blunder in communications. The perception now is that Canada has 2 Green parties which must delight the Liberals.

mark_alfred

ETA:  Below is incorrect.  What is below is what was listed in the documents as the resolution (digital documents, I think).  But the actual wording of the resolution that was read out to people was different.  It was a combination of the resolution below along with a resolution from Vancouver East.  See post #124 for a link to the video of the convention when the resolution was read out (I also did a transcript based on this).

 

Okay, I just confirmed it with my riding association delegate.  And yes, there was no sign of the Vancouver East resolution -- so the prelude was not a part of it.  It was solely the Toronto Danforth resolution.  So, this is the actual resolution that was passed:

confirmed:  the actual resolution for real this time wrote:
2-05-16 LEAP MANIFESTO
Toronto-Danforth
WHEREAS the Leap Manifesto, already endorsed by tens of thousands of Canadians, proposes a model of climate justice;
WHEREAS social, environmental and economic issues are intertwined;
WHEREAS private sector actions and unenforceable international declarations have failed to reduce dependence on fossil fuels;
WHEREAS democratically shared resources, respect for indigenous rights, rebuilding of the public sphere, expansion of public transit, affordable green-engineered housing, and universal social services are needed to counter dependence on non-renewable resources;
WHEREAS democratic control of non-renewable power sources is essential to foster an economy that places human need above profit;
WHEREAS the Leap Manifesto provides an overarching narrative and goals that can inspire a vision for the NDP to join forces with the climate justice and other social movements;
WHEREAS it is centrally important that the NDP be perceived as a key vehicle for lessening income inequality, providing well-paying green jobs, and addressing the climate disaster that faces us;
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.

Okay, so that's not a problem.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Maybe the New Democratic Party should forget about power and go back to its long tradition of acting as the conscience of the country. It should come to terms with the fact that its surprise leap to official opposition in the 2011 federal election was a fluke that will not repeat itself.

If a renewed Liberal Party with an attractive young leader in tune with the times had not been in its way, it would have been a different story for the NDP last October. After having wisely moved his New Democrats into the mainstream, Tom Mulcair might have beaten Stephen Harper and be our prime minister today. But now, the centre left is entirely occupied by the Trudeau Liberals, and chances are they will be ensconced in government for years to come. The political spectrum has no place for the NDP, except at the far left.

Moreover, delegates at the party’s convention in Edmonton last weekend embraced the Leap Manifesto, a document that would make the NDP unelectable if it becomes party policy. But instead of rejecting it as a utopian and bombastic rant, they voted to study it at the grassroots level during the months preceding a leadership convention.

This in itself shows that the New Democrats – at least a sizable portion of them – are more interested in ideology than in governing. They will be happy to go back to their former marginal status, when they would remake the world on paper and lecture the masses from the moral high ground without having to deal with the messy job of doing politics in the real world.

At worst, the NDP will gradually fall into irrelevance. At best, it will endorse the useful role of a watchdog over the Trudeau government. It will keep the Liberals on their toes (as Bernie Sanders has done so successfully with Hillary Clinton, who has moved toward more progressive positions under pressure from the Vermont senator).

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/for-the-ndp-the-only-place-now-is...

NorthReport
NorthReport

“The Leap Manifesto includes many important points that we agree with,” Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, told the convention.

“However, in politics, sometimes things become symbols and not policy . . . do not add a millstone around the neck of our leader here in Alberta.”

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/10/leap-manifesto-now-an-ndp-...

NorthReport
NorthReport

Worth reading.

 

Avi Lewis on the ‘ideological battle’ over the Leap Manifesto

Avi Lewis on the climate crisis, Naomi Klein, and how he didn’t mean to ‘blow up the NDP convention’

 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/avi-lewis-on-the-ideological-battle-o...

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Maybe the New Democratic Party should forget about power and go back to its long tradition of acting as the conscience of the country. It should come to terms with the fact that its surprise leap to official opposition in the 2011 federal election was a fluke that will not repeat itself.

If a renewed Liberal Party with an attractive young leader in tune with the times had not been in its way, it would have been a different story for the NDP last October. After having wisely moved his New Democrats into the mainstream, Tom Mulcair might have beaten Stephen Harper and be our prime minister today. But now, the centre left is entirely occupied by the Trudeau Liberals, and chances are they will be ensconced in government for years to come. The political spectrum has no place for the NDP, except at the far left.

Moreover, delegates at the party’s convention in Edmonton last weekend embraced the Leap Manifesto, a document that would make the NDP unelectable if it becomes party policy. But instead of rejecting it as a utopian and bombastic rant, they voted to study it at the grassroots level during the months preceding a leadership convention.

This in itself shows that the New Democrats – at least a sizable portion of them – are more interested in ideology than in governing. They will be happy to go back to their former marginal status, when they would remake the world on paper and lecture the masses from the moral high ground without having to deal with the messy job of doing politics in the real world.

At worst, the NDP will gradually fall into irrelevance. At best, it will endorse the useful role of a watchdog over the Trudeau government. It will keep the Liberals on their toes (as Bernie Sanders has done so successfully with Hillary Clinton, who has moved toward more progressive positions under pressure from the Vermont senator).

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/for-the-ndp-the-only-place-now-is...

 

Typical tut-tutting from the political media chattering class.  And from someone who probably didn't bother to read either the manifesto or the resolution.  And is there never just a left with these folks.  It's always far left.  And since when is Alexandre Boulerice a moderate. She's not only hung up on terminology, she gets it wrong.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks RevPesky for that viewpoint. To summarize we are going to hell in a hand basket and there is nothing that can be done to change that fact so why even try.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:
...That is because we are still relying too much on oil. If all the government subsidies going to the oil industry went to green industries the jobs would appear. Even if they didn't, that doesn't mean we should build pipelines until we can figure out something else for oil workers to do....

Unfortunately the subsidies that everyone is referring to is not cash money. As pointed out by the IMF the largest part of the 'subsidies' are things like the cost of traffic congestion. There are subsidies in foregone revenues, which could be used, but of course if the oil companies no longer produce, they are no more 'foregone' revenues either. People are fond of talking about the oil industry subsidies as though it's cash the government is handing them, and if we just took that money we could turn it to green purpose. That is not what's happeing.

Brad Wall is asking Trudeau for money to close down and clean up dead wells while the oil companies are sitting on piles of money.

Okay, but asking oil companies to clean up old wells won't give any money to green projects. You could, of course, just confiscate whatever piles of money they have kicking around, but you can only do that once.

You can see the inherent problem with taxing oil companies, and raising carbon taxes, to create green jobs, right? If people use less fossil fuel, the amount of those taxes is reduced. As people use less and less fossil fuel, unless the carbon taxes are raised incrementally that money will disappear.

It's great, we've got fossil fuels to disappear, but now what? The green economy requires money inputs, and where is that to come from. The oil industry is gone, and so are the 'subsidies', and the royalties, and the tax money collected from the industry. Now the green economy has to stand on it's own. You might notice, at this point, that the green dreams of the Leap Manifesto, and many other 'green economy' plans are based on money coming from the fossil fuel sector.

The reasons for that are various, including the fact that no one likes a tax cheating company, especially one that despoils the landscape, then runs off with the profits, leaving their dead wells for us to clean up. But the biggest single reason all the green schemes are funded by carbon taxes and other moneys from the oil industry is that the green economy cannot stand on it's own. Unless there is some major change in the laws of physics, or in the green technology, the green economy can't create enough energy to replace itself.

If it were true that the green economy could be just as productive as the fossil fuel economy, there wouldn't be any poverty in this world. After all, if we could live at current levels of consumption with a green economy, why couldn't everyone? Who could we sell our oil to?

The basic factor underlying our economy is something called EROEI, or Energy Returned On Energy Invested. To build an industrial economy requires a pretty high ratio, and fossil fuels provide that. In the early days of fossil fuel production the ratio was something like 100:1. As time as gone on the ratio has dropped, but it is still high enough to maintain existing consumption levels.

The simple fact is, the green economy cannot sustain us in the style to which we've grown accustomed. I think people are willing to accept that, but they have to be approached honestly. Green economy types. with their message that we can just switch over, and it will all be paid for by the oil industry, are not being honest. I think most people see that, even if they don't get the details.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

You can have the best ideas in the world but if you don't do your homework ahead of time, like lobbying, etc. you make it much harder to sell than it needs to be. The fact that the most successful NDP politician in Canada expressed serious concerns appears to be a major blunder in communications. The perception now is that Canada has 2 Green parties which must delight the Liberals.

Yeah.  I think it will make it much harder for the NDP to argue social license and better environmental assessments for non-renewable resource projects since the NDP will be opposing them regardless.  It's no small co-incidence that this news item, Trudeau convinced that pipeline strategy must be top priority, came out a day after the NDP declared it "recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto".

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Worth reading.

 

Avi Lewis on the ‘ideological battle’ over the Leap Manifesto

Avi Lewis on the climate crisis, Naomi Klein, and how he didn’t mean to ‘blow up the NDP convention’

 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/avi-lewis-on-the-ideological-battle-o...

Wow, thanks for that, NR! Avi Lewis just joined my pantheon of heroes. And I'm heading over to the "collective leadership" thread to quote him!

josh

The PR was bad; I'll concede that.  But this didn't pop up overnight.  It was known for weeks that Leap would be a focal point of the convention.  So the communications question runs both ways.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..who here didn’t believe that the ndp needed a major shakeup? at least now the debate re change will take place at a grassroots level. this means the discussion will be more democratic. more participitory. this is a good thing if it's allowed to proceed.

Rev Pesky

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks RevPesky for that viewpoint. To summarize we are going to hell in a hand basket and there is nothing that can be done to change that fact so why even try.

I disagree. I will quote some of my post:

Quote:
I think people are willing to accept that, but they have to be approached honestly.

I do believe that. But that 'honesty' is the key. Without that you're right, we're not going anywhere.

Well, I'll qualify that a bit by saying that eventually the matter will be out of our hands. Everything in this universe is finite, and that includes the oil supply on earth. The limits of the oil supply have been obscured a bit because of new technology, but they're still there. Just think of the oil supply as an extremely low interest rate savings account. Whether you draw the money out slowly or quickly doesn't change the amount left. If you draw it out quickly, you can feel richer than you are, but for a shorter time. That is what all the fracking and whatnot has done. At some point, the money in the account will be gone, and the oil in the ground will be gone (or unrecoverable). So some day we're going to have to deal with no fossil fuel, no matter what. It would be good to be prepared for that day.

Back here on earth the problem is no one really knows what a 'post-carbon' economy will look like. All I know for sure is that when I look around the world I see the countries that consume the least amount of oil are for the most part also the poorest. My argument about the green economy is based on what my eyes tell me. As Avi Lewis had it, the Leap Manifesto was a 'jobs plan'. Well, when I look at a country like Cuba, which is not a capitalist country, and I think to myself, 'why are they so poor if all that's required are those sefl-sustaining green jobs'. I'm sorry  but it just doesn't add up, and I think the average citizen understands that, although probably more instinctively than mathematically.

So no, we don't have to give up, but there has to be a great deal more honesty about how it's all going to work. On this site there is a thread titled "Bye, Bye General Motors, Welcome Tesla ". The assumption expressed is that electric cars will replace fossil fuel powered cars, and the world will be green again. But electric cars require as much of an industrial infrastructure as 'gas powered'. And they use pretty much the same amount of resources in manufacture. I checked out how much a Tesla Model S weighs, and it just over 2 tons, which is very similar to gasoline powered cars of the same size. And it uses non-recyclable batteries which, as any laptop owner can tell you, only operate at spec when they're brand new. It doesn't take long and that 4 hours of operation time on the battery starts to degrade. Then there's all the highways and bridges, etc., that electric cars require the same as gasoline fuelled.

So my question is are electric cars really green? I don't think so. I think they're every bit as brown as gasoline cars.

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Well, when I look at a country like Cuba, which is not a capitalist country, and I think to myself, 'why are they so poor if all that's required are those sefl-sustaining green jobs'. I'm sorry  but it just doesn't add up, and I think the average citizen understands that, although probably more instinctively than mathematically.

Try comparing Cubans to Haitians and get back to me about how great capitalism is for Caribbean countries. Hell compare them to most inner city American cites like Flint. Go farther afield and compare them to the grinding poverty in India.

If you think you are a progressive on issues I think you are deluding yourself.

Start with literacy rates. Haiti is 60.7% Cuba is 99.7%. India is 72.1% Life expectancy Canada is 82 and tied for 9th, Cuba is 78 years and tied for 38th, India is 66 and tied for 144th Haiti is 63 and tied for 155th. I guess that shows the direct benefit of a capitalist system in third world countries.

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..who here didn’t believe that the ndp needed a major shakeup? at least now the debate re change will take place at a grassroots level. this means the discussion will be more democratic. more participitory. this is a good thing if it's allowed to proceed.

There will be no democratic or participatory debate. There is no vehicle, no culture, no mechanism for such a mass discussion to take place. It's meaningless. Even existing bodies, empowered by the constitution, are subverted or ignored. Convention decisions are violated or just buried by the Party managers. The Leader and the caucus make policy decisions, where only convention and National Council are mandated to do so. The party is atrophied, which is why no one protests against the de facto dictatorship.

There will be, and is, lots of discussion and debate about change. But you can bet it's not happening, nor will it happen, in riding associations.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Unionist wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..who here didn’t believe that the ndp needed a major shakeup? at least now the debate re change will take place at a grassroots level. this means the discussion will be more democratic. more participitory. this is a good thing if it's allowed to proceed.

There will be no democratic or participatory debate. There is no vehicle, no culture, no mechanism for such a mass discussion to take place. It's meaningless. Even existing bodies, empowered by the constitution, are subverted or ignored. Convention decisions are violated or just buried by the Party managers. The Leader and the caucus make policy decisions, where only convention and National Council are mandated to do so. The party is atrophied, which is why no one protests against the de facto dictatorship.

There will be, and is, lots of discussion and debate about change. But you can bet it's not happening, nor will it happen, in riding associations.

..your post has shaken me. i was partialy influenced by the ousting of mulcair in those numbers and the discussions re the leap. txs for the reality check.

NorthReport

NDP bosses are afraid of technology and you can see it in everything they do. Take the website. Look at it now - 3 days after the convention. Maybe the webmaster died or something. It's a disaster, and has been a disaster since its inception. It is certainly not designed for the general membership, the supporters of the party. They must be afraid of the membership too.

josh wrote:

The PR was bad; I'll concede that.  But this didn't pop up overnight.  It was known for weeks that Leap would be a focal point of the convention.  So the communications question runs both ways.

Pages