Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of economy

Queenmandy85 · September 16, 2015

Post deleted. Computer problem.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Queenmandy85

69cat · September 16, 2015

Geez, tough room here Springer - good luck. Looks to play out as usual. Al Gore and David Suzuki being experts because they have read things. Yeah, heard it all before. I look out my window and question things but hey, i should just blindly beleive.

ToadBrother · September 16, 2015

You mean like Doctor David Suzuki, whose PHD is in Zoology, explaining climate science to us?

Perhaps you would be good enough to provide citations to the peer-reviewed literature that Suzuki has published on climatology.

Springer · September 16, 2015

69cat...

Do take a break to watch the Suzuki interview. Shocking hardly describes it! Scientists in the audience were too obviously dumbfounded by what they were hearing from this supposed icon of their profession.

ToadBrother · September 16, 2015

Classic fallacious appeal to authority.

I assume that excludes the likes of, hmmm, let me see now...

Al Gore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore Your guess as to his field of scientific expertise is as good as mine, I suppose.

David Suzuki? Geneticist?

James Hansen? The guy who told the world circa 1978 that the Ice Age cometh, stock your larders now for the big one! The same guy who told us a mere handful of years ago that the world would be fried to a crisp by now? Now there's an "authority" to behold, ya think?

Jane Fonda? Neil Young? Can I toss in Bozo the Clown, you know, just because?

Hey, just for the sake of comparison, if not just some ***** and giggles, watch this interview with David Suzuki on Australia's ABC network.

I detest the man's politics and ideological bent, and even I was embarrassed for him...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hKdmQMVJ70

Will this 1970s ice age meme ever die? It's BS, rather like trying to use Piltdown Man to attack evolution.

And I don't care what Neil Young says about climate change. Why do you?

Springer · September 16, 2015

I don't give a damn about what any of those clowns have to say about climate change! Clearly, none of them are qualified...certainly by your own professed standards!

And if you actually took the time to watch the Suzuki interview, you'd know exactly that! Hey, I'm not presenting others' opinion of the guy; I'm providing you the hard, cold evidence straight from his own mouth.

Bryan · September 16, 2015

Tax cuts will do that.

As designed. A smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more money. Even during the so-called recession this spring, govt revenues continued to increase even as GDP contracted.

Smallc · September 16, 2015

As designed. A smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more money. Even during the so-called recession this spring, govt revenues continued to increase even as GDP contracted.

I know, and that's a good thing. I just wish the cuts had been a bit better targeted.

cybercoma · September 16, 2015

Oh yeah. Great thing. Slash revenues. Then freeze departmental spending and have them return $8.9 billion of budgeted money back on top of that. Great leadership.

Evening Star · September 16, 2015

I don't give a damn about what any of those clowns have to say about climate change! Clearly, none of them are qualified...certainly by your own professed standards!

Well, what does the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the relevant fields say?

TimG · September 17, 2015

Well, what does the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the relevant fields say?

The peer-reviewed literature says the planet is warming, part of that warming is due to humans and there is a non-zero risk of negative effects in the future. The literature has nothing useful to say about what society should do in response to the identified risks because answering such questions requires an understanding of economics and energy production engineering. The relevant experts in economics are very divided on the topic and a large number of experts in energy production engineering believe that CO2 emissions cannot be meaningfully reduced with the currently available technology (assuming nuclear is not an option). Edited September 17, 2015 by TimG

kimmy · September 17, 2015

If Naomi Klein really thought that launching this during the election campaign was going to help her cause, she's seriously detached from reality.

This does nothing more than stab the NDP in the back, and the NDP are the party most likely to promote progress on the issues she's writing about. She's sabotaged her own agenda. This will only help the Conservatives, which is probably the last thing she wants.

She's completely out of touch with political reality.

She thinks this is a "non partisan document." The political reality is that this group's prominent members have long-standing ties to the NDP and this undermines the NDP effort to be seen as a moderate option and leave behind the public perception of them as ivory tower left-wing utopians.

She thinks this will spark a grass-roots movement to put political pressure on politicians of all stripes to adopt environmentally-minded policies. The political reality is that the environmental cause doesn't have a fraction of the political clout she thinks it does. The last time a Canadian leader tried to wrap himself in green-- Stephane "Moon Unit" Dion and "De Green Shit" platform-- it was a pure unmitigated disaster that handed Stephen Harper a majority government.

She's a twit. She should smack herself upside the head for thinking this was a smart idea. I think she's just too disconnected from the real world to even recognize what a bad idea this was.

-k

69cat · September 17, 2015

I watched it Springer, i had seen the portion on the gmo debate on a farm forum, yeah, we discuss these things and have our views and opinions on monopolies and such and where things are at - have as much and may be more riding on this issue then people have voicing opinions. Suffice it say, Suzuki in this video sums up my opinion very well when he says gmos are bad and then a different aspect of gmo is discussed and he says, oh that is good then.

The typical discussion starts with all gmos are bad, then you get into details of clarifying, classifying and morality and pretty soon it ends with some gmos are good. So, as stated previously, it is best for me to stay out of the discussion. I can dispel some myths and argue some points but best to take a pass on that whole topic.

TimG · September 17, 2015

She's a twit. She should smack herself upside the head for thinking this was a smart idea. I think she's just too disconnected from the real world to even recognize what a bad idea this was.

Except Canadians are generally so fed up with the Conservatives this time around that the NDP has a lock on being at least a partner in coalition. This means Naomi and her fellow travellers will claim that a vote for the NDP/Libs was a vote for their lunatic policy platforms. Mulcair's ability to resist this push from the loony left is the unknown. Edited September 17, 2015 by TimG

Springer · September 17, 2015

The core support of the NDP believe in this nonsense!

Mulcair wins, he doesn't have a hope in hell of running away from half of his party! The unions will have their way in this country like never, ever seen before in our history! The climate change fanatics will think they're in charge of the whole damned economy...just like they're proving to be in Alberta!

He will have no choices on the table but to succumb to the incredible and unrelenting pressure these two elements of the NDP's core support will heap on him.

And out will come the national credit card, and up will go taxes, to pay for it all! The NDP will stick it to industry, to everyone they consider wealthy, to the working stiff that all of it will ultimately fall upon to pick up the tab for.

Corporations will start looking for greener pastures, and more friendly business environments in which profit ain't a four letter word. And those can easily afford it will move their wealth accordingly.

The NDP win this thing, you can stick a fork in Canada's prosperity for the next four years, and then for some years to come after they're kicked the hell out of office to clean up the mess they'll leave behind.

That's the long and the short of it.

69cat · September 17, 2015

My views also Springer. And i voted Chretien once, ndp years ago, cant say if i even voted for Harper first term, probably. But as i learn more this is the same thoughts i have.

Another thing to remember is that once times are better and deficits stop everyone seems to think it will be all OK. No, the national debt is still there and as interest rates rise, and will, that has to be dealt with. We are already saddling our kids with our debt we rack up today. How much debt does everyone plan to pile on their kids to pay on for the next 20 years or more. Yeah, its fine to say lets borrow and spend more as long as it is your kids paying the bill and not you. But lets not consider that when we talk about borrowing more money fof more initiatives and heaven forbid anyone mentions ANY SPENDING CUT, because my kids will be there to deal with that bill so lets not cut now.

Not Yet · September 17, 2015

Really, who can argue with the OP. It all makes good sense.

ReeferMadness · September 17, 2015

If Naomi Klein really thought that launching this during the election campaign was going to help her cause, she's seriously detached from reality.

This does nothing more than stab the NDP in the back, and the NDP are the party most likely to promote progress on the issues she's writing about. She's sabotaged her own agenda. This will only help the Conservatives, which is probably the last thing she wants.

She's completely out of touch with political reality.

She thinks this is a "non partisan document." The political reality is that this group's prominent members have long-standing ties to the NDP and this undermines the NDP effort to be seen as a moderate option and leave behind the public perception of them as ivory tower left-wing utopians.

So, I take it you're from the Kim Campbell school of thought - elections are no time to discuss issues? And you think that it's good for Canada for the NDP to be have policies that are virtually identical to the Liberals?

And clearly, you believe that politics should be a team effort. If you're not on the Harper team, then you must be on the Mulcair team.

kimmy · September 17, 2015

So, I take it you're from the Kim Campbell school of thought - elections are no time to discuss issues? And you think that it's good for Canada for the NDP to be have policies that are virtually identical to the Liberals?

And clearly, you believe that politics should be a team effort. If you're not on the Harper team, then you must be on the Mulcair team.

I think the NDP are the party most likely to balance environmental concerns with practical considerations, as well as the party with the best chance to defeat the Conservatives. That might not be what Naomi would like to happen in her dream world, but in the real world it's the best she's going to get.

Naomi Klein has just handed the NDP's opponents a bucket-load of ammunition to help get the Conservatives into power again. I don't know how you feel about that, but I think most people who care about the environment probably won't be happy.

-k

eyeball · September 17, 2015

The Saudis crushed the price of oil, aimed at directly undermining N. America energy independence, and specifically at the oil sands and shale production, which had its inevitable effect on our economy.

How that somehow becomes Harper's fault remains a mystery to all but those challenged by HDS.

It's no mystery, Harper threatened Saudi energy hegemony by attempting to make Canada an energy super-power, so yeah it's his fault. Suck it up.

Canada_First · September 17, 2015

I'm an avid outdoors man. Our whole family is. Hunting. Fishing. camping. Hiking. Cave exploring. Etc. We abide by the rule of leaving only footprints. Constantly picking up other peoples garbage. PM Harper's environmental policies do worry us a great deal. Especially his destroying our fresh water rights and protections.

While we need to do better by the environment. It needs to be a measured response. A balance between a green economy and a profitable one. As the two are generally not synonymous.

The green wind turbines are a large problem. The big oil companies and Samsung care getting rich with them and only generate 2.5% of the total power generated. People are getting sick from them as well.

ReeferMadness · September 17, 2015

I think the NDP are the party most likely to balance environmental concerns with practical considerations, as well as the party with the best chance to defeat the Conservatives. That might not be what Naomi would like to happen in her dream world, but in the real world it's the best she's going to get.

Naomi Klein has just handed the NDP's opponents a bucket-load of ammunition to help get the Conservatives into power again. I don't know how you feel about that, but I think most people who care about the environment probably won't be happy.

-k

So a team of experts has gone out and studied an issue of great importance. Rather than give their findings to politicians, they've presented them directly to the public. That's called democracy. If you don't recognize it, that's because we see so little of it in this country. How do I feel? I'm elated that we have so many brilliant, creative caring people in Canada who would take that time to do that. At the same time, I'm disappointed that the media are so desperate for a narrative that they've spun this as an attack on the NDP. And I'm really disappointed that people are so distrustful of scientists they will write the manifesto off without even studying it.

Clearly, the people who put their time into this document feel that the half measures that we will get out of the NDP/Liberals (they might as well be one party TBO) aren't going to be enough to forestall some serious consequences. Climate change deniers are like anti-vaxxers, but much more dangerous because there are many more of them. Most people seem to be in this state of denial. They won't actually argue that the science is wrong but they aren't willing to actually do anything about it either.

Finally, I think Mulcair is exactly how he presents himself - a middle of the road politician. He's Canada's Tony Blair (without the charm). Unlike Harper, who is a lunatic right winger who's held himself back because he knew Canada would only stand for so much, Mulcair will hold back his left wing because he fundamentally doesn't agree with them. He might throw them the odd bone (like a few percent raise in corporate tax) but if anyone is looking for Mulcair to save us from climate change, they're going to be sadly disappointed.