Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of economy

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't really care what you do or don't think about politics or whether you pay attention... just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of your position.

You don't understand, and that's OK. What goes around...comes around.

[Black Dog]

I think this manifesto furthers the calls by both Tories and the Liberals (hell maybe even the Greens) that NDP is nothing but a grouping of rent-seeker socialists.........it just ended a decades work of both Layton and Mulcair.

Wishful thinker is wishful.

[Derek 2.0]

For the supporter of a party that ran back to back to back to back to back to back deficits and saw the country into a second recession, don't suddenly pretend like you're concerned about how to pay for stuff.

You bet, and during the previous Tory deficits, the Government never promised to run on a balanced budget, well adding billions in permanent social spending..........I'll give Trudeau credit, he at least says he'll go into deficit.

[Derek 2.0]

This is supposed to come on Thursday, according to the same CTV story.

Perfect, I'm sure millions, like myself, await with bated breath.

[Argus]

I see no need to walk anything back. That Niaomi Klien and a bunch of others - some of whom are prominent NDP supporters - issue a manifesto on How Things Should Work somehow CHAINS the NDP to implementation of that manifesto is bullshit.

But I do support the Manifesto.

The Ontario government has managed to get its renewable power generation up to about something near 6% and it had to nearly double the cost of electrcity to do it.

Trying to go to 100% in a short period of time would bankrupt the country and destroy the NDP as an actual party. It would lose every seat in every legislature due to unaffordable power, the sky high unemployment and huge deficits. NDP Mps would need bodyguards to keep people from physically attacking them on the streets.

[Argus]

I think the bigger story is that the CPC and its supporters see any attempt to move away from a reliance on fossil fuels is radical.

No, I think it's that they're pragmatic and the authors and signators of this idiotic manifesto have no concept of, or interest in reality.

[Argus]

Jerry Bance was at least an actual Tory candidate. None of these people are NDP candidates or part of the NDP caucus. I've actually only ever read critical things about the NDP from Naomi Klein. A few of them are important supporters - mainly the Lewises and the union leaders - and KIS at least makes some reasonable points about how this might put Mulcair in a delicate position tactically. Anyone who presents this as the NDP's platform or agenda is being either ignorant or manipulative, though.

The thing is this isn't really at all far removed from the NDPs policy manual, which is full of stuff like it. That's why Mulcair had it taken down. It would unquestionably have a lot of support among the NDP caucus, especially the Quebec wing, which is even further to the left than the rest. The only reason their candidates and MPs haven't signed is is Mulciair has clamped down on any independant voices prior to the election.

But after the election, you can be damn sure that the Left wing of the NDP is going to demand it's views be heard and the policy reflects them.

[Peter F]

The Ontario government has managed to get its renewable power generation up to about something near 6% and it had to nearly double the cost of electrcity to do it.

Trying to go to 100% in a short period of time would bankrupt the country and destroy the NDP as an actual party. It would lose every seat in every legislature due to unaffordable power, the sky high unemployment and huge deficits. NDP Mps would need bodyguards to keep people from physically attacking them on the streets.

But the Sinkhole, Argus. What about the Sinkhole?

[Argus]

But the Sinkhole, Argus. What about the Sinkhole?

I don't get the reference unless it's to Ontario's economy under the Liberals.

[Black Dog]

The thing is this isn't really at all far removed from the NDPs policy manual, which is full of stuff like it. That's why Mulcair had it taken down. It would unquestionably have a lot of support among the NDP caucus, especially the Quebec wing, which is even further to the left than the rest. The only reason their candidates and MPs haven't signed is is Mulciair has clamped down on any independant voices prior to the election.

But after the election, you can be damn sure that the Left wing of the NDP is going to demand it's views be heard and the policy reflects them.

You mean just like the CPC gave free rein to the SoCons and Christian fundamentalists in their ranks when they took power?

[Evening Star]

The thing is this isn't really at all far removed from the NDPs policy manual, which is full of stuff like it. That's why Mulcair had it taken down. It would unquestionably have a lot of support among the NDP caucus, especially the Quebec wing, which is even further to the left than the rest. The only reason their candidates and MPs haven't signed is is Mulciair has clamped down on any independant voices prior to the election.

But after the election, you can be damn sure that the Left wing of the NDP is going to demand it's views be heard and the policy reflects them.

If you want to argue against the NDP's policy book, or the way the party removed it from the website, or against what seems like an increasingly top-down structure within the NDP, those are all fair points to argue. We could even talk about whether this manifesto contains good ideas or not. It just doesn't seem that fair to make arguments about the NDP based on a non-partisan manifesto that was not written or signed by NDP candidates or leaders.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Evening Star

[Argus]

You mean just like the CPC gave free rein to the SoCons and Christian fundamentalists in their ranks when they took power?

But... but... but... you're all claiming Harper is an evil, autocratic control freak who ignores what everyone else wants and that's why he needs to go!

Surely you're not telling me Mulcair is exactly the same!!

Edited September 16, 2015 by Argus

[Bryan]

Considering the policies are costed over years and the Tories managed to scrape up a $2 Billion surplus this year, despite torching revenues, that should give you a clue.

Government revenue are up.

[BubberMiley]

But... but... but... you're all claiming Harper is an evil, autocratic control freak who ignores what everyone else wants and that's why he needs to go!

Surely you're not telling me Mulcair is exactly the same!!

No, I don't think he is.

[cybercoma]

Government revenue are up.

As a proportion of GDP, government revenues have dropped 30%.

Edit: Link http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/tax-revenue-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[69cat]

For the supporter of a party that ran back to back to back to back to back to back deficits and saw the country into a second recession, don't suddenly pretend like you're concerned about how to pay for stuff.

If you understand the deficit spending so much better than an informed "non-anti harper" voter then read in depth the thread "one of the reasons i wont be voting Harper - economic record" it got very quite there once a bunch of truths were laid out to the lefties. The deficits are addressed there but i am sure you can find away to explain that the ndp and libs NEVER voted against the balanced budgets tabled by Harper thus triggering the 2011 election. The left hates to admit they demanded the deficits to be run. But they LOVE to bring it up now. Read more and learn more before posting things like this.

[cybercoma]

Sorry, but the left wasn't running the country at the time. The buck stops with the finance minister and the prime minister. Harper had blown through the surplus before the 2008 recession even hit and the opposition criticized him for it then. Your whining about Harper not being in control of anything seems to be a common refrain from Conservatives any time Harper should take responsibility for something. It's either out of his control, his hands were tied, or he didn't know what was going on. But I like that. Keep painting that picture of Harper as being so weak and pathetic that he doesn't know what's going on or the opposition parties "bullied" him. If sad, pathetic leadership is what you want to portray. You're doing it well.

[69cat]

So lets be clear cybercoma, you are saying in a very long winded reply the " ndp and liberals did not vote against harper balanced budgets at any time".

Give a simple answer, yes they voted against or no this never happened

[cybercoma]

If the Liberals and NDP voted against a budget, it would have forced an election.

[Black Dog]

But... but... but... you're all claiming Harper is an evil, autocratic control freak who ignores what everyone else wants and that's why he needs to go!

Surely you're not telling me Mulcair is exactly the same!!

I don't think I ever said anything of the sort. You, on the other hand, want to have your cake and eat it too.

[Smallc]

As a proportion of GDP, government revenues have dropped 30%.

Edit: Link http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/tax-revenue-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

Tax cuts will do that.

[drummindiver]

The manifesto's opening salvo:

"We could live in a country powered entirely by truly just renewable energy, woven together by accessible public transit, in which the jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality. Caring for one another and caring for the planet could be the economy’s fastest growing sectors. Many more people could have higher wage jobs with fewer work hours, leaving us ample time to enjoy our loved ones and flourish in our communities."

The reality is, won't happen

Ontario tried. Guess what? Not sustainable, incredibly expensive, and very, very few permanent good paying jobs.

And let's not forget Naomi Klein wants to "tear up, the free market play book. And we need to do it yesterday"

"82% of wind generator subsidies goes to foreign, out of province, or multi national companies"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-cuts-back-on-green-energy-deal/article12718627/

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/labour-war-green-energy-and-foreign-workers/

http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/corporate-welfare-ontario-goes-green.pdf

[Springer]

Peter Foster shreds this "manifesto" for, IMHO, the quasi-communist tripe that it is...

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/peter-foster-naomi-kleins-great-leap-backwards

It illustrates, in spades, the dripping hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd, few, if any, of whom would diminish their own relatively lavish lifestyles. It's arguably the ugliest form of elitism that preaches the righteousness of austerity to the ignorant masses that they themselves have no intention of indulging in their own lives, and indeed enjoy to the hilt the advantages their own accumulated wealth provides. Which is to say, they sense no threat from their prescribed ideology to their own status, for they are above and beyond its reach. And the fact that the same capitalism/free enterprise they rail against, is exactly what affords them their own wealth and status, and thus protection from their own idealistic, utopian drivel, completely escapes them.

Spend just a few minutes with Google, and search out the homes of the likes of Damon, Fonda, Gore, Decaprio, etc., etc., etc., to see how each of them exemplify austerity. Suzuki, a multi-millionaire, has three homes, including "... a sprawling mansion in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver, worth approximately $8.2 million".

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/10/10/david-suzuki-a-man-of-property

As much as anything else, this astonishingly shameless and hypocritical double standard exemplified by far too many of the Bible of AGW/Climate Change Thumpers' Society, serves up cause to stand back and question their motives, their ideological premises, and their assertions.

As the old adage puts it: Follow the money.

One of the most singularly informative books I have ever read is, "The Rational Optimist", by Matt Ridley. This should be required reading before every student leaves high school! For it dispels, brilliantly, so much nonsense about how the world arrived at this moment in time, and sheds boundless light upon the evolution of economics, trade, societal interdependence and interaction, and specialization of skills that drives such.

And, on the matter of AGW, I offer this fascinating interview with Freeman Dyson, now in his 90s, and acknowledged as one of the great scientific minds of the 20th century. He wonderfully demonstrates in his own demeanor and words, the fine line between brilliance and common sense.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Springer

[cybercoma]

Peter Foster shreds this "manifesto" for the quasi-communist tripe that it is...

Then Peter Foster is as smart as the aforementioned box of bricks, since he clearly doesn't know what communism is. What is communist about a sustainable and diversified economy? Explain that to me in your own words. Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[Springer]

Here's a novel idea, cybercoma...

Try reading the stuff first.

Then you might have at least half a clue about something before beaking off.

And just for clarity, I've edited and inserted "IMHO" in the first line...albeit the article implies pretty much the same conclusion.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Springer