Tom Mulcair leadership review

[Hydraboss]

So how many more posts are you going to put up that don't have a single word to do with the thread title? You're the devout NDPer so what are your thoughts on the leadership review and what's going to happen from here? Where's the party going? Where's Muclair going? What's the fallout going to be from the activist-led Manifesto?

I've been posting what I think is going to/should happen. Your turn.

[BC_chick]

What's the driving force behind the BC economy BC chick? Our main export is the ownership of real estate. There's hardly any manufacturing, mining, forestry, agriculture, etc to speak of.

This economy is tied to the real estate boom and beyond that we have a bunch of teachers, hair dressers, nail technicians, and people who work in retail etc.

So Alberta should remain in denial of the future of its dirty oil just because Christy Clark is selling BC to China? I'm not sure what your point is here.

Edited April 13, 2016 by BC_chick

[Argus]

So Alberta should remain in denial of the future of its dirty oil just because Christy Clark is selling BC to China? I'm not sure what your point is here.

What Alberta should e doing is ensuring its oil and gas are sold at the highest prices possible, and putting money away for bad times, as Peter Lougheed started to do before the idiots who followed him spent it all to make themselves look good. As to what else you think they should be doing, such as diversifying their economy, I have little doubt they've been trying to.

[Hydraboss]

...denial of the future of its dirty oil...

Perhaps there's just a touch of future left

at 2006 prices and modern unconventional oil production technology, to be 178 billion barrels (28.3×10⁹ m³),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands

edit-> that's probably even enough to heat at least half of David Suzuki's houses

Edited April 13, 2016 by Hydraboss

[BC_chick]

So how many more posts are you going to put up that don't have a single word to do with the thread title? You're the devout NDPer so what are your thoughts on the leadership review and what's going to happen from here? Where's the party going? Where's Muclair going? What's the fallout going to be from the activist-led Manifesto?

I've been posting what I think is going to/should happen. Your turn.

I think the NDP will do better under with electoral reform but as it stands now, I'm very happy seeing us go back to our lefty roots of keeping other governments in check. It's not about forming a government, it never was.

[Hydraboss]

It's not about forming a government, it never was.

Now THAT I agree with. It's a realistic statement and probably the best thing the party could do would be to accept it. Unlike the Green party and May, the NDP has the ability to actually keep a few MPs in the House to raise issues, but if they continue to try to chase winning the election they will have to move away from extremism. Somehow I doubt the new direction that the party is likely to take will be compatible with accepting that as an either-or proposition.

[waldo]

Perhaps there's just a touch of future left

at 2006 prices and modern unconventional oil production technology, to be 178 billion barrels - https://en.wikipedia...basca_oil_sands

edit-> that's probably even enough to heat at least half of David Suzuki's houses

2016 IEA Oil Market Report forecast: worldwide average demand of nearly 96 million barrels... 35 billion barrels a year --- which, of course, clearly shows BigOil has BigDesigns on more than just that tarsands 10% deposits number that regularly gets trotted out. What business did you say you were in again?

.

[Argus]

I think the NDP will do better under with electoral reform but as it stands now, I'm very happy seeing us go back to our lefty roots of keeping other governments in check. It's not about forming a government, it never was.

So it's just about standing outside glaring in the window and banging your fist against the glass while others govern the country? Not very ambitious of you guys.

[andromeda]

is it derogatory to call those behind the leap manifesto crazy? for one thing it's not economically viable and would completely destroy the Canadian economy. mulcair would be more at home in today's liberal party. what is he sticking around for?

[Argus]

the convention was a real eye opener. the leap manifesto shows how crazy the extremists in the NDP actually are. i'm surprised that mulcair is even hanging around.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

The Leap Manifesto looks something more along the lines of what the great British socialist and essayist George Orwell was on about in The Road to Wigan Pier, in 1937. It is “really disquieting,” Orwell noticed, that wherever socialists gather, one will also find every manner of “fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘nature cure’ quack, pacifist and feminist,” all drawn in as if by some magnetic force.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-meet-the-leapers-the-same-old-cultural-elite-one-percenters

[BC_chick]

So it's just about standing outside glaring in the window and banging your fist against the glass while others govern the country? Not very ambitious of you guys.

'Banging fists against the glass' implies impotency but that's not the case, historically the NDP have helped get lots done from the side lines too.

There is too much corporate interest in politics and those who govern do not necessarily act in the best interest of the the people. Given the NDP's base, we are not prone to the same level of corruption so we are more likely to put value in the interests of the people.

It really comes down to doing the right thing as I'm concerned.

[Big Guy]

I believe Mulcair did his best with what he was dealt. He also did not deserve the way he was treated at the convention. Surly, there must have been somebody in the NDP entourage who had the pulse of the delegates and allow Tom to bow out gracefully.

I believe that Canada needs a three party system separating into left middle and right. I also believe that the NDP will never actually take federal power in Canada. I have looked at the NDP as the conscience of Canadians and yet another check and balance of the government in power.

The greatest asset that the NDP can be to Canadians is as the third party in a minority government. In the past, in a minority government situation, the NDP was able to leverage legislation favoring left political positions. That just serves to strengthen our democracy.

It is unfortunate for the NDP that it looks like a couple of Liberal majorities before the right can reorganize for a serious run at power. Then the NDP will again gain some leverage. Meanwhile, Tom may continue his strong showing during question period but the NDP needs someone of strength to keep this party from separating into two factions: The Leap crowd and those are running to win.

With the NDP in turmoil and the Conservatives trying to find their road, the stage is wide open for JT to do his sunny ways thing. I just hope that he doesn't let it go to his head and starts doing some silly dictatorial things.

[Hydraboss]

2016 IEA Oil Market Report forecast: worldwide average demand of nearly 96 million barrels... 35 billion barrels a year --- which, of course, clearly shows BigOil has BigDesigns on more than just that tarsands 10% deposits number that regularly gets trotted out. What business did you say you were in again?

.

And 36 Bb/yr would be "scary" if Alberta was the only remaining source of oil in the whole world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we are.

Right now, all of Canada produces about 3.6 Mb/d which is roughly 1.3Bb/year - at that rate we only have enough left for about 137 years (of course, that's assuming that every single drop came out of Alberta). Yup...scary. We could be COMPLETELY OUT by 2153. Whatever shall we do???

That should be enough thread drift for this line of conversation.....

Edited April 13, 2016 by Hydraboss

[Argus]

There is too much corporate interest in politics and those who govern do not necessarily act in the best interest of the the people. Given the NDP's base, we are not prone to the same level of corruption so we are more likely to put value in the interests of the people.

It seems to me that right now you're more likely to put ideology before the interests of the people. I don't think the interests of the people are served by destroying the economy in zealous pursuit of a ludicrous policy of reducing local CO2 emissions at any cost.

[BC_chick]

It seems to me that right now you're more likely to put ideology before the interests of the people. I don't think the interests of the people are served by destroying the economy in zealous pursuit of a ludicrous policy of reducing local CO2 emissions at any cost.

Last year 2/3 high level executives in Canada said in a survey that Canada's economy is too dependent on Alberta oil and that we need to diversify.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/c-suite-urges-canada-to-diversify-beyond-natural-resources/article25049883/

These people are certainly not left-wing ideologues but they recognize that the current situation is not sustainable. You are using circular logic when you say we should continue to stay addicted to Alberta oil because the economy is ruined if we don't.

The ideas behind LEAP are very sound even if the timelines are too ambitious.

[Topaz]

What does this forum think of Jack Layton son running for leadership?

[Argus]

Last year 2/3 high level executives in Canada said in a survey that Canada's economy is too dependent on Alberta oil and that we need to diversify.

Everyone knows that Canada has been and remains dependent on its natural resources sector. That's been the case for decades. But moving beyond that is very easy to say and very hard to do.

Manufacturing is either labour intensive, and thus too expensive, or capital intensive in the need for lots of highly automated machines. Canada has few large companies to make use of such machines, and what we have are either owned abroad or are dependent on sales abroad. The problem is not new.

As to LEAP addressing this, it does not. It does not even come close. It just says no more oil or gas, no more pipelines, and let's tax the hell out of those evil money gouging corporations. Oh, and and let's build up our social worker 'industry'.

These people are certainly not left-wing ideologues but they recognize that the current situation is not sustainable. You are using circular logic when you say we should continue to stay addicted to Alberta oil because the economy is ruined if we don't.

The ideas behind LEAP are very sound even if the timelines are too ambitious.

The ideas are rainbows and unicorns, and utterly unfeasible.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Argus

[WestCanMan]

So Alberta should remain in denial of the future of its dirty oil just because Christy Clark is selling BC to China? I'm not sure what your point is here.

Glass houses, stones..?

What's your plan? Stop driving and stop using everything that's made of petroleum products? Buy all of our oil from the Saudis?

[waldo]

And 36 Bb/yr would be "scary" if Alberta was the only remaining source of oil in the whole world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we are.

Right now, all of Canada produces about 3.6 Mb/d which is roughly 1.3Bb/year - at that rate we only have enough left for about 137 years (of course, that's assuming that every single drop came out of Alberta). Yup...scary. We could be COMPLETELY OUT by 2153. Whatever shall we do???

That should be enough thread drift for this line of conversation.....

drift? If sustainable development has been... and remains one of the mainstays of NDP policy positioning... one would expect some number of NDP leadership candidates to hold to it. You trotted out a number that presumes to speak to feasibly recoverable tarsands deposits (that 10% of total deposits figure) and I offered you perspective on current forecasts for global usage (barrels/year). If, as you say, there's so much out there, and that tarsands number pales so insignificantly in comparison, why all the BigOil focus on mega-project tarsands developments and pipelinePalooza... intended to most certainly go well beyond that 10% talking point number... intended to most certainly keep dependency on fossil-fuels for as long as possible. Of course, your 'ilk' scoffs at the very word 'sustainable', right?

.

[G Huxley]

Let's hope that whoever the new leader is that they don't commit the same crime that Mulcair and Layton made, which was to try to get the Greens out of the debates. As long as the NDP leadership continues such shennanigans the New Party might as well take the word Democratic out of their name, because the public can see right through it.

[Hydraboss]

If sustainable development has been... and remains one of the mainstays of NDP policy positioning... one would expect some number of NDP leadership candidates to hold to it.

I agree completely, but I think the difference may be in what different people consider "sustainable development". The NDP obviously believe that the word means O&G development should be killed off. The definition I like is "Sustainable development is about meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations" not "keeping it in the ground because it's evil". Simpler definition: "keep extracting at a stable rate so my kids generation can continue to extract at a stable rate".

why all the BigOil focus on mega-project tarsands developments and pipelinePalooza...

Because there's a couple trillion barrels of oil....and they don't have to hunt for it. They know exactly where it is and how to get it without any form of wildcatting. The whole oilsands is a great big known.

intended to most certainly keep dependency on fossil-fuels for as long as possible.

Uhm...ya. O&G creates jobs and lots and lots of income for everyone involved and pays for everyone's nanny programs. I happen to like money very much. It allows me to buy pretty things that are on two and four wheels. And really good donuts. And beer.

Of course, your 'ilk' scoffs at the very word 'sustainable', right?

If sustainable means "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level", then I happen to be in favor of it. I don't often scoff, but when I do I prefer to do it at the use of the word "ilk".

[jacee]

I agree completely, but I think the difference may be in what different people consider "sustainable development". The NDP obviously believe that the word means O&G development should be killed off. The definition I like is "Sustainable development is about meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations" not "keeping it in the ground because it's evil". Simpler definition: "keep extracting at a stable rate so my kids generation can continue to extract at a stable rate".

Define "stable":

Continuing to increase in Alberta?

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/18F3BB9C-43A1-491E-9835-76C8DB9DDFA3/GreenhouseGasEmissions_Prov_EN.gif

Canada continuing to have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world?

http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/per_capita_emissions.png

Would you achieve Harper's targets?

Harpers immediate target was to reduce Canadas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

http://m.torontosun.com/2016/04/10/straight-talk-on-climate-change

.

Edited April 17, 2016 by jacee