CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Ron_Jeremy posted:

Hells yeah. That's what keeps people like me as Liberals. We're happy to be centrists, not NDP light. This is a reasonable compromise, no to Northern Gateway, yes to Kinder Morgan (which is a pipeline that already exists), in exchange for Alberta implementing a carbon tax, and phasing out coal power.

I expect this forum will explode in a few more months, when the CETA and the TPP are ratified, with cries of betrayal, because they expected the Liberals to somehow magically morph into the NDP. While those of us who, you know, actually support the Liberals, are happy because we are getting exactly what was promised. Yes to deficits, yes to trade deals. No to every pipeline, yes to some pipelines.

I don't think anyone here ever suggested for a second that the Liberals would do anything other than sign and ratify the TPP.

Anyway, you're the problem with Canada. Congratulations. You are our mediocrity and short sighted stupidity made manifest.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 21:23

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

PT6A posted:

Now who's progressive on the environment you NDP fucks?

.... China?

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:23

yippee cahier: Mar 28, 2005

Why do parties take a stance on every single minute issue? What are the chances they nail what 80% of Canadians think about solar panel subsidies or whatever? I'd say the risk is greater in turning people off than getting those single issue voters locked in. Just say you'll do something if you can get a consensus of environmental scientists and economists and leave it there.

Attended a community meeting last night on extending the lease of a temporary homeless shelter in my neighbourhood. The number of people who went from intolerant classists to supporters of the project in 4 months was actually heartwarming. Still had a few total yuppies from outside the neighbourhood trying to convince people that their apprehension about poors should trump allowing people to sleep inside instead of under a bush in the rain.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:24

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007; nesaM killed Masen

Helsing posted:

I don't think anyone here ever suggested for a second that the Liberals would do anything other than sign and ratify the TPP.

Anyway, you're the problem with Canada. Congratulations. You are our mediocrity and short sighted stupidity made manifest.

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that being centrist is to be mediocre, short-sighted, and stupid?

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:26

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

CLAM DOWN posted:

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that being centrist is to be mediocre, short-sighted, and stupid?

Centrist - :mediocre:

Voting Liberal - short-sighted
Supporting the TPP - stupid

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:33

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

sund posted:

Why do parties take a stance on every single minute issue? What are the chances they nail what 80% of Canadians think about solar panel subsidies or whatever? I'd say the risk is greater in turning people off than getting those single issue voters locked in. Just say you'll do something if you can get a consensus of environmental scientists and economists and leave it there.

Attended a community meeting last night on extending the lease of a temporary homeless shelter in my neighbourhood. The number of people who went from intolerant classists to supporters of the project in 4 months was actually heartwarming. Still had a few total yuppies from outside the neighbourhood trying to convince people that their apprehension about poors should trump allowing people to sleep inside instead of under a bush in the rain.

It's about keeping the activist base together. If the NDP's activists are a mix of unions, wealth redistributors, environmentalists, democratic reformers, Qu�bec nationalists, and so on, the party has to give each of those groups a reason to stick with it, and taking policy stances that only those groups care about is a cheap way to do it. It's not necessarily about votes, but about donations, volunteer hours, candidate recruitment, and the like - the stuff that keeps a party running.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:33

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

Helsing posted:

Centrist -
Voting Liberal - short-sighted
Supporting the TPP - stupid

And then you wonder why the ndp has 10% support nation wide

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:42

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Helsing posted:

Centrist -
Voting Liberal - short-sighted
Supporting the TPP - stupid

with the most brief quip Helsing has made

bunnyofdoom posted:

And then you wonder why the ndp has 10% support nation wide

They are basically where the LPC were in 2011 both seat wise and with the popular vote. I don't think you get to grandstand that one.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:54

Ron_Jeremy: Sep 29, 2003

bunnyofdoom posted:

And then you wonder why the ndp has 10% support nation wide

But this is the thought process behind the true believers. It's the attitude you see in the Tea Party down south. No compromise with the enemy. It doesn't matter if the policy works in practice, does it work in my theories? Trade agreements=bad. It doesn't matter if the result of not ratifying TPP is a Canadian economy ever more dominated by American interests.

And this is where the LEAP manifesto makes itself clear. It's like that old saw "If all you have is a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail". Take the manifesto, and replace "needing to wean off fossil fuels" with "combat poverty" . Would the prescriptions look any different? The world needing to wean itself off of fossil fuels is the excuse used in order to implement widespread nationalization of industry, abrogation of trade agreements, etc.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:56

Ron_Jeremy: Sep 29, 2003

Helsing posted:

I don't think anyone here ever suggested for a second that the Liberals would do anything other than sign and ratify the TPP.

Anyway, you're the problem with Canada. Congratulations. You are our mediocrity and short sighted stupidity made manifest.

From you sir, I take that as a compliment.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:59

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

bunnyofdoom posted:

And then you wonder why the ndp has 10% support nation wide

I don't think I've ever expressed any puzzlement over the NDP's low levels of support.

Ron_Jeremy posted:

But this is the thought process behind the true believers. It's the attitude you see in the Tea Party down south. No compromise with the enemy. It doesn't matter if the policy works in practice, does it work in my theories? Trade agreements=bad. It doesn't matter if the result of not ratifying TPP is a Canadian economy ever more dominated by American interests.
[quote]

How exactly would that work?

[quote]
And this is where the LEAP manifesto makes itself clear. It's like that old saw "If all you have is a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail". Take the manifesto, and replace "needing to wean off fossil fuels" with "combat poverty" . Would the prescriptions look any different? The world needing to wean itself off of fossil fuels is the excuse used in order to implement widespread nationalization of industry, abrogation of trade agreements, etc.

Hmmm, while we've got you here what's your opinion on Cultural Marxism?

Ron_Jeremy posted:

From you sir, I take that as a compliment.

Allow me to continue singing your praises then.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:02

Ron_Jeremy: Sep 29, 2003

jm20 posted:

They are basically where the LPC were in 2011 both seat wise and with the popular vote. I don't think you get to grandstand that one.

And yet, the NDP got the 2 best results in it's history by moderating itself and driving to the middle of the road. Let's see what a hard left turn does for it.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:03

Funkdreamer: Jul 15, 2005; It'll be a blast

Ron_Jeremy posted:

But this is the thought process behind the true believers. It's the attitude you see in the Tea Party down south. No compromise with the enemy. It doesn't matter if the policy works in practice, does it work in my theories? Trade agreements=bad. It doesn't matter if the result of not ratifying TPP is a Canadian economy ever more dominated by American interests.

Failure to compromise and the implementation of policy that only works in theory are both perfectly compatible with centrism. In fact, you may have recently noticed a global recession that resulted from these practices!

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:07

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

I don't give a poo poo if the NDP wins elections, I want them to do their god drat jobs and agitate society to the left as part of a greater movement in concert with other organizations. Their job is to move the overton window over so our natural governing party needs to tack a bit to the left in order to remain centrist.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:09

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

Ron_Jeremy posted:

And yet, the NDP got the 2 best results in it's history by moderating itself and driving to the middle of the road. Let's see what a hard left turn does for it.

We have a centrist party we don't need another one.

The NDP should be loudly proclaiming the benefits of socialism and social progressivism and trying to push the conversation left overall. Even if it doesn't lead to them being in power.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:10

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The best results in the NDP's history was getting socialized health insurance implemented and they did that as an explicitly socialist party that never formed government at the federal level. The 2011 victory was, first of all, based on a fluke, and second of all, did very little except give Harper a term of majority government.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:11

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Seriously though, I want to know how not signing the TPP is going to give American interests greater power over the Canadian economy.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:12

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

Ron_Jeremy posted:

And yet, the NDP got the 2 best results in it's history by moderating itself and driving to the middle of the road. Let's see what a hard left turn does for it.

you have missed the point of a political party

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:16

Ron_Jeremy: Sep 29, 2003

Helsing posted:

It doesn't matter if the result of not ratifying TPP is a Canadian economy ever more dominated by American interests.

How exactly would that work?

If you are a country with a free trade agreement with the biggest economy in the world, and one in which you share the world's longest undefended border, you might very well be concerned about the level of influence said country has on your economy. You can manage this in several ways. One is to abrogate said agreement, which was the situation pre-1988. In addition to complete disruption of your economy, which has structured itself over the past 30 years to take advantage of this agreement, you encourage a branch plant economy, where Canadian companies selling to the US are disadvantaged, and where US companies setup shop in Canada, taking advantage of their greater scale and financial resources. Which, again, was the pre-1988 situation. The second is to not sign further agreements (aka not signing agreements like the TPP), which doesn't change anything, and encourages companies to trade with the country you have the agreement with, leading to deeper and deeper influence of that country over the economy. The third is to make trade with other countries easier, encouraging trade elsewhere and reducing the relative dependence of your economy on a single trade partner. I, obviously, favour the latter.

Ron_Jeremy fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:17

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

"I'm sure those grapes were sour anyway!" -- every NDP supporter

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:18

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Holy gently caress lay off the partisan politics and partisan attacks.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:24

Ron_Jeremy: Sep 29, 2003

JawKnee posted:

you have missed the point of a political party

You misunderstand me, I was just commenting on the relative benefits of moderation. I want a hard left NDP. I want the 10-15% of the population like Helsing to have a party to vote for, because I believe that a 2 party system would lead to the Liberals abandoning the ability to lean right or left, choosing policies on merit, not ideology (yeah, I can hear you chuckling now). It was also the stated goal of Stephen Harper, which was that the absence of a moderate centrist party would lead to the Conservatives becoming Canada's natural governing party, with brief left wing interregnums that could be managed.

The refrain of this forum is "Libs are gonna lib". My philosophy is that they better lib. That's what I'm voting for. I am a centrist. Apparently I am mediocre and stupid. Proud of it.

Ron_Jeremy fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:39

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Ron_Jeremy posted:

If you are a country with a free trade agreement with the biggest economy in the world, and one in which you share the world's longest undefended border, you might very well be concerned about the level of influence said country has on your economy. You can manage this in several ways. One is to abrogate said agreement, which was the situation pre-1988. In addition to complete disruption of your economy, which has structured itself over the past 30 years to take advantage of this agreement, you encourage a branch plant economy, where Canadian companies selling the the US are disadvantaged, where US companies setup shop in Canada, taking advantage of their greater scale and financial resources. Which, again, was the pre-1988 situation. The second is to not sign further agreements, which doesn't change anything, and encourages companies to trade with the country you have the agreement with, leading to deeper and deeper influence of that country over the economy. The third is to make trade with other countries easier, encouraging trade elsewhere and reducing the relative dependence of your economy on a single trade partner. I, obviously, favour the latter.

Is this a joke? :psyduck:

You're writing as though the TPP would be the first trade deal we've signed with any country other than America. Did you miss the last 20 years when we signed all kinds of additional trade agreements with Mexico, Europe, Asia, etc.? Did you forget that Canada is a part of the WTO?

America will remain Canada's largest trade partner for the foreseeable future because of unavoidable geographical reality, but the fact is we're already highly integrated into the existing global trade system and the idea that signing or not signing the TPP would change that is laughable.

Meanwhile the TPP will give foreign investors a permanent veto over our economic sovereignty. Don't take my word for it, though, this is Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist for the World Bank (and winner of the made up Nobel Prize in economics):

quote:

Beware of TPP�s Investor�State Dispute Settlement Provision
By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16

While advocates promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a �free trade� agreement between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim countries, the most economically significant provisions are not cuts to trade barriers. Instead, the key element is TPP�s investment chapter, which gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international arbitration when they feel their newly created property rights are violated (a process known as investor�state dispute settlement, or ISDS).

The alleged goal of ISDS is to increase security for investors in states without an adequate �rule of law.� But the fact that the U.S. is insisting on the same provisions in Europe, where legal safeguards are as strong as they are in the U.S., suggests another motive: the desire to make it harder to adopt new financial regulations, environmental laws, worker protections, and food and health safety standards.

While defenders of ISDS sometimes claim that it prevents discrimination against foreign firms, foreign firms have sued�and won�even when they are treated no differently from domestic firms. In fact, these provisions discriminate in favor of foreign firms: A foreign firm can sue the U.S. government in private arbitration for cash rewards if it thinks government actions violate the new rights and privileges granted by TPP, but domestic American firms have no such recourse in U.S. courts. Two arbitrators can, in effect, undermine decisions of Congress and the president, ordering billions of dollars in payments for their lost investment value and guesstimated lost profits.

Under TPP, foreign investors could sue over pretty much any law, regulation, or government decision. The agreement guarantees a �minimum standard of treatment,� a vague standard that corporate-friendly arbitrators have interpreted liberally in past decisions, inventing obligations for governments that do not exist in the actual text of agreements or host countries� laws.

In an earlier case using NAFTA�s similar provisions, arbitrators ordered Canada to pay American waste disposable company S.D. Myers $5.6 million because the country prohibited the export of toxic industrial waste�exports that were banned by international treaty that applied to Canadian and foreign firms alike. The company�s lawyer boasted, �It wouldn�t matter if a substance was liquid plutonium destined for a child�s breakfast cereal. If the government bans a product and a U.S.-based company loses profits, the company can claim damages.�

The list of egregious decisions under similar agreements is growing. In an example playing out now, the energy company TransCanada will challenge President Obama�s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, demanding $15 billion in compensation under NAFTA�s investment provisions. Relative to NAFTA, TPP would expand both the substantive rights afforded to foreign investors and the types of government actions subject to compensation claims.

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) says, not to worry: so far we have not lost a case. This is not because we can�t lose; Canada, with all of its world-class lawyers, has lost many cases. So far most U.S. trade agreements that include ISDS enforcement involve countries with little foreign investment here, but this will change dramatically if Japanese and Australian firms, which both have large investment footprints in the U.S., gain access to TPP�s investment measures, or if we enact a similar deal being negotiated with the European Union.

But which country wins or loses is partly beside the point. TPP�s rules could reverse the fundamental �polluter pays� principle�i.e., those that do damage should pay remediation. Instead, governments may end up paying businesses not to pollute. From toxic waste to toxic financial products, TPP would institute rights to investor compensation for nondiscriminatory government actions in the public interest. The threat of adverse rulings would deter government actions necessary to protect the public, as is happening in New Zealand and other countries that have halted new tobacco warning label rules as they wait to see how cigarette company investor�state suits pan out.

U.S. negotiators claim TPP includes new safeguards by stipulating nothing �shall be construed to prevent a Party from adopting, maintaining or enforcing any measure� appropriate to ensure �environmental, health, or other regulatory objectives.� But the same provision renders that pledge useless with language limiting the application of this provision to policies �otherwise consistent with� the terms of the investment chapter. Even if these new terms and other safeguards were meaningful in terms of protecting the right to regulate, the agreement�s obligation to provide �most favored nation treatment� to foreign investors means that an investor could �import� more favorable investor guarantees from other agreements, thus sidestepping so-called safeguards.

TPP partners presumably understand these obfuscations. That�s why several governments insisted on having the ability to dismiss investor challenges of tobacco control measures. But what about the safeguards for any other areas of public interest regulation�say, instituting a carbon tax, bargaining for lower drug prices under Medicare, or preventing the next crisis with new financial regulations? Big pharmaceutical and fossil fuel companies are already enthusiastic ISDS users. TPP would be the first U.S. trade agreement to grant financial firms the right to dispute financial regulations with �minimum standard of treatment� claims. We should be reining in Wall Street risk, not giving banks more ways to avoid regulation.

The USTR would undoubtedly dispute this interpretation of TPP, but it is based on broad consultation with experts across the world. In past agreements, complexities and ambiguities such as these have provided ample scope for arbitrators to rule repeatedly in favor of corporate interests over the public interests. TPP has clearly not fixed these problem problems.

To be clear, the United States has a critical role to play in promoting an open international trade and investment system. But who benefits from such efforts depends entirely upon the specific rules included in the agreements. Under TPP, there would not be more investment in the U.S.; if anything, the provisions are designed to shift investment out of the U.S. The real effects would be on basic safeguards for health, safety, the environment, and even the economy.

The fact you've managed to spin this, at least in your own head, into a victory for Canadian economic independence is almost surreal.

Even organizations that don't normally like to rock the boat too much such as Doctors Without Boarders have come out and said quite openly that this deal will make vital medicines more expensive. Digital rights people are freaking out over its stances on intellectual property.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:40

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

I, for one, am :sparkles:

cautiously optimistic :sparkles:

about paying more for medications. This will fuel innovation in the health sector and promote trade. Everyone loves trade!

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:43

Ron_Jeremy: Sep 29, 2003

Helsing posted:

Is this a joke? You're writing as though the TPP would be the first trade deal we've signed with any country other than America. Did you miss the last 20 years when we signed all kinds of additional trade agreements with Mexico, Europe, Asia, etc.? Did you forget that Canada is a part of the WTO?

Please tell me, did you support any of those additional trade deals? You're acting as though the TPP is some monstrous outlier. Your quote even uses NAFTA as the example.

I will try to respond to your other points when I have more time to argue them in more depth.

Ron_Jeremy fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:44

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Ron_Jeremy posted:

Please tell me, did you support any of those additional trade deals? You're acting as though the TPP is some monstrous outlier. Your quote even uses NAFTA as the example.

The TPP takes some of the worst features of previous trade deals and then magnifies them, which is probably why it has even centrist liberals like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, and even many conservatives, lining up to condemn it alongside the usual suspects on the left. I find it remarkable that literally none of your defenses of the TPP are actually about the TPP. You're just treating it as another "trade deal" and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of simply hating trade.

At least go back and read that article which you clearly didn't even bother to skim. Stiglitz is a former chief economist of the world bank and was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. You might find it hard to stomach listening to my opinions on trade right after I called you stupid but you could at least read a neutral third party assessment of the deal rather than just supporting a terrible deal out of what appears to be pure reflex on your part.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:49

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/halfiax-chronic-herald-retracts-refugee-story-after-public-outcry/article29603300/

quote:

Halifax Chronicle Herald retracts refugee story after public outcry

The publisher of Nova Scotia�s largest newspaper apologized on Monday after one of its stories ignited a firestorm with unverified allegations that young Syrian refugees had attacked fellow students at a Halifax elementary school.

The Halifax Chronicle Herald story, which alleged numerous acts of playground abuse at Chebucto Heights Elementary School � including an incident in which one �refugee boy� choked a girl in Grade 3 with a chain while yelling �Muslims rule the world,� and another in which �refugee students� threatened others on the soccer field � was published online late Friday and in the paper�s Saturday edition. It suggested school administrators had responded weakly to the alleged abuse.

After criticism on social media, editors removed some details from the online story, including the religious reference and the mention of the chain, and softened the original headline, prompting some critics to complain the paper was bowing to �political correctness.� But on Monday the entire article was removed from the site and replaced with a lengthy editor�s note, which also ran in the paper, saying the piece had �needed more work.�

�Bullying is a sensitive subject. So is the integration of newcomers, particularly those who have faced challenges, even trauma, on their way here,� the note read.

�Our story was incomplete and insufficiently corroborated, given the serious nature of the allegations.�

It added: �Reaction to the story was all over the map, from thoughtful to downright scary.�

The paper�s publisher, Sarah Dennis, apologized to Elwin LeRoux, the superintendent of the Halifax Regional School Board.

Insiders at the Chronicle Herald noted the paper�s staff has been on strike for 12 weeks, with many inexperienced reporters taking their place. They suggested managers may have missed the holes in the story�s reporting because of overwork and exhaustion. In a Facebook post, Martin O�Hanlon, the president of CWA Canada, the union representing the paper�s staff, said, �This would never have happened if real journalists were on the job instead of scabs.�

In an e-mail to The Globe and Mail, Ms. Dennis played down the role of the strike in the retracted story. �Humans make mistakes. There have been errors before the union walked off the job and unfortunately there have been errors during the labour disruption.�

The story�s heady cocktail of refugee politics, ineffectual bureaucrats, and whiffs of schoolyard jihad and religious imperialism proved irresistible to websites that traffic in anti-Muslim sentiment � such as those belonging to commentator Ezra Levant, whose upstart Rebel Media outlet has been one of the most persistent critics of the federal government�s Syrian refugee policy, and Pamela Geller, the New York-based activist whose star rose with her successful campaign against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

The story was also picked up by an Australian news site, which teased the article from its front page with a photo of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

In an interview, Mr. LeRoux said school board staff had investigated the allegations and, though they had not conducted an exhaustive review, had so far come up empty-handed. �They reported there was nothing they could connect from an incident that happened at school that was related to what was in the paper,� he said. �They were quite shocked at the details of what was in there. Some of it was quite sensational.�

Mr. LeRoux estimated that �upwards of 35 to 40 students, and maybe even 50� newcomers have joined the student population, which numbered 299 last September, and he cautioned that sensational or flawed reporting can damage and stereotype a school community.

�Even if there�s conflict in our schools, what we�re talking about � are young kids, kids who are between the ages of five and 12. We�re talking about kids who are learning what it means to get along with other members of society, no matter how they came to be in the classroom.�

Ah haligonians, what a lovely people!

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:51

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Lol I was going to post that yesterday and forgot. I wonder how much involvement the paper's owners had in that.

Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 19:52

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/leap-manifesto-makes-no-sense-for-bc-ndp-leader-john-horgan-says/article29603376/

quote:

Parts of Leap Manifesto make �no sense� for B.C., NDP Leader John Horgan says

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 is currently under fire from labour leaders for his opposition to two major energy projects in B.C. on environmental grounds.

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.

�It�s a document that I don�t embrace personally. There are elements in the document that make sense and there are elements that make no sense for British Columbia. So we won�t proceed under any kind of manifesto in the next 12 months under my leadership.�

Mr. Horgan was responding to a decision of delegates at the federal NDP convention last weekend to debate the manifesto in advance of its 2018 policy convention. Alberta�s NDP Premier Rachel Notley had called on delegates to instead support the construction of pipelines to get Alberta oil to tidewater.

The B.C. Liberal Party hopes to use the Leap Manifesto to add to its efforts to portray the B.C. NDP as a threat to job creation. Speaking at the annual convention of the BC Building Trades unions, Labour Minister Shirley Bond said the Leap Manifesto is an attack on jobs and the NDP is tacitly supporting it.

�The NDP is one party across the country. When you are able to stand in the province of Alberta, in the economic circumstances they find themselves in, and simply say �No� to anything to do with resource extraction, I think that sends an unbelievable message to the rest of the country,� she told reporters.

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. The NDP has also fought the construction of the province�s biggest public-sector infrastructure project, the $9-billion Site C hydroelectric dam.

�When you are talking about no jobs at Site C, no jobs in liquefied natural gas, you are saying �No� to workers in this province,� Ms. Bond said.

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, where she is expected to talk about joint efforts to enhance union apprenticeship training programs in British Columbia.

�We talk about work in British Columbia for British Columbians first. We want to see that and I know you want to see that as well,� he told Ms. Bond, who received a standing ovation from the union delegates.

NDP MLA Carole James was invited to speak after Ms. Bond, but received a public rebuke from Mr. Sigurdson on the podium over her party�s handling of energy construction projects. Mr. Sigurdson said he was �absolutely shocked� that the NDP would come out against the Pacific NorthWest project � and to do so without warning him in advance.

�It was a slap upside the head,� he said to Ms. James. �I know there might be good reason for your caucus to have taken that position, but at the same time, we have been working hard on that and it would have been a little more respectful if there had been an opportunity for us to have had, at least, some notice.�

Ms. James told reporters she was not surprised by the reception at the convention, and said it shows her party needs to do a better job of explaining which projects it does support. �The message I take is that we need to do a better job of communicating the importance of jobs in British Columbia and the job plans that we have put in place.�

Well lookee here SJWs. Your beloved unions love pipelines and global warming. oh deaaaar

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:13

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...eningitis-death

quote:

�We�re not abusive parents�: Father testifies at trial he didn�t think son needed doctor before meningitis death

LETHBRIDGE, Alta. � A father accused in his toddler son�s death from bacterial meningitis testified Monday that there never seemed to be a need to seek medical help because he thought his son only had the flu.

David Stephan was the first witness called by the defence in a trial he and his wife face in the death of their nearly 19-month-old boy. They are charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life.

Stephan says his wife, Collet, only mentioned the possibility of meningitis the night before Ezekiel stopped breathing and was rushed to hospital in March 2012.

�What is meningitis?� Stephan said he asked his wife.

He said many of the symptoms of meningitis overlapped with that of the flu.

�There was nothing that would indicate he was in a situation where medical intervention would be required,� Stephan told court.

�We�re not abusive parents who inflict physical harm on our children.�

His lawyer asked Stephan to recount Ezekiel�s condition each day he was ill and whether he had been taken to a doctor.

Stephan said his son started to show real improvement thanks to the herbal medications they were giving him right up until the day he went to hospital.

He also had his father come in the night before to give him a blessing.

�We prayed over him the night before,� said Stephan.

He and his wife received a grim prognosis when Ezekiel was examined at the Alberta Children�s Hospital in Calgary. An examination showed the child had undergone seizures and that there was very little brain activity.

�It was fairly bleak and (the doctor) said it was rare that a child would come out of a situation like this. They didn�t completely shatter our hope. She said there was always hope,� Stephan said.

�Even if there was an inkling of hope we were going to hold on to that.�

The Crown says the couple didn�t do enough to make sure Ezekiel received the treatment he required.

The trial in Lethbridge has already heard that the boy had been sick for about 2 1/2 weeks, and his parents gave him natural remedies and homemade smoothies containing hot pepper, ginger root, horseradish and onion.

After being taken to a local facility, Ezekiel was rushed to the Calgary hospital, where he died a week later from bacterial meningitis and a lung infection.

In earlier testimony, a pediatrician said Ezekiel had less than a one per cent chance of surviving by the time he was taken to hospital and was probably already brain dead.

Stephan said he grew alarmed after several interviews with doctors when it appeared that there was a belief he and his wife might have had something to do with their son�s condition.

�It was in regard to brain damage that had taken place � and the question was posed in such a way that I was left thinking that there was suspicion. Now we�re in a state of fear of Ezekiel possibly passing but also that (older son) Ezra will possibly be taken from us.�

Guys GUYS, we need to respect everyone's personal view on healthcare and embrace alternative medicine so that we can

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:16

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/leap-manifesto-makes-no-sense-for-bc-ndp-leader-john-horgan-says/article29603376/

Well lookee here SJWs. Your beloved unions love pipelines and global warming. oh deaaaar

I'm very excited for another Christy Clark BC Liberal majority government

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:18

Do it ironically: Jul 13, 2010; by Pragmatica

can we just give those two people who let their kid die meningitis and let them die

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:28

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

JawKnee posted:

you have missed the point of a political party

The point of a political party is to gain access to the levers of power. The NDP apparently doesn't care about that reality.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:29

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Do it ironically posted:

can we just give those two people who let their kid die meningitis and let them die

I wish we could, but no.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:29

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

Do it ironically posted:

can we just give those two people who let their kid die meningitis and let them die

I will pray for them to get better.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:29

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

We could kick their genitals into their throat and they can pray beforehand that it doesn't hurt really bad.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:32

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

THC posted:

I'm very excited for another Christy Clark BC Liberal majority government

Why do you think a pro-LEAP stance would help the BCNDP?

The perception that the NDP have been battling for years is that they're anti-everything. LEAP has already been framed as a hard stop on all development and this reenforces this stereotype. In my view a pro-LEAP BCNDP would be reduced to Vancouver island and a diminished Vancouver presence.

The BCNDP would be better served by following the ANDP in supporting the carbon tax, and then criticize the BCLiberals for freezing the tax and letting most of the benefits flow to corporations and the rich.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:52

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Most NDP supporters in BC are against oil and gas expansion and are on board with the issues raised in the LEAP paper. It passed at convention with nearly 70% support. Most BC delegates at the convention supported LEAP. Former East Van MP Libby Davies gave the speech that swayed many delegates' votes to support LEAP. If the BC NDP takes effectively the same position as the Liberals on pipelines "because jobs" then their base is going to stay home, they're not going to donate or volunteer for a party that doesn't represent their views.

Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 20:57

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

This idea that aggressively extracting more oil than ever will somehow magically fuel a transition to a non-carbon-based economy - and also magically not cause us to become even more reliant on fossil fuel exports to generate economic activity in Canada - is so absurd as to be insulting.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 21:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 21:23

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

"Because jobs" (realistically more like "because money") has been why we've been creeping closer to the edge of making this world inhabitable for the majority of the species for as long as I've been alive. poo poo, even during childhood in the 80s I was hearing in the media about how we'd all be hosed if we didn't change course.

We're already seeing our lack of any real dedication to halting our destruction of our habitat come home to roost.

But gently caress it, let's just keep using " because jobs" as an excuse.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 21:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »