Canada's Greatest Living Orator
April 11, 2016 7:54 AM Subscribe
Over the weekend, the federal NDP voted to oust leader Tom Mulcair. But this dramatic turn of events was nearly overshadowed by another event at the NDP convention: The delivery of one of the most powerful political speeches in recent Canadian memory by former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis. CBC's Neil MacDonald calls Lewis "probably Canada's greatest living orator."
I still preferred Rachel Notley's speech, but they were both good.
posted by Kurichina at 8:23 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Kurichina at 8:23 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
He denounced the government's rhetoric on climate change as a "superfluity of twaddle,"
What a delightful turn of phrase. I kinda like it when lefties find their fuck gardens barren.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:26 AM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
What a delightful turn of phrase. I kinda like it when lefties find their fuck gardens barren.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:26 AM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I really like Neil MacDonald. I don't always agree with him, but he's the closest thing to an old school angry polemicist I've found north of the border
posted by cacofonie at 8:26 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cacofonie at 8:26 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Interesting - It's been interesting watching Lewis grow in his position for feminism and women's rights, when many people become more conservative as they age. However, I always cringe when (white) men get this freedom and a podium to discuss feminist issues, when so many women would experience threats and violence for speaking out about feminist issues.
posted by what's her name at 8:47 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by what's her name at 8:47 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought I'd add some context for those not familiar with why Stephen Lewis is important here. While it is true that Stephen Lewis was leader of the Ontario provincial NDP in the 70's, I think he is better known for his more recent work - he was the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations in the 80's and more recently he was the United Nations Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. Many of his impassioned speeches on AIDS in Africa are rightly remembered. He was always thoughtful and empathetic. The kind of politician that any country would be lucky to have represent them. He has loads of NDP bona fides as well- his father was leader of the federal NDP (after the legendary Tommy Douglas) and he is the father of documentary filmmaker Avi Lewis (husband of author/activist Naomi Klein) who were instrumental in coming up with the LEAP Manifesto (previously) which hung over this convention and likely will hang over the NDP leadership race.
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:49 AM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:49 AM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
what's her name: " However, I always cringe when (white) men get this freedom and a podium to discuss feminist issues, when so many women would experience threats and violence for speaking out about feminist issues."
Facebook let me know there are no shortage of threats directed at Lewis for this speech.
posted by Mitheral at 9:03 AM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Facebook let me know there are no shortage of threats directed at Lewis for this speech.
posted by Mitheral at 9:03 AM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah speaking of LEAP, a bleeds-orange friend of mine announced that LEAP needs to be opposed in its entirety because "not all indigenous people agree on the energy sector" (wtf? maybe a reasonable concern if my friend were in any way indigenous) and "energy sector employs a lot of people."
It was a really record scratch moment of dissonance for me.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 AM on April 11, 2016
It was a really record scratch moment of dissonance for me.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 AM on April 11, 2016
> I kinda like it when lefties find their fuck gardens barren.
Well, if you're a Canadian lefty you might as well lay it all out there because it's not like you're ever going to form a federal government.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:12 AM on April 11, 2016
Well, if you're a Canadian lefty you might as well lay it all out there because it's not like you're ever going to form a federal government.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:12 AM on April 11, 2016
If Layton hadn't died, I wouldn't be making that bet anymore. As it is...
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:15 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:15 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's going to be a long time before the NDP gets out from Layton's shadow. I think Canadian leftists mostly agree that he would have been a great PM (and that he would have been PM), but it certainly didn't help Mulcair's tenure as leader that practically every media piece that mentioned him felt the need to compare him to Layton. I suspect the next federal NDP leader will be facing the same thing, even if Mulcair has no provided a little bit of a buffer to take the heat off.
posted by 256 at 9:18 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by 256 at 9:18 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's hard not to see LEAP as a bullet to the head for Notley specifically and a repudiation of the the NDP in Alberta entirely, especially after her plea for pipelines in her Friday speech. With LEAP getting a positive vote, I think this greatly hurts the western parts of the party.
posted by bonehead at 9:19 AM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 9:19 AM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
They did not oust Mulcair. He is still leader and will be competing to retain leadership. We will know if he's ousted after the process is complete.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:24 AM on April 11, 2016
posted by five fresh fish at 9:24 AM on April 11, 2016
I really like Neil MacDonald
Neil MacDonald (brother of Norm by the way) is a good journalist, his work on Haiti comes to mind, but there's times where I find him venturing into Andy Rooney territory like here.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:24 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Neil MacDonald (brother of Norm by the way) is a good journalist, his work on Haiti comes to mind, but there's times where I find him venturing into Andy Rooney territory like here.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:24 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
With LEAP getting a positive vote, I think this greatly hurts the western parts of the party.
Agreed. Mind you, there has always been a divide in the NDP between the pure principle, 'conscience of the country' side, and a more pragmatic side willing to make concessions in order to get hands on the levers of power to effect change. That existential divide has grown and shrunk over the years, and between Leap and Mulcair, is probably more visible and extreme than usual.
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:29 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Agreed. Mind you, there has always been a divide in the NDP between the pure principle, 'conscience of the country' side, and a more pragmatic side willing to make concessions in order to get hands on the levers of power to effect change. That existential divide has grown and shrunk over the years, and between Leap and Mulcair, is probably more visible and extreme than usual.
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:29 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
They did not oust Mulcair. He is still leader and will be competing to retain leadership. We will know if he's ousted after the process is complete.
Has there been any info released that'll run for leadership? I would imagine that with what transpired this week-end he would not run again.
I also imagine that the NPD will retreat to the same kind of numbers it had before Layton, with the Liberals seemingly back as a viable alternative in the minds of many.
posted by coust at 9:45 AM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Has there been any info released that'll run for leadership? I would imagine that with what transpired this week-end he would not run again.
I also imagine that the NPD will retreat to the same kind of numbers it had before Layton, with the Liberals seemingly back as a viable alternative in the minds of many.
posted by coust at 9:45 AM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
They did not oust Mulcair. He is still leader and will be competing to retain leadership. We will know if he's ousted after the process is complete.
I'm not entirely clear on whether party rules would allow Mulcair to run for the leadership following this vote, but it seems largely irrelevant since he has pretty clearly acknowledged that this is the end for him. So yes, he's still technically the leader of the party until a new leader is chosen, but it's a lame duck leadership.
posted by 256 at 9:46 AM on April 11, 2016
I'm not entirely clear on whether party rules would allow Mulcair to run for the leadership following this vote, but it seems largely irrelevant since he has pretty clearly acknowledged that this is the end for him. So yes, he's still technically the leader of the party until a new leader is chosen, but it's a lame duck leadership.
posted by 256 at 9:46 AM on April 11, 2016
He is still leader and will be competing to retain leadership. We will know if he's ousted after the process is complete.
I'm genuinely asking, have you seen that as a statement from him somewhere? All I can find right now is that he plans to stay as leader until a new one is chosen. The party has up to two years to do that, so he could be around for a while, true, but he seems to definitely be done as leader.
posted by bonehead at 9:52 AM on April 11, 2016
I'm genuinely asking, have you seen that as a statement from him somewhere? All I can find right now is that he plans to stay as leader until a new one is chosen. The party has up to two years to do that, so he could be around for a while, true, but he seems to definitely be done as leader.
posted by bonehead at 9:52 AM on April 11, 2016
That existential divide has grown and shrunk over the years
Yes, whatever NDP leader gets elected is going to have to wrestle with that. I think it also manifests itself on the local candidate level as well with lackluster candidates getting the nominations.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:57 AM on April 11, 2016
Yes, whatever NDP leader gets elected is going to have to wrestle with that. I think it also manifests itself on the local candidate level as well with lackluster candidates getting the nominations.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:57 AM on April 11, 2016
it's not like you're ever going to form a federal government.
Let alone the Government of Alberta. Wait, what?
posted by No Robots at 9:57 AM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Let alone the Government of Alberta. Wait, what?
posted by No Robots at 9:57 AM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Here's the text of the speech for people like me who might like the cut of Lewis' jib, but can't bloody stand the sound of his voice.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 AM on April 11, 2016
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 AM on April 11, 2016
No Robots: "Let alone the Government of Alberta. Wait, what?"
With the way low oil prices have effected the province I'm still not sure the NDP win wasn't the result of an intentional loss by the conservative side to avoid blame for low prices and thereby ensure subsequent conservative wins for the next 30 years.
posted by Mitheral at 10:20 AM on April 11, 2016
With the way low oil prices have effected the province I'm still not sure the NDP win wasn't the result of an intentional loss by the conservative side to avoid blame for low prices and thereby ensure subsequent conservative wins for the next 30 years.
posted by Mitheral at 10:20 AM on April 11, 2016
the way low oil prices have effected the province
And when the oil prices hit $100 in two years, it'll be the Thousand Year Reich for Notley.
posted by No Robots at 10:26 AM on April 11, 2016
And when the oil prices hit $100 in two years, it'll be the Thousand Year Reich for Notley.
posted by No Robots at 10:26 AM on April 11, 2016
Leap Manifesto: Alberta NDP 'had nothing to do with this nonsense'
Alberta NDP members are tending to their wounds after falling prey to Toronto "dilettantes" and their "garbage" Leap Manifesto at the party's national convention in Edmonton.
"I'm spitting angry," says Alberta labour leader Gil McGowan. "These downtown Toronto political dilettantes come to Alberta and track their garbage across our front lawn."
This is the sort of thing that causes long-term rift and even dissociation in parties. The LEAP manifesto would have been tolerable perhaps in good economic times, but right now, Alberta is in the worst shape it has been since 1984. This looks like the party kicking Alberta when it's down.
Lewis says that the workers shouldn't have to pay the price, but to Alberta Labour, this looks exactly like what the LEAP crowd are doing.
posted by bonehead at 10:28 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Alberta NDP members are tending to their wounds after falling prey to Toronto "dilettantes" and their "garbage" Leap Manifesto at the party's national convention in Edmonton.
"I'm spitting angry," says Alberta labour leader Gil McGowan. "These downtown Toronto political dilettantes come to Alberta and track their garbage across our front lawn."
This is the sort of thing that causes long-term rift and even dissociation in parties. The LEAP manifesto would have been tolerable perhaps in good economic times, but right now, Alberta is in the worst shape it has been since 1984. This looks like the party kicking Alberta when it's down.
Lewis says that the workers shouldn't have to pay the price, but to Alberta Labour, this looks exactly like what the LEAP crowd are doing.
posted by bonehead at 10:28 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Evi Lewis becomes NDP leader alls we needs is someone related to Jim Stansfield to lead the Conservatives and it will be deja vu all over again in Canadian politics.
posted by My Dad at 10:32 AM on April 11, 2016
posted by My Dad at 10:32 AM on April 11, 2016
I'm not a fan of the carbon-based economy but on the other hand it's rather rich for pedigreed Toronto elites like Naomi Klein, Stephen Lewis and Avi Lewis to be lecturing Rachel Notley and Alberta about the Leap Manifesto. I get that Stephen Lewis gets to act as the conscience of the NDP but has he ever worried at all about getting elected? I thought Mulcair was an odd choice for NDP leader (he once worked for Jean Charest, after all) and their election campaign in 2015 was not great but how will the NDP ever form government? Do Naomi Klein and Stephen Lewis even care about whether or not the NDP forms government? Or are they content to craft policies that will be poached by the Trudeau Liberals?
posted by My Dad at 10:35 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 10:35 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This looks like the party kicking Alberta when it's down.
This, and shitting on the perhaps-soon-to-be-only NDP government in the country, and the one in a province where, if this government works, could do much to promote/redeem the party elsewhere.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:47 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This, and shitting on the perhaps-soon-to-be-only NDP government in the country, and the one in a province where, if this government works, could do much to promote/redeem the party elsewhere.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:47 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I for one give ZERO FUCKS WHATSOEVER if leftist policies get 'poached' by anyone. Isn't the entire point of politics to change minds?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:48 AM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:48 AM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
>This, and shitting on the perhaps-soon-to-be-only NDP government in the country,
I'd like to point out that Vancouver Island did it's job in the 2015 election by voting Orange, and in 2013, too. If we were our own province (and, with 10X population of PEI, we should be) we would have an NDP government.
posted by My Dad at 10:48 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd like to point out that Vancouver Island did it's job in the 2015 election by voting Orange, and in 2013, too. If we were our own province (and, with 10X population of PEI, we should be) we would have an NDP government.
posted by My Dad at 10:48 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I for one give ZERO FUCKS WHATSOEVER
We have to give some consideration to our friends in Alberta, though.
posted by My Dad at 10:49 AM on April 11, 2016
We have to give some consideration to our friends in Alberta, though.
posted by My Dad at 10:49 AM on April 11, 2016
Or are they content to craft policies that will be poached by the Trudeau Liberals?
Does it matter at all who enacts the leftist policies as long as they get enacted?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:52 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does it matter at all who enacts the leftist policies as long as they get enacted?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:52 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The LEAP manifesto would have been tolerable perhaps in good economic times, but right now, Alberta is in the worst shape it has been since 1984. This looks like the party kicking Alberta when it's down.
Or you know, a supposedly leftist government that claims to accept the science of climate change could actually pursue objectives that science says is likely to lead to suffering on the scale of a global thermonuclear war.
Saying the economy is bad and we just can't afford it is insane. The economy in Alberta is too dependent on expensive, dirty and marginal fossil fuel extraction to prosper unless prices are high and we are screaming down the highway to Armageddon. You say the economy is in the worst shape since 1984, and what this tells me is that in the intervening three decades, the political and business leadership in Alberta managed to not learn a single damn thing, and even now refuses to acknowledge the reality that is so plainly evident.
The Leap Manifesto's proposals for managing the transition of the energy sector will necessarily generate tons of new jobs. It's infrastructure spending on a massive scale. It necessarily means full employment, and probably lots of inflation because of it. Yes, there will be some losers, but none moreso than those who have a lot of capital in the fossil fuel extraction business, and I'm pretty sure this concern about jobs is being fuelled primarily by their well-funded noise machine.
Not only that, but now is a good time to borrow in order to do this, with rates at almost historic lows. The liberals look like they might be ready to dip their toes in this pond, and the NDP would be wise to ignore Alberta and give them space on the left to manoeuvre into a position that is actually sufficient to address the scale of the problem we face. Yes, the Leap Manifesto is audacious, but when it comes to climate and energy, something substantially less ambitious, let alone Notley's plan to double down on past mistakes, would simply be insufficient.
Do Naomi Klein and Stephen Lewis even care about whether or not the NDP forms government? Or are they content to craft policies that will be poached by the Trudeau Liberals?
I'm pretty solidly orange, but why should we care? My main concern is not that the NDP gets credit for policies that avoid burning down the fucking planet. My main concern is not burning down the fucking planet.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:56 AM on April 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Or you know, a supposedly leftist government that claims to accept the science of climate change could actually pursue objectives that science says is likely to lead to suffering on the scale of a global thermonuclear war.
Saying the economy is bad and we just can't afford it is insane. The economy in Alberta is too dependent on expensive, dirty and marginal fossil fuel extraction to prosper unless prices are high and we are screaming down the highway to Armageddon. You say the economy is in the worst shape since 1984, and what this tells me is that in the intervening three decades, the political and business leadership in Alberta managed to not learn a single damn thing, and even now refuses to acknowledge the reality that is so plainly evident.
The Leap Manifesto's proposals for managing the transition of the energy sector will necessarily generate tons of new jobs. It's infrastructure spending on a massive scale. It necessarily means full employment, and probably lots of inflation because of it. Yes, there will be some losers, but none moreso than those who have a lot of capital in the fossil fuel extraction business, and I'm pretty sure this concern about jobs is being fuelled primarily by their well-funded noise machine.
Not only that, but now is a good time to borrow in order to do this, with rates at almost historic lows. The liberals look like they might be ready to dip their toes in this pond, and the NDP would be wise to ignore Alberta and give them space on the left to manoeuvre into a position that is actually sufficient to address the scale of the problem we face. Yes, the Leap Manifesto is audacious, but when it comes to climate and energy, something substantially less ambitious, let alone Notley's plan to double down on past mistakes, would simply be insufficient.
Do Naomi Klein and Stephen Lewis even care about whether or not the NDP forms government? Or are they content to craft policies that will be poached by the Trudeau Liberals?
I'm pretty solidly orange, but why should we care? My main concern is not that the NDP gets credit for policies that avoid burning down the fucking planet. My main concern is not burning down the fucking planet.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:56 AM on April 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I guess the question is this: does the NDP as a party ever want to hold office? Or does it aspire to being a party of protest that can sometimes influence change? 52% of delegates I guess are in the "protest party" camp, while 48% want to hold office someday.
I think what was great about Jack Layton and the Orange Crush was the chance the NDP might actually form government.
I also thin recent analysis (over the past few days) of Mulcair's "failure" during the 2015 campaign has totally overlooked the fact that Mulcair refused to support Harper's "burka ban." Trudeau was never asked about it, but in all fairness JT has totally changed the national conversation on ethnicity and tolerance, and he did it virtually overnight.
Mulcair's principled stand did cost him Quebec and therefore the election.
posted by My Dad at 10:59 AM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think what was great about Jack Layton and the Orange Crush was the chance the NDP might actually form government.
I also thin recent analysis (over the past few days) of Mulcair's "failure" during the 2015 campaign has totally overlooked the fact that Mulcair refused to support Harper's "burka ban." Trudeau was never asked about it, but in all fairness JT has totally changed the national conversation on ethnicity and tolerance, and he did it virtually overnight.
Mulcair's principled stand did cost him Quebec and therefore the election.
posted by My Dad at 10:59 AM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
My main concern is not that the NDP gets credit for policies that avoid burning down the fucking planet. My main concern is not burning down the fucking planet.
Promoting the oil/tar sands for the last 10+ years has been a terrible mistake, but at the moment there are a lot of families hurting in Alberta. For them the future doomsday is now.
posted by My Dad at 11:00 AM on April 11, 2016
Promoting the oil/tar sands for the last 10+ years has been a terrible mistake, but at the moment there are a lot of families hurting in Alberta. For them the future doomsday is now.
posted by My Dad at 11:00 AM on April 11, 2016
their election campaign in 2015 was not great but how will the NDP ever form government?
That's the eternal problem for the NDP. How do you unify those sides of its personality - spokesperson of the working classes vs the Toronto social justice / environmental activist party? Under Layton, especially in later years, they seemed to be getting it together, coming up with a measured populism that seemed to appease & unify both sides of its divided self. Maybe because Quebec factored strongly in that Orange Crush election win. I assume that was where the logic of giving the leadership to Mulcair, a native French speaker but also a great parliamentarian, came from. But in 2015, I think he completely mishandled Quebec and it cost him the election.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:04 AM on April 11, 2016
That's the eternal problem for the NDP. How do you unify those sides of its personality - spokesperson of the working classes vs the Toronto social justice / environmental activist party? Under Layton, especially in later years, they seemed to be getting it together, coming up with a measured populism that seemed to appease & unify both sides of its divided self. Maybe because Quebec factored strongly in that Orange Crush election win. I assume that was where the logic of giving the leadership to Mulcair, a native French speaker but also a great parliamentarian, came from. But in 2015, I think he completely mishandled Quebec and it cost him the election.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:04 AM on April 11, 2016
Promoting the oil/tar sands for the last 10+ years has been a terrible mistake, but at the moment there are a lot of families hurting in Alberta. For them the future doomsday is now.
So give them money and training, then infrastructure spending to create jobs that aren't in the global arson industry.
Hell, the Alberta or federal government could start pouring money into geothermal drilling today, and start putting some drillers back to work. Improved geothermal has been dismissed as too expensive to be practical for decades now, but every so often greenwashing oil and gas companies prove its feasible when they manage to use their fracking expertise to do something decent for a change.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:05 AM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
So give them money and training, then infrastructure spending to create jobs that aren't in the global arson industry.
Hell, the Alberta or federal government could start pouring money into geothermal drilling today, and start putting some drillers back to work. Improved geothermal has been dismissed as too expensive to be practical for decades now, but every so often greenwashing oil and gas companies prove its feasible when they manage to use their fracking expertise to do something decent for a change.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:05 AM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Promoting the oil/tar sands for the last 10+ years has been a terrible mistake, but at the moment there are a lot of families hurting in Alberta. For them the future doomsday is now.
Uhh... too bad? Invest in green/clean energy, put that money in their pockets.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:07 AM on April 11, 2016
Uhh... too bad? Invest in green/clean energy, put that money in their pockets.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:07 AM on April 11, 2016
It's more than a "too bad" situation if you lose your house because you don't have a job.
This is something you would only understand if you had kids, I think. Getting a job that supports a family is NOT easy in Canada. Jobs matter.
posted by My Dad at 11:11 AM on April 11, 2016
This is something you would only understand if you had kids, I think. Getting a job that supports a family is NOT easy in Canada. Jobs matter.
posted by My Dad at 11:11 AM on April 11, 2016
For them the future doomsday is now.
It's true but how do you fix that? Who knows when oil production will be affordable for Alberta? I've read in some places it could be a generation. The pipelines would barely bandage their economy. Really the only solutions I can see are retraining and/or diversifying the economy. Tying your fortunes to a volatile commodity market is always a gamble.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:13 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's true but how do you fix that? Who knows when oil production will be affordable for Alberta? I've read in some places it could be a generation. The pipelines would barely bandage their economy. Really the only solutions I can see are retraining and/or diversifying the economy. Tying your fortunes to a volatile commodity market is always a gamble.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:13 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, I see. Having kids is licence to go "fuck the future world that they grow up in"?
Like.. that makes no sense whatsoever.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:14 AM on April 11, 2016
Like.. that makes no sense whatsoever.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:14 AM on April 11, 2016
I've volunteered on a couple of NDP campaigns (one provincial, one federal) and many of my friends are involved in the NDP here.
So I am not some conservative outlier here on MetaFilter. The NDP has to understand that if we want justice (and this could be for climate, it could be for marginalized people) we as a society need prosperity, both to pay for programs, and also to empower people to live rich, rewarding lives.
This doesn't mean we have to exploit the oil/tar sands, but it does mean that the NDP has to recognize there are people out there, like me, who want jobs.
This takes me back to what I was saying originally, that it's too bad the convention was dominated by royalty like Stephen Lewis, his son, and his son's wife Naomi Klein.
What do they know about someone who has lost their house?
posted by My Dad at 11:15 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
So I am not some conservative outlier here on MetaFilter. The NDP has to understand that if we want justice (and this could be for climate, it could be for marginalized people) we as a society need prosperity, both to pay for programs, and also to empower people to live rich, rewarding lives.
This doesn't mean we have to exploit the oil/tar sands, but it does mean that the NDP has to recognize there are people out there, like me, who want jobs.
This takes me back to what I was saying originally, that it's too bad the convention was dominated by royalty like Stephen Lewis, his son, and his son's wife Naomi Klein.
What do they know about someone who has lost their house?
posted by My Dad at 11:15 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
>Oh, I see. Having kids is licence to go "fuck the future world that they grow up in"?
Like.. that makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm just asking you to recognize that the collapse in oil prices has really affected a lot of people. You are aware that suicide rates are up in Alberta, right?
I'm pretty sure we can meet halfway. For example, I don't think I have said anywhere that we need as a society to double down on the oil/tar sands.
posted by My Dad at 11:17 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like.. that makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm just asking you to recognize that the collapse in oil prices has really affected a lot of people. You are aware that suicide rates are up in Alberta, right?
I'm pretty sure we can meet halfway. For example, I don't think I have said anywhere that we need as a society to double down on the oil/tar sands.
posted by My Dad at 11:17 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
We need to stop the oil and the tar sands, a decade ago, or we don't have a society anymore.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:19 AM on April 11, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:19 AM on April 11, 2016
So no acknowledgement about the fact the collapse of oil is hurting regular people in Alberta (I mentioned a couple of indicators of this pain above)? Okay, good luck to the NDP. I guess brotherhood etc etc doesn't extend to your friends currently occupying the legislature in Edmonton.
BTW I can't recall... did the NDP gain or lose seats in the GTA last election? The answer of course indicates just how much relevance the NDP has, and how much they will be able to influence the national dialogue.
Don't worry, on Vancouver Island we'll continue to do our job and vote Orange.
posted by My Dad at 11:23 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
BTW I can't recall... did the NDP gain or lose seats in the GTA last election? The answer of course indicates just how much relevance the NDP has, and how much they will be able to influence the national dialogue.
Don't worry, on Vancouver Island we'll continue to do our job and vote Orange.
posted by My Dad at 11:23 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes. People are being hurt by the collapse of our resource-based economy. The logical solution is not to keep on trucking with resource extraction, ffs.
Had you been looking over my shoulder in the ballot booth you would have seen me voting NDP so..
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:25 AM on April 11, 2016
Had you been looking over my shoulder in the ballot booth you would have seen me voting NDP so..
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:25 AM on April 11, 2016
So no acknowledgement about the fact the collapse of oil is hurting regular people in Alberta
I acknowledge this is happening. I can also acknowledge that pouring more money into a literal sandpit is a terrible idea. No one wants our filthy, over-priced oil.
I'm not saying let them starve, but I'm loathe to prop up such a fruitless, destructive industry because JOBS and FAMILY.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:40 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I acknowledge this is happening. I can also acknowledge that pouring more money into a literal sandpit is a terrible idea. No one wants our filthy, over-priced oil.
I'm not saying let them starve, but I'm loathe to prop up such a fruitless, destructive industry because JOBS and FAMILY.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:40 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
So no acknowledgement about the fact the collapse of oil is hurting regular people in Alberta (I mentioned a couple of indicators of this pain above)?
I completely acknowledge this. What I find extremely disingenuous is the claim that the Leap Manifesto is bad for Alberta because of where and who it comes from, and that it doesn't care about Albertans needing good jobs. From the Manifesto itself:
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:43 AM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I completely acknowledge this. What I find extremely disingenuous is the claim that the Leap Manifesto is bad for Alberta because of where and who it comes from, and that it doesn't care about Albertans needing good jobs. From the Manifesto itself:
We want a universal program to build energy efficient homes, and retrofit existing housing, ensuring that the lowest income communities and neighbourhoods will benefit first and receive job training and opportunities that reduce poverty over the long term. We want training and other resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are fully able to take part in the clean energy economy. This transition should involve the democratic participation of workers themselves. High-speed rail powered by renewables and affordable public transit can unite every community in this country – in place of more cars, pipelines and exploding trains that endanger and divide us.This kind of project would necessarily produce far more good blue-collar jobs than anything proposed by the Alberta NDP. Sure, it would involve the state becoming far more involved in the economy, but that's the traditional prescription for a slack economy where there is lots of spare capacity and people need jobs that the private sector can't provide. We can acknowledge what workers are going through without immediately jumping to subsidizing pipelines for Koch Industries.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:43 AM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
So no acknowledgement about the fact the collapse of oil is hurting regular people in Alberta
I grew up in a commodity town, mining was our monkey, and I come from a long line of people who had to make tough choices regarding their future & employment. My grandfather settled in the Ontario north from the Maritimes. When he was growing up his choices were fishing, the coal mines or leave - he left. My dad faced similar questions - get good at hockey (like his buddy Ron Duguay), work in the mining or the ancillary industries, or leave. He left. I have sympathy for those working in the oil sector but they've chosen to gamble in an industry where the stakes are extremely high and they've lost. As the Kenny Rogers' song goes you got to know when to walk away. It sucks hard but this is an old story in Canada (and elsewhere) and I doubt this is the last time we'll see it happen.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:43 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I grew up in a commodity town, mining was our monkey, and I come from a long line of people who had to make tough choices regarding their future & employment. My grandfather settled in the Ontario north from the Maritimes. When he was growing up his choices were fishing, the coal mines or leave - he left. My dad faced similar questions - get good at hockey (like his buddy Ron Duguay), work in the mining or the ancillary industries, or leave. He left. I have sympathy for those working in the oil sector but they've chosen to gamble in an industry where the stakes are extremely high and they've lost. As the Kenny Rogers' song goes you got to know when to walk away. It sucks hard but this is an old story in Canada (and elsewhere) and I doubt this is the last time we'll see it happen.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:43 AM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The future of the NDP, at least in the near term, lies in waiting for the federal Liberals to shift back to the centre-right where they are most comfortable (which might take a few years), and finding ways to merge with the Green Party since they now are about 99% overlapping with acceptance of LEAP.
Speaking of LEAP, The Alberta NDP's dismissal of it troubles me. The resource economy and worker security has been proven to be unstable and was brought to its knees by foreign supply management decisions. This is what they want to cling to and go back to? LEAP promises new jobs in more secure circumstances. They should be fighting FOR it, not against.
posted by rocket88 at 11:58 AM on April 11, 2016
Speaking of LEAP, The Alberta NDP's dismissal of it troubles me. The resource economy and worker security has been proven to be unstable and was brought to its knees by foreign supply management decisions. This is what they want to cling to and go back to? LEAP promises new jobs in more secure circumstances. They should be fighting FOR it, not against.
posted by rocket88 at 11:58 AM on April 11, 2016
...they've chosen to gamble in an industry where the stakes are extremely high and they've lost.
With all due respect, for a great many workers in hard, messy, murderous industries, they've hardly "chosen to gamble". They're there precisely because they didn't have much of a choice at all. These jobs were their best options.
If they work at these jobs, maybe making good money but sending them to an early grave, maybe their kids will have more options than they did. Those workers are doing nothing BUT thinking of the future.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:01 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
With all due respect, for a great many workers in hard, messy, murderous industries, they've hardly "chosen to gamble". They're there precisely because they didn't have much of a choice at all. These jobs were their best options.
If they work at these jobs, maybe making good money but sending them to an early grave, maybe their kids will have more options than they did. Those workers are doing nothing BUT thinking of the future.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:01 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Those workers are doing nothing BUT thinking of the future.
The benighted, environmental disaster hellscape that our kids will be growing up in?
This whole "oh but it'll hurt" thing is exactly why we have a climate change crisis.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:04 PM on April 11, 2016
The benighted, environmental disaster hellscape that our kids will be growing up in?
This whole "oh but it'll hurt" thing is exactly why we have a climate change crisis.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:04 PM on April 11, 2016
I'm not saying let them starve, but I'm loathe to prop up such a fruitless, destructive industry because JOBS and FAMILY.
Atlantic Canada has heard virtually this identical statement directed at it from Alberta residents for decades. While part of me hopes Albertans gain a little bit of understanding out of this, I expect when the price of oil rebounds they'll immediately go back to decrying the "have not" eastern provinces mooching off their hard work.
Yes, that 7.1% unemployment rate is tough, AB. How can you endure it? It's only 9.1% to 13.1% over here.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Atlantic Canada has heard virtually this identical statement directed at it from Alberta residents for decades. While part of me hopes Albertans gain a little bit of understanding out of this, I expect when the price of oil rebounds they'll immediately go back to decrying the "have not" eastern provinces mooching off their hard work.
Yes, that 7.1% unemployment rate is tough, AB. How can you endure it? It's only 9.1% to 13.1% over here.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Making LEAP work will require new technologies, new infrastructure, and new social policies. I don't think any of the "Toronto dilettantes" would have a problem with putting those resources where they are most badly needed, like the Alberta oil patch regions and Atlantic Canada.
posted by rocket88 at 12:17 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by rocket88 at 12:17 PM on April 11, 2016
This takes me back to what I was saying originally, that it's too bad the convention was dominated by royalty like Stephen Lewis, his son, and his son's wife Naomi Klein.
What do they know about someone who has lost their house?
I can't help but take this a little personally, since it seems obvious that you are treating fffm and me as part of this Toronto-based elite you imagine scoffing about the concerns of peasants working in western resource industries. (Though I guess I can't blame you given my profile pic and location.)
I wasn't always the cigar-puffing taskmaster you see in the photo—nor am I now, to be fair. I grew up on a salmon gill-netter/troller. I saw first hand how the commodity boom and bust cycle could ruin lives. I spent a good part of my childhood and adolescence in the cyclone of alcoholism, depression, suicide etc. that followed in the wake of the loss of purpose and identity combined with the crushing financial hardship that came when my father and many of his friends had to give up their trade and find new work on land. I know this pain intimately and I resent being dismissed on the assumption that I am a million miles removed from it.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:25 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
What do they know about someone who has lost their house?
I can't help but take this a little personally, since it seems obvious that you are treating fffm and me as part of this Toronto-based elite you imagine scoffing about the concerns of peasants working in western resource industries. (Though I guess I can't blame you given my profile pic and location.)
I wasn't always the cigar-puffing taskmaster you see in the photo—nor am I now, to be fair. I grew up on a salmon gill-netter/troller. I saw first hand how the commodity boom and bust cycle could ruin lives. I spent a good part of my childhood and adolescence in the cyclone of alcoholism, depression, suicide etc. that followed in the wake of the loss of purpose and identity combined with the crushing financial hardship that came when my father and many of his friends had to give up their trade and find new work on land. I know this pain intimately and I resent being dismissed on the assumption that I am a million miles removed from it.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:25 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
My main concern is not burning down the fucking planet.
The first step in that process is to get yourself elected. The Leap Manifesto reads like a bad buzzword-bingo card and probably won't lead to more NDP MPs in the House if it ends up being adopted into the party platform.
posted by the road and the damned at 12:29 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The first step in that process is to get yourself elected. The Leap Manifesto reads like a bad buzzword-bingo card and probably won't lead to more NDP MPs in the House if it ends up being adopted into the party platform.
posted by the road and the damned at 12:29 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
LEAP is an extremist option that completely discounts the human costs of transition. People have to eat between now and the glorious fossil-fuel-free future, a period that is realistically at least a decade away. Many of the green technologies don't yet exist, or, if they do bring their own problems.
LEAP would be a lot more tolerable as a doctrine if McGinty's plans had worked in Ontario. But it hasn't. If one of the 40+ proposed windfarms along the St. Lawrence corridor proposed as a result of B150 has been approved, I'm not aware of it. Ontario pays one of the highest per kilowatt-hour rates on the continent as a result of that program. Electric costs (and a lack of stability in costs) has been a serious drag on the province's ability to restart the manufacturing sector here.
The ability to make the leap, so to speak, to a non-carbon economy, at this point does not look credible, certainly not immediately, and certainly not without a real plan for transition, which I don't see in this document at all. And which I do see in Notely's policies (she's killing Alberta's coal dependence for fucks sake, which is a gigantic step forward!)
I fully admit that I'm biased on the subject, I work in an area that's strongly coupled to oil use (though not as an exploiter). But I would be very, very happy never to see another oil spill in Canada ever again, or a dead waterbird in a Fort Mac settling pond or a mutant fish in the Mackenzie delta. I would be happy to be put out of a job. I can do something else. But I can't see a realistic next decade at least over which petroleum extraction and transportation isn't important to Alberta or Canada.
So, from my perspective, it's the movement of oil by rail, bitumen particularly, that fills me with increasing dread. Killing infrastructure means that we're increasingly facing a decade or more of oil unit trains and potential Lac Megantics. The only option I see around that is not LEAP, but pipelines. Pipelines are no where near perfect, but they're a hell of a lot safer than rail for moving petroleum. Pipelines aren't just a commercial need, they're and environmental and public safety one too.
posted by bonehead at 12:37 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
LEAP would be a lot more tolerable as a doctrine if McGinty's plans had worked in Ontario. But it hasn't. If one of the 40+ proposed windfarms along the St. Lawrence corridor proposed as a result of B150 has been approved, I'm not aware of it. Ontario pays one of the highest per kilowatt-hour rates on the continent as a result of that program. Electric costs (and a lack of stability in costs) has been a serious drag on the province's ability to restart the manufacturing sector here.
The ability to make the leap, so to speak, to a non-carbon economy, at this point does not look credible, certainly not immediately, and certainly not without a real plan for transition, which I don't see in this document at all. And which I do see in Notely's policies (she's killing Alberta's coal dependence for fucks sake, which is a gigantic step forward!)
I fully admit that I'm biased on the subject, I work in an area that's strongly coupled to oil use (though not as an exploiter). But I would be very, very happy never to see another oil spill in Canada ever again, or a dead waterbird in a Fort Mac settling pond or a mutant fish in the Mackenzie delta. I would be happy to be put out of a job. I can do something else. But I can't see a realistic next decade at least over which petroleum extraction and transportation isn't important to Alberta or Canada.
So, from my perspective, it's the movement of oil by rail, bitumen particularly, that fills me with increasing dread. Killing infrastructure means that we're increasingly facing a decade or more of oil unit trains and potential Lac Megantics. The only option I see around that is not LEAP, but pipelines. Pipelines are no where near perfect, but they're a hell of a lot safer than rail for moving petroleum. Pipelines aren't just a commercial need, they're and environmental and public safety one too.
posted by bonehead at 12:37 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Notely
This reminds me of the time a guy I know met Rachel's father, Grant Notley. The guy was nervous, and said, "Pleased to meet you, Mr. Grantley." Notley answered, "It's not 'Grantley,'" to which the guy responded, "I know!"
posted by No Robots at 12:44 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This reminds me of the time a guy I know met Rachel's father, Grant Notley. The guy was nervous, and said, "Pleased to meet you, Mr. Grantley." Notley answered, "It's not 'Grantley,'" to which the guy responded, "I know!"
posted by No Robots at 12:44 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm just asking you to recognize that the collapse in oil prices has really affected a lot of people.
Perhaps this is a good time to step back and ask some hard questions about why a significant part of the Canadian economy is propped up on a resource that is neither stable in the short term, nor sustainable in the long term. Why did Alberta not prioritize using its oil wealth to build up its sovereign fund during the boom years, to help better provide for its people during lean times? Are other provinces learning from Alberta's mistakes with their own resource wealth?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Perhaps this is a good time to step back and ask some hard questions about why a significant part of the Canadian economy is propped up on a resource that is neither stable in the short term, nor sustainable in the long term. Why did Alberta not prioritize using its oil wealth to build up its sovereign fund during the boom years, to help better provide for its people during lean times? Are other provinces learning from Alberta's mistakes with their own resource wealth?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
LEAP is an extremist option
YES! Exactly!
You know that whole Overton Window thing? It does move leftward as well. The LEAP Manifesto is about asking for 100%, because no matter what we ask for we will get less than we ask. So it's staking out an extreme position (which I happen to agree with) in order to get at least some of it adopted. LEAP isn't buzzword bingo, it's absolutely pragmatic politics: we're going to ask for a million billion dollars, you're going to say that's extreme, and we'll negotiate down from there.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:08 PM on April 11, 2016
YES! Exactly!
You know that whole Overton Window thing? It does move leftward as well. The LEAP Manifesto is about asking for 100%, because no matter what we ask for we will get less than we ask. So it's staking out an extreme position (which I happen to agree with) in order to get at least some of it adopted. LEAP isn't buzzword bingo, it's absolutely pragmatic politics: we're going to ask for a million billion dollars, you're going to say that's extreme, and we'll negotiate down from there.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:08 PM on April 11, 2016
LEAP is an extremist option that completely discounts the human costs of transition. People have to eat between now and the glorious fossil-fuel-free future, a period that is realistically at least a decade away.
Have you read it? It includes provisions for shifting to new low-energy economic sectors like caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media. It also calls for universal basic income and worker protections.
LEAP is about far more than keeping oil in the ground.
posted by rocket88 at 1:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you read it? It includes provisions for shifting to new low-energy economic sectors like caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media. It also calls for universal basic income and worker protections.
LEAP is about far more than keeping oil in the ground.
posted by rocket88 at 1:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Leap Manifesto reads like a bad buzzword-bingo card...
I don't have a problem with anything that's in there, and agree with most of it. It's a great vision. But it's only that -- a vision. It's not a plan. Granted, it's a manifesto, so it's not going to be a detailed blueprint, but it doesn't even have the broad strokes of how we go about making these changes.
As with anyone who tells me where things should end up, but doesn't offer any real directions, and leaves the considerable details for other people to figure out and bear the burden of, I'm wary of it. I'm open to being persuaded, but as it is, I'm not seeing much of substance to actually endorse.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:22 PM on April 11, 2016
I don't have a problem with anything that's in there, and agree with most of it. It's a great vision. But it's only that -- a vision. It's not a plan. Granted, it's a manifesto, so it's not going to be a detailed blueprint, but it doesn't even have the broad strokes of how we go about making these changes.
As with anyone who tells me where things should end up, but doesn't offer any real directions, and leaves the considerable details for other people to figure out and bear the burden of, I'm wary of it. I'm open to being persuaded, but as it is, I'm not seeing much of substance to actually endorse.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:22 PM on April 11, 2016
LEAP is an extremist option that completely discounts the human costs of transition. People have to eat between now and the glorious fossil-fuel-free future, a period that is realistically at least a decade away.
Critics of the manifesto would be well served to actually read it; it's not very long. They aren't calling for the overnight dismantling of the fossil fuel industry. They even propose an optimistic timeline of 34 years for total decarbonization of our economy (with footnotes):
Critics of the manifesto would be well served to actually read it; it's not very long. They aren't calling for the overnight dismantling of the fossil fuel industry. They even propose an optimistic timeline of 34 years for total decarbonization of our economy (with footnotes):
The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades[1]; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy[2].posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:36 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
LEAP isn't buzzword bingo, it's absolutely pragmatic politics: we're going to ask for a million billion dollars, you're going to say that's extreme, and we'll negotiate down from there.
The problem with this plan is that several dozen MPs have zero bargaining power against a majority government. Adopting a more extreme platform and thereby appealing to fewer people is not going to fix that. If you want any say as to what comes out of Parliament, your caucus must, at the very least, be large enough to put the screws to a minority government.
posted by the road and the damned at 1:47 PM on April 11, 2016
The problem with this plan is that several dozen MPs have zero bargaining power against a majority government. Adopting a more extreme platform and thereby appealing to fewer people is not going to fix that. If you want any say as to what comes out of Parliament, your caucus must, at the very least, be large enough to put the screws to a minority government.
posted by the road and the damned at 1:47 PM on April 11, 2016
It includes provisions for shifting to new low-energy economic sectors like caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media.
Where's the place for the 100,000s of welders, riggers, drivers, millwrights, electricians and so forth? Those are jobs their kids might do, but a middle-aged worker with 20 years in the petroleum industry? What are they going to do?
They aren't calling for the overnight dismantling of the fossil fuel industry.
They are however, calling for an immediate moratorium on new projects like pipelines, in addition to no new investment in the oil sands area. That's placing people and our environment at significantly higher risk of loss or great damage, in my considered opinion, than otherwise. And that's pretty reckless in my view.
I'm not against winding down the petroleum sector in the next generation. I do think this is a very poorly thought out recipe for it though, neglecting human and environmental costs, and worse it's being used as an excuse to impede those who are actually moving the carbon-reduction ball forward right now because they're not perfect enough.
posted by bonehead at 1:48 PM on April 11, 2016
Where's the place for the 100,000s of welders, riggers, drivers, millwrights, electricians and so forth? Those are jobs their kids might do, but a middle-aged worker with 20 years in the petroleum industry? What are they going to do?
They aren't calling for the overnight dismantling of the fossil fuel industry.
They are however, calling for an immediate moratorium on new projects like pipelines, in addition to no new investment in the oil sands area. That's placing people and our environment at significantly higher risk of loss or great damage, in my considered opinion, than otherwise. And that's pretty reckless in my view.
I'm not against winding down the petroleum sector in the next generation. I do think this is a very poorly thought out recipe for it though, neglecting human and environmental costs, and worse it's being used as an excuse to impede those who are actually moving the carbon-reduction ball forward right now because they're not perfect enough.
posted by bonehead at 1:48 PM on April 11, 2016
but a middle-aged worker with 20 years in the petroleum industry? What are they going to do?
I'm guessing that building a bunch of infrastructure from the ground up is going to need drivers, welders, etc.
The problem with this plan is that several dozen MPs have zero bargaining power against a majority government. Adopting a more extreme platform and thereby appealing to fewer people is not going to fix that. If you want any say as to what comes out of Parliament, your caucus must, at the very least, be large enough to put the screws to a minority government.
Or present the Canadian populace with a policy alternative that lots of us are onboard with. Kinda like how the Trudeau Liberals 'poached' policy positions from the NDP.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:58 PM on April 11, 2016
I'm guessing that building a bunch of infrastructure from the ground up is going to need drivers, welders, etc.
The problem with this plan is that several dozen MPs have zero bargaining power against a majority government. Adopting a more extreme platform and thereby appealing to fewer people is not going to fix that. If you want any say as to what comes out of Parliament, your caucus must, at the very least, be large enough to put the screws to a minority government.
Or present the Canadian populace with a policy alternative that lots of us are onboard with. Kinda like how the Trudeau Liberals 'poached' policy positions from the NDP.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:58 PM on April 11, 2016
Where's the place for the 100,000s of welders, riggers, drivers, millwrights, electricians and so forth? Those are jobs their kids might do, but a middle-aged worker with 20 years in the petroleum industry? What are they going to do?
The mobilization of the industrial economy for the Second World War may have imposed hardship, but it didn't put any welders out of work. This is the kind of transformation that the Leap Manifesto would require to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Investing in new oil projects is not the way forward, and the productive capacity that those welders, riggers, drivers, millwrights, electricians and so forth represent would be needed, and then some, in order to accomplish this task, even if we started today going full out.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The mobilization of the industrial economy for the Second World War may have imposed hardship, but it didn't put any welders out of work. This is the kind of transformation that the Leap Manifesto would require to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Investing in new oil projects is not the way forward, and the productive capacity that those welders, riggers, drivers, millwrights, electricians and so forth represent would be needed, and then some, in order to accomplish this task, even if we started today going full out.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Where's the place for the 100,000s of welders, riggers, drivers, millwrights, electricians and so forth? Those are jobs their kids might do, but a middle-aged worker with 20 years in the petroleum industry? What are they going to do?
Renewable energy is still energy. It requires generating plants, distribution, switching, and maintenance. And since what LEAP calls for is a system of community based energy systems, it probably requires even more manual labour than the status quo.
posted by rocket88 at 2:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Renewable energy is still energy. It requires generating plants, distribution, switching, and maintenance. And since what LEAP calls for is a system of community based energy systems, it probably requires even more manual labour than the status quo.
posted by rocket88 at 2:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Critics of the manifesto would be well served to actually read it; it's not very long.
For those who'd rather not, it's also sufficiently content-free that it can be easily and briefly paraphrased without leaving out too much:
Indigenous communities, renewable energy, high-paying jobs for everyone, high-speed rail everywhere, more taxes please, nobody could fail to want a wind turbine in their back yard, energy-efficient low-income community housing for community-run energy projects powering universal basic high-speed rail for our future prosperous and peaceful nation of immigrants, teachers, artists, women, social workers, national childcare workers, and other low-carbon people. Hooray! As proof that all this will work, here's a random scientific-looking article that at one point mentions that other papers have claimed that 100% low-carbon electricity by 2035 is perhaps possible.
posted by sfenders at 3:39 PM on April 11, 2016
For those who'd rather not, it's also sufficiently content-free that it can be easily and briefly paraphrased without leaving out too much:
Indigenous communities, renewable energy, high-paying jobs for everyone, high-speed rail everywhere, more taxes please, nobody could fail to want a wind turbine in their back yard, energy-efficient low-income community housing for community-run energy projects powering universal basic high-speed rail for our future prosperous and peaceful nation of immigrants, teachers, artists, women, social workers, national childcare workers, and other low-carbon people. Hooray! As proof that all this will work, here's a random scientific-looking article that at one point mentions that other papers have claimed that 100% low-carbon electricity by 2035 is perhaps possible.
posted by sfenders at 3:39 PM on April 11, 2016
That is a mindbogglingly stupid 'paraphrase,' written in bad faith.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:45 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:45 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why did Alberta not prioritize using its oil wealth to build up its sovereign fund during the boom years, to help better provide for its people during lean times? Are other provinces learning from Alberta's mistakes with their own resource wealth?
They're kinda allergic to taxes in Alberta, so they kept taxes low. But I think it would have been a smart move to put some of that money on the side for harder times and to diversify their economy.
posted by coust at 4:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
They're kinda allergic to taxes in Alberta, so they kept taxes low. But I think it would have been a smart move to put some of that money on the side for harder times and to diversify their economy.
posted by coust at 4:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
True, we need a great orator to do better.
Maybe we could start with you doing better, eh
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:06 PM on April 11, 2016
Maybe we could start with you doing better, eh
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:06 PM on April 11, 2016
Yeah, I didn't even manage to include key concepts like "healthcare", "democracy", and "localized agriculture". A disorganized jumble of loosely-related, mostly-good, and always well-meaning ideas, produced by a diverse committee of generally progressive people each making sure that all their favourite ideas got a mention, it's harder to summarize than I had guessed.
posted by sfenders at 4:14 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by sfenders at 4:14 PM on April 11, 2016
Why are you being such a twit about this?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:16 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:16 PM on April 11, 2016
I mean, either you agree with said ideas in which case hello leftwing circular firing squad, or you don't, in which case there's no need to be nasty and snide.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:20 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:20 PM on April 11, 2016
At a guess, I generally agree with maybe two thirds of the ideas. It's hard to be precise because there are so many of them, and none of them are spelled out in much detail.
Not that much detail is needed for a good manifesto, but a coherent vision that binds it all together into a compelling cause is necessary, and to my eye lacking. There is too much hyperbole, too much the impression of overenthusiastic naivety. There is too much imputation of causal relationships the reality of which are too disputable and vague. Too many blatant grammatical and rhetorical mistakes of the wrong kind, the kind that make the writers look bad (calling cuts to military spending "polluter pays", talking about the problem of trade deals that "stop damaging extractive projects", implying that nobody objects to wind turbines, granting "austerity" some kind of agency as if it's a rival team or something).
So yeah, I don't like it. I rather do like the NDP, they're an important political force standing up for some important ideals that nobody else can do as well. I don't want to see them associated with LEAP. I agree with those who think it would be alarmingly bad for their political prospects.
posted by sfenders at 4:39 PM on April 11, 2016
Not that much detail is needed for a good manifesto, but a coherent vision that binds it all together into a compelling cause is necessary, and to my eye lacking. There is too much hyperbole, too much the impression of overenthusiastic naivety. There is too much imputation of causal relationships the reality of which are too disputable and vague. Too many blatant grammatical and rhetorical mistakes of the wrong kind, the kind that make the writers look bad (calling cuts to military spending "polluter pays", talking about the problem of trade deals that "stop damaging extractive projects", implying that nobody objects to wind turbines, granting "austerity" some kind of agency as if it's a rival team or something).
So yeah, I don't like it. I rather do like the NDP, they're an important political force standing up for some important ideals that nobody else can do as well. I don't want to see them associated with LEAP. I agree with those who think it would be alarmingly bad for their political prospects.
posted by sfenders at 4:39 PM on April 11, 2016
"Polluter pays" has been a bedrock principle of environmental protection back to at least Chretien's days (I'm not sure about earlier) . It's both well settled in our law and fairly nonpolitical policy at this point. I don't think there is a single party that doesn't agree with it.
posted by bonehead at 5:07 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by bonehead at 5:07 PM on April 11, 2016
[expletive deleted]: "You say the economy is in the worst shape since 1984, and what this tells me is that in the intervening three decades, the political and business leadership in Alberta managed to not learn a single damn thing, and even now refuses to acknowledge the reality that is so plainly evident.
"
Yep. The former goverment should have been taxing the crap out of the energy sector to both put more away for the 100% going to happen downturn and to apply some throttle control to the rocket of extraction expansion. But that would have meant taxes and increases in royalty payments and convincing people that is a good idea in Alberta is like shooting puppies in the street. It was obvious even ten years ago when I left that Alberta was setting themselves up for a debilitating crash in a downturn but no one I talked to there wanted to believe it.
Part of that is they managed to lay all the blame for the last crash on the National Energy Policy rather than internalizing the market reasons. And so they learned little but to back the Reform Party.
My Dad: "Promoting the oil/tar sands for the last 10+ years has been a terrible mistake, but at the moment there are a lot of families hurting in Alberta. For them the future doomsday is now."
Yep, and they are (or at least my family back there) blaming it all on the NDP. They have this mystical delusion that a conservative provincial government would have meant no job losses and that as soon as the NDP is out of power come the next election every thing will magically start back up again. They can't seem to acknowledge that the bust is fueled by the irresponsible encouragement of the massive boom.
GhostintheMachine: "Yes, that 7.1% unemployment rate is tough, AB. How can you endure it? It's only 9.1% to 13.1% over here."
This is hurting the maritimes too as so many people came out to Alberta and were sending money eastward.
bonehead: "Ontario pays one of the highest per kilowatt-hour rates on the continent as a result of that program. "
That is not even remotely true. If you take at look at this graphic of residential electrical rates in Canada and the US I clipped from this report comparing electrical rates in major North American cities you can see Ontario is near the middle of the band for residential rates. Industrial rates are in the bottom third. Ontario rates are twice Quebec rates but only half of California, New York and Massachusetts rates and cheaper than Nova Scotia, PEI, Illinois and Michigan.
a lungful of dragon: "Why did Alberta not prioritize using its oil wealth to build up its sovereign fund during the boom years, to help better provide for its people during lean times?"
Because Government spending requires government revenue collection and that is baaaad! It's the same problem so many states in the US have and it's no surprise Alberta is the most American Province.
posted by Mitheral at 5:13 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
"
Yep. The former goverment should have been taxing the crap out of the energy sector to both put more away for the 100% going to happen downturn and to apply some throttle control to the rocket of extraction expansion. But that would have meant taxes and increases in royalty payments and convincing people that is a good idea in Alberta is like shooting puppies in the street. It was obvious even ten years ago when I left that Alberta was setting themselves up for a debilitating crash in a downturn but no one I talked to there wanted to believe it.
Part of that is they managed to lay all the blame for the last crash on the National Energy Policy rather than internalizing the market reasons. And so they learned little but to back the Reform Party.
My Dad: "Promoting the oil/tar sands for the last 10+ years has been a terrible mistake, but at the moment there are a lot of families hurting in Alberta. For them the future doomsday is now."
Yep, and they are (or at least my family back there) blaming it all on the NDP. They have this mystical delusion that a conservative provincial government would have meant no job losses and that as soon as the NDP is out of power come the next election every thing will magically start back up again. They can't seem to acknowledge that the bust is fueled by the irresponsible encouragement of the massive boom.
GhostintheMachine: "Yes, that 7.1% unemployment rate is tough, AB. How can you endure it? It's only 9.1% to 13.1% over here."
This is hurting the maritimes too as so many people came out to Alberta and were sending money eastward.
bonehead: "Ontario pays one of the highest per kilowatt-hour rates on the continent as a result of that program. "
That is not even remotely true. If you take at look at this graphic of residential electrical rates in Canada and the US I clipped from this report comparing electrical rates in major North American cities you can see Ontario is near the middle of the band for residential rates. Industrial rates are in the bottom third. Ontario rates are twice Quebec rates but only half of California, New York and Massachusetts rates and cheaper than Nova Scotia, PEI, Illinois and Michigan.
a lungful of dragon: "Why did Alberta not prioritize using its oil wealth to build up its sovereign fund during the boom years, to help better provide for its people during lean times?"
Because Government spending requires government revenue collection and that is baaaad! It's the same problem so many states in the US have and it's no surprise Alberta is the most American Province.
posted by Mitheral at 5:13 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Polluter pays" has been a bedrock principle of environmental protection back to at least Chretien's days
Yes, it's a fine principle. I was just mentioning it in order to suggest that military spending cuts, financial transaction taxes, and higher income taxes are not such great examples of it. Someone with appropriate PR skills ought to write a leaner, tougher, meatier document in similar spirit, maybe call it a HOP manifesto.
posted by sfenders at 5:31 PM on April 11, 2016
Yes, it's a fine principle. I was just mentioning it in order to suggest that military spending cuts, financial transaction taxes, and higher income taxes are not such great examples of it. Someone with appropriate PR skills ought to write a leaner, tougher, meatier document in similar spirit, maybe call it a HOP manifesto.
posted by sfenders at 5:31 PM on April 11, 2016
With all due respect...
I've known many people in oil industries over the years, including my brother for a time, while I'm sure your assertion that "[t]hey're there precisely because they didn't have much of a choice at all" is true for some it most certainly is not true for all.
The point I was trying to make is that working for a commodity industry is a lot like gambling - fun when you're winning, it's hard to imagine it ever stopping. But sooner or later that boom is going to bust, that winning streak is going to end. And there is nothing you can do about that bust because you've ceded your soul into the hands of an industry which doesn't give a shit about you. The foreign owned companies will simply move on. If you're lucky, the bust could come when you're in your 30's and are able to adapt but if you're unlucky it could come when you're in your 50's and you got nowhere to go. I don't doubt it is hard because I've seen it. It may feel like the "best option" but it really isn't.
posted by Ashwagandha at 5:41 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've known many people in oil industries over the years, including my brother for a time, while I'm sure your assertion that "[t]hey're there precisely because they didn't have much of a choice at all" is true for some it most certainly is not true for all.
The point I was trying to make is that working for a commodity industry is a lot like gambling - fun when you're winning, it's hard to imagine it ever stopping. But sooner or later that boom is going to bust, that winning streak is going to end. And there is nothing you can do about that bust because you've ceded your soul into the hands of an industry which doesn't give a shit about you. The foreign owned companies will simply move on. If you're lucky, the bust could come when you're in your 30's and are able to adapt but if you're unlucky it could come when you're in your 50's and you got nowhere to go. I don't doubt it is hard because I've seen it. It may feel like the "best option" but it really isn't.
posted by Ashwagandha at 5:41 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
> Ontario pays one of the highest per kilowatt-hour rates on the continent as a result of [the Green Energy Act] program
Not true. The Ontario Power Authority signed a lot of paper in the brownout panic of 2005-2007, and continued to. Bruce Nuclear gets paid 9c/kWh for their new refurbishments, even in the middle of the night when electric wholesale prices are negative.
posted by anthill at 6:06 PM on April 11, 2016
Not true. The Ontario Power Authority signed a lot of paper in the brownout panic of 2005-2007, and continued to. Bruce Nuclear gets paid 9c/kWh for their new refurbishments, even in the middle of the night when electric wholesale prices are negative.
posted by anthill at 6:06 PM on April 11, 2016
Mitheral: ...an intentional loss by the conservative side to avoid blame for low prices and thereby ensure subsequent conservative wins for the next 30 years.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Another factor in Alberta is the blatant efforts by Postmedia (Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, National Post) to blame Notley and the NDP for every oil price fluctuation, every round of job loss, and every budget tradeoff. Supposedly Postmedia is on the ropes, but they've been working the niche of playing to right wing populism for years, and they're good at it, so that's going to leave a mark.
posted by sneebler at 7:01 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Another factor in Alberta is the blatant efforts by Postmedia (Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, National Post) to blame Notley and the NDP for every oil price fluctuation, every round of job loss, and every budget tradeoff. Supposedly Postmedia is on the ropes, but they've been working the niche of playing to right wing populism for years, and they're good at it, so that's going to leave a mark.
posted by sneebler at 7:01 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thomas Mulcair Was the First Victim of the Great Schism That’s About to Swallow the NDP
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:10 AM on April 12, 2016
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:10 AM on April 12, 2016
The G&M is calling this the new Waffle. They may not be far wrong. Interestingly, Steven Lewis was one of the main opponents of that manifesto.
Layton was the one who finally healed the party of that old wound.
posted by bonehead at 9:45 AM on April 12, 2016
Layton was the one who finally healed the party of that old wound.
posted by bonehead at 9:45 AM on April 12, 2016
That Vice piece was hard to read. Not just because it was written by an avowed Justin Trudeau fanboy, or that it was so obviously planned as a hit piece long before the author got to the convention. It was just bad writing. The religion/biblical metaphors wouldn't quit, despite never really making sense.
The in-fighting among the NDP is a problem, but it comes naturally from being a party that fights many causes at once. The Cons simply have to advocate for the 1% while convincing the working class that unions are the cause of their ills, and the Libs just have to find the center of the Overton window and stand with one foot on each side.
Maybe when we get proportional representation we'll see the NDP truly fracture, but I don't see this convention as evidence that it's happening now.
posted by rocket88 at 9:53 AM on April 12, 2016
The in-fighting among the NDP is a problem, but it comes naturally from being a party that fights many causes at once. The Cons simply have to advocate for the 1% while convincing the working class that unions are the cause of their ills, and the Libs just have to find the center of the Overton window and stand with one foot on each side.
Maybe when we get proportional representation we'll see the NDP truly fracture, but I don't see this convention as evidence that it's happening now.
posted by rocket88 at 9:53 AM on April 12, 2016
The G&M is calling this the new Waffle.
Globe columnists concern for the NDP is the plainest example of concern trolling I can think of. That said, the piece sure seems to fit the mould of the standard Canadian response to proposals to take climate change seriously: dismiss any attempt to factor a realistic assessment of climate science into policy as "unserious".
Lawrence Martin derides the Leap Manifesto for wanting "all oil be left in the ground and we bounce along happily on moonbeams and other rays". He goes on to say:
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:51 AM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Globe columnists concern for the NDP is the plainest example of concern trolling I can think of. That said, the piece sure seems to fit the mould of the standard Canadian response to proposals to take climate change seriously: dismiss any attempt to factor a realistic assessment of climate science into policy as "unserious".
Lawrence Martin derides the Leap Manifesto for wanting "all oil be left in the ground and we bounce along happily on moonbeams and other rays". He goes on to say:
It has put Alberta’s NDP Premier Rachel Notley in a hellish position. In a province that lives off oil, this rising wing of her party is demanding it live off something else.So what is the takeaway? That Alberta can just continue along planning to live off of oil for the foreseeable future? The Leap Manifesto is calling for a 3 decade timeline to achieve net-zero emissions. They are not calling for the oil industry in Alberta to be dismantled overnight. They want it to be wound down in an orderly manner while we shift to building the infrastructure we need, instead of the infrastructure that takes us further down a road all reasonable people can agree leads to total disaster. I see mainstream Canadian pundits use this dishonest argument all the time. It's like saying that because we are on a big ship that turns or stops really slowly, we shouldn't immediately start emergency manoeuvres to avoid running aground. Of course a transition takes time, but we have run out of time to politely deliberate while keeping the engines going full ahead.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:51 AM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
The in-fighting among the NDP is a problem
This is a bit of an understatement, given that the federal party doesn't seem to care about kneecapping what, in about 175 hours, will be the only remaining NDP government in Canada. Putting the Wildrose in power in 2019 isn't going to help wind down the tar-sands industry.
posted by the road and the damned at 11:25 AM on April 12, 2016
This is a bit of an understatement, given that the federal party doesn't seem to care about kneecapping what, in about 175 hours, will be the only remaining NDP government in Canada. Putting the Wildrose in power in 2019 isn't going to help wind down the tar-sands industry.
posted by the road and the damned at 11:25 AM on April 12, 2016
They are not calling for the oil industry in Alberta to be dismantled overnight. They want it to be wound down in an orderly manner
Where in the Leap Manifesto do you see that process described? I don't even see where the manifesto is bold enough to call for it directly, it's only implied with statements like "we could have a 100% clean economy." 100% purity would presumably rule out any oil products, along with 99% of everything else.
As Rachel Notley says, "we need to be able to get the best possible world price for the oil we produce". Whatever else happens, one thing everyone should agree on is that selling millions of barrels of oil per day at multiple dollars per barrel below a fair price is not good. Preventing that kind of mismanagement of resources is a primary responsibility of government. Notley wants to do it by getting a pipeline built, while taking the various measures they've proposed to diversify the economy. One could think of other approaches involving more rapidly reduced oil production. License revocations and production quotas, maybe? Is there a better way? Stopping any and all new projects solves the problem eventually, but too slowly to avoid throwing away many tens of billions of dollars if something isn't done to mitigate the damage. What should be done, I don't know. Since it is a concrete problem of practical importance, Leap appears to have nothing to say about it.
posted by sfenders at 11:48 AM on April 12, 2016
Where in the Leap Manifesto do you see that process described? I don't even see where the manifesto is bold enough to call for it directly, it's only implied with statements like "we could have a 100% clean economy." 100% purity would presumably rule out any oil products, along with 99% of everything else.
As Rachel Notley says, "we need to be able to get the best possible world price for the oil we produce". Whatever else happens, one thing everyone should agree on is that selling millions of barrels of oil per day at multiple dollars per barrel below a fair price is not good. Preventing that kind of mismanagement of resources is a primary responsibility of government. Notley wants to do it by getting a pipeline built, while taking the various measures they've proposed to diversify the economy. One could think of other approaches involving more rapidly reduced oil production. License revocations and production quotas, maybe? Is there a better way? Stopping any and all new projects solves the problem eventually, but too slowly to avoid throwing away many tens of billions of dollars if something isn't done to mitigate the damage. What should be done, I don't know. Since it is a concrete problem of practical importance, Leap appears to have nothing to say about it.
posted by sfenders at 11:48 AM on April 12, 2016
The relevant bit is this:
The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades[1]; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy[2]. We demand that this shift begin now.
There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.
While that seems to call for a 20-year or 30-year transition, it's also demanding an immediate halt to any and all existing or planned petroleum energy projects. And that's what's in direct conflict with the Alberta NDP government's stated policies, both to continue to build a domestic refinery and to complete a pipeline to tidewater. Let alone, consider any increase in tanker traffic.
posted by bonehead at 12:18 PM on April 12, 2016
The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades[1]; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy[2]. We demand that this shift begin now.
There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.
While that seems to call for a 20-year or 30-year transition, it's also demanding an immediate halt to any and all existing or planned petroleum energy projects. And that's what's in direct conflict with the Alberta NDP government's stated policies, both to continue to build a domestic refinery and to complete a pipeline to tidewater. Let alone, consider any increase in tanker traffic.
posted by bonehead at 12:18 PM on April 12, 2016
VMOSA: Vision, Mission, Objectives, Strategies, and Action Plans
Leap is a Vision/Mission statement. I don't get the criticism here that it doesn't have detailed plans and strategies because it isn't supposed to have those. It's a starting point...a set of visions and goals that guide the eventual strategic function of a policy statement.
And really, that's all the NDP have embraced this weekend...a vision. A vision of a future powered by renewable energy, and with vastly improved social justice and equity. If Rachel Notley doesn't share that same fundamental vision then sadly she's in the wrong party.
The convention vote was to direct the grassroots membership to start the process of developing those strategies and timelines with Leap as a guiding vision. Every region and municipality will have different ideas and plans, including the Government of Alberta. I would have preferred that their reaction to Leap was a "Yes, but..." instead of a flat-out "No", which IMO was an act of regional self-interest at the expense of the rest of the planet.
posted by rocket88 at 12:20 PM on April 12, 2016
Leap is a Vision/Mission statement. I don't get the criticism here that it doesn't have detailed plans and strategies because it isn't supposed to have those. It's a starting point...a set of visions and goals that guide the eventual strategic function of a policy statement.
And really, that's all the NDP have embraced this weekend...a vision. A vision of a future powered by renewable energy, and with vastly improved social justice and equity. If Rachel Notley doesn't share that same fundamental vision then sadly she's in the wrong party.
The convention vote was to direct the grassroots membership to start the process of developing those strategies and timelines with Leap as a guiding vision. Every region and municipality will have different ideas and plans, including the Government of Alberta. I would have preferred that their reaction to Leap was a "Yes, but..." instead of a flat-out "No", which IMO was an act of regional self-interest at the expense of the rest of the planet.
posted by rocket88 at 12:20 PM on April 12, 2016
LEAP is a big change from Mulcair's 2015 election platform. That doesn't mention any transition to an oil-free future, has no mention of a carbon-tax, and indeed, seems mostly focused on municipal transit. It should at least be admitted that while the goal posts needed to move, LEAP moves them further than just about any government on the planet.
If Rachel Notley doesn't share that same fundamental vision then sadly she's in the wrong party.
Keep in mind that Notley's government has already produced one of the most forward-looking climate change plans in North America, and actually started to implement it: coal elimination and switching to a renewable grid, sector-based emissions limits, a carbon tax.
But that infrastructure line in LEAP is absolute. If the party wants to hang Notley out to dry based on that alone, they're throwing away a huge amount of progress, in my view. The Alberta PCs didn't even have the political will to end coal electric generation. Wildrose are all over the map on the issue. We have no idea what the federal government will do at this point, but the province has more direct control over the petroleum sector than they do anyway.
Relegating the Alberta NDP to the bad guy bin seems to me to be throwing away real, present concrete gains for some possible perfect abstract future at least an election cycle or two away.
The NDP needs a coherent energy and climate change strategy. Mulcair didn't have one and I think that hurt the party in the last election. The Liberals at least were brave enough to raise a national carbon tax. All Mulcair offered was a fuzzy cap-and-trade concept. But trashing possibly the most progressive policy in Canada as the starting point? That seems very poorly thought out to me.
posted by bonehead at 12:59 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Rachel Notley doesn't share that same fundamental vision then sadly she's in the wrong party.
Keep in mind that Notley's government has already produced one of the most forward-looking climate change plans in North America, and actually started to implement it: coal elimination and switching to a renewable grid, sector-based emissions limits, a carbon tax.
But that infrastructure line in LEAP is absolute. If the party wants to hang Notley out to dry based on that alone, they're throwing away a huge amount of progress, in my view. The Alberta PCs didn't even have the political will to end coal electric generation. Wildrose are all over the map on the issue. We have no idea what the federal government will do at this point, but the province has more direct control over the petroleum sector than they do anyway.
Relegating the Alberta NDP to the bad guy bin seems to me to be throwing away real, present concrete gains for some possible perfect abstract future at least an election cycle or two away.
The NDP needs a coherent energy and climate change strategy. Mulcair didn't have one and I think that hurt the party in the last election. The Liberals at least were brave enough to raise a national carbon tax. All Mulcair offered was a fuzzy cap-and-trade concept. But trashing possibly the most progressive policy in Canada as the starting point? That seems very poorly thought out to me.
posted by bonehead at 12:59 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
A vision of a future powered by renewable energy, and with vastly improved social justice and equity.
Yes please. Let's start that now please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:10 PM on April 12, 2016
Yes please. Let's start that now please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:10 PM on April 12, 2016
How is it progressive to continue expanding the production of Alberta bitumen? Because that is what we are talking about. Notley supports the Energy East pipeline, which would be a massive undertaking to build, cutting a swath clear across the country to deliver over a million barrels a day. I don't see how this can be described as anything other than doubling down on an oil-only economy for Alberta.
Infrastructure we build is only for the here and now insofar as we are talking about the temporary construction jobs it creates, so if we are concerned about immediate jobs, then it doesn't matter what is being built. It could be a refinery, pipeline, an expensive boondoggle of a geothermal or nuclear plant, whatever. Why should we accept infrastructure to allow Alberta to continue to increase the production of fossil fuels for the next decade? Because an NDP government supports it?
Building a tidewater pipeline isn't compatible with winding down the bitumen industry over the next two or three decades. It will take years to build and then be operational for decades.
I spent some time a few years back trying to fight the Line 9B reversal that Enbridge wanted. Ultimately it was fruitless because the NEB didn't want to hear anything about climate change. They got approval to run that 40 year old pipeline, constructed at the same time in the same way as the pipeline that ruptured in Kalamazoo, full of Bakken condensate, at over 100% of its initially rated capacity, without doing hydrostatic testing or digging up and inspecting the outside of the line. They got approval to run 300,000 barrels a day of what is essentially gasoline through a pipeline that sits less than three feet under Yonge St. and directly above Finch station. Activists actually found places in the GTA where the pipeline was exposed, with the PE tape that protects it from rusting coming off. Even after Kalamazoo, we had to publicize this to get Enbridge to fix it.
Honestly, I'm not too worried about a disaster on the scale of Lac Megantic, but it's still possible the pipeline could rupture under Yonge one day and fill the platform below at rush hour, incinerating hundreds of subway commuters. We have decided we can tolerate this small risk of running a 40 year old pipeline full of alternately dilbit and condensate right through the heart of the GTA.
And of course, the age of existing pipelines, that these companies have no plans to retire, are used as an argument to build much larger pipelines through the backyards of First Nations people Canada officially doesn't care about. No more unit trains full explosive condensate, let us build a huge pipeline through land full of nobodies instead! Because now isn't the right time.
Until when can we expect to operate a huge tidewater pipeline built today somewhere remote where it only creates a risk for indigenous peoples we don't care about? How is that compatible with what we know, with absolute certainty, about the desperate need to begin reducing carbon emissions immediately?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:25 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Infrastructure we build is only for the here and now insofar as we are talking about the temporary construction jobs it creates, so if we are concerned about immediate jobs, then it doesn't matter what is being built. It could be a refinery, pipeline, an expensive boondoggle of a geothermal or nuclear plant, whatever. Why should we accept infrastructure to allow Alberta to continue to increase the production of fossil fuels for the next decade? Because an NDP government supports it?
Building a tidewater pipeline isn't compatible with winding down the bitumen industry over the next two or three decades. It will take years to build and then be operational for decades.
I spent some time a few years back trying to fight the Line 9B reversal that Enbridge wanted. Ultimately it was fruitless because the NEB didn't want to hear anything about climate change. They got approval to run that 40 year old pipeline, constructed at the same time in the same way as the pipeline that ruptured in Kalamazoo, full of Bakken condensate, at over 100% of its initially rated capacity, without doing hydrostatic testing or digging up and inspecting the outside of the line. They got approval to run 300,000 barrels a day of what is essentially gasoline through a pipeline that sits less than three feet under Yonge St. and directly above Finch station. Activists actually found places in the GTA where the pipeline was exposed, with the PE tape that protects it from rusting coming off. Even after Kalamazoo, we had to publicize this to get Enbridge to fix it.
Honestly, I'm not too worried about a disaster on the scale of Lac Megantic, but it's still possible the pipeline could rupture under Yonge one day and fill the platform below at rush hour, incinerating hundreds of subway commuters. We have decided we can tolerate this small risk of running a 40 year old pipeline full of alternately dilbit and condensate right through the heart of the GTA.
And of course, the age of existing pipelines, that these companies have no plans to retire, are used as an argument to build much larger pipelines through the backyards of First Nations people Canada officially doesn't care about. No more unit trains full explosive condensate, let us build a huge pipeline through land full of nobodies instead! Because now isn't the right time.
Until when can we expect to operate a huge tidewater pipeline built today somewhere remote where it only creates a risk for indigenous peoples we don't care about? How is that compatible with what we know, with absolute certainty, about the desperate need to begin reducing carbon emissions immediately?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:25 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.
Reaction to just that one paragraph: If that language rules out oil production and pipelines, as people read it to do, then clearly there's no room in the vision for any kind of mining at all. Personally I'd rather have an oil pipeline in my back yard than, say, a nickel mine. Never mind that guy down the road who very specifically doesn't want wind turbines within a hundred miles of his yard. And then there was that garbage dump that would have saved us from shipping our trash hundreds of miles away by truck, but of course nobody wants that in their back yard. But anyway, mining? Are we to give up material goods entirely? Did they throw in that jab at another of Canada's most important industries just for kicks? Did they assume that everyone in the target audience would know exactly what's wrong with the way mining is done, that it can be improved, and that the oil must stay in the ground, it can't? If all mining and whatever else is fair game, not just energy, did they assume that there is no kind of "tanker traffic" besides oil tankers, or are they opposed to shipping in general? Did they think this would never be read by someone outside the inner circle who have the theological chops or whatever can make sense of this stuff? What is going on?
I just wanted a vision of a future powered by renewable energy with vastly improved social equity to believe in.
posted by sfenders at 1:35 PM on April 12, 2016
Reaction to just that one paragraph: If that language rules out oil production and pipelines, as people read it to do, then clearly there's no room in the vision for any kind of mining at all. Personally I'd rather have an oil pipeline in my back yard than, say, a nickel mine. Never mind that guy down the road who very specifically doesn't want wind turbines within a hundred miles of his yard. And then there was that garbage dump that would have saved us from shipping our trash hundreds of miles away by truck, but of course nobody wants that in their back yard. But anyway, mining? Are we to give up material goods entirely? Did they throw in that jab at another of Canada's most important industries just for kicks? Did they assume that everyone in the target audience would know exactly what's wrong with the way mining is done, that it can be improved, and that the oil must stay in the ground, it can't? If all mining and whatever else is fair game, not just energy, did they assume that there is no kind of "tanker traffic" besides oil tankers, or are they opposed to shipping in general? Did they think this would never be read by someone outside the inner circle who have the theological chops or whatever can make sense of this stuff? What is going on?
I just wanted a vision of a future powered by renewable energy with vastly improved social equity to believe in.
posted by sfenders at 1:35 PM on April 12, 2016
Building a tidewater pipeline isn't compatible with winding down the bitumen industry over the next two or three decades.
Winding it down to zero, no it isn't. But I don't see it as necessarily implying the continued expansion of production either. Seems to me there is a very good case for the present pipeline capacity being inadequate to present production. Something should be done about it. If not a new pipeline to get the oil to where it's needed, then some kind of plan for immediately reduced production. Both are difficult.
posted by sfenders at 1:39 PM on April 12, 2016
Winding it down to zero, no it isn't. But I don't see it as necessarily implying the continued expansion of production either. Seems to me there is a very good case for the present pipeline capacity being inadequate to present production. Something should be done about it. If not a new pipeline to get the oil to where it's needed, then some kind of plan for immediately reduced production. Both are difficult.
posted by sfenders at 1:39 PM on April 12, 2016
a pipeline that sits less than three feet under Yonge St. and directly above Finch station
wait WHAT
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:45 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
wait WHAT
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:45 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why should we accept infrastructure to allow Alberta to continue to increase the production of fossil fuels for the next decade? Because an NDP government supports it?
Because it's part of the political package to get everything else Notley is trying to do done. It's a necessary compromise to get the rest of the deal: sector emissions limits (which aren't part of LEAP either and should be) and a real carbon tax, both of which give the government levers to move the oil production levels in the future. Also because even for twenty or thirty years it's the much safer option than continuing to run unit trains.
let us build a huge pipeline through land full of nobodies instead!
I'm not sure if you're referring to Energy East or Northern Gateway here. EE travels through some pretty populated areas for much of its length, including almost literally my own back yard. NG is theoretically possible, but practically, politically dead at this point I think, given the legal challenges it faces and the lack of support by the province.
The real national choice right now is between TMX and EE. I suspect the winner is going to be TMX to Vancouver. It's already half built, the land deals with the indigenous bands are in place. The conditions of the coastal nations and BC still need to be satisfied(and Alberta needs to get that and move on it), but I think that's the most likely option. EE is a pretty stupid idea compared to TMX, both financially and from a safety point of view. It's only on the table because of the Irvings.
I'm not too worried about a disaster on the scale of Lac Megantic,
I am. It continues to terrify me, much, much more than even the possibility of rupture of Line 9 in downtown Toronto. Unit petroleum trains should never ever have been allowed. There have been at least two more of them blow up since summer 2013. It's not at all clear to me that the new cars can prevent an explosion and conflagration. Pipeline leaks, though bad, are rare. Train derailments happen quite often.
posted by bonehead at 1:52 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because it's part of the political package to get everything else Notley is trying to do done. It's a necessary compromise to get the rest of the deal: sector emissions limits (which aren't part of LEAP either and should be) and a real carbon tax, both of which give the government levers to move the oil production levels in the future. Also because even for twenty or thirty years it's the much safer option than continuing to run unit trains.
let us build a huge pipeline through land full of nobodies instead!
I'm not sure if you're referring to Energy East or Northern Gateway here. EE travels through some pretty populated areas for much of its length, including almost literally my own back yard. NG is theoretically possible, but practically, politically dead at this point I think, given the legal challenges it faces and the lack of support by the province.
The real national choice right now is between TMX and EE. I suspect the winner is going to be TMX to Vancouver. It's already half built, the land deals with the indigenous bands are in place. The conditions of the coastal nations and BC still need to be satisfied(and Alberta needs to get that and move on it), but I think that's the most likely option. EE is a pretty stupid idea compared to TMX, both financially and from a safety point of view. It's only on the table because of the Irvings.
I'm not too worried about a disaster on the scale of Lac Megantic,
I am. It continues to terrify me, much, much more than even the possibility of rupture of Line 9 in downtown Toronto. Unit petroleum trains should never ever have been allowed. There have been at least two more of them blow up since summer 2013. It's not at all clear to me that the new cars can prevent an explosion and conflagration. Pipeline leaks, though bad, are rare. Train derailments happen quite often.
posted by bonehead at 1:52 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because it's part of the political package to get everything else Notley is trying to do done. It's a necessary compromise to get the rest of the deal: sector emissions limits (which aren't part of LEAP either and should be) and a real carbon tax, both of which give the government levers to move the oil production levels in the future.
Agreed. Under the NDP, Alberta has put in place a carbon tax, and caps on total oil sands production, and is phasing out coal-generated power, and has the major oil sands producers on board.
Without Alberta on board, getting a minimum Canada-wide carbon price in place will be impossible. (Even today, Saskatchewan's opposition is making it extremely difficult; with Alberta opposed as well, I think it'd be impossible.)
I think additional pipeline capacity (via the Kinder Morgan expansion or Energy East) would be a reasonable compromise, given the caps on overall oil sands production. If the rest of Canada rejects any new pipeline capacity, what does Alberta get out of it? What incentive does Alberta have to maintain its newly stringent CO2 policies? If Alberta's willing to maintain its CO2 policies in exchange for new pipeline capacity, I think the rest of Canada should take the deal.
This isn't about propping up Notley, it's about reaching a compromise that Alberta as a whole can live with.
Regarding the LEAP Manifesto: precisely because climate change is such an urgent problem, I think we need to focus on a narrow agenda, namely a steadily increasing carbon price. Trying to tie climate change to a much larger progressive agenda is just going to make getting consensus on climate policy harder, not easier.
posted by russilwvong at 2:11 PM on April 12, 2016
Agreed. Under the NDP, Alberta has put in place a carbon tax, and caps on total oil sands production, and is phasing out coal-generated power, and has the major oil sands producers on board.
Without Alberta on board, getting a minimum Canada-wide carbon price in place will be impossible. (Even today, Saskatchewan's opposition is making it extremely difficult; with Alberta opposed as well, I think it'd be impossible.)
I think additional pipeline capacity (via the Kinder Morgan expansion or Energy East) would be a reasonable compromise, given the caps on overall oil sands production. If the rest of Canada rejects any new pipeline capacity, what does Alberta get out of it? What incentive does Alberta have to maintain its newly stringent CO2 policies? If Alberta's willing to maintain its CO2 policies in exchange for new pipeline capacity, I think the rest of Canada should take the deal.
This isn't about propping up Notley, it's about reaching a compromise that Alberta as a whole can live with.
Regarding the LEAP Manifesto: precisely because climate change is such an urgent problem, I think we need to focus on a narrow agenda, namely a steadily increasing carbon price. Trying to tie climate change to a much larger progressive agenda is just going to make getting consensus on climate policy harder, not easier.
posted by russilwvong at 2:11 PM on April 12, 2016
did they assume that there is no kind of "tanker traffic" besides oil tankers, or are they opposed to shipping in general?
The marine spills we've have in the past ten, twenty years have been from either the platforms offshore (Terra Nova mostly), and from passenger or transport ships that have spilled ship fuel. There have been a number of spills from small fuel barges, but I can't remember one from a true oil tanker (Aframax +) in the past couple of decades in Canada. Most of the activity in the past few years has been from old wrecks, in fact: the Manolis, the Zalinski, even the Arrow.
posted by bonehead at 2:12 PM on April 12, 2016
The marine spills we've have in the past ten, twenty years have been from either the platforms offshore (Terra Nova mostly), and from passenger or transport ships that have spilled ship fuel. There have been a number of spills from small fuel barges, but I can't remember one from a true oil tanker (Aframax +) in the past couple of decades in Canada. Most of the activity in the past few years has been from old wrecks, in fact: the Manolis, the Zalinski, even the Arrow.
posted by bonehead at 2:12 PM on April 12, 2016
sfenders: "Are we to give up material goods entirely? Did they throw in that jab at another of Canada's most important industries just for kicks?"
That is a bit of a head banger. All that renewable electricity is going to require tons of copper and aluminum.
We've got a proposed copper mine underway on the outskirts of town (actually partially within the expansive city limits) and the resistance to it is phenomenal (at least partially because it is near the expensive residential real estate). This will be a model mine that will have to meet all the fairly stringent Canadian requirements. But people would rather the copper for their windmills to come from some polluting 3rd world hellscape then have the extraction anywhere near them where impacts could have controls.
posted by Mitheral at 2:39 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is a bit of a head banger. All that renewable electricity is going to require tons of copper and aluminum.
We've got a proposed copper mine underway on the outskirts of town (actually partially within the expansive city limits) and the resistance to it is phenomenal (at least partially because it is near the expensive residential real estate). This will be a model mine that will have to meet all the fairly stringent Canadian requirements. But people would rather the copper for their windmills to come from some polluting 3rd world hellscape then have the extraction anywhere near them where impacts could have controls.
posted by Mitheral at 2:39 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Line 9 crossing below Yonge above Finch TTC station
posted by anthill at 2:45 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by anthill at 2:45 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Something I've yet to hear about the adoption* of the Leap Manifesto is how effective it was as an example of the Shock Doctrine; using the NDP's disorientation following the massive collective shock -- of losing the general election they were favoured to win, in a convention located thousands of kilometres and hundreds of dollars from the largest populations of grassroots NDPers -- to achieve control by imposing an ideological pre-written vision document on the party. The problem is that right wing Shock Doctrine puts laws in place that actually govern, while the left wing version seems to impose it on a party with very little power at the moment.
I think Leap is a good vision, and I think it's something we should be working toward. But I don't think we get there fastest by turning the NDP back in to the holier-than-thou conscience of Canadian politics. I don't think that three years from now, when there's no NDP provincial governments, when the Liberals are focused on keeping the Conservatives from power and have no credible threat from their left anymore and are tacking back to the right, that this will have been a successful policy.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong for wanting the NDP to adopt the best most perfect left wing vision it can, and it certainly has benefits in terms of shifting the Overton window and all that. But I personally sort of want the NDP to put together the most progressive possible platform that will win 51% of the ridings in the next election.
* I know it's not adopted, and you know it's not adopted. But 95% of people who are less informed don't know it's not adopted, and those are 95% of the voters. And I don't think anyone wins if two years from now it's not adopted; we already have a left-wing party that goes back on its' promises, thanks.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:34 PM on April 12, 2016
I think Leap is a good vision, and I think it's something we should be working toward. But I don't think we get there fastest by turning the NDP back in to the holier-than-thou conscience of Canadian politics. I don't think that three years from now, when there's no NDP provincial governments, when the Liberals are focused on keeping the Conservatives from power and have no credible threat from their left anymore and are tacking back to the right, that this will have been a successful policy.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong for wanting the NDP to adopt the best most perfect left wing vision it can, and it certainly has benefits in terms of shifting the Overton window and all that. But I personally sort of want the NDP to put together the most progressive possible platform that will win 51% of the ridings in the next election.
* I know it's not adopted, and you know it's not adopted. But 95% of people who are less informed don't know it's not adopted, and those are 95% of the voters. And I don't think anyone wins if two years from now it's not adopted; we already have a left-wing party that goes back on its' promises, thanks.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:34 PM on April 12, 2016
to achieve control by imposing an ideological pre-written vision document on the party
Nothing was imposed.
posted by rocket88 at 9:15 AM on April 13, 2016
Nothing was imposed.
posted by rocket88 at 9:15 AM on April 13, 2016
Pipeline leaks, though bad, are rare. Train derailments happen quite often.
I prefer neither, both are terrible, but it is worth pointing out that pipeline ruptures, at least in the US, have "spilled three times as much crude oil as trains" over the period of 2004 to 2012 despite ruptures happening much less. A ruptured tanker only has so much oil to leak while a pipeline could theoretically leak for a long time. So if a pipeline ruptures more oil is spilled in ecologically sensitive / populated areas resulting in longer contamination, more potential health problems and more expensive clean up. However, it is possible for the tankers to explode like at Lac-Mégantic and derailments, or railway occurences as they are sometimes called, do happen with an alarming frequency in Canada.
So yeah... neither is good. My thought is that it shouldn't be an either/or situation, pipelines vs. trains. If we're going to keep transporting oil, ideally while we also start to wean ourselves off it, I'd like the federal government to tighten up our safety rules on trains & pipelines (loosened by our old pal Harper) and industry to invest more money into safety / maintenance. By no means a perfect solution but it'd be something.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:15 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I prefer neither, both are terrible, but it is worth pointing out that pipeline ruptures, at least in the US, have "spilled three times as much crude oil as trains" over the period of 2004 to 2012 despite ruptures happening much less. A ruptured tanker only has so much oil to leak while a pipeline could theoretically leak for a long time. So if a pipeline ruptures more oil is spilled in ecologically sensitive / populated areas resulting in longer contamination, more potential health problems and more expensive clean up. However, it is possible for the tankers to explode like at Lac-Mégantic and derailments, or railway occurences as they are sometimes called, do happen with an alarming frequency in Canada.
So yeah... neither is good. My thought is that it shouldn't be an either/or situation, pipelines vs. trains. If we're going to keep transporting oil, ideally while we also start to wean ourselves off it, I'd like the federal government to tighten up our safety rules on trains & pipelines (loosened by our old pal Harper) and industry to invest more money into safety / maintenance. By no means a perfect solution but it'd be something.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:15 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anyone who thinks that the only two positions here are "endorsement of LEAP" or "wanting a petroleum economy for ever and ever" is wrong.
Plus, it does matter that this manifesto was written in Toronto, with no consultation of Albertans, or any of the local labour organizations. It matters that neither Lewis nor Klein are willing to test their ideas by running for office. They are undermining people who have tested their views against the electorate, have won and are therefore actually taking carbon out of the air. (And are receiving death threats for doing so.) Notley and Phillips are accomplishing things. Lewis and Klein are using what was once a decent organization to shill their books. That a slim majority of the delegates at the convention are allowing them to do this is a problem, and will likely increase the chances of a Wild Rose government that will reverse the work the NDP government here is doing (like phasing out coal power, which is a way bigger problem than oil sands) and will make the environment worse.
Political viability isn't just a capitulation to capitalist interests. It's a way to make sure you can actually do something. So I'm with Shannon Phillips and Rachel Notley because they are doing something. They are steaming ahead and continuing to take action even when they are subjected to death threats for doing so. That Klein and Lewis don't understand they feed that opposition, because they are insulated by their location, wealth and privilege is a problem. They just don't see that because they claim they have no privilege. Class privilege may be a bit retro but it's still a real thing.
posted by Kurichina at 12:11 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Plus, it does matter that this manifesto was written in Toronto, with no consultation of Albertans, or any of the local labour organizations. It matters that neither Lewis nor Klein are willing to test their ideas by running for office. They are undermining people who have tested their views against the electorate, have won and are therefore actually taking carbon out of the air. (And are receiving death threats for doing so.) Notley and Phillips are accomplishing things. Lewis and Klein are using what was once a decent organization to shill their books. That a slim majority of the delegates at the convention are allowing them to do this is a problem, and will likely increase the chances of a Wild Rose government that will reverse the work the NDP government here is doing (like phasing out coal power, which is a way bigger problem than oil sands) and will make the environment worse.
Political viability isn't just a capitulation to capitalist interests. It's a way to make sure you can actually do something. So I'm with Shannon Phillips and Rachel Notley because they are doing something. They are steaming ahead and continuing to take action even when they are subjected to death threats for doing so. That Klein and Lewis don't understand they feed that opposition, because they are insulated by their location, wealth and privilege is a problem. They just don't see that because they claim they have no privilege. Class privilege may be a bit retro but it's still a real thing.
posted by Kurichina at 12:11 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Plus, it does matter that this manifesto was written in Toronto
No, it doesn't. It really, really, really doesn't.
Every single idea in the LEAP Manifesto is a good thing for Canadians, present and future. We simply cannot continue doubling down on resource extraction as a way to prop up our economy. Things need to change and they need to change now. There is literally nothing in the manifesto that says "well screw you oil workers." It talks about phasing out, fundamentally changing how we work. Along with a Universal Basic Income, which one would think would smooth over some of the "but waaah our jerrrrrbs" counterfactual nonsense but here we are.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:55 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, it doesn't. It really, really, really doesn't.
Every single idea in the LEAP Manifesto is a good thing for Canadians, present and future. We simply cannot continue doubling down on resource extraction as a way to prop up our economy. Things need to change and they need to change now. There is literally nothing in the manifesto that says "well screw you oil workers." It talks about phasing out, fundamentally changing how we work. Along with a Universal Basic Income, which one would think would smooth over some of the "but waaah our jerrrrrbs" counterfactual nonsense but here we are.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:55 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Among the NDP elite, there has been reckless disregard for the well-being of the movement, the party and the country. This disregard was manifest in the way that the traditional leadership, with Ed Broadbent at its head, opposed Tom Mulcair’s leadership bid. They put forward Brian Topp, who had never stood for office, let alone served in cabinet. At a time when the NDP had 59 rookie MPs from Quebec, the brass turned up their noses at Mulcair. At a time when the separatists were surging, the establishment dismissed the man who had built his career around holding the country together. The Topp people said, and continue to say, that Mulcair is not a New Democrat, ignoring that there is no viable provincial NDP in which Mulcair could have participated. They also ignored the fact that once they were the Official Opposition, they had the duty to put forward a leader who could plausibly run the country. Then, when the election results in 2015 produced a disappointing result (still the NDP’s second best showing ever), they dumped him. While I don’t believe that leaders are sacrosanct, I also don’t think they should be treated like dirt by people who should have considered the situation more carefully. And now who is this brain trust putting forward? There was no answer to this question before the convention, and I don’t see much yet. The convention delegates have pulled the party onto a path with the Leap Manifesto as the only map. Throwing Notley under the bus is just the icing on the cake.
posted by No Robots at 3:15 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by No Robots at 3:15 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I prefer neither, both are terrible, but it is worth pointing out that pipeline ruptures, at least in the US, have "spilled three times as much crude oil as trains" over the period of 2004 to 2012 despite ruptures happening much less.
You know that statistic was really, really carefully chosen right? It's true, absolutely, but 2011 was the last year before the crude-by-rail industry... exploded. Since then the volume of oil shipped by rail (in the US markets, which is where your number comes from too) is up from ~3000 Mbbl/mo in 2011 to over 35,000 Mbbl/mo as of then end of 2015 (it's off a bit through the start of 2016, but I expect it to be up again as the weather clears).
I'm not criticizing, but be very very careful of industry-planted stats like that one.
do happen with an alarming frequency in Canada.
We're going to be dealing with two Gogama spills for probably another three years or so. Those were both SCO, synthetic crude oil, upgraded bitumen, btw.
posted by bonehead at 3:19 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know that statistic was really, really carefully chosen right? It's true, absolutely, but 2011 was the last year before the crude-by-rail industry... exploded. Since then the volume of oil shipped by rail (in the US markets, which is where your number comes from too) is up from ~3000 Mbbl/mo in 2011 to over 35,000 Mbbl/mo as of then end of 2015 (it's off a bit through the start of 2016, but I expect it to be up again as the weather clears).
I'm not criticizing, but be very very careful of industry-planted stats like that one.
do happen with an alarming frequency in Canada.
We're going to be dealing with two Gogama spills for probably another three years or so. Those were both SCO, synthetic crude oil, upgraded bitumen, btw.
posted by bonehead at 3:19 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would also add that the Leap Manifesto was made public at a press conference during the middle of the election campaign, demonstrating a complete lack of regard for the delicate messaging that the party needed to maintain and a total lack of interest in the democratic formulation of policy. And now they expect the party to just lap it up.
posted by No Robots at 3:23 PM on April 13, 2016
posted by No Robots at 3:23 PM on April 13, 2016
and a total lack of interest in the democratic formulation of policy
yeah I guess all those votes in favour of it were... um... undemocratic somehow
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:32 PM on April 13, 2016
yeah I guess all those votes in favour of it were... um... undemocratic somehow
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:32 PM on April 13, 2016
yeah I guess all those votes in favour of it were... um... undemocratic somehow
The votes came after the press conference.
posted by No Robots at 3:33 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The votes came after the press conference.
posted by No Robots at 3:33 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
And if the party didn't want it, the party was free to reject it. Calling the vote for LEAP undemocratic is bizarre in the extreme. But this thread has been short on facts anyway so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:49 PM on April 13, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:49 PM on April 13, 2016
The Leap Manifesto was announced by fiat by a group of self-appointed worthies. By injecting it in the middle of an election campaign, they undermined the NDP campaign and the leader. They completed the job in Edmonton.
posted by No Robots at 4:34 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by No Robots at 4:34 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not criticizing, but be very very careful of industry-planted stats like that one.
I understand but the ultimate point I'm making here is that both choices, rail or pipeline, are problematic. So since we're stuck with these modes of transport, because oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I think Canadians would be better served by our politicians and industry if there was a greater focus on making those spills/derailments a rarity. We really don't hear enough about that. But making it about "Oil is Evil" or "pipelines are our only hope at unity/jobs/cheap gas" seems self-defeating to me. I think a middle way is a much better option and NDP have a great opportunity to offer a third way if they can get themselves out their petty squabbles & stop alienating allies and voters.
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:11 PM on April 13, 2016
I understand but the ultimate point I'm making here is that both choices, rail or pipeline, are problematic. So since we're stuck with these modes of transport, because oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I think Canadians would be better served by our politicians and industry if there was a greater focus on making those spills/derailments a rarity. We really don't hear enough about that. But making it about "Oil is Evil" or "pipelines are our only hope at unity/jobs/cheap gas" seems self-defeating to me. I think a middle way is a much better option and NDP have a great opportunity to offer a third way if they can get themselves out their petty squabbles & stop alienating allies and voters.
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:11 PM on April 13, 2016
I'm a renewables guy, and (or maybe "but") somewhat left in my politics. I find the Leap Manifesto somewhat patronizing. Whatever will the Toronto Greenies do if, in “respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land”, First Nations decide that they're not gonna miss out on good money, and get drilling/fracking/digging? Respecting title doesn't mean having to follow someone else's script. It's not conditional on being “nice”.
posted by scruss at 7:12 PM on April 13, 2016
posted by scruss at 7:12 PM on April 13, 2016
→ Ontario pays one of the highest per kilowatt-hour rates on the continent as a result of that program
No it doesn't. Only about 5% of the increase in the total customer bill is attributable to wind. St John's [NL], Regina [SK], Edmonton [AB], Calgary [AB], Charlottetown [PE] and Halifax [NS] all pay more for power than Ottawa or Toronto.
→ If one of the 40+ proposed windfarms along the St. Lawrence corridor proposed as a result of B150 has been approved, I'm not aware of it.
Ernestown Wind Farm is a little west of Kingston. The Toronto-Ottawa train goes through the middle of it; look for the striped green towers. Amherst Island Wind Energy Project is under construction. Nation Rise is just east of Chesterville, and just got an LRP contract; the biggest wind project to do so.
Perhaps due to its relatively modest wind resource but excellent solar resource, the St Lawrence corridor is positively hoaching with solar projects. Cornwall, Edwardsburgh and Kingston all have large projects in operation.
Bill 150 made a lot of jobs. It was very flawed, but it kept a whole bunch of manufacturing going that would have blown away during the 2008-2009 downturn.
posted by scruss at 7:47 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
No it doesn't. Only about 5% of the increase in the total customer bill is attributable to wind. St John's [NL], Regina [SK], Edmonton [AB], Calgary [AB], Charlottetown [PE] and Halifax [NS] all pay more for power than Ottawa or Toronto.
→ If one of the 40+ proposed windfarms along the St. Lawrence corridor proposed as a result of B150 has been approved, I'm not aware of it.
Ernestown Wind Farm is a little west of Kingston. The Toronto-Ottawa train goes through the middle of it; look for the striped green towers. Amherst Island Wind Energy Project is under construction. Nation Rise is just east of Chesterville, and just got an LRP contract; the biggest wind project to do so.
Perhaps due to its relatively modest wind resource but excellent solar resource, the St Lawrence corridor is positively hoaching with solar projects. Cornwall, Edwardsburgh and Kingston all have large projects in operation.
Bill 150 made a lot of jobs. It was very flawed, but it kept a whole bunch of manufacturing going that would have blown away during the 2008-2009 downturn.
posted by scruss at 7:47 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I urge you to dig into the history of the Leap manifesto and what it actually calls for. The first draft was written by Klein and Lewis but was rewritten based on input from prominent labour and environment experts from across the country. It's not a Toronto-only document.
And there's absolutely nothing in there to suggest that oil workers are being hung out to dry. The changes being called for will require more employment than we have now, and the inclusion of minimum income will ensure that nobody gets left out.
Notley knows this, and her biggest worry seems to be about how her opposition will spin this in the press. Of course they will, and the press has been all too willing to do so. Anything you might have read about this "rift" in the party has been mostly manufactured by the CBC, the Globe, the Post, and the Star who all are tightly allied with one of the other two major parties, and are relishing the idea that they can play this story for all it's worth.
posted by rocket88 at 7:05 AM on April 14, 2016
And there's absolutely nothing in there to suggest that oil workers are being hung out to dry. The changes being called for will require more employment than we have now, and the inclusion of minimum income will ensure that nobody gets left out.
Notley knows this, and her biggest worry seems to be about how her opposition will spin this in the press. Of course they will, and the press has been all too willing to do so. Anything you might have read about this "rift" in the party has been mostly manufactured by the CBC, the Globe, the Post, and the Star who all are tightly allied with one of the other two major parties, and are relishing the idea that they can play this story for all it's worth.
posted by rocket88 at 7:05 AM on April 14, 2016
Ben Harper got a partisan Op-Ed in the Ottawa Citizen and there were rumours about the Conservatives courting Mulroney's daughter. So the Tories are looking at family brands and the Liberals have their dauphin... so maybe the NDP do need a legacy candidate like Avi Lewis or Michael Layton.
posted by Ashwagandha at 7:05 AM on April 14, 2016
posted by Ashwagandha at 7:05 AM on April 14, 2016
Anything you might have read about this "rift" in the party has been mostly manufactured by the CBC, the Globe, the Post, and the Star
I don't know if there is that much of a conspiracy here. I've read similar articles about the impending Tory fracturing in some of the same outlets and read ad nauseum about the Liberals' post-Chrietien decade in the wilderness. The media loves these stories and they are almost always blown out of proportion. Blame the media if you like, Harper certainly did, but I do think there is a kernel of truth to these stories. Just look at how this thread has gone down - I have no doubt similar discussions are going down with party faithful.
I don't think the NDP will fracture but they definitely need some work at unifying the streams of ideals the party encompasses and needs to redefine itself in a post-Harper Canada. Only with a decent leader will that happen - the committee led policies and leaders of yesteryear helped keep them in the electoral sticks. There's a reason why many people think the NDP could never run a government. I'm not one of them but it frustrates me to no end that they can't get their act together. Layton managed to turn a lot of their problems around but Mulcair was a return to a pre-Layton NDP. The party has loads of intelligent & passionate people working for it so surely they should be able to come up with somebody that can build on Layton's successes.
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:30 AM on April 14, 2016
I don't know if there is that much of a conspiracy here. I've read similar articles about the impending Tory fracturing in some of the same outlets and read ad nauseum about the Liberals' post-Chrietien decade in the wilderness. The media loves these stories and they are almost always blown out of proportion. Blame the media if you like, Harper certainly did, but I do think there is a kernel of truth to these stories. Just look at how this thread has gone down - I have no doubt similar discussions are going down with party faithful.
I don't think the NDP will fracture but they definitely need some work at unifying the streams of ideals the party encompasses and needs to redefine itself in a post-Harper Canada. Only with a decent leader will that happen - the committee led policies and leaders of yesteryear helped keep them in the electoral sticks. There's a reason why many people think the NDP could never run a government. I'm not one of them but it frustrates me to no end that they can't get their act together. Layton managed to turn a lot of their problems around but Mulcair was a return to a pre-Layton NDP. The party has loads of intelligent & passionate people working for it so surely they should be able to come up with somebody that can build on Layton's successes.
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:30 AM on April 14, 2016
Plus, it does matter that this manifesto was written in Toronto, with no consultation of Albertans, or any of the local labour organizations.
Became:
Plus, it does matter that this manifesto was written in Toronto
I see what you did there.
posted by Kurichina at 8:55 AM on April 14, 2016
Became:
Plus, it does matter that this manifesto was written in Toronto
I see what you did there.
posted by Kurichina at 8:55 AM on April 14, 2016
so maybe the NDP do need a legacy candidate like Avi Lewis or Michael Layton.
This could very well be right, but if it is, I cannot think of a more damning observation about the state of our democracy than this.
posted by Kurichina at 8:56 AM on April 14, 2016
This could very well be right, but if it is, I cannot think of a more damning observation about the state of our democracy than this.
posted by Kurichina at 8:56 AM on April 14, 2016
Wait, how does this square with the Leap Manifesto?
The morning after the celebratory dinner, I drop in on Klein and Lewis at their middle-class brick home in High Park... Although she may be the world’s most famous critic of consumerism, she understands the joys of shopping. At an appearance in London, somebody asked her to name one thing she liked about capitalism. She instantly replied, “The shoes.”'
I don't think there is anything wrong with shopping or shoes at all, but there seems to be some intellectual laziness at play here...
posted by My Dad at 11:04 AM on April 14, 2016
The morning after the celebratory dinner, I drop in on Klein and Lewis at their middle-class brick home in High Park... Although she may be the world’s most famous critic of consumerism, she understands the joys of shopping. At an appearance in London, somebody asked her to name one thing she liked about capitalism. She instantly replied, “The shoes.”'
I don't think there is anything wrong with shopping or shoes at all, but there seems to be some intellectual laziness at play here...
posted by My Dad at 11:04 AM on April 14, 2016
Anything you might have read about this "rift" in the party has been mostly manufactured by the CBC, the Globe, the Post, and the Star
Where do you Iive and how much do you *really* know about politics Western Canada? I live in BC. Leap is a wedge issue in the runup to our provincial elections a year from now. Gee, it sure would be nice to get rid of Christ Clark and the Liberals, but the Leap Manifesto are the nails in the coffin for John Horgan.
posted by My Dad at 11:06 AM on April 14, 2016
Where do you Iive and how much do you *really* know about politics Western Canada? I live in BC. Leap is a wedge issue in the runup to our provincial elections a year from now. Gee, it sure would be nice to get rid of Christ Clark and the Liberals, but the Leap Manifesto are the nails in the coffin for John Horgan.
posted by My Dad at 11:06 AM on April 14, 2016
It's important to note that the NDP in British Columbia is strong in just two regions: post-industrial urban Vancouver, west of Willingdon, and on Vancouver Island, which itself is largely post-industrial.
The places on the Island where heavy industry still has some (minimal presence) have also been the birthplace, cradle and creche of socialism in all of Canada. Tommy Douglas, after all, used to represent Nanaimo-Cowichan, but socialism on the Island goes back long before Douglas, getting its start in the oppressive coal mines on the east coast of the Island.
So, outside of urban Vancouver, which is generally despised by Christy Clark's version of the Liberal Party, a retread Socred vehicle dominated by exurb used car salesmen and strip mall owners—basically Ford Nation without the drugs—and Vancouver Island, the only region in all of Canada to reliably vote Orange, people in BC are ambivalent *at best* about the provincial NDP.
Why? Because they need jobs. There are no jobs in Trail or PG or Terrace or Cranbrook outside of resources. That's about 40% of the population of BC.
Lewis and Klein's manifesto reads well on paper, and if you are happy to live on a basement suite with a recycled futon for furniture, but most of us have higher material aspirations. Klein does herself.
posted by My Dad at 12:29 PM on April 14, 2016
The places on the Island where heavy industry still has some (minimal presence) have also been the birthplace, cradle and creche of socialism in all of Canada. Tommy Douglas, after all, used to represent Nanaimo-Cowichan, but socialism on the Island goes back long before Douglas, getting its start in the oppressive coal mines on the east coast of the Island.
So, outside of urban Vancouver, which is generally despised by Christy Clark's version of the Liberal Party, a retread Socred vehicle dominated by exurb used car salesmen and strip mall owners—basically Ford Nation without the drugs—and Vancouver Island, the only region in all of Canada to reliably vote Orange, people in BC are ambivalent *at best* about the provincial NDP.
Why? Because they need jobs. There are no jobs in Trail or PG or Terrace or Cranbrook outside of resources. That's about 40% of the population of BC.
Lewis and Klein's manifesto reads well on paper, and if you are happy to live on a basement suite with a recycled futon for furniture, but most of us have higher material aspirations. Klein does herself.
posted by My Dad at 12:29 PM on April 14, 2016
middle-class brick home in High Park, a family neighborhood of decidedly untrendy shops and mothers pushing strollers.
Ha! I'll have to tell my desperately trendy middle class friends who got priced out of that neighbourhood! Those darn untrendy shops and icky mothers with strollers!
posted by Ashwagandha at 1:35 PM on April 14, 2016
Ha! I'll have to tell my desperately trendy middle class friends who got priced out of that neighbourhood! Those darn untrendy shops and icky mothers with strollers!
posted by Ashwagandha at 1:35 PM on April 14, 2016
Avi Lewis (G&M): Sorry, pundits of Canada. The Leap will bring us together
posted by bonehead at 2:32 PM on April 14, 2016
posted by bonehead at 2:32 PM on April 14, 2016
And there's absolutely nothing in there to suggest that oil workers are being hung out to dry. The changes being called for will require more employment than we have now, and the inclusion of minimum income will ensure that nobody gets left out.
Here are a couple of portraits of the people and their children to whom similar promises have been made in the past. This might help understand why people aren't so trusting that these assurances will pay out. And it kind of does matter historically that these promises are coming from Central Canada.
Economic Impacts of the Cod Moratorium
FROM COAL PITS TO TAR SANDS: LABOUR MIGRATION BETWEEN AN ATLANTIC CANADIAN REGION AND THE ATHABASCA OIL SANDS
Notley knows this, and her biggest worry seems to be about how her opposition will spin this in the press.
I give her more credit than this. I think she also sees the human cost that being asked to be paid here, and is reacting to that as well.
posted by bonehead at 2:56 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Here are a couple of portraits of the people and their children to whom similar promises have been made in the past. This might help understand why people aren't so trusting that these assurances will pay out. And it kind of does matter historically that these promises are coming from Central Canada.
Economic Impacts of the Cod Moratorium
FROM COAL PITS TO TAR SANDS: LABOUR MIGRATION BETWEEN AN ATLANTIC CANADIAN REGION AND THE ATHABASCA OIL SANDS
Notley knows this, and her biggest worry seems to be about how her opposition will spin this in the press.
I give her more credit than this. I think she also sees the human cost that being asked to be paid here, and is reacting to that as well.
posted by bonehead at 2:56 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older Thanks, Obama | How does Elisheba become Babette? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by 256 at 8:07 AM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]