What's stopping the progressive parties from forming a coalition as they do in Europe?
Ideally, they'd amalgamate to place a permanent stamp on the matter. 3 progressive national parties is two too many. But if that's impractical, why can't they find the ideal candidate and all support the same guy or girl? Ask people like Wab Kinew or Ch…
What's stopping the progressive parties from forming a coalition as they do in Europe?
Ideally, they'd amalgamate to place a permanent stamp on the matter. 3 progressive national parties is two too many. But if that's impractical, why can't they find the ideal candidate and all support the same guy or girl? Ask people like Wab Kinew or Charlie Angus or Naheed Nenshi or Jodi WIlson_Reybould or Christia Freeland to debate and hold an internet vote open to legimately-registered members of the participating parties.
Wouldn't it be nice to hear the factual rebuttal to "Axe the Tax"?
You are not, with the exception of Kinew, bringing anyone new to the game. Neshi is just another Trudeau. JWR will be highlighted as the person who installed rotating doors in Canadian jails and created a two-tier Justice system. Freeland the bobble head was behind Trudeau 100% until the bus appeared. Until the Regressives find someone left of centre they will be in the wilderness. The NDP had one in Thomas Mulcair and they tossed him in favour of the Rolex socialist. With the exception of Kinew, and Brad West there few credible young Regressives out there and Kinew is still the shiny new object.
To answer your question, cultural and stylistic differences. NDP voters and Liberal voters have a lot in common in terms of policy and ideas, but the NDP establishment and the Liberal establishment are very, very different in terms of their views on realpolitik.
Right or wrong, Liberals are more similar to Conservatives than to New Democrats, in that we believe politics is about making a difference by achieving and using the levers of power, and New Democrats believe it's about speaking your truth in a debate and getting seven percent of the vote. I at one point had a Google News Search up for "MPP". I once got two simultaneous e-mails. One was "new Conservative MPP hopes to make cabinet". And the other was about a New Democrat participating in one of those poverty-simulation stunts, and the headline was something like "New NDP MPP hopes to find tree to sleep under". Sorry - one of those things is more like a Liberal than the other.
*Of course* what the government does is more important than someone's style, and of course you're right that if the overwhelming majority of Canadians that's to the left of Poilievre coalesced behind someone, it'd be great. But New Democrats and Liberals just bug each other in a way that makes this very difficult to do.
I find LPC policies and rhetoric assume that shareholder, manager, and worker interests are aligned or gloss over those distinctions altogether. Assumes the audience sees themselves entirely as "middle class or eager to join it." There's no data there
Oh, hundred percent agreed on that piece. I know literal millionaires who think of themselves as "middle class" because, hey, *they* know people who are even *richer than that*, and let's be honest - these are the kinds of people the LPC in its current incarnation panders to. Rich people who want to be reassured that they're not the *bad* rich people.
I think you make a good point about glossing over the distinctions, too. Liberals tend to accept the premise that Paul Martin's kid and Frank Morneau's kid were economic geniuses---hey, who knows more about money than a rich guy?
On the other hand, I've found the Ontario NDP under Andrea Horwath and Marit Stiles...not quite as annoying in *how* they pander, but also kind of centrist and pandering. So I agree with you that I'd love for the Liberals to have *more* class consciousness, but I don't know if the NDP has that much either.
I guess you'd call me one of those "working to join it" types---I came from a middle-class family growing up, am middle-class now, but was poor in my twenties and thirties. Not "very little left over after paying the mortgage and maxing out the RRSP" poor - *poor* poor. I've never felt like the NDP gave much of a damn about me (or the Liberals, or the Conservatives). Honestly, I think the closest thing we've had to a politician with any kind of sympathy for actual poor people has been Jean Chretien - and even he was more of a "would give somebody a dollar while walking past them on the way to an event at the Empire Club" guy, right?
Pretty sure the views expressed in that second paragraph reflects just one way why New Democrats are bugged by Liberals (but just one). Widen the view from Ottawa and see that New Democrats hold government in two provinces and official opposition in four more. That takes a little more than stunts and seven percent of the vote. It's also a far cry from the fraught state of provincial Liberals outside of Atlantic Canada (and, looking at Nova Scotia, even there). Keep the focus on Ottawa and the New Democrats supported the Liberals for three years, for good or ill, and movement on dental care and pharmacare came as a result.
Thanks for your perspective! I mean, obviously I'm a Liberal and can only give the Liberal perspective on why I don't tend to get along with New Democrats. The NDP perspective on why you don't tend to get along with Liberals is going to be different. Of course. Some of why New Democrats don't tend to get along with Liberals is that we're arrogant jerks - granted.
One area where we agree is that, yes, the NDP has more of a "winner culture" in some provinces than others. The Manitoba NDP and the federal NDP are two different animals, obviously. 100% granted.
But other than that, your comment actually just underscores my point: Liberals want to win elections, New Democrats want to influence policy (and it doesn't actually happen). I'm sorry if "seven percent of the vote" seemed unusually dismissive, but when you say "and official opposition in four more", you're basically making the same point I was making. If you think "hey, back in McGuinty times, the NDP was a sad third-place party with no influence, but now things are a lot better - Doug Ford is premier, and we're a sad second-place party with no influence!", or if you think Jack Layton winning more seats under Stephen Harper's majority than under his minorities was a good thing, or whatever, that's exactly what I was talking about.
And, re: Ottawa...prime ministers institute policy. Justin Trudeau provided dental care and pharmacare. If the Rhinoceros Party or the Marxist-Leninist Party or Doug Henning's Natural Law Party also thought those things were good ideas, well, then, they should have won a national election. To a Liberal mind, the Dips never have been and never will be any more relevant than Doug Henning. You, of course, disagree. This hasn't been a generative discussion in terms of us changing each others' minds. But I think it illustrates exactly what I'm describing.
Strictly speaking, the Liberals are not a "progressive" party. They have been under JT, but the next leader will be right of centre (like Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin). Traditionally, they are a centrist political party that campaigns from the left and governs from the right. Just like The Democrats are the party of Wall Street, the Liberals are the party of Bay Street. The Liberals will shamelessly steal policies from all over the political spectrum if it will help them get elected.
This is a question that will likely be germane after the election, but which won't be part of the Liberal campaign before the election. If they both end up leaderless after the campaign, I'm sure it will be a huge topic.
Is there a factual rebuttal to axe the tax? What could possibly be the upside to keeping the carbon tax (rhetorical question - no need to answer, unless you want to).
Yes because GHGs have reduced so appreciably. Not. If it worked, every government around the world would already have adopted carbon taxes. Instead they’re an internal tariff on our own economy, driving down economic activity but not carbon. I’d call it ironic, but evil is probably a better word.
I’ll believe there’s a “climate emergency” when I see the Trudeau types cancelling their Tofino surfing flight due to the sheer terror of its climate impact. Never gonna happen.
Allow me to refer you to a Forbes article called, “How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science.” Google it, read it, and understand how “climate emergencies” are the new snake oil.
In fact, greenhouse gases (GHG) *have* reduced appreciably.
2005 is the base year for Canada’s GHG emission reduction target. That year, total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada were 761 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. In 2020, they were 686 Mt.
So, yeah, 686 in 2020 is less than 761 in 2005. Ergo, greenhouse gases ) *have* reduced appreciably.
It’s particularly remarkable because the preceding 15 years were radically different. GHG emissions went from 608 Mt in 1990 to 761 Mt in 2005, 15 years later. A rise of 25%. At that rhythm, they would have been 952,5 Mt in 2020!
Also, I didn’t make the calculation, but I’d be willing to bet that if you compared GHG emissions to GNP from 2005 to 2020, the drop would be even more radical.
I read the article you sent me that was written by a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thank you, it was interesting.
What's stopping the progressive parties from forming a coalition as they do in Europe?
Ideally, they'd amalgamate to place a permanent stamp on the matter. 3 progressive national parties is two too many. But if that's impractical, why can't they find the ideal candidate and all support the same guy or girl? Ask people like Wab Kinew or Charlie Angus or Naheed Nenshi or Jodi WIlson_Reybould or Christia Freeland to debate and hold an internet vote open to legimately-registered members of the participating parties.
Wouldn't it be nice to hear the factual rebuttal to "Axe the Tax"?
You are not, with the exception of Kinew, bringing anyone new to the game. Neshi is just another Trudeau. JWR will be highlighted as the person who installed rotating doors in Canadian jails and created a two-tier Justice system. Freeland the bobble head was behind Trudeau 100% until the bus appeared. Until the Regressives find someone left of centre they will be in the wilderness. The NDP had one in Thomas Mulcair and they tossed him in favour of the Rolex socialist. With the exception of Kinew, and Brad West there few credible young Regressives out there and Kinew is still the shiny new object.
To answer your question, cultural and stylistic differences. NDP voters and Liberal voters have a lot in common in terms of policy and ideas, but the NDP establishment and the Liberal establishment are very, very different in terms of their views on realpolitik.
Right or wrong, Liberals are more similar to Conservatives than to New Democrats, in that we believe politics is about making a difference by achieving and using the levers of power, and New Democrats believe it's about speaking your truth in a debate and getting seven percent of the vote. I at one point had a Google News Search up for "MPP". I once got two simultaneous e-mails. One was "new Conservative MPP hopes to make cabinet". And the other was about a New Democrat participating in one of those poverty-simulation stunts, and the headline was something like "New NDP MPP hopes to find tree to sleep under". Sorry - one of those things is more like a Liberal than the other.
*Of course* what the government does is more important than someone's style, and of course you're right that if the overwhelming majority of Canadians that's to the left of Poilievre coalesced behind someone, it'd be great. But New Democrats and Liberals just bug each other in a way that makes this very difficult to do.
I would say that the NDP shows more explicit class consciousness than the LPC. And the LPC might benefit from a little more of it.
In what sense do you mean? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I find LPC policies and rhetoric assume that shareholder, manager, and worker interests are aligned or gloss over those distinctions altogether. Assumes the audience sees themselves entirely as "middle class or eager to join it." There's no data there
Oh, hundred percent agreed on that piece. I know literal millionaires who think of themselves as "middle class" because, hey, *they* know people who are even *richer than that*, and let's be honest - these are the kinds of people the LPC in its current incarnation panders to. Rich people who want to be reassured that they're not the *bad* rich people.
I think you make a good point about glossing over the distinctions, too. Liberals tend to accept the premise that Paul Martin's kid and Frank Morneau's kid were economic geniuses---hey, who knows more about money than a rich guy?
On the other hand, I've found the Ontario NDP under Andrea Horwath and Marit Stiles...not quite as annoying in *how* they pander, but also kind of centrist and pandering. So I agree with you that I'd love for the Liberals to have *more* class consciousness, but I don't know if the NDP has that much either.
I guess you'd call me one of those "working to join it" types---I came from a middle-class family growing up, am middle-class now, but was poor in my twenties and thirties. Not "very little left over after paying the mortgage and maxing out the RRSP" poor - *poor* poor. I've never felt like the NDP gave much of a damn about me (or the Liberals, or the Conservatives). Honestly, I think the closest thing we've had to a politician with any kind of sympathy for actual poor people has been Jean Chretien - and even he was more of a "would give somebody a dollar while walking past them on the way to an event at the Empire Club" guy, right?
Pretty sure the views expressed in that second paragraph reflects just one way why New Democrats are bugged by Liberals (but just one). Widen the view from Ottawa and see that New Democrats hold government in two provinces and official opposition in four more. That takes a little more than stunts and seven percent of the vote. It's also a far cry from the fraught state of provincial Liberals outside of Atlantic Canada (and, looking at Nova Scotia, even there). Keep the focus on Ottawa and the New Democrats supported the Liberals for three years, for good or ill, and movement on dental care and pharmacare came as a result.
Thanks for your perspective! I mean, obviously I'm a Liberal and can only give the Liberal perspective on why I don't tend to get along with New Democrats. The NDP perspective on why you don't tend to get along with Liberals is going to be different. Of course. Some of why New Democrats don't tend to get along with Liberals is that we're arrogant jerks - granted.
One area where we agree is that, yes, the NDP has more of a "winner culture" in some provinces than others. The Manitoba NDP and the federal NDP are two different animals, obviously. 100% granted.
But other than that, your comment actually just underscores my point: Liberals want to win elections, New Democrats want to influence policy (and it doesn't actually happen). I'm sorry if "seven percent of the vote" seemed unusually dismissive, but when you say "and official opposition in four more", you're basically making the same point I was making. If you think "hey, back in McGuinty times, the NDP was a sad third-place party with no influence, but now things are a lot better - Doug Ford is premier, and we're a sad second-place party with no influence!", or if you think Jack Layton winning more seats under Stephen Harper's majority than under his minorities was a good thing, or whatever, that's exactly what I was talking about.
And, re: Ottawa...prime ministers institute policy. Justin Trudeau provided dental care and pharmacare. If the Rhinoceros Party or the Marxist-Leninist Party or Doug Henning's Natural Law Party also thought those things were good ideas, well, then, they should have won a national election. To a Liberal mind, the Dips never have been and never will be any more relevant than Doug Henning. You, of course, disagree. This hasn't been a generative discussion in terms of us changing each others' minds. But I think it illustrates exactly what I'm describing.
Strictly speaking, the Liberals are not a "progressive" party. They have been under JT, but the next leader will be right of centre (like Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin). Traditionally, they are a centrist political party that campaigns from the left and governs from the right. Just like The Democrats are the party of Wall Street, the Liberals are the party of Bay Street. The Liberals will shamelessly steal policies from all over the political spectrum if it will help them get elected.
This is a question that will likely be germane after the election, but which won't be part of the Liberal campaign before the election. If they both end up leaderless after the campaign, I'm sure it will be a huge topic.
Is there a factual rebuttal to axe the tax? What could possibly be the upside to keeping the carbon tax (rhetorical question - no need to answer, unless you want to).
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes because GHGs have reduced so appreciably. Not. If it worked, every government around the world would already have adopted carbon taxes. Instead they’re an internal tariff on our own economy, driving down economic activity but not carbon. I’d call it ironic, but evil is probably a better word.
I’ll believe there’s a “climate emergency” when I see the Trudeau types cancelling their Tofino surfing flight due to the sheer terror of its climate impact. Never gonna happen.
Allow me to refer you to a Forbes article called, “How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science.” Google it, read it, and understand how “climate emergencies” are the new snake oil.
In fact, greenhouse gases (GHG) *have* reduced appreciably.
2005 is the base year for Canada’s GHG emission reduction target. That year, total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada were 761 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. In 2020, they were 686 Mt.
So, yeah, 686 in 2020 is less than 761 in 2005. Ergo, greenhouse gases ) *have* reduced appreciably.
It’s particularly remarkable because the preceding 15 years were radically different. GHG emissions went from 608 Mt in 1990 to 761 Mt in 2005, 15 years later. A rise of 25%. At that rhythm, they would have been 952,5 Mt in 2020!
Here’s the source: https://bit.ly/40dfDIF
Also, I didn’t make the calculation, but I’d be willing to bet that if you compared GHG emissions to GNP from 2005 to 2020, the drop would be even more radical.
I read the article you sent me that was written by a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thank you, it was interesting.
I invite you to check out this one: https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/renewables/canada-is-showing-the-world-how-carbon-pricing-should-be-done-nobel-prize-winning-economist-william-nordhaus
Also, while interesting, I won't be continuing this exchange with you at this time. I don't want us to highjack Paul's comment section :-)
Reductions were largely due to industrial efforts to clean up the low-hanging fruit. It was NOT the carbon tax. That’s just a control scam.