the tpp just got signed.
i'm going to be honest - it's probably spitting on a fish. that is to say that the deal is no doubt bad news, but it's not particularly likely to make issues worse than they already are. we're already bound by a plethora of investor-state dispute mechanisms, and with most of these countries through the wto. investors in japan and australia can already sue us. and, if you go down the list and really think about it carefully on a point-by-point basis, what you'll conclude is that it's another level of trash on what is, at this point, a rather heaping pile. it should be opposed - but the sky will not fall, because it's already fallen.
but, what about the electoral ramifications?
harper's support right now is already down at it's minimal level. it's hard to see where he's going to lose support. the ndp is hoping it gets some support from dairy farmers; i don't see that happening on a level that's going to swing any actual ridings. best case scenario, he might win some ridings by 5 points instead of 20 points. rural ontario is too hard to the right. and, the bulk of farmers there may even buy into it, on the basis of faith in the party.
but, i do think that this is a big mover on the left.
i think we all know that the liberals will support the deal, bar the inclusion of some unmitigated catastrophe. if they make that clear, how much support will they lose? this is bad news for the lead the liberals have built over the last week, with little upside to it. nobody leaning left is going to move to support the liberals on this, and nobody leaning right is, either.
but, here's something the media may go out of it's way to confuse you about: the ndp are also likely to support the deal. or, at least, mulcair is likely to support the deal. can he convince his caucus, if he manages to win? what you're likely to get from the ndp over the next two weeks is a lot of obfuscating language designed to confuse you, and set them up to make either choice. if they win the election on this obfuscation, which is about the only tactic they have left, then they will certainly vote for the deal. but, if they lose the election by enough seats that they can get away with doing so, they will no doubt vote against it, in order to carry on the ploy. see, this is why i'm supporting the liberals - you can't get a straight answer out of the ndp right now.
they might surprise me. they might come out explicitly against it; in fact, i hope they do. and, if they do, i might consider it. but, in terms of the long game, the ndp may actually be better off hoping they lose the election, so they can vote against the deal and not tarnish themselves on it.
if they don't explicitly state disapproval, it is a ploy, and i expect them to vote in favour of it if they win. or, at least, i expect mulcair to. it could seriously split the caucus on the first vote.
so, please pay very close attention to what mulcair says over the next few days. do not assume he opposes the deal. and, look at the language he uses carefully for loopholes that will allow him to support the deal should he win.
i'll give you an example of what to look for: energy east. what mulcair has been saying is that he wants a new environmental review done, and then follow the recommendations. sounds neutral at first. but then he blames opposition to the pipeline on a lack of transparent environmental policy. the conclusion is that he supports the pipeline, and wants to use the environmental review as an argument against those that oppose it. but, if you're not paying close attention, you may get the misperception that he's opposed to it.
this is what you need to expect: obfuscating positions designed to confuse you. and, i'll be the first to apologize if he contradicts me.
which brings up the final wildcard: the green party. the green party opposes the deal. further, they oppose the deal on the proper basis: they are opposed to the investor tribunals. this is what people want to hear. is it enough that people will vote for them? and will it be enough to win some seats?
so, this could be seismic.
or it could sneak under the radar.
just please listen carefully. and critically.
-
it would be nice to hear something like this from the ndp.
don't expect it.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-trans-pacific-partnership-charade-tpp-isnt-about-free-trade-at-all-2015-10-05
Monday, October 5, 2015
ok, so, now that we're stuck with this, we want to support a low dollar to act as a tariff on goods into the country and make our exports more competitive. and, that means we want to transition out of oil, because we don't want oil rising the dollar up and making our exports uncompetitive and ruining our local industry.
so, it's a perpetual war between the east and the west, now. our interests are directly contradictory.
it may even make sense to dissolve confederation. ontario will be suffocated under a high dollar.
no.
seriously.
it's zero sum.
it is now in ontario's imperative interest to do everything it possibly can to obstruct albertan oil from getting to market.
i hope that ontarians, both inside and out of government, are pro-active on this point.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-dollar-rises-stocks-jump-on-news-of-tpp-trade-deal-1.3257089
Gary in NS
The only point that I agree with is kicking Ontario out of Confederation.
jessica murray
i'm not sure what the best way to do this is, but the observation is that alberta has a different set of economic interests than the rest of the country and that there really isn't an answer. the monetary union, in particular, just doesn't make sense. if the dollar goes up, alberta has to accept a larger responsibility in transfer payments. if it goes down, alberta has to consider possibly becoming a recipient.
probably the best outcome would be alberta joining the united states. what they want is parity. the usd is the petrodollar, after all. that would allow the rest of the country to deflate the currency to around $0.60, which would be optimal in competing in the tpp.
the oil is a burden to the rest of the country. it's going to stunt our growth, and force us to demand more in transfers - which i think we have a right to, considering that it's the economic impact of the oil that's stunting us. under the logic of the tpp, they would have a responsibility under tort law to compensate us for lost growth potential. but, of course, this is not optimal for anybody. what's optimal is decoupling, so the oil can no longer harm the growth potential.
i mean, they won't give us any kind of a deal on the oil, anyways. we went through this. they told us to freeze in the dark. we continue to import oil from the middle east. we'd be better off decoupling from the oil producing regions so we can grow our economy faster and then buying it nation-nation. that would actually give us more leverage.
so, i don't know how you do this. but i think that if everybody sits down and looks at the situation carefully, there's no way to conclude that confederation makes sense, under the tpp.
so, it's a perpetual war between the east and the west, now. our interests are directly contradictory.
it may even make sense to dissolve confederation. ontario will be suffocated under a high dollar.
no.
seriously.
it's zero sum.
it is now in ontario's imperative interest to do everything it possibly can to obstruct albertan oil from getting to market.
i hope that ontarians, both inside and out of government, are pro-active on this point.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-dollar-rises-stocks-jump-on-news-of-tpp-trade-deal-1.3257089
Gary in NS
The only point that I agree with is kicking Ontario out of Confederation.
jessica murray
i'm not sure what the best way to do this is, but the observation is that alberta has a different set of economic interests than the rest of the country and that there really isn't an answer. the monetary union, in particular, just doesn't make sense. if the dollar goes up, alberta has to accept a larger responsibility in transfer payments. if it goes down, alberta has to consider possibly becoming a recipient.
probably the best outcome would be alberta joining the united states. what they want is parity. the usd is the petrodollar, after all. that would allow the rest of the country to deflate the currency to around $0.60, which would be optimal in competing in the tpp.
the oil is a burden to the rest of the country. it's going to stunt our growth, and force us to demand more in transfers - which i think we have a right to, considering that it's the economic impact of the oil that's stunting us. under the logic of the tpp, they would have a responsibility under tort law to compensate us for lost growth potential. but, of course, this is not optimal for anybody. what's optimal is decoupling, so the oil can no longer harm the growth potential.
i mean, they won't give us any kind of a deal on the oil, anyways. we went through this. they told us to freeze in the dark. we continue to import oil from the middle east. we'd be better off decoupling from the oil producing regions so we can grow our economy faster and then buying it nation-nation. that would actually give us more leverage.
so, i don't know how you do this. but i think that if everybody sits down and looks at the situation carefully, there's no way to conclude that confederation makes sense, under the tpp.
at
09:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
if people want to understand the actual opposition to this deal, the thing to start with is by googling the following term: investor-state dispute settlement. the various articulations of opposition are almost all based on ramifications of this.
basically, it allows corporations to bypass real judicial systems and have disputes settled by corporate-appointed tribunals. the history of this is pretty clear: the united states always wins.
this is why we argue that it is an abolition of canadian sovereignty.
i went to all kinds of anti-trade protests in the late 90s and early 00s. i don't recall the issue of supply management for dairy farmers ever coming up. and, in fact, these farmers voted overwhelmingly for the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
well, this doesn't say anything important about any of the issues that opponents are likely to draw attention to, with the exception, perhaps, of the automotive issues.
again: i don't consider supply management in dairy to be an important concern. but i still don't know how one proposes that countries on the other side of the pacific can import cheese or butter to canada at a competitive price. and, the lower dollar should offset any benefits american producers see. nor am i going to complain if cheese prices come down a little. hey, it's a little bit of retributive justice for these people for putting harper in power in the first place.
further, japan is a first world country. i can't see how it makes sense to build cars in japan and ship them across the ocean. i think maybe japan might be more interested in building cars in vietnam and shipping them to china, or maybe australia. nor do i see how it makes sense to build cars in vietnam and ship them to canada. i just don't see how the economics make it feasible to build cars for the north american market outside of north america without becoming uncompetitive due to various costs, and nafta already included mexico.
but, listen: we need to be thinking about retooling factories, anyways. we have huge dormant capacities. maybe we could start building electric cars for the local market, or convert them to high speed train factories or whatever else.
again: i'm more interested in things like patents, chapter 11 style agreements, etc. and i really hope this comes up in the discussion, despite being fully aware that it likely won't.
basically, it allows corporations to bypass real judicial systems and have disputes settled by corporate-appointed tribunals. the history of this is pretty clear: the united states always wins.
this is why we argue that it is an abolition of canadian sovereignty.
i went to all kinds of anti-trade protests in the late 90s and early 00s. i don't recall the issue of supply management for dairy farmers ever coming up. and, in fact, these farmers voted overwhelmingly for the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
well, this doesn't say anything important about any of the issues that opponents are likely to draw attention to, with the exception, perhaps, of the automotive issues.
again: i don't consider supply management in dairy to be an important concern. but i still don't know how one proposes that countries on the other side of the pacific can import cheese or butter to canada at a competitive price. and, the lower dollar should offset any benefits american producers see. nor am i going to complain if cheese prices come down a little. hey, it's a little bit of retributive justice for these people for putting harper in power in the first place.
further, japan is a first world country. i can't see how it makes sense to build cars in japan and ship them across the ocean. i think maybe japan might be more interested in building cars in vietnam and shipping them to china, or maybe australia. nor do i see how it makes sense to build cars in vietnam and ship them to canada. i just don't see how the economics make it feasible to build cars for the north american market outside of north america without becoming uncompetitive due to various costs, and nafta already included mexico.
but, listen: we need to be thinking about retooling factories, anyways. we have huge dormant capacities. maybe we could start building electric cars for the local market, or convert them to high speed train factories or whatever else.
again: i'm more interested in things like patents, chapter 11 style agreements, etc. and i really hope this comes up in the discussion, despite being fully aware that it likely won't.
at
08:39
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
well, this should be interesting.
as far as i can tell, these are the positions of the parties:
conservatives: absolute support.
liberals: near certain support. there's a handful of things that they're likely to not like, but not to the extent that they're likely to reject it - unless it's singularly terrible. but you know who's a wildcard, here? dalton mcguinty. he got nailed on some green procurement. that's a possible sticking point that could build some support near the top. it is known that there are a number of prominent liberals at both levels that are not happy about the way that these deals operate. it will be interesting to see what kind of details come out and what the sitting liberal premiers, in general, have to say about this. but, unless the position is clarified to the contrary, voters should expect the liberals to support the deal.
ndp: this is going to force mulcair to be more specific. i found a quote about pharmaceuticals this morning. is that serious? voters were left to a lot of guesswork regarding this, in trying to interpret what mulcair was saying. my interpretation has been that he's been working up specific issues in such a way that he'll have enough wiggle room to vote for it should the ndp win, but also enough that he can vote against it if it turns out it will pass anyways. this is a retreat to perpetual opposition party-type thinking: they'll promise to vote against it, so long as they can't stop it. but, to be fair, voters should keep an open mind about this. yet, they should also be exceedingly critical about they hear from the ndp, and analyze the language very carefully. all indication is that mulcair, personally, supports the agreement and is only coming out against it for votes, in ways that he can flip on.
the greens oppose.
and, remember: it DOES have to pass a vote in the house of commons before it's over. it's not done yet.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
as far as i can tell, these are the positions of the parties:
conservatives: absolute support.
liberals: near certain support. there's a handful of things that they're likely to not like, but not to the extent that they're likely to reject it - unless it's singularly terrible. but you know who's a wildcard, here? dalton mcguinty. he got nailed on some green procurement. that's a possible sticking point that could build some support near the top. it is known that there are a number of prominent liberals at both levels that are not happy about the way that these deals operate. it will be interesting to see what kind of details come out and what the sitting liberal premiers, in general, have to say about this. but, unless the position is clarified to the contrary, voters should expect the liberals to support the deal.
ndp: this is going to force mulcair to be more specific. i found a quote about pharmaceuticals this morning. is that serious? voters were left to a lot of guesswork regarding this, in trying to interpret what mulcair was saying. my interpretation has been that he's been working up specific issues in such a way that he'll have enough wiggle room to vote for it should the ndp win, but also enough that he can vote against it if it turns out it will pass anyways. this is a retreat to perpetual opposition party-type thinking: they'll promise to vote against it, so long as they can't stop it. but, to be fair, voters should keep an open mind about this. yet, they should also be exceedingly critical about they hear from the ndp, and analyze the language very carefully. all indication is that mulcair, personally, supports the agreement and is only coming out against it for votes, in ways that he can flip on.
the greens oppose.
and, remember: it DOES have to pass a vote in the house of commons before it's over. it's not done yet.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
at
08:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
considering that it now seems clear that the conservatives are not benefiting from the niqab issue, that the apparent bump was just due to variation within the margin of error which has now receded and the media was basically making the issue up out of thin air, and that the bloc are only up a few points (while the liberals, who have the same position, continue to climb), it's the media's responsibility to provide an alternate explanation regarding what's actually driving down ndp support.
the liberals are no less in favour of that pipeline, either.
i'm not sure what it is, frankly. it's easy to understand how some long-time sovereigntists may have read a little too far into the ndp and just went home; that those were never serious votes. and, it's been known for quite a while that the ndp-liberal swing was very soft, and leaning disproportionately to the ndp. but, that should only be so much, one would think.
well, one would think, anyways. i'm open to suggestions [and, again: it is clearly not the niqab, as the main beneficiary is the liberals]. but, i'm willing to accept that there isn't a single driver, so much as one is seeing support firm up.
but, there's a caveat: the nanos polling this morning also put the undecideds in quebec at over 16%, which is the highest in the country. i don't believe that nik was posting detailed tables last month. but, i'm willing to hazard a guess that what's actually happening more than anything else is a movement from the ndp to the undecideds, and that is skewing them down and everybody else up.
actual numbers in quebec this morning are:
ndp: 25.2
liberals: 23.6
bloc: 17.1
undecided: 16.3 <----key
conservative: 14.3
green: 2.4
undecideds elsewhere run roughly 8-11. if that boost in undecideds is almost entirely from the ndp, you can see how that is inflating everybody. decided results:
ndp: 30.1
liberals: 28.1
bloc: 20.1
conservatives: 17.1
but, that is over-estimating the bottom three.
for reference, results from last election were:
ndp: 42.9
bloc: 23.4
cons: 16.5
libs: 14.2
that's really no measurable difference in conservative support since 2011. the bloc are still down, but trending up. the liberals managed 23.7 in 2008, meaning they've got back what they lost in 2011 to the ndp.
that means that the ndp are still holding bloc support, and that the undecided is almost entirely old bloc support.
hrmmn. could be the niqab, after all. but, entirely left-leaning sovereigntist.
that would suggest that the bloc and ndp, liberals and then finally conservatives have the most to potentially gain from what's been knocked loose - in that order.
with an obscure possibility of green support boosting, out of people just being fed up.
--
if you accept the basic premise that quebec is voting primarily with the purpose of a change of government, you could maybe construct a chain of logic with this spike in undecideds:
1) as the primary goal is a change of power, these voters would swing ndp or liberal depending on who they believe is most likely to win.
2) but, if it seems as though the conservatives are winning, they may choose to vote for the bloc in protest.
that's maybe a bit optimistic, from an english-speaker in ontario. but, it might not be far from the truth.
i just have a hard time with this niqab narrative. and not just because i don't like it. the fact is that quebec just voted *against* these kinds of rules in the last provincial election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-challenged-over-niqab-pipelines-on-tout-le-monde-en-parle-1.3256496
NDP returns to its natural ranking 3rd Place. Orange Flush
You like your own posts don't you.. NDP Egomaniac
jessica murray
there's a character limit, it's not my fault.
and, fwiw, i'm to the left of the spectrum. i'd like to see public initiatives to automate local growing, for example. immediate halt to all tar sands production. and, i'd propose re-nationalizing the wheat board as my first act. the greens are probably closest to where i sit, but i'm probably going to vote liberal. i'm very uncomfortable with the ndp's swing to the right.
oh. wait. you meant to suggest i press "like" on my own posts, rather than that i like to reply to my own posts.
i actually really have problems with this like/dislike upvoting system. i'm just thinking back to english class in high school. it was really drilled into me that an opinion is worthless unless it is accompanied by an argument. which is not to discard certain opinions; you can argue anything. but, the value is in the argument, rather than the opinion.
i don't "like" *anything*. anywhere. not on facebook. not on youtube. never, ever. and, for my own content, i disable ratings whenever and wherever i can. if i have an opinion, i post a response; i expect people to post responses to my own content, rather than just rate it.
i could go on with this. i think it's actually kind of frightening, in the way that it threatens to reduce the level of discourse on just about every topic. i don't have a general issue with the internet; i'm not going to argue that technology, itself, is making us illiterate. but things like 100 character limits and upvoting are giant steps backwards. a little more thought needs to be put into it.
of course, advertisers will see it differently. they don't care. they want easy to analyze data.
but, that means that, no, i don't like my own posts. or anybody else's, either.
the liberals are no less in favour of that pipeline, either.
i'm not sure what it is, frankly. it's easy to understand how some long-time sovereigntists may have read a little too far into the ndp and just went home; that those were never serious votes. and, it's been known for quite a while that the ndp-liberal swing was very soft, and leaning disproportionately to the ndp. but, that should only be so much, one would think.
well, one would think, anyways. i'm open to suggestions [and, again: it is clearly not the niqab, as the main beneficiary is the liberals]. but, i'm willing to accept that there isn't a single driver, so much as one is seeing support firm up.
but, there's a caveat: the nanos polling this morning also put the undecideds in quebec at over 16%, which is the highest in the country. i don't believe that nik was posting detailed tables last month. but, i'm willing to hazard a guess that what's actually happening more than anything else is a movement from the ndp to the undecideds, and that is skewing them down and everybody else up.
actual numbers in quebec this morning are:
ndp: 25.2
liberals: 23.6
bloc: 17.1
undecided: 16.3 <----key
conservative: 14.3
green: 2.4
undecideds elsewhere run roughly 8-11. if that boost in undecideds is almost entirely from the ndp, you can see how that is inflating everybody. decided results:
ndp: 30.1
liberals: 28.1
bloc: 20.1
conservatives: 17.1
but, that is over-estimating the bottom three.
for reference, results from last election were:
ndp: 42.9
bloc: 23.4
cons: 16.5
libs: 14.2
that's really no measurable difference in conservative support since 2011. the bloc are still down, but trending up. the liberals managed 23.7 in 2008, meaning they've got back what they lost in 2011 to the ndp.
that means that the ndp are still holding bloc support, and that the undecided is almost entirely old bloc support.
hrmmn. could be the niqab, after all. but, entirely left-leaning sovereigntist.
that would suggest that the bloc and ndp, liberals and then finally conservatives have the most to potentially gain from what's been knocked loose - in that order.
with an obscure possibility of green support boosting, out of people just being fed up.
--
if you accept the basic premise that quebec is voting primarily with the purpose of a change of government, you could maybe construct a chain of logic with this spike in undecideds:
1) as the primary goal is a change of power, these voters would swing ndp or liberal depending on who they believe is most likely to win.
2) but, if it seems as though the conservatives are winning, they may choose to vote for the bloc in protest.
that's maybe a bit optimistic, from an english-speaker in ontario. but, it might not be far from the truth.
i just have a hard time with this niqab narrative. and not just because i don't like it. the fact is that quebec just voted *against* these kinds of rules in the last provincial election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-challenged-over-niqab-pipelines-on-tout-le-monde-en-parle-1.3256496
NDP returns to its natural ranking 3rd Place. Orange Flush
You like your own posts don't you.. NDP Egomaniac
jessica murray
there's a character limit, it's not my fault.
and, fwiw, i'm to the left of the spectrum. i'd like to see public initiatives to automate local growing, for example. immediate halt to all tar sands production. and, i'd propose re-nationalizing the wheat board as my first act. the greens are probably closest to where i sit, but i'm probably going to vote liberal. i'm very uncomfortable with the ndp's swing to the right.
oh. wait. you meant to suggest i press "like" on my own posts, rather than that i like to reply to my own posts.
i actually really have problems with this like/dislike upvoting system. i'm just thinking back to english class in high school. it was really drilled into me that an opinion is worthless unless it is accompanied by an argument. which is not to discard certain opinions; you can argue anything. but, the value is in the argument, rather than the opinion.
i don't "like" *anything*. anywhere. not on facebook. not on youtube. never, ever. and, for my own content, i disable ratings whenever and wherever i can. if i have an opinion, i post a response; i expect people to post responses to my own content, rather than just rate it.
i could go on with this. i think it's actually kind of frightening, in the way that it threatens to reduce the level of discourse on just about every topic. i don't have a general issue with the internet; i'm not going to argue that technology, itself, is making us illiterate. but things like 100 character limits and upvoting are giant steps backwards. a little more thought needs to be put into it.
of course, advertisers will see it differently. they don't care. they want easy to analyze data.
but, that means that, no, i don't like my own posts. or anybody else's, either.
at
07:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you know, i would have expected sarah silverman to support the conservatives. i'm shocked. really.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sarah-silverman-endorses-tom-mulcair-and-ndp-candidate-in-vancouver-1.3256425
BuckNaked
I would have expected her to support the Liberals.
jessica murray
she's endorsing her friend and likely has essentially no idea what she's talking about. it doesn't deserve a headline.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sarah-silverman-endorses-tom-mulcair-and-ndp-candidate-in-vancouver-1.3256425
BuckNaked
I would have expected her to support the Liberals.
jessica murray
she's endorsing her friend and likely has essentially no idea what she's talking about. it doesn't deserve a headline.
at
02:04
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Alberta bound1
Canada is a trading nation. Based upon the negative comments here - quite a few people seem to think that Canada cannot compete globally. I completely reject that thought - as I feel that once we promote our competitive industries we can compete with anybody. I agree that certain sectors will be very challenged - but they would be challenged even without this deal.
deathtokoalas
it's not the trading aspect that the left opposes. if this were actually a free trade deal, the left would support it; in canada, protectionism is associated with the historical right. rather, we're concerned about the other aspects of the deal. for example, the rights it gives to foreign investors to sue governments. that's not trade.
the google search term is investor-state dispute settlement. you won't hear the ndp talk about this, and you have to look hard in the media to find a discussion of it. but, this is the primary crux of disagreement, the core of the protests. nobody on the left cares about supply management for dairy; those farmers are overwhelming conservative voters.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/canadian-business-owners-applaud-signing-of-tpp/article26648406/
Canada is a trading nation. Based upon the negative comments here - quite a few people seem to think that Canada cannot compete globally. I completely reject that thought - as I feel that once we promote our competitive industries we can compete with anybody. I agree that certain sectors will be very challenged - but they would be challenged even without this deal.
deathtokoalas
it's not the trading aspect that the left opposes. if this were actually a free trade deal, the left would support it; in canada, protectionism is associated with the historical right. rather, we're concerned about the other aspects of the deal. for example, the rights it gives to foreign investors to sue governments. that's not trade.
the google search term is investor-state dispute settlement. you won't hear the ndp talk about this, and you have to look hard in the media to find a discussion of it. but, this is the primary crux of disagreement, the core of the protests. nobody on the left cares about supply management for dairy; those farmers are overwhelming conservative voters.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/canadian-business-owners-applaud-signing-of-tpp/article26648406/
at
01:42
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
see, under normal circumstance, the ndp would be nailing the liberals on this, and i'd probably be voting ndp. instead, the ndp have spent most of the election trying to position themselves to the right of the liberals, and have only backtracked in the last couple of days on "supply management" - something that is meaningless in urban canada. maybe it's a generational gap, but i have little interest in defending the interests of these dairy farmers, who have forced us to endure stephen harper and the bloc quebecois. maybe putting them out of business will be good for the country. forcing them to sell their farms and sending them to the cities sounds like a good idea, if it means breaking up the conservative base. although, i hardly think that's likely; three week old curdled milk from new zealand isn't much of a threat to canadian dairy farmers, i don't think.
i actually buy canadian grown soy milk, anyways.
nobody really thinks the liberals are going to oppose this, do they? see, the benefit of having the liberals in power during the negotiation process would have been that they would have been far more likely to argue against certain things that are not in our interest. we're definitely better off having the liberals negotiate these things. but, mulroney tied our hands with a bad nafta deal, and now it looks like harper is about to tie our hands with a bad tpp deal. for once, it would be nice to get a deal that the liberals had some influence in. as it is, they will sign the deal, even if there are things they don't like about it - because they are pragmatists.
but, the ndp are going to do exactly the same thing. this is a difference, but c'est la vie. so, it's essentially a non-issue. what should be the biggest issue on the table is supported by all three major parties.
of all the things mulcair has failed the left on, it his absolute failure in presenting a principle opposition to the tpp that is the absolute worst. not a word on so-called property rights. not a word on so-called investors rights. not a word on prescription costs. why? because he doesn't oppose any of it. he's on side with it. all we've got is a cynical attempt to win traditionally right-leaning votes by promising to protect supply management.
if this really bugs you, you only have one option: the green party. they are the only party that credibly opposes the agreement.
i'm taking the position that it's a non-issue because the three parties have the same position, that it needs to be opposed using other means and that my voting decisions will have to be based on other concerns.
but, technically? sure: wait and see is the correctly logically coherent position. but, there's really little doubt that the reality is that it will have to be exceedingly poorly written for the liberals to reject it. it's so obscure, you can more or less ignore it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/04/liberal-rally-brampton-trudeau_n_8241412.html
i actually buy canadian grown soy milk, anyways.
nobody really thinks the liberals are going to oppose this, do they? see, the benefit of having the liberals in power during the negotiation process would have been that they would have been far more likely to argue against certain things that are not in our interest. we're definitely better off having the liberals negotiate these things. but, mulroney tied our hands with a bad nafta deal, and now it looks like harper is about to tie our hands with a bad tpp deal. for once, it would be nice to get a deal that the liberals had some influence in. as it is, they will sign the deal, even if there are things they don't like about it - because they are pragmatists.
but, the ndp are going to do exactly the same thing. this is a difference, but c'est la vie. so, it's essentially a non-issue. what should be the biggest issue on the table is supported by all three major parties.
of all the things mulcair has failed the left on, it his absolute failure in presenting a principle opposition to the tpp that is the absolute worst. not a word on so-called property rights. not a word on so-called investors rights. not a word on prescription costs. why? because he doesn't oppose any of it. he's on side with it. all we've got is a cynical attempt to win traditionally right-leaning votes by promising to protect supply management.
if this really bugs you, you only have one option: the green party. they are the only party that credibly opposes the agreement.
i'm taking the position that it's a non-issue because the three parties have the same position, that it needs to be opposed using other means and that my voting decisions will have to be based on other concerns.
but, technically? sure: wait and see is the correctly logically coherent position. but, there's really little doubt that the reality is that it will have to be exceedingly poorly written for the liberals to reject it. it's so obscure, you can more or less ignore it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/04/liberal-rally-brampton-trudeau_n_8241412.html
at
01:02
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
see, here's the thing...
listen to putin. and then find a speech by chavez, or castro or perhaps khrushchev, even. what you should immediately see is that putin is a different kind of foe; he's what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror, or at least what we fancy we see in ourselves, looking back.
there's so much talk of russian recklessness and demonization of them as evil incarnate....
...but, for years, i've been amazed - astounded - at how remarkably passive the russians have been in the face of unprecedented aggression against them. through aggressive western action after aggressive western action, they just sat and waited for the leadership to change.
and, it seems that, even with a long overdue assertion of greater influence, they are still holding to the same fundamental line. the russians legitimately believe that it is only a matter of time before the neo-cons are removed, and that relations will finally improve once this happens. they are honestly, legitimately and patiently waiting for a peace movement to take power.
i'm not exactly a pacifist. i think defense is legitimate, where warranted. but, i strongly dislike violence. and, even i'm amazed at this placement of faith in american democracy, and have essentially no label for it besides naivete, even as i'm out there marching.
it's a hard truth, but what got us through the height of the cold war was not mutual trust but the reality of mutually assured destruction. there's a part of me that hopes the russians are right, that there's some daylight on the other side of some electoral event, that the re-establishment of trust is just around the corner. but, even bernie sanders is a hawk. i see no path to this end.
if you value world peace and stability, the reality of american ambitions necessitates the reassertion of mad in a way that american military strategists and politicians can clearly understand. the russians clearly dislike this. but, they're also clearly - if slowly - coming to the unavoidable conclusion.
they really don't want this. but, we've left them with no choice. and, we should maybe all reflect on this.
listen to putin. and then find a speech by chavez, or castro or perhaps khrushchev, even. what you should immediately see is that putin is a different kind of foe; he's what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror, or at least what we fancy we see in ourselves, looking back.
there's so much talk of russian recklessness and demonization of them as evil incarnate....
...but, for years, i've been amazed - astounded - at how remarkably passive the russians have been in the face of unprecedented aggression against them. through aggressive western action after aggressive western action, they just sat and waited for the leadership to change.
and, it seems that, even with a long overdue assertion of greater influence, they are still holding to the same fundamental line. the russians legitimately believe that it is only a matter of time before the neo-cons are removed, and that relations will finally improve once this happens. they are honestly, legitimately and patiently waiting for a peace movement to take power.
i'm not exactly a pacifist. i think defense is legitimate, where warranted. but, i strongly dislike violence. and, even i'm amazed at this placement of faith in american democracy, and have essentially no label for it besides naivete, even as i'm out there marching.
it's a hard truth, but what got us through the height of the cold war was not mutual trust but the reality of mutually assured destruction. there's a part of me that hopes the russians are right, that there's some daylight on the other side of some electoral event, that the re-establishment of trust is just around the corner. but, even bernie sanders is a hawk. i see no path to this end.
if you value world peace and stability, the reality of american ambitions necessitates the reassertion of mad in a way that american military strategists and politicians can clearly understand. the russians clearly dislike this. but, they're also clearly - if slowly - coming to the unavoidable conclusion.
they really don't want this. but, we've left them with no choice. and, we should maybe all reflect on this.
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)