ugh. i'm voting green.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-says-stephen-harper-is-weak-and-vulnerable-on-tpp-talks-1.3178689
WelfareState
ok, why?
Jessica Murray
the modern ndp is not supposed to endorse these kinds of investor-rights agreements. mulcair is basically ignoring his party's platform and sticking a knife into the back of the people that built the party that he walked into. enthusiastic support for the tpp is exactly what i don't want to hear. supply management is important, but the real problem is the restrictions on democracy that these deals put in place. the green party is apparently currently the only party that is in opposition to the tpp.
it seems like what we're going to get with an ndp government is a liberal government, but without the liberal party's more enlightened perspective on constitutional processes. if he's just going to be a liberal on economics, anyways, then the ndp walking into this void and gutting all the good parts of the liberals for goofy ndp ideas like abolishing the senate is a definite step backwards.
what i wanted was the liberal approach to governing with an ndp approach to economics. to me, that's true liberalism. but, it seems like what we're going to get is the ndp approach to government with liberal economics. and, that's a poison pill i'm "enthusiastically" skeptical of.
the green party is a protest vote. right now, that seems like the right choice in this election - with the liberals calling for pipelines and the ndp in support of free trade.
i'd like to see a caucus vote on this...
i think the proper, correct view on this is that it needs to be put to a referendum. i'm going to oppose it. but it's the kind of thing we really need a direct vote on.
------
ok. how about this...
this is politics. he's taking a position that all of the major parties have and trying to conflate it into an issue that doesn't really exist.
what i'm more concerned about is the question of extra-legal kangaroo courts that can overrule democratically enacted laws. trade should be carried out by countries with comparable labour standards, and i don't doubt that mulcair agrees on this. but, those kangaroo courts are a hard stop. that is what the biggest problem is: investors in japan stopping the government of ontario from carrying out a plan that would help the environment and boost the economy. that's what we can't have more of.
supply management is easy politics. it's a consensus issue. he's picking a superfluous fight. i can see through that.
what i want to know is where the ndp really stands on how these agreements subvert local democratic institutions.
---
i'm fighting with my computer, and had a little more time to think about this. it's ultimately creating more confusion than it's resolving.
i understand why he might think that taking a middle position on trade would help him in the center. he's probably thinking that if he comes out with a critical position then harper will nail him as a communist and scare away traditional liberal voters. i think he's misreading the electorate; people aren't actually that stupid, even if the right thinks they are, and i think opposition to these agreements is actually rather profound. i think this section of the electorate is probably better defined as "ndp leaning liberal voters" in the sense that they'd have voted ndp if they were voting with their heart instead of their brain. meaning this is the position they've always wanted to take, but didn't out of political pragmatism and hope that the liberals were not lying when they opposed nafta. but it's kind of conventional thinking that you have to hug the center on this. so, he's taking this characteristically liberal non-stance in supporting the agreement but being critical about supply management - which even the conservatives are clearly in support of. free trade if necessary, but not necessarily free trade.
on the one hand, the supply management issue may be the extent he actually knows of the agreement, so he might just be placing his criticism in actual fact. but what it comes off as is a decision to pick an issue that the entire spectrum agrees on, to make it seem like he's opposing something he's not opposing, and then use that to generate support fighting something that he's going to win anyways (due to consensus). it kind of reeks of classic, shady political posteuring. it's poltical theatre. and, the thing is that this is exactly what he's doing with the east-west pipeline, so there's a precedent for that reading of it.
i think that the limited evidence that we have does suggest that he's somewhere in the middle. he's probably not going to be categorically against nafta-like agreements as the ndp has been for many years. but he'll probably be a little more selective than either the conservatives or liberals. it's just a question of determining what the criteria actually is, and determining whether it's stringent enough. the alter-globalization movement was never opposed to global trade, it just rejected the idea that the rules be written by investors and multinationals - which is exactly what the tpp is, and exactly who the tpp will benefit.
the ndp policy on the issue is clearly not of much help in figuring this out, as he's essentially ignored his party's official position. that's obviously going to be an issue if he wins - that policy came from somewhere, and at least a part of his caucus is going to want to make sure they're doing what they're elected to do. some pressure to not abandon the platform is going to be apparent, and he can only waver so far before the caucus bolts.
but it's just not clear to me if he's muting his perspective for perceived electoral reasons (and he's actually going to push back a little harder against chapter-11 style legislation than he's letting on) or if he's trying to hide his larger support of free trade in order to stop his base from bleeding to the greens. and, that's an important thing to figure out if this is an issue that's important to you and you're thinking about voting for him.
the reality is that these kinds of shady politics were once normal in canada, and the liberals were the worst of the bunch. it's just a little disorienting to get it from the ndp. a big turn-off.
i don't think it's unreasonable for a voter to ask that a candidate behave consistently with it's party's official positions and that, if the candidate is going to move drastically away from it, that they produce a clear policy paper that explains it.
he might be thinking it will help him if he's vague.
but i think it might actually hurt him from both perspectives if he allows imagination to take hold, rather than being crystal clear.
bgGruff
sorry, the public record says otherwise-
Canadians seem easily influenced by Harper's propaganda
2 examples
1. the evil 2011 coalition
2. the per vote subsidy- scuttled by Harper, even though it
is the most 'democratic' funding vehicle- and almost uncorruptable - the 'individual political donations are a easy way for corporations to launder donations through employees or board members
Jessica Murray
i'm not really a fan of public political financing, and i don't really think that much of anything that harper has said has been very influential on much of anybody in canada. i think the opposition to the coalition was more centered around a concept of fair play - and a genuine sense of trepidation around stephane dion making decisions. it was legitimately not something people really wanted. harper didn't have to point that out.
in a healthy democracy, the volume in which a lie is stated doesn't make it more truthful. when harper has lied, people have called him on it. but, when he's pointed out some uncomfortable realities, people have also reacted - less by supporting him and more by grudgingly disengaging.
harper has not been politically successful, nor has he built any meaningful base of support. however, his opponents have been startlingly incompetent. they should take responsibility for this and stop blaming their losses on the tactical genius of a man that is, in fact, quite obviously an imbecile.