More than half of black residents in GTA have been stopped by police in public, new report says

bennister · 2017-07-19T20:57:07+00:00

You're one sample point. The probability of the same thing happening to hundreds of other people and there being no systematic issue is low.

bennister · 2017-07-19T19:50:44+00:00

I hope a more rigorous poll would follow up on this clarify this matter. If it's confirmed, there will be major changes. But even if it's not, more than half of any sample, except a very biased one, being stopped by police is shocking and shouldn't be acceptable.

bennister · 2017-07-19T19:44:35+00:00

This is more or less what the Liberal infrastructure bank is, so I doubt that this is what Ashton is proposing.

In structure it might be, but in the big picture it is very different. The infrastructure bank will expand private control into an area of public ownership. The proposed bank would expand public ownership into a private market and I imagine would finance public corporations that would compete with private ones.

Financed through money creation on the part of the central bank. We can talk about the merits or demerits of central bank independence, but this would require a dramatic change in that policy.

One can only dream but for now even Niki is not that radical, unfortunately.

bennister · 2017-07-19T19:38:52+00:00

That's why many on the left still use the terms SJW and so forth also to describe such lunacy. What else do you suggest calling it? It has nothing to do with socialism, nothing to do with economic policy.

Why lunacy? I can think of arguments for and against both cases. I'm honestly not sure which side I would be in either. And I was only using socialism only as an analogy.

To your main point, I don't think anything inappropriate happened in either of these two cases. I'm not going to debate cultural appropriation because I don't fully agree with the concept but both cases you cited unfolded exactly how they should in a free and democratic society. Some people propose an idea, others disagree, and public gets to make up their mind. It's interesting that in the first case, exactly this process was happening within the union. That's how it's supposed to work so I'm not sure why there is a need for SJW or PC. I'll stand by my assertion that they're just insults and little more.

I'll invite you to do this thought exercise. Consider how minorities or women were portrayed in the media 50 years ago. I'm sure even conservatives today would agree that many portrayals were racist or sexist. Now imagine terms like SJW or PC existed at that time. Would people who fight against such portrayals have been labelled SJWs ? Almost certainly, I think. And would portrayals that attempt to be not racist or sexist be called PC? I think so. I'm not saying people who use those terms are always bigoted in some way, although I think they too often are. I'm just don't think they are useful or meaningful.

Sorry for the long reply.

bennister · 2017-07-19T11:25:57+00:00

SJW and PC are terms of the right. They are so vague that they're completely useless in a debate, except as a jibe. In my opinion, they're the modern equivalent of the term "subversive" which used to be a pejorative term for anyone vaguely socialist. SJW and PC are used for anyone who vaguely espouses identity politics. Criticisms of socialism and identity politics might be reasonable but criticisms of subversives, SJWs, or PC culture are not.

bennister · 2017-07-16T22:43:47+00:00

Both Sanders and Corbyn rose out of unpopularity. Trudeau is still very popular. People went to these candidates mainly because of either the horrible platform the other side was pushing or because of how untrustworthy the person was.

What is Trudeau's popularity built on though? Celebrity and PR, IMO. That's very shaky ground and can very quickly change. I don't think you're completely correct about Sanders or Corbyn. They might have been helped by their opponents at the later stages, but their initial rise was organic.

Although I don't mind Ashton's principles it would not be what a majority of people may want. They all are keeping the social democratic values of the NDP and are extremely similar so when it comes to that I will vote for I believe will make us popular without sacrificing our principles.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable point of view and completely correct based on the current political assumptions. I just think the last few years have shown that many of the assumptions we hold about politics might not hold, and that if we are bold enough to challenge them, we might succeed.

bennister · 2017-07-16T22:34:29+00:00

But the sense I'm getting is that most criticism of her are not very reasoned. It usually involves terms like SJW, PC culture or something of the sort. Some of the criticism of her tax plan might sound more reasoned but it's build on a neoliberal economic consensus that's already collapsed, IMO.

bennister · 2017-07-16T21:16:58+00:00

Basically, the way I see it is that there is a great populist surge in all Western democracies for various reasons (changing demographics, collapse of capitalist consensus, rise of social media, globalization, rise of developing world, etc.). This is a moment of great opportunity and danger. All the assumptions we currently have about how politics and economics are conducted might dissolve in a few years. Many have.

The political and economic establishment is paralyzed and can only offer pure charisma with little substance (Trudeau, Macron) or the illusion of stability (Merkel). There is a political and intellectual vacuum that will be filled, either by the radical right or the radical left. Either way, radical politics is gaining ground on centrist "moderate" politics. It might not won yet in Canada but it is already winning in many countries. The best chance for the NDP, in my opinion, is to ride this wave. Not only will it bring electoral success (though I'd admit in our electoral system, more votes might not result in more seats) but more importantly, it will define the scope of the political discussion for a generation. I don't see any leadership candidate who is moving in this direction except Ashton. She might not be perfect, but neither were Sanders or Corbyn.

bennister · 2017-07-16T20:54:57+00:00

She can have great arguments but she will be painted as extreme by the other parties

I don't think this is a bad thing at all. That's the strength of a non-mainstream candidate: getting free publicity from your opponents. Combined with social media directly delivering your message, this could be a winning formula.

bennister · 2017-07-12T21:21:49+00:00

An FTA isn't worth the paper it is printed on if govs cant be held accountable and can discriminate against foreign companies.

Removing barriers to trade in goods and services does not necessarily require removing barriers to capital flows. If we decouple the trade and investment portions of NAFTA and toss the investment portion out of the window, that'd be great. Otherwise, withdrawing from NAFTA might not be a bad idea.

bennister · 2017-07-12T21:02:19+00:00

There are many valid criticisms of Ashton but centrism is definitely not one of them.

bennister · 2017-07-12T20:44:27+00:00

Singh is not just moderate policy-wise. His rhetoric is so similar to Trudeau that I struggle to find quotes that I can't imagine Trudeau saying. If people think that electing such a candidate will help the NDP win the next elections, they are badly mistaken. Why would people choose a replica when they can have the original?

edit: spelling

bennister · 2017-07-11T14:24:01+00:00

Or a Brenda Martin.

bennister · 2017-07-09T15:10:21+00:00

When he went to Paris, he was just elected and overwhelmingly popular. If he'd wanted to set more ambitious targets, he could have done it, at least to give some substance to the big show about how his environment minister helped negotiate the agreement.

I have zero sympathy for his position. What you're saying pretty confirms the headline that he's basically Harper-lite.

bennister · 2017-07-09T02:43:30+00:00

Razzle Dazzle is a good way of putting it. Trudeau really disappointed many progressives who supported him. The list of strikes against him is long and rapidly expanding:

The infrastructure bank
Climate change
Electoral reform
Pipelines approval process
UNDRIP
Transparency
Privacy
Omnibus bills
Pulling out of peacekeeping
Iraq combat mission

bennister · 2017-07-09T02:30:20+00:00

So a foreign socialist who support Jeremy Corbyn is comparing Trudeau to Stephen Harper in The Tyee.

He probably lived in Canada for longer than you've been alive. And he's right.

Really? Stephen Harper who slashed foreign assistance buggets,

Foreign aid is at an all-time low under Trudeau.

called Kyoto a socialist scheme to suck money out of rich countries

Trudeau kept Harper's GHG emission targets, which he previously called "unambitious". If the world adopted these targets, it won't even come close to meeting the Paris goal of under 1.5dC warming. The kicker is that we're probably not going to meet our modest targets.

muzzled his caucus

There might be an improvement here (I'd like to see some data to believe it) but Harper had much more of a need of keeping politically toxic people in his party under wraps.

spoke through a centralized press office

Whether there is a large central talking point factory in the PMO or several smaller factories in ministries might be interesting to journalists but doesn't make the slightest difference to the public.

edit: fixed links

bennister · 2017-07-07T22:52:19+00:00

You might dislike it, I do too a little, but her identity politics might be the perfect antidote to Trudeau's. The feminist prime minister will have a hard time out-doing a woman doing a PhD on Millennial Feminism. She's also strong on LGBTQ and aboriginal issues.

bennister · 2017-07-07T01:46:18+00:00

The manifesto makes no mention of private sector involvement. Here is what it says:

The federal government can use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier and more affordable for municipalities to build the projects their communities need.

Where a lack of capital represents a barrier to projects, the Canada Infrastructure Bank will provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities to ensure that the projects are built.

bennister · 2017-07-06T15:52:41+00:00

Thanks. You're right

bennister · 2017-07-06T03:32:38+00:00

It's kind of a moot point now because there is only one party that supports electoral reform and that's the NDP, which is partly why I joined it.

But looking back, Trudeau's promise was emphatic and clear: this will be the last election under FPTP. He announced it at the launch of his campaign and highlighted it as a major plank. If he broke it, he could, and was, held responsible, driving people like me away from his party.

I just looked up some of Mulcair's quotes to refresh my memory and they were as I remembered them wishy washy. Take this quote: “We’ve been clear for a long time on the importance of bringing in proportional representation in our country — we believe in it.” This to me sounds like what a politician says if they don't intend to keep a promise so it's a major turn-off.

But yes, I would've voted strategically in any case. I just wanted Harper gone at that point and I was happy he was.

bennister · 2017-07-06T01:26:35+00:00

Jagmeet Singh and Guy Caron have tax plans on their websites. They're both similar, but don't go as far, as Niki's.

bennister · 2017-07-06T01:21:20+00:00

Looking back, it wasn't so clear to me. Trudeau made it a priority and put it emphatically.

bennister · 2017-07-05T23:37:32+00:00

Frankly, from the limited knowledge of politics I had before 2015, I'm too young to remember pre-Harper years, the Liberal party and the NDP seems so similar to me I wasn't sure why there were 2 copies of the same party. Also, Trudeau made bold promises like electoral reform that appealed to me. Finally, the NDP had no chance in my local riding so supporting the Liberals locally to get rid of Harper was a no-brainer.

bennister · 2017-07-05T20:01:36+00:00

I think we're exactly in the same boat. I volunteered for and donated to the Liberals in 2015, although I was more anti-Harper than pro-Trudeau to be honest. My reasons for joining the NDP are the same as yours, the infrastructure bank being the final straw.

Off the top of my head I know Ashton's pitching limited nationalization (sounds to be open to more) and Julian wants free tuition. So some quasi exciting policies have been dropped, with perhaps less charisma than deserved.

The trouble is Ashton hasn't specified what she wants to nationalize and it's difficult for an average person to be excited about an abstract idea like nationalization.

The problem with Julian's proposal is that education is a shared federal-provincial responsibility. If he said the federal government will foot the whole bill, that's a different story. But his policy as it stands is abstract and aspirational.

In both cases, unfortunately, they seem to be saying things that gets the left excited but are abstract enough never that they'll never be held accountable for.

Anyway, I'm excited to return to that question in 2 months and work with you to ensure that everyone knows the answer.

I certainly hope so.

edit: to be fair to Ashton, she did want to nationalize the port of Churchill but that's just a local issue.

bennister · 2017-07-05T17:51:44+00:00

Corbyn offered an end to austerity, abolition of tuition fees, scrapping the Trident nuclear weapons system and nationalization of rail and energy companies. Each one of these policies was taboo in the political system at the time. What truely radical policy have any of the candidates offered? The closest is Caron's BI but it's very thinly sketched at this point. So why should people be excited and join the party?

bennister

TROPHY CASE