babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

NDP Leadership #109

vaudree
Offline
Joined: Sep 7 2001

SamuelOlivier - agree that Singh has some good debating skills. He may be a two trick pony, but he did seem to expand his rhetoric today. This was a follow up of an earlier attack on Topp in that Topp has not thought through his platform and his actions could have unintended consequences - and quoting the page number and everything made Singh look more knowledgeable than Topp. Also, Singh managed to bring in indirectly his support for a woman's right to choose and I liked his line about fiscal conservatives being extinct.

dacckon wrote:
Nash DID NOT ANSWER ANYTHING STRAIGHT.
Ashton had a rocking outro! Everything else was ok.

The one good point I liked from Nash is her dig at the Tories is that she has to look at the books before she can pin things down because she needs to know how much money is left.

I liked Ashton's closing, reminded me of Anonymous - we do not forgive, we do not forget - how Harper has treated the West. It was very powerful.

Wilf Day wrote:
Ashton took on Mulcair very directly, in an almost hostile tone.
Singh made a huge issue out of his disagreement with Topp.
Mulcair's line about having to kick back against the old slogans during the last campaign was new to me. -snip-- Either that, or Mulcair making it clear that his new politics is a lot newer than Ashton's, calling her stuck in the 1930s or whatever it was he said. I think someone has finally told him her dad was the left-wing candidate for the Manitoba leadership and he's written her off. Fascinating!

Maybe not the 30's. Mulcair definitely used his sword with precision against Ashton there - note they were talking rhetoric rather than policy - that Ashton was using the rhetoric of the past but in a way that made Ashton look both old fashioned and like a little girl. There was a slight but barely noticeable patronizing tone - not enough to make Mulcair look like he was putting down youth but just enough to make Ashton look like a little girl. Mulcair did manage to maintain the gentle seeming demeanour except once when he was talking about the cut through nature of Quebec Politics where you saw a "bring it on" viciousness in him, but only for a second.

DSloth also had a good point about Ashton having to go after Mulcair more directly to show that she wasn't about to step down and throw her supporters behind him - because she was staying in the race. And, win or lose in an exchange against Mulcair, Ashton will get that point across. Thus, even if Mulcair tears her to threads, it helps Ashton put that rumour to rest. Ergo, the whole thing wasn't as devastating as it otherwise would have been.

Topp did the old Tory Question Period tactic "you didn't read it / you don't know what you are talking about" like last time, but Singh seemed armed with the exact section. I think that Singh won that bout because he did look like he knew what he was talking about, that Topp did not think things out, and promoted his feminism credentials.

Dewar seemed to handle the Angus question better this time. Personally, I think that it is nothing about Charlie Angus personally, but an attack of the sort that a Leader will have to face from an opposition that spins things - last time Charlie Angus was used to show that Dewar was not the feminist he claimed to be or that he did not respect Quebec, this time Charlie Angus was used to make Dewar appear Ontario centric in Western Canada. Dewar was a bit more direct, when I say stay tuned, I mean stay tuned and not judge before you have the details (or something to that effect). Dewar did turn it around as his questioner (forget who) was willing to make inaccurate generalizations based on incomplete information. That is one tactic that the Tories tend to do is take something trivial and blow it out of proportion and Dewar looked like a deer in the headlights last time and deflected it with a proper amount of indignation this time.

Brachina wrote:
I haven't seen it, but if she was more pointed with Mulcair, its because she's trying to kill the rumours. Mulcair knows who her dad is and plenty of left wing people have endorsed him.

Ok, Mulcair knows who Ashton's dad is. What does Mulcair know about Steve Ashton and does he make a distinction between daughter and father politically. Is Nikki cutti Steve (ie mini-me) in Mulcair's mind? If so, then Nikki will have to decide how much of her political pedigree she will embrace and how much she will distinguish herself from it to be seen as her own person.

nicky wrote:
Not sure it was anyone's best debate but the roomfull of Mulcair supporters I watched it with were all happy. ...
We mostly thought Ashton's challenge to Tom was misplayed - too angry and a strange attack from the "new politics" proponent as others have noted. ...
Martin and Nathan both bloodied Topp, especially Cullen's sally against negative campaigning. Dewar had his best debate, although that is an improvement from a low standard.

Agree that Dewar did a bit better than usual and that Topp was bloodied (though my Mom seemed to think Topp did really well - that he looked more confident and like a statesman and less like a bobble-head).

Nicky, that the attack seemed strange from Ashton, maybe she felt that letting Mulcair draw a bit of blood worked towards the big picture and it wasn't about showing that she can hold her own with Mulcair. Considering the big blow Ashton took, she seemed relatively unflustered and actually even more confident afterwards. Mulcair's strength IS his ability to draw blood and he is widely thought to be able to do it better than anyone. Mulcair did stress being a team player but was also challenged on that - so he knows that is what he has to work on. Mulcair also scored points by mentioning First Nations, Metis and Inuit especially since Louis Riel day was Monday - which brings me to your other point: There did seem to be either quite a few Mulcair supporters or people who liked what he said. The location is close enough to St. Boniface ... I wonder ...

For some reason, Mulcair's tie caught my attention - there was something very prairie about it. My Mom pointed out that during the previous debate that his tie matched the Quebec flag.

 


Comments

DSloth
Offline
Joined: Apr 26 2011

The CBC may not think enough of the NDP to bother showing their debate even on their 24 hour news network(!), but at least they were good enough to host it online


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
Interesting that Mulcair pointed out Rebecca Blaikie was one of the people that went to Jack and said things needed to change in Quebec. Didn't know that.

Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012
I believe Nikki worked on his bielection campaign, and they've been colleges for a few years and now rivals for the leadership, so I don't doubt he knows where dad stands in politics and where she stands. As for standing out as her own person, I think she's done that very well even before this race on files like the Wheat Board, forgien takeovers and pulling in Micheal Moore's support on that issue. During the race her strong debate preformances have helped her in that regard. Her father's connections may have helped her get some of her Manitoba endorsements, but her Quebec endorsements are all her own, as are the other endorsements outside Manitoba. Paul Dewar constantly talking about his mom is far worse on this score, then Ashton who does always talk about her father that way.

Lou Arab
Offline
Joined: Jul 25 2001

Topp picks up some support in Alberta

Quote:

Topp will announce the endorsements of Edmonton Strathcona NDP member of legislature Rachel Notley, Edmonton Public School Board trustee Sarah Hoffman, Lethbridge West provincial candidate Shannon Phillips, and Melanee Thomas, 2004 and 2006 NDP candidate for MP for Lethbridge.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Seeking A Promotion Without Showing Up to Work

http://www.globalnews.ca/the%2Bleadership%2Brace/6442588995/story.html

"The sitting MPs vying to become the next NDP leader have some of the worst attendance records in this Parliament.."

sweet gig..


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
That's sad. They're running a national leadership race. By contrast, Ignatieff was the leader of the official opposition. And I don't recall Jack critical of Liberal leadership candidates being absent in the House during their 2006 race.

Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012
Way to try and milk Jack's death liberal party.

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

vaudree wrote:

Dewar seemed to handle the Angus question better this time.  

He had the best line of the day: "I feel you have Angus envy". Made me laugh. Laughing


Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012
I heard about a Lethbridge declaration from the Niki Ashton camp, what is that?

vaudree
Offline
Joined: Sep 7 2001

Rebecca Blaikie worked hard to get Mulcair elected the first time and did a lot of hard work in Quebec before coming back to Manitoba and barely losing to Kevin L.  She is very smart and looks an awful lot like dad.

Whether you are talking Dewar, Ashton or Blaikie, there is a tendency to see them as being very much like their respected parent as far as belief and policy and work ethic.  I think that Rebecca has shown a difference because she speaks French fluently and because she spent some time in Quebec where her family ties were unknown making a name for herself. Ashton is representing the Federal version of her dad's Provincial riding so the ties are a bit closer.  Dewar took a detour and became a teacher and involved in the teacher's union before entering politics so he had experience outside politics.  His mother comes in handy because of the relative rarity of female mayors and that focusing on what his mother did (do we even know Dewar's father's occupation) gives him feminist cred - that white ribbon Dewar wore in an earlier date was not an accident.

It is something the other candidates can exploit as far as Ashton's concerned.  Ashton has to be able to walk the tightrope of both using/respecting her father's rep in the party and showing herself as her own person.


Agree that it is a cheap shot to complain about leadership candidates not being in the House during the leadership race.  I don't see any of them missing time otherwise.

BoomBoom - I wonder how Charlie Angus will take that!


clambake
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2011

Has Mulcair said anything at all about Proportional Representation during this campaign? I can't seem to recall.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

He said that he supports "party policy", as he does with all things, and then we says nothing more about it.


mtm
Offline
Joined: Oct 16 2008

Clambake, socialdemocraticmiddle had a VERY good synopsis of the question that he/she asked him/herself at an event in Toronto.  Perhaps he/she will re-post for your benefit if you missed it.

In my recollection (correct me if I'm wrong SDM), he dealt admirably with the acknowledgement that PR didn't need a constitutional amendment, and the way he would bring it in was not by referendum, but by putting it in an NDP platform, and getting a majority government elected.  It was VERY clear and cut and dry.  That one is out there and he's on record.

wage zombie, you know this as you were in that discussion, so when you dismiss it as him "saying nothing more about it" it discredits you.  We know you don't like him - but the sniping gets old.  This issue has been clarified and on-record.  I think that's what I think a lot of us Mulcair supporters get annoyed at is that we keep having the same old arguments and there becomes no collective consensus on criticisms that have been adequately answered or clarified, either pro-or-con to Tom.  Its like there`s no collective memory of our previous discussions and it becomes a circular debate.

Finally, one more thing, in the previous thread Stockholm made some reference to the fact that Mulcair thought by repeating the same new approached used as quebec we would have won across the country.  What he actually said if I recall correctly is that if we had a few more weeks and used this approach the Orange Crush would have spread further, into Toronto and beyond.  (As an aside, Nash interrupted him to say that the Orange crush did hit Toronto - though I would strongly contest that a gain of 4 seats in the GTA constitutes a Crush in any way).

I don't interpret this as meaning if we had put the quebec ads everywhere we would have won.  In fact I take it as the complete opposite.  Maybe this is because the strict debate format limits the time didnt allow him to explain it completely, or the fact I`ve had the chance to hear him speak several times on the campaign trail and have my own notion of what he means.

Specifically, I was at a get-together pub event for Tom in early November, and this exact thing was brought up.  His answer was very clear.  The quebec campaign language was focused on Quebec.  The ads worked with Quebec humour, the ads worked with Quebec political culture, and they connected with the people in a meaningful way.  Their pointing out of the failings of the Bloc on progressive issues stuck in the minds of Quebec voters.  He talked about how they pointed out their voting record on Afghanistan, on Asbestos, and on other social progressive issues where they sided with Harper, and dispeled the myth that they were a true progressive choice.

He then moved on to the topic of Saskatchewan.  He indicated they need to do the exact same thing:  Speak to the people there in a clear language they understand, with a tone that matches the political culture, tone, etc.  He then talked about pointing out in no uncertain terms the record of the Harper government and how it is bad for Saskatchewan in clear and concise ways.  I don't at all see that as meaning they need to pump quebec ads into Sask or anywhere else.  It means you need to tailor your media to the region in which you're claiming to represent.  It doesnt mean saying anything different in terms of policy, principles, etc (in fact that stuff is all rock solid). It is how you present it in a way that makes sense to those voters.  That varies from province to province and even region to region.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

A couple tweets from Libby Davies.

Good question from @nikiashton to Mulcair about his poor comments in toronto star and now he gives a patronizing answer to her – no go!

And now @PeggyNashNDP tackles same issue to Mulcair – it raises question: does he actually get what #ndp is about #ndpldr


mtm
Offline
Joined: Oct 16 2008

She doesn't think Thomas "gets" the NDP.  I don't think she "gets" why the NDP has never won government.  :-)  Tomayto Tomahto.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Quote:
Has Mulcair said anything at all about Proportional Representation during this campaign? I can't seem to recall.

I can't remember in which of many threads I posted my synopsis of Mulcair's proportional representation answer. But mtm summed it up well. Mulcair explicitly said a few things that made me feel good, starting with "I support the party policy", and "the party policy is mixed member proportional representation", that MMP can be achieved with legislation and he intends to do that, and that we'd need a mandate from the voters by campaigning on it and he intends to do that too.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

mtm wrote:

She doesn't think Thomas "gets" the NDP.  I don't think she "gets" why the NDP has never won government.  :-)  Tomayto Tomahto.

The more time I spend here, the more I entertain that Rae had a point that we're more comfortable with protest than power. But I still try to stay optimistic than that. There are a lot of very reasonable babblers who recognize the very real changes we can make to this country if we actually pull off a majority, under any of the leadership candidates.


mtm
Offline
Joined: Oct 16 2008

That Libby quote is actually a great synopsis of what is at stake in this race, and a perfect example of why we need Mulcair to win (or at least Cullen, if his Liberal coop plan would just die).  It really shows a righteous streak that undermines all of the work Jack did to grow.  We only broke through very recently, due to a very popular leader that transcended all the negative conditioning built up in the voters minds about the NDP.  

The question we are asking in this race is - do we continue to go in the direction Jack started us down, or does the old tortoise retract back into its own comfortable shell and return to its past ways, and results. 


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

For what it's worth, mtm, I don't think anyone wants to take the party backwards. In fact, I don't think anyone especially wants to deviate from Jack's strategy, neither "past" nor "future". People throw elbows at each other trying to distinguish their right to continue to Jack's legacy, but only because it's a crowded space that everyone basically shares in common.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

I still think Mulcair made himself clearer today than before:

"Uniting progressives . . . when parties take voters for granted we sweep them out."

We must appeal to "people who used to vote Liberal or weren't voting."

"The people sitting in Laurier Avenue would have had us target only six ridings in Quebec." (That's a serious attack on someone?)

When Dewar said we came second in 121 ridings last time: "by ceding so many ridings (that is, 84) to the Conservatives, we're limiting ourselves. We shouldn't concede any seats to the Conservatives."

"Modernizing our language, modernizing our approach."

(Ashton: "will you withdraw that caricature?") Mulcair: "refresh our discourse, reach out beyond our traditional base, sweep the Conservatives out. Our party has NOT been renewing ourselves, we're still rooted in the past." (Umm, that was a definite no.)

In the last campaign "the French slogan was translated into English" instead of the other way round, a first. (Funny, I thought it was Canadian Leadership/Travaillons Ensemble. Did the English ads say "working together"? Maybe they did, or should have?)


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

That debate was pretty disappointing today.  Peggy Nash did OK but didn't really shine.  Dewar seems very threatened by Nash which is why he keeps harping on the "you don't support the Canada Health Act" thing. And WTF is up with Martin Singh attacking Topp's tax plan for "hurting charities"?  

The most memorable part was when Cullen asked Mulcair why he didn't attend a debate in the Yukon and Mulcair responded by saying he had to give a talk at the Montreal Chamber of Commerce!


mtm
Offline
Joined: Oct 16 2008

Jack's improbable rise has led many to misinterpret the reasons why the surge happened.


Some NDP'ers have believed that election after election, we just need to do the same thing, and eventually, the people will just clue in and get it - but they never did.  I know this because I've worked on those local campaigns in no-hoper ridings where people think that way.  They'd never plan in advance, and scrape together a last minute effort.  This is the NDP'ers with the resolve of the Mormons, who go door to door because they downright believe in their heart of hearts that they are right, and that people will get it soon.

Jack's rise took everyone by storm, so a lot of these types misinterpreted it as that exact long-sought "FINALLY" moment.  The people understand now! They finally realize what we're all about!  They've converted!

But that undermines the strategy and circumstances, and the "Why" of the surge, and dangerously assumes its permanence.  I think a lot of people were caught up in the result, and took that as self evident proof that the NDP was established and the impressions had fundamentally changed amongst the electorate.  This is not the case.  Nobody is undermining Jack's influence, but as NDP members, we're conditioned to link Jack to the Party in a way the average voter did not.  We knew Jack as the Leader of the NDP.  The people knew the NDP as the Party of Jack.

Picking a leader who doesnt represent that change that led to the surge, and who wont continue to reach out and renew, and who wont challenge that "destiny" idea will be akin to taking a step back, because they wont be fostering that acceptance of change.  They'll be appealing to that old, tired approach of waiting for a miracle.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

mtm wrote:

wage zombie, you know this as you were in that discussion, so when you dismiss it as him "saying nothing more about it" it discredits you.  We know you don't like him - but the sniping gets old.  This issue has been clarified and on-record.  I think that's what I think a lot of us Mulcair supporters get annoyed at is that we keep having the same old arguments and there becomes no collective consensus on criticisms that have been adequately answered or clarified, either pro-or-con to Tom.  Its like there`s no collective memory of our previous discussions and it becomes a circular debate.

Thomas Mulcair's position on proportional representation is that he supports the party policy.  If anyone asks him his position, that's what he says.  Where I've seen reports of his addressing PR, it is always after being directly asked.

This is his position on many things.  For example, I would imagine if he were asked about MJ decriminalization, he would respond that he supports party policy of decrim, and would then say nothing else about it until asked directly again.

With cannabis, this same stance would apply to other candidates as well.  Topp supports the party policy of decriminalization but don't expect him to bring it up.

So that is what I have seen from Mulcair.  When directly asked about PR he will say he supports it.  He does not bring up the topic like the other candidates do.

I am very impressed by Mulcair, but I have not been impressed by the lack of details in his policy proposals.  I have articulated my concerns and asked questions and they get ignored.  The Mulcair supporters cherry pick the silly criticisms that people make and ignore the real quesions.

Here's an example--Mulcair supporters on babble have now taken to stating that he is "promoting a financial transaction tax."  That's the kind of policy I'd love to hear more about and would be very in favour of.  If Mulcair were actually promoting a financial transaction tax I'd be very happy.

But he's not.  And you know how I know this?  Because I have asked very specifically if anyone could provide me with a single detail about the FTT that Mulcair is "promoting".  But nobody can provide a single detail.

So we're supposed to give Mulcair points for promoting a policy, and yet, nobody can say what the policy is.  And then we're supposed to be impressed with Mulcair's ability to promote policy solutions.  I don't get it.

The same criticism could be made of Mulcair's cap and trade plan.

Mulcair has actually provided very little details when addressing policy.  This matters to some people more than others.

I have been very clear about what I would like to see from the Mulcair campaign in order to rank him as high as #2 (Ashton is my #1) and I have not been seeing it.  Nor are his supporters here able to give me satisfactory answers to the genuine questions I have.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

I think that's a fair criticism of Mulcair, wage zombie. To some extent, it's the criticism I have of a lot of candidate. If you forced a question, they'd tell you a good answer, and it's almost guaranteed to be aligned with the party policy from 2011. But who is really campaigning on those key issues? Who is doing the best at promoting the kind of change that the NDP is supposed to represent? Currently, no one, IMO.


AnonymousMouse
Offline
Joined: Sep 19 2011
Wilf Day wrote:

In the last campaign "the French slogan was translated into English" instead of the other way round, a first. (Funny, I thought it was Canadian Leadership/Travaillons Ensemble. Did the English ads say "working together"? Maybe they did, or should have?)

I think he was referring to this: http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110503/800_victory_layton_c... Suddenly on E-Night, the Quebec slogan was everywhere on TV at the NDP victory party. On the podium the two slogans are there in parallel--printed well in advance, of course--but on the screens it's all "Working Together" (i.e. "Travaillons Ensemble").

Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

mtm wrote:

She doesn't think Thomas "gets" the NDP.  I don't think she "gets" why the NDP has never won government.  :-)  Tomayto Tomahto.

I think she somewhat gets why the NDP has never formed government (the public doesn't much like the NDP when it is out to "convert" everyone to an ideology the public isn't buying) and mostly doesn't care.

I think Libby Davies prefers the NDP as a vanguardist, radical party that never has to worry about much more than being on the cutting edge of what may (or may not) represent radical change.

I commend Libby Davies' for her progressive purity but consider this a pretty nihilistic approach. If power matters then you try to win it. If it doesn't matter then what is the point of railing against it.

We've had 50 years of the NDP's "movement" politics. Fifty years that brought us the governments of Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin, John Turner and other bright lights of social uplift. Now the NDP finds itself in the unique situation of being the official opposition. We either beat Harper in the next election or we fold our tents and get out of the way so someone else can. The official opposition has a responsibility to replace rotten governments like Harper's. Anything less is a great disservice to the Canadian people.


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Wilf Day wrote:

"The people sitting in Laurier Avenue would have had us target only six ridings in Quebec." (That's a serious attack on someone?)

I think so. I wish I could remember who said it and where I saw it, but an NDP strategist (Topp or Brad Lavigne I think) said the problem with the 2004 campaign was that the NDP had no idea where its support would turn up so they spread their resources thin and ended up coming close but not winning in too many ridings. I thought this was a dumb perspective (for the reasons Mulcair outlined at the debates) but there is some truth to it.

Also, it is certainly not true that everyone at Laurier Avenue would have the NDP only target six ridings in Québec, because that is not what the NDP ended up doing after all and it certainly wasn't the message from Jack. So Mulcair may have won his point but there is no way he did it alone. I just can't see Jack selling the message with the conviction he had otherwise.

One thing I really didn't like about the NDP campaigns in 2008 and 2011 is that the x target ridings plus strategy consisted of targetting just x ridings and then tossing your hands up and hoping that wishing would make surges come true. The difference between 2008 and 2011, is that in 2011 the NDP got the messaging in Québec right and enough effort had been expended to make the NDP credible in province (a large part of which was due to Mulcair's non-stop pitch perfect presence in the Québec media). The ads were good, the slogan was perfect, the right buttons were pushed, the other parties largely took the NDP for granted, and people feel in love with Jack's persona.

The campaign outside of Québec was nowhere near as successful. The NDP had great candidates, it had some (but not enough) great campaign managers, and it ran some very good ads near the end of the campaign ("together we can do this"). A lot of the English ads were real turds though, with no real resonance. My least favourite one was the one with puppets shipping jobs overseas for tax cuts. I know rabid ideologues in the NDP ate it up, but for many anglophone non-Québeckers I interact with the polite response would dismissal and the rude response would be to think, "what does the NDP take us for idiots?" The analysis was a caricature, the image unrealistic. It "played to type" and was quick signal to tune the message out. In the end, the brief rise the NDP saw in English Canada support due to the Québec wave was held up by the fact that Canadians did not trust the NDP on the economy and that was considered by more voters to be the most important issue of the campaign (See the Nanos polling). The Conservatives on the otherhand owned public trust on the economy and they were able to hold on to their polling numbers, even winning Liberal votes in some areas, and thus won power. I'm glad the election didn't last a week longer when the NDP's stall would have become obvious and possibly lead to a lot of lost votes. We blew it on the economic messaging, particularly in English Canada, but hopefully we'll be ready next time. Most NDP "strategists" don't think we can win on the economy and hopelessly try to avoid it like the plague. This has been the NDP's problem going back at least to the Broadbent era. I'm not so convinced we can't win on the economy, I just think we have to have a message that makes sense to 99% of Canadians as opposed to the 31% that in 2011 voted NDP.

Mulcair is great at messaging, he has been attacking the Tory economic record since day one of this NDP leadership campaign, and he has been telling the public why the NDP is better: we will be excellent, fiscally responsible, public administrators. Mulcair has his record as minister and bureaucrat to point to. The NDP has its record in government on the prairies. With the exception of Brian Topp, who meted out sturm und drang during the hard austerity years of the Romanow administration, who else has been there?

Also, I get a big laugh out of Cullen saying he is the "pro-business" candidate at the same time as he talks about massively raising business taxes, blockading natural resource development, banning raw resource exports, and ripping up (to rewrite) all of our existing agreements on trade. At some point, the media & co are going to blow the whistle on him. Right now though, I think the only commentators paying attention to Cullen are those so enamoured with his cooperation plan or charisma to pay any attention to anything else. Ho hum.


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Wilf Day wrote:

In the last campaign "the French slogan was translated into English" instead of the other way round, a first. (Funny, I thought it was Canadian Leadership/Travaillons Ensemble. Did the English ads say "working together"? Maybe they did, or should have?)

I think he's referring to a partial shift the NDP did in the final weeks of the campaign to say "together we can do this" as the byline in English ads.

This line always struck me as a pained compromise between the "Yes we can!" Obama line that Topp/Layton et al were so desperate to copy and "Travaillons Ensemble (let's work together)" which was the message was selected for Québec (by an ad company? based on focus research?).


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Lord Palmerston wrote:

And WTF is up with Martin Singh attacking Topp's tax plan for "hurting charities"?  

Paul Martin allowed donations of stock/equity to charities to qualify for the charitable giving tax credit. This generated millions of dollars in new giving in the form of stock donations and bequests.

Topp's plan to tax 100% of capital gains without an exemption for charitable giving, turns back the clock and hurts charities to the tune of millions in lost donations.

But then again it's better to be ideological than to be right, right?


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Lord Palmerston wrote:

The most memorable part was when Cullen asked Mulcair why he didn't attend a debate in the Yukon and Mulcair responded by saying he had to give a talk at the Montreal Chamber of Commerce!

Yeah. Mulcair's answers were really weak here. Along the lines of "I had other plans. These plans were sometimes planned out well in advance." To which Nathan responded, so were the invites to the events you missed but you hardly gave notice.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments