NDP leadership 56

207 posts / 0 new
Last post
AnonymousMouse

OnTheLeft wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

She's not my first choice and I doubt her appeal to voters. That said, I'd support her as leader. You didn't launch a personal attack on Mulcair... just a distorted one.

How is citing Mulcair's stance, views and quotes on NAFTA presenting a "distorted" one?

 

It's unfair to claim that Mulcair said he supports NAFTA when what he actually said was that there are areas such as environmental protections, that he personally worked on as a provincial public servant, that we don't want to risk losing, but that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed elements like Chapter 11 to be abused to the point that we're being treated like chumps and we need to put an end to it.

Saying that qualifies as supporting NAFTA is like claiming that Jack Layton's line--that we can't pull out of NAFTA now that we're in, but that there are parts we can renegotiate--qualifies as "supporting NAFTA".

I like Peggy Nash. She's pretty high on my ballot. But you keep referring to articles, statements and experience of her's that's not just typical, but stereotypical safe, friendly territory for the NDP as if that's the ultimate qualification be become leader. Any variation--even in communication or emphasis--seems to be a negative for you.

Jack Layton obviously knew that if the NDP was going to form government, then we had to venture outside our comfort zone. That didn't mean changing what we believed in. It meant looking like a party that could run a government and speaking to people in terms they connect with rather than terms we connect with. Mulcair has been doing the same thing, but he also has an unquestionably clear record as a progressive and he ran for our party at a time when he had no incentive to do so unless he truly believed in the party's values. Trying to torque everything the guy says to paint him as something he's not is beneath the level of debate we should aim for in this leadership race.

I'm pleased by the degree to which those kinds of distorted attacks against Mulcair have been rejected by both his supporters and non-supporters here on Rabble.

writer writer's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

Boy, with all the wailing and nashing of teeth around here against right-wing journalists, people sure are quick to cite their so-called "support" for their candidate of choice. I'm finding this very humourous.

I couldn't agree more strongly. I've been criticized for challenging this odd behaviour. For the life of me, I can't understand how praise from such a source does anything but breed doubt about a candidate. What does Coyne have to do with the Left and how it works? Anything? Why would I base my ballot picks on the say-so of a man who encouraged people to vote Liberal to ensure there was no Conservative majority last time around? Because the NDP, like the Green Party, wasn't a serious alternative in Coyneview™.

How's that working?

It makes me think of Sally Fields, and how we really, really like her.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

wage zombie wrote:

By the end of the race, Nash's supporters will have spent more time talking about her experience as Finance Critic than Nash spent being Finance Critic.

And people like you will have spent more time acting like Liberals by making snide remarks towards leadership candidates and their supporters, and obsessing over Mulcair's and Topp's endorsements, as opposed to being open and tolerant to discussion regarding other candidates.

Stockholm

Charles wrote:

Funny, I've actually considered Topp as the Audrey McLaughlin of this race.

That to me is an absurd comparison. Brian Topp's strengths and weaknesses are about as oppose as McLaughlin as can be imagined. Whether you support him for leader or not - Topp is a master strategist who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the public policy issues facing the country and really grasps Quebec etc... His challenge is showing that he has the "common touch".

Audrey's problem was that she was a rather amiable lightweight who often seemed out of her depth. Her people skills actually weren't bad. She was after all former social worker from Toronto. She was actually quite endearing and warm in one on one interactions...she just didn't really know enough to be leader and she came across as someone who could not be taken seriously.

Brian Glennie

Winston wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

I don't. As a negotiator for CAW, she learned to build bridges and bring two polar opposite sides - labour and managment - together. She successfully negotiated the 2005 Ford Canada pact, and has won over Conservative-leaning pundits like Craig Oliver and Andrew Coyne.

It could also be that those same Conservative-leaning pundits are gushing over Peggy because she poses the least threat to Stephen Harper, and on that point, I am inclined to agree.  I have always found that Peggy was boring in her delivery and tended to speak in generalities rather than specifics and I have seen little in this race to convince me that this has changed.

Certainly she's got impeccable left credentials (some of the best of all the candidates).  No doubt, she will make a superb industry minister, but I just don't see her leading the party forward right now.  In my mind, she is clearly where the party's heart is at, but not where its brain is at.  Parallels can be drawn between her candidacy and Bill Blaikie's or Audrey McLaughlin's - they reflect the Party's values phenomenally but may not be the best choice to sell them to the public.

That said, I have a lot of friends and people I respect in the Party that gush over her.  I also am thinking that she is or is close to leading on first-ballot support.  I am willing to give her a fair shake, but right now she is well down on my list.  I will clearly support her if she wins, but there are several other candidates (Topp, Mulcair, Cullen, Ashton) that I think have a stronger appeal right now.

 

In 2015, like Peter3, I would also certainly volunteer for Peggy (as I will for whomever wins our leadership race).

 

Its just hard to imagine Canadian voters ever catching "Peggymania". 

Winston

wage zombie wrote:

By the end of the race, Nash's supporters will have spent more time talking about her experience as Finance Critic than Nash spent being Finance Critic.

That was the best quote of NDP Leadership #56, I have to say!

LaughingLaughingLaughing

 

Winston

OnTheLeft wrote:

She poses the least threat? Generalities? Her performance as Finance Critic shows otherwise:

She was finance critic for what? Four months?  Hardly anything to hang your hat on!

OnTheLeft wrote:
 

So Nash with years experience as an MP, Industry and Finance Critic, is not where the party's "brain" is at and parallels can be drawn to Audrey McLaughlin. But Brian Topp, who has no electoral experience, is clearly superior, and is nothing like McLaughlin, who was elected Leader of the NDP with only one year of experience as an MP under her belt.

By mentioning where the party's "brain" is at, I was in no way talking about the candidates' intelligence - they're all very intelligent as far as I can tell - I was referring to the Party's brain, namely its tactical sense of which candidate would be best poised to sell the party's policies to the Canadian public. 

I think Bill Blaikie and Audrey McLaughlin were both incredibly competent intelligent politicians with the utmost of integrity, but I don't think either of them were the best choice for party leader, since I don't think either of them excelled in the retail politics side of things.  And while I agree that Topp still has a lot of work to do on that front too, but from what I have seen, he comes off far better ad hoc than does Peggy.

Policywonk

OnTheLeft wrote:

Winston wrote:

It could also be that those same Conservative-leaning pundits are gushing over Peggy because she poses the least threat to Stephen Harper, and on that point, I am inclined to agree.  I have always found that Peggy was boring in her delivery and tended to speak in generalities rather than specifics and I have seen little in this race to convince me that this has changed.

 

She poses the least threat? Generalities? Her performance as Finance Critic shows otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EldpzTNHQvk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo2N0yJlOdI&feature=related 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWxZY48gYhU

Winston wrote:
 

Certainly she got impeccable left credentials (some of the best of all the candidates).  No doubt, she will make a superb industry minister, but I just don't see her leading the party forward right now.  In my mind, she is clearly where the party's heart is at, but not where its brain is at.  Parallels can be drawn between her candidacy and Bill Blaikie's or Audrey McLaughlin's - they reflect the Party's values phenomenally but may not be the best choice to sell them to the public.

That said, I have a lot of friends and people I respect in the Party that gush over her.  I also am thinking that she is or is close to leading on first-ballot support.  I am willing to give her a fair shake, but right now she is well down on my list.  I will clearly support her if she wins, but there are several other candidates (Topp, Mulcair, Cullen, Ashton) that I think have a stronger appeal right now.

So Nash with years experience as an MP, Industry and Finance Critic, is not where the party's "brain" is at and parallels can be drawn to Audrey McLaughlin. But Brian Topp, who has no electoral experience, is clearly superior, and is nothing like McLaughlin, who was elected Leader of the NDP with only one year of experience as an MP under her belt.

More than two actually (first elected in a by-election in the summer of 1987), but who's counting.

mabrouss

adma wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

adma wrote:

And just because Chisholm blew the leadership doesn't mean he blew his seat (memo to Debater re a Mike Savage comeback).

Anyway, I'm curious to see where his top endorser Howard Hampton'll go (on geographic grounds, it's easy to auto-assume Niki Ashton--note: "easy to auto-assume")

Savage is the frontrunner to be mayor of Halifax anyways, though this seat is still a potential pickup for the Liberals seeing Chisholm just squeaked out a win. 

Then again, Chisholm also squeaked his way into incumbent-advantage.  And beyond that, the way things are presently positioned (esp. in the absence of a Grit incumbent), his seat could just as well be a three-way prospect, now...

 

Nooooooo, Dartmouth is not Tory friendly. It's quite solidly NDP. Provincially it was swept and I think it's pretty safe NDP now. I think even if Savage came back he wouldn't win it. But if there's one thing that's for sure it won't go Conservative.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Winston wrote:

She was finance critic for what? Four months?  Hardly anything to hang your hat on!

So now New Democrats are ridiculing New Democrats.

Yeah, screw Jack and his judgment to make Peggy Nash first Industry, and then Finance Critic. And party president.   

This is how Liberals behave.

AnonymousMouse

OnTheLeft, if you want people to talk more about Peggy Nash, then try SAYING SOMETHING INTERESTING ABOUT PEGGY NASH!

So far you've characterized Mulcair's quotes about NAFTA so poorly that multiple Babblers (not exactly a pro-NAFTA bunch) felt it was a major distortion. (The journalist you mention characterized his quote while printing it in full. You keep repeating her characterization as if it were an unqualified statement of support. And multiple Babblers have already pointed out how ridiculous that is. They did so when Duncan Camerom posted the very same article that you linked to above.)

As for Peggy Nash herself, the quotes you point to from journalists are equally taken out of context. Oliver complimented Nash in the context of saying Mulcair won the first debate and that she was starting to become an alternative FOR THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE THE FRONT-RUNNERS. Coyne merely predicted that he thought she would win--not that she should, or that we should care about his read on NDP internal politics anyway. Nash hasn't even "won over" the two commentators you cite, much less any important number of political observers.

On what Nash has actually said, the links you post contain nothing interesting at all from what I can tell. It's mostly just the same old, same old. The NDP needs to appear strong on the economy? Really, you don't say? I bet if Peggy Nash were convincing people she could actually do that--make the NDP appear credible on the economy--there'd be a lot of exciting talk about here on Rabble!

As for Nash's credentials, you keep citing the same list of experience over and over again as if it represents some unique qualifications. Fully credit to Nash for her career achievements, but Mulcair was a top civil servant, a hugely important cabinet minister, a six-time winning candidate, Quebec Lieutenant, Deputy Leader, Finance Critic, Official Opposition House Leader and helped lead the Orange Wave in Quebec. Peggy Nash's resume is impressive by any normal standard, but it won't be vaulting her to the front of this race any time soon.

Peggy Nash is a great MP with impressive qualifications. That's why people routinely cite her as one of the four more serious contenders in this race. But if you're concerned that more people here on Babble don't seem interested in talking about her, I can tell you some certain it isn't because people haven't seeing or reading the same stuff you're citing.

Why don't you try responding to some of the doubts people have about your candidate, rather than repetitively and propagandistically posting about what you see as her positive attributes?

writer writer's picture

OnTheLeft wrote:

Yeah, screw Jack and his judgment to make Peggy Nash first Industry, and then Finance Critic. And party president.   

This is how Liberals behave.

That's quite a leap, OnTheLeft. Hurling Jack's name around so cheaply does nothing for your cause. The flinging of the word Liberal at each other is growing somewhat tiresome, too. We have a few months of this, folks. Let's pace ourselves.

Winston

OnTheLeft wrote:

Winston wrote:

She was finance critic for what? Four months?  Hardly anything to hang your hat on!

So now New Democrats are ridiculing New Democrats.

I'm not ridiculing her - if anything, I'm ridiculing those of her supporters who obsess over the detail that she was finance critic, when 4 months is clearly not enough time for ANYONE (not just Peggy) to get up to speed on any portfolio.  Her time as a very effective industry critic prior to her loss to Kennedy makes a much better case for her, and is one I think you all should be focusing on instead.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Yeah, screw Jack and his judgment to make Peggy Nash first Industry, and then Finance Critic. And party president. 

No, I believe them all to have been wise appointments; it's just that Peggy never really got the opportunity to fulfill the role of finance critic for any length of time.  If anything, it would be "screw Jack for dying".

OnTheLeft wrote:

This is how Liberals behave.

No...your quote above is how Liberals behave. 

AnonymousMouse

OnTheLeft wrote:

Winston wrote:

She was finance critic for what? Four months?  Hardly anything to hang your hat on!

So now New Democrats are ridiculing New Democrats.

Yeah, screw Jack and his judgment to make Peggy Nash first Industry, and then Finance Critic. And party president.   

This is how Liberals behave.

Oh, Good Lord. Whenever anyone is given a new critic portfolio the experience counter starts from zero. That doesn't mean someone is questionning the judgement of the person who gave them that portfolio. Gaining experience in a job is the nature of how jobs work.

Pointing out that someone had very little experience in a particular job when they're applying for a more important job does not constitute "ridicule". It constitutes common sense--especially when that candidate's supporters keep bringing it up.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

writer wrote:
That's quite a leap, OnTheLeft. Hurling Jack's name around so cheaply does nothing for your cause. The flinging of the word Liberal at each other is growing somewhat tiresome, too. We have a few months of this, folks. Let's pace ourselves.

Oh really? Well, it was Jack Layton who chose Peggy as Industry Critic, and then as Finance Critic. How is citing this, Jack's selection of Peggy, "hurling Jack's name around so cheaply"?

 

Stockholm

This discussion is getting very tedious....

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Winston wrote:

I'm not ridiculing her - if anything, I'm ridiculing those of her supporters who obsess over the detail that she was finance critic, when 4 months is clearly not enough time for ANYONE (not just Peggy) to get up to speed on any portfolio.  Her time as a very effective industry critic prior to her loss to Kennedy makes a much better case for her, and is one I think you all should be focusing on instead.

"Obsess"? Her tenure as Finance Critic is only one of many credentials that I've cited.

Winston wrote:

No...your quote above is how Liberals behave. 

I'm not the one attacking and ridiculing other leadership candidates and their supporters.

Winston

OnTheLeft wrote:

Yeah we get it. You're letting your emotions get the best of you because you're coming across like you completely hate Peggy's guts (a New Democrat, no less), while insisting that Babble can only be a Mulcair lovefest. Because honestly, how dare anyone dare to bring up or discuss Peggy Nash. How dare they! We can only discuss Mulcair here.

You need to chill, mate.  

Babblers have raised concerns about all of the leadership candidates, and these concerns were addressed, either to people's satisfaction or not.

In Mulcair's case it was that he was "prickly and hard to get along with": that concern was discussed over several threads.

In Dewar's case it was the quality of his French - also discussed.

In Topp's case, the lack of experience as an elected official - also discussed.

In Cullen's case, his ridiculous non-compete scheme with the Liberals - discussed.

In Ashton's case, her age - discussed

et cetera, et cetera.

For the most part the discussion has been civil.  I already said that I am open to giving Peggy a fair shake, if only people could address my concerns (concerns that many others share).  Calling me a Liberal or slamming Mulcair is not addressing those concerns. 

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
OnTheLeft, if you want people to talk more about Peggy Nash, then try SAYING SOMETHING INTERESTING ABOUT PEGGY NASH!

It seems you're a bit rattled, considering that you've resorted to using caps-lock.  

AnonymousMouse wrote:
So far you've characterized Mulcair's quotes about NAFTA so poorly that multiple Babblers (not exactly a pro-NAFTA bunch) felt it was a major distortion.

Nope. Sorry. Keep spinning it the way you like, but I've just been sharing the article as is. 

Quote:

Although the party he seeks to lead has vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in the past and former NDP Leader Jack Layton called for it to be re-opened, Mulcair says he supports NAFTA and helped draft some of its provisions on professional services.

"To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema," he said. "The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water."

What he would like to change, however, is the way the Conservatives are allowing the U.S. to try to use the trade agreement.

"When you look at how Chapter 11 has been enforced, when you are told that a company has a right under the NAFTA to continue to export a substance that our government has considered deleterious, a substance that was an additive in gasoline. When you look at the fact that the Americans are now fighting back on a ban that I helped enforce in Quebec on 2-4-D, which is a pesticide, telling us that we have no right to ban 2-4-D, then I say we have to stand up and fight back and just tell the Americans that they are not going to determine for us that we have to add certain poisons to our environment and that's not what the NAFTA is all about."

 

 http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/14/weve-got-to-stop-being-such-chumps-mulcair-says-of-foreign-policy/

"Mulcair says he supports NAFTA" - get it? The reporter didn't just make that up. If he did, Mulcair would've sued for libel. Just accept it. 

AnonymousMouse wrote:
(The journalist you mention characterized his quote while printing it in full. You keep repeating her characterization as if it were an unqualified statement of support. And multiple Babblers have already pointed out how ridiculous that is. They did so when Duncan Camerom posted the very same article that you linked to above.)

Yes, I'm well aware that you guys are all in denial, but it's not a "characterization", as you like to spin it. The reporter paraphrased Mulcair.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
As for Peggy Nash herself, the quotes you point to from journalists are equally taken out of context. Oliver complimented Nash in the context of saying Mulcair won the first debate and that she was starting to become an alternative FOR THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE THE FRONT-RUNNERS.

Um, I was referring to Craig Oliver here: 

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111028/peggy-nash-ndp-leadership-race-111028/

Under CTV News Video, on the right hand side: "CTV News Channel: Nash changes race dynamic"

I wasn't referring to Oliver discussing Nash's performance in the debate. 

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Coyne merely predicted that he thought she would win--not that she should, or that we should care about his read on NDP internal politics anyway.

Nice try. Coyne said that Nash has better French than Dewar, has more experience than Topp, and is more likeable than Mulcair.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Nash hasn't even "won over" the two commentators you cite, much less any important number of political observers.

Again, keep spinning it how you like. All you're doing is showcasing your vitriol and angst.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
On what Nash has actually said, the links you post contain nothing interesting at all from what I can tell.

Of course they don't, because you loathe her candidacy.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
It's mostly just the same old, same old. The NDP needs to appear strong on the economy? Really, you don't say? I bet if Peggy Nash were convincing people she could actually do that--make the NDP appear credible on the economy--there'd be a lot of exciting talk about here on Rabble! As for Nash's credentials, you keep citing the same list of experience over and over again as if it represents some unique qualifications. Fully credit to Nash for her career achievements, but Mulcair was a top civil servant, a hugely important cabinet minister, a six-time winning candidate, Quebec Lieutenant, Deputy Leader, Finance Critic, Official Opposition House Leader and helped lead the Orange Wave in Quebec. Peggy Nash's resume is impressive by any normal standard, but it won't be vaulting her to the front of this race any time soon. Peggy Nash is a great MP with impressive qualifications. That's why people routinely cite her as one of the four more serious contenders in this race. But if you're concerned that more people here on Babble don't seem interested in talking about her, I can tell you some certain it isn't because people haven't seeing or reading the same stuff you're citing. Why don't you try responding to some of the doubts people have about your candidate, rather than repetitively and propagandistically posting about what you see as her positive attributes?

Yeah we get it. You're letting your emotions get the best of you because you're coming across like you completely hate Peggy's guts (a New Democrat, no less), while insisting that Babble can only be a Mulcair lovefest. Because honestly, how dare anyone dare to bring up or discuss Peggy Nash. How dare they! We can only discuss Mulcair here.

writer writer's picture

Stockholm wrote:

This discussion is getting very tedious....

Stockholm and I are in complete agreement. Now look what you've done.

KenS

OnTheLeft wrote:

The party has moved to the centre in recent years. We should still stand for nationalizing at least some banks, pulling out of NATO, and creating more crown corporations.

By recent years do you mean the last 50- the whole pof the party's existence?

Because you would have to go back at least that far to find nationalizing even 'some' banks, and anything else to be something that was not only on the policy books, but actually promoted by the NDP.

The party could turn to being 'aggresively social democratic' and still go nowhere near what to the bulk of us is plain turning back the clock.... no matter how large a constituency on Babble still hopes for the return of nationalizing as something more than a historic concept.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Winston wrote:

You need to chill, mate.

I need to chill? Um, take a look at AnonymousMouse. I'm not the one who has been using caps-lock, attacking, ranting and raving at someone else for wanting to discuss another leadership candidate who AnonymousMouse doesn't happen to support.   

Winston wrote:
For the most part the discussion has been civil.  I already said that I am open to giving Peggy a fair shake, if only people could address my concerns (concerns that many others share).  Calling me a Liberal or slamming Mulcair is not addressing those concerns. 

Well, when you ridicule Peggy's tenure as Finance Critic, another New Democrat, well from my perspective I'm not into ridiculing fellow New Democrats and their supporters. When it gets to ridiculing and attacking other leadership candidates and their supporters, we've seen what that's done to the Liberal Party, and that's why I brought up Liberal in the first place - as I didn't expect wanting to discuss an NDP leadership candidate on a left-wing discussion board would result in such treatment and abuse from others.

As for Mulcair, I've only brought up his views on NAFTA. I don't believe any of the mainstream media spin regarding this "temper", or that he's a "closet seperatist", or a "closet Liberal". It's nonsense. I was leaning towards Mulcair but realized he's a little bit too moderate for me, and have decided to support Nash.

AnonymousMouse

OnTheLeft:

My comment about the Oliver quote was not clear. I should have written that Oliver has complimented Nash, but did so while saying that she was an alternative for those who didn't like the front-runners and has also said since that Mulcair won the first debate. And Coyne was absolutely commenting the reasons thought Nash would win, regardless of the rest of what he wrote. Neither of them said anything to indicate they had been "won over" by Peggy Nash.

On the NAFTA quotes, paraphrasing a quote IS BY DEFINITION a characterization of what someone said. But the quote is there for all to see, so ignoring the actual quote itself is just disingenuous.

You can throw around words like "spin" and "angst" and "vitriol" all you like, but you're repetitively posting the same comments about the candidate you support while not seriously engaging any of the doubts people have about your candidate and then complaining that people don't talk about your candidate more.

I would suggest that's why so many people here on Rabble are responding negatively to your posts.

AnonymousMouse

OMG, I used all caps to emphasis a point! Someone get me fainting couch right this minute.

I will leave it to other Babblers to read my comment above and determine for themelves whether I was "attacking, ranting and raving".

I would say I was criticizing OnTheLeft--certainly not for wanting to discuss his/her preferred candidate, but rather (quite clearly) for the manner in which he/she chooses to do so.

KenS

Geez. Tedious, yes. 

I nodded off while catching up.

Interesting that a few people see Nash in the lead for the first ballot.

I think it might look that way the closer you are to Toronto.

Admittedly I dont have a lot to base this on. But I would be very surprised if Mulcair is not leading on the first ballot.

That doesnt determine anything. And there are probably lots of surprises and shifts to come. But for all that, I'd still bet on a Mulcair first round lead.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
OnTheLeft: My comment about the Oliver quote was not clear. I should have written that Oliver has complimented Nash, but did so while saying that she was an alternative for those who didn't like the front-runners and has also said since that Mulcair won the first debate.

Yes.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
And Coyne was absolutely commenting the reasons thought Nash would win, regardless of the rest of what he wrote. Neither of them said anything to indicate they had been "won over" by Peggy Nash.

I didn't say or claim that Coyne was "won over."

AnonymousMouse wrote:
On the NAFTA quotes, paraphrasing a quote IS BY DEFINITION a characterization of what someone said. But the quote is there for all to see, so ignoring the actual quote itself is just disingenuous.

It wasn't a characterization though. Mulcair would have taken issue with it had it been not true or reported inaccurately. And you're also neglecting the fact that Mulcair's first reaction wasn't to cite what NAFTA has done to our manufacturing base, to workers, their families and livelihood. His gut reaction was to defend NAFTA, to not throw out the baby with the bath water as he said, and to defend its environmental laws.  

 

AnonymousMouse wrote:
You can throw around words like "spin" and "angst" and "vitriol" all you like, but you're repetitively posting the same comments about the candidate you support while not seriously engaging any of the doubts people have about your candidate and then complaining that people don't talk about your candidate more. I would suggest that's why so many people here on Rabble are responding negatively to your posts.

And even before I brought up Mulcair and NAFTA, you have repeatedly attacked me for bringing up Nash. You said that you had not seen anything regarding Nash, so I posted some news articles, opinion pieces, and youtube clips. You've made it quite clear that you hate Nash's guts and her supporters.

 

Winston

OnTheLeft wrote:

Winston wrote:

You need to chill, mate.

I need to chill? Um, take a look at AnonymousMouse. I'm not the one who has been using caps-lock, attacking, ranting and raving at someone else for wanting to discuss another leadership candidate who AnonymousMouse doesn't happen to support.   

I didn't get the impression that any of the people challenging you is ranting or raving, least of all AnonymousMouse - I believe his CAPS were for emphasis, not to "yell" at you.  I am sure he is sorry for the misunderstanding and will endeavour to be more judicious in his use of the majiscule Roman font (perhaps through the use of italics or boldface?) in the future. 

OnTheLeft wrote:

Winston wrote:
For the most part the discussion has been civil.  I already said that I am open to giving Peggy a fair shake, if only people could address my concerns (concerns that many others share).  Calling me a Liberal or slamming Mulcair is not addressing those concerns. 

Well, when you ridicule Peggy's tenure as Finance Critic, another New Democrat, well from my perspective I'm not into ridiculing fellow New Democrats and their supporters. When it gets to ridiculing and attacking other leadership candidates and their supporters, we've seen what that's done to the Liberal Party, and that's why I brought up Liberal in the first place - as I didn't expect wanting to discuss an NDP leadership candidate on a left-wing discussion board would result in such treatment and abuse from others.

I am not ridiculing Peggy's tenure in anything, simply stating the fact that 4 months would not be enough time for even Albert Einstein to master the portfolio of Physical Sciences Minister.  I need more than "she dabbled in the Finance Critic role before quitting to seek the leadership" in order to overcome my doubts about her candidacy.

OnTheLeft wrote:

As for Mulcair, I've only brought up his views on NAFTA. I don't believe any of the mainstream media spin regarding this "temper", or that he's a "closet seperatist", or a "closet Liberal". It's nonsense. I was leaning towards Mulcair but realized he's a little bit too moderate for me, and have decided to support Nash.

Okay then...that's a valid reason for you (maybe not others) not to be supporting Mulcair.  Now, do you have some reasons (other than "Mulcair is too moderate") why we should be supporting Peggy's candidacy?

Polunatic2

 

Quote:
Its just hard to imagine Canadian voters ever catching "Peggymania".
Or Harpermania for that matter. 

No doubt this has been mentioned by someone before but wouldn't it be ironic if the Liberals were led by and ex-NDPer and the NDP led by an ex-Liberal? 

I am opening a new thread unless we're trying to break 200. 

 

 

Polunatic2
writer writer's picture

These comparisons of current candidates with other people are starting to make me cross-eyed. Whatever one might have to say about Mulcair, a comparison with Iggy has no legs. Iggy was a prince, annointed by his desperate party as saviour. He was a professor with absolutely no political chops. He was an intellectual who returned after a couple of decades outside of the county. He had no instinct for Quebec ... heck, for Canada. His sweet talk to the nation came across as fake, as the election results indicate.

Mulcair has been immersed in the nation's politics. He knows Quebec. He knows how a party works. He knows about elections. He's been in the House for years. In a provincial government for years before that. He is facing other candidates and a ballot to try to gain leadership. And so on.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Winston wrote:

I didn't get the impression that any of the people challenging you is ranting or raving, least of all AnonymousMouse - I believe his CAPS were for emphasis, not to "yell" at you.  I am sure he is sorry for the misunderstanding and will endeavour to be more judicious in his use of the majiscule Roman font (perhaps through the use of italics or boldface?) in the future.

And, crap like this really pisses me off - I wouldn't go to such lengths nor lay into any other leadership candidate this way:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
On what Nash has actually said, the links you post contain nothing interesting at all from what I can tell. It's mostly just the same old, same old. The NDP needs to appear strong on the economy? Really, you don't say? I bet if Peggy Nash were convincing people she could actually do that--make the NDP appear credible on the economy--there'd be a lot of exciting talk about here on Rabble!

 

Winston wrote:

I am not ridiculing Peggy's tenure in anything, simply stating the fact that 4 months would not be enough time for even Albert Einstein to master the portfolio of Physical Sciences Minister.  I need more than "she dabbled in the Finance Critic role before quitting to seek the leadership" in order to overcome my doubts about her candidacy.

It was the manner in which you did it, which you're doing again with the dabbling remark. Again, I am not obsessing over the Finance Critic role. It is one of many of Nash's previous tenures or positions.

mark_alfred

writer wrote:

These comparisons of current candidates with other people are starting to make me cross-eyed. Whatever one might have to say about Mulcair, a comparison with Iggy has no legs.

Agreed.  Mulcair has always seemed impressive to me.  I do wonder though what the rush was of Broadbent and Romanow to find an alternative in Topp.  Any ideas?

Hunky_Monkey

Thanks, OnTheLeft for uniting everyone here on babble :)

My point about Douglas is that while he did a great many things, he didn't introduce them in year one... or even his first term in office. Medicare was done in stages over several years.

Let's also recognize he was Premier in a very different time... over 50 years ago.

I'm sure you'll be happy though when Prime Minister Thomas Mulcair introduces one of his top priorities... a national prescription drug program :)

As for NAFTA, if you don't think media put words in the mouths of politicians, I got some prime swamp land in Florida to sell you. Mulcair isn't a NAFTA cheerleader... take note of what the baby is (environmental accord) and what the bathwater is (NAFTA).

Winston

OnTheLeft wrote:

And, crap like this really pisses me off - I wouldn't go to such lengths nor lay into any other leadership candidate this way:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
On what Nash has actually said, the links you post contain nothing interesting at all from what I can tell. It's mostly just the same old, same old. The NDP needs to appear strong on the economy? Really, you don't say? I bet if Peggy Nash were convincing people she could actually do that--make the NDP appear credible on the economy--there'd be a lot of exciting talk about here on Rabble!

You know what, OTL, when I read the coverage of Peggy on "Making the NDP credible on the economy," I was thinking exactly the same thing as AM.  There was no substance beyond the statement.  Brian Topp has been bringing up all sorts of proposals on taxation and so on that I think could make us credible, and he has my respect for that.  But beyond stating that the Party needs to be "credible on the economy" and that she learned about economics by negotiating with the big auto companies, there was nothing from Peggy on HOW this might be done.

Now maybe she said or released something else, but it was not covered in the media.  Further I can't seem to find many more details on her website.

That's what AM was trying to get at (in a very reasonable manner, in my opinion). 

OnTheLeft wrote:

It was the manner in which you did it, which you're doing again with the dabbling remark. Again, I am not obsessing over the Finance Critic role. It is one of many of Nash's previous tenures or positions.

Well, 4 months in a job is "dabbling."  I suggested that you focus on her time as industry critic instead (where she actually has an excellent record), or provide us with some key policy planks, but you chose not to.  Instead you turn to attacking the rest of us, accusing us of being "Liberals" or "hating Peggy Nash", which is complete BS.

I'm done arguing with you.  When you have something constructive to say (about Peggy or the race or anything), I'm all ears.

mark_alfred

A lot of passionate discussion here.  It makes me a bit leery to say anything.

 

For me it's going to be a tough choice. Topp and Nash seem to be appealing to the left wing of the party, whereas Mulcair is trying to cultivate the feeling that he's the safest bet for power. I like a lot of what Topp has been saying about taxes, but a part of me does feel that Mulcair is the safest bet for power. On Mulcair's site, he has an article that makes an indirect reference to the other candidates (I think either Topp or Nash are being targetted) and equating them with Dion (IE, someone who may have had some interesting ideas, but was not saleable). On the other hand, perhaps Mulcair is the NDP's equivalent of Ignatieff (IE, someone thought to be a sure-bet superstar who falls flat). Still, it does seem he's the most likely to keep Quebec, and perhaps the most likely to attract new votes elsewhere. I don't know. I also like Singh, simply because I like his focus on pharmacare.  

Gaian

wage zombie wrote:

If you choose to view Mulcair as Our One Last Hope that's your business.  Expect that people will express themselves about the candidates in a leadership race.

I am confident that everything will unfold as it should.  Either Mulcair will win the leadership or he won't.  If he's as good as some vocal babblers seem to think, then he should be able to win the leadership, no?

Economists of the Chicago School believe the world turns in such a rational groove, WZ. But that's about the extent of such faith, anymore.

Like that old limerick:

"There was a young man who said damn,
It appears to me now that I am
Just a being that moves
In predestinate grooves
Not a bus, not a car, but a tram.

(Anon. )

mtm

OnTheLeft:

As someone supporting Thomas Mulcair, I urge you to continue posting links to Peggy Nash in the House of Commons as you did above.  The three links you posted show someone sticking resolutely to their notes, who is doing a servicable job, sounding a little forced, but does not show the passion and depth of conviction of Mr. Mulcair.  I think the contrast of Thomas vs. Peggy in the HoC shows exactly why I support him.

A quick check of his performances in the House can be found on Youtube, for anyone to compare, and compare they should!

I also don't think that it is blasphemous for us to compare the performances in the House of our front benchers when we are selecting the next Leader.  I love Peggy!  But I don't think she demonstrates the type of leadership we need to stand up to Harper. But I will be there supporting her in each and every fight, and think she's a great MP, critic, and even potential cabinet minister in Thomas Mulcair's government.  

Basically, by running for leadership, she has put herself (just as Mulcair has) in the line of internal scrutiny, and it is fair game for members to discuss who would be the best for the position.  I don't subscribe to your view that by comparing and ranking candidates skills in certain areas that we are being anti-NDP or unfaithful.  How else can we make an informed decision?

 

mtm

OnTheLeft:

The other thing you must remember is that QP questions and statements in the HoC are crafted for the MP's by caucus staffers, backed up by hours and hours of hard work by research staff.  The content is largely a product of the Party brain trust, not the individual MP's themselves.

So, to point to what ANY of them are saying in the House and refer to the content as being property or belonging to the particular person saying it is disingenuous, which is why I look for things like delivery, confidence, clarity, cadence and genuine emotion/effectiveness in giving the prepared statement.

The content of the message, good or bad, is essentially just Party messaging... It's what the MP does with it!

 

 

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Winston wrote:

You know what, OTL, when I read the coverage of Peggy on "Making the NDP credible on the economy," I was thinking exactly the same thing as AM.  There was no substance beyond the statement.  Brian Topp has been bringing up all sorts of proposals on taxation and so on that I think could make us credible, and he has my respect for that.  But beyond stating that the Party needs to be "credible on the economy" and that she learned about economics by negotiating with the big auto companies, there was nothing from Peggy on HOW this might be done.
Now maybe she said or released something else, but it was not covered in the media.  Further I can't seem to find many more details on her website.


Well, in post #52 of this thread, which you and others have chosen to ignore, I cited some of her proposals and policies from various articles. I'll share them again:
Quote:

An Active Government for a Fair Economy
by Peggy Nash MP, Parkdale-High Park; NDP leadership candidate.
To foster innovation, productivity, and a green economy, markets need to be pushed and challenged by our government. I will start with a real plan to create good jobs across the country, which will form the core of how we start rebuilding our economy so more Canadians benefit. A strategy to create value-added jobs, where we not only harvest our country's vast natural resources, but also focus on keeping the processing sector in Canada, will mean we're not exporting jobs along with our raw materials. The resulting value-added jobs will demand high skills, and will bring Canadian workers high pay. This will also mean that companies will create research and development centres close by in order to support workplace innovation and productivity, thereby reviving local economies and creating opportunities for local suppliers and businesses. Our manufacturing sector needs to be strengthened. After years of erosion that devastated whole communities, we can use government investment to establish manufacturing revitalization and new energy technologies that will generate quality, innovative jobs. We also need to reshape government policy to create a greener economy. We can achieve that by ending subsidies to the oil sands and using those savings to help diversify our energy sector and support provinces and municipalities with infrastructure renewal and other investments. But to realize this dream of a strengthened, green economy with quality jobs, we need real action and real leadership. Our party's challenge between now and the next election will be to connect the fair-mindedness that is found across our country with concrete government action - to connect the passion for a better, greener world, and the need to turn our economy around, with the political will to get us there.

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/7695-an-active-government-for-a-fair-economy
 
Quote:

Nash on housing:
I think it was a terrible mistake under the Liberals that they abandoned the national housing strategy. We have a situation, for example (...), the situation in Attawapaskat - the First Nations reserve where people are living in completely inhumane conditions - and I know they're not the only community in that situation.
Plus you have many people who live in urban settings who are either paying way too much of their income, and/or they're living in grossly substandard accommodations. In a northern country, we need to make sure everybody's adequately housed - and that would go such a long way to taking people out of poverty, if their housing needs were taken care of. 
Nash on free trade:
We're a trading nation - we should be doing what we can, obviously, to promote trade with other countries, but it's gotta be fair. It's gotta be based on all parties getting a decent deal out of it, and it can't be subsidized on environmental degradation or human rights abuses. 
Trade agreements - like any agreement - are not a force of nature. They are negotiated by people. And I think it's fair, after a period of time, that there be a review so that agreements can be modernized so they can be in the best interests of their citizens.
If somebody had said even in a year ago that Europe would be reviewing whether or not there's going to be a Euro - these are not forces of nature. I'm not campaigning to open up trade agreements, but it is an important approach that when Canada's bargaining trade agreements, that we get agreements in the interests of our country. 
Nash on Indigenous peoples:
We have to approach negotiations on a nation-to-nation basis. We have to respect the nationhood of our Aboriginal peoples, and we can't engage in a way that perpetuates a colonial approach to Aboriginal people. We have to approach discussions, negotiations, from a position of respect and equality. I think that, from the start, makes a big difference, but I don't think it's up to government in Ottawa to figure out what all the answers are. First Nations people know very well what a lot of the solutions are.

Nash on Quebec:
For the first time - certainly in my lifetime - we have the opportunity for progressives in Quebec and progressives across Canada working together to build a better country. The next leader has to carry on with Jack's work to be somebody à l'écoute (in touch with), listening to Quebeckers - but who also understands that fundamentally, what most Quebeckers want is what Canadians want.
They want decent jobs, they want their kids to expect to have at least as good a standard of living as their parents, they want to be able to retire in security.
I hope that we don't need a new referendum because Quebeckers feel that their aspirations - their economic, social and environmental aspirations, and their aspirations around respect for Quebec history, culture, language - are respected. And I believe that's what we need to work for. You know, I believe in Quebec's right to self-determination, and I support that. But I'm going to do absolutely everything in my power to work with Quebeckers and with people in the rest of Canada to show how we are all better off when we work together.

Nash on women in government & electoral reform:
I've done a lot of women's leadership training, I've done a lot to overcome the barriers to getting involved. On our part, (the NDP does) a better job - we've got 40 per cent women - because in our constitution we have a requirement that we have to have equity representation in nomination meetings. If we hadn't had that, I might not have had the opportunity to run when I first ran, when Jack recruited me, because there was another person who had been working in the riding but they didn't have an equity candidate.
I also think that an important element is proportional representation.  The first-past-the-post system in a complex federation like Canada - a multi-party democracy - is better served by some form of proportional representation. We'd get a better balance of diversity in that kind of electoral system.

Nash on merger or cooperation with the Liberal Party of Canada:
I'll work with anyone in order to get things done. I've demonstrated that in my role as a parliamentarian and my role as a negotiator. But I do not support an outright merger, because I believe our parties are fundamentally different. We have fundamentally different principles.
You know, there are such differences between the NDP and the Liberal Party. It was under the Liberals we had the deepest social spending cuts we've had in the history of our country, including abolishing the national housing strategy, abolishing the national minimum wage, big cuts to employment insurance.


http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2011/12/11/peggy-nash-nets-ndps-top-endorsement-laytons-finance-critic?page=0,2
 
Quote:

Nash, like her party, opposes both the Enbridge Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines, and would cut public subsidies to oilsands companies.
She favours a global financial-transaction tax - strongly opposed by the Harper Government - and, while generally supporting balanced budgets, during periods of slow growth would like to see strategic public investments in such things as transit.
"I'm not talking about building hockey rinks and gazebos, but investing in targeted infrastructure that would act as economic generators," she said.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Opinion+Peggy+Nash+candidate+watch+leadership+race/5849447/story.html
Winston wrote:
Well, 4 months in a job is "dabbling."  I suggested that you focus on her time as industry critic instead (where she actually has an excellent record), or provide us with some key policy planks, but you chose not to.  Instead you turn to attacking the rest of us, accusing us of being "Liberals" or "hating Peggy Nash", which is complete BS.
I'm done arguing with you.  When you have something constructive to say (about Peggy or the race or anything), I'm all ears.

Again, I cited post #52 in this thread, in which I shared some of Nash's proposals, and links to other articles in which Nash's proposals and other views were discussed, but this was ignored. I wasn't "attacking" anyone, but I was rather defending myself. Again, I posted some of the info and links shared here in post #52 but it was ignored.
I also posted this - it was post #96 in this thread - but again, it was ignored:

Quote:
Peggy Nash: "Whatdaya think?"
Nash is the first candidate I've seen that made me think that, yeah, the NDP is fully capable of forming a stable government in the next election. It's not just that she is an inspiring speaker, or that she was the first candidate to encourage the audience to take ownership and build the party. Peggy Nash has a downplayed, quiet defiance in her that refreshes a leadership race where semantics seem to separate the candidates.

Yes, Nash hit all the NDP tropes: the gun registry should be saved, Canada's Kyoto abandonment is disgraceful, corporate taxes are skewed, etc. She even trash talked Harper and the Conservatives. But her insistance on building the NDP to be something more than government showed a political maturity. Instead of downplaying social movements such as Occupy, Nash identified them as a force than can keep governments in check and push the NDP to be more.

Other policy included

1. Wealth Redistribution-You fight inequality with good jobs and good wages. Tax havens need to be attacked and more progressive taxation introduced. Conservatives are horrible economic managers and everyone suffers for it. Good environment policy is good economic policy.

2. Quebec-Just because Quebeckers elected the NDP doesn't mean they are abandoning their culture and language. The next NDP leader needs to be bilingual and Quebec-oriented.

3. CBC Funding-Government has been underfunding the CBC. Nash wants to see funding at BBC levels.
Peggy Nash is the first leadership candidate I've seen that can walk into the House of Commons on her first day as leader and competently take on Harper. She has the experience in elected politics and beyond. She's a left-winger with economic literacy. She has the quiet defiance that lets you know you can't push her around. If the NDP truly wants to form government, Nash is not the wrong choice.


http://howcanadaworks.blogspot.com/2011/12/peggy-nash-whatdaya-think.html

mark_alfred

Winston wrote:

 

It could also be that those same Conservative-leaning pundits are gushing over Peggy because she poses the least threat to Stephen Harper, and on that point, I am inclined to agree.

Actually, given that the Globe and Mail officially endorsed Mulcair, the same line of logic could be applied to him (that the Conservative Globe views him as the least threat).

Newfoundlander_...

mtm wrote:

OnTheLeft:

As someone supporting Thomas Mulcair, I urge you to continue posting links to Peggy Nash in the House of Commons as you did above.  The three links you posted show someone sticking resolutely to their notes, who is doing a servicable job, sounding a little forced, but does not show the passion and depth of conviction of Mr. Mulcair.  I think the contrast of Thomas vs. Peggy in the HoC shows exactly why I support him.

A quick check of his performances in the House can be found on Youtube, for anyone to compare, and compare they should!

I also don't think that it is blasphemous for us to compare the performances in the House of our front benchers when we are selecting the next Leader.  I love Peggy!  But I don't think she demonstrates the type of leadership we need to stand up to Harper. But I will be there supporting her in each and every fight, and think she's a great MP, critic, and even potential cabinet minister in Thomas Mulcair's government.  

Basically, by running for leadership, she has put herself (just as Mulcair has) in the line of internal scrutiny, and it is fair game for members to discuss who would be the best for the position.  I don't subscribe to your view that by comparing and ranking candidates skills in certain areas that we are being anti-NDP or unfaithful.  How else can we make an informed decision?

 

Agree with all this. 

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

mtm wrote:

As someone supporting Thomas Mulcair, I urge you to continue posting links to Peggy Nash in the House of Commons as you did above.  The three links you posted show someone sticking resolutely to their notes, who is doing a servicable job, sounding a little forced, but does not show the passion and depth of conviction of Mr. Mulcair.  I think the contrast of Thomas vs. Peggy in the HoC shows exactly why I support him.

A quick check of his performances in the House can be found on Youtube, for anyone to compare, and compare they should!

Are you serious? The majority of MPs from all parties often refer to notes during Question Period.

mtm wrote:
I also don't think that it is blasphemous for us to compare the performances in the House of our front benchers when we are selecting the next Leader.  I love Peggy!  But I don't think she demonstrates the type of leadership we need to stand up to Harper.

What exactly is this type of leadership you seek? Peggy has consisently nailed both Flaherty's and Harper's balls to the walls of the House of Commons in Question Period regarding the economy, corporate tax cuts and unemployment. She's hard and tough as fuck in Parliament.

mtm wrote:
Basically, by running for leadership, she has put herself (just as Mulcair has) in the line of internal scrutiny, and it is fair game for members to discuss who would be the best for the position.  I don't subscribe to your view that by comparing and ranking candidates skills in certain areas that we are being anti-NDP or unfaithful.  How else can we make an informed decision?

I agree with you here however there have been a lot of bullshit cheap shots and outright Nash hatred spewed here. Just imagine the heads that would be exploding if instead of citing NAFTA, I was using the nonsense claims of being a "closet Liberal" or "temper problems" to criticize Mulcair.

 

Gaian

mark_alfred wrote:

Winston wrote:

 

It could also be that those same Conservative-leaning pundits are gushing over Peggy because she poses the least threat to Stephen Harper, and on that point, I am inclined to agree.

Actually, given that the Globe and Mail officially endorsed Mulcair, the same line of logic could be applied to him (that the Conservative Globe views him as the least threat).

I took that as recognition that he was most versed in national economics, m_a, not an endorsement. The Globe and Mail never mentions NDP except when driven to it ...i.e. the absence of comment would mark them as providers of an "unbalanced" commentary. But neither is the newspaper a friend of Stephen Harper. Not by a long shot. That's National Post territory.

mark_alfred

OnTheLeft wrote:

 

Well, in post #52 of this thread, which you and others have chosen to ignore, I cited some of her proposals and policies from various articles. I'll share them again:

Thanks for the info.  That's helpful.  I'll confess, I was unable to find this when I checked her site.  But, likewise, I was unable to find any significant policy pronouncements on Mulcair's site either.  On Topp's I found two about taxation, which I liked, and on Singh's I found a couple about healthcare.  I haven't really checked the other's sites yet.

mtm

FYI what I meant by "sticking to the notes" is the constant looking down, and the sounding like reading, rather than flowing like "off the cuff" conversation, which Thomas is masterful at.  

There's a difference between referring to notes and being glued to them.  And there's sounding like you're reading a prepared statement, and reading a prepared statement and sounding to the untrained ear that you mean every word, or in some cases, like it is not a prepared statement at all.

That's why Jack was masterful in 2011.  Partially because he said the same thing every time and had the message track absolutely nailed and even memorized, but when you compare him to Ignatieff, who appeared robotic, and seemed like he was reading even when he probably wasn't, and it's clear why progressive Canadians saw Jack as a real alternative.

I see that in Mulcair. 

Newfoundlander_...

Am I not seeing the same Peggy Nash in these Youtube videos as some others her?

Newfoundlander_...

-

Newfoundlander_...

-

Winston

Well, OnTheLeft, your last post was an improvement.  Thank-you.  I have read all of those policy items that Peggy promulgated before, and none of them allayed my concerns that she focuses excessively on feel-good generalities and is short on specifics.  Since we were discussing Peggy's prowess on the economy, I focussed on that.

Peggy Nash wrote:

To foster innovation, productivity, and a green economy, markets need to be pushed and challenged by our government. I will start with a real plan to create good jobs across the country, which will form the core of how we start rebuilding our economy so more Canadians benefit.

I love innovation, productivity and a green economy too, so do all New Democrats (many Liberals and Tories too!) - how do we get there? What is the "real plan"?

Peggy Nash wrote:

A strategy to create value-added jobs, where we not only harvest our country's vast natural resources, but also focus on keeping the processing sector in Canada, will mean we're not exporting jobs along with our raw materials.

Yes it will. What is the strategy?

Peggy Nash wrote:

The resulting value-added jobs will demand high skills, and will bring Canadian workers high pay. This will also mean that companies will create research and development centres close by in order to support workplace innovation and productivity, thereby reviving local economies and creating opportunities for local suppliers and businesses.

We're all in "violent agreement"...

Peggy Nash wrote:

Our manufacturing sector needs to be strengthened.

It sure does...

Peggy Nash wrote:

After years of erosion that devastated whole communities, we can use government investment to establish manufacturing revitalization and new energy technologies that will generate quality, innovative jobs. We also need to reshape government policy to create a greener economy. We can achieve that by ending subsidies to the oil sands and using those savings to help diversify our energy sector and support provinces and municipalities with infrastructure renewal and other investments.

Finally some meat!!! Okay...the subsidies to the tar sands amount to what? $3.5 Billion? It's a start - more than a drop in the bucket, to be sure but not the stuff that national dreams are made of either. What sort of manufacturing "revitalization" are we talking about? Direct subventions to manufacturers? Incentives for new investors? Subsidies to assist in converting to "green industries"?

Peggy Nash wrote:

But to realize this dream of a strengthened, green economy with quality jobs, we need real action and real leadership. Our party's challenge between now and the next election will be to connect the fair-mindedness that is found across our country with concrete government action - to connect the passion for a better, greener world, and the need to turn our economy around, with the political will to get us there.

Indeed. 

I get it - Peggy shares the values of the New Democratic Party. So do I (that's why I'm a member). But she's not selling me on her leadership candidacy by re-iterating to me the values we hold. And, perhaps this is my own ego, but I figure that if reciting our values doesn't work on me, it won't work on the Canadian public at large.

If I can get the sense that Peggy is able to pin down policy specifics and deliver them in an engaging manner by March 24, then she will rank higher than the current #5 she does on my list right now. Otherwise, she will have my wholehearted support if and when she wins.

Winston

I just wanted to be message #200!!!

Pages

Topic locked