NDP Leadership #90

146 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

vaudree wrote:

 

Mulcair seems to be worried about spin and to want to go after the taxes that ordinary people don't pay so that the Tories can't win on half truths. Closing tax havens seems to be about making sure one pays what one owes rather than increasing the tax rate.

"Ordinary people" do not make over $250,000 per year and there would be at no risk whatsoever of paying more tax under Topp's plan. That makes me breathe a sigh of relief. i make less than $250k/year so I know that the money won't come from me...it will come from those investment bankers and tycoons and surgeons and corporate lawyers who are in the top 0.7%!!

When a politician tells me he or she will NEVER raise taxes on the filthy rich - the first thing that goes through my mind is - I guess I will be the one paying more. The government is going to need more money one way or the other and they arewilling to get it from the filthy rich - they will find ways to get it from the average Joe by increasing iuser fees and making me pay out of pocket for more things i currently get for free and maybe even by raising regressive taxes like sales taxes etc...

Hunky_Monkey

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Saganash says he's not going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Everyone says "very interesting, not sure I agree, but I'd like to see those numbers".

Mulcair says he needs to look at the books before raising taxes. Same people say he's a neoliberal trojan horse, the next Chretien, Bob Rae, etc.

This is really dumb to me, and I'm not even pro-mulcair. Just pro-evidence.

You noticed the double standard as well? :)

Stockholm

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair says he needs to look at the books before raising taxes. Same people say he's a neoliberal trojan horse, the next Chretien, Bob Rae, etc.

I'm not saying that...believe me I WANT to like Mulcair...but I feel like yelling "where's the beef?". The biggest issue of our time is the incredibly concentration of wealth that is accruing to the top 1% of the population through the world - and canada is no better than anyone else. If Mulcair is averse to making people who can afford to pay more contribute one red cent to the social and economic deficit in Canada then fine - maybe he has some other strategy for attacking the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us. I am sitting on hot coals waiting to see it!

Stockholm

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Saganash says he's not going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Everyone says "very interesting, not sure I agree, but I'd like to see those numbers".

Mulcair says he needs to look at the books before raising taxes. Same people say he's a neoliberal trojan horse, the next Chretien, Bob Rae, etc.

This is really dumb to me, and I'm not even pro-mulcair. Just pro-evidence.

You noticed the double standard as well? :)

I actually don't think its a double standard...no one cared when Saganash said he wasn't sure it was a good idea to raise taxes on the wealthy because everyone knew he had zero chance of winning. That being said, Paul Dewar's comments on tax policy are not much better than Mulcair's and I think his positions deserve more scrutiny as well!

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

When a politician tells me he or she will NEVER raise taxes on the filthy rich - the first thing that goes through my mind is - I guess I will be the one paying more. The government is going to need more money one way or the other and they arewilling to get it from the filthy rich - they will find ways to get it from the average Joe by increasing iuser fees and making me pay out of pocket for more things i currently get for free and maybe even by raising regressive taxes like sales taxes etc...

Mulcar said "NEVER"? Really?

I didn't call them "ordinary". And you think that's Mulcair's vision? He said he wants to make the income tax system more progressive (said on the campaign trail). Let's see what he has in mind. We have more income brackets than the the one where people make over $250,000. Let's not make assumptions like some who consider themselves the intelligentsia.

Let's take a step back as well... he didn't say no to income tax hikes on the "wealthy"... those who make up 0.7%, take home 10% of income earned, and pay 20% of the total personal income tax bill. All he said was you need to look at the books before any decision is made on that. What "I" said... was I doubt it will do much to address income inequality or solve our problems... especially with the corporate rich being a major part of any imbalance.

Actually, I wish Dexter had said that here instead of saying no new taxes at all... then breaking his promise.

Policywonk

Howard wrote:

Mulcair realises that Québec would never put up with having the federal government telling it how to run a childcare system that it already has in place. I think Layton was getting around to this idea too and talking about having a childcare system for Canada but providing compensation to Québec for the childcare system they already had in place. Now where would Layton get an idea for something like that?....oh yeah, perhaps the much maligned Sherbrooke Declaration, which gives Québec the opportunity to opt out of things like a national childcare plan with full compensation.

Why do you think it's the Sherbrooke Declaration, or just the Sherbrook Declaration that gives Quebec the opportunity to opt out. Isn't there a QPP? Although I think that applying the idea of compensation to the QPP may not be valid. And opting out with compensation is an idea that predates the Sherbrook Declaration by a couple of decades.

Howard

As Mitt Romney so eloquently shows, the problem with income inequality is not limited to income taxes. The wealthy are really good at getting out of paying taxes.

What Mitt does (and most CEOs these days) is take his compensation in stock options and stock sales. Stock options are not taxed. Stocks are only taxed when they are sold or pay dividends. These taxes are called capital gains.

Now here's the stunt the wealthy play: if you sell stocks and make a gain, you pay the capital gains tax; if you sell stocks and make a loss, then you get to deduct that loss from your income. So what the rich do is sell enough stocks to have $20 million in income, then sell enough stocks to have $20 million in losses. So their net income is $0 and the pay no income tax (but they still pay capital gains on the $20 million).

Then to complete the stunt, they buy back the stocks they sold for a $20 million loss, using the proceeds from the sale (e.g. I buy $120 million worth of stocks, the value falls to $100 million, I sell the stocks for $100 million recording a $20 million loss on my income returns, then I take the $100 million I got from the sale and buy back the stocks, so at the end of the day I have still have all my wealth in stocks [whose value changes] and the only money I lost was on paper; what's more, most investment portfolios are designed to have some stocks that will lose money when others gain, this is to balance risk, so the net effect of this stunt is to rebalance your portfolio aka kill two birds with one stone; first bird: pay no income tax but pay the lower capital gains tax rate [for Romney this is 15%], second bird: rebalance your portfolio after a year of changes in stock values)

And that is just the capital gains stunt. The wealthy are also experts at claiming every exemption, loophole, and route through tax havens conceivable to man. They also know which tax cheats are most likely to get them audited or sued. Why? They can afford to hire the best accountants (and, if necessary, lawyers) in the country. If they lose or don't have a leg in court, they can hire the best lobbyists to try and prevent the government from enforcing the law. I am always amazed at how many big companies/wealthy people owe back taxes but provincial and municipal governments don't collect because they are afraid a major employer will go out of business.

So the take-home point is, taxing the rich (or fixing income inequality) is not so simple. You need to figure out every angle. You need to understand every loophole, exemption, and shelter. These people are not rich for nothing. They've found every shortcut.

socialdemocrati...

Stockholm wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair says he needs to look at the books before raising taxes. Same people say he's a neoliberal trojan horse, the next Chretien, Bob Rae, etc.

I'm not saying that...believe me I WANT to like Mulcair...but I feel like yelling "where's the beef?". The biggest issue of our time is the incredibly concentration of wealth that is accruing to the top 1% of the population through the world - and canada is no better than anyone else. If Mulcair is averse to making people who can afford to pay more contribute one red cent to the social and economic deficit in Canada then fine - maybe he has some other strategy for attacking the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us. I am sitting on hot coals waiting to see it!

I think it's fair to be skeptical. Of EVERYONE.

But the worst thing you can do is to invent answers, instead of trying to get them yourself.

Tonight I went to an event with Thomas Mulcair.

I heard a rumor a while back that he was lukewarm on electoral reform. So I asked him point blank.

Me: "Tom, I don't just want to stop Steven Harper. I've voted New Democrat as long as I've been able, because I want to advance a positive progressive agenda. A critical way to achieve that, for me, is electoral reform. I want to know: how do we achieve that? Is that something that's going to be a difficult constitutional negotiation, or are you willing to consider legislative options."

His answer, and I'm trying to be as close to verbatim as possible, including what initially sounded to me like a waffle, but resolved itself quite nicely.

Mulcair: "The question, in case you didn't hear it, was about electoral reform. First thing I have to say, the only way to achieve electoral reform is to elect a New Democratic majority. And that has to be under the current electoral system. But to answer your question... electoral reform has always been a part of the NDP platform. To get there, we would need to campaign on a clear platform that includes electoral reform, which I fully intend to do. Our platform has always been to move to a system of mixed-member proportional representation. And as to what you said... We wouldn't need to change the constitution to do that, and we could get to proportional representation with the simple passage of legislation. But we would need to change the constitution to achieve senate reform. And it IS about time that the NDP decided to get rid of that archaic institution."

(Note: That's quoting more or less. If you were at the event too, and remember my question, please respect my anonymity.)

If I had another chance... I would ask him, front and center, about the tax issue. I'd be smart enough to know if he's taking a position I agree with, if he's taking a position I disagree with, or if he's trying to weasel his way out of giving a real answer.

I wish that everyone actually got off their asses and actually went to these events, and get the candidates on the record, instead of just making stuff up based on their own paranoia/biases.

I'm as worried about this stuff as you are. (I even have my own paranoia / biases.) But I'm telling you: the best approach to handling this stuff is to put the candidate on the spot.

Hunky_Monkey

Howard wrote:

So the take-home point is, taxing the rich (or fixing income inequality) is not so simple. You need to figure out every angle. You need to understand every loophole, exemption, and shelter. These people are not rich for nothing. They've found every shortcut.

As Tom says, more than just a slogan in a campaign :)

Interesting to note that if I recall correctly, Jack dropped the "tax the rich" line as well under his leadership. Income inequality today isn't so radically different than it was a few years ago. I wonder who was advising him on that one... :)

KenS

KenS wrote:

You bet the numbers dont add up. I'll get into it more later.

The article confirms my suspicion that Mulcair isnt going to realease this promised tax policy paper. Because the numbers would have to ass up, unlike toss-off comments in a debate, or an interview.

And its not unrepresentative Stock, its the same exact things he said in Halifax. A policy paper could still come, and could perform the magic of how it all adds up.... but don't hold your breath.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

You said he wouldn't release anything... and he did. I'm sure this will be another occassion that you're off the mark :)

Let's be clear here. I did not previously say he would release nothing. It was said by you and others after the Halifax debate that Mulcair would release his tax policy later. Based on past performance, I was skeptical, but I kept that to myself.

And even my private skepticism, I never thought that he would never say another word about tax policy

Now he says the same things again in an interview, without possibility of qualification this time [as there was in the debate], but still no policy paper. So after that I say, explicitly, are we ever going to see this policy paper?

Are you telling us what he said in an interview with a reporter counts as "releasing his policy?"

I'm perfectly willing to treat it as such, and you appear to be saying this is it.

Correct or not?

 

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

KenS wrote:

You bet the numbers dont add up. I'll get into it more later.

The article confirms my suspicion that Mulcair isnt going to realease this promised tax policy paper. Because the numbers would have to ass up, unlike toss-off comments in a debate, or an interview.

And its not unrepresentative Stock, its the same exact things he said in Halifax. A policy paper could still come, and could perform the magic of how it all adds up.... but don't hold your breath.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

You said he wouldn't release anything... and he did. I'm sure this will be another occassion that you're off the mark :)

Let's be clear here. I did not previously say he would release nothing. It was said by you and others after the Halifax debate that Mulcair would release his tax policy later. Based on past performance, I was skeptical, but I kept that to myself.

And even my private skepticism, I never thought that he would never say another word about tax policy

Now he says the same things again in an interview, without possibility of qualification this time [as there was in the debate], but still no policy paper. So after that I say, explicitly, are we ever going to see this policy paper?

Are you telling us what he said in an interview with a reporter counts as "releasing his policy?"

I'm perfectly willing to treat it as such, and you appear to be saying this is it.

Correct or not?

 

I'm saying there is still about 6 weeks to go until convention. I didn't put a date on it. Tom said in the Halifax debate he would release it shortly. I'm assuming it will be released the same as his foreign affairs one a couple days ago.

So why say it won't come?

dacckon dacckon's picture

Brian Topp has constantly noted that one of the hardest things to do in government is making priorities.

 

So we do have to see what each candidate views as a short-term goal and a long-term goal; whilst deciding for ourselves what should be implemented and the timeline for it. I personally view implementing progressive taxation like certain Scandinavian countries in a balanced and Canadian way is a priority. If we simply just return to the Paul Martin status quo, then what was the point? Although of course I strongly believe the greatest priority in the short-term is winning government.

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Saganash says he's not going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Everyone says "very interesting, not sure I agree, but I'd like to see those numbers".

Mulcair says he needs to look at the books before raising taxes. Same people say he's a neoliberal trojan horse, the next Chretien, Bob Rae, etc.

This is really dumb to me, and I'm not even pro-mulcair. Just pro-evidence.

You noticed the double standard as well? :)

I actually don't think its a double standard...no one cared when Saganash said he wasn't sure it was a good idea to raise taxes on the wealthy because everyone knew he had zero chance of winning. That being said, Paul Dewar's comments on tax policy are not much better than Mulcair's and I think his positions deserve more scrutiny as well!

I cared and I thought Saganash was on the right track, for the reasons I've listed in post #57, and for the reasons given in this Ottawa Citizen article about Topp's tax plan that were pooh-poohed so long ago. The simple, sad, and cynical fact is that the wealthy are amazingly good at avoiding taxes. They have figured out how to avoid higher income taxes like true champs, just ask Mitt Romney. So the question becomes, how do you level the playing field (so that the game is not so rigged) before you determine/ask the rich to pay their fair share of the tax, and I think Saganash, as a lawyer with experience working cooperatively with/for/and running private sector companies got this. Or at least may have. I'll let babblers judge for themselves.

AnonymousMouse

Howard wrote:

All of these questions about cap and trade depend on the design of the program and the cost of pollution abatement.

Mulcair is cleary assuming that the government will make money by selling emissions credits and enforcing the rules of not over-polluting. He is also assuming that pollution will be reduced.

So what does this mean? That the government will sell emissions credits every year (at some base rate) and then companies can trade them? That the government will reduce the number of emissions credits every year?

That would be my guess, but Mulcair's policy is largely silent on the question of how he would price these emissions credits. That is, how much would they cost? would the price change from year to year? what would drive the price changes if the government was setting the price? etc

In the past the party has said cap and trade permits would be auctioned off, not sold at a set price and only traded after the fact.

What most comments here don't seem to reflect is that as the number of permits issued decreases, the price increases. Overall revenue would not diminish for a very very long time. If you look at any of the economic studies done on what the per ton price of carbon emissions would rise to under our stated targets, it would provide far more revenue than tax increases ever could.

Also, another comment above was that his plan would exempted individuals, but that isn't completely true. Mulcair's plan calls for an "upstream" cap-and-trade plan which means it would be applied to fuels at the pre-refinement level and thus would impact individuals down the supple chain--it's just that the impact would be cushioned and indirect.

I think it's important to reiterate that Mulcair's comments were not that he'd never raise taxes on individuals, but--like Paul Dewar--he said that last place we should go looking for revenue, not the first.

Howard

Policywonk wrote:

Howard wrote:

Mulcair realises that Québec would never put up with having the federal government telling it how to run a childcare system that it already has in place. I think Layton was getting around to this idea too and talking about having a childcare system for Canada but providing compensation to Québec for the childcare system they already had in place. Now where would Layton get an idea for something like that?....oh yeah, perhaps the much maligned Sherbrooke Declaration, which gives Québec the opportunity to opt out of things like a national childcare plan with full compensation.

Why do you think it's the Sherbrooke Declaration, or just the Sherbrook Declaration that gives Quebec the opportunity to opt out. Isn't there a QPP? Although I think that applying the idea of compensation to the QPP may not be valid. And opting out with compensation is an idea that predates the Sherbrook Declaration by a couple of decades.

I don't think it's just the Sherbrooke Declaration. I was throwing that in there for a few reasons: 1) The Sherbrooke Declaration commits the NDP to giving Québec an opt-out 2) This opt-out has real implications for social policy, and creating a national childcare program is an excellent example of one of them 3) Had Layton not talked about given Québec compensation as opposed to forcing them to join a national program, he would have been contradicting his own policy document on Québec. So the NDP has set the rules by adopting the Sherbrooke Declaration and now it has to play by them or risk looking like fools (by contradicting their own policy) and really pissing off Québec (by trying to force a central mandate on them).

And the QPP is a perfect example of an opt-out. Québec wanted to run their own plan, so they sought an arrangement where they would be forwarded deductions separately from the CPP process.

Want another example? Québec taxes. All other provinces give the federal government authority for tax collection and then the federal government transfers this money back to the provinces through the Ministry of Finance's accounts. Not Québec though. Québec wants to collect all of its own taxes with its own collection authority, and that is just the way it goes...welcome to the world of autonomist Québec politics.

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

I actually don't think its a double standard...no one cared when Saganash said he wasn't sure it was a good idea to raise taxes on the wealthy because everyone knew he had zero chance of winning. That being said, Paul Dewar's comments on tax policy are not much better than Mulcair's and I think his positions deserve more scrutiny as well!

You don't think those who ranked Romeo as their first choice had little to say about Romeo's tax policy but shit on Mulcair for being similiar on income taxes isn't a double standard?

Few believe Cullen will win this but he gets crapped on for his nomination proposal... so I doubt it has little to do with a candidate's chances.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I now think I'll vote for whoever promises to tax the sh*t out of the rich. Money mouth

Howard

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Howard wrote:

All of these questions about cap and trade depend on the design of the program and the cost of pollution abatement.

Mulcair is cleary assuming that the government will make money by selling emissions credits and enforcing the rules of not over-polluting. He is also assuming that pollution will be reduced.

So what does this mean? That the government will sell emissions credits every year (at some base rate) and then companies can trade them? That the government will reduce the number of emissions credits every year?

That would be my guess, but Mulcair's policy is largely silent on the question of how he would price these emissions credits. That is, how much would they cost? would the price change from year to year? what would drive the price changes if the government was setting the price? etc

In the past the party has said cap and trade permits would be auctioned off, not sold at a set price and only traded after the fact. What most comments here don't seem to reflect is that as the number of permits issued decreases, the price increases. Overall revenue would not diminish for a very very long time. If you look at any of the economic studies done on what the per ton price of carbon emissions would rise to under our stated targets, it would provide far more revenue than tax increases ever could. Also, another comment above was that his plan would exempted individuals, but that isn't completely true. Mulcair's plan calls for an "upstream" cap-and-trade plan which means it would be applied to fuels at the pre-refinement level and thus would impact individuals down the supple chain--it's just that the impact would be cushioned and indirect. I think it's important to reiterate that Mulcair's comments were not that he'd never raise taxes on individuals, but--like Paul Dewar--he said that last place we should go looking for revenue, not the first.

Okay. This makes more sense and probably I should have known better because I do remember Layton previously saying that credits would be auctioned off, but to reference KenS, the devil is in the details, and the details haven't been released, and for the details to be released, you have to get the big picture messaging right first. I guess this is Mulcair's challenge.

mark_alfred

Howard wrote:

Lots of unanswered questions. My view on the whole childcare thing is that the NDP's previously proposed law for a national childcare plan was a bit of a sham. It said nothing about how one would pay for a national childcare plan or even how it would be set up really. It just insisted that childcare be public and not-for-profit. Translation: it needs to be run by unionised employees.

I thought Bill C-303 was quite good, actually.  It is very similar to the Canada Health Act in its structure.  The accountability clause in it also seemed fine to me.  The exemption given to Quebec had nothing to do with the Sherbrooke Declaration.  It simply was put in there because Quebec already has a childcare program running.

This is how the NDP should approach childcare -- have it enshrined in law.  The NDP should stick to its last platform on this one, I feel.  Topp committing to this approach in writing in his policy pronouncements is a good thing.  Mulcair's vague language on it is worrisome.  However, as someone suggested, I'll email the Mulcair campaign for clarification.

dacckon dacckon's picture

I don't think its that.

 

Some Mulcair supporters and some other supporters have bashed Ed Broadbent for his choice, but if Ed supported Mulcair right off the bat I can easily imagine these posters praising him. To defend a candidate is one thing, to spin for him is another.

Hunky_Monkey

dacckon wrote:

I don't think its that.

 

Some Mulcair supporters and some other supporters have bashed Ed Broadbent for his choice, but if Ed supported Mulcair right off the bat I can easily imagine these posters praising him. To defend a candidate is one thing, to spin for him is another.

I don't recall people bashing Ed. I recall people being quite confused at his choice... and some comments he made at the press conference.

AnonymousMouse

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
OnTheLeft wrote:

CanadaApple wrote:

 

I've got another question for the Mulcair supporters on here. How confident are you that he will be able to bring all the different parts of the party together? I ask because some people in the party really seem to dislike him, and if he can't bring the party together after he wins, I'm not sure if he could win the next election, or if it would be worth it. 

oh, and I guess non-Mulcair supporters are free to answer as well. = D

 

I don't think anyone answered this so I thought I would.
I severely doubt that Mulcair would be able to bring the different parts or rather factions of the party together, seeing as many in the party simply can't stand the man. At first I thought
it was nothing more than a b.s. mainstream media narrative regarding Mulcair's personality and the "mercurial" tag that seems to go hand-in-hand with his name in news stories, editorials and columns. But after talking with former provincial and federal candidates and staff from various leadership campaigns, reading the accounts of NDP members who have met
and dealt with him, and disconnecting myself from the Babble bubble's constant Mulcair PR machine, it was depressing to learn (as someone who previously defended him) that a mainstream news narrative is true, that Mulcair is an asshole and that "he has burned all his bridges in the party", "holds personal
vendettas against several MPs and party officials", "people would leave the party in droves" if elected, and that as leader "could cause a caucus revolt".
It doesn't surprise me either then that the Mulcair bots on here act as his online Babble bubble PR machine while sliming several of the other leadership candidates. Assholes are attracted
to assholes and this place reeks of it, a toxic cesspool of Mulcair worship while denigrating Nash, Dewar, Ashton, Saganash and Topp. Any and all endorsements or policy releases for any other candidate besides
Mulcair are attacked and deemed "meaningless", while the altar of Mulcair is relentlessly defended.
Well I'm done. The board is in a pretty crappy state and some of the contributors here really piss me off and I'm sure some of them will reply with their usual "OMG! How dare you say such things about Mulcair! Wah!" but really it's such a waste of time and energy.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Careful not to throw too many stones, On The Left... Peggy Nash has a reputation in how she works with people and her staff.

OnTheLeft is referring to Mulcair supporters on this board as "assholes" and thinks the problem is with Mulcair supporters.

The only reason Mulcair is being constantly defended on this board is because a very small number of posters keep resurrecting totally unsubstantiated attacks on him.

Let's do a simple thought experiment: If a candidate has more of his peers endorsing him than all other candidates combined and has maintained the same staff for a decade through both federal and provincial politics--not to mention joining a new party in the process--how much of an asshole could he possibly be?

Perhapos he could still be an asshole, but certainly not such an asshole that it has to be brought non-stop as it has been in this campaign.

Howard

mark_alfred wrote:

I thought Bill C-303 was quite good, actually.  It is very similar to the Canada Health Act in its structure.  The accountability clause in it also seemed fine to me.  The exemption given to Quebec had nothing to do with the Sherbrooke Declaration.  It simply was put in there because Quebec already has a childcare program running.

This is how the NDP should approach childcare -- have it enshrined in law.  The NDP should stick to its last platform on this one, I feel.  Topp committing to this approach in writing in his policy pronouncements is a good thing.  Mulcair's vague language on it is worrisome.  However, as someone suggested, I'll email the Mulcair campaign for clarification.

FWIW, this is part of my problem with the NDP's national transit policy. Lots of nice calls for the federal government to give out gobs of money for transit, no answers as to where that money would come from or what the accountability measures would be. Everyone knows how the Manitoba NDP government gave "the cities" heaps of money to expand public transit (in extension of a campaign promise) and the Winnipeg municipal government turned around and gave everyone a tax cut. The same thing happened in Québec on the eve of a provincial election with Jean Charest and money from the federal government to fix "le déséquilibre fiscale" every cent of which went to a tax cut. In this case it was even more grotesque, because "le déséquilibre fiscale", is a fairy tale problem that was invented by Québec sovereigntists. Oh yeah, and Harper...he of Reform party no special bribes for Québec fame, he of Alberta gets robbed on equalisation transfers to "dependency" syndrome provinces...went for it.

 

socialdemocrati...

Yeah I can't remember the last time anyone mentioned Ed Broadbent, and to the extent that they did, I don't think they bashed him.

flight from kamakura

i'll freely admit that i'll spin for mulcair.  let's face it, of the people who frequent this forum, it's likely that at least a third of us are actively involved in the ndp.  for me, natural instinct is to promote - in every possible way - the candidate who i believe would be best for our party.  sometimes i get annoyed with people on here when they hint that they might not vote for the ndp if mulcair were leader, and then i realize that this isn't an ndp forum!  so you'll have to forgive some of us if we're overly discursive, especially those of us from quebec who are tasting this feeling of effectiveness and relevance for the first time.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

What's Mulcair's view on Public Private Partenerships? What are his views on foriegn investment? What are his views on foreign policy?

I will hold my support for him based on his position on these and many other matters.

AnonymousMouse

dacckon wrote:

I don't think its that.

 

Some Mulcair supporters and some other supporters have bashed Ed Broadbent for his choice, but if Ed supported Mulcair right off the bat I can easily imagine these posters praising him. To defend a candidate is one thing, to spin for him is another.

Who bashed Ed Broadbent?

I recall people saying that his endorsement would have as much juice today as it did 9 years ago. I remember people saying his endorsement would carry as much weight since this time he was endorsing a friend rather than endorsement someone he had no personal relationship without who was running against his personal friend. I remember people saying it was odd that he endorsed so soon and that given that the biggest concern with Topp's candidacy was the fact he's never run for office--much less been an elected official--his endorsement didn't carry any substance since he hadn't even had a chance to evaluate Topp on the issue of greatest concern surrounding his candidacy.

But I don't remember anyone bashing Ed Broadbent and if there were such people they were certainly a small minority.

The larger point that I believe to be true is that it sounds like many on this board are "spinning" for Mulcair mainly because they often have to go to great lengths to explain his comments, but I think that's only necessary because his opponents seem intent on twisting everything he says into something it is not. Is Mulcair perfect? Certainly not. Want to debate what he actually said about tax policy? Have at it. But I have never seen a New Democrat MP treated with such suspicion.

Hunky_Monkey

laine lowe wrote:

What's Mulcair's view on Public Private Partenerships? What are his views on foriegn investment? What are his views on foreign policy?

I will hold my support for him based on his position on these and many other matters.

Did you ask the other candidates the same questions?

btw laine lowe, Mulcair released a foreign affairs paper just a few days ago. It's on his site if you care to read it. Focuses on rape as a weapon of war.

Howard

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

What's Mulcair's view on Public Private Partenerships? What are his views on foriegn investment? What are his views on foreign policy?

I will hold my support for him based on his position on these and many other matters.

Did you ask the other candidates the same questions?

btw laine lowe, Mulcair released a foreign affairs paper just a few days ago. It's on his site if you care to read it. Focuses on rape as a weapon of war.

Why the accusatory question? Tongue out  Here is a link.

AnonymousMouse

laine lowe wrote:

What's Mulcair's view on Public Private Partenerships? What are his views on foriegn investment? What are his views on foreign policy?

I will hold my support for him based on his position on these and many other matters.

He's put out a foreign policy paper already.

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/02/07/mulcair-to-make-preventing-r...

In this exchange from parliament in the fall he seems to come out pretty strongly against PPPs, railing against how the Conservative plan to use a PPP to build a replacement for the Champlain bridge will mean people "have to pay for something that was public infrastructure that will become a private property. It will become for profit and the public will again be stuck with the bill."

http://openparliament.ca/hansards/2396/195/

Haven't seen anything on foreign takeovers yet.

Hunky_Monkey

AnonymousMouse wrote:
But I have never seen a New Democrat MP treated with such suspicion.

To many, he's still not "one of us". I've said it before that the NDP is the most closed party. We're quite cliquey. If Mulcair had stayed an NDP member from when he first joined in the 1970's and decided not to enter Quebec politics, I doubt we'd be seeing this to the same degree.

Hunky_Monkey

Howard wrote:

Why the accusatory question? Tongue out  Here is a link.

I was just asking :)

AnonymousMouse

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
But I have never seen a New Democrat MP treated with such suspicion.

To many, he's still not "one of us". I've said it before that the NDP is the most closed party. We're quite cliquey. If Mulcair had stayed an NDP member from when he first joined in the 1970's and decided not to enter Quebec politics, I doubt we'd be seeing this to the same degree.

Yeah, but if Mulcair hadn't entered provincial politics and become such an incredibly popular political figure in Quebec this would all be a moot point: we'd have never won Outremont, there would have never been an Orange Wave and no one would have ever heard of Thomas Mulcair.

(Just for the record, I'm not saying Mulcair deserves all the credit for the Orange Wave, but we would never have won a seat in Quebec without him and without that seat--and someone from the NDP articulating our positions Quebec-centric terms for four year--we would have never had the kind of result we had on May 2nd. Besides that, even if you give the lion's share of the credit to Jack Layton, he is no longer with us, but we are fortunate to have another incredibly popoular Quebec politician who is.)

NorthReport

I like this.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-lea...

We identified ourselves as progressives but we didn’t stick with some of the 1950s boilerplate.

I honestly believe that most Canadians share the goals of the NDP for a fairer society, for taking care of this generation’s responsibilities and not shoving them on the backs of future generations. But I also have seen that a lot of Canadians, when it comes time to vote, will say “what a great idea you have in the NDP, I hope the Liberals do it” and they go and vote Liberal.

(When) I was being recruited to become Jack’s Quebec lieutenant . . . I said, why in heaven’s name do you keep using this boilerplate of ordinary working class Canadians, ordinary this, ordinary that? First of all, you can’t translate that into French because ordinaire is considered a slight in French. But why do you keep restricting yourself? Does that mean you don’t want other people in the NDP? I got scolded, “you don’t seem to understand, that’s how we stay at 17 per cent,” and my answer was that I thought the idea was to go beyond 17 per cent.

Does the grassroots want to hear that?

No. But I’ve been saying it in every debate.

In Quebec we have 59 new trees with no roots. In provinces where we have our deepest roots we no longer have any trees. We’ve gone through four federal general elections in a row without electing a single person in Saskatchewan, our birthplace. So if we don’t change it’s the old definition . . . of madness: thinking that you can repeat the same gesture over and over again and obtain a different result.

An anecdote is a terrible way to argue, but I’ll still share one with you from Nanaimo.

A woman was giving me a hard time about moving us to the centre and I have a stock answer, “No, no, I’m trying to move the centre to us.” But I listened to her, and I said, “Is it possible that after 50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions that we’re terrified at the prospect of being the ones who actually take the decisions?” She froze and looked at me and said, “If we ever form a government it will be conclusive evidence that we sold out.”

How do you get beyond that?

We have three and a half years.

There are true believers who will feel that because we’ve had such strong ideas over the decades and values and principles that those will somehow be compromised. No one has ever said that. No one is talking about compromising them. What we’re talking about is actually being able to make them real.

 

CanadaApple

The topic of the 2008 Coalition "Plot" came up a few threads ago, and I just happened to find this video of Mulcair speaking at a pro-coaltion rally from back then. It's partly in french mind you, so I can't understand everything, but the crowd seemed to enjoy it. Quite alot actually. = P

 

JKR

Stockholm wrote:
I just don't buy this idea that the "hocus pocus" of cap and trade will miraculously raise BILLIONS of dollars and give the federal government fiscal room to be able to address all these problems and that not a single individual will pay more tax.It just doesn't add up. Its also not sustainable - eventually as companies start to actually reduce their GHG emissions (which is the ultimate goal of cap and trade) they will pay less and less in cap and trade and eventially the federal government will go bankrupt!

If Mulcair is elected leader, the Conservatives will probably not spare much time pointing out the holes in Mulcair's "hocus pocus." If Dion was destroyed by a revenue neutral cap and trade plan, a huge revenue creating cap n' trade plan might be an even greater political liability.

Stockholm

I'm not exactly sure what Mulcair means when he repeats Bob Rae's standard attack line that the "the NDP is the only social democratic party in the world not to have renewed itself". I'm sorry but i was under the impression that the last 9 years under Layton was one big long process of total renewal that featured major gains in four straight elections, culminating in the breakthrough of lst May.

Perhaps Mulcair can give us a little bibliography of political history books from around the world telling us the story of how EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY social democratic party "renewed itself" in a way that the NDP did not. Tell us about the renewal of the Spanish Socialists or the French Socialists or maybe the Irish Labour Party, or maybe the Australian Labour Party...

I just feel that in this interview, Mulcair attacking a straw dog that doesn't exist. Its as if he is expressing an opinion about the NDP that is based on some sort of relic from the 1990s...I probably would have agreed with a lot of what Mulcair is saying in this article if he had said in - oh say 2001. But I just don't see how it applies to the NDP in 2012. I don't see ANYONE who wants to use "1950s style rhetoric" anymore. That debate is over.

I also with he would spend more time attacking the Conservative and Liberal parties and less time making derisive comments about the "grassroots" of the party he wants to lead. I agree that there are some nutbars in the NDP (as there are in every party), but I don't see what it accomplishes to start attacking people within the party head on - over nothing. I'm sure Stephen Harper privately thinks that a lot of the Tory grassroots are a bunch of knuckledragging narrow-minded bigots who he feels embarrassed by etc... but you never see him say anything disparaging about his own base. Instead of confronting them, he just smiles and walks around them. Mulcair shoudl never say "No, the grassroots don't like to hear that". The grassroots of the NDP is made up of tens of thousands of people with a wide variety of views. I'm sure a great many of them agree with Mulcair's point of view. In fact, if he becomes our new leader it will be because a majority of the "grassroots" he seems to disparage, decided to vote for him!!!

Stockholm

Dion was not destroyed by a "revenue neutral cap and trade plan" at all. He was destroyed by a. his own total lack of basic communication skills and strategic sense and b. the fact that his "green shift" was NOT a cap and trade plan at all, it was a carbon tax plan that promised to tax the average person for just about everything.

Glenl

Personally I prefer a carbon tax to cap and trade, the latter will benefit bank accounts more than the environment.

mark_alfred

Fascinating.  Apparently the NDP historically was a mere sloganeer incapable of "developing a tight, cogent, well-argued analysis".  And he feels Jack Layton was restricting the NDP by trying to appeal to regular working class people.  So, Mulcair is not only critical of the NDP's history, but is also even critical of Jack Layton.

Well, "Thomas Tony Blair Mulcair" has a good ring to it.

Stockholm

I don't see any evidence that a carbon tax benefits the environment one iota unless the tax is about ten times higher than anyone has ever contemplated in any any jurisdiction...they brought in a carbon tax under Gordon Campbell in BC with a big fanfare. Did it actually reduce GHG emissions by even the teeniest amount? NOoooooo.

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

I also with he would spend more time attacking the Conservative and Liberal parties and less time making derisive comments about the "grassroots" of the party he wants to lead. I agree that there are some nutbars in the NDP (as there are in every party), but I don't see what it accomplishes to start attacking people within the party head on - over nothing. I'm sure Stephen Harper privately thinks that a lot of the Tory grassroots are a bunch of knuckledragging narrow-minded bigots who he feels embarrassed by etc... but you never see him say anything disparaging about his own base. Instead of confronting them, he just smiles and walks around them. Mulcair shoudl never say "No, the grassroots don't like to hear that". The grassroots of the NDP is made up of tens of thousands of people with a wide variety of views. I'm sure a great many of them agree with Mulcair's point of view. In fact, if he becomes our new leader it will be because a majority of the "grassroots" he seems to disparage, decided to vote for him!!!

This is a good point. Mulcair should stop coddling the media's inherent elitism and give more credit to the grassroots. I also think the renewal point is a one-legged strawman. Anyone that can look at what Layton did and say the NDP didn't renew under him should not be taken seriously. Maybe the renewal isn't done yet, I could definitely understand that, but the rest is a bunch of bs that it makes it seem like the last 9 years amount to nothing- which they clearly don't.

Glenl

I don't disagree that it hasn't worked, yet. Is there an example where cap and trade has done better for real. Mathematically not destroying some number of rainforest acres counts as a benefit, but it wasn't destroyed when they began the accounting. Should I receive a credit for not buying a ford F350, even though I wasn't going to do it in any case?

DSloth

It's just politics 101 that your primary policy plank should never, ever contain the word TAX. I love the idea of a carbon tax but it's political poison, and running a general campaign on it would be suicide, which is why no one in the Liberals or the NDP has breathed a word about it since Dion. 

Stockholm

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, "Thomas Tony Blair Mulcair" has a good ring to it.

Tony Blair had the excuse of taking over the leadership of a totally demoralized party that had lost four elections in a row and was going through a crisis of confidence and was looking to move in some sort of a new direction. I don't necessarily agree with what Blair did - but his overall message that Labour needed to make big changes made a lot of sense at the time.

The NDP on the other hand has been GAINING a ton of ground in the last four federal elections, as well as at the provincial election. Seems to me that we are doing something right and maybe we need to keep doing what we are doing. If the NDP had done really badly in the last election and had been reduced to 25 seats and the conventional wisdom was that populist appeals to "ordinary Canadians" had been a total failue - theneverything Mulcair is saying would be worth at least thinking about...in the same article he complains that the NDP message keeps us stuck at 17% - well HELLOOOO we just had an elecion where we won 31% of the vote and 103 seats!!! Again, its like the arguments he is making are out of date - its as if he was running to succeed Alexa MacDonough!

Stockholm

Except that six months after the Dion debacle, a certain rightwing eco-terrorist named Gordon Campbell decided to "green wash" himself by bringing in a carbon tax in BC - and he got away with it and won the election!

Howard

The full Star article was less startling than the excerpt before, but still...waiting on Mulcair's economy/taxation platform.

Howard
Howard

mark_alfred wrote:

Fascinating.  Apparently the NDP historically was a mere sloganeer incapable of "developing a tight, cogent, well-argued analysis".  And he feels Jack Layton was restricting the NDP by trying to appeal to regular working class people.  So, Mulcair is not only critical of the NDP's history, but is also even critical of Jack Layton.

Well, "Thomas Tony Blair Mulcair" has a good ring to it.

I think you just proved Mulcair's point about "cogent, well-argued analysis"

ETA: Sweeping and inaccurate generalisations plus some name-calling, does not equal good politics.

DSloth

Stockholm wrote:

Except that six months after the Dion debacle, a certain rightwing eco-terrorist named Gordon Campbell decided to "green wash" himself by bringing in a carbon tax in BC - and he got away with it and won the election!

That wasn't campaigning on a carbon tax, it was instituting it from government.  I'd imagine the next NDP or (god forbid) Liberal govenrment will quietly start tapping that revenue stream, but don't expect to see the words "carbon tax" in anyone's platfrom. 

This is a bit of a derail anyway, none of the candidates to my knowledge has even hinted at being carbon tax curious. 

 

Pages

Topic locked