babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Are you serious? I suppose we could also go to wikipedia to find out more about Mulcair "The Great Communicator"'s cap and trade plan.
#FAIL
Once again, can anyone tell me anything specific about the FTT that Mulcair is "promoting"? Any single detail at all.
What is the Mulcair position, if you don't mind telling me? Does he support Palestine's UN bid for statehood, or doesn't he? I would like to know.
So does he support Palestine's UN bid for statehood, or doesn't he? I can't tell from what you posted. It hasn't clarified things for me at all.
The other candidates have been able to clearly state their position. I don't understand why we shouldn't be able to expect the same from Mulcair.
Clarify?
That would have to be a coinceidental accident on the way to round the clock rationalization of filling in the Great Communicator's "gaps".
I just don't get it. If Mulcair was actually promoting a financial transaction tax (in the same way that Topp is promoting his top bracket income tax increase, or in the way that Cullen is promoting his joint nomination plan), he would be my solid #2 (after Ashton), and I would be praising his FTT as a real solution to income disparity here on babble.
But he's not. The only time he ever mentions it is when he is directly asked about taxes. The only detail that anybody knows is "Mulcair says he supports a FTT". That's it.
So as someone who very much wants to see a FTT, and reacted positively on babble when Mulcair mentioned it during one of the French debates (when directly asked about taxes), I'm listening and very open to Mulcair. However I'm not going to give him points for nothing.
I don't believe we'll be able to implement any kind of bold policies like a FTT withOUT campaigning loudly and clearly on it for quite a while. I want a leader who is proud of our policies and not afraid to talk about them. This idea of not making commitments or offering details now as a defensive tactic is not what inspires me at all, at all. And I am not going to give Mulcair my vote for "supporting" policies that he appears unwilling to champion.
@ AM:
What a bunch of bafflegab.
You are so used to filling in what Tom Mulcair must have meant that you do it even on an issue where he hasn't said a word: whether he supports the UN resolution.
I cannot say I'm positive he has never said a word. But I don't think anything has ever been recounted here.
You could always source what he actually said, from which you are deriving that interpretation.
Thing is, there's no comment from Mulcair on the UN bid. And the people assuming he will support it are just as problematic as the people assuming he won't. The truth is we don't know. And putting more weight on the "Israel in all circumstances" quote is just as problematic as putting more weight on the letter where he says he supports the NDP policy, which is a two state solution.
And this is the same problem on almost every issue. Whether you compare him to Jack Layton or to the rest of the candidates, we're talking about very small differences. What's the difference between Mulcair's "NAFTA is good but it needs reforming" and Jack's "NAFTA is problematic, and it should be reformed", particularly when those reforms are about the same environmental and labor standards? What's the difference between Peggy Nash's "I don't want to offer a tax increase during the leadership race because the Conservatives might exploit it", versus Mulcair's "I don't want to offer a tax increase until I've seen the 2015 books, because voters will only hear 'they're raising taxes'"?
The interpretation is almost never grounded in what the candidates actually say, and instead are grounded in what the babblers want to believe.
I don't want to just "believe" anything without evidence. I want to know, or I want to find out.
What's getting even more ridiculous now is the circular logic: "well if it's not true, then why is everyone making the accusation?" It reminds me of the embarassment of the mainstream media asking Jack "so why is the media only focusing on your health?" It's conviction without a trial. It's saying something like "you'll know X is a terrorist because he will get pissed off when I call him a terrorist."
People should support whatever candidate they want to. But reason before passion.
Thanks SDM, great post.
Well the difference could be that some people may not be considering Nash at all, and are therefore not much interested in critiquing her campaign.
WZ, it was the same problem when Saganash released his "let's not raise taxes" pledge, though. There were a lot of Saganash (soft) supporters (myself included) who gave him a pass. "I don't really agree, but it does make some sense."
Mulcair basically said the same thing (let's focus on closing loopholes and havens), and even left the door open to a tax increase but said let's wait until 2015. But a few persistent voices immediately added this to the "list of reasons why Mulcair is part of the vast neoliberal conspiracy".
The thing is Obama opposes the UN bid. So it's a very ambiguous statement.
Thanks for engaging, I appreciate you offering what's available.
The "evidence" on the UN bid issue is embarassingly scarce for people to be claiming "there's no other way to read it" or "it's clear".
The "evidence" that Mulcair is against Palestine's bid is because he slagged Libby Davies, supported Israel in "all circumstances", and mentioned Obama once in a 500 page letter, ergo, he agrees with Obama on everything.
The "evidence" that Mulcair supports Palestine's bid is his letter repeatedly mentions "two-state solution" and respect for UN resolutions.
That's not evidence. In both cases, that's cherrypicking things that are, in every instance, beside the damn point.
Did you find the Saganash campaign to be vague about details? Do you think Saganash very clearly described his vision for us?
ETA: Saganash announced that early, that there was a lot of revenue to be regained by closing loopholes. He brought it up and spoke to it. He said that was the way to go because it was easier to sell. And that once in government we could campaign on a highest bracket increase successfully. He outlined a plan and then promoted it (ie. actively chose to bring it up and talk about it), and he was the first to take the position.
I would hope that Mulcair supports the UN bid but at this point I think it's more likely that he doesn't.
I hope even more that Mulcair will be clear with us about his position.
Middle East policy is very unlikely to have much effect on my vote, except perhaps indirectly. One thing that will have a direct effect on my vote is a candidate's ability to clearly articulate their vision.
So far, it appears that Mulcair's vision is "Just like Jack Layton...with more accessible engaging language." I feel our leader should be able to articulate their vision better than that.
My top pick is Ashton. I think she has been very clear about her vision and very willing to answer questions directly.
And that's about where I jump in and agree with you. Mine is a plea for evidence and nuance. Mulcair is good (if flawed), but I prefer other candidates. I'm okay with "just follow the party policy", but I do appreciate a little boldness, whether it's Topp's position on taxes, or Ashton's position on generic drugs. The party policy is still enough to get my support come election time, but in a leadership nomination, I do appreciate the extra mile. I will probably support Ashton too... my second choice is going to be pretty important though.
As the race progresses, the more disappointed I am with the slate of candidates. Frankly, I am looking for someone who is more progressive than Jack and very appealing to the electorate. I am totally dismayed by the lack of courage to offer the public a realistic alternative.
Wow, I just saw the Pierre Beaudet article go up here. The anti-Mulcair sentiment on Rabble just jumped the shark.
He writes off the 30 MP's in Quebec as being "politically inexperienced, and without any social base" (ouch!), and says that Mulcair had "little to do" with the sweep in Quebec, despite working tirelessly and traveling all over the province for years.
Its pretty much a vitriolic steaming pile of spin and opinion backed up with absolutely no fact other than the author's own clear dislike of him. He even gets the demographics of Outremont completely wrong, as pointed out by Stockholm in the comments.
I think all it would take is for him to talk to some New Democrats in Quebec (the vast majority of which Mr. Mulcair would have signed up), and see what they think of him.
Very very poor piece, whether you like Mulcair or you hate him, this does us all a disservice and really rubs me the wrong way.
Agreed. I wish Peter Julian had run. Did he really get crowded out by Topp?
I wish I had given full support to Romeo Saganash early in the campaign.
The Socialist Caucus said they were going to run a candidate but didn't. An Occupy candidate could have gotten a lot more support than most outsider candidacies can expect but there was no focus on it.
With the entry fee is low as it was it is a shame no one ran to express that voice.
Maybe we are in a situation as a party where we have to punch above our weight, and those shoes are big enough to fill already. So the candidates seem a bit lacking.
Very few details given but the Forum poll shows that Tom is the first choice of 58% of Quebecers for NDP leader. Note this is Quebecers as a whole and not just NDP supporters as measured in previous Forum polls.
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/343822/sondage-forum-research-le-pq-loin-devant
Its not Mulcair that is being objected to here. Someone asks does he support the UN resolution or not?
It's pretty clear unless someone brings up some new quote, that he has not said, or even indicated. Period.
Yet we keep getting this nonsense that he has.
This myth has been repeated a few times. Along with, Romeo got a pass for the same thing.
Leaving aside the exageration of part of the vast neo-liberal conspiracy.... which iis a rhetorical deflection from the bar that does not matter in choosing a Leader....
The strenuous objection at the time and for the couple weeks after was that Mulcair explicitly put out cap and trade revenues as the alternative [NDP policy and the political protection built into it chucked out the window], and at the Halifax debate said that capital gains changes would not disproprotionately come from the wealthy.
While Romeo offered a coherent and consistent political strategy around closing tax havens and loopholes. Mulcair by the way did not mention that in Halifax. Its just one of the many things has tossed out about taxes at different times.
I think you are being too easy on Mulcair with that. Because when he brings out 'I stand on party policy' is when he does not want to say any more, especially clarify apparent contradictions.
And at least in one major case, he doesnt have a problem just chucking party policy out the window, without even acknowledging.