NDP leadership race 2

711 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

The more self-effacing the left is, the more they win.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

The more self-effacing the left is, the more they win.

Well they sure as hell don't win moving so far to the centre that the public sees the Liberals as left of the NDP.

mark_alfred

Any member of the public who saw the Liberals as left of the NDP is a complete moron.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Any member of the public who saw the Liberals as left of the NDP is a complete moron.

Now that is the winning attitude to have about potential supporters.

mark_alfred

I'm not running for office.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm not running for office.

Sorry I mistook you for someone who wanted to grow the NDP membership and its voter base.

mark_alfred

I'd be wasting my time trying to do that here, apparently.  No, I'm here to exchange ideas and opinions with others who are interested in politics from a (for lack of a better term) progressive perspective.  I'd like to see a more egalitarian Canada, and I feel that electing the NDP federally would help in that.  Mind you, given the choice at the last convention, I think the NDP kinda blew it (but that's life -- things move on).

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
I'd like to see a more egalitarian Canada, and I feel that electing the NDP federally would help in that.  Mind you, given the choice at the last convention, I think the NDP kinda blew it (but that's life -- things move on).

Oh for fuck sake, let it go already. We had a leadership review, Mulcair lost. If you can't see why a leader who leads a party to the results that the NDP experienced last October needed to be shown the door, I really question your judgement and your ability to do politics effectively. We had a chance to elect a federal NDP government, how did that go?

mark_alfred

I really question your judgement and your ability to do politics effectively.

Please see post #155.

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:

The more self-effacing the left is, the more they win.

Jeez, I don't know. The NDP has been champion self-effacers here in BC and I can't say as they've won much lately. And that's against the least self-effacing, most arrogant, Liberal party ever.

Maybe next election they could just not campaign at all. Maybe that would be self-effacing enough.

SeekingAPolitic...

mark_alfred wrote:

Any member of the public who saw the Liberals as left of the NDP is a complete moron.

I consider myself politically and economicaly literate.  While I don't see the Liberals as being left of the NDP but what I read on policy they more less equal.  The same applies to middle class politics and general disdian to take risks.  The whole campaign was run with the idea that all the NDP had to do was keep the ship steady they will inherit the power after Harper lost.  After reading the mininal position statements on the NDP web site and asbentance of orange book I came to the conclusion that NDP was just bad copy of the liberals.  Its one thing to actually talk about poverty issues and another  to come up with policy to address it.  I have felt for sometime now NDP abondened policy for those that find themselves living in poverty to chase the "middle class".  And when I talk about poverty I dont mean it someway abstract way rather I have spent more than a decade living in poverty.  Policy wise the NDP dumped the poverty issues well before the 2015 election but what really what moiviated get a green  membership was the fact in the 2015 NDP stopped the usual rhetic about them wanting to make real effort to change the lives of those live in poverty.  I guess it became liabilty to talk about those "radical" issues of restribtuion, it do not fit in the narrative for fighting for those of the middle class. And of cousre the ship must be steady and everyelse gets thrown overboard.  Let me conclude by saying I am one individual and dont pretend to speak for other persons who finds themselevs living in poverty. 

mark_alfred

It wasn't a perfect campaign for sure.  But, universal affordable childcare (60% federal funding), begin bulk purchasing of drugs to work toward pharmacare, pledge of minimum 6% increase in a new Health Accord, bring the troops home, introduce an anti-scab law, reform EI, raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, more money for women's shelters, revise the Consumer Protection Act to eliminate unfair banking service charges and unfair cell phone roaming fees, bring in MMP, begin moving to abolish the Senate (and good riddance), set clear binding GHG emission target (80% reduction below 1990 levels) and make this enforceable by law (further, set up a national cap and trade system with revenues exclusively going to environmental initiatives like retrofiting buildings etc.) was some of the stuff that outshone the Liberal platform, IMO.  They did have some stuff on social housing and on help for students, but yes, these areas could have been better.  Still, in my opinion you'd have to a moron to think the Liberal's means tested Canada Child Benefit program along with their vague musings on the environment and such were somehow more progressive than what the NDP was offering.  What did the Liberals offer on health care?  The environment?  Troops overseas (they're still there, by the way)?  Child care?  Does anyone know?  Did anyone know during the campaign?  Everyone knew the NDP was promising to fund child care spaces starting immediately and working up to over a million childcare spaces within eight years.  And Mulcair spent a week during the campaign exclusively talking about health care issues (no other leader did that).  Despite that people chose the Liberals.  People weren't ready for change, it seems.  Hopefully with a new leader next time the NDP will do better.

JKR

I think the NDP'S campaign promise to maintain surplus budgets completely undermined the NDP'S argument that they represented change and the Liberals willingness to have deficits helped them sell the idea that they were the ones who represented significant change from the Harper Conservative government.  

mark_alfred

The budget musings by all three parties were poppycock.  The fact that people put a priority on such musings rather than on concrete pledges for social spending (IE, fixed costs) is a problem.  I'm reminded of when I was on a union negotiating committee and some of my peers would not want to ask for a reasonable raise due to their focus on the company's budget (and this focus was in their own heads!  They'd never actually seen the company budget!)  They should have said, hey, we work hard on the front line and need a reasonable raise!  Just like Canada's population should say hey, we need affordable childcare, no ifs ands or buts!  Instead, it's ooo, don't think we can afford that, guess we'll just settle for some means tested payouts and maybe a temporary deficit 'cause we can't afford any more and best not to tax corporations and well that Liberal guy is kinda cute....  Sad.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

The budget musings by all three parties were poppycock.  The fact that people put a priority on such musings rather than on concrete pledges for social spending (IE, fixed costs) is a problem.  I'm reminded of when I was on a union negotiating committee and some of my peers would not want to ask for a reasonable raise due to their focus on the company's budget (and this focus was in their own heads!  They'd never actually seen the company budget!)  They should have said, hey, we work hard on the front line and need a reasonable raise!  Just like Canada's population should say hey, we need affordable childcare, no ifs ands or buts!  Instead, it's ooo, don't think we can afford that, guess we'll just settle for some means tested payouts and maybe a temporary deficit 'cause we can't afford any more and best not to tax corporations and well that Liberal guy is kinda cute....  Sad.

The NDP ran a campaign that was an obvious lie. Mulcair could not keep his promises and a surplus budget so which one was a lie? Nobody expects politicians to be honest but to lie that blatantly on the most prominent election issue was stupid.

The NDP was stupid right from refusing to allow delegates to vote on marijuana legalization to assuming the Quebec vote could be bought with the Sherbrooke Declaration as if anyone in Quebec even supports it.

Conservative and NDP musings on the budget were poppycock not the Liberals. They said they would run a deficit and it's what they are doing. Liberal poppycock was on other issues such as bill C-51.

mark_alfred

Glad to see you're defending the Trudeau team.  That's honest, anyway.  Allegedly (from the Liberals themselves) their projected numbers were way off (I believe Morneau himself said, "Our numbers were poppycock.")  And regardless, there's reasonable doubts about some of their claims.  But as I argued earlier, people shouldn't care.  As long as numbers aren't from outer space, it simply shouldn't be a focus.  The focus should be on social programs/health care, the environment, and getting troops back home.  The NDP was more left.  So, for those who favour a more interventionist government, the NDP was the better choice.  For those who don't, then the Liberals or Conservatives were the better choice.  Anyway, hopefully the next NDP leader will be a better salesperson, so we can get better universal social programs rather than means tested stuff from the Libs.

mark_alfred

Just to add to the above, while I feel social services should always be the main focus, I will say that once the Liberals (like their brethren in Ontario) start privatizing and divesting assets to pay for shit because they were unwilling to raise corporate taxes, then people should be concerned.

SeekingAPolitic...

Even something as simple as American SNAP (food Stamps Program) would be blessing.  I would love it if somebody spend some political capital and seriously about food insecurity in Canada.  Hell I was happy the leap passed with guaranted annual income talk.  Other some thing basic change to CPI forumla.  What I read the inflation index is its predicacted on the average perosn spends 10 % monthy on food.  Lets change that to 20 % as a first step.  This would raise the CPI in small way and since is used to design social programming, a small acknowlegdement that people in poverty spend aleast 30% of their income on food.  I would love to get food stamps (modern equilivant  spening card only good for food). 

Maybe the federal government could do something with local transit.  I spear headed the attemp to get bus fare lowered in my community.  Initially I worked alone and ran around the local community get signatures, support from local unions, and non profits in my community.  Then talked a local  lobby orgaization dealing with poverty they were running an campaign giving on means test card for cheaper fare.  My idea was different but desired outcome was the same.  I suggested the the city adopt a out peak hours fare.  The buses are almost empty during certain times of the day my porposal was to cut the fare by 50 % on local bus routes during off peak times.  "A reduced fare is better than no fare" with that motto I went before the local city council.  Both of these proposals passed the city council, And off peak fares started July 1st of this year. 

Actually I am not totally down on the NDP if could do more for people in poverty I would consider joining again. I am just dont want to put any emontional energy in the party if they are going elect another Mulcair.  I meet the candiate in my riding for the NDP in 2015 on several occasions, he is really a decent man.  He told me that ran for the party because Bernie Sanders inspired him.  I wanted to recriut him for my show on local cogeco tv that I started.  He declined becasue his empolyer.  He could not go on TV if wanted a carieer with his current employer.  I had to recruit an alternative to host the show which was the liberal canidate in 2015.  I am tempted to do something for the NDP but I will not work for Mulcair lite. 

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

The budget musings by all three parties were poppycock. 

It seems to me that the Liberals were smart enough to come up with poppycock that helped them win the election while the NDP and Conservatives poppycock did not impress the voters. I think the NDP could have won the election if they had omitted the balanced budget promise and added a promise to increase taxes on high incomes.

mark_alfred

post #168 wrote:
I would love it if somebody spend some political capital and seriously about food insecurity in Canada.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the NDP's Agriculture Critic (and touted by some as a potential leadership candidate -- though I don't think she'll run) has been doing some work on this.  She introduced Bill C-231, Fight Against Food Waste Act.  link

Basically, a lot of food that could be feeding people goes to waste.  So she wants to create a law to make sure we put a plan in place to make better use of this food and not waste it.  I used to work in a shelter, and I was able to feed a lot of people from donations by a great organization called Second Harvest.  This organization would pick up food from supermarkets that was close to its expiry date (but still very good to eat) and deliver it to shelters.  Lots of frozen meat, vegetables, etc., would come our way.  It was great.  So making sure this happens more would be a good idea. 

That's the only federal initiative I know of, but certainly a lot of stuff is done on a municipal level regarding food.  I agree it's an important issue.

mark_alfred

Re: Post # 169

Perhaps.  But then the attack would have been different.  Initially the attack was that the NDP promises were out of control and would produce huge deficits (link -- note, both Libs and Cons released this criticism on the same day).  If the NDP said, "Why yes, our fixed cost promises will produce high deficits!" people would not have been impressed.  A short term deficit on short term infrastructure projects to kick start the economy is one thing (though frankly the idea of balancing a budget via running a deficit to "kickstart" the economy is bullshit -- it doesn't happen), but taking on fixed costs (IE, a long term plan to fund and enshrine universal affordable child care into law) and claiming they can only be run with a deficit in perpetuity is quite another.  To me it's better to say Canada has an obligation to provide affordable child care to its citizens and that Canada can afford to meet this obligation.  To me voting for a government that says we neither have such an obligation nor can we afford to meet such an obligation is a sin.  Of course Canada can meet such an obligation.  Also, voting for a government that either says we must go into deficit or says we must balance the budget and makes this the focus while ignoring obligations such as health care or child care is a government that should not be elected.  They should not be given the time of day.

The numbers that the NDP and Libs were talking about were not overly different.  From the top of my head, since I'm too lazy now to look it up (and it's not important, since the election is long passed) were as follows.  The Libs promised a deficit of $10B the first year, $10B the second year, $7B the third, and a balanced budget in the fourth year (also, over the term, they promised $6.5B in cuts -- or "efficiencies", as they called them.)  So, $27B in extra spending over the term (not including the cuts -- with the cuts it's $20.5B over the term).  The NDP with the corporate tax increase stated this would net about $4B of extra revenue each year.  So, that's $16B over the term.  Less money, but it's an additional permanent source of revenue that continues, without the need of cutting back later.  Also, bringing the troops back home and other changes would have lowered costs, and taxing stock options, pursuing offshore tax havens, not wasting an extra billion on a stupid tax cut like the Liberals, etc., would have given the NDP more room.  The NDP's promises were to be phased in slower, but in the long run would have made a huge and positive difference in people's lives (affordable child care in particular -- very important).  Does anyone seriously believe the "middle class tax cut" and "Canada Child Benefit" is going to make a huge difference? 

Now granted, rather than $10B Morneau announced it was now $17B or higher (which was not echoed by the PBO, interestingly enough).  But whatever.  Obviously they're not sticking too close to the numbers they preached.  Will they balance the budget in the fourth year?  Also, when they cut back the deficit spending in the 3rd year and stop it in the fourth year (coupled with the cuts they're planning), it will be a huge shock to people (hopefully they can allay this shock with legalized really weak pot for the 25 and older set).

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
Glad to see you're defending the Trudeau team.  That's honest, anyway.

I'm not defending them I'm describing why they won the election.

 

mark_alfred wrote:
But as I argued earlier, people shouldn't care.  As long as numbers aren't from outer space, it simply shouldn't be a focus. 

What you think people should or shouldn't care about is immaterial. They are going to care about what they think is important not what you think is important.

mark_alfred wrote:
  The focus should be on social programs/health care, the environment, and getting troops back home. 

Well it isn't. People care first about the economy then effective management which includes social programs but also covers everything from foreign relations to infrastructure.

mark_alfred wrote:
So, for those who favour a more interventionist government, the NDP was the better choice. 

I think it is safe to say that the majority of Canadians do not favor a more or less interventionist government.

mark_alfred wrote:
For those who don't, then the Liberals or Conservatives were the better choice.  Anyway, hopefully the next NDP leader will be a better salesperson, so we can get better universal social programs rather than means tested stuff from the Libs. 

A better salesperson isn't going to cut it against Trudeau. Te people who decide elections do not pay attention to the details in platforms.

Harper was a terrible salesperson but he won time and time again as the boring policy wonk and accountant. He built his carreer on it and hoped he could win again based on being a steady hand at the wheel. His countless shocking acts didn't hurt him at all because Dion, Ignatieff and Mulcair couldn't give voters enough reason for them to swtich. People chose the devil they knew over and over again because none of his opponents inspired people to try something new. He was set to win this election too. There were moments when it looked like Harper might win again.

It did not take a better policy accountant type to beat Harper. He had to be fought on different turf. Mulcair did come close to winning, if Bob Rae instead of Trudeau had won the leadership I think Mulcair would have won. Trudeau now has the advantage of the incumbant. Aside from failing to change C 51 as he said he would he has failed on other scores. I haven't been keeping track but the Trudeaumetre does. Even so generally speaking he is very much the PM Canadians voted for and more. He could easily go 3 terms or more. As someone noted, he can't be out-charmed anymore than Harper could be out-accountanted. To beat Trudeau before his time is out will take an inspriational leader backed by insprirational policy. A list of policy points is not inspirational. Neither is the Leap Manifesto to non-activists.

What is inspiring people to support everyone from Ford, to Trump, to Sanders, to Corbyn and even Trudeau is that they all point a finger to the 1%.

You want to beat Trudeau? Focus on the corruption of the finance industry and corporations. Show how they are cheating everyone. That is where Trudeau is vulnerable.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: Post # 169

Perhaps.  But then the attack would have been different.  Initially the attack was that the NDP promises were out of control and would produce huge deficits (link -- note, both Libs and Cons released this criticism on the same day).  If the NDP said, "Why yes, our fixed cost promises will produce high deficits!" people would not have been impressed. 

I think many people were prepared to vote NDP in the late summer and early fall of 2015 and they mostly did not care about deficits and they had many other higher priorities. I think the Liberals understood this and the NDP didn't. I think the Liberal platform was very much in tune with the opinions held by centrist and leftist voters while the NDP's wasn't. I was volunteering for the NDP during the election and I felt then that the NDP's national election campaign team was very tone deaf to the opinions held by people who were open to voting for them. I think if the NDP had just told centrist and leftist voters what they wanted to hear the party would have done much better. I think the majour lesson for the NDP from the 2015 election is that they have to have a much better understanding of the opinions of centrist and leftist voters and be more willing to tell these people want they want to hear. I think providing sensible policies is secondary in elections to just pleasing the voters who are prepared to vote for you. I think Mulcair also wanted to win over some right of centre voters and this left a huge opening for the Liberals to take advantage of. I think it is important to remember that perception is more important than facts during elections. This is why lying during elections is part of a winning election campaign as long as a party can get away with it. This is also why a referendum on electoral reform is a losing proposition for the left as lying in an electoral reform referendum would be very easy because very few voters have a good understanding of electoral systems. The Conservatives know they could easily make up all sorts of lies about unfamiliar electoral systems.

mark_alfred

Agreed about having an ER referendum.  Referendums are usually a bad idea, I feel.

mark_alfred

Quote:

What is inspiring people to support everyone from Ford, to Trump, to Sanders, to Corbyn and even Trudeau is that they all point a finger to the 1%.

Don't know about Sanders or Corbyn, but in the case of Ford, Trump, and Trudeau, that would include pointing a finger to themselves (which, to Trudeau's credit, he did do in declaring that he as a millionaire does not need a childcare benefit, and thus used himself as an example for means testing rather than universality -- a proposition I disagree with, since IMO acknowledging necessities such as health care or child care as being for everyone strengthens the community resolve to contribute to the service, rather than turning it into a charity for some whose provision annoys others, which weakens the resolve to fund the service).

mark_alfred

Quote:

I think it is safe to say that the majority of Canadians do not favor a more or less interventionist government.

Neither more nor less, but in the middle.

Like Goldilocks.

ETA:  presumably you feel everything is "just right" now under Trudeau regarding how interventionist government is.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

I think it is safe to say that the majority of Canadians do not favor a more or less interventionist government.

Neither more nor less, but in the middle.

Like Goldilocks.

ETA:  presumably you feel everything is "just right" now under Trudeau regarding how interventionist government is.

No, neither more, nor less, nor in the middle. Most people don't think in those terms. Most definitely not the ones who decide elections. There are areas where they want government intervention and other areas where they don't want government intervention. "Government intervention" as an idea is received mostly negatively thanks to decades of neoliberalism.

You think I'm wrong, fine. Defeat my argument. Explain how the same policies from 2015 are going to defeat Trudeau in 2019 or 2023. Explain how liberal tories same ol story chanting is going to make a difference next time.

By the way, Mulcair is also part of the 1%. Layton probably was too. Demonizing individuals for the sole reason that they are part of the 1% won't work.

mark_alfred

Pondering, what do you think of the one current leadership candidate that the NDP has?  That being Cheri DiNovo?

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
  Don't know about Sanders or Corbyn, but in the case of Ford, Trump, and Trudeau, that would include pointing a finger to themselves (which, to Trudeau's credit, he did do in declaring that he as a millionaire does not need a childcare benefit, and thus used himself as an example for means testing rather than universality -- a proposition I disagree with, since IMO acknowledging necessities such as health care or child care as being for everyone strengthens the community resolve to contribute to the service, rather than turning it into a charity for some whose provision annoys others, which weakens the resolve to fund the service).  

That hasn't worked with either medicare or education so I don't see why you think more of the same is going to change the minds of the wealthy. Theoretically it was supposed to strengthen community resolve but in practice it doesn't work that way. At least not well enough to movivate people to fight budget cuts and privatization.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering, what do you think of the one current leadership candidate that the NDP has?  That being Cheri DiNovo?

On paper I think she sounds great but so did Niki Ashton and I have since been disappointed in her approach to politics and trying to make a name for herself. That could just be youthful error so I wouldn't say I would never support her. DiNovo has experience and maturity. I would have to know about her position on other issues, on what basis she would fight them on and how she comes across in speeches. Overall I think she has good potential.

Debater

But DiNovo does not speak French, correct?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Debater wrote:

But DiNovo does not speak French, correct?

From what others have said here, DiNovo doesn't speak French. That's why I'm hoping that she isn't the only leadership candidate from the left of the party.

Still hoping that Alexandre Boulerice will throw his hat in the ring.

Pondering

French is not that big a deal. There are 3/4 years before the next election and it's very unlikely the NDP could win against Trudeau in 2019. If the NDP has any chance at all of beating the Liberals in 2019 it won't be as Liberal Lite. That means DiNovo would really have until 2023. By 2019 she would have enough to impress French people. Quebecers are impressed by anglophones who make a sincere effort to learn. REB's French has improved tremendously and she was embraced by the community because of it.

Underneath all the joie de vivre Quebec has a pragmatic streak. If the NDP becomes significantly more progressive under DiNova she could absolutely win Quebec, even in 2019. Lots of Quebecers are unilingual French so it doesn't shock them that people in the rest of Canada are unilingual English. She would have to have made a serious effort to learn French but I see no reason why she wouldn't do that.

Don't knock someone out of the running just because they don't speak French yet. What matters is if they can inspire people politically.

 

mark_alfred

I respect a lot of what DiNovo has done -- she's had the most private members' bills passed in the Ontario Legislature, and has always been a steadfast ally of the disempowered.  I just don't think she'd inspire the confidence of the Canadian public though.  And she's a bit too impulsive and maverick for me.  Fabulous MPP, but not right for either the NDP leadership or being Prime Minister, IMO.  But, it's early yet.  I'm open to a change of mind.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

French is not that big a deal. ...DiNovo would really have until 2023. By 2019 she would have enough to impress French people... Quebecers are impressed by anglophones who make a sincere effort to learn. ...

...Lots of Quebecers are unilingual French so it doesn't shock them that people in the rest of Canada are unilingual English.

French is, in fact, an official language of Canada. I don't think a prime minister should be bilingual to satisfy the French speakers. I think the prime minister should be able to communicate in the official languages of the country.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

French is not that big a deal. ...DiNovo would really have until 2023. By 2019 she would have enough to impress French people... Quebecers are impressed by anglophones who make a sincere effort to learn. ...

...Lots of Quebecers are unilingual French so it doesn't shock them that people in the rest of Canada are unilingual English.

French is, in fact, an official language of Canada. I don't think a prime minister should be bilingual to satisfy the French speakers. I think the prime minister should be able to communicate in the official languages of the country.

That is why she would have to learn French before becoming PM. It takes time and effort but it isn't rocket science. Were she to win the leadership of the party she could take intensive French.

I like Linda McQuaig a lot.

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

What is inspiring people to support everyone from Ford, to Trump, to Sanders, to Corbyn and even Trudeau is that they all point a finger to the 1%.

Don't know about Sanders or Corbyn, but in the case of Ford, Trump, and Trudeau, that would include pointing a finger to themselves (which, to Trudeau's credit, he did do in declaring that he as a millionaire does not need a childcare benefit, and thus used himself as an example for means testing rather than universality -- a proposition I disagree with, since IMO acknowledging necessities such as health care or child care as being for everyone strengthens the community resolve to contribute to the service, rather than turning it into a charity for some whose provision annoys others, which weakens the resolve to fund the service).


Yes, you are right. Universality helps build solidarity. And as Douglas pointed out it is more cost efficent than means testing.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

What is inspiring people to support everyone from Ford, to Trump, to Sanders, to Corbyn and even Trudeau is that they all point a finger to the 1%.

Don't know about Sanders or Corbyn, but in the case of Ford, Trump, and Trudeau, that would include pointing a finger to themselves (which, to Trudeau's credit, he did do in declaring that he as a millionaire does not need a childcare benefit, and thus used himself as an example for means testing rather than universality -- a proposition I disagree with, since IMO acknowledging necessities such as health care or child care as being for everyone strengthens the community resolve to contribute to the service, rather than turning it into a charity for some whose provision annoys others, which weakens the resolve to fund the service).

Yes, you are right. Universality helps build solidarity. And as Douglas pointed out it is more cost efficent than means testing.

So please explain to me why solidarity isn't stopping the privatization of medicare.

It would be really great if we could have childcare funded for all but I don't think all or nothing is the solution because then we get nothing. The NDP couldn't have provided universal childcare either because they promised to run a surplus.

Cullen said they couldn't have said they would run a deficit because they would have been attacked and accused of being fiscally irresponsible. That may be true, but if they had broken their promise and ran deficits in office they would still have been accused of financial irreponsibility and of lying to get elected.

The only people not getting the child tax credit, or having it clawed back, are the 1% or close to it. Giving the child tax credit to the 1% in the hopes that it will create "solitarity" with the middle and working classes is as naive as believing in the trickle-down theory.

It's also pretty immaterial right now. No amount of bandaids are going to help without tackling the elephant in the room.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

What is inspiring people to support everyone from Ford, to Trump, to Sanders, to Corbyn and even Trudeau is that they all point a finger to the 1%.

Don't know about Sanders or Corbyn, but in the case of Ford, Trump, and Trudeau, that would include pointing a finger to themselves (which, to Trudeau's credit, he did do in declaring that he as a millionaire does not need a childcare benefit, and thus used himself as an example for means testing rather than universality -- a proposition I disagree with, since IMO acknowledging necessities such as health care or child care as being for everyone strengthens the community resolve to contribute to the service, rather than turning it into a charity for some whose provision annoys others, which weakens the resolve to fund the service).

Yes, you are right. Universality helps build solidarity. And as Douglas pointed out it is more cost efficent than means testing.

So please explain to me why solidarity isn't stopping the privatization of medicare.

It would be really great if we could have childcare funded for all but I don't think all or nothing is the solution because then we get nothing. The NDP couldn't have provided universal childcare either because they promised to run a surplus.

Cullen said they couldn't have said they would run a deficit because they would have been attacked and accused of being fiscally irresponsible. That may be true, but if they had broken their promise and ran deficits in office they would still have been accused of financial irreponsibility and of lying to get elected.

The only people not getting the child tax credit, or having it clawed back, are the 1% or close to it. Giving the child tax credit to the 1% in the hopes that it will create "solitarity" with the middle and working classes is as naive as believing in the trickle-down theory.

It's also pretty immaterial right now. No amount of bandaids are going to help without tackling the elephant in the room.


Well of course universality is slowing the pace of privatization. Without it medicare would already be gone. In Alberta here the new government is not only halting privatization but reversing much of it. And of course universality as Douglas pointed out is more efficent. That is also an important point in preserving these programs. It is easier to defend cost efficent programs.

mark_alfred

Agreed.  I'm pretty sure health care costs per capita are higher in the States (which is more means and/or income tested) than they are in Canada, which is more universal.  Even if not, the social benefit of having the whole community receiving (or at the very least eligible to receive) programs (education, health care, hopefully in the future someday child care and pharmacare too) I feel is worth it.

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed.  I'm pretty sure health care costs per capita are higher in the States (which is more means and/or income tested) than they are in Canada, which is more universal.  Even if not, the social benefit of having the whole community receiving (or at the very least eligible to receive) programs (education, health care, hopefully in the future someday child care and pharmacare too) I feel is worth it.


According to Wiki US costs are almost double per capita compared to Canada.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expend...

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed.  I'm pretty sure health care costs per capita are higher in the States (which is more means and/or income tested) than they are in Canada, which is more universal.  Even if not, the social benefit of having the whole community receiving (or at the very least eligible to receive) programs (education, health care, hopefully in the future someday child care and pharmacare too) I feel is worth it.

Worth what? I'm in favour of all those things. Nobody is offering childcare or pharmacare. Until someone does any improvement is good. Lower income people are getting more money than they did under Harper. Why are you against that? Harper set up universal tax credits for buying hockey equipment for children. That left out children whose parents couldn't afford it to begin with.

I don't see what any of this has to do with selecting a new leader for the NDP. That leader will have to beat Trudeau. Any new leader must be evaluated from that perspective.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-for-trudeau-this-is-mor...

According to a recent Forum Research poll, if an election were held today Trudeau’s Liberals would utterly vaporize the opposition, taking more than 50% of the popular vote and picking up 278 of the Commons’ 338 seats. The Bloc and Greens would be rendered extinct. The NDP would lose official party status. It would be an historic beating....

To beat Trudeau, you’ve got to ‘get’ Trudeau. And to ‘get’ him, you’ve got to recognize that there’s something unusual going on in the relationship he’s been forging with the public.

The NDP has to take that into account when choosing their next leader.

None of the people named so far seems likely to be able to put a dent in Trudeau's support. I'm not saying they can't.

Once that truth is accepted, all that’s left to be done is to figure out what it is instead and either extend it or imitate it. Sounds simple enough.

I disagree with the conclusion. There is no mystery about "what it is" and it can't be imitated. It's a rock paper scissors situation. Which one wins depends on the other and on other parameters, such as time in office. This is a no risk no reward situation. A conventional moderal leader can't beat Trudeau any time soon. Tearing him down will backfire. To win the NDP will have to take risks and that means choosing a bold leader with a sense of purpose.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Stockholm wrote:
Why does it have to take so many months for Canadian parties to pick a leader? In the UK the Tories and Labour typically pick new leaders instantly within two or three months of the job becoming vacant. Milo and quit as Labour Party leader days after losing the May 2015 election and Corbyn became leader in early September and that was considered a long contest by British standards!

After which, the MPs of the Labour Party began a continuing, unrelenting and insanely vindictive campaign to undermine, discredit and remove Corbyn as leader, to make sure the grassroots democratic renewal of the party that Jeremy began is stopped, and that the cynical, corrupt anti-democratic Blairite internal governance structure(and the discredited and useless Blairite policies)of the pre-Corbyn "New Labour" status quo are locked in place forever, thus making anu future Labour electoral victory both meaningless and impossible.

mark_alfred

Nobody is offering childcare or pharmacare.

Presumably the Liberals are offering childcare within their social infrastructure program.  Of course, since they've been elected we've heard squat on this promise of theirs.  It'll be the fourth majority government they've had that they've promised childcare and failed to deliver.  For the Canadian public, as they say, 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me', ... fool me four times over, well, I, the Canadian public, am just a moron for electing Libs again.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-for-trudeau-this-is-mor...

The NDP has to take that into account when choosing their next leader.

That many credible people wouldn't want to enter into such a formidably challenging position is something they should have taken into account at the last convention.  Hopefully more step up.

A conventional moderal leader can't beat Trudeau any time soon. Tearing him down will backfire. To win the NDP will have to take risks and that means choosing a bold leader with a sense of purpose.

Mostly it was the Conservatives and not the NDP who were "tearing him down" (IE, slandering the person rather than the policies).  The NDP have been providing support and suggestions for good policy initiatives (they even did get a pay equity bill passed) while providing opposition to government actions (or inactions) that could be improved.  If you're suggesting that the NDP should just meekly be accepting of everything the government does and never speak up, well, I'm not sure how that equates to "take risks".  Whether there's a leader eventually who's "moderal" or radical, the expectation would be for them to speak up about what is wrong with the current government and to provide alternative approaches/policies (and speaking against the government's policies that fall short would likely be an even greater expectation with a radical leader rather than a moderate leader, I imagine).

Anyway, whatever.  Feel free to keep defending the Liberals while promoting silence against them as a good strategy for the opposition.

CanadaApple

Right now I'd say Trudeau is more than likely to win the next election (though it's early so it's hard to predict). I think the next NDP Leader should try to rebuild and push Trudeau from the left, make some credible gains in 2019 and then aim to form government arouns 2023 or whenever.  

sherpa-finn

On Twitter today ‏@DonMartinCTV links to the following Susan Delacourt profile of Tracey Ramsey with the preamble "Given that the obvious candidates are out, NDPers might want to consider this first-rate rookie MP for leader."  I have no idea if he is serious or just stirring the pot. 

NDP’s Tracey Ramsey went from factory floor to floor of the House: The sometimes rough-and-tumble world of politics has been an education for the rookie MP who spent two decades working on a Ford assembly line.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/07/22/ndps-tracey-ramsey-went-...

Geoff

sherpa-finn wrote:

On Twitter today ‏@DonMartinCTV links to the following Susan Delacourt profile of Tracey Ramsey with the preamble "Given that the obvious candidates are out, NDPers might want to consider this first-rate rookie MP for leader."  I have no idea if he is serious or just stirring the pot. 

NDP’s Tracey Ramsey went from factory floor to floor of the House: The sometimes rough-and-tumble world of politics has been an education for the rookie MP who spent two decades working on a Ford assembly line.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/07/22/ndps-tracey-ramsey-went-...

Tracey's story is inspiring, but we'll need more experience at the helm, if we're going to have a chance at a respectable finish in 2019. Hopefully, the Leap Manifesto discussions will create the excitement needed to recruit potential leadership candidates with a resume that will inspire Canadians who have grown weary of Justin's 'sunny ways'. The cracks in Trudeau's armour are beginning to show.  Is the NDP up to the task of exposing those cracks and providing a real alternative?

nicky

I have been taking a hiatus from Babble and returned today to read Pondering promoting a number of the more left-wing prospects for NDP leader.
Is this the same Pondering who was so star-struck by Justin despite the obvious fact he never believed in anything except himself? Or has she become disillusioned by his steady retreat from his promises?

quizzical

yup.

nope she hasn't she knows he will be re-elected in 2019

Debater

Geoff wrote:

The cracks in Trudeau's armour are beginning to show.

Which cracks?

I haven't seen many lately.

Pages

Topic locked