Toronto Centre by-election

196 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Young

 

The state of the media in this country is depressing

Should Hollett or McQuaig win Toronto Centre, you can expect the media assault to reach frightening proportions.

 

janfromthebruce

could and I sure hope so - because it's time to overturn the corporate parties.

Summer

Unionist wrote:

nicky wrote:

... I understand that Tom some time ago personally encouraged Linda to run.

I understand that Adam Giambrone some time ago personally encouraged Amarjeet Chhabra to run.

 

 

bwahaha.  well played Unionist. Laughing

Lord Palmerston

David Young wrote:

 

Should Hollett or McQuaig win Toronto Centre, you can expect the media assault to reach frightening proportions.

 

McQuaig yes, Hollett don't know.

felixr

Leo-Paul Lauzon gave the NDP a strong showing in Outremont and that is why Mulcair was parachuted in there, so yes, he played an important role. McQuaig and Hollett both look like outstanding candidates. I would be happy with either. McQuaig is very eloquent and a great foil to Chrystia Freelander. Hollet is my preference though because of her work with Marshall Ganz (spoke at NDP convention in Halifax) through the Harvard University public policy program. I also think she really represents the new generation thinking that the NDP is starting to capitalise on (through its younger caucus). I think with new blood, new energy, new ideas, the NDP will get farther. I don't which candidate has the better chance of winning the riding (McQuaig probably has way more name recognition), but I think they could both do very well. After the Scarborough-Guildwood fiasco,I'm hoping the local party is able to show the rest of the party that it is able to hold a good, clean nomination. In fact, everyone associated with the Scarborough-Guildwood debacle should be asked to stay well out of eyesight of this one.

Stockholm

I don't think you can compare the two. Toronto Centre has a very active riding association with over a thousand members. Scarborough-Guildwood had an almost totally inactive riding association with about 8 or 9 active members. It was more of a sewing circle.

janfromthebruce

McQuaig's thinking is not old but was at the forefront of very progressive thought and seriously challenged neoconservative/neoliberalism. Thank goodness because there was little push back that could speak in plain talk and challenge that bogus crap. And now it's coming full circle with the thought that constant taxcuts, deregulation and the wrong way to go. Linda' was way ahead of her time and informs the new thinking.

Look at the list of books she wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McQuaig

  • 1991 – The Quick and the Dead: Brian Mulroney, Big Business and the Seduction of Canada – Toronto: Penguin Books; ISBN 0-670-83305-3
  • 1993 – The Wealthy Banker's Wife: The Assault on Equality in Canada – Toronto: Penguin Books – ISBN 0-14-023065-3
  • 1995 – Shooting the Hippo: Death by Deficit and Other Canadian Myths – Toronto: Penguin Books; ISBN 978-0-670-84767-9
  • 1998 – The Cult of Impotence: Selling the Myth of Powerlessness in the Global Economy – Toronto: Penguin Books; ISBN 0-670-87278-4
  • 2001 – All You Can Eat: Greed, Lust and the New Capitalism – Toronto: Penguin Books; ISBN 978-0-14-026222-3
  • 2007 – Holding the Bully's Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire – Toronto: Doubleday Canada; ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9
  • 2010 – The Trouble with Billionaires – Toronto: Viking Canada
  • 2012 – Billionaires' Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality (co-authored with Neil Brooks) – Boston: Beacon Press; ISBN 978-0-8070-0339-8

Meanwhile we have Cohen mucking about and suggesting all things being equal between Freeland (never heard of her before until she became the ultimate parachut candidate from afar) and McQuaig (note the deceptive wording below suggesting that both these candidates wrote the same number of books), and ultimately suggesting that voters won't care if Freeland came from the USA and hasn't lived in Canada (and from Alberta) since when? Think Iggy.

Both McQuaig and Freeland bring estimable credentials to politics. McQuaig, the author of several provocative books, is smart, flinty and funny. In a long career, she has worked at the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. She is a brilliant polemicist.

Freeland, a Rhodes Scholar and the author of two books (one the winner of a prestigious prize), has held senior positions at the Globe, Thomson Reuters and the Financial Times. She is a brilliant analyst.

Cohen forgot to mention that McQuaig also worked for the National Post, Maclean's and CBC. But Cohen is trying to paint an incorrect picture that they are about the same in terms of thought and oh, Canadian experience and recognition.

theleftyinvestor

janfromthebruce wrote:

That same title could easily be used to describe NDP members' disenfranchisement every time a leader promises no tax increases.

knownothing knownothing's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

That same title could easily be used to describe NDP members' disenfranchisement every time a leader promises no tax increases.

For the umpteenth time...he said personal taxes

Unionist

knownothing wrote:

For the umpteenth time...he said personal taxes

That's correct - no personal tax increases. Only the regressive kind:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/manitoba-raises-sales-tobac... raises sales, tobacco taxes in budget[/url]

Quote:

Manitoba’s NDP government is raising the provincial sales tax and side-stepping a law that requires a referendum on the issue.

Tuesday’s provincial budget increases the sales tax to eight per cent from seven per cent effective July 1. The province’s balanced budget law requires a public vote on any increase to the sales tax, but the government said it has no time for a vote because it needs money to build flood-fighting projects.

josh

toaster wrote:

Calling Conservatives "neo-conservative" and "far on the right" instead of talking about how the issues and the Conservative policies are not what "we" (NDP party supporters) believe to be beneficial to Canadians.  

Agree.  How dare she engage in name calling.  That's no way to win an election.  And very impractical.  Just look at the Conservatives.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Unionist wrote:

knownothing wrote:

For the umpteenth time...he said personal taxes

That's correct - no personal tax increases. Only the regressive kind:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/manitoba-raises-sales-tobac... raises sales, tobacco taxes in budget[/url]

Quote:

Manitoba’s NDP government is raising the provincial sales tax and side-stepping a law that requires a referendum on the issue.

Tuesday’s provincial budget increases the sales tax to eight per cent from seven per cent effective July 1. The province’s balanced budget law requires a public vote on any increase to the sales tax, but the government said it has no time for a vote because it needs money to build flood-fighting projects.

Now you are blaming Mulcair for what the Manitoba NDP does?

Why don't you blame him for J.S. Woodsworth voting against entering WW2 while you are at it?

knownothing knownothing's picture

josh wrote:

toaster wrote:

Calling Conservatives "neo-conservative" and "far on the right" instead of talking about how the issues and the Conservative policies are not what "we" (NDP party supporters) believe to be beneficial to Canadians.  

Agree.  How dare she engage in name calling.  That's no way to win an election.  And very impractical.  Just look at the Conservatives.

I have no problem with her calling them "neo-cons" or "far-on-the-right". Sounds about right.

theleftyinvestor

knownothing wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

That same title could easily be used to describe NDP members' disenfranchisement every time a leader promises no tax increases.

For the umpteenth time...he said personal taxes

I don't see how that makes it any better. Taxpayers were already doing just fine at the tax levels we had in 2005. Should we enshrine all personal tax cuts made by right-wing governments as being sacred cows that the left cannot touch?

knownothing knownothing's picture

Mulcair has made a political calculation. He has access to better polling than the rest of us. We elected him leader to do his job. Now is the time to have faith in our leader instead of crappin' on him for every comment he makes that goes against your "reactionary-progressive" ideals.

theleftyinvestor

I suppose further discussion of this point should go back to the main NDP thread. It is just frustrating when pro-tax voters get completely shut out of the discourse.

Anyway what I was getting at was - perhaps McQuaig is just what the NDP needs to keep them connected to their roots.

josh

knownothing wrote:

Mulcair has made a political calculation. He has access to better polling than the rest of us.

So much for principle and standing for something.  Policy positions will be now be determined by poll results.

 

theleftyinvestor

It all really fits in quite well to that title "How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System". They win control by pushing the public discourse in a direction where a growing number of types of taxation become completely unacceptable in the political discourse. As a result everyone's political calculations benefit the rich, and it's just a question of to what degree.

knownothing knownothing's picture

josh wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Mulcair has made a political calculation. He has access to better polling than the rest of us.

So much for principle and standing for something.  Policy positions will be now be determined by poll results.

 

Would you rather he campaigned on taxing the personal wealth of the rich and then have Harper for four more years?

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

It all really fits in quite well to that title "How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System". They win control by pushing the public discourse in a direction where a growing number of types of taxation become completely unacceptable in the political discourse. As a result everyone's political calculations benefit the rich, and it's just a question of to what degree.

Yeah Canada is one of the most right-wing countries in the world. Discourse is very narrow here. That is why Mulcair can't do his Hugo Chavez impersonation.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to hear Mulcair give a speech like Tommy in this clip, but the political discourse has been completely highjacked and until we gain control of some of the media outlets we can't do much about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGiGBkkQRww

theleftyinvestor

knownothing wrote:
the political discourse has been completely highjacked

 

Yay we agree on something! :))

knownothing knownothing's picture

Yay

Except I spelled hijacked wrong

whoops

Don't know how I got that high in there ;)

toaster

josh wrote:

toaster wrote:

Calling Conservatives "neo-conservative" and "far on the right" instead of talking about how the issues and the Conservative policies are not what "we" (NDP party supporters) believe to be beneficial to Canadians.  

Agree.  How dare she engage in name calling.  That's no way to win an election.  And very impractical.  Just look at the Conservatives.

Name calling wasn't what I was going for.  In fact, I don't think Conservatives take offense to being called right-wingers, just as we NDP supporters don't take offense to being called left wingers.  I was trying to point out that I believe most people don't think of these things as insults.  If an average voter hears NDP candidates call someone "right-wing" (attempting to use that term as an insult), they won't take it as a negative.  I think these candidates should be calling out Conservatives on their record, especially in a campaing period.  Basically, people know Conservative=Right, Liberal=Centre/Centre Left, NDP=Left.  If your attack on the conservatives is that they are "on the right", it is kind of useless, in my opinion.

CanadaOrangeCat

To brand a non-leftist as an 'extreme right winger' is an attempt to lump them in with fascists. It is cute, but no longer effective in the Internet age.

Stockholm

toaster wrote:

Name calling wasn't what I was going for.  In fact, I don't think Conservatives take offense to being called right-wingers, just as we NDP supporters don't take offense to being called left wingers.  I was trying to point out that I believe most people don't think of these things as insults.  If an average voter hears NDP candidates call someone "right-wing" (attempting to use that term as an insult), they won't take it as a negative.  I think these candidates should be calling out Conservatives on their record, especially in a campaing period.  Basically, people know Conservative=Right, Liberal=Centre/Centre Left, NDP=Left.  If your attack on the conservatives is that they are "on the right", it is kind of useless, in my opinion.

At this stage Linda McQuaig is just trying to win the NDP nomination, so if she is smart she is saying the kinds of things that card carrying NDP members most want to hear. If she gets the nomination she will then be trying to win a riding wher a good 80% of the electorate HATE Harper and everything about the Conservative party and where virtually all of the swing votes she will want to attract will be from people who hate harper and are trying to decide whether the NDP or the Liberal candidate will be the most effective anti-Harper voice...for those reasons what works in Toronto Centre may be quite different from what might work in a riding like London West.

Summer

theleftyinvestor wrote:

knownothing wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

That same title could easily be used to describe NDP members' disenfranchisement every time a leader promises no tax increases.

For the umpteenth time...he said personal taxes

I don't see how that makes it any better. Taxpayers were already doing just fine at the tax levels we had in 2005. Should we enshrine all personal tax cuts made by right-wing governments as being sacred cows that the left cannot touch?

 

The only tax the Conservatives have cut is the GST.  There have been no changes to federal tax rates since they came into power.  (in fact, they actually cancelled a planned tax decrease for the bottom income bracket so that they could fund the GST cuts) Granted, the income brackets have been increasing but I think the increase is designed to keep up with inflation. The Conservatives have created vote-buying tax credits for transit passes and children's activities.  These credits are akin to a tax cut and I do hope that the NDP would rescind them.  However, changes to credits are not generally billled as tax increases - instead it is a decrease in tax expenditures.   The Conservatives have increased EI contributions (essentially a pay-roll tax that affects the lower income more than the higher income).  I believe that the average Canadian taxpayer has seen an increase in their overall taxes since 2006.   High income taxpayers may have seen a decrease with the introduction of the TFSA. What is the NDPs position on the TFSA?  I guess Mulclair won't touch it?

theleftyinvestor

Summer wrote:

The only tax the Conservatives have cut is the GST.  There have been no changes to federal tax rates since they came into power.  (in fact, they actually cancelled a planned tax decrease for the bottom income bracket so that they could fund the GST cuts) Granted, the income brackets have been increasing but I think the increase is designed to keep up with inflation. The Conservatives have created vote-buying tax credits for transit passes and children's activities.  These credits are akin to a tax cut and I do hope that the NDP would rescind them.  However, changes to credits are not generally billled as tax increases - instead it is a decrease in tax expenditures.   The Conservatives have increased EI contributions (essentially a pay-roll tax that affects the lower income more than the higher income).  I believe that the average Canadian taxpayer has seen an increase in their overall taxes since 2006.   High income taxpayers may have seen a decrease with the introduction of the TFSA. What is the NDPs position on the TFSA?  I guess Mulclair won't touch it?

If they have not cut personal income taxes, then I am surprised and clearly did not check my facts.

The TFSA is sneaky because the vast majority of users have not seen any significant reduction in taxes yet in the early years. Remember we are in a low interest rate environment. And equities in a TFSA are tax-sheltered but outside TFSA they would typically not be taxed greatly until sold for the capital gains. In fact there may be a bump in revenues from people who could have contributed to RRSP, but decided to forgo the upfront tax deduction and use TFSA instead. So it's great for the budget today, and causes a big drain down the road. I have a feeling no party will take a position on TFSA, but at some point a Lib or NDP government might cap it to prevent it from spiralling out of control. At worst a government could decide to forcefully wind up all TFSAs at the end of a given year, which would convert them to taxable accounts marked-to-market as of a certain date (without instantaneous taxation consequences). But this could backfire if everyone decides to dump their former TFSA into RRSP and nab the tax deduction.

josh

CanadaOrangeCat wrote:

To brand a non-leftist as an 'extreme right winger' is an attempt to lump them in with fascists. It is cute, but no longer effective in the Internet age.

Seriously?  What does the "Internet age" have to do with it?

And is the converse true?

Hunky_Monkey

Someone clarify if the Liberals touched the personal income tax system?  I don't recall them doing so.  I do recall huge cuts in corporate taxes.

 

theleftyinvestor

Partial history available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada#Provincial_and_terri...

Looks like the first marginal tax bracket (which today tops out at $42.7K) went from 17% in 1998 to 16% in 2001, 15% in 2005, 15.25% in 2006, then 15% thereafer. The second bracket went from 26% in 1998 to 25% in 2000 and 22% from 2001 thereafter.

A third bracket in 1998 was 29% for over $60K. In 2001 it split into a $61.5-100K bracket at 26%, and a top bracket at 29%. This split has remained stable since those dates.

Also somewhere in there was the elimination of a 5% deficit reduction surtax.

So I guess if the NDP wanted to get closer to a 2005-era tax base, corporate taxes would be first on the agenda, not personal. Then again there's also the GST cut which is a pain, because it would be a regressive tax to increase, but it's also not something a progressive government would have chosen to cut indiscrminately in the first place.

CanadaOrangeCat

josh wrote:

CanadaOrangeCat wrote:

To brand a non-leftist as an 'extreme right winger' is an attempt to lump them in with fascists. It is cute, but no longer effective in the Internet age.

Seriously?  What does the "Internet age" have to do with it?

And is the converse true?

Equating someone with a Nazi means you automatically lose the argument in the Internet age. Especially when their views are only 1.36 degrees to the right of yours. Conversely, being called an 'extreme left winger' might bring an unwarranted association with communism. Even so, there was considerable Communist heroism, and only in some circles is the 'communist' label a source of considerable opprobrium. Indeed one could argue that Stalinist bureaucratism led the way for government in the postmodern world.

PrairieDemocrat15

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Partial history available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada#Provincial_and_terri...

Looks like the first marginal tax bracket (which today tops out at $42.7K) went from 17% in 1998 to 16% in 2001, 15% in 2005, 15.25% in 2006, then 15% thereafer. The second bracket went from 26% in 1998 to 25% in 2000 and 22% from 2001 thereafter.

A third bracket in 1998 was 29% for over $60K. In 2001 it split into a $61.5-100K bracket at 26%, and a top bracket at 29%. This split has remained stable since those dates.

Also somewhere in there was the elimination of a 5% deficit reduction surtax.

So I guess if the NDP wanted to get closer to a 2005-era tax base, corporate taxes would be first on the agenda, not personal. Then again there's also the GST cut which is a pain, because it would be a regressive tax to increase, but it's also not something a progressive government would have chosen to cut indiscrminately in the first place.

I believe Mulcair has said he will not raise the GST because it is a regressive tax (I wonder if voters in Manitoba will beileve him!).

PrairieDemocrat15

knownothing wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

It all really fits in quite well to that title "How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System". They win control by pushing the public discourse in a direction where a growing number of types of taxation become completely unacceptable in the political discourse. As a result everyone's political calculations benefit the rich, and it's just a question of to what degree.

Yeah Canada is one of the most right-wing countries in the world. Discourse is very narrow here. That is why Mulcair can't do his Hugo Chavez impersonation.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to hear Mulcair give a speech like Tommy in this clip, but the political discourse has been completely highjacked and until we gain control of some of the media outlets we can't do much about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGiGBkkQRww

It is true that nobody in parliamentary politics advocates for public ownership of the petroleum sector (although, I believe Crown-owned Nalcor in NL invests a little in offshore oil and I know the Government of Alberta is helping to finance a new upgrader in the province that will process provincially-owned oil into diesel which will then be sold by the government); however, many NDP memebers and governments do presently do what Tommy Douglas was doing, that is, defend current public enterprises. Just look at Horwath in Ontario advocating for more public power. She claims private power is a major reason for Ontario's high hydro rates.

It is true the NDP now operates in a neoliberal climate, not the Keynesian world Douglas inhabited; however, the party remains true to many of its principles.

josh

CanadaOrangeCat wrote:

josh wrote:

CanadaOrangeCat wrote:

To brand a non-leftist as an 'extreme right winger' is an attempt to lump them in with fascists. It is cute, but no longer effective in the Internet age.

Seriously?  What does the "Internet age" have to do with it?

And is the converse true?

Equating someone with a Nazi means you automatically lose the argument in the Internet age.

Saying some what is an extreme right-winger is not equating them with a Nazi.  Most extreme right-wingers today, at least in North America, are Social Darwinist economic libertarians. 

mark_alfred

CanadaOrangeCat wrote:

Equating someone with a Nazi means you automatically lose the argument in the Internet age. Especially when their views are only 1.36 degrees to the right of yours. Conversely, being called an 'extreme left winger' might bring an unwarranted association with communism. Even so, there was considerable Communist heroism, and only in some circles is the 'communist' label a source of considerable opprobrium. Indeed one could argue that Stalinist bureaucratism led the way for government in the postmodern world.

I agree that flippantly tossing words/names like "Hitler" "nazi" "fascist" around as descriptors of centre-right parties is silly (though such references to chide overly strident leadership do exist in pop culture today and have been successful, IE the soup nazi in referencing overly strident leadership of a restaurant), but I also feel that flippantly tossing words/names like "Stalin", "Mao", "communist" is silly when used as descriptors of centre-left parties. 

nicky

Getting back to the by-election, here is a piece on Jennifer Hollett that cam out today in The Grid:

http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/the-longshot/

Summer

nicky wrote:

Getting back to the by-election, here is a piece on Jennifer Hollett that cam out today in The Grid:

http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/the-longshot/

Thanks for the link.  That was an amazingly flattering article!  Hollet seems very likeable and comes across as sincere and determined.  Her website and the article are a little short on substance. What exactly does “new politics” means?  Is that one of Niki Ashton’s phrases?

Personally, I prefer my MPs to be a bit more seasoned and from all accounts, the nomination is McQuaiq’s to lose.  If Hollet is playing the long game properly, this foray into politics will set the stage for a nomination in 2015 or later down the road. 

Overall, this part of the article was probably the most relevant to the short-term:

Quote:

Her intensity is impressive, but by-elections are curious things. They notoriously draw little interest and poor voter turnout. Jaime Watt, the executive chairman of Navigator and a frequent campaign advisor, says they are also not the place for grand ideas. “It’s about organizing, and being the most efficient in getting your people to the polls.” That’s how Hollett’s been spending her days—selling memberships, relentlessly canvassing, attending and organizing events. 

 

felixr

Summer wrote:

nicky wrote:

Getting back to the by-election, here is a piece on Jennifer Hollett that cam out today in The Grid:

http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/the-longshot/

Thanks for the link.  That was an amazingly flattering article!  Hollet seems very likeable and comes across as sincere and determined.  Her website and the article are a little short on substance. What exactly does “new politics” means?  Is that one of Niki Ashton’s phrases?

Personally, I prefer my MPs to be a bit more seasoned and from all accounts, the nomination is McQuaiq’s to lose.  If Hollet is playing the long game properly, this foray into politics will set the stage for a nomination in 2015 or later down the road. 

Overall, this part of the article was probably the most relevant to the short-term:

Quote:

Her intensity is impressive, but by-elections are curious things. They notoriously draw little interest and poor voter turnout. Jaime Watt, the executive chairman of Navigator and a frequent campaign advisor, says they are also not the place for grand ideas. “It’s about organizing, and being the most efficient in getting your people to the polls.” That’s how Hollett’s been spending her days—selling memberships, relentlessly canvassing, attending and organizing events. 

I agree, it is short on substance.

DaveW

an interesting profile,

 but commenters at the end tend to view Hollett as not particularly political or activist, while McQuaig gets high marks on that score ...

Maysie Maysie's picture

Todd Ross, local activist, is running for the Liberal nomination.

This should be interesting. 

Quote:

Todd is the Aboriginal Lead for the Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) as well as the director of community development and information services at Casey House Hospice.

...

Born and raised in New Brunswick, Todd began his career in the Canadian Armed Forces as a Naval combat information operator and served on HMCS Saskatchewan. He studied political science at the University of New Brunswick, as well as at Atkinson College at York University.

Todd is a proud Métis and lives in Toronto with his partner Kirk.

Todd's blog.

Inteview with Huffington Post.ca

Maysie Maysie's picture

DaveW wrote:

 but commenters at the end tend to view Hollett as not particularly political or activist, while McQuaig gets high marks on that score ...

My understanding of Toronto Centre voters is that activism isn't a huge priority. These are the folks who voted for Bob Rae (in for 5 years) and Bill Graham (in for 23 years, and retired in 2007).

A battle between McQuaig and Ross would be interesting. I might even vote for him, and I think you all know that me voting Liberal would be quite the darndest thing.

Stockholm

Todd Ross is by all accounts a very nice, dedicated, selfless person who has been active in many good causes...all of which means that there is virtually zero chance that the Liberals will nominate him!

The fact that he worked for Smitherman and that they now hate each each other is another point in his favour...

adma

Maysie wrote:
and Bill Graham (in for 23 years, and retired in 2007).

 

Actually, while he first ran in 1984, he was first elected only in 1993.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Todd Ross is by all accounts a very nice, dedicated, selfless person who has been active in many good causes...all of which means that there is virtually zero chance that the Liberals will nominate him!

lol!! I was thinking that too. Why doesn't he run for the NDP in another riding?

Stockholm wrote:

The fact that he worked for Smitherman and that they now hate each each other is another point in his favour...

Indeed, but the voters here never stopped loving Smitherman, apparently.

Stockholm

The fact that Todd Ross and Smitherman are now enemies is a point in Ross's favour in my eyes...I don't expect the average person to care though.

Lord Palmerston

I'm pretty sure Chrystia Freeland is a shoo-in for the Liberal nomination.

Freeland isn't a lightweight, and I think McQuaig is really the only one who can take her on effectively.  In a Freeland/Hollett battle, I'd say the Rhodes Scholar trumps the one with a master's degree from Harvard in "leadership." But McQuaig (BA, U of T) is the most impressive intellectually.

 

DaveW

Maysie wrote:

DaveW wrote:
but commenters at the end tend to view Hollett as not particularly political or activist, while McQuaig gets high marks on that score ...

A battle between McQuaig and Ross would be interesting. I might even vote for him, and I think you all know that me voting Liberal would be quite the darndest thing.

Ï can just imagine: Tongue out

"hey, that Justin feller is not half as bad as you all are sayin' ...."

 

toaster

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I'm pretty sure Chrystia Freeland is a shoo-in for the Liberal nomination.

Freeland isn't a lightweight, and I think McQuaig is really the only one who can take her on effectively.  In a Freeland/Hollett battle, I'd say the Rhodes Scholar trumps the one with a master's degree from Harvard in "leadership." But McQuaig (BA, U of T) is the most impressive intellectually.

 

Going solely by Youtube videos I have found, you are easily "impressed", IMO.  

McQuaig brings me back to my days as a graduate student going to conferences listening to people who love to hear themselves speak, and who care more about pleasing their audience and speaking using the standard academic lingo than about the issue at hand.  Just because one can speak using this language, does not make them more intelligent or intellectually superior, particularly in a country where we encourage immigrants and English (and French) second language speakers to participate in politics. 

Not sure why, but there's something I personally dislike about McQuaig.  To me, she has her nose up high in the air.  She attacks the "elitist" instead of the system.  If one participates, legally, in our country's economy and makes a lot of money, good for them.  Attack the system, not the individual.

If you can't tell already, I prefer Hollett.  Unfortunately I don't live in T-C. 

Stockholm

I don't know who I would support if I lived in Toronto Centre but one thing i will say is that being the strongest NDP candidate does not necessarily equal being a good debate sparring partner to Chrystia Freeland. 99% of the voters in Toronto Centre will never watch McQuaig/Hollett debate Freeland and probably couldn't care less who would "win" a debate according to Oxford Union rules...The electorate are not a panel of judges scoring "the Great Debate". For all we know, Freeland could give some nice lofty, pedantic speeches while Hollett could be scooping up votes going door to door and personally connecting with people. Then again maybe McQuaig has better retail political skills and ends up being a better candidate. Hatrd to say. But I don't thjink the NDP needs to be totally reactive. Just because the Liberal run a stuffy public intellectual shouldn't mean that the NDP has to respond in kind.

Lord Palmerston

toaster wrote:
Going solely by Youtube videos I have found, you are easily "impressed", IMO.

I've been a fan of McQuaig's writing for many years, long before Youtube existed. 

Quote:
If you can't tell already, I prefer Hollett.  Unfortunately I don't live in T-C.

Hollett's campaign seems pretty content-free to me.  Young, hip and "progressive." 

McQuaig is more of a Nordic-type traditional social democrat.  Hollett is more of an Obama Democrat. 

Pages