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.
NDP Leadership 74
January 15, 2012 - 6:23am
V
Nash: Making Canada a global leader in innovation
Topp: Three steps to promote jobs and access to capital
link @ bottom of page Download the policy paper
Interesting that each of them emphasised the parts of the economy they know best.
Unsurprising. Except that both of them also have worked in the NDP on policy that was not so focused on their own production of ideas and vision. Maybe not so surprising their own campaigns would be different, but still interesting. You can bet that should either become Leader, these ideas will be just starting points that a team sets to work on- both developing and picking apart.
Two bits of advice for Brian on reading his paper.
First, get well brother.
For this paper, there is too much text. Like Peggy's: graphs and tables rather than footnotes. [And maybe just lose the footnotes, whatever else is done.]
The latter point is more central, and not really about the discussion paper per se.
We know in politics that the vision and larger message is the main event.
In the case of both the taxation [and social equality] initiative, and the democratic reform initiative, the few key proposals are both the specifics AND they capture the vision and meaage.
I do not think that works in this package. The specific proposals are solid means for geting results, but they do not as a message in themselves capture the full meaning.
The background part of the paper does that. As it did in the earlier papers. But the background material is only for the policy wonk oriented. And even for us, there has to be a summarising and capturing 'picture'. The spefic proposals play that role in the earlier initiatives. But that's harder to do in this case.
I think Brian Topp has to distill what is in the background part of the paper into a message that can be touched on and reinforced in short bits as are available in the debates.
Brian is up against something in delivering that message emphasising growth in small and medium size enterprises.
The news and the public imagination is captured by what happens with the manufacturing plants, the paper mills and the mines. You see that reflected in concerns expressed here.
But the structure of employment and economic activity is changing. Even within sectors, the shift is to work in smaller enterprises. [And not that is not just 'lose your job at GM, and go to work at WalMart'.] Most people who pay any attention have heard that.
But it has not really sunk in.
Peggy Nash's focus on innovation and R&D taps into the popular image of everything happening at auto plant and the pharmaceutical and biotech labs.
Not only is the economic growth in the small and medium sized enterprises. So too- even if maybe a lesser degree- is the innovation and R&D. But who knows that? Who sees it? What exposure does it get?
More to the point: what does any of it have to do with Brain Topp's capital access proposals?
A lot actually. But I dont think the messaging strategy is to 'explain' that. At least, that is not what the messaging needs most and first.
If Brian can pull off making this idea connect, there are substantial 'bonus points' in populist appeal. The aspirations of entrpreneurs have broad appeal in the NDP's support universe. The mixed feelings about that common on this board are far from the norm.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/will+lead/5998297/story.html
I think Dewar has made a mistake too.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/01/leadership-2012-roun...
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/article/1278841--bringing-parkda...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/52263-mp-s-defection-bad-sig...
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3436914
Don Davies knows which issues to focus on
http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=13293
To hear Hebert tell it, Quebec is more centrist than the rest of Canada. If anything, the opposite is true.
As if not being as centrist as possible is the route to rack and ruin in Quebec. LSD's defection may well be a sign and warning for the NDP of Quebec's fluidity... but only in the most general sense that exists already. It is NOT as Hebert would have it a warning that if the NDP is not unambiguously centrist, that fluidity should have us looking over our shoulders at the Liberals.
I think its a safe bet that LSD is not going to be re-elected in 2015. Since she doesnt even care to try at being a reasonably good consituency politician, she wasnt a good prospect for getting re-elected if she had stayed in the NDP either. And you can bet there isnt going to be some big Liberal wave across Quebec that carries her. What will Hebert say then that LSD is an indicator of?
But Hebert has never payed attention to politics on the ground.
Something we must, of course, remember re leadership endorsements, tussles, etc: a lot will depend on second-and-third-ballot support which we cannot second-guess (providing that there *is*, unlike in 2003, more than one ballot)
Lawrence Martin just stated on CPAC that if Mulcair wins it is bad news for the Liberals in Quebec. What a revelation. LOL
My impression of the Liberal leadership convention is that they're not trying for Progressive Conservatives anymore. They are still a buzz about the Occupy movement, as if they just discovered inequality. And I guess watching all of Quebec go orange helps them look towards progressive concerns. Add to that a Harper majority, and suddenly there's a lot of Liberals who have found a bit of purpose.
Very few resolutions about how to "save" (privatize) social security or build a corporate donor base. A lot of policies reacting to Harper: the census, the wheat board, and so on. 3/4 of their delegates voted to legalize marijuana.
The main problem will be when their progressive concerns come up against the leadership from Bay Street, and the corporate donor base. Of course, there's also the huge trust gap.
Point is that in 4 years, we could find ourselves competing on very similar ground. We need to remember what we offer that's different from the LPC.
Ken S,
I think what Hebert meant by "centrist" was that QCers did not shift dieologically to the left in the last campaign; she did not mean QCers were "centrist" relative to the rest of Canada.
Personally, I would agree with this assessment. If the NDP was the precusror of a massive leftward shift in the population, Quebec Solidaire would have been doing much better provincially.
More than a third of the party's 2011 supporters voted for Chretien in 2000 in Quebec? I suspect that would hold across the board in Canada, I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher.
What an irrelevant point. Since when do we talk about who people voted for over a decade ago?
ETA: From where I'm sitting, Chretien being such a good politician was really the only reason people voted Liberal in the last 20 years. It wasn't because of the Liberal policies, which were always markedly different from their promises. Rather than looking for the next Pierre Trudeau, I don't know why they weren't ever looking for the next Jean Chretien (who they were so stupid as to ditch).
This is something that quite worries me.
When asked about how Mulcair would address economic equality, I think one of his supporters here replied that the way to address economic equality is to bring back the manufacturing base. And I think Nash is taking a similar approach.
I think this is wrongheaded, because I don't think those jobs are ever coming back. Not only will the quantity of jobs never come back, but the quality (compensation) will never come back either. Unions have relinquished benefits for new and future workers as a negotiation tactic.
Additionally, I wonder about the strategy of being an export economy. Germany did great, for a while, as an export economy. But the reality is the way that most of Europe was able to afford those German goods was through loans from German banks. And that has led to the debt crisis. China, too, is able to be an export economy by lending the US money to buy its products. These are not sustainable strategies.
I think the economy is fundamentally changing, and I don't see the NDP candidates offering much substance to address this. I haven't read Topp's paper, maybe he talks about it. Additionally, we seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place--there's a lot that we can't do with NAFTA in place, and it doesn't seem like anyone thinks we can really get out of it.
Frankly, I'd say policies like giving every school aged child a tablet computer (which would actually be pretty cheap to do) would go a lot further towards pointing things in the right direction than talking about our manufacturing base.
The economy is never going to be the same as it was. I want to know what will most people be doing as a job 10 years from now, and I don't see any candidates able to effectively answer this question.
Beg to differ on that. Both her words, and the thrust of the whole article suggest she meant "centrist, period. In other words, Quebec voters are centrist- she said that- and the NDP dare not stray from that.
I agree that there is nothing in the shift that says that it is necessarily an expression of 'left,' or even social democratic. But it is a leap from that to, 'it was centrist, and the NDP better position itself there.'
"The fact is that we are the exact opposite of what Prime Minister Harper is doing to the country. He's dividing people, encouraging us to blame each other, and causing us to resent each other. That's not the way that Canada should be. It's very un-Canadian." – Romeo Saganash
Great quote writer.
Meanwhile, NDP Leader Nycole Turmel to tour the regions of Québec
The specifics of Nash's plan:
Other than Cullen's joint party nominations for ridings, I'm really enjoying and enthusiastic about all of the policies and initiatives released from all of the leadership candidates so far. Looking forward to kicking Liberal/Conservative ass in 2015 with our great NDP team.
Regardless of who are next leader is, I'm confident that an NDP government will cancel these multi-billion dollar boondoggles such as mega prisons and F-35 figther jets we don't need, while raising corporate tax rates, implementing a more progressive system of taxation/higher taxes on higher income earners, legalizing/regulating/taxing cannabis (another referendum/ballot initiative is apparently coming this year in California, we should catch up to them by 2015) which is already a multi-billion dollar industry with cannabis arguably being one of our largest cash crops, etc.
I guess we'll have to wait till the end to see how their plans are costed.
Remember Ken S, that "centrist" in QC is not the same thing as "centrist" in the ROC.
Jack Layton's 2011 campaign was in tune with the broad centre of QC politics. As Hebert points out, people did not vote for the NDP b|c they thought the Liberals were too right wing, but because Layton was the most effective "anti-Harper" champion. For example, he was the only party leader who promised to bring about a 2008-style coaltion, which was very popular in QC.
The next leader should have that same "travaillons ensemble" approach. Unfortunately, with his attacks on Mulcair, Topp seems to have distanced himself from that kind of style, which could make him vulnerable in QC.
By redirecting the funds to building Navy warships like Layton did. By the way, Layton didn't say the F-35s should be built, just that they didn't need to be built/purchased until 2016 (when your hypothetical NDP government would be in power).
Layton was careful to never call for the raising of corporate tax rates, just the cancellation of planned reductions to the corporate tax rate.
The NDP position, if I am not mistaken, has been decriminalisation, which basically means the drug gangs can sell to a larger market because their customers don't have to worry as much about getting arrested/having their reputations ruined by legal troubles. Same goes for small level possesion by dealers. Instead of jail time, people get fines, which like their traffic fines and parking tickets, they don't pay, backing up the court system. I don't know if the NDP position was even included in the 2011 platform. Anyone else know the details?
Dont be obtuse.
Take the following test.
Who of the following do you think quaifies according to Hebert's implied criteria as sufficiently centrist to be successful in Quebec?
a.] Peggy Nash
b.] Tom Mulcair
c.] Brian Topp
Hint, read the column again. North Report got it and highlighted it: the thrust of the article is that a contributing reason that LSD defected to the Liberal Party is that at least some of the candidates in the leadership campaign show signs of taking the NDP more to the left than did Jack Layton, and which is what Quebecers are comfortable with.
And yet, magically, Romeo Saganash is not even a passing mention for Hebert. Because ... because ... because ... oh, there doesn't even need to be a mention of why, does there? I mean, just because he's perfectly fluent and from Quebec as much as anyone on the planet can *be* from Quebec and he doesn't use divisive rhetoric, and hasn't criticized Mulcair; why, the pundits don't need to account for what role he may be able to play. Because he can't play any. They've decided. With all their knowledge, sympathy and connection to the NDP and its vision for Canada, they've decided.
As leader, how would you build caucus solidarity?
I'm not sure writer, but I think Hebert only mentions Topp in passing, and negatively.... sort of the representative of what is wrong with the NDP.
I am the one that mentioned those 3- because they are the ones that would come to mind as having some kind of more or less ideological positioning most widely attributed to them.
The column isnt about the candidates. It is about what is wrong with the NDP, and no wonder LSD defected.
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf
The US corporate tax rate in 2011 was 35%, so boosting our corporate tax rate from 16.5% to approximately 34% would be a very substantial and significant start.
Yes that is the NDP's position, however there is a very strong push from the grassroots for legalization, regulation and taxation, and I know that Libby Davies and quite a few others are sympathetic on this issue. Besides, I think if California moves ahead on this issue, not only will many other states follow, but Canadians will also want to get on board, in which they already are:
http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.15_Drugs_CAN.pdf