Home » Babble » current events » canadian politics
babble-intro-img
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 79

107 replies [Last post]

Comments

dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011
January 22, 2012 - 7:10pm
#31

Mulcair has a great proposal, he should take extra care to inform the media(as it will attack him over this) that such things are the norm in places like Sweden(let me know if Im wrong).

 

Speaking of Sweden, let us be reminded of what would happen if we picked a leader that gets embroiled in scandals.


TheArchitect
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2011
January 22, 2012 - 7:13pm
#32

Former Burnaby—Douglas MP Bill Siksay is endorsing Brian Topp.

http://www.briantopp.ca/news/former-bc-mp-bill-siksay-backs-topp-lead-ndp


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011
January 22, 2012 - 7:15pm
#33

Howard wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Interesting.
Quote:
As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies—and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.
http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/22/mulcair-announces-proposal-to-advance-womens-equality/?lang=en

This is Mulcair's most substantive policy statement to date. What do babblers think? Also, how does it compare to other candidates' plans/statements on women's equality?

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?


AnonymousMouse
Offline
Joined: Sep 19 2011
January 22, 2012 - 7:29pm
#34
Unionist wrote:

KenS wrote:

 

To that end, I would like to see Unionist do that textual comparison and interpretation of the Clarity Acts and the Sherbrooke Declaration.

 

My pleasure:

Sherbrooke Declaration vs. Clarity Act

That's quite impressive that you had that on hand. Your textual comparison is wrong, however. On Quebec's right to secede, the Clarity Act says that there's no right for the LEGISLATURE to UNILATERALLY secede while the Sherbrooke Declaration says Quebec's people (i.e. through a direct vote) have the right to decide the succession question. There notonly isn't a contradiction here, these are both references to two different sides of the Quebec Secession decision of the Supreme Court that found that provinces do have the right to secede, but that decision must be made through a direct referendum and the terms of secession must be negotiated. Likewise on the clear majority question. The phrase "clear majority" does not mean a majority of more than 50%+1--the term for a majority of more than 50%+1 is a "super-majority". The "clear majority" means "it must be clear that there is a majority". The Supreme Court was again very clear in its decision that "clear majority" referred to questions like fraud and error in voting and the court explicitly refused to state whether it meant there had to be a majority greater than 50%+1. The much more important point, in my opinion, is that I think it is very difficult to argue that the Clarity Act does anything to reduce the chance that Quebec will separate form Canada. In fact, I think it makes secession only more likely.

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
January 22, 2012 - 7:38pm
#35
Howard wrote:

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?

Easy. It will be a hashed out for the 2015 platform by the party. He doesn't put a massive amount of detail, he gets nailed. If he did, he'd get nailed by the same people who would complain it's undemocratic.

AnonymousMouse
Offline
Joined: Sep 19 2011
January 22, 2012 - 7:53pm
#36
Howard wrote:

Howard wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Interesting.
Quote:
As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies—and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.
http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/22/mulcair-announces-proposal-to-advance-womens-equality/?lang=en

This is Mulcair's most substantive policy statement to date. What do babblers think? Also, how does it compare to other candidates' plans/statements on women's equality?

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?

This is a typical policy backgrounder. Look at Peggy Nash's backgrounder on the same subject. Very similar in style and organization. If anything, more vague. And in Nash's there doesn't even appear to be anything new. http://peggynash.ca/2012/peggy-nash-releases-5-point-plan-for-achieving-... Most of this--in both cases--is a regurgitation of party policy. The take away from Mulcair's announcement, as with his others, is the idea highlighted in the press release--in this case appoint 50% women to government boards as done in Quebec.

Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005
January 22, 2012 - 8:19pm
#37

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Most of this--in both cases--is a regurgitation of party policy.

How scandalous. A would-be party leader, regurgitating party policy. Imagine that.

 


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011
January 22, 2012 - 9:08pm
#38

Flashback: Mulcair on pay equity


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
January 22, 2012 - 9:39pm
#39
I keep learning about Quebec through press releases. Now I know that not only is Quebec friendlier for low-wage working mothers, but it has in place policy aimed at developing equity in government offices: "SAINT-HYACINTHE – NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair announced the latest policy proposal of his 2012 leadership campaign today, alongside his Quebec Campaign Co-Chair , Marie-Claude Morin, and NDP Women’s Caucus Chair, Djaouida Sellah. Under Mulcair’s proposal, an NDP government would adopt the gender equity policy already in effect in Quebec with regard to public appointments. “As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies — and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.” Mulcair said. “Today’s announcement only reinforces what we know about Tom’s commitment to women’s equality. Here in Quebec we know Tom has been fighting to advance women’s rights for over twenty years since his days as President of the Quebec Professions Board when he took on the difficult issue of stopping sexual misconduct by medical professionals.” said Sellah, MP for Saint-Bruno – Saint-Hubert and NDP Women’s Caucus Chair." Leadership races are clearly needed to keep us more fully informed about Canada. This has been a wonderful learning experience for this Canuck. Can't wait for the revelations to come in the next two months.

Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002
January 22, 2012 - 9:51pm
#40

"In a fundraising letter this week, the deputy NDP leader said Quebec remains key to the party's hopes of winning the next general election in 2015. Mr. Mulcair said he wants to raise $30,000 by Sunday, with all of the money being directed to the membership blitz."

I already knew this. Lydia Treadwell said last Tuesday, in her awesome fundraising pitch, that she needed $3,500 for a newpaper ad for this blitz. And some lower amount for a radio ad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulcair-lau...

I didn't get the e-mail. I'm not yet supporting Mulcair, although I may decide to. But I've been saying that I would have made a donation to the federal party if they had asked for money for a membership campaign.

So I just donated $200.00 to his campaign.

If Lydia was here, she would say "hands up all those who will do the same."


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
January 22, 2012 - 10:16pm
#41
Quote: "I look forward to seeing these Quebec unemployment figures. If you think Stanford, Jackson, Watkins, etc. merely talk about "redistribution" and not "growing the pie." Stanford talks a lot about the financial system and distribution (for instance his book Paper Boom)." ------------- January 16, 2012 - 8:47am #43 (permalink). A piece in Friday's Globe Business Report poiints out that Quebec's jobless rate is suddenly soaring, pointing to the need for New Democrats to advance a solution to economic malaise. "It's almost as if the recession has cought up with Quebec. Economists are at a loss to explain why the province, which limped through the slump but didn't suffer the extent of job losses as elsewhere in Canada, is suddenly seeing deep cuts...While a single month of job losses could be dismissed as a statistical blip, three consecutive months of declines - from October to December at a cost of almost 70,000 positions - can't be...Its unemployment rate has risen to 8.7 per cent from 7.3 per cent in September, above the nationalaverage and the highest in more than two years... "A confluence of factors appear to be at play, from still-weak U.S.demand to the wind-up of government spending on infrastructure and global challenges slamming the provinces forestry and manufacturing sectors...some say a high cost of doing business is another key factor. Unit labour costs or the costs of producing here, with wages of $25 or $30 an hour, is not as viable for these businesses as it used to be, because of technology and emerging markets," said one economist. Still to come, federal government plans to cut "thousands of public sector jobs" in the Ottawa-Gatineau area. "Numbers so far suggest Quebec has stalled, not fallen into a recession. The province grew just 1.3 per cent in the third quarter of last year at an annualized rate, compared with an annual rate of 3.5 per cent for all of Canada...The weakness is centered in the private sector. Five months of head-count declines in the private sector amount to 103,000 positions, the worst drop ever, according to Stefane Marion, chief economist at National Bank of Canada." ----- There you go, M'lord. The business pages of the Globe are very useful in understanding the political scene. The separation of politics and economics was always a very arbitrary act of mathematics dominated schools of economics (with results we keep witnessing) :) . And while Jim Stanford is occasionally asked to write a column for the Globe, his work is really about maintaining a healthy economic climate for the not-so-big Three automakers in Canada. The fact that he "talks a lot about the financial system and distribution" is explained by that Eastern Canadian manufacturing fact. But CAW is now facing the bloodiest bargaining in its history, the loss of high wages and benefits. And that is in large part a result of a petro-dollar on par with the greenback, together with a globalized world economy. Ontario could lose all of those plants in a heartbeat with the current ideologues in power, and it's going to take recognition of that threat to steer a safe economic course for the next while, concern for the big picture.

dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011
January 22, 2012 - 9:59pm
#42

Paul Dewar and the grassroots

Two countries, two leadership races - is one method better?

Brian Topp Article 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001
January 22, 2012 - 10:31pm
#43

AnonymousMouse wrote:
KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

[Mulcair has] proposed to extend cap and trade to cover all major sources of emissions (not just the biggest polluters responsible for 50% of emissions) http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

 

What I wrote above is in no way an interpretation of anything. Mulcair's press release says he was preposing to "expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution". Knowing that those 700 emitters (LFEs) are responsible for 50% of emissions, that direct quote Mulcair's press release (there was also a backgrounder) says nearly word for word what I said above. There is no interpretation involved.

If anyone cares:

And how is it you "know" that [bolded part]. Its not in the Mulcair release. What you 'know' is definitely an interpretation [minimum point]. On top of that, its a faulty interpretation.

What Mulcair's release says is that it is expanding beyond the 700 emitters covered in 'existing legislation'.... legislation is what the government does. And the government legislation does not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions, and no figure is mentioned in Mulcair's release.

The 50% of emissions is what the NDP's existing plan covers.... the 700 emitters covered in the government legislation Mulcair's skimpy release referrs to do not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions.

 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001
January 22, 2012 - 10:38pm
#44

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Howard wrote:

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?

Easy. It will be a hashed out for the 2015 platform by the party. He doesn't put a massive amount of detail, he gets nailed. If he did, he'd get nailed by the same people who would complain it's undemocratic.

Thin excuse.

There is only one person for sure who complains it is undemocratic.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002
January 22, 2012 - 11:04pm
#45

Wilf Day wrote:

So I just donated $200.00 to his campaign.

If Lydia was here, she would say "hands up all those who will do the same."

Someone? Anyone?


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
January 22, 2012 - 11:13pm
#46
Jesus, the never-ending stories about the member from Outremont.

Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
January 22, 2012 - 11:18pm
#47
quote: "We are not having pie growth problems. We are having pie distribution problems. It is a fact that the pie has grown steadily over the last few decades, but that extra pie has gone solely to the people at the top. Any potential new pie that appears is also slated to go to the people at the top. How is more pie going to help us when it never gets passed around?" ----- The blessed pie is no longer growing.You know, 2008 and all that? In fact, it is threatened with shrinkage, globally. And in eastern Canada, the increasing ranks of unemployed suggest the portions are going to be very thin for a bit. :)

Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
January 22, 2012 - 11:23pm
#48
Wilf Day wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

So I just donated $200.00 to his campaign.

If Lydia was here, she would say "hands up all those who will do the same."

Someone? Anyone?

Couldn't do $200 but I managed $75 on Friday. It's a long way to this year's tax returns. :)

AnonymousMouse
Offline
Joined: Sep 19 2011
January 22, 2012 - 11:19pm
#49
KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

[Mulcair has] proposed to extend cap and trade to cover all major sources of emissions (not just the biggest polluters responsible for 50% of emissions) http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

 

What I wrote above is in no way an interpretation of anything. Mulcair's press release says he was preposing to "expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution". Knowing that those 700 emitters (LFEs) are responsible for 50% of emissions, that direct quote Mulcair's press release (there was also a backgrounder) says nearly word for word what I said above. There is no interpretation involved.

If anyone cares:

And how is it you "know" that [bolded part]. Its not in the Mulcair release. What you 'know' is definitely an interpretation [minimum point]. On top of that, its a faulty interpretation.

What Mulcair's release says is that it is expanding beyond the 700 emitters covered in 'existing legislation'.... legislation is what the government does. And the government legislation does not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions, and no figure is mentioned in Mulcair's release.

The 50% of emissions is what the NDP's existing plan covers.... the 700 emitters covered in the government legislation Mulcair's skimpy release referrs to do not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions.

 

First of all, I know that the ~700-750 biggest polluters in the country (known as Large Final Emitters) are responsible for approximately 50% of greenhouse gas emissions, because I heard Jack Layton say it about a hundred times, but a ten second Google search produces other sources such as this one. http://www.ec.gc.ca/media_archive/press/2005/050716_b_e.htm Second, Mulcair's press release doesn't refer to existing legislation--I think you're thinking of a line from the accompanying backgrounder. Third, existing legislation does cover Large Final Emitters. It's just that the Conservative government has chosen not to USE that legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (more specifically I believe they have published regulation, but based on intensity targets, not hard caps). This was a major issue back when Stephane Dion Minister of the Environment. The Liberals made the point that existing legislation already gave them the power to cap GHGs from LFEs, but it is a power not a requirement which is why the Cons could just as easily choose not to regulate GHGs (or regulate them in a half assed way). http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2005/2005-07-16/html/notice-avis-en...

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
January 23, 2012 - 12:38am
#50
KenS wrote:

Thin excuse.

There is only one person for sure who complains it is undemocratic.

Excuse? No, it's an explaination. If he went any further, I'm sure you'd complain that it was too detailed :) He's made a commitment to a national childcare system. Could you list the specific details you think he should have published during a leadership campaign?

Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
January 23, 2012 - 5:33am
#51
You're inviting a tome?

KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001
January 23, 2012 - 6:04am
#52

The only time that Mulcair has even given a moderate degree of speification of what is talking about was a few paragraphs on the CPP+. I commented a bit on what was there, not the volume. I didnt see much to say one way or the other.

I think we are safe in not needing to worry our little heads over the possibility of Mulcair specifying enough that it brings out complaints that it is too much.

 

Now if you wanted to complain that whatever Mulcair says someone is going to criticise it, you'd be on solid ground. But then, it is a leadership race. And he's the front runner. 


nicky
Online
Joined: Aug 3 2005
January 23, 2012 - 7:26am
#53
The Halifax debate is next Sunday afternoon. Are there any debate parties scheduled in Toronto?

Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011
January 23, 2012 - 8:01am
#54

...and without detail, what's the difference between a policy statement and a wishlist?


writer
Offline
Joined: Apr 11 2002
January 23, 2012 - 9:17am
#55

No official debate, nicky. The Toronto Area Council held one just a few days ago, on Wednesday. All the candidates attended. It was covered by rabble.ca. It's still available here, I believe.


nicky
Online
Joined: Aug 3 2005
January 23, 2012 - 9:27am
#56

I meant parties next Sunday to watch the debate from Halifax.


writer
Offline
Joined: Apr 11 2002
January 23, 2012 - 9:34am
#57

Sorry, missed that all-important word! Sleepy head, over here.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001
January 23, 2012 - 9:36am
#58

In terms of turnout in Halifax:

Weather forecast for Sunday- of course could change massivley by then. We are today coming off a couple of the few cold days we have had this winter, and some snow.

Through Sunday we are slated for dismal cloudy weather around freezing, but no serious precipitation.


DaveW
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2008
January 23, 2012 - 12:51pm
#59

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

So now the biggest criticisms against Mulcair aren't that he's anti-union. It's that he has poor political judgment in how he handled the issue.

How do you quantify or qualify "poor political judgment"?

- He wins elections.
- He wins endorsements. From unions.
- He wins support. From members.
- He gets favorable media coverage.
- He polls well. Outside and inside the party.

[...]

Good points.

 

 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001
January 23, 2012 - 12:57pm
#60

While not directed only at me.... the comment was a response to what I said.

And those are the most obvious answers, but not all of them.

I'm getting there.  Wink

[As a general comment about about Mulcair's political judgement.]


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments