babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Why be in a hurry?
Hoping for a stampede maybe?
Tories turn over salary info for CBC but not PMO
This has absolutely no relevance to the leadership race. The NDP is part of the story.
But I'm putting it here because aspersions were cast on the author for posting the original story in which Mulcairs contrbutions to the party became the feature.
Like I said, Glen MacGregor is anything but after the NDP or any of its candidates. He's the classic dying breed of dig for the facts, as in this story. And his favourite target is 'Harpocracy.'
Not sure that Peggy's electoral record in PHP is as impressive as Socialdemocrati... alleges.
She has run four times, losing twice. In '08 when she lost the seat to Kennedy the NDP held its vote throughout Ontario and the Liberals fell by 6%. Yet Kennedy gained 7% in PHP and Peggy lost 4.5%.
In 2011 when she won her seat back there was a huge swing from the Liberals to the NDP throughout Toronto. I don't think her swing was any better than average that year. She raised her vote by 11.0%, but this was less than neighbouring ridings. Andrea Cash raised his by 23.4%, Mike Sullivan by 12,2 and Olivia by 13.7
Although the NDP never held the seat federally we should remember that the CCF and NDP usually held it provincially going back to the 40s. So it's not as if Peggy really broke new ground for the party or even outperformed the party.
I was curious about the exchange between Mulcair and Topp on capital gains taxes. It's something I didn't know much about, so I've done a bit of searching. Topp suggested that the Chretien Liberals had cut the capital gains tax to 50% (apparently it had been higher -- perhaps 66% or 75% previously), and he suggested this was a regressive cut that primarily benefitted the wealthiest in society, and should be undone. Mulcair suggested this was not the case, giving (I think) the example of an average income person inheriting a cottage (would this even be considered a capital gain? and if so, would the actual saving on taxes if preserving the 50% tax amount in such a circumstance be significant?). Mulcair said that other changes in tax law would be better, since he did not feel that the cut to capital gains tax primarily benefitted the wealthy. In searching this, I've found plenty of evidence to support Topp's claim, and none to support Mulcair's claim. Apparently, during the time that Chretien's Libs cut this tax, they were being supported to do so by both the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives, and not the NDP.
Anyway, if any of Mulcair's fans here like Hunky Monkey or nicky or doofy could clarify Mulcair's stance on this, I'd appreciate it.
Social Democrat--
Your arugment could work very well if there was no candidate in this race who QCers had already warmed to. (say Mulcair decided no to run and was currently interim leader). It also would work very well if we were just picking a leader with English Canada in mind.
But as it stands now, there is a candidate who QCers clearly want the NDP to pick. Electing someone else would obvisouly create disappointemnt and set the new leader up on a wrong foot.
To me, it seems a needless risk to take, but I get the sense I am repeating myself...
Hmmm, those are good metrics nicky. I don't think we should take losing as a dealbreaker. In fact, I think someone who learns from losing and eventually wins may find themselves less vulnerable to mistakes in the future. But your point about "underperforming" or "overperforming" versus the party is extremely valid, keeping in mind that Gerrard Kennedy is a "star" candidate for the Liberals.
My point isn't that I will definitely support Peggy Nash. My point is that with 2 months left in the race, she could still easily prove to me that she would be a good leader to grow the party without compromising our principles.
She hasn't proved it yet. But then I don't think anyone else has either.
There's time.
I think the disappointment is overstated. Like I said, most people aren't watching the leadership race with baited breath, ready to decide who to vote for in 2015 in 2 months. As long as whoever wins the convention is a good Francophone with a good message, they'll hold most of the gains in Quebec.
SD writes:
"Hmmm, those are good metrics nicky. I don't think we should take losing as a dealbreaker. In fact, I think someone who learns from losing and eventually wins may find themselves less vulnerable to mistakes in the future."
On that basis maybe we shd go back to Audrey McLaughlin.
In support of Doofy's last comment, I think SD's "name recognition" excuse for Mulcair's standing in the Quebec polls is off base. According to the Abacus poll, name recognition for the candidates is HIGHEST in Quebec, about 67% vs 50 for the ROC if I remember. Mulcair's standing there is astronomical. If SD were right Mulcair wd benefit from lower name recognition among the other candidates. To the contrary he seems to be doing best where voters are most familiar with the candidates.
And in response to Mark -A, i don't presume to know the intricacies of capital gains tax but I have been paying it on and off for decades. I think it has always been taxed at 50%
"As long as whoever wins the convention is a good Francophone with a good message, they'll hold most of the gains in Quebec."
That certainly winnows down the field!
Thanks for getting back to me nicky. I've done a bit more reading on this, and I think it's not actually taxed at 50%. Rather, it seems the profits on capital are taxed at whatever your income rate is, and then that is slashed by half. Previously it was slashed by a quarter (multiplied by 75%), then back in 2000 or 2001 Chretien increased the tax-free portion of profits from one quarter to one half (50%).
This tax cut by the Liberals was supported by both the Alliance and the Conservatives, not the NDP. What I've read suggests it disproportionately benefits the wealthiest in society. So, if anyone can say why Mulcair feels otherwise, I'm certainly willing to be enlightened. Until then, I'm with Topp on this one.
This is the stuff of debates, so its all fair game. But these points of Mulcairs are bunk and that would have emerged if the debate was continued. We're lucky tyo get 2 rounds from the candidates- but its easy to deflect the argument whan numbers are tossed around and there is a time limit.
Anyway:
I dont know if Mulcair said inherit a cottage of sell one. The former is different, I think he said the latter. Topp's policy exempts farms and businesses. You can check the website about cottages, I dont remember. If they werent also exempted, changing that is a detail.
I also do not remember whether or not Mulcair denied capital gains cuts primarily benefited the wealthy. But if he did, that is definitely bunk.
You could get into splitting hairs on that. I'm lower income, and have benefited from lowered capital gains. But it VERY disproportionately benefits the wealthy and higher income brackets.
Yes, I'll be curious to read that. However, he did clearly rule out restoring the capital gains tax to its previous level, suggesting in the debate that the cut had not disproportionately benefitted the wealthy. The fact that he'll be releasing more details in the future should not prevent people from listening to and asking questions about stands he actually takes in the debate, should it?
(Not so many francophones. ;0])
Brian Topp email:
Perhaps SD is right that it wouldn't matter if we fell to 20% in the polls after we spruned Mulcair during the leadership race, as the new leader would have 3.5 years to make up ground....
On the other hand, you never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. There are many historical precedents for QC political parties ending their honeymoons and never being able to recover. I'm not sure I want us to take the risk...
NDP leadership hopeful Nathan Cullen says there’s nothing wrong with making a buck
"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."
If Cullen doesn't get with program, I may just be the "plus one"...
Well, Cullen is now off my shortlist.
I don't think you're catching my argument. I'm saying that Quebec wouldn't feel spurned in the first place.
Most people don't care about politics to the degree we care on Rabble. We're here analyzing minor details for game changers. I'm saying the actual game changer hasn't arrived yet. Again, the average Canadian isn't paying attention. There are things that have far more immediate impact in their lives.
If there is no game changer, Tom Mulcair is more than likely our best pick.
But there's two months left. A few candidates (including but not limited to Tom Mulcair himself) could land on a message that resonates with voters across the country. If they can do that in French, they can hold our position in Quebec. If they can do that in English, they can grow the party in the rest of Canada.
That's my argument. It's very simple.
Cullen's charismatic enough the I would've been willing to overlook his joint nomination plan but this is what's taken him off my list (his comments a few weeks ago actually). I don't think he currently understands Quebec and I'm not willing to take the risk that he'll develop that understanding.
Is Mulcair really fighting against a hostile English Canadian NDP establishment? I don't see the hostility.
The story is even more cringe-inducing than the headline:
No thanks, Nathan. Next!
It made me feel really bad for Martin Singh. The guy drops the word business like he's announcing a firesale at Honest Eds on a tight repeat loop, and he still doesn't get any acknowledgement that he's in the room.
Social Democrat--
The NDP is trending down in the polls and may well end up at (or around) 20% before March 24. People are following closely enough for thre to be continued decline in NDP support. At that point, we would need a "game changer" to turn the current media narrative in QC on its head. A Mulcair victory would do that, but I'm less than sure about any of the other candidates.
So Cullen now appears to be the second candidate to (publicly) take his distances with that aspect of the Sherbrooke Declaration (the first one being Saganash). At least we're discovering that before the election...
No, we haven't been trending down. We've been flat-lining. We've been stable in the polls since the election. In the last few months we have consistently been polling at 28-29% in the polls, within the margin of error of where we were on May 2nd under Jack. Only Nanos has polled us below this average, and their polls lately have been outliers, which leads me to suspect that they are experimenting with methodology.
While we remain stable, the Liberals and Conservatives are flucuating wildly. Sometimes this brings the Libs up into the mid 20's, but that's not at the expense of the NDP nationally, because we aren't losing points.
Yes, there is a measured decline in the polls in Quebec, but because of strong numbers outside of Quebec, we've been able to hold our own. And we are still relatively strong in Quebec.
Saying that we are trending to 20% in 2 months time is hyperbolic nonsense. Not backed up by the data.