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
I don't see any evidence that a carbon tax benefits the environment one iota unless the tax is about ten times higher than anyone has ever contemplated in any any jurisdiction...they brought in a carbon tax under Gordon Campbell in BC with a big fanfare. Did it actually reduce GHG emissions by even the teeniest amount? NOoooooo.
This is a good point. Mulcair should stop coddling the media's inherent elitism and give more credit to the grassroots. I also think the renewal point is a one-legged strawman. Anyone that can look at what Layton did and say the NDP didn't renew under him should not be taken seriously. Maybe the renewal isn't done yet, I could definitely understand that, but the rest is a bunch of bs that it makes it seem like the last 9 years amount to nothing- which they clearly don't.
I don't disagree that it hasn't worked, yet. Is there an example where cap and trade has done better for real. Mathematically not destroying some number of rainforest acres counts as a benefit, but it wasn't destroyed when they began the accounting. Should I receive a credit for not buying a ford F350, even though I wasn't going to do it in any case?
Tony Blair had the excuse of taking over the leadership of a totally demoralized party that had lost four elections in a row and was going through a crisis of confidence and was looking to move in some sort of a new direction. I don't necessarily agree with what Blair did - but his overall message that Labour needed to make big changes made a lot of sense at the time.
The NDP on the other hand has been GAINING a ton of ground in the last four federal elections, as well as at the provincial election. Seems to me that we are doing something right and maybe we need to keep doing what we are doing. If the NDP had done really badly in the last election and had been reduced to 25 seats and the conventional wisdom was that populist appeals to "ordinary Canadians" had been a total failue - theneverything Mulcair is saying would be worth at least thinking about...in the same article he complains that the NDP message keeps us stuck at 17% - well HELLOOOO we just had an elecion where we won 31% of the vote and 103 seats!!! Again, its like the arguments he is making are out of date - its as if he was running to succeed Alexa MacDonough!
I think you just proved Mulcair's point about "cogent, well-argued analysis"
ETA: Sweeping and inaccurate generalisations plus some name-calling, does not equal good politics.
It's just politics 101 that your primary policy plank should never, ever contain the word TAX. I love the idea of a carbon tax but it's political poison, and running a general campaign on it would be suicide, which is why no one in the Liberals or the NDP has breathed a word about it since Dion.
Except that six months after the Dion debacle, a certain rightwing eco-terrorist named Gordon Campbell decided to "green wash" himself by bringing in a carbon tax in BC - and he got away with it and won the election!
The full Star article was less startling than the excerpt before, but still...waiting on Mulcair's economy/taxation platform.
Has BC's Carbon Tax Worked?
That wasn't campaigning on a carbon tax, it was instituting it from government. I'd imagine the next NDP or (god forbid) Liberal govenrment will quietly start tapping that revenue stream, but don't expect to see the words "carbon tax" in anyone's platfrom.
This is a bit of a derail anyway, none of the candidates to my knowledge has even hinted at being carbon tax curious.
The fact remains, Campbell the eco-terrorist imposed a carbon tax shortly before the election, the NDP ran against it and he defended it at every opportunity (mostly for cynical reasons, its not as if eco-terrorist Campbell actually gave a hoot about global warming). If supporting a new tax is so totally deadly - Carole James should have been elected premier!
...and then you conveniently forget that in 2011 we hit the jackpot. I don't think the NDP EVER used the term "ordinary Canadians" in French because it was always common knowledge that it was untranslatable into French. The messaging in French tended to be about "les familles d'aujourd'hui" - whihc I have no objection to. My recollection is quite different. I totally agree that low and middle income Canadians do NOT identify as "working class" or as workers or any of that old-fashioned Marxist lingo...but people do identity with the idea of "the little guy" or "average Canadians" or even "working families"....but the point is moot, the NDP already moved away from most of that brand of sloganeering in the last election, so again I think Tom is making perfectly valid points...if this were 2002 and not 2012! everything he says has to change in the NDP are things that Jack Layton already went about 99% of the way to changing! Its not that i disagee with most of Tom's comments, i just think that they are out of date.
Another important question to ask is: how progressive would Mulcair's cap and trade plan be? And if it isn't progressive, what does that say about Mulcair's overall outlook concerning social and economic inequality?
Could Mulcair's cap and trade plan be twisted by the Conservatives as being a "anti-west, back to the NEP" plan?
I'm happy you asked Mulcair such a succinct question.
Mulcair's answer was excellent. I hope his position is reflected on his web site, in media articles, and in televised debates.
It's smart putting the candidate on the spot and it's important for the candidate to publicly commit to their policies to a wide audience.
It's easy for Harper not to disparage the Tory grassroots because he agrees with them. Harper's just smart enough to hide that side from the public so he can win elections. I see no reason to believe Harper's right-wing outlook has changed from his NCC / Alberta firewall days.
That is a gross generalization. While
The Story of Cap & Trade (2009) - YouTubeis quite a devastating critique, a properly designed cap and trade system can actually work (meaning both reduce emissions and generate economic activity and employment).
http://www.analysisgroup.com/RGGI.aspx
The devil is in the details though. A properly designed cap and trade system could generate indirect tax revenue through increased employment, but that point doesn't seem to have been made.
I'm not saying he will not release a formal policy paper. But the ones he has released so far are very sketchy he has said more in the media. And he has already said more about taxes than he has said about his cap and trade and climate change policy that is a news release of several paragraphs.
So he already has a tax policy out there in circulation- which he affirmed yesterday in stronger terms what he said in Halifax.
Bolded part is obviously the basis for Mulcair's campaign. But has he argued against Topp's claim that Canadians are with us on raising taxes on the wealthy- that the initiative will gain us votes?
No. He has claimed instead that any talk of raising taxes on anybody is going to lose us votes. Interview: Mulcair said even if the tax bracket was pegged at $1 million, "the only thing the voter will hear ‘is these guys want more taxes."
You have a conveniently limited memory.
What I said after the Halifax debate: Romeo makes a good political point versus Topp: why not go after the [politicaly safer] closing of loopholes first, then [in first mandate] start talking up and preparing people on the need to raise taxes.
I also said that I'm with Topp on this [essentially because in practice there isnt enough money in the loopholes we would be willing to go after, and because Topps policy is a vote gainer]... but Romeo raises a very arguable political point- unlike Mulcair, who is just standing behind what we have always done without arguing the point whether we should.
Exactly.
The problem is that Mulcair has torched the differences between the Liberal and NDP plans.
Using the words 'cap and trade' is not going to hide Mulcair's EXPLICIT proposal of using cap and trade as an altrenative form of general revenue raising. The Liberals got skewered for it, and they at least were not stupid enough to make the dotted lines explicit, as Mulcair has now done. The spectacular failure of the Liberals plan was not Dion's poor communication skill. I said when it first came out that they'll be crucified for it [as Babblers were mostly saying why isnt the NDP doing this].
From the beginning, the NDP climate change package has ALWAYS and very explicitly devoted ALL cap and trade revenues to green spending inititives for bringing emissions down.
As well as being a basic social democratic principle, this was also about basic political survival. Its not good enough to stay away from the evil tax word- you have to eliminate as much as possible the opportunities to portray this as a big government revenue grab.
That ALL the revenues would be devoted to green initiatives was explicitly affirmed in our election platforms.
Leaving aside that Mulcair has not acknowledged in passing that he has changed that- or even that he is aware he has- he's offering up our heads for the chopping block.
Having said it only in the debate he might have been able to back away from it. But clearly he's not interested, because he affirms in a major interview that he sees cap and trade as an alternative and superior form of general revenue generation to Topp's proposal. Ironically pointing the finger at the political weakness in that proposal.
How is that to be squared with this is the man who is to be our winner- who will reach out to those who have not voted for us yet?
By offering up his head and ours for the Conservatives?
I was also at Tom's Toronto event last nght. He gave a passionate address on penal and refugee policy before a packed room at the Madison of nearly 200.
If I can ask one thing of those of you who have doubts about Tom, go see him in person at one of his individual events, not just a debate where everything is divided by eight (or now seven). Ask yourselves if anyone else can connect with people as well as him, can persuade the doubtful voter of the merits of the NDP, can expand the party? If he is judged on these things I will be content. If he is judged on some of the misrepresentations and petty sophistries trotted out by some of his detractors who refuse to see him up close, we will have lost the most promising leadership candidate we have ever had.
One more observation. Pundits Guide recently commented on Tom's appeal to professionals. Last night the crowd was largely made up of refugee and immigration lawyers (Lorne Waldman, Mahar Arar's defender, endorsed Tom and introduced him). In December a similar sized crowd of mostly criminal lawyers attended a Toronto fundraiser for Tom organized by James Lockyer and Peter Zaduk. Tom was very well received at both.
Tom has a particular appeal to professionals. He speaks in a way that connects with them. He doesn't talk down. He tackles complicated issues. You can expand your vocabulay by attending a Mulcair event.
I know that by saying this I will raise some hackles about the party's "traditional base", etc. But in my view, unique amongst the cndidates, Tom can appeal to the educated and professional electorate which is one of the last redoubts of the Liberal party and, I believe, a key to success in 2015.
NDP leadership selection process precludes secret deals among contenders
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/ndp-leadership-selection-process-precludes-secret-deals-among-contenders-139147789.html
There are different kinds of doubts.
What I raised above in post 113 could be addressed by someone asking him a question at one of his events.
But its pretty fundamental, and we should not have to wait for that to happen, if it will happen. It's up to Tom Mulcair to address any doubts he raises along the way by positions he is taking. Nor does it cut for people to say, "wait, its a work in progress." We can only go on what he or his campaign puts out there.
Is this really true?!?! I can understand leaning towards one side or another... but this extremism seems a bit much. Anyone else can verify this?
Aren't you worried about stirring up some lutulent waters by making that claim?
Dacckon, I have seen that "all circumstances" so-called quote propagated numerous times on Twitter by Mulcair's detractors. The reference always goes back to a particular anti-Zionist site that seems to have a special hate for Mulcair. That site makes no attribution for the quotation. You might want a more objective source before accepting this as gospel.
And Unionist, you are being pretty opaque using a word like lutulent.
Given that Mulcair has been a strong supporter of Israel in the past, how will he fare with pro-Palestinian voters from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community? Also, how will he do with pro-Israeli supporters who remain comfortable with either the Liberals or the Conservatives? His stand on the Middle East is giving me pause in making my decision on who to support.