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 am not sure what Mulcair's point is about not referring to "ordinary Canadians" as I'd that was some sort of new epiphany. I associate the language around "ordinary Canadians" with the Broadbent years in the 80s, the NDP dropped that lingo some time ago.
This is one thing I find annoying about Mulcair is that he seems to keep inventing these straw dogs to knock over that don't exist. Like his "anecdote" about this "long time party member in nanaimo" who supposedly doesn't want to ever win an election sine we will ipso-facto have to betray our principles...does this person actually exist??? Can we put an all points bulletin in NDP circles in nanaimo to find this party member who is against winning elections and have her corroborate that she did indeed say that?
I really don't understand the strategy of trying to get elected leader of a party where the grassroots are the voters...and then insulting and bad-mouthing the grassroots in the national media by implying that they are all a bunch of eccentric ideologues who don't want to win.
It doesnt matter how different carbon tax is from cap and trade. We're talking about polictics in action.
The Cons tagged the Liberals not just because of the word 'tax'. They tagged the Liberals because it was a revenue raiser to spend money on social programs- and it wasnt even directly obvious as such. Mulcair is even making it EXPLICIT: using cap and trade revenues INSTEAD of rasing taxes to bring in new revenues we need to keep our social programs.
You cannot "communicate" yourself out of the kind of hole the Cons put the Liberals in over the carbon tax before anyone had a chance to open their mouths. And even if it could be succesfuly 'communicated' out of... why would you ever put yourself in that kind of position?
Not to mention that it should matter in its own right that Mulcair is talking about using cap and trade revenues BOTH for supporting the green initiatves, AND for general revenues, instead of raising taxes on anyone anywhere.... because allegedly that is politicaly safer.
As well as being really bad politics, it just doesnt add up. Which will raise credibility issues for the NDP if he is Leader, and should raise credibility issues about him now.
Globe blog:
Edgy and brash is good.
My problem is that Mulcair will say anything that looks good. Too often it doesnt matter whether its true or adds up.
Reminds me of Elizabeth May and her appeal. Everybody sees the bluntness and takes that as an expression of honesty. What the public and media will overlook with a relatively background figure as far as the broad public is concerned like Elizabeth May, and like Tom Mulcair to date, is that along with the bluntness goes a casualness to what is said.
But the Leader of the NDP gets a lot more scrutiny. And we will not see how Mulcair's MO would fare with that until there is no turning back.
Just watched a segment on Question Period about the leadership race. Although it was frustratingly short (only abt 5 mins) it did reveal some interesting tidbits:
Alice Funcke: Soundings show about 50% of New Dems are undecided. Mulcair is frontrunner with about 30% (presumably of those decided). The next three ( didn't specify whom) are "bunched up." No percentages given.
Robin Sears: M is frontrunner and the race will come down to which of Nash, Dewar or Topp emerges as the candidate "who is going to stop M."
Craig Oliver: Spoke with representative of one of the "other candidates" who told him their polling indicated that Topp has been "out of the race for the last two weeks."
AF: Cullen has some momentum.Connects well with membership as does Dewar. Most membership growth has been in Ont and Quebec. Mulcair told her today his campaign has sold (or would sell ?) 10 -12,000 new meberships in Quebec.
Pat Martin: agreed with CO that it was essential not to pick a leader "without resonnance in Quebec" or "we will be back to where we used to be." Essential to elect someone "we can throw into deep end" and who does not require a "learning curve." PM also implied he wd remain neutral.
AF: expects a major focus of today's debate will be the Middle East.
With Mulcair we are going to be bringing more and more visible minorities from the back pages to the front pages so that we will become more representative of the society in which we now live. This alone is a compelling enough reason to vote for this man.
NorthReport, could you please explain your statement above?
The NDP seems to excel at producing inane terms to refer to their "target demographics". Yes, I think that the term "ordinary Canadians" (which seemed to implicitly denigrate anyone who was not average), peaked during the Broadbent years. But I think it was replaced with "working Canadians" (which seemed to exclude the unemployed, retirees and children), and "working families" (which additionally excludes singles and divorced).
That said, I guess that the "working families" must be widely perceeived as a godsend, since I'm sure it has been adopted by other political parties, like the BC Liberals (I may be mistaken on that).
That may be the intent of "Cap and Trade", but I have never been impressed with the policy. It sounds to me like companies and governments creating employment for bean counters who know how to count "invisible beans" with conviction - and creates additional demand for well paid lawyers who can argue the value of one invisible bean versus another.
I think it just might be a colossal waste of resources on something that really does nothing concrete to address real problems. That may be a wrong perception, but after the decade plus discussions about these proposals, they don't seem to make any more sense than they did at the beginning.
I would say with the carbon tax, it actually does seem to have some logic - although I am doubtful that the BC carbon tax has been directed to projects that reduce carbon emmissions.
writer, i was refering to nicky's post above where he commented on what Mulcair said in Toronto.
We have to try harder to ensure that our visible minorities are much better representated in the corridors of power. I was very disappointed that Saganash had to drop out as I was quite excited about his presence in the leadership campaign. If we have to set aside some funds in order to assist our visible minorities in getting to the forefront of our decision-making process let's do it.
OK wise guy - if you think that every single one of these expressions to describe who the NDP is trying to appeal to and speak for are flawed or not complete - enough - what do you suggest? If the NDP needs to have a clear message about whose interests it defends and what stands for - and in a way that is a clear contrast to how the Conservatives and Liberals position themselves - what would be the way to do it.
We can drive ourselves crazy with "oh we can't say 'working Canadian' because that excludes people who don't work", "oh we can talk about Canadians - what about people who seem themselves as Quebecois or Newfoundlanders more than they do as Canadians". "Oh we can't talk about 'ordinary people' because what about those people who see themselves as being EXTRAordinary". "Oh we can't say we are standing up for the "little guy" because that excludes tall people as well as woman" etc'...etc...
Thanks, NorthReport, that's very helpful.
A note of caution in this discussion. "Tribalism" is an incredibly fraught / problematic term. So too is referring to groups of people as "our" anything. I'm still recovering from my operation, so don't have the capacity to expand on this too much (my brain is sleepy and drugged), but I believe there are resources in easy reach for those who might not know what the issues are, and might want to learn more.
If the message is about the need to be respectful and inclusive, the language used to present that position is very important.
BTW: Watching Pat Martin on Question Period - it seemed to me that he all but openly endorsed Mulcair for leader. He said he was staying neutral, but then he added that the next leader had to be someone who could hold Quebec and could hot the ground running the day after the convention and not require any makeovers etc...That description really only applies to Mulcair.
Sorry if that was a "wise guy" comment. But I do find that the NDP tends to overuse certain phrases, to extreme levels of repitition and annoyance. All I am asking is that they broaden their language when crafting their electoral messages. I never did say that they shouldn't use the term "working" or "families". And I did say that the language can't be entirely ineffective if it is getting adopted by other parties as well.
Inconsistency aside, I think your second argument does hold water.
Cap and trade IS different. There IS no tax. Only giant companies will encounter the cap.
But...
There IS a credibility gap. This kind of "green economy" isn't supposed to fill up the national treasury. It's supposed to discourage carbon emissions. At best, you're overestimating the revenues. At worst, you're undermining the message of sustainability by suggesting you're gonna use this system to pay for child care and homelessness.
Saganash offered an alternative to Topp. He said "we can close a lot of subsidies and credits", mainly for corporations and extremely wealthy investment income. I also questioned whether Saganash's plan would add up. Mulcair may hope to follow Saganahs's logic, and get some revenue from the same policy. It would still be sketchy, but at least it would be separate from cap-and-trade, which would do less to muddle the message of "carbon reduction" with "revenue generation".
Can someone youtube the English version of this debate? This might be the one the Americans will be most interested in.
FYI, the Quebec City debate is being carried on RDI (French equivalent of CBC NW) Channel 612 on Rogers in Toronto and also on CPAC in French 614 on Rogers in Toronto
The terms debate - at least we do have terms for these things - you listen to Americans try to describe the same phenomenon and wow there is a term for it "sandwich generation"! There is a reason why the Tories have more rhetoric - but Tories use the same rhetoric everywhere all over the world - that is what their expensive think tanks do for all of them. Even this "radical" stuff that we are all laughing about - it works in the States which is why they are trying it here.
It rules out Topp and Singh because they are not even in office. Don't think that it rules out Nash. With Dewarr, it depends on how he performs in this debate. Deward was also weak when he faced that saying he supports woman but picked a man question - he should have been able to brush that off a bit better. I think Pat Martin is saying ready to go by the end of March.
I should hope that anyone not willing to use a many pronged approach to raise revenues from - especially - big oil - should see themselves as not ready to do. That does play into the Mulcair "sword" metaphor but anyone who can win Saganash's endorcement would also qualify for that. Saganash was suggesting that.
Did they give you general or local?
That is what exposure to chemicals reminds me of (the ones I am sensitive to) is a cross between general and local - it feels like bits and pieces of your brain are off line.
I agree.
FWIW, if Mulcair were to stop talking about cap and trade as a different, better, kind of general taxation and revenue source.... that would still leave questions about why he raised it in the first place, and implications of all that. But, those would be much smaller questions of credibility than he is leaving out there now. It would satisfy even me... although unforced errors of leaving behind material for the Conservatives to use is heedless and permanent.
I was/am skeptical of Saganash's alternative approach. But that's more in the realm of preferred approaches to politics, rather than being seriously concerned at what a candidate is putting out there.
After 22 minutes of debate in French, Paul Dewar is doing better than expected, outperforming low expectations, I would say.
Mulcair shines at each stage so far. Withough Romeo on stage, Mulcair stands out for his facility of expression.
Dewar has been practising his French. Cullen has been practising his one-liners. Mulcair is smooth. Singh thinks the best way to improve Canada's reputation on the world stage is to improve job training and have a good plan for enterprises. Nash should work on her pronunciation. Topp tried for an oratorical flourish in his opening remarks - not. Ashton is doing well I think.
Martin Singh speaks well, without an Anglo accent.
Ashton takes on Mulcair on free trade, Mulcair claims we have the tools we need to provide energy security, upgrade bitumen, refine petroleum now.
Is there an online stream in French?
Switch the cpac to french at cpac.ca
FWIW, my daughter picked up her French mostly in France. And she finds Topp hard to follow. "Too Quebecois" is her comment. Which has no drect meaning to us of course. To my Anglo ears that struggle just to follow the topic of discussion- Topp isnt 'too Quebecois'... who are really the only francophones I try to follow. For me, he's just too fast and/or slurred.
Each of the candidates gets to ask another candidate a question. Nathan goes after Peggy for opposing his plan on co-operation.
My French is not good enough to follow this debate, so I'm relying on others to post their impressions here.
wage zombie: Or choose the "floor" on cpac.ca.
Cullen asks Nash, if we can work with certain parties after an election, why not before? Nash says, we need to remain faithful to our principles - and she prefers to inspire people who don't vote yet. Weak.