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 think Greg nails it.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/02/leadership-2012-cand...
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2012 Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - February 19, 2012 We'll get plenty more information about where the leadership campaign stands once we see how membership sales have turned out. But there's been enough news in the past week to make one change to the rankings for now.1. Thomas Mulcair (1)
When I started these rankings, I clarified that being ranked at the top of the list (and thus having a seemingly greater likelihood of winning than any other candidate) didn't necessarily mean Mulcair was more likely than not to emerge as the NDP's leader. Now, I'll at least temporarily revisit that clarification: while the principles behind the rankings haven't changed, I'd currently place Mulcair's chances of victory somewhere slightly north of 50%.
2. Peggy Nash (2)
Meanwhile, the identity of his top challenger remains the same as well. But I'll be curious to see whether there's been any positive/negative impression polling to show if Nash actually enjoys enough enthusiasm to actually gather momentum, or whether inertia is the most important factor operating in her favour.
3. Paul Dewar (4)
I don't think the poll results released this week change the relative positioning of the candidates as spun by Dewar's camp. But his latest set of endorsements gives him a far stronger answer to the question of "can he win support in Quebec?" than he could offer so far, and that's enough to vault him narrowly ahead of...
4. Brian Topp (3)
The other part of the reason for the change in this week's rankings is that one of Topp's weaknesses from day one only seems to have been exacerbated as the campaign has progressed. The more Topp turns off supporters of other candidates, the less likely he is to earn enough down-ballot votes to win - and while I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the need for clash in the leadership campaign, Topp seems to have provoked more of a negative response than any other candidate which severely limits his chances of emerging as a compromise choice.
5. Nathan Cullen (5)
Cullen had a great week in the media thanks to shows of support from key outside groups. But while he looks like a strong bet to finish third or fourth on the first ballot, it's still questionable whether enough of the NDP's base will provide him with any down-ballot support to permit any growth from there.
6. Niki Ashton (6)
A quiet week may signal that Ashton is looking to the debates to make or break her campaign from here on in - which may well make for her best hope, especially if her fund-raising hasn't picked up.
7. Martin Singh (7)
Finally, it's been another quiet week from Singh's camp as well - and again, no news isn't good news for a candidate already stuck at the back of the pack.
250 in Victoria seems very good for Tom in Nathan's home province and in a city where all the politicians have lined up behind Nash or Topp.
It will be interesting to see how many he gets at the Bears for Mulcair event tomorrow on Davie St in reponse to that great poster
Can anyone tell us about the turnouts for other candidates at their events?
Just a thought. This late in the leadership race, I'm pretty much onside with voting for Mulcair despite his negatives because for me he's the one most likely to keep and grow support in Quebec through to the next election, but if a candidate were to state (even this late) that Harper's plans for the F35's, mega-prisons, and other stupid projects would be scrapped under their leadership, well, that's a platform that I think would resonate very well here in Quebec, and would certainly get my attention, and maybe my vote. And, if the 1% would be taxed to the max and corprate tax giveaways eliminated in that platform as well, well, that definitely would sway me.
What are you talking about, Boom Boom?
Only Conservatives are allowed to make bold pronouncements like, "We're buying F-35s, we're abolishing the gun registry, we're abolishing the Wheat Board monopoly".
An NDP leadership candidate is supposed to be humble. No candidate can say:
Forget about it, Boom Boom, or your face will turn blue from holding your breath.
Just wanted to show that I'm not a cheap date, Unionist.
Boom Boom,
I don't know anything about the megaprisons but Mulcair says in is foreign policy paper that he would cancel any plans to buy the F35 fighter jets. You can find it here: http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Policy-backgrounder-Foreign-Affairs.pdf
Thanks, TTL!
Please bear with me as I try to lay out these thoughts.
The discussion here --if I read it correctly, as my aging eyes glaze over, periodically, whenever I have to scan the casuistry of polls and of the degree of alienation caused by robocalls-- seems to be mainly about each candidate's strengths within the party. Part of the debate is about the pragmatics of fielding a particular candidate against the ruthless thugmachine of the cons (who'll have support from the repuglicans and the demagogocrats south of the border, from the IMF and their handmaids Moody's etc. and their lapdogs barking on bay st. and in the media --including, I am sure, evan solomon, p. mansbridge & so many others on the cbc, who will be pouncing on any no. of issues from Israel/Palestine to taxing corporations). And the slithering chameleons in the LPC, who aren't beneath stealing planks from the NDP platform while launching not so subtle attack ads.
The really pressing question for me, in view of what awaits the NDP, is who will have the stamina, the internal party cohesion, and the calm and intelligence to steer the ship through the rough waters and to survive all the firepower of lies and stealth attacks from many sides. It sounds as though Topp has the wrong advisors, who have managed to spoil his chances of emerging as a unifying candidate. I fear that Nash may be weighed down by the unspoken sexism within and all around --this may be a moment to be ultra-conservative on that front -- and (I blush to say this) if we were to have a female leader to take us through the next 5 years it would have to be a Maggie Thatcher type, not someone hamstrung in the moral high ground. I repeat from an earlier post that the new leader has to have street-fighting skills, someone who can be counted on either to disarm the opposition as they draw their knives on the NDP, or to counterattack mercilessly, using soundbites against both of the other parties. (So ...hypothetically speaking: if Topp has proven he can play dirty within the party, might he not be someone who is willing and able to take a serious dirty fight to the other parties? Or would the divisions his people have sown be too deep, and leave the NDP weakened going into the next election? And is there any way of calculating all this?)
It should definitely be someone who can unite progressives and win back Green voters, Red Tories and left-of-centre liberals, with campaigns tailored to each of those groups and a solid, consistent message. Someone who is not afraid to keep a steady ideological course and who will not stray too far into the so-called "third way" to attract the "undecided", because that would, imho, only make it more likely that progressives will stick with the Greens or the Liberals (assuming that there will probably be the usual forked-tongue electoral discourse that reassures lefties within the LPC).
No one who is not 100% bilingual and committed to Quebec's national concerns should be considered. Winning back Ontario and the West is also important, and having strong deputy leaders in those regions should be a priority, should Mulcair emerge as the best candidate.
I'm restating the obvious at the risk of repeating in oversimplified language what many others have posted in intelligent discussions in the hundreds of threads this year, and for this reductionism I apologize. I guess I had to indulge the need to think aloud, puzzling to identify what can be predicted and what can be identified at this point, in order to allay my own fears that the new leader will be elected for reasons that might not be the most helpful in contending with the external factors. Nor do I want to make a mistake with my own vote, for all that this one vote really matters.
I am more inclined now to support Mulcair, holding my nose perhaps. Charles Taylor's endorsement pushed me a little further in that direction, if only for sentimental reasons -- the first political campaign I ever worked on was Charles Taylor's when the NDP was a brand-new party with stars in its eyes about being the logical party for progressives in Quebec. What a bitter disillusionment it was for a 15-year old recent immigrant. The NDP sweep in Quebec last year finally wiped away that sense of utter defeat which had lingered for 50 years.
(I guess I've just made an ass of myself, so I'll sit out the rest of this discussion and hope that the focus becomes clearer.)
So Mulcair makes proposals because they are attractive and put him in good standing, but he makes stuff up about how this is to be paid for. The things he makes up do not add up, and thats OK because he 'doesnt want us to commit to anything'?
This by the way is already the built in excuse for why it does not matter when/if he does not release the long promised tax policy paper that looks ever more likely because there are ever more questions how things are supposed to add up.
"Well, there isnt a policy because he doesnt want to be commited to anything. Read the books later. Etc."
First there is the questionable ethics for within the NDP dynamics of feeling its OK to promise things that when put together do not add up.
But we are getting from the candidate who portrays himself as Mr. Pragmatic, a gold mine of goodies for the Conservatives to throw in our faces if he is Leader. I hope no one here is deluded enough to think that the proposals ANY candidates make are so tentative that if they do not put them out there as Leader they will not be tossed back at us.
Tf Topp or Cullen is Leader, we own 'tax the rich' no matter what they say after they are Leader.
The same goes for Mulcair saying that cap and trade is a better revenue source for the NDP rebuilding Conservative trashed social programs, while the NDPs election platforms all say that all cap and trade revenues will be used for green inittiatives. Which opens us for the same so succesful attacks on Dion and the Liberals.
The difference with the risk Topp and Cullen expose us to is that their is an overall political plan to make it work- how it will benefit us rather than be something we have to depend.
Mulccair is just pandering to what people in different and effectively conflicting constituencies want to hear, not caring that it does not add up.
So what our platforms say, and unequivocally, is just a 'suggestion' now?
No need for Mulcair to acknowledge he's changing all that and why. And if he wont say the imperious words that he has changed it, you'll do it for him. Big of you.
And no concern shown at all that just maybe this inconsistency from the NDP leaves us wide open for serious attack.
Not to mention that you neither have a clue why that promise is in our policy or platforms- which not knowing is in itself OK. But you dont care to find out why either. Because you and Mulcair already know whats right. The hell with the process that went into putting that policy package together.... possibly THE most serious one our Caucus has EVER done.
And for you information, that promise of putting all the revenues into green iniatives had a dual purpose. For general optics- the big picture on the issue. And because you have to spend that kind of money, and quickly, on aggresive energy saving, or everybody is going to be paying a lot more because of cap and trade [they are going to pay some more anyway]. So there is a policy reason for that AND an essential political necessity for getting public buy in.
Unfortunately, you dont know what you are talking about. And the most pertinent error from misinformation....
The other plank in the NDP policy and platforms is that there are direct transfers to low income households to protect them from the generalized price increases that everyone is going to get, even with the green initiatives. Of course we dont pitch it like that. It's just put as 'protect low income households' with transfers.
If we had ever part our package hard on the road, or didnt have the Liberals getting the brunt of the attacks and we were ignored, or as now where we are the main opposition.... the hard questions about price increases were [will] come up. And the full truth is that except for people who are the very most agggresive about cutting their energy usage, they will pay more as cap and trade 'matures'. [Because the price increases are generalized- even services are not inculated- while you can only save with your actions by cutting your energy consumption enough to compensate for ALL the increased (non-energy) costs.] And its the exeptional low income household that will have the means to even meet the average personal potential energy cost savings. So you transfer compensating income to them, and everyone else has to do their part to not be paying a lot more because of cap and trade.
The rough estimate I remember is that the income trasfers would account for maybe a third of cap and trade revenues. That may be high, but its a substantial chunk.
When I pointed out to you that Mulcair left this out of his skimpy 3 paragraphs on cap and trade- you acted as if it never existed because you didnt know about it, and couldnt easily find mention of it.
Over time, less and less of the pacakge was talked about in less detail. It may well be that the income transfers were not brought up in the 2011 election platform, and were implicitly glossed over as part of 'green initiatives'. But you brought up the rough calculations of what the cap and trade revenues need to cover, and that was not changed. If it was not in the 2011 platform that was a strategic choice to simplify the optics and expose us to less questions on things we had not talked about much for 3 years.
But you cant just wave it away. Its part of the numbers. And its there for both basic social democratic reasons of the minimum necessity to protect low income households from cost increases set in motion by the government, and for pure politicasl pragmatism.
Mulcair did not say either of those. That is you saying it for him.
He did not say he proposes expanding cap and trade beyond what the Layton NDP proposed. And he certainly did not say that the expanded cap and trade was where the more revenue would come from. He said cap nad trade is a better way to get it. Period.
But lets set that aside and see if it could work, rather than just accepting your assertion that it would.
Two things we presumably agree on.
1.] Cap and trade produces revenues.
2.] At least the bulk of them of them is spent on green initiatives. and there are both social policy and political pragmatism reasons for that. If you dont plough the revenues back into capital investmants on consumption reduction, people pay more extra than necessary, you get political backlash, and you dont reap the potential for energy reduction, which is the reason for having carbon pricing in the first place.
So at least most of any extra amount from more cap and trade has to go to further green spending... otherwise consumption reductions will do an even less complete job of keeping up with price increases.
So what might be avialable for new revenue to be spent on other things is either the little bit that is left over after the extra green spending. Or it is nothing if unlike you and Mulcair, we are unwilling to just wave away the commitments made by the NDP, along with the self-interested political pragmatism that went into making those commitments.
Actually, I have heard Mulcair say that it would cover more emitters. The Layton plan was the top 500 or top 50 or top 5% of emitters (I forget), whereas Mulcair wanted the "bracket" to be bigger.
That being said, I agree with KenS that this is a messy area. It's not a disaster, but it's riskier than it needs to be.
Mulcair is at least a better speaker in both languages than Dion, but if he's delivering a flawed message there's a significantly higher risk. I can already hear the conservative response. "This will raise prices for consumers. It's terrible for the economy." "This won't green the economy, it will just be a permanent tax increase for your socialist agenda."
That's why a credible budget would include some other revenue sources, so we can talk about a green economy as being tax-neutral (as much as possible). We're going to get attacked on taxes, so we need those sources to be clearly corporate/wealthy as much as possible.
Another problem is explaining how a one-time windfall from an auction is going to sustain programs that are supposed to last decades.
CFL