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 Race #110

102 replies [Last post]

Comments

KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

mtm wrote:

Wow, I just saw the Pierre Beaudet article go up here.  The anti-Mulcair sentiment on Rabble just jumped the shark.

I'll have to read the piece.

But FWIW, no question this is fair criticism of the anti-Mulcair sentiment. IE, whether or not I happen to think this particular article jumps the shark.

While the notion trotted out in the other thread that this is Topp campaign surrogates is just rubbish.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

psstt.

psstt...

hey you.

Did it occur to anyone that they could write a blog for Rabble, in which you could address some of the things you consider mythologies about Mulcair, unreasonable, etc.

But just a hint on effectiveness- don't get into point by point refutations. And minimize [direct] refutation period.


David Young
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

Gaian wrote:
Ah yes, Israel.

This makes me more sure than ever that Mulcair is the one I want to lead the NDP.

 


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

Ms. Nash was wise to note she doesn’t want to throw out “speculative” (talk) because that would feed the Conservative spin machine.

I submit that if candidates are being coy on issues, it's because they're probably keenly aware of the tory ability to spin and twist the words of NDP candidates.

I don't think a two state solution is just - but I'm no expert - I just think a one state solution with non Jews having full citizenship, all the rights that Jewish folk enjoy, no displacement is justice, and is comparable to the way South Africa solved their apartheid issues (isn't it?). I'd suggest that Israel become a multicultural state where Jews and non Jews are equals under every aspect of the law. See that's why I'm not electable, because I, and perhaps others, believe the mathematics specify that a two state solution is a 1/2 baked solution.

I can empathize with the candidate who doesn't want to get all hypothetical about how s/he'd vote on a UN resolution. The important thing is for them to outline their thoughts and concerns and priorities. I don't need the candidate to paint himself/herself into a corner.



KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

Ms. Nash was wise to note she doesn’t want to throw out “speculative” (talk) because that would feed the Conservative spin machine.

Thats a red herring.

It is said in contrast to Topp's plan. Topp's plan is not only about doing the right thing / what we want to do- it is throwing out what can be a wedge against the Conservatives that benefits us with swing voters. One can didagree with that, but none of the candidates has done so substantively.... just facile cop-outs that it might bite us. Of course it "might". So how about some discussion?

And Mulcair is quite happy to throw out speculative- 'maybe I would be into doing this' [amd this other thing, and....]. Even things like cap and trade as a new source general source of revenues.... so made to order for the Harper attack machine that you can count on the ads are already written. And covering just that deep vulnerability is exactly what the 5 year old policy was for that Mulcair just tossed out the window.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

I can empathize with the candidate who doesn't want to get all hypothetical about how s/he'd vote on a UN resolution. The important thing is for them to outline their thoughts and concerns and priorities. I don't need the candidate to paint himself/herself into a corner.

Its a valid general point. But the UN resolution is practicaly a motherhood issue. Most Canadians see it as a pretty simple fair play gesture. Since there are no apparent political costs in affirming it is why you see all the other candidates saing Canada should support it.

So where is this corner Mulcair might paint himself into?


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
For the record I support a three state solution, with Gaza being Banglasdesh to West Bank's Pakistan.

Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

TheArchitect wrote:

Let's be clear.  Jack Layton believed that the trade issue should be reopened.  Thomas Mulcair has said that it shouldn't be.  That's a clear difference.  And it's a move to the right.

 

It could just be a difference in judgement. There are a lot of ways in which reopening NAFTA could make it worse. More recent trade agreements made by the US includs provisions on investment and intellectual property, provisions that the US would no doubt like to put into NAFTA if the opportunity for renegotiation became available.

Quote:

I should mention also that on the Palestinian question, contrary to your claim that "not a single candidate proposes a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine," Brian Topp and Niki Ashton have both stated unequivocally that the United Nations should recognize Palestine as an independent member state, while Nash and Cullen both seem to have made statements that would seem to imply that they believe this.

 

Not the same thing as supporting a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine. 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

FWIW, I dont think there is a difference between any of the candidates, or Jack Layton, or any MP who has a critic role, on NAFTA and trade deals.

To the degree that Jack and others sometimes said/say that NAFTA should be reopened, there is no evidence that any of them were going to do anything about it. Like make it a major plank that voters could not help but notice... as opposed to just dropping it out there as dog whistles for the base.

So I do not see any substantive difference in Mulcair perhaps making that more explicit.

You could argue the point about some of the candidates MP's.... but I do not think there is any in practice difference between Jack Layton and Mulcair has said.


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
Doug wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

Let's be clear.  Jack Layton believed that the trade issue should be reopened.  Thomas Mulcair has said that it shouldn't be.  That's a clear difference.  And it's a move to the right.

 

It could just be a difference in judgement. There are a lot of ways in which reopening NAFTA could make it worse. More recent trade agreements made by the US includs provisions on investment and intellectual property, provisions that the US would no doubt like to put into NAFTA if the opportunity for renegotiation became available.

Quote:

I should mention also that on the Palestinian question, contrary to your claim that "not a single candidate proposes a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine," Brian Topp and Niki Ashton have both stated unequivocally that the United Nations should recognize Palestine as an independent member state, while Nash and Cullen both seem to have made statements that would seem to imply that they believe this.

 

Not the same thing as supporting a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine. 

Again Mulcair has not said he would not renegiotate Nafta, he said he wouldn't get rid of it. I agree with North Report.

josh
Online
Joined: Aug 5 2002

KenS wrote:

Topp's plan is not only about doing the right thing / what we want to do- it is throwing out what can be a wedge against the Conservatives that benefits us with swing voters. One can didagree with that, but none of the candidates has done so substantively.... just facile cop-outs that it might bite us. Of course it "might". So how about some discussion?

And Mulcair is quite happy to throw out speculative- 'maybe I would be into doing this' [amd this other thing, and....]. Even things like cap and trade as a new source general source of revenues.... so made to order for the Harper attack machine that you can count on the ads are already written. And covering just that deep vulnerability is exactly what the 5 year old policy was for that Mulcair just tossed out the window.

Yes.  Think about it.  They're going to attack you by claiming that you're going to raise taxes whether you propose a tax plan or not.  So wouldn't it be better to actually propose a tax plan affecting only the wealthy?  Instead of giving them the opportunity to sew doubt in most voters' minds, you offer certainty.  Not to mention, of course, that it's the right thing to do in terms of policy. 

 


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
One problem I can see with renegiotating NAFTA is it takes three and Obama is worthless on this issue, he's as bad as a republican. I'm not familar with the President of Mexico, so I don't know what he brings to the table. A temporary solution maybe to ignore the treaty when we need to do like the Americans do, and build real fair trade treaties with nations lead by grownups instead, until America can pick a real leader.

Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

But the UN resolution is practicaly a motherhood issue. Most Canadians see it as a pretty simple fair play gesture. Since there are no apparent political costs in affirming it is why you see all the other candidates saing Canada should support it.

So where is this corner Mulcair might paint himself into?

Thanks for asking, well, I hope my lack of facility in political forums is not giving away too much of my ignorance, but I am not speaking for Mulcair. I was speaking for myself and trying to empathize with candidates in a general way. I would not support a two state resolution in any guise, UN or not, because I believe it is stupid and unjust for the Palestinians and anyone who occupied that territory and wasn't Jewish when the State of Israel was formed. So the correct solution is the one I specified previously. Jewish folks in Israel/Palestine are occupying a state, and they all need to live together and it is foolhardy for the Palestinians to accept 1/2 of their former territory. It's all or nothing as far as justice is concerned - either the Jews give Palestinians equality under the law, 100%, and no displacement of peoples, and the Israel/Palestine state rethinks it's destiny, with everyone in the state equal under the law, Jew and Non Jew. Anything less is not what I'd call 'justice', it's 'compromise'. And as a party, folks have to decide what 'justice' means for them. I hope Mulcair would vote against it.

So, extending my 'empathy' to the candidate, I (personally) I would not paint myself in to that corner, if it were me. And the corner is, to 'support a two state solution' or any language surrounding it. That is not justice for the Palestinians. 

I think the Palestinians need a ONE state solution. I hope they're smart and bide their time and wait, and go for a ONE state solution, with Palestinians equal to Jewish folk. Go forth and multiply! That's the amusing key mantra for the Palestinians, and they'll be the majority vote in Israel/Palestine! If any NDP candidate is adroit, he'd keep his trap shut on Israel period until it suits his party and their objectives, in keeping with their principles - I think though the numbers favour a joint Palestinian/Israeli state if the Palestinians can just hold on and not give in to the Two State lure.

:)

 


TheArchitect
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2011

Brachina wrote:
Again Mulcair has not said he would not renegiotate Nafta, he said he wouldn't get rid of it. I agree with North Report.

If you take getting rid of NAFTA off the table, you probably won't be able to renegotiate it.

Canada can't renegotiate NAFTA unilaterally—it requires the American and Mexican governments to agree.  The American government won't agree to renegotiate with an NDP government unless we are able to play the abrogation card.

If the Americans have to choose between keeping NAFTA as it is or renegotiating it with an NDP government, they'll more than likely choose to keep it as it is.  But if they have to choose between having a new agreement or having no agreement at all, they'll come to the bargaining table.

So even if one doesn't actually want to get rid of all aspects of NAFTA, to promise not to abrogate it is bad policy.


flight from kamakura
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2006

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

I don't think a two state solution is just - but I'm no expert - I just think a one state solution with non Jews having full citizenship, all the rights that Jewish folk enjoy, no displacement is justice, and is comparable to the way South Africa solved their apartheid issues (isn't it?). I'd suggest that Israel become a multicultural state where Jews and non Jews are equals under every aspect of the law. See that's why I'm not electable, because I, and perhaps others, believe the mathematics specify that a two state solution is a 1/2 baked solution.

not really topical, but i agree 100% with this.


TheArchitect
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2011

In other news, Peggy Nash has been endorsed by Davenport MPP Jonah Schein:

http://peggynash.ca/2012/peggy-nash-nabs-endorsement-from-mpp-jonah-schein/


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

I'm getting addicted to this stuff, I wish everyone would slow down a bit. But let's face it, we're all addicts here. Withdrawal is going to be tough. Surprised


1springgarden
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2008

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

You will see.  It's like a trainwreck that you just can't avert your eyes from.

ETA: Not meant to be in poor taste in consideration of the recent VIA workers tragedy.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

I read very little of these threads. Is the purpose to try to influence the very small pool of voters who visit Babble? 


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Forum poll Québec

Bloc 29%

Liberals 26%

NDP 22%

Conservatives 17%

58% of Québeckers want Mulcair as NDP leader


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Caissa wrote:

I read very little of these threads. Is the purpose to try to influence the very small pool of voters who visit Babble? 

No. It is to belly ache and moan in public.


Idealistic Prag...
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 2011

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm getting addicted to this stuff, I wish everyone would slow down a bit. But let's face it, we're all addicts here. Withdrawal is going to be tough. Surprised

I don't know. I think about all of the babblers who after convention day will inevitably be spreading "good cheer" about how doomed the party is because their preferred candidate didn't win or because someone they didn't like did, and I figure I'll probably take a nice looooooong break right around that time.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

Will Saganash endorse someone? Who will Christine Moore endorse now that Saganash is out of the race? And Raymond Côté of Quebec City, that city's shadow cabinet member, Critic for Small Business and tourism, who ran in 2006 & 2008? And Tyrone Benskin, National Vice President of ACTRA for 12 years (Critic for Canadian Heritage and Cultural Industries)? Robert Chisholm? Pat Martin? Rathika Sitsabaiesan? Dennis Bevington? Malcolm Allen? Bruce Hyer? Megan Leslie? Andrew Cash?

Lots more hasn't happened yet. Just thought I'd start with the MPs.

And I'll report on tonight's meeting in Peterborough with Topp and Nash.


DSloth
Offline
Joined: Apr 26 2011

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

The debates aren't over neither are the policy releases, and of course the endless jockeying for down ballot support.

Whoever we pick is going to have to step into an immediate power vaccum, as the Conservatives drop a budget loaded with a putrifying miasma of bile and hidden land mines on our doorstep days after the election (or maybe days before).  Whoever we pick is going to have to be our leader for years to come including through the most important election in Party history.  Whether or not we face 3 more years of Harper or 8 may come down to the next 25 days, so now is not the time to lose perspective on this thing. 


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Wilf Day wrote:

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

Will Saganash endorse someone? Who will Christine Moore endorse now that Saganash is out of the race? And Raymond Côté of Quebec City, that city's shadow cabinet member, Critic for Small Business and tourism, who ran in 2006 & 2008? And Tyrone Benskin, National Vice President of ACTRA for 12 years (Critic for Canadian Heritage and Cultural Industries)? Robert Chisholm? Pat Martin? Rathika Sitsabaiesan? Dennis Bevington? Malcolm Allen? Bruce Hyer? Megan Leslie? Andrew Cash?

Lots more hasn't happened yet. Just thought I'd start with the MPs.

I always figured Tyrone Benskin would endorse Brian Topp, they are colleagues from ACTRA. 


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

And regarding motherhood issues - not trying to be funny or ignore them, but I'm not sure I exactly know what those are.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

TheArchitect wrote:

In other news, Peggy Nash has been endorsed by Davenport MPP Jonah Schein:

http://peggynash.ca/2012/peggy-nash-nabs-endorsement-from-mpp-jonah-schein/

Not exactly a surprise since Jonah's brother has been an organizer and "tweeter" for Nash ever since her launch.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

The next debate is in Montreal on Sunday...it may be the last chance for anyone to do anything "dramatic"


1springgarden
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2008

Caissa wrote:

I read very little of these threads. Is the purpose to try to influence the very small pool of voters who visit Babble? 

I think these threads serve a number of purposes and are inevitable in a leadership contest.  Hopefully they are fun for the participants.  I would go for a beer with any of the participants on these threads and no doubt they would be great company.


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