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
And this will get ignored, as do any calls for Mulcair to provide details on his policies, or to, you know, actually tell us what he would do as leader.
And the Mulcair supporters will continue to complain about baseless smears that have already been refuted.
Time to wake up and smell the roses.
Mulcair had a role model. Layton was moving the party to the right all the time. It's time folks acepted Mulcair as one of us. Most NDPers have, and there are not going to be any purity tests for him or anyone else for that matter. The NDP as the official opposition and within reach of governemnt is in a new era now, which unfortuantely some have not quite grasped yet.
at this point, this is probably more dangerous than what broadbent is saying. i wish people would just cool it for the next week and let the members decide on the 7 months of campaigning rather than trying to sow last minute doubts in the minds of members. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/...
Well said deb93, very well said.
Correct. And that's what's wrong with the party.
I don't see those two examples as analagous at all.
My memory (although I could be wrong) is that as well as a health care tax, McGuinty brought in substantial corporate tax cuts. So government revenue was rejigged to be less progressive.
I know nothing about Dexter but sales taxes are regressive, and not at all what people are talking about.
What Topp or Cullen are talking about is increasing tazxes on the rich, who can afford it, and who have been getting tax cuts for decades, and who effectively pay less in taxes than everyone else.
If you want to do this, you need to win the mandate (and I think it's a very winnable mandate as it's a great, ethical wedge issue).
I don't expect that any party that was silent about this issue would be bold while in power. I agree with KenS that this never happens.
And comparing it to a sales tax increase seems bizarre more than anything. I really don't think you understand the concerns being expressed about Mulcair.
Thank God for Bill 101!
That is God's truth.
One of my biggest reservations about Mulcair was that he could be nasty and show poor judgement. Well the campaign has shown me that he does not at all have the corner on bad judgement and nastiness. His restraint now is helpful to his campaign.
As for the move to the right accusation-- I am not convinced at all. I don't go way back in his history because I think in fact he has moved to the left over his career. What I am hearing him talk about today sounds quite good to me.
I appreciate the caution etc. I also suspect that one reason he is not engaging in attacks is he does want to work with the others and as leader he would be able to heal the party and move on but if Topp became leader I think that is less likely. On this point both Nash and Cullen have also left doors open for healing and working with Mulcair-- the question for me remains if they can achieve what needs to be done in Quebec.
I think, contrary to what some say Mulcair will be able to work with all the candidates but perhaps Topp if Topp wins and I think Mulcair could and may well extend a hand to Topp if Mulcair wins. Mulcair has not said anything to make that more difficult.
Mulcair wants to bring the party to government and I think he will keep all the people with him who could make that happen.
Well, I think that Yaffe is probably wrong that there is going to be a "civil war" in the NDP if Mulcair wins.
But she is perhaps just placing too much credence on various comments coming from prominent supporters of Brian Topp, first Ed Broadbent, then Topp, then Robin Sears:
This is like Republican Primary Politics 101.
My reaction to this is that Brian Topp should be reining in his supporters, but I think that instead that seems to be his campaigns deliberate "scorched earth" policy, that if Brian doesn't win, they will make trouble for Mulcair (or possibly anyone else elected as leader).
I think the other campaigns seem to be responding quite restrained and are working to have a positive united party after the convention - with the exception of Brian Topp's campaign. At least that is what I've seen over the past few days.
I hope that they (Brian Topp's campaign) decide on a more unifying strategy before they get to convention.
In almost any party's leadership contest, the rhetoric can get a bit over-heated and emotional in the final stages. It will probably get worse over the next few days before it gets better. That'd fine. I really don't care if being go overboard in their rhetoric now - what matters is what happens AFTER the convention.
I find the threats to suspend people once again for raising issues similar to those brought up against Mulcair again and again objectionable (I am not arguing the issue itself as I doubt anyone previously engaged in the debate of Mulcair as leader is going to change their mind one way or the other because of what is said here. All I want is an open debate for everyone - unless way goes way off the deep end in bitter attack). It reminds me of what happened in BC when mostly young environmentalists in the 1990s complained that not enough focus was being given to environmental issues at a riding meeting I attended in BC. The debate was cut off and they were told there was to be no more discussion of the issue. Many of those young people, feeling their opinions were not respected, left for the Green Party. At 45 at the time, I then became one of the youngest party members in a large riding association. Indeed, several Green Party candidates in other ridings were former NDPers who felt muzzled within the NDP. I stayed only because I felt the NDP offered the best combination of social and environmental policies (although with Clayoquat Sound and other environmental issues I admit I was tested). Just in case anyone stereotypes me as a single issue person, I have negotiated several union contracts and was always considered the most militant member of the bargaining committee. The D in NDP stands for democratic. Being of Irish descent and this being Saint Patrick's Day I'll engage in an Irish stereotype (oops, am I banned) - their love of open debate - and end with an Irish saying: "Is this fight personal, or can anybody join in?"
CFL