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 re:the gop race, Mulcair is the Romney of this race except he probably wont win. The base will be alienated and dont trust him. Its why Romney will lose the general. Why McCain the moderate lost. Why Kerry the wishy washy centrist lost against Bush whom fired up evangevicals and conservatives despite a high disapproval rating in the general public. The gop base hated Dole and HW Bush for being moderates but loved Reagan. Same with Ford too. Theres a pattern here which underlines why Mulcair could be the weakest candidate in 2015.
The attacks against Romney by the GOP are probably the best reason to give him any shot against Obama in November. The mistake he's made (or maybe had to make in order to win the primary) is to aggressively refute the allegations against his "moderate" philosophy. The difference between his campaign for the nominate, and Mulcair's campaign for the leadership of the NDP is that Mulcair hasn't taken the bait. He's not presently engaged in a battle to be the "most left" of all the candidates. He's stated highlighted his moderate social democratic philosophy and gambled that the base of the party is close enough to him that he can win on those grounds. This sets him (and the party) up well for the next election, if we're smart enough to choose him. If we don't, we get to let the Tories paint us as the party that rejected the view most closely associated with mainstream Canada.
There is absolutely no comparison.
Romney IS miles from the loonies in the Republican Party. They are no small number- and the 'winning numbers' include people who are half way there. You cant make indications in both the direction of the diehard base and 'moderate'.... as you can in the NDP.
With the analog to Mulcair's positioning, Romney would have been gone long ago.
bwahahahaha. yeah, because the problem that new democrats have always had is that we're not left enough. #selfparody
Where is your evidence to support that "they" think this way? Other than swallowing talking points from the right-wing media hook, line and sinker.
There is plenty of evidence that the swing voters we also depend on DO think that way.
But that doesnt say how much it in the end defines their thinking, or on what basis they will vote.
Erroneous dichotomy there.
It isnt a question of whether they already think, or even are ready to think, that taxes need to be increased.
Most have never heard the question posed.
The existing thinking to be built on:
** the social fabric is generally at risk. and government plays a necessay role in that.
** the pendulum has been going too much to the right and in the direction of cutting.
Those generic opinions cut across party lines. They include people who have voted Conservative and for Harper.
The opening is not big enough that we could go talking about generalized tax increases.
But our problem has always been that in recent decades even talk of raising taxes on the rich is taken as a tax increase for everyone. And the strategic assesment is that things have changed enough that we will not be bit by that.
Many changes in public opinion play into that. But most of them are variations on things have gone too far to the right. You see it in widespread support for Occupy for example.
That and the fact that the NDP has quietly gone building credibility and capital around taxation. Under Jack's leadership, corporate taxes were played very well. We did not advocate a corporate tax increase. But make no mistake- up until then rolling back a decrease would be harped on as tax increase. The Cons left us alone, and the Liberals 'me too'ed because we were astute in our timing. That was an important step, and we could start cashing in on it now. And I think Jack would have.
Libby Davies reiterates her view that Brian Topp is best placed to continue the work begun by Jack Layton. She says that Mulcair's talk about the need for the NDP to modernize implicitly questions existing NDP policies and belittles the strides the party took under Layton's leadership.
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/03/22/davies-suggests-layton-wanted-topp-to-win-ndp-leadership-%E2%80%98connect-the-dots%E2%80%99/30151
Just as neo-liberals have hijacked the term "reform" as a cover for retrograde economic policies, the term "modernization" as used in recent years in social democratic parties is almost invariably a codeword for Blairism.
+1
Another unfortunate opinion piece by Derrick O'Keefe (whom I respect greatly - but not so much on this topic):
At a crossroads: Will it be Mulcair or the Maple Spring?
It's not his warnings about Mulcair that bother me. It's his sustaining and nourishing and propping up of imaginary (or microscopic) differences between Mulcair and (e.g.) Topp.
For example:
Derrick harps on how bad Mulcair was when he was a Liberal minister, and how disconnected he is from social movements. Well, when Topp was co-managing the Saskatchewan government, did he propose/implement higher provincial taxes on the wealthy? Or did he have a revelation since then that the rich should pay, not the poor? Or does he only make these grand pronouncements when he is relatively certain that he will not be the one who has to implement them later on?
And how exactly would Brian Topp as leader tax the rich if the party isn't in agreement? Or, how exactly will Mulcair as leader not tax the rich if the party demands it?
Likewise with Peggy Nash:
So Peggy will re-erect the tent encampments? What exact content is there to this attempt to distinguish the candidates?
And Derrick, of course, doesn't question the notion that the LEADER decides everything.
Hence, the content of his article can be summed up as follows:
"Vote for anyone but Mulcair. I haven't got a single word of criticism for the others. Any of the others will do. But if Mulcair wins, it's the end for all of us."
I know, for a fact, that Derrick can do a lot better than that.
My evidence is most assuredly anecdotal, as would be any evidence to the contrary. I do believe, though, that NDP values are Canadian values, yet somehow we've failed to get Canadians to vote for us in large quantities. That is some level of evidence, in my opinion.
Things that are hard to refute:
1) Most Canadians would rather not pay more taxes if they don't have to.
2) Most Canadians would prefer a more fair and just society with increased equality of opportunity.
One of these things squares with the traditional perception of the NDP, and one of them doesn't, if we keep making the "tax for the sake of taxing" argument, and not the "improve fairness and equality, and tax if necessary to do this" argument.
I think this is a good observation. I don't think that either points to the necessity of tax increases. That is to say, I don't think (from a purely A=B logical standpoint) the risk to the social fabric can only be abated by a tax increase. I personally believe that a tax increase is needed, but I'm not sure that everyone has necessarily drawn that line. That said, this is a very good place to being the argument from. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but what I'm arguing for is a continued propping up of these outcome-type arguments (that we need to stem the threat to our social fabric) and be open to all the possible ways of achieving that outcome (aside from an auto-pivot to taxation in all our communication).
I can't disagree with any of this.
i really didn't like cullen's speech, very much drawing on the american baptist preacher tradition that obama sort of used sometimes. we'll have to wait and see how the others do. i'm really looking forward to the speeches by topp and mulcair, will probably skip the others (I do have to work, hehe).
I wouldn't say that Cullen's speech was in the Baptist preacher tradition. Baptist preachers are more exciting.
I thought Cullen's speech was poor and unfocused.
Who are these awkward dudes singing for Dewar?
Wow - apparently Charlie Angus. Guess I should have been watching on "full screen". That was...interesting?
I thought this was bang on:
As was his description of Hebert as an "uber-cynic."
dewar, i like him, but there's something unconvincing in his rhetoric, it seems too obvious and unnuanced, like student council-level. very 'rah rah' without any sort of sense that he's the guy to bring it together. and the french is still very difficult to understand, how can you blow reading a teleprompter?
and no, you're not the candidate with "the broad appeal to win rural, urban and suburban votes" or "increase, yes increase our seats in quebec."
recycled a lot of old ndp rhetoric, said virtually nothing, and felt tone deaf.
Thanks Paul. I didn't think it was possible to like you less. But you've shown me that anything is possible.
I'm back!
I preferred Cullen's speech to Dewar. Something about Dewar bothers me.
The Charlie Angus musical performance was probably the strangest and most surreal thing I've ever seen at an NDP convention.
With that said, Paul Dewar just gave an EXCELLENT speech.
haha, yeah, that was one of the weirdest things i've ever seen in politics, that angus song thing.
very much looking forward to topp's speech, now that i'm virtually certain that dewar is going out early, it'll be very interesting to see how ready he is for the big show.
rosie barton interview with dewar, he actually just said "hélène de lavardière", reason that he thinks he's the guy to take on stephen harper: "because i know how." vaudeville cane to pull this guy off the stage, please.
wow, shirley douglas is an amazing speaker.
Yes Brian Topp we get it- you are the super-duper insider.
The Pinsett voice over is way, way too much.
Topp just moved to 2nd last on my ballot, only beating out Singh if it ever came to that rather unlikely scenario. Topp is the exact thing the NDP doesn't need. Okay maybe it is Topp and Dewar that are the exact things the NDP doesn't need, if for different reasons.
Dewar in his interview with Rosie Barton said his French is fine and he has no problem with it.
topp starts very weak, really picks it up in french, hitting his stride, oh yeah, hitting the red meat (of grilled seitan) with some broad specifics, finishing strong with principles. vastly improved speaking skills, but a very very strange smirk/smile thing though, and a very odd bearing. very much a speak written for me.
glad that he's my 2nd choice.
Brian did a good job. Very positive. Upbeat.
Topp gave a good speech - remains to be seen if it was enough.
I was very happy with Brian's speech. He really looks ready for primetime. More than ever before, I think he's the only person in the race who can beat Harper.
Oh, and Shirley Douglas was amazing.