NDP Leadership #90

I know when my friend told me of her conversation with the Topp campaign, I passed it on to Tom's campaign manager. Although it's a public attack Topp has used before, I wanted them to know it was part of their phone bank messaging.

Stock... don't have too much of an issue pointing out the differences or liabilities in other candidates... IF accurate. We're New Democrats, not Liberals or Tories. I just don't think it wise to have someone say they're supporting a certain candidate then use a negative line with them on the phone. Sell your candidate! It sort of backfires in my opinion. Different avenues for different campaign tactics. As I said, Nash's campaign was quite respectful. If I had Topp's campaign on the phone who started spouted crap about Tom after I told them who I was supporting, they would have had an earful... and turn me off of Topp even more.

writer wrote:

Mainstream, how I loathe thee, and the actions of those who are eager to feed such a beast with lies.

The main stream media are scum, to be sure.  I recall being at an anti-poverty protest, and a reporter from the Star asked me if I was surprised by the large police presence there.  I stated no, that historically the establishment has always been opposed to the working class and poor and thus such demonstrations typically got a large police presence.  She asked my name and I gave it.  Someone else beside me started railing about how yes, there was definitely more police here than ever before.  She asked for his name, but he declined.  Later, the Star reported his comments as being mine (since they were looking for a quote along the lines that he had given, but he had not given a name).  So yes, sometimes when they want a story and a quote to support it, they'll go out of their way to get it.

Anyway, I'd be surprised if Saganash were to back Topp in the future.  He seemed quite opposed to Topp's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy (those above $250,000).  I myself feel it's a good idea for decreasing the gap between the rich and poor, but Saganash obviously didn't.

Interesting story about Mulcair in the Star today:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1129531--ndp-policie...

I have to say that I simply disagree with Mulcair on the issue of taxes.

"It’s not smart politics for a party wanting to form government to talk about taxing the rich or anyone else without first looking at the books, NDP leadership candidate MP Thomas Mulcair said Friday.

In a not-so-veiled swipe at competitor Brian Topp, who has called for a new federal income tax bracket of 35 per cent on incomes in excess of $250,000, Mulcair told the Toronto Star editorial board that kind of boilerplate policy does nothing to attract more people to the party.

“Canadians who are going to be making a choice in the next election … have to be reassured that the person who is asking them for their votes and says they want to form a government — that person has to look the Canadian voter in the eye and say … ‘The last thing that is going to be imposed on you as an individual is more taxation unless there is no other way,” he said.

Mulcair said even if the tax bracket was pegged at $1 million, “the only thing the voter will hear ‘is these guys want more taxes.’”

Mulcair said his NDP government would bring in a cap and trade or polluter-pay system that he says would pump tens of billions of dollars into government coffers and reduce pollution at the same time."

I just DON'T agree. First of all, I don't think Canadians are complete idiots who think that raising taxes on people making over $250,000/year is some sort of secret code for rasing taxes on everyone. If Barack Obama and all kinds of middle of the road Democrats can openly call for raising taxes on the top 1% - why the fear of the NDP calling for the same thing??

Second of all, I just don't buy this idea that the "hocus pocus" of cap and trade will miraculously raise BILLIONS of dollars and give the federal government fiscal room to be able to address all these problems and that not a single individual will pay more tax.It just doesn't add up. Its also not sustainable - eventually as companies start to actually reduce their GHG emissions (which is the ultimate goal of cap and trade) they will pay less and less in cap and trade and eventially the federal government will go bankrupt!

There is a lot that I admire about Mulcair, but I also am at a loss to figure out what he actually stands for beyond cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade...If he becomes PM, will he actually DO anything??

dacckon: "I was completely unaware that a majority of Canadians know and have read multiple books on how to apologize."

This is very, very funny. Thank you. You've made my point far better than I'm able to today.

Stockholm wrote:

I just DON'T agree. First of all, I don't think Canadians are complete idiots who think that raising taxes on people making over $250,000/year is some sort of secret code for rasing taxes on everyone. If Barack Obama and all kinds of middle of the road Democrats can openly call for raising taxes on the top 1% - why the fear of the NDP calling for the same thing??

Second of all, I just don't buy this idea that the "hocus pocus" of cap and trade will miraculously raise BILLIONS of dollars and give the federal government fiscal room to be able to address all these problems and that not a single individual will pay more tax.It just doesn't add up. Its also not sustainable - eventually as companies start to actually reduce their GHG emissions (which is the ultimate goal of cap and trade) they will pay less and less in cap and trade and eventially the federal government will go bankrupt!

There is a lot that I admire about Mulcair, but I also am at a loss to figure out what he actually stands for beyond cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade...If he becomes PM, will he actually DO anything??

Agreed. And it's clearly not a case of a reporter slanting a candidate's position or something. Mulcair answered in the same exact way in (at least) one of the official debates: he first tossed aside the appropriateness of reforming taxation at the top of the scale and then relied solely on cap & trade as a potential revenue-raising measure.

I am not working for any candidate, but if I met a party member who said they were supporting one of the candidates whose French is lousy, I would politely ask if they were not concerned that picking a leader who speaks really bad French wouldn't essentially mean flushing 58 Quebec MPs down the toilet.

I'm a strong believer in "caveat emptor". If the next leader is someone who speaks lousy French and the news is received really badly in Quebec and the party drops into single digits....I don't want to have party members who helped elect that person as leader come up to me and say "but no one ever told me that so and so couldn't speak French. i thought he was supposed to be bilingual".

I think that people voting in this process need to be 100% aware of the facts about all the candidates. The problem is that if you are a unilingual anglophone - you probably can't tell the difference between the quality of Mulcair's French and Dewar's and you might actually cast a vote with the best of intentions for a candidate without knowing that they have a "poison pill"

I want to give Mulcair the benefit of the doubt. He probably spent hours talking to the editorial board of the Toronto Star and that article could be a very unrepresentative sampling of everything that was discussed.

Stockholm, thanks for the link to the Star article.  Not only do I not buy what he's saying about the saleability of raising taxes on the top 1%, I also don't think it's wise to try and sell increasing social spending on the back of a cap and trade program.  The revenue is not meant to be sustainable (it's meant to reduce carbon, and thus revenue from it will be expected to be reduced over time), so stating that long term social programs can be promised on the back of this is false.  Revenue from cap and trade should go to stuff like environmental programs like home retrofits, etc., and not for social programs.  Plus, I don't feel it would provide enough revenue for the long term social programs that the NDP should undertake.  Also, the Conservatives would have a field day with this like they did with Dion's Green Shift. 

The Tories will attack the NDP for having a "hidden agenda" to raise taxes - whether we promise it or not. I would rather be explicit about who will pay more tax and who will not under an NDP government and let people either take it or leave it - then try to make pie in the sky claims that we can bring on all kinds of new social programs etc...and that its all free and that NO ONE will have to pay a dime more for it - because all the money is going to come from a few big bad polluters. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

writer wrote:

Quote:

The Globe article did not say that there was an impending Topp endorsement from Romeo.  They said that there was an impending endorsement of one of the other candidates, but did not specify which candidate.

mark_alfred, I'm not talking about Romeo's statement today.

When Romeo was set to announce his run in the first place, that announcement was spun as being an impending endorsement of Topp the day before. Thanks to the Globe.

The Globe piece yesterday (disrespecting an embargo, but that's another story) announced that Romeo was stepping down, and once again added this assertion that Romeo was supposed to have endorsed Topp in the first place (instead of running himself). So the claim has been recycled, each time before Romeo had his own statement to make about his own campaign. Each time by the Globe. I cannot communicate the disgust I feel about this adequately.

But I am not convinced the story came from Topp's campaign to begin with, nor do I have any first-hand knowledge of Topp's people claiming that Saganash was "flaky." I am not comfortable with making assumptions, and I am not comfortable with whisper campaigns.

The source on that story was actually Alec Castonguay of L'Actualité, and he seemed to have done his homework. He had a [url=http://www.lactualite.com/politique/course-au-npd-saganash-appuiera-topp... piece[/url] on Saganash's pending endorsement of Topp, including a bit where he went to the Mulcair camp and they told him they were aware of Saganash's decision, the timeline of when and how the decsion was taken, and confirmation from several sources. Then, once Saganash announced he [i]was[/i] running, he ran [url=http://www.lactualite.com/politique/pourquoi-saganash-fait-volte-face]a second piece[/url] explaining some of the reasons he changed his mind and featuring quotes from anonymous party insiders saying they were surprised. It seems pretty solid to me.

NorthReport wrote:

Well this article will set some tongues wagging. I do agree though that Western Canada is the key to victory however I believe Mulcair as Leader will be quite credible in the West as he is in Quebec.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1129371--hebert-queb...

More doom and gloom from Hebert.  No surprise for me.

Mulcair's plan isn't just for the "big bad polluters" but for all major polluters, although he exempts individuals (who are the biggest polluters overall through the use of hydrocarbon fueled transportation; but hey he leaves the door open to provinces implementing carbon taxes).

And I wouldn't be so sure the Tories won't figure out a way to present something like cap and trade like the tax grab it is. What is Mulcair's counter?

Also, there seems to be a recognition that Mulcair can't promise spending without revenues:

Mulcair <a href="http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/70505--ndp-leadership-hopefuls-reveal-different-styles-strategies-on-policy">Campaign director Raoul Gebert</a> wrote:

  there are "very few costs" attached to any of them. Indeed, cap and trade would eventually generate revenues, although Gebert acknowledges there would be an inevitable time lag before the money started flowing.

"(Mulcair) strongly believes that most Canadians share the NDP's goals and values and we must show Canadians we are capable of providing good, competent public administration before we will be elected to govern."

...yet in the TorStar article he is promising to immediately end FN, child, and senior poverty; he has previously promised to implement child care and pharmacare as priorities of his government, he wants new equipment for the Canadian military (albeit not F-35s), and he says he wants to run balanced budgets like Saskatchewan and Manitoba but the federal government is currently $30 billion in deficit or in other words 10% of current spending is money the federal government has to borrow...so where is the beef?

Another consideration, Harper is good at accumulating debt, so I wonder how high the debt-to-GDP ratio will be (currently it is edging 60%) before the NDP gets a chance to try and fix things (in 2015 or later)?

ETA: This post reads like a Conservative attack ad. I really don't want to see that come to fruition.

What worries me the most are not attack ads that say that "horror of horrors" the NDP wants to raise taxes on the top one half of one percent that makes over $250k/year. I'm more concerned about attack ads that the NDP has a laundry list of worthy promises to address lots of social problems and no credible plan to pay for them at all...its just going to be done with make believe funny money!

Stockholm wrote:

I just say a report that Pierre Dionne Labelle MP who had been supporting Saganash - is now backing Mulcair.

That seems to be true.

I usually don't put effort into my posts here, but let me say this about The Star and its constant gloom and doom for the NDP. And I do warn people that I am recalling this from my rusty memory....

A long time ago, The Star exploded with headlines and stories of an implied increase of youth violence. But why was it talking about gangs and such when crime statistics were showing that juvenile crime was going down?

Because the right wing National Post was debuting.

The moral of the story is, sometimes newspapers will write garbage just to make some cash and that we should take note of their history.

Chajusong, your first link got it monumentally wrong, and refers to anonymous sources to substantiate a claim that turned out to be monumentally wrong.

I do tend to find these kinds of sources are often next to what I call useless. And again, there is no sense of who pushed such a spin, and why.

The first piece claims it was understood that Saganash was going to announce his own candidacy but had suddenly decided to support Topp (though we now know that he in fact announced his own candidacy).

The second piece claims, hilariously, that Saganash's announcement was a surprise to everyone. I guess that's everyone who was convinced that the initial assumption had been completely canceled out by the second assumption, which turned out to be a mistake.

I do know it took some convincing for him to enter the race. I see nothing here to persuade me he was on the cusp of endorsing Topp when that endorsement was leaked by whomever for whatever reason. I believe that leak might have pushed him to announce his intentions, as his intentions had just been very publicly misrepresented.

I think the most positive slant i could cast on Mulcair's views as the Star describes them are that he now thinks he is the prohibitive frontrunner and he wants to avoid painting himself into any corners with things he says as a leadership candidate. If he decided to propose tax increases on the wealthy maybe he wants to roll that out once he is leader of the opposition within his own framing of the issue and not as part of a leadership contest.

Yeah, I could see the strategic reasons for wanting to be very careful with how you roll out a tax plan.

The good news is he DID promise to put out a tax policy proposal, presumably before the leadership convention. So we will get our answer from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

mark_alfred wrote:

I think Mulcair wants provinces to have more autonomy than they would within the current NDP platform.  For instance, the statement about childcare within one of his policy backgrounders is suspect (I already discussed it in a former post, so I won't repeat it here).  So, if the promises he makes continue to be minimal, then perhaps revenue wouldn't be a huge issue in a Mulcair government.

Well that doesn't bode well for universal healthcare. :-(

Let's not jump to conclusions.

Funny, I've found this board to be considerably more anti-Mulcair than other audiences I talk to.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

It's imperitive that Mulcair put out a tax policy soon. A lot of rank-and-file New Democrats want to know for certain where he wants to take the party on this issue.

Quote:

But Mulcair made it clear an NDP government would be looking for a lot of cash to correct many social shortcomings.

“We are one of the richest countries in the world and we have children going to school hungry, we have hundreds of thousands of seniors living in poverty, we have abject third world conditions on reserves … and those are the types of examples of the things that we would fix immediately,” he said.

“Those three are good examples of things that are not negotiable. No one is going to look at the books and say this can’t be done or this has to wait. Those are things that are going to be taken care of immediately.”

I tend to disagree with Stockholm on personal income tax rates. Personally, I wonder how much impact taxing those who make over $250,000/year will do anything to address income inequality. It may make us feel better. But how many Canadians are out there who make that? It's not even the top 1%... it's the top 0.7%. And currently, they pay close to half their income now in taxes (if they actually pay their provincal/federal rates).

I have a friend who does personal care work in a nursing home. His income along with his wife is approx. $125,000. Are they wealthy? I'd say yes... makes more than I do. But after tax, he and his wife struggle to keep up, save to send their two girls to school.

Obama is campaigning on the "Buffett Rule" btw... tax on those making $1 million or more.

I would submit the real issue/problem with our tax system is the gap between individuals and corporate taxes.

Mulcair is putting out a tax reform plan that addresses not just one income tax bracket. I'd wait and see where it proposes to take us. And I do know he wants corporate income taxes hiked.

OnTheLeft wrote:

CanadaApple wrote:

 

I've got another question for the Mulcair supporters on here. How confident are you that he will be able to bring all the different parts of the party together? I ask because some people in the party really seem to dislike him, and if he can't bring the party together after he wins, I'm not sure if he could win the next election, or if it would be worth it. 

oh, and I guess non-Mulcair supporters are free to answer as well. = D

 

I don't think anyone answered this so I thought I would.
I severely doubt that Mulcair would be able to bring the different parts or rather factions of the party together, seeing as many in the party simply can't stand the man. At first I thought
it was nothing more than a b.s. mainstream media narrative regarding Mulcair's personality and the "mercurial" tag that seems to go hand-in-hand with his name in news stories, editorials and columns. But after talking with former provincial and federal candidates and staff from various leadership campaigns, reading the accounts of NDP members who have met
and dealt with him, and disconnecting myself from the Babble bubble's constant Mulcair PR machine, it was depressing to learn (as someone who previously defended him) that a mainstream news narrative is true, that Mulcair is an asshole and that "he has burned all his bridges in the party", "holds personal
vendettas against several MPs and party officials", "people would leave the party in droves" if elected, and that as leader "could cause a caucus revolt".
It doesn't surprise me either then that the Mulcair bots on here act as his online Babble bubble PR machine while sliming several of the other leadership candidates. Assholes are attracted
to assholes and this place reeks of it, a toxic cesspool of Mulcair worship while denigrating Nash, Dewar, Ashton, Saganash and Topp. Any and all endorsements or policy releases for any other candidate besides
Mulcair are attacked and deemed "meaningless", while the altar of Mulcair is relentlessly defended.
Well I'm done. The board is in a pretty crappy state and some of the contributors here really piss me off and I'm sure some of them will reply with their usual "OMG! How dare you say such things about Mulcair! Wah!" but really it's such a waste of time and energy.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Careful not to throw too many stones, On The Left... Peggy Nash has a reputation in how she works with people and her staff.

Quote:

RE: Mulcair said even if the tax bracket was pegged at $1 million, "the only thing the voter will hear ‘is these guys want more taxes.'" (star)

RE: And it promised to do it all while simultaneously putting the country's books back in the black by rolling back corporate tax cuts, ending fossil-fuel subsidies, closing offshore tax havens, putting a price on carbon and ... (can biz)

Mulcair seems to be worried about spin and to want to go after the taxes that ordinary people don't pay so that the Tories can't win on half truths. Closing tax havens seems to be about making sure one pays what one owes rather than increasing the tax rate.

I don't know about taking personal income tax increases off the table, but I can understand the desire to wish to pick one's battles - especially with an opponent which has a history of distorting facts and getting away with it.

Mulcair and Saganash are both lawyers and both seem to figure that they can get quite a bit of money out of corporations.

I like cap and trade - not only does big oil have to pay money into it, but that money will be used to finance green alternatives to big oil. Ergo, big oil will be paying the start up costs for the businesses which will eventually replace them.