;;
NDP Leadership #91
Sat, 2012-02-11 12:18
#1
NDP Leadership #91
Sat, 2012-02-11 12:18
#2
What time is the French debate tomorrow and who will be carrying it live?
Sat, 2012-02-11 12:36
#3
Debate tomorrow:
Watch it live online right here.
http://links.ndp.ca/a/l.x?t=jkmhajbljinpcfcafnjjogog&M=1&v=4
Or catch the debate on TV — CPAC will be airing it live.
Date: Date: Sunday – February 12th
Time:
11:00am PST 12:00pm MST
1:00pm CST 2:00pm EST
3:00pm AST 3:30pm NST
If you’re in the Quebec City area, join us in person:
http://links.ndp.ca/a/l.x?t=jkmhajbljinpcfcafnjjogog&M=2&v=4
Location: Palais Montcalm, Salle Raoul-Jobin995, place D'Youville, Quebec City
Doors open: 1:15pm EST
Sat, 2012-02-11 12:45
#4
Merci mark_alfred
Sat, 2012-02-11 12:53
#5
Is the French debate being re-broadcast later in the day? I will be out during the afternoon.
Meanwhile, an article from Le Soleil mostly on Dewar's French.
Nash's is descibed as "appreciated but unspectacular"
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:08
#6
Le NPD court deux lièvres à la fois, soit conserver ses sièges au Québec, ce que seul M. Mulcair peut espérer, et en arracher 70 autres dans le reste du pays.
Question: s'il en perd une trentaine au Québec, si la tendance se maintient, quel autre chef pourra alors lui en garantir une centaine ailleurs?
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:12
#7
Good question.
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:20
#8
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:26
#9
Boom Boom
I wonder if the CPAC coverage will be translated in sub-titles or closed captioning?
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:39
#10
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:45
#11
Is the French debate being re-broadcast later in the day? I will be out during the afternoon.
Meanwhile, an article from Le Soleil mostly on Dewar's French.
Nash's is descibed as "appreciated but unspectacular"
Particles like that after theQC debate will be pretty damning for Dewar to overcome. I would still like to point out that there is one candidate in addition to Mulcair who speaks French perfectly AND is totally immersed in and knowledgeable about the politics of Quebec and that is Brian Topp. I am not saying he is better or worse than Mulcair, just that there is an alternative. The main difference right now between Mlcair and Topp as far as Quebec is concerned is based on name recognition. In the short term Mulcair is the one who is a household name and would do the best. But we have to look beyond who is popular today and instead look at how people might look to voters in 2015.
A year ago in BC the consensus was that the only way theNDP could win wouldbe by picking mike farnsworth as leader and all those polls showed that he was the only one who could compete with Christy Clark. Adrian Dix was supposed to be unelectable. Now a year later the NDP is leading by 14 points and Dix has been a great success as leader and everyone agrees that he was the right choice.
Things are not the way they seem. Skm milk masquerades as cream! - Gilbert and Sullivan
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:48
#12
Someone posted about how Mulcair's talk reflects a view of the party as it was decades ago. This is especially relevant when there are candidates in this race using the old boilerplate, and using the old sloganeering and impractical targeted policy aimed at small subsections of the NDP base. These candidates who are all staking out claims on territory that represents the "Hits of 1989" are all representing a massive step back for a party that made so much gains through Jack, by doing exactly what Mulcair is talking about.
He is the best candidate to continue to do what Jack was doing - only he's being transparent about it. I like the fact that he says the same thing no matter where he goes and who he speaks to. He never panders, he never tries to gain favour with particular groups. His message is consistent, and talks about all of his policy points no matter where he is. He is the real deal.
I think it is great to hear such a refreshing message.
As for saying the party hasn't renewed itself is very true. Jack did a lot to modernize the party, but he did it based on his own personal popularity and brought us along based on his own strengths and commitment. The fact that there's a strong desire amongst the leadership contenders and a significant section of the membership who wants to go back to the old ways of before tells us that Jack simply didn't have enough time to sell the plan to the rank and file membership itself, before going out and campaigning on it.
I strongly believe that Mulcair is running openly on a Jack Layton platform, continuing the work that he was doing, and following his vision to elect a social democratic government.
Sat, 2012-02-11 13:58
#13
dacckon
Do describe what these "old ways of before" means. And which Leadership contenders(and do tell their policies that are old) promote such a thing.
I personally consider the dogmatic view of the third way and the older domatic view of nationalizing everything as ancient relics. I myself am looking for a candidate with strong progressive values and strong pragmatic means.
Sat, 2012-02-11 14:04
#14
dacckon
But my question is how the other candidates do not fit the bill. And I do like specific examples :P
Sat, 2012-02-11 14:11
#15
I added more in the previous post.
Sat, 2012-02-11 14:11
#16
Stockholm,
Topp's French is ok (maybe a bit worse than or equal to Bob Rae's) but Mulcair's is way better. I know I've said this before, but Mulcair is in the tradition of "truly bilingual" leaders: Trudeau, Charest, Bernard Lord. With them, it is impossible to say whether they are more comfortable speaking French or English. The fact that Mulcair has a slight English accent does not prove anything. Think of immigrants who have been living in Canada for several decades; they may have an accent derived from their "native" tongue, but they've become more comfortable speaking English (i.e. their working language). Mulcair has worked mostly in French, while Topp hasn't worked in French for 21 years. That makes a huge difference. (i.e. grammar (Topp gets basic nouns wrong: "le paix"!?), fluency, level of vocabulary, e.t.c...)
BTW, this is not just my opinion: "il se trouve que M. Topp a eu, lui aussi, une mère francophone... et qu'il parle bien français - beaucoup moins bien que Thomas Mulcair, mais beaucoup mieux que Jack Layton".--Lysiane Gagnon
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/chroniqueurs/lysiane-gagnon/201109/22/01-44502...
Sat, 2012-02-11 14:12
#17
I too am looking for a candidate with strong progressive values and strong pragmatic means. The only candidate for me that fits that bill is Thomas Mulcair :D
Telling people you are going to raise taxes on 1% of people even though it will have a negligible impact on the books in an ideological effort to win favour with people who want to punish the rich as a simple but ineffective way of addressing income inequality (which wont work) is in my opinion but one example of this. Pragmatics is having the guts to say that you need to look at the books first, and have a comprehensive plan that addresses the problems in a way Canadians can understand, rather than knee-jerk reactions.
Paul Dewar irresponsibly telling people that he's going to advocate that Canada interfere with the domestic justice policies of the USA and its individual states in re advocating for the international eradication of the death penalty speaks to this attitude as well. Talk about overstepping the boundaries of the job you're applying for! In my opinion, though I am anti capital punishment, this completely oversteps the boundaries in an effort to win votes from specific interest groups. Paul's contrived policy early in the campaign compromising democratic choice of grassroots members in an effort to force 50% of our candidates to be women, rather than encouraging more women to be involved, and then tying it to public financing (saying riding assns who dont select women won't get public funding).
These are just two candidates who have done this. There are more, and I'm sure everyone knows who they are.
I like that Mulcair has a comprehensive and consistent vision of where he wants to take the Party, how he wants to become Prime Minister, and he wants to act on the values and policies we've all worked on for decades and make them real in an NDP government.
Sat, 2012-02-11 14:19
#18
The main difference right now between Mlcair and Topp as far as Quebec is concerned is based on name recognition. In the short term Mulcair is the one who is a household name and would do the best. But we have to look beyond who is popular today and instead look at how people might look to voters in 2015.
Main difference is just name recognition between the two? Really? A seasoned, experienced former cabinet minister from Quebec that is one of our best performers in the House, in debate, in the media... and the other a newbie to elected politics who has even given his early endorsers buyers remorse for the campaign he's run?
A lot more to keeping and attracting more votes in Quebec than just language ability of course. The same skills to attract and keep votes across the country apply to Quebec as well.
Sat, 2012-02-11 14:41
#19
Speaking of the 80s, those were the good old days! Remember Maggy Thatcher and Ronald Reagan! Whatever the left was doing then must have been bang on. Anywho...
Stockholm, earlier brought up the idea of Roméo Saganash being offered the opportunity to give a speech at convention. Who do babblers want to hear from? Personally, I'd really like it if one of the early speeches was given by this person.
Sat, 2012-02-11 14:44
#20
Excellent suggestion Howard
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:15
#21
I too am looking for a candidate with strong progressive values and strong pragmatic means. The only candidate for me that fits that bill is Thomas Mulcair :D
Fair enough.
Telling people you are going to raise taxes on 1% of people even though it will have a negligible impact on the books in an ideological effort to win favour with people who want to punish the rich as a simple but ineffective way of addressing income inequality (which wont work) is in my opinion but one example of this.
Negligible effect on the books? Topp's tax policy is as follows:
- a new federal income tax bracket of 35% on incomes in excess of $250,000;
- a new and better approach to taxes on capital gains and stock options;
- spending on tax cuts for profitable corporations be phased out.
The first would bring in three billion per year, the second would be 3.7 billion, and the third would be eleven billion (figures given in Topp's tax proposal, which are similar to estimates from some right-wing article in the Citizen.)
This is not including cap and trade, which I'm guessing Topp would use exclusively for environmental programs (unlike Mulcair, who seems to want to use it for other productive investment as well.)
Pragmatics is having the guts to say that you need to look at the books first, and have a comprehensive plan that addresses the problems in a way Canadians can understand, rather than knee-jerk reactions.
I doubt the population would find it very courageous to defer making a commitment. Does Mulcair believe that Harper and his policies will balance the books by the next election, or that things will be remarkably different? If so, he's a member of the wrong party. It's good to make an estimation of how things will be by the next election based upon how things are going now and lay out how you'll deal with it for the membership (who are stakeholders of the NDP). And, given the economic issues that there are now, I feel the leadership candidates owe us a full explanation of how they see our party winning the confidence of Canadians on economic issues come next election. Buying into Conservative lines of "all taxes are bad, let's not talk about them" is not courageous. This is not a winning strategy. It's like the Liberals buying into the Conservative created ethos of coalitions being bad, and not campaigning on this possibility. It led them to being thumped at the polls last time.
Mulcair not putting forward a bold workable alternative is not a winning strategy, in my opinion. Topp doing so is.
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:17
#22
Bit of a misleading headline but.....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/now-an-ndp-mp-former-nfld-c...
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:32
#23
One thing i don't get with Mulcair is why he tells the Toronto Star that the "grassroots of the NDP" don't like to hear his message of modernizing the language and methods etc...Wouldn't it make WAYYYY more sense for him to say "some of our grassroots people aren't comfortable with what I've been seeing, but a much larger number have told me that they agree with me - and that is why my campaign for the leadership has been gaining so much support".
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:40
#24
man, i don't at all get why it's so hard for people who've bashed quebec just to say "actually, i was totally misinformed and i said what i did out of ignorance. now, i know more about canada's relationship to quebec, and i don't agree with my former position." it took me fewer than 4 minutes last night to explain to a passively anti-quebec mississaugan why quebec wants what it does and how canada works for them, and he came around almost instantly. so easy to reinforce people's negative stereotypes, but also so easy to lead on these issues.
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:42
#25
That's definitely a fair point and one that I think is true. Most people are very comfortable with Mulcair's message because we want to take our dreams of a fairer Canada and make them real by forming government. I too think a majority of the grassroots do want to hear this!
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:53
#26
Mulcair not putting forward a bold workable alternative is not a winning strategy, in my opinion. Topp doing so is.
Topp's 3 point tax plan isn't "bold" in my view. Goes back to "tax the rich" which Topp and Layton dropped a few years back. Funny how things change when a bit of the wind changes direction there.
The big thrust of the Occupy movement wasn't about those who make $250,000+/year, but those corporations that employ them... and the massive imbalance we have today with the corporate world. Mulcair talks to that.
But Topp knows that "tax the rich" plays well with a large segment of the NDP base. I wonder why he didn't counsel Layton to keep it when Layton dropped it from the NDP platform?
That all said... I could put out a similar tax plan to Topp's. Doesn't make me suitable to be leader of the federal NDP. Boogles the mind that people so focus on the proposals (of which a lot won't be in the NDP platform in 4 years) instead of what type of candidate is selling those proposals.
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:57
#27
One thing i don't get with Mulcair is why he tells the Toronto Star that the "grassroots of the NDP" don't like to hear his message of modernizing the language and methods etc...Wouldn't it make WAYYYY more sense for him to say "some of our grassroots people aren't comfortable with what I've been seeing, but a much larger number have told me that they agree with me - and that is why my campaign for the leadership has been gaining so much support".
Did he actually say that or was "grassroots" just a headline to the section of the interview?
Sat, 2012-02-11 15:57
#28
Do you not agee that the the policy proposals that each leadership candidate chooses to emphasize tells us something about what direction they want to take the party in?
I agree that what Topp or Mulcair or Nash etc...put out as policy positions now may have little to do with the NDP official platform in 2015 - who knows what the economic and geopolitical context will be by then. But we are getting hints of what each person's leadership style and values are from the policies they choose to highlight in the leadership campaign.
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:00
#29
Here is the Q and A with The Star:
Does the grassroots want to hear that?
No. But I’ve been saying it in every debate.
In Quebec we have 59 new trees with no roots. In provinces where we have our deepest roots we no longer have any trees. We’ve gone through four federal general elections in a row without electing a single person in Saskatchewan, our birthplace. So if we don’t change it’s the old definition . . . of madness: thinking that you can repeat the same gesture over and over again and obtain a different result.
An anecdote is a terrible way to argue, but I’ll still share one with you from Nanaimo.
A woman was giving me a hard time about moving us to the centre and I have a stock answer, “No, no, I’m trying to move the centre to us.” But I listened to her, and I said, “Is it possible that after 50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions that we’re terrified at the prospect of being the ones who actually take the decisions?” She froze and looked at me and said, “If we ever form a government it will be conclusive evidence that we sold out.”
He is right - an anecdote IS a terrible way to argue...he makes it sound like this one woman in Nanaimo is typical of the majority of NDP grassroots volunteers. I thik there are actually very, very few people who feel the way she does.
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:02
#30
man, i don't at all get why it's so hard for people who've bashed quebec just to say "actually, i was totally misinformed and i said what i did out of ignorance. now, i know more about canada's relationship to quebec, and i don't agree with my former position." it took me fewer than 4 minutes last night to explain to a passively anti-quebec mississaugan why quebec wants what it does and how canada works for them, and he came around almost instantly. so easy to reinforce people's negative stereotypes, but also so easy to lead on these issues.
Bashing on Québec is a good way to draw attention to yourself and I think that is what Cleary was trying to do as a columnist. He wanted to say, "hey looky here at little Newfoundland" and then make his point about the Lower Churchill. Should he apologise? Of course.
The Globe And Mail article is ridiculous. Could Mulcair stand up for NFLD? Well, Mulcair has made a point at the debates of mentioning how he endorsed the Lower Churchill project during the last campaign, because it would create a large GREEN energy source for NFLD, at the same time as the Québec national assembly had voted to condemn it and the federal government loan guarantees. Mulcair supported it because he thought the green angle outweighed the argument about "unfair subsidies", and he did take a hit for this in the Québec press, but claims it was worth it. So this Globe and Mail article is pretty thin gruel and they were smart to dump it in the weekend edition.
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:08
#31
He is right - an anecdote IS a terrible way to argue...he makes it sound like this one woman in Nanaimo is typical of the majority of NDP grassroots volunteers. I thik there are actually very, very few people who feel the way she does.
Could she be a Jeffrey Simpson relative from Gabriola Island? 
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:10
#32
dacckon
Alot of Quebeckers and Atlantic Canadians would like to see the goverment deal with inequality, and I do remember looking a poll where a majority of Canadians want more taxes on the rich. So, this won't be a problem I believe.
Speaking about the whole one side issue on foreign policy, it seems that Topp is being supported by the Canadian Arab Federation
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:20
#33
Here is the Q and A with The Star:
Does the grassroots want to hear that?
No. But I’ve been saying it in every debate.
In Quebec we have 59 new trees with no roots. In provinces where we have our deepest roots we no longer have any trees. We’ve gone through four federal general elections in a row without electing a single person in Saskatchewan, our birthplace. So if we don’t change it’s the old definition . . . of madness: thinking that you can repeat the same gesture over and over again and obtain a different result.
An anecdote is a terrible way to argue, but I’ll still share one with you from Nanaimo.
A woman was giving me a hard time about moving us to the centre and I have a stock answer, “No, no, I’m trying to move the centre to us.” But I listened to her, and I said, “Is it possible that after 50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions that we’re terrified at the prospect of being the ones who actually take the decisions?” She froze and looked at me and said, “If we ever form a government it will be conclusive evidence that we sold out.”
He is right - an anecdote IS a terrible way to argue...he makes it sound like this one woman in Nanaimo is typical of the majority of NDP grassroots volunteers. I thik there are actually very, very few people who feel the way she does.
Considering the number of people I've met who feel we have sold out, or compromised our principles when in government provincially and territorially, the number may not be that small. Also consider the discussions on babble about the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP governments in particular.
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:25
#34
Here is the Q and A with The Star:
Does the grassroots want to hear that?
No. But I’ve been saying it in every debate.
In Quebec we have 59 new trees with no roots. In provinces where we have our deepest roots we no longer have any trees. We’ve gone through four federal general elections in a row without electing a single person in Saskatchewan, our birthplace. So if we don’t change it’s the old definition . . . of madness: thinking that you can repeat the same gesture over and over again and obtain a different result.
An anecdote is a terrible way to argue, but I’ll still share one with you from Nanaimo.
A woman was giving me a hard time about moving us to the centre and I have a stock answer, “No, no, I’m trying to move the centre to us.” But I listened to her, and I said, “Is it possible that after 50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions that we’re terrified at the prospect of being the ones who actually take the decisions?” She froze and looked at me and said, “If we ever form a government it will be conclusive evidence that we sold out.”
He is right - an anecdote IS a terrible way to argue...he makes it sound like this one woman in Nanaimo is typical of the majority of NDP grassroots volunteers. I thik there are actually very, very few people who feel the way she does.
I saw that... but was that the actual question asked? Another semi-headline was "On the NDP future" or something like that. Do you think they asked him "On the NDP future?"
It's not a full and actual transcript.
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:31
#35
Do you not agee that the the policy proposals that each leadership candidate chooses to emphasize tells us something about what direction they want to take the party in?
I agree that what Topp or Mulcair or Nash etc...put out as policy positions now may have little to do with the NDP official platform in 2015 - who knows what the economic and geopolitical context will be by then. But we are getting hints of what each person's leadership style and values are from the policies they choose to highlight in the leadership campaign.
They do. My point is people often ignore the abilities and talents of the one putting forward the proposals and make a decision on just the policy papers. "I love Singh's pharmacare program! I'm voting Singh!" Really? Ok...
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:31
#36
Whatever heading or question you want to put in front of it, Mulcair's use of the anecdote stands on its own.
Viz. what Policywonk said: its still an apocryphal quote that is not representative.
Few people that do not like what the Prarie NDP govts have done would say that winning govt is itself evidence of selling out.
The NDP is a big tent. So of course such people exist. But they are NOT representative of people who dont feel like just taking whatever happens to come our way from NDP leaders and governments.
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:34
#37
There arent any of these straw people that say they are voting according to policy alone, and do not include electability.
Sat, 2012-02-11 16:37
#38
There arent any of these straw people that say they are voting according to policy alone, and do not include electability.
That was actually said on here, KenS. So that train of thought is out there. You should read these threads a little more carefully... seems you keep missing things :)
Sat, 2012-02-11 17:03
#39
Is the French debate being re-broadcast later in the day? I will be out during the afternoon.
The debate will be on CPAC live from 2:00PM EST to 3:30PM, and replayed from 9:00PM to 10:30PM. I believe this will be the same on both the English and French channels. (I like to toggle between them to listen to the French or English and avoid the translators. Niki Ashton speaking with Sean Connery's voice freaks me out.)
Sat, 2012-02-11 17:03
#40
Here is the Q and A with The Star:
Does the grassroots want to hear that?
No. But I’ve been saying it in every debate.
In Quebec we have 59 new trees with no roots. In provinces where we have our deepest roots we no longer have any trees. We’ve gone through four federal general elections in a row without electing a single person in Saskatchewan, our birthplace. So if we don’t change it’s the old definition . . . of madness: thinking that you can repeat the same gesture over and over again and obtain a different result.
An anecdote is a terrible way to argue, but I’ll still share one with you from Nanaimo.
A woman was giving me a hard time about moving us to the centre and I have a stock answer, “No, no, I’m trying to move the centre to us.” But I listened to her, and I said, “Is it possible that after 50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions that we’re terrified at the prospect of being the ones who actually take the decisions?” She froze and looked at me and said, “If we ever form a government it will be conclusive evidence that we sold out.”
He is right - an anecdote IS a terrible way to argue...he makes it sound like this one woman in Nanaimo is typical of the majority of NDP grassroots volunteers. I thik there are actually very, very few people who feel the way she does.
Considering the number of people I've met who feel we have sold out, or compromised our principles when in government provincially and territorially, the number may not be that small. Also consider the discussions on babble about the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP governments in particular.
Sometimes the NDP has sold out in government, like when the BC NDP cut welfare rates and the Ontario NDP took a pass on public auto insurance and equal rights for GLBTT people.
Sat, 2012-02-11 17:27
#41
There arent any of these straw people that say they are voting according to policy alone, and do not include electability.
That was actually said on here, KenS. So that train of thought is out there. You should read these threads a little more carefully... seems you keep missing things :)
I am so sorry for exagerrating and saying there are not any of them. I shall endeavour to be more precise.
If you commented according to what you read so carefully, you know that it is unrepresentative to use apochryphal examples as if they typify a position you are characterizing. Like I said, sending out straw people.... corrected for the hair splitting that they do not exist at all.
Sat, 2012-02-11 17:44
#42
Telling people you are going to raise taxes on 1% of people even though it will have a negligible impact on the books in an ideological effort to win favour with people who want to punish the rich as a simple but ineffective way of addressing income inequality (which wont work) is in my opinion but one example of this. Pragmatics is having the guts to say that you need to look at the books first, and have a comprehensive plan that addresses the problems in a way Canadians can understand, rather than knee-jerk reactions.
Pragmatism, maybe, we can look at who is pragmatic.
But 'guts'? Please explain how using the classic cop out of why nothing can be done is 'guts'. You can argue that it could possibly be necessary to take the dodge... but guts?
And as to Mulcair's pragmatism, how about this:
"Using the words 'cap and trade' is not going to hide Mulcair's EXPLICIT proposal of using cap and trade as an altrenative form of general revenue raising. The Liberals got skewered for it, and they at least were not stupid enough to make the dotted lines explicit, as Mulcair has now done."
and further from here:
How is that to be squared with this is the man who is to be our winner- who will reach out to those who have not voted for us yet?
By offering up his head and ours for the Conservatives?
Sat, 2012-02-11 17:50
#43
Ken, you're trying way way too hard. I can't counter you when I don't get your point.
I'm just going to have to fundamentally disagree with you on that one.
Sat, 2012-02-11 17:51
#44
Faced with this reality, Mulcair is not suggesting that any NDP economic policy from 2011 be changed. (If I am missing something, could you please point it out?) He can, however, present our ideas in a way that voters won't find frightening.
He hasnt proposed that any economic policies be changed? Really?
See the post above. The NDP's climate change package is not only an environmental policy. It is an economic policy because it has to be.
And what good is it that his ideas are unthreatening in the abstract, if they heedlessly offer up extra opportunities for the Harper Cons to skewer us?
Sat, 2012-02-11 22:53
#45
Negligible effect on the books? Topp's tax policy is as follows:
- a new federal income tax bracket of 35% on incomes in excess of $250,000;
- a new and better approach to taxes on capital gains and stock options;
- spending on tax cuts for profitable corporations be phased out.
The first would bring in three billion per year, the second would be 3.7 billion, and the third would be eleven billion (figures given in Topp's tax proposal, which are similar to estimates from some right-wing article in the Citizen.)
I understand Topp's estimates are static - that is, they don't take into account changes in behaviour due to taxation. For example, let's say corporate tax brought in $10 billion a year and we increase that tax by 10%. We shouldn't expect to increase revenue by $1 billion because corporations will do things that result in them reporting less income than they would otherwise, such as using intellectual property licensing and transfer pricing to move profits to lower-tax jurisdictions or deciding that marginal investments that made sense with the earlier tax rate don't now. So if Brian Topp becomes Prime Minister and asks the economists over at Finance to create a more sophisticated estimate of the effect of his tax plans on the budget, he'll be receiving smaller numbers than those. It's still a good idea to raise taxes on those who can best afford it, but the idea that changes just for the wealthy and corporations are going to permit a massive expansion of federal spending doesn't really fit with the evidence. In high-spending countries, it looks as though consumption taxes do the revenue heavy lifting.
Sat, 2012-02-11 22:54
#46
Ken S,
Cap and trade has been in the NDP platform since 2006, I believe. There have not been any new direct taxes on individuals since 2004, when the inheritance tax was proposed. If it was such a good idea, why did Layton never bring it up again?
Even though Mulcair says he will use cap and trade to raise general revenue, I think he will be able to defend his position. Mulcair is no Stephane Dion. Hopefully, the +/- of his strategy will be discussed in tomorrow's debate.
Sat, 2012-02-11 23:35
#47
Wilf Day - CPAC has three options - English, French and FLOOR! Floor means no translator!
Do you not agee that the the policy proposals that each leadership candidate chooses to emphasize tells us something about what direction they want to take the party in?I agree that what Topp or Mulcair or Nash etc...put out as policy positions now may have little to do with the NDP official platform in 2015 - who knows what the economic and geopolitical context will be by then. But we are getting hints of what each person's leadership style and values are from the policies they choose to highlight in the leadership campaign.
No thumbs up button, but that is, of course what it boils down to - a difference in emphasis. Much of policy is decided at convention and everyone, even the leader, is beholden to said decisions.
Sometimes NDP governments sell out and sometimes they just don't improve things as much as we want them to.
Even with a Federal government, we have to manage expectations and realise that three more years of Harper will have left this country in quite a mess.
Sun, 2012-02-12 01:00
#48
laine lowe
Nothing I have seen from Mulcair has changed my opinion. I just don't like him as a politician or potential leader. He has and continues to strike me as an opportunist first and foremost. This is mostly a gut reaction, intuitive if you like, but his published policy positions leave me cold, especially on the foreign policy front.
Perhaps he will attract more "professional" voters to the party but he also risks alienating many <gasp> working class people as well as activists.
Sun, 2012-02-12 01:36
#49
Here is the Q and A with The Star:
Does the grassroots want to hear that?
No. But I’ve been saying it in every debate.
In Quebec we have 59 new trees with no roots. In provinces where we have our deepest roots we no longer have any trees. We’ve gone through four federal general elections in a row without electing a single person in Saskatchewan, our birthplace. So if we don’t change it’s the old definition . . . of madness: thinking that you can repeat the same gesture over and over again and obtain a different result.
An anecdote is a terrible way to argue, but I’ll still share one with you from Nanaimo.
A woman was giving me a hard time about moving us to the centre and I have a stock answer, “No, no, I’m trying to move the centre to us.” But I listened to her, and I said, “Is it possible that after 50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions that we’re terrified at the prospect of being the ones who actually take the decisions?” She froze and looked at me and said, “If we ever form a government it will be conclusive evidence that we sold out.”
He is right - an anecdote IS a terrible way to argue...he makes it sound like this one woman in Nanaimo is typical of the majority of NDP grassroots volunteers. I thik there are actually very, very few people who feel the way she does.
^^^^^ spot on.
Sun, 2012-02-12 02:07
#50
Nothing I have seen from Mulcair has changed my opinion. I just don't like him as a politician or potential leader. He has and continues to strike me as an opportunist first and foremost. This is mostly a gut reaction, intuitive if you like, but his published policy positions leave me cold, especially on the foreign policy front.
Perhaps he will attract more "professional" voters to the party but he also risks alienating many <gasp> working class people as well as activists.
It doesn't seem too very opportunist at all to leave a good job as a Quebec cabinet minister and then run federally for a party that had only ever elected one MP in the province and then only temporarily. Either he's beat Jojo Savard for must successful psychic in Canadian history or that's not opportunism.
Sun, 2012-02-12 02:14
#51
Nothing I have seen from Mulcair has changed my opinion. I just don't like him as a politician or potential leader. He has and continues to strike me as an opportunist first and foremost. This is mostly a gut reaction, intuitive if you like, but his published policy positions leave me cold, especially on the foreign policy front.
Perhaps he will attract more "professional" voters to the party but he also risks alienating many <gasp> working class people as well as activists.
It doesn't seem too very opportunist at all to leave a good job as a Quebec cabinet minister and then run federally for a party that had only ever elected one MP in the province and then only temporarily. Either he's beat Jojo Savard for must successful psychic in Canadian history or that's not opportunism.
Again, not "one of us".
And I have a feeling if anyone else's name was on that foreign affairs paper, would be a different reaction.
In Outremont, Mulcair gets his vote from all segments. It's called winning elections.