NDP Leadership Race #110

wage zombie wrote:

"Well, that's the thing. The best strategy for Mulcair at this point is to coast along and run out the clock. He's the frontrunner at this point, and so if nothing changes in the race he'll win on the 3rd or 4th ballot."

I didn't say that, wage :) I don't think he has coasted along in this race. If he was playing it safe, he would have done what Topp is doing... run to the base but tack to the centre after winning. Which is what you'll see if Topp wins.

Former B.C. premier Mike Harcourt endorses Thomas Mulcair as NDP leader

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/former-bc-premier-mike-harcourt-endorses-thomas-mulcair-as-ndp-leader-140608693.html

People want quotes, but a live-blog report will have to suffice to capture the Topp / Mulcair exchange on revenue policy.

Jan 29: MacLeans live blogging of Halifax debate wrote:

1:20pm. The candidates are asked what they wouldn't cut from the budget and what they would. Few of them seem prepared to answer the latter. [b]Mr. Topp says rescind the corporate tax cuts and tax the top one percent.[/b] Niki Ashton seems to suggest she'd cut the military. Romeo Saganash says he'd cut the money spent fighting aboriginal rights. Mr. Dewar identifies a $24-million contract awarded to a private firm for advice on streamlining government and says he'd cut the money spent on consultants. Martin Singh seems to sidestep this question, except to say he'd link corporate tax cuts to employing young people. [b]Mr. Mulcair says companies shouldn't be allowed to use the oil sands as a dumping ground and that he'd introduce cap-and-trade.[/b] Nathan Cullen says he'd rescind subsidies to the oil sector (or corporate tax cuts?) and stop imposing costs on the provinces. Ms. Nash says she'd target tax havens. Somewhere in all that is the debate Mr. Topp wants to have: how are you going to pay for the things you want to do?

1:47pm. The candidates get a chance to ask another candidate a question. [b]Mr. Topp asks Mr. Mulcair if Mr. Mulcair agrees with Mr. Topp's tax proposals. Mr. Mulcair avoids it.[/b] Mr. Topp asks Mr. Mulcair about capital gains taxes. Mr. Mulcair almost seems to agree with him, but then seems to hedge.

Subsequent Toronto Star article:

Feb10: Toronto Star wrote:

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 [b]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,[/b]" 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.'"

[b]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 would prefer my method to that method (of raising taxes),"[/b] said the MP for Outremont, who is one of seven candidates vying to replace the late leader Jack Layton.

"Any responsible approach is to reassure Canadians that there are other ways of going and getting those revenues for the good things that we want and the main priority is not increasing personal income taxes."

What's to argue?  Mulcair is opposed to new taxes.  Mulcair instead has a plan to get new general revenue from cap and trade.

Mulcair's revenue plan is controversial as it is a departure from prior NDP policy of opposing the Cons corporate tax cuts and keeping cap and trade revenue for green initiatives.

But perhaps an argument can be made how keeping the corporate tax cuts and diverting cap and trade revenue to support social programs is good future NDP policy.  It would be nice if Mulcair supporters would wax enthusiastic on this plan instead of trying to deny and shut down debate when anyone questions it.

Yesterday:

4:05pm. Mr. Topp goes into his own tax plan. Mr. Harper has broken the government he says. Mitt Romney would pay lower taxes here. Does Ms. Nash think rebalancing the tax system should be at the centre of the NDP’s plan? Ms. Nash allows that top earners should probably be paying more, but she doesn’t want to throw out “speculative” numbers because that would feed the Conservative spin machine.

Relapse:

2:39pm. Mr. Topp challenges Mr. Mulcair on government revenues. Suggests he’s planning to fund government programs through environment policy, a la Stephane Dion. Mr. Topp makes aggressive hand gestures, challenges him to agree that it’s time to end the imbalance of the current tax system. Mr. Mulcair says you have to consider “other options” (cap-and-trade, tax havens).

It's amazing how there's barely a crack of daylight between the two, but a few babblers hold up a magnifying glass and turn it into an ideological battle for the soul of the party. More manufactured controversy.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

It's amazing how there's barely a crack of daylight between the two, but a few babblers hold up a magnifying glass and turn it into an ideological battle for the soul of the party. More manufactured controversy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU&feature=player_detailpage

1springgarden wrote:

People want quotes, but a live-blog report will have to suffice to capture the Topp / Mulcair exchange on revenue policy.

Jan 29: MacLeans live blogging of Halifax debate wrote:

1:20pm. The candidates are asked what they wouldn't cut from the budget and what they would. Few of them seem prepared to answer the latter. [b]Mr. Topp says rescind the corporate tax cuts and tax the top one percent.[/b] Niki Ashton seems to suggest she'd cut the military. Romeo Saganash says he'd cut the money spent fighting aboriginal rights. Mr. Dewar identifies a $24-million contract awarded to a private firm for advice on streamlining government and says he'd cut the money spent on consultants. Martin Singh seems to sidestep this question, except to say he'd link corporate tax cuts to employing young people. [b]Mr. Mulcair says companies shouldn't be allowed to use the oil sands as a dumping ground and that he'd introduce cap-and-trade.[/b] Nathan Cullen says he'd rescind subsidies to the oil sector (or corporate tax cuts?) and stop imposing costs on the provinces. Ms. Nash says she'd target tax havens. Somewhere in all that is the debate Mr. Topp wants to have: how are you going to pay for the things you want to do?

1:47pm. The candidates get a chance to ask another candidate a question. [b]Mr. Topp asks Mr. Mulcair if Mr. Mulcair agrees with Mr. Topp's tax proposals. Mr. Mulcair avoids it.[/b] Mr. Topp asks Mr. Mulcair about capital gains taxes. Mr. Mulcair almost seems to agree with him, but then seems to hedge.

Subsequent Toronto Star article:

Feb10: Toronto Star wrote:

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 [b]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,[/b]" 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.'"

[b]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 would prefer my method to that method (of raising taxes),"[/b] said the MP for Outremont, who is one of seven candidates vying to replace the late leader Jack Layton.

"Any responsible approach is to reassure Canadians that there are other ways of going and getting those revenues for the good things that we want and the main priority is not increasing personal income taxes."

What's to argue?  Mulcair is opposed to new taxes.  Mulcair instead has a plan to get new general revenue from cap and trade.

Mulcair's revenue plan is controversial as it is a departure from prior NDP policy of opposing the Cons corporate tax cuts and keeping cap and trade revenue for green initiatives.

But perhaps an argument can be made how keeping the corporate tax cuts and diverting cap and trade revenue to support social programs is good future NDP policy.  It would be nice if Mulcair supporters would wax enthusiastic on this plan instead of trying to deny and shut down debate when anyone questions it.

Everything you've cited above confirms exactly what I wrote--that you were wrong and that Mulcair has NEVER said that he wouldn't raise taxes. He has said we should look to other sources for generating new revenue BEFORE considering rasing PERSONAL taxes on INDIVIDUALS. He did not commit to never raising taxes and certainly didn't commit to not rolling back corporate tax cuts.

And, again, Mulcair hasn't proposed diverting any revenue from green initiatives. He has pointed to several new sources of revenue (including cap and trade) and pointed out that he has proposed a plan that would generate ADDITIONAL revenue from cap and trade. Would that additional revenue go to programs other than green initiatives? Who knows. And who cares? There no earthly reason why it shouldn't.

And I haven't seen anyone who thinks that that idea is controvertial except Brian Topp and maybe one or two commenters on this board.

You, conversly, have claimed Mulcair has promised not to raise taxes and that he has proposed diverting revenue from green initiatives to toher purposes, both of which are untrue, and from the information above it appears you actually knew that those claims were untrue when you made them. That is called "lying", and that is perhaps why Mulcair supporters sound so frustrated when responding to criticisms of him--because while there might be plenty criticisms of him that would be perfectly fair, we would hardly know what those are since his opponents would so often rather resort to innuendo or outright misrepresenting and lying about his views.

I wouldn't approve of New Democrats treating any political opponent this way, much less a fellow New Democrat in an internal leadership race. Disgusting.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Zero candidates have suggested rescinding NAFTA, but Mulcair says that no candidate will do that and he's accused of wanting to take the party to the right. Not a single candidate proposes a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine, but Mulcair notes that the party policy is to encourage a mediated-negotiation and he's accused of giving Israel veto power.

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.

The way we determine which candidates would move the party to the right of where it was under Jack Layton isn't to compare the candidates to each other.  It's to compare them to Jack Layton.  It may happen to be the case—and indeed, I suspect it probably is—that ALL SEVEN candidates hold views that are to the right of Jack's.

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.

And Mulcair is, of course, the only candidate to announce that he is "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances."

the thing is this.  the centre of political gravity in quebec is so much further to the left in quebec that in the rest of canada, stuff that like 'fast ferries' in quebec is done by the RIGHT WING in quebec.  having a former quebec minister as leader of the ndp - whatever party - isn't comparable to anything like in other places.  people here should really do their research, quebec is, by far, the jurisdication closest to nordic social democracy in the americas.  as left as you think people are in the west, it's formless and reactionary (in the sense of reacting) compared with the massive movementarian politics that we have in quebec.

anyway, i thought the debate was owned by mulcair, aside from his first question to dewar.  this guy is a tiger and i'm really proud of how respectful he's being to his progressive colleagues.  i could honestly see us in government for 2-4 mandates with him in power, and i hope that whatever (very minor) differences that people have are subordinated to the importance of defeating the odious cpc and putting the lpc to bed forever.  we're at the point where we could become one of the two parties forever - moving the center to the npd - locking quebec and the cities the way the liberals did for 50 years, we can't blow that.

TheArchitect wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Zero candidates have suggested rescinding NAFTA, but Mulcair says that no candidate will do that and he's accused of wanting to take the party to the right. Not a single candidate proposes a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine, but Mulcair notes that the party policy is to encourage a mediated-negotiation and he's accused of giving Israel veto power.

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.

The way we determine which candidates would move the party to the right of where it was under Jack Layton isn't to compare the candidates to each other.  It's to compare them to Jack Layton.  It may happen to be the case—and indeed, I suspect it probably is—that ALL SEVEN candidates hold views that are to the right of Jack's.

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.

And Mulcair is, of course, the only candidate to announce that he is "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances."

He's never said no to amending NAFTA, he said no to cancelling it. "Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater".

TheArchitect wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Zero candidates have suggested rescinding NAFTA, but Mulcair says that no candidate will do that and he's accused of wanting to take the party to the right. Not a single candidate proposes a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine, but Mulcair notes that the party policy is to encourage a mediated-negotiation and he's accused of giving Israel veto power.

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.

The way we determine which candidates would move the party to the right of where it was under Jack Layton isn't to compare the candidates to each other.  It's to compare them to Jack Layton.  It may happen to be the case—and indeed, I suspect it probably is—that ALL SEVEN candidates hold views that are to the right of Jack's.

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.

And Mulcair is, of course, the only candidate to announce that he is "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances."

No, Mulcair has never said the issue of trade should not be reopened.

All of the candidates support recognizing a Palestinian state, Mulcair just said such recognition should be accompanied by language afirm that a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the borders of both states, must be negotiated by the two sides.

Mulcair did not "announce" he is an "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances". That's just some old unsourced quote somebody dredged up--nor does that comment mean he would never criticized or disagree with the Israeli government; supporting a country is not the same thing as supporting ever action of its government.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Mulcair did not "announce" he is an "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances". That's just some old unsourced quote somebody dredged up--nor does that comment mean he would never criticized or disagree with the Israeli government; supporting a country is not the same thing as supporting ever action of its government.

I'll assume you missed the thread where I provided [url=http://www.cjnews.com/node/80973]the source of the quote[/url]:

Quote:

Thomas Mulcair révéla une des raisons pour lesquelles il est très solidaire du peuple juif et de l’État d’Israël.

“Ma femme, Catherine Pinhas, née en France et dont la famille est d’origine turque, est une descendante des Sépharades expulsés d’Espagne en 1492. Nous, quand on pense à 1492, on pense à Christophe Colomb et à son arrivée en Amérique. Mais, pour les Juifs sépharades, 1492 évoque leur expulsion d’Espagne par les Rois catholiques. Un des gestes les plus gracieux que j’ai vus en politique au cours de ma vie a eu lieu, en 1992, quand le Roi Juan Carlos Ier d’Espagne est allé demander pardon aux Juifs dans une synagogue de Madrid. Mes beaux-parents sont des survivants de l’Holocauste. Leur histoire fait partie de mon quotidien. C’est pourquoi je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”

Maybe he didn't mean what he said - in which case, he could always clarify by retracting or explaining it. But I think his actions have spoken louder than his words.

Quote:

That is the position of the Obama administration, which says Israel has a veto power of what the Palestinian state should be.  It's also the postion of Harper and Baird.  Saying Mulcair "supports recognizing a Palestinian state" means nothing, since it's up to the US and Israel to decide what's acceptable. 

One Palestinian academic I spoke to a few years ago suggested that the only Palestinian state that the U.S. and Israeli governments might find acceptable would be one called "The United Ghettos of Palestine".

In any case it appears that Mulcair wants to outsource Middle East policy to Obama.

I don't think that any of Topp's comments about Mulcair aren't true.   On the other hand, I think Topp would also move the NDP to the right given his praise for the current PASOK administration in Greece.  It's just a question of degree.

wage zombie wrote:

I am very impressed by Mulcair, but I have not been impressed by the lack of details in his policy proposals.  I have articulated my concerns and asked questions and they get ignored.  The Mulcair supporters cherry pick the silly criticisms that people make and ignore the real quesions.

Here's an example--Mulcair supporters on babble have now taken to stating that he is "promoting a financial transaction tax."  That's the kind of policy I'd love to hear more about and would be very in favour of.  If Mulcair were actually promoting a financial transaction tax I'd be very happy.

But he's not.  And you know how I know this?  Because I have asked very specifically if anyone could provide me with a single detail about the FTT that Mulcair is "promoting".  But nobody can provide a single detail.

So we're supposed to give Mulcair points for promoting a policy, and yet, nobody can say what the policy is.  And then we're supposed to be impressed with Mulcair's ability to promote policy solutions.  I don't get it.

The same criticism could be made of Mulcair's cap and trade plan.

DSloth wrote:

Shouldn't be difficult for you to find that quote then. Point of fact Tom has proposed new taxes they just aren't the same as Brian Topp's blunt approach.  He's proposed a financial trasactions tax and teased a target capital gains increase.

wage zombie wrote:

Please tell us more about this financial transactions tax.  Please tell us one single thing about it.

DSloth wrote:

It will be designed to prevent the type of speculation that lead to the recent global economic collapse.

Obviously the full details aren't going to be released ahead of the tax plan.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

Are you serious?  I suppose we could also go to wikipedia to find out more about Mulcair "The Great Communicator"'s cap and trade plan.

#FAIL

Once again, can anyone tell me anything specific about the FTT that Mulcair is "promoting"?  Any single detail at all.

Unionist wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Mulcair did not "announce" he is an "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances". That's just some old unsourced quote somebody dredged up--nor does that comment mean he would never criticized or disagree with the Israeli government; supporting a country is not the same thing as supporting ever action of its government.

I'll assume you missed the thread where I provided [url=http://www.cjnews.com/node/80973]the source of the quote[/url]:

Quote:

Thomas Mulcair révéla une des raisons pour lesquelles il est très solidaire du peuple juif et de l’État d’Israël.

“Ma femme, Catherine Pinhas, née en France et dont la famille est d’origine turque, est une descendante des Sépharades expulsés d’Espagne en 1492. Nous, quand on pense à 1492, on pense à Christophe Colomb et à son arrivée en Amérique. Mais, pour les Juifs sépharades, 1492 évoque leur expulsion d’Espagne par les Rois catholiques. Un des gestes les plus gracieux que j’ai vus en politique au cours de ma vie a eu lieu, en 1992, quand le Roi Juan Carlos Ier d’Espagne est allé demander pardon aux Juifs dans une synagogue de Madrid. Mes beaux-parents sont des survivants de l’Holocauste. Leur histoire fait partie de mon quotidien. C’est pourquoi je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”

Maybe he didn't mean what he said - in which case, he could always clarify by retracting or explaining it. But I think his actions have spoken louder than his words.

 

No, no. I'm claiming that Mulcair meant exactly what he said: that he supports Israel--the country--in all circumstances.

You are assuming that means he would support any action Israel takes and/or never criticize them.

The context you provide only strengthens my argument. Mulcair did not give this quote in the context of discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He gave this quote in the context of discussing the Holocaust. Nothing he said in the above citation would be inconsistent with saying "No matter what happens, I will always support Israel because I believe that after 5,000 years of oppression the Jewish people need a homeland". That doesn't mean you agree or blindly support all of Israel's actions.

I'm not claiming I can prove that that's all he meant, but there's nothing to suggest that's NOT all he meant. In fact, the context supports my intrepretation.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

All of the candidates support recognizing a Palestinian state, Mulcair just said such recognition should be accompanied by language afirm that a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the borders of both states, must be negotiated by the two sides.

That is the position of the Obama administration, which says Israel has a veto power of what the Palestinian state should be.  It's also the postion of Harper and Baird.  Saying Mulcair "supports recognizing a Palestinian state" means nothing, since it's up to the US and Israel to decide what's acceptable.  

 

I'm not aware of the Obama administration saying that Israel has veto power over recognizing a Palestinian state at the UN. If you have a link, I'd be interested to see it.

That aside, regardless of some additional stance the Obama administration may have taken on the issue of Palestinian statehood, that doesn't change Mulcair position, nor does it in anyway suggest that Mulcair shares the Obama administration's belief that Israel should have veto power over the recognition of a Palestinian state.

If you have actual evidence that Mulcair supports that position, please present it.

wage zombie wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

I am very impressed by Mulcair, but I have not been impressed by the lack of details in his policy proposals.  I have articulated my concerns and asked questions and they get ignored.  The Mulcair supporters cherry pick the silly criticisms that people make and ignore the real quesions.

Here's an example--Mulcair supporters on babble have now taken to stating that he is "promoting a financial transaction tax."  That's the kind of policy I'd love to hear more about and would be very in favour of.  If Mulcair were actually promoting a financial transaction tax I'd be very happy.

But he's not.  And you know how I know this?  Because I have asked very specifically if anyone could provide me with a single detail about the FTT that Mulcair is "promoting".  But nobody can provide a single detail.

So we're supposed to give Mulcair points for promoting a policy, and yet, nobody can say what the policy is.  And then we're supposed to be impressed with Mulcair's ability to promote policy solutions.  I don't get it.

The same criticism could be made of Mulcair's cap and trade plan.

DSloth wrote:

Shouldn't be difficult for you to find that quote then. Point of fact Tom has proposed new taxes they just aren't the same as Brian Topp's blunt approach.  He's proposed a financial trasactions tax and teased a target capital gains increase.

wage zombie wrote:

Please tell us more about this financial transactions tax.  Please tell us one single thing about it.

DSloth wrote:

It will be designed to prevent the type of speculation that lead to the recent global economic collapse.

Obviously the full details aren't going to be released ahead of the tax plan.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

Are you serious?  I suppose we could also go to wikipedia to find out more about Mulcair "The Great Communicator"'s cap and trade plan.

#FAIL

Once again, can anyone tell me anything specific about the FTT that Mulcair is "promoting"?  Any single detail at all.

 

You asked about a financial transaction tax, not cap and trade.

Beyond supporting a financial transaction tax, I think it would passing dumb for any candidate to get into details at this point. Those will be (a) determine through much wider consultation and (b) not something you'd want to propose three and a half years out form an election.

That, of course, is a matter of opinion, but since the topic of conversation was whether Mulcair had ruled out raising taxes, not the details of his tax plans, I offer that as an explanation of why one might not expect such details in the middle of leadership race.

wage zombie wrote:

So does he support Palestine's UN bid for statehood, or doesn't he?  I can't tell from what you posted.  It hasn't clarified things for me at all.

The other candidates have been able to clearly state their position.  I don't understand why we shouldn't be able to expect the same from Mulcair.

The way I read the above is that he supports it as long as there is language making it clear that such recognition does not short circuit the peace process (i.e. that issues like borders and refugees still have to be negotiated between the parties).

I have no idea whether the answers given by other candidates contained equivalent nuance or ambiguity.

I just don't get it.  If Mulcair was actually promoting a financial transaction tax (in the same way that Topp is promoting his top bracket income tax increase, or in the way that Cullen is promoting his joint nomination plan), he would be my solid #2 (after Ashton), and I would be praising his FTT as a real solution to income disparity here on babble.

But he's not.  The only time he ever mentions it is when he is directly asked about taxes.  The only detail that anybody knows is "Mulcair says he supports a FTT".  That's it.

So as someone who very much wants to see a FTT, and reacted positively on babble when Mulcair mentioned it during one of the French debates (when directly asked about taxes), I'm listening and very open to Mulcair.  However I'm not going to give him points for nothing.

I don't believe we'll be able to implement any kind of bold policies like a FTT withOUT campaigning loudly and clearly on it for quite a while.  I want a leader who is proud of our policies and not afraid to talk about them.  This idea of not making commitments or offering details now as a defensive tactic is not what inspires me at all, at all.  And I am not going to give Mulcair my vote for "supporting" policies that he appears unwilling to champion.

Thanks SDM, great post.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And this is the same problem on almost every issue. Whether you compare him to Jack Layton or to the rest of the candidates, we're talking about very small differences. What's the difference between Mulcair's "NAFTA is good but it needs reforming" and Jack's "NAFTA is problematic, and it should be reformed", particularly when those reforms are about the same environmental and labor standards? What's the difference between Peggy Nash's "I don't want to offer a tax increase during the leadership race because the Conservatives might exploit it", versus Mulcair's "I don't want to offer a tax increase until I've seen the 2015 books, because voters will only hear 'they're raising taxes'"? 

Well the difference could be that some people may not be considering Nash at all, and are therefore not much interested in critiquing her campaign.

KenS wrote:

@ AM:

What a bunch of bafflegab.

You are so used to filling in what Tom Mulcair must have meant that you do it even on an issue where he hasn't said a word: whether he supports the UN resolution.

I cannot say I'm positive he has never said a word. But I don't think anything has ever been recounted here.

I just posted the quote from Mulcair's answer. wage zombie seemed to be asking what I thought that meant.

I do think it is pretty clear that "negotiate language at the United Nations" in the context of whether to recognize a Palestinian state is a pretty clear reference to a UN resolution. Unionist and Lord Palmerston who somehow believe that Mulcair's position is to give Israel a veto over whether to recognize Palestinian statehood (Where did that come from!?), seem to at least agree that this IS a reference to negotiating a resolution at the UN.

In fact, I think that anyone who hasn't concluded that Mulcair is being deliberately vague based on the fact that people are scrutinizing every aspect of every word he says to degree that he'd have to write a thesis to answer every question, would acknowledge that this is obviously a reference to negotiating a resolution at the UN. WHat else would they be negotiating language for?

KenS wrote:

You could always source what he actually said, from which you are deriving that interpretation.

I did!

WZ, it was the same problem when Saganash released his "let's not raise taxes" pledge, though. There were a lot of Saganash (soft) supporters (myself included) who gave him a pass. "I don't really agree, but it does make some sense."

Mulcair basically said the same thing (let's focus on closing loopholes and havens), and even left the door open to a tax increase but said let's wait until 2015. But a few persistent voices immediately added this to the "list of reasons why Mulcair is part of the vast neoliberal conspiracy".