Wab Kinew's entry into Manitoba politics seen as boon to NDP

super excited, Wab is a great dude

This won't help:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-wab-kinew-misog... Rouge candidate criticized for past derogatory and misogynistic tweets[/url]

offs. try making it into a big deal Liberals. it's not and  his lyrics and rap history will get him votes. i guess its what they're scared of and now trying to destroy him.

imv it's ignorant racism where the big old white good boy wants to win no matter. 

he can fuck off.

A Liberal candidate dropped out a few days ago over twitter comments (which the NDP had demanded). Two NDP candidates had to drop out in Saskatchewan. All the parties play this game.

bekayne wrote:

A Liberal candidate dropped out a few days ago over twitter comments (which the NDP had demanded). Two NDP candidates had to drop out in Saskatchewan. All the parties play this game.

Just as I said, let's welcome it! How marvellous that the lines are policed so that polite, change-averse blandness reigns. and all glimmers of humanity (especially from minority groups) are kept out of politics, and only mundane, genteel, polite-phrased everyday racism prevails. How wonderful that all parties help make sure this happens. It is a fine testimony to the marvel that is our poltical system. How splendid that all parties conduct themselves in such a fashion. The fact that everyone does it makes it an even finer thing that it already was. Truly this is the best of all possible worlds. 

I'm in Fort Rouge and am ridiculously pleased Wab is running here. We can't subject people to historical purity tests when they run - it leaves no room for growth or personal development. I think Wab has addressed the issue and we can move on. Likewise, there have been other candidates who were removed because of things they said years back and have demonstrated that they've movd beyond, thought that was wrong then.

Quote:

I am afraid that with the internet young people will not have a place in public discourse because of intemperate things they may say when they are young and stupid.

They should take notes from this.  I think Kinew handled it exactly right.

In particular, I'd suggest to the next crop of hopefuls:

1.  You need to completely own your words or actions.  Saying "I apologize if anyone was offended..." won't cut it.  It also makes it sound like you'd stand by your words or actions if you thought you could get away with it.  A real apology is for something you did that YOU believe to be wrong.

2.  Don't expect your apology to be a moral car-wash.  You can't just apologize and then everything goes away.

3.  Don't wait until your political opponents force you to apologize (or demand that you step down).  Besides not wanting to put control of the situation in their hands, it just looks opportunistic if you sob and plead AFTER you got busted.

4.  Bored?  Got time to kill?  That's a great opportunity to comb through your old tweets.  Saying "I don't remember ever saying that" is not only unconvincing, it also kind of makes you look out of touch with your own beliefs.  You might not remember that offensive thing you said about Natives, but you should certainly have some recollection of how you used to feel about Natives.

5.  If you're considering a career in public service, or even if you just want to leave that option open, now is as good a time as any to learn to speak your mind without crossing the line into "odious" territory.  Sure, the internet makes it easy to say horrible things to  or about other anonymous strangers (and might even reward you for doing so) but it's possible to disagree with someone without having to suggest that their mother should have aborted them, or whatever.  If you'd like to be elected in 2028, you'll need this skill, so why wait?

Timebandit wrote:

I'm in Fort Rouge and am ridiculously pleased Wab is running here.

I'm ridiculously pleased to live in a constituency where a candidate not backed by any of the 3 main parties has a realistic shot of winning.

Quote:

I'm ridiculously pleased to live in a constituency where a candidate not backed by any of the 3 main parties has a realistic shot of winning.

How's the weather in Saanich - Gulf Islands?

So I was half right.

As far as rain goes, at least you don't have to shovel rain.

we have the same here when you go to the cities and its a Liberal government.

what's your 1 seat going to do for homelessness?

geez

i am old enough here in BC to remember how different it was under a NDP government, with all things relative, compared to now.

nad like i'd waste my vote for greens who are here at least Tories with composters and gardens.

You know, A24, the MB Greens mention guarnateed minimum income, but there's not a lot of detail on how that's going to work. They mention "income tax reform" but no real details on what that means.

One thing does jump out at me: They want to tie funding for schools to income tax instead of property taxes. This would effectively be a tax break for property owners, and an offload of that expense to everyone, wouldn't it? That's progressive and pro-social?

Sorry, they're not passing the "not conservatives" sniff test for me. Meanwhile, kneejerk voters will help the Tory bid and fuck things up worse than they are for all of us. Ta very much.

Timebandit wrote:

You know, A24, the MB Greens mention guarnateed minimum income, but there's not a lot of detail on how that's going to work. They mention "income tax reform" but no real details on what that means.

One thing does jump out at me: They want to tie funding for schools to income tax instead of property taxes. This would effectively be a tax break for property owners, and an offload of that expense to everyone, wouldn't it? That's progressive and pro-social?

Sorry, they're not passing the "not conservatives" sniff test for me. Meanwhile, kneejerk voters will help the Tory bid and fuck things up worse than they are for all of us. Ta very much.

Their platform hasn't come out yet, but looking at their policy framwork, there seems to be a lot of diverse policies, some of which are clearly to the left of the NDP.

http://greenparty.mb.ca/platform/

Regarding education taxes, their platform calls for raising personal income taxes (which, could be raised in a progressive manner) and corporate taxes to cover the cost.  I haven't studied this question in detail, but I wouldn't immediately write the entire party off as a bunch of conservatives because of this one policy.  Not to mention that if we are going to consider a party as "conservatives" based off of one policy, does that mean that the NDP are also conservative and worth writing off completely because a lot of their policies around crime and justice while Andrew Swan was AG were straight out of Harper's playbook?

The Green Party platform also mentions:

- Implementing a Quebec-style childcare program (The NDP hasn't done so)

- Proportional representation (not on the NDP's agenda at all)

- Restorative Justice (pretty much anything is to the left of the NDP with Andrew Swan's more Harperite than Harper approach)

- Opposing energy east (the Manitoba NDP more or less supports it)

- Banning fracking (it's happening under the NDP's watch)

- Oppose CETA

- Implement a Guaranteed Annual Income

- "actively encourage collective bargaining" (though to be fair, I'm not sure the details of the policy change they recommend would work out all that well in practice)

- Extending legal protections to farm labourers

There are a few things in their policy book that could be considered right wing, but the whole "Tories with composters" label doesn't fit, considering I don't know a lot of Tories who are pro-childcare, pro-PR, pro-collective bargaining, and pro-environment.  I haven't decided who to vote for yet, but writing the Greens in Manitoba off as a bunch of conservatives isn't fair or accurate (though, I suppose it may serve partisan purposes).

Besides, even if they have a few right-wing policies, it might be good to have one Green MLA in the house, if only to raise all those other progressive issues in their policy book.

Timebandit wrote:

One thing does jump out at me: They want to tie funding for schools to income tax instead of property taxes. This would effectively be a tax break for property owners, and an offload of that expense to everyone, wouldn't it? That's progressive and pro-social?

I've long wondered why any social program at all (let alone education) should be funded in proportion to the market value of the home you own - rather than the wealth you accumulate in total terms.

Someone who owns mansions arounds the world and rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg pays no property tax (correct?). And landlords pay property tax, but make sure they charge enough rent to recoup that plus all other costs of maintaining the property (correct?).

Individuals should be taxed - progressively - on their total accumulation of wealth (e.g., no special breaks for "capital gains" vs. income from employment, etc.), and wealth should then be re-distributed (e.g. via social programs) on that basis.

I see nothing progressive at all about property tax. Glad to see someone is actually questioning it in a way that (hopefully) will worry rich individuals and corporations. If they're serious about it. But at least it's a good conversation to initiate.

Most places that use property taxes to fund schools do so at the school board level and that is not progressive at all. It means that rich cities have more tax revenue to spend on THEIR kids school while the poorer places get second rate services.

Renters pay owner's property taxes.

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:

Someone who owns mansions arounds the world and rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg pays no property tax (correct?).

Sweetie, nobody who owns mansions around the world rents a luxury apartment in *Winnipeg*. Don't get me wrong, I like the city well enough, but let's be realistic. ;)

Anyway, if it means raising income tax across the board, you're raising them to people who can't afford to buy in a housing market that is relatively modest. It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped, but it's not necessarily a benefit to the people with lower incomes.

How about someone who rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg, and has some of his real estate holdings tied up in a million dollar cottage just across the border in Lake of the Woods?

Or, someone less well off, who pays a large portion of their income towards housing (and thus property taxes, whether directly because they own or indirectly because they rent and their landlord factors the cost of property tax into their rent), versus someone who is really well off, but puts his money into fast cars, expensive vacations, and expensive toys (and thus has a smaller proportion of their income/wealth tied up in taxable real estate?).

It does seem like a rather arcane way to fund education, and one that is prone to some disparities, such as people in richer areas having better-funded schools when people in poorer areas are the ones who really need extra support for schools.

Regardless, you make a good point.  It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped.  But it could be done in a progressive manner, taking higher incomes more (as well as raising corporate taxes).  So, with the details present, we can't conclusively say that this is a terrible, right-wing, anti-progressive idea that proves that the Greens are a bunch of closet Tories.

Not to mention, one could argue that raising the PST wasn't a very progressive way to raise revenue either, compared to corporate or income taxes...

genstrike wrote:

The Green Party platform also mentions:

- Implementing a Quebec-style childcare program (The NDP hasn't done so)

To be fair, the NDP has expanded the number of spaces, improved wages for child care workers, introduced pensions, and there are flexible training options for people who wish to enter into that field.

genstrike wrote:

Regardless, you make a good point.  It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped.  But it could be done in a progressive manner, taking higher incomes more (as well as raising corporate taxes).  So, with the details present, we can't conclusively say that this is a terrible, right-wing, anti-progressive idea that proves that the Greens are a bunch of closet Tories.

This reminds me of Pallister's call to raise the basic personal exemption to $20,000. I've heard a response that all that does is reduce government revenue for needed programs. That argument doesn't wash because people on the margins look at how much they make, they see their schools and libraries and community centres lose funding and yet there's always enough for big projects like True North, and they don't see why the government needs any more of their money. You can structure the tax system to both raise the BPE and take more from higher income earners, but pointing that out might remind people that the party that should be on the side of working peopl hasn't always governed with their interests in mind.

genstrike wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:

Someone who owns mansions arounds the world and rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg pays no property tax (correct?).

Sweetie, nobody who owns mansions around the world rents a luxury apartment in *Winnipeg*. Don't get me wrong, I like the city well enough, but let's be realistic. ;)

Anyway, if it means raising income tax across the board, you're raising them to people who can't afford to buy in a housing market that is relatively modest. It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped, but it's not necessarily a benefit to the people with lower incomes.

Not to mention, one could argue that raising the PST wasn't a very progressive way to raise revenue either, compared to corporate or income taxes...

Along with this, there are other things wrong with raising the PST:

• Selinger plainly stated that he would not do so. To your average unaligned voter, it's just another in a long line of promises that politicians break
• Along that line, it gives the NDP's opponents a convenient club with which to beat the NDP over the head for years to come
• It feeds right into the hands of NDP critics who say the NDP can't balance a budget even while raising everybody's taxes
• By dropping it on people without a referendum, they burned their political capital on something that is very unpopular.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Along with this, there are other things wrong with raising the PST:

• Selinger plainly stated that he would not do so. To your average unaligned voter, it's just another in a long line of promises that politicians break
• Along that line, it gives the NDP's opponents a convenient club with which to beat the NDP over the head for years to come
• It feeds right into the hands of NDP critics who say the NDP can't balance a budget even while raising everybody's taxes
• By dropping it on people without a referendum, they burned their political capital on something that is very unpopular.

Agreed.  Part of me has to shake my head that the NDP for so long resisted what little pressure there was from the left for things like anti-scab legislation, etc., claiming that said initiatives might be nice and we really do agree with you, but they would be too unpopular and cost us the election, and then would be reversed under a Tory government anyways.

And then instead of something like universal PSE, universal Quebec-style childcare, or even anti-scab legislation, they choose regressive taxation as their hill to die on.  Huh?

quizzical wrote:

what's your 1 seat going to do for homelessness?

The Winnipeg Free Press released a poll this week (sorry, it's behind a subscription wall) that essentially says Manitobans don't really like any of the 3 main party leaders. This continues a pattern from the last election, where the public perception of all 3 parties worsened during the course of the campaign. So who knows, maybe if the cards line up, there is an outside chance of electing Canada's first ever Green government.

In any case, back to the issue of Kinew's tweets, I have to ask those who have posted in his defense: everything else being equal, would you still defend Kinew and be willing to overlook and move past this issue if he had instead run as a Liberal (or even Green)?

Of course. Far too many Liberal candidates had to quit over twitter comments last federal election.