NDP leadership race 3

Cody, perhaps you missed it, but Pondering has often stated that she is quite opposed to P.R. and thinks that we are better off with FPTP. Thus, when Caron, whose economic policies she liked, decided to make P.R. his top priority, that was a deal breaker for her.

Weaver of the BC Greens made proportional representation a top priority in his negotiations with the two other parties (eventually settling for working with the BC NDP).  For those who believe in representative democracy, this makes sense.  After BC gets proportional representation it will certainly be for the better there.  Likewise for Canada, assuming people smarten up and give the Greens and NDP all the seats and turf the Libs and Cons.

Quote:

"The Liberals were only able to garner 39% of the popular vote, yet they reign over us as monarchs. Every day, they use their false majority to pass legislation without so much as consulting the opposition. This behavior - regardless of the party - must stop." added Caron.

http://en.guycaron.ca/electoral_reform

Trying to respond without quoting:

On electoral reform, I do think ranked ballots have potential as consensus building. I also was quite accepting of Dion's P3 model. I've never understood why it didn't get more support here. It would not have required any additional seats and  would have gotten very close to proportional representation and would have made individual candidates more important.

I liked that Guy Caron is an economist and that he stated that the economy needs to be restructured. I got the impression that he opposed aspects of the trade deals as unions do and as the Council of Canadians does. Unions haven't deserted the NDP, the NDP has deserted unions.

I did understand Layton moving to the centre to get elected and do believe it was a necessity at the time. The tide had turned and 2015 would have been the time for the NDP to rise up as a leftist party, get a Sanders or a Corbyn type that also has electability. This is still the time for that.

In my opinion most Canadians consider 2 of 3 parties when voting. When deciding between the parties they consider, they look first for who can be trusted to run the economy. If they don't trust the party on the economy they are out. Nothing else matters. In the last election, when Harper was leading, it was because voters didn't yet trust either Trudeau or Mulcair with the economy. Voters didn't like Harper, they were holding their noses to vote for him. When Mulcair gained credibility as a centrist leader the pendulum swung his way. Quebec was a big part of that. Then Trudeau gained credibility on the economy and Mulcair lost it when he said he would keep a balanced budget every single year while delivering national daycare.

That's dramatic. If you were genuinely considering supporting Guy Caron and genuinely believed in electoral reform, even if ER wasn't your "top" issue, you would not condemn him for making it a priority. Unlike the trade agreements you claim are more important, ER is an issue that requires only Canada's government to make changes to - unlike international trade agreements. This is pragmatic pledge that is completely achievable and can't be convincingly blamed on third parties if it isn't realized. Conversely, if he pledged to revisit trade deals - or worse, to insist the Tories or Liberals renegotiate trade deals - as his top priority, he would face endless criticism as there are a million factors outside his control that could prevent that from happening, or cause it to be renegotiated in a way detrimental to Canadians. And, again, if you believed in ER you would know that ER is like Canada's version of "but think of the SCOTUS." Electoral reform, if realized, will have a lasting impact on federal policy for decades to come, not just the next 18-48 months after the election. In a very real sense electoral reform is the most consequential single thing any party can do. It's a democratic pay raise instead of a one time lump sum payment, sure, the lump sum will help more in the very short term but long term a pay raise is better. And it's not like Caron can't also act on other issues or give them weight concurrently with realizing ER.

If both Canadians and Europeans both object to the investor state mechanism why can't we just drop that aspect of CETA?  The answer is, we can. Freeland refused to do so. Canada is the country insisting on the investor state mechanism. In my view the NDP could make a huge stink on that and they would have lots of support if they did.

Proving Trudeau is a liar is meaningless as everyone assumes all polititians break election promises. The thing that will matter the most is if Canadians think he did a good job on the economy given what he had to work with. Next they will look at the other two candidates and decide if either of them are likely to do a significantly better job.

I think the situation in BC is fantastic and it will hopefully be a wonderful example to the rest of Canada. That two "minority" parties can join to overthrow the lead party is a great lesson about Canadian democracy. Dion and Layton's move might have gone over better if there had been an example of it happening. Now there has been. It appears as though BC might finally get PR. If so that will be another example to Canada.

I think NDP supporters seriously miscalculate how the degree to which voter's opinions on various issues impact their vote and the conservative attitude Canadians have towards the economy.

I supported Caron because I thought he was going to priorize the economy and that as an economist he would have credibility when pointing out the flaws in TPP and CETA. Maybe with the PR thing he is playing to the NDP base. I'm still listening to hear if he has anything more to say on restructuring the economy.

Both Angus and Ashton have made the kinds of mistakes that Mulcair made that made me think he lacked political instincts.  I can't think of examples off the bat but if I am right they will make more mistakes. Angus and Ashton both have strengths but between the two I think I lean Ashton. I don't think she could win this election but that would be almost impossible for any leader. Trudeau is headed for another majority. He could well end up the longest serving PM in history. Inevidibly he will eventually bite the dust like those who preceded him and Ashton could be just the one to take him down when he is weakened. Her achievements are impressive for anyone but even more so for someone her age. I doubt she is about to stagnate. Taking the long view Ashton could be exactly the right person to rebuild the party.

epaulo13 wrote:

..so where is that struggle for change within the fed ndp? i see struggle against the notley/pipeline proponents which includes the leadership cabal. i've come to believe that angus is in this camp with his pragmatism and calls for unity. 

Not sure I'm reading you correctly.  Are you saying that Angus is part of the "leadership cabal" (IE, part of the pipeline proponents to be struggled against)?  Or are you saying he is part of the struggle for change?  I'm going to assume you mean the former, which is my take on it.  The perception of him online by some is interesting.  Many view him as "extreme left", which is odd.  He seems like an okay guy, and I wouldn't mind him for leader.  But he is not "extreme left".  He's more status quo.  He's my fourth choice, with Singh as my last choice (I don't really know anything about Singh, so that could change).  Currently for me it's between either Julian, Caron, or Ashton.  Julian is a former Council of Canadians ED, and seems to have good ideas.  Ashton has a lot of rhetoric I like (though I can't quite yet piece together her plans).  Caron's tax reform proposal is fascinating -- I don't know if it's saleable, but it is interesting.  I'm not sure what Caron's take on the environment will be yet, though.

Not sure I'm reading you correctly.  Are you saying that Angus is part of the "leadership cabal" (IE, part of the pipeline proponents to be struggled against)?

..that's exactly what i'm saying. i haven't always felt this way about angus but this campaign has been revealing. 

An old Facebook post of Angus's from 2015 resurfaced about Corbyn, railing against him that if he couldn't unite his party how could he claim to lead his country. "Party," in Charlie's understanding, clearly meant only Labour's parliamentary caucus. Clearly, and disappointingly, he didn't get it.  I was glad when he entered the race, but for this and other reasons he's fallen near the bottom of the pack for me.

On edit: just looked up Charlie's post to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting him. It's actually from June 28, 2016: "I don't have a position on Corbyn one way or the other but if he can't garner the support of more than 18% of his caucus how the hell is he going to offer vision to a nation that is calling out for leadership at such a crucial time?"

epaulo13 wrote:

The tide had turned and 2015 would have been the time for the NDP to rise up as a leftist party, get a Sanders or a Corbyn type that also has electability. This is still the time for that.

..i believe there is a real misunderstanding about the sanders & corbyn phenomenon. it's not a marketing thing where you put the platform out there and the young, activists and movements will come. it's an organic process.

..an organic process born from internal struggle in both the above cases. also organic is what is happening in bc. the years of grassroots struggles over site c, pipelines and lng have pushed the ndp and greens to where they are. when dix was leader more than half the caucus supported kinder morgan pipeline.

..so where is that struggle for change within the fed ndp? i see struggle against the notley/pipeline proponents which includes the leadership cabal. i've come to believe that angus is in this camp with his pragmatism and calls for unity. 

So now Angus is out. I believe there are plenty of people ready to follow a Corbyn or Sanders type. People are looking for authenticity or what passes for it in the case of Ford, Trump and Trudeau. It is ironic that Harper and Mulcair turned Trudeau into the political outsider.

Unfortunately it is not enough to be right. The reason BC grassroots exists is because activists educated the people who decided to resist. The Greens and NDP barely have a majority. If either had a more charismatic leader, or done better marketing, they would have a larger margin. Even so they won because they are right. The pipeline is not a net benefit to BC given the huge risks and the Clark government had long since reached its best before date.

Federally the situation is very different. Canadians kept Harper in power for a full decade and he did outrageous things many of which Trudeau is reversing. The litany of broken promises and failures the opposition will pull out won't topple Trudeau anymore than the litany of Harper sins did him. Sanders would have beaten Clinton and probably Trump if the party had not defeated him. Corbyn has come close to toppling May. Trudeau can be toppled but not by conventional cautious politics.  The unions and Council of Canadians are against CETA. Many people in Europe are against CETA. Companies being able to sue the government is something people understand very well. They also understand not being allowed to favor local companies.

To expose the trade deals as favoring the 1% will turn people against them just as people turned against the pipelines when they realized what the cost is. It is a huge single defining issue that heavily impacts the economy. People vote based on the economy.

I wonder where the case is on restoring the Bank of Canada as the zero interest loan provider to the government. Rocco Galati is also challenging the constitutionality of CETA.

The only way to win is to prove the NDP would run the economy better than the Liberals. Everything else is icing on the cake at best and a distraction at worst.

mark_alfred wrote:

Not too long ago, no one foresaw the result in BC

In fact most polls in BC before and during the campaign showed the NDP slightly ahead and almost all were within the margin of error for the 3 parties. The actual seat distribution in such a situation is hard to predict, of course. You could say much the same about the US presidential election - the polls were pretty accurate, it was the Electoral College outcome that was the surprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_general_election,_2017#Op...

The Liberals have an economic plan?

josh wrote:

Angus' problems with French should drop him way behind the other three.

Correct.

Chantal Hébert says Angus has a lot of work to do on his French.

Singh has released his tax policies, and as the HuffPost says, "the Ontario MPP is proposing a huge transfer of wealth designed to lift millions out of poverty."

Inspired by the Liberals’ successful 2015 campaign when they promised to increase taxes on the top one per cent to support more generous tax-free child benefits, the charismatic New Democrat is hoping to steal Justin Trudeau’s playbook with bigger and bolder change.

Singh proposes new federal tax brackets for high income earners: Canadians taking home between $350,000 and $499,999 would be taxed at 35 per cent (instead of 33 per cent), and income over $500,000 would be taxed at 37 per cent.

Singh would increase taxes on capital gains, hiking the inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. He would also implement an estate tax of 40 per cent on assets above $4 million. 

Corporations would also see a huge tax increase from the current 15 per cent to 19.5 per cent — reversing decades of corporate tax cuts.
... 

With all that money, Singh seeks to introduce three new programs designed to help the working poor, and to eliminate the number of seniors and people with severe disabilities living in poverty.

The NDP leadership candidate proposes a wage subsidy called the “working Canadian guarantee.”

There's more at the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/11/jagmeet-singh-ndp-leadership-tax...

R.E.Wood wrote:

Singh has released his tax policies, and as the HuffPost says, "the Ontario MPP is proposing a huge transfer of wealth designed to lift millions out of poverty."

Inspired by the Liberals’ successful 2015 campaign when they promised to increase taxes on the top one per cent to support more generous tax-free child benefits, the charismatic New Democrat is hoping to steal Justin Trudeau’s playbook with bigger and bolder change.

Singh proposes new federal tax brackets for high income earners: Canadians taking home between $350,000 and $499,999 would be taxed at 35 per cent (instead of 33 per cent), and income over $500,000 would be taxed at 37 per cent.

Singh would increase taxes on capital gains, hiking the inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. He would also implement an estate tax of 40 per cent on assets above $4 million. 

Corporations would also see a huge tax increase from the current 15 per cent to 19.5 per cent — reversing decades of corporate tax cuts.
... 

With all that money, Singh seeks to introduce three new programs designed to help the working poor, and to eliminate the number of seniors and people with severe disabilities living in poverty.

The NDP leadership candidate proposes a wage subsidy called the “working Canadian guarantee.”

There's more at the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/11/jagmeet-singh-ndp-leadership-tax...

 

Looks like some good ideas in there.

..i liked the "question periods" where the candidates asked each other questions. peter julian was stronger in this debate than in previous ones. unsure what guy caron is talking about in commending notley on her work on climate. 

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

josh wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

Singh has released his tax policies, and as the HuffPost says, "the Ontario MPP is proposing a huge transfer of wealth designed to lift millions out of poverty."

Inspired by the Liberals’ successful 2015 campaign when they promised to increase taxes on the top one per cent to support more generous tax-free child benefits, the charismatic New Democrat is hoping to steal Justin Trudeau’s playbook with bigger and bolder change.

Singh proposes new federal tax brackets for high income earners: Canadians taking home between $350,000 and $499,999 would be taxed at 35 per cent (instead of 33 per cent), and income over $500,000 would be taxed at 37 per cent.

Singh would increase taxes on capital gains, hiking the inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. He would also implement an estate tax of 40 per cent on assets above $4 million. 

Corporations would also see a huge tax increase from the current 15 per cent to 19.5 per cent — reversing decades of corporate tax cuts.
... 

With all that money, Singh seeks to introduce three new programs designed to help the working poor, and to eliminate the number of seniors and people with severe disabilities living in poverty.

The NDP leadership candidate proposes a wage subsidy called the “working Canadian guarantee.”

There's more at the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/11/jagmeet-singh-ndp-leadership-tax...

 

Looks like some good ideas in there.

1.  Personal interest test.  Looking over the these proposals I would be still living in poverty, this plan does the BIG ZERO for me.  I get around 11,500 a year after these proposals I get 11,500.  I will try to find out more detail but the initial read, this stinks.  VS Caron 31 billion in renvenue and says he lift me and every other person out of poverty.  Thanks Mr. Signh for lifting some people out of poverty leaving behind a lot like myself with nothing.

2.  Is Meaning testing benefit program a progressive idea?  NO. 

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/6-reasons-joseph-stiglitz-and-...

Form Huffington Post Article

For seniors, Singh proposes to combine a number of existing programs (Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the age credit, and the pension income credit) into one income-tested “Canada seniors guarantee.” The benefit would be phased out at an income level that will be disclosed once Singh’s campaign can access government figures, said Sas. 

​I finally got my NDP membership card in the mail but if Singh gets the nod and starts to mean testing benefits I will work agaisnt the interests of the NDP at the next election.  I will volunteer my time for liberals or back to the greens at the next election. Full Stop. Pension plans now what next healthcare.  These are called universal programs for a reason.  This what republicans want to do in the US.  How can the NDP stand for means testing social programs?

I have not been listening to debate but I hope the someone brings up the idea the means testing is regressive policy.

Missed that means test part.  You're right.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

When we discuss the possibility of a GAI, we generally assume that those who don't actually need it will have it clawed back -- "income tested" -- and that's seen as a good thing, rather than giving someone who makes $90K another $20K.

What's the different part here?  Besides that every politician should know better than to ever fuck with seniors?

Please don't understand I would like tax the rich a lot more, and it can be done interesting ways.  But the idea of universality plays a very very important important role in my mind.  I want the rich to the same access to government services as I do.  I want rich folk to have "skin in game" I the want them to know that government services are open to them, I want them to use same services I get.  If we start excluding the rich from government services or benefits they have the money to build their own parallel system be private schools, gated comunittes, private health care, etc.  If they use the government services they have skin in the game, I would to them invest there energy in the public system rather build then on private system.  You into pay into the system but get nothing back that in mind is very destructive idea.  I want the rich to know that part the system so they can more effectively taxed.  Let collect the rich pensions from the government I confident their 1000 ways to get money back to the government.  To me it is imperative they have some skin in the game. 

Quote:

I want rich folk to have "skin in game" I the want them to know that government services are open to them, I want them to use same services I get.  If we start excluding the rich from government services or benefits they have the money to build their own parallel system be private schools, gated comunittes, private health care, etc.  If they use the government services they have skin in the game, I would to them invest there energy in the public system rather build then on private system.

Fair enough, when we're talking about (say) health care or education (though education has been exempted for a long time).

I'm just asking about "income testing" for a cheque in the mail.  And also asking whether that's not exactly what we all assumed would be the case if Canada ever implemented a nation-wide GAI.  It's always been my understanding that the well-off would receive the GAI, then have it taxed back (in other words, income tested).  Did I get the wrong end of that?  Does everyone get to keep all of their GAI??

Quote:

If I was designing the system I would let keep the money.  A direct claw back like get a benefit and at tax you give back, thats way to crude.  Their should be no direct link between the benefit the claw back.  Instead you make a change in the tax code that will recover the revenve, get rid of loophope in some part of the tax system that favours the rich to recover the revenue.

That sounds like you're saying "yes, rejig taxation so we get the money back from those who we don't think need it, but let's not call it that or acknowledge that the two are related".

What's the difference between clawing it back, and pretending we're not clawing it back (but still effectively clawing it back)?

More coverage of the debate - specifically how Singh was under attack (and failed to adequately explain himself or his non-existent policies): http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/06/11/singh-finds-himself-under-fi...

mark_alfred wrote:

I used to quite like Angus.  But as this campaign has progressed, I find him more and more annoying.  Thing is, he is the best debater.  Whenever the others would ask him questions, he would cleverly turn the tables on them and ask them a question back, and they would spend the time on the defence rather than the offence.  I suspect he's going to win, which does not make me happy.

Why are you finding him "more and more annoying"? I'm more and more impressed by him, but I'm curious to hear your reasoning.

Canada Plays A Part in Sustaining Israel's Military Occupation

http://buff.ly/2tayzGN

"As a Canadian, here's where you come in...Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing JNF Canada's activities."

What will the NDP candidates do to halt this completely unacceptable complicity?