babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I don't recall them only condemining the taxability of the $100 or them even saying that. I think they took a reasonably defensible stance on childcare (i.e. argued for a national childcare program rather than a gimmick like Harper's plan). But you're right about their dreadful positions on Afghanistan, crime, the Clarity Act and taxes during the 2006 election.
I recall it very well. Start reading here, for example. There were threads during the election campaign as well, but they appear to be lost in New Babble cyberspace.
The key thing is that the NDP was afraid to say, "Don't give lump sums to parents, irrespective of whether they use child care or not - use the money to create affordable public child care spaces." They said things like, "Let's do both!!!" So, Harper won that argument.
No, Stockholm. Harper replaced child care by cash hand-outs so that he could promote and reward stay-at-home parenting. Instead of identifying and condemning that cynical move, the NDP was worried that voters wouldn't understand if they said, "don't give people $100". So they said, "ok, give the $100, but please please don't forget child care too - oh, and make the $100 non-taxable".
Harper laughed and won.
Yes, it is an important part of the NDP voting process. In a nutshell, Labour gets 25% of the vote.... Now as to which affiliated union members vote is completely up to them, however, the weighting system is not based on a fixed number... 25% of the vote is be weighted based on the number of affilated members that vote, regardless of how many do. It really is a wild card, and should make for an interesting race!
Ah, so it is still individual votes but an affiliated union vote will count for more than a normal member's vote. I guess that if a high number of voters come from the affiliated unions it will water that down some. Where does one find the affiliated unions?
There's nothing inherently wrong with giving people $100 a month. Its basically just bringing back the old baby bonus (and I remember how when the Liberals scrapped that it was people on the left who screamed bloody murder) The issue is whether or not money will be set aside for child care. Why not simply have the best of both worlds and give parents $100/month AND also create a national child care program. Or maybe you think that we should also eliminate welfare since that means just handing people cash that they might waste and instead give people food stamps and bus tickets.
From the ONDP website: some voting details
"Voting online or by phone on March 7
Using your PIN number, you can vote in real time during designated convention vote periods from anywhere, using the Internet or a phone.
You will be voting for one candidate only per balloting round. The voting periods will be announced at the convention, on the voting website, the voting phone number and on this site."
This is interesting. It means that there will be some room for last minute vote swaying on the floor of convention as only the advance votes (probably the vast majority) will rank their preferences.
If by "its supporters" you mean - Canadian citizens - I guess maybe you should move to another country.
As I've said before. there is nothing inherently wrong with giving parents a monthly cheque for $100. In fact it could work well in tandem with a comprehensive national child care program by giving people access to affordable child care AND by giving people some cash to help pay for it. In Quebec, child care is $7/day - so with that $100 a month people can pay for 14 days worth of subsidized child care! Whats not to like. BUT, as the NDP has said, we need to adjust the tax system so that virtually all of the $100 gets clawed back from people with high incomes and so that people with low incomes don't have it all taxed away. Seems like good progressive policy to me.
BTW: What ever happened to the Kyoto Accord. Just a year ago, the big litmus test was supposed to be whether or not a candidate or party would make an iron clad commitment that Canada meet its Kyoto target by 2012 - no one seems to care about that anymore. Layton has even uttered a complete sentence without saying the word Kyoto and "Unionist" hasn't complained. Mind you at the rate at which the economy is shrinking, we may meet the Kyoto targets despite ourselves just because of all those factories being idle.
"The 100 per month goes to people who don't use child care."
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The $100/month goes to every single solitary family in Canada that has a child under the age of six. It doesn't matter whether you use child care or not - you still get the money. Did you seriously think that the Government of Canada has an army of private detectives spying on everyone with kids under six to see who uses child care and who doesn't so they can NOT send any money to people who use child care???
There is plenty to criticize about the Conservative (and Liberal) approach to child care (or lack thereof), but you only weaken your argument when you say things that are totally false.
Endorsements by "big names" do mean something because 99% of us don't know all the people running personally and in deciding who to vote for - one of the things we take into consideration are the endorsements of people whose opinion we respect. You obviously don't Ed Broadbent at all - so his endorsement means nothing to you. But about 98% of NDP members high ly respect Broadbent and his endorsement will carry some weight with those people.
There is nothing wrong with parents who don't use child care getting some extra cash to help make ends meet. There are lots of poor people who don't use child care - for whatever reason. I think child care has to be there for people who want it - but NOT wanting to send your kids to child care is also a valid choice.
Whether you child is in child care or not - raising a child is still wayyyy more expensive than not having a child at all. So, let's have universal child care and make it as cheap as possible - but I have no objection to ALSO sending out a "baby bonus" cheque to all parents to help with all the OTHER expenses you incur when you have young children such as food and clothing etc..
Similarly, I'm glad that old age pensions are a universal program - and that you don't ONLY get your CPP if you live in a nursing home. If you choose to live on your own - you still get the money.
This idea of giving people credits that can only be used as vouchers for child care - as opposed to giving people cash - is exactly the kind of patronizing program that poverty advocates object to. Its like saying that we can't trust people with welfare or EI cheques - instead we will give them food stamps and housing sudsidies so that those supposedly irresponsible poor people don't go "wasting" their money on booze and cigatettes and flat-screen TVs.
Wow! This almost turned back into a discussion about endorsments and their effect on the vote!
I have to admit that I am more interested by the strategies of the different candidates in the leadership race than I am by their particular positions. Aside from school funding, the campaign seems like the menu at Taco Bell: you have a choice of the same 8 ingredients, just a question of proportions and whether you want it in a hard or soft taco.
Ok, here is hoprefully a provocative question:
Is there a killer endorsment still to come for someone and who would it be?
Layton? Mcdonough? Blaikie? Obama?
Would any endorsement change YOUR vote?
My first choice for leader was Peggy Nash, my second was Scott Piatkowski. I know whom Scott is endorsing. Anyone hear from Peggy?
That's a good question. I will be curious to see who Peggy Nash supports. BTW Unionist - you were saying before that you thought endorsements were worthless and irrelevant - but it sounds like if Peggy Nash enthusiastically backed one of the candidates - it would make you sit up and take notice - so obviously SOME endorsements do matter to you.
I can guarantee that there will no endorsement of anyone by Layton or Chow. I assume that they probably privately favour Tabuns simply because he's a close personal friend of theirs and all three served together on city council - but I think that Jack is wisely avoid giving any appearance that he supports anyone.
I think you misunderstood this comment:
My focus was on the phrase, "big names". My whole emphasis in this thread has been to say: "Look at the views, actions, policies of those who are doing the endorsing - not just the fact that they have some celebrity - and judge their endorsements accordingly."
I admire Peggy Nash, and Scott Piatkowski for that matter, and I think both are principled - so their recommendations mean something to me. You've heard what I think of some others, and whether you agree or not with my conclusions, those conclusions are based on my perception of what they have said and done, not just who they are.
Endorsements by "big names" mean something to people who like and respect those "big names". Its a matter of opinion. Peggy Nash is obviously a "big name" whose opinion carries more weight with you than does Ed Broadbent's. To other people Nash's views might be meaningless but Broadbent's might be very influential.
If - hypothetically - notorious ex-New Democrat homophobe Bev Desjarlais announced that she had relocated to Ontario and rejoined the NDP and was publicly endorsing one of the candidates because she felt they reflected her views - it would make me think twice about backing that person.
Not only do I have little use for Broadbent, but please read carefully his endorsement:
Doesn't say Peter Tabuns is a person of principle, of conscience, of accomplishment, of integrity, whose heart beats for the downtrodden of our society, nothing like that. Even if I respected Broadbent's opinion, I'd still be left scratching my head wondering what exactly he was saying about Tabuns' principles...