NDP leadership 105

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gaian
NDP leadership 105

just to finish an unfair discussion

KenS

You want unfair? Here is an example among many:

mtm wrote:

You have no reason not to take Mulcair at his word, and your last post is baseless fearmongering.

Do you have any idea how imperious that is?

Do I tell you what to think?

Like I said, this is the sort of thing on which reasonable people WILL disagree.

And FWIW, I dont think Mulcair is lying, or trying to deceive anyone. What I question is his credibility, based on what he has said in the leadersgip race. Doesn't look good to me. Has not almost from the get go. When it comes to the Leader of the party personal honesty is not the only thing that comes into play. It is also whether you can deliver what you talk about. Good intentions are not sufficient. And contradictary messages about what you intend raise further questions.

Which is also the sort of thing people will disagree about.

 

DSloth

Catchfire wrote:
DSloth, I was referring to the fact that Mulcair had already alienated Davies from his campaign in an incident most Mulcair supporters have either rationalized or suppressed.

Libby Davies will be there to support Thomas Mulcair if he is elected leader of the Party. Until then she's not going to be supporting anyone but Brian Topp she's one of his chief backers, it was a ridiculous point to bring up and discredits your whole argument. Here's some other people Libby Davies won't be appearing beside for another month: Peggy Nash, Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Martin Singh.

Thankfully our MPs are considerably less interested in petty melodrama than the MSM or the Babble Bubble.

 

Gaian

Sometimes people do not choose their wording carefully,make an error in syntax, which gives the little propagandameisters an opening to attack.

These folks, waiting in the wings, as it were, will tar someone "Liberal" , even though that someone has fought the bastards for many years and helped bring the NDP to prominence, while they themselves strut virtuously across the stage for their part-time social work...these are the ones whose word should be taken with a soupcon on salt.

And this is the priggish nonsense we wind up having to eat:" When it comes to the Leader of the party personal honesty is not the only thing that comes into play. It is also whether you can deliver what you talk about."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I gotta tell you, the more I see of the Mulcair campaign, the more inclined I am to switch to Brian Topp. Frown   The final debates and participation in the forums (Brian Topp today) will probably sway me.

Gaian

DSloth wrote:

Catchfire wrote:
DSloth, I was referring to the fact that Mulcair had already alienated Davies from his campaign in an incident most Mulcair supporters have either rationalized or suppressed.

Libby Davies will be there to support Thomas Mulcair if he is elected leader of the Party. Until then she's not going to be supporting anyone but Brian Topp she's one of his chief backers, it was a ridiculous point to bring up and discredits your whole argument. Here's some other people Libby Davies won't be appearing beside for another month: Peggy Nash, Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Martin Singh.

Thankfully our MPs are considerably less interested in petty melodrama than the MSM or the Babble Bubble.

 

Thanks, DS. Needed that.

nicky

KenS, to answer your last post in the previous thread,  I think you are skating around the point several of us have made about Topp alleging Mulcair wd take the party to the the centre.

He can argue this all he wants, regardless of the evidence. What we object to is his repeated assertion that he is quoting Mulcair verbatim to the effect " I want to move the party to the centre." He waves around this supposed quotation as if it were carved on tablets of stone and handed down from Mount Sinai.

But Mulcair has not said this. There is no such quote. Topp is simply making it up. 

If he knows this is untrue and deliberately says it anyway, then Topp is simply not being truthful.  You might object to the word "lie"  but is there some euphemism you might suggest we use instead?

Gaian

Boom Boom wrote:

I gotta tell you, the more I see of the Mulcair campaign, the more inclined I am to switch to Brian Topp. Frown   The final debates and participation in the forums (Brian Topp today) will probably sway me.

Boomer, please go back over ever-vulnerable positions in the past month or two.

Hang in there. Somewhere. The flavour of the moment may be contaminated. :)

socialdemocrati...

KenS, I'm not sure I'm getting the nuance of what you're saying, though I've always found you to be one of the most reasonable babblers here.

No one has offered any evidence that Mulcair deviates from the party policy on anything. At best, we have some evidence of some policy gaps (on taxes). But you'd think that with nearly 5 years as a Federal New Democrat and 6 months of a leadership race, we'd be able to find SOME issue where Mulcair has proposed that we jettison something from the most recent platform.

On the other hand, you're also not accusing Mulcair of lying, or having a hidden agenda. That he's repeatedly called for carbon pricing, electoral reform, child care, trade reform, affordable housing... but he secretly wants to copy the Liberal agenda of slashing the social safety net to pay for corporate tax cuts.

So if there are no *verifiable* policy differences, and no hidden agenda, then what else are we afraid of from Mulcair?

Brachina

Is anyone interested in the actual content of the Policy instead of the flawed location choice?

Gaian

Brachina wrote:
Is anyone interested in the actual content of the Policy instead of the flawed location choice?

Hereabouts? Heavens, what are we coming to.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Well, four or five weeks to go, two moe debates I think it is, and Brian makes an appearance here today. We'll see.

socialdemocrati...

Brachina wrote:
Is anyone interested in the actual content of the Policy instead of the flawed location choice?

That depends. What's more likely?

That Mulcair designed his policy on housing, and then his giant campaign chose a location for him without much investigation or thought?

Or that Mulcair told his campaign "Hey, I need to get these morons to buy that I'm a New Democrat while sending a clear signal to my neoliberal friends. Can you find the country's least effective housing co-op, preferably one riddled with inequality, so that my corporate masters know that I'm trying to sabotage the party from the inside? Woodward's, you say? Perfect! Okay, now throw some crap policy together that no one will bother reading anyway."

KenS

nicky wrote:

But Mulcair has not said this. There is no such quote. Topp is simply making it up. 

If he knows this is untrue and deliberately says it anyway, then Topp is simply not being truthful.  You might object to the word "lie"  but is there some euphemism you might suggest we use instead?

If your only objection was his use of "quote/unquote" thats pretty small. Its like putting inverted commas around your own words. He is not claiming Mulcair said this. But that isnt your only objection.

What I said is that it is only a lie if there is no basis whatsoever. And its presumptive of people to say there is no basis because I or Brain Topp or anyone has not offered you the "proof" you demand.

AS has been pointed out, the concern is not what Mulcair says or even plans to do, The concern is that what we will GET is moving to the centre. There is no proof for or against that idea held by a number of us.... and I'd hold it no less if Brain Topp and his campaign did not exist.

Gaian

How otherworldly does analysis get? Medieval philosophy does not hold a patch to it.

nicky

Yes KenS, he IS claiming Mulcair said this. He purported to quote him last week on Power and Politics and again on Saturday on the House.

This was fully documented in previous threads. Go look them up.

As well his phone canvassers seem to be repeating this line.

DSloth

KenS wrote:

He is not claiming Mulcair said this. 

I'd like to hear him say this, but there is little chance he'll get asked that one. 

Hunky_Monkey

This is big for Peggy. Probably would have helped her more before the membership deadline...

http://www.caw.ca/en/10972.htm

Stockholm

Considering that Peggy Nash was Lawenza's special assistant before getting elected in May - it seems to me that having him endorse her for leader is the very least he could do - anything less would have been equivalent to Brian Topp's wife saying she was voting for Mulcair!

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

Considering that Peggy Nash was Lawenza's special assistant before getting elected in May - it seems to me that having him endorse her for leader is the very least he could do - anything less would have been equivalent to Brian Topp's wife saying she was voting for Mulcair!

The point I was making Stock is that the CAW is supporting Peggy. Or was this previously announced and I forgot? I'm getting old... at 37 :)

Quote:
The union has thrown its support behind Nash and will be encouraging all registered CAW members to pick Nash as their number one choice when they cast their ballot next month. Many CAW members and staff across the country have rejoined the party to support Nash.

Gaian

My bet, HM, is that Brian will, in folding, attempt to pass his union voters to Peggy.

Shades of '72.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

That's if you accept that Nash is ahead of Topp. I think it's still a race.

Gaian

Brian will have to really develop his stand-up delivery, Boomer. Performances like Tommy's delivery of the Mouseland story, etc. Seriously.

socialdemocrati...

I'm not sure all this talk of alliances is going to mean all that much. We're on a one-member one-vote system, and a lot of votes will presumably be made ahead of the convention. Unless people start declaring the alliances now and tell supporters how to mark their preferential ballots, the amount of votes to be swayed "on the convention floor" might not be all that much. And that's assuming that any alliances exist at all.

 

DSloth

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'm not sure all this talk of alliances is going to mean all that much. We're on a one-member one-vote system, and a lot of votes will presumably be made ahead of the convention. Unless people start declaring the alliances now and tell supporters how to mark their preferential ballots, the amount of votes to be swayed "on the convention floor" might not be all that much. And that's assuming that any alliances exist at all.

 

If it's anything like B.C. upwards of 90% of the votes could be cast in advance. 

 

Stockholm

Gaian wrote:
My bet, HM, is that Brian will, in folding, attempt to pass his union voters to Peggy. Shades of '72.

What happened in '72?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I dunno, my impression is that Topp's delivery beats Nash's, although he has his bad days, like everyone.

Gaian

Stockholm wrote:

Gaian wrote:
My bet, HM, is that Brian will, in folding, attempt to pass his union voters to Peggy. Shades of '72.

What happened in '72?

When the union forces of the Lewises completed the destruction of attempts to raise the issue of (gasp) environmentalism in the NDP.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

DSloth wrote:
Libby Davies will be there to support Thomas Mulcair if he is elected leader of the Party. Until then she's not going to be supporting anyone but Brian Topp she's one of his chief backers, it was a ridiculous point to bring up and discredits your whole argument. Here's some other people Libby Davies won't be appearing beside for another month: Peggy Nash, Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Martin Singh.

Again, sadly, you missed my point. I don't need Davies (Libby, or my own MP, Don) to stand up beside any candidate. My point was simply that Mulcair's announcement and setting for his housing plan completely missed the mark to those who actually do work in this area on the ground. I can see the Mulcair camp is in full attack mode, since I have been incredibly called a liar for something that is a matter of public record. The only reason a mentioned Libby (in an offhand remark) is that a better relationship with an MP who has spent her entire career on this issue, might have saved him from alienating people who dedicate a good portion, if not all, of their life fighting homelessness, displacement and gentrification.

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Is anyone interested in the actual content of the Policy instead of the flawed location choice?

That depends. What's more likely?

That Mulcair designed his policy on housing, and then his giant campaign chose a location for him without much investigation or thought?

Or that Mulcair told his campaign "Hey, I need to get these morons to buy that I'm a New Democrat while sending a clear signal to my neoliberal friends. Can you find the country's least effective housing co-op, preferably one riddled with inequality, so that my corporate masters know that I'm trying to sabotage the party from the inside? Woodward's, you say? Perfect! Okay, now throw some crap policy together that no one will bother reading anyway."

I hope that was sarcasm.

Howard

Gaian wrote:
Brian will have to really develop his stand-up delivery, Boomer. Performances like Tommy's delivery of the Mouseland story, etc. Seriously.

Maybe he can tell us more pithy stories of "our friends on the Blue team" and "our friends on the Red team"...nothing gets the old timers at Tim Hortons more cheered up than good ole, aw shucks stories of Brian Topp. Here's to Spinach and why it's good for you!

Seriously though, the guy needs some time to get the retail politician delivery down. He's been so far from the spotlight, so long in his life, that it's like a plant without sunlight: ready to grow but not ready to harvest.

DSloth

Catchfire wrote:

 I can see the Mulcair camp is in full attack mode, since I have been incredibly called a liar for something that is a matter of public record. 

When did I call you a liar, why are you addressing this to me? You do realize there is no Mulcair "camp" on Babble right?

Hunky_Monkey

Catchfire wrote:

DSloth wrote:
Libby Davies will be there to support Thomas Mulcair if he is elected leader of the Party. Until then she's not going to be supporting anyone but Brian Topp she's one of his chief backers, it was a ridiculous point to bring up and discredits your whole argument. Here's some other people Libby Davies won't be appearing beside for another month: Peggy Nash, Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Martin Singh.

Again, sadly, you missed my point. I don't need Davies (Libby, or my own MP, Don) to stand up beside any candidate. My point was simply that Mulcair's announcement and setting for his housing plan completely missed the mark to those who actually do work in this area on the ground. I can see the Mulcair camp is in full attack mode, since I have been incredibly called a liar for something that is a matter of public record. The only reason a mentioned Libby (in an offhand remark) is that a better relationship with an MP who has spent her entire career on this issue, might have saved him from alienating people who dedicate a good portion, if not all, of their life fighting homelessness, displacement and gentrification.

If you're referring to me, I didn't call you a lier. I said it was your opinion. Does everyone in your area view the place negatively?

Beyond all this, do you think Tom actually picked the location himself? It would have been his campaign staff and people on the ground in Vancouver.

NorthReport
Hunky_Monkey

Howard wrote:

Gaian wrote:
Brian will have to really develop his stand-up delivery, Boomer. Performances like Tommy's delivery of the Mouseland story, etc. Seriously.

Maybe he can tell us more pithy stories of "our friends on the Blue team" and "our friends on the Red team"...nothing gets the old timers at Tim Hortons more cheered up than good ole, aw shucks stories of Brian Topp. Here's to Spinach and why it's good for you!

Seriously though, the guy needs some time to get the retail politician delivery down. He's been so far from the spotlight, so long in his life, that it's like a plant without sunlight: ready to grow but not ready to harvest.

I think Bookish Agrarian summed it up best...

Quote:
Don't get me wrong I think Topp has enormous skills and abilities in certain areas, but they are not leadership related. To me Topp is like the sound guy. Unbelievable technical skills that makes the musicians sound magical. But there is a reason he's a the sound board and not on stage.

Problem many have with Topp isn't his proposals, etc, but his skill as a politician.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

You said I wasn't "factual", H_M. Perhaps you meant to say I was a "stranger to the truth"? At any rate, I caught your drift.

Believe me, ask any DTES resident or homelessness activist and you'll find out your "facts." That was too much to ask of Mulcair, however.

It's amazing to me the lengths Mulcair supporters on this board will go to a) denounce Topp for being hostile, aggressive, divisive whatever and b) when an actual activist expresses discontent with one aspect of Mulcair's campaign, they attack him with breathless gall and baseless accusations, all the while invalidating his experience and, indeed, the significance of the announcement itself. 

Hunky_Monkey

Catchfire... I think it quite silly to attack Mulcair, which is what you did in a very subtle way, over the location of his announcement.

And you didn't catch my drift. Apparently there are people in Vancouver that disagree. That was my point. Two sides to every story and reality is usually in between.

DSloth

Catchfire wrote:

It's amazing to me the lengths Mulcair supporters on this board will go to a) denounce Topp for being hostile, aggressive, divisive whatever and b) when an actual activist expresses discontent with one aspect of Mulcair's campaign, they attack him with breathless gall and baseless accusations, all the while invalidating his experience and, indeed, the significance of the announcement itself. 

I expect way more from the candidates for Leader of my party than I do from anoymous internet trolls, but that's just me.  Also it would be nice if you didn't start dividing us up into camps, sooner or later we're all going to be supporting one candidate or another it doesn't make us collective entities. 

Ripple

Catchfire's assessment of Woodward's is widely shared among residents of the downtown eastside and advocates of affordable housing in this city.  While he can certainly write for himself, I think that was at least part of Catchfire's point - Mulcair's campaign staff and Vancouver volunteers are not connected to the grassroots in this cityor they would have known it was a poor choice of location.

 

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

nicky wrote:

KenS, to answer your last post in the previous thread,  I think you are skating around the point several of us have made about Topp alleging Mulcair wd take the party to the the centre.

Mulcair's Jobs and the Economy backgrounder it states "Provide tax credits and incentives to companies that create jobs rather than across the board corporate tax cuts that have failed to generate new private sector investment."  So, he's only committed to not cut them further.  Clearly this is a move rightward from the NDP's past commitment to raise corporate taxes.  Also, unlike either Cullen or Topp, he's not committed to reversing the Liberal exemption on capital gains taxes or to raising taxes on society's wealthiest to get them to pay their fair share, even though he chastises Libs and Cons for their record on these taxes.  He's only committed to funding any enhancements in programs out of cap and trade revenues, which is the wrong way to go (from Topp:  "I don’t think we want the government to become a carbon addict – dependent on revenues derived from carbon emissions which we want to radically decrease.")

It is deluded to ignore his policy pronouncements and cling to his weird double-speak of "move the centre to the left" as proof that he does not wish to move the NDP toward the centre.  He's backed away from some central planks of the NDP like corporate tax increases and using revenue from cap and trade for environmental solutions.

He has said, quite clearly, that he opposes corporate tax cuts and wants them rolledbacked. He said that in the nationally broadcast debate from Halifax. Apparently, you didn't hear him say that or didn't want to hear it.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Quote:
And you didn't catch my drift. Apparently there are people in Vancouver that disagree. That was my point. Two sides to every story and reality is usually in between.

Indeed. Developers love to point to Woodwards as a great example of the success of the city's homelessness "plan." Of course, I actually know the terms of the debate in the city, because I deal with them every week. You don't. You don't know a damn thing about it, in fact. Yet you still presumed to call me a liar "unfactual."

And you're right, I did express displeasure at his announcement. I don't think his plan will be good for housing in this city. And I think his choice of venue underlined his distance from the heart of the issue. And I would do the same for any candidate. Would you?

ETA. Thanks Ripple. Who needs to write for themselves with friends like you?

socialdemocrati...

Mulcair's tax policy is conspicuous in its absence. Just because it isn't there, it doesn't mean he's planning on cribbing from the Liberals (or Conservatives) on this issue. But it's something really important to me. I suspect it's important to a lot of people: people in the NDP committed to fairness, and people who are sympathetic to the NDP but want to know we can balance a budget. He'd be feeding the rumor mill if he didn't release a tax policy.

Brachina

Catchfire wrote:

You said I wasn't "factual", H_M. Perhaps you meant to say I was a "stranger to the truth"? At any rate, I caught your drift.

Believe me, ask any DTES resident or homelessness activist and you'll find out your "facts." That was too much to ask of Mulcair, however.

It's amazing to me the lengths Mulcair supporters on this board will go to a) denounce Topp for being hostile, aggressive, divisive whatever and b) when an actual activist expresses discontent with one aspect of Mulcair's campaign, they attack him with breathless gall and baseless accusations, all the while invalidating his experience and, indeed, the significance of the announcement itself. 

I for one never attacked you, I defer to your experience on the building, I believe that he could have made a better choice, but I just don't know what your expecting? That I should throw my support to someone else because he should have some where else for his policy announcement?

I've looked at his policy, I like it, his campaign manager should have made a better choice in location, and I don't really know what else can be said. I don't want to be insensitive, but I don't know what your expecting?

mark_alfred

nicky wrote:

KenS, to answer your last post in the previous thread,  I think you are skating around the point several of us have made about Topp alleging Mulcair wd take the party to the the centre.

Mulcair's Jobs and the Economy backgrounder states "Provide tax credits and incentives to companies that create jobs rather than across the board corporate tax cuts that have failed to generate new private sector investment."  So, he's only committed to not cut them further.  Clearly this is a move rightward from the NDP's past commitment to raise corporate taxes.  Also, unlike either Cullen or Topp, he's not committed to reversing the Liberal exemption on capital gains taxes or to raising taxes on society's wealthiest to get them to pay their fair share, even though he chastises Libs and Cons for their record on these taxes.  He's only committed to funding any enhancements in programs out of cap and trade revenues, which is the wrong way to go (from Topp:  "I don’t think we want the government to become a carbon addict – dependent on revenues derived from carbon emissions which we want to radically decrease.")

It is deluded to ignore Mulcair's policy pronouncements and cling to his weird double-speak of "move the centre to the left" as proof that he does not wish to move the NDP toward the centre.  He's backed away from some central planks of the NDP like corporate tax increases and using revenue from cap and trade exclusively for environmental solutions.

Hunky_Monkey

Catchfire wrote:

Quote:
And you didn't catch my drift. Apparently there are people in Vancouver that disagree. That was my point. Two sides to every story and reality is usually in between.

Indeed. Developers love to point to Woodwards as a great example of the success of the city's homelessness "plan." Of course, I actually know the terms of the debate in the city, because I deal with them every week. You don't. You don't know a damn thing about it, in fact. Yet you still presumed to call me a liar "unfactual."

And you're right, I did express displeasure at his announcement. I don't think his plan will be good for housing in this city. And I think his choice of venue underlined his distance from the heart of the issue. And I would do the same for any candidate. Would you?

Essentially Jack's plan. Funny how it's viewed differently by the candidate presenting it, huh?

I'll say again... it was your opinion.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

@Brachina, I would have liked to see, even if Libby Davies was not present personally because she is supporting another candidate, Mulcair reference her tireless work on the issue of homelessness -- like Nathan Cullen did, despite the fact that she is not supporting him. The fact that his announcement took place in her home riding also emphasized this omission.

ETA. Keep repeating it, H_M. And it might sound true in your heart. 

Hunky_Monkey

Catchfire wrote:

@Brachina, I would have liked to see, even if Libby Davies was not present personally because she is supporting another candidate, Mulcair reference her tireless work on the issue of homelessness -- like Nathan Cullen did, despite the fact that she is not supporting him. The fact that his announcement took place in her home riding also emphasized this omission.

ETA. Keep repeating it, H_M. And it might sound true in your heart. 

Fine. I know my intent regardless how inaccurate you make it in your head.

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair's tax policy is conspicuous in its absence. Just because it isn't there, it doesn't mean he's planning on cribbing from the Liberals (or Conservatives) on this issue. But it's something really important to me. I suspect it's important to a lot of people: people in the NDP committed to fairness, and people who are sympathetic to the NDP but want to know we can balance a budget. He'd be feeding the rumor mill if he didn't release a tax policy.

I think his two backgrounders on Economic Leadership and on the Environment are it, as far as tax policy that he's proposing.  If he had anything else to say about balancing a budget, then the backgrounder on Economic Leadership (which was entitled "Jobs and the Economy") would have been the place to say it.

DSloth

mark_alfred wrote:

I think his two backgrounders on Economic Leadership and on the Environment are it, as far as tax policy that he's proposing.  If he had anything else to say about balancing a budget, then the backgrounder on Economic Leadership (which was entitled "Jobs and the Economy") would have been the place to say it.

Well placed in the Mulcair campaign are you?

I'm certainly not but I know they are not by any means finished with their policy releases and if I recall correctly Mr. Mulcair has said several times in the debates that his tax policy would be forthcoming. 

ETA: here it is [url=http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-targe... sourced[/url], "Mr. Mulcair said his tax plan will be released at a later date."

dacckon dacckon's picture

Its really not an excuse. Great spin though to say "Its not released yet".  Shouldn't you know in advance about what you believe?

 

Meh.

mark_alfred

I am glad that Mulcair released a proposal for subsidized housing.  I haven't read it yet, but I'm glad he's released something on it.  I haven't seen anything on others sites about it yet. 

Pages

Topic locked