NDP Leadership 86

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
NDP Leadership 86

V

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
DSloth

It's interesting so many people were attacking Mulcair supporters for their supposed negativity, but I don't recall any of them ever trying to attack another candidate through their spouse.  I suppose Tom should have divorced the mother of his children on grounds of ideologicaly impurity.

 

Looking forward to some sickening rationalizations of Tory tactics. 

KenS

I think nicky's last point at the end of the last thread is mostly right. Since when it comes down to it, your choice has to do with a lot of imponderables, whatever goes into the hopper, goes into the hopper. But with some of it, I think trotting it out on a mostly anonymous board smacks too much of litmus test.

 

mtm

Moving on from this ingloriousness.  I would hate to ever be evaluated on the political views of my significant other - she doesn't agree with anything I think politically!  I would also hate to think that anyone would ever suggest that our relationship or my choice of partner was somehow inappropriate or inadequate as 1springgarden did in the last post.  Truly unbelievable.

Moving on - I think I may be going to Sudbury to see the debate there this weekend.  Does anyone know who has confirmed?

KenS

What people want to put into their own choice, they dont have to rationalize... though they probably will discuss it with somoene.

The problem isnt whether or not its 'rational'. The problem is that rationalizing stuff like that can only get nasty in a big public space like this... let alone one where people are largely anonymous.

Which is another reason it's past time to mosey along.

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, a lot of this stuff is a Rorscarch test. If you already liked him, you don't see anything wrong. If you already hated him, this is just more proof as to why. Mulcair is either the savior of the NDP or the next Bob Rae, take your pick. Time to take this issue off the message board, go to a Mulcair event, and ask a fair, civil, polite question if you think it's that important.

Howard

Mulcair's wife having run for the UMP is about as important an issue as Jack Layton's father having been a Conservative cabinet minister to me. In other words, not very. I just wanted to share my impressions about it though, for those unfamiliar with the French politics. If I was French, I would probably be voting Socialist (or another left/green party) and not UMP. That is just where my heart lies.

One issue where the UMP is far to the left of the NDP for instance, is that nobody questions the idea of a Guaranteed Minimal Income in France.

CanadaApple

I have a question for all the Mulcair supporters on here. I'm not trying to be rude or attack anyone, I just want to ask a simple question. For the record, Mulcair is one of my top choices for leader. But it seems to me that one of the things people here try to sell Mulcair on is that he is best placed to hold the NDP gains in Quebec. And yes, alot of the polls have suggested that. That seems to be why people here see him as the most "winning", in that he has the best chance of being elected Prime Minister. My question is though, what evidence do you have to suggest that Mulcair could win enough seats outside Quebec to form a government?

Also, if Panna is reading this, I liked reading your post in the last thread. You should post here more often! = )

 

Howard

CanadaApple wrote:

My question is though, what evidence do you have to suggest that Mulcair could win enough seats outside Quebec to form a government?

Well...the NDP needs 50-70 seats for a majority and it holds all but about 20 seats in Quebec. So in other words, it is not possible to win government just with Quebec. Just like it is not possible to win government just with Saskatchewan or Manitoba or where-ever. Unless the NDP finds a shortcut through Ontario (where the NDP is way behind in popular support), there is a large seat gap to make up.

socialdemocrati...

Not a Mulcair supporter exactly. And this stuff i's hard to predict. But let me answer anyway.

Mulcair has endorsements in every province. He has the most small donations of any candidate, and they don't appear to be concentrated in Quebec. His English is great (obviously). He can sometimes inspire a crowd.

I do agree that Mulcair's biggest question mark is his appeal outside Canada, especially against a Harper government that will try to tar half our caucus as pro-Quebec pro-bribery soft-on-separatism.

mtm

Good question!

Mulcair, in my mind, is not just the best placed candidate to hold Quebec, he is also the one best able to grow the party across Canada.

In his many events across the country, and in many media reports, Tom has been very keen to visit places where the NDP has not won seats.  He often talks about how in Saskatchewan, we have lots of roots but no trees (MPs) where in Quebec we have many trees but no roots.  He talks about how we can change build those areas to have quebec-like breakthroughs, and hold them, due to the existing grassroots infrastructure.

Those places that have roots (I include NB, PEI, NFLD, SASK, etc) are areas that Mulcair has targeted again and again in his leadership bid.  Look at the broad base of supporters he has.  The who's who of the coast-to-coast establishment.  To name a very few, you have Don Davies in BC, you have Lorne Nystrom in Sask, Ed Schreyer in Manitoba, and now Howard Hampton in Ontario, to go along with scores of former union leaders, and lots of support on the East Coast.

He really is the pan-Canadian choice, and I think more and more people are seeing that.

For me its not a "Vote Mulcair because he's the best candidate to hold Quebec".  It is "Vote Mulcair because he's the best national candidate, period.  And - as an added bonus, he is by far the best placed to hold our gains in Quebec!"

Hunky_Monkey

Just a note about 1springgarden's observations about Tom and the other candidates. I've seen them at different events... he and Peggy hugged and kissed (on the cheeks of course... Quebec style lol) at the Chester St. Margarets AGM the night before. There was a genuine like and warmth between the two. Same with Niki. When they first came out on stage while waiting, he and Romeo had a little chuckle about something. And I know Tom and Nathan Cullen are quite close as well. So I think you might have the wrong impression.

As for his wife... what a FANTASTIC woman. The love and bond they share is amazing to watch. They're true equals and partners. She though has her own career (she's a psychologist) and I'm sure her own personal views on politics (never asked). This is the 21st century and I'd hope that wouldn't be an issue in the least.

1springgarden

These are good replies to the "doubts about Mulcair" questions.  Really, you guys shouldn't get upset that people voice their lingering doubts about any of the candidates.  Uncomfortable questions will and should get asked about the candidates.

CanadaApple

mtm and socialdemocraticmiddle have both given good answers to my question. However, since you both bring up endorsements, can we be sure that endorsements coming from people in certain parts of the country will also translate into votes from those parts of the country? I would guess they could, since it makes sense that people living and having done politics in those areas would know what appeals to voters there. But I'm just wondering if anyone else has information on that subject. = )

update- Also, this question doesn't just have to apply to Mulcair, it could apply to any of the candidates.

Hunky_Monkey
Stockholm

You beat me to it...if the knock against Mulcair is that he is not pro-labour enough - he sure is turning that around with these endorsements.

mtm

So...Howard Hampton and UFCW in one day.

That's what we call a good news day! 

mtm

So...Howard Hampton and UFCW in one day.

That's what we call a good news day! 

mtm

So good, it needed to be posted twice apparently. Don't know what's up with my browser.

socialdemocrati...

It's a good question. Most of the candidates have most of their endorsements from their home province. (Cullen is strongest in BC. Nash and Dewar are strongest in Ontario. Ashton is strongest in Manitoba. Mulcair and Saganash are strongest in Quebec. Singh is strongest in Nova Scotia.) I would venture to say there's some legitimate grassroots support behind that in every case.

Only Topp and Mulcair have gained a good number of endorsements across the country. (Arguably, Nash and Dewar too.)

Is that to say the candidates without many endorsements outside their home province would have a poor showing outside their home province?  It only means that they haven't connected to the big NDP members in those provinces yet. It doesn't mean that they couldn't sway the actual voters, with a proper introduction.

I think Mulcair's donors across Canada says more than his endorsements across Canada, in terms of potential votes.

But overall... I think that trying to count up votes based on today's numbers is a terrible way to predict 2015. It may be harder to think in the hypothetical "how would this candidate sound to a voter in Regina? In Sudbury? In Vancouver?" But if we can answer those questions, you'd get a much better prediction for 2015 than a bunch of polls where the voters admit they don't know most of the candidates.

AnonymousMouse

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Yeah, a lot of this stuff is a Rorscarch test. If you already liked him, you don't see anything wrong. If you already hated him, this is just more proof as to why. Mulcair is either the savior of the NDP or the next Bob Rae, take your pick. Time to take this issue off the message board, go to a Mulcair event, and ask a fair, civil, polite question if you think it's that important.

I have to disagree. I look at many of the criticisms being hurled at Mulcair and I admit that they often represent real imperfections, but those are just imperfections--every candidate has them, it's a question of whether you choose to spend your time digging them up. The problem is that when people raise these imperfections with regard to Mulcair, they present them as evidence that he is somehow deeply and uniquely flawed (at least by leadership candidate standards) or worse that he's a fraud come to steal our party from us.

I don't think there's any equivalence between the supporters and the haters on this one. The dynamic doesn't seem to be that those who support Mulcair are pretending he has no flaws, but rather that Mulcair's haters raise the sorts of issues that could be raised about any candidate while implying that they reveal something deeply troubling about Mulcair. It isn't that Mulcair supporters roundly reject every single one of these criticisms, it's that they roundly reject the implication that those criticisms are something uniquely troubling.

And when I'm talking about criticisms, I'm talking about not joint nomination proposals, language skills or charisma. You could find equivalent, out in the open, supported by evidence criticisms of Mulcair. But that's not what we're getting.

We're getting the vile nonsense posted above. His wife maybe doesn't share his political leanings? He was one of four candidates who didn't visit a specific picket line (even though he has visited other picket lines and you could point to other candidates who haven't visited the same lines that he has)? 15 seconds of interaction between the candidates on stage after a debate? I heard that some of those same candidates have come to Mulcair's events. He's been endorsed by more of his colleagues than all the other candidates combined. Sheesh. Let's get real and stop trying to smear follow New Democrats.

nicky

sd, it is reaching a bit to say that paul d. is running, even arguably, a natioanal campaign where he has no discernable quebec support.

i suspect the moment of truth will come for him at the quebec city debate. i understand that he has asked that the rules be changed to permit the use of notes. that speaks volumes about his french proficiency.

AnonymousMouse

CanadaApple wrote:

I have a question for all the Mulcair supporters on here. I'm not trying to be rude or attack anyone, I just want to ask a simple question. For the record, Mulcair is one of my top choices for leader. But it seems to me that one of the things people here try to sell Mulcair on is that he is best placed to hold the NDP gains in Quebec. And yes, alot of the polls have suggested that. That seems to be why people here see him as the most "winning", in that he has the best chance of being elected Prime Minister. My question is though, what evidence do you have to suggest that Mulcair could win enough seats outside Quebec to form a government?

Also, if Panna is reading this, I liked reading your post in the last thread. You should post here more often! = )

 

I think you've misjudged why Mulcair supporters think he the most electable candidate. From most Mulcair supporters I speak with, the fact we now have 59 seats in Quebec is the cherry on top when it comes to reasons to believe Mulcair is the most electable candidate.

The primary reasons would include:

-He has the best communications skills in both official languages of any of the candidates and probably of anyone in the House of Commons

-He's the only candidate with cabinet experience

-He has won six elections and never lost

-He is one of, if not the, most popular politician in Quebec and it was his combination of skill, intelligence, passion and principle that got him there, not something specific to Quebec (in fact, he is remarkably well liked by sovereignists should depise him a such an effective fighter for federalism)

-He played a key role in fighting against separation in the 1995 referendum, he was a key player in dismantling the PQ government in the late 90s and a key figure in destroying the Bloc Quebecois making him one of the most important advocates of national unity in the country's history

And besides all of that Mulcair is an Irish Catholic Anglophone, so to whatever extent there might be reason to ask "Will he play outside Quebec?" in first place (remember Trudeau? Chretien?), there certainly isn't in his case.

1springgarden

AnonymousMouse wrote:
He's been endorsed by more of his colleagues than all the other candidates combined. Sheesh. Let's get real and stop trying to smear follow New Democrats.

Could you point me to a source indicating the current endorsement totals from NDP MPs.  I'm looking for those figures but not really finding them.  My impression is that Mulcair does not have the most MP endorsements that either Nash or Topp do.  Would like to see some authoritative numbers though, either way.

Howard

1springgarden wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
He's been endorsed by more of his colleagues than all the other candidates combined. Sheesh. Let's get real and stop trying to smear follow New Democrats.

Could you point me to a source indicating the current endorsement totals from NDP MPs.  I'm looking for those figures but not really finding them.  My impression is that Mulcair does not have the most MP endorsements that either Nash or Topp do.  Would like to see some authoritative numbers though, either way.

This is the best list I know of. It is not perfect though. In previous threads Lou Arab has also done a careful job of recording MP endorsements and those still neutral.

nicky

1sg , look at wikipedia under "ndp leadership 2012" there is a link of mp endorsements. i think tom has 37 about equal to all the other candidates combined.

mtm

Mulcair has over 1/3 of the entire caucus, for your information.  Nobody even comes close.  Topp with 11 is the next best.

From Wikipedia:

MPs: (36) Jamie Nicholls, Vaudreuil-Soulanges; Robert Aubin, Trois-Rivières; Claude Patry, Jonquière—Alma; François Lapointe, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup;[50] Pierre Nantel, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher; Marc-André Morin, Laurentides—Labelle; Tarik Brahmi, Saint-Jean;[51] Matthew Dubé, Chambly—Borduas;[52] Alexandrine Latendresse, Louis-Saint-Laurent;[53] Hélène LeBlanc, LaSalle—Émard; Jean Rousseau, Compton—Stanstead; Mathieu Ravignat, Pontiac; Sadia Groguhé, Saint-Lambert; Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Sherbrooke;[54] Djaouida Sellah, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert;[55] Annick Papillon, Québec; Anne-Marie Day, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles;[56] Philip Toone, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine; Jonathan Tremblay, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord; Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, Manicouagan; Sylvain Chicoine, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant; Réjean Genest, Shefford; Sana Hassainia, Verchères—Les Patriotes; Pierre Jacob, Brome—Missisquoi; Marie-Claude Morin, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot; José Nunez-Melo, Laval; Manon Perreault, Montcalm; François Pilon, Laval—Les Îles; Dan Harris, Scarborough Southwest; Matthew Kellway, Beaches—East York; Wayne Marston, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek; John Rafferty, Thunder Bay—Rainy River;[57] Ève Péclet, La Pointe-de-l'Île; Paulina Ayala, Honoré-Mercier;[58] Don DaviesVancouver Kingsway;[59] Ryan ClearySt. John's South—Mount Pearl[60]

Hunky_Monkey

AnonymousMouse wrote:

We're getting the vile nonsense posted above. His wife maybe doesn't share his political leanings? He was one of four candidates who didn't visit a specific picket line (even though he has visited other picket lines and you could point to other candidates who haven't visited the same lines that he has)? 15 seconds of interaction between the candidates on stage after a debate? I heard that some of those same candidates have come to Mulcair's events. He's been endorsed by more of his colleagues than all the other candidates combined. Sheesh. Let's get real and stop trying to smear follow New Democrats.

Agreed. Same with Mulcair visiting with the Occupy movement and student protesters when he was here last November. Some of the other candidates didn't. I don't question their motives or know their entire itinerary across the country or in the past.

I've said this before... the NDP is the most closed, cliquey party. If Mulcair had run in 2007 without having been a member of the only federalist party in Quebec City and won, I'm sure he would have been received differently. But it's as if he's "tainted" and not "one of us". The whole silly donation article was pushed out there to reinforce that. Same with the other candidates doing the dog whistles on it... like Paul Dewar's "when you came to us Tom" or Nathan's "I didn't see Tom the Liberal".

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

You beat me to it...if the knock against Mulcair is that he is not pro-labour enough - he sure is turning that around with these endorsements.

Yes. I'm very impressed with this endorsement. Mulcair, Topp, Nash, and (to a lesser extent) Dewar have some really impressive/important labour endorsements now.

Frankly though, the endorsements have been hard to keep up with in recent days. They are coming in fast and furious for a variety of candidates.

1springgarden

Howard wrote:
This is the best list I know of. It is not perfect though. In previous threads Lou Arab has also done a careful job of recording MP endorsements and those still neutral.

Okay, those numbers bear out what AnonyMouse says about Mulcair's MP endorsements and starts to resemble a consensus of NDP MPs.

Hunky_Monkey

Howard wrote:

Yes. I'm very impressed with this endorsement. Mulcair, Topp, Nash, and (to a lesser extent) Dewar have some really impressive/important labour endorsements now.

Frankly though, the endorsements have been hard to keep up with in recent days. They are coming in fast and furious for a variety of candidates.

There's a lot more to come... :)

wage zombie

I need to hear Mulcair's plan for economic inequality.  I keep hearing that it is forthcoming.  Which is also what I hear about Dewar's French.

Was Peggy Nash part of the NPI?  Anyone want to talk about that?  It might generate some excitement for her here.

I don't think any of the candidates have been talking at all about Party Reform, which is something I'd really like to hear their opinions on.  How would they go about modernizing the party?  This is in some ways more important than the policy stuff.  You would think Ashton's "new politics" would cover party reform,  but it seems focussed on policy.

Hunky_Monkey

wage zombie wrote:

Was Peggy Nash part of the NPI?  Anyone want to talk about that?  It might generate some excitement for her here.

I think she was, wage zombie. I'm sure I read that somewhere. I also believe Topp was a member of NDProgress for a time.

Unionist
socialdemocrati...

nicky wrote:
sd, it is reaching a bit to say that paul d. is running, even arguably, a natioanal campaign where he has no discernable quebec support.

i suspect the moment of truth will come for him at the quebec city debate. i understand that he has asked that the rules be changed to permit the use of notes. that speaks volumes about his french proficiency.

Yeah, Dewar is on the bottom of my list. I'm willing to give him one last chance, but if he blows it in QC, I hope others will join me in building pressure on him to drop out.

Hunky_Monkey

Quote:
Martel added “This latest attack on Old Age Security pensions goes to show why we need a leader who can rally Canadians, not just long-time party members, and stand up to Stephen Harper. Canadians, especially women and seniors who these cuts will hurt the most, are counting on us to pushback. Tom can do that.”

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/02/03/martel-and-hampton-back-thom...

Stockholm

wage zombie wrote:

I don't think any of the candidates have been talking at all about Party Reform, which is something I'd really like to hear their opinions on.  How would they go about modernizing the party?  This is in some ways more important than the policy stuff.  You would think Ashton's "new politics" would cover party reform,  but it seems focussed on policy.

Topp just put out a paper on this

http://briantopp.ca/issues/topp-releases-plan-strengthen-ndp-throughout-...

Stockholm

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Same with the other candidates doing the dog whistles on it... like Paul Dewar's "when you came to us Tom" or Nathan's "I didn't see Tom the Liberal".

I honestly think that Cullen was trying to say something nice about Tom and was NOT blowing a dog whistle on that. I thought Tom should have acknowledged the complement instead of sounding a bit chippy and making an odd reference comparing Cullen to Gingrich!

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture
Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Same with the other candidates doing the dog whistles on it... like Paul Dewar's "when you came to us Tom" or Nathan's "I didn't see Tom the Liberal".

I honestly think that Cullen was trying to say something nice about Tom and was NOT blowing a dog whistle on that. I thought Tom should have acknowledged the complement instead of sounding a bit chippy and making an odd reference comparing Cullen to Gingrich!

He used that line before with Tom. There's an undertone to it. The audience caught on to it.

The Gingrich line I thought was in reference to answering a question on the plan to do joint nominations... when John King gave Gingrich a chance to answer about the weird stories going on... Tom was giving Nathan a chance to answer for his joint nominations... was a joke. I might be wrong... I'll have to go back and look again but that's my recollection. People in the audience laughed.

Unionist

OnTheLeft wrote:

 

Strengthening Pensions and Retirement Security:

http://peggynash.ca/2012/nash-releases-plan-to-increase-access-to-pensions-and-retirement-security

 

I've always liked Peggy, and she's a union sister.

Having said that, what is this?

I can't even copy and paste from it, so here's the parts I don't get:

First of all, of course, like all the rest, she says: "Under my leadership, the NDP, and the next government, would..." The LEADER speaks.

Then, this:

Quote:
"Work with the provinces to build in the flexibility for individuals and employers to make voluntary contributions to public pension accounts."

Huh???? How about voluntary extra contributions to medicare, to give the individual optional better health care from the public system? What kind of utter crap is this???

Along the same lines, this:

Quote:
Work with the provinces to permit a transfer of the value of private pensions to the CPP/QPP in the event that an individual terminates employment and his/her company continues in operation or in cases where the company ceases to operate. This will allow the individual access to a large, well-managed pension plan and make it easier to retrieve pensions from one source upon retirement.

... and the public pension plan, belonging to all Canadian workers, assumes the actuarial liability for some individual's privately-negotiated and incurred pension plan? WHY? If that's the aim, why not just ban private registered pension plans and have compulsory contributions (employer and employees) to the single improved CPP/QPP?

Two tiered CPP/QPP?

I'm no pension expert, but no thank you.

I'm a unionized worker. Yes, we have a far higher (but declining) probability than other Canadians of having a private workplace defined benefit pension plan. But if we need to protect those, let us do so... Not by introducing two classes of CPP/QPP recipients. Otherwise, why not just let everyone invest tax-deductible money in the CPP/QPP every year, and forget about RRSPs?

When people make up policy like this, where does it come from? Studies by experts, broad public discussion and debate? Or the candidate's whim?

This is one of the key elements as to why races like this are questionable, and how they reveal the fundamentally opaque and undemocratic nature of the party.

 

Hunky_Monkey

Unionist vs. OnTheLeft... this should be fun :) hehe

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Unionist wrote:

Huh???? How about voluntary extra contributions to medicare, to give the individual optional better health care from the public system? What kind of utter crap is this???

This "crap" is actually a good idea.

Unionist wrote:

... and the public pension plan, belonging to all Canadian workers, assumes the actuarial liability for some individual's privately-negotiated and incurred pension plan? WHY? If that's the aim, why not just ban private registered pension plans and have compulsory contributions (employer and employees) to the single improved CPP/QPP?

Two tiered CPP/QPP?

I'm no pension expert, but no thank you.

I think it's great that Nash wants to coordinate with provinces in order to allow a transfer of the value of private pensions to the CPP/QPP in the event an individual loses their job.

 

Unionist wrote:

I'm a unionized worker. Yes, we have a far higher (but declining) probability than other Canadians of having a private workplace defined benefit pension plan. But if we need to protect those, let us do so... Not by introducing two classes of CPP/QPP recipients. Otherwise, why not just let everyone invest tax-deductible money in the CPP/QPP every year, and forget about RRSPs?

When people make up policy like this, where does it come from? Studies by experts, broad public discussion and debate? Or the candidate's whim?

This is one of the key elements as to why races like this are questionable, and how they reveal the fundamentally opaque and undemocratic nature of the party. 

You're reaching here. Nash's plan is an expansion on the NDP's 2011 position on pensions, to not only double the benefits received, but in addtion to call for coordination with the provinces to facilitate a transfer of the value of private pensions to the CPP/QPP when someone loses their job. Essentially, it would be protecting the pensions these workers earned upon losing their job.

Unionist

OnTheLeft wrote:

You're reaching here. Nash's plan is calling for coordination with the provinces to facilitate a transfer of the value of private pensions to the CPP/QPP when someone loses their job.

Yes, I clearly understood that. That's what I'm questioning. You quit, or you're fired (that's her scenario), and you have the option of transferring (say) $1 million of actuarial value that you've accrued over x years of service into the CPP/QPP? And that's now guaranteed and invested under the aegis of the CPP/QPP, even though the CPP/QPP had no say or control over where that $1 million came from, how it was created, etc.?? And then collect a bigger pension than all the other poor jerks? How about them - are they allowed to contribute extra money to the CPP/QPP every month also, and enhance their pensions?

And I repeat my question: Why not allow the same for health care? And education? Give a little more, get a little more...

Let me reiterate: Who came up with this idea? How is it compatible with the notion of universality of social programs? In short, what kind of crap is this??

Either you can explain it, or you can just repeat that it's a "good idea". I'll need a little more convincing than that.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Why don't you go to a Peggy Nash event and ask her yourself? It sure beats overanalyzing something on a forum.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Unionist wrote:

Yes, I clearly understood that. That's what I'm questioning. You quit, or you're fired (that's her scenario), and you have the option of transferring (say) $1 million of actuarial value that you've accrued over x years of service into the CPP/QPP - and then collect a bigger pension than all the other poor jerks? How about them - are they allowed to contribute extra money to the CPP/QPP every month also, and enhance their pensions? And I repeat my question: Why not allow the same for health care? And education? Give a little more, get a little more...

The plan also includes the 2011 election commitment to double CPP benefits.

Unionist wrote:

Let me reiterate: Who came up with this idea? How is it compatible with the notion of universality of social programs? In short, what kind of crap is this??

Either you can explain it, or you can just repeat that it's a "good idea". I'll need a little more convincing than that.

How the fuck should I know? I don't work for the Nash campaign. Instead of badgering me and acting like a goddamn fucking prick, perhaps you could be a little bit more constructive and attend a Nash Meet and Greet and ask her yourself.

KenS

Nash was definitely part of NPI.

Me too.

I'm not sure how much it means. But I think there is a continuous line for Peggy that runs through to present.

Hunky_Monkey

OnTheLeft wrote:

How the fuck should I know? I don't work for the Nash campaign. Instead of badgering me and acting like a goddamn fucking prick, perhaps you could be a little bit more constructive and attend a Nash Meet and Greet and ask her yourself.

Badgering you? lol You posted Nash's policy proposal and Unionist shared his thoughts on it. You responded. He responsed. This is a discussion forum :)

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

"shared his thoughts"?

Fucking please.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

OnTheLeft, your last two posts are out of line. You aren't obligated to explain Nash's policy, but if you post it on babble, expect it to be critiqued. At the very least, knock off the personal attacks.

ETA. Cross posted with Rebecca West

MegB

OnTheLeft wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Yes, I clearly understood that. That's what I'm questioning. You quit, or you're fired (that's her scenario), and you have the option of transferring (say) $1 million of actuarial value that you've accrued over x years of service into the CPP/QPP - and then collect a bigger pension than all the other poor jerks? How about them - are they allowed to contribute extra money to the CPP/QPP every month also, and enhance their pensions? And I repeat my question: Why not allow the same for health care? And education? Give a little more, get a little more...

The plan also includes the 2011 election commitment to double CPP benefits.

Unionist wrote:

Let me reiterate: Who came up with this idea? How is it compatible with the notion of universality of social programs? In short, what kind of crap is this??

Either you can explain it, or you can just repeat that it's a "good idea". I'll need a little more convincing than that.

How the fuck should I know? I don't work for the Nash campaign. Instead of badgering me and acting like a goddamn fucking prick, perhaps you could be a little bit more constructive and attend a Nash Meet and Greet and ask her yourself.

OnTheLeft, your comment is a pretty heinous personal attack, and that isn't allowed on babble.  Disagree all you like, but stick to the argument, and don't attack the individual.

Pages

Topic locked