NDP Leadership #87

127 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDP Leadership #87

;;

NorthReport

Unfortunately Romeo can't make it to Sudbury today.

NorthReport

Why can't the CBC cover the Sudbury debate?

Oh that's right, the CBC supports the Liberals so the CBC wouldn't dream of giving Canada's Official Opposition media coverage. 

Howard

<a href="http://rabble.ca/comment/1313536">duncan cameron</a> wrote:
The party has policies, and it has election platforms done by a committee, and it has leaders who speak for the party. Does one lead to another in sequence so that the third can be traced back to the first? Not always in my experience in observing the NDP.

Which candidate has proposed a Canadian Invesment Bank? Does that matter? It does if you live in de-industrializing Ontario. Which one was a minister in a government that endorsed P3s for every public investment, even if that is anethema to public service unionists? Some clarification would be in order, if only for union leaders deciding who they want to support. Who thinks entering Libya on one side in a civil war equalS R2P?Who want to re-think the role of Nato as the new UN security force?

Not all party policies are written in stone, in fact they can be re-written at convention. Leaders like to bring new ideas to council and convention. What would they look like? Once in government leaders seem to go off on their own. Having a "mandate from the people" not just the party has been mentioned often in history by leaders of UK Labour, or socialists parties in Europe. Knowing their stated ideas helps to know what their tendencies are.

Some party members, and perhaps leadership candidates among them, are not happy with alll party policies on all subjects. Some will call for changes. Members are asking candidates to disagree with party policy on cap and trade or Nafta. What answers are we getting from candidates? This is not of interest?

i liked the way Romeo Saganash explained his differences with John Baird. Perhaps writer does as well. When he spoke, he spoke for me; meaning he expressed what I wanted to hear expressed at that time. That is why he is a great candidate for leader, and would make a great minister or prime minister. His policy statements are of interest to me, and I would think many others.

doofy

This should probably be in a different thread, as it is not strictly related to amy of the candidates' strenghts or weaknesses. However, the issue is perhaps even more important.

The QC comedy show "Infoman" has recently registered a zebra as an NDP member. You can watch the clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt4AEPDRZgE

This is a reccurent pattern. In 2009, Infoman registered "Omar Bongo" to vote in the ADQ leadership race. As it happened, Bongo voted for the winning candidate, Gilles Taillon, whose margin over Eric Caire, was only of 3 votes.  If people remember what happened next, it was not pretty. Caire left the ADQ, Taillon resigned, and the ADQ nearly blew up. (BTW it's dead today).

Does anybody know if the NDP has done anything to prevent such a scenario? What is stopping me from signing up my imaginary firends on the NDP website?

I hope the NDP will be corss-checking each person's name, but if not, this could end up having catastrophic consequences.

 

AnonymousMouse

doofy wrote:

This should probably be in a different thread, as it is not strictly related to amy of the candidates' strenghts or weaknesses. However, the issue is perhaps even more important.

The QC comedy show "Infoman" has recently registered a zebra as an NDP member. You can watch the clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt4AEPDRZgE

This is a reccurent pattern. In 2009, Infoman registered "Omar Bongo" to vote in the ADQ leadership race. As it happened, Bongo voted for the winning candidate, Gilles Taillon, whose margin over Eric Caire, was only of 3 votes.  If people remember what happened next, it was not pretty. Caire left the ADQ, Taillon resigned, and the ADQ nearly blew up. (BTW it's dead today).

Does anybody know if the NDP has done anything to prevent such a scenario? What is stopping me from signing up my imaginary firends on the NDP website?

I hope the NDP will be corss-checking each person's name, but if not, this could end up having catastrophic consequences.

 

Most systems I'm aware of for auditing election results have (often very good) measures for preventing large scale fraud that could plausibly effect the outcome of the race, but not sufficient to catch an individual jokesters. In other words they do significant spot checking and various methodologies for detecting usual patterns, so they can investigate possible funny business, but they don't check that every single person really exists.

Wilf Day

Quote:
Ultimately trying to rely on all these models and formulas to provide an accurate prediction is really a fools' game. In the absence of hard polling data of the party membership itself, one can only read various numeric tea leaves in trying to determine the shape of this, or indeed any party leadership race. That is perhaps why these entire exercises should be regarded as innocent amusement as opposed to hard psephology.

http://junkiepolitico.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/predicting-the-ndp-leader...

Quote:
. . . there is yet another gauge one can employ that is pointed out by Alice Funke, the brains behind punditsguide.ca. As she illustrates, the share of total campaign funds raised by each candidate in the 2003 NDP leadership race offered the most accurate guide for the results of the first ballot. Using current fundraising figures for each leadership camp in 2012 suggests that Topp and Mulcair and battling it out for first place while Nash, Dewar and Cullen are in a three-way fight for third. The strong fundraising figures from the Cullen campaign are particularly surprising. It will have to wait until the results of the first ballot are revealed to see if the fundraising metric was mere fluke in 2003 that can’t be repeated, or if it actually is a valid guide for future leadership races.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/02/ndp-leadership-fundraising-predicted-...

There is one other thing all these amusing exercises have in common. The leading candidate has only 31%, or 26%, or 24%. The winner is likely to have more transfers than first choices. Three years ago Andrea Horwath got 37% on the first ballot. Even in 1996, a close race, Howard Hampton got 34% on the first ballot. In BC, last year Adrian Dix got 38% on the first ballot. In 2003 Carole James got 42% on the first ballot.

To find a race like this, we have two models: 1989 federal where Audrey McLaughlin got only 27% on the first ballot, and 1984 in BC where the leader on the first ballot got less than 26% and was overtaken by the third-place candidate Bob Skelly who got only 16% on the first ballot. These are not good models.

Stockholm

Let's not forget that when the Ontario Liberals were picking a new leader in 1996 - McGuinty came in FOURTH on the first ballot and yet ended up winning on the sixth ballot at 4 o'clock in the morning!

doofy

If what AnonyMouse says is true, we had better hope that none of the margins are close. With a potnetial 7 ballots that sounds like a pretty risky proposition.... Can the NDP at least cross-check the adresses with the Elections Canada lists?

Unionist

doofy wrote:

Does anybody know if the NDP has done anything to prevent such a scenario? What is stopping me from signing up my imaginary firends on the NDP website?

I don't understand your concern.

I thought the whole point of the exercise was candidates selling the right to vote for them, for cash.

What's wrong with zebras and imaginary friends?

Oh, I see - they can't actually cast a vote for the candidate that sold them the power? Gotcha.

By the way, when signing up for membership, I know you have to promise not to support any other party. But are there any questions relating to whether you are real and a member of the [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i] species? If not, I still think you're being too rigid - if not outright discriminatory.

Anyway, I thought your post was more relevant to these threads than many others. I hope to see more of the same.

 

wage zombie

I just read on twitter that Paul Dewar at the debate today is promoting a guaranteed annual income.  That seems pretty huge to me.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

wage zombie wrote:

I just read on twitter that Paul Dewar at the debate today is promoting a guaranteed annual income.  That seems pretty huge to me.

I hope whoever wins picks up on Dewar's idea here. I think I read "guaranteed annual income" on one of these threads before. I'm interested in how it would work, who qualifies, etc...

AnonymousMouse

Boom Boom wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

I just read on twitter that Paul Dewar at the debate today is promoting a guaranteed annual income.  That seems pretty huge to me.

I hope whoever wins picks up on Dewar's idea here. I think I read "guaranteed annual income" on one of these threads before. I'm interested in how it would work, who qualifies, etc...

Yes, that's the thing about the phrase "guaranteed minimum income": it doesn't really mean anything in the sense that it doesn't refer to a specific program that literally provides people with "a" guaranteed income.

The phrase is generally used to refer to two different ideas.

Some use it to specifically refer to a negative income tax. A negative income tax is often agrued for by conservatives as an alternative to "big government" service provision (just give people money and let them choose what they want to spend it on) or as a supplement to public services. Arguably a negative income tax already exists in Canada and the US in the form of the National Child Tax Benefit and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

The other primary use of the phrase "guaranteed minimum income" is to refer to a broad array of income support programs and public policies aimed at ensure a certain degree and level of income security. As most developed countries already have such programs, the phrase "guaranteed minimum income" becomes a way of thinking about end goal of these rather than a specific policy--namely that these programs when taken together should effectively ensure that no segment of the population falls below a certain income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

All of this makes "guaranteed minimum income" a phrase that's easy to throw around, but without details it is pretty much meaningless.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

I just read on twitter that Paul Dewar at the debate today is promoting a guaranteed annual income.  That seems pretty huge to me.

Sounds like welfare to me. We've had countless threads on that subject. It's usually put forth as an alternative to increasing the minimum wage. A way for governments (i.e. taxpayers) to subsidize the most exploitative employers.

The way to fight poverty is to socialize essential goods and services, not to give people enough money to be poor with.

 

dacckon dacckon's picture

This article says the recent debate put pressure on Topp. I'd like to watch the videos and the many debates coming up online, but I'd also like to not get another bill for going over the internet usage limit...

 

Hopefully someone could provide an objective review of these events :D

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:

 Yes, that's the thing about the phrase "guaranteed minimum income": it doesn't really mean anything in the sense that it doesn't refer to a specific program that literally provides people with "a" guaranteed income.

Thanks for the info, and to others who chimed in. I'll go look at earlier threads on the subject.

writer writer's picture

Why did I stand up and speak out for Romeo Saganash last week? Just listen.

Romeo Saganash feature interview,
C'est la vie, CBC radio

Quote:

This week, we speak with Quebec MP Romeo Saganash, who's running for the NDP leadership.

You may know he's spent many years actively involved in landmark negotiations between the James Bay Cree and the Quebec government.

You may not know that he's also a poet, a photographer, and a marathon runner.

We'll hear more about those hidden talents, as well as other stories that Romeo Saganash rarely tells.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

I just read on twitter that Paul Dewar at the debate today is promoting a guaranteed annual income.  That seems pretty huge to me.

Sounds like welfare to me. We've had countless threads on that subject. It's usually put forth as an alternative to increasing the minimum wage. A way for governments (i.e. taxpayers) to subsidize the most exploitative employers.

The way to fight poverty is to socialize essential goods and services, not to give people enough money to be poor with.

 

The way they do it in Nordic countries is to give money to poor people, and then they aren't poor anymore. It's a lot more effective than waiting years for a broken-down capitalist economy to fix itself.

vaudree

doofy wrote:
The QC comedy show "Infoman" has recently registered a zebra as an NDP member. You can watch the clip here:

Isn't that what George Jefferson called Lionel's wife on The Jeffersons?

Ok it is probably because, especially early on, Turmel tended to wear a lot of black and white.

Her mannerisms remind me of Stephan Dion some how.

I get the feeling that many here have already dismissed Dewar - even if they like some of his ideas.

 

socialdemocrati...

Interesting article on the Guaranteed Minimum Income:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experiment.html

(There are other interesting studies about the Dauphin experiment if you google around.)

It might actually be really excellent policy. But it's very risky politics.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Interesting article on the Guaranteed Minimum Income:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experiment.html

(There are other interesting studies about the Dauphin experiment if you google around.)

It might actually be really excellent policy. But it's very risky politics.

Good find. Yes, but a scientific study along the lines of InSite could help greatly.

North Star

I've always wondered with a GMI scheme, what's from stopping landlords or any type of merchant from increasing prices? Rent control is an option but is the government going to stop Wal-Mart, Loblaws etc. from increasing prices on food and clothes?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I've been browsing Brian Topp's memoir of his participation in the great Koalition negotiations with the Liberals and the Bloc in November-December 2008, called [i]How we almost gave the tories the boot[/i], courtesy of the Toronto Public Library.

In the course of the negotiations he had to deal with Bob Rae, and he devotes some time to discussing Rae's political history. He pointed out that when Rae had repudiated his NDP affiliation he said he could no longer stomach the anti-Israel public statements of NDP foreign affairs critic Svend Robinson, whom Rae described as a "histrionic crank".

Continuing, Brian Topp wrote:
Since the federal NDP was allowing Robinson to speak for it in an over-the-top, wildly unbalanced way about critical issues in the Middle East, Rae turned his back on the party.

I was struck by the way Topp wrote this without any quotation marks or direct attribution of the sentiments to Rae. Was that Topp's own assessement of Svend Robinson, or Rae's, I wondered.

Topp clearly regrets the fact that Rae broke off with the NDP. He goes on to list a series of "if only" statements designed to show how Rae could have been kept in the NDP (or at least the Koalition) fold, including this one, referring to Svend Robinson:

Brian Topp wrote:
If only the federal NDP had fielded a sensible foreign affairs critic in the early part of this decade - one in touch with both the moderate liberation voices of Palestine and the responsible left in Israel.

So it appears that Topp agrees with Rae's negative assessment of Robinson and the NDP's policy on Israel in the early part of this millennium.

socialdemocrati...

Is that really a surprise? Since 2003 / Jack as leader / Topp as strategist, the party's policy on I-P has been to mediate between the two sides. Svend said "yes, I am taking sides", and was demoted soon after.

That's the NDP as it's existed and grown for almost ten years.

North Star

You've got to wonder who is more right wing. Topp or Mulcair. Mulcair is far more open about his centrism than Topp is. Topp knows the party and thus knows how to sucker the grassroots with promises of higher taxes on the wealthy. Let's not forget Topp defended PASOK's brutal austerity in Greece. Topp can co-opt the left while Mulcair won't be able to. That's something to think about if it comes down to those two. 

socialdemocrati...

And I have to wonder why people are so good at misinterpreting the candidates.

Topp's lesson from Greece:

"...which is why responsible social democrats in all jurisdictions are, and should be, allergic to excessive reliance on debt to finance government."

I don't think that's a defense of austerity so much as a fundamental principle of balancing a budget.

Or maybe he's lying about raising taxes so he can pocket the money for his right-wing agenda.

janfromthebruce

No Topp is not lying and personally I find the assumptions stated above as such "putting words in someone's mouth" for reasons - political ones. One just needs to disclose one's bias. I am a Topp supporter, and personally I disagree with this opinion that is now portrayed as "fact" -

 

Brian Topp wrote:
If only the federal NDP had fielded a sensible foreign affairs critic in the early part of this decade - one in touch with both the moderate liberation voices of Palestine and the responsible left in Israel.

So it appears that Topp agrees with Rae's negative assessment of Robinson and the NDP's policy on Israel in the early part of this millennium.

 

I agree one should be in touch with both the moderate liberation voices and responsible left. Oh, and I am not "right-wing" which is all about demeaning someone on babble.

DSloth

Likewise Mulcair, who already a succssful politician in a Province with no NDP presence to speak of chose to run for us when he would have had an easier time in just about any other Party does not suggest a right wing maniac but a true believer. 

I have if anything less fear that Mulcair will get us into some foreign policy morass as seemingly left-wing politicians are prone to (e.g. LBJ with Vietnam, Tony Blair with Iraq or Bob Rae and the Afghanistan extension ) because Mulcair knows the Quebec political dyanmics better than anyone else and he knows Quebec has always taken an extraordinairly dim view of foreign adventurism. Any betrayal on that point would destroy the party in Quebec. 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Dsloth wrote:
 Mulcair knows the Quebec political dyanmics better than anyone else  

Really?

DSloth

Maysie wrote:

Dsloth wrote:
 Mulcair knows the Quebec political dyanmics better than anyone else  

Really?

Not to take anything away from Saganash, but Mulcair won every one of the six elections he contested in that most unpredictable of Provinces and was at the centre of taking the NDP from 0 seats to 59. For the record I have no doubt Saganash is also in tune enough with Quebec politics to know how incredibly bad an idea it would be to involve the NDP in foreign adventurism. 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

...personally I find the assumptions stated above as such "putting words in someone's mouth" for reasons - political ones....  

I agree one should be in touch with both the moderate liberation voices and responsible left. Oh, and I am not "right-wing" which is all about demeaning someone on babble.

"Right wing" was your term, not mine.

And I didn't "put words" in Topp's mouth. I was very careful to quote his [b]actual words verbatim[/b] so that everyone could see what he said. Then I disagreed with it.

I missed the part where it said this thread is only for cheerleading, and criticism of candidates is not allowed. God forbid anyone should have "political reasons" for posting here.

Believe it or not, my post was not about you. It was about Brian Topp's politics. If you agree with his politics, I don't give a shit; that's your right. But don't tell me I can't criticize your favourite candidate because it's "demeaning".

NorthReport

Just curious - where was Ottawa's Press Corps yesterday - oh that's right, they were all watching the Superbowl!

http://www.northernlife.ca/news/localNews/2012/02/05-sudbury-ndp-leaders...

nicky

several new nova scotia caucus endorsements for mulcair today including financce minister graham steele.

janfromthebruce

I am not going to get into anything with you. When one makes an assumption about what one means and turns it into "fact" and than goes on to suggest that it infers something about that person and those who think like them, than yeah you are now saying something about more than one person. I didn't take it personal but took it as you appeared to mean. Just so have better things to do than argue over petty comments.

 

M. Spector wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

...personally I find the assumptions stated above as such "putting words in someone's mouth" for reasons - political ones....  

I agree one should be in touch with both the moderate liberation voices and responsible left. Oh, and I am not "right-wing" which is all about demeaning someone on babble.

"Right wing" was your term, not mine.

And I didn't "put words" in Topp's mouth. I was very careful to quote his [b]actual words verbatim[/b] so that everyone could see what he said. Then I disagreed with it.

I missed the part where it said this thread is only for cheerleading, and criticism of candidates is not allowed. God forbid anyone should have "political reasons" for posting here.

Believe it or not, my post was not about you. It was about Brian Topp's politics. If you agree with his politics, I don't give a shit; that's your right. But don't tell me I can't criticize your favourite candidate because it's "demeaning".

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Hunky_Monkey

Mulcair picked up the endorsement of three cabinet ministers, an MLA, a former MLA and some high profile members from Nova Scotia...

Today Nova Scotia Minister of Finance Graham Steele, Minister of Communities, Culture, and Heritage David Wilson, Minister of Justice Ross Landry and Nova Scotia NDP President David Wallbridge, along with several other prominent New Democrats, threw their support behind NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair in his bid for the New Democratic Party leadership.

This new support comes on the heels of the NDP's second official leadership debate in Halifax last week.

Minister Steele said "Tom understands what we did here in Nova Scotia, taking our party from official opposition to government. He knows how we showed Nova Scotians that we could be trusted with the responsibilities of governing and he knows that to win across Canada we have to do that from coast to coast to coast."

"Canadians are looking to our party to provide a credible alternative to Stephen Harper's Conservatives in the next federal election. That's a responsibility we have to take seriously. Tom has the experience and ability to present a credible alternative to Stephen Harper. That's what Canadians deserve." added Minister Wilson.

Justice Minister Ross Landry also endorsed Mulcair, saying "We can't afford to lose the momentum we picked up May 2nd. With Tom we can ensure we keep moving forward, not slide backwards, especially with respect to our gains in Quebec."

Other prominent Nova Scotia New Democrats who also threw their support behind Thomas Mulcair this week include Brian Skabar, MLA for Cumberland North, President of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia and former NDP MLA Peter Delefes, former NDP Provincial Secretary Peggy Prowse and long-time party activists Louanne and Burris Devanney.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

I just read on twitter that Paul Dewar at the debate today is promoting a guaranteed annual income.  That seems pretty huge to me.

Sounds like welfare to me. We've had countless threads on that subject. It's usually put forth as an alternative to increasing the minimum wage. A way for governments (i.e. taxpayers) to subsidize the most exploitative employers.

I like welfare programs.  I am in favour of them.

We've had countless threads on many topics that mainstream politicians wouldn't touch.  I don't know of any other mainstream politician arguing for a guaranteed minimum income.  So if Dewar does have an actual plan, to me that would be significant.

Quote:

The way to fight poverty is to socialize essential goods and services, not to give people enough money to be poor with.

So is there only one way to fight poverty?  Or can there be multiple ways?

What do you think of old age pensions?

wage zombie

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Yes, that's the thing about the phrase "guaranteed minimum income": it doesn't really mean anything in the sense that it doesn't refer to a specific program that literally provides people with "a" guaranteed income.

The phrase is generally used to refer to two different ideas.

Some use it to specifically refer to a negative income tax. A negative income tax is often agrued for by conservatives as an alternative to "big government" service provision (just give people money and let them choose what they want to spend it on) or as a supplement to public services. Arguably a negative income tax already exists in Canada and the US in the form of the National Child Tax Benefit and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

I don't think this is the same thing, if it is a tax credit or rebate that provides no benefit to those not paying taxes.

Quote:

The other primary use of the phrase "guaranteed minimum income" is to refer to a broad array of income support programs and public policies aimed at ensure a certain degree and level of income security. As most developed countries already have such programs, the phrase "guaranteed minimum income" becomes a way of thinking about end goal of these rather than a specific policy--namely that these programs when taken together should effectively ensure that no segment of the population falls below a certain income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

I hadn't heard of that usage before, so thanks for mentioning it.  On first read I see how that could potentially be a great way to frame social services.

Quote:

All of this makes "guaranteed minimum income" a phrase that's easy to throw around, but without details it is pretty much meaningless.

Well, Dewar mentioned it at a debate, with no online video, and then someone tweeted that he mentioned it, and then I mentioned that I saw that it was tweeted.  So details are understandably slim.  Maybe if Dewar can take an hour to jot down a few bullet points about how it could work then he would be approaching the thoroughness and detail of Mulcair's cap and trade policy proposal.

I'm not really a Dewar fan so I'm waiting for details too...but depending on how it would work it's a policy that i would actively support.

Give everyone a GMI income card, and put $1,000 on it every month.  Then make up for it in income taxes every year.  That's how I'd like such a plan to go.  It would like be a huge stimulus for the economy, and it would also likely create some inflation.  Clearly there would be a lot of details to sort out.

AnonymousMouse

wage zombie wrote:

I don't think this is the same thing, if it is a tax credit or rebate that provides no benefit to those not paying taxes.

The whole idea of a negative income tax (and tax credits such as the NCTB and the EITC) is that they are refundable, so they do go to those who don't pay taxes.

wage zombie wrote:

Maybe if Dewar can take an hour to jot down a few bullet points about how it could work then he would be approaching the thoroughness and detail of Mulcair's cap and trade policy proposal.

Yeah, it probably wouldn't take more than a few bullet points (as has been the case for most political proposals), but I doubt that Dewar said he was in favour guaranteed minimum income because he plans to come out with specific proposal on that subject, but rather because many people have a habit of throw that phrase around like a statement of principle, not a statement of policy.

socialdemocrati...

I'd like to see Canada try more localized economic experiments like Mincome. But if there's one thing I understand about this country is that it hates experiments, and prefers to believe we already know everything there is to know about managing the economy, and that we just need to follow that "common sense". (Even though that "common sense" has changed very much from the 70s to the 90s to right now).

At this point, I'd just hope we can learn from the RIGHT experiments, emulating the experiments in Norway that worked, instead of the experiments in America that haven't.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

We've had countless threads on many topics that mainstream politicians wouldn't touch.  I don't know of any other mainstream politician arguing for a guaranteed minimum income.

[url=http://greenparty.ca/video/2011-06-20/mp-elizabeth-may-guaranteed-annual... May and Irene Mathyssen[/url]

And we have been debating this for years on babble. Here's a good example of an economist who opposes increasing the minimum wage (because it will kill jobs!!) and likes the guaranteed annual income - but please scan the thread, there are many like it:

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=0015... would unions oppose a Guaranteed Annual Income?[/url]

Quote:
So if Dewar does have an actual plan, to me that would be significant.

I don't think so. My question would be: Where has he been hiding this plan till now? Or did he just wake up and learn about poverty in Canada when he was struggling in a leadership race?

Making up policy on an individual basis, for personal advantage, makes me reach for medication that I don't even own.

 

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

And we have been debating this for years on babble. Here's a good example of an economist who opposes increasing the minimum wage (because it will kill jobs!!) and likes the guaranteed annual income - but please scan the thread, there are many like it:

I am familiar with those threads and with S.G.'s opinions on the topic.  I don't see how they matter.  I don't really care for his arguments and don't see why you would either.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

I don't know of any other mainstream politician arguing for a guaranteed minimum income.

[url=http://greenparty.ca/video/2011-06-20/mp-elizabeth-may-guaranteed-annual... May and Irene Mathyssen[/url]

Quote:

Quote:
So if Dewar does have an actual plan, to me that would be significant.

I don't think so. My question would be: Where has he been hiding this plan till now? Or did he just wake up and learn about poverty in Canada when he was struggling in a leadership race?

Making up policy on an individual basis, for personal advantage, makes me reach for medication that I don't even own.

Ah, I see what you mean now, what with Mathyssen having endorsed Dewar last week.

I am now starting to wonder if Dewar had these endorsements lined up a while ago, and just waited to release them now, as Ottawa observer suggested.

Seems to me like a poor strategy, I dunno.

Howard

I'm pissed off at Dewar. His French is so clearly inferior that I find everything he does to be, at best, a giant waste of time, or at worst, damaging to the party.

Dewar doesn't seem to care though, he keeps trundling along. Québec City is really his last chance. If he does not turn in a pitch perfect performance, I would not be the least bit surprised if the Québec media rips into him and the party. The NDP is so low in the Québec polls right now that everyone smells blood, and "if it bleeds, it leads."

nicky

I have heard that the party has changed the rules of the debates to allow the candidates to use notes. Can anyone confirm this?
If this is true then real French fluency may be disguised by ability simply to read a French text and we should all watch carefully to see who can manage best without notes.
The point has been made repeatedly that candidate X or Y is "fluent" or has "impeccable" French. With respect I don't think that is the standard we should necessarily accept. We should look at who can connect with French speakers, who has a true facility of expression, who has eloquence. A pedestrian competence in French (like Harper's for example) should not suffice

JeffWells

nicky wrote:
With respect I don't think that is the standard we should necessarily accept. We should look at who can connect with French speakers, who has a true facility of expression, who has eloquence. A pedestrian competence in French (like Harper's for example) should not suffice

 

Have to agree with that.

I think fluency should be the bare minimum expected of every candidate, and it's an embarrassment to the party and potentially hobbling to our aspirations for government that a person of Dewar's facility is considered a serious contender. But language is just the beginning. Being at home in Quebec and comfortably immersed in its culture is, IMO, absolutely essential for the next leader. (FWIW, it's another reason why I'm supporting Saganash.)

socialdemocrati...

Agreed on the language issue.

Hunky_Monkey

To be honest, I find it a little arrogant of Dewar.

And yes, nicky, candidates are allowed to have notes. At least that was the way it was in Halifax.

Brian Glennie

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
To be honest, I find it a little arrogant of Dewar. And yes, nicky, candidates are allowed to have notes. At least that was the way it was in Halifax.

Music to Harper's ears that the NDP get bogged down in this kind of petty bullshit.

socialdemocrati...

I don't think bilingualism is petty.

CanadaApple

I've got another question for the Mulcair supporters on here. How confident are you that he will be able to bring all the different parts of the party together? I ask because some people in the party really seem to dislike him, and if he can't bring the party together after he wins, I'm not sure if he could win the next election, or if it would be worth it. 

oh, and I guess non-Mulcair supporters are free to answer as well. = D

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

nicky wrote:
I have heard that the party has changed the rules of the debates to allow the candidates to use notes. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true then real French fluency may be disguised by ability simply to read a French text and we should all watch carefully to see who can manage best without notes.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. If I tried to read a prepared text in a language I'm not fluent in, it would look and sound like me reading a prepared text in a language I'm not fluent in. (And I'm good at that sort of thing.) Also, we all know how much better candidates come across when they don't use notes.

Pages

Topic locked