NDP Leadership #93

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
GregbythePond

I'm almost amazed by the volume of anti-Dewar rhetoric/bombast/wind but this is the babble bubble. Good demonstration of how out of touch some of the armchair commentators here are. Oh the sky will fall with Paul ...

The angry challenges to any candidates "right" to run for leader are moot and meaningless.

IF, we were to discuss the ethics of several campaigns "license" to run, there are clearly worse "violaters" than Paul Dewar.

Is it an unwritten rule that babblers remain hostile to any frontrunners and constantly pitch the underdogs?

I take heart that the "poll" of the rabble (sample size of less than 50) is so different than that of a 6000+ sample.

Go Paul!

 

 

Stockholm

I would like to like Paul Dewar. I think he has some very good qualities. But there is this 2000 lb. elephant sitting in the middle of the room - he cannot speak French coherently and maintaining support in Quebec is CRITICAL.

I would actually really like it if someone supporting Paul Dewar would post here and defend him and explain how exactly his leadership would not mean a Jonestown-like mass suicide for the NDP in Quebec.

If there is a case to be made for how Dewar could actually be good for the NDP in Quebec - i would like to hear it. So far i have not seen anyone from the Dewar camp even attempt to make the case for him as a leader that would be an asset in Quebec. I have waiting to hear this since October. Its now February and i'm still waiting...tick-tock-tick-tock

I'm glad to see "gregbythe pond" post ehere as a Dewar supporter. Perhaps he can explain to us how exactly the NDP can choose Dewar as leader and not immolate itself in Quebec. I can't wait to hear this!

socialdemocrati...

Everyone with $15,000 has the right to run. Including Paul Dewar.

But the membership holds the keys to the gate.

Even the underdogs in the race -- Ashton, Singh, Saganash before he dropped out -- have the basic linguistic competence to hold Quebec, if they stumbled onto the right message.

Not only has Dewar failed to find a compelling message, in either language. He also couldn't possibly deliver it in both languages. That's an instant disqualifier.

Dewar has the right to be in the race. He might even have the potential to win through some complicated ballot strategery. (Which is terrifying.)

And it's for that reason that we all have the right to beg, plead, kick, scream, pressure, do pretty much anything to make sure he doesn't get even close to the leadership of the party. We just have to figure out what would be most effective.

oldgoat

GregbythePond wrote:

I'm almost amazed by the volume of anti-Dewar rhetoric/bombast/wind but this is the babble bubble. Good demonstration of how out of touch some of the armchair commentators here are. Oh the sky will fall with Paul ...

The angry challenges to any candidates "right" to run for leader are moot and meaningless.

IF, we were to discuss the ethics of several campaigns "license" to run, there are clearly worse "violaters" than Paul Dewar.

Is it an unwritten rule that babblers remain hostile to any frontrunners and constantly pitch the underdogs?

I take heart that the "poll" of the rabble (sample size of less than 50) is so different than that of a 6000+ sample.

Go Paul!

 

Well, aren't we cranky.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think the sky can fall, what with it being gas and all, nor do any of the candidates have that sort of influence.  What many, including myself are contending is that he will be a very poor leader due to his inability to speak passable French, and possibly other reasons.  So, a little perspective, eh?

The strong consensus is not questioning his right to run, just the wisdom.

I absolutely don't get your remark about frontrunners and underdogs. Candidates across the range seem to have both thier supporters and detractors.  Maybe just not yours.

It wasn't so much a "poll" of babblers as a count.  That's pretty different.

We will probably continue to discuss the apparent merits and failings of all the candidates, with our usual NDP harmony, your admonishments notwithstanding.

 

 

DSloth

GregbythePond wrote:

I take heart that the "poll" of the rabble (sample size of less than 50) is so different than that of a 6000+ sample.

Go Paul!

Well first of all they're not that different, considering they feature the same winner and (without Saganash) runner up.  Just to be clear though, I tabulated the Rabble preference results but I would never claim they accurately reflect the opinion of Rabble users much less NDP members and probably shouldn't be called a poll in any sense.

I think any member in good standing with 15k to spare has all the right they need to run and by the same token every member has the right to criticize a candidate who would be steering the Party into electoral oblivion.

oldgoat

(btw, I hit 'edit' rather than 'quote' thus initially putting my comment within Greg's post rather than my own.  I fixed it.  Apologies to greg or anyone else who might have noticed .)

flight from kamakura

dewar was never a consideration for me, owing to his appalling and embarrassing lack of fluency in french.  but more than that, i just don't think he's a good candidate or communicator, i don't see any vision, i don't see any mastery of any of the files, i don't feel inspired in any way by the guy, and i think he has low level of political acumen.  he looks as unnatural up on the stage as anyone else, even singh has more charisma (and far far more things of substance to add to the debate).  so quite aside from the fact that dewar wouldn't even be able to communicate to most of his constituents, he hasn't anything interesting to say or a convincing voice to deliver his various thoughts when then do come.  just a plain bad candidate, and i'm fairly sure that he'll go out in the early rounds.

gunder
JeffWells

If Dewar wins, I don't think we'll need to wait for the next election to lose Quebec. I think we'll see a caucus revolt unseen since Stockwell Day's golden age of slapstick, with MPs drifting to the BQ and Liberals and perhaps even some sitting as an independent block. And I wouldn't blame them.

Also, re Mulcair and Rae. I think a Mulcair victory means Rae will gently tack left, scooping up many of the progressive libs, especially female voters, Jack spent four campaigns winning over. They may be positionally close, but I expect Rae, as much as I loathe him, will have more success communicating empathy than Mulcair, who will be spending his time projecting business-like competence and distancing himself from "boilerplate" social democracy. (I wish he would be less of a bull in the chinashop that Jack built.)

I may think differently tomorrow, but today is a "we're screwed" day.

 

NorthReport

Quarter of decided New Democrats would choose Mulcair for NDP leadership: poll
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quarter+decided+Democrats+would+choo...

NorthReport
nicky

Robin Sears on Power Play talking about Dewar's support in the poll; "If it was true Sunday morning, it was no longer true Sunday night."

Gonzaga

I too was at the Québec debate yesterday. I was favourably impressed with the performances of Cullen and Ashton, though they didn't win me over. Mulcair came across very well. He seemed friendly and likeable and was clearly more at ease than the others. Dewar's French was the worst of anyone's, often incomprehensible. Nash's French is OK but she came across, I think, very poorly. Singh's French was surprisingly good.

Topp's French is almost better than Mulcair's. Most people I asked didn't take to him, but I went to his reception afterwards to ask for clarifications regarding his involvement in the Saskatchewan NDP. It didn't go well. He proudly owned Romanow's record and cited the old (and I think discredited) Romanow talking points, comparing Saskatchewan to Greece to justify its neoliberal leanings. I tried to ask him about the Gass Commission's rigged accounting, but he waved off my attempt to follow up and piled on more Romanow talking points.

I had considering supporting him, but I've changed my mind. (A) He truly stands by that the Romanow government's record (rated second best of 32, after Alberta, by the Fraser Institute); and (B) I didn't like him. Just a personal impression and based on very little, admittedly.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

 Boom Boom... remember Gary Malkowski from Ontario? :)

Indeed. He's now with the Canadian Hearing Society - I've been a Life Member for almost 50 years now.

He had a huge support group behind him - I have never been that blessed.

Wilf Day

JeffWells in the last thread wrote:
Stop Dewar? Stop Cullen? Stop Mulcair? Stopp Topp? It's an embarrassment of riches - I don't know who I should stop more!

No one wants to stop Ashton.

NorthReport wrote:

It would not surprise me to see Ashton end up ahead of Dewar before this is all over.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulcair-on-...

It will disappoint me if she doesn't.

Stockholm

I hate to sound nasty about this, but honestly I think that anyone supporting Dewar in view of his terrible French has to be one of two things either -

a) totally ignorant and having no idea that his Franch is such a problem and cheerfully skipping down a garden path without the slightest idea of what is in store. OR

b) delusional in thinking that his being unable to speak passable French is "no big deal" and that Quebecers will "get used to it".

I repeat my offer. If ANYONE supporting Dewar can give me a solid argument for how making him leader is NOT suicidal in Quebec (and by extension elsewhere too) - I would love to hear it! Honestly I would.

Winston

mark_alfred wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Dewar's French during the debate was terrible.  "Peggy Nash, what you want do of medical user fees by Quebec government?  What policy you support?  All about us want to know your alignment."  This is the about the equivalent of what he can manage.

That's a bit sobering.

It was every bit as bad as wage zombie implies: in fact, if I am not mistaken, that's almost a verbatim translation.

GregbythePond

Some interesting comments from others regarding Paul. Since they can clearly see what will be the outcome - in Quebec and elsewhere - of his election to the leadership of the NDP (and the official opposition) perhaps they can also share with us which stocks to buy for a 300% return in three years.

As for the "apparent" absence of Paul Dewar supporters on babble, perhaps they realize that the votes aren't here and they are out connecting with real voting members every night?

Paul has outlined a next 70 seats plan - I believe.Wink

Considering we were nowhere in Quebec until the BQ collapsed - perhaps appeasing Quebec separtists - won't be such a great vote getter?

What I find most intolerable here is the undisguised bias and language discrimination leveled at Paul Dewar by people that seem to believe that Quebec must be "saved" at all costs.

Howard

Chantal Hébert is particularly devastating in her latest column on the NDP's prospects in Québec:

NDP tide in Québec is quickly receding

Lord Palmerston

GregbythePond wrote:

Some interesting comments from others regarding Paul. Since they can clearly see what will be the outcome - in Quebec and elsewhere - of his election to the leadership of the NDP (and the official opposition) perhaps they can also share with us which stocks to buy for a 300% return in three years.

As for the "apparent" absence of Paul Dewar supporters on babble, perhaps they realize that the votes aren't here and they are out connecting with real voting members every night?

Paul has outlined a next 70 seats plan - I believe.Wink

Considering we were nowhere in Quebec until the BQ collapsed - perhaps appeasing Quebec separtists - won't be such a great vote getter?

What I find most intolerable here is the undisguised bias and language discrimination leveled at Paul Dewar by people that seem to believe that Quebec must be "saved" at all costs.

Because it's not 1990 anymore?  

Stockholm

I could care less about Chantal Hebert's histrionics...she wrote all kinds of columns about how the NDP was going to be wiped out right up until about two weeks before election day last year. One thing about tsunamis - usually a big wave comes in, then the entire harbour empties of water, then an even bigger wave washes in!

Stockholm

GregbythePond wrote:

Paul has outlined a next 70 seats plan - I believe.Wink

Considering we were nowhere in Quebec until the BQ collapsed - perhaps appeasing Quebec separtists - won't be such a great vote getter?

What I find most intolerable here is the undisguised bias and language discrimination leveled at Paul Dewar by people that seem to believe that Quebec must be "saved" at all costs.

The next 70 seats plan is very nice - except that if we lose 58 seats in Quebec as a result of his inability to communicate, he better come up with a plan to pick up 130 seats not just 70!

Can you imagine if someone was running to be leader of the NDP and their English was on par with Dewar's French? Just think about that for a moment.

dacckon dacckon's picture

When has Chantal Hebert ever said anything positive about the NDP after the election?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

It will disappoint me if she doesn't.

Same here. Ashton is the future of this party. Dewar would be the caretaker wrapping up the NDP's final demise.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I hate to sound nasty about this, but honestly I think that anyone supporting Dewar in view of his terrible French has to be one of two things either -

a) totally ignorant and having no idea that his Franch is such a problem and cheerfully skipping down a garden path without the slightest idea of what is in store. OR

b) delusional in thinking that his being unable to speak passable French is "no big deal" and that Quebecers will "get used to it".

I repeat my offer. If ANYONE supporting Dewar can give me a solid argument for how making him leader is NOT suicidal in Quebec (and by extension elsewhere too) - I would love to hear it! Honestly I would.

I don't often agree with Stockholm, but this time I say: Go, Stock!  Great post.

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

I could care less about Chantal Hebert's histrionics...she wrote all kinds of columns about how the NDP was going to be wiped out right up until about two weeks before election day last year. One thing about tsunamis - usually a big wave comes in, then the entire harbour empties of water, then an even bigger wave washes in!

Thanks Stockholm. 

KenS

Mia Rabson wrote:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/special/census2011/Odds-and-sods-from-t...

That Brian Topp is so far down the list is a bit more surprising. There are some who have said for awhile that Topp was no longer in the top four of candidates and this seems to prove it. Interesting because when Topp entered the race last September he was supposed to be unbeatable. He was first into the race. He started raising money and campaigning almost a month before Mulcair. With big endorsements from Roy Romanow and Ed Broadbent he seemed to be hard to beat. He raised more money than anyone else prior to Christmas. But if this poll is accurate Topp isn’t really in it at all anymore.

Proves what now? The "some who have been saying" that Topp is not in the top four being the same ones who did the poll that 'proves' it. :)

And the old 'hard to beat' blah-blah that never had any traction with anybody except those who liked running against this narrative.

I said earlier that I figure the Dewar poll is basically accurate [for when it was taken]... because all it says is that there is a pack of 4 after Mulcair. There is no reliability to the ranking of those 4.

I also believe Topp's campaign manager response that their polling says that 28% of members are planning on voting for Topp. He didnt say what choices are included. :)

Anything you get from campaigns is pure spin. It might even be true / accurate [for what is selected to release]. But that doesnt make it any less spin.

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

If the NDP becomes a cheap copy of the Libs, then we'll lose.  My opinion is that Layton's direction of taking small but bold little steps toward social democracy (like opposing the war, opposing the lowering of corporate taxes, favouring coalitions) has gotten us to be the Official Opposition and to be the more trusted alternative to the the Conservatives than the Liberals are.  Why step back now?  Topp's vision of moving a little more forward toward progressive taxation is the next bold little step toward social democracy, I feel.  This will be a winner come next election, when we can contrast our vision of developing a better Canda with either Harper's or Rae's failed visions of the country.  Jack's mom knows best, and I suspect that if Jack were alive, he'd give Topp his endorsement too.

You fail to recognize that I could say the same words as Jack... but I don't have his charisma, his media ability, his likability, his gravitas, his ability on the stump... and NEITHER does Brian Topp.

And for the record, Mulcair opposed the Afghan war, deeply opposes corporate income tax cuts, and was in favour of the 2008 coalition to remove Harper from office.

We have progressive taxation already. To say increasing tax on the top 0.7% will make the personal income tax more fair is quite a simplistic view of our tax system.

And will that be Topp's new slogan? "If Jack were alive, he'd endorse Brian Topp!"?

dacckon dacckon's picture

 

Quote:
We have progressive taxation already.  

 

No.

flight from kamakura

GregbythePond wrote:

Considering we were nowhere in Quebec until the BQ collapsed - perhaps appeasing Quebec separtists won't be such a great vote getter?

What I find most intolerable here is the undisguised bias and language discrimination leveled at Paul Dewar by people that seem to believe that Quebec must be "saved" at all costs.

this is nearly as incoherent as dewar's french.  who wants to 'appease separatists'?  what is 'language discrimination'?  what does 'at all costs' mean - that we don't elect the bland white guy who speaks in generalities and has almost no charisma?

if your goal is to have a leader with french poorer than turmel's english, one basically learning french so that in three years, he can run a campaign, i'm sorry, but i think you'll find a very strong 'undisguised bias' against any candidate proposing that.  in that case, why not just continue on with dewar's corollary across the outaouais, the current leader?  she has the same chops, far more experience, but the added advantage of already being in place.

dacckon dacckon's picture
Lord Palmerston

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
To say increasing tax on the top 0.7% will make the personal income tax more fair is quite a simplistic view of our tax system.

It's necessary, but on its own not sufficient, in terms of creating a more social democratic country.

Hunky_Monkey

dacckon wrote:

 

Quote:
We have progressive taxation already.  

 

No.

Ah, yes, we do... sadly there are many loopholes those with means can use to avoid tax for sure. More so for corporate taxes.

From Revenue Canada...

•15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
•26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
•29% of taxable income over $132,406.

In addition of course, we have provincial income taxes.

Using Nova Scotia as an example...

8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, +
14.95% on the next $29,590, +
16.67% on the next $33,820, +
17.5% on the next $57,000, +
21% on the amount over $150,000

Could there be more tax brackets? Sure. But we have a progressive tax system and to say we don't is really living inside an NDP bubble.

wage zombie

Thanks for providing those figures, Hunky_Monkey.

With the example of Nova Scotia, before loophole deductions, someone earning $150,000 a year has the same basic tax rate is in the same tax bracket as someone making $15 million a year.

Do these rates apply to capital gains as well?

Hunky_Monkey

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Could there be more tax brackets? Sure. But we have a progressive tax system and to say we don't is really living inside an NDP bubble.

Mulcair doesn't seem to agree with you.

Unlike some on here, I'm not a paid spokesperson for the candidate I'm supporting and I have my own opinion.

That said, Mulcair has said he wants to introduce a fairer personal income tax system. I'm sure you're sitting on the edge of your seat waiting... :)

Lord Palmerston

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Could there be more tax brackets? Sure.

Mulcair doesn't seem to agree with you. 

Howard

Having watched the debate and the press conference afterwards as well as all the reviews I could get my hands on, here is my assessment of the candidates:

Tom Mulcair

Pros: He towered over the other candidates at the Québec debate. It was a really good day for him and the gap between his performance and that of the other candidates on most points was quite large. I am also getting the sense that Mulcair is already starting to campaign towards other Canadians (i.e. those not currently in the ND Party).

Cons: Mulcair continues to be sloppy on policy. This was most glaring on trade in this debate. In one response he talked about how free trade had created opportunity for Canada, in another he talked about how we have to keep jobs in Canada, but he never closed the loop. What is Mulcair's plan to simultaneously promote free trade and act domestically to protect jobs, enhance the protection of our natural resources and create value-added? I can guess at what Mulcair's plan would be, but he never explicitly states it, so once again you are left to wonder. Now to many people this may be a bit too wonkish, but consider this, most Canadians may not care about the fine points of policy or what-have-you but when I see Mulcair wax grandiose and present too seemingly conflicting ideas without an explanation of how they are reconciled I get the sense of a bullshitter and I'm sure the Canadian public will smell bullshit too if the Conservatives clip together these statements and there is nothing out there to back them up. The media will also not back us up if there is no previously released plan or ready explanation. If there is any lesson Mulcair needs to take from this sloppiness, it is that he needs to be more like Jean Chrétein to win: a man with a plan. Or at least he needs to connect his thoughts so that they are clear and make sense. Otherwise he does sound like a Liberal, with beautiful talk, but no action. This is also not Mulcair's first offence. He has soft-pedalled on his plan for revenues, he has given short shrift to the details of his carbon emissions trading idea, and he is a lot better at saying we need to give x or y study without specifying precisely what we should study and why? I am thinking about taxes. I am thinking about the massive risk he wants the federal government to take on with expansive guaranteed benefit CPP+/QPP+ pension plans. I am thinking about "priorities" like childcare, pharmacare, seniors' poverty, first nations poverty, child poverty, and many other of his worthy and costly and unaccounted for goals. Now I'm not saying Mulcair should have all the answers now in fine print and all, but I have a lot more questions than answers when it comes to his policy proposals (despite the fact that they have been improving) and that concerns me.

General concerns: Another concern I have is that I cannot speak to babbler's concern that Tom Mulcair is a "Third Way" type or not, because I don't know if he is myself. Besides asking him point-blank "are you Third Way?" Which to my mind is a way of asking, do you care about income inequality or not? Do you have any ideas for what to do about it? Do you support a foreign policy predicated on peace first, second, and third? I don't know how we or anyone else can lay these concerns to rest. For one, Tom Mulcair hasn't been very clear about what he means about leaving behind the "1950s boilerplate" and like Stockholm, I'm not convinced that this point is any more than a strawman he could/can easily tear down at any opportunity. Also, any comments in the media or otherwise, denigrating our much maligned grassroots NEEDS TO STOP. Dedicated NDPers have been shit on enough by the media, their friends, their co-workers, members of the community, etc for years that we don't need to take it from one of our own. We have had to fight for the NDP in elections were we got slaughtered, knew we were going to get slaughtered, and got up each morning and did it anyways because we believed in social democratic (or socialist) values. We donate what we have, which at times may not be a lot, but we have done it through thick and (previous to campaign finance reform) very thin. So please, show some respect.

I will post more on the other candidates subsequent to this...

wage zombie

GregbythePond wrote:

What I find most intolerable here is the undisguised bias and language discrimination leveled at Paul Dewar by people that seem to believe that Quebec must be "saved" at all costs.

Uh oh!  Discrimination alert!  A straight white anglophone male is getting unfair biased treatment!  It's just intolerable, I tell ya.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Mitt Romney would pay less tax here than in the U.S., thats how regressive we are. The loopholes are simply step one of the very important equation. I think we should compare ourselves to some of the most sucessful regimes of social democratic governance in places such as Scandinavia.

wage zombie

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Unlike some on here, I'm not a paid spokesperson for the candidate I'm supporting and I have my own opinion.

More veiled aspersions.  What crap.

Hunky_Monkey

wage zombie wrote:

Thanks for providing those figures, Hunky_Monkey.

With the example of Nova Scotia, before loophole deductions, someone earning $150,000 a year has the same basic tax rate is in the same tax bracket as someone making $15 million a year.

Do these rates apply to capital gains as well?

If you're talking about millionaires, wage zombie... I wouldn't have an issue with say a "Buffett rule" that imposes a surtax on those who make obscene amounts of money. That still doesn't solve our tax revenue issue. I still believe we must look at the corporate world which I agree with Topp... as does all the other candidates.

Lord Palmerston

Taxation as a % of GDP is around 50% in the Nordic social democracies, compared to about 33% here.  We're a low-tax regime by OECD standards.

I do credit Topp for trying to initiate discussion on taxation, something the Left can't run away from and pretend we can solve just by finding "inefficiencies" etc. 

Hunky_Monkey

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Taxation as a % of GDP is around 50% in the Nordic social democracies, compared to about 33% here.  We're a low-tax regime by OECD standards.

I do credit Topp for trying to initiate discussion on taxation, something the Left can't run away from and pretend we can solve just by finding "inefficiencies" etc. 

Saganash was right.

And in Nordic countries, they have consumption taxes in the rate of 20 - 25%. Do you support that?

Howard

Brian Topp

Pros & Cons: He was a distant but clear second for me in the Québec City debate. For those that have watched his performances in English, he is roughly as good in French. Now some may think that is damning him with faint praise, but given the French performance of the other candidates that is actually a great compliment. Topp was clear in French and he was incisive in some of his arguments. His going after Dewar over Charlie Angus was to my eyes exactly what Thomas Mulcair did to Dewar attacking him on bulk water exports in Halifax; it was turning away a disingenous attack by leaving the aggressor with a bloody nose. That being said, Brian Topp's decent shots at other candidates didn't score him a lot of sympathy points but it did show that he could argue and that was a mild plus. Unfortunately for Brian, if he wants to be the true alternative to Mulcair, then he is going to need to attack Mulcair and not so much the other candidates. There is just no other way around it. So in conclusion, Topp demonstrated some competence in French and that was important for him. It made him stand out.

General concerns: Brian Topp still comes across as a jerk. He has taken a lot of low shots as a candidate over the course of the campaign. His supporters, as well as those of Tom Mulcair, have shown themselves to be overzealous and alienating. Topp has also tried to run from his chequered record of social democracy during the Third-Way austerity years of Roy Romanow or his recent praise for PASOK and crushing austerity in Greece. He talks left but he has moved the NDP to the right in campaigns and government. Who is one to trust: vague Mulcair or about-turn Topp?

Hunky_Monkey

wage zombie wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Unlike some on here, I'm not a paid spokesperson for the candidate I'm supporting and I have my own opinion.

More veiled aspersions.  What crap.

Wage... I was told by a friend working for Peggy Nash that they have a team to "infiltrate" places like this discussion forum.

So, what part of what I said is crap?

dacckon dacckon's picture

VAT taxes in Scandinavian countries are not all uniform on all products.

Lord Palmerston

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
And in Nordic countries, they have consumption taxes in the rate of 20 - 25%. Do you support that?

Yes.  Is it politically easy?  No, it's a long-term project that requires a major change in the discourse.  But let's not pretend you can have Nordic social democracy with Canadian taxation levels.  

Hunky_Monkey

dacckon wrote:

VAT taxes in Scandinavian countries are not all uniform on all products.

Covers A LOT more than the GST.

Howard

Peggy Nash

Pros & Cons: I like Peggy a lot but her performance in Québec City was very weak. That she let Dewar catch her offside on health care is as much her fault (not doing her research or considering the question properly) as Dewar's (it was almost impossible to understand his question). All in all though she was very flat. She spoke in the most slow, dragged out, platitudinous, and foreign accented French of the bunch, which would have been forgiveable had she had anything interesting to say. It was largely nonsense about I will "inspire" people, I will "talk" to people, I will "listen"...okay, we like that but how? What's worst is that these were her answers to question that started out with "How will you do x..." Anyways, it was performance that stood in contrast to stronger performances on other nights and in English.

General concerns: It's hard to find anything about Peggy Nash to either love or hate, this makes me worry that she could be tractionless as leader. She doesn't really jump into the debate, even in a room with a bunch of people very sympathetic to her cause. She doesn't seem to get inspired or have the ability to translate that to a crowd, except on rare ocassions. What is there to think she could grow the NDP? Can we feel fully confident she would keep our gains? If we don't have confidence for her ability to grow the party, is it good enough that she might be best to hold the status quo? I think the answer for me is probably no. We need to grow. I want to win and we can't have Harper in power anymore, it's too damaging to the country we believe in.

Lord Palmerston

dacckon wrote:

VAT taxes in Scandinavian countries are not all uniform on all products.

Actually, they have fewer exemptions.  Hunky Monkey is right on that one.  It makes my argument harder, I agree, but having few exemptions creates a lot more revnue to pay for public programs.

Pages

Topic locked