NDP Leadership Forum 29

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
Azana

http://bit.ly/oNP52u

CBC online poll for NDP leader. Click and enjoy.

KenS

The difference between a Straight Up Centrist and a Determined Pragmatist

Centrist:

"There is a minefield. We won't go there. Lets find out what voters want, and promise it to them.

 

Pragmatist:

"There is a mine field. We are not going to just walk right in. But we will find the way through- or get rid of it.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

duncan cameron wrote:

How about Peter Julian. He first ran 20 years ago or so in Quebec, Alma maybe. A natural politician. He was drafted by the community to run in Burnaby and was supposed to lose. He has so much personal appeal that he won.

Peter would have been an excellent candidate. I suspect his "personal appeal" is his hard work on important issues.  His roots in politics are based in his community activism in the New West progressive community.  He had already demonstrated his abilities when he first ran for office.  He is a natural politician because he walked the walk and wasn't just about having a nice smile and being able to talk well in both official languages.

Community activism is something I look for on leaders resumes. For me it was one of the big things in Jack's resume when he ran.  Romeo seems to have the best community resume.  You know what he might do because he has walked the walk for decades. 

Quote:

  • Prior to his election to the House of Commons, Peter worked as a Financial Administrator. He is a former Executive Director of the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (WIDHH) and, under his leadership, WIDHH won consecutive Canadian Consumers ‘Choice Awards for Excellence in Business (2003-2004). He was instrumental in building the British Columbia Disability Employment Network, a consortium of community groups, organizations and non-profit societies dedicated to serving people with disabilities.
  • A founding member of the Council of Canadians (CoC), Peter rose to become the National Executive Director of the Council, Canada's largest citizen's organization.
  • Locally in New Westminster, Peter co-founded the Save St. Mary's Hospital Community Coalition that fought tirelessly to save this community hospital.
  • He is a former volunteer with Emergency Social Services, Royal City Soccer, East Burnaby Minor Baseball, the United Way and the United Church.
  • http://peterjulianmp.ndp.ca/biography
  • Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

    vaudree wrote:

    Mulcair is hinting about a conversation he has had with Ken Neumann but not providing any details. The insinuation is that he knew what Topp promised in return for KN's support (ie a David Orchard moment). It will come out, though probably not the big deal Mulcair is making it out to be.

    Hill Times wrote:

    The Globe and Mail reported that Mr. Mulcair said in an interview he stood up to the national director of the United Steelworkers Canada, which has endorsed Mr. Topp in the race, last month when he opposed a reserved voting block for unions at the party’s national leadership convention in March, to be held at the same time as a party-wide leadership election on March 24.

    Mr. Mulcair, the newspaper reported, said Ken Neumann “wasn’t used to being told ‘no’ by anyone in the NDP” and that Mr. Mulcair told Mr. Neumann “no, why not let the membership decide.”

    But Mr. Cullen and Mr. Martin told The Hill Times the question of continuing weighted votes for NDP union affiliates at the party’s leadership elections had been decided in 2006—the year before Mr. Mulcair became a New Democrat—when delegates at a party convention approved a proposal that all members would vote in leadership selection, and it would be on a one member, one vote basis, as the vote next March is scheduled to be.

    “He’s created a straw man,” said Mr. Cullen, noting the decision was already made five years ago, and it was based on a convention motion from the Canadian Labour Congress, a founding partner of the NDP 50 years ago.

    http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/26/mulcairs-accusation-th...

     

    I have personally met a lot of union leaders from BC and Ken is one of the nicest guys around.  The attack on unions where Mulcair sounds like he might as well have said he stood up to the "union bosses" was disgusting.  The personal attack on Ken was unconscionable and to me proves he is not leadership material.  He will divide the party and leave it in tatters.

     

    Unionist

    KenS wrote:


    Centrist:

    "There is a minefield. We won't go there. Lets find out what voters want, and promise it to them.

     

    Pragmatist:

    "There is a mine field. We are not going to just walk right in. But we will find the way through- or get rid of it.

    Socialist:

    "Those two are very skillful at avoiding mines set by the 1%. It doesn't occur to them, for an instant, that our job is not to get blown up by the 99%."

    duncan cameron

    Ken, I confess to being a policy wonk, but I have worked with activists as well. Transformative change is the goal. Taking action requires imagination, and practical steps.

    You can announce a bridge. To build it, you need to build support in the community for the project, and identify opposition. Not everyone is going to be happy with the idea of this bridge. If you let them take over the debate, outspend you, denounce you, and vilify you, support will weaken, and the bridge will not happen. Vancouver and Ottawa are still waiting for needed bridges, and in Montreal there is not enough agreement to keep bridges in repair.

    Tax policy is a mindfield. Your metaphor makes sense here. The American struggle for independence from Britain started over a tax, as you will remember.

    Announce a tax on the rich, or set out a comprehensive plan for greening the country, that includes a re-think of taxes so as to change the way we live? I say, develop a fair tax plan, build support, identify opponents, create alliances, answer opposition, practice open politics, and bring in real changes like the Alternative Federal Budget has proposed, and they will stick.

    Do the real change, for the right reasons, and in the proper fashion, by building your support.

    I am tired of politics as public relations, talking points, positioning, wedging, and microtargeting, with the real decisions being taken by key people hidden from view, and then disguised so few notice that the public interest has been violated.

    Public posturing and policy announcements differ. It is not posturing when the policy has been developed, worked through by people going back and forth and around until they see how to achieve transformative change.

    Fair tax policies have been developed by the CCPA for the last 20 years or so. I look forward to seeing as many candidates for the leadership as possible adopt the measures put forward in recent Alternative Federal Budgets as their own. That gives us the best chance of moving them forward when the first NDP Finance Minister stands up to read the first budget.

     

     

     

    Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

    duncan cameron wrote:

    You can announce a bridge. To build it, you need to build support in the community for the project, and identify opposition. Not everyone is going to be happy with the idea of this bridge. If you let them take over the debate, outspend you, denounce you, and vilify you, support will weaken, and the bridge will not happen. Vancouver and Ottawa are still waiting for needed bridges, and in Montreal there is not enough agreement to keep bridges in repair.

    I can't speak for Ottawa but the last thing that the Lower Mainland needs is more bridges for cars. Especially done with P3 contracts.  

    KenS

    Unionist wrote:

    Socialist:

    "Those two are very skillful at avoiding mines set by the 1%. It doesn't occur to them, for an instant, that our job is not to get blown up by the 99%." 

    I'm going to have to ask for an explanation. The 'Socialist' wnats to make sure we dont get blown up by the 99%- the polular forces. ??

    Unionist

    KenS wrote:

    Unionist wrote:

    Socialist:

    "Those two are very skillful at avoiding mines set by the 1%. It doesn't occur to them, for an instant, that our job is not to get blown up by the 99%." 

    I'm going to have to ask for an explanation. The 'Socialist' wnats to make sure we dont get blown up by the 99%- the polular forces. ??

    You got it! Exactly. The other dude(tte)s are always careful to tailor their speech (in opposition) and their policies (in power) to not disturb the sleeping billionaires - because they fear them. When they get blown up by the workers (think NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Ontario, for example, defeated after attacking working people), they say: "Duhhhhhh? Huhhhhhh? I didn't even know our own loyal supporters knew how to plant IEDs!!!!!!".

     

    KenS

    Unionist wrote:

    You got it! Exactly. The other dude(tte)s are always careful to tailor their speech (in opposition) and their policies (in power) to not disturb the sleeping billionaires - because they fear them. When they get blown up by the workers (think NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Ontario, for example, defeated after attacking working people), they say: "Duhhhhhh? Huhhhhhh? I didn't even know our own loyal supporters knew how to plant IEDs!!!!!!". 

    Debating aphorisms may be stupid, but sense we are on it.

    It's not a question of fear of what you face, or lack of it. Having no fear is a macho mythology.

    It is a question of how much caution and where and when it is appropriate to apply it.

    We all agree that too much caution and you get nothing.

    Where we differ is on the amount required. The relative risks of too much and too little caution at any particular point.

    But rhetoricians like to sketch it as if any caution were the problem.

    Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

    KenS wrote:

    The difference between a Straight Up Centrist and a Determined Pragmatist

    Centrist:

    "There is a minefield. We won't go there. Lets find out what voters want, and promise it to them.

    Pragmatist:

    "There is a mine field. We are not going to just walk right in. But we will find the way through- or get rid of it.

    I like it! I wrote a post once about what pragmatism is and isn't, and that pithy statement would have fit right into the part about centrism.

    Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

    Unionist wrote:

    KenS wrote:

    Centrist:

    "There is a minefield. We won't go there. Lets find out what voters want, and promise it to them.

    Pragmatist:

    "There is a mine field. We are not going to just walk right in. But we will find the way through- or get rid of it.

    Socialist:

    "Those two are very skillful at avoiding mines set by the 1%. It doesn't occur to them, for an instant, that our job is not to get blown up by the 99%."

    That doesn't quite work, though. Socialism and centrism are ideologies. Pragmatism is a philosophy (or an approach, I suppose, depending on how you look at it). The two are by no means antithetical--that's a Canadian fallacy. I know many socialist pragmatists.

    Life, the unive...

    I really wanted to like Peggy Nash for NDP leader.  I think the country needs someone like her.  But having just watched the campaign kick off, I was totatlly uninspired.  I sure hope it gets better. 

    KenS

    There is no question that the histroy of the left is full of counterproductive caution that bites us.

    But it is also biting yourself to not learn by integrating that better calculation of hazards and how to get around them is part of the required more adventurous recipe.

    And it is a comforting mytholgy that bit-again-from-being-cautious manifests primarily as 'the people' being angry at 'the leaders' for what they have done or not done. Most of our failures from caution the blame is to be shared all around.

    If only it was simply as the 'leaders' listen, leaders stop getting away, etc.

    josh

    Howard wrote:

    Canada has to trade, unless we want to eat canned vegetables all winter. 

    Not only a strawman, but a classic center-right strawman used to attack opposition to so-called "trade deals."  Which are actually capital protection deals.

    Hunky_Monkey

    Life, the universe, everything wrote:

    I really wanted to like Peggy Nash for NDP leader.  I think the country needs someone like her.  But having just watched the campaign kick off, I was totatlly uninspired.  I sure hope it gets better. 

    I like Peggy a lot. But I too hope she gets better on the stump.

    I find some politicians slow their speech in certain instances. Alexa was like that. The way she gave a speech was quite different than how she asked questions in the House or how she was in person. It puts me to sleep.

    Howard

    josh wrote:

    Howard wrote:

    Canada has to trade, unless we want to eat canned vegetables all winter. 

    Not only a strawman, but a classic center-right strawman used to attack opposition to so-called "trade deals."  Which are actually capital protection deals.

    Nice proposal and thanks by the way for proving my point about Nash's stance being "all thrust and no parry."

    Wilf Day

    Lou Arab wrote:

    From what I can glean from Twitter,  Nash had three MP endorsements: Randall Garrison, Anne Minh Thu Quach, and Mike Sullivan.  Have I missed any?

    She also picked up endorsements from Cheri DiNovo and Lorraine Michael.

    Mike Sullivan is not on her endorsement page:

    http://peggynash.ca/2012/endorsements/

    I'm glad Peggy Nash is finally in the race. I'm surprised she had only two MP endorsements. I was expecting some like Irene Mathyssen (and maybe her provincial counterpart, new MPP Teresa Armstrong), Carole Hughes, and maybe someone like Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet.

    josh

    Howard wrote:

    josh wrote:

    Howard wrote:

    Canada has to trade, unless we want to eat canned vegetables all winter. 

    Not only a strawman, but a classic center-right strawman used to attack opposition to so-called "trade deals."  Which are actually capital protection deals.

    Nice proposal and thanks by the way for proving my point about Nash's stance being "all thrust and no parry."

    Proposal?  Proving your point?

    Howard

    josh wrote:

    Howard wrote:

    josh wrote:

    Howard wrote:

    Canada has to trade, unless we want to eat canned vegetables all winter. 

    Not only a strawman, but a classic center-right strawman used to attack opposition to so-called "trade deals."  Which are actually capital protection deals.

    Nice proposal and thanks by the way for proving my point about Nash's stance being "all thrust and no parry."

    Proposal?  Proving your point?

    What do you propose the NDP's position on trade should be? Epithets and diatribes?

    Howard

    Once the babble mods start a thread about it, I will ask Peggy what her stance is on trade and to give an example of trade deal she could imagine herself as PM signing (and presenting to NDP majority Parliament for ratification) and an existing trade relationship she would see herself expanding.

    josh

     

    Quote:

    What do you propose the NDP's position on trade should be? Epithets and diatribes?

    Epithets and diatribes would be an improvement over the NAFTAs and FTAs the financial and corporate elite keep pushing.  Protection of capital and foreign investment.  A race to the bottom for most workers.

     

    Howard

    josh wrote:

     

    Quote:

    What do you propose the NDP's position on trade should be? Epithets and diatribes?

    Epithets and diatribes would be an improvement over the NAFTAs and FTAs the financial and corporate elite keep pushing.  Protection of capital and foreign investment.  A race to the bottom for most workers.

    Epithets and diatribes are about as useful as pissing into the wind. I want to see a real way charted forward.

    duncan cameron

    Nothern Shoveler how about a pedestrian bridge? The Lion's Gate is getting on in years, a third crossing might turn out to be a replacement for it. Otawa did get its pedestrian bridge, but not one to keep the trucks out of going through the downtown.

    duncan cameron

    On trade I cannot speak for what Peggy Nash will do. We know that Canada is negotiating a bunch more bilateral deals that will cover some 40 countries. We already have a trade framework under the WTO. It makes more sense to trade and negotiate with the U.S. and any other country under a multilateral framework.

    The WTO needs to be reformed. It needs to promote employment like the ill-fated ITO negotiated multilaterally, and then killed by Congress after the war. Instead the WTO protects predatory practices by corporations. But multiateral means Canada gets every concession every other country negotiates with the U.S. Bilateral means you give to get. A large number of countries don't like the WTO and are blocking further negotiaitions untill they get changes, Canada needs to engage. Instead it is doing secret agreements all over the place without parliamentary supervision.

    The new Canadian stratey is much like the Mulroney Cufta/Nafta deals: corporate rights agreement that over-ride the Canadian constitution. Under Cufta and Nafta remember the deal did not over-ride the American constituion since the U.S. signed them as Admistrative agreements and Congressional laws pasted subsequently take precedence. That is why Mulcair has gotten himself in a strange position of advocating for something than makes no sense for a Canadian to accept, let alone defend.

    Axworthy wanted Canada to dump Nafta and use the WTO. That should be Canada's trade policy. Work for major changes to the WTO to take out provisions that protect corporate rights, and run over human rights.

    Gaian

    Shouldn't there be some concern for the petrodollar and monetary policy so that we don't have to work at minimum wage to be able to export anything actually manufactured or at least upgraded?

    Unionist

    KenS wrote:

     

    Where we differ is on the amount required. The relative risks of too much and too little caution at any particular point.

    But rhetoricians like to sketch it as if any caution were the problem.

    What do you think of my rhetorical grandiose ultra-leftist notion that NDP governments should exercise a modicum of caution when it comes to passing back-to-work legislation when workers are on strike, and tearing up collective agreements that the government itself has bargained?

    My view of these false friends of the workers is that they richly deserve their place of honour on the dung-heap of history. A bit extreme, I know. But pass me the shovel.

     

    dacckon dacckon's picture

    I'm sure people have gone over the NDP pundit guide so... Peggy Nash has paid the entry fee requirement and Peter Julian has taken her place as finance critic.

    Edit: meh, might as well add some things from the pundit guide.

    The Pragmatic Radicalism of Peggy Nash (Brian Topp in this article has gone from juggernaught to campaign wizard?)

    Saganash in the Battlefords

    Brian Topp in Kamloops

    Peggy Nash's last question as finance critic 

    Howard

    Thanks Duncan. If you are correct, I want to see Peggy's strategy for reforming the WTO. Also, I want to know what she will do if he strategy doesn't work. Trade has grown rapidly in the last 30 years and brought billions of dollars both into and out of the Canadian economy. It has and continues to completely change the way we live and have a major effect on our wealth (e.g. our ma$$ive resource exports, our major skills and education advantage over developing nations [and the transition to that high skills economy that has occurred]). We now produce services more than goods. We have people coming to Canada to buy a [university] education. Whole communities (Hong Kong, Pakistan, Mainland China) have and continue to migrate to Canada as investors to benefit from our good system of laws and government. Other individuals have laid down investments in Canada because of our economic stability [and good laws/government], despite living in other countries. I want to know that Peggy understands these forces and she is ready to respond to/harness them as Prime Minister.

    Gaian

    duncan cameron wrote:

    On trade I cannot speak for what Peggy Nash will do. We know that Canada is negotiating a bunch more bilateral deals that will cover some 40 countries. We already have a trade framework under the WTO. It makes more sense to trade and negotiate with the U.S. and any other country under a multilateral framework.

    The WTO needs to be reformed. It needs to promote employment like the ill-fated ITO negotiated multilaterally, and then killed by Congress after the war. Instead the WTO protects predatory practices by corporations. But multiateral means Canada gets every concession every other country negotiates with the U.S. Bilateral means you give to get. A large number of countries don't like the WTO and are blocking further negotiaitions untill they get changes, Canada needs to engage. Instead it is doing secret agreements all over the place without parliamentary supervision.

    The new Canadian stratey is much like the Mulroney Cufta/Nafta deals: corporate rights agreement that over-ride the Canadian constitution. Under Cufta and Nafta remember the deal did not over-ride the American constituion since the U.S. signed them as Admistrative agreements and Congressional laws pasted subsequently take precedence. That is why Mulcair has gotten himself in a strange position of advocating for something than makes no sense for a Canadian to accept, let alone defend.

    Axworthy wanted Canada to dump Nafta and use the WTO. That should be Canada's trade policy. Work for major changes to the WTO to take out provisions that protect corporate rights, and run over human rights.

    I'll bet, Duncan, you missed this question in the following post: " Shouldn't there be some concern for the petrodollar and monetary policy so that we don't have to work at minimum wage to be able to export anything actually manufactured or at least upgraded?"

    It's one that Thomas Mulcair is posing, apparently the only one to talk reality when it comes to the political economy of Canada.

    What do you think?

    KenS

    @ Unionist:

    You are talking what NDP governments do in power, I'm talking about 'propositional politics': the risks people in parties are willing to take in what they put out.

    Of course they are related, but they are not the same thing.

    Most of the complaining about the NDP here, and around the left, is that it is chicken shit what it is willing to offer.

    I address that, and at least try to deal with it.

    If you want to say, they cannot be trusted anyway... look what 'they' do when they govern, then there really isnt anything to talk about. I'm pretty sure that is not the way you think, but it is the way you are talking.

    There is another way than this tail chasing.

    I would say that chicken shit governing has its roots in chicken shit 'propositional politics'- the road to government. Changing the chicken shit nature of propositional politics is no guarantee that when government is achieved it will be better than what we have seen.

    But its not like throwing up your hands and saying to hell with it all has got results either.

    duncan cameron

    Howard, when I worked with the anti-continental integtation pacts labeled incorrectly free trade, the gambit of the corporate supporters was to say that we opposed trade. What we opposed was the proposed deals, not commerce, not economic activity. As structured the deals meant we lost the tools needed to access the markets that were supposedly being openned to it. Five years later the evidence was solid about the damage that sadly ocurred as expected.

    The auto trade was the biggest item in continental trade conducted under managed trade rules ensuring that Canada produced a car for every one sold here, and that at least 60 percent was made-in-Canada content. So called free trade limited our ability to continue to expand the Canadian industry, and its EXPORTS. That is why the Autoworkers opposed the deal so strongly.

    Peggy Nash was with the CAW it was created out of the UAW to ensure Canada would get its share of auto plants, and good jobs.

    Peggy was industry critic after 2006, and talked continously about the need for an approach other than corporate tax cuts.

    Winston

    Peggy's French is excellent as, I am given to hear, is her Spanish.  I just wish she could construct a sentence without the word "um."  She is one one of the few people who can make me completely tune out to what she is saying (and I agree vehemently with pretty much everything she does say).

    Chisholm's French is indeed a bit of a barrier, but it can't be that much worse than Paul Dewar's, can it?

    Bärlüer wrote:

    Anyone knows of clips of her speaking in French (preferably not reading a written statement)?

    Fidel

    Duncan, is GATS a going concern for workers today, or is it on the backburner? Is it on the backburner for as long as they can rack up more public debt in making the big business case for deregulation and privatisations?

    Howard

    duncan cameron wrote:

    The auto trade was the biggest item in continental trade conducted under managed trade rules ensuring that Canada produced a car for every one sold here, and that at least 60 percent was made-in-Canada content. 

    Why is that a good thing? I would rather buy the highest quality car no matter where it is made or where its materials come from, be it unionised car makers in Korea or unionised car makers in Ontario.

    duncan cameron

    Gaian the floating dollar policy is at best defensive. Foreign control of industry, and resources, the stuctural problem identified in the 1960s persists and is the origin of our problems with capital flows, and the dollar. The CAW has called for a new industrial policy, the CCPA alternative budget has done the work on what needs to be changed to promote more balanced economic development.

    Saying that Alberta energy is sinking the manufacturing sector in Quebec and Ontario is at best a half-truth. It is heard often in Quebec and not just from the PQ or its allies.

    We have been promoting Canadian investment abroad, and letting foreign investors in Canada do what they want. Neither makes sense. Our banks are allowed to use their privileges granted under charters from parliament to go abroad and lose money.

    Capital flows determine the value of the dollar. We need capital controls, rules over capital movements, and ways to control speculative short term flows through a Tobin tax. Strangely enough the IMF was starting to examine this approach under DSK. Too bad he took himself out his job with his scandelous behavior. 
    Our monetary policy is neutral. The Bank of Canada does not know what to do. It is causing less damage than in the early 80s (20 percent interest rates) or the early 90s when higher rates in Canada than in the U.S. created a high dollar and a domestic debt bubble.
    A competive devaluation in the mid 90s revived the Canadian economy.The world economy is characterized by attempts to devalue. The U.K. succeeded. The U.S. did not. Free flows of capital lead to financial instability which is endemic. Canada is playing an appalling role blocking bank taxes and Tobin taxes.
    Like with trade we need to work with other nations to revive multilateral institutions, we need an alternative to the U.S. dollar, expanding the role of the SDR for example, and to change the way the World Bank deals with captial markets. It should be borrowing in China and lending to deficit countries, just as after the war it borrowed in New York and lent for European reconstruction.
    Peggy Nash has a keen interest in these issues.
    I encourage all readers to have a healthy distrust of conventional accouts from say bank economists. These are not easy issues to get at in one off statements. 

    Howard

    Been watching leadership videos (Dewar, Cullen, and Nash) and here is my take:

    Peggy Nash looks uncomfortable when she stands. She slouches and doesn't know what to do with her hands. She looks stiff. Jack Layton liked to bounce around. The standing in a circle setup was good for him. There he could bounce around as much as he wanted and rather than look hyperactive or fidgetty, he looked dynamic. I bet if Peggy Nash sat and engaged in more of a conversation, that would work better for her. Even being in a café or a bar and having something to lean on might help her. Having her seat also feeds the image of "the negotiator," which is a motif for her success. I wonder what she looks like standing behind a podium?

    As for Peggy's French, there is a very little bit of it (read off a teleprompter?) in her launch speech but it sounds good. I also agree with commenters that like her message but find her delivery boring (hence the suggestions above).

    Cullen and Dewar seem to have comparable French but Cullen is more proactive (and hence probably more comfortable) in using it. Dewar's French is not good. Not that that is news to anybody. I wonder who would be more likely to improve their French between now and 2015. Cullen is younger and I think went from knowing no French in 2004 to what he knows now. Dewar lives in a more francophone riding and thus would have further opportunities to practice, however, his riding isn't "more francophone" so much as more "bilingual" and he may have a hard time getting people to speak to him in French when both he and they are so fluent in English. That being said, if the party makes the choice (in my opinion, mistake) of electing a non-highly bilingual leader, they will have to use (and improve) their French A LOT to speak on a daily basis to the roughly 60% of the caucus that comes from Québec.

    Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

    Howard wrote:

    I bet if Peggy Nash sat and engaged in more of a conversation, that would work better for her. Even being in a café or a bar and having something to lean on might help her. Having her seat also feeds the image of "the negotiator," which is a motif for her success.

    At your service! This interview has her sitting, and she comes across really well, I think. Terribly boring interviewer, but Peggy sounds good. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/news/868018287001/in-the-run...

    Howard wrote:

    As for Peggy's French, there is a very little bit of it (read off a teleprompter?) in her launch speech but it sounds good.

    Did you hear her in the Q&A after? It might be worth tracking it down and listening to it, because she sounded good there too. (She sounds like a very fluent anglophone who speaks continental French.)

    duncan cameron

    double post

    ottawaobserver

    Wilf Day wrote:

    Mike Sullivan is not on her endorsement page

    He was sitting behind her at the announcement event, to Cheri De Novo's left and Gord Perks' right.

    ETA: I got the order wrong: it was De Novo, then Perks, then Mike Sullivan.

    Malcolm Malcolm's picture

     

    Is the Doug McArthur referred to in the story as a longtime BC civil servant the same Doug McArthur who was a civil servant (troubleshooting DM) and them a one term MLA and Minister in Saskatchewan under Blakeney?  I know he subsequently went to BC.

    Malcolm Malcolm's picture

    josh wrote:

     

    Quote:

    What do you propose the NDP's position on trade should be? Epithets and diatribes?

    Epithets and diatribes would be an improvement over the NAFTAs and FTAs the financial and corporate elite keep pushing.  Protection of capital and foreign investment.  A race to the bottom for most workers.

     

     

     

    Yes, yes.  We get what you're against.  What are you FOR?

    I'm not against trade deals.  I'm against trade deals which priorize the rights of capital over the rights of citizens.  (Which, of course, describes most ?all? of the existing trade agrements Canada is party to.)

    Likewise, I'm against electric tea kettles that short circuit and cause fires.  But I'm not against electric tea kettles.

    ottawaobserver

    Yes, one and the same McArthur, Malcolm. He wrote a blogpost that got pretty widely picked up in BC at the beginning of the race, saying that Topp's campaign was trying to do a Paul Martin. He forgot to renew his domain name or hosting agreement or something and so I don't think the blog is up anymore, but he replicated the post on his Facebook page:

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2076078016830

    It got quoted in a few MSM stories at the time.

    Howard

    Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

    Howard wrote:

    I bet if Peggy Nash sat and engaged in more of a conversation, that would work better for her. Even being in a café or a bar and having something to lean on might help her. Having her seat also feeds the image of "the negotiator," which is a motif for her success.

    At your service! This interview has her sitting, and she comes across really well, I think. Terribly boring interviewer, but Peggy sounds good. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/news/868018287001/in-the-run...

    Howard wrote:

    As for Peggy's French, there is a very little bit of it (read off a teleprompter?) in her launch speech but it sounds good.

    Did you hear her in the Q&A after? It might be worth tracking it down and listening to it, because she sounded good there too. (She sounds like a very fluent anglophone who speaks continental French.)

    She is better in the conversational format! She needs to work on getting a bit more excited when she speaks. One of the first lessons you learn working in radio (and TV) is that you actually have to force yourself to smile (a bit) and get excited before you speak. It really comes through in your voice. Peggy Nash is very smart, so perhaps she sounds more dull because she actually likes to (gasp!) think and reflect before she speaks. That's good but she also needs to remember to get excited, because her voice is a cue to the audience.

    ETA: Nash is actually quite charismatic when she gets excited about what she's saying! I'm looking forward to listening to the Q&A in French. Do you have a link?

    Howard

    duncan cameron wrote:

    Foreign control of industry, and resources,

    Factually speaking, there is very little of this. Most of the Canadian economy and resources are Canadian owned or owned by multinational companies with executive offices in Canada (as well as abroad). Example? The mining industry in Canada and worldwide is largely Canadian owned. Most of these mining companies trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

    duncan cameron wrote:

    We have been promoting Canadian investment abroad, and letting foreign investors in Canada do what they want.

    A half truth. A lot of countries place few to no restrictions on foreign investment. In Canada extensive filings are required under the Foreign Investment Review Act and there is a permitting process for everything. As an example, Amazon recently wanted to expand its distribution networks into Canada and Indigo successfully lobbied to force Amazon to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government for the right to do so.

    duncan cameron wrote:

    Neither makes sense.

    Why?

    duncan cameron wrote:

    Capital flows determine the value of the dollar. We need capital controls, rules over capital movements, and ways to control speculative short term flows through a Tobin tax. 

    What kind of capital controls? Do you want to place restrictions on my use of a Canadian credit card when I go on a weekend shopping trip to the US? I assume not, but if you put controls on banks where do they end up applying? Also, this is not what a Tobin tax does. What a Tobin tax does is raise the cost of any given financial transaction. As such, it reduces the number of financial transactions and raises the amounts transfered each time. This doesn't prevent currency attacks. 

    duncan cameron wrote:

    Strangely enough the IMF was starting to examine this approach under DSK. Too bad he took himself out his job with his scandelous behavior. 

    More info please.

    duncan cameron wrote:

    Our monetary policy is neutral.

    Then why do we have one??? Why does the Bank of Canada adjust interest rates at all or not adjust them, as the case may be.

    duncan cameron wrote:

    The Bank of Canada does not know what to do. It is causing less damage than in the early 80s (20 percent interest rates) or the early 90s when higher rates in Canada than in the U.S. created a high dollar and a domestic debt bubble.

    Not sure what you are saying here. Interest rates did not reach 20% except for two and a half months in 1981. Inflation was 13% at the time and rising at a precipitous rate. There were fears that inflation would not stop rising and it was crashing the economy. Both the Bank of Canada and the US Fed raised rates to this level and kept them high until inflation dropped.
    In the 90s I think you have the order wrong. The government had accumulated a massive debt and was running increasingly large deficits. This drove inflation up to 7% (approaching double that of the US). The Bank of Canada raised interest rates to about double of what they were in the US. This had side effects on the dollar and was followed by a mini-recession on both sides of the border, the eventual bringing of the federal budget into balance (by cutting spending), and a decline in inflation...at which point the Bank of Canada once again lowered interest rates.
    The interest rates are just there to keep inflation in a low and steady range. 

    duncan cameron wrote:

    A competive devaluation in the mid 90s revived the Canadian economy.

    Driven by? A recession in the early 90s and reduction in government borrowing.

    duncan cameron wrote:

    The world economy is characterized by attempts to devalue. The U.K. succeeded. The U.S. did not. Free flows of capital lead to financial instability which is endemic. Canada is playing an appalling role blocking bank taxes and Tobin taxes. Like with trade we need to work with other nations to revive multilateral institutions, we need an alternative to the U.S. dollar, expanding the role of the SDR for example,

    Je ne comprends pas

    duncan cameron wrote:

    and to change the way the World Bank deals with captial markets.

    I think you meant the IMF. The World Bank doesn't deal with capital markets. It provides loans and grants to developing countries at low rates (usually only available to developed countries) of interest to fund their governments' "development" projects.

    duncan cameron wrote:

    It should be borrowing in China and lending to deficit countries, just as after the war it borrowed in New York and lent for European reconstruction.

    This lending you speak of is government's buying another government's bonds. If Canada could buy Chinese bonds (and property rights and the rule of law were respected in China), I am sure it would, but China won't sell foreign governments' Chinese bonds for the same reason those governments' want to buy Chinese bonds: it would appreciate the Chinese currency and that would slow foreign investment.

    Hunky_Monkey

    Robert Chisholm is announcing his campaign on Sunday, 11 AM AST in his riding.

    Howard

    If there is going to be a "lowest common denominator" candidate in this race, I wouldn't be totally surprised if it is Peggy Nash. Reason? She is a great candidate, so people will have no trouble justifying their support- and more to the point, "young cardinals pick older popes."

    Stockholm, can Peggy Nash count on your support Wink?

    How many elections do you need to imagine a leader staying on, to justify your vote? I think it was ottawaobserver that stated a while earlier how cruel it is that the NDP's most talented women are either: i) at the age of having to decide whether or not they will have children (Leslie) or ii) at the age of having given a lifetime to public service and being asked to give more (Nash). It just goes to show, that there are structural barriers to women's opportunities in politics and these NDP stars are trailblazers for those that will inevitably follow.

    Here is the best interview I've found since Peggy's launch. Except for the Toronto Star's choice of lighting, Nash comes across quite well.

    Malcolm Malcolm's picture

    Candidate Announcements

    • Topp - Ottawa
    • Saganash - Constituency
    • Cullen - Home Province
    • Dewar - Constituency (which happens to be Ottawa)
    • Singh - Home Province
    • Mulcair - Home City
    • Nash - Home City
    • Chisholm - Home City
    • Ashton - ?

    duncan cameron

    Howard maybe we could do a sit down. Are you anywhere near Vancouver? Let me know. We are pretty far apart, it seems we don't read the same stuff.

    Thw World Bank was founded on government guarantees to back bonds issued in New York capital markets. The first presidents until McNamara were all from Wall St. for that reason.

    The World Bank lent to Europe at a slightly higher rate than its borrowing costs. Borrowing costs were low because of government guarantees. Safe stuff, you pay less.The difference was its profit, which covered its operating costs

    The IMF was doing short term re-lending of foreign exchange allocated to it by governments. The first 25 percent of the borrowing quota, so called first tranche money, was what the country put in itself. it could borrow its own money back without trouble. Canada actually provided gold for some Aftican countries who joined the Fund after Independance, and had started out life without any foreign exchange or gold. 

     

    This short term balance of payments lending which was what the IMF was supposed to do under Bretton Woods did not go through capital markets.IMF money is provided directly by governments or created in very small amounts by SDR allocations.

     

     

     

    Centrist

    duncan cameron wrote:

    Vancouver ... are still waiting for needed bridges.

    Duncan, I have a strong suspicion that you don't reside in BC.

    Metro Vancouver has/will have the following new bridges priced in the $billions$:

    1. New 6-lane Golden Ears Bridge/expressway;

    2. New 8-lane Pitt River Bridge (replacing old 4-lane structure);

    3. Under Construction 10-lane (expandable to 12 lanes) Port Mann Bridge - the widest in North America;

    So I ask, what new bridges are needed?

    Quote:
    The Lions Gate is getting on in years, a third crossing might turn out to be a replacement for it.

    The Lions Gate Bridge connects to the City of Vancouver, which represents ~27% of the Metro Vancouver population. And the Lions Gate Bridge had ~$100 million refurbishment (deck replacement about a decade ago) to increase its life-span for another 50+ years.

    Furthermore, the CoV Parks Board has a policy in place that the Stanley Park Causeway, leading up to the LGB, will be reverted back to parkland circa 2031 effectively shutting down the LGB.

    The CoV has also a policy in place that will not permit any new bridge lanes into the CoV.

    Any "third crossing" of Burrard Inlet was nixed over three decades ago in the CoV anti-freeway debates with progressive CoV forces (including the NDP) opposed to same.

    That's why I don't understand where you are coming from.

     [Apologize for thread drift]

     

    Pages

    Topic locked