A Liberal with a moustache?
Wed, 2006-04-19 10:11
#1
A Liberal with a moustache?
Wed, 2006-04-19 10:11
#2
quote:
Layton's not being a visionary leader, then, isn't because of external reasons, but because, although he may take a strong stand on certain issues such as equal marriage, he may simply not be a visionary leader. The political route he's chosen reflects this. It involves avoiding even a hint of radicalism, using finesse with the media in the hope of sympathetic coverage, bending to media power, trying to gain an edge by differential policy fragments here and there, and playing tactical games.Moreover, once you're committed to that route or psychologically fixed in it, your mind closes off to doing politics in a different way. When by chance the occasion for elaborating a vision arises anyway, you either miss it or are constitutionally unable to follow through.
Perhaps the most telltale illustration of this pattern occurred in the 2004 campaign. There was only one interesting plank in the NDP's campaign—an inheritance tax. In itself, it was an altogether respectable and conventional proposal, involving only the portion of estates over $1 million and allowing exemptions for in-family transfers of small businesses and family farms.
Most western countries, including the right-wing United States, had such a tax — often, as in the case of the U.S. and the U.K., with much more rigorous provisions. Layton, however, was hammered for the idea in newspaper editorials and other media comment. This media attack turned the proposal into something controversial.
Layton responded defensively. He didn't much talk about the idea after the initial flurry of opposition. Then, a week before the election, he disclosed that the proposal would be sacrificed to other objectives if there were a minority government, since the NDP had been the only party interested in the idea.
“Cutting the policy loose,” was how the decision was described in one news report. Layton denied the tax proposal involved a core principle, explaining it was only put into the platform to ensure an NDP government could finance everything the party was proposing to do.
In a phrase, the plank generated static so it was jettisoned. It was seen as just one of a whole host of policy fragments that one could retain or discard depending on circumstances
A leader with vision, on the other hand, would have reacted in the opposite way, looking on the controversy as a political gift. What made the idea of the inheritance tax interesting was the premise behind it — the creation of a more egalitarian society. The controversy allowed for a high-profile elaboration of that vision and an appeal to liberal democratic sentiment going well beyond an inheritance tax.
[url=http://tinyurl.com/hrcaw]http://tinyurl.com/hrcaw[/url]
Wed, 2006-04-19 11:11
#3
No Yards
I don't disagree with this theory at all ... the inheritance tax is a great example of a good idea being lost to poor leadership.
The tax was right and proper, and Layton allowed the media to spread nonsense about it without so much as even a half hearted attempt at correcting the "inaccuracies" being spread (I'm giving the media the benefit of the doubt by not calling them outright lies.)
He does that a lot, not willing, or able, to show up detractors with a simple telling of the truth. He'd rather go into convoluted meaningless speeches that do everything to not offend the person spreading misinformation, but not a thing to dispel the lies, or explain the truth.
I don't know how many times I've rolled my eyes as Jack refused to directly take on someone spreading misinformation, and instead just muddied up the issue by trying not to be confrontational, but in actuality making it look like he was trying to hide something.
No wonder some people think he's a used car salesman ... that's how he acts sometimes. He's selling a perfectly good car, but when someone comes along and accuses him of selling a car with bald tires, instead of pointing to the tires and showing that they are not bald at all, and that the accuser is a liar, he points to the sales contract and tries to explain how the condition of the tires is not included in the contract.
Wed, 2006-04-19 11:22
#4
I certainly agree about the inheritance tax, and said so at the time. Everything seems tactical, and transparently so. But it goes beyond merely style. Now he's apparently playing footsie with Harper on child care. One has to wonder should Kennedy, Dryden or Dion should win the Liberal leadership, where's the difference?
Wed, 2006-04-19 12:27
#5
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]One has to wonder should Kennedy, Dryden or Dion should win the Liberal leadership, where's the difference?[/b]
The difference is, they'll win government or opposition, and the NDP will not.
The NDP can be effective only when the governing party needs them or when they have new ideas that can be stolen. Neither is the case in this parliament. As long as the Liberals and BQ can't afford an election, the NDP is simply irrelevent except as a PR tool for Stephen Harper.
Wed, 2006-04-19 13:10
#6
I think the point the NDP has to make is that the Liberals have morally squandered the right to be the torch-bearers of the progressive cause.
Wed, 2006-04-19 13:14
#7
No Yards
but must they do this by supporting bad right wing policies? That's not torch-bearing for the progressives, that just replacing one Liberal party with another Liberal party.
Wed, 2006-04-19 13:26
#8
Listening to CBC in the past while,they have had political discussions whose roundtable consisted of Deb Gray,Daniel Turpe,a Liberal whose name escapes me but who was very effective and...Basil.
The other parties had representation,especially the Liberals who had two but the NDP had no one.The NDP seems to be increasingly fractured and ineffective.
Last year,Jack was very effective in Parliament but now,he is not inclined to carve off a piece of Liberal support and position the NDP as the opposition to the CPC while the Libs are in disarray.
Harper's management style is not appreciated by many but it is devasatingly effective.He is going to set Jack up as a patsy.If the NDP doesn't stop dithering aboot,the opportunity to increase support at Liberal expense will fade.
I know,I know,abandoning the cherished ideals of the left in a craven attempt to entice support from the center is verboten to the faithful.
Considering that 40% of Liberal supporters find the CPC doing a good job,the NDP better get off the dime or they may be back to single digits in the next election.
Wed, 2006-04-19 13:35
#9
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b][url=http://tinyurl.com/hrcaw]http://tinyurl.com/hrcaw[/url][/b]
There was only one interesting plank in the NDP's campaign—an inheritance tax. In itself, it was an altogether respectable and conventional proposal, involving only the portion of estates over $1 million and allowing exemptions for in-family transfers of small businesses and family farms.
[end quote]
Consiodering the huge transfer of wealth accruing to boomers from aging parents,a modest inheritance tax on the portion of inheritances over one million is an excellent method of funding social programs.
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:09
#10
Few folks are going to support the NDP because they propose an inheritance tax but many more will oppose the NDP because of it. I would. My parents farm is pushing a million in value and my brother would have to sell it to pay out an inheritance tax? Kids are left their parent's homes in major urban centers....they will have to sell the home to pay tax? Our business with the property could be liquidated for just over a million and our 2 kids (god forbid they wanted to) would have to sell it because of a inheritance tax? My parents wouldn't vote NDP in a million years but we do and so does one of our children. If the NDP had a half-ass chance of forming the governmnet with such a policy, they wouldn't get our votes. We paid our taxes on income over the years and sweated to build up our assets.
So there is a dairy farm outside of Toronto worth 3 million dollars. the tax would be how much? a Million? 300 thousand? how does the son or daughter come up with that type of liquid cash?
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:32
#11
The old "family farm" canard. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] Inheritance taxes can, and have been, constructed so that the tax exempts the "family farm." This paper destroys the myths surrounding the estate tax:
[url=http://www.cbpp.org/estatetaxmyths.pdf]http://www.cbpp.org/estatetaxmyth...
[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: josh ]
Wed, 2006-04-19 15:49
#12
An interesting [url=http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=597&... article[/url] from during the 2004 campaign.
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:30
#13
Sanityatlast: the inheritance tax proposal exempted the family farm. And even the family home. So your concerns are unwarranted. However, this didn't stop the other political parties from spreading misinformation about the NDP inheritance tax policy.
As someone that volunteered hundreds of hours on the 2004 campaign, I can tell you from talking to many voters that they were upset about the inheritance tax proposal and believed that it would involve the family home/estates of [b]any[/b]value.
Seatwarming, socialist purist scribes can cry all they want... if you were active in the 2004 campaign, you were well aware that people who knew the NDP had an inheritance tax plan were dead set against it, and had much misinformation about it.
It was necessary to drop the inheritance tax plan. The NDP needs to go back to the drawing board with that one and package something more palpable.
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:59
#14
This is all the NDP has to offer as an original idea for the new millenium? An inheritance tax? Which they won't even defend? Pity.
Wed, 2006-04-19 21:23
#15
quote:
Originally posted by LukeVanc:
[b]Sanityatlast: the inheritance tax proposal exempted the family farm. And even the family home. So your concerns are unwarranted. However, this didn't stop the other political parties from spreading misinformation about the NDP inheritance tax policy.As someone that volunteered hundreds of hours on the 2004 campaign, I can tell you from talking to many voters that they were upset about the inheritance tax proposal and believed that it would involve the family home/estates of [b]any[/b]value.
Seatwarming, socialist purist scribes can cry all they want... if you were active in the 2004 campaign, you were well aware that people who knew the NDP had an inheritance tax plan were dead set against it, and had much misinformation about it.
It was necessary to drop the inheritance tax plan. The NDP needs to go back to the drawing board with that one and package something more palpable.[/b]
So what is taxed? I would sell our business, buy a farm and leave it to our kids. Or should I buy a million dollar house and leave that to avoid taxes? All that does is skew where wealthy people and not-so-wealthy people with assets will park their wealth. Drive up the price of farms and houses.
[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Sanityatlast ]
Wed, 2006-04-19 21:27
#16
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]This is all the NDP has to offer as an original idea for the new millenium? An inheritance tax? Which they won't even defend? Pity.[/b]
It plays into the hands of those who see the NDP as wanting more state intervention into the family. Mom,dad and the kids having to plot behind closed doors to keep Big Brother from picking their pocket even further. It's a negative policy that's a no-winner.
Wed, 2006-04-19 21:33
#17
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b] Now he's apparently playing footsie with Harper on child care. [/b]
If that's the case, that really ticks me off.
Wed, 2006-04-19 21:42
#18
Here you go, Michelle, time to get ticked off:
quote:
NDP Children & Youth Critic Olivia Chow (Trinity–Spadina) today called on the Conservative government to provide its promised $1200 family allowance tax-free, with no hidden clawbacks.
So the fight against the $1200 phoney child care substitute bribe is over. Now it's: "Make sure we get the full amount!!"
The leadership of this party is a travesty. Read the whole pathetic retreat on
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/3637]the NDP website.[/url]
Wed, 2006-04-19 21:51
#19
Unbelievable.
Wed, 2006-04-19 22:34
#20
The real question will be whether or not they'll support the budget. From a tactical point of view, the only party that [i]really[/i] needs to is the Liberals. I'll wait until I see the budget vote, and the contents of the budget, before I scream bloody murder and proclaim pathetic retreat. Heck for all we know the government might fall due to negligence, no one really wanting an election, but no one really wanting to support the budget. Maybe that's what Harper wants all along, but of course that too would be dangerous. Not even getting one budget through would make it look like he can't really accomplish much.
Wed, 2006-04-19 22:49
#21
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Here you go, Michelle, time to get ticked off:So the fight against the $1200 phoney child care substitute bribe is over. Now it's: "Make sure we get the full amount!!"
The leadership of this party is a travesty. Read the whole pathetic retreat on
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/3637]the NDP website.[/url][/b]
You do know your jumping to conclusions don't you?
Could you please explain why it logically follows that having the NDP demand that the Conservatives follow through on their measly childcare plan automatically means that the NDP has abandoned its support for government funded daycare? This is what Chow pointed out in her press confrence, frankly I don't see why she shouldn't. Why shouldn't the NDP point this out:
quote:
Chow’s demonstration featured Caledon’s analysis of a hypothetical couple with one child and a family income of $30,000:* Annual family allowance: $1,200
* Minus income tax ($362) = $838
* Minus benefit clawback ($390) = $448
* Minus Young Child Supplement ($249) = $199
[b]* Total: $199 per year (less than a dollar a day).[/b]
Please explain?
Wed, 2006-04-19 23:36
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
[b]Please explain?[/b]
Because the debate is no longer how to create child care spaces in order to free women from the kitchen, but rather how to make the Conservative lying scheme more lucrative - for stay-at-home women and working women alike. The only honest stand is: Not $1200, not one penny! Money for affordable day care spaces! Not one cent to stay-at-home parents!
Of course, that requires [b]guts[/b]. It also requires a huge dose of confidence that, when the fight is waged persistently, Canadians are not brainless greedy short-term sound-bite fools, but rather people who will figure it out. Like they figured out medicare.
Am I seriously having to explain this point?
Wed, 2006-04-19 23:41
#23
Ok, VK, I'm going to try a different approach:
Harper announces a cut in health care funding to the provinces and replaces it with a $5,000 "Harper Health Hit" for each and every lucky Canadian. Spend it, save it, do what you like with it!
Jack and Olivia say: No! We need money to create more hospital beds and reduce waiting times! But hey, at least make the $5,000 tax-free and ensure that the poor get full value!
Am I coming through loud and clear? Does the word "shameless opportunistic hypocrite" spring to mind? Do I sound a wee bit angry at these people? Sorry for letting those feelings show.
Wed, 2006-04-19 23:57
#24
What bad right wing policies have the NDP supported?
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
[b]but must they do this by supporting bad right wing policies? That's not torch-bearing for the progressives, that just replacing one Liberal party with another Liberal party.[/b]
Thu, 2006-04-20 00:20
#25
Scott Piatkowski
First, I was upset when the inheritance tax was abandoned, but I was way more upset that there was no significant effort by the party to sell it in the first place. If we're going to put something like that in the platform (which is like including a free hot button with every copy of the platform), we'd better have our arguments lined up and put them forward forcefully before we let the right define the issue for voters.
Second, I think that Olivia is being very clever on child care. She's merely pointing out that the promised $1200 per child isn't everything that it's touted to be (the Caledon Institute has done a lot of good work coming up with the real numbers). The party has always said (in a nutshell) "If you want to give the allowance go ahead, but don't pretend that it's a substitute for a real child care program." To suggest that the NDP is abandoning its principled position in favour of funded and regulated child care is simply incorrect (of course, this wouldn't be the first time that unionist posted misleading information about the NDP).
Lastly, I couldn't let this part of Herschel's piece go by without comment:
quote:
Judy Rebick opined that political leaders had become afraid to show vision with any leading ideas because, if they did, the media would crucify them. Jack Layton had a lot of good ideas, she said in so many words, but he's constrained from talking about them because of the media threat.Well, knock me down with a feather! Isn't a true leader someone who isn't so easily intimidated?
Well, my friend, given that I spent the better part of four years with you on the NDP Media Committee -- during which time you argued pursuasively that media concentration and media bias was a major barrier to progressive change -- I have to say that I'm a little surprised to see you dismissing the role of the media in affecting the public discourse so flippantly.
Thu, 2006-04-20 00:32
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]The party has always said (in a nutshell) "If you want to give the allowance go ahead, but don't pretend that it's a substitute for a real child care program." [/b]
I never accused the NDP of inconsistency on this score. I suggested that they boldly reject and condemn the phoney allowance. Why allow it to go ahead? It's a waste of public funds. It's the equivalent of a tax cut (and not a progressive one at that) under the guise of partially funding a social need.
Chow's April 12 statement has 19 sentences in it. Eighteen of them call for the $1200 to be made tax-free. The 19th and last sentence says:
quote:
[b]Then[/b] we can get on with the [b]even more urgent[/b] need to create affordable childcare spaces.
[My emphasis -- intended to highlight how a politician talks.]
Is this muddy syntax, or just a plain old-fashioned cop-out? How can we implement Harper's tax cut in lieu of child care first, and "THEN" (meaning afterward) go for something which is "EVEN MORE URGENT"? Doesn't "EVEN MORE URGENT" come first, and "THEN" everything else??
It doesn't fool me, Scott, even though it's designed to fool the (hypothetical) greedy voter who can't think past that $1200 lottery prize, while still retaining a faint hope of real child care later, making sure to call it "even more urgent" (so no one can accuse Olivia of selling out).
Thu, 2006-04-20 01:03
#27
I still consider the inheritance tax a good idea. The first million dollars,a business,farm or house exempt.A modest tax on the remainder.
I can see that it would instantly be attacked.It will be villified and scaremongered to death.The fear will always be there that government will incrementally claw back the exemptions as with the capital gains exemption or increase the tax or both.
Crafting an acceptable plan and selling it to the public will require resolve.
Thu, 2006-04-20 02:53
#28
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]I still consider the inheritance tax a good idea.[/b]
I've never understood the (populist) idea that a death tax is bad. Personally, I want my taxes lowered when I'm [i]living[/i].
Thu, 2006-04-20 03:14
#29
quote:
Because the debate is no longer how to create child care spaces in order to free women from the kitchen, but rather how to make the Conservative lying scheme more lucrative - for stay-at-home women and working women alike. The only honest stand is: Not $1200, not one penny! Money for affordable day care spaces! Not one cent to stay-at-home parents!Am I seriously having to explain this point?
Unionist, you should explain that you have grossly distorted and misrepresented Olivia and the NDP's position on child care, for starters. Scott has given a partial response to you earlier in the thread, but the best source is the NDP website itself (see excerpt below from the [url=http://www.ndp.ca/childcare]NDP's child care campaign home page[/url]
quote:
Working Families Need Childcare
Our children’s early years are a foundation for lifelong learning. Quality child care offers kids a head-start and makes life easier for parents who work or study.This election, the Conservatives opposed the funding arrangements with provinces to create child care spaces. But Stephen Harper leads a minority government and will need to compromise. Mr. Harper plans to introduce a per-child payment that would cover a small fraction of families' costs for private child care. What this won't address is the critical shortage of affordable, quality child care spaces and it won’t provide working families with choice.
Last year, after 12 years of Liberal dithering, Ottawa began to sign deals with provinces to start creating new spaces. In total only three contracts with provinces were signed, but the NDP will press the Conservatives to continue and strengthen the modest steps made in the last minority parliament, including stable long term funding for licensed child care spaces.
The NDP will also introduce a National Child Care Act to lay a sturdy foundation for child care. This legislation would ensure two-way accountability — stable federal funding in return for provincial commitments to fund high-quality, non-profit centres. That’s the critical step the Liberals neglected when they inked child care deals. They wouldn’t pass legislation to ensure a sustainable program, and that’s left child care vulnerable.
This session, NDP Child Care Critic Olivia Chow (Trinity-Spadina) is leading the effort to build this more lasting foundation for national child care – and you can help. Check out the links below to learn more and take action.
In other words, the NDP wants to not only create thousands of new child care spaces, but enshrine it in legislation. Jack is proposing actually building a national child care program the way we built Medicare which will culminate with the child care version of the Canada Health Act. This is very different then the "NDP sellout" scenario Unionist has presented, but it happens to be true.
BTW, for those babblers who buy into the "Jack is in bed with Harper to destroy the Liberals'
wonderful national child care program" fallacy, this
[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/04/19/107096.html]persuasive Le Devoir article[/url] demonstrates that this hysteria is largely misplaced. I encourage all babblers who can read French to check out the article, the gist of which is: very few child care spaces will be scrapped as a result of Harper's changes, because [b]there was no national child care program under the Liberals.[/b] There were 3 funding agreements with Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and those will continue for another year, and those provinces will stretch those dollars as best they can. No other province had any plans to create even one new child care space under the Liberals, because the $$ had not been nailed down before the election.
Finally, let's not forget that Quebec created the most advanced universal child care program in Canada during the 90's with zero federal support. Jack is taking exactly the right approach - push for national legislation and long-term funding for child care spaces as an ongoing campaign, and if Harper wants to give $1,200 to parents in the meantime (the NDP campaigned on a similar promise during the 2006 election), let's make sure that money actually gets to the parents.
Thu, 2006-04-20 05:06
#30
West Coast Lefty and Scott pointed out a few things, but I'd like to address a few of unionists points.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:Why allow it to go ahead?
It has nothing to do with "allowing it to go ahead" it has something to do with the NDP adopting its role of one of the opposition parties, and um, opposing. And umm, gee I don't know, pointing out where the government's “plan” doesn't make any sense. If the NDP "allows it to go ahead" by pointing out that the average person will get all of 55 cents per day for childcare, and then gets the Conservatives to not short-change the average family, and then goes on to demand a real childcare programme how exactly will they be being a bad opposition?
Isn't it good to point out how the Conservative plan is ABSOLUTELY USELESS?
Look, I think we both would prefer a government funded programme (at least I think you do), but why mess up a chance to point how useless the Conservative plan is?
Isn't that the [i]opposition's job[/i]?
Why is pointing out that all the average person will receive is fifty-five measly cents a day bad?
Doesn't that put into real terms for the average person? I mean jeez, you can't buy anything with fifty-five cents, can you?
quote:
Then we can get on with the even more urgent need to create affordable childcare spaces.
Exactly, [b]then they[/b] can do that very thing. And they can be judged on whether or not they advocate for that position or not.
P.S check your PM's West Coast Lefty.
Thu, 2006-04-20 08:54
#31
[ 08 June 2007: Message edited by: pink ]
Thu, 2006-04-20 08:59
#32
It's not trolling to not support the NDP.
That said, I did read the whole press release and it's true that near the end, it said,
quote:
“Delivering the family allowance through the Child Tax Benefit program would keep every penny in the hands of working families that need it — without hidden taxes and claw-backs. Then we can get on with the even more urgent need to create affordable childcare spaces.”
But I think the press release was laid out terribly. They should make it clear from the start that this $1,200 is not a child care program. THEN they should go on to say that if they're going to give a family allowance, that it should be tax free. The way it's laid out now makes it look like they're just capitulating to the Tory policy and quibbling over the details.
Thu, 2006-04-20 09:21
#33
[ 08 June 2007: Message edited by: pink ]
Thu, 2006-04-20 11:09
#34
quote:
Rest assured that anything the NDP does (tax or not tax - perfect example) will come under attack. Much better to support the Liberals - why let 12 years of ignoring the child care issue get in the way?
The new mantra?
Criticizing the NDP = Supporting the liberals
Thu, 2006-04-20 11:40
#35
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic2:
[b]The new mantra?Criticizing the NDP = Supporting the liberals[/b]
It makes more sense than the old mantra:
Criticizing the Liberals = Supporting the Conservatives
Thu, 2006-04-20 12:06
#36
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Because the debate is no longer how to create child care spaces in order to free women from the kitchen, but rather how to make the Conservative lying scheme more lucrative - for stay-at-home women and working women alike. The only honest stand is: Not $1200, not one penny! Money for affordable day care spaces! Not one cent to stay-at-home parents!
Of course, that requires [b]guts[/b]. It also requires a huge dose of confidence that, when the fight is waged persistently, Canadians are not brainless greedy short-term sound-bite fools, but rather people who will figure it out. Like they figured out medicare.
Am I seriously having to explain this point?[/b]
The NDP platform called for an increase in the Child Tax Benefit of $1000 per child. The Conservatives policy, as implemented, will give those who need it most less than what the NDP wanted to give them. Why on earth is it wrong to get the Conservatives to change their policy to make it closer to something the NDP included in their platform?
Thu, 2006-04-20 15:16
#37
According to Le Devoir, Quebec comes out ahead to the tune of $250 million with the Tory plan. But Quebec already has a system with 200,000+ places it created without ever waiting for federal subsidies.
Interestingly, under the federal Liberal deal, Ontario would have created no more than 25,000 - 25 thousand - daycare places over 5 years! 5,000 places per year according to Le Devoir's report of Ontario's official figures. This was the big plan - and Ontario would get the lion's share.
I think Layton may be playing things here more intelligently than some give him credit for.
Le Devoir reports that the cancellation of the Liberal plan will mean, at most, that 10,000 places that do not exist now will not get built. That's it - the Liberal plan being cancelled means 10,000 spaces not built. Quebec will add that every year or every 6 months.
So Olivia Chow demanding that the 1,200 at least go totally to parents no strings attached, no clawbacks, no tax cutbacks, is a vast improvement over the status quo and does not prevent people from continuing to want some form of universal daycare program, fedrally- or provincially-funded.
In the past few weeks, there has been this growing chorus of voices that the NDP is in bed with the Tories, which seems unfounded. Maybe the NDP is not trying to baillonnette the Tories every day, but it is an opposition party doing what it was elected to do in the circumstances of a minority parliament - oppose bad government policy, keep the government clean and make sure it delivers on things that can make sense, and propose better solutions.
As for the inheritance tax, the NDP in June 2004 kind of sprung it on people without preparing them. It sounds like it can be a good fiscal policy idea but it should be discussed 3 years before elections, debated, examined by tax specialists, etc.
In 2004, I was helping with phoning for a local candidate in an area with a heavy immigrant worker population and we were given no arguments to defend the inheritance tax idea. Boy were the Italians and Portuguese angry - I learned logts of Portuguese and Italian swear words that summer. They were convinced we wanted to steal their homes. In Toronto, it is easy to have a family home worth 750,000 - many immigrant families have bought duplexes or triplexes. If the mom and dad have a company pension, you easily make it over 1 million bucks, or that's what many of them said or claimed (or rather yelled) over the phone. We were "communisti!" who were ready to expropriate little old Italian nonnas (grandmothers). It was weird. And funny (images of mobs of tiny women in black descending on the office with brooms to beat us)
Phone canvassers were giwen no preparation or training on how to respond. The heat was very high so Layton may have felt forced to withdraw the idea.
Now the idea may appear tainted in Canadian politics for a few years despite being quasi universally adopted in the OECD.
[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]
Thu, 2006-04-20 15:34
#38
[ 08 June 2007: Message edited by: pink ]
Thu, 2006-04-20 16:27
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]If that's the case, that really ticks me off.[/b]
It isn't, except it the fevered minds of people who don't pay attention.
Thu, 2006-04-20 16:33
#40
Ok, a more involved response is needed.
There is nothing inherently wrong with giving money to people who need it - raising children is expensive. The problem is when giving a little boost ($100/mo) is all that is done, and it is done instead of a child care plan, which is needed a lot more.
Personally, I'd love to see parents recieve a family allowance or increase in the Child Tax benefit. We have a million kids living in poverty in this country - we should be ashamed and working to change it. An income boost would help.
That doesn't mean we don't need a child care system in place, which we very urgently do.
I think what bugs me about this whole thing is that we are told it is an 'either-or' discussion. Horsemanure - both policies should be implemented, the child care plan and an income boost. I suggest paying for it by cancelling the proposed GST reduction.
If that's not enough, take it from the dead.
Thu, 2006-04-20 18:27
#41
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
[b]I think what bugs me about this whole thing is that we are told it is an 'either-or' discussion. Horsemanure - both policies should be implemented, the child care plan and an income boost.
[/b]
You certainly aren't being told that by the [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/3641]NDP[/url].
Thu, 2006-04-20 22:10
#42
I agree with Josh 100%
Layton is unfit for leadership
Thu, 2006-04-20 22:32
#43
quote:
Originally posted by pink:
[b]
What's 'unbelievable' is that anyone takes 'unionist' seriously, when she/he continually trolls this board.[/b]
Strange, isn't it, that even though my views are not well thought out, nor show any deeply-held principles, that I'm just a "troll", that people still take them seriously enough to feel they need to reply. I guess your emotionally-charged witchhunt type of comment also applies to my views on support for the Palestinian people's struggle and my views that Canada should get out of Afghanistan now? Or is that just part of the troll's clever bag of tricks?
Thu, 2006-04-20 22:37
#44
quote:
Originally posted by pink:
[b]The NDP get's it both for wanting and not wanting an inheritance tax. The posts from 'unionist' are tiresome and boring. [/b]
Try to be a teensy bit tolerant and stifle your yawns long enough to pay attention:
1. For a party with the NDP's history and credentials, an inheritance tax -- [b]which is a good thing[/b] is just not inspiring or motivating enough [b]by itself[/b] to carve out an space for progressive ideals in the current Canadian political landscape. It's already old hat in the U.S. and elsewhere. [b]But it's a good thing for the NDP to pursue it.[/b]
2. When the NDP capitulates on this little point under fire, it weakens the progressive forces.
You can yawn now and condescend and call names again. Just wanted to make sure when you found my message tiresome and boring, you at least knew what you were condemning.
[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]
Fri, 2006-04-21 02:53
#45
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
[b]You certainly aren't being told that by the [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/3641]NDP[/url].[/b]
I know that, you know that. It appears that some people on here didn't know that.
Fri, 2006-04-21 08:17
#46
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
[b]but must they do this by supporting bad right wing policies? That's not torch-bearing for the progressives, that just replacing one Liberal party with another Liberal party.[/b]
Traditional social democratic or democratic socialist politics (to say nothing of full-blown Marxist-Leninism of the old Soviet Bloc which until a couple of decades ago offered an alternative to the free enterprise capitalist system in the developing world) are as dead as the dodo bird in western societies these days so the ideological difference between the NDP and the Liberals is not as great as it used in economic policy terms back in the 1970s.
The NDP could still be all about standing up for the more socially marginalized within society in a populist mad as hell and not going to take it any more sort of way against the more elite oriented Liberals and Conservatives but instead appears to push a more urban middle class social activist sort of agenda a lot of the time thus ceding the rural populist vote to the Conservatives.
Fri, 2006-04-21 11:19
#47
Or maybe this:
1) Layton is from municipal politics. In city politics, partisan lines are not hard or set in cement and people fight over one issue, cooperate over the next, then split gain over the third issue. Perhaps the House is not the chambers of Toronto city council where Layton gained his political experience, but his actions may appear familiar to people who like watching city hall shenanigans
2) if Canada ever implements proportional representation, you will get minority governments with shifting alliances. Maybe Layton is just trying to show Canadians what PR would look like. He is "walking the PR walk" before it is even implemented. With PR, this is how I think Canadians would want their politicians to behave - act responsibly, oppose when needed, propose alternatives when possible, stop polarizing artificially all the time for the sake of being on the TV news by asking an artificially exaggerated question in an artificially angry tone of voice during the Question Period circus as if the apocalypse were just around the corner
Maybe he is where he wants to be. Or maybe that's just his style learned in municipal politics.
I just don't see any thing "Liberal" in Layton if you mean centrist а la Chrйtien.
Fri, 2006-04-21 11:39
#48
Or maybe this:
The NDP is in a precarious position for its survival. I don't know how it is going to improve its standing. Where is the base for expansion? In the last election folks were originally predicting '65 seats', etc. The Liberal Party was in a tailspin, the Cons not yet tested and what did the party get with all these stars alligning in perfect order for an NDP breakthrough? Why will it be any better next election? The only silver lining for the NDP was the mediocre results of the Green Party. the Greens may have lost their momentum and thus attraction...maybe.
Layton knows a quick election could be a disaster. The Cons becoming the federalist alternative in Quebec and winning a majority. Everyone is waiting for the Cons to shoot themselves in the foot but that is a passive strategy. When you're losing in a hockey game you don't wait for the other team to pt the puck in its own net.
Fri, 2006-04-21 11:47
#49
It's all just speculation anyway, we're just having fun.
None of us is in the secret strategy rooms of the NDP or in the minds of electors right now.
Sure, he's weaker than everyone thought he could be (did people seriously say 65 seats? - NDP pollsters need a sense of proportion or a better calculator program on their computers). But less than 10% of teh population pay any serious attention to politics, and it's summer soon so none of this probably matters right now.
Fri, 2006-04-21 13:12
#50
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
[b]None of us is in the secret strategy rooms of the NDP...[/b]
Some us are. Sometimes.
But, really, you overestimate both the secrecy and the strategy [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 21 April 2006: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]
Fri, 2006-04-21 13:24
#51
It was weird, a friend of mine mentioned a mutual acquaintance 2 weeks ago we think might be in the "war room" (is that what they call the inner sanctum, the holy of holies, the braintrust, the place with the big cookie jar?).
A fellow called Garcia. Used to be with Actra, the performance union.
Does that mean I'm closer than I think to the secret room where the bad men pull the strings? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 21 April 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]