We're all ears and eyeballs George. Post us a link or two to this plan of Mulcair's.
And can you or anybody else offer a reason that such an obvious plan would not be in or at least linked from the website?
I was told my someone in his campaign that policy papers will be rolled out in the new year.
Topp has a plan. It doesnt cover a lot of territory, or pretend to. It focuses on a political obstacle we need to clear- even more, that we need to turn to our advantage.
Nash has a comprehensive economic plan that does not take any looking around for.
Dewar has lots of policy planks. Ditto, you can find them quickly.
Where is this plan of Mulcair's you are always talking about George? He has said a bunch of things you like. No one is going to take your word for it. They will go to the website. Nothing there. OK, maybe it isnt on the website. But where else is it?
Aaron Wherry linked to the PDF here.
Thanks, OO. And there have been many more videos, each with that message and more.
That's also available on his site, at the bottom of the story about his cap and trade plan being endorsed by Weaver.
http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...
Mulcair also supports a financial transfer tax, not necessarily global (which Nash supports).
I think the key is to try and figure out who will be good all the time in about 2-3 years. If you limit yourself to who's fully formed now, you might be missing the candidate who has the most scope for personal growth.
If I had the same criteria as David Young, I might come to the same conclusion as he did about who to support. But I'm closer to Vansterdam in post #28. I don't think we need someone who can "take on Harper" the way the popular (and not very effective) narrative imagines will defeat him. I think we need someone who can outfox and out-charm Harper instead, and build a mandate for social democratic change at the same time. To me that takes a much wider range of skills.
I know that makes sense from a certain perspective, but here's another one:
Historically most Leaders' of the Official Opposition have either been destroyed in their first year and never recovered, or they've survived their first year barely intact and gone on to become prime minister.
Look at the list of Leaders' who had terrible first years followed by quick elections (if memory serves): Clark, Turner, Day, Dion, Igantieff and Duceppe (who lost Official Opposition status for the BQ).
Maybe this has more to do with not having the chance to recover after the first year--which our next leader will presumably have in spades--but it does still underscore the importance of that first year.
Where is this plan of Mulcair's you are always talking about George? He has said a bunch of things you like. No one is going to take your word for it. They will go to the website. Nothing there. OK, maybe it isnt on the website. But where else is it?
Aaron Wherry linked to the PDF here.
George keeps talking about an economic plan. This does not pretend to be an economic plan. So I am still waiting to see it.
Follow the links back and there is a backgrounder with a few paragraphs that are the same thing you get in the newspaper articles.
There is no plan about cap and trade, only a signalling it will be important or something like that.
Like I said, if the NDP's cap and trade plan is to fly- then you need to sell the politically sensitive aspects of it. Which starts AT LEAST with some kind of discussion within the NDP that you will, why, and some sense of how. Otherwise its just something that sits on the shelf as it has for the last five years.
D is over again and feeling dizzy with some double vision at different distances, still will get back to page 44 but not today. Excuse the superficial nature of my comments.
Western Opinion did surveys that they tried to make look came from the NDP - so who knows who is putting what out. Note that Western Opinion and all their fake aliases support the Tories!
Dear friend,It takes courage to say it's time for the wealthy to pay more taxes.
Libby Davies
MP Vancouver EastPS - if you have questions or comments for Brian or me, feel free to let us know. We'd be happy to respond!
[email protected]
Think that what Mulcair liked was balanced budgets and that this is what he is stressing (despite whatever other baggage these leaders may have).
I want the Prime Minister/party leader to be way smarter than me, not just compassionate or grounded in social justice causes. I need to know that they're strategically smart and an effective politician. If they have both things, whereas one candidate only has the strategic smarts, I'll choose the candidate with both. But if one has more strategic smarts and the other has more social justice values, then the person with the strategic smarts who is the more effective politician is the one I'd have to go with.
As a thought experiment - imagine Jack, David Lewis and Tommy Douglas discussing this - what would they be impressed with and what would they find shocking? What kinds of arguments would they be having with each other over these debates?
Note to self, start at # 77
excerpt:
She isn't advocating raising anyone's taxes, as has fellow candidate Brian Topp. And she doesn't follow candidate Tom Mulcair's example in using the derogatory term "tarsands" when discussing Alberta's energy developments, opting for the less inflammatory "oilsands."
Well, that's two things I disagree with her about. I want to tax the sh*t out of the rich, eliminate corporate tax breaks, and the tar sands are definitely tar f*cking sands.
excerpt:
And she has kind words for Stephen Harper. "I found him easy to talk to," she says, recalling an exchange she had with the PM shortly after NDP leader Jack Layton died.
Yeah, okay - a time of grief isn't the place for angry words. But, get real! Harper is eviscerating this country - or haven't you noticed???
It's important to note whenever this comes up that "tar sands" is actually the correct term.
The term "tar sands" has long been more widely used than "oil sands"--all well before there was any controversy surrounding their development. The latter term has been deliberately promoted only in the last two decades in an attempt to soft peddle the environmental impacts of tar sands development.
The most vocal opponents of the term "tar sands" rely most on people's ignorance when trying to push the idea that "oil sands" is the neutral term and "tar sands" the propaganda term rather than the other way around. But, when pressed, they usually insist that "tar sands" is technically incorrect because the tar sands aren't made of tar.
Of course, (a) they aren't made of oil either, (b) that's not how language works and (c) they were called the tar sands because they look and feek LIKE tar, not because someone mistakenly thought they were MADE out of tar.
I feel this is oddly important. The right takes ridiculous liberties in the "renaming/reframing" game. If we're actually at the point were they can convince us that their made up propaganda terms are the "real" terms--and that the historically accepted terms are somehow the propaganda terms--then I fear all may be lost.
I wouldn't ascribe this to Peggy Nash specifically, but--even without them knowing the history on this--I feel the willingness of progressive leaders to accept the transition to the words "oil sands" over the last teb years or so shows a disturbing weakness on their part.
Look at the list of Leaders' who had terrible first years followed by quick elections (if memory serves): Clark, Turner, Day, Dion, Igantieff and Duceppe (who lost Official Opposition status for the BQ). Maybe this has more to do with not having the chance to recover after the first year--which our next leader will presumably have in spades--but it does still underscore the importance of that first year.
Just a few corrections here. Turner was not leader of the opposition when he was destroyed. he succeeded Trudeau and was PM just like Kim Campbell (briefly)! then he lost the election. On the other hand here are some other examples of opposition leaders who did have bad starts: Pearson in 1957/58, Stephen Harper got off to a rough start in 2004 and almost quit after losing the '04 election.
Chretien had a rough first year as opposition leader in 1990/91 but ended up winning in 1993. Mulroney became opposition leader in 1983 surged in the polls and never looked back until well into his second term as PM.
I know that makes sense from a certain perspective, but here's another one: Historically most Leaders' of the Official Opposition have either been destroyed in their first year and never recovered, or they've survived their first year barely intact and gone on to become prime minister. Look at the list of Leaders' who had terrible first years followed by quick elections (if memory serves): Clark, Turner, Day, Dion, Igantieff and Duceppe (who lost Official Opposition status for the BQ). Maybe this has more to do with not having the chance to recover after the first year--which our next leader will presumably have in spades--but it does still underscore the importance of that first year.I think the key is to try and figure out who will be good all the time in about 2-3 years. If you limit yourself to who's fully formed now, you might be missing the candidate who has the most scope for personal growth.
If I had the same criteria as David Young, I might come to the same conclusion as he did about who to support. But I'm closer to Vansterdam in post #28. I don't think we need someone who can "take on Harper" the way the popular (and not very effective) narrative imagines will defeat him. I think we need someone who can outfox and out-charm Harper instead, and build a mandate for social democratic change at the same time. To me that takes a much wider range of skills.
That's a very useful refinement, AM, because I don't want them starting from scratch either. Thanks. I agree that the first year is critical.
What I don't think will be effective in the first year is just to give the press gallery the kind of rowdy, nasty Question Period they like to cover. A lot more will be entailed than that. I worry that when people say "to take on Harper" that that's all they have in mind. That's the strategy the Liberals used, and while it won them a lot of praise in the press gallery, it turns out the gallery hasn't got the first clue about the country outside the bubble or how politics works. Thus in trying to curry favour with them, they wasted a lot of time and effort that wasn't invested into anything that would have helped. And also they left a vacuum right after their leadership race that the Conservatives (and even the NDP a bit, if you remember the "new face, same old lemon" web ad campaign) were happy to fill.
Where is this plan of Mulcair's you are always talking about George? He has said a bunch of things you like. No one is going to take your word for it. They will go to the website. Nothing there. OK, maybe it isnt on the website. But where else is it?
Aaron Wherry linked to the PDF here.
George keeps talking about an economic plan. This does not pretend to be an economic plan. So I am still waiting to see it.
Follow the links back and there is a backgrounder with a few paragraphs that are the same thing you get in the newspaper articles.
There is no plan about cap and trade, only a signalling it will be important or something like that.
Like I said, if the NDP's cap and trade plan is to fly- then you need to sell the politically sensitive aspects of it. Which starts AT LEAST with some kind of discussion within the NDP that you will, why, and some sense of how. Otherwise its just something that sits on the shelf as it has for the last five years.
Backgrounder linked above really states that Mulcair is proposing an "upstream" cap and trade system that would extend beyond previous plans proposed by the party to "include all major emission sources rather than only the 700 largest emitters regulated by current legislation". Call that a proposal or commitment rather than a plan, but it is just flat wrong to say he's "only a signalling it will be important or something like that."
Most "plans" proposed in political campaigns consist of a list of bullet point policies as we've seen from other candidates in this race on other issues. This seems to be no different except that here Mulcair is proposing to extend existing party policy.
We'll get it implemented--Mulcair's version or our proposal from the last election--by either (a) forming government or (b) forcing the existing government to act. We tried (b) in the last parliament by passing climate change legislation through the House of Commons but Harper used the Senate to kill it. The policy is clear. The public service will obviously be needed to implement the nitty, gritty, but more detail from the party is not what's needed.
Okay, I didn't get the Sun reference first time around. Sorry!
I thought the Sun chain was limited to Ontario.
Different chain. "Vancouver Sun", not "SUN". But definitely not NDP friendly.
It's something that the Broadbent Institute needs to seriously look at, for sure.
I've learned something about the Vancouver Sun. Thanks.
Is there an "NDP friendly" in the firmament?
In the obit for Kent the other day, it was noted that not one of his commission's recommendations regarding the press has been implemented.
@ AnonymousMouse, post111
The backgrounder does not say it will extend the existing NDP plan- in fact, it does not referr to it. Although, obviously some reporters were told that it is rooted in that [because none of them would likely have known that]. And I can tell that the sketchy outline Mulcair puts out is consistent with the 5 year old plan.
Again, I'm not expecting detail. But core parts of the plan- presuming it is the existing NDP one- are politically sensitive, and that is why we have seen only occassioonal references to it in the last 5 years- and never even a big picture painted of the whole plan.
So what good is is just Mulcair referring to it? What does that get us? You want the man to be leader anyway. Why should the rest of us think he means to do any more than the staus quo mention 'there is a cap and trade plan' that we have been getting?
The climate change legislation we pushed and Harper killed was not an attempt to implement our proposed legislation. That bill was neither a comprehensive policy, nor was it politically sensitive in going places the NDP has not been ready to go.
Could you name off the basic elements of the NDP climate change package [which Cullen was the major architect of], and how they relate to each other? If so, you are in a fairly small minority even among policy aware people in the NDP.
I want the Prime Minister/party leader to be way smarter than me, not just compassionate or grounded in social justice causes. I need to know that they're strategically smart and an effective politician. If they have both things, whereas one candidate only has the strategic smarts, I'll choose the candidate with both. But if one has more strategic smarts and the other has more social justice values, then the person with the strategic smarts who is the more effective politician is the one I'd have to go with.Reminds me of an old Jon Stewart comment about wanting a leader superior to himself. Smart is important but you have to figure that the 1% would not be getting away with what they are getting away with if they are not smart. Not all pro business types have the intellectual endowment of a Republican leadership candidate or wrapping paper or else they would be easy to defeat. Most wolves in sheeps clothing (ie Fiberals) are also smart. It can't be either / or - it has to be both (not that this will be a problem).
As a thought experiment - imagine Jack, David Lewis and Tommy Douglas discussing this - what would they be impressed with and what would they find shocking? What kinds of arguments would they be having with each other over these debates?
Note to self, start at # 77
I know that my quote had a certain tinge of Stewart's allegedly 'elitist' requirement to it. Our leaders are human too, but they ought to be a little less human (i.e. imperfect than the average person) to be effective. One would need to if they're going to work 16 hour days most of the year and try to solve the various problems that plague this world, while being constantly attacked for it.
The fact of the matter however is that a little finesse, and dare I say under handedness and sheer tenacity to do short-term unpopular things for the sake of the long term good is necessary to succeed at such a high level, i.e. win government. I think the right is far more effective at this. The left always shies away from it, or uses it incorrectly by attacking its own base out of some misplaced attempt to seem reasonable, or by being afraid to attack the right out of some mis-placed fears of inadequacies on its perceived weaker points like the economy, or by being afraid of looking "negative" or something bizarre like that. If the leader comes across as a light touch who wants to "work together" with "all sorts of" people and other sunshine and roses crap like that, then I'm afraid they'll probably turn into an Obama and the Democrats-esque flop.
In any case, I think they all of the leadership candidates have a pretty strong antipathy to the 1% as it stands now and are grounded to some degree in social justice causes. I don't think any of them are entirely divorced from them. I'm not entirely worried that they'll deliberately sell out the 99%. I'm more concerned with who is effective in balancing things better and being an advocate for the 99% in this age of the 1%.
The public service will obviously be needed to implement the nitty, gritty, but more detail from the party is not what's needed.
Detail is not required, at all. Nor is the issue implementaion. We are light years from being on the cusp of implementation problems.
We have to sell this puppy, and that requires even in early stages at least an overall picture of the whole plan.
Interesting... I've heard he's been underwhelming at most of his meet and greets. Besides "knowing a lot", what impressed you, Stock and Lou? I've seen him perform in scrums, panels, and during the debate and the forum at the BC conventions. Not very impressive. Did you find him much different?
I dont know where you are collecting these opinions. It is at the meet and greets where Brian has a chance to interact with people that he does the best.
This was more "town hall" than "meet and greet", and I think that distinction matters--from what I could tell from last night he is still more at home informally in front of a crowd than he is informally one-on-one. But he's better one-on-one than he was just a few months ago, too (he spent a good chunk of time after the event was over talking to a young First Nations woman who was blown away by one of his answers), and man is he good now in this sort of informal, him-and-a-crowd format. Totally in his element.
Another opinion from the same evening: Babbler David Climenhaga's first impressions.
This is very consistent with what I've heard--including on Rabble, frankly. Out of sorts in the debates, big rooms and mingling social settings, but much better a the head of a smaller room (10 to 40 people) talking and talking questions.
That makes a lot of sense since what Topp has been successful at is leading in THAT kind of environment--managing a team, particularly a political team--as opposed to being a candidate or political leader.
