Nash has run four times, she won twice and lost twice. Great record!
See my point above. Parkdale High Park has never been an NDP stronghold. She was in fact the first NDP MP for the riding, and the Liberals put a lot of effort in 2008 for winning the seat for Kennedy.
I think the fact that she has ran four times shows determination and commitment. Not bad qualities at all.
Agreed. Mulcair has always seemed impressive to me. I do wonder though what the rush was of Broadbent and Romanow to find an alternative in Topp. Any ideas?
This seems to be Topp's cross to bear in the race.
There is this wide spread presumption that Topp is in there to stop Mulcair. Either that HE is in largely for that reason, and/or that he was 'pressed into duty' ["Why not you Brain"?] by the big shots for that reason.
There is no basis for that other than being a reasonable SUSPICION. But if reason was all that was involved- there is, or should be, stacked against that mere suspicion, the common sense that you know, running for Leader is hard.... and what is the most likely reason people would do that?
And Topp's earliest big supporters [Broadbent, Romanow, and Libby Davies] he has long standing close relations with. You dont suppose that, and the estimation of him they have developed over time, might have something to do with them wanting to support him to be Leader?
What a novel idea.
The persistence of this narrative of Topp being put up to it must mean there is some kind of whisper campaign out there.
[That is to some extent an in-joke, on earlier discussion here.]
I apologize. That quote was suppose to be attributed to Newfoundlander... when I was editing the quote to shorten it, I must have deleted the wrong line. Again, I am sorry.
Unfortunately I can't edit a post in a locked thread.
We do have to be careful when quoting others, but that's no reason for my over the top response. So, I apologise as well.
I haven't seen the debates (I just have dial-up), but I remember Cullen from pushing the Climate Accountability Act in committee, which seemed impressive (at least I think it was Cullen). Yeah, I'm a bit leery to support him given the joint nomination idea.
Regarding Mulcair, I too am a bit curious what is behind Broadbent's and Romanow's quick search for an alternative with Topp. I've always liked Topp's articles in the Globe (Second Reading) but I've also always thought that Mulcair seemed pretty impressive. Does anyone have any idea what is behind Broadbent and Romanow's action?
"Favours owing from decades of faithful work in the trenches? I'm sure you are not going to hear an up-front explanation given...but gosh, wouldn't it ever be a barn-burner if it happened? And wouldn't Steve's propaganda machine drool as it recorded every sordid detail? If such exists?
Naw, let's keep digging for fact."
But, what's this? There is talk of SUSPICIONS!
Ad infinitum.
Since discovering the article on Mulcair's site that seemed to indicate he fully supported more public-private investment in health-care (aka P3s), I did do some more research. Someone here pointed out that he was stellar in representing people's interests regarding opposing proposed tolls on the Champlain Bridge, so I checked that out and verified the poster's claim:
Mr. Speaker, it is funny. Every time I hear the Conservatives talking about a public-private partnership, I get the impression that they really mean a partnership that will line the pockets of the private sector or one that will make the public pay.
Hundreds of thousands of people will pay out of their own pockets for a toll bridge when it costs nothing to cross the existing bridge. The government needs to tell the public why.
TCN: Your party has also stressed that you are
for universal public health care. Your platform
also suggests that the public and private sector
work together by authorizing the public sector to
purchase services from the private sector and by
working in partnership in all aspects of health
care. How exactly will this help the public system
and how will you go about implementing this
partnership?
Mulcair: Our fundamental believe and willingness
is to defend the public health care system. All
were saying is that if you need to have cataracts
surgery, why wouldn’t it be possible to set up a
system where you could go to a clinic, that happens
to belongs to the doctor and have your surgery
there. The government would still pay for the
surgery. So why wouldn’t the government be able
to contract, for a thousand cataract surgeries, with
some doctor that has their own clinic. Why should
[procedures] always have to go through something
that belongs to the government? If somebody
owns an MRI machine that could produce MRIs at
300$ a copy as opposed to a hospital that does it
for $400, why can’t the government buy 10 thousand
MRIs from this clinic over the next five years
and contract that out. What were saying is that
you could always get efficiencies from the private
sector because it is always more efficient than the
public sector. So you could make partnerships
between the public sector and the private sector
for provision of services. But, the service that the
public receives should always be free to the public.
We pay the high taxes because it includes free
health care. You can’t have both you can’t keep high taxes and then all of a sudden say that you
must pay for your own health care.
(Editor’s note: Mulcair went on to explain his parties
stance on a universal health care system by
pointing out that that is where the confusion lies
when we mention the private sector. As suggested
by Mulcair, if the public knows that they will
have free and efficient services, they won’t care
whether or not it is from a hospital or private clinic.
He went into greater detail by explaining how
if the government can save money by contracting
services from clinics, they would then be able to
impose conditions on these clinics, such as staying
open seven days a week, 24 hours a day and
being located near hospitals. Mulcair feels that
this is a creative approach to improving the public
health care system.
When TCN asked if this mean that there’s a place
for the private system in our society. Mulcair
revealed that there is, but only in terms of delivery.
He stressed how actual services must always
remain 100% free.)
The second best part of the leadership campaign for me, after watching all the lefties citing the right-wing media in favour of their candidates, Malcolm, is watching you cite all the Liberal apologists like Don MacPherson, and give them arbiter status over who should lead your party. ;-)
A Quebecker friend of mine today was telling me that what they appreciate is someone who is learning french and speaking it to say things that are relevant in that culture and society. Anyways, we'll know enough to make judgements with by March 24.
You'll note that I've given no particular commentator stand-alone arbiter status. MacPherson, for example, did not include Peggy Nash as oe of those sufficiently competent in French. Yet the split decision of the punditocracy on Nash leans slightly in favour of the quality of her French and the split decision of the punditocracy leans slightly against Cullen on the same score. The verdict on Dewar's French, however, isn't even close.
I've been quite upfront that I am not competent to judge the quality of the candidates' French for myself. Therefore I am left with the option of weighing the opinion of the pundits (of various degrees of partisanship and competence) and the opinions of apologists. I do that with my eyes open. I'm open to being convinced about the sufficiency of Dewar's French, but I'm not holding my breath.
No one is criticizing the quality of Ashton's French, nor Mulcair's, nor Saganash's, nor Topps. More people seem to find Nash's French acceptable than not. It leans slightly the other way for Cullen. The preponderance of opinion from all sources find both Dewar and Singh to be well short.
And I note that your defence isn't that his French is better than the pundits are saying, but rather that I've set the bar too high.
I'm not intending to lower the bar.
Some welcome support.
http://peggynash.ca/2012/open-letter-to-women-across-canada/
I just don't know why you would want to focus so much on an issue that, by your own admission, is not "decisive", when there are other concerns with Nash's candidacy that are. Moreover, while I as a 32-year-old am not offended by your suspicion that 72 might be a little too old to be a politician, perhaps all of the Boomers who recently lost their life's savings in markets that were run like casinos and now face the prospect of having to work into their 70s will be greatly offended. I don't think that your narrative is helping your candidate amongst a demographic that represents the majority of Canadians and members.
I raised an issue in thread 57 for heaven's sake. If I'd thought it was so vitally important, I'd've been all over it far sooner.
I am struck, however, by the petty hypocrisy that it's okay to talk about age for some candidates and not for others.
And as someone who IS a tail-end boomer, who may well have to work well into my 70s, I still think it's a perfectly reasonable issue.
Perhaps if you came up with an argument more substantive than "How dare you . . .!"
closing for length. # 58 is opened
Yes, more of the Aristotelian Golden Mean, by all means. :)We seek to win elections in order to implement our principles.
Those who would sacrifice our principles to win are, by that very fact, unprincipled.
But those who are obsessed with purity to the point that they refuse to take any water in their wine are, in effect if not intent, equally unprincipled.
Perhaps an allusion more in keeping with your proclivities.
When we waffle, we should certainly waffle to the left. However, that openly concedes there will be times we have to waffle.
Some welcome support.
http://peggynash.ca/2012/open-letter-to-women-across-canada/
Martha Findlay, as in recently defeated Willowdale Liberal Martha (Hall) Findlay, as most know her?
Some welcome support.
http://peggynash.ca/2012/open-letter-to-women-across-canada/
Martha Findlay, as in recently defeated Willowdale Liberal Martha (Hall) Findlay, as most know her?
Okay, wow. That is...an interesting endorsement!
I admit that the CAW (esp. Buzz Hargrove) link is off-putting to me as well...but you can`t always judge people by the company they keep!
If it makes you feel better, as far as company kept goes, Buzz campaigned for her Liberal incumbent oppenent in Peggy's first victory.
I dislike the man even more - what a loathesome creature!
If it is "that" Martha Findlay, I can only become interested in her endorsement if it is backed by a party membership.
Hey, guys. There's a new thread. http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-58
