I thought Willy Brant had the title of building the welfare state in Germany.
But then again, I am not a history book and recalling things from memory. So do correct me and educate me on these matters 
Better to be proven wrong than to remain ignorant.
Edit: Christian democrats are way different than North American conservatives. They do lean right, but they have a heart. Blue tories like the ones we have here are much different. I would call the Christian Democrats in Europe as centrist.
Don't get me wrong. I support moving to a system of PR. But I also think we are being delusional if we assume for one second that when push comes to shove - the Liberal Party will EVER put the NDP in power when all of their Bay St. masters will read them the riot act and demand that they prop up the Tories.
Wouldn't that mean that the only way for the NDP to obtain power is through winning an outright majority?
If the Liberals don't prop up an NDP government if given the chance, they will likely lose a lot of their support and condemn themselves to oblivion as they will win hardly any seats if they go under 15%.
If the 2015 election doesn't produce a majority, the post-election negotiating will be fascinating. In such a case, electoral reform may likely be the biggest negotiating chip as it was in the UK after their recent election that produced a minority. Hopefully the Liberals would be smarter than the Liberal Democrats were and not sell their souls in order to get a referendum on electoral reform that is doomed to failure because it is associated with a party that's sold out their supporters who mostly detested the Conservatives. In retrospect, the Liberal Democrats should have made a deal with Labour, especially since Labour agreed to implement AV immediately and have a referendum on PR. As it's turned out, the Liberal Democrats are likely going to head into oblivion after the 2015 election and will have nothing to show for their deal with the Conservatives. If the Liberals are smart, if they find themselves in the same poisition as the LD's found themselves in, they'll agree to prop up the NDP in exchange for implementing PR as PR would insure the Liberal's long term survival, albeit in a smaller role than they're used to.
I thought Willy Brant had the title of building the welfare state in Germany.
But then again, I am not a history book and recalling things from memory. So do correct me and educate me on these matters
Edit: Christian democrats are way different than North American conservatives. They do lean right, but they have a heart. Blue tories like the ones we have here are much different. I would call the Christian Democrats in Europe as centrist.
Bismark brought the gathering of statistics that allowed the gathering of precise knowledge about the demographics/needs of the old principalities that he'd gathered together and presented to a Kaiser. But he also believed in using that knowledge for social control, so that he could say in paternalistic confidence, that the public should not be informed about state secrets any more than about the contents of their sausages. :)
In retrospect, the Liberal Democrats should have made a deal with Labour, especially since Labour agreed to implement AV immediately and have a referendum on PR. As it's turned out, the Liberal Democrats are likely going to head into oblivion after the 2015 election and will have nothing to show for their deal with the Conservatives. If the Liberals are smart, if they find themselves in the same poisition as the LD's found themselves in, they'll agree to prop up the NDP in exchange for implementing PR as PR would insure the Liberal's long term survival, albeit in a smaller role than they're used to.
Of course one of the reasons the LDs couldn't support Labour was that they didn't have enough seats to give Labour a majority...they would have needed support from Ulster Unionists and Scottish and Welsh Nationalists to have something like a three seat majority! Also, Gordon Brown was by all accounts a miserable guy who was impossible to deal with...its news to me that Labour ever offered AV with no referendum.
I still think that unless the NDP wins a majority - the Liberals will be forced by their corporate benefactors to keep the Tories in power. Throughout canadian history - when Liberals have to choose between the NDP and the Conservatives - they ALWAYS ally themselves with Conservatives. They only cooperate with the NDP when they are the party that will be in the drivers seat.
The NDP had the best ever election results last election running against the Liberals as well as the Cons. Why in the world would we want to change direction now? Answer: The NDP doesn't want to change direction in that area.
Idealistic Prag ... agree with your sense of beauty (bottom previous thread). Arthur, second that about JeffWells's post #9.
Re Statistics: 29% and 27% seem to me, without looking at the numbers, to be within the margin of error.
Hope the Quebec debate is on CPAC so that I can watch it. The Scottish translator is my friend, though I have never met the guy.
If someone can youtube the NDP debate comments on Newt and Mitt - tell me and I'll help spread it around.
As it is under FPTP, the "social democratic" NDP can't easily call for raising taxes on the top 1%. Saganash's question to Topp was very revealing. Is Topp playing into the hands of the Conservative attack machine by mentioning tax increases on the very wealthy?
Commented on this at the bottom of the previous thread. Saganash was basically suggesting ways of getting money off the 1% without opening oneself to the usual right-wing spin campaign when one goes after income tax (because the middle class pays income tax). Some of this was closing loopholes that allow the 1% to pay less income tax than they are officially supposed to be paying and some of it was going after/creating other taxes that the middle class don't/wouldn't pay. Saganash's method also went after corporate taxes.
If Saganash's method can get as much money off of the 1% as he was hinting, I think that we should try it. Also, it may be prudent to spend the first 4 year term staffing off the loopholes and off shore what you call thems before going after income tax on the 1% in the second term. Saganash and Topp are basically arguing over what to do the first term in office.
It is something that should be looked into.
Howard, this weekend his mother's best friend died. The funeral is today. I think this article goes some distance to explaining what the loss means to both the community and to Romeo Saganash himself.
Rest in peace, Jackie Gull.
I wish people knew how to understand polls, instead of just repeating them. A poll isn't a prediction. It's a snapshot of where things are now. That means that numbers can be depressed or inflated, depending on circumstances. Right now they're blatantly depressed: a caretaker interim leader, no election on the horizon, a dull leadership race, and our heavyweights spending too much time outside parliament. All things that will change soon and instantly improve.
I fully admit that the polls show that Mulcair would help us bounce back substantially. The thing that the polls can't show is what would happen if we picked another leader who goes from relatively unknown to our official spokesperson. Nearly any of the candidates would outperform Turmel. They'd start getting at least SOME of the coverage that's somehow been annointed to Bob Rae. Plus, having some of those MPs back in Parliament would take some spotlight away from the Liberals, and turn up the pressure on the Conservatives.
And most of all, there IS someone who would make a great leader, but hasn't been introduced to the Canadian people yet. Our job as NDP supporters isn't to look at a narrow snapshot of what's going on now and just roll with the polls, but to look at someone's actual political acumen and reputation and see if they could win hearts and minds, given the chance. The answer could be Mulcair, but it could easily be someone else.
Social democrat--
What evidence will you use to determine which candidate would be able to consolidate the NDP gains in QC?
Remember that jack layton developed a real "capital de sympathie" way before May 2nd. It was reflected by his constant presence on QC "pop culture" shows like Infoman, Laflaque, and TLMEP. It was also reflected in the polls; the NDP was at 20% in QC before the 2011 campagin even started, the highest level of support since the 1980s. There seemed to be clear potential there. Do you have evidence that any of the candidates, other than Mulcair, have similar potential?
Specifically w/ regards to poll:
I agree that polls are snapshots, but polling trends are important. W/ Layton, the NDP was trending up in QC from the moment he became leader. The NDP is now tredning down and that trend might accelerate if we pick a leader who does not ALREADY have a real connection w/ QCers. The new leader will not have nearly a decade to "run under the radar" and build the kind of magic Layton ultimately had.
Social democrat--
What evidence will you use to determine which candidate would be able to consolidate the NDP gains in QC?
I think they are saying that the next election is in 2015 and that "a week is a long time in politics." With the NDP headed back to 4th place in the polls, I just worry if it will be a permanent move or "just visiting."
The polls for Mulcair ARE decent evidence. But what's better evidence, IMO, is how quickly he turned Outremont from a 3rd place riding, into first place, into coat-tails for other gains in Quebec. What's also good evidence is how he handles himself in a debate. Skills, track record, that kind of stuff is worth its weight in gold.
I take the polls less seriously, because a lot of it is just name recognition. If you don't have the political skill (communication, leadership, strategy, organization) to back up that name recognition, you'll see the situation turn around very quickly. Vice versa, if you have a shitty polling situation, but you have all the right skills, you'd be amazed how quickly the polls can turn around. 4 years is like an eternity.
It's why Nash is still high on my list. She's peeled off a riding from an extremely well-funded and well-promoted Liberal candidate. Her French is better than Jack's. She's an experienced parliamentarian who can handle debate in a very important area: Finance.
I can do this for other candiates I like too. Saganash. Topp.
Jack Layton was basically unknown outside Toronto in 2003, and look what he achieved in 8 years. We have half as long until 2015, but our position is immeasureably better than it was in 2003.
Another measure of a leader is the kind of candidates he/she can draw to the Party.
I can see Mulcair recruiting the quality candidates that will be needed for the NDP to form a majority government in 2015.
The same with Nash.
A Mulcair/Nash or Nash/Mulcair Leader/Deputy team would be ideal for attracting electible people.
But Topp? Dewar? Cullen?
I don't think so.
That's where I think you are wrong, Social Democrat:
We are in a different position than in 2003, not in a better or worse one.
In 2003, we could afford to have a leader who was unknown, who would have time to build a public persona, e.t.c...We were starting from essentially nothing in QC and could only go up.
Now QCers have totally different expectations. They want someone who will be as good a QC politician as Gilles Duceppe (effective in the House, present on TV, e.t.c...) from Day 1. If we are not able to meet those very high expectations, they may just tune us out.
The new leader will not be treated as "la bonne Peggy" ou "le bon Brian", (i.e. a likeable underdog). He/She will be seen as a representative of the English Canadian NDP establishment, who stole the leadership from a more qualified QC candidate.
My point is this: the new leader will not have a chance to introduce him/herself. negative prejudices will have already done the work.
i don't know. my current order of preference goes: 1) mulcair; 2) saganash; 3) nash. the reason why varies for each. imo, mulcair is far and away the obvious choice, and as days pass, i'm becoming more and more convinced that he'll win it all. saganash as leader would likely lead to a total destruction of the ndp, and i'm not at all sure he's up to the task of being prime minister, but i actually just want to vote for him because he most closely represents the canada that i wish existed, and the canada in which i feel most comfortable. finally, if mulcair is out, then i think nash is probably more likely than topp to become prime minister. i find her french terrifyingly inappropriate to quebec/acadia and i find her deeply uncharismatic, but topp is worse (at least on the second count), and there isn't another candidate who even remotely approaches them in terms of competence (something the ndp has indeed had a problem with in its leaders).
That's where I think you are wrong, Social Democrat:We are in a different position than in 2003, not in a better or worse one.
In 2003, we could afford to have a leader who was unknown, who would have time to build a public persona, e.t.c...We were starting from essentially nothing in QC and could only go up.
Now QCers have totally different expectations. They want someone who will be as good a QC politician as Gilles Duceppe (effective in the House, present on TV, e.t.c...) from Day 1. If we are not able to meet those very high expectations, they may just tune us out.
The new leader will not be treated as "la bonne Peggy" ou "le bon Brian", (i.e. a likeable underdog). He/She will be seen as a representative of the English Canadian NDP establishment, who stole the leadership from a more qualified QC candidate.
My point is this: the new leader will not have a chance to introduce him/herself. negative prejudices will have already done the work.
I think you overestimate how much the average person cares about politics. No one is really watching from Day 1, unless someone gets out there and forces them to watch.
Not saying we can just coast for three years. But Peggy, or Brian, or Romeo, or anyone could get on those talk shows and make those headlines. And if they communicate effectively, nobody will care where they're from.
And I also think you have a very cynical and negative view of Quebeckers. It's not unlike the view of Quebec trumpeted by the mainstream media that they're a shallow people who will only support a Quebecker, and believe in a shallow politics of buying them sports arenas. Quebeckers are just like the rest of Canada: they want a leader who they believe shares their values, and can communicate that effectively. They care about national issues like jobs, and world issues like global warming and the tar sands.
That's why Jack "Mr. Toronto" Layton could absolutely destroy Gilles Duceppe in his own backyard. It's also why Nash or Topp or Saganash could potentially do well, since they have good French (or adequate-but-improving French), great resumes, and great principles. I keep beating this drumbeat and I'll beat it again: the next leader has to inspire trust in Canadians in both languages. All other considerations are just distractions.
It's almost a shame that you're the main supporter for Mulcair on these forums. You do an injustice to his actual qualifications by playing to the lowest-common-demoninator of shallow identity politics.
A big part of forcing a government to represent that social democratic middle is a more proportional voting system. It's not just about electing full-on socialist parties to government. It's also about forcing the so-called centrist parties towards the true political center, representing the broad base of working people.
Very well said.
Of course one of the reasons the LDs couldn't support Labour was that they didn't have enough seats to give Labour a majority...they would have needed support from Ulster Unionists and Scottish and Welsh Nationalists to have something like a three seat majority!
I think it was an 11 seat majority like the Conservatives have here in Canada. It would have been very unwieldy, but in retrospect I think the LD's would be much better off today had they accepted Labour's offer. Electoral reform would have been worth it for them, even if it was just AV. And I think PR would have had a much better chance of winning a referendum than AV did since no one really wanted AV.
This incident also shows how much the Conservatives depend on FPTP. Under no circumstances were they willing to implement AV, much less PR. They told the LD's that they would rather turn down becoming government than implement AV, much less PR. The Conservatives were very shrewd in agreeing to an AV referendum. They knew a politically damaged Clegg would likely lose a referendum.
I still think that unless the NDP wins a majority - the Liberals will be forced by their corporate benefactors to keep the Tories in power. Throughout canadian history - when Liberals have to choose between the NDP and the Conservatives - they ALWAYS ally themselves with Conservatives. They only cooperate with the NDP when they are the party that will be in the drivers seat.
That would make it difficult for the NDP to take power. The NDP would have to win over 60 more seats in a 338 seat House to win a majority.
I don't think it's that difficult for the NDP to become government. I think the NDP would be able to take power by just getting more seats than the Conservatives. In that case the Liberals would let the NDP take power and hope it faltered with a subsequent election returning the country back to the Con-Lib status quo.
For an NDP minority government to get the Liberals support, they'd have to make one hell of a deal with them in exchange for their support. Cullen might just be the leader best placed to make such a deal that would bring on an NDP government.
If Saganash's method can get as much money off of the 1% as he was hinting, I think that we should try it.
It should be easy to do a simple accounting to verify this approach.
And it should be easy to determine what kind of cap and trade system Mulcair has in mind that would produce sufficient revenue increases.
And it should be easy to determine whether these kinds of solutions would mitigate social and economic inequality.
Well, I finally got to the library and was able to see the debate on CPAC. So, my impressions were that:
Cullen was best. He deflected criticism easily and had the audience with him.
Topp was very good, which surprised me given his lacklustre performance in the first debate. He showed humour, and seemed relaxed and in control.
Nash was okay, but seemed to be acting more as if she was at a rally rather than a debate.
Dewar was okay. This is the first time I've really noticed him. His answer to Singh's challenge about his costed healthcare proposal has made me curious (so I'll soon check out his site).
Saganash had a good question and answer session with Topp, but he seems to look at his papers too much, and his voice seems very hoarse to me (I don't speak French, but he did seem more animated during the French segment).
Mulcair likewise seemed to look at his papers a bit too much (especially during the opening). He was a bit evasive on Topp's first question (saying he'll release his tax policy later), though did much better in the subsequent question (about capital gains -- don't know if I agree with him or Topp on this -- I'll have to research it). His blowing up at Dewar was weird.
Singh and Ashton seemed to have a non-aggression pact going, since they were both prepared with the omission alibi as a way to not be nasty with one another during the mock question period. Singh also did contribute with a couple of interesting questions of the other candidates. Don't remember much of Ashton, however.
Singh and Ashton seemed to have a non-aggression pact going, since they were both prepared with the omission alibi as a way to not be nasty with one another during the mock question period.
It's funny how people overlook that Ashton is more of an "ethnic" candidate than Singh, who is a convert to Sikhism, while Ashton's mother is Greek and her mother tongue is Greek. While people are busy pigeon-holing her as the Young. Prairie. Northern. Woman. From a riding 70% aboriginal. -- enough labels to weigh down lesser candidates -- they forget Ethnic.
Not that I think she will win. But if Mulcair wins and has to choose Nash or Ashton as his deputy, it might be a tough choice.
Not that I think she will win. But if Mulcair wins and has to choose Nash or Ashton as his deputy, it might be a tough choice.
May pick someone else than Nash or Ashton. Playing a guessing game here of course. If I were Tom, I'd pick someone like Megan Leslie from the east coast and then maybe Peter Julian from the west coast.
Giving Nash and Ashton good high profile critic jobs would make sense.
His blowing up at Dewar was weird.
You call that blowing up? lol
Hilarious how different people view it... some in the media called it passion.
And Paul knew the answer to the question long before that debate question...
Except that in several FPTP countries like the UK and Australia and for many years in New Zealand - social democratic parties won majorities under FPTP.
Funny you should mention Sweden. Right now Sweden is governed by a so-called "bourgeois coalition" of the centre right that consiets of the Moderate party (conservative), the Centre party (farmers), the Christian Democrats (bible thumpers) and the Liberal Party. In Sweden the Liberals (who tend to be the party of highly educated professionals) would NEVER in a hundred million years ever support a social democratic party government that would favour their class enemies etc... it is a given in Sweden and across Scandinavia that Liberals ALWAYS 100% of the time, form alliances with conservatives to STOP social democrats. I think the same would happen in Canada under PR.
Australia uses AV, or whatever it might be called there.
Preferential voting, for the House of Representatives, STV on a state-by-state basis for the Senate.
I must say I find Mark_Alfred's comment about Mulcair, "His blowing up at Dewar was weird" to be, well, a little weird.
I am sure I am not alone in agreeing with what Lawrence Martin says in today's Globe:
"The race is about who can best stand up to Stephen Harper. Who has the strength, the intellect, the guts. Mr. Cullen is showing, along with Thomas Mulcair, that he might have it. Mr. Mulcair was a force again on Sunday. When Paul Dewar, no slouch as a candidate, challenged him on his position on bulk water exports, the Quebecker, with indignant precision, mercilessly took him apart. It was a crystallizing moment. Mr. Cullen was looking on as if to say, "Whew, did you see that?"
Or with what Greg Fingas writes in Accidental Deliberations:
"As the front-runner, Mulcair naturally took the most fire in the question-period format (which incidentally made for a highly worthwhile addition to the debate). And Mulcair's response to Paul Dewar - featuring both righteous indignation and substance without going over the top - offered a nice hint as to what we can expect when he faces outside challenges."
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/
Although some others have said that Dewar had a good debate I think this exchange was quite damaging to him. I personally rated him quite highly at the start of the campaign but he has steadily fallen in my estimation having heard him in person three times and listening to him debate. This is quite apart from his limited French skills and his utter dearth of support in Quebec.
It is "weird" that he would have chosen to take on Mulcair on this topic having challenged him publicly a few days before. He must have known that a politician as skilled as Mulcair would be ready for him. And after Mulcair shattered him all Dewar could repsond was to bleat," I was just asking for clarification."
If Saganash's method can get as much money off of the 1% as he was hinting, I think that we should try it.
It should be easy to do a simple accounting to verify this approach.
And it should be easy to determine what kind of cap and trade system Mulcair has in mind that would produce sufficient revenue increases.
And it should be easy to determine whether these kinds of solutions would mitigate social and economic inequality.
One at a time on those 'should be easys'.
The first one, how much money from closing loopholes on the rich is feasible but not easy to do the calculations. 'Devil is in the detail' comes nowhere near capturing how beside the point that calculation is. Because it is all about politics rather than numbers. One persons 'loophole' is a number of constituencies 'incentive'. Those constituencies are not solely- and often not mostly- rich people. They have traction in every party- definitely including the NDP. This is why it is so difficult to put a number on 'closing the loopholes' and why it is so attractive for liberals and progressives as a supposed alternative to raising taxes to get more revenue. There is potentially a lot of money, no one can categorically say there is not, and you dont risk making yourself a target. Saganash, Dewar and Nash have all used it as an answer to Topp's plan.
The existing NDP plan climate change plan says that ALL revenues go into green initiatives and transfers to low income households to cover the broad cost increases. Mulcair mentioned the green spending initiatives but said nothing about the low income transfers. Which if he really means not to include that would make available something in the order of one-third to one-fourth of the carbon pricing revenues available as net new reveues not taken up by parellel new expenditure programs. But it hardly makes sense, let alone is progressive or politicaly astute to hold out using cap and trade revenues as the means to help fund social programs that need rebuilding, instead of covering the carbon pricing driven cost increases of low income households.
There is a very similar political dynamic around the NDP's climate change package built around cap and trade. If anything it is going to be a more difficult sell than Brian's tax plan. Because as well as raising costs [and we can't avoid having it labelled a tax just because it isnt a carbon tax].... and how it works out for most people to not come out of their hides is anything but simple.
That is why Jack rarely talked about the whole package and how it works.... and never on the campaign trail unless he was asked questions by a very knowledgable interviewer [which in practice meant the interviewer and the audience are generally friendly and receptive].
I'm sure Jack understood that after May everything would be different on this file. We were and are headed for more scrutiny even if we are not the ones bringing the issue up to prominence.
Just listened to the tail end of an interview with Alexandre Boulerice on the Daybreak show on CBC radio (Montréal). When asked about plummeting polls, he said that our best MPs aren't in the House, they're in the leadership race. When asked why Bob Rae looks more like the leader of the opposition, he said that Rae has more experience, but don't worry, our NDP team has more talent. At the end of the interview, he said - quite unsolicited - that "I'm supporting Brian Topp, and I ask everyone to buy an NDP membership so they can vote for Brian Topp for leader". Somewhat lacking in decorum, I thought, as well as in the notion of what membership in a political party is all about.
Saganash did not just take the easy way out with 'close the loopholes' rather than Topp's frontal attack of the wealthy should pay more.
He suggested the 'close the loopholes' as the mandate we seek and what we would do in the first mandate after the election- raise taxes next time. Its a good political point- and no small potatoes in itself that he explicitly acknowledged the need of a mandate, which most of the candidates pretend does not exist.
I'm with Brian on this- largely because it is a conclusion I came to quite some time ago, as a political pragmatist, not as someone who says we do it simply because we must. It isnt just the numbers of where there is enough money. It's a question of the necessary politics and developing a mandate with the people. Think of it as Harper Cons in reverse. As with Harper back to before the 2006 election, you tell people the big picture of where you want to take the country. Then you propose a concrete piece of that unambiguously goes in that direction, but in itslef does not arouse strong reaction. "We need to raise taxes. [But we are talking about the wealthy- and there is a broad social consensus that it is time for this.]
Its not close the loopholes OR raise taxes on the welthiest. In practice, its both- and you say so. But counter-intuitively- the time has come to explicitly call it what it is, not soft pedal it by calling it [just] 'closing loopholes.'
Just listened to the tail end of an interview with Alexandre Boulerice on the Daybreak show on CBC radio (Montréal). When asked about plummeting polls, he said that our best MPs aren't in the House, they're in the leadership race. When asked why Bob Rae looks more like the leader of the opposition, he said that Rae has more experience, but don't worry, our NDP team has more talent.
I watched Question Period for the first time in a rather long time yesterday. It was interesting and I think we are seeing a BS media thingy in the making. Turmel looked poised and dignified and didn't do a lot of fist pounding and neither did the NDP MPs around here. Rae on the other hand stumbled through his question, puffed up his chest with bombast and then all the big male voices around him yelled and stomped their feet and pounded their hands in glee. If you didn't know the media narrative you would never guess it from the performances I saw yesterday. Or could it be that the media is really looking for pissing contests they can measure for distance, rather than anything- you know-substantive.
Social democrat--
I agree with you: the next leader must inspire Canadians in both languages. This leadership campaign was supposed to test whether they have that capability. So far, none of them have been very inspirational, at least not in QC. The general public's perceptions are the same as when the race: began: "Mulcair is the best candidate, fighting against a hostile English Canadian NDP estbalishment". That's NOT because Mulcair is from QC, but he is the only one who was already well-known and trusted. I agree: QCers are not any different from people elsewhere. They tend to inentify with a leader who they are comfortable with, not with a compeltely unknown quanity. So far, all the candidates, except Mulcair, fit into this latter category.
Perhaps this is not the other candidates fault. The race was designed in such a way that there is little to be gained from being in QC when most of the members are in the West or in Ontario. But the fact remains: at this stage, none of them have overcome their intial negatives. (i.e. proven that they are as good or better than Mulcair and this is not a sinister plot by the NDP top brass) Maybe I'm wrong, but if so, can you point to evidence--polling, newspaper articles, blog posts, anything else-- that would show that any of the candidates have ALREADY gained the respect of the general public in QC.
For me, banking on Nash (for. e.g.) suddenly becoming poular in QC after race ends because she beat Gerard Kennedy when the NDP swept downtown Toronto seems a bit foolhardy. She's had six months to make an impression in QC, and so far hasn't done so. At this stage, voting for her would be a huge gamble. Again, this may not be her fault, but we must take things as they are, and not as we would like them to be.
Finally, I know that I may be harping on QC's importance, but to me, this is the critical question of the leadership race. The NDP is where it is for one reason and one reason only: QC. Holding on to it is my #1 priority.
Right BA.
Swear to god, I don't know why people even here make such a deal of what he have to do in Question Period.
What a circus of dis-repute for most Canadians.
That will not stop the media from mining it for their sound bite clips, and the political relevance of that is not to be trivialized... but it is NOT anymore what it is cracked up to be.
Opposition MPs would like to know how much revenue the government is forgoing. Taxpayers would like to know who’s actually paying the freight in this country.
They’re unlikely to find out. The government refuses to provide a tally. All it offers is an annual compendium of all its “tax expenditures” with a warning not to add them up.
It would be misleading to produce a bottom line, the finance department insists, because “many tax expenditures interact with each other such that the impact of several tax provisions at once cannot generally be calculated by adding the estimates and projections for each provision.”
But over the years, frustrated public officials — a former auditor general (1986), a researcher in the parliamentary library (2006) and Canada’s parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page (last June) — have disregarded this directive, seeking to provide Canadians with a rough idea how much is going out the back door.
In that tradition, here is the value of all the tax expenditures in the 2011 report, released this week: $152 billion.
To put that in perspective, the government’s total program spending in 2011 amounted to $248 billion.
Tax breaks leave gaping hole in federal budget, Carol Goar
More reading in the area:
Federal Tax Expenditures: Use, Reporting and Review (pdf), Keving Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer (bold from the source):
ConclusionWhile the number and cost of tax expenditures are growing, the reporting and scrutiny of these measures has remained unchanged. Compared to program spending, tax expenditures receive less formal review by Parliament. Moreover, there are fewer evaluation data or information available to inform scrutiny.
Parliamentarians may wish to consider establishing a process of review for existing tax expenditures similar to that provided for all other public expenditures. As well, legislators may wish to provide guidance to the Government regarding the types of reports and information that would support any such review process. This could include:
- Evaluation reports prepared to a similar standard as program evaluations.
- Integrated presentation of tax expenditures in the Estimates documents.
Assessing existing practices in other OECD jurisdictions regarding tax expenditure reporting and review could prove useful in this regard (e.g. Germany’s external reviews of tax expenditures; Korea’s five-year sunset requirements).
Just listened to the tail end of an interview with Alexandre Boulerice on the Daybreak show on CBC radio (Montréal). . . At the end of the interview, he said - quite unsolicited - that "I'm supporting Brian Topp, and I ask everyone to buy an NDP membership so they can vote for Brian Topp for leader". Somewhat lacking in decorum, I thought, as well as in the notion of what membership in a political party is all about.
I don't get the problem.
Mulcair is about to run a big advertising campaign inviting Quebecers to join the NDP and vote for him. Excellent. Glad to hear Boulerice making the pitch too. Maybe the result will be 20,000 or more NDP members in Quebec. I hope.
If Mulcair is going to do that, I like it too.
More on Question Period....
This illustrates how 'going to to toe' with Stephen Harper misses the mark about the politics that matter.
The contrast with Stephen Harper yes, and Mulcair has his assets that if he is Leader would be his part of that contrast we will be making as strongly as we can. But it is not any more primerily about 'toe to toe' debating skills. It has long been less and less about that, and Stephen Harper has made it more so.
That is neither Stephen Harper's appeal, or how you undermine it.
'Toe to toe' is just about tossing out red meat for the base.
No surprise he didnt say anything more about what membership or participating in the selection of leadership is about.
I'm sure he was also aware that this is not the kind of pitch one makes on CBC, and got it in as fast as he could.
I will allow for some overstatement in that 'the best MPs are not in the House'. The problem is that there is neither a real leader, leadership, or sufficient focus.... and to be fair, the media treating the Caucus like its the B Crew would be hard to overcome even if you had drive, leadership and a plan. But Boulerice cant go saying any of that.
Wilf, I guess it's really only my personal view of how parties and elected representatives should behave.
When Boulerice, an MP and Treasury Board critic, is interviewed about how the NDP is faring, I expect him to speak on behalf of the Party, his constituents, etc. - not to pitch his personal pick for leader, when he wasn't even asked.
Furthermore, I have a problem with the concept of membership that emanates from such a pitch. People think that buying votes is a bad idea. But what about selling votes - or akin to that, selling the right to vote? I sell you a membership in the NDP, and I expect you to vote for me. I repeat, it's personal - but I find it disturbing and offensive. It's not just Boulerice, of course. It's everyone.
Yeah, well you aren't challenged by the time limitations of speaking on the big stage, and in front of the fickle red eye.
When I speak to people about the leadership race its about the chance to particpate in the choosing. Its not very original. I'm sure Boulerice does something similar.
But give me 10 seconds and its a more 'basic' pitch.
Speaking for a candidate when he was not asked is certainly outside the norm... But at that level, I really could not care less. I think sprung on me, it would only have struck me as brassy, not tacky and 'inappropriate'.
In fact the corporate elite likes the federal liberals much more than the like the federal Tories. If Canada had PR - you better believe that the corporate elite that controls the Liberal Party would exert EXTREME pressure on the Liberal rump to keep the tories in power and keep out the NDP. If you look in Europe (where they have PR) this is the consistent pattern - liberal parties almost ALWAYS side with conservative parties to keep out social democratic parties.
Except where the liberals have split into social liberals and conservative liberals:
Danish Government: social democrats, socialists, left-liberals; Opposition: conservative liberals, conservatives, liberal conservatives.
Norwegian government: social democrats, socialists, social liberals; Opposition: conservative liberals, liberal conservatives, christian democrats.
Belgian Government: socialists, liberals, etc,; Opposition: conservatives, conservative liberals.
Dutch government: conservative liberals, christian democrats. Opposition: social democrats, social liberals, greens.
Lithuanian Government: centre-right, conservatives, conservative liberals; Opposition: social democrats, labour/social liberals
Polish Government: Liberal conservatives, agrarians; Opposition: social democrats, anti-clerical liberals.
Croatian Government: social democrats, social liberals, pensioners; Opposition: christian democrats, conservative liberals, agrarians.
Slovenian Government: conservative liberals, christian democrats, etc.; Opposition: centre-left, social democrats.
When about 80% of Canada's Liberal voters prefer the NDP to the Conservatives, would the corporate elite be able, under a proportional representation system, to prevent some Liberal MPs following their voters?
Maybe I'm wrong, but if so, can you point to evidence--polling, newspaper articles, blog posts, anything else-- that would show that any of the candidates have ALREADY gained the respect of the general public in QC.For me, banking on Nash (for. e.g.) suddenly becoming poular in QC after race ends because she beat Gerard Kennedy when the NDP swept downtown Toronto seems a bit foolhardy. She's had six months to make an impression in QC, and so far hasn't done so. At this stage, voting for her would be a huge gamble. Again, this may not be her fault, but we must take things as they are, and not as we would like them to be.
I think you're missing my argument, in part because you're holding the party to an impossibly high standard: that the next leader needs to have ALREADY become popular in Quebec by the end of the race.
If you look at most of the polls, most people in Canada don't even KNOW who the candidates are. (And that's okay at this point.)
So when I say it's important to look at their track record, I'm not saying it because Quebeckers are going to say "wow, Peggy Nash beat Gerrard Kennedy in Toronto". I'm saying it because Peggy Nash is going to use the same skills and political acumen to win across the country as she won in her riding.
I can play the same game with Brian Topp. He deserves partial credit for engineering the orange wave in Quebec. He also deserves credit for helping to build the party in the West. When I point that out, I'm not saying it because voters would care about inside politics. I'm saying that because I know Brian Topp -- at least as a political strategist -- knows how to win.
The leadership convention is still two months away. I don't get why people are in such a hurry when we have no choice but to wait.
Why be in a hurry?
Hoping for a stampede maybe?
Tories turn over salary info for CBC but not PMO
This has absolutely no relevance to the leadership race. The NDP is part of the story.
But I'm putting it here because aspersions were cast on the author for posting the original story in which Mulcairs contrbutions to the party became the feature.
Like I said, Glen MacGregor is anything but after the NDP or any of its candidates. He's the classic dying breed of dig for the facts, as in this story. And his favourite target is 'Harpocracy.'
The NDP countered [the Cons witch hunt on CBC salaries] with order paper questions of their own, tabled by Quebec MP Tyrone Benskin, that used identical wording to request the same details about the Prime Minister's Office.Well, the 45 days are up and the government's responses to both threads of inquiry have been tabled.
Not surprisingly, Heritage Minister James Moore, in responding to Rathgeber's query, cited privacy law and declined to provide the salaries of the CBC stars. He did, however, share the fact that about 730 employees at CBC are earning $100,000 or more. (Any number here would have set off outrage at Sun Media but a high three digit figure is heavenly for our friends over there).
.....
So, naturally, we'd expect the same level of disclosure of salaries about PMO, right? Right?!
Not exactly. In his tabled response to Benskin, Treasury Board President Tony Clement - he who champions "open government" - refused to provide the number of PMO staff making $100,000 - the same information Moore handed over about Mother Corp.
Not sure that Peggy's electoral record in PHP is as impressive as Socialdemocrati... alleges.
She has run four times, losing twice. In '08 when she lost the seat to Kennedy the NDP held its vote throughout Ontario and the Liberals fell by 6%. Yet Kennedy gained 7% in PHP and Peggy lost 4.5%.
In 2011 when she won her seat back there was a huge swing from the Liberals to the NDP throughout Toronto. I don't think her swing was any better than average that year. She raised her vote by 11.0%, but this was less than neighbouring ridings. Andrea Cash raised his by 23.4%, Mike Sullivan by 12,2 and Olivia by 13.7
Although the NDP never held the seat federally we should remember that the CCF and NDP usually held it provincially going back to the 40s. So it's not as if Peggy really broke new ground for the party or even outperformed the party.
Social Democrat--
Your arugment could work very well if there was no candidate in this race who QCers had already warmed to. (say Mulcair decided no to run and was currently interim leader). It also would work very well if we were just picking a leader with English Canada in mind.
But as it stands now, there is a candidate who QCers clearly want the NDP to pick. Electing someone else would obvisouly create disappointemnt and set the new leader up on a wrong foot.
To me, it seems a needless risk to take, but I get the sense I am repeating myself...
Hmmm, those are good metrics nicky. I don't think we should take losing as a dealbreaker. In fact, I think someone who learns from losing and eventually wins may find themselves less vulnerable to mistakes in the future. But your point about "underperforming" or "overperforming" versus the party is extremely valid, keeping in mind that Gerrard Kennedy is a "star" candidate for the Liberals.
My point isn't that I will definitely support Peggy Nash. My point is that with 2 months left in the race, she could still easily prove to me that she would be a good leader to grow the party without compromising our principles.
She hasn't proved it yet. But then I don't think anyone else has either.
There's time.
But as it stands now, there is a candidate who QCers clearly want the NDP to pick. Electing someone else would obvisouly create disappointemnt and set the new leader up on a wrong foot.
I think the disappointment is overstated. Like I said, most people aren't watching the leadership race with baited breath, ready to decide who to vote for in 2015 in 2 months. As long as whoever wins the convention is a good Francophone with a good message, they'll hold most of the gains in Quebec.
I was curious about the exchange between Mulcair and Topp on capital gains taxes. It's something I didn't know much about, so I've done a bit of searching. Topp suggested that the Chretien Liberals had cut the capital gains tax to 50% (apparently it had been higher -- perhaps 66% or 75% previously), and he suggested this was a regressive cut that primarily benefitted the wealthiest in society, and should be undone. Mulcair suggested this was not the case, giving (I think) the example of an average income person inheriting a cottage (would this even be considered a capital gain? and if so, would the actual saving on taxes if preserving the 50% tax amount in such a circumstance be significant?). Mulcair said that other changes in tax law would be better, since he did not feel that the cut to capital gains tax primarily benefitted the wealthy. In searching this, I've found plenty of evidence to support Topp's claim, and none to support Mulcair's claim. Apparently, during the time that Chretien's Libs cut this tax, they were being supported to do so by both the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives, and not the NDP.
Anyway, if any of Mulcair's fans here like Hunky Monkey or nicky or doofy could clarify Mulcair's stance on this, I'd appreciate it.
SD writes:
"Hmmm, those are good metrics nicky. I don't think we should take losing as a dealbreaker. In fact, I think someone who learns from losing and eventually wins may find themselves less vulnerable to mistakes in the future."
On that basis maybe we shd go back to Audrey McLaughlin.
In support of Doofy's last comment, I think SD's "name recognition" excuse for Mulcair's standing in the Quebec polls is off base. According to the Abacus poll, name recognition for the candidates is HIGHEST in Quebec, about 67% vs 50 for the ROC if I remember. Mulcair's standing there is astronomical. If SD were right Mulcair wd benefit from lower name recognition among the other candidates. To the contrary he seems to be doing best where voters are most familiar with the candidates.
And in response to Mark -A, i don't presume to know the intricacies of capital gains tax but I have been paying it on and off for decades. I think it has always been taxed at 50%
ma: "Anyway, if any of Mulcair's fans here like Hunky Monkey or nicky or doofy could clarify Mulcair's stance on this, I'd appreciate it."
He said in Halifax that he was putting a tax scheme forward next month. And I believe this is the second or third time that's been mentioned.
"As long as whoever wins the convention is a good Francophone with a good message, they'll hold most of the gains in Quebec."
That certainly winnows down the field!
Too many "goods?" :)
