NDP Leadership #91

162 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2012-02-12 06:05

KenS

He is succesful winning elections as an MP. The demands on what we need from the Leader are in another league, and with many more dimensions and demands.

And how will Mulcair make us winners when he puts our heads on the chopping block?

doofy wrote:

Even though Mulcair says he will use cap and trade to raise general revenue, I think he will be able to defend his position. Mulcair is no Stephane Dion. Hopefully, the +/- of his strategy will be discussed in tomorrow's debate.

Nobody could have sold the Liberal program with the political foolishness built into it. I said so when it came out- before Dion's ways had any effect. "The Liberals will be the ones to get the punishment. Opportunity for us."

They started sinking as soon as the predictable attack ads came out. Predictable, because the Liberals practically wrote the script for the Harper Cons. All before Dion opened his mouth.

And guess what attracted the Liberals to the "revenue neutrality" concept cribbed from the Greens. They had been with us on cap and trade and critical of the carbon tax. Dion affirmed that in and right after the leadership race [and no "communication problems" then].

But the attraction of the carbon tax with revenue neutrality- give the money back through the income taxes and credits system- was that the Libs could say it was not going to cost anyone.

There were two huge problems with that.

1.] Political expediency, not that this fazed the Liberals: carbon pricing revenues are needed for green initiatives to proactively foster energy use reduction, as has been the case with successes in Europe. Carbon pricing alone has negligible effect- whether carbon tax or cap and trade. But for political expediency the Libs wrote off all the carbon tax revenues to the revenue neutrality for individuals.

2.] It did no good. Expedient intent or not, they painted a target on themselves. Because it ended up looking like- and to a large degree was- taking new taxes for new social programs. TAX GRAB!

And Mulcair has set up a repeat.

He said in Halifax, and has now affirmed with a lot more words and illustrating examples, that cap and trade revenues is the way to go in getting new revenues instead of what Brian Topp has proposed.

In the first place, if you are going to use cap and trade monies to fund the new revenues to maintain existing social programs that we need, what is paying for the green spending initiatives that Mulcair has affirmed we will do and the NDP has always EXPLICITLY promised will be what ALL the cap and trade revenues will be spent on.

But focusing on the political foolishness: this is a repeat of what the Liberals did in 2007. The Libs wanted to bypass the political risks of promoting carbon pricing, Mulcair wants to avoid the political risks in straight up saying you are going to tax anyone more, even the rich.

We know how well that worked for the Liberals. Now Mulcair suggests trading the risks of saying you will tax even the rich more, and his alternative sounds good on the surface. Topp says that he is confident Canadians are with us in taxing the wealthy. If you think that is risky, you think it is better that Mulcair promises things that don't add up and which are not just risky but guaranteed to get us skewered for surrendering the political benefits crafted into the NDP policy we have had for 5 years???

Sun, 2012-02-12 06:30

#53

nicky

Laine Lowe says of Mulcair, "Perhaps he will attract more "professional" voters to the party but he also risks alienating many <gasp> working class people as well as activists."

On the contrary, Mulcair has atracted many activists to his camp in Quebec. He has the strongest environmentalist credentials of any candidate. That served to completely collapse the Quebec Green vote into the NDP. There is every reason to think he can duplicate this in the ROC.

We make a bad mistake by retrenching into the "working class." The mere term is dismissive and alienating. Mulcair has made the same point about the tired mantra of "ordinary Canadians."

Besides, the organized working class is shrinking. Just look at the census figures. The NDP is doomed unless it grows into other sectors. The new redistribution will add numerous seats to the GTA and similar areas, where we have never won anyting. Mulcair offers us a chance to expand into those seats, just as he helped capture similar suburban seats in Quebec.

On Friday, he made the telling point that at the big Toronto debate a couple weeks back the thousand people who attended were overwhelmingly white and middle-aged. This in the most culturally diverse city in North America. He contrasted this with the outreach he undertook to ethnic communities in Quebec with the result of a very representative and diverse NDP Quebec caucus.

He understands, as I think we all should try to understand, that we must guard against retreating into our old complacent tribalism.

Sun, 2012-02-12 07:06

#54

KenS

Fine. But the number of 'tribalists' in the NDP has been diminishing for a long time.

And it is offensive to repeatedly lump together the substantive arguments of everyone, using examples of what some 'tribalist' said.

For example, because a small group of people either say or make it clear that 'he's not one of us', they represent all of us who have a variety of strong reservations about Mulcair.... including whether he is the practical choice he is held out to be, as if unassailbale and without serious competition on that front.

Not to mention that he is by no means the only candidate who understands the damage that knee jerk sticking to old shibboleths can do. He's just the one who finds the 'reminders' convenient.

For what it's worth, I certainly dont find Topp's use of that 'tribalism' commendable or better [the 'we dont need to be Liberals' "reminders"]. But by the same token, the elevation attributed to Mulcair's 'reminders' is no more innocent. They are both politics at its crassist.

Sun, 2012-02-12 07:14

#55

KenS

It is literally dangerous for people to think that good communications skills of the prospective Leader is the salve that can cure all.

Ignatieff has very good communications skills. Not as good or experience when it comes to the political hot seat.... but far better than Dion. And what good did that do him. And not just in the comparing election results- he got tagged even worse than Dion.

Like Dion, Iggy got hopelessly tagged because the rudderless Liberals had hopelessly lost politics.

Iggy was lost because the Liberals let the Cons frame him. Good communications skills cannot overcome them.

And Mulcair is repeatedly offering up even better material for framing him than the Liberals managed, hard as that is to imagine.

Sun, 2012-02-12 08:22

#56

Stockholm

I still think that the biggest problem with Dion's "green shift" was that it was all about a carbon tax which was going to be a direct tax on individuals. Cap and trade is all about polluters paying for the damage they do to the environment as was done with the acid rain treaty.

Sun, 2012-02-12 08:35

#57

Boom Boom

Stockholm wrote:

I still think that the biggest problem with Dion's "green shift" was that it was all about a carbon tax which was going to be a direct tax on individuals. Cap and trade is all about polluters paying for the damage they do to the environment as was done with the acid rain treaty.

I just hope something is enforceable before we reach the point of no return. Or are we there already?

Sun, 2012-02-12 10:17

#58

doofy

Sorry Ken S, I disagree:

Ignatieff had horrible communication skills. He was inauthentic. The CONS were so effective at attacking him b/c there was always a sense that he was trying to hide something, that he wasn't being himself.

I think I once heard Liberal "strategist/lobbyist" John Duffy speculate that Ignatieff should have taken the attack ads head-on. He ought to have said something along the lines of "Look, I've taught Harvard, I'm an intellectual, I will engage Harper on his policies, and if you (the voters) don't like me, too bad, I'll take my ideas elsewhere". That would have been extremely arrogant, but it would have been true to his nature. Instead, he tried to pretend he was the "common man", which everyone knew he obviously wasn't. The Tory narrative of "Ignatieff as nothing more than an opportunisitc carpet bagger" began to have some resonance.

Apparently, authenticity is the key to making a successful political leader. Even Mulcair's cirtics admit that he has it. Even you, a Topp supporter, admitted that Topp lacks it. (see our discussion about Topp's "feel-good" videos) You say Topp will develop it w/ time. They said the same about Ignatieff.

Sun, 2012-02-12 10:54

#59

socialdemocrati...

Doug wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

Nothing I have seen from Mulcair has changed my opinion. I just don't like him as a politician or potential leader. He has and continues to strike me as an opportunist first and foremost. This is mostly a gut reaction, intuitive if you like, but his published policy positions leave me cold, especially on the foreign policy front.

Perhaps he will attract more "professional" voters to the party but he also risks alienating many <gasp> working class people as well as activists.

It doesn't seem too very opportunist at all to leave a good job as a Quebec cabinet minister and then run federally for a party that had only ever elected one MP in the province and then only temporarily. Either he's beat Jojo Savard for must successful psychic in Canadian history or that's not opportunism.

^^^^ another smart person.

Sun, 2012-02-12 10:58

#60

Skinny Dipper

Thomas Mulcair--positives and negatives:

Positive: He will change the style of language used in campaigning. He won't refer to "ordinary" Canadians.

Both positive and negative: He won't have a place for "Che" socialist NDPers. He will likely lead as a middle of the road leader with a few progressive points proposed in a platform. How's that for alliteration?

Positive: He will be ready to take on Harper right away. He won't need to find a seat in the House of Commons or improve his French.

Negative to Positive: He needs to establish himself as a pan-Canadian leader rather than as a parochial pro-Quebec leader. The Conservatives will likely wage a cultural battle against "foreign" influenced radicals. Foreigners could include Quebeckers such as Mr. Mulcair.

Positive: Mr. Mulcair does know that the NDP needs to reach out to Canadians who have not traditionally supported the NDP.

Negative: Mr. Mulcair's campaign needs to reply to at least one of my emails that I sent under my real name. If Mr. Mulcair's camapgin cannot communicate with me, then how can I support Thomas Mulcair as a first or second choice in the NDP leadership race?

Sun, 2012-02-12 11:02

#61

socialdemocrati...

As much as I disagree that cap-and-trade will somehow reduce carbon emissions, but also make money off of the same carbon emissions we're supposedly reducing...

Cap-and-trade is WAY different from the Liberal green shift, which was a carbon tax that affected everyone, including the poor. I'm not a giant corporation, so I never hit the "cap" part of the cap-and-trade. There's no direct tax on me. If conservatives want to have the argument that the oil companies will then turn around and make stuff more expensive for me, we just have to be prepared to say they've already made things more expensive by destroying the manufacturing sector (see: Dutch Disease) and imposing huge environmental costs that won't be properly measured (internalized) until the next generation. We have to win the debate on economics, not dodge it.

And comparing any New Democrat to Ignatieff is just insulting. Even if you assume good faith when he was running the international circuit, insulting Canada and praising "empire lite" to score points with the in crowd, that would make him one of the worst communicators in Canadian politics of all time. Personally, I don't think that was a communication problem. He was just completely out of step with our values.

Sun, 2012-02-12 11:16

#62

Stockholm

I am not sure what Mulcair's point is about not referring to "ordinary Canadians" as I'd that was some sort of new epiphany. I associate the language around "ordinary Canadians" with the Broadbent years in the 80s, the NDP dropped that lingo some time ago.

This is one thing I find annoying about Mulcair is that he seems to keep inventing these straw dogs to knock over that don't exist. Like his "anecdote" about this "long time party member in nanaimo" who supposedly doesn't want to ever win an election sine we will ipso-facto have to betray our principles...does this person actually exist??? Can we put an all points bulletin in NDP circles in nanaimo to find this party member who is against winning elections and have her corroborate that she did indeed say that?

I really don't understand the strategy of trying to get elected leader of a party where the grassroots are the voters...and then insulting and bad-mouthing the grassroots in the national media by implying that they are all a bunch of eccentric ideologues who don't want to win.

Sun, 2012-02-12 11:23

#63

KenS

It doesnt matter how different carbon tax is from cap and trade. We're talking about polictics in action.

The Cons tagged the Liberals not just because of the word 'tax'. They tagged the Liberals because it was a revenue raiser to spend money on social programs- and it wasnt even directly obvious as such. Mulcair is even making it EXPLICIT: using cap and trade revenues INSTEAD of rasing taxes to bring in new revenues we need to keep our social programs.

You cannot "communicate" yourself out of the kind of hole the Cons put the Liberals in over the carbon tax before anyone had a chance to open their mouths. And even if it could be succesfuly 'communicated' out of... why would you ever put yourself in that kind of position?

Not to mention that it should matter in its own right that Mulcair is talking about using cap and trade revenues BOTH for supporting the green initiatves, AND for general revenues, instead of raising taxes on anyone anywhere.... because allegedly that is politicaly safer.

As well as being really bad politics, it just doesnt add up. Which will raise credibility issues for the NDP if he is Leader, and should raise credibility issues about him now.

Sun, 2012-02-12 11:39

#64

KenS

Globe blog:

Quote:
So back to the NDP race. Reading about Thomas Mulcair's meeting with the Toronto Star editorial board, I couldn't help but wonder if something different may be starting to happen here.

That Mulcair said edgy, brash things was not shocking. That the challenges he threw down were mostly aimed at the feet of NDP members was what caught my attention.

Edgy and brash is good.

My problem is that Mulcair will say anything that looks good. Too often it doesnt matter whether its true or adds up.

Reminds me of Elizabeth May and her appeal. Everybody sees the bluntness and takes that as an expression of honesty. What the public and media will overlook with a relatively background figure as far as the broad public is concerned like Elizabeth May, and like Tom Mulcair to date, is that along with the bluntness goes a casualness to what is said.

But the Leader of the NDP gets a lot more scrutiny. And we will not see how Mulcair's MO would fare with that until there is no turning back.

Sun, 2012-02-12 11:40

#65

nicky

Just watched a segment on Question Period about the leadership race. Although it was frustratingly short (only abt 5 mins) it did reveal some interesting tidbits:

Alice Funcke: Soundings show about 50% of New Dems are undecided. Mulcair is frontrunner with about 30% (presumably of those decided). The next three ( didn't specify whom) are "bunched up." No percentages given.

Robin Sears: M is frontrunner and the race will come down to which of Nash, Dewar or Topp emerges as the candidate "who is going to stop M."

Craig Oliver: Spoke with representative of one of the "other candidates" who told him their polling indicated that Topp has been "out of the race for the last two weeks."

AF: Cullen has some momentum.Connects well with membership as does Dewar. Most membership growth has been in Ont and Quebec. Mulcair told her today his campaign has sold (or would sell ?) 10 -12,000 new meberships in Quebec.

Pat Martin: agreed with CO that it was essential not to pick a leader "without resonnance in Quebec" or "we will be back to where we used to be." Essential to elect someone "we can throw into deep end" and who does not require a "learning curve." PM also implied he wd remain neutral.

AF: expects a major focus of today's debate will be the Middle East.

Sun, 2012-02-12 11:55

#66

NorthReport

With Mulcair we are going to be bringing more and more visible minorities from the back pages to the front pages so that we will become more representative of the society in which we now live. This alone is a compelling enough reason to vote for this man.

Sun, 2012-02-12 12:19

#67

writer

NorthReport, could you please explain your statement above?

Sun, 2012-02-12 12:21

#68

algomafalcon

Stockholm wrote:

I am not sure what Mulcair's point is about not referring to "ordinary Canadians" as I'd that was some sort of new epiphany. I associate the language around "ordinary Canadians" with the Broadbent years in the 80s, the NDP dropped that lingo some time ago.

The NDP seems to excel at producing inane terms to refer to their "target demographics". Yes, I think that the term "ordinary Canadians" (which seemed to implicitly denigrate anyone who was not average), peaked during the Broadbent years. But I think it was replaced with "working Canadians" (which seemed to exclude the unemployed, retirees and children), and "working families" (which additionally excludes singles and divorced).

That said, I guess that the "working families" must be widely perceeived as a godsend, since I'm sure it has been adopted by other political parties, like the BC Liberals (I may be mistaken on that).

Sun, 2012-02-12 12:30

#69

algomafalcon

Stockholm wrote:

I still think that the biggest problem with Dion's "green shift" was that it was all about a carbon tax which was going to be a direct tax on individuals. Cap and trade is all about polluters paying for the damage they do to the environment as was done with the acid rain treaty.

That may be the intent of "Cap and Trade", but I have never been impressed with the policy. It sounds to me like companies and governments creating employment for bean counters who know how to count "invisible beans" with conviction - and creates additional demand for well paid lawyers who can argue the value of one invisible bean versus another.

I think it just might be a colossal waste of resources on something that really does nothing concrete to address real problems. That may be a wrong perception, but after the decade plus discussions about these proposals, they don't seem to make any more sense than they did at the beginning.

I would say with the carbon tax, it actually does seem to have some logic - although I am doubtful that the BC carbon tax has been directed to projects that reduce carbon emmissions.

Sun, 2012-02-12 12:40

#70

NorthReport

writer, i was refering to nicky's post above where he commented on what Mulcair said in Toronto.

We have to try harder to ensure that our visible minorities are much better representated in the corridors of power. I was very disappointed that Saganash had to drop out as I was quite excited about his presence in the leadership campaign. If we have to set aside some funds in order to assist our visible minorities in getting to the forefront of our decision-making process let's do it.

Sun, 2012-02-12 12:51

#71

Stockholm

algomafalcon wrote:

The NDP seems to excel at producing inane terms to refer to their "target demographics". Yes, I think that the term "ordinary Canadians" (which seemed to implicitly denigrate anyone who was not average), peaked during the Broadbent years. But I think it was replaced with "working Canadians" (which seemed to exclude the unemployed, retirees and children), and "working families" (which additionally excludes singles and divorced).

That said, I guess that the "working families" must be widely perceeived as a godsend, since I'm sure it has been adopted by other political parties, like the BC Liberals (I may be mistaken on that).

OK wise guy - if you think that every single one of these expressions to describe who the NDP is trying to appeal to and speak for are flawed or not complete - enough - what do you suggest? If the NDP needs to have a clear message about whose interests it defends and what stands for - and in a way that is a clear contrast to how the Conservatives and Liberals position themselves - what would be the way to do it.

We can drive ourselves crazy with "oh we can't say 'working Canadian' because that excludes people who don't work", "oh we can talk about Canadians - what about people who seem themselves as Quebecois or Newfoundlanders more than they do as Canadians". "Oh we can't talk about 'ordinary people' because what about those people who see themselves as being EXTRAordinary". "Oh we can't say we are standing up for the "little guy" because that excludes tall people as well as woman" etc'...etc...

Sun, 2012-02-12 12:52

#72

writer

Thanks, NorthReport, that's very helpful.

A note of caution in this discussion. "Tribalism" is an incredibly fraught / problematic term. So too is referring to groups of people as "our" anything. I'm still recovering from my operation, so don't have the capacity to expand on this too much (my brain is sleepy and drugged), but I believe there are resources in easy reach for those who might not know what the issues are, and might want to learn more.

If the message is about the need to be respectful and inclusive, the language used to present that position is very important.

Sun, 2012-02-12 13:10

#73

Stockholm

BTW: Watching Pat Martin on Question Period - it seemed to me that he all but openly endorsed Mulcair for leader. He said he was staying neutral, but then he added that the next leader had to be someone who could hold Quebec and could hot the ground running the day after the convention and not require any makeovers etc...That description really only applies to Mulcair.

Sun, 2012-02-12 13:14

#74

algomafalcon

Stockholm wrote:

algomafalcon wrote:

The NDP seems to excel at producing inane terms to refer to their "target demographics". Yes, I think that the term "ordinary Canadians" (which seemed to implicitly denigrate anyone who was not average), peaked during the Broadbent years. But I think it was replaced with "working Canadians" (which seemed to exclude the unemployed, retirees and children), and "working families" (which additionally excludes singles and divorced).

That said, I guess that the "working families" must be widely perceeived as a godsend, since I'm sure it has been adopted by other political parties, like the BC Liberals (I may be mistaken on that).

OK wise guy - if you think that every single one of these expressions to describe who the NDP is trying to appeal to and speak for are flawed or not complete - enough - what do you suggest? If the NDP needs to have a clear message about whose interests it defends and what stands for - and in a way that is a clear contrast to how the Conservatives and Liberals position themselves - what would be the way to do it.

We can drive ourselves crazy with "oh we can't say 'working Canadian' because that excludes people who don't work", "oh we can talk about Canadians - what about people who seem themselves as Quebecois or Newfoundlanders more than they do as Canadians". "Oh we can't talk about 'ordinary people' because what about those people who see themselves as being EXTRAordinary". "Oh we can't say we are standing up for the "little guy" because that excludes tall people as well as woman" etc'...etc...

Sorry if that was a "wise guy" comment. But I do find that the NDP tends to overuse certain phrases, to extreme levels of repitition and annoyance. All I am asking is that they broaden their language when crafting their electoral messages. I never did say that they shouldn't use the term "working" or "families". And I did say that the language can't be entirely ineffective if it is getting adopted by other parties as well.

Sun, 2012-02-12 13:20

#75

socialdemocrati...

KenS wrote:

It doesnt matter how different carbon tax is from cap and trade. We're talking about polictics in action.

The Cons tagged the Liberals not just because of the word 'tax'. They tagged the Liberals because it was a revenue raiser to spend money on social programs- and it wasnt even directly obvious as such. Mulcair is even making it EXPLICIT: using cap and trade revenues INSTEAD of rasing taxes to bring in new revenues we need to keep our social programs.

You cannot "communicate" yourself out of the kind of hole the Cons put the Liberals in over the carbon tax before anyone had a chance to open their mouths. And even if it could be succesfuly 'communicated' out of... why would you ever put yourself in that kind of position?

Not to mention that it should matter in its own right that Mulcair is talking about using cap and trade revenues BOTH for supporting the green initiatves, AND for general revenues, instead of raising taxes on anyone anywhere.... because allegedly that is politicaly safer.

As well as being really bad politics, it just doesnt add up. Which will raise credibility issues for the NDP if he is Leader, and should raise credibility issues about him now.

Inconsistency aside, I think your second argument does hold water.

Cap and trade IS different. There IS no tax. Only giant companies will encounter the cap.

But...

There IS a credibility gap. This kind of "green economy" isn't supposed to fill up the national treasury. It's supposed to discourage carbon emissions. At best, you're overestimating the revenues. At worst, you're undermining the message of sustainability by suggesting you're gonna use this system to pay for child care and homelessness.

Saganash offered an alternative to Topp. He said "we can close a lot of subsidies and credits", mainly for corporations and extremely wealthy investment income. I also questioned whether Saganash's plan would add up. Mulcair may hope to follow Saganahs's logic, and get some revenue from the same policy. It would still be sketchy, but at least it would be separate from cap-and-trade, which would do less to muddle the message of "carbon reduction" with "revenue generation".

Sun, 2012-02-12 13:34

#76

vaudree

Can someone youtube the English version of this debate? This might be the one the Americans will be most interested in.

Sun, 2012-02-12 13:41

#77

Stockholm

FYI, the Quebec City debate is being carried on RDI (French equivalent of CBC NW) Channel 612 on Rogers in Toronto and also on CPAC in French 614 on Rogers in Toronto

Sun, 2012-02-12 13:52

#78

vaudree

The terms debate - at least we do have terms for these things - you listen to Americans try to describe the same phenomenon and wow there is a term for it "sandwich generation"! There is a reason why the Tories have more rhetoric - but Tories use the same rhetoric everywhere all over the world - that is what their expensive think tanks do for all of them. Even this "radical" stuff that we are all laughing about - it works in the States which is why they are trying it here.

Stockholm wrote:
BTW: Watching Pat Martin on Question Period - it seemed to me that he all but openly endorsed Mulcair for leader. He said he was staying neutral, but then he added that the next leader had to be someone who could hold Quebec and could hot the ground running the day after the convention and not require any makeovers etc...That description really only applies to Mulcair.

It rules out Topp and Singh because they are not even in office. Don't think that it rules out Nash. With Dewarr, it depends on how he performs in this debate. Deward was also weak when he faced that saying he supports woman but picked a man question - he should have been able to brush that off a bit better. I think Pat Martin is saying ready to go by the end of March.

I should hope that anyone not willing to use a many pronged approach to raise revenues from - especially - big oil - should see themselves as not ready to do. That does play into the Mulcair "sword" metaphor but anyone who can win Saganash's endorcement would also qualify for that. Saganash was suggesting that.

writer wrote:
I'm still recovering from my operation, so don't have the capacity to expand on this too much (my brain is sleepy and drugged), but I believe there are resources in easy reach for those who might not know what the issues are, and might want to learn more.

Did they give you general or local?

That is what exposure to chemicals reminds me of (the ones I am sensitive to) is a cross between general and local - it feels like bits and pieces of your brain are off line.

Sun, 2012-02-12 13:58

#79

KenS

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

There IS a credibility gap [with Mulcair and cap and trade]. This kind of "green economy" isn't supposed to fill up the national treasury. It's supposed to discourage carbon emissions. At best, you're overestimating the revenues. At worst, you're undermining the message of sustainability by suggesting you're gonna use this system to pay for child care and homelessness.

Saganash offered an alternative to Topp. He said "we can close a lot of subsidies and credits", mainly for corporations and extremely wealthy investment income. I also questioned whether Saganash's plan would add up. Mulcair may hope to follow Saganahs's logic, and get some revenue from the same policy. It would still be sketchy, but at least it would be separate from cap-and-trade, which would do less to muddle the message of "carbon reduction" with "revenue generation".

I agree.

FWIW, if Mulcair were to stop talking about cap and trade as a different, better, kind of general taxation and revenue source.... that would still leave questions about why he raised it in the first place, and implications of all that. But, those would be much smaller questions of credibility than he is leaving out there now. It would satisfy even me... although unforced errors of leaving behind material for the Conservatives to use is heedless and permanent.

I was/am skeptical of Saganash's alternative approach. But that's more in the realm of preferred approaches to politics, rather than being seriously concerned at what a candidate is putting out there.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:22

#80

duncan cameron

After 22 minutes of debate in French, Paul Dewar is doing better than expected, outperforming low expectations, I would say.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:24

#81

duncan cameron

Mulcair shines at each stage so far. Withough Romeo on stage, Mulcair stands out for his facility of expression.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:26

#82

Unionist

Dewar has been practising his French. Cullen has been practising his one-liners. Mulcair is smooth. Singh thinks the best way to improve Canada's reputation on the world stage is to improve job training and have a good plan for enterprises. Nash should work on her pronunciation. Topp tried for an oratorical flourish in his opening remarks - not. Ashton is doing well I think.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:26

#83

duncan cameron

Martin Singh speaks well, without an Anglo accent.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:28

#84

duncan cameron

Ashton takes on Mulcair on free trade, Mulcair claims we have the tools we need to provide energy security, upgrade bitumen, refine petroleum now.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:28

#85

wage zombie

Stockholm wrote:

FYI, the Quebec City debate is being carried on RDI (French equivalent of CBC NW) Channel 612 on Rogers in Toronto and also on CPAC in French 614 on Rogers in Toronto

Is there an online stream in French?

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:30

#86

dacckon

Switch the cpac to french at cpac.ca

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:31

#87

KenS

FWIW, my daughter picked up her French mostly in France. And she finds Topp hard to follow. "Too Quebecois" is her comment. Which has no drect meaning to us of course. To my Anglo ears that struggle just to follow the topic of discussion- Topp isnt 'too Quebecois'... who are really the only francophones I try to follow. For me, he's just too fast and/or slurred.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:31

#88

duncan cameron

Each of the candidates gets to ask another candidate a question. Nathan goes after Peggy for opposing his plan on co-operation.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:31

#89

Boom Boom

My French is not good enough to follow this debate, so I'm relying on others to post their impressions here.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:32

#90

Unionist

Cullen asks Nash, if we can work with certain parties after an election, why not before? Nash says, we need to remain faithful to our principles - and she prefers to inspire people who don't vote yet. Weak.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:32

#91

flight from kamakura

http://live.npd.ca/leadership2012 has it in french.

mulcair is head and shoulders above the rest, hard to listen to singh's accent.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:33

#92

writer

wage zombie: Or choose the "floor" on cpac.ca.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:34

#93

Unionist

Topp unnecessarily says to Singh, "you obviously haven't read my plan". Twice. Meh. Bad form. No need to belittle Singh. Not a sign of leadership.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:34

#94

duncan cameron

Singh takes on Topp on his ideas about increasing taxes, reducing capital gains exemption. Topp replies the rich have been given too many breaks.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:36

#95

duncan cameron

Niki Ashton asks Dewar a question, he has difficulty answering. She comes back. Where does he see the NDP in opposition to the Cons.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:38

#96

duncan cameron

Mulcair asks Niki about her postion on youth, which is a lob ball, not supposed to be allowed. He does not take issue with her. Wants to know how she would bring the young into politics. Niki handles herself with ease.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:41

#97

duncan cameron

Topp asks Mulcair why he doesn't have a fiscal plan, why he wants to put everything on cap and trade revenues. Topp says putting that money into general revenue is not what the NDP says. It should go into green projects. Mulcair wants a FTT.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:42

#98

flight from kamakura

HOOOHHHHOOOO !!!!!!!

topp and dewar BLASTING EACH OTHER!

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:44

#99

Unionist

Dewar says Topp has no seat - when will he face Harper in the house? Topp misunderstands the question (I think) and defiantly says he has the same right to run for the leadership as any other member. He goes on to attack Dewar for having named a white male as his prospective deputy leader. I don't like Dewar, but I almost feel sorry for him in the face of these very aggressive attacks!

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:45

#100

duncan cameron

Dewar asks Topo how he can attack Harper without having a seat in the house. Follow-up whose seat would he like to have? Topp comes back. How could Paul name another Anglophone deputy chief.

Peggy follows up with Dewar on the same line. Why not name a Francophone deputy leader.

Sun, 2012-02-12 14:45

#101

Bärlüer

Mulcair on fiscal reform: not now, must show we're good public administrators before. ("Le fruit n'est pas mûr", perhaps...? Or maybe: "Les conditions gagnantes ne sont pas réunies"...?)

I find it a bit painful to listen to this debate, so I think I'll call it quits.

Pages

Topic locked