NDP Leadership #93

Everyone with $15,000 has the right to run. Including Paul Dewar.

But the membership holds the keys to the gate.

Even the underdogs in the race -- Ashton, Singh, Saganash before he dropped out -- have the basic linguistic competence to hold Quebec, if they stumbled onto the right message.

Not only has Dewar failed to find a compelling message, in either language. He also couldn't possibly deliver it in both languages. That's an instant disqualifier.

Dewar has the right to be in the race. He might even have the potential to win through some complicated ballot strategery. (Which is terrifying.)

And it's for that reason that we all have the right to beg, plead, kick, scream, pressure, do pretty much anything to make sure he doesn't get even close to the leadership of the party. We just have to figure out what would be most effective.

GregbythePond wrote:

I take heart that the "poll" of the rabble (sample size of less than 50) is so different than that of a 6000+ sample.

Go Paul!

Well first of all they're not that different, considering they feature the same winner and (without Saganash) runner up.  Just to be clear though, I tabulated the Rabble preference results but I would never claim they accurately reflect the opinion of Rabble users much less NDP members and probably shouldn't be called a poll in any sense.

I think any member in good standing with 15k to spare has all the right they need to run and by the same token every member has the right to criticize a candidate who would be steering the Party into electoral oblivion.

dewar was never a consideration for me, owing to his appalling and embarrassing lack of fluency in french.  but more than that, i just don't think he's a good candidate or communicator, i don't see any vision, i don't see any mastery of any of the files, i don't feel inspired in any way by the guy, and i think he has low level of political acumen.  he looks as unnatural up on the stage as anyone else, even singh has more charisma (and far far more things of substance to add to the debate).  so quite aside from the fact that dewar wouldn't even be able to communicate to most of his constituents, he hasn't anything interesting to say or a convincing voice to deliver his various thoughts when then do come.  just a plain bad candidate, and i'm fairly sure that he'll go out in the early rounds.

If Dewar wins, I don't think we'll need to wait for the next election to lose Quebec. I think we'll see a caucus revolt unseen since Stockwell Day's golden age of slapstick, with MPs drifting to the BQ and Liberals and perhaps even some sitting as an independent block. And I wouldn't blame them.

Also, re Mulcair and Rae. I think a Mulcair victory means Rae will gently tack left, scooping up many of the progressive libs, especially female voters, Jack spent four campaigns winning over. They may be positionally close, but I expect Rae, as much as I loathe him, will have more success communicating empathy than Mulcair, who will be spending his time projecting business-like competence and distancing himself from "boilerplate" social democracy. (I wish he would be less of a bull in the chinashop that Jack built.)

I may think differently tomorrow, but today is a "we're screwed" day.

I too was at the Québec debate yesterday. I was favourably impressed with the performances of Cullen and Ashton, though they didn't win me over. Mulcair came across very well. He seemed friendly and likeable and was clearly more at ease than the others. Dewar's French was the worst of anyone's, often incomprehensible. Nash's French is OK but she came across, I think, very poorly. Singh's French was surprisingly good.

Topp's French is almost better than Mulcair's. Most people I asked didn't take to him, but I went to his reception afterwards to ask for clarifications regarding his involvement in the Saskatchewan NDP. It didn't go well. He proudly owned Romanow's record and cited the old (and I think discredited) Romanow talking points, comparing Saskatchewan to Greece to justify its neoliberal leanings. I tried to ask him about the Gass Commission's rigged accounting, but he waved off my attempt to follow up and piled on more Romanow talking points.

I had considering supporting him, but I've changed my mind. (A) He truly stands by that the Romanow government's record (rated second best of 32, after Alberta, by the Fraser Institute); and (B) I didn't like him. Just a personal impression and based on very little, admittedly.

JeffWells in the last thread wrote:

Stop Dewar? Stop Cullen? Stop Mulcair? Stopp Topp? It's an embarrassment of riches - I don't know who I should stop more!

No one wants to stop Ashton.

NorthReport wrote:

It would not surprise me to see Ashton end up ahead of Dewar before this is all over.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulcair-on-...

It will disappoint me if she doesn't.

mark_alfred wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Dewar's French during the debate was terrible.  "Peggy Nash, what you want do of medical user fees by Quebec government?  What policy you support?  All about us want to know your alignment."  This is the about the equivalent of what he can manage.

That's a bit sobering.

It was every bit as bad as wage zombie implies: in fact, if I am not mistaken, that's almost a verbatim translation.

Chantal Hébert is particularly devastating in her latest column on the NDP's prospects in Québec:

NDP tide in Québec is quickly receding

I could care less about Chantal Hebert's histrionics...she wrote all kinds of columns about how the NDP was going to be wiped out right up until about two weeks before election day last year. One thing about tsunamis - usually a big wave comes in, then the entire harbour empties of water, then an even bigger wave washes in!

When has Chantal Hebert ever said anything positive about the NDP after the election?

Stockholm wrote:

I hate to sound nasty about this, but honestly I think that anyone supporting Dewar in view of his terrible French has to be one of two things either -

a) totally ignorant and having no idea that his Franch is such a problem and cheerfully skipping down a garden path without the slightest idea of what is in store. OR

b) delusional in thinking that his being unable to speak passable French is "no big deal" and that Quebecers will "get used to it".

I repeat my offer. If ANYONE supporting Dewar can give me a solid argument for how making him leader is NOT suicidal in Quebec (and by extension elsewhere too) - I would love to hear it! Honestly I would.

I don't often agree with Stockholm, but this time I say: Go, Stock!  Great post.

Mia Rabson wrote:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/special/census2011/Odds-and-sods-from-t...

That Brian Topp is so far down the list is a bit more surprising. There are some who have said for awhile that Topp was no longer in the top four of candidates and this seems to prove it. Interesting because when Topp entered the race last September he was supposed to be unbeatable. He was first into the race. He started raising money and campaigning almost a month before Mulcair. With big endorsements from Roy Romanow and Ed Broadbent he seemed to be hard to beat. He raised more money than anyone else prior to Christmas. But if this poll is accurate Topp isn’t really in it at all anymore.

Proves what now? The "some who have been saying" that Topp is not in the top four being the same ones who did the poll that 'proves' it. :)

And the old 'hard to beat' blah-blah that never had any traction with anybody except those who liked running against this narrative.

I said earlier that I figure the Dewar poll is basically accurate [for when it was taken]... because all it says is that there is a pack of 4 after Mulcair. There is no reliability to the ranking of those 4.

I also believe Topp's campaign manager response that their polling says that 28% of members are planning on voting for Topp. He didnt say what choices are included. :)

Anything you get from campaigns is pure spin. It might even be true / accurate [for what is selected to release]. But that doesnt make it any less spin.

Quote:

We have progressive taxation already.  

No.

The Social Democracy of Canadian Federalism by Tom Kent

dacckon wrote:

 

Quote:

We have progressive taxation already.  

 

No.

Ah, yes, we do... sadly there are many loopholes those with means can use to avoid tax for sure. More so for corporate taxes.

From Revenue Canada...

•15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
•26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
•29% of taxable income over $132,406.

In addition of course, we have provincial income taxes.

Using Nova Scotia as an example...

8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, +
14.95% on the next $29,590, +
16.67% on the next $33,820, +
17.5% on the next $57,000, +
21% on the amount over $150,000

Could there be more tax brackets? Sure. But we have a progressive tax system and to say we don't is really living inside an NDP bubble.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Could there be more tax brackets? Sure. But we have a progressive tax system and to say we don't is really living inside an NDP bubble.

Mulcair doesn't seem to agree with you.

Unlike some on here, I'm not a paid spokesperson for the candidate I'm supporting and I have my own opinion.

That said, Mulcair has said he wants to introduce a fairer personal income tax system. I'm sure you're sitting on the edge of your seat waiting... :)

Having watched the debate and the press conference afterwards as well as all the reviews I could get my hands on, here is my assessment of the candidates:

Tom Mulcair

Pros: He towered over the other candidates at the Québec debate. It was a really good day for him and the gap between his performance and that of the other candidates on most points was quite large. I am also getting the sense that Mulcair is already starting to campaign towards other Canadians (i.e. those not currently in the ND Party).

Cons: Mulcair continues to be sloppy on policy. This was most glaring on trade in this debate. In one response he talked about how free trade had created opportunity for Canada, in another he talked about how we have to keep jobs in Canada, but he never closed the loop. What is Mulcair's plan to simultaneously promote free trade and act domestically to protect jobs, enhance the protection of our natural resources and create value-added? I can guess at what Mulcair's plan would be, but he never explicitly states it, so once again you are left to wonder. Now to many people this may be a bit too wonkish, but consider this, most Canadians may not care about the fine points of policy or what-have-you but when I see Mulcair wax grandiose and present too seemingly conflicting ideas without an explanation of how they are reconciled I get the sense of a bullshitter and I'm sure the Canadian public will smell bullshit too if the Conservatives clip together these statements and there is nothing out there to back them up. The media will also not back us up if there is no previously released plan or ready explanation. If there is any lesson Mulcair needs to take from this sloppiness, it is that he needs to be more like Jean Chrétein to win: a man with a plan. Or at least he needs to connect his thoughts so that they are clear and make sense. Otherwise he does sound like a Liberal, with beautiful talk, but no action. This is also not Mulcair's first offence. He has soft-pedalled on his plan for revenues, he has given short shrift to the details of his carbon emissions trading idea, and he is a lot better at saying we need to give x or y study without specifying precisely what we should study and why? I am thinking about taxes. I am thinking about the massive risk he wants the federal government to take on with expansive guaranteed benefit CPP+/QPP+ pension plans. I am thinking about "priorities" like childcare, pharmacare, seniors' poverty, first nations poverty, child poverty, and many other of his worthy and costly and unaccounted for goals. Now I'm not saying Mulcair should have all the answers now in fine print and all, but I have a lot more questions than answers when it comes to his policy proposals (despite the fact that they have been improving) and that concerns me.

General concerns: Another concern I have is that I cannot speak to babbler's concern that Tom Mulcair is a "Third Way" type or not, because I don't know if he is myself. Besides asking him point-blank "are you Third Way?" Which to my mind is a way of asking, do you care about income inequality or not? Do you have any ideas for what to do about it? Do you support a foreign policy predicated on peace first, second, and third? I don't know how we or anyone else can lay these concerns to rest. For one, Tom Mulcair hasn't been very clear about what he means about leaving behind the "1950s boilerplate" and like Stockholm, I'm not convinced that this point is any more than a strawman he could/can easily tear down at any opportunity. Also, any comments in the media or otherwise, denigrating our much maligned grassroots NEEDS TO STOP. Dedicated NDPers have been shit on enough by the media, their friends, their co-workers, members of the community, etc for years that we don't need to take it from one of our own. We have had to fight for the NDP in elections were we got slaughtered, knew we were going to get slaughtered, and got up each morning and did it anyways because we believed in social democratic (or socialist) values. We donate what we have, which at times may not be a lot, but we have done it through thick and (previous to campaign finance reform) very thin. So please, show some respect.

I will post more on the other candidates subsequent to this...

Mitt Romney would pay less tax here than in the U.S., thats how regressive we are. The loopholes are simply step one of the very important equation. I think we should compare ourselves to some of the most sucessful regimes of social democratic governance in places such as Scandinavia.

wage zombie wrote:

Thanks for providing those figures, Hunky_Monkey.

With the example of Nova Scotia, before loophole deductions, someone earning $150,000 a year has the same basic tax rate is in the same tax bracket as someone making $15 million a year.

Do these rates apply to capital gains as well?

If you're talking about millionaires, wage zombie... I wouldn't have an issue with say a "Buffett rule" that imposes a surtax on those who make obscene amounts of money. That still doesn't solve our tax revenue issue. I still believe we must look at the corporate world which I agree with Topp... as does all the other candidates.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Taxation as a % of GDP is around 50% in the Nordic social democracies, compared to about 33% here.  We're a low-tax regime by OECD standards.

I do credit Topp for trying to initiate discussion on taxation, something the Left can't run away from and pretend we can solve just by finding "inefficiencies" etc. 

Saganash was right.

And in Nordic countries, they have consumption taxes in the rate of 20 - 25%. Do you support that?

wage zombie wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Unlike some on here, I'm not a paid spokesperson for the candidate I'm supporting and I have my own opinion.

More veiled aspersions.  What crap.

Wage... I was told by a friend working for Peggy Nash that they have a team to "infiltrate" places like this discussion forum.

So, what part of what I said is crap?

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

And in Nordic countries, they have consumption taxes in the rate of 20 - 25%. Do you support that?

Yes.  Is it politically easy?  No, it's a long-term project that requires a major change in the discourse.  But let's not pretend you can have Nordic social democracy with Canadian taxation levels.  

Peggy Nash

Pros & Cons: I like Peggy a lot but her performance in Québec City was very weak. That she let Dewar catch her offside on health care is as much her fault (not doing her research or considering the question properly) as Dewar's (it was almost impossible to understand his question). All in all though she was very flat. She spoke in the most slow, dragged out, platitudinous, and foreign accented French of the bunch, which would have been forgiveable had she had anything interesting to say. It was largely nonsense about I will "inspire" people, I will "talk" to people, I will "listen"...okay, we like that but how? What's worst is that these were her answers to question that started out with "How will you do x..." Anyways, it was performance that stood in contrast to stronger performances on other nights and in English.

General concerns: It's hard to find anything about Peggy Nash to either love or hate, this makes me worry that she could be tractionless as leader. She doesn't really jump into the debate, even in a room with a bunch of people very sympathetic to her cause. She doesn't seem to get inspired or have the ability to translate that to a crowd, except on rare ocassions. What is there to think she could grow the NDP? Can we feel fully confident she would keep our gains? If we don't have confidence for her ability to grow the party, is it good enough that she might be best to hold the status quo? I think the answer for me is probably no. We need to grow. I want to win and we can't have Harper in power anymore, it's too damaging to the country we believe in.