Its really not an excuse. Great spin though to say "Its not released yet". Shouldn't you know in advance about what you believe?
That was not the extent of Mr. Mulcair's comments he explained that his tax plan would be more targetted than Mr. Topp's, avoiding secondary homes. No one announces their candidacy with all their policies pre-written, are you suggesting that anything released after the first debate is a policy the candidate doesn;t really believe in?
Its really not an excuse. Great spin though to say "Its not released yet". Shouldn't you know in advance about what you believe?
Meh.
Holy shit this is getting weird. Topp for example just released his environmental proposals... so did Peggy. I guess they didn't believe in environmental protection before last week?
Get real, daccon.
What I am stating is that IN A DEBATE, you should KNOW what you believe in, instead of saying "Its not released yet, therefore you can't really critique it."
I love how you like to spin my answer. Thats good, thats good that you are willing to spin for your candidate. It shows loyalty, and if such individuals are so commited to their candidate it shows the strength of their candidate in luring in followers.
Most impressive.
I think his two backgrounders on Economic Leadership and on the Environment are it, as far as tax policy that he's proposing. If he had anything else to say about balancing a budget, then the backgrounder on Economic Leadership (which was entitled "Jobs and the Economy") would have been the place to say it.
Well placed in the Mulcair campaign are you?
I'm certainly not but I know they are not by any means finished with their policy releases and if I recall correctly Mr. Mulcair has said several times in the debates that his tax policy would be forthcoming.
ETA: here it is [url=http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-targe... sourced[/url], "Mr. Mulcair said his tax plan will be released at a later date."
I do recall hearing that, but I also recall either reading or hearing that he really couldn't say much about taxes until he "saw the books". So presumably, if he does actually release a tax policy, it'll say something to the effect of "I'm just not sure yet." So, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. If he's not willing to commit to reversing the cuts that Cons and Libs have made to the taxes that both corporations and the wealthiest amongst us have gotten, then I can only assume that he's not going to reverse these. There's no need to look at the books to realize that these cuts represent revenue that could be better used.
I think his two backgrounders on Economic Leadership and on the Environment are it, as far as tax policy that he's proposing. If he had anything else to say about balancing a budget, then the backgrounder on Economic Leadership (which was entitled "Jobs and the Economy") would have been the place to say it.
Well placed in the Mulcair campaign are you?
I'm certainly not but I know they are not by any means finished with their policy releases and if I recall correctly Mr. Mulcair has said several times in the debates that his tax policy would be forthcoming.
ETA: here it is [url=http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-targe... sourced[/url], "Mr. Mulcair said his tax plan will be released at a later date."
I do recall hearing that, but I also recall either reading or hearing that he really couldn't say much about taxes until he "saw the books". So presumably, if he does actually release a tax policy, it'll say something to the effect of "I'm just not sure yet." So, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. If he's not willing to commit to reversing the cuts that Cons and Libs have made to the taxes that both corporations and the wealthiest amongst us have gotten, then I can only assume that he's not going to reverse these. There's no need to look at the books to realize that these cuts represent revenue that could be better used.
Mulcair was talking about a specific increase in a specific tax bracket in the personal income tax code.
I do recall hearing that, but I also recall either reading or hearing that he really couldn't say much about taxes until he "saw the books". So presumably, if he does actually release a tax policy, it'll say something to the effect of "I'm just not sure yet." So, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. If he's not willing to commit to reversing the cuts that Cons and Libs have made to the taxes that both corporations and the wealthiest amongst us have gotten, then I can only assume that he's not going to reverse these. There's no need to look at the books to realize that these cuts represent revenue that could be better used.
Your concern is noted but there is a tax plan coming or he wouldn't have said there was in front of all 7 of his opponents and the assembled press.
He has committed to reversing the Conservatives' tax cuts, that's part of the NDP platform he supports.
Mulcair's housing backgrounder mentions co-op housing, but no mention of RGI housing. Hmm. Not sure what I think of this backgrounder yet. Still digesting.
I think his two backgrounders on Economic Leadership and on the Environment are it, as far as tax policy that he's proposing. If he had anything else to say about balancing a budget, then the backgrounder on Economic Leadership (which was entitled "Jobs and the Economy") would have been the place to say it.
Well placed in the Mulcair campaign are you?
I'm certainly not but I know they are not by any means finished with their policy releases and if I recall correctly Mr. Mulcair has said several times in the debates that his tax policy would be forthcoming.
ETA: here it is [url=http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-targe... sourced[/url], "Mr. Mulcair said his tax plan will be released at a later date."
I do recall hearing that, but I also recall either reading or hearing that he really couldn't say much about taxes until he "saw the books". So presumably, if he does actually release a tax policy, it'll say something to the effect of "I'm just not sure yet." So, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. If he's not willing to commit to reversing the cuts that Cons and Libs have made to the taxes that both corporations and the wealthiest amongst us have gotten, then I can only assume that he's not going to reverse these. There's no need to look at the books to realize that these cuts represent revenue that could be better used.
I had assumed that his economic backgrounder did cover what details he was willing to share this far from 2015, but if thier is more I look forward to it. I do assume it'll be mostly in broad strokes, with some specifics to be determined around 2015, or some flexiblity so he can handle surprises.
Mulcair's housing backgrounder mentions co-op housing, but no mention of RGI housing. Hmm. Not sure what I think of this backgrounder yet. Still digesting.
What's RGI housing?
Just finished reading Brian's question and answer session here at Rabble. Pretty impressive.
What's RGI housing?Mulcair's housing backgrounder mentions co-op housing, but no mention of RGI housing. Hmm. Not sure what I think of this backgrounder yet. Still digesting.
Rent Geared to Income.
Thank you.
Again, I'm an evidence-based guy. I'm not going to assume that Mulcair's tax plan is the Liberal tax plan just because he hasn't released one, even when he promised one. But the longer he waits the more antsy I get. And if he ultimately doesn't release one after he said he would, I'll be seriously cheesed, and won't support him. I think the revenue question is CRITICAL at this moment in history, and especially for our party.
Trade unions less powerful but still influential in NDP leadership race
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/trade-unions-less-powerful-but-s...
Dunno if this was posted earlier. NDP leadership candidates ducking biggest issue of our time
excerpt:
If there are no improvements to the neoliberal-style of capitalism practiced now, the NDP - if elected - will come up against the extreme right wing views of powerful corporate bodies. This includes the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which consists of executives from all of Canada's most powerful corporations, and the 50-member Canadian Bankers Association.
If these two bodies did not like policies proposed by a new NDP government, they could easily undermine the government's agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
On Limited Choices
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-limited-choices.html
Daniel Leblanc's report on a possible detente between Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp certainly makes for some interesting scenario-building. So let's follow up on what Paul Wells has already written.
Obviously, we wouldn't expect locked-in supporters of any candidate to be swayed by the appeal. So the obvious first target would figure to be the substantial number of voters who are undecided to date. And to the extent voters buy the idea that it's necessary to choose from Mulcair or Topp in order to keep the NDP's Quebec gains (which itself seems rather questionable when Topp has less caucus supporters in the province than Peggy Nash), the main effect would be to elevate Topp above the second tier of candidates to become the chief challenger to Mulcair.
But that strategy would succeed only at a massive cost to Topp's ultimate prospects. Even if he manages to win enough early-ballot support to emerge as the second-place contender, any signal that Mulcair is an acceptable choice would only give the supporters of every other candidate reason to figure there's no need to line up to stop the front-runner. Which means that absent some follow-up plan to severely damage Mulcair in a campaign where no attacks have yet managed to make a dent, the most plausible effect of making the message stick would be to elevate Topp to second place...while effectively handing Mulcair the leadership.
That makes me wonder whether Topp's motivation may be a matter of setting up his place in the pecking order within a Mulcair-led party, rather than any perception that he has a plausible path to victory. But it'll be well worth watching both how Topp handles Mulcair from here on in, and how the other campaigns respond to the move to narrow the field.
My bet, HM, is that Brian will, in folding, attempt to pass his union voters to Peggy. Shades of '72.What happened in '72?
I'd ask this guy.
I ran into someone in the supermarket tonight who summed up the race: "Looks like it's between the new guy and the old guy." So I asked "Which new guy? The one who's new to the party, or the one who's new to running for office himself?" So I found that, in the mind of one non-partisan person, Topp is the new guy and Mulcair is the veteran. Makes sense, I guess.
I was referring to the fact that Mulcair had already alienated Davies from his campaign in an incident most Mulcair supporters have either rationalized or suppressed.
Umm, did you have your moderator's hat on when you wrote that?
Let's look at Quebec labour support from the MPs:
Nycole Turmel, long-time PSAC officer: neutral.
Guy Caron, staffer with Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union: neutral.
Alexandre Boulerice, staffer for the Quebec division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees: Topp.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach, three years on the regional teacher's union executive committee and represented it (when she was elected) on the general council of the central CSQ: Nash.
François Pilon, union local vice-president for seven years: Mulcair.
Tyrone Benskin, National Vice President of ACTRA: undeclared (what is he waiting for?)
Claude Patry, president of large union local: Mulcair.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, co-founder of her union local, union officer: Nash.
Robert Aubin, union rep for his high school, negotiated four collective agreements: Mulcair.
Jean-François Larose, Vice-President of his local union: Ashton.
Sylvain Chicoine, working two days a week for his union for six years and member of the union executive: Mulcair.
Mulcair 4, Nash 2, Topp 1, Ashton 1, undeclared 3.
I think Bookish Agrarian summed it up best...Don't get me wrong I think Topp has enormous skills and abilities in certain areas, but they are not leadership related. To me Topp is like the sound guy. Unbelievable technical skills that makes the musicians sound magical. But there is a reason he's a the sound board and not on stage.
I'm going to pass on something that is often told by sound guys:
What's the difference between a sound guy and a lighting guy?
A sound guy can also do lighting.
Are you hearing this, Dewar?
:)
So another girl in my age group just invited me to a Cullen event. I think people are just starting to pay attention to the race (or just starting to talk about it), maybe because it's starting to get more coverage in the lead-up to the convention, or maybe because Cullen just got all that coverage from the leadnow/avaaz endorsements.
I've focused so much on my contempt for Cullen's proposal for strategic cooperation that I've neglected to look at anything else. I'm not one to succumb to peer pressure, but the fact that he excites other young people matters to me, because winning matters to me.
If I go to see Cullen, I definitely want to ask a question. Anything on anyone's mind, where they don't think Cullen has provided sufficient detail?
Seems after a lull that Topp once again is getting endorsements. 308 reports that Topp and Dewar made gains this week. As well, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada along with former Ontario minister Ruth Grier endorsed Topp.
See you all Sunday!
Well, four or five weeks to go, two moe debates I think it is, and Brian makes an appearance here today. We'll see.
I thought it was 3 more debates?
-Edit:checked the website, and it's 3
I really need to hear Mulcair show some signs of life, so I hope Topp gets under his skin next time and forces Tom to say something new.
If I go to see Cullen, I definitely want to ask a question. Anything on anyone's mind, where they don't think Cullen has provided sufficient detail?
Ask him what it's like to take on the formidable NDP leadership contestants while simultaneously taking on the oil industry backed by the Canadian and Chinese governments.
I really need to hear Mulcair show some signs of life, so I hope Topp gets under his skin next time and forces Tom to say something new.
The "Emeril" guide to political campaigning, "kick it up a notch" and then "BAM!!!". (God this site has lame emoticons - no wonder so few people use them)
I put this in the other thread but think it fits better here:
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates. He has engaged in more negative attacks on his opponents than all of them combined. Nash is inexperienced and has only sat in parliament a couple years. Dewar's French makes him unacceptable. Even Saganash was said not to speak acceptable French. Mulcair... well the litany is too long and familiar to get into here.
His telephone cnvassers also dwell on the negative.Several examples of this have been aired on Babble. I understand from two sources that his written talking points for his canvassers includes a series of negative statements against each of his opponents. If you say you are inclined towards Nash, for example, the canvassser will read out that she is lacking in experience, etc.
One of the things I applaud Brian Topp for is identifying "vote suppression" as a tool which the Conservatives have appropriated from the US Republicans. Negative campaigning he says correctly does two things:
1. It solidifies and energizes your base.
2. It discourages supporters of the opponent from even voting.
It is ironic that Mr Topp seems to be engaged in similar tatics in the leadershio race. I was puzzeled about his negative tactics since they seem to irritate many people. But I think there is an explanation. Topp understands "vote suppression" and is using it here. By saying Mulcair will turn the party to the right he is not simply encouraging a voter tending towards Mulcair to vote for him, he is also encouraging him not to vote at all.
The membership numbers, particulary in BC and Ontario, might also back up that interpretation. It has been speculated that the "Gerry Scott machine" in BC has signed up many new members for Topp. Perhaps the Ontario numbers reflect a similar effort on his behalf by some unions. Topp may be banking on expanding his vote with new recruits and suppressing his rivals' support among existing members.
I suspect the new membership numbers may mean that Topp is actually running significantly ahead of where he was in the two polls. Those polls would necessarly have sampled an outdated membership list.
Thomas Mulcair was [url=http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/front%2Brunner%2Bjabs%2BHarper%2BLibe... Saskatoon[/url] yesterday for one of his meet and greet sessions. I thought this exchange was pretty great:
When the floor opened to questions Mulcair was asked what his position was on working with the Liberals in cooperation or coalition. He didn't hesitate to take a jab."We offered to make the Liberal leader the prime minister of Canada and they turned their noses up ... It's that arrogance I want no part of. Don't waste your vote, don't split the vote. Don't vote Liberal."
Thomas Mulcair was [url=http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/front%2Brunner%2Bjabs%2BHarper%2BLibe... Saskatoon[/url] yesterday for one of his meet and greet sessions. I thought this exchange was pretty great:
When the floor opened to questions Mulcair was asked what his position was on working with the Liberals in cooperation or coalition. He didn't hesitate to take a jab."We offered to make the Liberal leader the prime minister of Canada and they turned their noses up ... It's that arrogance I want no part of. Don't waste your vote, don't split the vote. Don't vote Liberal."
Okay folks, it's time to stop the personal attacks. I could care less who you support but the following have been dishing it out repeatedly:
Gaian: You personally attack and insult anyone who doesn't support your candidate. You've been warned repeatedly, so 48 hours off babble for you.
Hunkey_Monkey: You cross the line repeatedly, personally insulting Catchfire and other babblers you perceive to be "against" the candidate of your choice, and have been previously warned. 24 hours off for you.
There are others here who are displaying some borderline hostile behaviour. This is a warning: if it gets personal and nasty you will be suspended.
Going negative is not THE strategy. So the comments upthread that it is not working- no apparent dents on Mulcair- are looking at the wrong thing.
Going negative on Mulcair is the tactic for getting the opening. Now Brian has the opening, we'll see what he can do with it. Without that opening he was dead in the water. So what is 'silly' about the intelligence of him going negative?
Maybe it will turn out that people here who love to hate him are right- that Topp going negative will do him more permanent damage than any gains he could ever make from more people listening to his message. That may be true. But just allowing the campaign to follow along its bucolic course was guaranteed to see Brain Topp not winning.
There is nothing 'silly' in there. And to call making the rational choice among options an act of desperation is just spin.
@ nicky's complicated theories on the Topp strategy:
There's that, or simple- Topp goes negative on Mulcair to get himself centrestage. There is only a month left, less since people start voting. He was only ever able to win by differentiating himself, which in this tame affair has not worked sufficiently to date.
Going negative gets you in the news and talked about. It works. It worked. It creates the opening you did not otherwise have, with time running out. [Which is also the answer BA to you calling my strategic sense non-existant or silly. You are blinded from taking a sober look by your obvious dislike of Topp. That dislike is cool- we all make our own choices based on whatever. So thats cool, but being unable to take a step back from it for a conversation is not cool.]
Translation assistance, please, of this important editorial:
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/343389/le-quebec-et-le-npd-toujours-la-cote
"En ces temps où la politique de masse n'a plus la cote . . ."= In these times when mass politics is no longer popular . . .
But what exactly does the headline mean: "Le Québec et le NPD - Toujours la cote." I'm guessing it's a play on two different meanings of "cote," but the meaning in the headline escapes me.
Why does it matter? Because the editorial is a thoughtful piece, not unsympathetic:
The Quebec vote, at first glance, will not weigh very heavily when activists of the New Democratic Party choose their next leader in March: what are 10% of the membership worth . . . But this is not the yardstick by which must be evaluated the head counts that the NDP released Tuesday. It is rather that of having managed to multiply by seven, in very short time, the membership in Quebec. . . it is precisely because of the context that this jump is spectacular . . . And in this Canada that is said to want out of the battles of the past, it is quite ironic that "What does Quebec want?" is still the question.
That last sentence is cute. The phrase "What does Quebec want?" is in English in the editorial. It is the sterotyped dumb hostile question of the dumb hostile English-speaker. So it implies that the dumb hostile English-speaking members of the NDP are, for once, actually trying to choose a leader who will have success in Quebec. At least, that's what I think it implies. Did I get it?
But what exactly does the headline mean: "Le Québec et le NPD - Toujours la cote." I'm guessing it's a play on two different meanings of "cote," but the meaning in the headline escapes me.
"Avoir la cote" means being popular, being valued.
One of the things I applaud Brian Topp for is identifying "vote suppression" as a tool which the Conservatives have appropriated from the US Republicans. Negative campaigning he says correctly does two things:
1. It solidifies and energizes your base.
2. It discourages supporters of the opponent from even voting.
It is ironic that Mr Topp seems to be engaged in similar tatics in the leadershio race. I was puzzeled about his negative tactics since they seem to irritate many people. But I think there is an explanation. Topp understands "vote suppression" and is using it here. By saying Mulcair will turn the party to the right he is not simply encouraging a voter tending towards Mulcair to vote for him, he is also encouraging him not to vote at all.
Going up against Harper and his team wouldn't you want someone who has shown the ability to go negative and play hardball? Not necessarily a determining factor, but one you would want to see in a leader?
Yeah, I'm actually interested in a candidate who can throw and/or deflect a punch.
A new spin on the Topp. (aargh - forgive bad pun. it was unplanned.) Thanks, KenS and Josh.
If the Topp campaigners stop their negative campaigning very soon (this week), will they then start emphasizing the positive features that differentiate their candidate from Mulcair in particular? That would be key.
And is the damage already done with supporters of Nash and Ashton and Cullen (the only others fairly guaranteed to be progressive, but who were targets of the over-the-top (couldn't resist that one) calls and ads)? Can Nash's and Ashton's supporters be persuaded that Cullen's lack of fluency in French is offensive enough to French Canadians and to Québécois in particular, to transfer their votes to Topp?
And is Mulcair going to pull a red bunny (or at least a pink one) out of his hat before long and prove he is not a neoliberal in disguise, both on domestic policy (e.g.,taxation) and militarism (e.g, lockstep with the US, 100% support for Israel and for more NATO war crimes, and support for the booming military industry)? And should we trust that the rabbit is more than a trick?
AND thanks, R.West, for enforcing some civility.
If the Topp campaigners stop their negative campaigning very soon (this week), will they then start emphasizing the positive features that differentiate their candidate from Mulcair in particular? That would be key.
I know a lot has been made of Topp's allegedly "negative" campaign, but I really haven't seen it, although I admit that I haven't followed the race as closely as some here. The two interviews he gave yesterday--one on The Current and one here on babble--he was very affable and gregarious, even in points of disagreement with Mulcair and Cullen. And I also admire that he speaks about policy and not platitude, which is what I've heard almost entirely from Mulcair.
I was not a fan of Topp at all before this week, but he has grown on me fast.
This will surprise some: The Nova Scotia Young New Democrats (NSYND) threw their support behind Brian Topp.
http://briantopp.ca/news/topp-picks-support-nova-scotia-ndp-youth-wing
This will surprise some: The Nova Scotia Young New Democrats (NSYND) threw their support behind Brian Topp.
http://briantopp.ca/news/topp-picks-support-nova-scotia-ndp-youth-wing
It must have been KenS' doing 
But what exactly does the headline mean: "Le Québec et le NPD - Toujours la cote." I'm guessing it's a play on two different meanings of "cote," but the meaning in the headline escapes me."Avoir la cote" means being popular, being valued.
Yes, I know. But does the headline really just say the NDP is still popular? "Quebec and the NDP -- still popular" does not sound right.
But what exactly does the headline mean: "Le Québec et le NPD - Toujours la cote." I'm guessing it's a play on two different meanings of "cote," but the meaning in the headline escapes me."Avoir la cote" means being popular, being valued.Yes, I know. But does the headline really just say the NDP is still popular?
I believe so.
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you write of "a play on two different meanings of 'cote'", but it's certainly not "côte"—as in, a hill to climb up.
If the Topp campaigners stop their negative campaigning very soon (this week), will they then start emphasizing the positive features that differentiate their candidate from Mulcair in particular?
I think thats a question to me among others here. But it could also be, and is better, as a question put to/about Topp's campaign, so I'll go there first.
So Topp has the attention, has his opening, without which he was doomed to lose. Now that he has it, will he stop the negative framing of Mulcair? Fair question. I think the answer is yes and no. Yes in the sense that Topp will turn more to his message [without which being succesful at, he also cannot win]. But there isnt going to be any turn on a dime. And he's never going to stop saying that we'll get a more centrist track from Mulcair. And why should he? Its an opinion held by many of us, and would be whether Topp was saying it or not.
In my better momemnts I think its downright funny that the hard core Mulcair supporters try to de-legitimize an opinion. Not just that we are incorrect. THERE IS NO BASIS. Etc.
from pauldewar.ca:
OTTAWA – Today Dan Wilson, former Campaign Manager for Romeo Saganash’s leadership bid, endorsed Paul Dewar for leader of the NDP. He will be joining Dewar as a Senior Strategist for the Paul Dewar Campaign...
Dan Wilson is a lifelong New Democrat with a background working in foreign affairs, human rights and Indigenous issues. He helped found the NDP Aboriginal Commission and spent five years serving both as the commission's Co-chair and as a member of the NDP Federal Executive (2006-2011). Until the recent withdrawal of Romeo Saganash from the leadership race, Wilson served as Campaign Manager for that campaign.
"Paul Dewar possesses a lot of the same values and leadership qualities as Romeo Saganash," said Dan Wilson. "I've known Paul for many years and I can say without hesitation that he is a committed social democrat, a strategic thinker, and most of all, he understands how we need to grow the NDP if we are going to form government in 2015".
Well, that's interesting. Good catch by Dewar.
The way the Cons are abusing their majority status, if they keep this up, I think the country will give them the boot in 2015.
f I shared the widely held opinion that we most certain to win with Mulcair- he's the man with the stuff- then I might hold my nose and vote for him as first choice.
His obvious political skills and excellent presentation skills that have served him so well for his political creer so far does not prove that he will be a political success as Leader. And I think he is more likely to fail. So there's nothing at all for me to 'hold my nose' and vote for.
For myself, I was anti-Mulcair long before I decided I was going to support Topp, and I waffled about Topp up until Romeo quitting... where now I really only had one choice, and even that one not totally decided at the time. While I was anti-Mulcair the minute he started differentiating himself.
Counter-intuitively: Mulcair has risen to third choice, and was close to being second, as other candidates have more belatedly sunk in my estimation. But that hasnt changed my feelings. I'm in what is apparently a very small category of people who think that we are likely to suffer poltically with Mulcair as leader. But some of the alternatives have been catching up to him on that score.
We are going to win the next election.
NDP front runner jabs at Harper, Liberals
Mulcair shares vision in Sask
http://www.leaderpost.com/news/front+runner+jabs+Harper+Liberals/6195408...
