The threads about the leadership contest are just getting worse and worse. People are literally making stuff up, at best by referring to one quote and ignoring 10 others, and sometimes without any references at all. Things that could easily be verified by going to the most obvious of locations.
Would Mulcair move the NDP to the right?
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:53
#52
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:01
#53
Mulcair has said he supports a more fair, more progressive income tax system. He supports rolling back corporate income tax cuts. So you're right, I hope he doesn't change his tune once he's Prime Minister.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:01
#54
FWIW, tax the rich has been out for at least 10 years now... although I support the candidates who want to bring it back in, there's only two of them who have been bold enough to admit it.Been 'out' -according to who, the Post and Mail?
Only two candidates have proposed a tax increase. The rest, including Mulcair, want to close loopholes, and wait until 2015. No one has ruled a tax increase out.
I thought Saganesh had also proposed increases for higher brackets but differed from Topp over how he thought they should be implemeted. Mulair and his surrogate Singh have been quite fierce in opposing what Topp suggested, and has steadfastly maintained that devises like closing loopholes and 'Cap n Trade' would do the trick. If anyone here thinks he will change his tune if he achieved power they are quite bluntly deluding theselves. (pardon my slowness ad typos, I'm relying on an old laptop right now)
Anyhow, your shifting away from m point that the idea of tax increases (for the ready undertaxed) is hardly unheard of let alone unpopular outside the Globe and Post.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:02
#55
Never mind the NDP, the Liberals and Tories have done a fine job of moving Canada further to the right than most OECD capitalist countries when it comes to social spending and abandoning federal obligations.
The NDP won't be promising to fix inside one four-year term what took the two oldest parties 36 years to break. Not only is that not feasible, it would also be a terrible lie. Some socialists will not want to see the NDP make promises that no one on earth could possibly keep including the Liebranos. What's left is hard work over the course of several terms in government comparable to the way in which the CCF in Saskatchewan created a modern province and exporting socialized medicine to the rest of Canada.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:03
#56
The threads about the leadership contest are just getting worse and worse. People are literally making stuff up, at best by referring to one quote and ignoring 10 others, and sometimes without any references at all. Things that could easily be verified by going to the most obvious of locations.
Do you think they want to clarify? Or just push lines against certain candidates regardless of reality?
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:04
#57
No he doesn't say that exactly, he in fact resists any specifics when it comes right down it.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:06
#58
Do you think they want to clarify? Or just push lines against certain candidates regardless of reality?The threads about the leadership contest are just getting worse and worse. People are literally making stuff up, at best by referring to one quote and ignoring 10 others, and sometimes without any references at all. Things that could easily be verified by going to the most obvious of locations.
If you Mulcair partisans really feel tht way then how bout demonstrating where 'we' are wrong?
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:11
#59
I thought Saganesh had also proposed increases for higher brackets but differed from Topp over how he thought they should be implemeted. Mulair and his surrogate Singh have been quite fierce in opposing what Topp suggested, and has steadfastly maintained that devises like closing loopholes and 'Cap n Trade' would do the trick.
Saganash said no such thing. Not even close.
And while you did accurately repeat what Mulcair has said, the attribution to 'his surrogate' is all fantasy.
How can we have a discussion when people just make stuff up?
Why dont you just leave it at, "I'd never vote for Mulcair as Leader, and no one else should either."
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:14
#60
No he doesn't say that exactly, he in fact resists any specifics when it comes right down it.
Oh my god... I seriously want to pull my hair out lol.
He has said that more than once in nationally televised debates. You want him to get it tattooed on his forehead? lol
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:17
#61
Since you are ostensibly at least, replying to me, point to a single thing I said that justifies framing your reply in response to the sraw person of 'ideologival purity'. Not to mention I explicitly addressed that it is not about getting everything or 'going centrist'... that we always at best get piece by piece.
But there's a legitimate question whether we get ANY pieces other than crumbs we could get from the Liberals.
Well, call it "relative leftyness" if you like. Or whatever.
Yes, you said we get progress piece by piece, but you also said that the number of pieces that we get done in a single term is dependent on how left-wing the leader's personal politics are. I'm saying that has nothing to do with it. That it is the political skill of the leader that will determine how far we can push the agenda and how unscathed we emerge in the attempt.
Mind you, I'm saying this because I believe that the NDP will be fighting a steep uphill battle and hence will only be able to implement a small portion of its policies. The difference between the left and right factions of the party will not be relevent to the political discussion until the NDP gains the political capital to make deeper changes (like dropping NAFTA). That might take a few terms. In the meantime, we've got to take office in three years. it's a much more immediate concern than all this "where is the party going?" stuff.
And I think that's an essential difference with a lot of the Mulcair supporters. Like me, they never came to the race looking to choose a direction for the NDP. There's a long term plan in place that nobody in the NDP wants to change. It was formed under Jack but comprised the efforts of many others, all of whom are still in the party, Mulcair being one of them. The direction is "stay the course" and none of the candidates are going to do otherwise. I just came to find the best spokesperson for the party.
The party has already made use of Mulcair's skills in the Quebec breakthrough. Usually, you pull off something that good, you get a bigger job. Now we have a vacancy for a position that needs the same skills that Mulcair showed us there, and he's shown those same skills in this leadership race. People have to stop thinking he's taking over. All he's doing is putting his talents where they'll do the most good.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:18
#62
If Mulcair moves the party to the 'right', he will be following in the footsteps of Jack Layton and every other leader since the founding of the NDP in 1961. In fact, the founding of the NDP itself was a shift to the right. Among the present candidates for leader I don't think any of them would do anything to stop the shift to the political centre (sorry, I mean the 'right').
I'm not sure what your general point is here but I will disagree that he NDP has been nothing but a steady progression towards the right, or that all leadership candidates are the same on the essentials. Layton for example orginally tried to run to McDonoughs left befoe switching horses in the next campagn, an he NDP has improved on a whole rangeof social isues from women's rights to FN. For the first time in a decade some are even daring to speak out openly about the possibility of balancing budgets through raising revenues again (within wroldwide aves) rather than cutting jobs, middleclass incomes or social security. Only the far right and far left refuse to recognise any meaningful position between classical (neo)liberalism and Marxist socialism.
Thank you for your response, Erik. My main point is that it is disingenuous to accuse Mulcair for moving the party to the right when his politics is no more 'centrist' than that of Jack Layton or any other previous leader of the NDP (or that of any other candidate running against Tom). Sure, there has been a little back and forth on some issues, but fundamentally the party is more centrist now than it has ever been.
I'm not saying they're a complete sell-out and that we shouldn't support them; I'm just saying let's be clear about what they are and what they aren't. Consequently, if we're going to differentiate among those competing for leader, we must use different criteria than whether they are centrist or not.
Thank you. The political centre has indeed moved to the right, so the party shouldn't be judged in the`ame terms as before. Aering the domenent neo-liberal discourse should not be left t the party leadership alone, certainly. However I don't see the need to move the party Futher to right either, certainly not based on the fase percepton that the Liberals from Chretien on had the magic formula for winning. Or that the party was nothing but wide eyed idealists and scarey socialists before Layton...
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:20
#63
I thought Saganesh had also proposed increases for higher brackets but differed from Topp over how he thought they should be implemeted. Mulair and his surrogate Singh have been quite fierce in opposing what Topp suggested, and has steadfastly maintained that devises like closing loopholes and 'Cap n Trade' would do the trick. If anyone here thinks he will change his tune if he achieved power they are quite bluntly deluding theselves. (pardon my slowness ad typos, I'm relying on an old laptop right now)Anyhow, your shifting away from m point that the idea of tax increases (for the ready undertaxed) is hardly unheard of let alone unpopular outside the Globe and Post.
I agree with your point: a tax increase on the wealthy is desireable.
Saganash: "I don’t think an income tax increase is the right way to go for Canada." His position is Mulcair's: fix the tax ceiling, rather raising it. Both have left the possibility open for 2015, along with Peggy Nash.
You're shifting away from the point of this thread, which is whether Mulcair would move the party to the right. You can check the 2011 platform. On taxes, the issue is decisively no.
There are only two candidates proposing a tax increase on the wealthy. Nathan Cullen and Brian Topp. This elevates them in my eyes.
I know you have a bad laptop, but that should caution you to do slow and steady research before making such bold statements of fact.
Also, I'm not a Mulcair partisan. I know that other candidates are superior to him on I-P and taxes and a few other issues. But my criticisms stick to the truth.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:28
#64
I thought Saganesh had also proposed increases for higher brackets but differed from Topp over how he thought they should be implemeted. Mulair and his surrogate Singh have been quite fierce in opposing what Topp suggested, and has steadfastly maintained that devises like closing loopholes and 'Cap n Trade' would do the trick.
Saganash said no such thing. Not even close.
And while you did accurately repeat what Mulcair has said, the attribution to 'his surrogate' is all fantasy.
How can we have a discussion when people just make stuff up?
Why dont you just leave it at, "I'd never vote for Mulcair as Leader, and no one else should either."
Because I specifically wrote I probably WOULD vote for him or whoever else won, regardess, and I'm not nterested in tryin to tell others who have obviously mde u her how minds thousands of posts earlier to chnge them. Sorry i I havent kept up with all the thousands of posts myself. Keep this partisan wagon circling up though and I might chnge my own mind about that too, after all.
Re Singh, There are in fact indications that his camp is planning on supporting Mulcair if (when) he gets knocked out. BOC he denies it officially....he's playing 'to win'.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:34
#65
The NDP are not the let's sign NAFTA as-is Liberals nor are they the let's relieve Uncle Sam in Kandahar so he can destroy Iraq Libranos.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:34
#66
Because I specifically wrote I probably WOULD vote for him or whoever else won, regardess, and I'm not nterested in tryin to tell others who have obviously mde u her how minds thousands of posts earlier to chnge them. Sorry i I havent kept up with all the thousands of posts myself. Keep this partisan wagon circling up though and I might chnge my own mind about that too, after all.
FWIW...
Many people here are Mulcair supporters. Me and KenS are not. There's nothing wrong with supporting another candidate.
There's also nothing wrong with having trouble keeping up with the candidates and their positions.
But you get into trouble when you start making proclamations about the differences between the candidates that aren't true.
(Trouble may be the wrong word. After all, there are plenty of people who will believe anything you say, and repeat any non-truth so long as it makes the point that they want to make.)
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:38
#67
I thought Saganesh had also proposed increases for higher brackets but differed from Topp over how he thought they should be implemeted. Mulair and his surrogate Singh have been quite fierce in opposing what Topp suggested, and has steadfastly maintained that devises like closing loopholes and 'Cap n Trade' would do the trick. If anyone here thinks he will change his tune if he achieved power they are quite bluntly deluding theselves. (pardon my slowness ad typos, I'm relying on an old laptop right now)Anyhow, your shifting away from m point that the idea of tax increases (for the ready undertaxed) is hardly unheard of let alone unpopular outside the Globe and Post.
I agree with your point: a tax increase on the wealthy is desireable.
Saganash: "I don’t think an income tax increase is the right way to go for Canada." His position is Mulcair's: fix the tax ceiling, rather raising it. Both have left the possibility open for 2015, along with Peggy Nash.
You're shifting away from the point of this thread, which is whether Mulcair would move the party to the right. You can check the 2011 platform. On taxes, the issue is decisively no.
There are only two candidates proposing a tax increase on the wealthy. Nathan Cullen and Brian Topp. This elevates them in my eyes.
I know you have a bad laptop, but that should caution you to do slow and steady research before making such bold statements of fact.
Also, I'm not a Mulcair partisan. I know that other candidates are superior to him on I-P and taxes and a few other issues. But my criticisms stick to the truth.
You might not see yoursef as Mulcair partisan but you have consistently supported him throughout this and hundreds of oher threads. Re Saganesh, I may have been mistaken about him (hey, I did say, I think...) but my original point stands. Mulcair's position is NOT universal to all candidates and certaintly not the membership OR the voting public. And unlike other more progressive cadidates he has taken a public stand against it. That too is a difference worth noting.
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:38
#68
And the Liberal Party's positions were those of the voting public on how many issues? How many phony majorities did they win?
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:41
#69
You might not see yoursef as Mulcair partisan but you have consistently supported him throughout this and hundreds of oher threads. Re Saganesh, I may have been mistaken about him (hey, I did say, I think...) but my original point stands. Mulcair's position is NOT universal to all candidates and certaintly not the membership OR the voting public. And unlike other more progressive cadidates he has taken a public stand against it. That too is a difference worth noting.
If correcting any misstatements or untruths makes me a partisan... then yes, I guess I'm a partisan for all of the candidates.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:05
#70
I think it's because of the united political front on the right in Canada that I am partisan. WorstPastLePost tends to bring out the partisan in me. I'd rather that all Canadians be able to vote with their hearts and minds, though. One Canadian should equal one vote.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:20
#71
You might not see yoursef as Mulcair partisan but you have consistently supported him throughout this and hundreds of oher threads. Re Saganesh, I may have been mistaken about him (hey, I did say, I think...) but my original point stands. Mulcair's position is NOT universal to all candidates and certaintly not the membership OR the voting public. And unlike other more progressive cadidates he has taken a public stand against it. That too is a difference worth noting.If correcting any misstatements or untruths makes me a partisan... then yes, I guess I'm a partisan for all of the candidates.
Nice vague statement. Sorry if I was mistaken about Saganesh; I admit I haven't kept up with the 120+ horserace threads. But once again, my point stands -not all candidates are saying the same, not even Re taxes (as others are tring to imply) and considering it outloud would *not* be the kiss of death for politicians, not outside the CPC. (that goes for some other contenders too)
You have just as much right to support anyone you choose OC as anyone else, but please don't act like youre perfectly non-partisan about him.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:28
#72
And since my credibility is being challenged now, Mulcair not only Opposes working with Liberals going into the next eletion, a position I agree with (sorry Nathan), but he has rejected the notion of a post-election coalition as well -something others including Layton were more open to. This puts his official support of NDP PR policy in almost as much doubt as all the other NDP leaders who talked about it positively..until given a chance to implemnt it.
http://theleftistlens.blogspot.com/2012/01/additional-thoughts-after-enc...
Other stories I've heard (I don't rely on just babble for NDP news) may have come from similar experiences as this: "Another statement Mulcair made that turned many members off was in response to a question about how high of a priority proportional representation would be for him if he became Prime Minister. His response was that implementing proportional representation would require a constitutional amendment and therefore would be virtually impossible. Many in the audience were shocked. None of us had ever heard anyone take that view. Even a fellow staffer, who also is a National Council member of Fair Vote Canada, found it "bizarre". I was even more confused when I started to hear reports from Eastern Canada a couple weeks later that Mulcair was talking about proportional representation as a top priority for him. Whatever his real story is on PR, it doesn't look good."
Have any others heard him say anything similar? Because trying to outrun the Liberals may make good sene next election, but not further down the road, certainly not federally.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:33
#73
Because I specifically wrote I probably WOULD vote for him or whoever else won, regardess, and I'm not nterested in tryin to tell others who have obviously mde u her how minds thousands of posts earlier to chnge them. Sorry i I havent kept up with all the thousands of posts myself. Keep this partisan wagon circling up though and I might chnge my own mind about that too, after all.FWIW...
Many people here are Mulcair supporters. Me and KenS are not. There's nothing wrong with supporting another candidate.
There's also nothing wrong with having trouble keeping up with the candidates and their positions.
But you get into trouble when you start making proclamations about the differences between the candidates that aren't true.
(Trouble may be the wrong word. After all, there are plenty of people who will believe anything you say, and repeat any non-truth so long as it makes the point that they want to make.)
I'm aware that Ken is a Topp suporter thank you. And no, I'm not in anymore 'trouble' than all the Mulcair suporters who keep swarming this thread.... Dog-piles are just part of the unique Babble.ca experience...so persistence is a virtue here as well.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:46
#74
It was the Liberals who scrubbed the coalition not the NDP.
And with WPTP, it doesn't pay to talk about coalitions before the opportunity presents itself. With WorstPastThePost parties are forced to campaign for the winner take all post. It's the Liberals who will have to come begging with caps in hand to the NDP now. It is the Liberals who should get behind the NDP on proportional voting.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:46
#75
Three comments on NAFTA:
1) Even if you actually do support making changes within the NAFTA framework, ruling out abrogation is a bad idea. Why? Because it's the strongest card we have in our hand. Suppose the NDP wins government and asks the Americans to "renegotiate" NAFTA. Chances are, the Americans say no. And then what do we do? Well, if we've taken abrogation off the table, we can't do anything, and we're forced to live with NAFTA forever. But if we lay down the ultimatum to the Americans that if they refuse to renegotiate, then we'll abrogate the agreement, the Americans will come to the negotiating table. Because while the American government might rather have NAFTA in its current form than a renegotiated agreement, they'll take a renegotiated agreement over no agreement at all.
2) Working within the NAFTA framework is a bad idea, anyway. Why? Because it's binding for Canada, but non-binding for the United States. The US does not regard NAFTA as a treaty. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties must be ratified by the Senate; NAFTA never was. Thus, while Canadian courts enforce NAFTA arbitration as binding, American courts don't. Furthermore, contrary to the suggestion of some that NAFTA is basically a good document with a few bad aspects, the reality is that NAFTA is basically a bad document with a few good aspects. Only a tiny portion of what's in NAFTA should be kept.
3) Conservative must be much scarier if you think that their decisions can't be reversed. Frankly, I would expect an NDP government to change a lot of things that have been done by past governments. Why should NAFTA be any exception? The CWB is over 75 years old, and the Conservatives don't think that prevents them from killing it. (I live in hope that the CWB monopsony to be restored by a future NDP government.) NAFTA will, in 2015, be just 21 years old. It's not as if it's such a fundamental part of Canada that we can't get rid of it. In fact, if we want to save the Canada we love, we'd better get rid of it.
All good points, but I bold-faced the part I thought most relavance. Even if we all accept that NAFTA (and similar 'trade' deals made more recenty) might be better renegotiated now than abbrogated outright, the threat of abrogation should still be used as a tactic. Lots of god reasons to question globaization now, as I'm sue you know, but even more balanced international investment agreements (which is closer to the reality) would be best acomplished by using what little leverage we stil hold.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:52
#76
Because I specifically wrote I probably WOULD vote for him or whoever else won, regardess, and I'm not nterested in tryin to tell others who have obviously mde u her how minds thousands of posts earlier to chnge them. Sorry i I havent kept up with all the thousands of posts myself. Keep this partisan wagon circling up though and I might chnge my own mind about that too, after all.FWIW...
Many people here are Mulcair supporters. Me and KenS are not. There's nothing wrong with supporting another candidate.
There's also nothing wrong with having trouble keeping up with the candidates and their positions.
But you get into trouble when you start making proclamations about the differences between the candidates that aren't true.
(Trouble may be the wrong word. After all, there are plenty of people who will believe anything you say, and repeat any non-truth so long as it makes the point that they want to make.)
SDM, my perception is that you are a Mulcair supporter (which is fine). Or is it that you have a longshot favourite parked at #1 with Mulcair at #2? The reason I ask is that you spend mucho time deflecting criticisms from Mulcair and hardly any time promoting whoever it is you have at #1. Refresh my memory.
BTW, I'm voting Nash, Topp, Ashton.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:52
#77
It was the Liberals who scrubbed the coalition not the NDP.
Yes, but AFTER the next election they might be more willing to talk. It would help if he next NDP leader showed a willingness to give them another chace, it would build on the pragmatic-idealist reputation that Jack built. If they refused again then the blame would fall squarely on them and the Liberals could no longer use it against us in following elections.
Tue, 2012-03-13 18:55
#78
SDM, my perception is that you are a Mulcair supporter (which is fine). Or is it that you have a longshot favourite parked at #1 with Mulcair at #2? The reason I ask is that you spend mucho time deflecting criticisms from Mulcair and hardly any time promoting whoever it is you have at #1. Refresh my memory.
BTW, I'm voting Nash, Topp, Ashton.
I think SDM is just being fair to all the candidates and when he/she spots BS, says so.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:03
#79
I think SDM is just being fair to all the candidates and when he/she spots BS, says so.SDM, my perception is that you are a Mulcair supporter (which is fine). Or is it that you have a longshot favourite parked at #1 with Mulcair at #2? The reason I ask is that you spend mucho time deflecting criticisms from Mulcair and hardly any time promoting whoever it is you have at #1. Refresh my memory.
BTW, I'm voting Nash, Topp, Ashton.
So how come he hasn't called others on insisting that Mulcair is realy no different than the others? Despite the mounting evidence.
S
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:08
#80
A better question is this:
Will Mulcair move the federal government to the left?
Isn't that what this is about?
The ones unable to win an election won't be moving the federal government either way.
Will the NDP move to the right in winning government?
Perhaps somewhat-- not because of who he is but becuase all parties tend to move a little towards the centre when they govern in part becuase of a widening base.
I don't see Mulcair moving the NDP any more to the right than anyone else.
His rhetoric won't be so pure as to keep the NDP in third place but when it comes to actual policies and ideas, I am hopeful.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:14
#81
SDM, my perception is that you are a Mulcair supporter (which is fine). Or is it that you have a longshot favourite parked at #1 with Mulcair at #2? The reason I ask is that you spend mucho time deflecting criticisms from Mulcair and hardly any time promoting whoever it is you have at #1. Refresh my memory.BTW, I'm voting Nash, Topp, Ashton.
I'm voting real time. I'm still undecided, although I've decided that in the absence of anyone I feel strongly about I'd like my first vote to count for Ashton. I was looking at Peggy Nash for #2, but Brian Topp stepped his game up at the last minute. I suppose Mulcair could still conceivably end up in my personal top 3, to say nothing of the fact that I would stand behind him if he becomes leader.
The reason you can find me so often defending Mulcair is mainly because there's a lot of people on babble who spend their time attacking him. A lot of these criticisms are grounded in rumor and half-truths. I don't like rumor. I don't like hyperbole.
The reason I spend so little time promoting who I think should be #1, besides being mostly undecided, is because people who hate Mulcair spend little time promoting who they think should be #1. If they did, I'd be able to point out that their #1 doesn't support a one-state solution, won't sanction Israel, won't withdraw from NAFTA, won't shut down the tar sands, won't withdraw from NATO, won't nationalize any industry, or any other number of criticisms that seem to be Mulcair's fault, and not any of the other candidates. Certainly not Jack "Mr. Modernization" Layton.
There are legitimate (and by legitimate, I mean grounded-in-fact) reasons to support the other candidates. They just seldom seem to come out.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:14
#82
If they refused again then the blame would fall squarely on them and the Liberals could no longer use it against us in following elections.
I already blame the Liberals for everything from selling the environment to Exxon-Imperial to installing Canadian troops in an aggressive American style combat role in Kandahar on the sly to scrubbing the coalition in 2008. They don't have to try any harder to make me believe they are just another wing of the Conservative Party. Am I FirstPastThePost electioneering already? Darned right I am. No prisoners!
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:15
#83
And just because I'm still being accused of making shit up now....
My comment about Singh suporting Mulcair hardly came out of thin air:
http://news.yahoo.com/mulcair-singh-appear-team-ndp-leadership-contest-1...
I do not like some of the undertow to this, but some facts now revealed may back these suspicions up:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mulcair-singh-new-democrat-leade...
Be interesting to see who ultimately ends up supports who, when the chips are finally counted, now that Topp and Nash have rejected the idea of endorsng one/another. Maybe they might think again.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:21
#84
Excellent post, sdm.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:26
#85
Be interesting to see who ultimately ends up supports who, when the chips are finally counted, now that Topp and Nash have rejected the idea of endorsng one/another. Maybe they might think again.
Ever think Peggy would pick Tom over Brian? Or Brian pick Tom over Peggy? They try to differentiate themselves from Tom in a campaign but do so to earn votes for themselves. I think that they themselves know there is little difference among them and know this "ideological debate" is for show. For example, Brian may say to himself "Tom not Peggy can maintain our Quebec seats".
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:32
#86
There are legitimate (and by legitimate, I mean grounded-in-fact) reasons to support the other candidates. They just seldom seem to come out.
Yes well, if you took the time to read what *I* have writen in Re to others *here* you might see that your potrayal doesn't xactly fit what I'm arguing either. In fact, youre being rather disigenuous about this whole thing, shifting from I don't believe NAFTA/NATO can be gotten out of (much as youd like it...) to the PARTY doesn't think so either, (leaders? members? this generation, past gens, future gens?) to Mulcair's position being NO Different from Others As Other openly prtisan Mulcair supporters here chime in. I have already demonstrted that's not so, yet still it's being confused ad misrepresented.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:47
#87
Ever think Peggy would pick Tom over Brian? Or Brian pick Tom over Peggy? They try to differentiate themselves from Tom in a campaign but do so to earn votes for themselves. I think that they themselves know there is little difference among them and know this "ideological debate" is for show. For example, Brian may say to himself "Tom not Peggy can maintain our Quebec seats".Be interesting to see who ultimately ends up supports who, when the chips are finally counted, now that Topp and Nash have rejected the idea of endorsng one/another. Maybe they might think again.
Conratulations for picking up on the afterthought instead of the mainframe lead-in. But no, I don't believe that 'Tom' is the only one who could a hold Quebec, since you ask, nor do I think it's guaranted with him either, but how others might see it is pure speculation -at least until they actually say something reportable like one of Singh's staff just did.
But hey, I must have some secret agenda against poor old Tom, what being a suspected Marxie or some such.... Anyhow, I think I answered everyone now, so at least noone can complain about being neglected, ciao.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:52
#88
Conratulations for picking up on the afterthought instead of the mainframe lead-in. But no, I don't believe that 'Tom' is the only one who could a hold Quebec, since you ask, nor do I think it's guaranted with him either, but how others might see it is pure speculation -at least until they actually say something reportable like one of Singh's staff just did.
But hey, I must have some secret agenda against poor old Tom, what being a suspected Marxie or some such.... Anyhow, I think I answered everyone now, so at least noone can complain about being neglected, ciao.
You're a patient guy Erik.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:55
#89
I suggest an end to the bullshit here and start to think about putting our support behind whoever becomes the next NDP leader, because that person has an incredibly difficult route to making the NDP the party in power in 2015. Maybe it's time to start new threads in support of the new leader whoever it is and start talking about strategies to keep and grow NDP support.
Pardon me, strike two. I suggest everyone kiss and make up AFTER the next leader is chosen, just like every other time around. Sometimes youre just too nice for politics BoomBoom.
Tue, 2012-03-13 19:58
#90
Conratulations for picking up on the afterthought instead of the mainframe lead-in. But no, I don't believe that 'Tom' is the only one who could a hold Quebec, since you ask, nor do I think it's guaranted with him either, but how others might see it is pure speculation -at least until they actually say something reportable like one of Singh's staff just did.
But hey, I must have some secret agenda against poor old Tom, what being a suspected Marxie or some such.... Anyhow, I think I answered everyone now, so at least noone can complain about being neglected, ciao.
You're a patient guy Erik.
Do I detect a note of irony there? <:) Persistant I think is the word...thanks.
Tue, 2012-03-13 20:06
#91
Not realistic? What's unrealistic is thinking we can just tack meaningful labour and enviro standards post-facto onto the deeply flawed and undemocratic document.
Not realistic to think it's something that can be done with no difficulty in Ottawa. It also depends on what American and Mexican governments and their constituents and important interests want. It's also not realistic to think that there's no risk in such a process of NAFTA being made worse in important ways.
It would be difficult now and involve risks I agree, but they can minimized. Its a sure bet OTOH that both our economies will continue to go south, if we don't try to stop our profits, tax revenues and contitutional rights from going with them.
Tue, 2012-03-13 20:23
#92
The question is how MUCH party policy actually gets put to the road.
Its never more than partial. We get ATM fees and other quickie positing, and some of the party policy.
If someone is more of a centrist, odds are very high we'll get LESS of party policy with them as Leader- including the things they personally promoted during the leadership race.
And it is not simplictically from, "well yeah, we have to make sure we can win on what we put out there."
For pragmatists who want the most we can get, it is a question of how much 'oomph' and finesse you put into 'what we need to do to win.' And Mulcair is all about positioning of the moment, unlike Jack who aced that, but always had his eye on more. That is what we stand to lose.
I disagree completely. I think that Mulcair is the candidate who is the least focused on the positioning of the moment and the one who takes the longest view in every move he makes. And there is no doubt the man has a drive to win. He will be putting everything he's got into winning every battle, because he's just scrappy like that. You can see it in his eyes. He hates to lose and has no intention of doing so. Every ounce of "oomph" and finesse will be present.
And I disagree even more strongly with your assertion that the candidate who is the most centrist is the one who will get the least results, and I've been meaning to write something about this for a while.
From the moment the NDP takes office, there will be strong, constant, aggressive rightwing pressure. The media will be hounding them. The business community and lobbyists will be meeting with them. The opposition will be heckling them. Every policy they attempt to enact will be followed by a right-wing shit storm requiring the party to waste tons of time in damage control and perception management. You think there's anything our opponents won't stoop to? Look to the ill-fated BC NDP government who had their leader in handcuffs on the front page of the paper because he might have had a deck built too cheaply. That's what we're up against and that will be the grinding excrutiating struggle of trying to get the simplest legislation passed in Ottawa without wearing it as an albatross for the next election.
This is why the ideological purity of the leader is practically irrelevent. The NDP is not going to be able to accomplish a fraction of what people here seem to be expecting. The party platform will not be implemented in a fell swoop, or even in large chunks at a time. It will be done slowly and carefully, piece by piece, in a defensive posture. The first term of the new NDP government will be a lot like trench warfare in WWI.
What is relevent is the effectiveness of the leader. Their abilty to deflect the attacks, to maintain their dignity in a swirl of accusations and smear jobs. Their ability to out-maneuver their opponents and lead their aggressive posturing into positional traps. Their ability to take the fight back when the time is right. This is why I want Mulcair to be the leader, because I look at all the other candidates and I see dead meat. Harper would tear these people to shreds. If they managed to win, they would spend their whole term trying to survive and get virtually nothing done.
I doubt Mulcair and I agree on a whole lot, if we came to matching politics. I want to see the end of capitalism, I think the CIA is an international crime ring, and I think the world should stop using petroleum as quickly as it possibly can. He doesn't reflect my values, no, but he does represent a crucial piece of my long term political goals. We need an NDP goverment in place, and Mulcair's the guy who can get the job done. Then we can get started on the really hard job of saving the country before everything falls to shit.
Great writing sir, I enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that the first little while in office is going to be like trench warfare, but our man/woman has to get in there 'immediately' and sieze and execute power while he has the opportunity. A better metaphor is a hockey face off, and Topp is fast.
Look what happened to Obama. His bipartisan stance is comparable to centrism, or moving to the right. Obama's attempt to be bipartisan was a falure to execute power according to his stated goals of bettering the lives of working class Americans. He told the populace during elections he'd 'be' left and he instead dieked right - that's bait and switch. Evidence for the deception - he should have deployed his power when he had a majority in congress, the fact that he didn't makes him unworthy of our trust. He perhaps reasoned it was a trench war too, but it was much faster game. Americans now must purchase health insurance, to the delight of insurers.
Our leader shouldn't go into office trying to appeal to unreasonable selfish people on the right. I want her, or him, to go into office and do the job that we're paying him to do, immediately.
That's why Topp is so appealing now. Right from the face off he's in there digging to fight for us. He was fast off the mark with endorsements, policy statements, communication - his views on taxes suggest he's gonna defy the tories, not become them even for show.
Tue, 2012-03-13 20:29
#93
Great writing sir, I enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that the first little while in office is going to be like trench warfare, but our man/woman has to get in there 'immediately' and sieze and execute power while he has the opportunity. A better metaphor is a hockey face off, and Topp is fast.
Look what happened to Obama. His bipartisan stance is comparable to centrism, or moving to the right. Obama's attempt to be bipartisan was a falure to execute power according to his stated goals of bettering the lives of working class Americans. He told the populace during elections he'd 'be' left and he instead dieked right - that's bait and switch. Evidence for the deception - he should have deployed his power when he had a majority in congress, the fact that he didn't makes him unworthy of our trust. He perhaps reasoned it was a trench war too, but it was much faster game. Americans now must purchase health insurance, to the delight of insurers.
Our leader shouldn't go into office trying to appeal to unreasonable selfish people on the right. I want her, or him, to go into office and do the job that we're paying him to do, immediately.
That's why Topp is so appealing now. Right from the face off he's in there digging to fight for us. He was fast off the mark with endorsements, policy statements, communication - his attack on tax break entitlements for the rich, suggests he's gonna defy the tories, not become them even for show.
I don't feel like you're actually disagreeing with me. I feel like you're talking about something else. Obama tried to work with people who didn't want to work with him. It was folly from the start. Mulcair is telling the press that there is no way he'll enter into any agreements with the Liberals. I don't see the comparison. The Democrats are not a left-wing party anyway and US voters shouldn't have thought that a leftyish leader would make them one, any more than a centrist leader will make the NDP centrist.
You've misunderstood what I've been trying to say. I'm not saying Mulcair is positioning himself to pick up right-wing votes. I'm saying he's positioning himself to resist right-wing attacks. Big difference. Mulcair will do the job he's been charged by the party to do. He will promote the party platform. My contention is that he will do the best job of this out of all the candidates because of his skill, regardless of the fact that he may not be the candidate whose personal leanings most perfectly fit the platform.
Tue, 2012-03-13 20:33
#94
There are legitimate (and by legitimate, I mean grounded-in-fact) reasons to support the other candidates. They just seldom seem to come out.
Yes well, if you took the time to read what *I* have writen in Re to others *here* you might see that your potrayal doesn't xactly fit what I'm arguing either. In fact, youre being rather disigenuous about this whole thing, shifting from I don't believe NAFTA/NATO can be gotten out of (much as youd like it...) to the PARTY doesn't think so either, (leaders? members? this generation, past gens, future gens?) to Mulcair's position being NO Different from Others As Other openly prtisan Mulcair supporters here chime in. I have already demonstrted that's not so, yet still it's being confused ad misrepresented.
My position has been 100% consistent here.
Getting out of NAFTA or NATO may be theoretically possible. It may even be desirable.
But there isn't a single candidate who is going to do that.
The reason I keep bringing it up is because a lot of Mulcair critics blame him for this. But that blame belongs to the NDP at large. All the candidates. Jack Layton. Pretty much everyone. (Save maybe a few MPs, but none of them are running, and even then I'm not sure you could find one.)
That's not being disingenuous. That's pointing out that the main thesis of this thread -- that Mulcair would move the party to the right -- is wrong, at least when it comes to NAFTA and NATO.
You'll find tons of rhetoric criticizing both NAFTA and NATO, which is part of the overall NDP approach to these issues. But no one ready to do anything more than amend with a few key provisions. It's been that way for years.
If I'm wrong, then you'll be able to point to one of the leadership candidates who wants to withdraw from NATO or NAFTA.
There ARE other areas where the candidates disagree... notably on tax policy. But even there, Mulcair is holding it down for th 2011 platform, with only Topp and Cullen ready to go leftward. That deserves praise, but it's different in fact than accusing Mulcair of a right-turn, let alone any of the other candidates.
Tue, 2012-03-13 20:51
#95
Yes, you said we get progress piece by piece, but you also said that the number of pieces that we get done in a single term is dependent on how left-wing the leader's personal politics are.
You'll have an adventure finding where I said that, since it is about 180 opposite of my understanding of politics.
We agree that the personal politics of a leader dont indicate much what we are going to get from them. I dont know if this includes you, but Mulcair's supporters typicaly will argue endlessly that Mulcair's personal politics are no less left/progressive/whatever.... as if identifying the true sould of the leader tells us what we are going to get.
Tue, 2012-03-13 20:58
#96
The reason I keep bringing it up is because a lot of Mulcair critics blame him for this. But that blame belongs to the NDP at large. All the candidates. Jack Layton. Pretty much everyone. (Save maybe a few MPs, but none of them are running, and even then I'm not sure you could find one.)
I think Jack Layton was always pretty darn clear about wanting to end NAFTA. And there are certainly MPs who not only want to end it, but for whom it might be their #1 issue.
Let's remember Jack's position on NAFTA (because so many folks seem to forget). It was a major issue for him, and one about which he was deeply passionate. Note that Jack didn't just talk about not further surrendering Canadian sovereignty; he called for us to "get it back." I don't know how that can be interpreted in a way that doesn't involve ending NAFTA.
I desperately worry that at the national level the Canadian government is losing, or giving away, its ability to act on behalf of its citizens.
...
The federal government signed away significant democratic and sovereign powers in international trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and through the World Trade Organization. Why would our government do this? The goal was to create a legal environment globally that would make it easier for governments to reduce services while opening the door for their corporate replacements: to shrink the public provision for the people's needs while enshrining a legal latticework that would facilitate multinational corporate expansion. Just look at how services like care for seniors, drinking water supply, and even our energy utilities have come under the growing influence of multinational corporations instead of public institutions or community organizations. This transition from a mixed economy to one where privatizations are increasing and public services are sent into tailspins was mandated by trade agreements that were never approved by democratic processes. A better set of ideas for trade in the context of well-functioning and just democracies needs to be constructed.
...
Not to put too fine a point on it, my fellow Canadians, but global corporate powers are taking over the country and threatening our independence, and using their friends in federal and and provincial governments as their "business partners."
...
All this has to change if Canadians are to be able to create solutions in our own interests. In the end, this is why Canadian independence is important. Politics is about people, not just corporations. Sovereignty lets people decide. And we are losing our sovereignty. I know this sounds dramatic. But the fact that we are losing our independence ought to concern every Canadian.
...
International trade agreements are jeopardizing our ability to make these decisions and are increasingly turning over the direction of our society to huge corporate entities that do not necessarily share our values.
...
Our recent governments, which have pushed international trade deals that sacrifice democratic rights and accountability and give even more rights to already powerful and profitable national corporations, have been out of touch with the Canadian bedrock. We need to confront this challenge directly.
...
Though we have already signed over far too much of our sovereignty, it is not too late to get it back. But the clock is ticking.
Tue, 2012-03-13 21:13
#97
The reason I keep bringing it up is because a lot of Mulcair critics blame him for this. But that blame belongs to the NDP at large. All the candidates. Jack Layton. Pretty much everyone. (Save maybe a few MPs, but none of them are running, and even then I'm not sure you could find one.)
I think Jack Layton was always pretty darn clear about wanting to end NAFTA. And there are certainly MPs who not only want to end it, but for whom it might be their #1 issue.
I've read those criticisms. I agree with those criticisms.
But the sum of all those criticisms don't amount to ending NAFTA.
With the prospect of the reopening of NAFTA if the Democrats win the U.S. election, Layton said his party, among other things, would fight to add "meaningful" labour and environmental standards to the deal - and reform the energy provisions, which require the export of fossil fuels to the United States.Layton's plan would remove NAFTA's contentious "Chapter 11" provision that permits foreign investors to legally challenge Canadian policies if it threatens their investments.
Layton's position is that of a reformer, not an eliminator. Which is good. (Arguably it's not great, but still good.)
None of the candidates have been particularly bold on this issue, calling for anything more than reform. Even Mulcair believes Chapter 11 is being misused and warrants reform.
We're talking about tiny slivers of gray, now. I say tiny, because they're small compared to Conservative policies of legalized corruption and market anarchy.
Tue, 2012-03-13 21:15
#98
We agree that the personal politics of a leader dont indicate much what we are going to get from them. I dont know if this includes you, but Mulcair's supporters typicaly will argue endlessly that Mulcair's personal politics are no less left/progressive/whatever.... as if identifying the true sould of the leader tells us what we are going to get.
To be fair, most of the ham-handed criticisms of Mulcair try to establish that he has the soul of a Liberal or even a Conservative.
There's an intelligent conversation to be had about why Mulcair might not be the best of the candidates. But it's seldom had here.
Tue, 2012-03-13 21:26
#99
The reason I keep bringing it up is because a lot of Mulcair critics blame him for this. But that blame belongs to the NDP at large. All the candidates. Jack Layton. Pretty much everyone. (Save maybe a few MPs, but none of them are running, and even then I'm not sure you could find one.)
I think Jack Layton was always pretty darn clear about wanting to end NAFTA.
Um, no. Jack Layton didn't want to scrap NAFTA, he wanted to fix it. Specifically, he wanted to add actual, meaningful labour and environmental standards, and fix the bits that require us to pump fossil fuels to the US. Sound familiar? Mulcair says the same thing.
(At least, that's what Jack was saying in 2008. The 2011 NDP platform didn't say boo dicky about NAFTA. Presumably you had some say in those communications?)
Tue, 2012-03-13 21:32
#100
That's right. It was the Liberal Party that said they would renegotiate Mulroney's expanded trade agreement, NAFTA.
And instead the Liberals signed NAFTA as is by 1994.
NAFTA is the stupidest trade deal in the history of the solar system.
Tue, 2012-03-13 22:23
#101
Stuff
You've misunderstood what I've been trying to say. I'm not saying Mulcair is positioning himself to pick up right-wing votes. I'm saying he's positioning himself to resist right-wing attacks. Big difference.
I hear you, thanks for clarifying. I suppose the only redeeming cap to my Obama commentary is that identity diffusion is a trick I've seen performed by Obama, and I didn't like it. I thought his appeals to bipartisanism, were like 'sucking up' to the right as a way to keep them at bay. So I sincerely hope Mulcair doesn't use centrism, appeals to the business elite, or appeals to the right, in order to buttress himself from the right wing attacks you suggest will happen. If you're confident he won't do so that's good to know and I'll think about that before the convention.