NDP leadership race 4

1341 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT

@R.E.Wood

Good to see some members telling it like it is! I mentioned in another thread about that poll about Omar, don't trust the corporate media and their polls! When was the last time the corporate media helped the ndp? I'm real sorry I can't think of some good ways to fight the corporate media. 

R.E.Wood

WWWTT wrote:

@R.E.Wood

Good to see some members telling it like it is! I mentioned in another thread about that poll about Omar, don't trust the corporate media and their polls! When was the last time the corporate media helped the ndp? I'm real sorry I can't think of some good ways to fight the corporate media. 

Thanks WWWTT, but I've just shared a couple of articles that focus on the problems Singh would likely have with the Quebec electorate (my earlier post #333 seems to have been ignored), which focus on his outward displays of his religion, and touch on how his religion HAS actually impacted decisions he's made as an elected official. I've not said my own opinion on that issue, but as a non-religious person myself, I greatly dislike the idea of electing anyone with strong religious beliefs that could/would influence their policy decisions. I distrust people who are too religious, and have personal life experiences to show for it; they tend to have a direct line to their God and are therefore self-righteously above and oblivious to the reality of others. Nothing is ever as important as their so-called direct relationship with God. Yes, his overt religiousness is one of the key reasons I can not support Singh for NDP leader. It is something I absolutely hated about Harper, and his constant public references to God. If you have a religion, fine. In Canada I expect you to keep that to yourself, and entirely separate from your public life; this is not the USA. Harper did not. And Singh doesn't either. Apart from what I consider to be his other significant failings as a candidate (such as his repeated and complete waffling on major issues, and his self-aggrandizing presentation of himself as a messiah to the party), I see an unseasoned amateur who lacks the retail skills or gravitas to go up against Trudeau (the shallow promise-breaker) and Sheer (who's as loathsome as they come, and should be an easy target for a skilled NDP leader to rip apart).

Nevermind, I'm sure someone will chime in about Ashton being too stiff (she can improve!), or Angus's French not being perfect enough (also improvable!), or Caron being too focused on basic income, or having too strong a French accent (well... as someone else pointed out, he's better than Chretien!). But the shortcomings of Angus, Ashton or Caron are fixable, while I think Singh's flaws are fatal. 

brookmere

cco wrote:
It's funny how Harper didn't really feel the need to adjust himself to it

He didn't feel the need because the Liberals were being led by a series of duds, and the NDP had a charasmatic leader who was taking votes away from the Liberals. Thus the Conservatives were able to govern for almost 10 years without breaking 40% in the popular vote. No government had previously ruled for so long without breaking 40%.

In fact Harper failed completely to move the electorate rightward. That's the lesson of 2015.

 

josh

R.E.Wood wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

@R.E.Wood

Good to see some members telling it like it is! I mentioned in another thread about that poll about Omar, don't trust the corporate media and their polls! When was the last time the corporate media helped the ndp? I'm real sorry I can't think of some good ways to fight the corporate media. 

Thanks WWWTT, but I've just shared a couple of articles that focus on the problems Singh would likely have with the Quebec electorate (my earlier post #333 seems to have been ignored), which focus on his outward displays of his religion, and touch on how his religion HAS actually impacted decisions he's made as an elected official. I've not said my own opinion on that issue, but as a non-religious person myself, I greatly dislike the idea of electing anyone with strong religious beliefs that could/would influence their policy decisions. I distrust people who are too religious, and have personal life experiences to show for it; they tend to have a direct line to their God and are therefore self-righteously above and oblivious to the reality of others. Nothing is ever as important as their so-called direct relationship with God. Yes, his overt religiousness is one of the key reasons I can not support Singh for NDP leader. It is something I absolutely hated about Harper, and his constant public references to God. If you have a religion, fine. In Canada I expect you to keep that to yourself, and entirely separate from your public life; this is not the USA. Harper did not. And Singh doesn't either. Apart from what I consider to be his other significant failings as a candidate (such as his repeated and complete waffling on major issues, and his self-aggrandizing presentation of himself as a messiah to the party), I see an unseasoned amateur who lacks the retail skills or gravitas to go up against Trudeau (the shallow promise-breaker) and Sheer (who's as loathsome as they come, and should be an easy target for a skilled NDP leader to rip apart).

Nevermind, I'm sure someone will chime in about Ashton being too stiff (she can improve!), or Angus's French not being perfect enough (also improvable!), or Caron being too focused on basic income, or having too strong a French accent (well... as someone else pointed out, he's better than Chretien!). But the shortcomings of Angus, Ashton or Caron are fixable, while I think Singh's flaws are fatal. 

I don't want Singh.  But his religion and religious display should not be the reason.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..another installment from the canadian dimension series re leadership debates

Sixth NDP Leadership Debate: Debates around CCF-NDP History and Means Testing Generate Conflict

quote:

The next debate is a few weeks away, to be held in BC. Here, one can expect intense discussions around environmentalism, and the status of the new BCNDP government will surely have an impact as well. We are quickly approaching crunch time, as more people pay attention, as policies are being outlined and critiqued, and as candidates are appraising their positions going forward. I don’t suspect you’ll see anyone drop out in the short to medium term, so the final four hopefuls will have more time and space to develop their approaches. They’ll need to do just that, because whoever wins will have to hit the ground running with a credible alternative—in both policy and messaging—to the Trudeau Liberals.

WWWTT

@ josh

Hi brother/sister. Everyone has their own reasons for voting. And many will see Jagmeet's constant visual display/dedication to his religous beliefs as a huge turnoff. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with feeling that someone who displays their religous beliefs in their imaging/profile/picture is not a good leader.

I myself am a Maoist. And Xi Jin Ping has on more than on one occasion, when addressing the communist party, directed them how to treat religion

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-04/23/c_135306131.htm

In particular, CPC members must act as "unyielding Marxist atheists, consolidate their faith, and bear in mind the Party's tenets."

They must not seek their own values and beliefs from religions, Xi said, adding that efforts should also be made to help teenagers form a scientific outlook of the world, and guide them to believe in science, study science and promote science.

NDP can learn one f'n hell of a lot from the CPC!!!

 

R.E.Wood

It's not so much that he wears his religion on his sleeve, so to speak; it's that he's allowed it to interfere in his policy making decisions as an elected official. I can't abide by that.

josh

R.E.Wood wrote:

It's not so much that he wears his religion on his sleeve, so to speak; it's that he's allowed it to interfere in his policy making decisions as an elected official. I can't abide by that.

I don't have a problem with that.  I have a problem with those who won't vote for someone simply because he or she wears a religious symbol.  

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Confused about universality? So are NDP leadership candidates

quote:

All this raises some bigger questions for the NDP leadership debate:

  1. Should some transfers be (near-)universal like the current OAS (i.e. some part of your pension is guaranteed by right of citizenship) in order to build constituencies for them? (This is partly implicit in Caron’s attacks on Singh.)
  2. What is the balance of political emphasis and ambition between targeted cash transfers and universal programs? (Singh and Caron fall in favour of the first; Ashton the second.)
  3. The big one: how do we change the conditions that create poverty in first place? (Only Ashton really explicitly touched on this.)

I wrote a piece on the tension between universality and means-testing in light of the federal NDP’s universal childcare proposals floated in 2014. This gets at the crux of what is at stake in the debate:

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I have mentioned before that Nike represents "central Canada" 

Do you find you have a communications problem when you redefine terms that have a specific meaning for the majority of the population? Personally I don't feel like relearning the Canadian lexicon for your sake.

Central Canada (sometimes the Central provinces) is a region consisting of Canada's two largest and most populous provincesOntario and Quebec.[2] Geographically, they are not at the centre of the country but instead toward the east. Due to their high populations, Ontario and Quebec have traditionally held a significant amount of political power in Canada, leading to some amount of resentment from other regions of the country. Before Confederation, the term "Canada" specifically referred to Central Canada. Today, the term "Central Canada" is less often used than the names of the individual provinces. This has led to a sense of Western alienation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Canada

 

WWWTT

josh wrote:

I don't have a problem with that.  I have a problem with those who won't vote for someone simply because he or she wears a religious symbol.  

You're fighting a losing battle brother! And it's actually you that is "seeing it" backwards, so to speak.

http://anonhq.com/recent-study-worlds-fastest-growing-religion-no-religion/

WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I have mentioned before that Nike represents "central Canada" 

Do you find you have a communications problem when you redefine terms that have a specific meaning for the majority of the population? Personally I don't feel like relearning the Canadian lexicon for your sake.

Central Canada (sometimes the Central provinces) is a region consisting of Canada's two largest and most populous provincesOntario and Quebec.[2] Geographically, they are not at the centre of the country but instead toward the east. Due to their high populations, Ontario and Quebec have traditionally held a significant amount of political power in Canada, leading to some amount of resentment from other regions of the country. Before Confederation, the term "Canada" specifically referred to Central Canada. Today, the term "Central Canada" is less often used than the names of the individual provinces. This has led to a sense of Western alienation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Canada

 

Hey brother it's like you're handing me the can of worms to open!

Quebec and Ontario's populations are higher in white European populations in relation to the Indigenious peoples because of a successful human slaughter/colonization campaign! So in a way, your definition of central Canada=central colonized Canada! I guess your definition of central in no way can include the importance of the North American continents Indiginous peoples?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

I guess your definition of central in no way can include the importance of the North American continents Indiginous peoples?

Your post is extremely ridiculous. The idea that my use of the common definition for the terms "Canada" and "Central Canada" is proof that I don't understand the ongoing importance of indigenous people is frankly just a fucking insult with no basis in anything except your arrogant self righteousness.

I am talking about language. Feel free to reinvent any words that you want to. However be aware that you merely make people think you are ignorant of the proper meanings. The term Canada itself is a racist concept and running for office in Canada means every politician accepts the name Canada despite the genocidal nature of its history.

In the meantime those of us who live on the Salish Sea don't get the centrality of Northern Maniotoba except as it relates to being geographically the center of the colonial and racist country called Canada. Pre-contact the Haida did not see the Cree as the center of their universe. The fact that Niki not "Nike" lives in a riding with a majority indigenous population is no guarantee that she even knows where the Nuu-chah-nulth live or what great event they hosted in 1975.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Using the same terminology that everyone else uses is how language works.  If you want to apply your own definition to terms that is fine, but people will not understand what your saying.

brookmere

epaulo13 wrote:
Should some transfers be (near-)universal like the current OAS (i.e. some part of your pension is guaranteed by right of citizenship)

Citizenship does not entitle anyone to OAS. One must qualify based on length of residence in Canada, and it's graduated for those with less than 40 years residence. Less than 10 years residence does not qualify for anything. As well OAS is taxable so that amounts to a clawback for a great many people getting it, in addition to the explicit clawback for a small number of people with high incomes.

GIS is of course expressly means tested and I haven't ever heard the NDP say everyone should get it. So it seems that the NDP stand on means testing is more a matter of labels than principle.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pogo wrote:

Using the same terminology that everyone else uses is how language works.  If you want to apply your own definition to terms that is fine, but people will not understand what your saying.

From xkcd recently:

JKR

josh wrote:

Caron's "accent" is not as "bad" as Chretien's was.

Chretien had the luxury of leading the established Liberals when Reform and the very unpopular PC's were splitting the vote and allowing the Liberals to win by default through vote-splitting on the right. The NDP was also incredibly unpopular at the time due to the provincial governments in Ontario and BC. The next leader of the NDP will not be in the enviable position Chretien was in during the early 1990's.

In the next election the leader of the NDP will be competing in most of the country against Trudeau and Scheer. Due to his French accent I think Caron might be at a disadvantage in many parts of English Canada. On the other hand, I think Caron is the candidate most likely to maintain the NDP's support in Quebec.

WWWTT

@ Kropotkin,pogo,Michael Moriarity

Sorry brothers and sisters but language is constantly evolving and changing. If you do not like my use of central canada then I won't lose a wink of sleep! If people here somehow think that their disatisfaction with my use of language will somehow manifest into something greater than you're probably fear mongering. And when people start fear mongering, then that says more about that person than anything else doesn't it! As well I always thought Manitoba to be the "geographic" center of Canada. Looks like I wasn't far off. 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-centre-of-controversy-where-is-ca...

Since Niki is from central Canada, then members should give her central position consideration.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Since Niki is from central Canada, then members should give her central position consideration.

If geographic centrism is your focus then fill your boots. I guess having her bring a Northern Manitoba perspective to the urban centers would be the complete answer to all our problems and will lead to a brave new world of reconcilliation, peace and prosperity. Of course she will be able to grok the Maritimes and the Pacific Coast merely because she lives in a riding with a large indigenous population. Anyone who disagrees is a racist, right WWWTF.

In the meantime I will judge potential political leaders on other basis not just geography. IMO At this point with Julian gone Caron looks like the best bet if the NDP wants to make gains next election. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Sorry brothers and sisters but language is constantly evolving and changing.

Which is why, when something is good or desirable, I refer to it as "Bloomy"!

But nobody's taking me up on it <<frown>>.  It should have been a meme by now, but people just look at me funny when I say it!!

It would be super bloomy if you could agree to call good things "bloomy" and help a brother out, brother.  In return, I'll call Manitoba "Central Canada".

Let's transform this stuffy old language, two words at a time.

Debater

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

Caron's "accent" is not as "bad" as Chretien's was.

Chretien had the luxury of leading the established Liberals when Reform and the very unpopular PC's were splitting the vote and allowing the Liberals to win by default through vote-splitting on the right. The NDP was also incredibly unpopular at the time due to the provincial governments in Ontario and BC. The next leader of the NDP will not be in the enviable position Chretien was in during the early 1990's.

In the next election the leader of the NDP will be competing in most of the country against Trudeau and Scheer. Due to his French accent I think Caron might be at a disadvantage in many parts of English Canada. On the other hand, I think Caron is the candidate most likely to maintain the NDP's support in Quebec.

I agree with you.

Chrétien also had charisma and a down to earth populist appeal that worked well for him.

His "Little Guy from Shawinigan" image helped him overcome some of his language issues.

WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Since Niki is from central Canada, then members should give her central position consideration.

If geographic centrism is your focus then fill your boots. I guess having her bring a Northern Manitoba perspective to the urban centers would be the complete answer to all our problems and will lead to a brave new world of reconcilliation, peace and prosperity. Of course she will be able to grok the Maritimes and the Pacific Coast merely because she lives in a riding with a large indigenous population. Anyone who disagrees is a racist, right WWWTF.

In the meantime I will judge potential political leaders on other basis not just geography. IMO At this point with Julian gone Caron looks like the best bet if the NDP wants to make gains next election. 

Yes I believe Niki's central position in Canada should be given consideration! When was the last time Canada had a PM from rural or back country? 

And why the insult now brother/sister? Or is WWWTF a spelling error? I thought we were having a good debate!

I'm a racist, not sure if disagreeing with someone who considers themeselves to be a racist as a condition to be a racist? That would be odd? 

Either way kropotkin 1951, lots of gains to be made in Ontario! Not going to win squat without Southern Ontario, GTA, lots of work to do out east and still lots of room for growth in Manitoba/Saskatchewan. Lots of seats ALL across Canada.

SeekingAPolitic...

Well Caron is my choice.  

This is how I will vote at the moment. 

Caron

Ashton

Angus

Singh

I take it that Mr.Singh is defending his means testing scheme with the cry that your helping billionares and millionares.  If he wanted to discuss the merits of testing than I would be happy to listen.  But since he is implying that peoples critism of MT is some cover to help the rich so this how I would respond.

Since MT is attached as Mr.Singh's pet project its time to respond.  If Mr.Singh wants to play with emtional fire then its time to respond to with emtional fire.

Moderate response.

I would follow this road.  "whats next Mr.Singh means testing healthcare?"  "Since your an adocate of mean testing social progams please tell the aduenice why you would means test is good for pensions and healthcare." "Are going to means test healthcare which is  soical program like pensions" "Do you have a hidden agenda Mr. Singh in regards to means testing"  Agenda is nice word because was used against the right in Canada.  The concept of "Hidden Agenda" was uesd agasnst Harper effectively and its an effective concept to stick your oppenent with to label them as cyrpo conservative.

Burning bridges with you oppent(2 ideas).

1. Call mean testing a American idea, is an effective but mean blunted by means testing by continued Canadian government.  Nationalism can be handy idea, who want to wear the Canadian flag and imply Canadians are better the Americans.

2.(Caution) I googled republican means testing and plenty quotes from top REP were available for MT.   Accuse your oppent of stealing the republican agenda.   1.  Nationalism is in play  2.  Your linking the Repubicans to your oppent and for extra brownie points you throw inTrump as well.  

This how I would respond to Mr.Singh's emontional fire.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

And why the insult now brother/sister? Or is WWWTF a spelling error? I thought we were having a good debate!

I guess your definition of central in no way can include the importance of the North American continents Indiginous peoples?

I'm a grown up so I expect that people who want to have a conversation will not make nasty little comments with the thin devise of putting a question mark after it. I tend to see that style as the opoosite of "my" definition of a good debate. But don't worry its not central to the debate merely the characterization of the debate.

I guess this is merely another case of you defining things a little different than others. My response to your silly word games is generally WTF. It's not an insult but rather a statement of what's in my mind.

JKR

Debater wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

Caron's "accent" is not as "bad" as Chretien's was.

Chretien had the luxury of leading the established Liberals when Reform and the very unpopular PC's were splitting the vote and allowing the Liberals to win by default through vote-splitting on the right. The NDP was also incredibly unpopular at the time due to the provincial governments in Ontario and BC. The next leader of the NDP will not be in the enviable position Chretien was in during the early 1990's.

In the next election the leader of the NDP will be competing in most of the country against Trudeau and Scheer. Due to his French accent I think Caron might be at a disadvantage in many parts of English Canada. On the other hand, I think Caron is the candidate most likely to maintain the NDP's support in Quebec.

I agree with you.

Chrétien also had charisma and a down to earth populist appeal that worked well for him.

His "Little Guy from Shawinigan" image helped him overcome some of his language issues.

Chretien was also able to become a popular national figure while he was a high profile cabinet minister in Pierre Trudeau's governments, especially during the repatriation of the constitution. His autobiography "Straight from the Heart" also helped him gain popularity during the mid to late 80's.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I was going to vote for Julian (he speaks limited Mandarin for what it is worth).  Now I am all over the board. I look at five areas of potential growth. In order of potential: BC, Quebec, Urban Ontario, Urban Prairies and Atlantic.  I am left with Caron and Ashton as being the most likely to do the best in BC and Quebec where the most potential is.

WWWTT

@Pogo

Speaking Mandarin for what it is worth???? I guess you do not know what the third most common language in Canada is? Julians wife is also Chinese. I should also note that around the GTA Mandarin is the second most common language in many parts. Layton had a limited ability with Cantonese dialect. Layton also had a Chinese wife. I was actually very dissappointed that Olivia had next to no French ability! If Olivia was also fluent in French and Mandarin, she  would probably be Canada's PM right now, and Mulcair would be some kind of minister in her cabinet. My wife is from GuangXi and is fluent in both Mandarin and Canton, it drove me nuts on the few occasions when my wife spoke with Olivia at fundraisers and special events because they would speak in Canton and I never knew what they were saying.

Being multi lingual has a huge advantage in my opinion! That's why I think Niki's ability in Spanish can really help the NDP! But for some reason, many in the NDP do not see beyond French and English?

Geoff

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Well Caron is my choice.  

This is how I will vote at the moment. 

Caron

Ashton

Angus

Singh

I take it that Mr.Singh is defending his means testing scheme with the cry that your helping billionares and millionares.  If he wanted to discuss the merits of testing than I would be happy to listen.  But since he is implying that peoples critism of MT is some cover to help the rich so this how I would respond.

Since MT is attached as Mr.Singh's pet project its time to respond.  If Mr.Singh wants to play with emtional fire then its time to respond to with emtional fire.

Moderate response.

I would follow this road.  "whats next Mr.Singh means testing healthcare?"  "Since your an adocate of mean testing social progams please tell the aduenice why you would means test is good for pensions and healthcare." "Are going to means test healthcare which is  soical program like pensions" "Do you have a hidden agenda Mr. Singh in regards to means testing"  Agenda is nice word because was used against the right in Canada.  The concept of "Hidden Agenda" was uesd agasnst Harper effectively and its an effective concept to stick your oppenent with to label them as cyrpo conservative.

Burning bridges with you oppent(2 ideas).

1. Call mean testing a American idea, is an effective but mean blunted by means testing by continued Canadian government.  Nationalism can be handy idea, who want to wear the Canadian flag and imply Canadians are better the Americans.

2.(Caution) I googled republican means testing and plenty quotes from top REP were available for MT.   Accuse your oppent of stealing the republican agenda.   1.  Nationalism is in play  2.  Your linking the Repubicans to your oppent and for extra brownie points you throw inTrump as well.  

This how I would respond to Mr.Singh's emontional fire.

If we had a truly progressive income tax system, means tests wouldn't be an issue. The millionaires and billionaires wouldn't be able to keep their basic income benefit, because it would be taxed back, as it should be.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

But for some reason, many in the NDP do not see beyond French and English?

Do you have a link to the studies that show this phenomena?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Maybe more to the point, French and English are our two official languages, so it's important that candidates be at least passable in both.

I, too, respect polyglots.  But a candidate who can speak Urdu isn't really the same thing.  Nor do I think that would necessarily "guarantee the Pakistani-Canadian vote" or whatever.  Sorry to say, but being able to speak a non-official language is nice, like being able to juggle, or being a recognized chess Master.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Maybe more to the point, French and English are our two official languages, so it's important that candidates be at least passable in both.

I, too, respect polyglots.  But a candidate who can speak Urdu isn't really the same thing.  Nor do I think that would necessarily "guarantee the Pakistani-Canadian vote" or whatever.  Sorry to say, but being able to speak a non-official language is nice, like being able to juggle, or being a recognized chess Master.

What is far more important is understanding how to coordinate campaigning in the right languages for the community one is seeking to represent. When I worked on Siksay's campaigns we had telephoners who spoke Urdu. But then again the staff for his community office included people who spoke Urdu as well as both major Chinese dialects and a couple of others as well. The number of Francophones living in Burnaby is small compared to most language groups so the ability to speak French was only a real asset for his Ottawa staff who needed it to function in both offical languages where something like speaking Mandarin is considered a novelty act not a way of communicating with Canadian citizens.

If you want to wrap up the Pakistani-Canadian vote talk knowledgeably about cricket. [sorry for the sterotype based joke]

WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

But for some reason, many in the NDP do not see beyond French and English?

Do you have a link to the studies that show this phenomena?

No sorry no link. It's my opinion and I have good reason to make it from. From your reply it sounds like you see the importance in being fluent in another language other than French and English. Good for you brother/sister!!

 

Mighty Middle

WWWTT wrote:

If Olivia was also fluent in French and Mandarin, she  would probably be Canada's PM right now

She couldn't even win the Mayoralty race in Toronto and she lost a bid to represent Spadina-Fort York even with its high Chinese community.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Maybe more to the point, French and English are our two official languages, so it's important that candidates be at least passable in both.

 

Very true! However there is a but. The country with the largest economy, largest population and the most influential is communist mainland China where Mandarin is spoken in all provinces! China is Canada's second largest trading partner, and that ratio is growing every day! With globalization, international politics influence on domestic is growing. How would any of the NDP leadership candidates fair if/when they become PM of Canada when dealing with China? I feel that many Canadians come election time would give consideration to a leader of a political party that is multi lingual given the importance of globalization.

Now having said that, Jagmeet is probably the best at many languages. English, French, Punjabi, Hindi and Tamil!!!!!!I am not sure how good he is at the last three Indian languages? But very impressive! And probably a cornerstone in his success! As well, India has a huge growing economy and in my opinion will pass the US in maybe 30 years? Lots to consider in a leader.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Now having said that, Jagmeet is probably the best at many languages. English, French, Punjabi, Hindi and Tamil!!!!!!I am not sure how good he is at the last three Indian languages? But very impressive! And probably a cornerstone in his success! As well, India has a huge growing economy and in my opinion will pass the US in maybe 30 years? Lots to consider in a leader.

OK.  But it seems as though Canada and other countries can trade internationally, even if their leader doesn't speak the language of their trading partner.

Above, kropotkin1951 noted campaign workers who can speak the language of potential constituents/voters.  That's probably more important than a candidate being able to say "the pencil is on the table" in some other language.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Above, kropotkin1951 noted campaign workers who can speak the language of potential constituents/voters.  That's probably more important than a candidate being able to say "the pencil is on the table" in some other language.

Yes I noted kropotkin 1951's comments and understand its importance. However political contributions is probably the most important thing (and probably the sadest thing of our political system in Canada really). Being fluent in Punjabi, Mandarin, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc etc etc at fundraisers/auctions events when making your speech/pitch can give your grassroots a huge support and that extra little few pushes!

WWWTT

Mighty Middle wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

If Olivia was also fluent in French and Mandarin, she  would probably be Canada's PM right now

She couldn't even win the Mayoralty race in Toronto and she lost a bid to represent Spadina-Fort York even with its high Chinese community.

Ya so what? Like I said, she's not fluent in Mandarin(always uses her staff who are fantastic by the way) nor is she fluent in French.

Ok she had a bad little run. Ok I'm a big fan of Olivia and think she's a great person! Ok maybe I'm overestimating her ability?I still believe things would have been different if she was fluent in French and Mandarin dialect. 

josh

“I’ve been hearing right across the country a real desire from our base that wants a real social democratic party,” Angus continued.

“One of the other disconnections is that blue collar people look at New Democrats and say: ‘Where were you? What party really truly has my back?’ Angus says. “I remember being told by the brain trust: ‘Don’t ever say the words working class — it doesn’t bring in enough people.’”

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/07/18/Charlie-Angus-NDP-Leader/

Mighty Middle

WWWTT wrote:

Ya so what? Like I said, she's not fluent in Mandarin(always uses her staff who are fantastic by the way) nor is she fluent in French.

Ok she had a bad little run. Ok I'm a big fan of Olivia and think she's a great person! Ok maybe I'm overestimating her ability?I still believe things would have been different if she was fluent in French and Mandarin dialect. 

My only point is that it is a BIG stretch to say she would PM right now if she could speak french. One thing that was apparent was that for all her years in political life, she didn't master the art of the 30 second soundbite. That was quite apparent in the mayor's race, as that was the first run she had that covered a large swath of the population. She could win as a city councilor, an MP or even MPP. But as a leader, leading a political party? That would be a troublesome because she is weak on clipping her policy in 30 second clips. It is unfair, but it is political reality.

mark_alfred

Hmm.  I note there's a lot of criticism about Singh (and some disturbingly based on his faith, which is totally inappropriate).  Some have bought into Angus' line that Singh is anti-universal, which I don't buy.  Anyway, currently my choices are:  1.) Caron; 2.) Ashton; 3.) Singh; 4.) Angus.  Here's why I put Singh above Angus.  First I'll discuss the universality/OAS thing, then move unto other issues.

1.) Angus' Error: Within the last debate Angus brought up an issue about universality and old age security (OAS) regarding Singh's anti-poverty proposal for seniors (found here:  http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/canadian_seniors_guarantee). Singh was correct to say that OAS currently is not universal. It is partially clawed back if income (from CPP or workplace pension or investments or some other income) is over $75k and it is completely clawed back if income exceeds 121k. Most seniors don't have an individual income of over $75k, so OAS is a near universal benefit -- but it's not currently universal, so Angus was wrong to declare it as such (and again, Singh was correct).

2.) Angus' Hypocrisy: Also, regarding Angus being in favour of universal benefits (and we're speaking of benefits, not services like healthcare, education, childcare, EMS, etc., which all the candidates are firm should be universal), I note that Angus has not declared that he will make OAS truly universal. I note too that NDP policy does advocate expanding the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which is truly not universal. If Angus is so adamant about universality of benefits for seniors, should he not be proposing to end the claw backs in OAS, then expand OAS while eliminating the non-universal GIS? Yes, he should if he was being sincere in his declaration of favouring universality in benefits for seniors. But, similar to why Caron is not proposing a Universal Basic Income (Caron's plan is for those who fall below the Low Income Cut Off -- UBI would be too expensive and there's no need to issue cheques to the already wealthy), I anticipate Angus would not propose overhauling and making all benefits for seniors be universal. Thus, hypocrisy in Angus' objections to Singh's plan.

3.) Singh's Plan: and what is Singh's plan to eliminate poverty in seniors? He calls it the "Canada Seniors Guarantee". See http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/canadian_seniors_guarantee . On the website it is described as follows,

Jagmeet Singh wrote:
A Jagmeet Singh-led government will implement the Canada Seniors Guarantee to ensure that no Canadian senior has to live in poverty. This includes Old Age Security (OAS), the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), the Age Credit, and the Pension Income Credit. By adding the Age Credit and the Pension Income Credit, an additional $4 billion will be added to the core benefits provided by OAS-GIS.

So, he's removing credits and redirecting them to directly help seniors in need. Is this a good thing? I dunno, actually. Credits often help those who have sufficient income squeak out of paying taxes on it due to some circumstance (IE, you need an income to benefit from credits). I'm not sure how many low income people really benefit from credits. I don't know enough to comment. Still, I don't discount the idea of removing credits and redirecting those to directly helping the poor by greatly enhancing their benefit payments. And the idea that's it's somehow a betrayal to roll the OAS benefit into an income tested payment that enhances the incomes of the lowest income seniors just strikes me as a red herring, actually. The maximum amount someone can receive from the OAS along is $583.74 per month (so, $7,004.88 per year --> not gonna be able to live off that, and it's clawed back for those earning more than $121k). Those earning less than $17,688 can also get the GIS, which brings the income up to $871.86 + 583.74 = $1,455.60 month (or $17,467 a year, which is below the Low Income Cut Off (LICO) -- it's about 75% of the LICO). See https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-se...

Singh's plan is similar to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), where the Universal Canada Child Benefit, along with some other benefits and/or credits, were rolled into the income tested CCB.  This has turned out to be hugely popular.  I note that Angus has not declared to end the CCB, which, if he were honestly in favour of universality in benefit payments, he would pledge to do so. 

If Angus could make the case how he has a better plan to end seniors' poverty, then fine.  So far, I've not heard it.  All I've heard from him is this erroneous labelling of the OAS as universal (it's not) followed by mischaracterizing the NDP as being only in favour of universal benefit payments (again, expanding the GIS, which is not universal -- it's income tested -- is something the NDP advocates).

4.) Is Angus a better choice than Singh? That's an important question if it comes down to these two.  I feel real tax reform is needed, so I prefer either Caron or Ashton (both who have advocated tax reform to include wealth taxes). But, let's just look at Singh and Angus for a second. First, let's look at TAX REFORM... (see post # 5), and then other issues like the environment, etc.

5.) TAX REFORM differences between Singh and Angus (and the other two as well, where significant). Angus has committed to increase taxes on the rich (3% more on those earning over $250k) to fund an increase in the WITB credit (Singh also promises to fund an increase in the WITB credit). Okay, it's something I guess. Singh has committed to basically the same as far as increases on tax brackets goes (2% increase for those above $350k and 4% increase for those above $500k ). Trudeau last election proposed to increase tax rates on the top bracket to fund a tax cut on the 2nd bracket, proclaiming this made the tax cut revenue neutral (false -- it's become a drain of $1 billion on our system), but due to clever tax accountants that the rich can afford, a lot of the gains from the increase in the top bracket were unrealized; so, it's an error to simply rely upon raising the top brackets, I feel. So, does Angus propose anything else? No, as far as I can see (if there's something I'm unaware of, do let me know). Singh, however, has gone further and has declared he will increase corporate taxes to 19.5% from the current rate of 15% (so, rather than a 2% increase as proposed last time, he proposes a 4.5% increase -- this is greater than what Caron proposes (4% increase for him) and only falls behind Ashton who plans a 6% increase, so he's second in this, and Angus is nowhere -- he avoided this in his article about taxes). Capital gains, NDP policy is that it should be taxed at the same rate as income, yet the last platform did not include this, and Angus hasn't said anything about this (if he planned to change what we did last time, than his article on taxation in HuffPost would have been the perfect opportunity to say so). Caron has not said he'd change this (capital gains are currently taxed at 50% of the rate that regular income is taxed at -- IE, now only 50% of your capital gains are taxed). Singh said he would tax 75% of them. Only Ashton has committed to raise it to 100% of them being taxed (IE, capital gains would be fully taxed). So, Ashton 1st, Singh second, Caron and Angus tied for last here. Only Caron and Ashton have wealth taxes (Caron's seem more extensive). But only Singh and Ashton have estate taxes, I notice (unless I've overlooked something). Ashton's estate tax is more extensive. Anyway, between Singh and Angus, Singh is the more progressive when it comes to tax reform.

6.) ENVIRONMENT -- how do Singh and Angus compare when it comes to the environment? Regarding Kinder Morgan, Angus has said he abides by current NDP criticism (basically, that the EPA was insufficient, and for it to be approved, a better EPA process would need to be undertaken). That leaves the door open to an approval in the future. From Angus' web site, he states about pipelines, "We must make sure that developments, from dams to pipelines, have the consent of the people they will impact." Again, door left open. Singh, on the other hand, close the door and completely rejected Kinder Morgan. "[UNDRIP] is why we must oppose the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the building of the Energy East pipeline," is what Singh's website says. Note too that a large number of MLA's from the BCNDP support Singh (EIGHT SUPPORT HIM), whereas ZERO SUPPORT ANGUS (uh, in case you didn't catch that, it's ZERO for Angus). Now, regarding targets for the environment, Angus has not pledged anything different from Trudeau's target (and Trudeau's target is the same as Harper's target). Unlike Trudeau or Harper or Angus (all who pledge 30% of 2005 levels by 2030), Singh has pledged, "30% of 2005 levels by 2025 rather than 2030, and to subsequently adopt a more ambitious 2030 target." Singh is clear, better, and more definitive on the environment than is Angus.

7.) FOREIGN AFFAIRS -- Here's an interesting Twitter thread from Singh that I just noticed:  https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/886768317222055936  Worth a read.  The only other candidate I can imagine making similar statements is Ashton.  I've not seen anything similar from Angus (though I may have overlooked something).

8.)  OTHER.  Initially, in the debates I noticed that the theme was unity and all being part of the family.  I found it odd that when Singh arrived, the first "greeting" from Angus was to question whether he should be considered part of the "team" if he wouldn't commit to quitting the ONDP if he lost the leadership.  Differentiating provincial members of the NDP from federal members is not helpful.  Same team, in my opinion.  Also, if Singh lost and went back to the ONDP and helped them win (or at least helped them be the balance of power in the next election) that would provide a huge boost to the federal NDP as the Alberta NDP winning did -- and Singh too has always taken the time to go and help other factions of the NDP in their campaigns.  He's an active guy.

Anyway, the hostility that greeted him (notably the only non-white candidate there) was a bit creepy.  And this largely came from Angus (and Caron too a bit -- fortunately Ashton never engaged in this nonsense).  Here's a good twitter thread on racial profiling by Singh that I recommend reading.  https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/885552808350674944  He's the only one in the leadership race with first hand experience of this.  It's a mistake to buy into Angus' attempt to vilify Singh and make him the outsider.  It's a short-sighted thing for Angus to do, IMO. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
which focus on his outward displays of his religion, and touch on how his religion HAS actually impacted decisions he's made as an elected official.

I tried to find these, but my French is nowhere near good enough to pull them out of a French language article.

Are you familiar enough with one or two of these examples to tell us about them?  I, too, have zero interest in "faithful" politicians making decisions primarily based on their faith*, but to be honest, I couldn't care less if some politician wears a kippa, or a cross. 

* Just to be clear, though, if a Xtian politician votes in favour of (say) humanitarian aid to some other country, along with many colleagues who vote for the same thing, I'm not going to lose my wig assuming that the Xtian did it because of some Bible verse, while the colleagues did it because they're humans and they care.  It's got to be a bit more blatant than that before I start up the ol' Anger Engine.

Hunky_Monkey

R.E.Wood wrote:

Another article discussing "The NDP's 'Jagmeet Singh problem' in Quebec is real"

Some Quebec New Democrats are concerned that if Singh wins the leadership, voters in this province will reject their party. Considering the evidence, including their own recent experience, that concern is understandable.

Last week, Le Devoir reported “the fear of several Quebecers” in the NDP that electors in their province would not vote for “an aspiring prime minister who displays his religious convictions so conspicuously.”

The newspaper followed up this week, quoting an unidentified source as saying that some New Democratic members of Parliament from Quebec are considering not running again if Singh becomes leader, because they fear that they would be defeated.

A former New Democratic MP defeated in the 2015 general election, Pierre Dionne Labelle, flatly told Le Devoir that Quebecers “aren’t ready to have a leader wearing conspicuous (religious) symbols.”

He and other, unidentified sources also mentioned positions taken by Singh, as a member of the Ontario legislature, that may have been influenced by his religious beliefs.

Dionne Labelle wasn’t the first Quebec New Democrat to go on the record with his concerns about Singh. ...

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/don-macpherson-the-ndps-ja...

Good to see New Democrats using possible bigotry in their leadership decision.  Reminds me of the old days when it was directed at women or even in the US in 2008 about whether a black man could be elected president.  

Oh, interesting to note, Singh received an endorsement from Hélène Laverdière, one of the more high profile Quebec MPs from Montreal:

"Hélène Laverdière, MP for Laurier—Ste. Marie, tells the National Post she’s throwing her support behind Singh because she’s impressed by the enthusiasm he generates, particularly among young people.

“I’m really going for the person I think that is the best person to lead the NDP,” she said. “I’m really very impressed by his leadership style, his ability to work with others, his respect for everybody.”

The endorsement is a step forward for Singh in Quebec, the province considered to be his biggest stumbling block. It comes in the wake of several recent news reports and columns warning of his “Quebec problem” — an aversion among some Quebecers to any perceived influence of religion in politics, and to leaders who wear overt religious symbols. Singh, a practising Sikh, wears a turban and a kirpan."

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopeful-jagmeet-sin...

brookmere

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  It's got to be a bit more blatant than that before I start up the ol' Anger Engine.

How's this? Spoken just like a rural Tory. Let's not forget that he was the deputy leader of the Ontario NDP and he didn't just represent "my constituents", whatever that means exactly.

“I stand today once again to voice the concerns of my constituents around the (sexual) health curriculum in our schools,” he began, calling it “disrespectful to parents in my constituency and a mistake.” Singh hid behind the fig leaf of perpetual consultations and traditional values, arguing: “Ontario is a diverse province, and we must respect the diversity of beliefs when it comes to educating our children . . . . My constituents have sought clarification about the age appropriateness of some materials.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/10/13/how-jagmeet-singh-could-energize-federal-ndp-cohn.html

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
How's this?

Sufficient, sadly.

I kind of liked him some -- it could have been interesting for a man of colour to be a national party leader, and he was pretty stylish and interesting to boot.

But if he thinks that schools need to turn back the clock to the 1950's on sex-ed because some mouth-breathing parents aren't ready for their kids to not hate gays, that's not good.

SeekingAPolitic...

mark_alfred wrote:

Hmm.  I note there's a lot of criticism about Singh (and some disturbingly based on his faith, which is totally inappropriate).  Some have bought into Angus' line that Singh is anti-universal, which I don't buy.  Anyway, currently my choices are:  1.) Caron; 2.) Ashton; 3.) Singh; 4.) Angus.  Here's why I put Singh above Angus.  First I'll discuss the universality/OAS thing, then move unto other issues.

1.) Angus' Error: Within the last debate Angus brought up an issue about universality and old age security (OAS) regarding Singh's anti-poverty proposal for seniors (found here:  http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/canadian_seniors_guarantee). Singh was correct to say that OAS currently is not universal. It is partially clawed back if income (from CPP or workplace pension or investments or some other income) is over $75k and it is completely clawed back if income exceeds 121k. Most seniors don't have an individual income of over $75k, so OAS is a near universal benefit -- but it's not currently universal, so Angus was wrong to declare it as such (and again, Singh was correct).

2.) Angus' Hypocrisy: Also, regarding Angus being in favour of universal benefits (and we're speaking of benefits, not services like healthcare, education, childcare, EMS, etc., which all the candidates are firm should be universal), I note that Angus has not declared that he will make OAS truly universal. I note too that NDP policy does advocate expanding the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which is truly not universal. If Angus is so adamant about universality of benefits for seniors, should he not be proposing to end the claw backs in OAS, then expand OAS while eliminating the non-universal GIS? Yes, he should if he was being sincere in his declaration of favouring universality in benefits for seniors. But, similar to why Caron is not proposing a Universal Basic Income (Caron's plan is for those who fall below the Low Income Cut Off -- UBI would be too expensive and there's no need to issue cheques to the already wealthy), I anticipate Angus would not propose overhauling and making all benefits for seniors be universal. Thus, hypocrisy in Angus' objections to Singh's plan.

3.) Singh's Plan: and what is Singh's plan to eliminate poverty in seniors? He calls it the "Canada Seniors Guarantee". See http://www.jagmeetsingh.ca/canadian_seniors_guarantee . On the website it is described as follows,

Jagmeet Singh wrote:
A Jagmeet Singh-led government will implement the Canada Seniors Guarantee to ensure that no Canadian senior has to live in poverty. This includes Old Age Security (OAS), the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), the Age Credit, and the Pension Income Credit. By adding the Age Credit and the Pension Income Credit, an additional $4 billion will be added to the core benefits provided by OAS-GIS.

So, he's removing credits and redirecting them to directly help seniors in need. Is this a good thing? I dunno, actually. Credits often help those who have sufficient income squeak out of paying taxes on it due to some circumstance (IE, you need an income to benefit from credits). I'm not sure how many low income people really benefit from credits. I don't know enough to comment. Still, I don't discount the idea of removing credits and redirecting those to directly helping the poor by greatly enhancing their benefit payments. And the idea that's it's somehow a betrayal to roll the OAS benefit into an income tested payment that enhances the incomes of the lowest income seniors just strikes me as a red herring, actually. The maximum amount someone can receive from the OAS along is $583.74 per month (so, $7,004.88 per year --> not gonna be able to live off that, and it's clawed back for those earning more than $121k). Those earning less than $17,688 can also get the GIS, which brings the income up to $871.86 + 583.74 = $1,455.60 month (or $17,467 a year, which is below the Low Income Cut Off (LICO) -- it's about 75% of the LICO). See https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-se...

Singh's plan is similar to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), where the Universal Canada Child Benefit, along with some other benefits and/or credits, were rolled into the income tested CCB.  This has turned out to be hugely popular.  I note that Angus has not declared to end the CCB, which, if he were honestly in favour of universality in benefit payments, he would pledge to do so. 

If Angus could make the case how he has a better plan to end seniors' poverty, then fine.  So far, I've not heard it.  All I've heard from him is this erroneous labelling of the OAS as universal (it's not) followed by mischaracterizing the NDP as being only in favour of universal benefit payments (again, expanding the GIS, which is not universal -- it's income tested -- is something the NDP advocates).

4.) Is Angus a better choice than Singh? That's an important question if it comes down to these two.  I feel real tax reform is needed, so I prefer either Caron or Ashton (both who have advocated tax reform to include wealth taxes). But, let's just look at Singh and Angus for a second. First, let's look at TAX REFORM... (see post # 5), and then other issues like the environment, etc.

5.) TAX REFORM differences between Singh and Angus (and the other two as well, where significant). Angus has committed to increase taxes on the rich (3% more on those earning over $250k) to fund an increase in the WITB credit (Singh also promises to fund an increase in the WITB credit). Okay, it's something I guess. Singh has committed to basically the same as far as increases on tax brackets goes (2% increase for those above $350k and 4% increase for those above $500k ). Trudeau last election proposed to increase tax rates on the top bracket to fund a tax cut on the 2nd bracket, proclaiming this made the tax cut revenue neutral (false -- it's become a drain of $1 billion on our system), but due to clever tax accountants that the rich can afford, a lot of the gains from the increase in the top bracket were unrealized; so, it's an error to simply rely upon raising the top brackets, I feel. So, does Angus propose anything else? No, as far as I can see (if there's something I'm unaware of, do let me know). Singh, however, has gone further and has declared he will increase corporate taxes to 19.5% from the current rate of 15% (so, rather than a 2% increase as proposed last time, he proposes a 4.5% increase -- this is greater than what Caron proposes (4% increase for him) and only falls behind Ashton who plans a 6% increase, so he's second in this, and Angus is nowhere -- he avoided this in his article about taxes). Capital gains, NDP policy is that it should be taxed at the same rate as income, yet the last platform did not include this, and Angus hasn't said anything about this (if he planned to change what we did last time, than his article on taxation in HuffPost would have been the perfect opportunity to say so). Caron has not said he'd change this (capital gains are currently taxed at 50% of the rate that regular income is taxed at -- IE, now only 50% of your capital gains are taxed). Singh said he would tax 75% of them. Only Ashton has committed to raise it to 100% of them being taxed (IE, capital gains would be fully taxed). So, Ashton 1st, Singh second, Caron and Angus tied for last here. Only Caron and Ashton have wealth taxes (Caron's seem more extensive). But only Singh and Ashton have estate taxes, I notice (unless I've overlooked something). Ashton's estate tax is more extensive. Anyway, between Singh and Angus, Singh is the more progressive when it comes to tax reform.

6.) ENVIRONMENT -- how do Singh and Angus compare when it comes to the environment? Regarding Kinder Morgan, Angus has said he abides by current NDP criticism (basically, that the EPA was insufficient, and for it to be approved, a better EPA process would need to be undertaken). That leaves the door open to an approval in the future. From Angus' web site, he states about pipelines, "We must make sure that developments, from dams to pipelines, have the consent of the people they will impact." Again, door left open. Singh, on the other hand, close the door and completely rejected Kinder Morgan. "[UNDRIP] is why we must oppose the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the building of the Energy East pipeline," is what Singh's website says. Note too that a large number of MLA's from the BCNDP support Singh (EIGHT SUPPORT HIM), whereas ZERO SUPPORT ANGUS (uh, in case you didn't catch that, it's ZERO for Angus). Now, regarding targets for the environment, Angus has not pledged anything different from Trudeau's target (and Trudeau's target is the same as Harper's target). Unlike Trudeau or Harper or Angus (all who pledge 30% of 2005 levels by 2030), Singh has pledged, "30% of 2005 levels by 2025 rather than 2030, and to subsequently adopt a more ambitious 2030 target." Singh is clear, better, and more definitive on the environment than is Angus.

7.) FOREIGN AFFAIRS -- Here's an interesting Twitter thread from Singh that I just noticed:  https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/886768317222055936  Worth a read.  The only other candidate I can imagine making similar statements is Ashton.  I've not seen anything similar from Angus (though I may have overlooked something).

8.)  OTHER.  Initially, in the debates I noticed that the theme was unity and all being part of the family.  I found it odd that when Singh arrived, the first "greeting" from Angus was to question whether he should be considered part of the "team" if he wouldn't commit to quitting the ONDP if he lost the leadership.  Differentiating provincial members of the NDP from federal members is not helpful.  Same team, in my opinion.  Also, if Singh lost and went back to the ONDP and helped them win (or at least helped them be the balance of power in the next election) that would provide a huge boost to the federal NDP as the Alberta NDP winning did -- and Singh too has always taken the time to go and help other factions of the NDP in their campaigns.  He's an active guy.

Anyway, the hostility that greeted him (notably the only non-white candidate there) was a bit creepy.  And this largely came from Angus (and Caron too a bit -- fortunately Ashton never engaged in this nonsense).  Here's a good twitter thread on racial profiling by Singh that I recommend reading.  https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/885552808350674944  He's the only one in the leadership race with first hand experience of this.  It's a mistake to buy into Angus' attempt to vilify Singh and make him the outsider.  It's a short-sighted thing for Angus to do, IMO. 

Means testing is NOT progressive.  I recent the fact I am being called a racist because I fundmentally disagree with Mr.Singh about MT.  I play your game mark, since you brought out race

""Anyway, the hostility that greeted him (notably the only non-white candidate there) was a bit creepy""

Yeah I am middle age white guy-  How I can be critical of MT in way that is not creepy and racist?  Please guide me. 

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/6-reasons-joseph-stiglitz-and-...

 

 

1.  Let the everybody enjoy there pension benefits.  Even the rich.  And quietly claw back thru the tax code.  Make a benefit universal, make that your agenda. 

cco

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

Another article discussing "The NDP's 'Jagmeet Singh problem' in Quebec is real"

Good to see New Democrats using possible bigotry in their leadership decision.  Reminds me of the old days when it was directed at women or even in the US in 2008 about whether a black man could be elected president.

I wish I'd noticed R.E. Wood's post a few days ago, to point out: Don MacPherson isn't exactly a neutral progressive observer, but rather a virulently anti-francophone right-wing Gazette columnist who latches on to anything and everything possible to push his view that francophones are everything wrong with Canada. His concern trolling about Singh running up against irredeemably racist Quebecers has much more to do with his own agenda than his "fear" of an NDP loss.

WWWTT

Mighty Middle wrote:

My only point is that it is a BIG stretch to say she would PM right now if she could speak french. One thing that was apparent was that for all her years in political life, she didn't master the art of the 30 second soundbite. That was quite apparent in the mayor's race, as that was the first run she had that covered a large swath of the population. She could win as a city councilor, an MP or even MPP. But as a leader, leading a political party? That would be a troublesome because she is weak on clipping her policy in 30 second clips. It is unfair, but it is political reality.

Ya that's quite the opinion there with a lot of holes there my friend, and since Olivia isn't in the NDP leadership race it's not worth debating here in this thread.

First off, Toronto is the largest area in Canada that has the largest constituents voting directly for the single executive position of mayor. And that out of all levels of government.

Secondly, Olivia was the first NDP member to be baited/trolled by the corporate media polls!  Jagmeet beware my friend! And those out there thinking of voting for Jagmeet,beware!

And yes, the demographics in Toronto has drastically changed! Olivia is from Hong Kong, not the mainland. I know several people from Hong Kong who have learned Mandarin when they were already living in Canada because the new immigrants from China spoke Mandarin, not Guangdong dialect. In fact, it's a common false belief that the second largest dialect in China is Cantonese(or Guandongnese), the second largest is actually Shanghainese. But since many immigrants came from Macau, Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Guangdong province because of economic reasons, people in Canada/US have this wrong impression. But true in Canada, Canton is the second largest Chinese dialect spoken. 

Unfortunately Olivia didn't take the time to pick up the dialect and French.

I believe she put too much faith in her team, whom also speak other languages such as Vietnamese. And I do not want to take anything away from her team because I know them! I trust them! They are good people! We share the same values!But their names are not on the ballot ok.

WWWTT

@mark_alfred

The way Jagmeet helps out in neighbouring ridings in Brampton has pissed off a lot of NDP members here! I should now because I sat on the executive and still keep in contact with Eboard members! He only helps if he can help himself, maybe there has been a token donation here and there, but he wants to promote his own team.

Mighty Middle

WWWTT wrote:
Ya that's quite the opinion there with a lot of holes there my friend, and since Olivia isn't in the NDP leadership race it's not worth debating here in this thread.m! They are good people! We share the same values!But their names are not on the ballot ok.

She lost every single area of Toronto in the 2014 Mayoral Race except Parkdale-Highpark. So it is a stretch to say if she was billigual she would be PM right now.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

 

I'd also note how interesting it was that each candidate, without exception, at times praised Rachel Notley and Alberta's NDP government.

..i understand where this comes from. just a few days before the debate on the 11th took place notley made the headlines. polluters will pay for the calgary transit expansion screamed the headlines.

..proof positive that notley’s approach is the correct path is implicit in the candidates adulations. it has even emboldened angus to say this from the #389 post.

“I certainly love the work that the Rachel Notley government is doing on their climate action plan — the most aggressive in the country.

..this troubles me because notley’s climate plan includes/is financed by expanding the tar sands project via pipelines. yet for the candidates talking about that project is verboten. talking about the cost to alberta is verboten. talking about the cost to the climate is verboten. this project comes to us via the trade deals and trump has a plan to make it better for america. to make america great again. why isn’t this important enough to talk about in the debates?

..just go to the alberta thread and see the true cost of the tar sands project. one indigenous nation reports over 100 treaty violation. a report commissioned by the previous government conclude shortly after the ndp took over. it reported on the various ways the project negatively affects the indigenous community. notley, except for a couple nations, has refused to make it public. this is a public document that everyone should have access to.

..so undrip, at the heart of all the candidates platform, is at risk. it’s negotiable meaning the ndp will make the right deal. so in reality there is no room to say no. why isn't this being talked about?

..coming to terms with and dealing with the tar sands is one of the most important aspects to the country. no politician can hide behind “we’re doing it for the workers” because it's not the whole truth. not even close. this harms all peoples, in alberta, in canada and in the world.           

Pages