Leadership 2012 Roundup

Assorted news and notes from the NDP's leadership campaign as we approach today's final debate...

- Niki Ashton pointed out how the NDP should be able to tap into the desire for democratic decision-making that once motivated the Reform Party before it was turned into a top-down organization under the thumb of Stephen Harper.

- Nathan Cullen is suggesting that he may have enough momentum to come up the middle at the leadership convention. And in an interview with Planet S, he had this to say about some of the major challenges to the Cons' corporate-driven agenda:

PS: Are you optimistic about the (Gateway pipeline) hearings?

NC: Do we have the money and lawyers that Enbridge has? No. But we have people, and there are more of us than there are of them. And we’re right. I’m resolved, and my people are resolved. I’ve never felt so determined about something.

How maddening is it for Harper to call people who care about their homes and communities “foreign radicals”? By calling Canadians who care about the environment enemies of the state, while obviously taking sides with foreign-owned oil companies, he’s laying the seeds of his own demise.
...
PS: What, if anything, do you think the Occupy movement contributed to Canadian politics?

NC: It opened up a question for many people: how did we end up with such a rigged system? The movement has tapped a sentiment and asked the questions that are important to people, but it remains to be seen what we all are going to do about it.

- In the same Planet S interview series featuring Cullen, Mulcair offered this on the effect of the Occupy movement:

PS: What, if anything, do you think the Occupy movement contributed to Canadian politics?

TM: It was a wake-up call that the root causes of the crash of ’08 have not been addressed, and there are a lot of people in our society who are being left behind. The people who brought that crash are still in charge and they’re still making the same decisions. I can tell you that a lot of the analysis that is being done by leaders of the Occupy movement has a foundation in fact, and it’s the first time since the environmental movement in the ‘60s that the public has taken such direct action.

But it does seem to have run out of steam. More long term, the answer is going to have to be political.

Meanwhile, Mulcair also released a new video to define himself as the campaign draws to a close:



But I'd have to consider the result fairly unimpressive: not only does it fail to answer any questions about his campaign, it also falls into some process traps that I've readily pointed out when other parties have considered their own treatment at the hands of the Cons more of an outrage than the effects on Canadian voters. And indeed I wouldn't be surprised if a better video could be cobbled together from Mulcair's answers within any of the English debates.

- Joanna Smith profiled Peggy Nash, including this on the need for citizens to stay engaged in their government:

(Nash's travels abroad) made her thankful that she lived in a peaceful and politically stable country, but also somewhat wistful that Canadians were not more politically aware and engaged, something she still wishes were the case today.

“We all know, vigilance is key,” she says of the importance of political awareness even when a country is not experiencing the kind of crises she witnessed during her travels. “Every generation has to fight for things all over again.”

She explains that she is talking about the rights of women being threatened by the Conservative government doing things like refusing to include funding for abortion in the G8 initiative on maternal child health, but also about growing economic inequality through job losses and attacking collective agreements.

“There has been pressure building for several years, but it’s increasingly gaining velocity. It’s accelerating and I think we should all be concerned about it,” says Nash.

- Brian Topp released his immigration plan (emphasizing the treatment of new Canadians as people rather than economic tools) just in time to greet the Cons' anticipated budget going in the opposite direction.

- Finally, Jeffrey Simpson and Joel-Denis Bellavance both compare Mulcair and his plans for the NDP to Tony Blair and the Third Way - though neither offers any particular explanation as to what that actually means in terms of the NDP's organization. KK offers up some reasons to vote for Paul Dewar. And Marc Laferriere offers an overview of the candidates who recently appeared in Brant, while making this suggestion for the end of the campaign:

A united NDP, no matter who becomes leader, will be able to achieve the dreams set up before us by leaders like Tommy, Ed and Jack. These candidates, and even more importantly their teams, have done an incredible job separately and have learned much. When we all get back on the same team, watch out.

My challenge to all New Democrats from every leadership team is this: The leadership race has to end on March 24th. No camps, no grudges, no hurt feelings. Let's see what we can do together and where we are a year from now as a united force for a better, more progressive Canada.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Joel-Denis Bellavance notes another noteworthy piece of the latest Quebec polling, as CROP shows the NDP's recently-increased support as being no less solid than that for any other party:

Mieux encore, les appuis au NPD se solidifient. Pas moins de 77% des personnes sondées qui comptent appuyer les troupes de Jack Layton ont «certainement» l'intention d'aller voter le 2 mai, jour du scrutin. Les électeurs qui comptent appuyer le NPD sont plus mobilisés que ceux du Bloc québécois (75%) et autant que ceux qui comptent donner leur appui au Parti conservateur.

Enfin, Jack Layton domine outrageusement tous ses adversaires fédéralistes quand on demande aux répondants d'identifier quel chef de parti ferait le meilleur premier ministre. En effet, 38% des personnes sondées choisissent Jack Layton et seulement 11% optent pour le chef conservateur Stephen Harper et 8% jettent leur dévolu sur le chef libéral Michael Ignatieff.

- It's probably too late to make the difference I'd hoped for. But the Tyee fact-checks each of Stephen Harper's outraged declarations of "that's simply not true!" from the leader's debates - and finds that Harper flat-out lied about three, while declaring clarity on a muddled issue for the fourth.

- Craig McInnes asks when compromise became a dirty word. But the more appropriate question seems to me to be where compromise is a dirty word - and the answer seems to be among Kool-Aid-addled Cons, but far less of the general public than they think.

- Finally, Bruce Campbell issues a challenge to Canada's wealthiest 0.1% to stop putting their short-term interests above the long-term health of Canadian society.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading...

- David MacDonald's CCPA report on the complete lack of any return on a decade of corporate tax cuts is worth a read in full. But his blog post offers the ideal summary:

I took Canada’s biggest public companies, those on the S&P/TSX Composite and tracked them over the past decade to see how their taxes and profits changed. At the same time, I also tracked how many employees they had and therefore the number of jobs they created. These are the companies that benefit the most from corporate tax cuts because they declare the largest profits.

There were 198 companies that had data from 2000 through 2009. What readers should find shocking is just how dramatic the transformation in corporate taxation has been in the past decade. The effective tax rate that these successful companies have paid has been cut in half. Imagine if as an individual your personal income taxes had been cut in half over the past decade, well that’s what happened in corporate Canada.

With such a dramatic change, it should be no surprise that compared to 2000, profits are up 50% while taxes paid are down 20%. The tab for corporate tax cuts for just these 200 companies is $12 billion a year in lost provincial and federal revenues. To give readers a sense of scale, that much money could buy us a national $10/day childcare program and wipe out poverty among seniors with money left over.

The bargain that Canada made with its most profitable corporations was that if we give them dramatic tax cuts they’ll use that money to create jobs. We’ve cut the cheque, worth $12 billion a year in 2009, so did we get the jobs?

The Canadian economy as a whole has increased the number of jobs by 6% since 2005. However, the 200 companies that are receiving the $12 billion a year tax break have only increased their job numbers by 5%, in effect they are pulling down the average.

Instead of creating jobs with those billions, they have merely increased their profits or are sitting on the cash. Canadians should expect vastly more for $12 billion a year.

- The hope for the current election is that Edmonton-Strathcona will be joined by one or more other Edmonton ridings in turfing the out-of-touch Cons. But that quibble as to the state of other Alberta races aside, Josh Wingrove provides an entertaining read on Linda Duncan's work to win her seat once again.

- Meanwhile, Joel-Denis Bellavance notes that the NDP's ascent in Quebec continues, including a strong second-place showing at 24% in the latest Angus Reid poll.

- Finally, while I don't agree with all of Mike Moffatt's proposals, they certainly look to offer a far wider range of policy ideas than we're seeing from a lot of parties in the current election campaign. And indeed, I'd be curious to see a leaders' debate focusing in on some of the ideas raised - particularly the merits of a GAI, and the harm done by the Cons' boutique tax credits.