Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Rae's Day

As I've said all along, this was the obvious choice for interim leader. Rae is a gifted politician, and will keep the party relevent while it rebuilds.

Liberals name Bob Rae interim chief

Bob Rae says the Liberal Party should look to a new “generation of leadership” – but in the interim, he is happy to serve as leader.

The 62-year-old Toronto Centre MP and former NDP premier of Ontario was named interim leader by the Liberal caucus on Wednesday morning.

“The people of Canada gave the Liberal Party a very clear and tough message in the last election,” Mr. Rae said at a lunchtime news conference. “It's a message that we have received and understood.

More importantly, the stage has now been set for the 3-way dueling pianos debate the country desperately needs!



  • ' “The people of Canada gave the Liberal Party a very clear and tough message in the last election,” Mr. Rae said at a lunchtime news conference. “It's a message that we have received and understood. '

    Then why aren't they packing it in and giving up? Swing right or left and join one of the two useful parties.

    By Blogger Traciatim, at 1:21 p.m.  

  • I would have taken Layton or Ignatieff as P.M. any day before Harper.

    Harper is giving Canada, to the wealthiest corporations in the world. Harper gave, banks, mines, large corporations, gas and oil company's, billions of our tax dollars. I saw that motion pass, on the House of Commons TV channel. They also get huge tax reductions. Harper just gave them ANOTHER tax reduction, to come off Canadians paychecks.

    Our tax dollars belong to us. Those taxes are for, the services we pay through the nose for. Our money does not belong to Harper to give to, huge, greedy outfits. Harper is a fascist and a thieving, lying dictator. He uses dirty tactics to win. The way he insulted Ignatieff's father, was absolutely disgusting. That turned me right off Harper, for good.

    The every day American people dislike Harper intensely. Wikileaks said, the U.S. was just waiting for Harper's majority, so they can implement the N.A.U. The American people are dead set against the N.A.U. They say, Harper's election win was rigged. There is also a petition out, to prosecute Harper and Peter MacKay, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The N.A.U. is, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. We will be known as, the MexCanEricans. Our new currency will be the Amero dollar.

    As I say, give me Ignatieff or Layton any day.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:57 p.m.  

  • @Anon 1:57.

    Your hatred and contempt for others, and disdain for facts, probably isn't something that most Liberals actually want to associate with. Good luck with that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:08 p.m.  

  • If I had read the 2nd to last paragraph by itself, I'd a thought I was reading a piece of satire.

    By Anonymous Jim R, at 4:43 p.m.  

  • Anon,

    The difference between responsible government and "giving Canada to the wealthiest corporations" is only 1.5%?

    Harper is a fascist and a thieving, lying dictator.

    Study a history and book and find out what REAL lying, thieving, fascist dictators do. It's a lot worse than insulting someone's father!

    This type of hyperbole is what turns people off to legitimate criticism of Harper, the same way you are turned off of Harper himself.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 5:02 p.m.  

  • A cut in corporate taxes doesn't mean giving them our money, it means letting them keep more of their money.

    If we cut corporate taxes completely, what would happen?

    They'd have larger profits, of course. But what would that mean?

    Investors (including senior's retirement savings) would make more money - and pay more taxes on that money.

    Companies would expand to get even more profits, increasing the demand for staff, which would lower unemployment and increase wages, benefits and working conditions. Those extra jobs and higher salaries would also be taxed.

    Companies would also compete with one another by lowering prices, leading to greater sales. We would collect sales tax on these extra sales.

    I know I'm over-simplifying things, but cutting corporate taxes isn't the apocalyptic scenario people describe it to be. And trust me, the government WILL get it's money from them in the end.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 5:07 p.m.  

  • I'd be more reassured of the merits of corporate tax cuts if it didn't seem like corporations were using the cuts they've already had over the past decade to increase their cash reserves, rather than to increase production:

    By Blogger ajbeecroft, at 5:51 p.m.  

  • @Robert:
    "A cut in corporate taxes doesn't mean giving them our money, it means letting them keep more of their money."

    It's not their money. Ownership of money changes at the point of the transaction. A government is as much capable of owning money as me, you, or a corporation.

    By Anonymous Yildo, at 9:52 p.m.  

  • I think you got those photos in the wrong order. *g*

    By Blogger Jae/Jennie, at 10:15 p.m.  

  • Finally. 5 years later than it should've happened, but at least it did.

    Go Mr. Rae!

    By Anonymous Toronto boy., at 10:55 p.m.  

  • It was inevitable that Rae was chosen as interim leader, but now he seems to be doing his best to assure doubters they were right.

    I heard him interviewed on CBC this morning (The Current). When asked about Liberal identity, the first 2 items Rae listed were that Liberals were "progressive" and in favour of the environment.

    A few minutes later, he thought to say Liberals aren't opposed to a strong economy.

    Oh, dear.

    Bad enough that Rae doesn't realize that the word "progressive" is tainted by the smug sense of superiority if not outright bigotry of many who use it. Worse, he seems unable to define Liberals as anything other than NDP-lite crossed with Green-lite.

    Maybe a quick leadership campaign would be a good idea after all.

    - Brian from Toronto

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:07 a.m.  

  • I notice that Rae's "knock" against the NDP is that he claims its the "only social democratic party in the world that has not modernized" (btw: no one ever seems to ask what exactly he means by that). I guess he must be Rip Van Winkle and missed the last 8 years of massive modernization and moves to the centre under Layton. i think Rae is just pissed off that he left the NDP for the Liberals thinking it would be a good career move and instead he's stuck with a third party going now where. He bought at the top of the market before the bubble burst and now he is taking a huge loss.

    By Blogger DL, at 10:45 a.m.  

  • After five years, all of the candidates who were on the third (and, of course, fourth) ballot the last time the Liberals allowed their members a say in the Leadership have been Leader.

    Can the LPC save a few bucks on a convention and appoint Kennedy and Dryden next?,_2006

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:09 p.m.  

  • IMO, part of modernizing would be breaking formal ties with labour unions. The reason for the need to break is the significant conflict of interest that exists when the employer (a hypothetical NDP government) is significantly intertwined with, reliant on, and beholden to the employee (public sector unions). Until the NDP is ready to make that much needed break, it is not serious about modernizing.

    By Anonymous Jim R, at 1:11 p.m.  

  • Rae claims that every single other social democratic party in the world has "modernized". If his definition of modernization means breaking ties with labour then I have news for you and him:

    British Labour Party - formally tied to the Trade Union Congress
    Australian Labour Party - formally tied to the Australian Federation of Labour
    New Zealand Labour Party - formally tied to the NZ Fed. of Labour
    Irish labour Party - formally tied to the Irish labour movement
    SPD Germany - formally tied to the German unions
    Swedish SPD - formally tied to the Swedish unions
    French socialist Party - formally tied to the CGT

    ...and so on. Every single solitary social democratic party on the face of the earth has some sort of formal tie to the labour movement. So I guess you better find a better example of what makes the NDP less modern than other SD parties.

    By Blogger DL, at 2:24 p.m.  

  • By modernizing he means going "third way". That is to say, embracing markets as creators of wealth, with growth raising tax revenues and aiding in the aims of the left.

    The NDP has certainly gone in that direction. I used to cringe every time Alexa McDonough called for nationalization of the banks. However, they aren't there yet, and the idea that corporate taxes are a good piggy bank is one such example of class warfare getting in the way of good policy.

    Corporate taxes aren't even a good way to soak the rich (you may note that the evil plutocratic US has some of the highest corporate taxes, while those wonderful socialist Scandinavians have some of the lowest). If you want to do that, raise the income tax or capital gains tax (in general we need to separate questions about the optimal policy mix from distributional questions). Taxing corporate profits may mean fewer swimming pools, but can also mean less R&D, fewer jobs, etc. Its not even a good source of revenue anyway, because capital is highly mobile, and good at evading the tax. Revenues surged all through the 2000s, even as the rates were being cut.

    As to the fellow complaining about corporations adding to their cash reserves - even if that were true, could you blame corporations for doing so? True cash reserves may not create jobs, but they do enhance enhance stability. Jobs are not the sole goal of public policy.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 3:18 p.m.  

  • IF wanting to increase corporate taxes is an example of being "old-fashioned" and "un-modern" then what does it say about the Liberal Party when they spent way more time talking about wanting increase corporate taxes in the last election than the NDP did. In fact Ignatieff actually tried to stake out a position to the left of the NDP on that issue (not that anyone believed him). So, again we come back to square one - Rae accuses the NDP of not embracing "modernism" - and the examples just don't stick or make any sense.

    By Blogger DL, at 3:36 p.m.  

  • "Ignatieff actually tried to stake out a position to the left of the NDP on that issue"

    Who do you think was influencing Ignatieff in that regard?

    Are Liberals really so blind to the machinations within their own power structures?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:36 a.m.  

  • 'IF wanting to increase corporate taxes is an example of being "old-fashioned" and "un-modern" then what does it say about the Liberal Party?'

    It says the Liberal Party is old-fashioned - or oportunisitic.

    If they really believed reversing Canada's progress on reducing corporate rates was good policy, they're old-fasshioned.

    If it was just a con job to convince voters they could have more programs without more taxes, they're opportunistic.

    Could be a bit of both.

    - Brian from Toronto

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:08 a.m.  

  • "Companies would expand to get even more profits, increasing the demand for staff..."

    Robert, that just "ain't necessarily so".

    Expanding DOESN'T guarantee more profits, but does guarantee more costs. There's such a thing as a "right" size for all organizations.

    Furthermore, expansion DOESN'T even guarantee higher demand for staff. It could also mean more capital investment in technologies which might actually reduce staff needs.

    One COULD argue that demand for technology would increase jobs for those creating that technology...but Canada is woefully backward in developing technologies to fit our own industries; why are we STILL buying so much of our lumber harvesting equipment from Sweden and Norway, or our agricultural equipment from the US?

    H2H, I'm glad you qualified your statement vis-a-vis non-taxed profits going to R&D with the word "can", because I'm sure you're aware that domestic R&D is almost as rare as hen's teeth, unless you're talking about universities. Why would a Canadian unit of a multinational corporation invest in R&D IN Canada, when their parent company already does the R&D elsewhere...and probably for a larger market, with greater incentives?

    Finally, those who decry the labour movement associations with social democratic parties, the examples given are for the most part actually able to deliver the vote! That DOESN'T HAPPEN in Canada, there's lots of talk and posturing, but the fact is that the labour movement in Canada does NOT deliver the vote, so the NDP might as well break those ties, for all the good it does them.

    By Blogger Party of One, at 12:41 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home