Bring Back Tom Mulcair.....

412 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

damn

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

JKR wrote:
...I think the NDP, like the Liberals and Conservatives, are all creatures of our big-tent FPTP system that favors top-down leader-centred parties...

Could you present an example of non-leader-centered parties in some PR system.

I think what happens in PR systems is that when a party and its leader fail to live up to the requirements of many of its members, unsatisfied party members have the option of starting up a new party and choosing a leader more to their liking. Just the possibility of this gives party members a lot more power than members have in a plurality system where the fear of vote-splitting keeps party members in line and under the thumb of party leaders. An example of this can be seen in Germany where the AfD and Die Linke were able to emerge respectively from the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. I think under FPTP powerful leaders like Angela Merkel have more power vis a vis their party's rank and file members. I think this is one reason party leaders here generally seem to like FPTP.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Holy crap, I just found your quote: it's from an unsigned Canadian Press story. They have no clue about the NDP, its structure, its constitution, and you're citing the MSM for your concoction that Mulcair "needed" a vote of caucus to remain as "interim" leader? Why not just try to say: "Ok, I was mistaken?" I did it yesterday in another thread. It's not that hard.

[url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/08/mulcair-refuses-to-crack-...'s source[/url]

Actually you can see this from many, many sources. Certainly there is a lot of reporting of a meeting by caucus where they asked him to continue during the period up to the vote.

This is quite the conspiracy if you think it is a lie -- and not a single NDP MP denying it.

By the way the word to use when speaking about a period of time before something  would be interim.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What's Tom's last day?

In calendar terms, I mean.  On which day should I mark the big red X?

mark_alfred

Letter from the creator of the Bring Back Tom Mulcair page, Dale Jackaman, to Marit Styles, NDP President.  He's not heard back from her, and I'm guessing he won't hear back from her.  His contention is that many of the delegates did not live in the ridings of the EDA's they claimed to represent.  This led to over-representation of some EDAs.  And thus led to "regions [that] obtained an undue amount of influence" over the vote.  ETA:  of course, if the accreditation of delegates was flawed enough to negate the leadership vote, then it also would call into question the votes on resolutions, and the elections of the executive such as Styles herself.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Holy crap, I just found your quote: it's from an unsigned Canadian Press story. They have no clue about the NDP, its structure, its constitution, and you're citing the MSM for your concoction that Mulcair "needed" a vote of caucus to remain as "interim" leader? Why not just try to say: "Ok, I was mistaken?" I did it yesterday in another thread. It's not that hard.

[url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/08/mulcair-refuses-to-crack-...'s source[/url]

Actually you can see this from many, many sources. Certainly there is a lot of reporting of a meeting by caucus where they asked him to continue during the period up to the vote.

This is quite the conspiracy if you think it is a lie -- and not a single NDP MP denying it.

By the way the word to use when speaking about a period of time before something  would be interim.

No Sean, let me try again. Of course caucus asked him to stay. Everyone knows that. We talked about it here at length. What they did not (and could not) do was to appoint him as interim leader. Why? Because he is the leader, and caucus has no say over that. Furthermore, caucus doesn't even appoint a true interim leader (like Nycole Turmel). Were you aware of that? Have you read the constitution? I don't care how "many, many, many, many sources" distort reality. It doesn't make it true.

Caucus urged him to stay, and he decided to stay. It was his call - not theirs.

Please retract the falsehood that Mulcair "needed" a vote by caucus to remain as any kind of leader. The fact that countless media repeated this lie changes nothing - except that NDP members who have long since given up expecting any semblance of internal democracy and "rule of law" will clearly believe almost any bullshit that is tossed their way.

Unless that changes - no change in Leader will accomplish anything.

mark_alfred

Quote:

What's Tom's last day?

In calendar terms, I mean.  On which day should I mark the big red X?

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2016/documents/LeadershipRules2017-EN.pdf

NDP Leadership Rules 2017 wrote:

There shall be multiple rounds of balloting, with a maximum of 5 rounds if there are 6 or more candidates, until a candidate received the support of 50%+ 1 member.  If no candidate gets 50% +1 of the vote on the first ballot, the five candidates with the highest share of the vote will be eligible for the next ballot.  Following the closure of each round of balloting, the Party will organize an event at a location to be determined by the Party, to announce the results of the ballot.  Opening of the Voting Period: September 18, 2017 

  • Closing of First Ballot: October 1, 2017
  • Closing of Second Ballot: October 8, 2017
  • Closing of Third Ballot: October 15, 2017
  • Closing of Fourth Ballot: October 22, 2017
  • Closing of Final Ballot: October 29, 2017

ETA: 

NDP Leadership Rules 2017 wrote:

The deadline for official registration in order for Candidates to appear on the ballot is ninety (90) days prior to the first ballot polling day. (July 3rd, 2017)

Will someone enter before then?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm not sure they've actually set the date. 

Geoff

mark_alfred wrote:

Letter from the creator of the Bring Back Tom Mulcair page, Dale Jackaman, to Marit Styles, NDP President.  He's not heard back from her, and I'm guessing he won't hear back from her.  His contention is that many of the delegates did not live in the ridings of the EDA's they claimed to represent.  This led to over-representation of some EDAs.  And thus led to "regions [that] obtained an undue amount of influence" over the vote.  ETA:  of course, if the accreditation of delegates was flawed enough to negate the leadership vote, then it also would call into question the votes on resolutions, and the elections of the executive such as Styles herself.

I think it's correct that convention delegates are elected to ridings other than their own, mainly because some ridings simply can't find delegates for one reason or another. This also happens in the ONDP, as I suspect it does in other provincial parties.

The practice is condoned, even encouraged by the party, so if party members prefer that only members living within a riding be allowed to run as delegates, they need to put forward an amendment to the Constitution in time for the next convention.

There's no conspiracy here, and Tom Mulcair, himself, has never said he's opposed to the practice. It's time to get over the leadership vote and move on.

mark_alfred

Yeah, I was expecting something more when I first learned that they were planning to file a complaint.  The letter (which I only skimmed through, admittedly) seems more of a fishing expedition rather than a concrete complaint.  And as you say, members can be from outside of the riding association (at least in Ontario), and thus so can delegates.  If the delegate numbers from an EDA went beyond the entitlement (IE, if it went beyond the 1 in 50 ratio for some EDAs) then perhaps there would be a basis for complaint.  For instance, a riding with 150 members would be entitled to a maximum of 4 delegates (one for the first 50 members, another for the next 50, a third for the last 50 members, and the youth delegate).  If such a riding had twenty delegates, then that would be a cause for concern.

federal NDP Constitution wrote:

Article III:  Membership

1. Individual Membership

(1)  Individual membership shall be open to every resident of Canada, regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or national origin who undertakes to accept and abide by the constitution and principles of the Party and who is not a member or supporter of any other political party.

(2)   Applications for individual membership shall be dealt with in accordance with the constitution of the appropriate provincial Party and shall be subject to the approval of that provincial Party.

Article V:  Conventions

6. Delegates to Conventions

(b)   Electoral District Association Delegates

Each electoral district association shall be entitled to:

i   one (1) delegate for 50 party members or less;

ii   one (1) additional delegate for each additional 50 party members or major fraction thereof; and

iii   one (1) additional credential reserved for a youth delegate.

Ontario NDP Constitution wrote:

Article 5:  Constituency Associations

3.1

Subject to Article 3.07(2), the individual members who reside within a particular constituency shall constitute the membership of that constituency association.

Article 3:  Individual Membership

7.2

An individual member may become a member of a constituency association other than the one in which he/she resides by making a personal request to the constituency association to which he/she wishes to belong, and by having that constituency association accept his/her membership.

Brian Glennie

Rachel Notley is the Premier of Alberta and Brian Topp is her Chief of Staff and Anne McGrath is her Deputy Chief of Staff and we finish 4th(!) in the federal byelection in Medicine Hat.

I'd love to see Nathan Cullen as the next NDP leader. He has a legitimate voice in the west and we need that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pages