Exactly How Many NB New Democrats Defected To Elizabeth May Green Party

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Exactly How Many NB New Democrats Defected To Elizabeth May Green Party

Fourteen disgruntled former New Brunswick NDP candidates (plus one on the NDP's national executive) are defecting and throwing their support behind the provincial and federal Greens — a move unlikely to spark confidence in the federal New Democrats on the cusp of an election call.

The 14 former provincial candidates announced their exodus in a media release sent to CBC News today. They also are expected to hold a press conference in Moncton this afternoon to submit their membership applications to New Brunswick Green Party Leader David Coon.

In their declaration of support, the members note that federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has visited New Brunswick, while NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh hasn't set foot in the province since winning the leadership back in 2017.

The former New Democrats say they support the Green Party of Canada "and encourage all New Democrats, New Brunswickers and, indeed, all Canadians in voting for the Green Party of Canada this election."

The shift means Singh's NDP can't turn to any of those provincial candidates to run in federal ridings in the upcoming election campaign. The federal party doesn't have any candidates nominated in New Brunswick at the moment, according to the party's website.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-greens-nb-1.5268498?__vfz=medium%3D...

quizzical

Paul Manley didn't even make the green credential cut.

oh dear...

Debater

Mighty Middle wrote:

In their declaration of support, the members note that federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has visited New Brunswick, while NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh hasn't set foot in the province since winning the leadership back in 2017.

Singh hasn't visited New Brunswick in the 2 years since he was elected leader?  That part is a valid complaint.

Debater

Elizabeth May:

I am honoured today to welcome 14 former New Brunswick NDP candidates! Welcome to the @CanadianGreens ! #GPC

https://twitter.com/ElizabethMay/status/1169003767586574338

NDPP

Is the NDP on the Verge of Collapse?

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-weeks-338canada-projection-...

"...In the best case scenario the NDP barely wins more than half its 2015 total. Worse case, it risks losing official party status."

From the No Difference Party to the Green In Name Only  Party. What dismal politics we have.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Debater wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

In their declaration of support, the members note that federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has visited New Brunswick, while NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh hasn't set foot in the province since winning the leadership back in 2017.

Singh hasn't visited New Brunswick in the 2 years since he was elected leader?  That part is a valid complaint.

yes. I just gripes about exactly that in another thread. What did he actually do for those  two years??? He wasn’t in parliament. He was supposed to get to know the people and make himself visible.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The PC’s and NDP both lost official party status in 1993. It hurts both pride and financially but it is not extreme doom and gloom. The Greens don’t have official party status and this is a good time for them.

JKR

Misfit wrote:

The PC’s and NDP both lost official party status in 1993. It hurts both pride and financially but it is not extreme doom and gloom.

Where is the PC Party now?

Misfit Misfit's picture

 That That is my point. Both the NDP and the PCs regained party status the very next election and the PCs or Conservatives formed government less than 10 years later. So my point is this is not going to be the end of the New Democratic Party.

Debater

I think JKR's point is that there's a danger for a party in being wiped out.  Not all parties recover.  The PC's never came back and the old PC Party died.

Yes, there's a new right-wing Conservative Party that evolved out of Reform/Alliance, but the PC Party is no more.

And had the Liberals not had some strong factors work in their favour in 2015, they might not have come back, either.

The NDP needs to be careful not to sink too far, because previous examples show there are no gurantees.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Debater,

1. Yes the PC party did come back. They got party status the very next election. Period. The PC party is now called the Cinservative party because the melded all the splinter parties into one bit it is the same ideology and the very same people as before so it is the very same party just under a different name.

2. You are being sensational and melodramatic about the Liberals. They were in third place for s blip. Big deal! Nothing to see here.

3. You proved absolutely nothing about your so called guarantees because you entire post did not prove your point.

Debater

JKR said it above.  The PC Party no longer exists.

And as the historian Michael Bliss correctly predicted after the 1993 election, "The potential for the PC Party reviving nationally is near zero".  And he was right.

It regained party status in 1997, and narrowly held onto party status in 2000, but Harper killed it off in 2003-2004 and the Reform/Alliance renamed themselves the Conservative Party.

The composition of the party is different and more right-wing.  The old PC party used to be able to get over 40% of the vote, but the new Conservative Party never has.  And there are certain areas of the country that no longer elect Conservatives where the PC's once were able to.  Montreal is the most obvious example.  No Conservative MP has been elected in Montreal since Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister.

JeffWells

The NDP's own low after '93 lead to the NPI debate which considered dissolving the party. And of course the NDP was created in the first place because the CCF was thought to have run its course. If the NDP isn't working anymore let's not just cling to it out of habit.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

On the meta side of things it's not unexpected. Even the right admits the civil rights movement in a way spawned the LGBT & Green Movements as something that Whites could take leadership of after the former became 'too coloured'.

Singh's leadership is garbage, he takes anti-Sikh positions while claiming to use his identity for empowerment and liberation of oppressed people's. No wonder, he was always going to fail.

However, at the same time, I don't think he's as horrible as they portray him to be and if he were a white woman, which Elizabeth May is, he'd be doing a lot better.

I think he should use this upcoming loss as an opportunity to do something different with the party and take it to new heights.

A leader should govern for the benefit of all, but he also cannot but remain true to himself.

The positions he claims to personally support on self-defense and even these antics of removing his Dastaar in front of the French will eventually get him excommunicated from the Faith.

Then he will have neither spiritual nor political sovereignty.

He will be neither an Amir or a Faqir simply a useless loser.

I would personally support May over Singh because he seems to be a panicky, conniving person who is hiding his true intentions, and ideals in the face of adversity.

If that is the strategy he chooses so be it, but it goes against the very ethos of the Uniform he wears everyday; whether he wants that to be a part of 'his politics' or not.

Pondering

It is easier to reboot a party than to start a new one. This is an opportunity not a disaster. Do most of us not feel that the party has drifted too far right and that the powers that be need to be deposed? Much easier for the left to do a hostile takeover when the powers that be have failed miserably. While I am not comparing Singh to Rae the party is at a similar crossroads. The Liberals came back in full form. No reason why the NDP can't do the same. 

Mighty Middle

NDP official statement about the NB NDP Defectors

Debater

Charlie Angus:

The failure of NDP leadership to meet with New Brunswick team is serious. The fact that some NB NDP jumped ship because they wouldn't run under a progressive leader who comes from another religion is sickening. Good riddance. Go to Elizabeth May.

https://twitter.com/CharlieAngusNDP/status/1169034167063126017

Misfit Misfit's picture

Debater wrote:

Charlie Angus:

The failure of NDP leadership to meet with New Brunswick team is serious. The fact that some NB NDP jumped ship because they wouldn't run under a progressive leader who comes from another religion is sickening. Good riddance. Go to Elizabeth May.

https://twitter.com/CharlieAngusNDP/status/1169034167063126017

Agreed.  Good riddance if their decision is racially motivated.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NB NDP group of losers polled 5% in the last provincial election. They obviously will bring a groundswell of support to EMay.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JeffWells wrote:

The NDP's own low after '93 lead to the NPI debate which considered dissolving the party. And of course the NDP was created in the first place because the CCF was thought to have run its course. If the NDP isn't working anymore let's not just cling to it out of habit.

Did the NDP EVER really work?  Did its leaders give it a chance to work?  Virtually all of them, with the sole exception of Tommy Douglas' moment of heroism when he led the party's MPs to oppose imposition of the War Measures act, chose caution for caution's sake at all times.  David Lewis killed the party's chances in Quebec for the next thirty-four years when he refused to allow it to support Quebec self-determination, and drove a generation of activists away from the party by forcing out the Waffle for no valid reasons.  Ed Broadbent was a decent man and saved the caucus from a possible wipeout in the '84 campaign, but pissed away the chance for a massive breakthrough in '88 by keeping the party neutral on NAFTA.   Audrey McLaughlin made some efforts to break with all of this, but was doomed by a massive backlash caused by the pointlessly right-wing economic and spending policies made by provincial NDP governments in B.C., Saskatchewan and Ontario, policies which convinced early Nineties progressive voters that that party no longer stood for anything and which made it impossible for those voters to trust the ambitious, transformational program Audrey herself was trying to present-sabotaging Audrey from below at the same time that a bitter, spiteful, and in hindsight clearly sexist whispering campaign about her alleged "incompetence" was carried out against her by vindictive supporters of Dave Barrett's failed leadership campaign.   Faced with all of that, no leader could have done well in the 1993 campaign, and it's clear that, to this day, Audrey is owed an apology from all those who worked to undermine the NDP's chances while she led it.

Alexa McDonough again chose caution for caution's sake when she deliberately reduced the party's objectives for the next two election to simply holding the Liberals accountable, while holding them accountable to nothing more than a slightly more left-of-center version of the Liberal platform.

Jack made his breakthrough in 2011 and his early death means we cannot truly judge what might have happened with the party had cancer not taken him.  He was somewhat cautious, but he was also the first leader since Tommy who had even tried to inspire the electorate with a vision of how life could be transformed for the better.  

Mulcair combined caution for caution's sake with arrogance for arrogance's sake-the arrogance doing its worst damage after the 2015 election, when his insistence on hanging on to the leadership even when he knew he could never lead the party to any meaningful gains in a second campaign as leader, as he had to have known on election night.  

Singh is the product of the caution cult-he was elected almost entirely becuase the party insides insisted that it HAD to be him, that all that mattered was this charisma the man was said to possess.   He has carried out caution to the absurd conclusion, essentially refusing to do anything as leader until the last possible moment and allowing the anti-Left bureaucracy to block left-wing candidates, the only types of candidates who have any chance of winning this year, by dragging out the candidate approval process until those candidates give up in frustration and the right-wing bureaucrats can then impose the bland safe certain losers they always prefer because nobody else has stayed in the race, and doing so despite the fact that there has simply never been any evidence that bland, passionless centrists are any more likely to get elected as NDP candidates than anybody else.

If the NDP dies, the murderer will be caution.   Caution is defeat, and caution is death.

JKR

Misfit wrote:

 That That is my point. Both the NDP and the PCs regained party status the very next election and the PCs or Conservatives formed government less than 10 years later. So my point is this is not going to be the end of the New Democratic Party.

After their huge loss the PC’s had to dissolve their party and merge with the Reform/Alliance to return to power. And on top of that they needed the Sponsorship Scandal and the RCMP’s reaction to it to barely win a minority government as the newly minted CPC in 2006. In comparison what does the NDP’s path to power look like if they lose big in the upcoming election? All I can think of is a merger with the Greens and I don’t think that would get them that close to power. I think as long as both the NDP and Greens are vying for fourth place both parties will remain on the periphery of Canadian politics. I think it’s important to remember that we’re operating under the unfair FPTP system where getting under 15% of the vote, spread rather evenly nationally, gets a party very few, if any, seats.

JeffWells

Ken Burch wrote:
Faced with all of that, no leader could have done well in the 1993 campaign, and it's clear that, to this day, Audrey is owed an apology from all those who worked to undermine the NDP's chances while she led it.

Well said. She's been virtually erased from party history, and the wrong lessons from '93 were learned and applied. As I expect so will the wrong lessons from October if the party executive has its way. And if that happens the party's truly reached its late-stage Social Credit golden years.   

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Here's some changes that SHOULD be made within the party after whatever occurs in October:

1) Establish FULL internal party democracy, INCLUDING

1) Placing control over candidate selection SOLELY in the hands of riding associations;

2) The establishment of clear and QUICK vetting processes for candidates, with vetting placed entirely under the purview of each riding association;

3) Rank-and-file control of all aspects of the party conventions, INCLUDING control of the agenda and of what items will and be put up for debate and votes on the floor;

4) The removal of the requirement that people must be members of both the federal AND provincial wings of the NDP, given that many provincial wings these days are either extinct or controlled by cynical, out-of-touch reactionaries who have no other ideas about how to fight election campaigns but to move slightly further and further to the right with each election.  It is now clear that the only thing that will dislodge the chokeholds these types have over provincial sections is to confront those sections with a real threat to their control over the left-of-center to left-wing vote in their jurisdiction through the creation, or even the possible creation, of left alternatives to those parties in provincial elections.  These smug insider types won't let go of their "they have no place else to go" assumptions regarding left voters unless those voters actually can create other places to go.

The only chance to keep the NDP going at all is to disempower the caution cult that has done nothing since 1961 but say "no".   For fifty-eight years, they've said that, again and again and again, and there is nothing at all to show for it.

voice of the damned

Misfit wrote:

Debater wrote:

Charlie Angus:

The failure of NDP leadership to meet with New Brunswick team is serious. The fact that some NB NDP jumped ship because they wouldn't run under a progressive leader who comes from another religion is sickening. Good riddance. Go to Elizabeth May.

https://twitter.com/CharlieAngusNDP/status/1169034167063126017

Agreed.  Good riddance if their decision is racially motivated.

What has been the evidence presented for race being a factor? 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

JKR wrote:
I think it’s important to remember that we’re operating under the unfair FPTP system where getting under 15% of the vote, spread rather evenly nationally, gets a party very few, if any, seats.

On the current aggregate polling, the NDP could well get below 10% of the votes in most ridings, even below 5% of the votes in many of those, and still manage to hold 15-20 seats held by popular NDP incumbents, with the NDP getting over 30% of the votes in these ridings.

Debater

voice of the damned wrote:

What has been the evidence presented for race being a factor? 

 

Race a factor in NDP’s poor outlook in N.B. ahead of election: ex-party executive

The NDP has so far failed to nominate a single candidate in New Brunswick with the federal election less than 50 days away. Richardson said racism is a major reason the party can’t find candidates.

The former NDP executive member said he travelled around the province often to meet members, and “the racism card came up a lot – especially in the northern part of the province.” NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is a practising Sikh and he wears a turban.

“I knew this was going to be a major issue and I did bring that to the election planning committee. That, you know, there is going to have to be a some discussion about race. Because it wasn’t going well,” Richardson said in an interview Tuesday.

He said some potential NDP candidates were hesitant to run because they thought the electorate wouldn’t vote for a party whose leader wore a turban. “That was probably a major, a reason that they felt people wouldn’t want to vote for them because that would hold them back.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/5852970/race-a-factor-ndp-nb/

Aristotleded24

What exactly is Angus trying to say here? We know that racism is a problem in this country. It's also true that here in Manitoba, there are many communities where people wouldn't consider voting NDP specifically because Kinew is First Nations. Does that mean that we shouldn't have chosen Kinew on that basis? I hope he's not saying what it sounds like he's saying.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The

Debater wrote:

Charlie Angus:

The failure of NDP leadership to meet with New Brunswick team is serious. The fact that some NB NDP jumped ship because they wouldn't run under a progressive leader who comes from another religion is sickening. Good riddance. Go to Elizabeth May.

https://twitter.com/CharlieAngusNDP/status/1169034167063126017

Ari, this is what Angus said.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Richardson is a former NDP executive in NB. He talked about the racism he noticed.

I think you may have been referring to this statement from Richardson. ““I knew this was going to be a major issue and I did bring that to the election planning committee. That, you know, there is going to have to be a some discussion about race. Because it wasn’t going well,” Richardson said in an interview Tuesday.”

He is saying, IMO, that the racism problem needs to be addressed by the current executive. They need to go out and talk to people and tackle the race issue head on. Issues like this require dialogue and education. I guess it didn’t happen.

Aristotleded24

Thanks Misfit.

bekayne

Debater wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

What has been the evidence presented for race being a factor? 

 

Race a factor in NDP’s poor outlook in N.B. ahead of election: ex-party executive

The NDP has so far failed to nominate a single candidate in New Brunswick with the federal election less than 50 days away. Richardson said racism is a major reason the party can’t find candidates.

The former NDP executive member said he travelled around the province often to meet members, and “the racism card came up a lot – especially in the northern part of the province.” NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is a practising Sikh and he wears a turban.

“I knew this was going to be a major issue and I did bring that to the election planning committee. That, you know, there is going to have to be a some discussion about race. Because it wasn’t going well,” Richardson said in an interview Tuesday.

He said some potential NDP candidates were hesitant to run because they thought the electorate wouldn’t vote for a party whose leader wore a turban. “That was probably a major, a reason that they felt people wouldn’t want to vote for them because that would hold them back.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/5852970/race-a-factor-ndp-nb/

These people might not be among the 14, they could still be in the party.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

After their huge loss the PC’s had to dissolve their party and merge with the Reform/Alliance to return to power. And on top of that they needed the Sponsorship Scandal and the RCMP’s reaction to it to barely win a minority government as the newly minted CPC in 2006. In comparison what does the NDP’s path to power look like if they lose big in the upcoming election? All I can think of is a merger with the Greens and I don’t think that would get them that close to power. I think as long as both the NDP and Greens are vying for fourth place both parties will remain on the periphery of Canadian politics. I think it’s important to remember that we’re operating under the unfair FPTP system where getting under 15% of the vote, spread rather evenly nationally, gets a party very few, if any, seats.

As it stands today the NDP really is The No Difference Party so far. 

Like the Liberals, the NDP has ignored members for a very long time. In the case of Liberals they rebelled by voting for Dion then rejecting Ignatieff and Rae. Pundits were speculating on the demise of the Liberal Party or its amalgamation with the NDP. Then they overthrew the old guard and got Trudeau.

For the NDP the path will be different. The NDP needs a strong leader and I don't think it has to be quite as democratic as Ken suggests but it must respect the strong progressive voices in the party like Angus and Ashton and others. I agree with Ken that locals should choose their candidates and in this one area should emulate the Conservatives and allow MPs and candidates to voice their own opinions as long as they make it clear it is not the party's position. 

Debater

I think the NDP chose Singh because he was considered "charismatic" and because he was considered an NDP version of Trudeau.

And with Trudeau being Liberal leader, and with the Cons picking an even younger leader in Scheer, the NDP was probably right that it would also need a younger leader to meet the new generational change in Federal politics.

The problem is that Singh only had a small number of years experience in a provincial legislature and none at the Federal level.  And had no seat.  So picking an inexperienced leader at this time has created a lot of challenges.

Some leaders with only a few years experience (eg. Obama, Trudeau) can be sucessful and go right to the top almost overnight, but a lot of the time there's a steep learning curve.

NDPP

What a nasty little shitstorm. Maybe Angus and the NDP are trying Hilary Clinton's 'Deplorables' strategy? Perhaps they could try blaming Russia for their NB losses too?

Elizabeth May Says There's 'No Room For Racism' in Green Party After NDP Defector's Comments

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-racism-new-brunswick-green-party-el...

"...New Brunswick Green Party Leader David Coon said he hasn't had a chance to speak to Richardson since he made the comments, but he contents they've been 'overblown' and 'exploited' by people trying to 'blunt the impact' of 14 NDP candidates joining the Greens all at once.."

Misfit Misfit's picture

Debater wrote:

I think the NDP chose Singh because he was considered "charismatic" and because he was considered an NDP version of Trudeau.

And with Trudeau being Liberal leader, and with the Cons picking an even younger leader in Scheer, the NDP was probably right that it would also need a younger leader to meet the new generational change in Federal politics.

The problem is that Singh only had a small number of years experience in a provincial legislature and none at the Federal level.  And had no seat.  So picking an inexperienced leader at this time has created a lot of challenges.

Some leaders with only a few years experience (eg. Obama, Trudeau) can be sucessful and go right to the top almost overnight, but a lot of the time there's a steep learning curve.

Um, no again. The NDP elected Jagmeet Singh because he Signed up more delegates to vote for him than the other candidates did. Most of his support came from the Brampton area only.

And no, no one considers him an NDP version of Trudeau. The only one saying that is you. The msm says that Singh is a sharper dresser than Trudeau but that’s it.

And the only one who dwells about their age is you. 

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

Then they overthrew the old guard and got Trudeau.

The first thing Trudeau did was get rid of all the old-timers - Suddenly former  middle-aged white men who used to have alot of influence in the back rooms were on the outside looking in. Then Trudeau proclaimed on one over 40 would be part of his team! Some old timers were outraged, and have never forgiven him for giving them (and then later all Liberal Senators) the boot. Which is why you have alot of old time Liberals schilling for the Conservatives. Going on right-wing media with the title "Former Liberal" dumping on Trudeau every chance they get.

But Trudeau wanted a clear break from the past and say this is a NEW Liberal party.

pietro_bcc

The Green Party allowed Pierre Nantel to join their party despite him threatening to leave the NDP during the leadership race if Singh won (and explicitely stated that the reason was that he wore a turban), now May's allowing this individual to join. Seems like a pattern where May is willing to except any scumbag into the Green Party, as long as (to quote US Conservatives) "she owns the libs (or in this case the NDP)" in the process.

Misfit wrote:

Debater wrote:

I think the NDP chose Singh because he was considered "charismatic" and because he was considered an NDP version of Trudeau.

And with Trudeau being Liberal leader, and with the Cons picking an even younger leader in Scheer, the NDP was probably right that it would also need a younger leader to meet the new generational change in Federal politics.

The problem is that Singh only had a small number of years experience in a provincial legislature and none at the Federal level.  And had no seat.  So picking an inexperienced leader at this time has created a lot of challenges.

Some leaders with only a few years experience (eg. Obama, Trudeau) can be sucessful and go right to the top almost overnight, but a lot of the time there's a steep learning curve.

Um, no again. The NDP elected Jagmeet Singh because he Signed up more delegates to vote for him than the other candidates did. Most of his support came from the Brampton area only.

And no, no one considers him an NDP version of Trudeau. The only one saying that is you. The msm says that Singh is a sharper dresser than Trudeau but that’s it.

And the only one who dwells about their age is you. 

The mainstream media absolutely pushed Singh as the NDP version of Trudeau and declared him the winner of the leadership race before he had even joined it.

NDP members were foolish to go along with and submit to the narative that the media was pushing and this is the result. The NDP has to learn that the media aren't their friends, if anything they should do the opposite of what the pundits on TV suggest. And don't forget about how Singh is a prolific fundraiser XD.

 

nicky

CBC radio is reporting that 5 of the names from New Brunswick that the Greens put on their list are maintaining they still support the NDP

JKR

Pondering wrote:

... should emulate the Conservatives and allow MPs and candidates to voice their own opinions as long as they make it clear it is not the party's position. 

Since when do the Conservatives allow their candidates to voice opinions that diverge from their party’s positions? It seems to me that of all the parties, the Conservatives have the greatest control over their candidates statements. The Conservative Party even prevents their candidates from participating in local debates.

Mighty Middle

nicky wrote:

CBC radio is reporting that 5 of the names from New Brunswick that the Greens put on their list are maintaining they still support the NDP

Elizabeth May just said on CTV that the 5 have been strong-armed by NDP headquarters to change their story.

Pondering

Elizabeth May is making herself look foolish. She should have double-checked what was going on. It seems only the Richardsons, the ones that have a problem with Singh's turban, are defecting. Those are the ones the Greens teamed up with for the annoucement. 

None of the other NDPers gave permission for their names to be used. 

brookmere

pietro_bcc wrote:
NDP members were foolish to go along with and submit to the narative that the media was pushing and this is the result.

As was accurately pointed out above, Singh won because of the huge number of new members he signed up. Singh himself bragged about it. Perhaps some of the pre-existing members were won over by the media, but that's not what decided the outcome.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=jagmeet+singh+new+members+sign+up&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Debater

But as Pietro said, it is also the case that Singh was presented as the NDP version of Trudeau -- someone who would be charismatic, young, attractive in nice clothes, good dresser, etc.  Singh himself even played along with it and said he was an even better dresser than Trudeau, etc.

And Misfit, it happens to be the case that several commentators such as Chantal Hebert talked about the generational change in Federal politics -- with Trudeau, Scheer & Singh all being younger than their predecessors.  Hebert pointed out that 2015 was probably the last time there will be a Federal leader from the baby boom generation.

Gerald Fox

On September 3rd, according to the CBC:
 

Fourteen disgruntled former New Brunswick NDP candidates are defecting and throwing their support behind the provincial and federal Greens — a move unlikely to spark confidence in the federal New Democrats on the cusp of an election call.

The ex-New Democrats announced their exodus at a news conference in Moncton this afternoon alongside provincial Green Party Leader David Coon.

We now learn that the announcement was untrue. When announcements such as the foregoing are determined not to be true, we call them "dirty tricks".

Considering the importance of the announcement and the effect it was clearly intended to have, nationwide, if David Coon failed to personally confirm with all fourteen on the list that they were, indeed, defecting then David Coon should resign - offering stupidity as the reason.

It follows that if Elizabeth ("I can’t believe this is true!") May failed to confirm that David Coon had personally verified the defections with all fourteen involved before, herself, pronouncing on the subject then Elizabeth May should resign - offering credulity as the reason.

Debater

David Akin:

. ain’t taking no guff from

Statement from the Green Party:

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1169721706858123266

Debater

nicky

Yes, the NDP may have made a bad mistake choosing a leader with some of Trudeau’s superficial stylistic attractions. 

Now that the public is seeing through Trudeau’s essential vacuity, these traits may may turned into detriments.

 

Pondering

So eight still are defecting. I still think this looks worse on the Greens than on the NDP.  Nobody likes public back-stabbing. Putting on names that had not agreed looks very bad.   May claiming they were bullied is ridiculous. Disaffected NDPers that have been parking their votes with the Greens may reconsider. 

Debater

nicky wrote:

Yes, the NDP may have made a bad mistake choosing a leader with some of Trudeau’s superficial stylistic attractions. 

Now that the public is seeing through Trudeau’s essential vacuity, these traits may may turned into detriments.

 

Trudeau has his liabilities, sure.

But Trudeau also has some strengths, which is how he got to be Prime Minister and why he is still in the race to remain PM, based on the latest numbers above.

The question is, does Singh have some strengths?  Trudeau & Mulcair may be flawed, but they each had certain strengths which were on display at this time 4 years ago.

Mighty Middle

Debater wrote:

But as Pietro said, it is also the case that Singh was presented as the NDP version of Trudeau -- someone who would be charismatic, young, attractive in nice clothes, good dresser, etc.  Singh himself even played along with it and said he was an even better dresser than Trudeau, etc.

It was political columnist from Right Wing Media (Postmedia, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail) who was pushing for Singh and hailing him as someone who could compete with Trudeau. Why? Because a perfect vote split lets the Conservatives win.

Unfortunately the grasroots bought into the narrative from the right-wing media that Singh would be the NDP savior, and that he needed to do is just show up and the polling and cash would follow.

You can say alot about Trudeau, but one thing you can't say is that he didn't work for it. That is where Singh falls short.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
So eight still are defecting. I still think this looks worse on the Greens than on the NDP.  Nobody likes public back-stabbing. Putting on names that had not agreed looks very bad.   May claiming they were bullied is ridiculous. Disaffected NDPers that have been parking their votes with the Greens may reconsider.

Exactly. How is a political party that has no representation in a legislative body and no real structure even capable of bullying or using strong arm tactics?

Pages