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

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Misfit wrote:

Ken Burch posted:

”The problem with opposing Charlottetown was that there was so much in that that was amazingly socially progressive, the NDP couldn't really have opposed it without sounding like it had gone right-wing on all of those issues, like it was pandering to uptight, narrow-minded Alberta rancher/preacher types.  I can't even imagine how a Left case against Charlottetown could have sounded, how the argument could have been made that there was still a way to get the social progressive stuff in Charlottetown enacted if it were to lose.   If you had to frame a Left argument against that Accord, Kropotkin, how would you do so?  How would you make the case that it was possible to vote against the "social charter" and still find a way to get the things in the social charter by other means?”

The Charlottetown Accord if passed would eliminate First Nations Women’s constitutional protection under the charter who lived on reservations. Judy Rebick and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women lead an active campaign against Charlottetown in support of indigenous women across Canada.

Article

By Judy Rebick. From the nine page article which is worth reading in its entirety,

”...The ad hoc Committee won many of its demands, but Quebec never signed the Constitution. In 1984, Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney began the process of persuading Quebec to sign. His 1987 amendment, the Meech Lake Accord, divided both the country and the women’s movement over its proposed “distinct society” clause for Que- bec. The ad hoc Committee opposed Meech Lake, concerned that the distinct society clause would jeopardize what they had worked so hard to achieve and had thought were iron-clad equality rights in the Consti- tution. So the women’s movement in English Canada mobilized against the Meech Lake Accord. And when Mulroney initiated the so-called Canada Round of constitutional negotiations in 1992, NAC took a high- ly controversial position against the proposed Charlottetown Accord, working alongside Aboriginal women from across the country to or- chestrate its defeat. Protecting the equality rights won in the 1982 Con- stitution became a central focus of the Canadian women’s movement; one could even say a defining feature...”

i hope this helps both VOD and KB in shedding some light on both Meech Lake and Charlottetown and why Rosemary Brown may have been so vocal against the constitutional reform.

Thank you.  I guess my impression of the anti-Charlottestown coalition was that it was largely made up of right-wing white men whose attitude on culture and social issues was "just shut up, do what you're told, and settle for being generic 'Canadians'" who are supposed to be fixated on trying to live and act as much like white 'Christian' men damn well tell you to do".

And there was the fact that Alberta was so stoked that Charlottetown was defeated, and it's always hard to believe that anything progressive comes of anything most Albertans would celebrate.

My last question is...has anything that would have been guaranteed in the social charter even come close to being won through other means in the years since that referendum?

Even though I ask that, I recognize that the Accord did need to be beaten.

My earlier views on the issue were misinformed.

Aristotleded24

On the question of why the Charlottetown Accord failed, krop and Misfit already went into great detail about some of the problematic issues. More generally, the way the government approached it, which was to have political elites sit in a room to try and hammer out a deal, guaranteed that every special interest in this country and their dog would come out and find something about it they found to be an unacceptable deal-breaker. The fact that Mulroney also attempted to do so while there were massive shifts in the economy that shifted the balance towards the welathy rather than the workers did not help much. As for the idea that Charlottetown was good because Alberta voted against it, Quebec did as well.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

On the question of why the Charlottetown Accord failed, krop and Misfit already went into great detail about some of the problematic issues. More generally, the way the government approached it, which was to have political elites sit in a room to try and hammer out a deal, guaranteed that every special interest in this country and their dog would come out and find something about it they found to be an unacceptable deal-breaker. The fact that Mulroney also attempted to do so while there were massive shifts in the economy that shifted the balance towards the welathy rather than the workers did not help much. As for the idea that Charlottetown was good because Alberta voted against it, Quebec did as well.

My only reason for referencing Quebec there was to illustrate my previous ignorance on the matter.  I accept now that the Accord had to be defeated.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
​ I think because of FPTP the NDP will most likely continue to be a lite version of the Liberals. I think that under our FPTP system the left in Canada would be better off if we joined the Liberals big tent party and lobbied for socialist policies from within that party but I also think that’s not about to happen as many NDP’ers hate the Liberal Party. I think electoral reform would help establish a viable socialist alternative in Canada but for obvious reasons the elites are opposed to electoral reform and will likely be able to prevent it from happening federally for the foreseeable future. So I guess the best that can be expected for the foreseeable future is for the left to muddle through and hope the upcoming federal election produces a Liberal minority government that needs support from the NDP and maybe now the Greens.

Promoting socialist policies within the NDP hasn't proved particularly fruitful unless you count Singh moving the party left. I don't see how the NDP joining the Liberals would make the Liberals more socialist. The NDP members that lean left would have to leave to form a separate party. 

The NDP has come close to winning power twice federally. Under minority Liberal governments they have forced the agenda to the left. No one thought the NDP could win in Alberta but they did. FPTP does not mean the NDP can't win. Just the opposite. They don't need 50% to win power. Saying the left can't win under FPTP is defeatist. If the right thought like that they wouldn't be in power now. 

I don't think Singh can do the job alone but I do think he will surprise people during the home stretch. Trudeau stayed underdog as long as he could so when he came out punching, even weakly, people thought he was great. To be in contention for the win he couldn't hold back any longer. Singh is in a different position. The NDP has less money. I'm not convinced he is holding back on purpose but it wouldn't shock me if he comes out swinging strong once the undecideds are paying attention. It might not be a bad strategy to let people get fed up with Scheer and Trudeau. 

He is aiming for soft NDP voters this time not centrists. This election is about saving the furniture and living to fight another day. If the NDP can hold the balance of power that would be awesome but right now if he equals Mulcair's showing many people will breath a sign of relief. 

 

 

quizzical

May has hone on record saying she has anti choice candidates running and would allow them a free vote if the matter was brought into play.

wow.

this on top of her stating she would support the Conservatives in a minority government. 

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

At least Trudeau made all Liberal candidates commit to pro-choice. She could learn something from him.

quizzical

what's really cute now is they've released a statement saying no GP MP would bring forward anti choice legislation. it didn't say they wouldn't support any though.

now they've declared a "climate emergency" and May has stated she would support a Conservative minority i can see May to Scheer going; 'you put the environment in we will support your backbencher's moton'.

 

Debater

The thing that's silly about all of this is that the Greens only have TWO MP's.

And they will likely only elect 3-4 or 4 more this year.

So they aren't going to be a caucus with a large number of people having to make a decision.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
The thing that's silly about all of this is that the Greens only have TWO MP's.

And they will likely only elect 3-4 or 4 more this year.

So they aren't going to be a caucus with a large number of people having to make a decision.

Balance of power is relative, not absolute. Remember when Chuck Cadman singlehandedly kept the Martin Liberal government alive and stopped an imminent election?

Debater

Yes, but this isn't about balance of power.

This Green discussion is about the 'debates' they will be having in their caucus.

Up until a few months ago the Green caucus consitsted of one person.  And now two.  And it won't likely grow beyond 5 or 6.  So it's not like the complex debates that happen in a caucus composed of 50 or 100 or 150 MPs, etc.

Pages