Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

267 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Mighty Middle wrote:

The deal's done. But for vehicles that haven't been built, an NDP Gov would review. And if Human Rights violated they would cancel deal.

That was my interpretation of what Dewar said.  And the NDP were consistent with this sentiment, since upon learning of such evidence of human rights violations of civilians likely being targeted via Canadian made LAVs, the NDP promptly urged the government to cancel the deal. So, I don't see any issue with Singh bringing this up (and even if it was a contradiction of Dewar's statement, I still have no problem with Singh bringing it up as a concern, so what Rev is going on about is a complete mystery to me).

Also, it turns out, that the deal wasn't even finalized by the Conservatives.  It was the Liberals, and specifically Dion, who finalized it.

Quote:

Canada's arms export control regime makes it clear that a transaction can only proceed after Ottawa has issued export permits, and the new Global Affairs memo reveals that the Conservatives had only approved minor permits related to the Saudi deal for the export of technical data.

It has fallen to Mr. Dion to approve the vast majority of the transaction and that is what he did last week. [in April 2016]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-quietly-approved-...

So the statements of Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal on that panel ("we would have followed an internationally defined process...and it would be done under a proper human rights assessment") are complete bullshit, unless Dion being bullied to give approval ("I concur") counts as a "proper human rights assessment". Singh and Laverdière are certainly correct to criticize the Liberals on this.

mark_alfred

Michal Hay, the head of Jagmeet's leadership campaign team, has been included as one of Chatelaine's Women Of The Year.  http://www.chatelaine.com/living/women-of-the-year-2017/image/5/

mark_alfred

The following centres more on Guy Caron, NDP parliamentary leader, but also relates to Singh, since Singh wisely chose Caron for this role.

In Le Journal de Montreal, columnist Mario Dumont cites Guy Caron as having been one of 2017's shining stars.  Link:  http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/12/27/politique-canadienne-meritas...

Google Translation of Mario Dumont's comment on Guy Caron, wrote:

Merit Revelation of the Year: Guy Caron. Only Quebec candidate for leadership of the NDP, the MP for Rimouski-Neigette went unnoticed at that time, except that the winner Jagmeet Singh, who has no seat in the Commons, offered him to become temporarily parliamentary leader of the NDP. His questions to Justin Trudeau have often been solid, clear and biting. Many of these interventions were retained in newsletters: effective.

mark_alfred

dp

Cody87

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed that that alone will not cause the Libs to lose.  But, the one (and perhaps only) thing the Libs have going for them is the popularity of Trudeau, and his image of being a good guy.  So, whittling away at that with facts will help.  And, people did expect "real change" from him, so pointing out areas, including foreign affairs, where there's little evidence of change, helps in tarnishing the good guy image of Trudeau. 

More important, though, is people's personal interest.  Those who were interested in seeing electoral reform are furious, and that did get the Libs a lot of strategic votes.  Those votes will not return to the Libs. 

I'm a bit late to the party, but I agree 100% with this and it's worth repeating. People don't like Trudeau's policies and then rationalize liking him from there. That's almost never how politicians succeed. They like his character and rationalize support for his policies from there. The best thing the NDP can do is to carefully reframe Trudeau as "not in it for you." And I also agree that the single most effective issue so far to do that with is with the blatand renege on electoral reform. There are three other big issues that are going to hurt: legalization of weed (to be fair, I don't think people had realistic expectations based on the nature of the criticisms I've seen), and supporting Wynne in the 2018 Ontario election (presuming he does). The third you mention below so I'll touch on it then.

Quote:
Also, some youth I've met are not too happy, given that 1.) the Libs did not raise the minimum wage, and 2.) they've done nothing about precarious work (in fact Morneau said "We have to accept that", in reference to a question on precarious work).  Regarding the minimum wage, recall that Trudeau derided the NDP's pledge to raise the minimum wage as misleading, in that only raising the federal minimum wage was declared by Trudeau as insufficient (thus hinting that his party would go further than the NDP and perhaps engage with the provinces too on the issue).  After the election he was very clear that he never intended to raise the minimum wage at all.  

Sometimes I read too much nuance and miss the common perception of things, and this may be one of those times. That said, personally, I never interpreted that criticism of the NDP minimum wage policy as support for raising minimum wage, but rather criticism of the...well...misleading nature of the policy. Lay voters know that governments can raise minimum wage, but many don't know which branch does it - so a federal government campaigning on raising minimum wage is inherently misleading. In any case, I don't think minimum wage is a productive line of attack as the Ontario Liberals are raising it to $15 by the next federal election. And since Ontario is almost half the population and well more than half the seats likely to be contested next federal election, well, I just don't see that like of attack working out so well.

Quote:
The real interest that many voters, specifically homeowners, have is making sure their main investment in life, that being their house, is secure.  If housing prices start to fall dramatically, the Libs will lose (mind you, IMO housing prices need to go down, but slowly rather than via a dramatic crash).  Any party that looks like it could lead to financial insecurity (and thus fears of housing prices crashing) will not win.  This is the main struggle the NDP have, IMO.  They need to make sure that they can overcome this fear, which makes proposing big items (that please the NDP base, but worry some others) tricky.  That said, I like the fact that Singh is talking about some big items like free tuition, increasing the capital gains tax inclusion rate, increasing corporate taxes by 4.5%, pharmacare, drug decrim and greater harm reduction, etc.

Ugh. I'm not even 100% sure the housing policy changes are bad, because I'm not an economist, but I can say for sure they will not be popular. They are reining in home prices by making them less affordable for those who need to borrow money to buy a home (ie. everyone but the rich). This is extremely bad for young people and first time homebuyers, and bad for most everyone else who can't pay cash. The changes coming in a few days will reduce new mortgage sizes by roughly 20%. So either house prices go down by 20% - which will piss off a lot of boomers - or they stay the same and the bottom 20% of the housing market - mostly young people and those who have never been able to own a home - get eliminated (or some combination of the above). Maybe these changes will prevent a crash that would otherwise have happened (in which case they are good changes), but since that's unknowable most people are going to blame the Liberals for hurting the values of their homes without improving afforability except for the rich. And it's not clear that the changes themselves won't spark a crash.

And even if there's no crash, this will stop people from "buying up" - like when they sell a "starter home" to buy a nicer home, because their home hasn't accrued as much equity and they can't get as much mortgage. Since people tend to spend quite a lot on home improvement projects prior to selling a home (and after buying a new one), home resales tend to help people in those industries as well. So this is going to hurt not just boomers and homebuyers, but also general contractors and suppliers who do work on homes, as well as skilled tradesmen like plumbers, electricians, etc.

So anyway, I completely agree with all your analysis except the quite minor bit on minimum wage. In particular I agree that Trudeau's weakness is the fact that he is relying heavily on his personal popularity and that can be worked away at as reality continues to diverge from expectations.

Edit to add: And, since the thread is about Singh, I do think that Singh is quite likeable and that many of those who like Trudeau will be able to like Singh as well even without coming to actively disliking Trudeau. As long as Singh can disagree with Trudeau without doing so in a personally disrespectful manner, I think he is absolutely well suited to act as Trudeau's foil on policy, and that starts with championing the principles and policies that Trudeau has abandoned (which are in line with the NDP's values anyway).

NorthReport

According to the guardian article of Dec 20 '17 which was post by m-a, perhaps the NDP has already begun to rebrand. 

Jagmeet Singh: pioneering party leader could be the Trudeau Canada hoped for

The first person of colour to lead a major Canadian political party has been compared to the Liberal leader but insists he does not merely talk the talk

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/jagmeet-singh-canadas-pion...

 

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm all for rebranding.  Another step he could take to dramatically rebrand from the previous leaders would be to establish real internal party democracy...give party members full control of what is in the party program and the electoral plaform...reduce the power of the leader to remove nominataed candidates(the leader should ONLY be able to do that if there's evidence that a candidate has hidden a criminal offense or an ongoing substance abuse problem, facilitated a harassment/rape culture in the riding association, violated party rules in winning the nomination, or in some other demonstrated personal unfitness for the role of parliamentary candidate-a candidate should never be removed simply for taking a more radical position than the party does on any given issue)...and the right to expect a clear, prompt and respectful response from the staff at NDP headquarters on any concerns ordinary party members contact headquarters about.

To rebrand, the NDP HAS to stop treating its core supporters as a nuisance in good times and the enemy in others.  If you support the party when nobody else does, the party owes you at least SOME respect and responsiveness in return.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
reduce the power of the leader to remove nominataed candidates

Would you accept the right of the leader + the caucus to do so?  Or the leader + a committee?  Or even just a committee, minus the leader?

I get that lots of folk disagree with the NDP refusing to endorse certain potential candidates, but at the same time I think there needs to be at least SOME centralized oversight of those things that will affect the party overall.  Certainly, putting riding associations in charge of things that solely affect those ridings makes sense, but to put riding associations in charge of things that can affect the entire party makes less sense.  It's great if a riding association is strongly in favour of "outspoken" Candidate X, but no so great if the party in general has to spend a whole election explaining that "if you look very carefully, you'll see that that's probably not what Candidate X really meant when he tweeted that, and anyway, don't we have Freedom of Speech any more??"

And for the record, we can't really do much about potential candidates having "a more radical position" than the party.  But is asking them to sit on their fingers and NOT tweet about it unreasonable?  We don't have to share ALL of our "radical" thoughts with the world, do we?

cco

Ken Burch wrote:

To rebrand, the NDP HAS to stop treating its core supporters as a nuisance in good times and the enemy in others.

Don't forget "As a piñata to beat to death for money, whether times are good or bad."

brookmere

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I get that lots of folk disagree with the NDP refusing to endorse certain potential candidates

I think this would be better phrased as lots of folk disagree about who comprises the NDP. That is, winning a nomination vote constitutes endorsement by the NDP in their view.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
reduce the power of the leader to remove nominataed candidates

Would you accept the right of the leader + the caucus to do so?  Or the leader + a committee?  Or even just a committee, minus the leader?

I get that lots of folk disagree with the NDP refusing to endorse certain potential candidates, but at the same time I think there needs to be at least SOME centralized oversight of those things that will affect the party overall.  Certainly, putting riding associations in charge of things that solely affect those ridings makes sense, but to put riding associations in charge of things that can affect the entire party makes less sense.  It's great if a riding association is strongly in favour of "outspoken" Candidate X, but no so great if the party in general has to spend a whole election explaining that "if you look very carefully, you'll see that that's probably not what Candidate X really meant when he tweeted that, and anyway, don't we have Freedom of Speech any more??"

And for the record, we can't really do much about potential candidates having "a more radical position" than the party.  But is asking them to sit on their fingers and NOT tweet about it unreasonable?  We don't have to share ALL of our "radical" thoughts with the world, do we?

I said "reduce", not abolish.  In the post I responded to, I agreed that there were legitimate grounds for the party leadership to refuse to accept someone as candidate.  

For example, the removal of the NDP candidate in a B.C. riding who turned out to be using hard drugs and had hidden the fact was justified.  So would the removal of a candidate who committed larceny, kidnapping, rape, or murder...OR a candidate found to possess child pornography.  

I'd also say any removed candidate, or the riding association that nominated said candidate, should be given an immediate explanation for the removal...after all, if there's a reason to do that, there's no reason to conceal that reason the candidate was removed.  Such a thing never has to be secretive or highhanded.

In 2015, about ten candidates who had been endorsed by their riding association, the group that knows the riding and the candidate better than anyone at party headquarters, were removed.  They generally weren't even given explanations for their removal.  In one riding in Ontario, a candidate seemed to have been removed solely because Mulcair wanted an older, more boring candidate instead of the young activist the riding committee had chosen.

As to those dumped over their stand on the Israel/Palestine issue, it wasn't a question of them refusing to stop tweeting about the issue during the campaign...it was because of things they'd said long before the campaign.   

And IIRC, the NDP didn't come close to winning any of the ridings where a candidate was dumped, let alone come close to holding its ground in the seat count or the popular vote, let alone beat the Conservatives and form government.  So what, in the end, was the point?  What greater social democratic good was served?

There's no good reason not to switch to full transparency on that process.

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

I get that lots of folk disagree with the NDP refusing to endorse certain potential candidates...

In the specific case of Paul Manly, he was not allowed to run for the nomination, so he couldn't have been a 'potential candidate'.

What was Manly's sin? He committed the unpardonable crime of being on a boat that tried to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. 

So much for the NDP's concern for human rights.

 

 

NorthReport

Jagmeet Singh is making his mark as the new leader of the federal NDP

http://www.voiceonline.com/jagmeet-making-federal/

NorthReport

dp

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
He can raise the issue all he wants. He will have to explain the NDP had precisely the same policy during the election, and the government that signed the deal was not the Liberals, but the Conservatives.

And really, is it bizarre to ask for consistency of policy from a political party? I didn't think so, but perhaps from the NDP it is.

It is from all the political parties. They are not movements they are people competing for a job. Any consistency is accidental and based on the segments of the population they hope to gain support from. I doubt the NDP will lose a single vote over "inconsisitency".

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From VOTD:

That said, I think voters have a tendency to compartmentalize foreign-policy apart from everything else, and it's gonna be a challenge to get Canadians to care about the Saudi arms deal either way.

I agree that voter do compartmentalise. At the same time, I think voters imagine a government will have a foreign policy, and that is one of the things that has held the NDP back over the years. They have never had a clearly articulated foreign policy. 

I don't think it has held them back at all. I've never even noticed. The election is decided in the last couple of weeks of the election and people are only looking at the top couple of issues, mainly the economy.

brookmere

Rev Pesky wrote:
What was Manly's sin? He committed the unpardonable crime of being on a boat that tried to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
It was his father, former NDP MP Jim Manley, who was on the boat. Paul Manley was blacklisted for protesting the incarceration of his father.

Isn't solidarity great?

mark_alfred

~

Rev Pesky

From brookemere:

It was his father, former NDP MP Jim Manley, who was on the boat. Paul Manley was blacklisted for protesting the incarceration of his father.

Yes, you are quite right. and I should know better. In fact I was at the Nanaimo airport to welcome Jim Manly back into the country. I'm afraid old age and decrepitude is having it's way with me.

For those who would like to know more about the treatment Paul Manly got from the NDP, here's a good spot,

Paul Manly - Not your NDP's candidate

NDP’s new national director promises open nominations

"[McGrath] said her party won’t repeat the mistakes of the federal Conservatives and Liberals, whose grassroots members have complained of interference in local nominations by senior party officials."

Yet they turned Manly down. 
Really, NDP? This guy spent his 16th birthday campaigning with Tommy Douglas! 

He made the 2009 doc You, Me and the SPP : Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule, frequently pillaged here at Creekside in the past, on his own dime after being turned down for funding by CBC and NFB.

He shot that footage you've all seen of the three 3 rock-toting Quebec police provocateurs at the Montebello protest back in Aug. 2007, and the magic disappearing act of the Toronto police at the G20 while a few black bloc rampaged through downtown in 2010.

Since then he's worked in his community for healthcare, First Nations rights, and marched to end violence against women. 

Obviously a dangerous 'loose cannon' , who, if allowed to run in the 2015 election could have caused a drop in votes for the NDP, and who knows, may have ended up having the NDP lose half their seats!! 

mark_alfred

http://www.ndp.ca/news/jagmeet-singh-names-willy-blomme-chief-staff

The new chief of staff will be Willy Blomme, who will start in January.  I'm not familiar with her.  Apparently she was a speech writer for Layton, and then worked at the Broadbent Institute doing a number of things, including being program director.  She also worked on Montreal mayor Valerie Plante's campaign. 

Some more detail in this CBC article:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/willy-blomme-jagmeet-singh-1.4411805

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

From brookemere:

It was his father, former NDP MP Jim Manley, who was on the boat. Paul Manley was blacklisted for protesting the incarceration of his father.

Yes, you are quite right. and I should know better. In fact I was at the Nanaimo airport to welcome Jim Manly back into the country. I'm afraid old age and decrepitude is having it's way with me.

For those who would like to know more about the treatment Paul Manly got from the NDP, here's a good spot,

Paul Manly - Not your NDP's candidate

NDP’s new national director promises open nominations

"[McGrath] said her party won’t repeat the mistakes of the federal Conservatives and Liberals, whose grassroots members have complained of interference in local nominations by senior party officials."

Yet they turned Manly down. 
Really, NDP? This guy spent his 16th birthday campaigning with Tommy Douglas! 

He made the 2009 doc You, Me and the SPP : Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule, frequently pillaged here at Creekside in the past, on his own dime after being turned down for funding by CBC and NFB.

He shot that footage you've all seen of the three 3 rock-toting Quebec police provocateurs at the Montebello protest back in Aug. 2007, and the magic disappearing act of the Toronto police at the G20 while a few black bloc rampaged through downtown in 2010.

Since then he's worked in his community for healthcare, First Nations rights, and marched to end violence against women. 

Obviously a dangerous 'loose cannon' , who, if allowed to run in the 2015 election could have caused a drop in votes for the NDP, and who knows, may have ended up having the NDP lose half their seats!! 

Thank god(desses)nothing like that happened.  

It would be an excellent first step towards changing the "the left is the enemy" dynamic if Jagmeet were to apologize to the entire Manly family for Mulcair's decision to blacklist Paul.  It was simply an inexcusable act, and both Mulcair and Jagmeet know it.

mark_alfred

Here's an interview with Singh on CBC's Power and Politics, just after the by-election losses.  Issues touched upon in the interview are the by-elections, fundraising, tax havens, UNDRIP, Site C, Rachel Notley, Trans Mountain, Justin Trudeau, Paris Accord, inequality, healthcare/pharmacare/dentalcare, and promotion of NDP vision.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZASvP8aqH4

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

In a new interview with the Toronto Star Jagmeet says

"As leader, I can say that I have an appeal. That’s pretty clear.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/30/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-...

R.E.Wood

This is an interesting look at the new team Singh has brought in to top positions in the NDP:

The outsiders behind Jagmeet Singh and the new NDP:  Singh’s inner circle brings uneven federal experience to Ottawa, and new tactics. Can they survive their leader’s early stumbles?

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-outsiders-behind-jagmeet-sing...

mark_alfred

Here's an op-ed in The Star about the need for tax reform that Jagmeet Singh wrote.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/02/its-2018-and-tim...

A few days later The Star itself advocated some of Singh's points in their own editorial:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/01/08/widening-wage-gap-...

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Former staffer on Charlie Angus leadership campaign is leaving the federal NDP. Angus takes a bit of a swipe at Jagmeet tweeting

Wishing the best for an incredible organizer who is leaving the federal A huge loss.

When a party believes that better instagram tricks or gala planning is the path to success we lose touch.

Our movement is about building grassroots. See you soon my friend.

UPDATE: Charlie deleted the tweet, but someone got a screenshot

https://twitter.com/braedencaley/status/954559521690710016

josh

Angus has, or had, a point.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

Angus has, or had, a point.

I think this was in reference to Jagmeet inviting the Canadian Press (the largest wire service in the country) to cover his engagement.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

josh wrote:

Angus has, or had, a point.

I think this was in reference to Jagmeet inviting the Canadian Press (the largest wire service in the country) to cover his engagement.

Singh will never be PM. I'm sorry but look at the polls. The NDP isn't polling much higher than the greens.

In another thread I mentioned that the NDP would have to establish a friendly relationship with Orange Hitler and they would and yu can take that to the bank.

That is not true. Tom Mulcair, Jagmeet Singh and the ENTIRE NDP caucus is firm on this point. That if they were in Government the first thing they would do is TELL OFF Trump to his face.

lolololololol!

Mulcair would tell off Trump to his face? Or anyone dealing with Don the Con? Lol. You'd have to be a delusional fool to believe that. Quit drinking the kool aid. The NDP is not much or at all more to the left than the Liberals.

And Singh is a weak leader. He'd also have to break the racial barriers that exist in Canada. That will be a daunting task. I also have no reason to believe Singh is a true Social Democrat. The party has moved to the centre. That's their strategy to win elections and it's a losing strategy since we already have the Liberals.

Canada does not  have a left wing option. Sorry.

Deal with it. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Canada does not  have a left wing option. Sorry.

Do you mean to say that there are NO federal parties to the left of the NDP?

Or are there such parties, but you mean to say that you're uninteresting in supporting them?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Canada does not  have a left wing option. Sorry.

Do you mean to say that there are NO federal parties to the left of the NDP?

Or are there such parties, but you mean to say that you're uninteresting in supporting them?

Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada.

Thanks.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada.

You didn't specify that there's no left wing option with the hope of being elected.  How will the ones that exist ever be elected if you can't support them before they're elected?

I hope you're not just waiting for everyone else to vote for them, Alan.  Where's your principle?

Quote:
Thanks.

No worries.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Former staffer on Charlie Angus leadership campaign is leaving the federal NDP. Angus takes a bit of a swipe at Jagmeet tweeting

Wishing the best for an incredible organizer who is leaving the federal A huge loss.

When a party believes that better instagram tricks or gala planning is the path to success we lose touch.

Our movement is about building grassroots. See you soon my friend.

UPDATE: Charlie deleted the tweet, but someone got a screenshot

https://twitter.com/braedencaley/status/954559521690710016

That showed poor judgement and illustrated bitterness. It's been months since Singh won. Instagram and Galas are part of politics, You don't win elections by ignoring social media or "Galas". Any opportunity for positive media coverage is gold for a politician. Angus just illustrated why he would have been a bad choice.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's an op-ed in The Star about the need for tax reform that Jagmeet Singh wrote.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/02/its-2018-and-tim...

A few days later The Star itself advocated some of Singh's points in their own editorial:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/01/08/widening-wage-gap-...

This is such great news! Months ago he mentioned income inequality as his top issue. This is a strong shift to the left. This is a topic on which he can nail Trudeau to the wall. Tax havens piss people off as do corporate hogs.

He also wants to decriminalize all drug usage.

The issues don't really compare but they are both to the left of Trudeau and both can be defended on factual grounds. They are not ideological or shame-based. They are both 99% issues. Poverty may increase drug use but wealth isn't an impermeable shield. The 99% are impacted by income inequality.

It is an extreme longshot for the NDP to win in 2019 and the other leadership contenders all had big weaknesses. His turban is a definite weakness but if anyone can use it to his advantage Singh can. It gets him tons of attention and that is the first battle. I think Guy Caron would have really struggled with that. He is confident, modern, warm, charming, and he has a sense of humor. Yes there are out and out racists who would never vote for him, but are those kinds of people the type to vote NDP anyway? Maybe some of them but not a ton as they get to know him. He will challenge people's assumptions about religion, race, culture and Canadianism. I think people are going to be fascinated by him. He could eventually rival Trudeau on the cool factor. As I understand it his future wife is a very successful business woman.

Even if Singh never wins and it is due to prejudice the NDP can be enormously proud of walking the talk. Of not holding his race or religion against him in the leadership race. The NDP has made history. I wouldn't count him out yet either. He has an authenticity people are looking for. The issues he has chosen so far have broad appeal. The NDP was scraping the barrel before he was elected leader. He inherited a weak party. He will only get the serious attention of the public in the lead-up to the election because people are not paying attention to politics right now. His engagement and marriage will be what makes the news. He knows how to use the media. That is a good thing. That was one of Tom Mulcair's biggest weaknesses. I had policy reasons to disagree with him but his marketing was all wrong.

I could gush on and on. I'm really excited to see where Singh is going with all of this. If anyone can shock us all he can. I know it seems far-fetched to see him as P.M. but why not? If what he says resonates with people I think there are enough smart Canadians to look past the turban. I think he will ace the debates. It is possible that he could win in 2019. A long shot isn't no shot.

Is there any reason not to support him? Looks to me like he is solidly left of Trudeau and I don't think Trudeau can outflank him on any issue.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada.

You didn't specify that there's no left wing option with the hope of being elected.  How will the ones that exist ever be elected if you can't support them before they're elected?

I hope you're not just waiting for everyone else to vote for them, Alan.  Where's your principle?

Quote:
Thanks.

No worries.

Well,you didn't answer my question. And of course I'd vote for a true hardline leftist party. But the chances of a party like that winning are unlikely,the general public is afraid of such parties thanks to decades of media and mainstream political parties scapegoating the left.

My principle?

Here's what I'd like from a federal party with a hope of being elected.

1 - A National housing Act ( much more social housing and rent controled housing)

2 - A minimum income

3 - A living wage for all workers (the minimum wage tailored by the cost of living of each city, $15 for some, $20 - $25 for others such as Vancouver) Maybe even scrap the minimum wage and pass a law making incomes at a minimum of $30K per year.

4 - A garaunteed 6 week vacation time for all workers

5 - A 30 hour work week

6 - parental leave of 12 months with pay

7 - Creating red light districts in all major cities

8 - Legalize sex work

9 - Sexual therapy for handicapped people and old/elderly people with nobody in their lives.

10 - Legalize ALL drugs

11 - Extend medicare to cover dental,prescriptions,eye tests and prescription glasses

12 - Protecting free speech. No matter how vile the speech. No more PC bullshit.

13 - Changing police FORCE with community peacekeepers.

14 - Ending corporate welfare

15 - Budget surpluses to be shared with the populace

16 - tearing up unfair trade deals and going back to a tariff system

17 - tuition free college for all

18 - move away from fossil fuels and invest in green energy (btw,that would create a lot of jobs with good pay..better than fracking or working the oil sands) Build more electric cars,buses and planes.

I have a few more points but I can't think of them at the moment.

Is there a party like that in Canada? If so,what are the chances of them winning an election?

I can tell you that 2 of these policies are coming our way if the government follows though with their promises. And that is legal cannabis and a national housing policy.

Sadly,what the Liberals are selling is resonating with the public. It's the reason why they are positioned to win the next election. To the average Canadian,their policies are populist. To the mainstream they are populist.

May I suggest that the NDP become unapoligized left wing populists  running on a platform that is all about the average Canadian and not at all about big business. I don't see it happening. Mulcair dragged them to the centre and that's why they went from official opposition to a distant 3rd in the polls.

So who is going to come to the rescue? Where are the hardline leftist option? And if they are out there,why aren't they aggressively spreading their message? The general public may not know it but they LOVE socialism. Right now the only socialism being practiced is socialism for corporations. Reverse that situation and you're a populist party. People will notice you and they will vote for you.

That's my principle.

WWWTT

@Pondering

This is such great news! Months ago he mentioned income inequality as his top issue. This is a strong shift to the left. This is a topic on which he can nail Trudeau to the wall. Tax havens piss people off as do corporate hogs.

You damn f'n straight its great news!!!! Income inequality was a huge part of Xi JinPing record long speech address to the 19 CPC congresional meeting. Jagmeet is taking a page right out of the playbook of the CPC! Best news the NDP has had in a long long time! 

I believe that Jagmeet is probably the best leader Canada has right now that can move Canada forward. Not where Justin and his other same old same old have CONTINUED to take Canada, but where Canada must go into the 21st century. Strong bridges have to be built with countries like India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran etc etc(see where I'm going with this?) And Justin the corporate media circus freek side show is just another corporate clown along with his sack of hammers better known as the liberal caucus!

I believe if that Jagmeet stays true to income inequality along with a committment to green energy and other socialist values as outlined above by other babblers (maintain focus on domestic anti corporate pro socialist values as opposed to trying to impose on the international community) he will be respected within the international community and will create a lot of demand for Canadian tech and products. 

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
Where are the hardline leftist option? And if they are out there,why aren't they aggressively spreading their message? The general public may not know it but they LOVE socialism. Right now the only socialism being practiced is socialism for corporations. Reverse that situation and you're a populist party. People will notice you and they will vote for you. 

Your laundry list is way too long. The trick is to have few primary points and stay away from topics that will potentially lose you more votes than you gain even if you intend to do something about it after you are elected. Prostitution law is like abortion law and constitutional law in Canada. Politicians don't want to touch it unless forced by the courts. It's also full of specific policy items. It is far too soon for a political party to reveal their platform. We don't need a hardline left we need a left that can get elected whether it takes 4 years or 8.

alan smithee wrote:
 I can tell you that 2 of these policies are coming our way if the government follows though with their promises. And that is legal cannabis and a national housing policy.

The national housing policy is for affordable housing. Affordable means subsidizing home buyers that can only spend 250,000 for a condo in Montreal. Affordable is good but not the same as low-income. Singh will likely have something about that in his platform but it isn't a vote getter so should be background not highlighted.

You know I'm with you on legal cannabis and we are getting it this summer. Trudeau cannot hold it back because corporations have made massive investments. Singh wants to decriminalize ALL drug use which would be a huge step forward for people addicted to hard drugs. It would likely reduce prostitution. Not all prostitutes are druggies but the ones that are get driven into prostitution because they need money. Pickton lured prostitutes to his farm with the promise of drugs in exchange for sex. Decriminalized hard drugs could have saved their lives not legalized marijuana or prostitution.

I strongly suspect minimum income will be one of Trudeau's platform items in 2019. I support it because it beats welfare but it is not as left wing as you might imagine. It's cheaper to administrate than all the systems we have now and it is designed to keep the peace as income inequality grows. It is a shield for the 1%. Trudeau is sure to have pharmacare in his platform.

All these things distract people from the 1% and income/wealth inequality which are the core problem.

Singh is not Mulcair. It's too soon to tell but I think Singh is the most realistically and intelligently left wing leader that I know of and not just in Canada. So far he's better than Sanders and Corbin although he has plenty of time to disappoint me before the election rolls around.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
Where are the hardline leftist option? And if they are out there,why aren't they aggressively spreading their message? The general public may not know it but they LOVE socialism. Right now the only socialism being practiced is socialism for corporations. Reverse that situation and you're a populist party. People will notice you and they will vote for you. 

Your laundry list is way too long. The trick is to have few primary points and stay away from topics that will potentially lose you more votes than you gain even if you intend to do something about it after you are elected. Prostitution law is like abortion law and constitutional law in Canada. Politicians don't want to touch it unless forced by the courts. It's also full of specific policy items. It is far too soon for a political party to reveal their platform. We don't need a hardline left we need a left that can get elected whether it takes 4 years or 8.

alan smithee wrote:
 I can tell you that 2 of these policies are coming our way if the government follows though with their promises. And that is legal cannabis and a national housing policy.

The national housing policy is for affordable housing. Affordable means subsidizing home buyers that can only spend 250,000 for a condo in Montreal. Affordable is good but not the same as low-income. Singh will likely have something about that in his platform but it isn't a vote getter so should be background not highlighted.

You know I'm with you on legal cannabis and we are getting it this summer. Trudeau cannot hold it back because corporations have made massive investments. Singh wants to decriminalize ALL drug use which would be a huge step forward for people addicted to hard drugs. It would likely reduce prostitution. Not all prostitutes are druggies but the ones that are get driven into prostitution because they need money. Pickton lured prostitutes to his farm with the promise of drugs in exchange for sex. Decriminalized hard drugs could have saved their lives not legalized marijuana or prostitution.

I strongly suspect minimum income will be one of Trudeau's platform items in 2019. I support it because it beats welfare but it is not as left wing as you might imagine. It's cheaper to administrate than all the systems we have now and it is designed to keep the peace as income inequality grows. It is a shield for the 1%. Trudeau is sure to have pharmacare in his platform.

All these things distract people from the 1% and income/wealth inequality which are the core problem.

Singh is not Mulcair. It's too soon to tell but I think Singh is the most realistically and intelligently left wing leader that I know of and not just in Canada. So far he's better than Sanders and Corbin although he has plenty of time to disappoint me before the election rolls around.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you about sex workers. I dated a few girls (girls in the sense that they were in their early 20's and these days I'd consider them kids) that worked in the sex business. Only 1 of them was supporting a drug addiction. The others were involved because it was very lucrative and my ex from 15 years ago was serious about her line of work and was working to become a show girl. In fact she was on TV on a local station. On TQS.the show was called Sexe et Confidances which was a talk show that tackled different sexual topics. She was demonstrating pole dancing. 

Not all ' prostitutes' or erotic dancers are drug addicts. For some it's a choice. This is why I believe their line of work,adult entertainment and the exchange of money for sex should be 100% legal. In fact according to a poll done by CTV Montreal,a majority of people support a red light district. So I don't believe it's political suicide. The Western Evangelicals wouldn't like it but fuck them,too bad.

But I do agree with you. If drugs were legal,desperate women---and men would not have to degrade themselves and sell sexual favours for drugs. And I say legal,not decriminalized because if it's legal,it can be regulated,sold very cheap and safe.

As for Singh being left of Sanders and Corbin,I'd have to investigate the validity of that notion. I don't believe it but I'll take your word for now.

As for the 1%, they should pay their fair share of tax. I'd like to see their taxes increase significantly. Taxes for the bottom 99% decrease. I'd like to see income taxes decrease but sales taxes increase slightly. And I'd like to see 'sin' taxes be twice that of regular sales taxes. You get your freedom but it's paid for. Condo property taxes should increase too. I think that would be fair. After all,we have to find the money to pay for all the social services I listed.

The  Liberals explicitly promised more social housing to go along with affordable housing projects. This is an issue that should have been tackled 20 freaking years ago. If that promise is kept,where do the NDP go from there? 

But I agree with yolu that the Liberals will most likely find another populist policy or policies for 2019. The NDP has no choice but to move to the left of the Liberals. They must be aggressively progressive. And make themselves far more populist than the Liberals next election. They must create a platform very left wing,no more centrist crap or they will be a bottom feeding party for the next 100 years.

We'll see about Singh and what he has in mind for 2019. I'm skeptical.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well,you didn't answer my question.

OK, fair enough.  Your question was:  "Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada."

In the next election there's probably none.

My point wasn't that there's lots of them to choose from.  It's that of course they all have no hope of being elected if you won't support them because you're concerned they'll never be elected.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 if a party can only be supported to win an election if they've already won an election.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Well,you didn't answer my question.

OK, fair enough.  Your question was:  "Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada."

In the next election there's probably none.

My point wasn't that there's lots of them to choose from.  It's that of course they all have no hope of being elected if you won't support them because you're concerned they'll never be elected.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 if a party can only be supported to win an election if they've already won an election.

I hear you,Magoo. And I agree with what you said. But clearly we agree there is no option in the next election. So who do we support?

It's very frustrating because if you were to give your average Canadian a quizz of what they would like out of a government and what policies they agree with,it would be clear that Canada is majority left wing. In a strange way,the same can be said about the US but you'd never guess with the fascist government they created and voted for.

The issues that are important and/or popular with the majority are progressive. When these Nazi Christian Evangelicals call themselves the 'silent majority' they are only kidding themselves. They are the minority. They are the fringe.

So it's very maddening that people are so easily talked out of voting their conscience or even their values.

Left wing parties find themselves dead in the water because of fear and lies. Not all of us can see through the bullshit. I fault the media.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But clearly we agree there is no option in the next election. So who do we support?

That's a good question.  I tend to believe that most who say "we cannot afford a government led by _____, and the left cannot stop them so we must vote Liberal to stop them" really mostly want to elect Liberals.  And I'm not saying this to criticize the Liberals.  They just happen to be the "compromise".  Like if the menu offers you the choice of "Bland" wings, "Suicide-burn-your-ass" wings, or "hot", you'll probably be tempted by "hot".

I'm not convinced that any new electoral model will fix that and usher in a new era of left-wing governments, but I tend to place more of the blame on FPTP than on the media.  Voting NDP is a bit like betting on the 20:1 horse at the pony track.  Bigger payoff, for sure, but less chance of it.  Put your two bucks on the 2:1 horse, and you're less likely to lose your two bucks, and more likely to get back a whole $4.

Quote:
So it's very maddening that people are so easily talked out of voting their conscience or even their values.

They're not being talked out of voting conscience or values.  They're being reminded that they're betting it all.  If they win, they get what their conscience and values want, and if they lose, they get absolutely nothing.  But if they bet differently, they can have at least SOME of what their conscience and values want, instead of all of it or none of it.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
 I'm not sure I completely agree with you about sex workers.  

I said not all sex workers are on drugs. I was speaking about the ones that are addicted to drugs.

alan smithee wrote:
 In fact according to a poll done by CTV Montreal,a majority of people support a red light district. So I don't believe it's political suicide. The Western Evangelicals wouldn't like it but fuck them,too bad. 

Red light district for what is already legal not for prostitution. The majority of women oppose prostitution and feminists who oppose feel strongly about it. It could definitely lead me to spoil my ballot. The only items that belong in the platform are those that will increase votes. The NDP would have to fully present their approach, red light districts, health controls, etc. That would lead to all kinds of debate over every aspect because sex is click bait. The rest of the NDP platform would fade into the background as the NDP became the party that wants to legalize prostitution. The opposition would have endless material. Women who are against are strongly against but many women who are for it don't feel that strongly one way or another. They aren't all enthusiastic supporters. 

alan smithee wrote:
 And I say legal,not decriminalized because if it's legal,it can be regulated,sold very cheap and safe. 

Electoral suicide. The general public would never support making cocaine legal as a recreational drug. It's a dangerously harmful highly addictive product with no redeeming qualities outside medical use. Harm reduction and medical treatment yes, legalization, strongly against. 

alan smithee wrote:
 As for Singh being left of Sanders and Corbin,I'd have to investigate the validity of that notion. I don't believe it but I'll take your word for now. 

I didn't say he was left of, I said he is better than. I meant I think he is a more skilled politician. 

alan smithee wrote:
 The  Liberals explicitly promised more social housing to go along with affordable housing projects. This is an issue that should have been tackled 20 freaking years ago. If that promise is kept,where do the NDP go from there?  

The NDP focuses on income inequality and the economy, on tax havens and trade deals. On how the Bank of Canada can loan Canada money interest free as it did in the past. On how P3s cost us more money not less. On how trade deals let companies sue the government. The entire platform could easily focus on the economy and how it serves the wealthy rather than the people of Canada. That won't happen but the NDP will also have a housing plan and it should be better than whatever the Liberals are offering. 

alan smithee wrote:
But I agree with yolu that the Liberals will most likely find another populist policy or policies for 2019. The NDP has no choice but to move to the left of the Liberals. They must be aggressively progressive. And make themselves far more populist than the Liberals next election. They must create a platform very left wing,no more centrist crap or they will be a bottom feeding party for the next 100 years. 

Not very left wing whatever that means. To get elected you must pursuade people to vote for the party. Had Layton lived I think the move to the centre might have succeeded. He could have won against Trudeau. I agree that is no longer a winning strategy now that the Liberals are back. That doesn't mean the NDP has to shift radically or get in the box of left right centre. 

Remember that a party doesn't have to put everything they want to do in their platform. Once elected there is nothing stopping the government from moving forward on projects not mentioned in the platform. It isn't a policy book. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
 I'm not sure I completely agree with you about sex workers.  

I said not all sex workers are on drugs. I was speaking about the ones that are addicted to drugs.

alan smithee wrote:
 In fact according to a poll done by CTV Montreal,a majority of people support a red light district. So I don't believe it's political suicide. The Western Evangelicals wouldn't like it but fuck them,too bad. 

Red light district for what is already legal not for prostitution. The majority of women oppose prostitution and feminists who oppose feel strongly about it. It could definitely lead me to spoil my ballot. The only items that belong in the platform are those that will increase votes. The NDP would have to fully present their approach, red light districts, health controls, etc. That would lead to all kinds of debate over every aspect because sex is click bait. The rest of the NDP platform would fade into the background as the NDP became the party that wants to legalize prostitution. The opposition would have endless material. Women who are against are strongly against but many women who are for it don't feel that strongly one way or another. They aren't all enthusiastic supporters. 

That was the whole purpose of the poll. A red light district which always means brothels,live sex shows and in some European countries (i.e. Holland) establishments for soft drugs.

alan smithee wrote:
 And I say legal,not decriminalized because if it's legal,it can be regulated,sold very cheap and safe. 

Electoral suicide. The general public would never support making cocaine legal as a recreational drug. It's a dangerously harmful highly addictive product with no redeeming qualities outside medical use. Harm reduction and medical treatment yes, legalization, strongly against. 

The only answer to drug addiction is legalization. People don't like to hear that but that's the answer. How would simple decriminalization help the problem? It won't. And I don't believe it's electoral suicide. We are moving toward that policy with safe injection sites for example. 10 years ago people would be running around with their hair on fire knowing there are 'safe' sites in their neighbourhoods. It's now an acceptable policy.Drug laws are not natural and never existed until the beginning of the 20th century with the Temperance movement which was extremely right wing. The world survived for thousands of years without prohibition and sky wouldn't fall if prohibition was abolished.

 

alan smithee wrote:
 The  Liberals explicitly promised more social housing to go along with affordable housing projects. This is an issue that should have been tackled 20 freaking years ago. If that promise is kept,where do the NDP go from there?  

The NDP focuses on income inequality and the economy, on tax havens and trade deals. On how the Bank of Canada can loan Canada money interest free as it did in the past. On how P3s cost us more money not less. On how trade deals let companies sue the government. The entire platform could easily focus on the economy and how it serves the wealthy rather than the people of Canada. That won't happen but the NDP will also have a housing plan and it should be better than whatever the Liberals are offering. 

What makes you think the NDP would have a housing plan better than the Liberals? Sounds like an unfounded assumption to me.

alan smithee wrote:
But I agree with yolu that the Liberals will most likely find another populist policy or policies for 2019. The NDP has no choice but to move to the left of the Liberals. They must be aggressively progressive. And make themselves far more populist than the Liberals next election. They must create a platform very left wing,no more centrist crap or they will be a bottom feeding party for the next 100 years. 

Not very left wing whatever that means. To get elected you must pursuade people to vote for the party. Had Layton lived I think the move to the centre might have succeeded. He could have won against Trudeau. I agree that is no longer a winning strategy now that the Liberals are back. That doesn't mean the NDP has to shift radically or get in the box of left right centre. 

Remember that a party doesn't have to put everything they want to do in their platform. Once elected there is nothing stopping the government from moving forward on projects not mentioned in the platform. It isn't a policy book. 

Had Layton stayed alive the NDP would have easily formed a government years ago. Sadly that didn't happen and Thomas Mulcair took over and pushed the NDP to the centre. Like I said,that's the reason why they are now a distant 3rd place.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But clearly we agree there is no option in the next election. So who do we support?

That's a good question.  I tend to believe that most who say "we cannot afford a government led by _____, and the left cannot stop them so we must vote Liberal to stop them" really mostly want to elect Liberals.  And I'm not saying this to criticize the Liberals.  They just happen to be the "compromise".  Like if the menu offers you the choice of "Bland" wings, "Suicide-burn-your-ass" wings, or "hot", you'll probably be tempted by "hot".

I'm not convinced that any new electoral model will fix that and usher in a new era of left-wing governments, but I tend to place more of the blame on FPTP than on the media.  Voting NDP is a bit like betting on the 20:1 horse at the pony track.  Bigger payoff, for sure, but less chance of it.  Put your two bucks on the 2:1 horse, and you're less likely to lose your two bucks, and more likely to get back a whole $4.

Quote:
So it's very maddening that people are so easily talked out of voting their conscience or even their values.

They're not being talked out of voting conscience or values.  They're being reminded that they're betting it all.  If they win, they get what their conscience and values want, and if they lose, they get absolutely nothing.  But if they bet differently, they can have at least SOME of what their conscience and values want, instead of all of it or none of it.

If I vote to simply get SOME of my wishes,I'd vote Liberal. If the NDP is the 20:1 race horse,I'm taking more of a risk of getting nothing,right?

Of course abolishing FPTP would change our political discourse but I must admit I don't know how policies would be madfe without a majority.

Who would work with who? And if any of the parties were to work with the Conservatives, nothing would change,things would remain stagnate and not progress. So would we really be anywhere ahead of where we are?

This is the reason Í would vote for a party I don't particularly like if it meant stopping the Cons. Ideally I'd like the NDP and Liberals work together. I'm afraid that would be the only path to progressive change. The Conservatives want us to perpetually stay in the 1950's. No thank you. By any means possible.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If I vote to simply get SOME of my wishes,I'd vote Liberal. If the NDP is the 20:1 race horse,I'm taking more of a risk of getting nothing,right?

Probably.  Bigger payoff, bigger risk of no payoff.

Quote:
but I must admit I don't know how policies would be made without a majority.

PR would only change how our representatives are elected.  Policies would still be made the same old way, by HoC vote, and I expect that it would still require a plurality.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
  That was the whole purpose of the poll. A red light district which always means brothels,live sex shows and in some European countries (i.e. Holland) establishments for soft drugs.  

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/city-of-laval-to-rein-in-strip-clubs-sex-sho...

That polls comes with an article about the red light district being set up in Laval. It will have a maximum of 5 establishments. 

This is what will be allowed:"Strip clubs, erotic cinemas, swinger's clubs, sex-shop-style stores, so it's quite a range of erotic establishments,.....The city is also imposing a cap, and will allow a maximum of five sex-related businesses that area. There are currently two such establishments in that zone, leaving room for three newcomers.". ...

Laval spokesperson Nadine Lussier said there were 40 massage parlours that reapplied for a permit at the end of 2017, 19 were denied because they were found to provide services of a sexual nature.

Definitely not for prostitution. The district is about curtailing and reducing the number of erotic businesses in Laval. 

alan smithee wrote:
  The only answer to drug addiction is legalization. People don't like to hear that but that's the answer. How would simple decriminalization help the problem? It won't. And I don't believe it's electoral suicide. We are moving toward that policy with safe injection sites for example. 10 years ago people would be running around with their hair on fire knowing there are 'safe' sites in their neighbourhoods. It's now an acceptable policy.Drug laws are not natural and never existed until the beginning of the 20th century with the Temperance movement which was extremely right wing. The world survived for thousands of years without prohibition and sky wouldn't fall if prohibition was abolished.  

At most, and I don't think even that will happen, the government will provide the drugs for addicts. Safe injection sites are to prevent overdoses and provide an in to the system if someone wants it. Cannabis was legalized because people realized it was more like alcohol than hard drugs and so many people have tried it themselves. The jump to legalization of hard drugs is huge and I don't think it will ever happen. It wouldn't even pass consumer protection laws because they aren't safe to use. 

alan smithee wrote:
 What makes you think the NDP would have a housing plan better than the Liberals? Sounds like an unfounded assumption to me.

Because Singh is focused on inequality and he seems to be keeping Guy Caron close. 

I think the Liberals may be preparing to offer basic income. 

The Conservatives are on the right economically and socially.

The Liberals are on the right economically but with a spattering of noblesse oblige, and on the left socially

The position left for the NDP is an economic plan that obviously serves the majority of Canadians. That even includes people in the top 10 percent. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

That polls comes with an article about the red light district being set up in Laval. It will have a maximum of 5 establishments. 

 

This is what will be allowed:"Strip clubs, erotic cinemas, swinger's clubs, sex-shop-style stores, so it's quite a range of erotic establishments,.....The city is also imposing a cap, and will allow a maximum of five sex-related businesses that area. There are currently two such establishments in that zone, leaving room for three newcomers.". ...

Laval spokesperson Nadine Lussier said there were 40 massage parlours that reapplied for a permit at the end of 2017, 19 were denied because they were found to provide services of a sexual nature.

Definitely not for prostitution. The district is about curtailing and reducing the number of erotic businesses in Laval. 

That's Laval. The poll was about Montreal (I think). Montreal had a red light district for decades where prostitution was tolerated. But they were mostly drug addicts at the mercy of their pimps. This is why  brothels should be legal,it would prevent exploitation,violence and drug addiction (admittedly I don't think you can stop people from using drugx but it wouldn't be to the degree of how it was and still is) It would also be the best way to protect public health.

Montreal no longer has an area which is a red light district anymore. Everything is spread out around the city now. We do have erotic massage parlours mostly in the East end  and a few sex show establishments. This all should be in the same area. The corner of Ste-Catherine and St-Laurent has changed dramatically with condos and concert clubs. I don't know where a red light district would be in Montreal. Probably somewhere in the East end,I'd presume but who knows.

Laval has always had erotic massage parlours,sex shops,strip clubs and swinger's clubs. I do believe MTL has a couple swinger's and fetish clubs but they are very low key.

[At most, and I don't think even that will happen, the government will provide the drugs for addicts. Safe injection sites are to prevent overdoses and provide an in to the system if someone wants it. Cannabis was legalized because people realized it was more like alcohol than hard drugs and so many people have tried it themselves. The jump to legalization of hard drugs is huge and I don't think it will ever happen. It wouldn't even pass consumer protection laws because they aren't safe to use. 

Providing drugs for addicts would be acceptable. But the chances of full on legalization is a possiblity. It may take many years but it can happen. More countries in Europe are doing it South America too, I think it will inevitably spread over the pond and into North America at some point. The prohibition of  all these 'hard' drugs is still imprisoning non violent drug offenders and imprisoning addicts who are sick,not criminal. The drug issue is a health issue,not a criminal issue. That has to change.

alan smithee wrote:
 What makes you think the NDP would have a housing plan better than the Liberals? Sounds like an unfounded assumption to me.

Because Singh is focused on inequality and he seems to be keeping Guy Caron close. 

I think the Liberals may be preparing to offer basic income. 

The Conservatives are on the right economically and socially.

The Liberals are on the right economically but with a spattering of noblesse oblige, and on the left socially

The position left for the NDP is an economic plan that obviously serves the majority of Canadians. That even includes people in the top 10 percent. 

A basic income would be a HUGE step forward. As for the NDP,the last election they ran on balancing the budget which always pulls us backward socially. It's a Conservative principle.

I'm going to do my homework on Singh. If he's as progressive as you say,I believe the NDP will climb up the polls from where they currently are. I'll check it out.

Pondering

The poll was taken in Montreal but it was due to the story about Laval. Montreal is not planning a red light district in the east end or anywhere else. Downtown is getting cleaned up without creating a red light district. Brothels are illegal so cities are not going to open any. Current laws were introduced in 2014. My bet is that the law is fully constitutional or it would have been challenged by now. There is no upside to any politician in tackling this topic in Canada. Harper only did it because he was forced to. I think the Liberals would have taken a similar route. I don't agree with you on prostitution but there is no point in discussing it because there is zero chance of it happening in Canada in the foreseeable future.  Governments were forced to deal with the topics of abortion and prostitution. Abortion because of Dr. Morgentaler. He brought it to the Supreme Court which left room for making some restrictions. The House of Commons passed a law but the Senate bounced it back. Ever since then there has been no law on abortion in Canada which is rare. Even so the Conservatives wouldn't touch the topic in 10 years in power, even with a majority. They knew it would be opening a can of worms. Same thing with prostitution. The government was forced to deal with the topic by the Supreme Court. I predict that prostitution law will follow the same path as abortion law. Status quo will be maintained because there is no political upside to tackling these topics. 

The swingers clubs in Montreal are legal. You have to be members so they are private. They aren't a front for prostitution. There is no reason to force them into a red light district. Same goes for sex shops. So far I have never seen one in an inappropriate place. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

People at one time wouldn't think about legalizing abortion but guess what? It happened. It took decades but in the end a woman was given a right in controlling their reproductive rights. You're right,no one will touch that issue just like when and if cannabis is legalized,it will be something untouchable in the future.

I will bet you 10 years of my income that prostitution WILL be legalized somewhere in Canada and then it will be legal in the whole country in the next 10-15 years. It's going to happen and it will be the right thing to do,the grown up thing to do.

You clearly don't se that attitudes evolve which is why abortion and soon cannabis are legal when only a decade or a few decades ago it was totally unthinkable.

I got news for you. These erotic massage parlours,which are legal, is a form of legal prostitution.Why are they called erotic massage? Because it's a discreet way of saying they sell blow jobs.

Escort services are also legal. And nobody rents out a woman for a dinner and a little conversation..Especially because they charge by the hour or sometimes half hour. Just read any classified section of a newspaper,it isn't hard. Some come out and explicitly list what kind of sex acts they are selling.  

So I think you're out of touch about this issue. It's inevitable,it will happen and once it is it will become an untouchable issue just like abortion.

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Voting NDP is a bit like betting on the 20:1 horse at the pony track.  Bigger payoff, for sure, but less chance of it.  Put your two bucks on the 2:1 horse, and you're less likely to lose your two bucks, and more likely to get back a whole $4.

They're not being talked out of voting conscience or values.  They're being reminded that they're betting it all.  If they win, they get what their conscience and values want, and if they lose, they get absolutely nothing.  But if they bet differently, they can have at least SOME of what their conscience and values want, instead of all of it or none of it.

As much as I want PR, and as disappointed as I am that the NDP has never formed a federal government, I have to take issue with the idea that voting NDP has been a risky losing bet. Whether it's holding occasional influence in minority governments, shifting the dialogue as official opposition, or merely giving the Liberals a threat on their left flank to keep them from becoming the American Democrats, the NDP's played a vital role in shaping Canadian politics over the last few decades. If it hadn't been for the NDP, Justin Trudeau would be telling Canadians right now that universal health care would lead inexorably to communism and was too dangerous to try.

Pages