Jagmeet Singh needs get his ass into Parliament post haste

279 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

I think the discussion is getting a bit off track when people compare what Trudeau did in the House several years ago compared to what Singh is doing now.

The main issue facing Singh is to decide whether having a seat before 2019 would be an advantage and whether it is a disadvantage to be left out of some of the debates happening in Parliament between Trudeau & Scheer.

As I posted above, the CTV Sunday panel thinks Singh is getting left out right now because he doesn't have a seat in the House.

Yes, he is. But there is no election now and the strategy may be to have him more visible closer to an election. This may or may not work but it is a legitimate strategy esoecually since he won't wnat thte cost of a byelection on the party, a request to step down to a small caucus etc. He has other things to do within the party. This might be a good move.

It certainly is legitimately a choice for him and the party to make.

 

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

This whole business about how Singh needs to find a riding, convince the NDP MP to step down, and win that seat is what gamers would call a "side quest".  A diversion from the real quest, basically.

And I might consider it all differently if my "Spidey-sense" told me there was even a tiny bit of good faith in this, but there's not.

In that I was one of those proposing Singh get himself a seat via this method, I suppose I should defend my position.

​First off, I'll say this is very commonly done in cases where a new party leader does not have a seat in whatever legislative body. One does not need 'bad faith' to suggest it.

​Secondly, what is the party leader, really. The party leader is mostly the leader of the caucus. The NDP has both a president and a party director, so while the leader is still the 'leader', the day to day running of the party is the job of someone else. It is the party caucus that is directly led by the leader. A leader that right now is not in the same room as the caucus.

Finally, because it's been mentioned again, the cost of the by-election is not really a factor. It's not uncommon for there to be 10-15 by-elections during a parliamentary term. One more or less is not a flagrant misuse of taxpayer money.

I'll just add one thing. Someone mentioned Trudeau being paid as an MP while gallivanting around as party leader. Who was paying Singh while he was running for the NDP leadership? Was he still receiving money for being an MPP?

In any case, this is something that every party has to deal with. The party leader in parliament is also a sitting MP, and there is an inherent conflict between those two positions. Trudeau is not the first, and Singh would not be the last, to deal with that particular issue.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Mr. Magoo:

This whole business about how Singh needs to find a riding, convince the NDP MP to step down, and win that seat is what gamers would call a "side quest".  A diversion from the real quest, basically.

And I might consider it all differently if my "Spidey-sense" told me there was even a tiny bit of good faith in this, but there's not.

In that I was one of those proposing Singh get himself a seat via this method, I suppose I should defend my position.

​First off, I'll say this is very commonly done in cases where a new party leader does not have a seat in whatever legislative body. One does not need 'bad faith' to suggest it.

​Secondly, what is the party leader, really. The party leader is mostly the leader of the caucus. The NDP has both a president and a party director, so while the leader is still the 'leader', the day to day running of the party is the job of someone else. It is the party caucus that is directly led by the leader. A leader that right now is not in the same room as the caucus.

Finally, because it's been mentioned again, the cost of the by-election is not really a factor. It's not uncommon for there to be 10-15 by-elections during a parliamentary term. One more or less is not a flagrant misuse of taxpayer money.

I'll just add one thing. Someone mentioned Trudeau being paid as an MP while gallivanting around as party leader. Who was paying Singh while he was running for the NDP leadership? Was he still receiving money for being an MPP?

In any case, this is something that every party has to deal with. The party leader in parliament is also a sitting MP, and there is an inherent conflict between those two positions. Trudeau is not the first, and Singh would not be the last, to deal with that particular issue.

 

You seem to have a few things wrong:

1) A party leader that is not elected is in the same room as the caucus when it comes to party business. They just cannot go intot he H of C chamber and debate. A party leader is much more than  head of caucus.

2) The cost of a byelection to the taxpayer is insignificant but that is not true for a party -- especially when other parties may pour in resources to defeat them.

3) June, July, August and half of September the Legislature was not even sitting. But it is not uncommon for a member of a provincial legislature to run for a different level of office. I don't think his residents claimed he was not working hard enough for them at any time.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
First off, I'll say this is very commonly done in cases where a new party leader does not have a seat in whatever legislative body. One does not need 'bad faith' to suggest it.

Fair enough.  It's been suggested.  And you're probably right that it's commonplace, perhaps even so commonplace that there's not even a need to suggest it.

I think the bad faith starts to kick in after it's been suggested about 50 times, or when it's "suggested" that not immediately running is proof that the NDP can't win, or it's proof that they're hypocrites, or it's proof that Singh is wrong for the job or whatever.

Mighty Middle

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think the bad faith starts to kick in after it's been suggested about 50 times, or when it's "suggested" that not immediately running is proof that the NDP can't win, or it's proof that they're hypocrites, or it's proof that Singh is wrong for the job or whatever.

The only place I've seen it suggested over 50 times is here on rabble. Most of the political panels I've seen/heard (on TV & Radio) support Jagmeet's stance of not seeking a seat. Saying it is smart to do what Trudeau did when he became leader. Go around the country and build up the party. They point to Mulcair saying if QP was a litmus test to being PM, then Mulcair would have won the election.

WWWTT

Mighty Middle wrote:

Debater wrote:

As I posted above, the CTV Sunday panel thinks Singh is getting left out right now because he doesn't have a seat in the House.

But there have been other politcal panels I've seen where the majority have said it is a better use of Jagmeet's time to tour the country and engage with the grassroots.

I believe there's a good debate here! I was on both sides. But now, I'll have to argue for Jagmeet's support. Jagmeet is best waiting for the general election and run in Brampton, my current home town! He also needs to win his seat strong! 50%+ of the vote. As well the NDP need to take at least one more Brampton seat, or better an additional several at the very least withon Region of Peel. This will make a strong statement for the NDP and give Jagmeet greater authority moving after the 2019 election.

The 2018 Ontario election results, especially in Peel region and lessor extent the GTA will or should have an impact directing Jagmeets course.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The only place I've seen it suggested over 50 times is here on rabble.

Same.

Now for the fun question:  by 50 different babblers?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The only place I've seen it suggested over 50 times is here on rabble.

Same.

Now for the fun question:  by 50 different babblers?

Or just one 50 times?

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

You seem to have a few things wrong:

1) A party leader that is not elected is in the same room as the caucus when it comes to party business. They just cannot go intot he H of C chamber and debate. A party leader is much more than  head of caucus.

2) The cost of a byelection to the taxpayer is insignificant but that is not true for a party -- especially when other parties may pour in resources to defeat them.

3) June, July, August and half of September the Legislature was not even sitting. But it is not uncommon for a member of a provincial legislature to run for a different level of office. I don't think his residents claimed he was not working hard enough for them at any time.

As to #1: I believe I said that the job of leader was 'mostly' head of caucus, which would seem to allow some room for other activities. I did point out that day to day running of the party is done by functionaries. 

#2: This is interesting because I never took it that the concern over money spent was NDP money. Perhaps the person who brought up the money issue can clarify whether they meant party money, or taxpayer money.

In any case, presumably Singh would run in a more or less safe seat, which should allay concerns about other parties shovelling in money in order to upset that plan. 

#3: So Singh was collecting money from the Ontario legislature while he was running for the leadership of the federal NDP. I can certainly understand why he didn't resign his seat in anticipation of running. After all, if he had, a loss would have left him politically orphaned.

Perhaps he could have done what Trudeau did. That is, seek a seat in the federal parliament before seeking the leadership of the NDP.

R.E.Wood

I don't think it matters whether Singh has a seat now or not. He's getting some press (both good and bad) and popping up for selfies here and there, so at least he's doing more than Mulcair did during his unfortunate time as interim leader. My problem is that (predictably) nothing seems to be changing with the federal party. After a brief reprieve following the vote I'm now back to receiving a daily email asking for $$$. Now they're framing it as an appeal for monthly "Game Changer" donors. I'd write back and tell them to go ask Jagmeet's fan base in Brampton, but I'm sure no one at the party reads emails or gives a shit what members think. They just want our $$$. (Cue fond memories of Charlie Angus being the only one talking about this problem during the campaign.) 

And despite the rah-rah cheers of a particular poster here, there is no evidence to date of any bump for the NDP with Singh as leader. I think we are on course for another major seat loss in 2019, but it's a long way off, so who knows what could change. Maybe we'll actually have policies that will inspire and interest people, put forward by a leader people trust. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. And never fear, all we need is love & courage.

Sean in Ottawa

@ REWood -- the issues for the NDP that need to be fixed will not produce a bump in the polls within a few weeks they will take longer.

I am concerned that the party change its communications to focus on statements of value. In this respect I am unhappy with the generic stamp up to Trump direction. The NDP has to stop this kind of statement and offer substance.

Good advice might be to follow this strategy and stop running every comment through the polling to get watered down.

The problem is doing things this way won't help the polling -- the party will be dismissed as being opportunistic without substance.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

You seem to have a few things wrong:

1) A party leader that is not elected is in the same room as the caucus when it comes to party business. They just cannot go intot he H of C chamber and debate. A party leader is much more than  head of caucus.

2) The cost of a byelection to the taxpayer is insignificant but that is not true for a party -- especially when other parties may pour in resources to defeat them.

3) June, July, August and half of September the Legislature was not even sitting. But it is not uncommon for a member of a provincial legislature to run for a different level of office. I don't think his residents claimed he was not working hard enough for them at any time.

As to #1: I believe I said that the job of leader was 'mostly' head of caucus, which would seem to allow some room for other activities. I did point out that day to day running of the party is done by functionaries. 

#2: This is interesting because I never took it that the concern over money spent was NDP money. Perhaps the person who brought up the money issue can clarify whether they meant party money, or taxpayer money.

In any case, presumably Singh would run in a more or less safe seat, which should allay concerns about other parties shovelling in money in order to upset that plan. 

#3: So Singh was collecting money from the Ontario legislature while he was running for the leadership of the federal NDP. I can certainly understand why he didn't resign his seat in anticipation of running. After all, if he had, a loss would have left him politically orphaned.

Perhaps he could have done what Trudeau did. That is, seek a seat in the federal parliament before seeking the leadership of the NDP.

I disagree that being leader is mostly of caucus. It is more being a spokesperson for the party along with these other tasks related to direction for the party, finances and policies that matter.

I was one of the people that raised the money issue if not the first one. And I was speaking about the party not wasting a budget on this.

The NDP does not have any safe seats beyond except for ones where losing the person now in the seat would be counter productive. The leader will get heard even if not in the house but any MP asked to step aside will be lost from the NDP's public conversation. They would have to find another income and may not want to come back in two years. It is not as easy as you say when the party has had the setback it has. The party has few seats outside Quebec and no safe seats fro Singh in it. The advice to get someone to stepdown is ill-considered.

The idea that only MPs can run for leader is also not well considered. The party needs new life as the members have decided. In fact a crop of MPs lost to Singh. The NDP has very good reasons to want to look outside -- it has some older MPS who do not want the job and younger, newer MPs but that middle cohort is largely missing. Often people will be MP for 20 years before running for leader -- if they do not come from outside with significant credentials from some other place. In this case, 20 years ago the NDP had only a handful of MPs, and many of those have since retired.

The NDP needs constructive and practical criticism and advice rather than people here raising barriers that could never be overcome or that apply to larger parties in different situations. The NDP is making do with what it can in its own circumstances as they should.

We might even want to focus on suggestions that they could follow rather than suggesting Singh should have gone back into a time machine, recognized that Mulcair was a dud, and ran then.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

The NDP needs constructive and practical criticism and advice rather than people here raising barriers that could never be overcome or that apply to larger parties in different situations. The NDP is making do with what it can in its own circumstances as they should.

We might even want to focus on suggestions that they could follow rather than suggesting Singh should have gone back into a time machine, recognized that Mulcair was a dud, and ran then.

I don't think suggesting that Singh get into Parliament is a barrier. It is my opinion that it would be better for the party if he were in the Commons. However, yourself, and others, have erected barriers themselves, many of which are expressed in your post above.

​At the same time, I do agree that finding a safe NDP seat woudn't be that easy. As far as the existing MP, that's not really a problem. Usually they are offered a party position, with the promise of more in the future. No one would starve.

And as far as the time machine, while it's true, one can't go back, it's also true that no one had to recognize Mulcair as a dud. All one needs is the thought in their head that someday they may want to lead the party. 

But it's true, the NDP party members were obviously not that happy with the sitting MPs. 

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

The NDP needs constructive and practical criticism and advice rather than people here raising barriers that could never be overcome or that apply to larger parties in different situations. The NDP is making do with what it can in its own circumstances as they should.

We might even want to focus on suggestions that they could follow rather than suggesting Singh should have gone back into a time machine, recognized that Mulcair was a dud, and ran then.

I don't think suggesting that Singh get into Parliament is a barrier. It is my opinion that it would be better for the party if he were in the Commons. However, yourself, and others, have erected barriers themselves, many of which are expressed in your post above.

​At the same time, I do agree that finding a safe NDP seat woudn't be that easy. As far as the existing MP, that's not really a problem. Usually they are offered a party position, with the promise of more in the future. No one would starve.

And as far as the time machine, while it's true, one can't go back, it's also true that no one had to recognize Mulcair as a dud. All one needs is the thought in their head that someday they may want to lead the party. 

But it's true, the NDP party members were obviously not that happy with the sitting MPs. 

By barriers I eman proposing things that are not worth it or may not even be possible. I am recognizing that the NDP is doing generally what it needs to do. You are proposing costs and a process that in your opinion has a benefit. I disagree considering an election is a long way off and he can get media easily as leader.

You say the job of caucus leader is the biggest part and I disagree.

The idea that Singh ought to have run federally when there was no sign that the job would open any time soon just because he might want to be leader in the future is nonsensical. Peoples decisions to be leader move with circumstances. If the provincial opening came up first I am sure Singh would have tried that. There is nothing wrong with seeking a position and no need to commit to which level years in advance when there is no open position.

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet will be holding a presser in Ottawa tomorrow (accompanied by Randall Garrison and Sheri Benson) to demand Justin Trudeau get moving on the official apology to the LGBT community

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet just said he will not be contesting any of the four by-elections set for December 11

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/08/jagmeet-singh-says-he-has-no-pla...

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

As you noted yourself, he probably shouldn't have mentioned Hydro. The most inoculous opinion can offend.

It wasn't the innocuousness of this statement that will offend.

I should have said seemingly innoculous but you make my point which is that Jagmeet is better off preparing for 2019 as the most seemingly innoculous comment can expose him to criticism.

At the federal level Jagmeet has no responsibility to constituents or to Canadians in general because he is not an elected official. Every seat the NDP has is filled.  The only people Jagmeet has a responsibility to are the members of the party that elected him so the question is, how can he most benefit the NDP?

It has been made abundently clear that most Canadians pay no attention to what is going on in the house. The NDP does have senior MPs with lots of experience in parliament. The NDP does need to build up the grassroots and generate funds for the 2019 campaign. Getting Jagmeet elected in 2019 is important to the party so what is good for him is also good for the party. Once the election period starts it will be important for him to get national attention and to be fully prepared for it. Right now it's important for him to connect personally with as many people as possible in communities across the country.

It seems to me that it is best for both him and the party for him to focus on 2019.

I did read the last 47 posts but I don't recall seeing any reasoning for why he should run for a seat in the house other than he is the head of caucus.  It's very common for senior MPs to lead caucus in the house. I don't see how it hurts the NDP for Jagmeet not to be there.

JKR

If the Conservatives had chosen a leader who was not a member of Parliament, how would it be affecting the Conservatives if their new leader were outside of the House of Commons for two years until the next election? If a non-MP had become leader of the Conservatives, I think the Conservatives would have insisted that that person quickly seek election to the H of C through a by-election. It seems to me that this is so because if a major party leader is not leading their party in the H of C, that leader and that party seem like they are not contending to form government. I think the danger of Singh not leading the NDP in the H of C is that it sends a signal to the public that the NDP is only a third party that is not in contention to form government and this might end up contrasting unfavourably with the Liberals and Conservatives come election time. Only time will tell....

josh

The danger is that unless the right seat comes along, he could well lose.

JKR

Maybe someone in a safe NDP seat like Jenny Kwan in Vancouver-East could provide a seat for Singh?

Mighty Middle

JKR wrote:

If the Conservatives had chosen a leader who was not a member of Parliament, how would it be affecting the Conservatives if their new leader were outside of the House of Commons for two years until the next election? If a non-MP had become leader of the Conservatives, I think the Conservatives would have insisted that that person quickly seek election to the H of C through a by-election. It seems to me that this is so because if a major party leader is not leading their party in the H of C, that leader and that party seem like they are not contending to form government. I think the danger of Singh not leading the NDP in the H of C is that it sends a signal to the public that the NDP is only a third party that is not in contention to form government and this might end up contrasting unfavourably with the Liberals and Conservatives come election time. Only time will tell....

That is because the Conservatives are the Official Opposition and the Government in waiting. You couldn't have the leader of the Official Opposition not be in the house. The NDP being the third party in the house isn't in that position. If the NDP were still the Official Opposition, I'm sure the calls for Jagmeet to run for a seat would be twice as loud. Being leader of  the third party gives Jagmeet the luxury of not having to run until 2019.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

JKR wrote:

If the Conservatives had chosen a leader who was not a member of Parliament, how would it be affecting the Conservatives if their new leader were outside of the House of Commons for two years until the next election? If a non-MP had become leader of the Conservatives, I think the Conservatives would have insisted that that person quickly seek election to the H of C through a by-election. It seems to me that this is so because if a major party leader is not leading their party in the H of C, that leader and that party seem like they are not contending to form government. I think the danger of Singh not leading the NDP in the H of C is that it sends a signal to the public that the NDP is only a third party that is not in contention to form government and this might end up contrasting unfavourably with the Liberals and Conservatives come election time. Only time will tell....

That is because the Conservatives are the Official Opposition and the Government in waiting. You couldn't have the leader of the Official Opposition not be in the house. The NDP being the third party in the house isn't in that position. If the NDP were still the Official Opposition, I'm sure the calls for Jagmeet to run for a seat would be twice as loud. Being leader of  the third party gives Jagmeet the luxury of not having to run until 2019.

Glad to see you accept that.

The other issue is the main opposition party has more seats and more people to ask to step aside. When a party has had a recent loss a greater number of its seats would be held by high profile people it does nto want to lose and more seats would be vulnerable. The seats that are the safest will be held by the most high profile people. As well the cost for a third party of contesting a byelection is more significant as they tend to have cash problems. This is why there cannot be rules for all opposition parties getting their leaders into parliament but that each must look at their situation and make decisions based on priority and cost.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I think that not having Mr. Singh in Parliament makes it easier for Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Singh is a lawyer, and would be able to deliver a much more competent opposition to the Liberals than Mr. Scheer.

Trudeau and his ministers need to be cross-examined.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Glad to see you accept that.

Thanks for saying that Sean

progressive17 wrote:

I think that not having Mr. Singh in Parliament makes it easier for Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Singh is a lawyer, and would be able to deliver a much more competent opposition to the Liberals than Mr. Scheer.

Trudeau and his ministers need to be cross-examined.

If ones performance in Question Period was the litmus test to higher office then Thomas Mulcair would be Prime Minister right now.

scott16

JKR wrote:

Maybe someone in a safe NDP seat like Jenny Kwan in Vancouver-East could provide a seat for Singh?

The better idea would be for Brian Masse in Windsor West to step down. Although I agree he should wait till 2019.

Mighty Middle

scott16 wrote:

The better idea would be for Brian Masse in Windsor West to step down. Although I agree he should wait till 2019.

I don't see that happening as Brian Masse seems quite content to stay where he is

brookmere

Mighty Middle wrote:
If the NDP were still the Official Opposition, I'm sure the calls for Jagmeet to run for a seat would be twice as loud.

If the NDP were still the Official Opposition, I have little doubt Mulcair would still be leader.  :-)

Sean in Ottawa

As Duceppe said "if my grandmother had wheels she would be a tractor."

If the NDP were OO then there would be more safe seats to choose from, more money to fight a campaign etc. In other words in that alternate reality other facts would be different as well.

Pages