Official Rabble Floor Crossing Thread

293 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

NDP party brass then hired a firm to robo call her riding.

Quote:

The NDP hired Strategic Communications who rolled out a ‘robo-caller’ automatic dialing machine which began calling up every single one of the 40,000 voters in her St. Maurice-Champlain riding.

“How do you feel about your turn-coat MP? If you would like to tell her just press the “1” digit on your telephone key pad.”

The automatic dialer took care of the rest, switching the call to St-Denis’ Parliament Hill office one call after another endlessly day and night.

It didn’t take long to jam up all the lines. St-Denis’ secretaries were furious. They couldn’t do any work. She complained to Bob Rae, to Bell Canada, to the NDP, to Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer.  It was no use. The calls just kept coming.

Enough to make St-Denis rue the day she crossed the floor to the Liberals.  Where does political calling end and crank calling begin?

Just like Conservatives have been doing in Mount-Royal to Liberal Irwin Cotler.

This was just the start against St-Denis. The NDP set up a dump St-Denis petition on the internet, to force her to resign and run again in a by-election. It picked up 1,600 names.

Interim party leader Nycole Turmel showed up with two New Democrat MPs in Grand-Mère to demonstrate in front of St-Denis’ riding office.

Two MPs were appointed to look after what the dippers called the “orphan” riding. “Orphan?” as if St-Denis had disappeared off the face of the earth.

LINK http://www.nordinfo.com/Article-de-blogue/b/21311/NDP-hammer-Lise-StDeni...

They were later fined for violating CRTC rules on robocalls

I suspect the disgusting use of robocalls cost the NDP votes and the Liberal floor crossing didn't hurt the Liberals at all. Only political junkies give a fuck about floor crossings and in Alberta they don't even seem to mind.

mark_alfred

*

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:
...It's the MP (or MLA) who is voted for and elected by the constituents, not the party ...

This is a direct contradiction of what Rachel Notley said back when.

Rachel Notley on floor crossing

Quote:
...Often, people vote, not on the basis of the candidate, but rather the party. And so, by doing that, that means voters are selecting the MLA because they believe in what the party stands for.

When the MLA crosses the floor, it means they are abandoning their voters, unless the party has really, really, gone a different direction from the way they had originally presented themselves...

I emphasized the 'really, really', but I think if one watches the video you'll see that I wasn't adding that emphasis. It was put in by Notley herself.

Now the argument of jjaures and others is hinged upon that 'unless the party has really, really gone a different direction'. Well, I think if one was arguing this change of direction happened when the PC's welcomed the leadership and others of the Wildrose party into the fold, I would agree with them. But that happened prior to the last election, while Sandra Jansen was a party member. Yet it didn't prevent her from running as a PC in the election following the event.

In fact one of the criticisms that Notley made at the time of the Wildrose mass floor crossing was that it showed the PC's were moving to the right. And I would agree with that analysis. They must have made some offer to the Wildrose leadership to make the move palatable to them.

But the only change since the election is that the PC's don't have a leader, and are directionless at the moment. 

Another argument the floor crossing supporters have made relates to the possibility of Jason Kenny winning the leadership of the Alberta PC's. But even if he was the devil himself, he couldn't affect a decision taken by the NDP leadership. It's not his credentials we're questioning, it the integrity of the NDP leadership. Kenny may have driven Jansen from the party, but that by itself has no bearing on whether the NDP should accept floor crossers or not.

jjuares

Rev Pesky wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
...It's the MP (or MLA) who is voted for and elected by the constituents, not the party ...

This is a direct contradiction of what Rachel Notley said back when.

Rachel Notley on floor crossing

Quote:
...Often, people vote, not on the basis of the candidate, but rather the party. And so, by doing that, that means voters are selecting the MLA because they believe in what the party stands for.

When the MLA crosses the floor, it means they are abandoning their voters, unless the party has really, really, gone a different direction from the way they had originally presented themselves...

I emphasized the 'really, really', but I think if one watches the video you'll see that I wasn't adding that emphasis. It was put in by Notley herself.

Now the argument of jjaures and others is hinged upon that 'unless the party has really, really gone a different direction'. Well, I think if one was arguing this change of direction happened when the PC's welcomed the leadership and others of the Wildrose party into the fold, I would agree with them. But that happened prior to the last election, while Sandra Jansen was a party member. Yet it didn't prevent her from running as a PC in the election following the event.

In fact one of the criticisms that Notley made at the time of the Wildrose mass floor crossing was that it showed the PC's were moving to the right. And I would agree with that analysis. They must have made some offer to the Wildrose leadership to make the move palatable to them.

But the only change since the election is that the PC's don't have a leader, and are directionless at the moment. 

Another argument the floor crossing supporters have made relates to the possibility of Jason Kenny winning the leadership of the Alberta PC's. But even if he was the devil himself, he couldn't affect a decision taken by the NDP leadership. It's not his credentials we're questioning, it the integrity of the NDP leadership. Kenny may have driven Jansen from the party, but that by itself has no bearing on whether the NDP should accept floor crossers or not.


Kenney wants to dismantle the party. I think that qualifies as really really going in a different direction.

Mighty Middle

Sandra Jansen interview - Why She Left AB PC Party & Joined The AB NDP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c_1K-GwEC4

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sandra Jansen interview - Why She Left AB PC Party & Joined The AB NDP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c_1K-GwEC4

Thanks for the link.

I didn't know that the only two women MLA's re-elected last time were Notley and Jansen. While I don't like it there is no doubt there has always been room for fiscal conservatives in NDP governments. She speaks like and reminds me of my friend Janice MacKinnon who was a policy wonk and very progressive on social issues and iinsistent that part of Tommy's legacy was balanciing the budget so as to keep the government out of the clutches of banks.

 

Mighty Middle

Someone dug up an old video of Rachel Notley discussing floor crossing in Alberta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATlb9e_Kf10

jjuares

Mighty Middle wrote:

Someone dug up an old video of Rachel Notley discussing floor crossing in Alberta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATlb9e_Kf10


We have already had a link in which Notley explains that floor crossing is wrong UNLESS there has been a change in the party in which they are leaving. The clip you provided has Jansen saying just that. She also seems to be saying that this is a recent development. Indeed it culminated in the policy conference they just had. It was at at that point she says that this wasn't her party anymore as they engaged in right wing " dog whistle" politics. Now it might be too much to hope that this would end this discussion unless someone has evidence that she is lying. To me she looks sincere as she points out that she voted with the NDP on social policy.

jjuares

Good article about the transformation and the degeneration of the Alberta PC party. The sound you just heard is Lougheed rolling over in his grave.
http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/11/jason-kenneys-sleazy-campaign-tactics-...

brookmere

jjuares wrote:
Now the reason why this is important is that not only Notley but Jansen is also making the argument that the PC's are going in a different direction than they way they had presented themselves.

Well she would say that wouldn't she? If the leader leaves some loophole to allow floor crossing, obviously anyone wanting to cross the floor would claim it.

I wonder what the reaction would be to a member of the Federal NDP caucus jumping to the Liberals because they didn't like the way the leadership campaign was going.

Rev Pesky

jjuares wrote:
...Kenney wants to dismantle the party. I think that qualifies as really really going in a different direction.

Is this based on something he said? In any case, it doesn't affect the conversation because Kenney is not the leader of the Alberta PC party. As has been pointed out, the PC party can hardly be 'going in a really, really different direction', at least not until they actually have a new leader.

quizzical

jason kenney just got fined 5000 for trying to influence the leadership vote of the PCs

i guess you've ignored what has transpired to the 2 lone women PCs contained in the links here, or you don't know wtf you're talking about or you're being deliberately obtuse. which is it rev?

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

jason kenney just got fined 5000 for trying to influence the leadership vote of the PCs

i guess you've ignored what has transpired to the 2 lone women PCs contained in the links here, or you don't know wtf you're talking about or you're being deliberately obtuse. which is it rev?

Relax and stop insulting people. If your point makes any sense, it will still make sense if you treat people with respect.

Sorry to intervene, I'm not a mod, but this style of discussion is sickening and toxic to a discussion forum which I care deeply about. We are all on the same side here.

jjuares

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:
...Kenney wants to dismantle the party. I think that qualifies as really really going in a different direction.

Is this based on something he said? In any case, it doesn't affect the conversation because Kenney is not the leader of the Alberta PC party. As has been pointed out, the PC party can hardly be 'going in a really, really different direction', at least not until they actually have a new leader.


Yeah, it is something he said over and over. So a party can't be going in a certain direction because there is only an interim leader? Well Sandra Jansen disagrees with you but I am sure you know better than she does. I mean she only spent 30 years in the party. What could she possibly know? So when she says that the party is now about right wing " dog whistle politics she must be wrong.

jjuares

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:
...Kenney wants to dismantle the party. I think that qualifies as really really going in a different direction.

Is this based on something he said? In any case, it doesn't affect the conversation because Kenney is not the leader of the Alberta PC party. As has been pointed out, the PC party can hardly be 'going in a really, really different direction', at least not until they actually have a new leader.


Yeah, it is something he said over and over. So a party can't be going in a certain direction because there is only an interim leader? Well Sandra Jansen disagrees with you but I am sure you know better than she does. I mean she only spent 30 years in the party. What could she possibly know? So when she says that the party is now about right wing " dog whistle politics she must be wrong.

jjuares

brookmere wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Now the reason why this is important is that not only Notley but Jansen is also making the argument that the PC's are going in a different direction than they way they had presented themselves.

Well she would say that wouldn't she? If the leader leaves some loophole to allow floor crossing, obviously anyone wanting to cross the floor would claim it.

I wonder what the reaction would be to a member of the Federal NDP caucus jumping to the Liberals because they didn't like the way the leadership campaign was going.


It is irrelevant what federal leaders think one way or the other. We don't tell federal politicians how to run their shop, they don't tell us. In this case the loophole seems to fit fine because the changes in the PC party are the topic of conversation media reports etc. In fact David Climenhaga who writes for Rabble has written about it.

Mighty Middle

Today in the Alberta Legislature Sandra Jansen makes an emotional plea for the on-line bullying of women in politics to STOP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9odXpJ7Ljo&t=13s

jjuares

Mighty Middle wrote:

Today in the Alberta Legislature Sandra Jansen makes an emotional plea for the on-line bullying of women in politics to STOP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9odXpJ7Ljo&t=13s


Yeah, this is the ugly elements that have surfaced in the right wing since the election of the new government.

jjuares

If the federal NDP decides to adopt the Leap Manifesto in the next year, under the Rev's " logic" that can't constitute a " direction" because they only have an interm leader.

brookmere

jjuares wrote:
In this case the loophole seems to fit fine because the changes in the PC party are the topic of conversation media reports etc.

The loophole is the problem in itself, because it sets up a qualification for crossing which is up to the leader to decide, which in practical terms is no different from what happens in parties that don't pretent to disallow crossing. In other words, floor crossing isn't allowed, except when it is. The Alberta NDP is trying to play both positions at the same time.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
quizzical wrote:
jason kenney just got fined 5000 for trying to influence the leadership vote of the PCs

i guess you've ignored what has transpired to the 2 lone women PCs contained in the links here, or you don't know wtf you're talking about or you're being deliberately obtuse. which is it rev?

Relax and stop insulting people. If your point makes any sense, it will still make sense if you treat people with respect.

Sorry to intervene, I'm not a mod, but this style of discussion is sickening and toxic to a discussion forum which I care deeply about. We are all on the same side here.

how about you go after the real toxic people on here like those who are telling people to shut up of fuck off as opposed to bullying me who is merely being impatient and used a "wtf"?

or even look at your own!

jjuares

brookmere wrote:

jjuares wrote:
In this case the loophole seems to fit fine because the changes in the PC party are the topic of conversation media reports etc.

The loophole is the problem in itself, because it sets up a qualification for crossing which is up to the leader to decide, which in practical terms is no different from what happens in parties that don't pretent to disallow crossing. In other words, floor crossing isn't allowed, except when it is. The Alberta NDP is trying to play both positions at the same time.


Well, Notley made this statement years before this event. How inconvenient for you. I guess that is the problem when people hold nuanced and complex positions in a bumper sticker world. Don't worry there are lots of right wing whackjobs and nutbars here who share your outrage. You are in fine company.

jjuares

Here are some of the comments Jansen has had to endure.

"You are both a disgrace to Alberta."
"Lying bitches."
"Now you have two blond bimbos in a party that is clueless."
"Another useless tit goes NDP."
"Dead meat."
"Sandra should stay in the kitchen, where she belongs."
"Fly with the crows and get shot."
"Dumb broad. A good place for her to be is with the rest of the queers."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/impassioned-sandra-jansen-calls-o...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Its interesting how active anti NDP thereads have become on tis site. Here is just one more example. Yet no outrage from all you NDP slaggers over Trudeau's neo-con economici agenda, Here you clowns, read and defend this, http://rozworski.org/political-eh-conomy/2016/11/07/trudeau-economic-model-not-good/ 

Your hypocritical silence in the face of Trudeau's neo-con austerity driven assult on all of us is deafening.

mark_alfred
Rev Pesky

jjuares wrote:
...Well, Notley made this statement years before this event. How inconvenient for you. I guess that is the problem when people hold nuanced and complex positions in a bumper sticker world. Don't worry there are lots of right wing whackjobs and nutbars here who share your outrage. You are in fine company.

In fact it was you who raised the statement by Notley, so if that statement is no longer operable, why did you raise it?

You mention that Sandra Jansen has been in the Alberta PC party for thirty years. That means she was in the party, and remained in the party, during the reign of Ralph Klein. Apparently his slashing and trashing of government services and workers wasn't a problem for her. When Jim Prentice accepted the mass floor crossing of the Wildrose Party, that too was acceptable to her. Even though one would have thought that was a pretty sharp turn, inviting into the party those who had left it because it was not right-wing enough for them. Did it not occur to her that there was a fundamental change in the party at that point? Apparently not.

As far as the comments others have made, and which Sandra Jansen recited in the legislature, they are despicable, but they couldn't possibly have influenced her decision to leave the party because they were comments made after she had crossed the floor. So no matter how despicable we find the comments to be, they are not part of this equation.

There appears to be a need on some peoples part to portray the Alberta PC party as some benign, semi-progressive political force that just lately has turned bad. That is just plain not true.

And whatever happened to Sandra Jansen, either before or after she left the PC's, is not the responsibility of the NDP. If Sandra Jansen was that enamoured of progressive politics she wouldn't have had to cross the floor, she would have already been on the NDP side.

jjuares

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:
...Well, Notley made this statement years before this event. How inconvenient for you. I guess that is the problem when people hold nuanced and complex positions in a bumper sticker world. Don't worry there are lots of right wing whackjobs and nutbars here who share your outrage. You are in fine company.

In fact it was you who raised the statement by Notley, so if that statement is no longer operable, why did you raise it?

You mention that Sandra Jansen has been in the Alberta PC party for thirty years. That means she was in the party, and remained in the party, during the reign of Ralph Klein. Apparently his slashing and trashing of government services and workers wasn't a problem for her. When Jim Prentice accepted the mass floor crossing of the Wildrose Party, that too was acceptable to her. Even though one would have thought that was a pretty sharp turn, inviting into the party those who had left it because it was not right-wing enough for them. Did it not occur to her that there was a fundamental change in the party at that point? Apparently not.

As far as the comments others have made, and which Sandra Jansen recited in the legislature, they are despicable, but they couldn't possibly have influenced her decision to leave the party because they were comments made after she had crossed the floor. So no matter how despicable we find the comments to be, they are not part of this equation.

There appears to be a need on some peoples part to portray the Alberta PC party as some benign, semi-progressive political force that just lately has turned bad. That is just plain not true.

And whatever happened to Sandra Jansen, either before or after she left the PC's, is not the responsibility of the NDP. If Sandra Jansen was that enamoured of progressive politics she wouldn't have had to cross the floor, she would have already been on the NDP side.


The statement is operable. That is the point. Years before Jansen's move she set the exception. Yes, those comments came after the crossing. However, the PC party is investigating the harassment she says she endured BEFORE she left the party. She also talked about the extreme dog whistle politics that was occurring BEFORE she left the party. Incidentally the other female candidate also dropped out publicly worrying about the rightward drift of the party. Now as for slash and burn, my family was in Saskatchewan during one period of cutbacks and oh that was when Romanow was premier. You might want to ask some workers in Ontario about Rae days. So if you think that the NDP has some pure record in this area , think again. As for Smith's defection to the PC's she said she was frustrated with the social conservatism of the WR. But of course any woman who claims that she was harassed and subject to mysogyny is always going to have her motives challenged. And maybe you are one of these individuals. I don't know. You seem determined to doubt everything else about her.

Mighty Middle

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Its interesting how active anti NDP thereads have become on tis site. Here is just one more example. Yet no outrage from all you NDP slaggers over Trudeau's neo-con economici agenda, Here you clowns, read and defend this, http://rozworski.org/political-eh-conomy/2016/11/07/trudeau-economic-model-not-good/ 

Your hypocritical silence in the face of Trudeau's neo-con austerity driven assult on all of us is deafening.

The problem is that the NDP has made floor crossing one of their signature issues (both on the fed & prov level) saying this is an abuse of democracy.

I can understand their anger when an NDPer crosses the floor to the Liberals. But when a Liberal crosses to the Conservatives or vice-versa, they get all hot and bothered about it and it is not even their party that was affected! On both levels of governemnt the NDP have introduced private member bills to outlaw floor crossing (one bill which passed in Manitoba).

So if the NDP didn't make floor crossing a signature issue, I'd agree with you. But the party has made it a signature issue, which is why this is taking up so much oxygen.

But as I said earlier if  you are flexible about floor crossing under certain circumstances, more power to you!

Stockholm

The federal NDP made a big deal about anti-floor crossing legislation. Some provincial NDPs have adopted that policy some have not. the Alberta NDP has no policy against floor crossing.

Similarly, the federal NDP has made electoral reform/proportional representation a "signature issue" but this has not been adopted by most provincial affiliates of the NDP and therefore you see no move by the Alberta NDP to change to PR in Alberta - nor did you see that in Manitoba or Nova Scotia.

Canada is a federal country and provincial wings of parties don't always see eye to eye,

 

Mighty Middle

Stockholm wrote:

The federal NDP made a big deal about anti-floor crossing legislation. Some provincial NDPs have adopted that policy some have not. the Alberta NDP has no policy against floor crossing.

Except there is video of Rachel Notley saying floor crossing is a betrayal to the voters. But again if you are flexible about floor crossing, more power to you.

BTW there is only one recorded case of the NDP accepting a floor crosser in the 1980s. Robert Toupin - Quebec PC MP for Terrebonne, switched to NDP in 1986

 

Caissa

There will not be any floor crossing after the revolution.Wink

sherpa-finn

brookmere wrote: I wonder what the reaction would be to a member of the Federal NDP caucus jumping to the Liberals because they didn't like the way the leadership campaign was going.

Can't imagine that ever happening.  

Oh, yeah -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazen_Argue

jjuares

Stockholm wrote:

The federal NDP made a big deal about anti-floor crossing legislation. Some provincial NDPs have adopted that policy some have not. the Alberta NDP has no policy against floor crossing.

Similarly, the federal NDP has made electoral reform/proportional representation a "signature issue" but this has not been adopted by most provincial affiliates of the NDP and therefore you see no move by the Alberta NDP to change to PR in Alberta - nor did you see that in Manitoba or Nova Scotia.

Canada is a federal country and provincial wings of parties don't always see eye to eye,

 


Exactly. All this blather about the federal NDP is irrelevant. In 2014 Notley outlined that floor crossing would be justified if the party was changing. Jansen and others have talked about how the so-cons are taking over the PC's. Some have pointed out this is a loophole. Sure, but it is a loophole thst fits. End of story for goodness sakes.
"The dog-whistle politics that I heard at the PC policy conference (earlier this month) were chilling to me: eroding public education, taking away women's reproductive rights and trying to out gay kids in schools."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/17/sandra-jansen-alberta-ndp_n_1305...

6079_Smith_W

One the one hand, I do think there is a precedent for her sitting as an independent, and that was my opinion right up until I heard what Jansen said in the legislature yesterday.

This is hardly your standard opportunistic floor crossing, since she was personally attacked and driven out of the party. If these are the kinds of tactics that are going to be used by the group determined to take over the conservatives, I think it is not out of order for the NDP to make an exception to the rule  and take Jansen in. It is drawing a line of common decency, which cuts through all political parties here.

The voters will decide, after all.

 

jjuares

So in the space of over a little of a year the new government here has brought in a carbon tax, started phasing in the elimination of coal plants, brought in worker safety legislation, a minimum wage, closed a large private school and many other pieces of legislation all the time dealing with one of the stiffest recessions AB ever faced. The head winds have been tremendous and this government has faced all sorts of crap. Including some real ugly stuff thrown at the premier. And how do posters on this progressive site react? They simply repeat the talking points of the right wing loons attacking the government. Notley has been clear in the past about when she thought floor crossing was justified and any fair minded person would acknowledge that the circumstances here would match that criterion. But not the whackjobs on the right or posters at Babble. I know which side I am on.

Rev Pesky

jjuares wrote:
...The statement is operable. That is the point. Years before Jansen's move she set the exception. Yes, those comments came after the crossing. However, the PC party is investigating the harassment she says she endured BEFORE she left the party. She also talked about the extreme dog whistle politics that was occurring BEFORE she left the party. Incidentally the other female candidate also dropped out publicly worrying about the rightward drift of the party.

The Alberta PC party is a right-wing political party, and always has been a right-wing political party.

jjuares wrote:
...Now as for slash and burn, my family was in Saskatchewan during one period of cutbacks and oh that was when Romanow was premier. You might want to ask some workers in Ontario about Rae days. So if you think that the NDP has some pure record in this area , think again.

If you can find someplace where I've said the NDP has a pure record, please bring it forward. I won't be holding my breath. What I said is that Sandra Jansen was a member of the Alberta PC party when Ralph Klein was it's leader and premier, and his slash and burn government didn't cause Sandra Jansen to leave the party. She was also a party member at the time of the mass floor crossing of Wildrose, which again, despite the obvious swing to the right, didn't seem to affect Jansen. Which leads us to:

 

jjuares wrote:
...As for Smith's defection to the PC's she said she was frustrated with the social conservatism of the WR. But of course any woman who claims that she was harassed and subject to mysogyny is always going to have her motives challenged. And maybe you are one of these individuals. I don't know. You seem determined to doubt everything else about her.

Danielle Smith was the longest serving leader of Wildrose, and was the leader of the party at the time of the floor crossing. Whatever the party was, or wasn't, could be laid directly at her door.

This is almost amusing. On the one hand you claim the possible leadership of Jason Kenney is driving the Alberta PC party to the extreme right, while you claim that actual leadership of Danilelle Smith was unable to control the drift of Wildrose to the right.

Just to be clear, if Danielle Smith was in fact distressed with the direction of Wildrose, the proper thing to do is to resign the leadership. The fact is, she remained the leader right up until the moment she appeared with Jim Prentice at a news conference after crossing the floor. What did Prentice offer Smith in order to effect the floor-crossing? No one knows, but we do know that Sandra Jansen was not distressed, because if she had been, she would have resigned at that point.

And what do I doubt about Sandra Jansen? I doubt she's a progressive who, unbeknownst to herself, ended up being a thirty-year member of a right-wing big business party. You seem to believe there was some golden age of the Alberta PC party wherein they were the voice of reason and enlightenment, bringing real power to the people, and that somehow they've lost their way, causing Sandra Jansen to suddenly realize the error she has made in supporting the party for the last thirty years.

You're welome to believe that. I don't.

jjuares

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:
...The statement is operable. That is the point. Years before Jansen's move she set the exception. Yes, those comments came after the crossing. However, the PC party is investigating the harassment she says she endured BEFORE she left the party. She also talked about the extreme dog whistle politics that was occurring BEFORE she left the party. Incidentally the other female candidate also dropped out publicly worrying about the rightward drift of the party.

The Alberta PC party is a right-wing political party, and always has been a right-wing political party.

jjuares wrote:
...Now as for slash and burn, my family was in Saskatchewan during one period of cutbacks and oh that was when Romanow was premier. You might want to ask some workers in Ontario about Rae days. So if you think that the NDP has some pure record in this area , think again.

If you can find someplace where I've said the NDP has a pure record, please bring it forward. I won't be holding my breath. What I said is that Sandra Jansen was a member of the Alberta PC party when Ralph Klein was it's leader and premier, and his slash and burn government didn't cause Sandra Jansen to leave the party. She was also a party member at the time of the mass floor crossing of Wildrose, which again, despite the obvious swing to the right, didn't seem to affect Jansen. Which leads us to:

 

jjuares wrote:
...As for Smith's defection to the PC's she said she was frustrated with the social conservatism of the WR. But of course any woman who claims that she was harassed and subject to mysogyny is always going to have her motives challenged. And maybe you are one of these individuals. I don't know. You seem determined to doubt everything else about her.

Danielle Smith was the longest serving leader of Wildrose, and was the leader of the party at the time of the floor crossing. Whatever the party was, or wasn't, could be laid directly at her door.

This is almost amusing. On the one hand you claim the possible leadership of Jason Kenney is driving the Alberta PC party to the extreme right, while you claim that actual leadership of Danilelle Smith was unable to control the drift of Wildrose to the right.

Just to be clear, if Danielle Smith was in fact distressed with the direction of Wildrose, the proper thing to do is to resign the leadership. The fact is, she remained the leader right up until the moment she appeared with Jim Prentice at a news conference after crossing the floor. What did Prentice offer Smith in order to effect the floor-crossing? No one knows, but we do know that Sandra Jansen was not distressed, because if she had been, she would have resigned at that point.

And what do I doubt about Sandra Jansen? I doubt she's a progressive who, unbeknownst to herself, ended up being a thirty-year member of a right-wing big business party. You seem to believe there was some golden age of the Alberta PC party wherein they were the voice of reason and enlightenment, bringing real power to the people, and that somehow they've lost their way, causing Sandra Jansen to suddenly realize the error she has made in supporting the party for the last thirty years.

You're welome to believe that. I don't.


Well, I was a member of the NDP when he was slashing and I didn't leave the party either. Personal loyalties and connections and a history in the party kept me there. May be leaving as a protest if nothing else would have been the best course but like most people I operate from a mixture of motives, concerns and emotions. But I cant speak for Jansen obviously but I do know life long committments are rarely jettisoned as easily as you suggest. And yes, the PC's are a right wing business party but the emphasis should be on business not social policy. Like I said my MLA was pro- reproductive rights and pro- gay rights. This is typical of the PC's. Prentice while a MP voted for the act legalizing same sex marriage. He described himself as a Red Tory. Lougheed when he came to power passed bills against decrimination so there is legacy of less than right wing social policy in the PC's. In education AB had the most progressive curriculum in Canada, emphasizing new methodolgies etc. The PC's are now going to walk all that back. As you said they are a right wing business party, much like the federal Liberals, on social policy they can be alright but when it comes to economic policy they represent the 1% and nobody else.
Actually you were the one focussing onleadership. I pointed out that parties also have cultures and that Kenney was as much a reflection of the right wing drive as a cause. If Kenney loses the PC's may remain but they will be much further to the right on social policy than they have ever been. You kept saying that the party couldn't have a direction because they had an interim leader. I was the one who pointed out that was only one factor and indeed party culture trumps leadership and policy in my view. And of course Jansen seems to share that view as she complained about the tenor and tone of the party. Now, her view which I share, may be wrong but one would be expect her actions to reflect that view. And may be that explains why I didn't leave the NDP when I objected to their policy. Again with Smith you focus on leadership and nothing else claiming everything in that party could be laid at her door. Well in the convention she strongly backed an anti- discrimination resolution which the WR party defeated. A month later she left the party citing this as one of the reasons. Was her defection opoortunism? Absolutely. But it was also opportunism that made her realize that bigotry was not the vehicle to power. She also happens to be a libertarian who doesn't believe in discrimination. During the 2012 election for opportunistic and political reasons she had to defend some bigoted comments by her candidates. So when she jumped ship she fulffiled personal ambition and at the same time found herself in a better ideological home. You seem to believe that people have one motive and it is simple either/or. You have an interim leader you have no direction. You have a permanent leader you have direction. You jump to another party it has to be simp,e opportunism and nothing else. I guess I see more complexity in people's and organization's motives and behaviour. Sorry, for the long reply but I am trying to end this conversation. You and I have profoundly different world views.

Rev Pesky

Long reply or no, it's all quite simple. You suggested the NDP accepted Sandra Jansen into the party because, according to Rachel Notley, it was okay to accept a floor crosser if they left their party because of a profound change in the party. You were backed into this position when it was shown the NDP previously had denounced floor crossing.

All I've said is that there has not been a profound change in the PC party, at least, not  between the last election and now. In order to make your case you have to imagine the Alberta PC party as a party that had a golden age of progressivism, which suddenly came to an end after this last election. Because if it wasn't that way, you couldn't justify the NDP accepting Sandra Jansen into the party without either a by-election, or having her sit as an independent until the next election.

I pointed to a way that the NDP could have suppported Sandra Jansen, and stayed true to their expressed beliefs, but that apparently is not enough for you. Well, that's too bad, but once you have compromised principles, you'll have a hard time pointing at others when they do the same. That is the heart of the matter. In the future, if there is a floor crossing, from any party to any other party, the NDP will have to hold their tongue. The stance they have taken this time has forced that on them for future events. A very short-sighted decision.

 

mark_alfred

6079_Smith_W wrote:

One the one hand, I do think there is a precedent for her sitting as an independent, and that was my opinion right up until I heard what Jansen said in the legislature yesterday.

This is hardly your standard opportunistic floor crossing, since she was personally attacked and driven out of the party. If these are the kinds of tactics that are going to be used by the group determined to take over the conservatives, I think it is not out of order for the NDP to make an exception to the rule  and take Jansen in. It is drawing a line of common decency, which cuts through all political parties here.

The voters will decide, after all.

Agreed.

jjuares

Rev Pesky wrote:

Long reply or no, it's all quite simple. You suggested the NDP accepted Sandra Jansen into the party because, according to Rachel Notley, it was okay to accept a floor crosser if they left their party because of a profound change in the party. You were backed into this position when it was shown the NDP previously had denounced floor crossing.

All I've said is that there has not been a profound change in the PC party, at least, not  between the last election and now. In order to make your case you have to imagine the Alberta PC party as a party that had a golden age of progressivism, which suddenly came to an end after this last election. Because if it wasn't that way, you couldn't justify the NDP accepting Sandra Jansen into the party without either a by-election, or having her sit as an independent until the next election.

I pointed to a way that the NDP could have suppported Sandra Jansen, and stayed true to their expressed beliefs, but that apparently is not enough for you. Well, that's too bad, but once you have compromised principles, you'll have a hard time pointing at others when they do the same. That is the heart of the matter. In the future, if there is a floor crossing, from any party to any other party, the NDP will have to hold their tongue. The stance they have taken this time has forced that on them for future events. A very short-sighted decision.

 


I didn't " back" into it at all. This is simply a falsehood. In post 118 I referenced Notley's video after viewing it for the first time. Ironically enoughit was posted by someone who was using it to support you and the right wingers in this province attacking her. Before thst my posts I was arguing it wouldn't affect the federal election results in 2019 as some claimed. After viewing it I saw it less as a political problem than before. I never imagined that the PC's had enacted a golden age of progressivism. Indeed i said thst they worked for the 1% and only the 1% economically. That might be the reason I worked for a quarter century try to get rid of them. You deliberately distorted my comments but I suppose when your arguments are falling apart like yours are you felt you had to resort to these tactics. You will have to pretend to ignore my activism because that reveals your statement to be the inanity it is. Oh, and just for the record on one occasion my job was threatened because I was working against the Tories. Now I find It interesting that you simply make arguments then drop them when they fail you. Case in point you first argued ( post 119) that the PC party couldn't be changing because they didn't have a leader. You repeatedthat assertion in subsequent posts. You seem to believe that simply repeating falsehoods make them more believable. Now of course that is a demonstrable falsehood. Their interim leader is Ric McIvor. When I pointed out the absurdity of your position that just because a party has an interim leader doesn't mean the culture and the tone of the can't change you simply dropped that as your main argument. ( I gave you the benefit of the doubt at the time believing that when you said that the party had no leader you probably meant it had only an interim leader. I can see now that my confidence in your understanding of politics was sadly misplaced. I apologize for that) Because of course I have been in organizations with temporary leaders that underwent huge changes as many others have. Now do you still believe that the PC party can't be changing because they don't have a leader?

quizzical

she has had to have a security team put in place now.

Trump supporting creeps.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Exactly. All this blather about the federal NDP is irrelevant. In 2014 Notley outlined that floor crossing would be justified if the party was changing.

No matter how bad the PCs have become now that Kenney is the new leader, and no matter whether this qualifies for Notley's "special exception" clause, it still remains that:

1.  how the NDP or any other party feels about an elected MP changing their party affiliation is not as important as how those voters who chose that candidate and their original party feel about it.

2.  the NDP "accepting" a floor-crosser is a matter of them saying "yes, we would welcome you" or "no thank-you, we don't really want you" -- this in no way precludes a by-election.  All it means -- or should -- is that the candidate is invited to run in that by-election with the official support of the NDP.

To put it very simply, the NDP could still welcome Jansen to join them, just as soon as her constituents also agree to that.  There's no need to pretend that Jansen is some kind of "refugee" from the hate and spite of Kenney and his cads, and Notley's humanitarian first task is to give her safe haven.

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Exactly. All this blather about the federal NDP is irrelevant. In 2014 Notley outlined that floor crossing would be justified if the party was changing.

No matter how bad the PCs have become now that Kenney is the new leader, and no matter whether this qualifies for Notley's "special exception" clause, it still remains that:

1.  how the NDP or any other party feels about an elected MP changing their party affiliation is not as important as how those voters who chose that candidate and their original party feel about it.

2.  the NDP "accepting" a floor-crosser is a matter of them saying "yes, we would welcome you" or "no thank-you, we don't really want you" -- this in no way precludes a by-election.  All it means -- or should -- is that the candidate is invited to run in that by-election with the official support of the NDP.

To put it very simply, the NDP could still welcome Jansen to join them, just as soon as her constituents also agree to that.  There's no need to pretend that Jansen is some kind of "refugee" from the hate and spite of Kenney and his cads, and Notley's humanitarian first task is to give her safe haven.


Yes, they could have done a byelection and maybe they should have but my sole point was taking Jansen in was not incompatible with Notley said in 2014. She gave herself an out and she took it. Whether this was a wise course of action is another argument.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

1.  how the NDP or any other party feels about an elected MP changing their party affiliation....

Has Jansen taken out an NDP membership? I don't think she needs one to sit with the government caucus.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:
One the one hand, I do think there is a precedent for her sitting as an independent, and that was my opinion right up until I heard what Jansen said in the legislature yesterday.

This is hardly your standard opportunistic floor crossing, since she was personally attacked and driven out of the party. If these are the kinds of tactics that are going to be used by the group determined to take over the conservatives, I think it is not out of order for the NDP to make an exception to the rule  and take Jansen in. It is drawing a line of common decency, which cuts through all political parties here.

The voters will decide, after all.

Agreed.

yup

Caissa

The Revolution will be won in the Alberta legislature.

Sean in Ottawa

This might be a good place to make a few observations:

- the NDP can sometimes be wrong. We should be able to discuss this as with any other party without getting in to calls of betrayal. We should also discuss this without demonizing the NDP for being incorrect. Policies evolve and they should. The extreme defence or attack by/on a party is in the way of this evolution.

- the evolution should be logical and with explanation. If it is merely self-serving that would be obvious.

- sometimes with direct experience you can realize that something was wrong and often this will happen when your own interest makes you see something you might otherwise have not seen. This is not something to merely label as hypocritical but a necessary part of experience. This is why there is a difference between those who experience something and those who merely have information of it. Surely we are not incapable of seeing this here?

- positions can be found and held for different reasons and it is not unreasonable to consider these with understanding before admitting they were incorrect.

-sometimes the political strategists in any party come up with spin that is attractive in the short term but not well founded. Attacking other parties strongly at times will carry risk. Ethical thought rater than pure partisanship ought to prevail and it often does not  -- in any party. There is a cultural problem here.

So in this case we have a good example that tests the inflexible position on floor crossing the NDP has taken federally. With that position either we have to say the Federal NDP is wrong to have taken this position or the Alberta NDP is wrong. There reeally is little option here.

People elect members in order to empower them; we respect the knowledge of their party and expect that to be informative but sometimes things change, As Mark and others point out that can mean that the calculation for the member's association could radically change.An inability to change parties may not be a power we should deny individual members.

What this example is explaining is that the federal NDP position is perhaps not correct.

There is no replacing ethics with hard rules. Floor crossing is often unethical but so too may be an absolute prohibition on it.

A catch all prohibition sounds like a good sound-bite but it is not as effective as having to engage either for or against a specific example.

The NDP is now in this position having used the rhetoric of absolutes asking for a specific case. It would be a good idea to remember this and not debate in a lazy way (going for absolutes) the next time there is a point to be made that may be correct in that situation. As well when you use an unreasonable absolute not only do you block an example that is worthy but you also risk being unable to respond to a specific case that is particularly bad with anything other than platitudes.

I don't really care for the other parties in this. But fro the NDP there are some lessons in when you set absolutes and how to respond to things that ought not to be seen in that way.

(Yes I get the federal provincial difference but it is the same people defending both -- or trying to. It would have been easier if the federal party had responded to previous examples in a less absolute manner.)

Full disclosure: I have been all over the road on this. Don't bother looking to find me hypocritical, I will save you the trouble. Learning is good.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So in this case we have a good example that tests the inflexible position on floor crossing the NDP has taken federally. With that position either we have to say the Federal NDP is wrong to have taken this position or the Alberta NDP is wrong. There reeally is little option here.

Which is the reason why I opened up this thread in the Canada section. This affects all of the NDP across Canada. As evienced by the response here, people do have an opinion on floor crossing & whether the NDP needs to be more flexible in their position or not.

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So in this case we have a good example that tests the inflexible position on floor crossing the NDP has taken federally. With that position either we have to say the Federal NDP is wrong to have taken this position or the Alberta NDP is wrong. There reeally is little option here.

 

I prefer to think this illustrates that they can both be right, depending on circumstances. And again, it won't be our little debating club which settles the score, but the people of Alberta. And in this case it  is going to influence people in both directions, so there really is not one right answer.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So in this case we have a good example that tests the inflexible position on floor crossing the NDP has taken federally. With that position either we have to say the Federal NDP is wrong to have taken this position or the Alberta NDP is wrong. There reeally is little option here.

 

I prefer to think this illustrates that they can both be right, depending on circumstances. And again, it won't be our little debating club which settles the score, but the people of Alberta. And in this case it  is going to influence people in both directions, so there really is not one right answer.

Sorry I don't understand the point of your post.

The federal NDP says no never and this is an example of sometimes. You can't have both be right.

I think this illustrates why an absolute ban is not correct.

I don't see this as settling a score although that would be what the people of Alberta may do. Here we could respond based on some reflection if we wanted to. There they will certainly line up based on partisanship given the charged atmosphere of politics.

Anyone outside the NDP will be more likely to just conclude the NDP is being hypocritical.

So here I think we could look at it in a different way.

I would agree if what you are getting at is that it should be truly exceptional and based on a particular set of circumstances. The thing is I think it might be difficult to see those from the other side of them. So that is why I said that with full understanding of the federal position -- it is too absolute and that the Alberta NDP is not wrong. Iy would be good if the federal NDP were less absolute next time this comes up explaining the specific circumstances rather than a general rule that would make it right or wrong.

Pages