Official Rabble Floor Crossing Thread

293 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

It is really quite simple Sean. There can be exceptions to rules, based on circumstances. And it is not "either or" because people are reacting in different ways to this. And us getting theoretical and technical about it is far from the whole story.

What matters is two things: whether the government was justified in taking this action, and how the people will respond - and I don't just mean in the next election.

As for what anyone outside the NDP is likely to conclude, you might also want to consider how those people are going to react to what happened in the PC party that led to her departure in the first place. That really is the bigger breach, and the bigger story, IMO.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

As I noted above, if an MP or MPP feels disillusioned with their party-of-choice, and wishes to cross the floor to another, that other party is free to say "we welcome you, but you'll need the approval of the voters you represent."

Is there really some bona fide situation where the interests of those voters are less important than the interests of the party that stands to gain a free seat?

Or else why not the by-election?  If the voters who chose Jansen and the PC Party agree that the PC Party is out to lunch now, that by-election shouldn't be an impediment to her jumping under the NDP flag.  But what's the special case that makes those voters' opinion irrelevant?  Even if the answer is "well, Jason Kenney's leadership, obviously!" then can't the voters say so at the polls, if that's the case?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Assuming that some of them did vote for the party rather than their candidate how do you think they'd feel about that party harrassing their elected representative and interfering with her leadership campaign?

Wouldn't a by-election be the perfect way to ask them? 

6079_Smith_W

I think we all understand that potential conflict, Magoo.

Potential because it isn't clear whether this is setting the interests of the voters below other concerns.

Assuming that some of them did vote for the party rather than their candidate how do you think they'd feel about that party harrassing their elected representative and interfering with her leadership campaign?

Me neither. And the fact is I agreed with your position until I heard what was said about her after the defection.

Do you know how many of them supported their party taking in nine party jumpers from the Wildrose - making them the majority of their caucus?

Me neither.

Do you know how many of them would prefer she sit as an independent, with no party affiliation, or resign?

Me neither.

In any case, I am sure we'll get some idea of how they feel at the end of January, when Calgary Northwest selects delegates for the party leadership campaign.

As for the party, there is this process:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-pc-party-harassment-intimi...

But given the Harperite campaign to take over the party, dissolve it, and merge with Wildrose, I think Jansen's actions, and those of the Alberta NDP are a fair gamble. After all, that party vote you are so concerned about is already up in the air. Question is, how many of the voters in Calgary NW prefer to move toward the NDP, or toward Wildrose?

 

6079_Smith_W

Well Magoo, clearly that is not going to happen.

 

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is really quite simple Sean. There can be exceptions to rules, based on circumstances. And it is not "either or" because people are reacting in different ways to this. And us getting theoretical and technical about it is far from the whole story.

What matters is two things: whether the government was justified in taking this action, and how the people will respond - and I don't just mean in the next election.

As for what anyone outside the NDP is likely to conclude, you might also want to consider how those people are going to react to what happened in the PC party that led to her departure in the first place. That really is the bigger breach, and the bigger story, IMO.

 

I disagree with you. The point made is that the NDP has said no exceptions in the past and I think that is the mistake. This is clearly a good example of an exception.

My point is that it is imoprtant not to speak so categorically at times. That is one lesson here.

As for the bigger story being in the PC party and the takeover there -- merely to destroy it --I agree with you. However this component will come up everytime the NDP speaks about floor crossings.

It is a good idea not to speak universally if ever you could face an exception. Also by avoiding this you an make better specific arguments and even contemplate a test.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well Magoo, clearly that is not going to happen.

Perhaps not. But does that mean we shouldn't stop asking for it to?

It's just not clear to me how this is a matter between Jansen and the NDP, and the electorate should just zip it.

Sean in Ottawa

It is complicated by the fact that the party she got elected with may not context the next election.

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I disagree with you. The point made is that the NDP has said no exceptions in the past and I think that is the mistake. This is clearly a good example of an exception.

Well the party made that decision at the federal level.

As we have seen, the premier of Alberta can follow, or not follow that decision.

In any case, I seriously doubt banging on Tom Mulcair's door demanding he straighten out the policy is her first priority in this situation.

Perhaps you think that aspect of this is important to what is going on in Alberta. I don't in the least. I don't even think it necessarily has to be changed, because unless these resolutions are binding of course politicians have the option of doing what seems the best course at the time.

 

jjuares

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I disagree with you. The point made is that the NDP has said no exceptions in the past and I think that is the mistake. This is clearly a good example of an exception.

Well the party made that decision at the federal level.

As we have seen, the premier of Alberta can follow, or not follow that decision.

In any case, I seriously doubt banging on Tom Mulcair's door demanding he straighten out the policy is her first priority in this situation.

Perhaps you think that aspect of this is important to what is going on in Alberta. I don't in the least. I don't even think it necessarily has to be changed, because unless these resolutions are binding of course politicians have the option of doing what seems the best course at the time.

 


Actually the Alberta NDP has never said floor crossers are wrong all the time. Notley made a statement in 2014 saying when the exceptions applied. We discussed that above. Maybe this exception applied maybe it didn't. That can be argued either way as did I and some people who disagreed with me. But the focus was on if the the exception applied or not.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Didn't the BCNDP take Gordon Wilson without making him face a byelection?

I'm just not clear on the idea that it's just fine for the party to abandon most of its core values when in government and become, in effect, just another party of the right wing austerity consensus(no one can seriously dispute the observation that Harcourt, Romanow, Selinger and Dexter were, for all practical purposes Tory premiers in terms of their actual policies)but taking a floor crosser without a byelection is somehow an intolerable betrayal.

Why make such a big deal out of a tradition that is, in and of itself, virtually meaningless?  That has nothing at all to do with whether the NDP is ever going to be a party that addresses real issues in a meaningful and transformative way?

I compare this, more than anything else, to the Australian Labor Party's commitment to replacing the Queen with an elected ceremonial president as Australia's head of state-it sounds like something but isn't actually anything.

6079_Smith_W

I didn't want to get into that distinction because it is all one party. But yes, clearly how things are federally are not necessarily the same as they may be at the provincial level.

 

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

Didn't the BCNDP take Gordon Wilson without making him face a byelection?

That was under the leadsership of then NDP premier Glen Clark

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I disagree with you. The point made is that the NDP has said no exceptions in the past and I think that is the mistake. This is clearly a good example of an exception.

Well the party made that decision at the federal level.

As we have seen, the premier of Alberta can follow, or not follow that decision.

In any case, I seriously doubt banging on Tom Mulcair's door demanding he straighten out the policy is her first priority in this situation.

Perhaps you think that aspect of this is important to what is going on in Alberta. I don't in the least. I don't even think it necessarily has to be changed, because unless these resolutions are binding of course politicians have the option of doing what seems the best course at the time.

I find your reaction overly defensive and rather strange.

This is a place to discuss ideas, policy. To say well don't talk about it because it is not in the mandate or they won't do it or it must be some practical immediate prescription sounds frankly silly to me. It is not as if you do not tilt at your own windmills from time to time.

I did not say this was a particularly urgent thing we need to change. I framed it as a general lesson in not speaking in absolutes when you do not need to.

You can draw any lines you feel like between jurisdictions but they won't matter either. This creates a predictable political problem and both provincial and federal parties will pay for that. Don't bother saying that the poeple won't care -- it will get used.

So you do not need to lecture me on what you think matters in Alberta or not. I already said the government of Alberta seems to be doing the right thing. I also did not suggest banging on Mulcair's door for anything here. So please put away your little straw men.

This is a political issue affecting at least to some degree both federal and provincial parties; it was avoidable and the prescription is far more general than you are making it out to be: use absolutes less often.

Now why don't you consider what is being said rather than just trying to write how much you know better.

6079_Smith_W

Oh for heaven's sake Sean. Knock yourself out if this is the burning issue you take from this.

All I am saying is that whatever they agreed to at the federal level has little bearing on what has happened in Alberta. I doubt they even saw this coming when they framed it as an absolute.

You have a problem with that? I don't, because under normal circumstances I see it as a good principle. But the fact is Ravignat and Stoffer's bill did not pass. And in case you think it is a mystery or an overly-dogmatic approach, that probably has more to do with why they used the language they did.

So if you want to use this as a foil I'd say you might want to consider that context.

But yes, the bottom line is your concerns are actually irrelevant to the situation in Alberta, and your taking this personally is, well just that. You'll excuse me if I leave that ball bouncing in your court.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As we have seen, the premier of Alberta can follow, or not follow that decision.

Often, you can tell that a discussion has become a partisan war of attrition when you read opinions like "well, technically, if we interpret that clause in the Party Constitution narrowly then there is no onus on...." or whatever, rather than just "OK, here's what the Party should have done."

And the Party really should have consulted the electors.  Someone give us a good reason why the Party couldn't or shouldn't have done this.  A reason that's not based on opportunistic strategy, a right-wing appeal to save money, or a reluctantly pragmatic belief that the NDP needs to start pulling the same unethical shit as other parties if they want to survive.

6079_Smith_W

"Partisan war of attrition"?

Just so we are up to speed on Sean's point, he thought the party was wrong for being absolutely opposed to floor crossing. I don't disagree. I just don't think it is a big deal because their motive probably had more to do with the legislation they wanted to pass.

And on the other point, you should probably write Rachel Notley, not me.

 

jjuares

The media has speculated that Notley wants her for the cabinet. If that is true Jansen could have sat as an independent and still be made a cabinet minister. Ronanow did something similar with two Liberal MLA's, although I believe they still called themselves Liberals.

quizzical

it's not a right wing appeal to save money unless right wing now means those with common sense.

6079_Smith_W

And if we are going to go second-guessing motive, how much of this was honest regret for a two-year-old floor crossing, and how much is timed to get people to support the Harperite takeover of the Conservative Party, and the hostile takeover of the Wildrose Party?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rob-anderson-wildrose-apology-1.38...

And he addresses Jansen and her decision.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

"Partisan war of attrition"?

Just so we are up to speed on Sean's point, he thought the party was wrong for being absolutely opposed to floor crossing. I don't disagree. I just don't think it is a big deal because their motive probably had more to do with the legislation they wanted to pass.

And on the other point, you should probably write Rachel Notley, not me.

 

Thank for not arguing with me AND deciding to explain my points. Clearly if we are not agreeing then you are not the person to speak for me.

My point was that there is a political problem for the public squaring these positions and that it was fairly predictable and the we should avoid speaking in absolutes if they are not needed. What made the floor crossings wrong the NDP federally complained about was not floor crossing in general but the particular circumstances.

My post was just a general thought on absolutes blown out of proportion by the lecture that this was not applicable to Alberta even though I never said they did anything wrong.

As for particular legislation you don't need absolute rhetoric on an individual case to be extreme as it was to propose legislation. The extra strong language may in fact have hurt the proposal more than it helped.

All that said, the prohibition on floor crossing, as has been pointed out, does in fact reduce a power individual MPs have to the benefit of parties. I am not sure that this is a good thing when I think about it that way. That too, may apply to Alberta especially as parties are being redefined there and we can see a lot of abuse to this Member occurred.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh for heaven's sake Sean. Knock yourself out if this is the burning issue you take from this.

All I am saying is that whatever they agreed to at the federal level has little bearing on what has happened in Alberta. I doubt they even saw this coming when they framed it as an absolute.

You have a problem with that? I don't, because under normal circumstances I see it as a good principle. But the fact is Ravignat and Stoffer's bill did not pass. And in case you think it is a mystery or an overly-dogmatic approach, that probably has more to do with why they used the language they did.

So if you want to use this as a foil I'd say you might want to consider that context.

But yes, the bottom line is your concerns are actually irrelevant to the situation in Alberta, and your taking this personally is, well just that. You'll excuse me if I leave that ball bouncing in your court.

 

No I made a general comment using the example about overly absolute statements and you did your usual twisty crap in order to make a non point.

Your argument that what we say here is not relevant can be applied to every one of your posts equally. Your snipping and sniping is tiresome and I responded. No, it was not personal but I was irritated by your lecture again about how you know better about what is happening here and there and everywhere and whatever anyone else says is not relevant.

My point was so general that in fact it is relevant: to avoid absolutes as they bite you back.

I don't give a shit if you think this general comment does not apply to Alberta. Really I don't.

I think it actually applies beyond the rhealm of politics or any small little point you want to make that suggests your greatness and wisdom.

I have said several times that I was not suggesting anything different from Alberta and did not think they did anything wrong. You drone on that what I have to say is irrelevant to Alberta. Who cares since I did not suggest they did anything wrong? Just noting how much you think you know better is the only point relevant to Alberta to be found here.

As for the NDP in Ottawa, I was not against the complaints they made -- just that I think that they should avoid absolutes when possible as this is a case in point.

So the trhing I have a problem with is your completely non-substantive show-offy arguments that have nothing to do with what someone says designed only to point out that you think you know best. Save it. I already know that you think you know best.

Now for all the crap you have written about my post I still don't know if you actually have a position on the issue of the overuse of absolutes in political pronouncements. That was the point I made that had to be wrapped around your lecture that you know AB politics batter than I do and needed somehow to remind me of that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Didn't the BCNDP take Gordon Wilson without making him face a byelection?

That was under the leadsership of then NDP premier Glen Clark

Agreed-although I'm not sure why that matters.  I still don't see why the floorcrossing thing is a line in the sand when the party's actual principles have been diluted down to near-nothingness.  A balanced-budget fetish, no nationalization or even encouragement of the formation of co-operatives, no interest whatsoever in encouraging the revival of the labour movement, a foreign policy just as hawkish as that of the Libs and Cons...all of that is just fine, but floorcrossers having to face byelections is Holy Writ? 

Does anybody else find the fixation on the floorcrossing question strange, given the party hierarchy's willingness to make the NDP as indistinguishable from the "old parties" as possible?

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Didn't the BCNDP take Gordon Wilson without making him face a byelection?

That was under the leadsership of then NDP premier Glen Clark

Agreed-although I'm not sure why that matters.  I still don't see why the floorcrossing thing is a line in the sand when the party's actual principles have been diluted down to near-nothingness.  A balanced-budget fetish, no nationalization or even encouragement of the formation of co-operatives, no interest whatsoever in encouraging the revival of the labour movement, a foreign policy just as hawkish as that of the Libs and Cons...all of that is just fine, but floorcrossers having to face byelections is Holy Writ? 

Does anybody else find the fixation on the floorcrossing question strange, given the party hierarchy's willingness to make the NDP as indistinguishable from the "old parties" as possible?

I think it is a minor issue when it comes to substance. It is a more significant political issue and really only becuase of the comments made previously that were too absolute. This is why I raised this as a general thing about being unnecessarily absolute. It would not be the first time that this has been done in politics when something clearly wrong for many reasons was responded to with a more simple absolute statement that then becomes hypocritical when an entirely different circumstance  comes up. In the big picture this is not a huge deal but it can contribute to one of those death of many cuts situations.

At the momemnt this is the least of the NDP's problems and it will pass. So to of course will Trudeau's popularity and the low depths the NDP is currently at. The larger issues will ahve to be attended to but there is no reason we would not comment on these smaller things.

I also think that the NDP often has a rhetorical tendency to hyperbole at moments and I see this kind of absolute type of thing feed into that and it does blow back on the NDP. So while this issue in itself is not big federally, the need to be careful in what you are going to demonize in absolute terms as a general habit should be improved.

Provincially this is a not a big story even if some there will choose to make it one. It would be more of a symptom of problems then anything significant. My sense of the situation in Alberta is that this will come down to how the provincial economy performs. Notley's problems will grow smaller if the economy improves. She has a challenge with the politcal culture there but she is a person I think they can respect so long as the economy itself is not in the toilet. My guess is that her focus will remain on that as it is what will make a difference for her. It would not surpirse me if the economy improved before the next election there and she got re-elected. I would not be writing her off. People in Alberta can correct me if they think I am wrong but she does not look to me in a death spiral -- she has an economic crisis that will decide her fate and possibly enough time for that to improve.

On that front it would not suprise me to see the federal Liberals decide that she is the best they will get and do what they can to help her where possible. I don't think they see her as the enemy at all. The federal government could be motivated to be a little more Alberta friendly than usual -- the Conservatives could take them for granted Trudeau cannot. If he gets good advice he should want to consider policies that could help her. If she looses the next government there would give him a migraine.

quizzical

Ken Burch wrote:
A balanced-budget fetish, no nationalization or even encouragement of the formation of co-operatives, no interest whatsoever in encouraging the revival of the labour movement, a foreign policy just as hawkish as that of the Libs and Cons...all of that is just fine, but floorcrossers having to face byelections is Holy Writ? 

Does anybody else find the fixation on the floorcrossing question strange, given the party hierarchy's willingness to make the NDP as indistinguishable from the "old parties" as possible?

what does a "revival of the labour movement" look like?

BC Federation of Labour had a conference over the weekend and the membership is split on environment vs jobs.....

imv the NDP is really the "big tent" party. not the Liberals. they're just comprised of people with upper class mentality. (please view the dictionary  definition)

an aside* i would call it a syndrome at this point because it's causing them to cause harm to self. a good section of the Conservatives suffer from this too. i guess we can exclude the socons because they believe they're the best because they Believe.

because the NDP is actually the big tent party whose diverse activist supporters won't party together-right now at least- it's a bit dysfunctional. just like the BCfed. one faction wants to usurp the other factions and i guess they would rather destroy the party instead of using common sense to find a common vision from common ground.

i sat in on a anti-poverty meeting this morning spanning communities from the Boundary area near the US border to up here. we have common ground. my daughter went to a human trafficking presentation at the same time. we found these 2 issues have common ground.

people on the ground are building common ground while others play politics.

i guess i'm just starting to get it.

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Now for all the crap you have written about my post I still don't know if you actually have a position on the issue of the overuse of absolutes in political pronouncements.

Kind of depends on the specific issue, don't you think? And if it is overuse, do you have a list?

I mean, I hope you don't think it is too twisty, but I'd expect an absolute rule on a question like murdering fellow members of caucus. A question of when an appropriate time is to leave the chamber for a bathroom break would probably be a bit more conditional.

As for this specific policy, I explained in my second last post what I thought about it:

That the NDP likely used absolute terms in order to back up the 2011 private member's bill which would have imposed an absolute ban without a byelection. So it makes sense, to me anyway. If they had said floor crossing might be okay under certain circumstances it would probably have undermined their credibility when it came to the  bill they were trying to pass, no?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/floor-crossing-ban-proposed-by-ndp-bill-...

That they didn't foresee these circumstances in Alberta? I don't see any blame or fault there, and I don't actually see any problem or conflict at all. If the federal parliamentary caucus wants to go by that rule they can continue to do so. Like I said, under normal circumstances I don't think it is such a bad rule.

 

6079_Smith_W

And guess who's coming to Alberta, invited by the group which is trying to organize the shotgun wedding between the PCs and Wildrose:

Quote:

Kellyanne Conway, who served as campaign manager in Trump’s successful Republican presidential campaign and as the U.S. businessman’s top television surrogate, will be in Calgary early next year at the invitation of the Alberta Prosperity Fund, a conservative political action committee.

She will speak to Alberta business leaders at a private fundraising dinner on Jan. 12 and will also tour the oilsands.

Alberta Prosperity Fund president Barry McNamar said Tuesday the organization had a member assisting with the Trump campaign team, and the idea of Conway visiting came together recently.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/12452186/story.html

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
A balanced-budget fetish, no nationalization or even encouragement of the formation of co-operatives, no interest whatsoever in encouraging the revival of the labour movement, a foreign policy just as hawkish as that of the Libs and Cons...all of that is just fine, but floorcrossers having to face byelections is Holy Writ? 

Does anybody else find the fixation on the floorcrossing question strange, given the party hierarchy's willingness to make the NDP as indistinguishable from the "old parties" as possible?

what does a "revival of the labour movement" look like?

BC Federation of Labour had a conference over the weekend and the membership is split on environment vs jobs.....

imv the NDP is really the "big tent" party. not the Liberals. they're just comprised of people with upper class mentality. (please view the dictionary  definition)

an aside* i would call it a syndrome at this point because it's causing them to cause harm to self. a good section of the Conservatives suffer from this too. i guess we can exclude the socons because they believe they're the best because they Believe.

because the NDP is actually the big tent party whose diverse activist supporters won't party together-right now at least- it's a bit dysfunctional. just like the BCfed. one faction wants to usurp the other factions and i guess they would rather destroy the party instead of using common sense to find a common vision from common ground.

i sat in on a anti-poverty meeting this morning spanning communities from the Boundary area near the US border to up here. we have common ground. my daughter went to a human trafficking presentation at the same time. we found these 2 issues have common ground.

people on the ground are building common ground while others play politics.

i guess i'm just starting to get it.

 

 

 

 

It's always the people on the ground who end up taking the lead on that, isn't it?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
A balanced-budget fetish, no nationalization or even encouragement of the formation of co-operatives, no interest whatsoever in encouraging the revival of the labour movement, a foreign policy just as hawkish as that of the Libs and Cons...all of that is just fine, but floorcrossers having to face byelections is Holy Writ? 

Does anybody else find the fixation on the floorcrossing question strange, given the party hierarchy's willingness to make the NDP as indistinguishable from the "old parties" as possible?

what does a "revival of the labour movement" look like?

BC Federation of Labour had a conference over the weekend and the membership is split on environment vs jobs.....

imv the NDP is really the "big tent" party. not the Liberals. they're just comprised of people with upper class mentality. (please view the dictionary  definition)

an aside* i would call it a syndrome at this point because it's causing them to cause harm to self. a good section of the Conservatives suffer from this too. i guess we can exclude the socons because they believe they're the best because they Believe.

because the NDP is actually the big tent party whose diverse activist supporters won't party together-right now at least- it's a bit dysfunctional. just like the BCfed. one faction wants to usurp the other factions and i guess they would rather destroy the party instead of using common sense to find a common vision from common ground.

i sat in on a anti-poverty meeting this morning spanning communities from the Boundary area near the US border to up here. we have common ground. my daughter went to a human trafficking presentation at the same time. we found these 2 issues have common ground.

people on the ground are building common ground while others play politics.

i guess i'm just starting to get it.

 

 

 

 

It's always the people on the ground who end up taking the lead on that, isn't it?

NorthReport

BC Fed is comprised primarily of government employees including teachers.

With the BC NDP running against jobs it sure opens the door for Christy to pick up another dozen seats. 

quizzical wrote:

BC Federation of Labour had a conference over the weekend and the membership is split on environment vs jobs.....

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

imv the NDP is really the "big tent" party. not the Liberals. they're just comprised of people with upper class mentality. (please view the dictionary  definition)

A really good observation.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

BC Fed is comprised primarily of government employees including teachers.

With the BC NDP running against jobs it sure opens the door for Christy to pick up another dozen seats. 

quizzical wrote:

BC Federation of Labour had a conference over the weekend and the membership is split on environment vs jobs.....

This is not a new conflict in the BC NDP.

I don't think that destroying the environment is the only way to create jobs and I suspect the BC NDP feels the same way.

I also think that balance between regions is very important which is why if you expect one region to step back in order to create an environmental gain for the entire country then you ought to be prepared to assist in replacing the economic activity that would have been brought through the negative environmental process. This is one of the problems I have with LEAP as I understand it.

I also think that given we are using fossil fuels for a time it i fair to balance what are the least damaging ways rather than pretending we can stop cold. The argument of a pipeline vs rail is worth considering.

But in the end you have to consider the land you are crossing, the people who live there and what treaties are involved.

Solutions are not simple and I don't think most people here presume they are but a good many of the public think they are.

 

quizzical

i'm serious about what a "revival of the labour movement" looks like?

what does it mean?

how can you sell a vision if you don't know what the vision is?

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

quizzical wrote:

i'm serious about what a "revival of the labour movement" looks like?

Though the more immediate question in Alberta are what is going to happen to the centre - those Progressive Conservatives who are not inclined to go along with the takeover. Are they going to have the will or the numbers to stop Kenney? And if not will they support the NDP or the Liberals or just not vote?

And what is going to happen to Wildrose? Particularly those who may not be interested in being taken over by the same gang that sold out the Reform Party.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

BC Fed is comprised primarily of government employees including teachers.

With the BC NDP running against jobs it sure opens the door for Christy to pick up another dozen seats. 

quizzical wrote:

BC Federation of Labour had a conference over the weekend and the membership is split on environment vs jobs.....

Why do you assume the BCNDP is running AGAINST jobs? Do they have to be for more old-style extractive industry to prove they are for jobs?

It's not as though the official party position is "we want everyone to be on the dole", or something.

You've banged away at this "the issue of jobs" thing for years now, acting as if its something you and you alone care about.  None of us actually disagree with you, as far as I can see, on the importance of a full-employment economy. What, as you see it, would be a set of policies showing the federal NDP and BCNDP were FOR jobs? 

 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i'm serious about what a "revival of the labour movement" looks like?

Though the more immediate question in Alberta are what is going to happen to the centre - those Progressive Conservatives who are not inclined to go along with the takeover. Are they going to have the will or the numbers to stop Kenney? And if not will they support the NDP or the Liberals or just not vote?

And what is going to happen to Wildrose? Particularly those who may not be interested in being taken over by the same gang that sold out the Reform Party.

 

 

Looking at what has happened at the federal level and in neighbouring Saskatchewan, I think the Alberta PC's and Wildrose wil end up merging in time for the next election and this new right of centre party will unfortunately end up winning a huge FPTP phoney landslide majority in 2019 due to vote splitting between the NDP, Liberals, and Alberta Party. I wouldn't be surprised to see this right wing government facing a tiny opposition as has often happened in Alberta's history. If this is what ends up happening, politics in Alberta will return to the the way things were under the Socreds and the PC Party dating back to the mid 1930's. I think unfortunately the right knows how to play FPTP politics much better than the left does. Too bad Notley's NDP didn't undertake electoral reform. If they do end up back in opposition, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Alberta NDP once again supporting electoral reform when they once again have no power to implement it. :(

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(self-delete. dupe post).

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Notley's government still has time to implement a pr system before the next Alberta election.  And they have no reason not to do so.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

i'm serious about what a "revival of the labour movement" looks like?

what does it mean?

how can you sell a vision if you don't know what the vision is?

 

 

 

To me, it means:

1)A significant increase in organizing drives and in the number of workers with union representation;

2)A restoration of the influence the labour movement once had the political and economic decisions affecting us;

3)A more militant form of union activism that seeks not only to improve material conditions for wokring people and the ability of working  

   people to have a real say in the major collective decisions affecting their lives...ultimately, to give working people the major say in managing the workplaces they will spend most of their lives creating wealth in.

 

How's that, for openers?

6079_Smith_W

JKR wrote:

I think the Alberta PC's and Wildrose wil end up merging in time for the next election and this new right of centre party will unfortunately end up winning a huge FPTP phoney landslide majority in 2019 due to vote splitting between the NDP, Liberals, and Alberta Party.

But it wouldn't be phoney, and electoral reform wouldn't stop it. The NDP won majority rather than minority because of FPTP (though the difference wasn't as terribly far off as it is in many cases). And if the latest poll are accurate the NDP would suffer a terrible loss with proportional representation or FPTP, and even without the two other parties joining together.

Of course there are two years to go before that election, but although electoral reform is a good idea, it likely won't be what makes the difference.

And while looking at it as a numbers game there are good reasons for Wildrose and the PCs to join force, there are are also a lot of reasons for Wildrose to NOT do so. First of all, the leson of what happened to Reform, and the fact that despite recent poll numbers Wildrose have a good a shot at power on their own.

And the recent theft of their laptops, and (perhaps unrelated) poaching of their membership lists by the PCs probably won't make them any more interested.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/laptops-stolen-from-wildrose-offi...

 

quizzical

based on the expressions of what a 'revival of the labour movement" would look like i don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

millenials like my daughter wouldn't  buy into it. hell i don't.

makes me think of a bunch of men wanting the good old days back.

on the AB election. the NDP needs to go to the furtherest point on calling the election and keep up with what they're doing and increase the messaging on TV.

6079_Smith_W

Plus revival of the labour movement is not the same as building a progressive political movement, even though the two SHOULD be congruent.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

based on the expressions of what a 'revival of the labour movement" would look like i don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

millenials like my daughter wouldn't  buy into it. hell i don't.

makes me think of a bunch of men wanting the good old days back.

on the AB election. the NDP needs to go to the furtherest point on calling the election and keep up with what they're doing and increase the messaging on TV.

OK, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that what I offered there leaves women and milennials out in the cold, but I'm not one of the people who sees the term "worker" as meaning middle-aged white men and nobody else.  What kind of things would make you and your daughter feel that what I'm talking about was worth your time?   BTW, I was never saying that what I listed there that was ALL a labour revival would mean, or that a stronger labour movement was ALL that was needed.  What would you want to see added to what I suggested there? And what did I write that created the sense of suspicion and distrust you seem to feel about it?  This can be a point of dialog between us, because I don't think we're actually in strong disagreement on anything.  Are you open to that?

Mighty Middle

Ousted Manitoba backbencher plans legal challenge for right to cross the floor

Steven Fletcher, who was dumped by the Tories last Friday, said Tuesday a provincial law that forbids him — or any other Manitoba politician — from crossing the legislature floor is unconstitutional.

The law was brought in by the former NDP government in 2006 in response to a controversy that erupted when David Emerson left the federal Liberals, weeks after being elected, to join the Conservatives. Then-premier Gary Doer said the aim was to ensure voters' wishes at the ballot box are respected.

The Manitoba law stipulates that any legislature member who ceases to belong to a caucus must sit as an independent until the next election, or resign and run in a byelection under their new party banner.

Fletcher, who served as a member of Parliament between 2004 and 2015 and was Canada's first quadriplegic MP, said he believes there is no similar law elsewhere in the British Commonwealth.

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/ousted-manitoba-backbencher-plans-legal-210623...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Fletcher, who served as a member of Parliament between 2004 and 2015 and was Canada's first quadriplegic MP, said he believes there is no similar law elsewhere in the British Commonwealth.

There's a first for everything.

Meanwhile, I agree with the law.  If voters choose Party A over Party B, it kind of thwarts the whole "election" thing if the person they elected as a member of Party A decides that s/he really would rather join Party B.

And the solution, for those representatives who genuinely do want to switch teams is hardly unfair.  Just run again, and show everyone that the voters who supported you the first time support this change too.

6079_Smith_W

He's wrong about the law. I probably already mentioned in this thread that it used to be the protocol in Britain that if an MP was called to a cabinet post there had to be a byelection. As for his case, I think the fact he was expelled is an argument in his favour.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's unfortunate that he was expelled, but I personally don't think that elevates his concerns and interests above those of his constituents.  That's literally the problem with "floor crossing" -- it's all about some MP or MPP, and what THEY want, and what would help THEIR career and so on.

An immediate by-election could be a compromise, though I think we all know that a politician who forces yet another election often gets punished for it. 

Part of the problem here, I suppose, is that in Canada when we vote for an MP or MPP we're voting for an individual that we want to represent us, and we're also voting (whether we wish to or not) for the party we hope will lead government.  I would again suggest that the best way to find out whether a representative was elected as an individual or a representative seat for a party is another election. 

If constituents voted for the person, they can vote for the person again.  If they voted for the party, they can vote for the party again.  And then it's clear.

quizzical

... As for his case, I think the fact he was expelled is an argument in his favour.[/quote wrote:

yup. i don't care about floor crossing much ut when the party rejects you then they give no shits about who voted for them.

i view this like the last case in AB.

cco

I've yet to be convinced that an anti-floor-crossing law is in any way practical in the Westminster system. Let's say an MP gets elected under a party banner, and then decides to join an opposing party's cabinet, without quitting his party's caucus. If he then gets expelled, is that the party rejecting their voters, or the MP rejecting them? What if said MP is leader of the opposition, and takes most of her caucus with her? What if an MP defies the party's whip on a major issue, gets denied renomination, and sits as an independent? Is a by-election automatic then? Or say, if two parties merge mid-session, then (almost) none of their MPs are sitting for the party under whose banner they were originally elected. Must they all stand again, immediately?

If we decide that people are only really voting for parties, and that the party leader should effectively be able to force an instant by-election if an MP goes against the whip, why not just go to a single national list-PR system? If voters should have the immediate chance to reject an MP who crosses the floor, why not one who breaks another campaign promise?

If people think floor-crossing is so much worse a betrayal of the voters than anything else a politician can do, what's wrong with a BC-style recall option? Then if enough voters agree that the MP needs to go, there could be a voter-driven process to replace him or her.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If we decide that people are only really voting for parties

I can only speak for me and say -- as I already have -- that we vote for both.  But we cannot pretend that one part of that doesn't exist.  What if a party were to try to replace some controversial MP mid-session?  Would we then ask the opposite?  Are people ONLY voting for an individual?

Quote:
and that the party leader should effectively be able to force an instant by-election if an MP goes against the whip

Well, it wouldn't be an instant by-election if some member didn't vote by the whip... unless they were expelled.  If so, I suppose it could result in a by-election if some other party opportunistically said "Hey, come join us!!".  If that member elected to sit as an independent then I would need no need for a by-election.

Pages