Poll - 2/3 of Canadians Considering Strategic Voting

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
brookmere

Debater wrote:

I think there may actually be a rule (or a very strong convention) against naming cabinet ministers while an election is in progress.

Do you mean real cabinet ministers or pretend cabinet ministers as discussed above? If you're talking about real ones, no government is going to shuffle the cabinet during an election because it would make them look out of control. Of course there are situations such as the death of a minister where a new one would have to be named. There is no legal obstacle to this.

Pondering

I'm already voting NDP so it matters not but if I knew that Guy Caron was the pick for finance minister I would be more likely to vote NDP. If I also knew who else would take major cabinet posts, and I liked them, I would be more likely to work to elect the NDP. 

swallow swallow's picture

I think people in Quebec would respect that. And it might even help Caron cling on (He does nto seem liekly to hold his seat). 

I believe both the CAQ and the Quebec Liberals anmed their prospective health minister before the last Quebec election. No one seemed bothered. 

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Debater wrote:
You also can't blame the NDP HQ for focusing on Central Canada for the past 2 decades.  How can a Federal party form government in Canada if it doesn't have seats in Ontario & Quebec?

The NDP in Ontario and Quebec should focus on Ontario and Quebec and win seats there by electing MP's who are running on the issues from the party platform that are meaningful to their voters. That means a campaign that is suited for Timmins in Northern Ontario not tailored to try to win the Beaches let alone North Battleford. It means a party trying to elect MP's with a purpose not a bunch of lap dogs to an omnipotent leader. That is how the BC NDP federal wing has always worked and it is the model that needs to be replicated. I truly think that will win us more progressive MP's in parliament who will have more power to enact their constituents wishes.

I like this idea, however I still have one burning question. How should we handle situations where different constituencies in different parts of the country have conflicting objectives? Let's take the pipeline issue, for instance. Obviously most NDP MPs in BC are totally opposed. The NDP in Alberta is for pipelines. It's true that Notley did capitulate to the oil and gas industry, however oil and gas being the primary driver of the economy wil have a great deal of public support. Suppose the NDP were able to elect MPs from Alberta, they may very well be progressive on every other issue but on the issue of pipelines and energy production hold positions that are identical to the Conservatives. Not to mention that open conflict on an issue like this could undermine the party as a whole, as it would apper to not have a coherent message. How do we proceed here?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Well if the NDP is conflicted over pipelines federally personally I don't think they deserve to win. We are in a climate emergency the party claims so how can it support the oil industry. Notley fell into the trap, there is no way she could have won a second term but I believe she would have done better if she had stood up to the Calgary oligarchy and instituted the oil and gas regime she ran on. She was smeared and vilified even when she played nice with them, if you are going to lose you might as well lose fighting for something you believe in.

Aristotleded24

Even setting aside the issue of pipelines in particular, how do you resolve a conflict of that magnitude where different regions have conflicting views on a major issue that the party needs to address? I agree with your assessment of what went wrong for the Alberta NDP. My point in bringing up the pipelines was to use that as an example of a conflict between regions that could be problematic. I'm reading from your posts that MPs would be best to serve the interests of their constituencies and regions. What do you do when those interests conflict?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That is the fundamental dilemma of our federation. Especially given the population disparity between the two central Canadian regions and all other regions. I do not believe that it can be in the "national" interest to do anything that the people of any region oppose. It always works against the smaller regions because if the vast majority of Ontario or Quebec voters oppose something no government will build it. National interest almost always means interests of Central Canada. The people of Quebec want to determine what happens to their part of the world and so do the people of BC. The NDP should speak to that everywhere in the country.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I like this idea, however I still have one burning question. How should we handle situations where different constituencies in different parts of the country have conflicting objectives? Let's take the pipeline issue, for instance. Obviously most NDP MPs in BC are totally opposed. The NDP in Alberta is for pipelines. It's true that Notley did capitulate to the oil and gas industry, however oil and gas being the primary driver of the economy wil have a great deal of public support. Suppose the NDP were able to elect MPs from Alberta, they may very well be progressive on every other issue but on the issue of pipelines and energy production hold positions that are identical to the Conservatives. Not to mention that open conflict on an issue like this could undermine the party as a whole, as it would apper to not have a coherent message. How do we proceed here?

To what Kropotkin wrote in response, I'll add: It''s not in anyone's interest (except maybe the fossil fuel barons) to turn our planet into an unlivable hothouse. Ideally the NDP candidates in all 338 ridings would agree with this, and could help articulate it to voters.

Pages