Quebec NDP MP jumping to Liberals?

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gaian

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

 

From the CBC article

 

St-Denis said her decision was based on the Liberals' social policy and job-creation strategies as reasons for the jump, as well as the NDP pulling support for the mission in Libya in its final weeks.

St-Denis says she didn't believe she'd be elected when she let her name stand as an NDP candidate, but that it wasn't unusual for her to run for the party because she'd worked for them for 10 years.

But she said she's been pondering the jump almost since the May 2, 2011, election.

"It’s been six months that I’ve been reflecting and discussing," she said.

"I wasn't named a critic and I was sat in the back row because of my last name, which starts with S, so I had lots of time to look and listen to everyone," St-Denis said

 

 

These are, at best, odd reasons to make this kind of thumb your nose at your contituents move.

But I still believe in love, hope and optimism so I will refrain from any more critical comments of St-Denis.

She added: "St-Denis says she didn't believe she'd be elected when she let her name stand as an NDP candidate, but that it wasn't unusual for her to run for the party because she'd worked for them for 10 years."

The 71-year-old's battle with cancer just may have caused further reflection that perhaps her last kick at life's can could be played out in a less ignominious situation. But perhaps only a septuagenarian can fully appreciate that.

edmundoconnor

The Liberals may have miscalculated (and been more desperate than people realize) by taking her into the fold. Sure, they've got a +1 to their numbers, but they've merely underlined they're the same unprincipled, crooked old bastards who'll grab any chance to get ahead that the voters rejected in May.

Hamiltonian

Interesting that it's Chretien's old riding. The reasons she gave for leaving were pretty weak and why anyone would defect to the 3rd party is beyond me. She said she had been thinking about it since the May election. Seems very strange to me - why run under a banner - even if you don't think you'll get elected - if you don't believe in the party's values? What saddens me is that it appears to be a move based more on increasing her political status (she wasn't a critic) rather than morals or ideology. I can respect a philosphical move - but not one simply for personal gain.

Wilf Day

edmundoconnor wrote:

The Liberals may have miscalculated (and been more desperate than people realize) by taking her into the fold.

Well, no doubt they'll give her a shadow cabinet seat.

JeffWells

Her rationale is, charitably, obscure. I don't think she'll be a big plus for the Liberals, and I doubt anyone will be following her.

Like most floor crossers, she's just sealed her legacy as a trivia answer.

Gaian

@hamiltonian

Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.

Unionist

I hate to be repetitious, but I'm going to say it again:

People here are drawing the most astounding conclusions from the news that one person has decided to switch parties.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

In what ways Unionist? I don't have any opinion on this other then being mad. I don't think this really hurts the NDP but I am open to hearing other opinion.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Unionist wrote:

People here are drawing the most astounding conclusions from the news that one person has decided to switch parties.

And so will the mainstream media.

This will probably be spun to death. I just see the Globe and Mail's editorial page now, the condescension towards the NDP dripping from the columns of John Ibbitson and Jeffrey Simpson.

Howard

Boom Boom wrote:

edmundoconnor wrote:

Doubtless some Liberals and sympathetic sources will be playing this as the bad ol' NDP bullying a woman with cancer.

The party could avoid a ton of negative publicity by just moving on. Shit happens, and all that.

I agree. You don't want this story running in the news any longer than it has to. Caron made his comment, Mulcair will probably have to make his, and then hopefully this story can/will die by the NDP not commenting on it further. I'm hopeful the NDP can run a strong candidate in that seat in 2015 (or sooner), maybe Chantal Reeves. I'm disappointed Lise has crossed the floor. Yes it violates standards of political decency but she was also a woman, an MA in French, and her age brought diversity to the NDP caucus. She had skills that could have been of value to the party and the official opposition. I agree with edmundoconnor too in thinking that this reinforces the view that the Liberals are unprincipled and will not contribute to the narrative that the NDP is falling apart (in Quebec), so long as New Democrats do not give this defection any more airtime than it deserves (which is none).

AnonymousMouse

Unionist wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You're absolutely wrong Unionist.  It was in the platform and highlighted in candidates materials in that subject area.  Anyone who was running as a candidate knew, or should have known, that this was an issue the NDP was promoting as part of the platform.

I'm not close enough to the scene, but are you absolutely sure about that, BA? [url=http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf]Here's the 2011 election platform.[/url] There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of promises in there.

Where's the floor-crossing legislation?

By the way, don't get me wrong. I think people who run on a platform, get elected, then switch stands on an important aspect, are not deserving of respect. Yes, I think they should resign (not sit as an independent, which was the silly alternative the NDP's draft bill allowed). But why is that confined to switching party labels??

The party has its floor crossing bill back before the House right now under Mathieu Ravignat.

The idea that this (or ATM fees for that matter) was quickly forgotten is nonsense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/02/floor-crossing-ban-proposed-by-n...

edmundoconnor

Wilf Day wrote:

Well, no doubt they'll give her a shadow cabinet seat.

There's plenty to spare.

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

In what ways Unionist? I don't have any opinion on this other then being mad. I don't think this really hurts the NDP but I am open to hearing other opinion.

I don't think it hurts the NDP either. But just look at all the venom on this page against this woman. I'd rather someone condemn her for cheering on the Libya mission. But that would be too risky (think Nycole Turmel...). So they just condemn her for crossing the floor, and start attributing all sorts of motives to her.

Someone here even said he's glad it was an old person, not a young one, who defected. Jesus Christ almighty.

 

Bookish Agrarian

Gaian wrote:
@hamiltonian Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.
 

 

What human frailty is involved when you conclude the NDP was not blood-thirsty enough on Lybia and so you will join the Liberals?  That is in essentially what she said in her statement. 

I acknowledge her humanity, but that does not extend to making up pious reasons for what was clearly, from her own words, not a moral or values based act.

edmundoconnor

For my part, Unionist, I am restricting myself to her comments she made in the wake of her action to leave the party, and the action itself. I think it's reasonable to draw some conclusions, drawing on her words and actions.

Unionist

AnonymousMouse wrote:

The party has its floor crossing bill back before the House right now under Mathieu Ravignat.

It's not "the party" - it's a private member's bill. Caucus members are free to vote for or against it, if it ever comes to a vote.

Quote:
The idea that this (or ATM fees for that matter) was quickly forgotten is nonsense.

It's not "nonsense". The ATM fees issue was a pandering issue - never caught on - and was never emphasized in the last campaign. It did, however, make it into the official NDP election platform.

Floor-crossing didn't even rate a mention.

Bad editing?

Gaian

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Gaian wrote:
@hamiltonian Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.
 

 

What human frailty is involved when you conclude the NDP was not blood-thirsty enough on Lybia and so you will join the Liberals?  That is in essentially what she said in her statement. 

I acknowledge her humanity, but that does not extend to making up pious reasons for what was clearly, from her own words, not a moral or values based act.

As I said, perhaps you have to reach a certain age and experience cancer to understand. This does not absolve her of "crime" on the standard objective scale of human merit. The "human frailty" bit means that she is vulnerable as hell to making the wrong move for the wrong reasons. The idea inherent in "throw the first stone" came from that vulnerability.

You know, the "love is better than anger" bit.

Bill Davis

From the Globe Article:

Ms. St-Denis was elected as part of the “orange wave” that saw 59 New Democrats elected in Quebec, but she said that she hopes her electors will understand and agree with her decision.

“They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead,” Ms. St-Denis said.

 

Jesus, that is harsh.  Good riddance.

 

jas

samuelolivier wrote:

What's sad about this is that Chantal Reeves asked to run in St-Maurice for the NDP, since she knows the region really well for havig lived there for more than 15 years and ended up running in Ahuntsic and was defeated. She also wanted to run actively in St-Maurice, like she did in Ahuntsic. Knowing Chantal personally, she would never had cross the floor...

That is sad. I can see some argument for a mechanism that ensures that a seat held by a party remains held by that party in the event of the elected member's resignation from the party. It would be no more undemocratic as what is happening now: insisting that the constituency now support the new party affiliation of the floor-crosser.

Unionist

edmundoconnor wrote:

For my part, Unionist, I am restricting myself to her comments she made in the wake of her action to leave the party, and the action itself. I think it's reasonable to draw some conclusions, drawing on her words and actions.

I'm not talking about you. Read the thread. It's the purest partisanship, translated into scorn for an individual. If Stéphane Dion declared publicly that he wished to sit as an NDP member, because he just can't stand it any more, there would be no scorn here. I, for one, would hail that particular move. And I wouldn't call him a "traitor" to his constituents either.

 

Gaian

Bad conclusions. :)

Gaian

Been trying that angle for a bit, without much luck. So many stones flying about, it's hard to tell which might be first.

edmundoconnor

Some of the stuff here is completely below the belt, I agree. Measured criticism? Fine. Pile-on? Not fine.

Gaian

The reactions in this thread, added up, have been the most enlightening experience for me in four years.

New Democrats really are far removed from hidebound humanists. More just hidebound.

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

edmundoconnor wrote:

For my part, Unionist, I am restricting myself to her comments she made in the wake of her action to leave the party, and the action itself. I think it's reasonable to draw some conclusions, drawing on her words and actions.

I'm not talking about you. Read the thread. It's the purest partisanship, translated into scorn for an individual. If Stéphane Dion declared publicly that he wished to sit as an NDP member, because he just can't stand it any more, there would be no scorn here. I, for one, would hail that particular move. And I wouldn't call him a "traitor" to his constituents either.

 

Well my ethics are not so malleable.   If Dion were to do this, I would be welcoming, BUT I would expect him to go to his contituents first before he sat with the NDP cacuas.  This is not a new issue for many of us, and it is not a partisan conclusion.  Please desist with your constant personal attacks on those who believe in a different set of values than you happen to believe in.

Peter3

I think this one goes into the Oh Well file. As someone said, shit happens.

Time wasted griping about this will be a bigger loss to the party than the floor crossing.

Bookish Agrarian

@Unionist

As I said you are wrong.  It was part of the democratic reform package of the platform.  What you linked to is not the complete platform.  There are other documents that are given to the public that have more complete details on specific issues.  They are strangely enough called issue sheets.  They too are part of the complete platform.  Whether you agree them or not is irrelevant.  Quit beating a dead horse.

jas

Why does the Canadian Parliament tolerate floor-crossing at all? Surely each party can see how such a practice exploits the investment of time and money into each riding. Can the party being abandoned sue the member for those losses?

AnonymousMouse

Unionist wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

The party has its floor crossing bill back before the House right now under Mathieu Ravignat.

It's not "the party" - it's a private member's bill. Caucus members are free to vote for or against it, if it ever comes to a vote.

Quote:
The idea that this (or ATM fees for that matter) was quickly forgotten is nonsense.

It's not "nonsense". The ATM fees issue was a pandering issue - never caught on - and was never emphasized in the last campaign. It did, however, make it into the official NDP election platform.

Floor-crossing didn't even rate a mention.

Bad editing?

Private members' bills are routinely used as party vehicles sponsored by one individual MP as has been the case with the NDP's bills on this subject since Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. These bills have been consistantly promoted by the party as "The NDP's bill on floor crossing". If you can say a private members' bill "belongs" to a party, then you'd have to apply that to all bills proposed by the opposition, but yet that language is commonly used.

No, NDP MPs are not allowed to simply vote whatever way they want to on private members' bills (as much as any other bill). NDP MPs have to vote in keeping with party policy except in cases where there isn't a clear party policy.

The NDP proposed banning ATM fees in 2006. The idea did catch on and was very popular. But you can't expect a popular but relatively small idea like that to still be centre stage 5 years later.

Floor crossing almost certainly was mentioned in the 2006 and 2008 platform when it was a top of mind issue. It remains the clear party position.

Bookish Agrarian

Gaian wrote:
Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Gaian wrote:
@hamiltonian Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.
 

 

What human frailty is involved when you conclude the NDP was not blood-thirsty enough on Lybia and so you will join the Liberals?  That is in essentially what she said in her statement. 

I acknowledge her humanity, but that does not extend to making up pious reasons for what was clearly, from her own words, not a moral or values based act.

As I said, perhaps you have to reach a certain age and experience cancer to understand. This does not absolve her of "crime" on the standard objective scale of human merit. The "human frailty" bit means that she is vulnerable as hell to making the wrong move for the wrong reasons. The idea inherent in "throw the first stone" came from that vulnerability. You know, the "love is better than anger" bit.

Where did I ever once say it was a crime?  Or even imply it was anything but an ethical lapse.  Having stood for public office in the past I have always beleived strongly, fundamentally, that my word and the things I stand for as a candidate of a party are a type of contract with my potentail constituents.  It might be old fashioned, but it is deeply and longly held.  So it violates my ethical beliefs for someone to be elected in such a manner and then to debase that contract with constituents by doing this sort of thing without going back to them for their okay.  It is a strong ethical issue for me.   It is not partisan and it is not something I would support under any circumstance.  I have thrown no stone, other than assess her actions based on her own words.  As someone who has chosen to be in public life, whether she thought she would win or not, and than takes a public action of this nature her age and health status are completely irrelevant so your bringing them up is inappropriate.

And George don't make assumptions about anyone's health status, past or current, or the issues they have faced in their lives.  You don't possess that knowledge and it is also deeply innapropriate.   

Unionist

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Floor crossing almost certainly was mentioned in the 2006 and 2008 platform when it was a top of mind issue. It remains the clear party position.

So I guess we'll see Nycole Turmel, in line with the "clear party position", standing up and demanding that St-Denis resign immediately, or else sit as an independent?

Or isn't Turmel bound by "clear party policy"?

My advice to Turmel is to say, "we think her choice is unfortunate, and we'll leave the final word to her constituents". And then turn to figuring out how to build the party's fortunes in Québec. Because without Québec, the NDP can forget about being official opposition after 2015, never mind the government. And Quebecers do not care about "floor-crossing".

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionst, thanks. This still galls me. But go ahead Libs, keep thinking this past election was a fluke. Does anyone know if Turmel has said anything yet?

AnonymousMouse

Unionist wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Floor crossing almost certainly was mentioned in the 2006 and 2008 platform when it was a top of mind issue. It remains the clear party position.

So I guess we'll see Nycole Turmel, in line with the "clear party position", standing up and demanding that St-Denis resign immediately, or else sit as an independent?

Or isn't Turmel bound by "clear party policy"?

My advice to Turmel is to say, "we think her choice is unfortunate, and we'll leave the final word to her constituents". And then turn to figuring out how to build the party's fortunes in Québec. Because without Québec, the NDP can forget about being official opposition after 2015, never mind the government. And Quebecers do not care about "floor-crossing".

 

I don't understand your point.

My point was that the NDP's position on floor crossing is clear, it is well known to those paying attention to NDP policy and that it was not quickly forgotten after it was initially proposed on the heels of the Belinda Stronach incident.

Nothing you've written in this comment has anything to do with that.

As pointed out above, Guy Caron as Quebec Caucus Chair has already said that this is a contradiction of the policy St-Denis campaigned on when running for the NDP. I wouldn't expect anyone to badger a woman with cancer to run in a by-election simply as a matter of perception. I wouldn't expect the leader of the party to say anything more about an MP resigning from the party than she has to because it's not something anyone would want to actively draw attention towards.

But none of that has anything to do with the point I was making.

Unionist

Bill Davis wrote:

“They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead,” Ms. St-Denis said.

Jesus, that is harsh.  Good riddance.

Good riddance - perhaps - but surely not for that observation, which is probably the plain truth. Does anyone here think Quebecers voted NDP because of its platform? Or because they suddenly decided to be "NDP voters"? Or that they even knew exactly what the letters "NPD" stood for when they cast their ballot?

They voted NDP because of: 1) Jack Layton; 2) wanting to Stop Harper; 3) being fed up with the Bloc's impotence to bring about #2.

If the truth hurts, that's too bad. But the task facing the NDP is to understand what profoundly motivates people and try to personify that in political terms. Political partisanship is a big loser around these parts. And I suspect that narrow partisanship is malleable in other parts of Canada as well. But that's a separate issue.

 

janfromthebruce

They changed parties but not as elected representatives of another party. The principled line is that if one is elected representing a certain party either one becomes an independent or resigns and runs under that new party banner. I talked about floor crossing which is different than running under a different party.

 

Unionist wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I always thought it reflected poorly on any politician who defected, whether Liberal or Conservative or NDP. It just tells me lots about them as a person. And furthermore, it just sucks so much.

I respect people more than party labels. Tell me what conclusions you drew about Mulcair and Françoise Boivin because of their defections? Did your opinion of them decline?

And did you respect Jean Charest more when he led the Conservative party than when he switched to the provincial Liberals?

And what about voters, who switch parties - like a few million Quebecers? Did that reflect poorly on them?

What about when a party campaigns from the left, then governs from the right? Is it ok to tell that party to go screw itself?

I think your comment reflects a view of democratic governance that focuses on partisanship and sectarianism. I'll bet you dislike when people switch away from the NDP - not so much when they switch to the NDP.

Parties should serve people, not the other way around.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

janfromthebruce

Floor crossing almost certainly was mentioned in the 2006 and 2008 platform when it was a top of mind issue. It remains the clear party position.

 

I know that too, and personally I think that for sure Quebecors voted for Jack but also because they are more progressive. Note they did not vote for Conservatives or Liberals, and by all the polls done, they are not infactuated with Liberals.

We may never know but there has got to be something in it for her because I seems absolutely bizarre to me that she would say that almost since day one she has thought about crossing the floor - WT jesus? So that stuff about Jack died, well that previous statement contradicts the other - Jack wasn't died and nor did anyone know she was going to get a 2nd cancer and die.

So I think there is more going on here with her and she doesn't want to say what that is. And she hopes her constituents will be happy with her decision - LOL - perhaps she didn't bother to check all the polls because the Libs are not doing well and are stuck in the teens in Quebec.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Bill Davis wrote:

“They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead,” Ms. St-Denis said.

Jesus, that is harsh.  Good riddance.

Good riddance - perhaps - but surely not for that observation, which is probably the plain truth. Does anyone here think Quebecers voted NDP because of its platform? Or because they suddenly decided to be "NDP voters"? Or that they even knew exactly what the letters "NPD" stood for when they cast their ballot?

They voted NDP because of: 1) Jack Layton; 2) wanting to Stop Harper; 3) being fed up with the Bloc's impotence to bring about #2.

If the truth hurts, that's too bad. But the task facing the NDP is to understand what profoundly motivates people and try to personify that in political terms. Political partisanship is a big loser around these parts. And I suspect that narrow partisanship is malleable in other parts of Canada as well. But that's a separate issue.

 

Why do you assume that Quebecers DIDN'T vote NDP because of its platform?  The NDP platform was more in tune with Quebec values and Quebec opinion than that of any other major party.  Is it that hard for you to accept that Quebecers just didn't WANT to vote for the Bloc this time?  That maybe, just maybe, Quebecers DON'T always put the self-determination thing before everything else, including worker's rights and social justice?  You don't usually parrot right-wing mems, Unionist, but it truly sounds like you are here.  Why can't you accept that the NDP carried Quebec on the merits?  Or that the Bloc lost on the merits?

Also, if her choice was a result of Jack Layton's death, why did she cross the floor NOW?  the man's been dead for months now.  It's not like she just heard about it this weekend.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

She gave three examples of her policy differences ith the NDP.

 

  • The party's position on the Libya has been discussed.

 

  • The party's (general) objections to 3P arrangements - Of course, 3P arrangements usually mean public funds being used to build infrastructure with the ownership passing through private hands.  While I can envision some rare cases where some version of these arrangements might make sense, it seems to me they are usually a means of advancing crony capitalism with public funds being diverted to private hands as a form of patronage.  I guess she thinks Quebec commuters should pay tolls to prvate interests.

 

  • The party's consistent position on the Senate - This is a bit more baffling.  The NDP's policy on the Senate has remained unchanged since seven years before the 71 year old MP was born.  I guess she supports the idea of superannuated party functionaries living off public largesse at $135K per year.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sounds like this is really about St. Denis wanting to move up to the Red Chamber, then.  Ironically, she doesn't realize that, even if the Liberals made a miracle comeback and formed the government in 2015, she'd be too old to be appointed(note to the Liberals...you guys might want to prepare yourself for St. Denis' announcement in the next year or two that she's going to defect to the Tories, in exchange for that Senate appointment).

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

One other point:  If the CAQ does take power at the next Quebec election, this will probably strengthen the federal NDP.  A CAQ victory is going to make it a lot more difficult to see Quebec sovereignty as still being anything in any way progressive, A CAQ government in Quebec City will drive the left massively away from any sympathy for sovereignty.  How could it not do so, since a sovereign Quebec created on Lucien Bouchard's terms(and this is clearly what a CAQ government at Quebec City would mean)could never have any space for the left at all.  There'd be no room for any left organizing in such a situation, and there's no way that QS could grow in response.  In fact, if the CAQ actually led Quebec to full independence, it's first official act as a national government would probably be to BAN QS, and the rest of the Left as well.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Biatch! I hate the Liberals!

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Why do you assume that Quebecers DIDN'T vote NDP because of its platform? 

Because they didn't have a clue what it was. I live here, Ken. I talk to lots of people. Separatists voted for the NDP. In huge numbers.

Quote:
Is it that hard for you to accept that Quebecers just didn't WANT to vote for the Bloc this time?

Are you smoking something? I voted NDP. Three times in a row. And I gave the analysis on babble as to why Quebecers didn't vote Bloc. It had nothing to do with the Bloc's program.

Quote:
That maybe, just maybe, Quebecers DON'T always put the self-determination thing before everything else, including worker's rights and social justice?

You've lost it. Workers' rights and social justice? You think anyone said, "the Bloc is too right-wing for me, I think I'll pick the left-wing NDP"? Send me some of that stuff!!! Please!!!

Quote:
Why can't you accept that the NDP carried Quebec on the merits?  Or that the Bloc lost on the merits?

They DID win on the merits. Quebecers wanted a party that could defeat Harper. They picked the NDP. Unfortunately, the rest of the country didn't.

Quote:
Also, if her choice was a result of Jack Layton's death, why did she cross the floor NOW?  the man's been dead for months now.  It's not like she just heard about it this weekend.

Who the hell is talking about her motives? All the partisans in this thread. Not me. I know absolutely nothing about her, except that she is obviously to the right of the NDP on various issues.

Vansterdam Kid

I don't know why some people are complaining that some of these postings are 'too hard on her'. If anything, she's been treated with kid gloves, especially if you compare it to some of the other floor crossings, like Stronach or Emerson (sans Knownothing's recent comment). This is fine with me since she's a non-entity. It isn't like one of the stronger MPs jumped. Que cera and let the Liberals have her.

vaudree

Charlie Angus dedicate a song to Lise St. Denis on his facebook page. I am getting the feeling that LSD is more Dar Heatherington than Jim Walding. The NDP don't seem to be all that upset to see her go and the hints between the lines seem to be that the Liberals will regret accepting her into their party.

Of course Bob Rae is going to blow this out of proportion by insinuating that there is more. Rae's job as leader depends on him convincing his own party that he can improve Liberal fortunes.

The NDP does decide policy at convention and everyone - even the party leader - is beholden to what is decided at convention. There were complaints at the last convention that not enough time was being designated towards policy.

And, as many have pointed out, some of what LSD says contradicts other things that she has said. And her "Jack is ..." statement is harsh when she knows that many in the party are still mourning his loss.

And, considering all the people running who figured they had no chance of winning, to have one dud isn't that bad of a record.

 

vaudree

Sig Laser and Jim Walding were both running to be the NDP candidate for St.Vital and Walding won the nomination by just one vote.  Walding was made Speaker and voted with the Tories to defeat the  NDP government by just one vote.

Dar Heatherington faked her own kidnapping to cover up an extramarital affair.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Why do you assume that Quebecers DIDN'T vote NDP because of its platform? 

Because they didn't have a clue what it was. I live here, Ken. I talk to lots of people. Separatists voted for the NDP. In huge numbers.

Quote:
Is it that hard for you to accept that Quebecers just didn't WANT to vote for the Bloc this time?

Are you smoking something? I voted NDP. Three times in a row. And I gave the analysis on babble as to why Quebecers didn't vote Bloc. It had nothing to do with the Bloc's program.

Quote:
That maybe, just maybe, Quebecers DON'T always put the self-determination thing before everything else, including worker's rights and social justice?

You've lost it. Workers' rights and social justice? You think anyone said, "the Bloc is too right-wing for me, I think I'll pick the left-wing NDP"? Send me some of that stuff!!! Please!!!

Quote:
Why can't you accept that the NDP carried Quebec on the merits?  Or that the Bloc lost on the merits?

They DID win on the merits. Quebecers wanted a party that could defeat Harper. They picked the NDP. Unfortunately, the rest of the country didn't.

Quote:
Also, if her choice was a result of Jack Layton's death, why did she cross the floor NOW?  the man's been dead for months now.  It's not like she just heard about it this weekend.

Who the hell is talking about her motives? All the partisans in this thread. Not me. I know absolutely nothing about her, except that she is obviously to the right of the NDP on various issues.

Yes, sovereigntists voted NDP.  That doesn't mean they didn't know what the NDP's program was.  They did know, they supported it, and they realized that voting Bloc was pointless if you were actually interested in any program of social change, since it was clear that the Bloc was never going to create any.

I guess I don't understand why you took this occasion to try to delegitimize the NDP gains in Quebec. Is there some reason you would WANT the Bloc to gain at the NDP's expense now?  You do realize that only Harper would benefit from that result, don't you?  That nothing progressive could ever come again from the Bloc gaining seats or votes?

I agree with you that the NDP were wrong to support extending the Libya mission...but that was irrelevant during the campaign, because that support wasn't extended until after the election.  Why else would you be suddenly getting taking this "screw the NDP" tone?  Other than the Libya thing, what else do you have to be all that pissed off with the NDP about?

If  you are a Quebecer with any sort of left-of-center politics now, there's no worthwhile alternative to voting NDP at the federal level in Quebec.  The Bloc had its chance, everyone in Quebec now knows that voting Bloc can't have left-wing results at all, and there's no other left formulation there that has any chance of becoming electorally relevant before the next federal election.  So, at the moment, if you want to vote for a left-of-center party in federal politics in Quebec, it's the NDP or nothing(at the National Assembly level, it's QS or nothing, since the left no longer has a place within the BQ and the Liberals and the CAQ are the enemies of the left.  Even if we could still assume that the Bloc's policies are actually to the NDP's left, why would that matter?  Everybody knows that, since the Bloc will never lead the government in Ottawa(and that the PQ will always be sharply to the right of the Bloc, given there long-standing and unchangeable policy direction), Bloc policies will never be implemented anywhere.  They certainly won't be if the CAQ ever comes to power in Quebec, since a CAQ victory will probably be the death of anything left in Quebec at all.  It would be, in fact, the return of the Duplessis era, and probably take at least as long as the Duplessis era to restore democratic politics afterwords.  If the CAQ were to lead a Quebec government, would you still think self-determination was worth working for, given that it then be self-determination on permanently right-wing terms?

Finally, why do you asssume that there's no possible way the voters in Quebec, including separatist voters, could actually support the NDP's platform on the merits?  The federal NDP platform was giving the sovereigntists everything they were asking for, plus some actual progressive policies, the kind that could never be brought in by a vote for the Bloc, because the Bloc never had any meaningful influence in Ottawa.  You can't get progressive legislation passed as a third-place opposition party in a majority parliament, and that position was the strongest one the Bloc MP's were ever going to have.  Why are you implying that Quebec support for the NDP this may couldn't possibly have been based on the NDP's actual policies?  What is it in those policies, at THIS point, that you still feel that no true Quebecer could ever knowingly and intentionally support?

 

Unionist

Ken, it's not like you to create and fight straw men. Please stop attributing my comments here to some support for the Bloc. And your last sentence - that I'm saying "true Quebecers" couldn't intentionally support the NDP's policies - is just plain provocation. Your comments here are unworthy of a response. Your obvious ignorance of Québec is not a bad thing - unless you enshrine and worship it. Try to learn.

 

writer writer's picture

knownothing wrote:

Biatch! I hate the Liberals!

Biatch? Am I wrong in the understanding that this is a fancy way to write bitch without having to answer for using the term bitch?

From the mindreading of Quebecers to the ignorant dismissal of one very patient inhabitant of that province to the nasty ageism and sexism seen in this thread – it is not inspiring. She left. Get over it.

Right now, a number of party members are not doing social justice and greater equality any favours. Chill out.

Love, hope and optimism. Remember?

theleftyinvestor

It only just occurred to me that her initials are LSD...

Regarding the fact that she represents Chrétien's old riding... well not exactly. Chrétien's old riding no longer exists. It was redistributed after he left the HoC. The rest of his riding went to Berthier-Maskinongé, where they elected Brosseau :)

As for the business of what would happen if someone wanted to cross the floor to the NDP - I guess the only consistent policy would be to ask that MP to sit as an independent, and advise them they are welcome to become a member of the NDP and vote with the NDP, but they would not sit with the caucus until such time as they are elected as a member of the party.

Unionist

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

I don't know why some people are complaining that some of these postings are 'too hard on her'. [...] This is fine with me since she's a non-entity.

Dehumanize much?

Quote:
Que cera and let the Liberals have her.

It's spelled "que sera".

This ugly thread reminds me of the ridiculing of Lesley Hughes, when the Liberals dumped her for allegedly saying something about Zionists in the context of 9/11.

Pages

Topic locked