NDP policy not an instructional manual for party

182 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:

I am not sure what you are looking for, Unionist.

Thought I made it brutally simple. You said you "never argued that Wheeldon's statements were a violation of NDP policy." Lavigne said that "Mr. Wheeldon's comments are not in line with that policy and he is no longer our candidate". 

So irrespective of your generalities, which I agree with in many cases, it would appear that Wheeldon was banned because of his violation of PARTY POLICY.

Do you agree with his banning on that basis - or not?

 

sherpa-finn

Do I agree that a candidate should be dropped because of something s/he said in the past that is alleged to contradict party policy?

No.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Anal sex under 18 was illegal prior to the bill. The bill did not make anal sex illegal. It had no impact on anal sex one way or another.

So, he opposed the other aspects of the bill intended to protect young people because it didn't include something he thought was important. Again, that is like opposing a bill making gay marriage legal because doesn't include something for transgendered people.

Read his words posted above. He lays out the reasons and not one of them is because he opposed the age of consent. The law left anal sex a crime for teenagers and you are here defending it.

As usual I regret having engaged you at all. Your posting style just leaves me frustrated and upset because I hate deliberate ignorance as a weapon.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Left Turn: I never argued that Wheeldon's statements were a violation of NDP policy. I simply stated that Party rules (and Elections Act) give the Party the power to vet, approve and sanction nominees and candidates.  I can imagine all sorts of reasons for sanctioning a candidate that have nothing to do with policy differences. With the threat of a no-name candidate in a unwinnable riding becoming a target for sustained opposition attacks and media attention in the midst of a national campaign being right up there near the top of the list. 

Sorry, but national politics is a contact (maybe even blood) sport. To his credit, Mr Wheeldon seems to understand this reality.

If the NDP leadership is not comfortable with candidates and MPs calling out Israeli war crimes, they should push to change the NDP's policy on Palestine to make what Wheeldon said be against it. Not axe his candidacy for making a statement that is supported by the NDP policy on Palestine.

Sorry, but candidates and MPs ought not to be disciplined for making statements that are connsistent with the NDP policy manual.

[sarcasm]And if the NDP leadership can simply discard any parts of the policy manual that they think are inconvenient on the campaign trail, then maybe the NDP ought to ammend it's constitution to do away with the pretence that the membership have any say over party policy.[/sarcasm]

Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:

Do I agree that a candidate should be dropped because of something s/he said in the past that is alleged to contradict party policy?

No.

Thanks for the answer, but that wasn't my question. I can imagine many scenarios where a candidate should indeed be dropped - maybe even expelled from the party - for having said something in the past that is alleged to contradict party policy. Like, racist or homophobic or misogynist or similar statements.

No, my question was about Wheeldon's banning. And Lavigne's rationale, claiming that Wheeldon had violated party policy.

See, you asked me questions earlier (in the other thread) about my apparent "cognitive dissonance" etc. I tried to answer meticulously. Why not pay me the same courtesy? Let me try it this way:

1. Did Wheeldon's past comments violate party policy?

2. What is party policy on the issue of Israel and Palestine?

3. Who determines party policy and party program?

4. Do you think questions of this nature should be set aside when the party is campaigning to win power?

My answers:

1. No.

2. Section 4.1(f) of the 2013 Convention policy book.

3. Convention (as per Article V, Section 5 of the party constitution).

4. No.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Again I think the NDP balanced budget promise is being misinterpretted and misreported.

As I have seen in the quotes-- the NDP is saying their first budget as a government will be balanced. No word on what happens after. That's an easy option too -- it takes time to ramp up new programs responsibly. The NDP will get a boost from a modest increase to corporate taxes and from cancelled Conservative priorities.

The issue of the NDP policy manual being deleted -- the topic of this thread -- is understandable but not supportable. I get the desire not to confuse but I don't buy it. I would prefer to be honest in that the party does not want to have easy direct comparisons between the platform and the policy book -- but those comparisons ought to be possible and not discouraged.

The decision is not supportable becuase there are better more forthright options:

First you can place a disclaimer at the very top of the policy document explaining what it is and what it is not. People reading such a document would be able to understand if it is explained.

Secondly, the party would be a breath of fresh air if it put out a document directly comparing the two -- including admitting where the country is not ready and where the party wants to move slowly either based on funding or political support. Such a document written by the party could spin some of those decisions the way it wants while still using historic NDP principles as a basis for conversation and presentation.

The alternative of taking down the policy document is not founded in any principle of disclosure or accountability.

I have watched NDP proposals through this campaign so far and I beleive they can be defended. The party should show the same confidence and do so. If there are any that cannot then the party should review those policies.

A lot of the writing from the NDP is poor in my opinion -- better explanations exist for Sherbrooke; for the minimum wage proposal; for the satellite offices; and for the budget. NDP communications should raise their standards if they want to win this election. The party has to stop treating the people that go to their website like they are stupid. The substance ought to be there and written clearly including the explanations for positions the party is taking and appropriate myth-busting and responses. The site is not horrible but on some issues it is wanting.

I don't see any party being entirely forthright and honest but I expect the one I offer support to to rise above the others and I do hold the NDP to a higher standard than what I expect (and see) from the Liberals and Conservatives

quizzical

ok hope you all get stuck, as it looks like you want to, with successive Liberal and Consevative governments.

people who aren't political geeks, as most here are, only see the negative shit because it comes up on first on the google feed and vote the same old bs cause then they believe they're all the same. they're not activists and they, like me, don't even know what the sherbrook declaration is and could care less.

but i'm sure the hair splitters know this.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Y'know, your personal hostility to others here and your use of the term "political activist" as if it were some sort of slur are getting a bit tiresome. It's not like you're the only "regular people" type here.  Most of us are regular people even if we are also politically interested.

Other than the posters here who actually identify as Liberals, nobody here is trying to hurt the NDP.  They're just expressing worries about some of the direction.  But I'm guessing most of them are out working for their NDP candidate in their riding.

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

ok hope you all get stuck, as it looks like you want to, with successive Liberal and Consevative governments.

people who aren't political geeks, as most here are, only see the negative shit because it comes up on first on the google feed and vote the same old bs cause then they believe they're all the same. they're not activists and they, like me, don't even know what the sherbrook declaration is and could care less.

but i'm sure the hair splitters know this.

Given that you don't know what the Sherbrooke Declaration is, even though it is active NDP policy, you can't really call other people "hair-splitters"

Jacob Two-Two

Given that it's a policy about how to frame a question in a non-binding hypothetical referendum that will probably never happen again, I consider discussions about it to be hair-splitting in the extreme. You would be hard-pressed to find a less relevent party policy to pontificate during the election period.

Of course, to you it's more important than the Liberals voting in favour of turning Canada into a police state, so we can all see how valid your opinions are. As in, not at all. Liberals say that CSIS can spy on me and lock me up with no due process or oversight? No problem! NDP says that the normal democratic standard of 50%+1 is sufficient to begin sovereignty negotiations even though sovereignty is dying as a movement? Inexcusable!

Obviously these are not rational positions but, as always, they make perfect sense if we assume that you're a Liberal shill who will say absolutely anything to promote your morally bankrupt party.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Quizzical, you should be aware of the Sherbrooke Declaration, because if Jack Layton hadn't had the NDP issue it, the NDP would never have made any breakthrough in Quebec at all.

Basically, it's a framework for eventually getting Quebec into the constitution while acknowledging the legitimacy of the reasons Quebec has stayed outside of it and accepting that they have the same right to self-determination everybody else in the world has. It harms nothing and it is pretty much the only reason the Bloc has been totally wiped out.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0Q-0xxlqzOeU3NrZ0JTbUpTT2V6d2t5UE13WWJj...

Everybody in the RoC other than the most rabid right-wing anti-francophone bigots is pretty much fine with it.  It's just a way of settling the issue with dignity and respect for all sides.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Given that it's a policy about how to frame a question in a non-binding hypothetical referendum that will probably never happen again, I consider discussions about it to be hair-splitting in the extreme. You would be hard-pressed to find a less relevent party policy to pontificate during the election period.

Of course, to you it's more important than the Liberals voting in favour of turning Canada into a police state, so we can all see how valid your opinions are. As in, not at all. Liberals say that CSIS can spy on me and lock me up with no due process or oversight? No problem! NDP says that the normal democratic standard of 50%+1 is sufficient to begin sovereignty negotiations even though sovereignty is dying as a movement? Inexcusable!

Obviously these are not rational positions but, as always, they make perfect sense if we assume that you're a Liberal shill who will say absolutely anything to promote your morally bankrupt party.

So what you are saying is that the NDP wants to pass irrelevant laws that no one is agitating for to cater to a minority of Quebecers.

The Liberals do not fully support C-51 as it stands. They only support aspects of it and do want it to include oversight by parliament and have a sunset clause.

Obviously you are more interested in spreading propaganda than in making an informed decision but that is your right.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

So what you are saying is that the NDP wants to pass irrelevant laws that no one is agitating for to cater to a minority of Quebecers.

The NDP wants to fix the clarity act because it is intentionally unclear. They want to make it democratic by making it explicit that this democratic convention is just like all democratic conventions that hinge on a majority vote. A point of principle, if you will. Not important, since it will probably never be needed. I certainly wouldn't care much if they dropped it given all the real problems Canada has to deal with. All the same, it's the right thing to do, so I'm glad they're doing it.

Quote:

The Liberals do not fully support C-51 as it stands. They only support aspects of it and do want it to include oversight by parliament and have a sunset clause.

Yeah, that's what they say, but did they make that a condition of their support? No. They made those complaints and then voted it into law anyway. You, of course, believe every word that comes out of Justin's mouth despite the fact his actions are in direct contradiction of his words, and despite the long, varied history of the Liberal Party lying to its voters. What do you call a person who focuses on words and ignores actions? Either a fool or a shill.

Quote:

Obviously you are more interested in spreading propaganda than in making an informed decision but that is your right.

If it's propaganda then something I said must have been false. Care to inform me what that was?

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Quizzical, you should be aware of the Sherbrooke Declaration, because if Jack Layton hadn't had the NDP issue it, the NDP would never have made any breakthrough in Quebec at all.

Basically, it's a framework for eventually getting Quebec into the constitution while acknowledging the legitimacy of the reasons Quebec has stayed outside of it and accepting that they have the same right to self-determination everybody else in the world has. It harms nothing and it is pretty much the only reason the Bloc has been totally wiped out.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0Q-0xxlqzOeU3NrZ0JTbUpTT2V6d2t5UE13WWJj...

Everybody in the RoC other than the most rabid right-wing anti-francophone bigots is pretty much fine with it.  It's just a way of settling the issue with dignity and respect for all sides.

I don't think the Sherbrooke Declaration had much to do with the Orange Crush especially as it has been around since 2005. At the time pundits laid the blame at Duceppe's feet because he gave an interview saying that if the PQ and Bloc were in power at the same time that it meant Quebecers wanted separation. Harper was/is strongly disliked and Ignatieff had no appeal. The NDP had Layton and Mulcair.

Quebec didn't sign the constitution because a separatist government was in charge. Nothing could have gotten them to sign the constitution given that they wanted Quebec to separate. The Sherbrooke Declaration most certainly wouldn't get Quebec to sign the constitution. A separatist government will never sign the constitution.

Couillard is far more likely to sign the Constitution if Trudeau is PM than if Mulcair is so if that is what is important to you, vote Liberal.

I see no respect for the majority of Quebecers who do not want to separate from Canada. We already have the right to self-determination and we exercise it all the time, including during referendums.

Many (probably most) separatists are against the Sherbrooke Declaration because it gives Parliament the right to judge the question asked which is an infringement on Quebec's right to self-determination. Separatists reject Canada's right to interfere at all. The Sherbrooke Declaration is designed to appeal to soft nationalists not separatists. If ever a genuine majority of Quebecers want to separate from Canada it will happen. Neither the Clarity Act nor the Unity Act could prevent us. Canada is not a separate place holding us by force. We are a founding member of Canada.

I look forward to the French debate because the topic is sure to come up.

 

quizzical

Ken Burch wrote:
Y'know, your personal hostility to others here and your use of the term "political activist" as if it were some sort of slur are getting a bit tiresome. It's not like you're the only "regular people" type here.  Most of us are regular people even if we are also politically interested.

Other than the posters here who actually identify as Liberals, nobody here is trying to hurt the NDP.  They're just expressing worries about some of the direction.  But I'm guessing most of them are out working for their NDP candidate in their riding.

 

offs most of my family are political activists of some sort. myself included. it's not a slur it's an indication of positioning here. everyone has their own little niches of what they are involved in and expect others to be just as committed to it as themselves.

the reality is most Canadians are NOT engaged politcally and they don't understand why or even how people can be political activists - they just wanna survive.

 

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
The NDP wants to fix the clarity act because it is intentionally unclear. They want to make it democratic by making it explicit that this democratic convention is just like all democratic conventions that hinge on a majority vote. A point of principle, if you will. Not important, since it will probably never be needed. I certainly wouldn't care much if they dropped it given all the real problems Canada has to deal with. All the same, it's the right thing to do, so I'm glad they're doing it.

The Supreme Court said a simple majority is insuffient. How about making it require 50%+1 of eligible voters. You declaring it the right thing to do doesn't make it so.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
] Yeah, that's what they say, but did they make that a condition of their support? No. They made those complaints and then voted it into law anyway. You, of course, believe every word that comes out of Justin's mouth despite the fact his actions are in direct contradiction of his words, and despite the long, varied history of the Liberal Party lying to its voters. What do you call a person who focuses on words and ignores actions? Either a fool or a shill.

I don't assume they will keep all of their promises but this one is easy, free and popular so I have no reason to believe they won't keep this promise.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If it's propaganda then something I said must have been false. Care to inform me what that was?

No problem, Liberals say that CSIS can spy on me and lock me up with no due process or oversight? No problem!

and

Given that it's a policy about how to frame a question in a non-binding hypothetical referendum that will probably never happen again, I consider discussions about it to be hair-splitting in the extreme. You would be hard-pressed to find a less relevent party policy to pontificate during the election period.

prop·a·gan·daˌpräpəˈɡandə/nounnoun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda1. derogatoryinformation, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"

A law that alters anything about the manner in which a province can leave confederation cannot be called "irrelevent" regardless of whether or not a referendum is in the offing. It is not both trivial in general and important in Quebec at the same time. Mulcair should man-up and be prepared to defend it in English not just in French.

quizzical

"man-up" omg......

Unionist

Cheerleaders vs. cheerleaders. How novel.

Thanks, Sean, for a thoughtful post as usual.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering, if all that was needed to get Quebec to sign the constitution was to have a Liberal Quebec premier and a Liberal prime minister at the same time, Bourassa and Trudeau should have been able to seal the deal in 1971 in Victoria.

What is it that so bothers you about Sherbrooke, when all it does is admit that a Quebec government could be trusted to write a clearly understandable referendum question and to count the votes on a referendum fairly(something 1995 proved that they could do, since a sovereigntist Quebec government did not rig the counting to turn a narrow defeat into a narrow victory, as the Clarity Act assumes they would have) and to admit that it would be morally unacceptable to send Canadian military troops in to block independence by force?  

It's just about framing the whole thing in a way that treats all sides with respect(which the Clarity Act does not do)and avoids casting anyone as the victor or the vanquished.  "Parity of esteem" they call it in Northern Ireland.  And it's something that can bring this all to an end(which old-school PET-style "just watch me" federalist coat-trailing can never do).

No one would be harmed by anything the NDP is proposing here, and if it guarantees that you never have Quebec politics reduced to the useless federalist/sovereingntist division (a division that no longer serves the purposes of anyone but reactionary CEO types) it's for the good of all.

Jacob Two-Two

Sorry Unionist. Forgot what thread I was in. Didn't mean to stink up your discussion with this nonsense.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The Supreme Court said a simple majority is insuffient. How about making it require 50%+1 of eligible voters. You declaring it the right thing to do doesn't make it so.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this falsehood.  The decision never set a number, declaring the setting of a number to be a political determination rather than a judicial determination.  Rather, it said that a simple majority in a referendum, regardless of the number (so even a full 100%) was insufficient.  A majority vote in a referendum would only be a step, and not give a unilateral right to secede on its own (IE, negotiations would have to follow).

Also, regarding "eligible voters", the decision refers to the electorate, not the population as a whole.  Provided that people are given a fair opportunity to vote, it would be not only against the decision but also idiotic to give non-voters such influence over the decision. 

PS, I realize this is a bit of thread drift, but still, this falsehood needs to be corrected each time it emerges.  It's just perpetuating the worst sort of ignorance, IMO.

Unionist

Why is important thread being turned to shit just because Pondering opposes Québec's right to self-determination, and everyone feels a moral duty to respond to her trolling?

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The issue of the NDP policy manual being deleted -- the topic of this thread -- is understandable but not supportable. I get the desire not to confuse but I don't buy it. I would prefer to be honest in that the party does not want to have easy direct comparisons between the platform and the policy book -- but those comparisons ought to be possible and not discouraged.

The decision is not supportable becuase there are better more forthright options:

First you can place a disclaimer at the very top of the policy document explaining what it is and what it is not. People reading such a document would be able to understand if it is explained.

Secondly, the party would be a breath of fresh air if it put out a document directly comparing the two -- including admitting where the country is not ready and where the party wants to move slowly either based on funding or political support. Such a document written by the party could spin some of those decisions the way it wants while still using historic NDP principles as a basis for conversation and presentation.

The alternative of taking down the policy document is not founded in any principle of disclosure or accountability.

I have watched NDP proposals through this campaign so far and I beleive they can be defended. The party should show the same confidence and do so. If there are any that cannot then the party should review those policies.

A lot of the writing from the NDP is poor in my opinion -- better explanations exist for Sherbrooke; for the minimum wage proposal; for the satellite offices; and for the budget. NDP communications should raise their standards if they want to win this election. The party has to stop treating the people that go to their website like they are stupid. The substance ought to be there and written clearly including the explanations for positions the party is taking and appropriate myth-busting and responses. The site is not horrible but on some issues it is wanting.

I don't see any party being entirely forthright and honest but I expect the one I offer support to to rise above the others and I do hold the NDP to a higher standard than what I expect (and see) from the Liberals and Conservatives

Very well said, Sean, thank you.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
NDP communications should raise their standards if they want to win this election. The party has to stop treating the people that go to their website like they are stupid. The substance ought to be there and written clearly including the explanations for positions the party is taking and appropriate myth-busting and responses. The site is not horrible but on some issues it is wanting.

I don't see any party being entirely forthright and honest but I expect the one I offer support to to rise above the others and I do hold the NDP to a higher standard than what I expect (and see) from the Liberals and Conservatives

Three big products on the line, one a newer product vying for top spot against the other two established top brands.  It's sales.  KISS.  First impressions count, especially with the newcomer.  Too much detail means trying too hard.  Shows doubt.  Best to be confident.  Best foot forward.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Three big products on the line, one a newer product vying for top spot against the other two established top brands.  It's sales.  KISS.  First impressions count, especially with the newcomer.  Too much detail means trying too hard.  Shows doubt.  Best to be confident.  Best foot forward.

The policy book was never highlighted in any way. You had to dig through links to find it. What is the reason for deleting it? It could have been kept where it was - or buried deeper - and splash the election platform all over the place. What next? Delete the Constitution, because it's too legalistic and confusing for "newcomers"? How about a separate website for people who care about what the party is doing or thinking between election campaigns, if that's what it takes?

This is a move from the playbook of Harper. Disappear it, and it never existed. People who care about rank-and-file democracy, and about how policy is determined, should not look for excuses to justify this action. They should question it. And as Sean indicates, when it comes to a party that we want to think is on our side, we have a right to expect a little better when it comes to transparency and democracy.

 

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

This is a move from the playbook of Harper. Disappear it, and it never existed. People who care about rank-and-file democracy, and about how policy is determined, should not look for excuses to justify this action. They should question it. And as Sean indicates, when it comes to a party that we want to think is on our side, we have a right to expect a little better when it comes to transparency and democracy.

And a move from the playbook of Trudeau, too.  I can no longer find any link to their policy resolutions on their site (I don't know if they ever even had an official policy book, which allows Liberals to get off scott free here at Babble).  Mind you, the Liberal site is so cluttered that I can't find anything on it.

quizzical

are you an NDP  member unionist?

 

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

Why is important thread being turned to shit just because Pondering opposes Québec's right to self-determination, and everyone feels a moral duty to respond to her trolling?

True.  But in fairness to Pondering, she's only echoing the exact same falsehoods of her messiah, Justin Trudeau.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Why is important thread being turned to shit just because Pondering opposes Québec's right to self-determination, and everyone feels a moral duty to respond to her trolling?

I do not oppose Quebec's right to self-determination so apparently trolling is fine by you as long as you are the troll.

Post 107 by quizzical opened the discussion on the Sherbrooke Declaration not I.

My first post, #10 was an expression of interest in Oldgoat's choice to support the local candidate but not the party. Quizzical's post # 11 decided to focus on me with: lolol you already stated  long ago you were voting liberal.

That is what derails threads. Discussing a poster instead of addressing the ideas being presented. It happens over and over and over again.

Unionist post 12 - Don't take this the wrong way, but I personally don't care how you vote. I'm more interested in the topic of this thread.

And in the way Oldgoat votes because you didn't have any problem with him sharing that. I let that pass, but if you were more interested in the topic of the thread maybe you should have stuck to it yourself instead of trolling.

My post # 18 was in response to MM's post on the impact of MMP were it to be introduced.

My post # 34 was about the Walrus article in which the author discusses the spilt between the left and centrist wings of the party expressing the strain between staying true to the heart of the party versus winning elections.

My post # 36 - was on topic concerning the shift to the right.

Jacob's post 38 is a schoolyard taunt.

No question or statement from Pondering has ever been honest.

I didn't respond.

Smith, post # 35, suggests the NDP should be held to account after the election if they govern to the right, I asked how in post 36 to which Smith responded:

But I suppose if I am to be honest I should just say what I am thinking and call partisanship. You know there are ways in a properly functioning system for people within the party and without to have influence on government.

I didn't respond then but I will now. Newsflash. We don't have a properly functioning system. I am partisan and biased against Mulcair. I've admitted it more than once. You just use my support of Trudeau as a shield to avoid supporting your statement.

and it goes on and on and on....

I don't mind the constant trolling. Doesn't bother me a bit. I even opened my "introduce yourself" thread to give you all an outlet for bashing me so I could divert my responses to attacks there instead of defending myself within threads.

http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering

Unfortunately it was deemed inappropriate and closed so I will defend myself on the spot if I am in the mood to.

You want to stop theads from being derailed by me, stop each other from needling me instead of blaming me for your own trolling behavior.

Blank my name off my comment, then ask yourself how you would respond to that post if it had been written by someone else. If you can't respond impersonally don't respond at all, or do, but don't be surprised if poking the bear results in a roar.

brookmere

mark_alfred wrote:
I can no longer find any link to their policy resolutions on their (Liberal) site

Took me seconds to find this with Google. First match.

https://convention.liberal.ca/2014-policy-resolutions/

Previous years are there too.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Why is important thread being turned to shit just because Pondering opposes Québec's right to self-determination, and everyone feels a moral duty to respond to her trolling?

I do not oppose Quebec's right to self-determination so apparently trolling is fine by you as long as you are the troll.

Post 107 by quizzical opened the discussion on the Sherbrooke Declaration not I.

My first post, #10 was an expression of interest in Oldgoat's choice to support the local candidate but not the party. Quizzical's post # 11 decided to focus on me with: lolol you already stated  long ago you were voting liberal.

That is what derails threads. Discussing a poster instead of addressing the ideas being presented. It happens over and over and over again.

Unionist post 12 - Don't take this the wrong way, but I personally don't care how you vote. I'm more interested in the topic of this thread.

And in the way Oldgoat votes because you didn't have any problem with him sharing that. I let that pass, but if you were more interested in the topic of the thread maybe you should have stuck to it yourself instead of trolling.

My post # 18 was in response to MM's post on the impact of MMP were it to be introduced.

My post # 34 was about the Walrus article in which the author discusses the spilt between the left and centrist wings of the party expressing the strain between staying true to the heart of the party versus winning elections.

My post # 36 - was on topic concerning the shift to the right.

Jacob's post 38 is a schoolyard taunt.

No question or statement from Pondering has ever been honest.

I didn't respond.

Smith, post # 35, suggests the NDP should be held to account after the election if they govern to the right, I asked how in post 36 to which Smith responded:

But I suppose if I am to be honest I should just say what I am thinking and call partisanship. You know there are ways in a properly functioning system for people within the party and without to have influence on government.

I didn't respond then but I will now. Newsflash. We don't have a properly functioning system. I am partisan and biased against Mulcair. I've admitted it more than once. You just use my support of Trudeau as a shield to avoid supporting your statement.

and it goes on and on and on....

I don't mind the constant trolling. Doesn't bother me a bit. I even opened my "introduce yourself" thread to give you all an outlet for bashing me so I could divert my responses to attacks there instead of defending myself within threads.

http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering

Unfortunately it was deemed inappropriate and closed so I will defend myself on the spot if I am in the mood to.

You want to stop theads from being derailed by me, stop each other from needling me instead of blaming me for your own trolling behavior.

Blank my name off my comment, then ask yourself how you would respond to that post if it had been written by someone else. If you can't respond impersonally don't respond at all, or do, but don't be surprised if poking the bear results in a roar.

Obviously you are more interested in spreading propaganda than in making an informed decision but that is your right.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
Pondering, if all that was needed to get Quebec to sign the constitution was to have a Liberal Quebec premier and a Liberal prime minister at the same time, Bourassa and Trudeau should have been able to seal the deal in 1971 in Victoria.

I didn't say that is all that is needed, only that Couillard is more likely to sign a deal with Trudeau than with Mulcair. It would still be a long shot.

Ken Burch wrote:
What is it that so bothers you about Sherbrooke, when all it does is admit that a Quebec government could be trusted to write a clearly understandable referendum question and to count the votes on a referendum fairly(something 1995 proved that they could do, since a sovereigntist Quebec government did not rig the counting to turn a narrow defeat into a narrow victory, as the Clarity Act assumes they would have) 

Actually, they did rig the vote, they just failed to do it well enough to sway the results.

Controversy arose over whether the Deputy Returning Officers of the Chomedey, Marguerite-Bourgeois and Laurier-Dorion ridings had improperly rejected ballots. In these ridings the "No" vote was dominant, and the proportion of rejected ballots was 12%,[121] 5.5% and 3.6%.[122][123] Thomas Mulcair, member of the Quebec National Assembly for Chomedey, told reporters that there was "an orchestrated attempt to steal the vote" in his riding.[121] A study released months after the referendum by McGill University concluded that ridings with a greater amount of "No" votes had a higher percentage of rejected ballots.[124] Directeur général des élections du Québec (DGEQ), Pierre F. Cote, launched an inquiry into the alleged irregularities, supervised by the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court, Alan B. Gold. All ballots of the three ridings plus a sample of ballots from other ridings were examined. The inquiry concluded that some ballots had been rejected without valid reasons, but the incidents were isolated. The majority of the rejected ballots were "No" votes, in proportion to the majority of the valid votes in those districts.

Two Deputy Returning Officers were charged by the DGEQ with violating elections laws, but in 1996 were found not guilty (a decision upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal), after it was found that the ballots were not rejected in a fraudulent or irregular manner, and that there was no proof of conspiracy.[125] A Quebec Court judge acquitted a Deputy Returning Officer charged with illegally rejecting 53% of the ballots cast at his Chomedey polling district.

In 2000, the Quebec Superior Court denied an application by Alliance Quebec that attempted to force the DGEQ to give access to all 5 million ballots, ruling that the only authority that could do so expired in 1996.[126][127] The referendum ballots were incinerated in 2008 after appeals were exhausted.[128] In May 2005, former PQ cabinet minister Richard Le Hir said that the PQ coordinated the ballot rejections, which PQ officials denied.[129][130]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Rejected_ballots

Ken Burch wrote:
and to admit that it would be morally unacceptable to send Canadian military troops in to block independence by force?

Troops? What for? This is 21st century Canada. There is no physical uprising in Quebec to subdue. Even if a referendum was won by 70% the next day the federal government would still be collecting taxes from businesses through banks, still be sending out UIC cheques.

Ken Burch wrote:
And it's something that can bring this all to an end(which old-school PET-style "just watch me" federalist coat-trailing can never do).

The only thing that will mollify separatists is separation. What is bringing this to an end is immigration; those who were swaying got a reminder through the Charter of Quebec Values that they need Canada's protection from the political elites of Quebec.

Ken Burch wrote:
No one would be harmed by anything the NDP is proposing here, and if it guarantees that you never have Quebec politics reduced to the useless federalist/sovereingntist division (a division that no longer serves the purposes of anyone but reactionary CEO types) it's for the good of all.

Quebecers would be harmed by becoming less entitled to federal programs than other provinces. "Sovereignists" are a shrinking minority. Time to pay attention to the rest of us.

If you don't want me going off topic don't post off-topic claims.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Blank my name off my comment, then ask yourself how you would respond to that post if it had been written by someone else.

Pretty much the same way, actually.

mark_alfred

brookmere wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I can no longer find any link to their policy resolutions on their (Liberal) site

Took me seconds to find this with Google. First match.

https://convention.liberal.ca/2014-policy-resolutions/

Previous years are there too.

 

They don't and to my knowledge never have had a policy book though.  So, presumably, any policy resolution from their past, be it a carbon tax, cancelling NAFTA, or whatever could be considered active policy from the Liberals, right?  Or do they have a policy book?  Because if so, I've never found it. 

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

This is a move from the playbook of Harper. Disappear it, and it never existed. People who care about rank-and-file democracy, and about how policy is determined, should not look for excuses to justify this action. They should question it. And as Sean indicates, when it comes to a party that we want to think is on our side, we have a right to expect a little better when it comes to transparency and democracy.

And a move from the playbook of Trudeau, too.  I can no longer find any link to their policy resolutions on their site (I don't know if they ever even had an official policy book, which allows Liberals to get off scott free here at Babble).  Mind you, the Liberal site is so cluttered that I can't find anything on it.

The Liberals are a party of the rich and mighty - and you feel that their lack of a policy book (or not, who cares exactly) lets them off "scot free" here at babble??

Not exactly the gold standard for how a party like the NDP should function - a party which has enjoyed profound moral, voting, and financial support of the labour movement, women's movement, peace movement, so many other sections of the society hoping for progress.

The NDP is preparing to govern. Will such a government favour transparency, democracy, accountability, control by the people? Does anyone care? I do. Is packing, polishing, concealment of the past, disenfranchisment of members (whose will is expressed at Convention), and obscure decision-making processes a sign of things to come? I hope not.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

This is a move from the playbook of Harper. Disappear it, and it never existed. People who care about rank-and-file democracy, and about how policy is determined, should not look for excuses to justify this action. They should question it. And as Sean indicates, when it comes to a party that we want to think is on our side, we have a right to expect a little better when it comes to transparency and democracy.

And a move from the playbook of Trudeau, too.  I can no longer find any link to their policy resolutions on their site (I don't know if they ever even had an official policy book, which allows Liberals to get off scott free here at Babble).  Mind you, the Liberal site is so cluttered that I can't find anything on it.

The Liberals are a party of the rich and mighty - and you feel that their lack of a policy book (or not, who cares exactly) lets them off "scot free" here at babble??

Not exactly the gold standard for how a party like the NDP should function - a party which has enjoyed profound moral, voting, and financial support of the labour movement, women's movement, peace movement, so many other sections of the society hoping for progress.

The NDP is preparing to govern. Will such a government favour transparency, democracy, accountability, control by the people? Does anyone care? I do. Is packing, polishing, concealment of the past, disenfranchisment of members (whose will is expressed at Convention), and obscure decision-making processes a sign of things to come? I hope not.

I am not bothered by the design of the website, nor am I bothered by how the NDP has marketed itself in this campaign so far.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

I am not bothered by the design of the website, ...

Each time you choose to trivialize the discussion to one of website design, I will remind babblers that the topic has nothing to do with that. I'm not bothered by the design of the website either (it's always been embarrassingly amateurish, if you want an aesthetic opinion). I'm bothered by who makes policy decisions and how they are changed. And in case you haven't noticed, the 2013 policy decisions have been removed from individual MPs' websites too (with one or two obviously accidental exceptions). If that doesn't bother you - say so, and we can then talk about bigger questions of democracy.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

brookmere wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I can no longer find any link to their policy resolutions on their (Liberal) site

Took me seconds to find this with Google. First match.

https://convention.liberal.ca/2014-policy-resolutions/

Previous years are there too.

They don't and to my knowledge never have had a policy book though.  So, presumably, any policy resolution from their past, be it a carbon tax, cancelling NAFTA, or whatever could be considered active policy from the Liberals, right?  Or do they have a policy book?  Because if so, I've never found it. 

No, policy resolutions at Liberal conventions are not active policy from the perspective of governing. They are non-binding.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So here's a question, if policy resolutions are non binding, really can be seen as what Liberals say they will do if elected, then how can ANYONE take ANYTHING the Liberals say on the campaign trail serously. This basiclly means campaign promises, made by Liberals, are NON BINDING TOO!

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

So here's a question, if policy resolutions are non binding, really can be seen as what Liberals say they will do if elected, then how can ANYONE take ANYTHING the Liberals say on the campaign trail serously. This basiclly means campaign promises, made by Liberals, are NON BINDING TOO!

FFS, stop feeding the disruption of this thread. If you have nothing to say about the topic, go post in the gajillion other threads about which party is better or worse. This isn't about that. It's how we can do better.

Or, you can tell me, "You're not in charge here Unionist, you can't control the conversation!!" That would be correct. That's why I'm just sort of pleading with you to allow one little conversation carry on without being controlled by Pondering and her chronic disruption.

mark_alfred

Whatever.  I was not bothered by Lavigne's statement that was in post #1.  I'm happy with how the campaign is going and the messages that are being put out there on the issues by the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

? Unionist?

 

currents

This discussion is not about the policy manual of the liberal party, it is about what the NDP is doing to itself which is not a pretty sight. The purging of candidates who have provided opinions in the past which at that time were totally consistent with party policy should at least be troubling. As mentioned this morning in the Toronto Star by Thomas Walkom, the NDP has now morphed completely in a centre right party.

currents

This discussion is not about the policy manual of the liberal party, it is about what the NDP is doing to itself which is not a pretty sight. The purging of candidates who have provided opinions in the past which at that time were totally consistent with party policy should at least be troubling. As mentioned this morning in the Toronto Star by Thomas Walkom, the NDP has now morphed completely in a centre right party.

quizzical

ofgs.....

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

What a load currents. Go ahezd, vote LPC and go luck with that! Christ!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I don't have a handy link, sadly, but years ago my wife flipped me a fascinating article by a primatologist who observed that baboons, who tend to hunt in packs, had a curious habit of deciding to "settle old scores" with one another right in the middle of the hunt.  Literally, as a pack of baboons would close in on some prey, one would choose exactly that moment to slash another baboon in the ass.  And the article went on to discuss how humans can be like that too.

So even baboons would agree that now is the perfect time to air any and all grievances against the NDP that come to mind.  Who cares if everyone eats or not?  Make them pay for disappointing you!

"This message brought to you by the Concerned Taxpaying Moral Citizens Committee to Elect Stephen Harper".

Rev Pesky

Arthur Cramer wrote:

What a load currents. Go ahezd, vote LPC and go luck with that! Christ!

 

I am a long-time NDP voter, as well as having volunteered for the NDP in provincial campaigns. I could have written 'currents' post (I didn't). When the powers that be remove candidates for expressing opinions that reflect the official stance of the party, one has to wonder what the party has come to. I don't expect that every convention policy will be followed to the letter, I understand that campaigns are run with the idea of winning. But please tell me how, when the party has a stated position, a candidate that expresses that position can be removed from the campaign?

Quote:
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
When the powers that be remove candidates for expressing opinions that reflect the official stance of the party

Are you referring to Morgan Wheeldon?  And the NDP's official stance that Israel intends to ethnically cleanse the region?

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Are you referring to Morgan Wheeldon?  And the NDP's official stance that Israel intends to ethnically cleanse the region?

If I ever for a moment thought that your views were intrinsic to the NDP, I would dedicate myself to their destruction. Thankfully, views like yours are confined to a tiny minority, unfortunately including some people in the Leader's inner circle. People are strong enough to defeat that and redirect the party onto a path of peace and justice.

Pages