Bring Back Tom Mulcair.....

Rev Pesky wrote:

JKR wrote:

...I think the NDP, like the Liberals and Conservatives, are all creatures of our big-tent FPTP system that favors top-down leader-centred parties...

Could you present an example of non-leader-centered parties in some PR system.

I think what happens in PR systems is that when a party and its leader fail to live up to the requirements of many of its members, unsatisfied party members have the option of starting up a new party and choosing a leader more to their liking. Just the possibility of this gives party members a lot more power than members have in a plurality system where the fear of vote-splitting keeps party members in line and under the thumb of party leaders. An example of this can be seen in Germany where the AfD and Die Linke were able to emerge respectively from the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. I think under FPTP powerful leaders like Angela Merkel have more power vis a vis their party's rank and file members. I think this is one reason party leaders here generally seem to like FPTP.

What's Tom's last day?

In calendar terms, I mean.  On which day should I mark the big red X?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Holy crap, I just found your quote: it's from an unsigned Canadian Press story. They have no clue about the NDP, its structure, its constitution, and you're citing the MSM for your concoction that Mulcair "needed" a vote of caucus to remain as "interim" leader? Why not just try to say: "Ok, I was mistaken?" I did it yesterday in another thread. It's not that hard.

[url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/08/mulcair-refuses-to-crack-...'s source[/url]

Actually you can see this from many, many sources. Certainly there is a lot of reporting of a meeting by caucus where they asked him to continue during the period up to the vote.

This is quite the conspiracy if you think it is a lie -- and not a single NDP MP denying it.

By the way the word to use when speaking about a period of time before something  would be interim.

No Sean, let me try again. Of course caucus asked him to stay. Everyone knows that. We talked about it here at length. What they did not (and could not) do was to appoint him as interim leader. Why? Because he is the leader, and caucus has no say over that. Furthermore, caucus doesn't even appoint a true interim leader (like Nycole Turmel). Were you aware of that? Have you read the constitution? I don't care how "many, many, many, many sources" distort reality. It doesn't make it true.

Caucus urged him to stay, and he decided to stay. It was his call - not theirs.

Please retract the falsehood that Mulcair "needed" a vote by caucus to remain as any kind of leader. The fact that countless media repeated this lie changes nothing - except that NDP members who have long since given up expecting any semblance of internal democracy and "rule of law" will clearly believe almost any bullshit that is tossed their way.

Unless that changes - no change in Leader will accomplish anything.

I'm not sure they've actually set the date. 

Yeah, I was expecting something more when I first learned that they were planning to file a complaint.  The letter (which I only skimmed through, admittedly) seems more of a fishing expedition rather than a concrete complaint.  And as you say, members can be from outside of the riding association (at least in Ontario), and thus so can delegates.  If the delegate numbers from an EDA went beyond the entitlement (IE, if it went beyond the 1 in 50 ratio for some EDAs) then perhaps there would be a basis for complaint.  For instance, a riding with 150 members would be entitled to a maximum of 4 delegates (one for the first 50 members, another for the next 50, a third for the last 50 members, and the youth delegate).  If such a riding had twenty delegates, then that would be a cause for concern.

federal NDP Constitution wrote:

Article III:  Membership

1. Individual Membership

(1)  Individual membership shall be open to every resident of Canada, regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or national origin who undertakes to accept and abide by the constitution and principles of the Party and who is not a member or supporter of any other political party.

(2)   Applications for individual membership shall be dealt with in accordance with the constitution of the appropriate provincial Party and shall be subject to the approval of that provincial Party.

Article V:  Conventions

6. Delegates to Conventions

(b)   Electoral District Association Delegates

Each electoral district association shall be entitled to:

i   one (1) delegate for 50 party members or less;

ii   one (1) additional delegate for each additional 50 party members or major fraction thereof; and

iii   one (1) additional credential reserved for a youth delegate.

Ontario NDP Constitution wrote:

Article 5:  Constituency Associations

3.1

Subject to Article 3.07(2), the individual members who reside within a particular constituency shall constitute the membership of that constituency association.

Article 3:  Individual Membership

7.2

An individual member may become a member of a constituency association other than the one in which he/she resides by making a personal request to the constituency association to which he/she wishes to belong, and by having that constituency association accept his/her membership.