Jagmeet Singh needs to get his ass into Parliament post haste

From Mr. Magoo:

This whole business about how Singh needs to find a riding, convince the NDP MP to step down, and win that seat is what gamers would call a "side quest".  A diversion from the real quest, basically.

And I might consider it all differently if my "Spidey-sense" told me there was even a tiny bit of good faith in this, but there's not.

​In that I was one of those proposing Singh get himself a seat via this method, I suppose I should defend my position.

​First off, I'll say this is very commonly done in cases where a new party leader does not have a seat in whatever legislative body. One does not need 'bad faith' to suggest it.

​Secondly, what is the party leader, really. The party leader is mostly the leader of the caucus. The NDP has both a president and a party director, so while the leader is still the 'leader', the day to day running of the party is the job of someone else. It is the party caucus that is directly led by the leader. A leader that right now is not in the same room as the caucus.

Finally, because it's been mentioned again, the cost of the by-election is not really a factor. It's not uncommon for there to be 10-15 by-elections during a parliamentary term. One more or less is not a flagrant misuse of taxpayer money.

I'll just add one thing. Someone mentioned Trudeau being paid as an MP while gallivanting around as party leader. Who was paying Singh while he was running for the NDP leadership? Was he still receiving money for being an MPP?

In any case, this is something that every party has to deal with. The party leader in parliament is also a sitting MP, and there is an inherent conflict between those two positions. Trudeau is not the first, and Singh would not be the last, to deal with that particular issue.

Quote:

First off, I'll say this is very commonly done in cases where a new party leader does not have a seat in whatever legislative body. One does not need 'bad faith' to suggest it.

Fair enough.  It's been suggested.  And you're probably right that it's commonplace, perhaps even so commonplace that there's not even a need to suggest it.

I think the bad faith starts to kick in after it's been suggested about 50 times, or when it's "suggested" that not immediately running is proof that the NDP can't win, or it's proof that they're hypocrites, or it's proof that Singh is wrong for the job or whatever.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Debater wrote:

As I posted above, the CTV Sunday panel thinks Singh is getting left out right now because he doesn't have a seat in the House.

But there have been other politcal panels I've seen where the majority have said it is a better use of Jagmeet's time to tour the country and engage with the grassroots.

I believe there's a good debate here! I was on both sides. But now, I'll have to argue for Jagmeet's support. Jagmeet is best waiting for the general election and run in Brampton, my current home town! He also needs to win his seat strong! 50%+ of the vote. As well the NDP need to take at least one more Brampton seat, or better an additional several at the very least withon Region of Peel. This will make a strong statement for the NDP and give Jagmeet greater authority moving after the 2019 election.

The 2018 Ontario election results, especially in Peel region and lessor extent the GTA will or should have an impact directing Jagmeets course.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The only place I've seen it suggested over 50 times is here on rabble.

Same.

Now for the fun question:  by 50 different babblers?

Or just one 50 times?

I don't think it matters whether Singh has a seat now or not. He's getting some press (both good and bad) and popping up for selfies here and there, so at least he's doing more than Mulcair did during his unfortunate time as interim leader. My problem is that (predictably) nothing seems to be changing with the federal party. After a brief reprieve following the vote I'm now back to receiving a daily email asking for $$$. Now they're framing it as an appeal for monthly "Game Changer" donors. I'd write back and tell them to go ask Jagmeet's fan base in Brampton, but I'm sure no one at the party reads emails or gives a shit what members think. They just want our $$$. (Cue fond memories of Charlie Angus being the only one talking about this problem during the campaign.) 

And despite the rah-rah cheers of a particular poster here, there is no evidence to date of any bump for the NDP with Singh as leader. I think we are on course for another major seat loss in 2019, but it's a long way off, so who knows what could change. Maybe we'll actually have policies that will inspire and interest people, put forward by a leader people trust. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. And never fear, all we need is love & courage.

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

You seem to have a few things wrong:

1) A party leader that is not elected is in the same room as the caucus when it comes to party business. They just cannot go intot he H of C chamber and debate. A party leader is much more than  head of caucus.

2) The cost of a byelection to the taxpayer is insignificant but that is not true for a party -- especially when other parties may pour in resources to defeat them.

3) June, July, August and half of September the Legislature was not even sitting. But it is not uncommon for a member of a provincial legislature to run for a different level of office. I don't think his residents claimed he was not working hard enough for them at any time.

​As to #1: I believe I said that the job of leader was 'mostly' head of caucus, which would seem to allow some room for other activities. I did point out that day to day running of the party is done by functionaries. 

#2: This is interesting because I never took it that the concern over money spent was NDP money. Perhaps the person who brought up the money issue can clarify whether they meant party money, or taxpayer money.

In any case, presumably Singh would run in a more or less safe seat, which should allay concerns about other parties shovelling in money in order to upset that plan. 

#3: So Singh was collecting money from the Ontario legislature while he was running for the leadership of the federal NDP. I can certainly understand why he didn't resign his seat in anticipation of running. After all, if he had, a loss would have left him politically orphaned.

Perhaps he could have done what Trudeau did. That is, seek a seat in the federal parliament before seeking the leadership of the NDP.

I disagree that being leader is mostly of caucus. It is more being a spokesperson for the party along with these other tasks related to direction for the party, finances and policies that matter.

I was one of the people that raised the money issue if not the first one. And I was speaking about the party not wasting a budget on this.

The NDP does not have any safe seats beyond except for ones where losing the person now in the seat would be counter productive. The leader will get heard even if not in the house but any MP asked to step aside will be lost from the NDP's public conversation. They would have to find another income and may not want to come back in two years. It is not as easy as you say when the party has had the setback it has. The party has few seats outside Quebec and no safe seats fro Singh in it. The advice to get someone to stepdown is ill-considered.

The idea that only MPs can run for leader is also not well considered. The party needs new life as the members have decided. In fact a crop of MPs lost to Singh. The NDP has very good reasons to want to look outside -- it has some older MPS who do not want the job and younger, newer MPs but that middle cohort is largely missing. Often people will be MP for 20 years before running for leader -- if they do not come from outside with significant credentials from some other place. In this case, 20 years ago the NDP had only a handful of MPs, and many of those have since retired.

The NDP needs constructive and practical criticism and advice rather than people here raising barriers that could never be overcome or that apply to larger parties in different situations. The NDP is making do with what it can in its own circumstances as they should.

We might even want to focus on suggestions that they could follow rather than suggesting Singh should have gone back into a time machine, recognized that Mulcair was a dud, and ran then.

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

The NDP needs constructive and practical criticism and advice rather than people here raising barriers that could never be overcome or that apply to larger parties in different situations. The NDP is making do with what it can in its own circumstances as they should.

We might even want to focus on suggestions that they could follow rather than suggesting Singh should have gone back into a time machine, recognized that Mulcair was a dud, and ran then.

​I don't think suggesting that Singh get into Parliament is a barrier. It is my opinion that it would be better for the party if he were in the Commons. However, yourself, and others, have erected barriers themselves, many of which are expressed in your post above.

​At the same time, I do agree that finding a safe NDP seat woudn't be that easy. As far as the existing MP, that's not really a problem. Usually they are offered a party position, with the promise of more in the future. No one would starve.

And as far as the time machine, while it's true, one can't go back, it's also true that no one had to recognize Mulcair as a dud. All one needs is the thought in their head that someday they may want to lead the party. 

But it's true, the NDP party members were obviously not that happy with the sitting MPs. 

By barriers I eman proposing things that are not worth it or may not even be possible. I am recognizing that the NDP is doing generally what it needs to do. You are proposing costs and a process that in your opinion has a benefit. I disagree considering an election is a long way off and he can get media easily as leader.

You say the job of caucus leader is the biggest part and I disagree.

The idea that Singh ought to have run federally when there was no sign that the job would open any time soon just because he might want to be leader in the future is nonsensical. Peoples decisions to be leader move with circumstances. If the provincial opening came up first I am sure Singh would have tried that. There is nothing wrong with seeking a position and no need to commit to which level years in advance when there is no open position.

Jagmeet just said he will not be contesting any of the four by-elections set for December 11

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/08/jagmeet-singh-says-he-has-no-pla...

If the Conservatives had chosen a leader who was not a member of Parliament, how would it be affecting the Conservatives if their new leader were outside of the House of Commons for two years until the next election? If a non-MP had become leader of the Conservatives, I think the Conservatives would have insisted that that person quickly seek election to the H of C through a by-election. It seems to me that this is so because if a major party leader is not leading their party in the H of C, that leader and that party seem like they are not contending to form government. I think the danger of Singh not leading the NDP in the H of C is that it sends a signal to the public that the NDP is only a third party that is not in contention to form government and this might end up contrasting unfavourably with the Liberals and Conservatives come election time. Only time will tell....

Maybe someone in a safe NDP seat like Jenny Kwan in Vancouver-East could provide a seat for Singh?

Mighty Middle wrote:

JKR wrote:

If the Conservatives had chosen a leader who was not a member of Parliament, how would it be affecting the Conservatives if their new leader were outside of the House of Commons for two years until the next election? If a non-MP had become leader of the Conservatives, I think the Conservatives would have insisted that that person quickly seek election to the H of C through a by-election. It seems to me that this is so because if a major party leader is not leading their party in the H of C, that leader and that party seem like they are not contending to form government. I think the danger of Singh not leading the NDP in the H of C is that it sends a signal to the public that the NDP is only a third party that is not in contention to form government and this might end up contrasting unfavourably with the Liberals and Conservatives come election time. Only time will tell....

That is because the Conservatives are the Official Opposition and the Government in waiting. You couldn't have the leader of the Official Opposition not be in the house. The NDP being the third party in the house isn't in that position. If the NDP were still the Official Opposition, I'm sure the calls for Jagmeet to run for a seat would be twice as loud. Being leader of  the third party gives Jagmeet the luxury of not having to run until 2019.

Glad to see you accept that.

The other issue is the main opposition party has more seats and more people to ask to step aside. When a party has had a recent loss a greater number of its seats would be held by high profile people it does nto want to lose and more seats would be vulnerable. The seats that are the safest will be held by the most high profile people. As well the cost for a third party of contesting a byelection is more significant as they tend to have cash problems. This is why there cannot be rules for all opposition parties getting their leaders into parliament but that each must look at their situation and make decisions based on priority and cost.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Glad to see you accept that.

Thanks for saying that Sean

progressive17 wrote:

I think that not having Mr. Singh in Parliament makes it easier for Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Singh is a lawyer, and would be able to deliver a much more competent opposition to the Liberals than Mr. Scheer.

Trudeau and his ministers need to be cross-examined.

If ones performance in Question Period was the litmus test to higher office then Thomas Mulcair would be Prime Minister right now.

scott16 wrote:

The better idea would be for Brian Masse in Windsor West to step down. Although I agree he should wait till 2019.

I don't see that happening as Brian Masse seems quite content to stay where he is

As Duceppe said "if my grandmother had wheels she would be a tractor."

If the NDP were OO then there would be more safe seats to choose from, more money to fight a campaign etc. In other words in that alternate reality other facts would be different as well.

JKR wrote:

Maybe someone in a safe NDP seat like Jenny Kwan in Vancouver-East could provide a seat for Singh?

A riding in Surrey might be a good fit. IMO he doesn't need to become the champion of the inner city because the NDP already has strong voices in that area and it would be a waste of what he brings to the table. In the next general election he needs to run and win in the area of Ontario that he is from because that is the only route to government under his leadership. If he can't convince Canada's first and second generation immigrants that he represents them more than a silver spooned aristocrat from Mount Royal then the NDP has no hope of even getting into second place. That mostly suburban part of big city Canada is the battle ground. In seat rich Ontario and the Lower Mainland in particular the NDP needs to supplant the Liberals. A base in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver is not the right focus.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If he can't convince Canada's first and second generation immigrants that he represents them more than a silver spooned aristocrat from Mount Royal then the NDP has no hope of even getting into second place. 

That's not true. People don't all percieve Trudeau the way you do and many people vote based on the economy + personal interests. I certainly wouldn't want anyone telling me I voted for someone between they are a woman, or middle class, or immigrant, or that I shouldn't vote for someone because they are rich. 

If Singh loses that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't win. 

progressive17 wrote:

he is a good lawyer and would make life very uncomfortable for the Liberals

Sounds like you are talking about Tom Mulcair when he made life uncomfortable for Harper, and look how that turned out in the 2015 election.

No, not because of Sikhs, but because he has won there and has an organization on the ground who know him and will work for him. People in Brampton will not necessarily commute to Scarborough to help him out. The NDP has to work to its strengths.

The Mulcair being a good lawyer in the House thing is not a cause and effect of the NDP defeat in the 2015 election. The NDP allowed themselves to be snookered on the left by the Liberals. It is not the same circumstance. Trudeau is not Harper. Trudeau has had it easy with Rona Ambrose and now Scheer.

Mighty Middle wrote:

 At one point Mulcair and the NDP were leading in the polls. But then Mulcair debate performance and handling of retail politics didn't match his QP show. Because expectations where so high some people were left wondering "is this the same guy we saw in QP?" In combination with the NDP running a lousy campaign.

It is better to keep Singh out of QP and on the road.

I agree with you on keeping him on the road but not about Mulcair's performance because the only people being that analytical are partisans and pundits. Mulcair came across as an old style politician when people were looking for change. As soon as Trudeau put to rest worries that he had no policy and could handle a debate he soared. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Actually some pundits have said .....

Many things that were not just a little wrong but outright stupid.

Plus who is saying seriously that what Mulcair did not work on Harper? I think it did.

The problem is the NDP did not get the benefit but the Liberals did.

The issue with the prosecutorial House performance is that in law there tends to be two sides -- destroy the other and you win. The NDP talked itself into believing this. They did not account for the fact that the opposition is also a competition. Their campaign against the government went well -- just miserably agaisnt the other opposition party. A big part of that is that the NDP misunderstood where the people were, ignored the Liberals as insignificant, failed to provide the hope that people wanted at that point, and failed to respond to what the Liberals put forward. On top of that Mulcair was no match for Trudeau on the charm front -- the latter is not the biggie, the former was conclusive.

I do not think that getting into parliament is the emergency some think although I agree that it would be useful. The problem is the cost, in effort, in party finances, in risk going in the wrong place, and in diversion from the urgent work to make sure the party is ready for a national campaign. The NDP has to craft a platform that is not just a knee-jerk flight from the last but well thought out and with a communications strategy that is sound.

I agree with most here who say if the right seat comes up he should go for it. But the seats that have come up are not the right ones. As well, asking a fellow member to resign is not a good plan as we have discussed.

I agree with everything you said. Until the right seat comes along they should leave the heavy lifting in QP to others. I mean it worked for Trudeau, right?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Your post about leaving the heavy lifting to others and comparing Trudeau -- after the discussions that have been held here -- smacks of being passive aggressive. I hope that was not your intention as much as it looks like it was.

Heavy Lifting was a poor choice of words on my part. It wasn't my intension to suggest others would have to do the 'heavy lifting' for Jagmeet. What I meant to say was to let the caucus perform in QP, while Jagmeet tours the country. As that worked for Trudeau.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That worked for Trudeau in part because of the many people who ignored the responsibility that an elected MP has to the House. This is different from someone who chooses to lead for a while without being elected becuase he recognizes the importance of that responsibility and does not want to ignore it. So not "as" that worked for Trudeau but very different from that.

Nathan Cullen noted that former leader Jack Layton did not hold a seat when he took over the helm of the party in 2003. But he also suggested there was a lesson from the experiences of Thomas Mulcair, who was widely seen as an effective performer in Parliament and has said it would be "a heck of a lot better" if his successor holds a federal seat.

"We were incredibly strong in the House of Commons during the last Parliament, yet not so much out of the bubble," Cullen said. "Our presence on the ground was not as strong as it should have been. And when the election finally came around, that became evident."

Nathan Cullen noted that New Democrats were sharply critical of Trudeau, then leader of the third place party, for not "being as present or as strong in the House" as they thought he should have been.

"Voters in the end determined that they had a relationship and understood his policies better than they did ours. So, he's prime minister," Cullen said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/20/nathan-cullen-backs-jagmeet-sing...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You have droned on in this way for a month in a half and likely lost any respect you may have had in the process.

Since I never had your respect anyways, I haven't lost much.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

On a scale of "yes" or "no", do you feel that you're discussing this topic in good faith, Mighty Middle?

Is there a reason (other than "people don't seem to agree") for why you keep coming back to the same thing over and over again?

All I can say is that everytime the subject comes up about whether Jagmeet Singh should seek a seat or not, the comparion always comes up that he is just doing what Justin Trudeau did when he became Liberal leader. In every newspaper article, radio and TV political panels. This comparison has been mentioned at least a million times. Just recently as last week on CTV Question Period.

Jagmeet himself even brings up a comparison between himself and Jack Layton (every single time) when asked when he will seek a seat. Saying that Jack Layton toured the county without a seat. So if Jagmeet constantly compares himself to Jack Layton about when to get a seat, I don't think it is unfair to just mention that Jagmeet is touring the country like Justin Trudeau when he was the leader of the third party (which Jagmeet is now). Every single political pundit across political lines has made the same comparison.

The media will constantly compare Jagmeet touring the country just like Justin did (as third party leader). So get over it.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And is that when you point out that Trudeau actually had a seat in the HOC, and collected a paycheque for filling it?

Trudeau would only have to answer to the residents of Papineau (who was paying his paycheque as their MP) if they minded him being absent from the House of Commons. Since he got re-elected by them, I guess they didn't have a problem with it.