Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

The following centres more on Guy Caron, NDP parliamentary leader, but also relates to Singh, since Singh wisely chose Caron for this role.

In Le Journal de Montreal, columnist Mario Dumont cites Guy Caron as having been one of 2017's shining stars.  Link:  http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/12/27/politique-canadienne-meritas...

Google Translation of Mario Dumont's comment on Guy Caron, wrote:

Merit Revelation of the Year: Guy Caron. Only Quebec candidate for leadership of the NDP, the MP for Rimouski-Neigette went unnoticed at that time, except that the winner Jagmeet Singh, who has no seat in the Commons, offered him to become temporarily parliamentary leader of the NDP. His questions to Justin Trudeau have often been solid, clear and biting. Many of these interventions were retained in newsletters: effective.

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed that that alone will not cause the Libs to lose.  But, the one (and perhaps only) thing the Libs have going for them is the popularity of Trudeau, and his image of being a good guy.  So, whittling away at that with facts will help.  And, people did expect "real change" from him, so pointing out areas, including foreign affairs, where there's little evidence of change, helps in tarnishing the good guy image of Trudeau. 

More important, though, is people's personal interest.  Those who were interested in seeing electoral reform are furious, and that did get the Libs a lot of strategic votes.  Those votes will not return to the Libs. 

I'm a bit late to the party, but I agree 100% with this and it's worth repeating. People don't like Trudeau's policies and then rationalize liking him from there. That's almost never how politicians succeed. They like his character and rationalize support for his policies from there. The best thing the NDP can do is to carefully reframe Trudeau as "not in it for you." And I also agree that the single most effective issue so far to do that with is with the blatand renege on electoral reform. There are three other big issues that are going to hurt: legalization of weed (to be fair, I don't think people had realistic expectations based on the nature of the criticisms I've seen), and supporting Wynne in the 2018 Ontario election (presuming he does). The third you mention below so I'll touch on it then.

Quote:

Also, some youth I've met are not too happy, given that 1.) the Libs did not raise the minimum wage, and 2.) they've done nothing about precarious work (in fact Morneau said "We have to accept that", in reference to a question on precarious work).  Regarding the minimum wage, recall that Trudeau derided the NDP's pledge to raise the minimum wage as misleading, in that only raising the federal minimum wage was declared by Trudeau as insufficient (thus hinting that his party would go further than the NDP and perhaps engage with the provinces too on the issue).  After the election he was very clear that he never intended to raise the minimum wage at all.  

Sometimes I read too much nuance and miss the common perception of things, and this may be one of those times. That said, personally, I never interpreted that criticism of the NDP minimum wage policy as support for raising minimum wage, but rather criticism of the...well...misleading nature of the policy. Lay voters know that governments can raise minimum wage, but many don't know which branch does it - so a federal government campaigning on raising minimum wage is inherently misleading. In any case, I don't think minimum wage is a productive line of attack as the Ontario Liberals are raising it to $15 by the next federal election. And since Ontario is almost half the population and well more than half the seats likely to be contested next federal election, well, I just don't see that like of attack working out so well.

Quote:

The real interest that many voters, specifically homeowners, have is making sure their main investment in life, that being their house, is secure.  If housing prices start to fall dramatically, the Libs will lose (mind you, IMO housing prices need to go down, but slowly rather than via a dramatic crash).  Any party that looks like it could lead to financial insecurity (and thus fears of housing prices crashing) will not win.  This is the main struggle the NDP have, IMO.  They need to make sure that they can overcome this fear, which makes proposing big items (that please the NDP base, but worry some others) tricky.  That said, I like the fact that Singh is talking about some big items like free tuition, increasing the capital gains tax inclusion rate, increasing corporate taxes by 4.5%, pharmacare, drug decrim and greater harm reduction, etc.

Ugh. I'm not even 100% sure the housing policy changes are bad, because I'm not an economist, but I can say for sure they will not be popular. They are reining in home prices by making them less affordable for those who need to borrow money to buy a home (ie. everyone but the rich). This is extremely bad for young people and first time homebuyers, and bad for most everyone else who can't pay cash. The changes coming in a few days will reduce new mortgage sizes by roughly 20%. So either house prices go down by 20% - which will piss off a lot of boomers - or they stay the same and the bottom 20% of the housing market - mostly young people and those who have never been able to own a home - get eliminated (or some combination of the above). Maybe these changes will prevent a crash that would otherwise have happened (in which case they are good changes), but since that's unknowable most people are going to blame the Liberals for hurting the values of their homes without improving afforability except for the rich. And it's not clear that the changes themselves won't spark a crash.

And even if there's no crash, this will stop people from "buying up" - like when they sell a "starter home" to buy a nicer home, because their home hasn't accrued as much equity and they can't get as much mortgage. Since people tend to spend quite a lot on home improvement projects prior to selling a home (and after buying a new one), home resales tend to help people in those industries as well. So this is going to hurt not just boomers and homebuyers, but also general contractors and suppliers who do work on homes, as well as skilled tradesmen like plumbers, electricians, etc.

So anyway, I completely agree with all your analysis except the quite minor bit on minimum wage. In particular I agree that Trudeau's weakness is the fact that he is relying heavily on his personal popularity and that can be worked away at as reality continues to diverge from expectations.

Edit to add: And, since the thread is about Singh, I do think that Singh is quite likeable and that many of those who like Trudeau will be able to like Singh as well even without coming to actively disliking Trudeau. As long as Singh can disagree with Trudeau without doing so in a personally disrespectful manner, I think he is absolutely well suited to act as Trudeau's foil on policy, and that starts with championing the principles and policies that Trudeau has abandoned (which are in line with the NDP's values anyway).

I'm all for rebranding.  Another step he could take to dramatically rebrand from the previous leaders would be to establish real internal party democracy...give party members full control of what is in the party program and the electoral plaform...reduce the power of the leader to remove nominataed candidates(the leader should ONLY be able to do that if there's evidence that a candidate has hidden a criminal offense or an ongoing substance abuse problem, facilitated a harassment/rape culture in the riding association, violated party rules in winning the nomination, or in some other demonstrated personal unfitness for the role of parliamentary candidate-a candidate should never be removed simply for taking a more radical position than the party does on any given issue)...and the right to expect a clear, prompt and respectful response from the staff at NDP headquarters on any concerns ordinary party members contact headquarters about.

To rebrand, the NDP HAS to stop treating its core supporters as a nuisance in good times and the enemy in others.  If you support the party when nobody else does, the party owes you at least SOME respect and responsiveness in return.

Ken Burch wrote:

To rebrand, the NDP HAS to stop treating its core supporters as a nuisance in good times and the enemy in others.

Don't forget "As a piñata to beat to death for money, whether times are good or bad."

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

reduce the power of the leader to remove nominataed candidates

Would you accept the right of the leader + the caucus to do so?  Or the leader + a committee?  Or even just a committee, minus the leader?

I get that lots of folk disagree with the NDP refusing to endorse certain potential candidates, but at the same time I think there needs to be at least SOME centralized oversight of those things that will affect the party overall.  Certainly, putting riding associations in charge of things that solely affect those ridings makes sense, but to put riding associations in charge of things that can affect the entire party makes less sense.  It's great if a riding association is strongly in favour of "outspoken" Candidate X, but no so great if the party in general has to spend a whole election explaining that "if you look very carefully, you'll see that that's probably not what Candidate X really meant when he tweeted that, and anyway, don't we have Freedom of Speech any more??"

And for the record, we can't really do much about potential candidates having "a more radical position" than the party.  But is asking them to sit on their fingers and NOT tweet about it unreasonable?  We don't have to share ALL of our "radical" thoughts with the world, do we?

I said "reduce", not abolish.  In the post I responded to, I agreed that there were legitimate grounds for the party leadership to refuse to accept someone as candidate.  

For example, the removal of the NDP candidate in a B.C. riding who turned out to be using hard drugs and had hidden the fact was justified.  So would the removal of a candidate who committed larceny, kidnapping, rape, or murder...OR a candidate found to possess child pornography.  

I'd also say any removed candidate, or the riding association that nominated said candidate, should be given an immediate explanation for the removal...after all, if there's a reason to do that, there's no reason to conceal that reason the candidate was removed.  Such a thing never has to be secretive or highhanded.

In 2015, about ten candidates who had been endorsed by their riding association, the group that knows the riding and the candidate better than anyone at party headquarters, were removed.  They generally weren't even given explanations for their removal.  In one riding in Ontario, a candidate seemed to have been removed solely because Mulcair wanted an older, more boring candidate instead of the young activist the riding committee had chosen.

As to those dumped over their stand on the Israel/Palestine issue, it wasn't a question of them refusing to stop tweeting about the issue during the campaign...it was because of things they'd said long before the campaign.   

And IIRC, the NDP didn't come close to winning any of the ridings where a candidate was dumped, let alone come close to holding its ground in the seat count or the popular vote, let alone beat the Conservatives and form government.  So what, in the end, was the point?  What greater social democratic good was served?

There's no good reason not to switch to full transparency on that process.

Jagmeet Singh is making his mark as the new leader of the federal NDP

http://www.voiceonline.com/jagmeet-making-federal/

Rev Pesky wrote:

What was Manly's sin? He committed the unpardonable crime of being on a boat that tried to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

It was his father, former NDP MP Jim Manley, who was on the boat. Paul Manley was blacklisted for protesting the incarceration of his father.

Isn't solidarity great?

From brookemere:

It was his father, former NDP MP Jim Manley, who was on the boat. Paul Manley was blacklisted for protesting the incarceration of his father.

​Yes, you are quite right. and I should know better. In fact I was at the Nanaimo airport to welcome Jim Manly back into the country. I'm afraid old age and decrepitude is having it's way with me.

For those who would like to know more about the treatment Paul Manly got from the NDP, here's a good spot,

Paul Manly - Not your NDP's candidate

NDP’s new national director promises open nominations

"[McGrath] said her party won’t repeat the mistakes of the federal Conservatives and Liberals, whose grassroots members have complained of interference in local nominations by senior party officials."

Yet they turned Manly down. 
Really, NDP? This guy spent his 16th birthday campaigning with Tommy Douglas! 

He made the 2009 doc You, Me and the SPP : Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule, frequently pillaged here at Creekside in the past, on his own dime after being turned down for funding by CBC and NFB.

He shot that footage you've all seen of the three 3 rock-toting Quebec police provocateurs at the Montebello protest back in Aug. 2007, and the magic disappearing act of the Toronto police at the G20 while a few black bloc rampaged through downtown in 2010.

Since then he's worked in his community for healthcare, First Nations rights, and marched to end violence against women. 

​Obviously a dangerous 'loose cannon' , who, if allowed to run in the 2015 election could have caused a drop in votes for the NDP, and who knows, may have ended up having the NDP lose half their seats!! 

Rev Pesky wrote:

From brookemere:

It was his father, former NDP MP Jim Manley, who was on the boat. Paul Manley was blacklisted for protesting the incarceration of his father.

​Yes, you are quite right. and I should know better. In fact I was at the Nanaimo airport to welcome Jim Manly back into the country. I'm afraid old age and decrepitude is having it's way with me.

For those who would like to know more about the treatment Paul Manly got from the NDP, here's a good spot,

Paul Manly - Not your NDP's candidate

NDP’s new national director promises open nominations

"[McGrath] said her party won’t repeat the mistakes of the federal Conservatives and Liberals, whose grassroots members have complained of interference in local nominations by senior party officials."

Yet they turned Manly down. 
Really, NDP? This guy spent his 16th birthday campaigning with Tommy Douglas! 

He made the 2009 doc You, Me and the SPP : Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule, frequently pillaged here at Creekside in the past, on his own dime after being turned down for funding by CBC and NFB.

He shot that footage you've all seen of the three 3 rock-toting Quebec police provocateurs at the Montebello protest back in Aug. 2007, and the magic disappearing act of the Toronto police at the G20 while a few black bloc rampaged through downtown in 2010.

Since then he's worked in his community for healthcare, First Nations rights, and marched to end violence against women. 

​Obviously a dangerous 'loose cannon' , who, if allowed to run in the 2015 election could have caused a drop in votes for the NDP, and who knows, may have ended up having the NDP lose half their seats!! 

Thank god(desses)nothing like that happened.  

It would be an excellent first step towards changing the "the left is the enemy" dynamic if Jagmeet were to apologize to the entire Manly family for Mulcair's decision to blacklist Paul.  It was simply an inexcusable act, and both Mulcair and Jagmeet know it.

In a new interview with the Toronto Star Jagmeet says

"As leader, I can say that I have an appeal. That’s pretty clear.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/30/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-...

Here's an op-ed in The Star about the need for tax reform that Jagmeet Singh wrote.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/02/its-2018-and-tim...

A few days later The Star itself advocated some of Singh's points in their own editorial:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/01/08/widening-wage-gap-...

Angus has, or had, a point.

Mighty Middle wrote:

josh wrote:

Angus has, or had, a point.

I think this was in reference to Jagmeet inviting the Canadian Press (the largest wire service in the country) to cover his engagement.

Singh will never be PM. I'm sorry but look at the polls. The NDP isn't polling much higher than the greens.

In another thread I mentioned that the NDP would have to establish a friendly relationship with Orange Hitler and they would and yu can take that to the bank.

That is not true. Tom Mulcair, Jagmeet Singh and the ENTIRE NDP caucus is firm on this point. That if they were in Government the first thing they would do is TELL OFF Trump to his face.

lolololololol!

Mulcair would tell off Trump to his face? Or anyone dealing with Don the Con? Lol. You'd have to be a delusional fool to believe that. Quit drinking the kool aid. The NDP is not much or at all more to the left than the Liberals.

And Singh is a weak leader. He'd also have to break the racial barriers that exist in Canada. That will be a daunting task. I also have no reason to believe Singh is a true Social Democrat. The party has moved to the centre. That's their strategy to win elections and it's a losing strategy since we already have the Liberals.

Canada does not  have a left wing option. Sorry.

Deal with it. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Canada does not  have a left wing option. Sorry.

Do you mean to say that there are NO federal parties to the left of the NDP?

Or are there such parties, but you mean to say that you're uninteresting in supporting them?

Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada.

Thanks.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada.

You didn't specify that there's no left wing option with the hope of being elected.  How will the ones that exist ever be elected if you can't support them before they're elected?

I hope you're not just waiting for everyone else to vote for them, Alan.  Where's your principle?

Quote:

Thanks.

No worries.

Well,you didn't answer my question. And of course I'd vote for a true hardline leftist party. But the chances of a party like that winning are unlikely,the general public is afraid of such parties thanks to decades of media and mainstream political parties scapegoating the left.

My principle?

Here's what I'd like from a federal party with a hope of being elected.

1 - A National housing Act ( much more social housing and rent controled housing)

2 - A minimum income

3 - A living wage for all workers (the minimum wage tailored by the cost of living of each city, $15 for some, $20 - $25 for others such as Vancouver) Maybe even scrap the minimum wage and pass a law making incomes at a minimum of $30K per year.

4 - A garaunteed 6 week vacation time for all workers

5 - A 30 hour work week

6 - parental leave of 12 months with pay

7 - Creating red light districts in all major cities

8 - Legalize sex work

9 - Sexual therapy for handicapped people and old/elderly people with nobody in their lives.

10 - Legalize ALL drugs

11 - Extend medicare to cover dental,prescriptions,eye tests and prescription glasses

12 - Protecting free speech. No matter how vile the speech. No more PC bullshit.

13 - Changing police FORCE with community peacekeepers.

14 - Ending corporate welfare

15 - Budget surpluses to be shared with the populace

16 - tearing up unfair trade deals and going back to a tariff system

17 - tuition free college for all

18 - move away from fossil fuels and invest in green energy (btw,that would create a lot of jobs with good pay..better than fracking or working the oil sands) Build more electric cars,buses and planes.

I have a few more points but I can't think of them at the moment.

Is there a party like that in Canada? If so,what are the chances of them winning an election?

I can tell you that 2 of these policies are coming our way if the government follows though with their promises. And that is legal cannabis and a national housing policy.

Sadly,what the Liberals are selling is resonating with the public. It's the reason why they are positioned to win the next election. To the average Canadian,their policies are populist. To the mainstream they are populist.

May I suggest that the NDP become unapoligized left wing populists  running on a platform that is all about the average Canadian and not at all about big business. I don't see it happening. Mulcair dragged them to the centre and that's why they went from official opposition to a distant 3rd in the polls.

So who is going to come to the rescue? Where are the hardline leftist option? And if they are out there,why aren't they aggressively spreading their message? The general public may not know it but they LOVE socialism. Right now the only socialism being practiced is socialism for corporations. Reverse that situation and you're a populist party. People will notice you and they will vote for you.

That's my principle.

Quote:

Well,you didn't answer my question.

OK, fair enough.  Your question was:  "Name me 1 bonafide left wing party with any hope of being elected in Canada."

In the next election there's probably none.

My point wasn't that there's lots of them to choose from.  It's that of course they all have no hope of being elected if you won't support them because you're concerned they'll never be elected.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 if a party can only be supported to win an election if they've already won an election.

Quote:

But clearly we agree there is no option in the next election. So who do we support?

That's a good question.  I tend to believe that most who say "we cannot afford a government led by _____, and the left cannot stop them so we must vote Liberal to stop them" really mostly want to elect Liberals.  And I'm not saying this to criticize the Liberals.  They just happen to be the "compromise".  Like if the menu offers you the choice of "Bland" wings, "Suicide-burn-your-ass" wings, or "hot", you'll probably be tempted by "hot".

I'm not convinced that any new electoral model will fix that and usher in a new era of left-wing governments, but I tend to place more of the blame on FPTP than on the media.  Voting NDP is a bit like betting on the 20:1 horse at the pony track.  Bigger payoff, for sure, but less chance of it.  Put your two bucks on the 2:1 horse, and you're less likely to lose your two bucks, and more likely to get back a whole $4.

Quote:

So it's very maddening that people are so easily talked out of voting their conscience or even their values.

They're not being talked out of voting conscience or values.  They're being reminded that they're betting it all.  If they win, they get what their conscience and values want, and if they lose, they get absolutely nothing.  But if they bet differently, they can have at least SOME of what their conscience and values want, instead of all of it or none of it.

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 I'm not sure I completely agree with you about sex workers.  

I said not all sex workers are on drugs. I was speaking about the ones that are addicted to drugs.

alan smithee wrote:

 In fact according to a poll done by CTV Montreal,a majority of people support a red light district. So I don't believe it's political suicide. The Western Evangelicals wouldn't like it but fuck them,too bad. 

Red light district for what is already legal not for prostitution. The majority of women oppose prostitution and feminists who oppose feel strongly about it. It could definitely lead me to spoil my ballot. The only items that belong in the platform are those that will increase votes. The NDP would have to fully present their approach, red light districts, health controls, etc. That would lead to all kinds of debate over every aspect because sex is click bait. The rest of the NDP platform would fade into the background as the NDP became the party that wants to legalize prostitution. The opposition would have endless material. Women who are against are strongly against but many women who are for it don't feel that strongly one way or another. They aren't all enthusiastic supporters. 

That was the whole purpose of the poll. A red light district which always means brothels,live sex shows and in some European countries (i.e. Holland) establishments for soft drugs.

alan smithee wrote:

 And I say legal,not decriminalized because if it's legal,it can be regulated,sold very cheap and safe. 

Electoral suicide. The general public would never support making cocaine legal as a recreational drug. It's a dangerously harmful highly addictive product with no redeeming qualities outside medical use. Harm reduction and medical treatment yes, legalization, strongly against. 

The only answer to drug addiction is legalization. People don't like to hear that but that's the answer. How would simple decriminalization help the problem? It won't. And I don't believe it's electoral suicide. We are moving toward that policy with safe injection sites for example. 10 years ago people would be running around with their hair on fire knowing there are 'safe' sites in their neighbourhoods. It's now an acceptable policy.Drug laws are not natural and never existed until the beginning of the 20th century with the Temperance movement which was extremely right wing. The world survived for thousands of years without prohibition and sky wouldn't fall if prohibition was abolished.

 

alan smithee wrote:

 The  Liberals explicitly promised more social housing to go along with affordable housing projects. This is an issue that should have been tackled 20 freaking years ago. If that promise is kept,where do the NDP go from there?  

The NDP focuses on income inequality and the economy, on tax havens and trade deals. On how the Bank of Canada can loan Canada money interest free as it did in the past. On how P3s cost us more money not less. On how trade deals let companies sue the government. The entire platform could easily focus on the economy and how it serves the wealthy rather than the people of Canada. That won't happen but the NDP will also have a housing plan and it should be better than whatever the Liberals are offering. 

What makes you think the NDP would have a housing plan better than the Liberals? Sounds like an unfounded assumption to me.

alan smithee wrote:

But I agree with yolu that the Liberals will most likely find another populist policy or policies for 2019. The NDP has no choice but to move to the left of the Liberals. They must be aggressively progressive. And make themselves far more populist than the Liberals next election. They must create a platform very left wing,no more centrist crap or they will be a bottom feeding party for the next 100 years. 

Not very left wing whatever that means. To get elected you must pursuade people to vote for the party. Had Layton lived I think the move to the centre might have succeeded. He could have won against Trudeau. I agree that is no longer a winning strategy now that the Liberals are back. That doesn't mean the NDP has to shift radically or get in the box of left right centre. 

Remember that a party doesn't have to put everything they want to do in their platform. Once elected there is nothing stopping the government from moving forward on projects not mentioned in the platform. It isn't a policy book. 

Had Layton stayed alive the NDP would have easily formed a government years ago. Sadly that didn't happen and Thomas Mulcair took over and pushed the NDP to the centre. Like I said,that's the reason why they are now a distant 3rd place.

Quote:

If I vote to simply get SOME of my wishes,I'd vote Liberal. If the NDP is the 20:1 race horse,I'm taking more of a risk of getting nothing,right?

Probably.  Bigger payoff, bigger risk of no payoff.

Quote:

but I must admit I don't know how policies would be made without a majority.

PR would only change how our representatives are elected.  Policies would still be made the same old way, by HoC vote, and I expect that it would still require a plurality.

Pondering wrote:

 

That polls comes with an article about the red light district being set up in Laval. It will have a maximum of 5 establishments. 

 

This is what will be allowed:"Strip clubs, erotic cinemas, swinger's clubs, sex-shop-style stores, so it's quite a range of erotic establishments,.....The city is also imposing a cap, and will allow a maximum of five sex-related businesses that area. There are currently two such establishments in that zone, leaving room for three newcomers.". ...

Laval spokesperson Nadine Lussier said there were 40 massage parlours that reapplied for a permit at the end of 2017, 19 were denied because they were found to provide services of a sexual nature.

Definitely not for prostitution. The district is about curtailing and reducing the number of erotic businesses in Laval. 

That's Laval. The poll was about Montreal (I think). Montreal had a red light district for decades where prostitution was tolerated. But they were mostly drug addicts at the mercy of their pimps. This is why  brothels should be legal,it would prevent exploitation,violence and drug addiction (admittedly I don't think you can stop people from using drugx but it wouldn't be to the degree of how it was and still is) It would also be the best way to protect public health.

Montreal no longer has an area which is a red light district anymore. Everything is spread out around the city now. We do have erotic massage parlours mostly in the East end  and a few sex show establishments. This all should be in the same area. The corner of Ste-Catherine and St-Laurent has changed dramatically with condos and concert clubs. I don't know where a red light district would be in Montreal. Probably somewhere in the East end,I'd presume but who knows.

Laval has always had erotic massage parlours,sex shops,strip clubs and swinger's clubs. I do believe MTL has a couple swinger's and fetish clubs but they are very low key.

[At most, and I don't think even that will happen, the government will provide the drugs for addicts. Safe injection sites are to prevent overdoses and provide an in to the system if someone wants it. Cannabis was legalized because people realized it was more like alcohol than hard drugs and so many people have tried it themselves. The jump to legalization of hard drugs is huge and I don't think it will ever happen. It wouldn't even pass consumer protection laws because they aren't safe to use. 

Providing drugs for addicts would be acceptable. But the chances of full on legalization is a possiblity. It may take many years but it can happen. More countries in Europe are doing it South America too, I think it will inevitably spread over the pond and into North America at some point. The prohibition of  all these 'hard' drugs is still imprisoning non violent drug offenders and imprisoning addicts who are sick,not criminal. The drug issue is a health issue,not a criminal issue. That has to change.

alan smithee wrote:

 What makes you think the NDP would have a housing plan better than the Liberals? Sounds like an unfounded assumption to me.

Because Singh is focused on inequality and he seems to be keeping Guy Caron close. 

I think the Liberals may be preparing to offer basic income. 

The Conservatives are on the right economically and socially.

The Liberals are on the right economically but with a spattering of noblesse oblige, and on the left socially

The position left for the NDP is an economic plan that obviously serves the majority of Canadians. That even includes people in the top 10 percent. 

A basic income would be a HUGE step forward. As for the NDP,the last election they ran on balancing the budget which always pulls us backward socially. It's a Conservative principle.

I'm going to do my homework on Singh. If he's as progressive as you say,I believe the NDP will climb up the polls from where they currently are. I'll check it out.

People at one time wouldn't think about legalizing abortion but guess what? It happened. It took decades but in the end a woman was given a right in controlling their reproductive rights. You're right,no one will touch that issue just like when and if cannabis is legalized,it will be something untouchable in the future.

I will bet you 10 years of my income that prostitution WILL be legalized somewhere in Canada and then it will be legal in the whole country in the next 10-15 years. It's going to happen and it will be the right thing to do,the grown up thing to do.

You clearly don't se that attitudes evolve which is why abortion and soon cannabis are legal when only a decade or a few decades ago it was totally unthinkable.

I got news for you. These erotic massage parlours,which are legal, is a form of legal prostitution.Why are they called erotic massage? Because it's a discreet way of saying they sell blow jobs.

Escort services are also legal. And nobody rents out a woman for a dinner and a little conversation..Especially because they charge by the hour or sometimes half hour. Just read any classified section of a newspaper,it isn't hard. Some come out and explicitly list what kind of sex acts they are selling.  

So I think you're out of touch about this issue. It's inevitable,it will happen and once it is it will become an untouchable issue just like abortion.