Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

813 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
He currently boasts 148,000 followers and uses Instagram far more than the NDP's previous leader Tom Mulcair who only has 8,376 followers..."

Number of followers is not the same as usage.  Someone could theoretically post only one photo, but still have thousands of followers.

Singh has posted more than Angus or Mulcair:  618 photos.  149K followers. (241 per photo)

Angus is second, posting-wise:  239 photos.  574 followers (2.4 per photo)

Mulcair, last, posting-wise:  183 photos. 8361 followers (45.5 per photo)

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
So nice try in contradicting me. Didn't work. Oh well.

Actually you proved my point. It's not legal. That one business found a loophole to one product does not mean drugs are legal. No political party stepped forward and legalized it. 

alan smithee wrote:

Again you're WRONG!!!!! What the fuck do you think these Smart Shops are? A food bank for chemicals given free out of the goodness of their hearts for those who lack them?

https://whatsupwithamsterdam.com/amsterdam-smart-shops/

http://www.amsterdamredlightdistricttour.com/news/10-tips-for-using-drug...

https://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/

Take the time to fucking read. Clearly you didnt read the last links I left. Not only is psylocibin itself not illegal in Amsterdam,(as the truffles are PSYLOCIBIN!),these shops sell peyote in which the cactus is legal,therefore it's sold without any impunity.They aren't breaking the law. They also sell spores,the equipment and instructions for home growing magic mushrooms. Read more about mushrooms in Amsterdam. They are restricted. You can't sell them but you can grow them at home. And because psylocibin falls into the category of 'soft drugs' these truffles are perfectly legal. The warehouses where they grow them are legitimate businesses.And who the fuck said there is only one supplier of these truffles? Just like there are a lot of cannabis suppliers that do so legally. If not,Amsterdam would be a dry town.

And once again,now pay attention,OK? possession of cannabis is legal up to 5 grams and citizens can grow up to 5 plants LEGALLY.

Now,you're just becoming an arrogant pest. Read up about what I'm talking about and learn. That should smack you down a few pegs considering IF you can read without cherry picking and only what you feel like reading. mmkay?

 

You didn't call me a cheerleader when I was supporting Trudeau over Mulcair (although others did).

 

We could be looking at a 16+ year reign.

This is a huge juicy reason why I'm calling you a cheerleader. In sports you'd be labeled a 'fanboy'. Singh can say whatever he wants. None of those words mean anything until it becomes OFFICIAL policy. Which it's not.

And you leave me no choice but to defend Trudeau for 4 things. Cannabis legalization,gender parity,the right to women's reproductive health and a national housing plan.

What direction are you going to fly to if Singh doesn't or can't keep any of the 'promises' that at this point he's just saying?

 He's not the only politician to ever to ever talk about inequality. I'm not implying that it is not a serious issue but easier said than done.It's been talked about and talked about and it's never gotten anywhere. Why? Because of business interests. And the NDP wouldn't want to upset their donors,just like any other party. If he's saying he wants to end inequality when it comes to a woman's fair pay and/or raising the poorest Canadians out of poverty,I agree,those issues are very important and deserve to be supported.But so far you're riffing on hypotheticals. Believe these promises when they become official party policy.

This is just like the Liberal's promise about cannabis legalization. I didn't believe it until it became official party policy and if you notice,when I talk about that particular policy proposal,I always include the word 'IF'. I believe things when I see them. Politicians are politicians they say and promise a lot of things,they mean nothing until they are implemented.

Right now I'm on a 'wait and see' position for the NDP. And not to burst your bubble but Canada has a lot of racists. This is going to be Singh's biggest hurdle. People are ignorant and believe pretty much any stereotype or hyperbole they hear,especially when it comes to brown people. It's not an issue for myself or anyone I know but can you see most voters in the Praires or in the regions of Québec including Québec City and it's surrounding regions voting for a visible minority? These people would get triggered by his turban,they are that ignorant. Don't kill the messenger,just keeping it real.

16 +  year reign? Do you seriously believe that? I wish there was an emoji for rolling my eyes here because that's exactly what I'm doing right now.

Unionist

cco wrote:
And if Singh runs things the way Mulcair did, then in 2020, there is one power convention unambiguously does retain: triggering a new leadership race.

I respect your opinions always, cco. But are you seriously suggesting that the other powers of convention vs. The Leader are "ambiguous"? The constitution gives absolutly no powers to The Leader whatsoever, except those provided by the Canada Elections Act - namely, to approve whether or not a candidate can run in the party's name. So whether you intend it or not, you're just giving credence to the decades-long lie - the lie that drove me to tear up my membership card long ago - that The Leader decides policy.

And to suggest that "triggering a new leadership race" is a reason to attend convention? That does exactly the same thing.

The Leader should obey the members. If she doesn't, it shouldn't matter. The members (that includes you) should stop bolstering the lie that The Leader is some infallible pontiff. The Leader has no power, whether in the law of Canada or in the law of the Party. But craven followers, terrified of their own power, can accord power where none exists.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
This is a huge juicy reason why I'm calling you a cheerleader. In sports you'd be labeled a 'fanboy'. Singh can say whatever he wants. None of those words mean anything until it becomes OFFICIAL policy. Which it's not.  

I disagree. When a leader is elected they become the voice of the party. Perhaps the NDP isn't supposed to be like that but it is. That is why Mulcair and team refused to allow members to vote on marijuana legalization and it's why the policy book was taken off line and replaced with Mulcair's platform. 

Furthermore I am not supporting the NDP. I am supporting Singh. If it turns out that the party does not stand behind Singh's words then of course my opinion will change. At this time I think the NDP does stand behind Singh's words and that they are in keeping with the ethos of the NDP, far more so than Mulcair's ever were. 

alan smithee wrote:
 And you leave me no choice but to defend Trudeau for 4 things. Cannabis legalization,gender parity,the right to women's reproductive health and a national housing plan. 

Women's reproductive rights are safe. Not even Harper could touch em. I am happy with some of the things Trudeau has done and unhappy with others. Cannabis legalization was and is huge and long overdue. As of this summer it is done. It doesn't need to be done again. None of his accomplishments deals with what I have been saying is my top priority for years. 

alan smithee wrote:
 What direction are you going to fly to if Singh doesn't or can't keep any of the 'promises' that at this point he's just saying? 

I will evaluate the platforms when they come out, all of them. Given Singh's background I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. I evaluated Trudeau and Mulcair long before their platforms came out. I never supported "The Liberals" although no one believed me. I supported Trudeau over Mulcair not The Liberals over The NDP. Trudeau isn't facing Mulcair anymore so it's a whole new ball game. 

alan smithee wrote:
  He's not the only politician to ever to ever talk about inequality. It's been talked about and talked about and it's never gotten anywhere. Why? Because of business interests. And the NDP wouldn't want to upset their donors,just like any other party. So so far you're riffing on hypotheticals. Believe these promises when they become official party policy. 

Singh's words are supported by his political resume. The NDP is more beholden to unions than to big business. 

alan smithee wrote:
 This is just like the Liberal's promise about cannabis legalization. I didn't believe it until it became official party policy and if you notice,when I talk about that particular policy proposal,I always include the word 'IF'. I believe things when I see them. Politicians are politicians they say and promise a lot of things,they mean nothing until they are implemented. 

Well I did believe it and I was right. He is following through. I was skeptical about electoral reform. I was right. He didn't follow through. I think I have a pretty good track record on judging politicians. 

alan smithee wrote:
Right now I'm on a 'wait and see' position for the NDP. And not to burst your bubble but Canada has a lot of racists. This is going to be Singh's biggest hurdle. People are ignorant and believe pretty much any stereotype or hyperbole they hear,especially when it comes to brown people. Don't kill the messenger,just keeping it real.

I've always acknowledged that racism will impact his ability to gain votes. I said he has a long shot at best. I've said I expect the Liberals will win another majority. I don't think I'm being overly optimistic about Singh's chances. I am just personally very impressed by him and his ability to communicate and it is possible that his words will resonate with other people the way they have with me. Even if he only gains enough to change the national conversation that will be a good thing in my book. 

alan smithee wrote:
 16 +  year reign? I wish there was an emoji for rolling my eyes here because that's exactly what I'm doing right now. 

I think his father did 16 years altogether. It isn't unheard of in Canadian politics for one party to dominate for a long time. For how long has Alberta gone Conservative? 

At this time a second majority looks likely. I hope Singh upsets that applecart but I don't expect it. The bookies will have their money on Trudeau. Anything after that becomes very speculative as any number of things can happen that can change things dramatically, a nuclear attack, Trudeau dying, economic collapse, a huge scandal. I'm just saying at this point Trudeau has clear sailing. 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

I think his father did 16 years altogether. It isn't unheard of in Canadian politics for one party to dominate for a long time. For how long has Alberta gone Conservative? 

At this time a second majority looks likely. I hope Singh upsets that applecart but I don't expect it. The bookies will have their money on Trudeau. Anything after that becomes very speculative as any number of things can happen that can change things dramatically, a nuclear attack, Trudeau dying, economic collapse, a huge scandal. I'm just saying at this point Trudeau has clear sailing. 

 

I'm not sure I understand why you're referring to provincial politics. He's running for the federal NDP. Right now they are having trouble exceeding 20% in the polls. The idea of the NDP having a 16 year + reign is a pipe dream  .

I think the longest federal rule of any party was the Liberals who were in power for 20 years until PET took his walk in the snow.

But that was a different era. Quite honestly a better era. Even the PC party had some recognizable progressive ideals. Time's have really changed. And no party has ruled longer than 9 years since 1984. It's actually a pattern. A remarkable pattern.

So I think a 16 year NDP government (or any of the other parties) is not going to happen. But I hope Singh's words become policy. It could raise their popularity from 20 to maybe 30% ( at some point) I agree that the Liberals , barring something really huge, will win in 2019. Hopefully the NDP can become the Official Opposition again and put themselves in a position to take over from the Liberals in 2023. We'll see.

cco

Unionist wrote:

I respect your opinions always, cco. But are you seriously suggesting that the other powers of convention vs. The Leader are "ambiguous"? The constitution gives absolutly no powers to The Leader whatsoever, except those provided by the Canada Elections Act - namely, to approve whether or not a candidate can run in the party's name. So whether you intend it or not, you're just giving credence to the decades-long lie - the lie that drove me to tear up my membership card long ago - that The Leader decides policy.

Constitutionally, I agree with you completely. I'd love a world where the media didn't even go to the leaders' offices to hear their platforms every election cycle, but merely checked the policy books. In practice, I've seen on-the-books policy get quietly buried over and over, and when candidates run for the leadership, they've brought their own policies with them, not merely announced they'd be the best-placed to execute the decisions of convention. This isn't an endorsement of this model on my part, and it's definitely not casting the leader as infallible. It's merely a recognition of where the centre of power appears, in practice, to be. If convention votes overwhelmingly for (let's say) withdrawing from NATO, and then neither Singh nor any of the candidates mention it in 2019, convention doesn't have much power to directly force caucus to introduce and vote on a bill implementing it, even if the NDP has a majority government.

Quite a few of the people who signed up to elect Singh leader have little to no interest in convention and the actual governing structure of the NDP. Even friends of mine who voted for him have told me they'll be letting their membership lapse. Ottawa will be a fascinating test of how Singh intends to listen to (or not) the membership of party he now leads. Cynical as I may be, I'm trying not to prejudge the outcome.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Pondering wrote:
At this time a second majority looks likely. I hope Singh upsets that applecart but I don't expect it. The bookies will have their money on Trudeau. Anything after that becomes very speculative as any number of things can happen that can change things dramatically, a nuclear attack, Trudeau dying, economic collapse, a huge scandal. I'm just saying at this point Trudeau has clear sailing. 

The idea of the NDP having a 16 year + reign is a pipe dream  .

I think the longest federal rule of any party was the Liberals who were in power for 20 years until PET took his walk in the snow.

I was speaking of Trudeau. Trudeau has clear sailing at this point. Trudeau will probably get another majority in 2019 and at least another minority in 2023. I hope that isn't the case. I hope that Singh can upset the applecart and defeat him.

You are insisting that the NDP/Singh should adopt full legalization of prostitution and hard drugs to gain your support, both electoral suicide, but you support Trudeau without his taking those actions. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Pondering wrote:
At this time a second majority looks likely. I hope Singh upsets that applecart but I don't expect it. The bookies will have their money on Trudeau. Anything after that becomes very speculative as any number of things can happen that can change things dramatically, a nuclear attack, Trudeau dying, economic collapse, a huge scandal. I'm just saying at this point Trudeau has clear sailing. 

The idea of the NDP having a 16 year + reign is a pipe dream  .

I think the longest federal rule of any party was the Liberals who were in power for 20 years until PET took his walk in the snow.

I was speaking of Trudeau. Trudeau has clear sailing at this point. Trudeau will probably get another majority in 2019 and at least another minority in 2023. I hope that isn't the case. I hope that Singh can upset the applecart and defeat him.

You are insisting that the NDP/Singh should adopt full legalization of prostitution and hard drugs to gain your support, both electoral suicide, but you support Trudeau without his taking those actions. 

First of all,you're dreaming in technicolor if you think Singh and the NDP will upset the Liberals and becme the next government of Canada. Laughably so. I'll try to avoid calling you a 'fanboy' but it's hard not to. You're making ridiculous claims.

I don't necessarily support the Liberals but right now the only party that stands a chance of defeating them are the Conservatives. And yes,I make no bones about it,I'd MUCH rather the Liberals than the Conservatives so I'm not so fast or willing to say that I hope the Liberals will be defeated in 2019 or ever for that matter unless the winning party was the NDP. But the NDP are on their way to another 3rd placde finish. Deal with it. That's the reality.

And  it is now YOU who keeps bringing up prostitution and hard drugs. Countries like Prtugal have only decriminalized them. Other countries will follow,including Canada inevitably down the road. Our prostitution laws will inevitably be fought in court and moved to  the SCOC. It will,maybe not in the next couple years but 20 years from now don't be surprised. BTW,Millenials are far more liberal than my generation and the generation before me. Attitudes WILL evolve. That's life.

Now I'm done talking about that. The very last thing I will say is that Smart Shops will make their way to North America. I can't tell you when but I gaurantee you it will.

Now kiss your poster of Singh good night and hopefully you'll wake up some time before the elections in 2019.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

alan smithee wrote:

First of all,you're dreaming in technicolor if you think Singh and the NDP will upset the Liberals and becme the next government of Canada. Laughably so. I'll try to avoid calling you a 'fanboy' but it's hard not to. You're making ridiculous claims.

I don't consider myself a fanboy of Singh, but I think he has what the mathematicians call a "small but finite" chance of becoming PM in 2019. Things change very quickly in today's politics and Singh has enough smarts and charisma to potentially double NDP support, into false majority territory. If he were a race horse, I would set the morning line at about 25 to 1, not 1,000 to 1.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

First of all,you're dreaming in technicolor if you think Singh and the NDP will upset the Liberals and becme the next government of Canada. Laughably so. I'll try to avoid calling you a 'fanboy' but it's hard not to. You're making ridiculous claims.

I don't consider myself a fanboy of Singh, but I think he has what the mathematicians call a "small but finite" chance of becoming PM in 2019. Things change very quickly in today's politics and Singh has enough smarts and charisma to potentially double NDP support, into false majority territory. If he were a race horse, I would set the morning line at about 25 to 1, not 1,000 to 1.

I wouldn't give the NDP a 25:1 chance of winning the next election. More like 100:1. Remeber,never mind leap frogging over the Liberals they'd first have to leap frog over the Conservatives. Last I checked,The Liberals are polling in the high 30's and the Cons are polling in the mid-30's with the NDP lagging behind at something like 19%. It's an unlikely possibility to say the least.

And Singh may have charisma but he's also have to breakthrough the racism which exists in Canada. I really don't see Singh breaking through in the Prairies or the regions in and around Quebec City. There are a lot of xenophobes who are triggered just by the turban. I don't like saying that but it is what it is. And Canadian xenophobes have been emboldened since Orange Hitler became president of the US. That kind of cancer spreads aggressively.

I see another Liberal government with a Conservative opposition in 2019. I think the idea of Singh pulling the NDP into the promised land in one year is naive optimism. I'd rather deal with reality.

Maybe 2023,we'll see. But forget about 2019. It ain't happening. It must be accepted. I can also put a 25:1 chance that this winter freeze will end in March and 20 degree weather will begin. (I live in Quebec) I'd be dreaming to believe that too.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
First of all,you're dreaming in technicolor if you think Singh and the NDP will upset the Liberals and becme the next government of Canada. Laughably so. I'll try to avoid calling you a 'fanboy' but it's hard not to. You're making ridiculous claims. 

How many times do I have to say I think Trudeau could be PM for the next 16+ years? Prime Minister Trudeau, 16+ years. Do you understand yet? I think Trudeau will win in 2019 and again in 2023. Now do you get it? 

I'm so impressed with Singh I think he has a -long shot-. That means unlikely but possible. Not probable, possible. I said even if he doesn't win he could hold the Liberals to a minority or at least have an impact on the national conversation (like Occupy). 

alan smithee wrote:
I don't necessarily support the Liberals but right now the only party that stands a chance of defeating them are the Conservatives. And yes,I make no bones about it,I'd MUCH rather the Liberals than the Conservatives so I'm not so fast or willing to say that I hope the Liberals will be defeated in 2019 or ever for that matter unless the winning party was the NDP. But the NDP are on their way to another 3rd placde finish. Deal with it. That's the reality. 

I haven't said otherwise. I agree. Trudeau is likely to win the next election and the NDP are likely to remain in third place. Please think hard about that sentence. 

You are putting down Singh and the NDP (and me) because you fear that they could take enough support away from Trudeau for the Conservatives to win. 

alan smithee wrote:
 And  it is now YOU who keeps bringing up prostitution and hard drugs. 

The political argument as it pertains to the 2019 election is pertinent. The philosophical/moral/etc. arguments are not pertinent. Singh has stated he supports decriminalization of hard drug use. You say you don't believe him until it's in the platform and it isn't good enough unless it is full legalization; and that the NDP should pledge to legalize hard drugs and prostitution. You don't want Singh to succeed unless he can win the election. You want the NDP to lose support. That makes your insistence on this as a political stance suspect. It is also suspect that you don't demand the same from Trudeau. That he pledge to legalize prostitution and hard drugs. If Trudeau had not pledged to legalize cannabis I would not have demanded it from the NDP. Once he did commit to it there was no excuse for the NDP to hang back. 

alan smithee wrote:
Now kiss your poster of Singh good night and hopefully you'll wake up some time before the elections in 2019. 

I'd say typical man but I don't want to insult men. 

You fear Singh. You fear his success not his failure. You are afraid he will win just enough support for the Conservatives to take power. It's a little early for strategic voting which only applies on a riding level anyway and should be up to the discretion of the voter. We will have lots and lots of warning if there is some chance the Conservatives will win. There is no need to panic this early. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
First of all,you're dreaming in technicolor if you think Singh and the NDP will upset the Liberals and becme the next government of Canada. Laughably so. I'll try to avoid calling you a 'fanboy' but it's hard not to. You're making ridiculous claims. 

How many times do I have to say I think Trudeau could be PM for the next 16+ years? Prime Minister Trudeau, 16+ years. Do you understand yet? I think Trudeau will win in 2019 and again in 2023. Now do you get it? 

I'm so impressed with Singh I think he has a -long shot-. That means unlikely but possible. Not probable, possible. I said even if he doesn't win he could hold the Liberals to a minority or at least have an impact on the national conversation (like Occupy). 

I don't even think the Liberals have a snowball's chance of governing for the next 16 years. I don't believe that as true of any of the parties. I think they will be defeated in 2023. I'm hoping that it will be the NDP that defeat them.

I'm glad we can agree that it is extremely unlikely it will happen in 2019.

alan smithee wrote:
I don't necessarily support the Liberals but right now the only party that stands a chance of defeating them are the Conservatives. And yes,I make no bones about it,I'd MUCH rather the Liberals than the Conservatives so I'm not so fast or willing to say that I hope the Liberals will be defeated in 2019 or ever for that matter unless the winning party was the NDP. But the NDP are on their way to another 3rd placde finish. Deal with it. That's the reality. 

I haven't said otherwise. I agree. Trudeau is likely to win the next election and the NDP are likely to remain in third place. Please think hard about that sentence. 

You are putting down Singh and the NDP (and me) because you fear that they could take enough support away from Trudeau for the Conservatives to win. 

Well,there you go. You've given me something to think about. I don't think we can afford to be poisoned with a Conservative government. Now more than ever with the Republican party down south now the Alex Jones party. The CPC takes all their political cues from the GOP. I'm not interested in this country being dragged back 80 years like the Republicans are doing to the US right now.

So you're probably right. I am afraid of vote splitting. 

alan smithee wrote:
 And  it is now YOU who keeps bringing up prostitution and hard drugs. 

The political argument as it pertains to the 2019 election is pertinent. The philosophical/moral/etc. arguments are not pertinent. Singh has stated he supports decriminalization of hard drug use. You say you don't believe him until it's in the platform and it isn't good enough unless it is full legalization; and that the NDP should pledge to legalize hard drugs and prostitution. You don't want Singh to succeed unless he can win the election. You want the NDP to lose support. That makes your insistence on this as a political stance suspect. It is also suspect that you don't demand the same from Trudeau. That he pledge to legalize prostitution and hard drugs. If Trudeau had not pledged to legalize cannabis I would not have demanded it from the NDP. Once he did commit to it there was no excuse for the NDP to hang back. 

If I had any influence on the Liberals,I'd demand they legalize both those things. I don't and I never will. I'm ecstatic that the Liberals are inching us close to being the first G7 country to fully legalize cannabis. My main complaint and critique with how they went around legalizing it though. The Liberals should have drafted a plan for legalization that would apply to all the provinces. The fact that they gave policy power to the provinces was a huge mistake. Conservative ruled provinces will most likely sabotage legal cannabis and continue prohibition. The rules should have been written by the feds giving the provinces absolutely no power to draft their own policy. Huge mistake.

As for the 2 issues we've gone back and forth with,I don't see these things happening any time soon. But I DO see it inevitably happening further on up the road. It could be by an NDP government or a Liberal government. Who knows? 

alan smithee wrote:
Now kiss your poster of Singh good night and hopefully you'll wake up some time before the elections in 2019. 

I'd say typical man but I don't want to insult men. 

That crossed a line. I apologize. I shouldn't have said that.

You fear Singh. You fear his success not his failure. You are afraid he will win just enough support for the Conservatives to take power. It's a little early for strategic voting which only applies on a riding level anyway and should be up to the discretion of the voter. We will have lots and lots of warning if there is some chance the Conservatives will win. There is no need to panic this early. 

I don't fear Singh but I do fear a Conservative government so that part is true. And if it was a tight race between the Liberals and the Conservatives and every vote counted,I most definitely would vote Liberal. Hopefully I won't have to worry about that next year.

Sean in Ottawa

The idea of the NDP needing to leapfrog the Conservatives to win is the wrong ay to look at this. There are very few voters available to all three parties. The main battle is between the Liberals and the NDP with the NDP losing it recently after a time looking like they were winning it.

The main battles outside Quebec are between the Conservative and Liberals for a small block of votes and between the Liberals the NDP for a much larger block. Demographics suggest this will not get easier for the Conservatives anytime soon.

In Quebec there is a four-way battle with a weakened BQ. The threat from the Conservatives is a small one becuase of the present leader.

Smaller battles exist between other parties including the Greens and the BQ. The contest between the Conservatives and the Liberals is quite small. The NDP has to not lose much to these smaller parties to have anything left for the majors.

The political volatility has been between the Liberals, NDP and BQ for more than a decade. Trudeau has a big lead because he is leading that three-way battle by a long margin. Still, the party in the best position to challenge in that battle remains the NDP, however far back they are. It is true the Conservatives are relevant becuase if they go to the top of their range and the NDP and the Liberals operate somewhere in the middle of theirs, then the Conservatives can win.

The problem the NDP has does not have anything to do with the position of the Conservatives. They need several things to go well:

1) They need to hold the Greens back from eating into their support. At 5% the Green vote is largely not a social democratic vote but if it grows much beyond that it can include more potential NDP voters.

2) Quebec is the most important piece. There is no scenario for the NDP without Quebec. At present the NDP is doing badly in Quebec and the Liberals are far ahead. A good lead in Quebec plus 25% in the rest of Canada including a solid victory in BC and a presence in Atlantic Canada would provide a slim victory. The 2011 election delivered the former and missed on the later. The only place the NDP could imagine they are in striking distance would be BC. In all places, it is the Liberals in the way and the main path is Quebec.

3) They need the most liked leader. Singh might have some potential but he is significantly behind Trudeau still.

This is not very hopeful, but it has nothing to do with the Conservatives who remain fairly consistent and are low with little hope given the effects of what is happening from the South and that their leader is not a good bet in Quebec.

It would take a considerable erosion of Trudeau's vision for voters who supported him to turn to the Conservatives. Since his rhetoric was much closer to the NDP it is a shorter trip for people upset at Trudeau to consider the NDP. More loose Liberals would have probably voted NDP in the past than Conservative.  For Trudeau supporters to leave him, there are a few scenarios and the list does not leave much hope for the Conservatives: People could be upset about promises he did not keep that the NDP also made; some personal problem with Trudeau would also be more likely to help the NDP than the Conservatives since the visions were similar. You would need a loss of faith in the Liberal message rather than the Liberal government or people in order to benefit the Conservatives. Broken promises or a loss of popularity of a leader is more likely than a change of vision.

The NDP does have potential on the broken promise side but they risk having the Liberals successfuly claim international events, trouble with NAFTA etc., for excuses.

Trudeau is hated by some but these are mostly bedrock supporters of the NDP and Conservatives. He is not weakening to the extent where there is serious risk. His personality and style seem to mesh far more with how Canadians see themselves than that of Harper. He is unlikely to have a Harper-style decline. (It is also true that the Conservatives could appeal to greed and did not need their leader to be actually liked. In their case they could get away with Mr. Nasty. Neither the NDP or Liberals can.)

The fact is that the campaign promises and positions of the Liberals are much closer to the NDP than to the Conservatives today than they were historically. The marketing of their platforms are very similar. The NDP pretends to be more to the right than they are generally and the Liberals pretend to be more left than they are. They are after the same people. Viewpoints and political challenges have never been more polarized and this is in part dues to the Reform take-over of the Conservatives and expulsion of the Red Tories. The past scramble for votes between Liberals, NDP and Conservatives used to be dominated by Red Tory / Blue Liberal / Right NDP voters.

There may be more hard right than there used to be but the Tory-Liberal switchers have largely declined to a relatively small number. It would seem that the distance between the highest and lowest levels for the Conservatives barely grazes 10%.

So the battle is really between the NDP and the Liberals. This is true even if the NDP's chances in that battle are very poor.

So what would it take?

1) The people who voted Liberal would have to seriously turn on Trudeau. This is simply not happening. Most who dislike Trudeau now, disliked him in 2015.

2) The NDP would need to make a dent in Quebec again.

3) Singh would have to become very well known and liked outside his present party base.

If 1 (unlikely) and 3 (slightly more likely) were to happen and 2 (also unlikely) were to happen, the momentum of 2 could carry the NDP to the top. the Conservatives are not very relevant as their supporters are not available to the NDP. If all this were to happen the Conservatives would likely erode a little of the Liberal support (momentum).

The other issue is that many who voted for Trudeau were first time voters. If they go back to not voting you would need twice as many of them than voters who would come out and vote a different way.

Problem is that as long as 1 and 2 (above) are pipe dreams then 3 won't have a chance to make a difference. The path runs through Quebec.

Those who voted against Caron might well have to do this math to figure out why Caron was the right person if power was what they wanted. The fact that he also had great positions and ideas was a bonus.

I still think that a Caron led NDP is more likely to beat Trudeau than Singh. This is saying a lot since Caron is not the leader. The path of an NDP failure in 2019 and a Caron success in 2023 seems more likely to me than a Singh victory in either. But this does not mean Singh has zero chance or that his chance is lower than the Conservatives.

I think the Conservative chances are also poor. What do they need?

1) The Conservatives have to have much of Quebec fall to the NDP or BQ. (If it is the NDP not have them go over the top.)

2) They have to win the small number of Liberal-Conservative switchers.

3) They need the NDP to hold its own across Canada especially in Ontario and the Atlantic Canada.

Both scenarios come down to one thing. For the Liberals to be vulnerable, they need to lose Quebec.

The fact that an unpopular Liberal premier in Ontario is likely to lose, does not bode well for the Conservatives either. However, it does seem that available Ontario voters are not lumping the federal and provincial Liberals in together nearly as much as Conservatives would like them to.

To lose Quebec, they need a big scandal and another party has to be prepared to gain.

100-1 chances for the NDP seems fair but I would not put the Conservatives ahead of the NDP as the NDP might be better positioned to take Quebec than the Conservatives if the Liberals were to weaken there. And Quebec is the key.

The Conservatives at present do not have the right leader to take Quebec and the NDP may not either which is why the Liberals are probably not beatable. But Singh may have more potential than the present Conservative leader in Quebec for a number of reasons.

mark_alfred

NDPP wrote:

Failed NDP Leadership Candidate Angus Tweets, Then Deletes Criticism of Party Under New Leader Singh

http://www.hilltimes.com/2018/01/24/failed-ndp-leadership-candidate-angu...

"Charlie Angus wrote 'when a party believes that better Instagram tricks or gala planning is the path to success we lose touch.'"

<Labour leader [Jeremy Corbyn] becomes first major British politician to sign up to the messaging app [Snapchat] in a bid to engage younger supporters>

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/17/jeremy-corbyn-snapchat-...

Pondering

Thank-you

alan smithee wrote:
The fact that they gave policy power to the provinces was a huge mistake. Conservative ruled provinces will most likely sabotage legal cannabis and continue prohibition. The rules should have been written by the feds giving the provinces absolutely no power to draft their own policy. Huge mistake. 

That would depend on the goal. Trudeau's stated goals were to protect children and take money from organized crime. Trudeau's actual goal was to project progressiveness. He met his actual goal. By leaving so much up to the provinces he is protected. Almost everything people might get pissed off about is in the hands of the provinces. I imagine BC will be a grand success. New Brunswick will also do well. Ontario and Quebec are flubbing it. Trudeau will say he gave the provinces the power to succeed. His evidence will be the provinces that do.

I don't fear the Conservatives. They are in ideological confusion. The PCs of old have shrunk to a fraction of the party. They have been overwhelmed by free market worshipers and evangelicals. Social conservatives are a shrinking demographic. The Conservatives have a strong base, bigger than the Liberal and NDP bases, but little to no room for growth.

mark_alfred

Here's an interview with Guy Caron, where he discusses Singh, some changes in roles (IE, Ruth Ellen Brosseau and Peter Julian), tax-havens, income-inequality, etc.  He mentions Singh will, at some point in the future, be appearing on Tout le monde en parle, which will be important for reaching out to Quebec.

http://theleftchapter.blogspot.ca/2018/01/an-interview-with-ndp-parliame...

mark_alfred

Seems some Liberals are getting a bit nervous.

Quote:

They're pushing the Trudeau government to go much further than legalizing recreational marijuana. In a priority resolution they hope will be adopted at the Liberals' policy convention in April for inclusion in the next election platform, the national caucus is calling on the government to eliminate criminal penalties for simple possession and consumption of all illicit drugs.

Newly-minted NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has taken a similar stance.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-caucus-proposes-de...

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

100-1 chances for the NDP seems fair but I would not put the Conservatives ahead of the NDP as the NDP might be better positioned to take Quebec than the Conservatives if the Liberals were to weaken there. And Quebec is the key.

The Conservatives at present do not have the right leader to take Quebec and the NDP may not either which is why the Liberals are probably not beatable. But Singh may have more potential than the present Conservative leader in Quebec for a number of reasons.

Great post and I agree for the most part. Quebec is unpredictable. People are assuming the racism is too strong for Singh to overcome. They could be right. But they could also be wrong. If what Singh says resonates with Quebecers they could flip. If fallout from TPP hurts bad enough in Quebec and Ontario it could open the window for Singh. 

Pondering

I think that convention will play a big role in establishing or coordinating with Jagmeet and his team’s ideas in terms of the policies put forth. So, I expect that the policy convention will play a big role, and that we’re at a situation now where it will be much easier.

A.R: Do you really think so? Because, policy conventions... at the end of the day, aren’t things just decided in the small circle of the leadership? Or is that going to change?

G.C: Well, you don’t do an election, or platform for an election, the same way that you do a policy convention. But, policy conventions are important to give a sense of direction that the party will be heading towards, too. In a convention, it’s also that you have a sense of what the leader wants to implement - via his ideas. When looking at various directions, I hope he recognizes by also looking at the various guest speakers that we’ll have. The keynote speakers will usually be selected because they will be able to help shape the policy direction that we’ll be following. So, a policy convention is not only about resolutions. It is about resolutions, but not only [resolutions]. It’s also a place where we can start putting some meat on the ideas that might very well sound attractive.

A.R: So you think there will be an actual general direction to the party after the convention?

G.C: Oh yeah, this is something that is being built. It’s going to be built before, and the policy convention will be some sort of a landmark in the process. And, obviously, after the policy convention we’ll be basically in the countdown to the following election. That way, by March, we’ll have basically a year and a half before the road to the next election. So, we need to actually start doing that now, and I know that Jagmeet and his team are very aware of that.
http://theleftchapter.blogspot.ca/2018/01/an-interview-with-ndp-parliame...

The convention will tell us a great deal about Singh and the overall direction of the party. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

I don't fear the Conservatives. They are in ideological confusion. The PCs of old have shrunk to a fraction of the party. They have been overwhelmed by free market worshipers and evangelicals. Social conservatives are a shrinking demographic. The Conservatives have a strong base, bigger than the Liberal and NDP bases, but little to no room for growth.

The whole point that they are far right religious zealots that claim to worship christ and/or zealots who worship Ayn Rand is what gives me a stomach ulcer and a brain cramp.

They are a serious threat to progress and our democracy. And like I said in another post,I'm not interested in any party who would like to drag us backward 80 years. Just look at the horror show happening in the States. We cannot afford a Conservative government. That's the ONLY reason I'd ever consider voting for a neoliberal party such as the Liberals and the provincial Liberals IF the race was really close and every vote mattered.

I don't think I'm alone in  that motivation. This is what hurts the NDP. That's why they need a relatable populist NDP leader like Layton with a platform and aggressive message that speaks to ordinary folks.

They need a real and strong progressive. They need a Bernie Sanders.

Is that Jagmeet Singh? Only time will tell.

brookmere

I've always acknowledged that racism will impact his ability to gain votes.

Sure there's racism but I think a bigger problem is his religiosity. Singh publicly defines himself by his religion to a degree no other Canadian party leader does today. He's carrying on as though he were still a Brampton MPP rather than a federal party leader - witness his publicizing his upcoming wedding. If you want to draw a contrast look at Naheed Nenshi who is the most successful non-white politician in Canada, in terms of how many people have voted for him.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
 The whole point that they are far right religious zealots that claim to worship christ and/or zealots who worship Ayn Rand is what gives me a stomach ulcer and a brain cramp. 

And yet even after a majority Conservative government we still don't have anti-abortion laws and medicare wasn't dismantled even if a lot of the legislation was regressive. Ten years of Harper was horrible but we survived.

alan smithee wrote:
 

I don't think I'm alone in  that motivation. This is what hurts the NDP. That's why they need a relatable populist NDP leader like Layton with a platform and aggressive message that speaks to ordinary folks.

They need a real and strong progressive. They need a Bernie Sanders.

Is that Jagmeet Singh? Only time will tell.

The NDP almost won the last election and Mulcair was certainly no Bernie Sanders. If people were only moving to the Liberals out of fear of the Conservatives winning the NDP would do great in the polls between elections when there is no fear. The NDP does seem to do a bit better between elections but no where near enough to climb even to official opposition. 

I too have said they need a Corbin or a Sanders but I don't think we define "strong progressive" in the same way.  Only time with tell on Singh but when he is saying the right things I am going to praise him for it just as I criticized Mulcair when he was saying the wrong things, over and over again. Singh saying all drugs should be decriminalized for users is saying the right thing to me. I don't need him to be more radical than that. I think that's the most Canadians are ready for or can be convinced of. His stress on income inequality and tax havens are also much appreciated. Maybe at some point he will disappoint me as Mulcair did but I doubt it. 

Pondering

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-its-too-early-to-write-off-...

Rare is the opposition leader who looks a sure thing long before the event. Campbell led the polls at the start of the 1993 campaign. So did Paul Martin, in 2005. So, believe it or not, did John Turner, before the wipeout of 1984. Tom Mulcair was the exception in 2015, but we know what happened to him.

 

 

R.E.Wood

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Those who voted against Caron might well have to do this math to figure out why Caron was the right person if power was what they wanted. The fact that he also had great positions and ideas was a bonus.

I still think that a Caron led NDP is more likely to beat Trudeau than Singh. This is saying a lot since Caron is not the leader. The path of an NDP failure in 2019 and a Caron success in 2023 seems more likely to me than a Singh victory in either. But this does not mean Singh has zero chance or that his chance is lower than the Conservatives.

I agree, and think the NDP is going to suffer badly in 2019 across the country. Singh is a negative for the party, with only 8.3% of people (in most recent polling) wanting him to be Prime Minister, less than half of the 19.9% who say they'd vote NDP. He's certainly not pulling the party up. And after another bloodletting in 2019 Singh will need to be replaced. I suspect Caron will be very well positioned by that point to take over (assuming of course that he survives the coming loss of seats in Quebec, but I think he'll be one of the few who will.)

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
 The whole point that they are far right religious zealots that claim to worship christ and/or zealots who worship Ayn Rand is what gives me a stomach ulcer and a brain cramp. 

And yet even after a majority Conservative government we still don't have anti-abortion laws and medicare wasn't dismantled even if a lot of the legislation was regressive. Ten years of Harper was horrible but we survived.

alan smithee wrote:
 

That's TOTALLY irrelevent. Conservative voters would kill those things immediately if they could. They continue to elect So-Cons in the hope that one of them would have the courage to do so -- especially with a majority,phony or not.

Eventually they will get what they truly desire. It's just they haven't had anyone in charge of the ship yet (but Harper was surprisingly impotent when it came to those two things which are just two examples of many things So-Con voters want) I'd say he tried his best to deliver as much as he could. But the So-Con base is only 25-30% of the population. Kind of hard to cater to every whim when it would derstroy their political careers and they know it. AND the Conservatives are the most cruel of any of our political parties when it comes to our nation's poorest and most disenfranchised.  So let's not argue about this,mmkay?

These new fangled Conservatives especially. They didn't take the word 'progressive' from their monicker for nothing.

Fact. We've only had 3 Conservative governments since 1979. Joe Clark (a classic progressive conservative,not a So-Con), Brian Mulroney (the first neoliberal PM we've had,governed as a progressive conservative for his first term and tried to accomodate So-Cons in the last couple years of his time in power) and Stephen Harper (Canada's first true So-Con PM who damaged this country and would have damaged it much more if he wasn't stopped in his almost 10th year in power)

Harper was so hated that the majority of Canadian voters ran to the Liberal party to stop him. Why not the NDP? Because they ran to te right of the Liberals. Proof that Canadians have an appetite for progressive change,hence they need a leader of the same calibre as Sanders,Corbyn or Layton)

The NDP nearly won the last election? Are you for real? That's why they went from Official Opposition to irrelevence,right? You really know how to pull things out of your ass when it comes to your blind partisanship.

If Singh is a bonafide Corbyn,Sanders or Layton it will resonate with meat and potato Joe Q.Public voters. I never said he had to be more than that.

Enough with things he said. Save that for after the convention when the NDP official platform is announced.

And this whole 'he's going to decriminalize all drugs angle' you keep bringing it up after going through lengths and valleys exclaiming it's not important to Canadian voters.

And looky here,the Liberals are stealing that policy.pulling the rug from under the feet of Singh. If it's that important to the average Canadian voter,the Liberals will be elected as populists yet again in 2019.

Look at the big picture for once instead of being so narrow sighted.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
 But the So-Con base is only 25-30% of the population. 

Which is why they will never get what they desire. That base is solid but shrinking not growing. 

alan smithee wrote:
The NDP nearly won the last election? Are you for real? That's why they went from Official Opposition to irrelevence,right? You really know how to pull things out of your ass when it comes to your blind partisanship.  

How soon you forget. I will never forget that in 2015 in the 12 weeks or so before the election the Conservatives, NDP and Liberals all hit first place. When Trudeau was in third place I was being mocked for still believing he would win the election. So yes, either the Conservatives or the NDP could have won in 2015.  

alan smithee wrote:
 Harper was so hated that the majority of Canadian voters ran to the Liberal party to stop him.  

I think you are projecting. Not everyone hated Harper. It's the left that pushed strategic voting and vote exchanges but there is no evidence they had any success. Trudeau promised infrastructure spending and money for parents and deficits to do it. Mulcair promised national daycare and balanced budgets all four years. In ten years Harper didn't balance a budget and the Liberals were talking deficits. The NDP wasn't believed. No one thing ever decides an election but that was a major turning point. 

If it were as you say, and people voted for the Liberals strategically, then polls would show that. Between elections you see who people really support. There is no reason to answer polls strategically. Voters aren't tricked into voting Liberal. Voters chose Trudeau and the Liberals because they felt they would do the better job running the country. By the polls they still think so. 

alan smithee wrote:
 Why not the NDP? Because they ran to te right of the Liberals. Proof that Canadians have an appetite for progressive change,hence they need a leader of the same calibre as Sanders,Corbyn or Layton) 

Not exactly. I think people voted based on who would be the better economic manager, not who was more progressive. 

alan smithee wrote:
 And this whole 'he's going to decriminalize all drugs angle' you keep bringing it up after going through lengths and valleys exclaiming it's not important to Canadian voters. 

It isn't important to Canadians in general but it is important to me and it is evidence of his progressiveness just as cannabis legalization was for Trudeau. Now the Liberals are copy-catting but they could have decriminalized cannabis years ago. Are they going to do it now? Has Trudeau instructed the justice department to back off on marijuana arrests?

alan smithee wrote:
 Look at the big picture for once instead of being so narrow sighted. 

I think I am seeing it a lot more clearly than you are. I acknowledge Trudeau's strengths and the likelihood that he will win the next election. I formed my opinion and support for Trudeau by watching videos of him. The same is happening with Singh. I knew nothing about him when he won the leadership. I had heard the criticisms of how localized his support was. I knew the turban would be a challenge. When he handled that heckler I thought he did okay but I wasn't wowed. Since then I have watched more videos of him and my support has grown. Why does that bother you so much? I'm not making any false claims about him and this thread is about him so it is quite natural that I would express my opinion here. 

You opposition to him does not seem based on anything he has done. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

You opposition to him does not seem based on anything he has done. 

 

I'm not opposed to Singh. I've just been listing hurdles and obstacles he's going to have to navigate.

Why is it that YOU seem to oppose progressive populism. And that's the only thing I'd like Singh to embrace and campaign on. A Sanders populism for example is a proven winner. He's the most popular politician in America. And if it wasn't for establishment Democrats who cheated system to shut Bernie out. If Sanders would have been the Democrat  nominee,he would have beaten the Orange Asshat handily. Every poll proved that. But they went with Clinton who was very unpopular and now the States and the world has to deal with the Trump 3 ring circus.

I'm just trying to say Singh should run a populist campaign. If he does,he could have a chance of bringinmg the NDP back as Offivcial Opposition (I don't  believe they will win the election . At least not next year)

What's the problem with progressive populism? I'm confident that would work very well.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
What's the problem with progressive populism? I'm confident that would work very well.

I'm not sure what you mean by progressive populism. It looks to me like Singh is planning to represent the economic interests of the 99% and that he is logic based. I believe Singh is sincere in his desire to decriminalize all drug useage and that he is basing his opinion on factual knowledge concerning addiction. This is what Trudeau has to say as of January 12th:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-marijuana-pardon-legal-1.4484496

Trudeau said the government's plan for marijuana is "fundamentally" about public health and safety, and until the critical regulatory and security regimes are in place it will be treated as an illegal product.

"We recognize that anyone who is currently purchasing marijuana is participating in illegal activity that is funding criminal organizations and street gangs, and therefore we do not want to encourage, in any way, people to engage in that behaviour until the law has changed," he said.

I don't think he will decriminalize hard drugs any time soon. There is no evidence that decriminalizing marijuana would lead to a surge in usage prior to legalization. He didn't "promise" it so I don't expect it but it is still a reflection of his politics. He didn't want to legalize in the first place. He was convinced by others in the party. I don't think he has done anything about women with records for prostitution. He might for cannabis usage because of his brother but it is not out of genuine empathy for the people involved. I do believe that Trudeau is a man that tries to do the right and decent thing. He still sees the world from the perspective of his class. He genuinely believes in noblesse oblige, that to whom much is given, much is expected. He still believes that economically things are as they should be. Morneau and Freeland represent Trudeau's economic philosophy. Trudeau understands the struggles of normal people from a factual perspective. He can't really relate to societal powerlessness. 

It hit me hard when Singh said he was stopped by police 11 times. Not every time was necessarily due to his colour or his turban but I am convinced some of them were. That is shocking. I would feel so intimidated and diminished if that happened to me. Probably angry too. Singh had to support his family from a young age. He has experienced precarious employment and what that means when it is paying your food and rent. He can relate on a level neither Trudeau nor Mulcair can not just out of personal family experience but also due to the melieu he grew up in, the people he had to interact with growing up. Singh understands inequality in his gut. 

If Singh turns out not to be the man I think he is then he will lose my support but he won't lose it due to fear of the Conservatives. I don't support Trudeau less than I did before. He just doesn't compare to Singh. Singh doesn't have Trudeau's political advantages. He doesn't even have Mulcair's political advantages. I have no reason to be optimistic about Singh's chances other than how impressed I am by him. 

Mulcair was facing a weakened Liberal party that had been brought low from a position of strength as the official opposition. Mulcair was politically experienced with a strong resume against Trudeau who had his hair cut to run, filled his speech with ums and ahhs, and had little experience in politics, law or business. He didn't shine as an MP. He had a famous name but not much else. 

Now Trudeau has had the good fortune to be up against Trump and the Eurozone crises internationally. He is popular and admired on the world stage which makes Canadians feel good. He has for the most part corrected his verbal ticks. Officially the economy is doing great. As infrastructure projects kick in the economy will be further stimulated. He's paid off families with a very generous child benefit. Cannabis will have been legalized without resulting catastrophe. 

Singh is facing a much stronger competitor than Mulcair even if it is the same man. This is definitely a David and Goliath situation. The reason that story is such a classic (aside from it being in the Bible) is that it is a rare instance in which a much weaker opponent wins over the more powerful. Singh is most definitely the underdog now. 

So yes Alan, you are right, Singh's chances are poor at best simply because of the political landscape he is facing. I just don't see that as a reason not to support him. 

R.E.Wood

Jagmeet Singh faces many hurdles as party gathers for convention

As Singh prepares for first national convention since becoming federal NDP leader, he faces a family very much divided, Chantal Hébert writes.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/02/05/jagmeet-singh...

Pondering

I don't agree, at least no more so than other parties especially so soon after electing a new leader.  Neither the Leap nor BDS is going to become NDP policy and you can't win an election with either. I think Singh is much more compatible with the membership than Mulcair was. 

The convention will be an opportunity for Singh to connect with delegates and members and share his priorities as well as find out where the membership is at. This is his introduction to the party as leader. People will see who he is closest to. How the big names in the party act will be revealing at least for people there. 

Mighty Middle

The Toronto Star coompiled a list of ridings Jagmeet has visited on his nation-wide tour

Oct. 1, 2017 — Toronto, 1 Harbour Square (Leadership victory)

Oct. 6, 2017 — Toronto, 222 Bremner Blvd. (CUPE speech)

Oct. 10, 2017 — Alma, Que. He was touring the Lac-Saint-Jean riding; no specific address. (Byelection campaign)

Oct. 15, 2017 — Ottawa, 55 Colonel By Dr. (National tour launch)

Oct. 20, 2017 — Vancouver, no specific address in the riding of Vancouver East (toured Chinatown with local MP)

Oct. 26, 2017 — Saskatoon, 1007 Windsor St. (JagMeet and Greet)

Oct. 27, 2017 — Regina, 1600 Elphinstone St. (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 1, 2017 — Vancouver, 319 Main St., Vancouver (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 2, 2017 — Vancouver, 380 East Hastings St. (visit to Vandu overdose prevention site)

Nov. 3, 2017 — Vancouver, Brockton Point Lightouse in Stanley Park (Bike ride with local supporters)

Nov. 4, 2017 — Victoria, 720 Douglas St. (BC NDP Convention)

Nov. 11, 2017 — Ottawa, National War Memorial on Elgin (Remembrance Day ceremony)

Nov. 12, 2017 — Halifax, 2534 Agricola St. (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 14, 2017 — St. John’s, 230 Elizabeth Ave. (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 15, 2017 — Sherbrooke, Que., (toured community with local MP)

Nov. 16, 2017 — Toronto, 317 Dundas St. W (attended Broadbent Institute Progress Gala)

Nov. 17, 2017 — Edmonton, 11113 87 Ave. NW (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 18, 2017 — Calgary, 4826 11 St. NE (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 21, 2017 — Toronto, 123 Queen St. W (Ontario Federation of Labour speech)

Nov. 22, 2017 — Ottawa, 1 Rideau St. (delivered speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities)

Nov. 24, 2017 — Toronto, 37 King St. East (attended the Toronto Life party for “most influential” Torontonians)

Nov. 25, 2017 — Scarborough, 2101 Brimley Rd. (JagMeet and Greet)

Dec. 1, 2017 — Windsor, 471 Ouellette Ave. (toured community with local MP)

Dec. 2, 2017 — Kingsville, Ont., 1876 Seacliff Dr. (toured greenhouse with local MP)

Dec. 2, 2017 — Windsor, 2090 Wyandotte St. E (JagMeet and Greet)

Dec. 4, 2017 — Toronto, 789 Yonge St., (delivered a speech at the National Black Canadians Summit)

Dec. 6, 2017 — Ottawa, 75 Laurier Ave. E (Hosted a youth voting seminar at the University of Ottawa)

Dec. 10, 2017 — Montreal, 6524 St. Hubert St, (JagMeet and Greet)

Jan. 16, 2018 — Toronto, 17 Baldwin St. (invited media to his engagement party)

Jan. 20, 2018 — Toronto, Nathan Phillips Square (attended the Women’s March)

Jan. 24-25, 2018 — Ottawa, 180 Wellington St. (held the NDP caucus strategy session)

Jan. 30, 2018 — Lévis, Que. 22 rue George-D.-Davie, (visited the Davie Shipyard)

cco

It says something about the quality of the Star's journalism that their "list of ridings" doesn't include a single riding name, but rather lists cities and street addresses.

Unionist

cco wrote:

It says something about the quality of the Star's journalism that their "list of ridings" doesn't include a single riding name, but rather lists cities and street addresses.

It says something about Mighty Middle's failure to accurately quote the Star article. They never called it a list of ridings:

Quote:
Using a list of stops provided by the party, as well as information plucked from Singh’s social media feeds, the Star has assembled a 32-stop itinerary of his movements between Oct. 1, when he won the leadership, and the beginning of February.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Using a list of stops provided by the party, as well as information plucked from Singh’s social media feeds, the Star has assembled a 32-stop itinerary of his movements between Oct. 1, when he won the leadership, and the beginning of February.

Oct. 1, 2017 — Toronto, 1 Harbour Square (Leadership victory)

Oct. 6, 2017 — Toronto, 222 Bremner Blvd. (CUPE speech)

Oct. 10, 2017 — Alma, Que. He was touring the Lac-Saint-Jean riding; no specific address. (Byelection campaign)

Oct. 15, 2017 — Ottawa, 55 Colonel By Dr. (National tour launch)

Oct. 20, 2017 — Vancouver, no specific address in the riding of Vancouver East (toured Chinatown with local MP)

Oct. 26, 2017 — Saskatoon, 1007 Windsor St. (JagMeet and Greet)

Oct. 27, 2017 — Regina, 1600 Elphinstone St. (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 1, 2017 — Vancouver, 319 Main St., Vancouver (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 2, 2017 — Vancouver, 380 East Hastings St. (visit to Vandu overdose prevention site)

Nov. 3, 2017 — Vancouver, Brockton Point Lightouse in Stanley Park (Bike ride with local supporters)

Nov. 4, 2017 — Victoria, 720 Douglas St. (BC NDP Convention)

Nov. 11, 2017 — Ottawa, National War Memorial on Elgin (Remembrance Day ceremony)

Nov. 12, 2017 — Halifax, 2534 Agricola St. (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 14, 2017 — St. John’s, 230 Elizabeth Ave. (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 15, 2017 — Sherbrooke, Que., (toured community with local MP)

Nov. 16, 2017 — Toronto, 317 Dundas St. W (attended Broadbent Institute Progress Gala)

Nov. 17, 2017 — Edmonton, 11113 87 Ave. NW (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 18, 2017 — Calgary, 4826 11 St. NE (JagMeet and Greet)

Nov. 21, 2017 — Toronto, 123 Queen St. W (Ontario Federation of Labour speech)

Nov. 22, 2017 — Ottawa, 1 Rideau St. (delivered speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities)

Nov. 24, 2017 — Toronto, 37 King St. East (attended the Toronto Life party for “most influential” Torontonians)

Nov. 25, 2017 — Scarborough, 2101 Brimley Rd. (JagMeet and Greet)

Dec. 1, 2017 — Windsor, 471 Ouellette Ave. (toured community with local MP)

Dec. 2, 2017 — Kingsville, Ont., 1876 Seacliff Dr. (toured greenhouse with local MP)

Dec. 2, 2017 — Windsor, 2090 Wyandotte St. E (JagMeet and Greet)

Dec. 4, 2017 — Toronto, 789 Yonge St., (delivered a speech at the National Black Canadians Summit)

Dec. 6, 2017 — Ottawa, 75 Laurier Ave. E (Hosted a youth voting seminar at the University of Ottawa)

Dec. 10, 2017 — Montreal, 6524 St. Hubert St, (JagMeet and Greet)

Jan. 16, 2018 — Toronto, 17 Baldwin St. (invited media to his engagement party)

Jan. 20, 2018 — Toronto, Nathan Phillips Square (attended the Women’s March)

Jan. 24-25, 2018 — Ottawa, 180 Wellington St. (held the NDP caucus strategy session)

Jan. 30, 2018 — Lévis, Que. 22 rue George-D.-Davie, (visited the Davie Shipyard)

If he is trying to build the party he needs to travel more while he is not an MP.  I would suggest to his handlers that his presence on the North Shore of Burrard Inlet on March 10th would garner him not only national coverage but in the Lower Mainland many energetic young volunteers to fight the next election. Here is a messaage for him to deliver to the people of BC, that I carefuly plagiarized.

The NDP will actively propose a vision of federalism inspired by the social democratic values of cooperation, recognition, equality, respect, flexibility, transparency and honesty. We believe that building a country that people from all regions can feel they are truly a part of must be based on good faith, recognition and accommodation of differences, and cooperation and harmony between peoples, and not on intimidation.

Mighty Middle

Unionist wrote:

cco wrote:

It says something about the quality of the Star's journalism that their "list of ridings" doesn't include a single riding name, but rather lists cities and street addresses.

It says something about Mighty Middle's failure to accurately quote the Star article. They never called it a list of ridings:

Apologizes for the mistake, however

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Imagine Unionist interupting your spin cycle. Did it dampen your spirits?

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I'm not afraid of the Conservatives anymore. Harper did his worst. In my opinion Conservatives are on a permanent decline and will eventually be replaced by the Liberals although that could take decades. If they get in through a split vote Canadians now have the example of BC opposition kicking the Liberals out. The Liberals propped up the Conservatives all those years because they were in such a weak position with unpopular leaders. Trudeau propping up Scheer would not be at all the same thing. Trudeau hung his hat on progressive. He would have to work with the NDP to unseat Scheer if he were to win, and if Trudeau gets a minority he will still have to work with the NDP.

Oh how naieve this analysis is. Remember that in the last federal election campaign, after Harper had been destroyed on every issue, he allowed the niqab to become an issue in his party's campaign. The thing is that he was not only a control freak, but that went against all the effort he had made at reaching out to ethnic communities and demonstrating he wasn't the big scary bigoted social conservative the Liberals had been trying to paint him as. Why did he permit this? Because he knew that this kind of politics could resonate, especially in a climate of fear and uncertainty as this. The fact that 30% of the public were not bothered enough by this to support his party vindicates this. Not only that, but when Obama was re-elected in the US, people believed that racism and xenophobia would never again play an important role in politics, only to be proven wrong 4 years later. We have lots of Donald Trump types in Canada. Just check out right-wing media outlets like "The Rebel," the comments on social media, or even the things people said during the refugee crisis when people were crossing the border illegally. And people mocked Kellie Lietch for her idea of a "Canadain values" test, but she wouldn't have introduced the idea if she didn't think she could get leverage from it. We ignore this at our peril, and whether through poor economic performance (many areas in Ontario that have been hit by the collapse of the manufacturing industry share demographic similarities to next-door Michigan which voted for Trump) or a terrorist attack, the Conservatives could come roaring back. Don't count them out.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Imagine Unionist interupting your spin cycle. Did it dampen your spirits?

[Sigh] Dry humour.

JKR

I thought the spin cycle is supposed to remove dampness?

Aristotleded24

alan smithee wrote:
But forget about 2019. It ain't happening. It must be accepted. I can also put a 25:1 chance that this winter freeze will end in March and 20 degree weather will begin. (I live in Quebec) I'd be dreaming to believe that too.

An NDP government in 2019 is a long shot I'll admit, but it's not something that can be ruled out. Global politics is in a stat of flux right now, people are fed up and frustrated, and they don't have the same loyalty to old habits they once did. If you had predicted that in 2011 the NDP would finish in second place, that in 2015 the NDP would win government in Alberta, that in 2016 Bernie Sanders would have a fighting chance to win the Democratic Primary, and that last year Jeremy Corbyn would reduce the British Tories to a minority, all those predictions would have been dismissed as long-shots and would never happen.

As for the weather, with climate change, your scenario of the freeze ending in March with 20-degree days is going to become more likely as time goes on.

NDPP

Under Its New Leader Jagmeet Singh, Will Canada's NDP Finally Call For Sanctions on Israel?

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21096:Under-its-New-Leader-Jagmeet-Singh...

Surely, even for the NDP, it's past time and safe to do so, given that Gazans are now practically swimming in their own shit thanks to the Zionist warcriminals and their international friends. Shocking and shameful omission  for members of an allegedly progressive social democratic party to have thus far taken no action.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:
I thought the spin cycle is supposed to remove dampness?
Not if its interupted.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I'm not afraid of the Conservatives anymore. Harper did his worst. In my opinion Conservatives are on a permanent decline and will eventually be replaced by the Liberals although that could take decades. If they get in through a split vote Canadians now have the example of BC opposition kicking the Liberals out. The Liberals propped up the Conservatives all those years because they were in such a weak position with unpopular leaders. Trudeau propping up Scheer would not be at all the same thing. Trudeau hung his hat on progressive. He would have to work with the NDP to unseat Scheer if he were to win, and if Trudeau gets a minority he will still have to work with the NDP.

Oh how naieve this analysis is. Remember that in the last federal election campaign, after Harper had been destroyed on every issue, he allowed the niqab to become an issue in his party's campaign. The thing is that he was not only a control freak, but that went against all the effort he had made at reaching out to ethnic communities and demonstrating he wasn't the big scary bigoted social conservative the Liberals had been trying to paint him as. Why did he permit this? Because he knew that this kind of politics could resonate, especially in a climate of fear and uncertainty as this. The fact that 30% of the public were not bothered enough by this to support his party vindicates this. Not only that, but when Obama was re-elected in the US, people believed that racism and xenophobia would never again play an important role in politics, only to be proven wrong 4 years later. We have lots of Donald Trump types in Canada. Just check out right-wing media outlets like "The Rebel," the comments on social media, or even the things people said during the refugee crisis when people were crossing the border illegally. And people mocked Kellie Lietch for her idea of a "Canadain values" test, but she wouldn't have introduced the idea if she didn't think she could get leverage from it. We ignore this at our peril, and whether through poor economic performance (many areas in Ontario that have been hit by the collapse of the manufacturing industry share demographic similarities to next-door Michigan which voted for Trump) or a terrorist attack, the Conservatives could come roaring back. Don't count them out.

I'm talking decades not years. Are we more or less racist than 50 years ago? I would say less. Canada certainly has Trumpian types but they are no where near as prevalent in Canada. If they were Harper would have been much bolder. 

I don't believe people voted for Trump because they are racist. They voted for him because they are angry. It's not like Clinton is a progressive. Same goes for Ford. Progressives are failing to tap into the angry and direct it where it belongs. 

The 2019 slogan shouldn't be love and courage it should be follow the money. 

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Imagine Unionist interupting your spin cycle. Did it dampen your spirits?

Explain how using the term "ridings" incorrectly is "spin"

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The more inbreeding there is in a community, the more distate there is for "the other".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Imagine Unionist interupting your spin cycle. Did it dampen your spirits?

Explain how using the term "ridings" incorrectly is "spin"

I charge by the word for requests for me to write stupid explanations to trolls. Please PM to tell me how much you want to spend.

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I charge by the word for requests for me to write stupid explanations to trolls. Please PM to tell me how much you want to spend.

Your are being like the Toronto Sun, opposing for the sake of just opposing. But this time just for a misicule misuse of a word. Man up and say what you mean inside of hiding behind some excuse. But if you can't even do that, I guess that just shows what type of man you are. Actions speak louder  than words.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Imagine Unionist interupting your spin cycle. Did it dampen your spirits?

[Sigh] Dry humour.

But at least the jokes are clean.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Imagine Unionist interupting your spin cycle. Did it dampen your spirits?

[Sigh] Dry humour.

But at least the jokes are clean.

roflol

NDPP

Burying Canada's Anti-Palestinian Consensus  -  by Yves Engler

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/02/burying-canadas-anti-palestinian-cons...

"The anti-Palestinian consensus among Canada's three main political parties is crumbling and NDP members could bury it this weekend. After taking an all-expense paid trip to the AIPAC conference in Washington and participating in a Jewish National Fund event in Israel 14 months ago, the NDP's foreign critic has begun challenging Canada's contribution to Palestinian dispossession.

Whatever the reason for Laverdiere's shift away from anti-Palestinianism, it remains insufficient. As I've detailed, the NDP continues to provide various forms of support to Israel and the party has an odious anti-Palestinian history.

The NDP leadership is also trying to head off members' calls to boycott Israel..."

Pages