In an awkward moment when a reporter asks Jagmeet Singh a question about NDP stance on the Liberals Gun Control bill, he needs to turn to Guy Caron for a quick briefing - In front of reporters
Watch last 15 second of the video
https://globalnews.ca/news/4169609/jagmeet-singh-unsure-gun-control-bill/
Equally bad is his vacuous bluffing. A spew of word salad that says nothing in a failed effort to disguise the fact he didn't know the answer to the question. Typical for Singh - he was like this through the leadership campaign, too.
I hope Singh is strong enough to defeat those intent on destroying the NDP's chances.
More specifically, reporters wanted to know if Singh’s personal support for the bill was shared by other members of his caucus, especially MPs like Niki Ashton and Nathan Cullen, who once voted to dismantle the federal firearms registry.
He wasn't asked NDP policy. He was asked about Ashton and Cullen because they are his enemies and the press wants to stir the pot and watch the NDP fight itself rather than neoliberalism.
I didn't know that Cullen and Ashton supported the Conservatives on the gun registry. I liked Cullen until I realized he is just another operator. I liked Ashton a lot until I realized she too is a gamer.
The title of the thread is: Jagmeet Singh DOES NOT Know NDP Position On Gun Control
So what is the NDP policy on guns?
How outrageous for Singh to actually consult with Caron before answering a question. Doesn't he know he is supposed to be a one man band?
Guy Caron was my first choice for leader. That Singh keeps him close and considers his counsel is to Singh's credit.
On Thursday, NDP MP Peter Julian dismissed Singh’s apparent blunder on the gun control bill.
How is it a blunder that he consulted with Caron before confirming that the caucus supports the bill?
“He’s going across the country, attracting massive crowds … there’s a lot of excitement,” Julian said. “When he comes here, as MPs, as critics, we have a responsibility to brief him quickly. And I think we’ll make sure that that happens.”
The NDP is a house divided. This is like caucus in Labour rejecting Corbyn's leadership. I hope that like Corbyn, Singh wins. I see no scenario in which the NDP doesn't get wiped out in 2019 as badly as the Liberals were in 2011. Hopefully the old guard will lose control and a new power centre will form. Unfortunately the old guard may win and set the party back decades.
I recall a few years ago Sean floated the idea of the need for a new party. I argued that it is easier to take over an existing one. I hope that is happening and the NDP will undergo the transformation the Liberals did in terms of rejuvenation regardless of whether or not Singh survives it. If not a new party may be needed.
I hope Singh is strong enough to defeat those intent on destroying the NDP's chances.
More specifically, reporters wanted to know if Singh’s personal support for the bill was shared by other members of his caucus, especially MPs like Niki Ashton and Nathan Cullen, who once voted to dismantle the federal firearms registry.
He wasn't asked NDP policy. He was asked about Ashton and Cullen because they are his enemies and the press wants to stir the pot and watch the NDP fight itself rather than neoliberalism.
I didn't know that Cullen and Ashton supported the Conservatives on the gun registry. I liked Cullen until I realized he is just another operator. I liked Ashton a lot until I realized she too is a gamer.
The title of the thread is: Jagmeet Singh DOES NOT Know NDP Position On Gun Control
So what is the NDP policy on guns?
Ashton isn't Singh's enemy. Her vote on the gun registry, which took place years before Singh won the leadership, had nothing to do with any enmity towards Singh, or with any feelings regarding Singh at all.
Ashton isn't Singh's enemy. Her vote on the gun registry, which took place years before Singh won the leadership, had nothing to do with any enmity towards Singh, or with any feelings regarding Singh at all.
Ashton is Singh's enemy but it has nothing to do with her vote on the gun registry. That speaks to who she is. Some members of caucus obviously don't support him. Ashton is one of them. That is why the press asked specifically about her and Cullen. I'm just surprised they didn't include Angus in the list. Maybe they thought it would have been too obvious.
Ashton isn't Singh's enemy. She simply has a different, fuller political vision than he is. She hasn't tried to undermine him or anything and she doesn't want the party to do badly with Singh as leader. It doesn't make you Singh's enemy just to support a real debate on the Israel/Palestine issue at the NDP convention. That simply means she wants to break the pointless silence on that among the major parties.Ashton isn't Singh's enemy. Her vote on the gun registry, which took place years before Singh won the leadership, had nothing to do with any enmity towards Singh, or with any feelings regarding Singh at all.Ashton is Singh's enemy but it has nothing to do with her vote on the gun registry. That speaks to who she is. Some members of caucus obviously don't support him. Ashton is one of them. That is why the press asked specifically about her and Cullen. I'm just surprised they didn't include Angus in the list. Maybe they thought it would have been too obvious.
We should have chosen Caron. Sinbh will be one election and out.
Ashton isn't Singh's enemy. She simply has a different, fuller political vision than he is. She hasn't tried to undermine him or anything and she doesn't want the party to do badly with Singh as leader. It doesn't make you Singh's enemy just to support a real debate on the Israel/Palestine issue at the NDP convention. That simply means she wants to break the pointless silence on that among the major parties.
She didn't win the leadership. That contest is over. Her vision did not win. Members voted against her vision. The NDP will only advance in 2019 if they are united behind Singh not publically undermining him.
So far Singh has handled it so well that I think he may be able to win enough support internally that his critics are silenced. Not here of course.
I find it amusing and sad that no one, including Jagmeet Singh, has answered Pondering's very appropriate question: "So what is the NDP's policy on guns?"
Here's the policy, Pondering. In its pathetic entirety:
Stopping the smuggling of illegal firearms and enable all municipalities, provinces, and territories to implement a ban on handguns.
From the NDP policy book as adopted at the last convention. I guess they found it difficult to agree on anything beyond that.
I have a question. Realistically there are three men in the running for PM in 2019. Trudeau, Scheer, and Singh.
Of the three, which one do you want to give power to.
I have a question. Realistically there are three men in the running for PM in 2019. Trudeau, Scheer, and Singh.
Of the three, which one do you want to give power to.
Being Prime Minister is not an entry level position
-Tom Mulcair
Tom Mulcair has shown us how successful he himself has been at it that his word must be gospel
Tom Mulcair has shown us how successful he himself has been at it that his word must be gospel
He won more seats in 2015 than Ed Broadbent at the height of his popularity in 1988
Yes Mulcair did wonders:
He crashed the NDP from 103 seats, 30.65% of the vote, and Official Opposition status in 2011, to 44 seats, 19.7% of the vote and third place in 2015.
Mulcair is the Miracle Man!
Tom Mulcair has shown us how successful he himself has been at it that his word must be gospel
He won more seats in 2015 than Ed Broadbent at the height of his popularity in 1988
I have a question. Realistically there are three men in the running for PM in 2019. Trudeau, Scheer, and Singh.
Of the three, which one do you want to give power to.
Brilliantly done, Pondering! Diverted the thread in one shot. We had actually triggered an interesting conversation. None we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, instead of looking for ammunition to go further.
I should have arranged this comment in bullet points, but I was afraid I'd get fired, or else go ballistic.
So... what is the NDP position on pun control?
But better than Jack Layton first 3 kicks at the can
2004 - 19 seats with 15.68% of the vote
2006 - 29 seats with 17.48% of the vote
2008 - 37 seats with 18.18% of the vote
Yes Mulcair did wonders:
He crashed the NDP from 103 seats, 30.65% of the vote, and Official Opposition status in 2011, to 44 seats, 19.7% of the vote and third place in 2015.
Mulcair is the Miracle Man!
She didn't win the leadership. That contest is over. Her vision did not win. Members voted against her vision. The NDP will only advance in 2019 if they are united behind Singh not publically undermining him.
I just answered you in another thread, but will repeat it here since you brought up the leadership vote and members. I don't accept Singh as leader because I think he stole the vote with his mass voting-bloc sign-ups in a couple specific regions of the country. I consider the system to be flawed, or if not necessarily flawed, then subverted in this case in a way it hadn't been before.
I see no scenario in which the NDP doesn't get wiped out in 2019 as badly as the Liberals were in 2011.
The Liberals won 34 seats in 2011 - I don't think the NDP will do anywhere near that well. I expect we'll lose over half of our existing seats, have almost no new pick-ups, and could well end up with less than 20.
I hope Singh is strong enough to defeat those intent on destroying the NDP's chances.
More specifically, reporters wanted to know if Singh’s personal support for the bill was shared by other members of his caucus, especially MPs like Niki Ashton and Nathan Cullen, who once voted to dismantle the federal firearms registry.
He wasn't asked NDP policy. He was asked about Ashton and Cullen because they are his enemies and the press wants to stir the pot and watch the NDP fight itself rather than neoliberalism.
I didn't know that Cullen and Ashton supported the Conservatives on the gun registry. I liked Cullen until I realized he is just another operator. I liked Ashton a lot until I realized she too is a gamer.
The title of the thread is: Jagmeet Singh DOES NOT Know NDP Position On Gun Control
So what is the NDP policy on guns?
Nathan Cullen endorsed Singh in the NDP Leadership race, he isn't his enemy, he's his ally.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nathan-cullen-jagmeet-singh-endorsement-...
The failings of Jagmeet Singh belong to Jagmeet Singh, there is no conspiracy to oust him by asking him reasonable questions about policy.
Brilliantly done, Pondering! Diverted the thread in one shot. We had actually triggered an interesting conversation. None we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, instead of looking for ammunition to go further.I should have arranged this comment in bullet points, but I was afraid I'd get fired, or else go ballistic.
LOL! I count seven... did I miss any?
Ashton isn't Singh's enemy. She simply has a different, fuller political vision than he is. She hasn't tried to undermine him or anything and she doesn't want the party to do badly with Singh as leader. It doesn't make you Singh's enemy just to support a real debate on the Israel/Palestine issue at the NDP convention. That simply means she wants to break the pointless silence on that among the major parties.She didn't win the leadership. That contest is over. Her vision did not win. Members voted against her vision.
I accept that Singh won. Ashton accepts that Singh won. Accepting that doesn't mean she has no right to keep fighting for her own ideas. It's not as though the ONLY way to avoid undermining Singh is for no MP to say anything not in exact accord with whatever Singh says.
It's not as though the NDP can gain any ground by having its MPs say NOTHING but "we're against income inequality and that's all that matters".
So... what is the NDP position on pun control?
looks like it would be status quo. There are already gun control laws, so really your question seems to have a little more behind it hey?
why don’t you just come out and say it? You’re wasting your talent on a debate forum, you should be doing stand up. But I think the hecklers got the best of you.
looks like it would be status quo. There are already gun control laws, so really your question seems to have a little more behind it hey?
Wowzers.
"pun control" was not a typo. Re-read.
But I think the hecklers got the best of you.
There have been six posts since Unionist's mention of "PUN control", mine was the only one who referenced his post, and I laughed because I actually laughed.
Who do you feel is getting the best of him?
Ya I get it. It just wasn’t really that funny because it was the lowest form of comedy, a pun! And a pretty shity one at that.
Can we get back to the NDP and gun control now? Or is it mandatory that this thread now go into thread drift mode for another page? Because if it is, I’m not going to read anymore comments!
Ya I get it. It just wasn’t really that funny because it was the lowest form of comedy, a pun! And a pretty shity one at that.
C'mon, brah? All seven of them? Surely there was one in there that made you almost smirk!
Can we get back to the NDP and gun control now?
Oh, yes! As soon as possible.
"Killjoy was here!"
Can we get back to the NDP and gun control now? Or is it mandatory that this thread now go into thread drift mode for another page? Because if it is, I’m not going to read anymore comments!
I'm the one who made that point, my friend, which you obviously didn't notice. But thanks for joining the effort to get this back on topic.
I recall when the NDP had to discipline two assholes for voting with Harper to eliminate the long-gun registry. How quickly we forget.
NDP MPs disciplined for long-gun registry vote
Of course, the NDP and Liberals, having opposed the elimination of the long-gun registry, are too cowardly to propose bringing it back, even though it was a flimsy Liberal compromise measure in the first place. They must be afraid someone will come and shoot them.
No wonder Jagmeet couldn't recall the NDP policy on gun control. There isn't one. Except for the convention policy I quoted earlier, and even that is guaranteed not to figure in their next election platform. Can you imagine the NDP campaigning on "no handguns in cities"? Me neither.
He won more seats in 2015 than Ed Broadbent at the height of his popularity in 1988
But there were fewer seats in the House of Commons in 1988.
So Ed Broadbent's NDP actually won a larger percentage of seats than Tom Mulcair's NDP.
In 1988 there were only 295 seats in the House.
By 2015, the House had expanded to 338 seats.
So:
43 seats out of 295 in 1988 = 14.5% of the House seats
44 seats out of 338 in 2015 = 13% of the House seats
It's not how many seats that a party wins that matters -- it's the percentage of the House that matters.
Debater, please don't participate in this drift. There are plenty of other stupid threads about electoral politics, polls, etc. Did you have any opinion about the NDP position on gun control, and Jagmeet Singh's apparent blissful ignorance on that account?
I recall when the NDP had to discipline two assholes for voting with Harper to eliminate the long-gun registry. How quickly we forget.
First off Unionist, those in the NDP who have voted to scrap the gun registry when it was in place were not assholes!
They were making a decision based on the interest of their constituents.
Fire arms, just like any other weapon can also be a tool. Just like a white van can be used as a weapon.
Mulcair made the huge mistake of giving unwavering support to a liberal pet project. At least Jag recognizes this and wants to bury his mistakes.
Mulcair made the huge mistake of giving unwavering support to a liberal pet project. At least Jag recognizes this and wants to bury his mistakes.
No kidding? Then why is Jag supporting the Liberal's new firearms bill?
The link you provided Unionist doesn't support your claim. Please try again
The link you provided Unionist doesn't support your claim. Please try again
I provided that link just to explain the Liberals' bill. I thought everyone knew the NDP supported it. They voted for it. Did you seriously not know that?
Liberal gun bill clears Commons hurdle after less than a day of debate
As the NDP and the three smaller parties in the Commons sided with the Liberals, the firearms legislation passed second reading in a 206-88 vote.
Are we ok then?
Nice try but no cigar. You said Jagmeet supported the bill but the link provided only referral to second reading passing with support from the NDP. It would have been impossible for Jag to vote either for against bill c-71. Also you made reference to when Mulcair whipped the NDP to support the now gone gun registry. And from what I have seen so far, Jagmeet won’t be going down that road.
Mathew Dube’s address to parliament seems to indicate that the NDP are going to throw a lot of thorns into the liberal rose bush
Nice try but no cigar. You said Jagmeet supported the bill but the link provided only referral to second reading passing with support from the NDP. It would have been impossible for Jag to vote either for against bill c-71.
I said he supported the bill. I didn't say he voted for it. Reading skills are so important in this day and age.
Also you made reference to when Mulcair whipped the NDP to support the now gone gun registry. And from what I have seen so far, Jagmeet won’t be going down that road.
Which road are you referring to? I merely made reference to the NDP MPs who supported Stephen Harper's orgasms over guns.
Mathew Dube’s address to parliament seems to indicate that the NDP are going to throw a lot of thorns into the liberal rose bush
Oh, I see, as if rose bushes are lacking in thorns. Botanical knowledge is so important in this day and age.
I said he supported the bill. I didn't say he voted for it. Reading skills are so important in this day and age.
can you provide the link to support your claim?
Nice try but no cigar. You said Jagmeet supported the bill but the link provided only referral to second reading passing with support from the NDP. It would have been impossible for Jag to vote either for against bill c-71. Also you made reference to when Mulcair whipped the NDP to support the now gone gun registry. And from what I have seen so far, Jagmeet won’t be going down that road.
Mathew Dube’s address to parliament seems to indicate that the NDP are going to throw a lot of thorns into the liberal rose bush
Tom Mulcair didn't whip the long gun registry vote because he wasn't the leader of the NDP at the time. Nycole Turmel was.
Thanks for the correction. I’m getting this confused with the Mulcair vs Hyer disagreement/ Mulcair wish to reintroduce gun registry if elected.
I said he supported the bill. I didn't say he voted for it. Reading skills are so important in this day and age.
can you provide the link to support your claim?
Yes:
More specifically, reporters wanted to know if Singh’s personal support for the bill was shared by other members of his caucus, especially MPs like Niki Ashton and Nathan Cullen, who once voted to dismantle the federal firearms registry.
Are we ok now? Or is there some problem?
Wowzers."pun control" was not a typo. Re-read.
Good catch, Magoo. Yes, I did make 7 puns in that particular post, just to show how easy it was, in the absence of effective and rigorous pun control legislation.
Only professional writers should be able to use those sorts of high powered, military style assault puns, they have no legitimate use in the hands of civilians and should be banned from all urban areas.
What is Singh's and/or the NDP's official position on the age old debate of .45 vs 9mm?
Only professional writers should be able to use those sorts of high powered, military style assault puns, they have no legitimate use in the hands of civilians and should be banned from all urban areas.
Well in fairness, before firing those puns, I tried to pass a background cheque, but it came back NSF.
What is Singh's and/or the NDP's official position on the age old debate of .45 vs 9mm?
I told you (above). Here is their policy in full:
"Stopping the smuggling of illegal firearms and enable all municipalities, provinces, and territories to implement a ban on handguns."
As for Singh's policy? You'll have to ask him.
It's a shame that a self-styled democratic party can adopt policies in convention, duly voted on by member-elected delegates, in what the constitution defines as the supreme policy-making body of the entire party - and then a "leader" or a "caucus" can ignore or change that policy at will. That's another conversation. But it's connected.
