Have issues with Singh as leader? Here are the questions you have to answer:

169 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2018-07-20 14:02

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't know why you think Singh is lacking in personal charisma. Whenever I have seen him I thought he had oodles of it and commentators seem to agree. Do you also think Trudeau is lacking in personal charisma?

The only thing that works is trying to win the argument...nothing else wins people over, nothing else holds the people you already have.

I agree with the above but the timing has to be right and the public has to be receptive.

The extents of Singh's limitations have been listed in extensive detail by myself and at least a couple other people around here. I'm sure you've seen them, ignored them, and are just trolling us all with your "oodles of charisma" praise. I think you're just punking us all and privately laughing as the NDP races toward oblivion. There's something very Trump-ian about you, Pondering.

Your arguments are bizarre. No logic involved. Just declarations and personal attacks. You have decided he isn't charismatic so it must be true, evidence be damned.

Same goes for his so-called limitations. Just because you declare it to be so doesn't mean it is. Even if he has a particular limitation, such as Trudeau's speech habit, doesn't mean it can't be compensated for or changed.

You seem to want an insta-savior for a leader that will single-handedly raise the NDP from the ashes.

The criticisms of Singh echo those of Trudeau. I am very surprised. All the time I favored Trudeau over Mulcair I though a lot of the criticism of Trudeau was partisan. A refusal to see in them the strengths I saw even as an opponent. Mulcair looked much more prime ministerial. spoke better was a better debater, better educated, more accomplished. He has some charisma too. I could acknowledge those things.

Now I am seeing Singh getting the Trudeau treatment by some posters. I'm not saying Singh can pull off what Trudeau did in terms of getting money and votes but he will surprise you.

Sun, 2018-07-22 15:01

(Reply to #102) #103

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

Just because you declare it to be so doesn't mean it is.

You don't see the irony?

Pondering wrote:

The criticisms of Singh echo those of Trudeau. I am very surprised. All the time I favored Trudeau over Mulcair I though a lot of the criticism of Trudeau was partisan. A refusal to see in them the strengths I saw even as an opponent. Mulcair looked much more prime ministerial. spoke better was a better debater, better educated, more accomplished. He has some charisma too. I could acknowledge those things.

IMO (so you can't accuse me of declaring something to be truth) Mulcair was a horrible debater, inseperable and utterly dependant on notes, stiff and stilted. He wore that stupid smile through the debates, failed to make his points, was unable to connect with people, and above all did not seem honest and trustworthy. He blew everything about the election campaign, from the very start when he refused to answer questions from the media. Arrogance and condescension ooze from him. For all his bluster and advance arrogance about how he would wipe the floor with the young punk Trudeau, the reality was very much the opposite. His comeuppance at the hands of the membership was richly deserved.

Sun, 2018-07-22 15:22

(Reply to #103) #104

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Just because you declare it to be so doesn't mean it is.

You don't see the irony?

Pondering wrote:

The criticisms of Singh echo those of Trudeau. I am very surprised. All the time I favored Trudeau over Mulcair I though a lot of the criticism of Trudeau was partisan. A refusal to see in them the strengths I saw even as an opponent. Mulcair looked much more prime ministerial. spoke better was a better debater, better educated, more accomplished. He has some charisma too. I could acknowledge those things.

IMO (so you can't accuse me of declaring something to be truth) Mulcair was a horrible debater, inseperable and utterly dependant on notes, stiff and stilted. He wore that stupid smile through the debates, failed to make his points, was unable to connect with people, and above all did not seem honest and trustworthy. He blew everything about the election campaign, from the very start when he refused to answer questions from the media. Arrogance and condescension ooze from him. For all his bluster and advance arrogance about how he would wipe the floor with the young punk Trudeau, the reality was very much the opposite. His comeuppance at the hands of the membership was richly deserved.

Trudeau didn't even answer the first question in the debate. He just repeated all his talking points which had nothing at all to do with the question.

My point is that Singh is receiving the same criticisms Trudeau did yet Trudeau won the election. Trudeau also had "no policy". Trudeau was also accused of lacking in substance. Singh is way ahead of Trudeau in terms of accomplishments and ability.

Even if you are right and Singh is the wrong man for the job it does absolutely no good at all to undermine him now.

I don't believe you have a problem with Singh in particular. I think you want a more leftist leader. That is not going to change before the next election. If it is going to change that would be based on the 2019 election results.

Sun, 2018-07-22 15:35

(Reply to #104) #105

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
My point is that Singh is receiving the same criticisms Trudeau did

Not so. Singh is being criticized for the NDP's dismal byelection performance and fundraising since he became leader. These are objective criticisms and are coming from NDP supporters. Trudeau performed the opposite since becoming leader, and the criticisms on style came from the Liberals' opponents, not from inside.

Sun, 2018-07-22 17:07

#106

Ken Burch

Pondering, you seem to have forgotten that the case for Singh was precisely that, supposedly, he would BE "an insta-savior for a leader that (would) single-handedly raise the NDP from the ashes." The message was that he was SO inherently superior to all the other candidates in the leadership contest that it was silly even to ask what he supported or what he would do as leader". NDP supporters were told that there shouldn't even be a real debate, that he was so millions of miles above any other possible leadership candidate that he was owed the leadership by acclimation.

Instead, it turns out that, while he may have personal charisma on some level, this charisma has so far been useless. Not only that, he's barely employed this personal appeal to help any federal NDP by-election candidate anywhere.

If his presence as leader so far has made, at best, no meaningful difference in the NDP's showing in the opinion polls or by-elections(by contrast, there was an immediate shift of about 10% of the vote in the polls from the NDP to the Liberals when 'Lil Justin won the leadership), why would you think its still possible for it to make a difference? What possible chance is there for the party to win anybody over, or even to be sure of holding onto the support it currently has, DURING an election campaign if it's going to stay with your insistence on saying nothing until the election is called? If you've made no impression in the previous two years, you're not going to make an impression in a month and a half.

It's now clear that the main reason Singh was drafted as a leadership candidate was so that the party bureaucracy could use him to make sure that nothing changed, that the party wasn't democratized, that no connection between the party and the activists who actually know how to mobilize public support(at this point, nobody in "mainstream" wing of the NDP has any clue how to mobilize support or create enthusiasm), and that the "keep the party looking bland, passionless and detached no matter what" strategy would be continued. It's also now clear that the NDP establishment cares neither about standing for anything OR trying to gain votes and seats-that said establishment would be just fine with the party being stuck between 16% to 20% for the rest of eternity. And frankly, Pondering, it sounds as if you're fine with that, too.

Nobody's going to reward the party in 2023 0r 2027 for not trying in 2019, you know.

Sun, 2018-07-22 23:41

(Reply to #106) #107

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
Nobody's going to reward the party in 2023 0r 2027 for not trying in 2019, you know.

I am not suggesting they don't try in 2019. I am saying what is presented in 2019 should seem prescient in 2023 and 27. I am saying 2019 should be evaluated from the perspective of positioning not just raw number of votes.

Ken Burch wrote:
Pondering, you seem to have forgotten that the case for Singh was precisely that, supposedly, he would BE "an insta-savior for a leader that (would) single-handedly raise the NDP from the ashes." The message was that he was SO inherently superior to all the other candidates in the leadership contest that it was silly even to ask what he supported or what he would do as leader". NDP supporters were told that there shouldn't even be a real debate, that he was so millions of miles above any other possible leadership candidate that he was owed the leadership by acclimation.

I never heard that from his supporters, only as a criticism from detractors. That makes it seem projected to me.

Ken Burch wrote:
Instead, it turns out that, while he may have personal charisma on some level, this charisma has so far been useless. Not only that, he's barely employed this personal appeal to help any federal NDP by-election candidate anywhere.

Charisma isn't a magic bullet. It just means people find you personally appealing. It's a foot in the door.

Ken Burch wrote:
If his presence as leader so far has made, at best, no meaningful difference in the NDP's showing in the opinion polls or by-elections(by contrast, there was an immediate shift of about 10% of the vote in the polls from the NDP to the Liberals when 'Lil Justin won the leadership), why would you think its still possible for it to make a difference?

That was due to his father being the most popular PM in modern Canadian history.

Ken Burch wrote:
What possible chance is there for the party to win anybody over, or even to be sure of holding onto the support it currently has, DURING an election campaign if it's going to stay with your insistence on saying nothing until the election is called? If you've made no impression in the previous two years, you're not going to make an impression in a month and a half.

Trudeau did. He was in 3rd place going into the election. He had no policy. He was a lightweight.

Ken Burch wrote:
It's now clear that the main reason Singh was drafted as a leadership candidate was so that the party bureaucracy could use him to make sure that nothing changed, that the party wasn't democratized, that no connection between the party and the activists who actually know how to mobilize public support(at this point, nobody in "mainstream" wing of the NDP has any clue how to mobilize support or create enthusiasm), and that the "keep the party looking bland, passionless and detached no matter what" strategy would be continued.

The members elected him. Of course NDP executives expect things to basically stay the same under a new leader. I don't think it is something they "make sure of". It's the norm. Most parties don't change radically from one leader to the next. You want a change in leadership to transform the party.

Activists haven't been that successful. If they were the NDP would have been elected long ago because they have always been the most progressive party of the three. It isn't like the NDP is rejecting their support.

Ken Burch wrote:
It's also now clear that the NDP establishment cares neither about standing for anything OR trying to gain votes and seats-that said establishment would be just fine with the party being stuck between 16% to 20% for the rest of eternity. And frankly, Pondering, it sounds as if you're fine with that, too.

You're the one that wants to change leaders with no likely candidates in the offing. Flipping through leaders is not a winning strategy. Ask the Liberals.

Maybe you are right and he's a dud but we won't know that until the election period because that is just the way politics works now including for the NDP. You want the NDP to be different. Nothing wrong with that. I want them to be different too. Just not in the same way as yourself. In my opinion your recipe is for disaster. Something that would bring the NDP close to single digits not signal increased success.

I want the NDP to come out with a bold progressive platform in 2019 that can pass muster with the PBO. I can't read Singh's mind. I think keeping Guy Caron close is a good sign. There is no wonder-candidate waiting in the wings. Why not at least give Singh a chance?

Mon, 2018-07-23 03:57

#108

Ken Burch

The Liberals had just BRIEFLY fallen into third place when the election had started-and that was solely due to Mulcair taking the only principled, passionate stand he had taken on anything in his career so far, when he opposed C-51. Mulcair pissed that momentary lead away by leading with his most pointlessly conservative position, his balanced-budget pledge, in the only televised leaders' debate he chose to take part in. That pledge was virtually the only thing he talked about that night, other than to make patronizing comments about Justin's age.

And no, not every leader will dramatically change her, their or his party, but after the loss of a third of its vote share and more than half its seats, what possible case was there for the NDP to "stay the course"?

Mon, 2018-07-23 11:58

(Reply to #108) #109

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

The Liberals had just BRIEFLY fallen into third place when the election had started-and that was solely due to Mulcair taking the only principled, passionate stand he had taken on anything in his career so far, when he opposed C-51. Mulcair pissed that momentary lead away by leading with his most pointlessly conservative position, his balanced-budget pledge, in the only televised leaders' debate he chose to take part in. That pledge was virtually the only thing he talked about that night, other than to make patronizing comments about Justin's age.

And no, not every leader will dramatically change her, their or his party, but after the loss of a third of its vote share and more than half its seats, what possible case was there for the NDP to "stay the course"?

The NDP didn't stay the course. They had a leadership convention. The members of the NDP elected a new leader. We have yet to see the new platform because it isn't election season yet. I acknowledge I could be completely wrong about Singh because he has yet to be tested in an election campaign. You could also be completely wrong for the same reason. He can't be judged a success or failure based on his leadership performance to date because he hasn't been leader long enough to make his mark on the party. Was Jack Layton an insta-star?

Mon, 2018-07-23 14:08

#110

Ken Burch

Jack was not an instant star by any means, but unlike Jagmeet, he wasn't PRESENTED as an instant star. Nobody in Jack's campaign was as arrogant in their view of his merits vs. those of the other leadership candidates as Jagmeet's supporters(the ones who thought he should simply be handed the leadership without having to answer any substantive questions about anything, the ones who seemed to basically argue that the moment he entered the race, everybody else should have instantly dropped out because it supposedly went without saying that he was massively superior to any other option).

Jagmeet's supporters set up the expectation that simply choosing him as leader would change everything. It's on them that nothing has changed, other than the party's support in Quebec falling even lower. It's on them, and him, that nothing is better.

Mon, 2018-07-23 14:47

#111

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The other NDP party members could just have easily not bought into the arrogance of this campaign by voting against their leader. They could have sold more party memberships than him. They could have knocked on more doors than him. They could have made more phone calls than him.

But they did not care, and wallowed in their complacency, as they usually do. And now they are complaining? Typical. Swallow your lumps, take your medicine, and if there is a next time, do something about it.

Mon, 2018-07-23 14:55

(Reply to #111) #112

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Jack was not an instant star by any means, but unlike Jagmeet, he wasn't PRESENTED as an instant star. Nobody in Jack's campaign was as arrogant in their view of his merits vs. those of the other leadership candidates as Jagmeet's supporters(the ones who thought he should simply be handed the leadership without having to answer any substantive questions about anything, the ones who seemed to basically argue that the moment he entered the race, everybody else should have instantly dropped out because it supposedly went without saying that he was massively superior to any other option).

Jagmeet's supporters set up the expectation that simply choosing him as leader would change everything. It's on them that nothing has changed, other than the party's support in Quebec falling even lower. It's on them, and him, that nothing is better.

Singh was not presented as an insta-star. I never heard any claims like that being made by his team or supporters. Maybe they showed confidence that he was head and shoulders above the rest but I tend to agree. Didn't Singh participate in debates? Critics accused his supporters of wanting an insta-star. I never heard any claims that Singh was a magic bullet that would cure the ills of the NDP. Only that he would do better than the alternatives.

The members of the NDP chose Singh by a large margin. He has the mandate to lead the party into the next election. As I understand it the NDP has automatic regular confidence votes that the leader must pass to remain leader. Mulcair lost the vote. The same could happen to Singh if he performs poorly in the eyes of the membership regardless of where the votes go.

Mon, 2018-07-23 18:42

#113

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Nobody in Jack's campaign was as arrogant in their view of his merits vs. those of the other leadership candidates as Jagmeet's supporters(the ones who thought he should simply be handed the leadership without having to answer any substantive questions about anything, the ones who seemed to basically argue that the moment he entered the race, everybody else should have instantly dropped out because it supposedly went without saying that he was massively superior to any other option

To be fair, they were still less annoying than the "REB could rule the galaxy" people. And anyway, if you support a candidate, you're likely to believe the candidate should beat the other candidates, yes?

Ken, I really don't know why you want to frame every argument and every disagreement in larger-than-life terms like "... those who don't believe that others who disagree should be allowed to LIVE", or "... those who don't believe that a human should be allowed to earn a living and eat food and LIVE" or "... those who don't believe that people who only want happiness for all should be allowed to be happy and LIVE".

Not everything is a targeted drone strike. Some people liked Singh. And fewer people liked the others. I don't really think his supporters were motivated by malice against you, or the supporters of the other candidates, or happiness and freedom.

Mon, 2018-07-23 23:24

#114

Aristotleded24

My views on the contenders for the last leadership campaign are well known. However, it is also the case that these things often go differently than I would hope. I have done my best to accept the results and see what happens. I am now ready to render my final and permanent opinion of Jagmeet Singh, and it is that he is not suited to take on any leadership role, much less leadership of a major federal political party. Here is my reasoning:

Leaders stick out their necks and take risks. With the exception of a means-tested income program for seniors (which is ironically contrary to social-democratic principles) he has not done that and chooses to remain vague as long as possible. Take the issue of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. It is a major issue within the party, has pitted the Notley government against the rest of the NDP, and threatens to tear the NDP apart. By the time Singh had entered the race, the other candidates had spoken on that issue. Singh didn't have a position at the time. How are you that unprepared to enter into the federal race without having thought about an issue that is that significant? After a while, he did come out against the pipeline. Of course that position was motivated by thoughtful consideration, rather than a political calculation depending on which way the winds were blowing? Nah, I'm just being a bit cynical here.

He buckles under pressure, and related to the above, gives the impression that he hasn't thought things through. During the Manitoba NDP leadership race, he endorsed Wab Kinew. It was later revealed that Kinew had been charged with domestic assault. When Niki Ashton called him out on that endorsement, Singh responded by saying how important it is to believe survivors. Did you not think about that long enough to realize that you just endorsed someone accused of domestic assault. Same thing with the issue of Sikh nationalism. I don't know all the ins and outs, and I'm not ready to say I believe what the media is saying about it. That said, he should have known ahead of time that this was the issue, and that by virtue of being NDP leader that the press would use a picture of him picking his nose in kindergarten to discredit him if they had to. He should have anticipated that there would be critism (especially on something like that) and been prepared ahead of time. Instead he looks like he's just making it up as he goes.

He has a GTA-centric view of Canadian politics, and (with the exception of the Kinder Morgan pipeline) has demonstrated little to no interest in learning about the rest of the country beyond that. Remember when the federal NDP made a big deal of the poll showing them in second place in Ontario? Excuse me, but I live in Winnipeg, in one of 2 federal ridings that used to be safe for the NDP. How is presenting an off-year poll from a different province going to help win back those seats?

What might help is actually showing up, and he has not done that. He absolutely should have been in North Battleford during that by-election. It would have been a great opportunity for him to learn about a different part of the country, what the concerns were, and also to introduce him to that part of the country as well. That federal riding also covers key territory that the Saskatchewan NDP needs to win in order to take power in a provincial election, so I'm sure they would have loved the organizing help that would have come. Same with the Manitoba NDP convention that was held in Brandon earlier this year. I don't know if Singh was there, but if not, he should have been. Again, there was a chance for media coverage, and to learn more about different parts of the country. Not showing up for either of those things is simply inexcuseable.

His mishandling of the Erin Weir/Christine Moore affair. While those particular topics have threads of their own, in terms of Singh specifically, his handling was problematic. When the accusation was raised, cco did a good job pointing out the semantic problems with Singh's language of "believing survivors." More generally, that kind of language suggests bias and that any complaints will automatically be believed, well just because. Much better and more objective language would state, "we strive to have a safe environment for everyone, we take these accusations very seriously, and will investigate and come to a fair resolution." Objective language which protects the rights of the accused as well as the accuser. Furthermore, how he chose to deal with Weir only plays into the hands of the MRA-types who claim that this is all "witch hunts," and as reprehensible as their worldview is, we shouldn't hand them any ammunition. All the while Moore's past behaviour has been shown to be toxic to several people and the party at large, and yet she is protected. This controversey has caused severe harm to the NDP at a time when we should be focusing on serious issues.

Outside of BC, it's not looking good for the party next year at all. I don't care that current polls still have the NDP at 20%. In the lead-up to the 2011 federal election, the Liberals were clearly in second place, yet eventually the facade was exposed and the party came tumbling down. The same thing is happening here.

Tue, 2018-07-24 00:11

#115

Pondering

We disagree on Moore. I think she will win her seat again. Weir was being readmitted into caucus. It is his actions that changed the outcome. He chose how to react.

Which of the other leaders do you think would be unifying the NDP and increasing support?

Tue, 2018-07-24 15:19

(Reply to #115) #116

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Nobody in Jack's campaign was as arrogant in their view of his merits vs. those of the other leadership candidates as Jagmeet's supporters(the ones who thought he should simply be handed the leadership without having to answer any substantive questions about anything, the ones who seemed to basically argue that the moment he entered the race, everybody else should have instantly dropped out because it supposedly went without saying that he was massively superior to any other option

To be fair, they were still less annoying than the "REB could rule the galaxy" people. And anyway, if you support a candidate, you're likely to believe the candidate should beat the other candidates, yes?

Ken, I really don't know why you want to frame every argument and every disagreement in larger-than-life terms like "... those who don't believe that others who disagree should be allowed to LIVE", or "... those who don't believe that a human should be allowed to earn a living and eat food and LIVE" or "... those who don't believe that people who only want happiness for all should be allowed to be happy and LIVE".

Not everything is a targeted drone strike. Some people liked Singh. And fewer people liked the others. I don't really think his supporters were motivated by malice against you, or the supporters of the other candidates, or happiness and freedom.

Wasn't saying it was malice. More like a sense of entitlement.

Tue, 2018-07-24 18:00

(Reply to #116) #117

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
Wasn't saying it was malice. More like a sense of entitlement.

Nevertheless Singh still had to face a vote so he didn't become leader out of any sense of entitlement from his followers or himself. He was elected not appointed. The attitude of his supporters during the leadership race is immaterial.

Thu, 2018-07-26 21:00

(Reply to #117) #118

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Which of the other leaders do you think would be unifying the NDP and increasing support?

What do the other leaders have to do with this conversation? Singh is the one who was chosen to unify and increase NDP support I outlined above exactly how and why he's failing at that.

Thu, 2018-07-26 21:01

#119

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Singh seems to have dropped out of the game. No sign of him anywhere. Is he still alive?

Thu, 2018-07-26 22:56

#120

kropotkin1951

Pondering you just gave the Liberals credit for gay marriage. You have no respect for the truth but a way of posting that consistently spins the Liberals in a good light. Your ignorant rewriting of history steals the victory from the brave activists who made the changes happen and it is despicable. Of course your new found love of the NDP couldn't be just old fashioned trolling, could it?

Your general lack of knowledge in political studies and experience in campaign positions is often amusing when it isn't just maddening.

Fri, 2018-08-03 01:57

(Reply to #120) #121

Ken Burch

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Which of the other leaders do you think would be unifying the NDP and increasing support?

What do the other leaders have to do with this conversation? Singh is the one who was chosen to unify and increase NDP support I outlined above exactly how and why he's failing at that.

It was probably a response to me. My answer to that is, I think any leader who focused on ideas and on getting attention FOR ideas-and this doens't even have to mean a specific platform thing, just "here's the kinds of stuff we're thinking of and here's why this party thinks that type of idea would help" kind of thing. A leader who starts speaking at rallies for popular progressive causes, who maybe presents as a leader who conveys a general peace-justice-equality-freedom message. A leader who's at least TRYING to present something. Even Singh could be doing better if he moved beyond the introduction thing, since the introduction thing isn't making much difference.

The key problem is that the party, under THIS leader, isn't trying to get ANY message out, isn't doing anything at all, at the moment, to challenge the center-right consensus on what's needed for the future. It's going to be too late to challenge that if Singh waits to say anything substantial at all until the writ is dropped. And I remember, Pondering, that in addition to your opposition to discussing anything remotely like policy before the election is called, that in the last election, you seemed to be saying "elections aren't a time to discuss policy". Its getting pretty close to you making the argument that parties shouldn't ever be discussing ideas at all.

Thu, 2018-08-02 02:20

#122

pietro_bcc

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/01/ndp-fundraising-jagmeet-singh_a...

Wasn't one of the major selling points of Singh how great of a fundraiser he is? Where's the money?

Thu, 2018-08-02 08:33

(Reply to #122) #123

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

My views on the contenders for the last leadership campaign are well known. However, it is also the case that these things often go differently than I would hope. I have done my best to accept the results and see what happens. I am now ready to render my final and permanent opinion of Jagmeet Singh, and it is that he is not suited to take on any leadership role, much less leadership of a major federal political party. Here is my reasoning:

Leaders stick out their necks and take risks. With the exception of a means-tested income program for seniors (which is ironically contrary to social-democratic principles) he has not done that and chooses to remain vague as long as possible. Take the issue of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. It is a major issue within the party, has pitted the Notley government against the rest of the NDP, and threatens to tear the NDP apart. By the time Singh had entered the race, the other candidates had spoken on that issue. Singh didn't have a position at the time. How are you that unprepared to enter into the federal race without having thought about an issue that is that significant? After a while, he did come out against the pipeline. Of course that position was motivated by thoughtful consideration, rather than a political calculation depending on which way the winds were blowing? Nah, I'm just being a bit cynical here.

He buckles under pressure, and related to the above, gives the impression that he hasn't thought things through. During the Manitoba NDP leadership race, he endorsed Wab Kinew. It was later revealed that Kinew had been charged with domestic assault. When Niki Ashton called him out on that endorsement, Singh responded by saying how important it is to believe survivors. Did you not think about that long enough to realize that you just endorsed someone accused of domestic assault. Same thing with the issue of Sikh nationalism. I don't know all the ins and outs, and I'm not ready to say I believe what the media is saying about it. That said, he should have known ahead of time that this was the issue, and that by virtue of being NDP leader that the press would use a picture of him picking his nose in kindergarten to discredit him if they had to. He should have anticipated that there would be critism (especially on something like that) and been prepared ahead of time. Instead he looks like he's just making it up as he goes.

He has a GTA-centric view of Canadian politics, and (with the exception of the Kinder Morgan pipeline) has demonstrated little to no interest in learning about the rest of the country beyond that. Remember when the federal NDP made a big deal of the poll showing them in second place in Ontario? Excuse me, but I live in Winnipeg, in one of 2 federal ridings that used to be safe for the NDP. How is presenting an off-year poll from a different province going to help win back those seats?

What might help is actually showing up, and he has not done that. He absolutely should have been in North Battleford during that by-election. It would have been a great opportunity for him to learn about a different part of the country, what the concerns were, and also to introduce him to that part of the country as well. That federal riding also covers key territory that the Saskatchewan NDP needs to win in order to take power in a provincial election, so I'm sure they would have loved the organizing help that would have come. Same with the Manitoba NDP convention that was held in Brandon earlier this year. I don't know if Singh was there, but if not, he should have been. Again, there was a chance for media coverage, and to learn more about different parts of the country. Not showing up for either of those things is simply inexcuseable.

His mishandling of the Erin Weir/Christine Moore affair. While those particular topics have threads of their own, in terms of Singh specifically, his handling was problematic. When the accusation was raised, cco did a good job pointing out the semantic problems with Singh's language of "believing survivors." More generally, that kind of language suggests bias and that any complaints will automatically be believed, well just because. Much better and more objective language would state, "we strive to have a safe environment for everyone, we take these accusations very seriously, and will investigate and come to a fair resolution." Objective language which protects the rights of the accused as well as the accuser. Furthermore, how he chose to deal with Weir only plays into the hands of the MRA-types who claim that this is all "witch hunts," and as reprehensible as their worldview is, we shouldn't hand them any ammunition. All the while Moore's past behaviour has been shown to be toxic to several people and the party at large, and yet she is protected. This controversey has caused severe harm to the NDP at a time when we should be focusing on serious issues.

Outside of BC, it's not looking good for the party next year at all. I don't care that current polls still have the NDP at 20%. In the lead-up to the 2011 federal election, the Liberals were clearly in second place, yet eventually the facade was exposed and the party came tumbling down. The same thing is happening here.

Well said.

Thu, 2018-08-02 20:35

(Reply to #123) #124

brookmere

josh wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

*huge duplicate re-post deleted*

Well said.

You know, you really don't have to repeat a multiscreen post just to give a two word comment on it. I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, I just find it to be one of the more annoying features of this forum.

Thu, 2018-08-02 21:26

(Reply to #124) #125

JKR

brookmere wrote:

josh wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

*huge duplicate re-post deleted*

Well said.

You know, you really don't have to repeat a multiscreen post just to give a two word comment on it. I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, I just find it to be one of the more annoying features of this forum.

agreed ; )

Sun, 2018-08-05 16:54

#126

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You know, you really don't have to repeat a multiscreen post just to give a two word comment on it. I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, I just find it to be one of the more annoying features of this forum.

It's not a "feature" of this forum. If you click the "quote" button, you'll start a new post with everything in the original post already marked up as a quote, but you're 100% free to edit it to only the part you want to address. The board software isn't to blame if a poster doesn't do this.

Wed, 2018-08-08 19:58

#127

Sean in Ottawa

I am concerned about Singh and the NDP -- not because I think this is ALL his fault.

Still, I do not think the party's interest lies in booting out a leader who has not been able to fight an election.

It is unclear what would happen in an election either.

I am on record everywhere that I think Caron was the better choice -- particularly as he was, more than anyone else, prepared to engage on economics. Also havng French, it makes you wonder why it did not happen.

Singh is in for a hard time. However, it is also possible that he could do better than it looks right now.

Thu, 2018-08-09 08:43

#128

josh

I also agree that Caron was the best choice politically. At least for the upcoming election. But no one stood a chance once Singh was able to sign up all those new members.

Thu, 2018-08-09 13:38

#129

robbie_dee

Caron was my 1st choice, but let’s not lose sight of the fact he finished 4th. Everybody played within the rules. Jagmeet won because he signed up new members and also because he obtained support from existing members. Supposing though, hypothetically, that Jagmeet just decided not to run at all, I still don’t see any scenario where Caron would have won. Peter Julian might have stuck around the race a little longer, but frankly even though he also had a lot going for him in terms of french language proficiency and ties to Quebec, he just didn't catch fire with the members. That's why Jagmeet was able to push him out. In the absence of Jagmeet's candidacy, it almost certainly would have been Angus who won, just as he is most likely person who will pick up the pieces if Singh fails in Burnaby. But Angus is not a better option imo.

Tue, 2018-08-14 22:52

(Reply to #129) #130

Aristotleded24

robbie_dee wrote:
In the absence of Jagmeet's candidacy, it almost certainly would have been Angus who won, just as he is most likely person who will pick up the pieces if Singh fails in Burnaby. But Angus is not a better option imo.

Robbie, do you think that Angus would be ducking out on events like the Battleford by-election and the Manitoba NDP convention the way that Singh has? You need to show up, and I don't see Singh doing that. If Angus would have shown up at these events, that would be a vast improvement over what we are seeing now.

I live in Winnipeg Centre. Formerly a safe NDP seat, now I have a Liberal MP who is likely to be re-elected next year. Not only that, but I'm not even sure Dan Blaikie is going to hold on for the NDP in Elmwood either. Can you guys please understand that there are parts of the country outside of Ontario, and that a cookie cutter approach based on what the NDP thinks will work in Ontario (as if "Ontario" is one monolithic voting bloc) does not cut it out here?

Wed, 2018-08-15 10:34

(Reply to #130) #131

R.E.Wood

Aristotleded24 wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:
In the absence of Jagmeet's candidacy, it almost certainly would have been Angus who won, just as he is most likely person who will pick up the pieces if Singh fails in Burnaby. But Angus is not a better option imo.

Robbie, do you think that Angus would be ducking out on events like the Battleford by-election and the Manitoba NDP convention the way that Singh has? You need to show up, and I don't see Singh doing that. If Angus would have shown up at these events, that would be a vast improvement over what we are seeing now.

I live in Winnipeg Centre. Formerly a safe NDP seat, now I have a Liberal MP who is likely to be re-elected next year. Not only that, but I'm not even sure Dan Blaikie is going to hold on for the NDP in Elmwood either. Can you guys please understand that there are parts of the country outside of Ontario, and that a cookie cutter approach based on what the NDP thinks will work in Ontario (as if "Ontario" is one monolithic voting bloc) does not cut it out here?

And not just "that there are parts of the country outside of Ontario", but that there are parts of the country outside the urban GTA, and Vancouver. Foresaking the rest of the country for the potential that Singh might pick up a few seats for the party in the GTA and Vancouver regions is not a winning strategy.

Wed, 2018-08-15 18:12

#132

progressive17 progressive17's picture

It is like the memes where they say that "Canadians" drink milk out of plastic bags. Only in Ontario, thank God.

Wed, 2018-08-15 18:38

#133

Mr. Magoo

Well, actually in several other countries too.

I once sat on a TTC streetcar, in the heat of summer, and watched some dude take a milk bag out of his backpack, remove a clip on the corner, drink his fill like he was nursing from a plastic bosom, replace the clip, and put it back in his backpack.

Wed, 2018-08-15 18:50

#134

cco

Milk's in bags in Quebec too, for what it's worth.

Wed, 2018-08-15 19:19

#135

Mr. Magoo

I wonder what the people who roll their eyes at milk in a bag would make of aerosol cheese in a can?

Seeing as they're the same people who made that cheese and such.

I remember "cheese" in a log, tho. It was sort of like a sausage, a 1.5" diameter, 4" long, plastic-covered processed cheese thing with a little star-shaped hole through which you could squeeze some star-shaped "cheese" onto a cracker. Now I'm all nostalgic for the 70's. Someone get me some teakwood furniture, some brick-and-board shelves, and a staghorn fern, please.

Wed, 2018-08-15 19:45

(Reply to #135) #136

voice of the damned

cco wrote:
Milk's in bags in Quebec too, for what it's worth.

I remember milk-in-bags in Alberta as well, late 70s I think. Can't remember if this was the milk we got from home delivery, or from the grocery store.

Wed, 2018-08-15 22:51

(Reply to #136) #137

Aristotleded24

R.E.Wood wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:
In the absence of Jagmeet's candidacy, it almost certainly would have been Angus who won, just as he is most likely person who will pick up the pieces if Singh fails in Burnaby. But Angus is not a better option imo.

Robbie, do you think that Angus would be ducking out on events like the Battleford by-election and the Manitoba NDP convention the way that Singh has? You need to show up, and I don't see Singh doing that. If Angus would have shown up at these events, that would be a vast improvement over what we are seeing now.

I live in Winnipeg Centre. Formerly a safe NDP seat, now I have a Liberal MP who is likely to be re-elected next year. Not only that, but I'm not even sure Dan Blaikie is going to hold on for the NDP in Elmwood either. Can you guys please understand that there are parts of the country outside of Ontario, and that a cookie cutter approach based on what the NDP thinks will work in Ontario (as if "Ontario" is one monolithic voting bloc) does not cut it out here?

And not just "that there are parts of the country outside of Ontario", but that there are parts of the country outside the urban GTA, and Vancouver. Foresaking the rest of the country for the potential that Singh might pick up a few seats for the party in the GTA and Vancouver regions is not a winning strategy.

Exactly R E Wood, and I have long argued that the NDP needs to regain its competitiveness in Western Canada where they once stood strong. We heard for decades that the cities were the future of progressive politics, and the cities were going to lead the way. Of course, they meant "big cities," and smaller cities and rural areas never fit into this calculation. Last year the BC NDP had a platform that was designed for the cities. They ran the table in the cities, yet despite the combination of their urban support and the unpopularity of the Liberal government, they still needed the help of another party to come to power. Even so, they are still only holding onto that power by their fingernails.

Thu, 2018-08-16 15:41

#138

robbie_dee

Aristotleded24, in response to your question what I am saying about Charlie Angus is that I do not believe he would have the NDP at more than 20% in the national polls, and similarly I do not believe he would have the party performing any better in Quebec than it is currently doing under Jagmeet.

As between the Party's standing in the Prairies or the far north vs. urban Toronto and Vancouver, I don't know. I think that the Party's apparent weakness right now in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba is very concerning and frankly the problem should be given comparable weight to addressing the Party's problems in Quebec. I don't know why Jagmeet failed to make an appearance during the Battleford-Lloydminister byelection or the MB NDP convention, but if it was because he simply thought they weren't worth his time that would be pretty disappointing.

I think the more significant problems Jagmeet is going to have on the Prairies, though, will arise from his stance on the TMX pipeline and his decision to kick out of caucus one of the only three NDP MPs the party has able to elect in the Saskatchewan since 2004. I disagree with Jagmeet on both of these issues. But there is no way of knowing whether Angus would have made better decisions if he had been elected leader instead of Jagmeet last fall. With respect to Erin Weir, though, I do know Angus has been on the wrong end of the imbroglio as it has played out and that's another reason why I don't like him.

My fondest hope would be for Jagmeet to come to his senses on reinstating Weir this fall, and then after the Burnaby byelection is over, assuming he wins, for him to come up with some creative way to square the circle between B.C. and Alberta on the pipeline such that, at a minimum, the federal NDP does not actively undermine Rachel Notley's chances of getting reelected provincially in Alberta next spring. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Fri, 2018-08-17 10:35

#139

R.E.Wood

robbie_dee, don't forget the Maritime/Atlantic Region provinces, where the NDP was wiped out and seemingly has no prospects for gains. I believe that's 25 seats.

Fri, 2018-08-17 11:48

(Reply to #139) #140

robbie_dee

R.E.Wood wrote:

robbie_dee, don't forget the Maritime/Atlantic Region provinces, where the NDP was wiped out and seemingly has no prospects for gains. I believe that's 25 seats.

32 seats total on the East Coast, if you include Newfoundland. Although that's only half of the available seats between AB-SK-MB (62), I do agree we need to be trying to win seats everywhere. I just didn't want to place too much blame on Jagmeet for seats that were already lost by his predecessor.

Sun, 2018-08-19 14:21

(Reply to #140) #141

kropotkin1951

robbie_dee wrote:

My fondest hope would be for Jagmeet to come to his senses on reinstating Weir this fall, and then after the Burnaby byelection is over, assuming he wins, for him to come up with some creative way to square the circle between B.C. and Alberta on the pipeline such that, at a minimum, the federal NDP does not actively undermine Rachel Notley's chances of getting reelected provincially in Alberta next spring. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

I agree Weir needs reinstating however I think the idea that BC progressive voters that form the 45 to 50 percent of the voters in provincial elections are ever going to accept a pipeline to placate the Alberta NDP is a complete non-starter.

I think we need regional parties. Vancouver Island politics are not Northern Ontario politics nor Saskchewan politics. We also need electoral reform to right the imbalance in voter representation.

VI has nearly 800,000 people, larger than PEI or NB and close to NS and Saskchewan in population. We have only 7 seats on VI. The Liberals failed to cross the 15 percent mark in any Vancouver Island-based riding and May was the only non-NDP MP elected here. We have the most progressive politics in the country and less MP's than our population deserves.

Sask with about 1.1 million gets 14 seats. PEI with less than 150 thousand has 4. NB with slightly less than VI's populaton gets 10 seats.

Sun, 2018-08-19 17:54

(Reply to #141) #142

gadar

kropotkin1951 wrote:

We also need electoral reform to right the imbalance in voter representation.

VI has nearly 800,000 people, larger than PEI or NB and close to NS and Saskchewan in population. We have only 7 seats on VI. The Liberals failed to cross the 15 percent mark in any Vancouver Island-based riding and May was the only non-NDP MP elected here. We have the most progressive politics in the country and less MP's than our population deserves.

Sask with about 1.1 million gets 14 seats. PEI with less than 150 thousand has 4. NB with slightly less than VI's populaton gets 10 seats.

This is a very important drawback of the system as it stands. And somehow is rarely discussed.

Every vote should have roughly the same wieght. But the rural ridings generally have fewer voters than the urban ridings. Therefore giving the rural voter proportionally more power than the urban voters.

Sun, 2018-08-19 18:30

(Reply to #142) #143

kropotkin1951

gadar wrote:

Every vote should have roughly the same wieght. But the rural ridings generally have fewer voters than the urban ridings. Therefore giving the rural voter proportionally more power than the urban voters.

Vancouver Island is a mixture of urban and rural ridings. Three of the seven seats are below the Malahat on the Saanich Penisula, i.e. Greater Victoria. The other ridings are very large rural ridings. However rural on Vancouver Island is not your dusty road prairie town but rather coastal towns that rely on tourism for a large part of their economy. Butr hey lets just have the NDP waffle on the pipeline and tankers and see how safe those seats are from the Greens.

Backing pipelines to gain votes in rural Alberta or the Interior of BC is a fools game because they have hardly ever voted NDP so why would they start now. Of course many people in Central Canada see Vancouver and think Vancouver Island is the same electoral culture. I even have had educated people from TO who thought Vancouver Island to Vancouver the city was similar to Toronto Island to the GTO.

So the queston to all the back East arm chair startegists, "How many of VI's 7 NDP seats are you willing to gamble with in the next election?" This is not the big city is a unique region of the country with a long history of left wing politics. My question is how do people in the rest of the country convince their neighbours that our current system is a disaster and needs change now. On VI we already the critical mass that thinks that way. The only question is who will represent us in the HofC. If the NDP falters on the environment and the Green pick up votes then as many as 3 or 4 seats could go to the Conservatives. The LIberals are not even in the game.

Sun, 2018-08-19 18:58

#144

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Every vote should have roughly the same wieght. But the rural ridings generally have fewer voters than the urban ridings. Therefore giving the rural voter proportionally more power than the urban voters.

I think the issue is that while we acknowledge that every elector should have a roughly equal vote, we also entertain the idea that REGIONS need a vote. We cannot allow the good people of Littletown-Hamletsburg-Four Corners to get trampled by them big city folk and their urban values.

Sun, 2018-08-19 19:19

(Reply to #144) #145

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Every vote should have roughly the same wieght. But the rural ridings generally have fewer voters than the urban ridings. Therefore giving the rural voter proportionally more power than the urban voters.

I think the issue is that while we acknowledge that every elector should have a roughly equal vote, we also entertain the idea that REGIONS need a vote. We cannot allow the good people of Littletown-Hamletsburg-Four Corners to get trampled by them big city folk and their urban values.

You mean some regions need the vote. There is no justification, only lame excuses, for the under representation of BC compared to other regions of the country.

PEI is a region as is VI. They get 4 members for their region of 145,000 and we get 7 members for 775,000, that is nearly three times the weight for a PEI resident compared to me and my neighbours. Both PEI and VI are tourist economies and PEI has no isolated towns and villages like VI does. Since PEI hosted the Conferences and provided the hookers and booze of course they got a sweet deal which is still skewing our electoral system 150 years later.

Sun, 2018-08-19 19:51

#146

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You mean some regions need the vote.

I don't, personally, think that any do. I'm totally down with equal sized ridings, so that every vote counts equally.

That said, I understand that PEI is some historic special case the way Catholic School Boards in my neck of the woods are special cases.

Mon, 2018-08-20 15:14

(Reply to #146) #147

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You mean some regions need the vote.

I don't, personally, think that any do. I'm totally down with equal sized ridings, so that every vote counts equally.

That said, I understand that PEI is some historic special case the way Catholic School Boards in my neck of the woods are special cases.

When we voted on the Charlottetown Accord that would have cemented those inequites in place without any realistic amending formula PEI was the highest Yes vote and BC was the highest No vote.

Those special cases were the result of wheeling and dealing while drunk and disorderly.

Mon, 2018-08-20 18:25

#148

Mr. Magoo

Fair enough. I certainly agree that the number of electors represented by a seat should be derived mathematically, such that each elector has as equal a vote as possible. But I'm told that's the Achilles' Heel of some PR models: that they don't respect "regions" or whatever. As soon as some PR model makes it a point to ensure that "rural" or "northern" or "maritime" regions get a vote that literally counts for more, it stops being PR because it makes it a point to be not PR. And suddenly we can't let everyone's vote be equal because there are more of some people than others.

Mon, 2018-08-20 18:38

(Reply to #148) #149

gadar

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Fair enough. I certainly agree that the number of electors represented by a seat should be derived mathematically, such that each elector has as equal a vote as possible. But I'm told that's the Achilles' Heel of some PR models: that they don't respect "regions" or whatever. As soon as some PR model makes it a point to ensure that "rural" or "northern" or "maritime" regions get a vote that literally counts for more, it stops being PR because it makes it a point to be not PR. And suddenly we can't let everyone's vote be equal because there are more of some people than others.

The inequality of the vote is entrenched to give the 'old stock Canadians' porportianally more power than the latte sipping urbanites and their newbie neighbours.

Tue, 2018-08-21 15:57

#150

kropotkin1951

The rational for less people in rural ridings is that an MP cannot represent too large a geographic area. There is some good policy for that however that does not apply to a place like PEI or the gerrymandering the BC Liberals did in the interior of BC prior to the last election.

So PEI gets 4 MP's in a land area of 5660 The old Vancouver Island North riding's land area is 49,144. The NDP prior to the '90's had a strong platform on Constitutional Reform. The party bigwigs decided that was passe and began downplaying the issue of imbalance in our federation and Preston and the Reformers ate their lunch while they sipped lattes in Ottawa laughing at the upstarts talking about an issue that no one they knew cared about.

Tue, 2018-08-21 16:11

(Reply to #150) #151

gadar

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The rational for less people in rural ridings is that an MP cannot represent too large a geographic area. There is some good policy for that however that does not apply to a place like PEI or the gerrymandering the BC Liberals did in the interior of BC prior to the last election.

So PEI gets 4 MP's in a land area of 5660 The old Vancouver Island North riding's land area is 49,144. The NDP prior to the '90's had a strong platform on Constitutional Reform. The party bigwigs decided that was passe and began downplaying the issue of imbalance in our federation and Preston and the Reformers ate their lunch while they sipped lattes in Ottawa laughing at the upstarts talking about an issue that no one they knew cared about.

In that case the MP should be prvided with more resources to be in touch with the constituents. I know that is the rationale but I dont agree with it. In a represntative democracy efforts should be made to make every vote have the same weightage. Anything less makes some people have a larger say in the affairs then they should have.

IMO the area of a riding should not matter. There should be other mechanisms in place to compensate for the area. Making one vote inferior to another should not be acceptable.

Have issues with Singh as leader? Here are the questions you have to answer:

Pages