NDP Leadership 69

127 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

Super - willing to listen to others & make suggested changes - I like that!

 

Brian Topp wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:
Brian Topp wrote:
Dear Wilf, It's interesting to re-read the paper through your eyes. You're not being unreasonable in your interpretation BUT, I think you'll be pleased to hear, that's not my intent. I didn't mean "concurrent" to make electoral reform conditional on senate reform. I was noting an advantage to doing both at the same time -- this way, parliament is made more democratic at little net cost (always a public concern). To be clear I think we should pursue both senate abolition and electoral reform, with a mandate on both secured in an election. If senate abolition is then vetoed by provinces, i think we should still proceed with electoral reform. All the best, Bt

Wonderful. Thanks.

But you need to amend your position paper. I'm surely not the only one who will take its plain meaning.

I was thinking I'd do exactly that -- thank you for notes.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

mabrouss

Unionist wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Noticed on facebook that Paul Dewar is making an announcement on Friday with a "surprise guest"...

Binyamin Netanyahu. Pass it on.

 

 

I should not have been drinking a glass of milk while reading that comment...

 

Sigh..guess I should clean off my screen

mtm

Wow what a crazy day on rabble. Lost in all of this, I just noticed a tweet by Mulcair that said he will be announcing a major pension policy, and intriguingly, an endorsement from a Vancouver area MP tomorrow morning.

Looks like he isn't missing a beat. Any idea who the MP will be?

Hunky_Monkey

Don Davies?

mtm

That would be a big deal! And awesome!

KenS

Well I'm glad I got to read those thoughts on democratic reform after algomafalcon, Wilf, Brian Topp, and OO had all weighed in.

Brian already acknowledged that there must be an issue with his presentation, but I'm going to make it more explicit.

I was wondering from Wilf's initial comments whether possibly he got off on the wrong foot reading Brian, in large part becaue 'he knows too much about the issue.' [That makes more sense than it probably sounds.]

I also thought that maybe I was reading Brian wrong, and the issue is not one of my strong suits, so going back for another read was on my list.

But algomafalcon also missed Brian's point on the first read through- and that would not likely be because he lives and breathes the issue like Wilf does.

And I second OO's take: Brian's approach presents some cogent ways to cut through the Gordian knot of politics wrapped around getting PR to take flight.

mabrouss

Brian Topp wrote:
Dear Wilf, It's interesting to re-read the paper through your eyes. You're not being unreasonable in your interpretation BUT, I think you'll be pleased to hear, that's not my intent. I didn't mean "concurrent" to make electoral reform conditional on senate reform. I was noting an advantage to doing both at the same time -- this way, parliament is made more democratic at little net cost (always a public concern). To be clear I think we should pursue both senate abolition and electoral reform, with a mandate on both secured in an election. If senate abolition is then vetoed by provinces, i think we should still proceed with electoral reform. All the best, Bt

Now obviously for any real Senate reform (especially abolition) a constitutional amendment would be required. Would the same be required for electoral reform if the minimum seats for the smaller provinces were still retained?

 

For example: If Nova Scotia were to still keep the 11 seats that we have, abolish the ridings and have the 11 MP's elected through a PR system and become MP's simply for Nova Scotia. Would that require an amendment or is there another article in the constitution that would need to be changed?

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:

Brian Topp, on the other hand, and whether one supports him for leader or not, is one of the smartest mould-breaking strategic minds on the left in our country.

As he has just proven once again. Perhaps he'll be your second choice?

ottawaobserver

Wilf Day wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Brian Topp, on the other hand, and whether one supports him for leader or not, is one of the smartest mould-breaking strategic minds on the left in our country.

As he has just proven once again. Perhaps he'll be your second choice?

Contrary to what some have assumed, I have not made any final decisions on my ballot. I have some candidates I know personally and think a very great deal of. As Malcolm pointed out, everyone has a great strength and a challenge of some kind or another. But, realistically, I do live in Ottawa Centre, and I happen to know that we have a pretty great MP.

KenS

I'll take a stab at a summary of the logic and 'big picture calculations' behind Brian's proposal.

If I dont get it right, maybe Brian is still reading, or OO can correct me, or I'll catch it myself when I read the paper again.

1.] We leave all the existing seats as they are.

2] We add another large layer of seats of MP's elected under PR. The two lots together make up a MMPR system- we still have the MPs elected by riding. A big deal, but not starting from scratch.

3.] Expense and 'public buy-in' wise, there is no additional expense because we are abolising the Senate.

4.] But we dont wait for abolishing the Senate to add the new PR based seats. Abolishing the Senate is the means of legitimacy and credibility for the promise to not add costs or overall complexity.

Having built public support for the re-vamping of the House.... before and during the election, and as the legislation is discussed and enacted.... this becomes an additional substantial pressure for going ahead and completeing the job of abolishing the Senate, which will increasingly either be totaly reviled [when they try to stand in the way], or became a complete and utter fifth wheel. Heads we win , tails they lose.

KenS

@ mabrouss:

I am pretty sure that the House can in principle add as many seats as it likes, and on any number of different bases.

I think the formula Brian is proposing is built around maximizing concensus and support, not around constitutional needs per se.

Wilf Day

mabrouss wrote:

Now obviously for any real Senate reform (especially abolition) a constitutional amendment would be required. Would the same be required for electoral reform if the minimum seats for the smaller provinces were still retained?

For example: If Nova Scotia were to still keep the 11 seats that we have, abolish the ridings and have the 11 MP's elected through a PR system and become MP's simply for Nova Scotia. Would that require an amendment or is there another article in the constitution that would need to be changed?

No, even pure-list for Nova Scotia would not require a constitutional amendment, although I have seen no one propose that. Both the Law Commission of Canada report and Prof. Henry Milner's elaboration of it propose seven local MPs and four provincial "top-up" MPs.

For those who have tuned-in part way through:

With the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP), we still elect local MPs. Voters unrepresented by the local results top them up by electing regional MPs. The total MPs match the vote share.

The Law Commission summarized their open (flexible) list model as follows:

Quote:
A mixed member proportional system should be based on giving voters TWO votes: one for a constituency representative and one for a party list. The party vote should determine who is to be elected from lists as drawn up by the parties before the election.

Two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons should be elected in constituency races using the first-past-the-post method, and the remaining one-third should be elected from party lists.

Within the context of a mixed member proportional system, Parliament should adopt a flexible list system that provides voters with the option of either endorsing the party “slate” or “ticket,” or of indicating a preference for a candidate within the list.


KenS wrote:

But algomafalcon also missed Brian's point on the first read through- and that would not likely be because he lives and breathes the issue like Wilf does.

And eats, and sometimes even sleeps, like a couple other late-night pundits around here.

KenS

Hopefully, Wilf would agree that our cross-posted comments overlap each other.

Following on my post #111:

That is mostly the 'calculated logic' side of Brian Topp's package.

As to vision and public buy-in: at the risk of raising hackles around here, PR in and of itself does not grab people. If you ask them a simple question 'do you support PR,' they'll say yes. How much do they care- those are different questions.

What people care about is democratic reform, making Parliament and politics more relevant. That is not synonomous with PR. It is not even close to something like synonomous, or the 'best expression' of public appetites, or whatever.

So there has to be much more bite and punch than just bringing in PR. Abolishing the Senate may not sound like it would do that. But its a concrete populist element. And WE have wanted it for a long time- that is worth something in its own right.

Other elements would be what Brian has said about formally limiting the powers of the PM.

Etc.

Maysie Maysie's picture

This thread will close soon and I have a few thoughts to share.

Since I haven't read all 69 threads, perhaps someone (paging KenS!) can elucidate if I'm incorrect. 

But as far as I know the issue of Saganash and the racism he faces in Canada hasn't been talked about here. That's gritty fucked-up in-your-face racism, as well as "have no clue it's racism" racism, of which there are some examples in this thread. And of course there's more kinds. The exception that I can think of is the thread RevolutionPlease started in the aboriginal issues forum.

So, if I'm correct, this is the first incidence of raising this issue among babblers in the leadership thread series. After how many months since he declared? And dozens of threads (since his declaration) of well over 100 posts in each thread? That's kind of sad don't you think? I really don't have much more to say about it. Apparently babblers don't want to deal with these issues. Enjoy your bubble, then.

Oh, I haven't been a moderator for almost a year.

And if anyone still doesn't understand the difference between "what you said was racist/sounded racist" and "you are racist" I'm not sure how many times I can link to Jay Smooth. Here's another one. He's great.

NorthReport

And that's point isn't it?

Thanks writer.

I hope people can step back and chill out a bit here.

 

writer wrote:

Gosh, it does seem like a lot of folks really don't get the kind of culture this board was created to encourage. 

I stand beside Maysie and the moderators, and thank wage zombie and RevolutionPlease.

But what do I know? I just created this thing. 

KenS

Now, do I go at least skim through all those posts on the Quebec floor crosser? Or do I follow my hunch that I probably dont want to see it?

NorthReport

Glad to see Mulcair commenting on today's defection, calling for a by-election to be held. 

KenS

Maysie wrote:

Since I haven't read all 69 threads, perhaps someone (paging KenS!) can elucidate if I'm incorrect. 

But as far as I know the issue of Saganash and the racism he faces in Canada hasn't been talked about here. That's gritty fucked-up in-your-face racism, as well as "have no clue it's racism" racism, of which there are some examples in this thread. And of course there's more kinds. The exception that I can think of is the thread RevolutionPlease started in the aboriginal issues forum.

If it has been talked about at all, very little. Certainly, nothing sustained, with the exception of that thread noted. Never in this running discussion.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

KenS wrote:

Now, do I go at least skim through all those posts on the Quebec floor crosser? Or do I follow my hunch that I probably dont want to see it?

It's worth it if you think you still need to learn things as I do. Very much to learn today.

NorthReport

 

Thanks Maysie and thanks RevolutionPlease

Just because lots of folks don't post here does not mean necessarily they are not in tune with your comments.

Look at the number of people who read a thread compared to those who post in it.

 

RevolutionPlease wrote:
KenS wrote:

Now, do I go at least skim through all those posts on the Quebec floor crosser? Or do I follow my hunch that I probably dont want to see it?

It's worth it if you think you still need to learn things as I do. Very much to learn today.

algomafalcon

KenS wrote:

Well I'm glad I got to read those thoughts on democratic reform after algomafalcon, Wilf, Brian Topp, and OO had all weighed in.

Brian already acknowledged that there must be an issue with his presentation, but I'm going to make it more explicit.

I was wondering from Wilf's initial comments whether possibly he got off on the wrong foot reading Brian, in large part becaue 'he knows too much about the issue.' [That makes more sense than it probably sounds.]

I also thought that maybe I was reading Brian wrong, and the issue is not one of my strong suits, so going back for another read was on my list.

But algomafalcon also missed Brian's point on the first read through- and that would not likely be because he lives and breathes the issue like Wilf does.

And I second OO's take: Brian's approach presents some cogent ways to cut through the Gordian knot of politics wrapped around getting PR to take flight.

 

I think it is also because we might be in a position where we almost expect the worst when it comes to anything relating to government institutional reform. There is so much strange twists and turns in the whole way these issues get debated in Canada that I for one am now expecting the worst - even from the NDP. I frankly trust no one in government as I think they are all losing sight of simple, basic principles.

That said, I was reassured by Brian's response and I hope that our concerns (and misinterpretations) help him when he is presenting these proposals in debates and other meetings.

I certainly agree with the points he makes and the potential challenges that an NDP government might face with our archaic Senate. They might block electoral reform (PR) among other initiatives, so it might actually be necessary to have all sorts of contingency plans in place to handle a potentially hostile (and totally anti-democratic) senate.

Obviously one possible option is to hold a national referendum on Senate abolition if the senate is obstructionist and some provinces are reluctant to support the abolition of this archaic and anti-democratic institution.

But I have to wonder how Canada will work through a constitutional crisis arising if the Senate refuses to pass a constitutional amendment bill which abolishes the Senate? Or refuses to pass a bill to conduct a national referendum on Senate abolition?

 

 

NorthReport
KenS

Those what to do contingency plans you mention make intuitive sense.

But we dont want to go there.

This is where small 'p' politics is in command. You challenge the Senate, and hold a big stick.

When and if they try to use the absolute limit of their powers- that is no small risk they would take. If they do, the will to repsond will cross the bridge of how best to do it.

A national referendum would be one tool. Whether early on, or when/if the contention is more developed.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Maysie wrote:

This thread will close soon and I have a few thoughts to share.

Since I haven't read all 69 threads, perhaps someone (paging KenS!) can elucidate if I'm incorrect. 

But as far as I know the issue of Saganash and the racism he faces in Canada hasn't been talked about here. That's gritty fucked-up in-your-face racism, as well as "have no clue it's racism" racism, of which there are some examples in this thread. And of course there's more kinds. The exception that I can think of is the thread RevolutionPlease started in the aboriginal issues forum.

So, if I'm correct, this is the first incidence of raising this issue among babblers in the leadership thread series. After how many months since he declared? And dozens of threads (since his declaration) of well over 100 posts in each thread? That's kind of sad don't you think? I really don't have much more to say about it. Apparently babblers don't want to deal with these issues. Enjoy your bubble, then.

Oh, I haven't been a moderator for almost a year.

And if anyone still doesn't understand the difference between "what you said was racist/sounded racist" and "you are racist" I'm not sure how many times I can link to Jay Smooth. Here's another one. He's great.

And I started that thread off with a manic embarrassment, so much so I haven't wanted to link it. But here it is:

http://rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/why-saganash-wont-win

Thankfully, my allies pulled me back from the edge on a topic I had been growing a boiling kettle about. There's probably much I could edit there but at least the topic moved to where it needed to go. It's likely many here never ventured over to that discussion to understand why some of us are so frustrated.

Maysie, I'm going to make a point to bookmark those links because I never have them when I need them. I know this is not cool but us white folk are slow learners. ;)

Perhaps we can all use this to learn how to communicate better?

I'm still going to mess up here. But I'm willing to step back. Thanks writer, AM, wz and the mods for trying to keep the discussion to the mandate of the board.

So, Malcolm's quote:

Quote:

Romeo Saganash
•Positive - A compelling narrative and track record as an accomplished Cree leader
•Negative - Does not present himself in a manner consistent with the norms of the dominant culture

1. I don't think it's been pointed out but how does "Does not present himself in a manner consistent with the norms of the dominant culture" become a negative? Don't we want that? Aren't the norms of the dominant culture, Liberals and Conservatives? (please explain if you disagree)

2. Maysie's explained the problem with "compelling narrative". Narrative almost sounds like fairy tale in that context. And why not Quebecois leader, not Cree? That is presumptive of me but he is Quebecois, is he not?

If it weren't painted so already in the MSM mural, why do we re-enforce it?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

NorthReport wrote:

 

Thanks Maysie and thanks RevolutionPlease

Just because lots of folks don't post here does not mean necessarily they are not in tune with your comments.

Look at the number of people who read a thread compared to those who post in it.

 

RevolutionPlease wrote:
KenS wrote:

Now, do I go at least skim through all those posts on the Quebec floor crosser? Or do I follow my hunch that I probably dont want to see it?

It's worth it if you think you still need to learn things as I do. Very much to learn today.

Right on NorthReport, I know there are many lurkers so we musn't stay silent. I'm hoping some re-examine their opinions on what they post here but that's all I can ask. We could even have interesting discussions if we check our place of privilege at the door.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Long, long thread.

Pages

Topic locked