Alice Klein's nonpartisan appeal
Mon, 2008-10-20 19:59
#1
Cueball
Alice Klein's nonpartisan appeal
Mon, 2008-10-20 19:59
#2
Cueball
What Alice Klein really said:
quote:
And the majority of Canadians are interested in programs and policies that we will not be seeing from Harper. In the next few months, cooperation between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc could promote some of these policies and programs that the majority have supported.And should they hammer out a coalition platform based on the many planks they agree on, from arts and culture to climate change, they have the opportunity, after a non-confidence motion, to offer themselves as an alternative government to the governor general.
Thankfully, a new grassroots movement has started laying the foundation for this unprecedented path. It is still a long shot, but this movement has tremendous energy and, now that we aren't competing for votes in an election, a tremendous opportunity to reach out and gather in those from all four opposition parties. We are entering an extremely unpredictable and volatile era. It is no time to give up. We may yet make our dreams for Canada come true.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=76688]Quebec and cities save our Canada
[/url]
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:00
#3
What is this thread about?
I don't feel like coming back tomorrow morning to find another free-for-all, and the thread title doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the opening post.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:01
#4
Cueball
Its about what Alice Klein actually said. She said hardly anything negative about the NDP at all, and then went on to make a non-partisan appeal. I think that much is clear.
I think the record should be corrected. It is hardly a wholesale attack upon the NDP.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:04
#5
Well, then, could you please change the thread title to reflect the subject of the thread? That way others who read it can figure out what you want to discuss.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:06
#6
Klein said:
quote:
It is great that the NDP picked up extra seats, but the party failed to increase its popular vote, making Layton's bluster about running for prime minister just embarrassing to anyone but those passionately inside the party fold already.
What is this? This is useless. The Harpers received 22 percent of eligible vote. The one big money power party of big business and banking with half a chance of winning a phony-majority, couldn't pull it off.
Canadians don't know the NDP at the federal level. But they know the Reformatories, and they know the Liberals by their records in power. And Canadians aren't impressed.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:08
#7
Cueball
That's just an aside. Clearly Klein thinks [b]"its great that the NDP picked up extra seats"[/b], but were embarassed by their fairlure, overall. She then advocates for a coalition government, which is the main thrust of her idea.
In particular, in a non-partisan manner she expressed the idea that the environmental movement is a non-partisan affair, which she does not associate with any one political party.
quote:
Thankfully, a new grassroots movement has started laying the foundation for this unprecedented path. It is still a long shot, but this movement has tremendous energy and, now that we aren't competing for votes in an election, a tremendous opportunity to reach out and gather in those from all four opposition parties. We are entering an extremely unpredictable and volatile era. It is no time to give up. We may yet make our dreams for Canada come true.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:15
#8
Just a quick note: youse guys know that rabble.ca isn't the official house organ of the NDP, right? You know that it's not official rabble policy that you have to be an NDP member or supporter in order to write for rabble, right?
I haven't really had time to participate in this thread or the last one, and I probably won't get too involved in this thread after this, but I just wanted to mention that.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:24
#9
But Klein advocates strategic voting, which has tended to lead to phony majority Liberal rule when that strategy does work to elect Liberals. And we know the end result of that.
Liberals can now plan a plan to shift left if only on paper and public speeches. But logically and realistically speaking, I would still be incapable of believing it. Let's see how they perform in the next parliament.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:26
#10
Cueball
That's another article she wrote.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:32
#11
she wrote " next week, with time to analyze the results, I will report on how the movement for strategic voting to dump Harper actually fared across the country. But on a larger scale, the truth is that collectively we have stopped a Tory Majority."
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:42
#12
Cueball
Yes. That is in there. But this is not an article about strategic voting. This is an article about unifying the "opposition" parties into an effective alternate government.
Do NDP supporters oppose this object? Is it a bad idea? Does it serve the interests of Canadians? Does it exclude the NDP? Is it non-progressive?
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:47
#13
okay she also said in the same article..
"Too bad we will lose Elizabeth May's refreshing voice in national affairs now that the election is over and she has no seat.."
oh boo hoo
May: "Decency in politics is a rare thing," she said. "There are few people I've ever met in political life I admire as much as Stephane Dion. He's been treated shabbily. I think replaying re-asked questions in a second language over the national media is despicable.
"Mr. Dion reminds me very much of Robert Stanfield and I think we may well decide in the future to describe him as the best prime minister we never had."
Too bad..
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:58
#14
Cueball
Yes, I understand, if you connect all the little quotes together, and link them togther in a join the dots drawing we can see that because Klein speaks positively about May and May likes Dion, and compared him positively with Robert Stanfield we can easily see that Alice Klein is really Darth Vader.
But, on an point of policy if Klein is a Liberal, and therefore likes May and Dion and Robert Stanfield, but advocates for Coalition, something which Jack Layton also seems open too, does that not mean that coalition is actually the Death Star, and Jack Layton really emperor Sith?
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:03
#15
Ha! That's the best babble post EVER. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Okay, well, maybe not ever. But it's right up there. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:04
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Yes, I understand, if you connect all the little quotes together, and link them togther in a join the dots drawing we can see that because Klein speaks positively about May and May likes Dion, and compared him positively with Robert Stanfield we can easily see that Alice Klein is really Darth Vader.But, on an point of policy if Klein is a Liberal, and therefore likes May and Dion and Robert Stanfield, but advocates for Coalition, something which Jack Layton also seems open too, does that not mean that coalition is actually the Death Star, and Jack Layton really emperor Sith?[/b]
That's cute, but I don't think many people are buying the idea that she is not partisan. Clearly, she believes a liberal government is ideal, with NDP and others playing a supporting role, and they can do that because the liberls and th NDP have so many "planks they agree on..."
except, of course, the liberals would not really carry out the planks they agree on once they form the gov't..
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:09
#17
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:11
#18
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]That's cute, but I don't think many people are buying the idea that she is not partisan. Clearly, she believes a liberal government is ideal, with NDP and others playing a supporting role, and they can do that because the liberls and th NDP have so many "planks they agree on..."
except, of course, the liberals would not really carry out the planks they agree on once they form the gov't..[/b]
Are you sure, because:
quote:
Asked on CTV's Canada AM if he would "entertain even the notion of entering into a coalition with the Liberals in order to get the Conservatives out of power," the New Democrat stressed he's never allowed partisanship to trump the greater public good."Well, you know what, I've worked with any other party. I think people have seen that if they look back to my days on a municipal council," said Layton, a former Toronto councillor and one-time president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
"You roll up your sleeves and you try to solve a problem," he said.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/503547]Toronto Star[/url]
Sounds earily like what Klein says when she says:
quote:
And should they hammer out a coalition platform based on the many planks they agree on, from arts and culture to climate change, they have the opportunity, after a non-confidence motion, to offer themselves as an alternative government to the governor general.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:12
#19
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Ha! That's the best babble post EVER. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Okay, well, maybe not ever. But it's right up there. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
What am I missing here?
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:13
#20
oops!
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:14
#21
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Asked on CTV's Canada AM if he would "entertain even the notion of entering into a coalition with the Liberals in order to get the Conservatives out of power," the New Democrat stressed he's never allowed partisanship to trump the greater public good.
"Well, you know what, I've worked with any other party. I think people have seen that if they look back to my days on a municipal council," said Layton, a former Toronto councillor and one-time president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities."You roll up your sleeves and you try to solve a problem," he said.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
Geez, Jack has always been saying he is willing to work with any party to "get things done". So i don't really know what is the news here...
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:19
#22
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=76688]Alice Klein:[/url]
quote:
. . . as Fair Vote Canada points out, the 940,000 votes cast for the Green party sent no one to Parliament, while 813,000 Conservative voters in Alberta alone were able to elect 27 MPs. The need for electoral reform and cross-party collaboration may well become the sleeper issues of this election.. . . our Toronto deserves a special nod for really holding back the blue line. Yay us! . . my Canada does not include Alberta or Saskatchewan. (Just kidding.)
If that was a non-partisan appeal for electoral reform, she would have pointed out that 245,000 Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one, and in fact the majority of votes cast last week elected no one. Electoral reform can never succeed if it is painted as a partisan trick. Liberal voters in Toronto deserved to elect 10 MPs, and elected 20. Yay for First-Past-The-Post! Umm, what was I saying???
Oh, by the way, 54% of the voters in Saskatchewan elected 13 of the 14 MPs. The Liberal 15% of the voters elected Ralph Goodale, while the NDP 26% elected no one. Don't blame Saskatchewan for our skewed voting system.
A lot of people have noticed, or remembered, that our voting system produces weird results. They are starting out by saying this explains why the Liberals didn't get more seats, and that's true in some places. Not in Alice Klein's Toronto, though. In the 69 Ontario seats outside Toronto, Peel and York, there were enough Liberal votes to elect 20 MPs, but they elected only eight. The fact is, Toronto Liberals don't need PR. Alberta Liberals do. And Quebec Liberals, BC Liberals, Saskatchewan Liberals, Manitoba Liberals, and Ontario-outside-Toronto Liberals.
I look forward to Alice Klein's next analysis. Clearly her heart is in right place, from a broad-based-reform point of view. So is Hugh Segal's. But she hasn't thought about these issues half as much as Hugh Segal or Judy Rebick have. Nor have 99% of Canadians. There's work to be done.
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:21
#23
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]Geez, Jack has always been saying he is willing to work with any party to "get things done". So i don't really know what is the news here...
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ][/b]
Well then, since Klein is really just a Liberal as evidenced by Klein's support for May, and May admiring comments about Dion's similarity to Stanflied we can say that since Jack and Klein agree on this point then Jack [i]must[/i] be a Liberal schill planted in the NDP party just to put the Liberals in power when the time came through coalition, if the strategy of splitting the left failed to put the inheritors of Robert Stanfield's Tory legacy in power.
We all know what Tommy Douglas said about "coalition."
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:22
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=76688]Alice Klein:[/url]If that was a non-partisan appeal for electoral reform, she would have pointed out that 245,000 Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one, and in fact the majority of votes cast last week elected no one. Electoral reform can never succeed if it is painted as a partisan trick. Liberal voters in Toronto deserved to elect 10 MPs, and elected 20. Yay for First-Past-The-Post! Umm, what was I saying???
Oh, by the way, 54% of the voters in Saskatchewan elected 13 of the 14 MPs. The Liberal 15% of the voters elected Ralph Goodale, while the NDP 26% elected no one. Don't blame Saskatchewan for our skewed voting system.
A lot of people have noticed, or remembered, that our voting system produces weird results. They are starting out by saying this explains why the Liberals didn't get more seats, and that's true in some places. Not in Alice Klein's Toronto, though. In the 69 Ontario seats outside Toronto, Peel and York, there were enough Liberal votes to elect 20 MPs, but they elected only eight. The fact is, Toronto Liberals don't need PR. Alberta Liberals do. And Quebec Liberals, BC Liberals, Saskatchewan Liberals, Manitoba Liberals, and Ontario-outside-Toronto Liberals.
I look forward to Alice Klein's next analysis. Clearly her heart is in right place, from a broad-based-reform point of view. So is Hugh Segal's. But she hasn't thought about these issues half as much as Hugh Segal or Judy Rebick have. Nor have 99% of Canadians. There's work to be done.[/b]
good observation.
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:25
#25
Once again Cueball asks all the questions from his high horse yet refuses to answer others. Once again for the slower of wit, did the leader of the Liberal party, Stephane Dion support the notion of any coalition larger than his and eMays switch, or did he actively repudiate it? If so (and it is, as reported here earlier) then why is "Layton" the one who's always the Main target for criticism over this. And if oTOH the NDP is repeatedly called too conservative by the same parties here, in it current political positions, then how would merging with two parties who are to Their Right politically make them any less so? Is it a practical stop the conservative vote then or a matter of principles? Simple questions really. If OTOH none of these questions are answered by the self appointed NDP critics then certain simple answers can be fairly surmised from that too, as neither of these underlying questions can be denied in this particular political setting.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:28
#26
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=76688]Alice Klein:[/url]If that was a non-partisan appeal for electoral reform, she would have pointed out that 245,000 Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one, and in fact the majority of votes cast last week elected no one. Electoral reform can never succeed if it is painted as a partisan trick. Liberal voters in Toronto deserved to elect 10 MPs, and elected 20. Yay for First-Past-The-Post! Umm, what was I saying???[/b]
And what precisely is non-partisan about your appeals for electoral reform. This is probably the first time I have ever seen you mention a vote share disparity that was unfavourable to the Tories, or is it just convenient to bring this up now, when people from other parties are putting forward their sour grapes as a reason for supporting PR?
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:29
#27
double post again! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:30
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]And what precisely is non-partisan about your appeals for electoral reform. This is probably the first time I have ever seen you mention a vote share disparity that was unfavourable to the Tories, or is it just convenient to bring this up now, when people from other parties are putting forward their sour grapes as a reason for supporting PR?[/b]
You are ridiculous. He never said he was non partisan in the first place. Second, I 've read his posts during the referendum for MMP in Ontario, and he has mentioned the disadvatnage of being a Toronto conservative voter under the FPTP.
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:30
#29
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]Geez, Jack has always been saying he is willing to work with any party to "get things done". So i don't really know what is the news here...
[/b]
Layton made a very nice speech at the end of it all saying he's still willing to work with others -if They too are willing to work with him, but I doubt that was reported much here either.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:37
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]This is probably the first time I have ever seen you mention a vote share disparity that was unfavourable to the Tories . . [/b]
[url=http://www.fairvote.ca/files/news%20release%20-%20october%2015%202008%20... at all:[/url]
quote:
Urban Conservatives: Similar to the last election, a quarter-million Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one and neither did Conservative voters in Montreal.
[url=http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1219654]And here:[/url]
quote:
In 2006, a quarter of a million Toronto Conservative voters elected no Conservative MPs. They got no representation in Ottawa. And 220,000 Alberta Liberal voters elected no one either.We did not get the House of Commons we voted for.
No matter your own opinion on voting systems, can't we agree that citizens should choose the best voting system through a national referendum? Or should the politicians in Parliament make that choice for us?
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:43
#31
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
[b]Once again Cueball asks all the questions from his high horse yet refuises to answerr others. Once again for the slow of wit, did the kleader of the Liberal party, Stephane Dion support the notion of any coalition larger than his and emaus switch, or did he actively repudiate it? If so (and it is, as reported here earlier) then why is "Layton" the one always the Main target for criticism.[/b]
Did I say anything bad about Jack and Klein's idea?
Nothing at all. Also, if Klein is such a good Liberal, why the fuck is she promoting a position much closer to Jack's "making Parliment work for Canadians" position and in fact at odds with Stephane Dion's views against coalition?
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:44
#32
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[QB][/QB]
Fair enough.
Mon, 2008-10-20 21:56
#33
Cueball
Of course this whole bugaboo issue of coalition during the election campaign was really about posturing, and has little to do with the situation now that the cards have been dealt. During the election Layton makes it sound plausible because he wants to discourage stratgic voting and Dion rules it out because he wants to encourage strategic voting.
Klein points this out indirectly when she makes the observation as part of her conclusion: "now that we aren't competing for votes in an election, a tremendous opportunity to reach out and gather in those from all four opposition parties."
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:07
#34
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
37 posts, maybe half a dozen separate coherent thoughts...
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:12
#35
Cueball
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:18
#36
Youre right LTJ, I'll just edit my first right out, and leave my second to sum up. No reason for anything but bare statements and questions here.
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:23
#37
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
[b]Youre right LTJ, I'll just edit my first right out, and leave my second to sum up. No reason for anything but bare statements and questions here.[/b]
You mean you'll take out the one where you rebutt the statement of the local authorities and then attack me? How courageous. I'll have to remember to use full quotes when replying to you in the future, so your statements don't go down the memory hole.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:24
#38
chaotic Liberal Party pow-wow to assess what went wrong
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:27
#39
Cueball
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:53
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]You mean you'll take out the one where you rebutt the statement of the local authorities and then attack me? How courageous. I'll have to remember to use full quotes when replying to you in the future, so your statements don't go down the memory hole.
[/b]
Youre getting delirious, what local authorities?
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:56
#41
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:06
#42
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
[b]Youre getting delirious, what local authorities?[/b]
You deleted your rebuttal of Michelle's statment, about the editorial policy of the web site.
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:21
#43
No, I wasn't "rebutting" Michelles policy statement, did you even read it cuz I don't recall a reply before then? My first statemnent, and anyone who actually read it already should remember, was my *agreeing" that this is not an NDP site, noone regular here ever said it was, just that NDPers get tired of having to answer these four contradictory lines over and over again, yet still get called 'partisans' for it, as if our own arguments had no merit on their own. Pardon my paraphrasing but that was about the gist of it. I only offered to delete it to LTJ because it was a rather long and rambling mess, and I thought the second one distilled the questions involved much more succinctly. If you want to accuse me of anything underhanded you better come up with something specific...something better than I dared disagree with Michelle on one point or other. Thanks for trying to silence me again.
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:28
#44
Cueball
You said something like I understand that the site is not an NDP site, BUT we are always under attack and being called partisan, and its not fair that these other people claim not to be aligned with any particular party, when its obvious to us that they must be affiliated to some organization, or another that is antagonistic to the NDP if not in fact, at least in practice and we can see this based on the fact that they persistently attack the NDP, and so therefore why can't we out them as Liberals or Greenies or whatever, and so on and so forth.
Basically you seemed to be saying that people should identify themselves, and if not that, others should be able to label them, based on the objective substance of their positions.
I choose not. Sorry.
I admit it was a little confused, but seemed generally to be an thinly veiled personal attack on some people who post here. It wasn't really nasty, but still not very nice. That is the way I read it.
Should have left it there so other people could have tried to take a crack at figuring it out.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:38
#45
I thought my arguments were fair enough, given the general pattern here of late but poorly put in their haste, therefore I edited it after LTJ's comment. I didn't believe it was directed entirely towards me. I do believe we're allowed to edit our own still. I'll also take your word for it then that you aren't just trying to silence me. My second post I think summed up the dilemmas facing us "partisans" rather better. If someone wants to take a crack at answering that one, understanding why I might object to some of that, I might respond to this thread again.
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:39
#46
Cueball
Well its done now so lets move on. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:40
#47
Somethings we can agree on. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:44
#48
remind
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:48
#49
Cueball
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:50
#50
Cueball
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 23:55
#51
remind
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]