NDP shadow cabinet predictions

As a young person and as someone who knows Niki personally, I would support her as a youth critic, but I would be concerned about ghettoizing youth issues and sticking a perfectly talented and capable person at the "kids table"

As a young person and as someone who knows Niki personally, I would support her as a youth critic, but I would be concerned about ghettoizing youth issues and sticking a perfectly talented and capable person at the "kids table"

quote:

---

Originally posted by ctrl190:
[b]Jack Harris for Fishing & Oceans?
[/b]

---

Do you realize Jack Harris is the Dean of the Caucus? He won the by-election in 1987. No one else was even around back then except Dawn Black, who first won a seat in 1988 when Jack lost his. (Granted, Judy Wasylycia-Leis and Jim Maloway were first elected provincially in 1986.)

Jack should at least get Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, or whatever he wants.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ctrl190:
[b]Do you think Linda Duncan will claim Environment?[/b]

---

Again, whatever she wants.

And Niki Ashton is certainly a star. Transport, Infrastructure and Communities?

The last caucus did not have anyone with the title "Poverty Critic" or "Deputy Critic for Human Resources & Social Development (Poverty)." But Tony Martin, officially "Human Resources & Social Development Critic," to his credit[url=http://www.tonymartin.ca/issues/Fighting-Poverty] called himself the Poverty Critic.[/url]

In the next House this should be a team job, with Megan Leslie as "Deputy Poverty Critic." What a one-two punch!

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

The last caucus did not have anyone with the title "Poverty Critic" or "Deputy Critic for Human Resources & Social Development (Poverty)." But Tony Martin, officially "Human Resources & Social Development Critic," to his credit[url=http://www.tonymartin.ca/issues/Fighting-Poverty] called himself the Poverty Critic.[/url]

In the next House this should be a team job, with Megan Leslie as "Deputy Poverty Critic." What a one-two punch!

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Malcolm Allen, Industry

I'm just glad the caucus is big enough there won't be the same necessity to juggle multiple portfolios.

Take a look at the ridings with the least comfortable margins of victory and that should provide some hints as to which newbies will be carting about big portfolios. The one exception is of course is Jack Harris because he is such a seasoned (and impressive) poltician. I keep hoping some of the biggest portfolios are now going to be tied to MPs that can perform in both official languages.

I think in terms of newbies getting portfolios, the following are shoo-ins:

Welland
Edmonton-Strathcona
Sudbury
Vancouver Kingsway
St. John's East
Outremont

and one other Northern Ontario riding.

Churchill is a solid NDP seat, so I'm guessing Ashton will get something minor just to give her a chance to get comfortable with the job of critic and get a lot more public exposure.

Take a look at the ridings with the least comfortable margins of victory and that should provide some hints as to which newbies will be carting about big portfolios. The one exception is of course is Jack Harris because he is such a seasoned (and impressive) poltician. I keep hoping some of the biggest portfolios are now going to be tied to MPs that can perform in both official languages.

I think in terms of newbies getting portfolios, the following are shoo-ins:

Welland
Edmonton-Strathcona
Sudbury
Vancouver Kingsway
St. John's East
Outremont

and one other Northern Ontario riding.

Churchill is a solid NDP seat, so I'm guessing Ashton will get something minor just to give her a chance to get comfortable with the job of critic and get a lot more public exposure.

In the NDP, every single caucus member is always given some sort of critics portfolio. I remember back in 1988 when we had 43 seats - every MP got something - even if it was something as "low end" as being crtic on Canada Post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]even if it was something as "low end" as being critic on Canada Post.[/b]

---

Excuse me? What other federal government service comes to your home every day?

What other federal government service has offices in every non-metropolitan riding across the country?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]even if it was something as "low end" as being critic on Canada Post.[/b]

---

Excuse me? What other federal government service comes to your home every day?

What other federal government service has offices in every non-metropolitan riding across the country?

I'm not saying that having a postal service isn't important - but being the NDP critic on the post office is not exactly a plum posting and in a smaller caucus someone might be critic for the post office in addition to being critic on one or two other things.

How challenging can it be to be the watchdog on the aesthetics of stamp design and on the odd piece of mail getting delivered late?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]How challenging can it be to be the watchdog on the aesthetics of stamp design and on the odd piece of mail getting delivered late?[/b]

---

What with the spectre of privatization and reduction of services to small communities, watching over the Tories' designs on this public service can hardly be equated to "the aesthetics of stamp design." This is an issue that's hit my riding particularly hard.

But I undertand your point - it won't be as high profile as, say, health critic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]How challenging can it be to be the watchdog on the aesthetics of stamp design and on the odd piece of mail getting delivered late?[/b]

---

What with the spectre of privatization and reduction of services to small communities, watching over the Tories' designs on this public service can hardly be equated to "the aesthetics of stamp design." This is an issue that's hit my riding particularly hard.

But I undertand your point - it won't be as high profile as, say, health critic.

actually I think that a strong critic should be given the position of critic to the post master general. Not alone but as part of a bigger critic responsibilities

why
because the first female cabinet minister was post mistress general and it is important for the right wing thugs of the cons and the lib idiots to remember our history

Canada has not had a "Postmaster General" since the 1980s when Canada Post was created as a crown corporation and the post office ceased to be run directly by the federal government.

Canada has not had a "Postmaster General" since the 1980s when Canada Post was created as a crown corporation and the post office ceased to be run directly by the federal government.

Just a thought...!

When the House of Commons does return, will the NDP caucus have to be split between the two furthest ends of the House of Commons? Since the Cons now have 143 seats to the Speaker's right, and the Liberals and Bloc have 126 seats total on the Speaker's left, put the 2 Independents on the Cons side, and there will be just enough room for the newest NDP members, where the last 2 NDP caucuses sat.

The critics, one assumes, would sit in the rows behind Jack Layton on the other side of the House, so who gets to sit in the 'NDP rump' on the other side?

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Young:
[b]the Cons now have 143 seats to the Speaker's right [/b]

---

Not necessarily. In the last House two Conservatives overflowed into the left side. I would think they should put a lot more in the overflow section, and let the NDP keep its location and keep together.

Or the other choice would be to let some of the Liberals overflow onto the government side, and put all three opposition parties on the opposition side.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Young:
[b]the Cons now have 143 seats to the Speaker's right [/b]

---

Not necessarily. In the last House two Conservatives overflowed into the left side. I would think they should put a lot more in the overflow section, and let the NDP keep its location and keep together.

Or the other choice would be to let some of the Liberals overflow onto the government side, and put all three opposition parties on the opposition side.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Alternately, some of the Liberals' designated abstainers could be seated with the Tories.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[QB]
Not necessarily. In the last House two Conservatives overflowed into the left side.

I believe these were two of the Alternate Speakers, along with Bill Blakie, who sat away from their caucuses (supposedly) to maintain their impartiality!

I believe that the 31-member NDP caucus during the 1972-74 minority government was split on both sides of the Commons.

Are there any historians who could back me up?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[QB]
Not necessarily. In the last House two Conservatives overflowed into the left side.

I believe these were two of the Alternate Speakers, along with Bill Blakie, who sat away from their caucuses (supposedly) to maintain their impartiality!

I believe that the 31-member NDP caucus during the 1972-74 minority government was split on both sides of the Commons.

Are there any historians who could back me up?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[QB]
Not necessarily. In the last House two Conservatives overflowed into the left side.

I believe these were two of the Alternate Speakers, along with Bill Blakie, who sat away from their caucuses (supposedly) to maintain their impartiality!

I believe that the 31-member NDP caucus during the 1972-74 minority government was split on both sides of the Commons.

Are there any historians who could back me up?