All I can think of saying today is that I'd be enjoying this a lot more with Peter Julian and Megan Leslie in the race.
NDP leadership 32
Fri, 2011-11-04 13:14
#102
Fri, 2011-11-04 13:15
#103
What OO said.
The subtlety of the question is what happens with a 50% plus 1 vote. The reality is that negotiations will break out no matter what threshold the courts think might be required to be a clear majority. But that is only negotiations not actual secession. Quebec does not have the unilateral right to secede with Cree and Inuit territory no matter whether 70% of Quebecers voted YES especially if 96% of the Cree and Inuit say NO. That is the reality and the elephant in the room that the NDP, like all federalist parties in Quebec, is trying to sidestep.
This is all true. But we are not talking about negotiations, prospects about negotiations, and end games.... we're talking about an interview where Romeo himself was talking in general principles.
So the principle that FN have a right to control their land- which could include cutting ties with Quebec- is the central principle. Once again: we are talking principles, and tell us how the principle of self dtermination has anything necessarily to do with what the settlers do in a vote on whether the settlere want to take Quebec out of Canada.
The relevance to FN is that if Quebec chooses to leave, that does not include them,
Show use where Romeo connects his criticism of the 50+1 to FN self-dtermination.
Becasue it sure looks like he was free-lancing on the 50+1 as an issue in and of itself.
Fri, 2011-11-04 13:29
#104
BTW, I think Romeo can recover. Because he pressed a hot button the media will love coming back to, I thought stepping back was going to be very difficult.
On reflection, I dont think that is so true. And his bigger issue will be clarifying with the membership what he thinks about 50+1; and even more, after some reflection and discussion, what he would do and say as Leader around that question.
Leaders in the past have buried their personal inclinations on an issue, deferring to the party process. And if I am correct that this issue he raised specifically, is a Quebec settler issue, then there is no reason Romeo should not do that.
Fri, 2011-11-04 14:20
#105
Don't you think that whether Quebec needs to vote 50+1 or 55+1 or whatever - is a totally separate issue from whether the Cree in Quebec have any right to self-determination?
Fri, 2011-11-04 14:35
#106
I agree. I would hope it was clear that is what I am asking Northern Shoveler.
Unless are you referring to Romeo needing to clarify with the membership. Thats because he directly contradicted one of the tenets of the Sherbrooke Declaration, which is completely seperate from FN self-determination. So now he has to give a full account to the members where he stands on the SD.
Fri, 2011-11-04 16:42
#107
All I can think of saying today is that I'd be enjoying this a lot more with Peter Julian and Megan Leslie in the race.
They may very well have gaffed on something or other if they had been in the race, so we don't know. Rather, people aren't perfect, and I think every candidate will gaffe in some way during this race, whether it's Mulcair with his comments about unions, Cullen on the idea of joint nominations, and Saganash on the Sherbrooke Declaration. It's a learning curve, and I would hope that each candidate takes it seariously and moves forward.
Fri, 2011-11-04 16:46
#108
And here is Romeo's explanation of the story - he supports Sherbrooke and the choice of the membership of the party, as he always has
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/04/pol-ndp-saganash-quebec...
Saganash clarifies position on Quebec sovereignty (CBC)
On Friday, he issued a statement saying when he made his comments about the Sherbrooke Declaration, he was talking about the issue of secession generally and how it is regarded in international law.
"We should not blur the distinction between international law and politics," said Saganash, the MP for a northern Quebec riding. "My remarks were a simple description of international law and the question of secession is one in which I have considerable expertise. Having testified to Parliament and the Quebec national assembly on this matter on several occasions, my legal opinions are part of the public record and I stand behind them.
"In other jurisdictions, a higher standard than 50 per cent plus one has been applied to the issue of independence before recognition has been granted, while the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that there must be a clear majority on a clear question but did not define that term mathematically," Saganash went on to say.
"Politically, New Democrats have said that they would accept the 50 per cent plus one standard and I support that position unless and until members indicate otherwise," he said.
Fri, 2011-11-04 17:33
#109
I would call Cullen's position on joint nominations a "gaffe". A "gaffe" is when someone has a slip of the tongue or misspeaks or mishandles a question. Cullen did not mis-speak on joint nominations. it is his position and he continues to defend it. People can argue that he is wrong to propose this or to disagree with him - but its not a "gaffe" - he knew exactly what he was doing and he stands by his words.
[url=http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/blog/we-can-change-the-way-politics-works]...
At the same time, I’ve heard from folks who don’t think joint nominations are such a great idea. I welcome this feedback, too, because it means we’re talking about new ideas. How we do our politics should be what this leadership is about.
Fri, 2011-11-04 18:20
#110
I find it quite disconcerting on a progressive board like babble to have white settlers in the NDP telling a FN leader he should just shut his mouth about his peoples right for the good of the party.
"His" peoples?? His people are the people of Canada. At least, he has decided to run for NDP leader, ergo prime minister. I'm quite sure he is looking to represent the interests of all the people. If not, he's in the wrong race.
Furthermore, he should say exactly whatever he likes. He should not shut his mouth. That's why I asked him about his stand on 50% + 1 in the questions thread. I want him to say exactly what he thinks - not to toe someone else's line.
And based on his answer, I will determine in large part how I view him as potential NDP leader. I and many many others.
Fri, 2011-11-04 18:21
#111
I would call not Cullen's position on joint nominations a "gaffe". A "gaffe" is when someone has a slip of the tongue or misspeaks or mishandles a question. Cullen did not mis-speak on joint nominations. it is his position and he continues to defend it. People can argue that he is wrong to propose this or to disagree with him - but its not a "gaffe" - he knew exactly what he was doing and he stands by his words.
Fri, 2011-11-04 18:38
#112
I would call Cullen's position on joint nominations a "gaffe". A "gaffe" is when someone has a slip of the tongue or misspeaks or mishandles a question. Cullen did not mis-speak on joint nominations. it is his position and he continues to defend it. People can argue that he is wrong to propose this or to disagree with him - but its not a "gaffe" - he knew exactly what he was doing and he stands by his words.[url=http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/blog/we-can-change-the-way-politics-works]...
At the same time, I’ve heard from folks who don’t think joint nominations are such a great idea. I welcome this feedback, too, because it means we’re talking about new ideas. How we do our politics should be what this leadership is about.
He was continuing to defend the idea in Ottawa Tuesday night, so yes, still.
Fri, 2011-11-04 18:41
#113
Boom Boom
Just saw a 7 minute interview with Saganash on P&P. He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, charismatic, and with good humour. He gave proper NDP responses to every question.
Fri, 2011-11-04 18:46
#114
BTW, I just saw Saganash on CBC Power and Politics. I think he's managed the issue sufficiently so it goes away for the coming week, which is good.
The thing he still doesn't get about this campaign is that when he is asked a question about, for example, should caucus members have been disciplined for a vote on XYZ, he is actually being asked "AS LEADER would you have done this?".
Now, perhaps it's just a different leadership style. Anyways, that's my constructive feedback, but overall I'm glad he's taken immediate steps to take the pressure off everyone else on the Sherbrooke issue. Phew.
ETA: Looks like Boom Boom and I cross-posted. Good to know we had more or less the same impression of his comments on the major issues.
Fri, 2011-11-04 19:06
#115
I'm not positive about this, but Romeo may be the first one to show he knows how to back up.
Fri, 2011-11-04 19:38
#116
Boom Boom
Not only can I back up, but I'm still a good parallel parker, even with my truck. 
Fri, 2011-11-04 19:44
#117
Malcolm
Re: Saganash and hs response re Sherbrooke etc.
I think the whole issue of Quebec sovereignty and the concommitant complications is a good example of where the NDP should simply refuse to play the game by the rules currently in place. For a generation or more, the political debate in Quebec was over sovereignty and about the Liberals and Bloc using an assortment of wedge issues to motivate their respective bases. Sherbrooke was, essentially, our declartion that we didn't want to play that game. The Liberals played their "get tough with the separatists" schtick for 40 years of diminishing returns, just as the Bloc played their "Quebec is humiliated" schtick. My problem with Saganash's response is that it played into somebody else's wedge politics. The NDP's victory in May suggests Quebec voters - franco, anglo, allo and FN - don't want to play that game.
(I think the same thing applies to the issue of firearms regulations, but far too many on the left seem to believe that we have to defend the Liberals' flawed wedges.)
Fri, 2011-11-04 19:54
#118
I think the whole issue of Quebec sovereignty and the concommitant complications is a good example of where the NDP should simply refuse to play the game by the rules currently in place. For a generation or more, the political debate in Quebec was over sovereignty and about the Liberals and Bloc using an assortment of wedge issues to motivate their respective bases. Sherbrooke was, essentially, our declartion that we didn't want to play that game. The Liberals played their "get tough with the separatists" schtick for 40 years of diminishing returns, just as the Bloc played their "Quebec is humiliated" schtick. My problem with Saganash's response is that it played into somebody else's wedge politics. The NDP's victory in May suggests Quebec voters - franco, anglo, allo and FN - don't want to play that game.
I bolded the parts I agree with because I think this is correct. I want to hear Saganash talk more about building bridges so we are far less likely to come to that point.
Fri, 2011-11-04 21:18
#119
Northern Shoveler
I think the whole issue of Quebec sovereignty and the concommitant complications is a good example of where the NDP should simply refuse to play the game by the rules currently in place. For a generation or more, the political debate in Quebec was over sovereignty and about the Liberals and Bloc using an assortment of wedge issues to motivate their respective bases.
That is not how it is being played. The other thread shows that the NPD is talking just like the BQ.
Someone needs to tell the brain trust in Ottawa that the Charlottetown Accord failed not only in BC but in Quebec as well. I guess nobody remembers what happened the last time the NDP ELITE CHOSE SIDES IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE. The oldest trap in the country for politicians and the NPD is doing a recreation of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
Fri, 2011-11-04 21:46
#120
I must be lost.
Fri, 2011-11-04 21:52
#121
This thread will be put out of its misery soon, Ken.
ETA: I took the liberty of starting the next one here, in fact.
Sat, 2011-11-05 00:41
#122
I think the whole issue of Quebec sovereignty and the concommitant complications is a good example of where the NDP should simply refuse to play the game by the rules currently in place. For a generation or more, the political debate in Quebec was over sovereignty and about the Liberals and Bloc using an assortment of wedge issues to motivate their respective bases.
That is not how it is being played. The other thread shows that the NPD is talking just like the BQ.
Someone needs to tell the brain trust in Ottawa that the Charlottetown Accord failed not only in BC but in Quebec as well. I guess nobody remembers what happened the last time the NDP ELITE CHOSE SIDES IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE. The oldest trap in the country for politicians and the NPD is doing a recreation of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
Amen. I was there. I actually had an "inside view" on that time and "the elites" (including the NDP) got it entirely wrong! (Not that they didn't have "good intentions".)
Sat, 2011-11-05 01:11
#123
Just saw a 7 minute interview with Saganash on P&P. He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, charismatic, and with good humour. He gave proper NDP responses to every question.
I have to agree. I think he has come across (to me) as the guy I'd be very comfortable "having a beer with". I was very pleasantly surprised about his demeanor, his humility and his ability to just basically come across as a guy who isn't sure he knows all the "right answers" but is willing to listen. He certainly seem very likeable and I am interested (even if I may not agree with everything he says).
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3