Quebec NDP MP jumping to Liberals?

The Liberals may have miscalculated (and been more desperate than people realize) by taking her into the fold. Sure, they've got a +1 to their numbers, but they've merely underlined they're the same unprincipled, crooked old bastards who'll grab any chance to get ahead that the voters rejected in May.

edmundoconnor wrote:

The Liberals may have miscalculated (and been more desperate than people realize) by taking her into the fold.

Well, no doubt they'll give her a shadow cabinet seat.

@hamiltonian

Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.

In what ways Unionist? I don't have any opinion on this other then being mad. I don't think this really hurts the NDP but I am open to hearing other opinion.

Boom Boom wrote:

edmundoconnor wrote:

Doubtless some Liberals and sympathetic sources will be playing this as the bad ol' NDP bullying a woman with cancer.

The party could avoid a ton of negative publicity by just moving on. Shit happens, and all that.

I agree. You don't want this story running in the news any longer than it has to. Caron made his comment, Mulcair will probably have to make his, and then hopefully this story can/will die by the NDP not commenting on it further. I'm hopeful the NDP can run a strong candidate in that seat in 2015 (or sooner), maybe Chantal Reeves. I'm disappointed Lise has crossed the floor. Yes it violates standards of political decency but she was also a woman, an MA in French, and her age brought diversity to the NDP caucus. She had skills that could have been of value to the party and the official opposition. I agree with edmundoconnor too in thinking that this reinforces the view that the Liberals are unprincipled and will not contribute to the narrative that the NDP is falling apart (in Quebec), so long as New Democrats do not give this defection any more airtime than it deserves (which is none).

Wilf Day wrote:

Well, no doubt they'll give her a shadow cabinet seat.

There's plenty to spare.

Gaian wrote:

@hamiltonian Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.

What human frailty is involved when you conclude the NDP was not blood-thirsty enough on Lybia and so you will join the Liberals?  That is in essentially what she said in her statement. 

I acknowledge her humanity, but that does not extend to making up pious reasons for what was clearly, from her own words, not a moral or values based act.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

The party has its floor crossing bill back before the House right now under Mathieu Ravignat.

It's not "the party" - it's a private member's bill. Caucus members are free to vote for or against it, if it ever comes to a vote.

Quote:

The idea that this (or ATM fees for that matter) was quickly forgotten is nonsense.

It's not "nonsense". The ATM fees issue was a pandering issue - never caught on - and was never emphasized in the last campaign. It did, however, make it into the official NDP election platform.

Floor-crossing didn't even rate a mention.

Bad editing?

From the Globe Article:

Ms. St-Denis was elected as part of the “orange wave” that saw 59 New Democrats elected in Quebec, but she said that she hopes her electors will understand and agree with her decision.

“They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead,” Ms. St-Denis said.

Jesus, that is harsh.  Good riddance.

edmundoconnor wrote:

For my part, Unionist, I am restricting myself to her comments she made in the wake of her action to leave the party, and the action itself. I think it's reasonable to draw some conclusions, drawing on her words and actions.

I'm not talking about you. Read the thread. It's the purest partisanship, translated into scorn for an individual. If Stéphane Dion declared publicly that he wished to sit as an NDP member, because he just can't stand it any more, there would be no scorn here. I, for one, would hail that particular move. And I wouldn't call him a "traitor" to his constituents either.

Been trying that angle for a bit, without much luck. So many stones flying about, it's hard to tell which might be first.

The reactions in this thread, added up, have been the most enlightening experience for me in four years.

New Democrats really are far removed from hidebound humanists. More just hidebound.

I think this one goes into the Oh Well file. As someone said, shit happens.

Time wasted griping about this will be a bigger loss to the party than the floor crossing.

Why does the Canadian Parliament tolerate floor-crossing at all? Surely each party can see how such a practice exploits the investment of time and money into each riding. Can the party being abandoned sue the member for those losses?

Gaian wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Gaian wrote:

@hamiltonian Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.

 

 

What human frailty is involved when you conclude the NDP was not blood-thirsty enough on Lybia and so you will join the Liberals?  That is in essentially what she said in her statement. 

I acknowledge her humanity, but that does not extend to making up pious reasons for what was clearly, from her own words, not a moral or values based act.

As I said, perhaps you have to reach a certain age and experience cancer to understand. This does not absolve her of "crime" on the standard objective scale of human merit. The "human frailty" bit means that she is vulnerable as hell to making the wrong move for the wrong reasons. The idea inherent in "throw the first stone" came from that vulnerability. You know, the "love is better than anger" bit.

Where did I ever once say it was a crime?  Or even imply it was anything but an ethical lapse.  Having stood for public office in the past I have always beleived strongly, fundamentally, that my word and the things I stand for as a candidate of a party are a type of contract with my potentail constituents.  It might be old fashioned, but it is deeply and longly held.  So it violates my ethical beliefs for someone to be elected in such a manner and then to debase that contract with constituents by doing this sort of thing without going back to them for their okay.  It is a strong ethical issue for me.   It is not partisan and it is not something I would support under any circumstance.  I have thrown no stone, other than assess her actions based on her own words.  As someone who has chosen to be in public life, whether she thought she would win or not, and than takes a public action of this nature her age and health status are completely irrelevant so your bringing them up is inappropriate.

And George don't make assumptions about anyone's health status, past or current, or the issues they have faced in their lives.  You don't possess that knowledge and it is also deeply innapropriate.   

Unionst, thanks. This still galls me. But go ahead Libs, keep thinking this past election was a fluke. Does anyone know if Turmel has said anything yet?

Bill Davis wrote:

“They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead,” Ms. St-Denis said.

Jesus, that is harsh.  Good riddance.

Good riddance - perhaps - but surely not for that observation, which is probably the plain truth. Does anyone here think Quebecers voted NDP because of its [i]platform[/i]? Or because they suddenly decided to be "NDP voters"? Or that they even knew exactly what the letters "NPD" stood for when they cast their ballot?

They voted NDP because of: 1) Jack Layton; 2) wanting to Stop Harper; 3) being fed up with the Bloc's impotence to bring about #2.

If the truth hurts, that's too bad. But the task facing the NDP is to understand what profoundly motivates people and try to personify that in political terms. Political partisanship is a big loser around these parts. And I suspect that narrow partisanship is malleable in other parts of Canada as well. But that's a separate issue.

Floor crossing almost certainly was mentioned in the 2006 and 2008 platform when it was a top of mind issue. It remains the clear party position.

I know that too, and personally I think that for sure Quebecors voted for Jack but also because they are more progressive. Note they did not vote for Conservatives or Liberals, and by all the polls done, they are not infactuated with Liberals.

We may never know but there has got to be something in it for her because I seems absolutely bizarre to me that she would say that almost since day one she has thought about crossing the floor - WT jesus? So that stuff about Jack died, well that previous statement contradicts the other - Jack wasn't died and nor did anyone know she was going to get a 2nd cancer and die.

So I think there is more going on here with her and she doesn't want to say what that is. And she hopes her constituents will be happy with her decision - LOL - perhaps she didn't bother to check all the polls because the Libs are not doing well and are stuck in the teens in Quebec.

She gave three examples of her policy differences ith the NDP.

• The party's position on the Libya has been discussed.

• The party's (general) objections to 3P arrangements - Of course, 3P arrangements usually mean public funds being used to build infrastructure with the ownership passing through private hands.  While I can envision some rare cases where some version of these arrangements might make sense, it seems to me they are usually a means of advancing crony capitalism with public funds being diverted to private hands as a form of patronage.  I guess she thinks Quebec commuters should pay tolls to prvate interests.

• The party's consistent position on the Senate - This is a bit more baffling.  The NDP's policy on the Senate has remained unchanged since seven years before the 71 year old MP was born.  I guess she supports the idea of superannuated party functionaries living off public largesse at $135K per year.

One other point:  If the CAQ does take power at the next Quebec election, this will probably strengthen the federal NDP.  A CAQ victory is going to make it a lot more difficult to see Quebec sovereignty as still being anything in any way progressive, A CAQ government in Quebec City will drive the left massively away from any sympathy for sovereignty.  How could it not do so, since a sovereign Quebec created on Lucien Bouchard's terms(and this is clearly what a CAQ government at Quebec City would mean)could never have any space for the left at all.  There'd be no room for any left organizing in such a situation, and there's no way that QS could grow in response.  In fact, if the CAQ actually led Quebec to full independence, it's first official act as a national government would probably be to BAN QS, and the rest of the Left as well.

Ken Burch wrote:

Why do you assume that Quebecers DIDN'T vote NDP because of its platform? 

Because they didn't have a clue what it was. I live here, Ken. I talk to lots of people. Separatists voted for the NDP. In huge numbers.

Quote:

Is it that hard for you to accept that Quebecers just didn't WANT to vote for the Bloc this time?

Are you smoking something? I voted NDP. Three times in a row. And I gave the analysis on babble as to why Quebecers didn't vote Bloc. It had nothing to do with the Bloc's program.

Quote:

That maybe, just maybe, Quebecers DON'T always put the self-determination thing before everything else, including worker's rights and social justice?

You've lost it. Workers' rights and social justice? You think anyone said, "the Bloc is too right-wing for me, I think I'll pick the left-wing NDP"? Send me some of that stuff!!! Please!!!

Quote:

Why can't you accept that the NDP carried Quebec on the merits?  Or that the Bloc lost on the merits?

They DID win on the merits. Quebecers wanted a party that could defeat Harper. They picked the NDP. Unfortunately, the rest of the country didn't.

Quote:

Also, if her choice was a result of Jack Layton's death, why did she cross the floor NOW?  the man's been dead for months now.  It's not like she just heard about it this weekend.

Who the hell is talking about her motives? All the partisans in this thread. Not me. I know absolutely nothing about her, except that she is obviously to the right of the NDP on various issues.

Charlie Angus dedicate a song to Lise St. Denis on his facebook page. I am getting the feeling that LSD is more Dar Heatherington than Jim Walding. The NDP don't seem to be all that upset to see her go and the hints between the lines seem to be that the Liberals will regret accepting her into their party.

Of course Bob Rae is going to blow this out of proportion by insinuating that there is more. Rae's job as leader depends on him convincing his own party that he can improve Liberal fortunes.

The NDP does decide policy at convention and everyone - even the party leader - is beholden to what is decided at convention. There were complaints at the last convention that not enough time was being designated towards policy.

And, as many have pointed out, some of what LSD says contradicts other things that she has said. And her "Jack is ..." statement is harsh when she knows that many in the party are still mourning his loss.

And, considering all the people running who figured they had no chance of winning, to have one dud isn't that bad of a record.

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Why do you assume that Quebecers DIDN'T vote NDP because of its platform? 

Because they didn't have a clue what it was. I live here, Ken. I talk to lots of people. Separatists voted for the NDP. In huge numbers.

Quote:

Is it that hard for you to accept that Quebecers just didn't WANT to vote for the Bloc this time?

Are you smoking something? I voted NDP. Three times in a row. And I gave the analysis on babble as to why Quebecers didn't vote Bloc. It had nothing to do with the Bloc's program.

Quote:

That maybe, just maybe, Quebecers DON'T always put the self-determination thing before everything else, including worker's rights and social justice?

You've lost it. Workers' rights and social justice? You think anyone said, "the Bloc is too right-wing for me, I think I'll pick the left-wing NDP"? Send me some of that stuff!!! Please!!!

Quote:

Why can't you accept that the NDP carried Quebec on the merits?  Or that the Bloc lost on the merits?

They DID win on the merits. Quebecers wanted a party that could defeat Harper. They picked the NDP. Unfortunately, the rest of the country didn't.

Quote:

Also, if her choice was a result of Jack Layton's death, why did she cross the floor NOW?  the man's been dead for months now.  It's not like she just heard about it this weekend.

Who the hell is talking about her motives? All the partisans in this thread. Not me. I know absolutely nothing about her, except that she is obviously to the right of the NDP on various issues.

Yes, sovereigntists voted NDP.  That doesn't mean they didn't know what the NDP's program was.  They did know, they supported it, and they realized that voting Bloc was pointless if you were actually interested in any program of social change, since it was clear that the Bloc was never going to create any.

I guess I don't understand why you took this occasion to try to delegitimize the NDP gains in Quebec. Is there some reason you would WANT the Bloc to gain at the NDP's expense now?  You do realize that only Harper would benefit from that result, don't you?  That nothing progressive could ever come again from the Bloc gaining seats or votes?

I agree with you that the NDP were wrong to support extending the Libya mission...but that was irrelevant during the campaign, because that support wasn't extended until after the election.  Why else would you be suddenly getting taking this "screw the NDP" tone?  Other than the Libya thing, what else do you have to be all that pissed off with the NDP about?

If  you are a Quebecer with any sort of left-of-center politics now, there's no worthwhile alternative to voting NDP at the federal level in Quebec.  The Bloc had its chance, everyone in Quebec now knows that voting Bloc can't have left-wing results at all, and there's no other left formulation there that has any chance of becoming electorally relevant before the next federal election.  So, at the moment, if you want to vote for a left-of-center party in federal politics in Quebec, it's the NDP or nothing(at the National Assembly level, it's QS or nothing, since the left no longer has a place within the BQ and the Liberals and the CAQ are the enemies of the left.  Even if we could still assume that the Bloc's policies are actually to the NDP's left, why would that matter?  Everybody knows that, since the Bloc will never lead the government in Ottawa(and that the PQ will always be sharply to the right of the Bloc, given there long-standing and unchangeable policy direction), Bloc policies will never be implemented anywhere.  They certainly won't be if the CAQ ever comes to power in Quebec, since a CAQ victory will probably be the death of anything left in Quebec at all.  It would be, in fact, the return of the Duplessis era, and probably take at least as long as the Duplessis era to restore democratic politics afterwords.  If the CAQ were to lead a Quebec government, would you still think self-determination was worth working for, given that it then be self-determination on permanently right-wing terms?

Finally, why do you asssume that there's no possible way the voters in Quebec, including separatist voters, could actually support the NDP's platform on the merits?  The federal NDP platform was giving the sovereigntists everything they were asking for, plus some actual progressive policies, the kind that could never be brought in by a vote for the Bloc, because the Bloc never had any meaningful influence in Ottawa.  You can't get progressive legislation passed as a third-place opposition party in a majority parliament, and that position was the strongest one the Bloc MP's were ever going to have.  Why are you implying that Quebec support for the NDP this may couldn't possibly have been based on the NDP's actual policies?  What is it in those policies, at THIS point, that you still feel that no true Quebecer could ever knowingly and intentionally support?

knownothing wrote:

Biatch! I hate the Liberals!

Biatch? Am I wrong in the understanding that this is a fancy way to write bitch without having to answer for using the term bitch?

From the mindreading of Quebecers to the ignorant dismissal of one very patient inhabitant of that province to the nasty ageism and sexism seen in this thread – it is not inspiring. She left. Get over it.

Right now, a number of party members are not doing social justice and greater equality any favours. Chill out.

Love, hope and optimism. Remember?

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

I don't know why some people are complaining that some of these postings are 'too hard on her'. [...] This is fine with me since she's a non-entity.

Dehumanize much?

Quote:

Que cera and let the Liberals have her.

It's spelled "que sera".

This ugly thread reminds me of the ridiculing of Lesley Hughes, when the Liberals dumped her for allegedly saying something about Zionists in the context of 9/11.