Quebec NDP MP jumping to Liberals?

Unionist wrote:

Ken, it's not like you to create and fight straw men. Please stop attributing my comments here to some support for the Bloc. And your last sentence - that I'm saying "true Quebecers" couldn't intentionally support the NDP's policies - is just plain provocation. Your comments here are unworthy of a response. Your obvious ignorance of Québec is not a bad thing - unless you enshrine and worship it. Try to learn.

 

Then let me ask it this way...would you kindly tell me what it was in the platform the NDP fought the election that the people of Quebec couldn't KNOWINGLY have supported?  I agree that I have things to learn about Quebec politics, but I don't understand why you keep saying that Quebecers didn't know what the NDP was supporting-an assertion that appears to carry with it an assumption that everybody in Quebec knows precisely what you mean by that.

Please, just tell me what it is that the NDP had in its platform that, had Quebecers only known of it(as you assume they didn't), would have been anathema?  The party did finally come out against the Clarity Act, as I understand it, and backed self-determination, and even stronger language rights...so what was it that, to your mind, would STILL have been unacceptable to Quebecers? 

I probably sounded harsher than I should have, but that was in reaction to a tone on your part that seemed much more dismissive of the NDP than many of your recent posts have been.  Apologies for that..but please, just let me in on where you're going with this. 

What I'm really having trouble with here is why, as a left-wing Quebecer, you would noq seemingly(and perhaps I'm reading this wrong)be wanting support for the NDP to decline in Quebec?  Is this about the fact that Mulcair now seems likely to become leader and your differences with him personally about the I/P issue?

Should there be a by-election - poll:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/should-mps-who-cross-the-fl...

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.   

Nothing personal intended, BA. Of ocurse I can't know others' situation - although I value highly your ethical postings But that I why I wrote what I did. Of course we are not talking about a "crime"...that's why you find the word in quotation marks, and of course, you never meant "crime" in its legal sense.

The old girl was dropped into a back bench and was not given attention, even while Jack won a state funeral after dying from the same disease. Having arrived in the category sepruagenarian, and wondering how long she might be around, she decided to cross the floor and play an active role in yer last years. She knows she is unlikely to be elected again, of course, but that does not weigh much in the reckoning.

The party was not thinking along human, individeual lines, and got burnt. But she is NOT all the nasty things she has been called here, and if folks live long enough, they just might come to appreciate her position.

writer wrote:

Ken Burch, do you remember the vey successful ads that ran in Quebec? They were not exactly heavy on policy and platform. They are available for viewing on Youtube, I'm sure. If you are genuinely curious.

Quebecers were told *by the party* to vote NDP for a change. They did. Here we are.

But the change was, largely, a change in strategy-the idea that left-of-center politics in Quebec could be fought for more effectively by a party that had a chance to go into government in Ottawa than they could be voting for a party that put nationalism first, while retaining some vaguely "radical" policies as a sweetener for the nationalist message, even though that party(the Bloc) was never going to have the ability to implement those polities.  The other part of that "change" was the assertion that working for left-of-center policies was at least equally as important as worknig for self-determination and sovereignty for Quebec as the primary goal.  Given the growth of the CAQ as the main "sovereigntist" force in Quebec, it can now fairly be asked whether sovereignty still has any possible left outcome at all-after all, almost no left policies were brought in in Ireland in its first seven decades of independence, after it was led to independence by a party that put the creation of an independent state above all OTHER objectives.

It's likely that a Quebec dominated by CAQ will be very similar to Ireland under the dismal choices of Fianna Fail vs. Fine Gael.

writer wrote:

"The old girl." Okay, seriously, what has happened to this board?

too many 'old boys'?

Old farts can make that observation without fear in democratic venues. But where ageism rears its ugly head, then the literalist pack will feel free to pounce.

Gaian wrote:

Old farts can make that observation without fear in democratic venues. But where ageism rears its ugly head, then the literalist pack will feel free to pounce.

I've flagged the ageism here too. Sexism sucks, whoever indulges in it. I'm not part of some "literalist pack." I am a woman who is sick to the teeth with this kind of crap.

Gaian wrote:

Wow, what a way to avoid the question of ethics about calling this woman all sorts of nasty things. But "OLD GIRL'...GOTCHA. wHAT FUCKING HYPOCRISY

You seem to have missed the post where I expressed exactly those concerns. It's the one that asks people to chill out. Scroll up. You can't miss it.

As the man said: "you'd prefer people say nothing about her because saying and / or speculating anything about her motivation and / or principles (or lack there of) is somehow "mean." Yet, I think I was operating under the misconception that this is a discussion board or something and that traditionally we are allowed to discuss current events. Whether or not it's 'smart' to talk about this tomorrow, well, I'll grant that it probably isn't so I can't say I have a whole lot else to say about LSD.

I'm with Unionist on this one

writer wrote:

Gaian wrote:

Wow, what a way to avoid the question of ethics about calling this woman all sorts of nasty things. But "OLD GIRL'...GOTCHA. wHAT FUCKING HYPOCRISY

You seem to have missed the post where I expressed exactly those concerns. It's the one that asks people to chill out. Scroll up. You can't miss it.

TYou sem to have missed my defense of her throughout this ugly thread.

Ken Burch wrote:

Then let me ask it this way...would you kindly tell me what it was in the platform the NDP fought the election that the people of Quebec couldn't KNOWINGLY have supported?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing. Nothing at all. Did you miss when I said (a thousand times since May) that the people of Québec did not know what was in the platform when they voted NDP? Did you miss when I said that the reason they voted NDP [b]was not because of the platform[/b]? If you did, then maybe I'll just repeat it yet again, and hope for the best.

Quote:

Please, just tell me what it is that the NDP had in its platform that, had Quebecers only known of it(as you assume they didn't), would have been anathema?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing at all. I do believe you're not listening.

Quote:

What I'm really having trouble with here is why, as a left-wing Quebecer, you would noq seemingly(and perhaps I'm reading this wrong)be wanting support for the NDP to decline in Quebec?  Is this about the fact that Mulcair now seems likely to become leader and your differences with him personally about the I/P issue?

No, Ken, you are totally, hopelessly, mistaken. I voted for Mulcair on May 2. I voted for him in 2008 and 2007. I knew, on all those occasions, of his pro-Israel stands. I explained those here years ago, to people who weren't aware. I voted for him in May [b]despite[/b] his shameful and unforgiveable performance last June with respect to Libby Davies. If you don't understand what I'm saying, let me know and Lord knows, I'll try again.

I don't think very highly of the NDP. I don't think much of electoral politics. I don't see it as the fulcrum of a lot of necessary change in this country. But when I cast my vote, I try to do so in order to help advance the struggle. That's why I have voted Mulcair in recent years. That's why I vote for Québec solidaire. That's why I voted for the Bloc in about 3 consecutive elections. Let me know if you need detailed explanations for all that (although I'm quite sure I've done so over the years).

But the circus seems to want blood over the mis-choice of one word...one which is used when speaking with sympathy about an elderly woman.

Quite the cultural evolution taking place without my knowing it. Ah, to be young and so, so free to shit upon others over....a word.

writer wrote:

You could just apologize, having recognized that it was perhaps ill advised. But no, do go on.

As an old woman, I would want no such sympathy, having spent many years growing up. I hope if such a moment arises, I'll have the fortitude to speak my mind about such infantalizing.

In the 60s, it was absolutely fine to call a group of working women girls. It isn't anymore. It hasn't been for a while. I am glad for it.

Apologize, for using the word in sympathetic context as I have done for more than half a century? Or apologize for not keeping up with your literalist's fancy? You admit that I have defended her. But you want blood over a word.

writer wrote:

You could just apologize, having recognized that it was perhaps ill advised. But no, do go on.

As an old woman, I would want no such sympathy, having spent many years growing up. I hope if such a moment arises, I'll have the fortitude to speak my mind about such infantalizing.

In the 60s, it was absolutely fine to call a group of working women girls. It isn't anymore. It hasn't been for a while. I am glad for it.

"Girls" was made unfashionable by my late wife and a lot of other militant feminists...a word gone underground.

Gaian, It's sexist. Even if you mean it in a "nice" way. Because sexism can work that way. I give up.

I'm out to revive nothing, but when I make a defense of a human being for their acting "human", I suppose I should only look for literalist nitpicking hereabouts.

Gaian, sorry I'm a woman who wants to be treated as an equal. I'm petty that way, I guess. 

What. Ever. I'm out of this cess pit.

BA, thank you.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You continue to personally attack anyone who posts in this thread who has a different view than you through guilt by association.  I am kindly asking you to knock it off.

You know, BA, you've gotten much better since the days when I was forced to ignore you. Then you say something like this. I have not personally attacked anyone. Not one person. So either retract, or give examples to justify your statement and advise the mods.

Jesus fuck. Gaian, pulling a pity party and asking women to indulge the guy is *not* progressive. Why is it my job to swallow your shit? I'm not your wife, nor did I apply for the job. Why can't you simply apologize? Really? I see this as a central problem with this culture. We fuck up, then get all hot and bothered when we're called on it.

Sorry doesn't cost a thing.

What an awful thread. If there's a new one when this one ends, could the Mods please moderate it?

Holy crap.

Gaian, your use of "old girl" is about as sexist as it gets.  Welcome to your two day vacation from babble.

Knownothing, referring to a woman as a bitch (biatch, whatever) also earns you two days off.

As for anyone else who is trumpeting Mme St. Denis' age, drop it.

Boom Boom wrote:

What an awful thread. If there's a new one when this one ends, could the Mods please moderate it?

Second that. Also, thank you to those that were able to keep their comments civil.

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Then let me ask it this way...would you kindly tell me what it was in the platform the NDP fought the election that the people of Quebec couldn't KNOWINGLY have supported?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing. Nothing at all. Did you miss when I said (a thousand times since May) that the people of Québec did not know what was in the platform when they voted NDP? Did you miss when I said that the reason they voted NDP [b]was not because of the platform[/b]? If you did, then maybe I'll just repeat it yet again, and hope for the best.

 

Quote:

Please, just tell me what it is that the NDP had in its platform that, had Quebecers only known of it(as you assume they didn't), would have been anathema?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing at all. I do believe you're not listening.

Quote:

What I'm really having trouble with here is why, as a left-wing Quebecer, you would noq seemingly(and perhaps I'm reading this wrong)be wanting support for the NDP to decline in Quebec?  Is this about the fact that Mulcair now seems likely to become leader and your differences with him personally about the I/P issue?

No, Ken, you are totally, hopelessly, mistaken. I voted for Mulcair on May 2. I voted for him in 2008 and 2007. I knew, on all those occasions, of his pro-Israel stands. I explained those here years ago, to people who weren't aware. I voted for him in May [b]despite[/b] his shameful and unforgiveable performance last June with respect to Libby Davies. If you don't understand what I'm saying, let me know and Lord knows, I'll try again.

I don't think very highly of the NDP. I don't think much of electoral politics. I don't see it as the fulcrum of a lot of necessary change in this country. But when I cast my vote, I try to do so in order to help advance the struggle. That's why I have voted Mulcair in recent years. That's why I vote for Québec solidaire. That's why I voted for the Bloc in about 3 consecutive elections. Let me know if you need detailed explanations for all that (although I'm quite sure I've done so over the years).

Look, I agree with you on the limits of electoral politics.  But it's still bizarre that you are insisting that Quebec support for the NDP had nothing to do with the platform(or that Quebecers didn't KNOW what was in the platform)

How do you KNOW they didn't know what was in it?  Did the NDP forbid its candidates to disclose what was in the platform?  Did the party somehow just plain forget to translate the platform into French?  How could Quebecers not have known what the NDP platform contained?

As far as that goes, did they also not know what was in the Bloc, Verte, Liberal and Conservative platforms?

I mean, Jack Layton was a great guy...but he was exactly the SAME guy when Quebec gave the NDP one seat in 2008 and none in 2006 and 2004.  So the "it was just because of Jack" thing doesn't follow logically.  If that were the case, shouldn't the Orange Wave have hit seven years ago?

If you've explained in other posts why you don't think the NDP's platform has any actual appeal in Quebec, could you at least link to those threads?  I don't want to bother you further on this, but that truly puzzles me.

And I fail to see how you can think it wouldn't hurt the cause of left politics for the NDP to lose support in Quebec-especially since a decline in NDP support isn't going to lead to an emergence of a stronger left alternative, electorally or not, in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada(If I lived in Quebec, I'd join you in voting QS, as I've said in other posts, so we don't have a dispute there).

I didn't mean to upset you, and I'm sorry if I did.  I respect your opinions.  It's just that I don't understand this opinion.  Can you accept that that's all there is to the discussion we're having here? 

Won't belabor this any more, and didn't mean to piss you off.

Arthur, there are different things that drive all of us in politics.  One of the fundamentals for me is that duty you have to the people who elect you.  So for me it is a fundamental violation of that responsibility elected officials have to the people who elected them to move from one caucus to another without consulting those folks first.  The only way we have to do that ethically in our system is to leave the caucus you are in, sit for a period as an indpendent while you await a by-election and then face the people of your riding in that vote.   Or if we are approaching an election, doing so then.  People vote for all kinds of reasons.  Sometimes it is the individual candidate, for others it is party affliation, or the leader, or by default because they are voting against another party.   But they all have a right to be consulted on this fundamental a change, especially when we are so close to the election.

So for some it might not be a big deal, but for some of us a fundamental violation of democratic principle has been broken.  That doesn't mean that we should squawk like sea gulls for ever more about it.  But nor should we coo like doves that nothing happened and shouldn't challenge someone on their actions and words.