Mulcair-led NDP (thread #8)

Bravo to Ruth-Ellen for announcing this far ahead that she wants to stay and fight the next election campaign.

I'm waiting to see which candidates step forward sooner rather than later because they think Mulcair is going to become the next P.M., and we can just imagine what contested nominations there are going to be in the ridings where there isn't an incumbent New Democrat, or if one decides not to contest in 2015.

Sorry to drift away from Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, but this was from the [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-thread-7#commen... thread[/url]:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

The LeDain Commission was 40 years ago. Mulcair wants to UPDATE it for the 21st century and look at ALL recreational drugs. Makes sense to do it right than to do it rushed.

See, throughout the horrendous destructive leadership race, I pointed out that at the bottom of such a spectacle was the notion that the party needs a leader who is an all-powerful tin-pot dictator, the face, the mind, the voice, the sole decision-maker. Otherwise, why would any progressive people have tolerated such a mud-slinging beauty pageant?

In this quote above, we see that reflected. A leader who creates policy out of thin air, and a follower who earnestly tries to justify it [b]after the fact[/b]. It has to be after the fact, because the Glorious Leader has no need to share his Divine Infallible Thought with any mere mortal before spewing it into the nearest media microphone.

So much for the form. As for the substance, to think we have people on this board trying to rationalize that possession of marijuana should remain [b]a criminal offence[/b] while we carefully research modern marijuana - just because the latest newly-elected Chief Bullshitter has said so - speaks far more to the slavish nature of the membership than to any defect on the leader's part.

I like Mulcair for all kinds of reasons (just as I despise him for some others). But it's the members who have created and who perpetuate the Leader monster. That's why I found it amusing that people were terrified or elated at the potential outcome of a leadership race. It makes almost no difference.

He didn't like the bite of the Whip.

This will be old news shortly.

Hmmm... one Liberal gone, one Conservative gone. Good riddance.

 Northern Ontarians are used to being ignored by Toronto and Ottawa. Same old same old.

Slumberjack wrote:

It means the preferences of the people of that northern Ontario riding mean absolutely nothing to the Mulcair faction. The promise of a whipped vote over the issue only underscores the extent to which these people matter to the Mulcairites politically.

What about Charlie Angus, Carole Hughes, Glenn Thibeault and Claude Gravelle?

All NDP MPs from NORTHEN Ontario. All voted to SAVE the gun registry. All were RE-ELECTED by whopping margins last May. Don't you think that maybe they speak for northern Ontario just as much as Bruce Hyer does (or claims to)?

...and what about John Rafferty who had opposed the LGR to the bitter end but has now rallied behind Mulcair's leadership and his a plum post in the shadow cabinet and seems to be as happy as a clam.

 The Soo is the most urban riding in northern Ontario. I think Tony Martin lost because maybe he wasn't as hard-working as the other northern MPs and let his local organization atrophy. I don't think the gun registry was the issue. Correlation does not mean causation.

Fidel wrote:

The Sault has a large ethnic Italian and Catholic contingent. Tony is well respected for his anti-poverty work.

Yeah, Tony Martin was very good on poverty issues, and I think he was one of the finest NDP MPs.  His defeat was disappointing indeed and I'd be surprised to hear that he was "lazy."  The other defeated MP in 2011 Jim Malloway is another story.

(And Sault Ste Marie does have a very large Italian population, going back over 100 years.  The west side of the city historically was predominantly Italian. I believe around 25% of its population is of Italian ancestry.)

Tony never got above 41% of the vote in the Soo. The Conservatives did in 2011. It's a risk you run as an incumbent in a swing riding like that. I do feel like Tony became more and more focused on poverty as his tenure went on. In the end, he announced his political retirement (after the loss), inviting the NDP to find new blood for the seat. I'm excited to see who the NDP finds to run for that seat in 2015. That seat represents a great opportunity for the party.

Although Mulcair has handled the situation well and Hyer has handled it like a fool this could have all been avoided if Turmel had let them vote independently like Jack did. They should never have whipped them for a position that was not official party policy.

knownothing wrote:

Although Mulcair has handled the situation well and Hyer has handled it like a fool this could have all been avoided if Turmel had let them vote independently like Jack did. They should never have whipped them for a position that was not official party policy.

I'm going to agree not for the principle reason most might but on a practicality.

The vote was hopeless as the Cons had a majority. The registry was not going to be saved. As such whipping a vote was foolish.

NorthReport wrote:

Is that true that former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed let his caucus overrule cabinet decisions? Regardless, it is worthy of consideration by Tom.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/the-ndp-mus...

I don't see that as a very interesting feature-- a good leader gets majority support for a proposal before bringing it to the table and would never lose a vote.

It is the other things that would make this so important.

Boom Boom wrote:

I have mixed feelings about this, because don't forget the optics of not whipping the vote on this issue.

That works both ways, with the difference that, as Sean said, everyone knew how that vote was going to end. And when Layton managed to convince his caucus to support the registry - when the outcome was not so sure -  the sky did not fall, even though that vote was not whipped.

My bad. I thought there was dissension in the NDP caucus on the LGR, and that the Cons and the media were ready to exploit this.

You are right on that BB.

What is your confusion? what did you think you got wrong?

[Unless you dont want to get into "Whose on first, no...." ]

Now I am confused!

Yet another thing that is weird about Hyer's action is that it came on the very day that Nathan Cullen took o ver as House Leader...Cullen you may recall is from northern BC and has always opposed the long gun registry and skipped the vote on abolishing it earlier this year. He is also the one Hyer endorsed for leader.

Boy oh boy Mulcair really has it in for gun registry opponents - Cullen opposed the gun registry and was so muzzled - he was made House Leader - go figure

Sorry Kropo, but the evidence is increasing Mulcair is not the bad guy hear, Hyer is, Mulcair has started to try and heal the rifts in the party this issue, he lifted punishments on,those two MPs, he rewarded many anti registery MPs, and Hyer's own words betray him. He's pissed he didn't make it into the shadow cabinate. Hyer knew what he was joining when he ran for NDP, sometimes votes get whipped, just like Jack did on gay marriage, and not everyone can get into the shadow cabinate.

Ditto

There is nothing wrong with how Mulcair has handled Hyer's behavior. In time the party will have to resolve this issue, but Mulcair has just gotten the job and Hyer is wrong to ambush him like this.

On to something to something more important then Hyer's demotion over not getting a shadow post.

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.cyberpress...

So Mulcair still plans to get Quebec to sign the Constitution, I'd love to know how he plans on doing that, especially with the Quebec liberal party, the only federalist party on at the proviancial level, about to crash and burn over corruption and raising tuitition. I mean if the PQ or CAQ win neither will agree to sign it no matter what Mulcair does.

Would Mulcair be willing to risk it all on starting a provinicial NDP, after all I see no other way for Quebec to sign the constitution with the only federalist option toast, except to build a left wing alternative. Am I missing another way?

To continue the LGR discussion from the NDP shadow cabinet thread, because I think it is important, I have a question for Stockholm:

if you let provinces opt-out of the LGR, should you let cities?

similarly, could some cities propose their own gun rules and then try and enlist the feds in enforcing them (i.e. Toronto has talked about banning all handguns)?

are you proposing to make gun laws a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction or at least the operation of registries? If that is the case, are you okay with the provinces delegating those authorities to municipalities? 

how far down the road do/can we kick this can? is this a discussion worth having if it mostly serves to divide the Canadian people?

From Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/the-ndp-mus...

"A “restore democracy” charter that curbs absolute prime ministerial power, that clearly sets out checks and balances, that returns credibility to the committee system, that removes the Kremlin-like muzzle on government communications, that gives the Speaker new powers to end the Question Period farce, that limits patronage, and so on."

I  think such a charter could reintroduce some democracy into our parlamentary system. While a large part of this is thanks to Harper, the trend towards prime ministerial dictatorship has been growing since Trudeau. We now have the most rigid party controlled MP voting system in any English-speaking country. I realize that there is always a risk of being seen as an out-of-control caucus, but I also believe that more free votes are important in democracy. As free votes occurred more often, the media overreaction to such votes would die down. I would be willing to consider free votes on this and some other issues that were not adopted as official party policy. MPs, even NDP MPs, should be more than "trained seals" as Trudeau said.

Stockholm wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean about "character assassination" against Hyer. I've said the same thing everyone else has said - which is that his statements have been so weird and ill-timed that the only possible explanation is that he quit the caucus in a fit of pique over not being in the shadow cabinet.

Stockholm wrote:

Sounds like sour grapes over being dropped from the shadow cabinet. He was first elected in 2008 so he needs to stay until 2014 to get his pension. This way he can stop doing any work since Independent MPs are not responsible to anyone and just coast until Oct. 2014 and then pocket his pendion and retire.

Sure whatever you say.