NDP #15

Makes them appear more important to have all those Men In Black around them in sunglasses and talking into their coat sleeves.

The Men In Black are reserved for Harper. Mulcair gets the leftovers.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Promoting some goal of higher taxation on its own isn't going to be very popular at all. Higher taxation must be justified by what it buys and of course, the assurance that government isn't wasting the money it has already.

David Young wrote:

What 'Men in Black'?

I stood right next to Mulcair when he was being introduced to the Nova Scotia NDP Convention by Robert Chisholm a few weeks ago, and while I could tell that there were security people there, no one who could be classified as 'Men in Black' were ever evident while he was there.

For NDP conventions, Mulcair's security force wears corduroy.

Mulcair says Tories damaging Canada's reputation
 
excerpt:
 
Federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says Canada and its once-admirable image around the world have become unrecognizable under the Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
 
Mulcair said he recently had a meeting with European Union ambassadors in Ottawa, and they are not happy with the federal government.

Here is a really DAMNING article about Justin Sinclair, I mean Bieber, I mean Trudeau...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/is-justin-trudeau-really-the-l...

janfromthebruce wrote:

I'd really like if some of our young MPs who have done great things, get out and across Canada and speak to youth engagement and involvement.

This is a terrific idea, and I hope someone at HQ takes note of it.

All those unexpectedly-elected Quebec MPs were supposed to be a running joke, right? The media seems to have dropped that some time back in the Fall, after they began proving themselves in the House, and looking like they were more fit to be there than most of the Conservative bench. They were supposed to be a liability, remember?

This is also interesting - and a problem I hadn't thought of:

One topic that is beginning to concern thoughtful New Democrats is what to do about the Senate?

The NDP does not have a single caucus member in the Senate and, were the party to win government, it would be hard-pressed to even introduce legislation in the Red Chamber, since each bill requires a sponsor
.

Abolishing or otherwise reforming the Senate isn't going to happen before an NDP government actually has to do anything else and so it will somehow have to find a way to introduce legislation there if the party plans on never having official NDP senators and have to come up with a strategy to work with Liberal and/or Conservative senators to get legislation through without having it torn apart too badly.

edit: whoops, wrong thread

During theleadership campaign I asked Tom what he wd do if the Senate blocked his legislation. He sd that wd turn public opininion against it and hasten its abolition.

I can forsee the Senate being a major problem for an NDP government. It has potentially immense power under the constitution, almost as much as the Commons. It has a veto over constitutional amendments and , I believe , over legislation. Even the House of Lords only has a suspensive veto.

The Conservatives now control close to 60% of the Senate. By 2015 they may well have 80%. Harper has shown contempt for many constitutional niceties so why should we epect the Conservatives not to use the Senate as a weapon to frustrate an NDP government's program?

The Conservatives are becoming increasingly right-wing and are imbued with self-righteousness and the notion that the end justifies the means. They will not be foolish enough to use the Senate to block everything but we can surely expect them to amend legislation consitently with their ideological convictions.

We may well see a repeat of the Australian  constitutional crisis of 1975 which led to the defeat of the Labor government of Gough Whitlam. The conservatives in the Senate waited until the government was unpopular and then refused supply. The Governor General sacked the government and called an election which the opposition won.

It'll be incredibly interesting to see Mulcair win the next election and have a showdown with the Senate.

Have you met today's NDP? There's a plan all right, and I really hope the elitist fatcats in the senate are stupid enough to try to interfere with a democratically elected NDP government. The resulting public debate on this useless boondoggle of a chamber would go very well for us. Suddenly the NDP aren't just the champions of social spending and a more compassionate society, they're also the champions of trimming fat and waste and saving taxpayers' money. Abolishing the senate would be a dramatic legacy for the party.

Wilf Day wrote:

nicky wrote:

I can forsee the Senate being a major problem for an NDP government. It has potentially immense power under the constitution, almost as much as the Commons. It has a veto over constitutional amendments and, I believe, over legislation.

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

Quote:

47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.

I think amendment of the Constitution to abolish the Senate would be under section 38, which requires the approval of 2/3rds of the provinces with more than 50% of the population.

I'm trying to get a read on the provinces. If we need 2/3 of the Premiers to buy in, that's 7 out of 10 provinces. Not a lot of room for error. If we need every province (again, not clear on the procedure), then it might be downright impossible.

THE GOOD

• British Columbia: An NDP landslide would bring in some surefire anti-senate supporters by 2015.
• Ontario: McGuinty has a good shot at getting a majority in the Kitchener by-election. Silver lining: he favors abolishing the senate.
• Manitoba: The NDP there was recently re-elected, and supports abolition.

THE BAD

• Alberta: The cradle of the "Triple E Senate". Sees "equal representation for provinces" as their firewall against Ontario/Quebec.
• Saskatchewan: Gone right-wing, and not sure when it will come back. See Alberta.

THE IFFY

• Quebec: Separatists and soft-separatists support abolition. Charest's Liberals challenged the constitutionality of Harper's senate reform, but wants consultation, not abolition.
• Nova Scotia: Darrel Dexter is in a lot of trouble, a lot of it of his own making. He'd be a solid voice for abolition, but who knows where he'll end up by 2015.

THE UNKNOWN:

• Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland: All of these provinces are over-represented in the senate. None of these provinces have NDP governments. I can't imagine them feeling as strongly against it as the West, but I can't imagine them being strongly for it as in Ontario and (sometimes) Quebec.

The odds of Senate reform look low. And that's before you even take into account that those Premiers will look to extract various concessions from the Federal Government in order to sign onto such an amendment.

I'm not sure what the path to Senate reform looks like. I think our only hope is if we make the idea of more politicians so toxic, that even electing them would seem unfair. But then what would we say of replacing MMP with first past the post?

Remember, provincial goverments don't necessarily have to agree with abolition. They just have to be convinced that they will pay a political price for opposing it. That's politics, right? After all, the Cons haven't made any moves to reform the senate. Instead they appointed a bunch of new senators. More of the same nonsense. I think that a lot of right-wing constituencies would get behind abolition if it seems the only alternative to the present state of affairs. Saskatchewan, for instance, could be sold, no matter what government they have. It might even turn into a winning issue for the NDP there.

Abolition of the senate requires UNANIMOUS consent of the provinces.

New Brunswick is holding senate elections in 2015, I think. I'm worried about the Tory attack ads on Mulcair. They look like an attempt to rewrite the facts about what Mulcair has done, said, stands for, etc. Some of the info is also from 2009 which is odd. Last time I checked there was an election the NDP ran on in 2011, so the voters had a chance to pass judgment then.

Have you read on Marxist's website talk about NDP? its 6 page since 2003.
They seem backing NDP than Liberal. Why not NDP and Marxist or Communist party merger? not need change name, just merge, share policy etc.

They should throw support to the NDP and PR if they ever want to get elected.

back to the senate, i doubt there'll be a problem - mulcair can just pull a mulroney if he needs to and add 150+ ndp senators.  i'd totally be senator for a few months if it meant that i could vote to reduce the senate's salary to $1/year, change their role to a recommendation body, etc.  no problem.  i still like my idea of a senate drawn by lots with a model based on bc's electoral reform commission all those years ago.  but if we want to be realisitic, we'll just have to pack the senate and then nuke it within the parameters of parliamentary purview.

Maybe Canada's constitution could be improved?

Here are a just a few possible improvemens:

- Quebec's signature and constitutional blessing should be achieved.

- The Senate's place in Canada.

- Municipalities should be insured adequate funding.

- Provinces should be insured adequate and equitable funding vis a vis each other.

- Proportional representation.

- First Nations issues.

Maybe the NDP should support a joint federal-provincial-municipal-First Nations effort to modernize the constitution for the 21st century?

Remember that when Mulroney tried to change the Constitution there was substantial agreement between every Provincial government  and all three national political parties and the project still failed spectacularly. 

Also lets please not bring proportional representation into the Constitutional arena, electoral reform is achievable with an ordinairy act of Parliament.