Trudeau promises gender parity in cabinet

137 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2015-06-27 19:56

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
There's a difference between this and "Affirmative Action".

Affirmative Action is a state requirement which compels businesses to ensure that typically underrepresented groups will be hired, to address that underrepresentation. It's the government telling (often reluctant) business owners that they have to do the right thing. It's not at all unreasonable to think that in the absence of AA, many hiring business owners wouldn't.

No, this is affirmative action:

an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative%20action

Business law is just one application of affirmative action.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Why is this distinction meaningful? Because if Trudeau (or the leader of whichever party forms government) were to simply appoint a cabinet that's half female MPs, then not only has the goal of parity been met, but NONE of those female MPs will be saddled with the potential criticism that they were chosen not for their skills and talents, but because they helped the leader fill a quota to keep a promise.

The type of people who would question the qualitfications of women like Freeman or other women purely on the basis that they were meeting a quota regardless of their background are mostly Harper voters.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
What's the REAL goal here? Gender parity in cabinet? Or winning feelgood votes by promising a quota to ensure it?

I don't know about you but I want to know what parties are planning before I elect them not after. I don't consider gender parity in government a "feel good" measure. My ears perked up when he defined prostitution as violence against women. I was gratified that he openly stated that he believed the women's accusations were credible which left him no choice but to suspend the two men until an investigation could be completed. Both men accepted the findings of the investigation without the women having to make an "official" complaint or go to police. If only the reaction to Jian Ghomeshi had been as prompt when rumours started circulating about him instead of avoiding assigning female co-eds to internships with him. Limiting women's careers as a reaction to abuse is unacceptable. Now Trudeau has committed to gender equality in cabinet. Not everyone agrees with those three positions but I do and I think many others do as well.

Far from being just a "feel good" measure it is one that opens him up to a lot of criticism. Not everyone supports gender equity so he could lose votes over it too. Just look at the comments in this thread.

I don't bother defending Trudeau's character on this board except in the narrowest sense on individual issues. But I will say this now, Trudeau impressed me on how rapidly he denounced the hijab ban in children's soccer in Quebec, and the same for the Charter of Quebec Values, nor did he hesitate to defend the Clarity Act. He pointed out the need to address the root causes of terrorism including water shortages. His change of position on marijuana is laudable. Same goes for the gun registry. He did support it, still does in principle, but won't push for it on the basis that it is too divisive and there are many other issues that people are more united on. He's going to go there first. I support the gun registry but I respect his reasoning. Since then Paladin has pointed out gun laws that are too lax as well as too strict. I agree with Trudeau that it's important to get everyone to the same table to collaborate on solutions. On pipelines he has said from day 1 that pipelines must have social licence to proceed as a separate issue from meeting environmental reviews. He has never promoted Energy East or the pipelines crossing B.C. because they do not have social licence. He supports Keystone because it does have the support of Albertans and has passed all environmental reviews. He opened up his personal finances more than any PM has to. He unhesitatingly defended the rights of women to wear a full face veil when taking the citizenship oath. That is not a popular stance.

People here denounce him as a vacuous figurehead, a liar with no values or principles but that is not the man I see.

Sat, 2015-06-27 20:28

#53

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The type of people who would question the qualitfications of women like Freeman or other women purely on the basis that they were meeting a quota regardless of their background are mostly Harper voters.

Or any non-Liberal voters. Or has politics suddenly made a sea change that I missed?

Quote:
I don't know about you but I want to know what parties are planning before I elect them not after.

Then let them state clearly their support for appointing the very best to any cabinet portfolio, regardless of gender, ethnic background, age, and so on. If they do, nobody can reasonably complain if they appoint someone old (or young), minority (or majority) and so on.

But as soon as it's just math (50% of the cabinet must be female) then that burdens ANY female appointed to cabinet with the extra job of trying to prove that she was chosen for her skills and talents, not her gender.

Quote:
Far from being just a "feel good" measure it is one that opens him up to a lot of criticism. Not everyone supports gender equity so he could lose votes over it too. Just look at the comments in this thread.

Really?

Can you please show us all where ANYONE on this thread has suggested that having a half (or more) female cabinet would be a bad thing, in and of itself?

Seriously. Can you show us? I'll be happy to ask again, if I have to. Suggesting that one of us here opposes equality is a big claim that calls for big proof.

Quote:
People here denounce him as a vacuous figurehead, a liar with no values or principles but that is not the man I see.

Is this the man you see?

[IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/11akif8.jpg[/IMG]

Sat, 2015-06-27 20:50

#54

indigo 007 indigo 007's picture

Trudeau is desperate as he promises everything under the sun. I do hope he is keeping record of all these promises.

Sat, 2015-06-27 21:43

#55

bekayne

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

In the interest of accuracy, the Liberals have recruited a lot of candidates since December 2014, disproportionately men. Their percentage of female candidates has fallen to around 30%.

It's at 33.2%

http://www.punditsguide.ca/

Sat, 2015-06-27 23:05

#56

Pondering

I don't think good men are so rare as to be comparable to Jesus.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The type of people who would question the qualitfications of women like Freeman or other women purely on the basis that they were meeting a quota regardless of their background are mostly Harper voters.

Or any non-Liberal voters. Or has politics suddenly made a sea change that I missed?

In that case, as I said, he is putting his neck out in making the commitment.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't know about you but I want to know what parties are planning before I elect them not after.

Then let them state clearly their support for appointing the very best to any cabinet portfolio, regardless of gender, ethnic background, age, and so on. If they do, nobody can reasonably complain if they appoint someone old (or young), minority (or majority) and so on.

There generally is no "very best". There are multiple qualified people for these posts. Knowing they have committed to gender equity in cabinet is something I value. It is a reason to vote for Trudeau. Affirmative action has always meant the qualifications of women are challenged. Even if he didn't announce it, just did it, the gender parity would be obviously deliberate. You seem to think he should be trying to keep plausible deniability. I prefer his honesty and open commitment.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But as soon as it's just math (50% of the cabinet must be female) then that burdens ANY female appointed to cabinet with the extra job of trying to prove that she was chosen for her skills and talents, not her gender.

All women appointed to high office have to prove they have the skills and talents to perform the job. If these women are equal to the positions they are granted then they will have no trouble rising to the challenge of this "extra burden".

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Far from being just a "feel good" measure it is one that opens him up to a lot of criticism. Not everyone supports gender equity so he could lose votes over it too. Just look at the comments in this thread.

Really?

Can you please show us all where ANYONE on this thread has suggested that having a half (or more) female cabinet would be a bad thing, in and of itself?

Seriously. Can you show us? I'll be happy to ask again, if I have to. Suggesting that one of us here opposes equality is a big claim that calls for big proof.

Perhaps not that, but you are certainly raining criticism of it on his head therefore yes, in making this pledge he has opened himself up to criticism as well as praise so it isn't just a "feel good" measure as you so dismissively call it.

Sun, 2015-06-28 01:29

#57

NorthReport

Does not matter what Liberals say, it is what Liberals do. None of these Liberal lies matter one iota. What does matter is Trudeau voted for C51.

Sun, 2015-06-28 02:16

#58

Sean in Ottawa

I agree gender parity is affirmative action. I also agree that that a 50% female cabinet would be a good thing.

But that is not what I would like to see as a committment. I would like to see gender balance. And by this I mean power balance.

It is not that long ago that the Conservatives crowed that they had a lot of women in cabinet (before they stopped caring about this). But the women were almost exclusively junior ministers.

But let's look at the Notley cabinet in Alberta. Considering a caucus with not that much experience nominated before they thought they had any hope of winning -- we see a gender balanced cabinet. It is also parity but it is the balance that matters. Women's power in the cabinet equal men when you go portfolio by portfolio. And this is important.

So I would prefer to see 12 women in key positions like PM, finance, foreign affairs, health, Justice than 20 with almost all Junior. Even if the cabinet is the same size.

For the record 73% of the Harper cabinet are men. 72% of the Liberal shadow cabinet are men. 68% of the NDP senior shadow cabinet are men and 42% of the deputy shadow cabinet are men so that the entire shadow cabinet including junior for the NDP are 61% men. That said, the NDP had more to choose from. Obviously all the parties must improve. The key is getting women elected.

Sun, 2015-06-28 10:55

#59

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree gender parity is affirmative action. I also agree that that a 50% female cabinet would be a good thing.

But that is not what I would like to see as a committment. I would like to see gender balance. And by this I mean power balance.

The two are not mutually exclusive but committing to a power balance is impossible because cabinet positions aren't assigned before the election and it is impossible to define otherwise.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But let's look at the Notley cabinet in Alberta. Considering a caucus with not that much experience nominated before they thought they had any hope of winning -- we see a gender balanced cabinet. It is also parity but it is the balance that matters. Women's power in the cabinet equal men when you go portfolio by portfolio. And this is important.

I am impressed by Notley. She isn't running federally.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
For the record 73% of the Harper cabinet are men. 72% of the Liberal shadow cabinet are men. 68% of the NDP senior shadow cabinet are men and 42% of the deputy shadow cabinet are men so that the entire shadow cabinet including junior for the NDP are 61% men. That said, the NDP had more to choose from. Obviously all the parties must improve. The key is getting women elected.

The Liberals have too few seats for gender parity but if they were to win the election that would not be true. Getting women elected isn't enough if they are not assigned to cabinet positions. "Power balance" can't be achieved without first being appointed to cabinet either.

[/quote]

Sun, 2015-06-28 11:03

#60

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Trudeau promises no wage and price controls. Zap your frozen but prices are allowed to rise. Liberals promise renegotiation of NAFTA. Liberals promise to end GST. Liberals promise daycare. Liberals promise marijuana reform and gender parity.

Only a Liberal partisan or an insane person would believe anything contained in a Red book during an election campaign. I have been telling my Liberal friends the same thing for three decades, when the Liberals win and actually do as promised I will vote for them in the subsequent election. I've never had to vote Liberal in my life.

Dobbin has a good article here at Rabble on this topic: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/06/shadow-paul-martin-can-you-trust-lib...

Sun, 2015-06-28 11:20

#61

Unionist

Excellent article by Dobbin.

Sun, 2015-06-28 12:59

#62

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree gender parity is affirmative action. I also agree that that a 50% female cabinet would be a good thing.

But that is not what I would like to see as a committment. I would like to see gender balance. And by this I mean power balance.

The two are not mutually exclusive but committing to a power balance is impossible because cabinet positions aren't assigned before the election and it is impossible to define otherwise.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But let's look at the Notley cabinet in Alberta. Considering a caucus with not that much experience nominated before they thought they had any hope of winning -- we see a gender balanced cabinet. It is also parity but it is the balance that matters. Women's power in the cabinet equal men when you go portfolio by portfolio. And this is important.

I am impressed by Notley. She isn't running federally.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
For the record 73% of the Harper cabinet are men. 72% of the Liberal shadow cabinet are men. 68% of the NDP senior shadow cabinet are men and 42% of the deputy shadow cabinet are men so that the entire shadow cabinet including junior for the NDP are 61% men. That said, the NDP had more to choose from. Obviously all the parties must improve. The key is getting women elected.

The Liberals have too few seats for gender parity but if they were to win the election that would not be true. Getting women elected isn't enough if they are not assigned to cabinet positions. "Power balance" can't be achieved without first being appointed to cabinet either.

[/quote]

A power balance is easier to achieve than parity since you can either do it with something close to parity although making sure the cabinet positions are of roughly equal importance OR you can promote fewer women to the more important posts if you were not as fortunate in terms of getting enough elected. But of course I said the key is getting them elected in the first place -- a fact you have disputed -- why? -- becuase Trudeau did not include that in your talking points?Because the Liberals are behind on that score?

Do you even think these things through before you start typing?

My comment about the shadow cabinet numbers indicate that in terms of numbers they all need to make progress. I understand you would miss that point becuase it was not your brand of blind partisanship. But in terms of promises it is also good to look at performance rather than just words. When it comes to performance you look at the number in the shadow cabinet and the number of candidates. Here of course, you treat us to your famous silly putty flexible logic. You say that I am wrong to suggest that it is really about getting them elected yet you excuse Trudeau's shadow cabinet based on the obvious problem of having too few women in caucus. This of course is essential BS for you becuase otherwiswe you would have to consider Trudeau's promise in light of being on track to have one of the lowest percentages of women candidates the Liberals have fielded in a long time

Telling me that you don't get women into cabinet unless you appoint them -- welll -- did you really think I missed that little gem?

As usual your logic is completely backwards. The first step to be able to have more women in cabinet is to make sure that you elect more women. And this means not just parity in your candidates but getting them elected to parliament -- it means having enough female candidates in ridings that are good prospects for your party rather than standard bearers in no hope ridings.

Your argument here is laughable but I understand why. The Liberals throw out promises that are meaningless. The NDP has been working at the candidate level -- not just in terms of getting closer to parity in the candidates but in winnable seats. This is the point you want forgotten in your blind rush to locate a partisan argument that favours the Liberals.

So to sum: Liberals make a promise while the NDP actually work on the essential step that would make this happpen (a more representative caucus). So the Liberal cheerleader uses a goofy argument that no, it is not about having the women elected but the promise Trudeau made (let's remember it is always about what Trudeau said since nothing more is relevant). And of course the beautiful logic of saying that in order to get them into cabinet you have to actually appoint them. Well they have to be elected FIRST to appoint and this is true even if Trudeau did not say so.

To this end the NDP have a history of having the most female candidates most of the time although the Liberals actually had more than the NDP in 2008.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/FederalRidingsHistory/hfer.asp?La...

While you are there have a read at this article about women in politics and what can be done -- again more required than a promise from a desperate leader trying to get a headline:

http://www.equalvoice.ca/speaks_article.cfm?id=979

For those of us willing to consider that you actually need women elected in order to put them in cabinet -- let's look at the performance in nominations by the parties to see how much substance exists to see just how much work the parties have put towards making Trudeau's promise a reality -- shall we?

"Current trends paint a more disconcerting picture. The Liberal party has nominated 267 candidates so far, which means the 86 women represent 32.2 per cent of the total. New Democrats have confirmed 222, including 93 women, or 41.9 per cent. The Conservatives numbers are abysmal. Despite having 253 candidates in place, only 48 are women, a sliver under 19 per cent. For the Greens, the numbers are 121 candidates, 34 women, at 37 per cent. For the Bloc, of 22 candidates nominated just three are women — 13.6 per cent." http://www.equalvoice.ca/speaks_article.cfm?id=981

This is a performance that would merit a Needs improvement for the NDP at only 41.9 percent running but the NDP do have a lot more nominations to go yet so this number could increase. The Liberals have the most candidates nominated and women are less than a third. The Greens have done more than the Liberals (in terms of percentages and can make up ground) but they are less than the NDP so far. The Conservatives and the BQ have less than 20% female candidates. The BQ are really desperate and it could be argued they have a tiny pool of options but this is not true for the Conservatives who presumably do have choices but simply don't care.

Sun, 2015-06-28 13:48

#63

Sean in Ottawa

Now lets look at performance rather than just talk. This is a better way of evaluating anyone -- including the Liberal party which has proven in the past that they are extremely good at making promises-- not so much on the delivery.

Lets look at the percentage of female candidates in the last five elections and then the percentage of caucus that was female. In other words let's not just look at the number of female candidates but attempt a qualitative analysis of the ridings these women werenominated to run in.

This can provide an indicator of whether a party that crows about its percentage of female candidates actually puts these candidates in ridings they would be expected to win and then supports them to win their seats.

I had to calculate this since this does not look like it is being tracked.
It is interesting to see.

2011:

NDP had 40% women candidates and 38.8% of their elected MPs were women.

LPC had 29% women candidates and 17.6 percent of their elected MPs were women.

CPC had 22% women candidates and 16.8 percent of their elected MPs were women.

2008

NDP had 33.7% women candidates and 32.4% of their elected MPs were women.

LPC had 36.6% women candidates and 24.7 percent of their elected MPs were women.

CPC had 20.4% women candidates and 16.0 percent of their elected MPs were women.

2006

NDP had 35.0% women candidates and 41.4% of their elected MPs were women.

LPC had 25.6% women candidates and 20.4 percent of their elected MPs were women.

CPC had 12.3% women candidates and 11.3 percent of their elected MPs were women.

2004

NDP had 31.1% women candidates and 26.3% of their elected MPs were women.

LPC had 24.3% women candidates and 25.1 percent of their elected MPs were women.

CPC had 11.7% women candidates and 12.1 percent of their elected MPs were women.

2000

NDP had 29.2% women candidates and 38.4% of their elected MPs were women.

LPC had 21.5% women candidates and 22.7 percent of their elected MPs were women.

CPC* had 12.0% women candidates and 10.2 percent of their elected MPs were women.
* is combined total of PC and CA parties

Since 2000

NDP had 33.8% women candidates and 35.5% of their elected MPs were women.

LPC had 27.4% women candidates and 22.1 percent of their elected MPs were women.

CPC had 15.7% women candidates and 13.3 percent of their elected MPs were women.

The conclusions you get from this little study are:

1) The NDP tend to nominate the most women candidates.
2) The NDP on average elect a higher percentage of female caucus members than the percentage nominated.
3) The Liberals not only nominate fewer women, they elect a lower percentage of female caucus members than they nominate by about 20%.
4) The CPC nominates fewer women than the Liberal party but recently they have been closing the gap. They elect a lower percentage of women than they nominate but the gap is not as great as with the Liberals.

Therefore:
1) It appears that the NDP not only is the most likely to nominate women but they do so in ridings where they go on to win. This suggests that the NDP support their women candidates to go on to be elected and nominate women candidates in ridings where there is a realistic chance of winning.

2) The Conservatives historically didn't seem to care if they nominated or elected women and the numbers were low. However they improved slightly and were closing in on the Liberals by 2015 in terms of the percentage of nominations and they matched the Liberals in elected caucus members.

Looking to 2015
The Liberals are nominating a slightly higher percentage of women than they did previously at 32.3 but well behind the NDP which are at 41.9 percent so far. The NDP who have more nominations yet to come are better positionned to improve this number.
The Conservatives have nominate 19% women which is a slightly lower percentage than they nominated in the previous two elections.

Finally, let's look at the other remarkable bit of data we have. It is clear that the percentage of women in cabinet or shadow cabinet tracks very close to the percentage of women in caucus. This is not surprising. It also supports the comment I made that you are unlikely to deliver on a promise of parity unless you get more women elected to your caucus. To that end based on performance the NDP are way ahead of the Liberal party.

Once again the Liberals make noise while the NDP acts. The Liberal cheerleader here could pause for a moment and reflect on why New Democrats do tend to resent Liberals for making so many promises related to what the NDP is actually doing while the Liberals have a history of chronic underperformance on their promises -- and then -- the Liberal media shout these Liberal promises from the rooftops as if they are original and meaningful while they, for the most part, ignore what the NDP is saying and doing. To that end blowhard Trudeau is getting more play for re-announcing NDP promises than the NDP ever got for making them in the first place -- and this despite the fact that the NDP actually are walking the talk while the Liberals just aren't.

This is why I consider the Liberal party as the in-the-way party. The party that attracts votes from promises and has a poor record of delivery -- The party that gets media attention for desperate promises when they have done little to actually make them happen.

You want to impress me Liberals when it comes to a promise of women in cabinet? -- do at least what the NDP is doing to nominate women and to actually show you will get them elected. In the meantime do not be shocked when I laugh at your bullshit and vote NDP -- the party that actually has substance to its promises and a track record on the topic.

On these topics Mr. Justin-in time or Justin-come-lately has to do more than promise.

Sun, 2015-06-28 14:15

#64

Misfit

Why did the Liberals ban Jody Emery from running as a candidate? She's pro legalization of marijuana.

Sun, 2015-06-28 15:04

#65

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
A power balance is easier to achieve than parity since you can either do it with something close to parity although making sure the cabinet positions are of roughly equal importance OR you can promote fewer women to the more important posts if you were not as fortunate in terms of getting enough elected. But of course I said the key is getting them elected in the first place -- a fact you have disputed -- why? -- becuase Trudeau did not include that in your talking points?Because the Liberals are behind on that score?

Obviously MPs have to be elected before they can be assigned. Duh. The Liberals don't have to achieve gender parity in nominated or elected MPs to achieve gender parity in cabinet. If they won the election they would have at least 113 seats. In my opinion they would have no trouble finding enough qualified women in that bunch to take half the power positions in cabinet. How many power positions do you think there are in cabinet? 6? 12? That would mean he would need 3 to 6 women capable of taking on power roles in cabinet.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
My comment about the shadow cabinet numbers indicate that in terms of numbers they all need to make progress. I understand you would miss that point becuase it was not your brand of blind partisanship. But in terms of promises it is also good to look at performance rather than just words. When it comes to performance you look at the number in the shadow cabinet and the number of candidates.

In the last election they got too few seats to come anywhere near to creating a gender balanced shadow cabinet. If they win the election then that will mean that they won a lot more seats therefore finding 3 to 6 women to take power positions won't be difficult because the pool will be much larger. It seems more like blind partisanship to suggest that not having parity in shadow cabinet with so few sitting mps suggests that Liberals won't be able to meet their commitment when they have a minimum of 113 elected MPs.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You say that I am wrong to suggest that it is really about getting them elected yet you excuse Trudeau's shadow cabinet based on the obvious problem of having too few women in caucus. This of course is essential BS for you becuase otherwiswe you would have to consider Trudeau's promise in light of being on track to have one of the lowest percentages of women candidates the Liberals have fielded in a long time.

I have considered it. The Liberals are making a good faith effort to attract as many women to run as possible. This is a challenge that the NDP also recognizes. Both parties have outreach programs. The NDP has been more successful. Congratulations.

It's not necessary to win that contest in order to achieve gender parity in cabinet.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
As usual your logic is completely backwards. The first step to be able to have more women in cabinet is to make sure that you elect more women. And this means not just parity in your candidates but getting them elected to parliament -- it means having enough female candidates in ridings that are good prospects for your party rather than standard bearers in no hope ridings.

So your argument is that the Liberals won't have enough qualified women elected to sit in cabinet? That the women running for the Liberals are in no-hope ridings?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The NDP has been working at the candidate level -- not just in terms of getting closer to parity in the candidates but in winnable seats. This is the point you want forgotten in your blind rush to locate a partisan argument that favours the Liberals.

Your argument is an insult to all the qualified women running for the Liberals in winnable seats. Considering the qualifications of the NDP's seat stuffers in Quebec you are throwing rocks in a glass house.

Both parties have many qualified women running in seats they are competitive in.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
So to sum: Liberals make a promise while the NDP actually work on the essential step that would make this happpen (a more representative caucus). So the Liberal cheerleader uses a goofy argument that no, it is not about having the women elected but the promise Trudeau made (let's remember it is always about what Trudeau said since nothing more is relevant). And of course the beautiful logic of saying that in order to get them into cabinet you have to actually appoint them. Well they have to be elected FIRST to appoint and this is true even if Trudeau did not say so.

It's a no-brainer that women have to be elected (usually) to be appointed to cabinet. A more representative caucus and a representative cabinet are both worthy but separate goals. So far, no party has achieved gender parity at the federal caucus level but that is not a barrier to achieving gender parity in cabinet as long as enough women are elected to fill the positions. The NDP is ahead in female representatives running for office. That's great. The NDP should go ahead and brag about it. If they elect the most women mps they should go ahead and brag about that too.

It does not nullify the fact that the Liberals have put gender parity in cabinet in their platform and the NDP has not yet done so.

Your perpetual fall-back position, the liberals are liars, the liberals break all their promises, the liberals can't be trusted, is a dead end argument making any discussion of policies or platforms irrelevant. It's also an admission that the Liberal policy is superior.

I encourage you to use it far and wide.

Sun, 2015-06-28 15:08

#66

NorthReport

Maybe Trudeau meant to say he believed in gender parity for arrested protesters.

After all Trudeau voted for C51.

Sun, 2015-06-28 15:15

#67

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals are making a good faith effort to attract as many women to run as possible.

...all of a sudden, as of last week.

Sun, 2015-06-28 15:17

#68

Pondering

Misfit wrote:
Why did the Liberals ban Jody Emery from running as a candidate? She's pro legalization of marijuana.

Are you suggesting that is enough to qualify someone for running for office? The Liberals are not the Marijuana Party. That is just one plank of their platform.

As far as I know all the parties keep their reasons for rejecting a candidate confidential for good reason. It would be much more difficult to get people to apply for a nomination if parties publicized their reasons for rejecting a candidate.

It's true that can mean that candidates are rejected "unfairly" or for reasons the public would disagree with but that seems to be a necessary trade-off to protect the confidentiality of applicants.

At a guess I would say it is because she would be a single issue candidate. She made no secret of the fact that her sole reason for supporting the Liberals was marijuana legalization. It is fair for the Liberals to want candidates that support the Liberal party more generally rather than due to a single issue.

Sun, 2015-06-28 15:28

#69

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals are making a good faith effort to attract as many women to run as possible.

...all of a sudden, as of last week.

That's not true.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-pushing-for-more-f...

Justin Trudeau is pushing for more women to run as candidates in 2015.

Rather than setting targets or percentages for female candidates as some previous leaders have, Mr. Trudeau is instructing riding associations to prove to him that a serious effort was made to find a competent woman to run.

“We have never had a leader who has made such a huge commitment,” Judy Sgro, veteran York West MP, told The Globe Friday. “So I think it’s really encouraging for women that you have a leader who truly recognizes the world is made up of 51 per cent women.”

Ms. Sgro said riding associations will have to form three-member search committees – and not all three members can be men – to go out and find women who want to run. They have to prove they have searched seriously. She says that could include placing an ad in a newspaper or a sending out a newsletter in the riding – but it has to be done with diligence.

“[Mr. Trudeau] just said to all our riding presidents. … You have to show me where you looked,” she said....

It’s always been hard to attract women to politics and then get them elected. The Liberals have tried many iterations, such as in 1993 when former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien controversially appointed women to ridings, which meant they didn’t have to face nomination battles. Other Liberal leaders tried to set targets for women candidates, but struggled to reach them.

In the 2011 election that saw the Liberals drop to third-party status, the number of women in the caucus was reduced to only six from the 19 elected in 2008.

but don't let facts get in the way of your partisan slams.

Sun, 2015-06-28 15:46

#70

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
Your argument is an insult to all the qualified women running for the Liberals in winnable seats. Considering the qualifications of the NDP's seat stuffers in Quebec you are throwing rocks in a glass house.

this is a disappointing comment, imv. just who is qualified to be an MP? or even leader? no one. not until you've been one or an MLA can anyone say they are even somewhat "qualified". and your "seat stuffer" leader isn't even qualified to be leader let alone a prime minister, so i find your "seat stuffer" comments just plain old nasty in respect to young women who had the courage to let their name stand and surprisingly win and then go on to work hard to get qualified like everyone else has to when first elected.

your comment below doesn't even come close to negating the nastiness of your "seat stuffers" comment.

Quote:
Both parties have many qualified women running in seats they are competitive in.

Quote:
...perpetual fall-back position, the liberals are liars, the liberals break all their promises, the liberals can't be trusted, is a dead end argument making any discussion of policies or platforms irrelevant.

did you never ever ask yourself why it is the perpetual position?

if they weren't perpetually being liars and untrustworthy there couldn't be a fall back position to default to.

besides....how can noting accummulative lies and betrayals of human rights, occuring all the time, be a fall back position anyway? it's current. it's relevant. your brushing aside pertinent observations of behaviour is insulting.

Quote:
It's also an admission that the Liberal policy is superior.

no it isn't. they're observations of current Liberal Party behaviour. why would anyone waste anytime, beyond indicating the lies, debating policies they know won't happen??

i mean seriously??

Sun, 2015-06-28 15:49

#71

wage zombie

Quote:

“We have never had a leader who has made such a huge commitment,” Judy Sgro, veteran York West MP, told The Globe Friday. “So I think it’s really encouraging for women that you have a leader who truly recognizes the world is made up of 51 per cent women.”

If Trudeau made such a huge, unprecedented commitment, then he's failed at that too.

Sun, 2015-06-28 16:13

#72

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
A power balance is easier to achieve than parity since you can either do it with something close to parity although making sure the cabinet positions are of roughly equal importance OR you can promote fewer women to the more important posts if you were not as fortunate in terms of getting enough elected. But of course I said the key is getting them elected in the first place -- a fact you have disputed -- why? -- becuase Trudeau did not include that in your talking points?Because the Liberals are behind on that score?

Obviously MPs have to be elected before they can be assigned. Duh. The Liberals don't have to achieve gender parity in nominated or elected MPs to achieve gender parity in cabinet. If they won the election they would have at least 113 seats. In my opinion they would have no trouble finding enough qualified women in that bunch to take half the power positions in cabinet. How many power positions do you think there are in cabinet? 6? 12? That would mean he would need 3 to 6 women capable of taking on power roles in cabinet.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
My comment about the shadow cabinet numbers indicate that in terms of numbers they all need to make progress. I understand you would miss that point becuase it was not your brand of blind partisanship. But in terms of promises it is also good to look at performance rather than just words. When it comes to performance you look at the number in the shadow cabinet and the number of candidates.

In the last election they got too few seats to come anywhere near to creating a gender balanced shadow cabinet. If they win the election then that will mean that they won a lot more seats therefore finding 3 to 6 women to take power positions won't be difficult because the pool will be much larger. It seems more like blind partisanship to suggest that not having parity in shadow cabinet with so few sitting mps suggests that Liberals won't be able to meet their commitment when they have a minimum of 113 elected MPs.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You say that I am wrong to suggest that it is really about getting them elected yet you excuse Trudeau's shadow cabinet based on the obvious problem of having too few women in caucus. This of course is essential BS for you becuase otherwiswe you would have to consider Trudeau's promise in light of being on track to have one of the lowest percentages of women candidates the Liberals have fielded in a long time.

I have considered it. The Liberals are making a good faith effort to attract as many women to run as possible. This is a challenge that the NDP also recognizes. Both parties have outreach programs. The NDP has been more successful. Congratulations.

It's not necessary to win that contest in order to achieve gender parity in cabinet.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
As usual your logic is completely backwards. The first step to be able to have more women in cabinet is to make sure that you elect more women. And this means not just parity in your candidates but getting them elected to parliament -- it means having enough female candidates in ridings that are good prospects for your party rather than standard bearers in no hope ridings.

So your argument is that the Liberals won't have enough qualified women elected to sit in cabinet? That the women running for the Liberals are in no-hope ridings?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The NDP has been working at the candidate level -- not just in terms of getting closer to parity in the candidates but in winnable seats. This is the point you want forgotten in your blind rush to locate a partisan argument that favours the Liberals.

Your argument is an insult to all the qualified women running for the Liberals in winnable seats. Considering the qualifications of the NDP's seat stuffers in Quebec you are throwing rocks in a glass house.

Both parties have many qualified women running in seats they are competitive in.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
So to sum: Liberals make a promise while the NDP actually work on the essential step that would make this happpen (a more representative caucus). So the Liberal cheerleader uses a goofy argument that no, it is not about having the women elected but the promise Trudeau made (let's remember it is always about what Trudeau said since nothing more is relevant). And of course the beautiful logic of saying that in order to get them into cabinet you have to actually appoint them. Well they have to be elected FIRST to appoint and this is true even if Trudeau did not say so.

It's a no-brainer that women have to be elected (usually) to be appointed to cabinet. A more representative caucus and a representative cabinet are both worthy but separate goals. So far, no party has achieved gender parity at the federal caucus level but that is not a barrier to achieving gender parity in cabinet as long as enough women are elected to fill the positions. The NDP is ahead in female representatives running for office. That's great. The NDP should go ahead and brag about it. If they elect the most women mps they should go ahead and brag about that too.

It does not nullify the fact that the Liberals have put gender parity in cabinet in their platform and the NDP has not yet done so.

Your perpetual fall-back position, the liberals are liars, the liberals break all their promises, the liberals can't be trusted, is a dead end argument making any discussion of policies or platforms irrelevant. It's also an admission that the Liberal policy is superior.

I encourage you to use it far and wide.

This post is utter bullshit and offensive too. Selective also.

You continue to maintain that Mulcair is only offering flexibility to Quebec and you ignore the example I gave of his comments regarding Ontario. This stream of shit you write all comes from your bankrupt position that you do not want to be taken out of context while you take Mulcair out of context. You want to say he offered flexibility to Quebec only and refuse to acknowledge that he also offered it to Ontario.

I did not say all Liberals are liars. I did question YOUR honesty in this thread although I could not say for sure that you were not just being ignorant, clueless or full of shit as I find it hard to tell the difference with you.

I have not insulted any of the Liberals who are running -- that is you trying to contort what is being said. I spent quite a while and gathered 5 elections of data on the numbers of candidates who were women and the number of those elected. The Liberals clearly have the biggest gap between the percentage of candidates who are women and the percentage of the caucus they elect. This could be that they have more in no hope ridings or it could be that they do not support them enough. But the bottom line is that this is an observable pattern. I know you prefer bullshit over facts but this is plain math.

For the record I have never stated that all Liberals are just like you. So no insult has been given to their candidates from me.

Your comments about NDP MPs who have higher numbers of women being seat stuffers would damage your reputation here except for the fact that this is typical of what you write.

Sun, 2015-06-28 17:47

#73

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You continue to maintain that Mulcair is only offering flexibility to Quebec and you ignore the example I gave of his comments regarding Ontario. This stream of shit you write all comes from your bankrupt position that you do not want to be taken out of context while you take Mulcair out of context. You want to say he offered flexibility to Quebec only and refuse to acknowledge that he also offered it to Ontario.

And here you go again, paraphrasing to create a strawman argument. I never claimed that Mulcair is only offering flexibility to Quebec. I'm not talking about flexibility.

Mulcair stated that Quebec can opt out with compensation. He didn't say "all the provinces can opt out with compensation". I am pretty sure if that is what he meant it is what he would have said. It is part of the NDP Sherbrooke Declaration to give Quebec specifically the right to opt out of federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdictions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were willing to extend that right to all the provinces if that was the cost of achieving it for Quebec.

I don't want that. I want strong national programs that apply to everyone equally no matter which province they live in. I believe that contributes to equality and unity. That is not an illegitimate desire. It is a valid reason to prefer the Liberals over the NDP.

Sun, 2015-06-28 18:22

#74

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You continue to maintain that Mulcair is only offering flexibility to Quebec and you ignore the example I gave of his comments regarding Ontario. This stream of shit you write all comes from your bankrupt position that you do not want to be taken out of context while you take Mulcair out of context. You want to say he offered flexibility to Quebec only and refuse to acknowledge that he also offered it to Ontario.

And here you go again, paraphrasing to create a strawman argument. I never claimed that Mulcair is only offering flexibility to Quebec. I'm not talking about flexibility.

Mulcair stated that Quebec can opt out with compensation. He didn't say "all the provinces can opt out with compensation". I am pretty sure if that is what he meant it is what he would have said. It is part of the NDP Sherbrooke Declaration to give Quebec specifically the right to opt out of federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdictions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were willing to extend that right to all the provinces if that was the cost of achieving it for Quebec.

I don't want that. I want strong national programs that apply to everyone equally no matter which province they live in. I believe that contributes to equality and unity. That is not an illegitimate desire. It is a valid reason to prefer the Liberals over the NDP.

Where is the link? As I understand it -- the opt out would be understanding the Quebec program meets the requirement for the federal program.

Now I guess we could all speculate on why one would mention Quebc. Do you think it might be becuase Quebec is the only province with a program already? Do you think it might be that the federal money for the program would actually flow to the Quebec program in that province since it is already offereing a service and therefore help improve it -- rather than duplicating it?

Think.

Sun, 2015-06-28 18:25

#75

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
Your argument is an insult to all the qualified women running for the Liberals in winnable seats. Considering the qualifications of the NDP's seat stuffers in Quebec you are throwing rocks in a glass house.

quizzical wrote:
.. so i find your "seat stuffer" comments just plain old nasty in respect to young women who had the courage to let their name stand and surprisingly win and then go on to work hard to get qualified like everyone else has to when first elected.

Okay one of them wasn't even in the country during the election. They did step up, one learned French, which is great but they were seat stuffers and I don't think they are candidates for the power positions. Sean is suggesting that the Liberals have been putting women in unwinnable seats, in other words, seat stuffing presumably to get their percentage of women up. Hence my comment about glass houses.

As long as the Liberals win the election, there will be plenty of qualified women to fill their fair share of power positions.

quizzical wrote:

did you never ever ask yourself why it is the perpetual position?

if they weren't perpetually being liars and untrustworthy there couldn't be a fall back position to default to.

No, I think it's pretty obvious, it's because the Liberals have a history of having broken promises you can point to (as do all parties who have been in power) so to you it's the clincher. The Liberals can never be elected again.

From the perspective of political discussion it's a dead end. From the perspective of convincing swing voters, it's hopelessly partisan. Everyone assumes politicians won't keep all their election promises and a decade out of power was enough to pay for their adscam crimes which are practically quaint in comparison to Harper's. Swing voters will still compare platforms with a focus on the economy.

quizzical wrote:
besides....how can noting accummulative lies and betrayals of human rights, occuring all the time, be a fall back position anyway? it's current. it's relevant. your brushing aside pertinent observations of behaviour is insulting.

C 51 has nothing to do with gender parity. It is impossible to discuss policy if you throw everything into the same discussion. Whether or not the Liberals are the devil incarnate gender parity in cabinet is a good idea and something I would like the NDP to commit to as well. They can do that. The NDP was first in promoting PR. That hasn't stopped the Liberals from proposing electoral reform. The Liberals are always accused of appropriating NDP policy as though it is a bad thing. The NDP should jump on the marijana bandwagon. They have the perfect excuse with the rapidly evolving situation in the states.

quizzical wrote:
no it isn't. they're observations of current Liberal Party behaviour. why would anyone waste anytime, beyond indicating the lies, debating policies they know won't happen??

That's a very good question. They should just open with that instead of dissing the policy.

Sun, 2015-06-28 18:37

#76

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I have not insulted any of the Liberals who are running -- that is you trying to contort what is being said. I spent quite a while and gathered 5 elections of data on the numbers of candidates who were women and the number of those elected. The Liberals clearly have the biggest gap between the percentage of candidates who are women and the percentage of the caucus they elect. This could be that they have more in no hope ridings or it could be that they do not support them enough. But the bottom line is that this is an observable pattern. I know you prefer bullshit over facts but this is plain math.

Or it could be chance, the ridings they managed to find women in happened to be difficult ridings to win.

As long as enough qualified women win to fill the the requirement for gender parity in cabinet it can be achieved.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Your comments about NDP MPs who have higher numbers of women being seat stuffers would damage your reputation here except for the fact that this is typical of what you write.

All I said was people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones because the NDP did do some seat stuffing in Quebec. I didn't say anything about the NDP having more seat stuffers, or more female seat stuffers.

As usual you are paraphrasing in order to misrepresent what I said.

Sun, 2015-06-28 18:49

#77

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Where is the link? As I understand it -- the opt out would be understanding the Quebec program meets the requirement for the federal program.

But it doesn't meet the requirements and if it did it wouldn't need to "opt out". Quebec charges parents up to 20$ a day not the 15$ Mulcair has promised as a maximum.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Now I guess we could all speculate on why one would mention Quebec. Do you think it might be becuase Quebec is the only province with a program already? Do you think it might be that the federal money for the program would actually flow to the Quebec program in that province since it is already offereing a service and therefore help improve it -- rather than duplicating it?

Think.

I am thinking that we agreed there are national standards. As I understand it all the provinces will be running their own systems including having means-testing or not, for-profit or not. Nothing suggests that the national standards proposed would require Quebec to produce a duplicate system.

If something is important enough to be a national standard for everyone else then I want an explanation as to why that standard isn't important for Quebecers to have met.

Sun, 2015-06-28 19:11

#78

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean is suggesting that the Liberals have been putting women in unwinnable seats, in other words, seat stuffing presumably to get their percentage of women up. Hence my comment about glass houses.

It can't be seat stuffing if they don't win. The seat stuffing cannot apply to a discussion about those who do not win. "Seat stuffing" is an extremely offensive Pondering insult to NDP MPs and ALL those who voted for them. Pondering is hoping you do not notice that she is trying to compare ELECTED NDP MPs (and their supporters) who she wishes to insult with a statement I made that a disproportionate number of women candidates for the Liberal party do not get elected compared to their male counterparts.

Now let's be really clear. I did not suggest this. I proved it. I used data over 5 elections to show that over this period (2000-2011) the NDP elected a greater proportion of its female candidates while the Liberals elect a smaller proportion of its female candidates.

In other words not only are the Liberals nominating fewer women they are also less likely to get elected.

I said that this could mean that:

1) Liberal female Candidates get less support to win

2) they are disproportionately in ridings that are tougher to win.

Now if Pondering wants to suggest that the women of the Liberal party are of lower quality than the men as far as candidates go -- this is not an argument I would make -- especially considering that the NDP manages to elect a greater proportion of its female candidates than its male candidates. Without that possibility we are left with the conclusion I drew :-- Liberal female candidates face tougher ridings OR get less support to win than their male counterparts.

Sun, 2015-06-28 19:14

#79

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Or it could be chance, the ridings they managed to find women in happened to be difficult ridings to win.

This is what I said-- Liberals may be disproportionately nominating women in ridings that are harder to win. It pads the nomination statistics but it does not lead to more female MPs.

Do you even read what is posted before you reply???

Sun, 2015-06-28 19:29

#80

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

All I said was people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones because the NDP did do some seat stuffing in Quebec. I didn't say anything about the NDP having more seat stuffers, or more female seat stuffers.

As usual you are paraphrasing in order to misrepresent what I said.

The NDP nominated candidates and they won.

What is seat stuffing?

If you are referring to people standing in no-hope ridings that suddenly became winnable ridings this is not seat stuffing since these are candidates until they win. Once they win they have been elected MPS and have the same status as any MP and their voters have every legitimate right to choose them over other parties.

Let's nopt forget that that there are also Liebrals nominated in ridings the Liberals do not expect to win either.

So voters picked NDP candidates on balance over Liberal candidates -- too bad. It seems the voters thought that the Liberal candidates were not as worthy since they did not vote for them. And that may have had a lot to do with the fact that they were Liberals (as well as BQ and Conservative).

What the NDP did is get a bunch of people elected who had not expected to be elected.

Your made up this bullshit term of seat stuffing which implies something illigitimate about their election or status as MPs.

A candidate is not a seat. A ballot is not a seat.

Once elected -- candidates are MPS not seat stuffing.

Your comment is offensive.

Sun, 2015-06-28 20:56

#81

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Or it could be chance, the ridings they managed to find women in happened to be difficult ridings to win.

This is what I said-- Liberals may be disproportionately nominating women in ridings that are harder to win. It pads the nomination statistics but it does not lead to more female MPs.

Do you even read what is posted before you reply???

It's not padding if it isn't deliberate.

Sun, 2015-06-28 21:34

#82

socialdemocrati...

Oh come on. The Liberal party practically invented the parachute candidate. It's a privilege reserved disproportionately for conservative white men like Michael Ignatieff. Women need not apply. Just look at the numbers.

Sun, 2015-06-28 21:47

#83

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean is suggesting that the Liberals have been putting women in unwinnable seats, in other words, seat stuffing presumably to get their percentage of women up. Hence my comment about glass houses.

It can't be seat stuffing if they don't win. The seat stuffing cannot apply to a discussion about those who do not win. "Seat stuffing" is an extremely offensive Pondering insult to NDP MPs and ALL those who voted for them. Pondering is hoping you do not notice that she is trying to compare ELECTED NDP MPs (and their supporters) who she wishes to insult with a statement I made that a disproportionate number of women candidates for the Liberal party do not get elected compared to their male counterparts.

Oh BS. You can't stuff a seat after someone is elected. You would have to remove someone from office and replace them with someone else. How would that be achieved?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Now let's be really clear. I did not suggest this. I proved it. I used data over 5 elections to show that over this period (2000-2011) the NDP elected a greater proportion of its female candidates while the Liberals elect a smaller proportion of its female candidates.

I didn't dispute your facts. I dispute your inference that this indicates less effort on the part of liberals or any deliberate attempt to put more women in unwinnable ridings. Nor does it present a challenge in finding enough elected women to occupy powerful seats in cabinet to achieve gender parity there.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I drew :-- Liberal female candidates face tougher ridings OR get less support to win than their male counterparts.

And you are wrong. Those are not the only two options. If anything women get more support not less than their male counterparts and all ridings have to prove they actively looked for female nominees. The Liberals don't get a whole bunch of candidates then parcel out ridings based on winnability. That they haven't succeeded in matching the NDP in women nominated does not mean that they have failed to attract enough to fill cabinet posts.

You seem to be trying to defend the NDP's lack of commitment to gender parity in cabinet by pointing out their greater success in attracting women candidates based on quantity nominated and elected but that does not automatically mean they have a greater pool of women to fill powerful cabinet positions in their pool of nominees. Everyone acknowledges that many of the MPs, male and female, elected in Quebec in 2011 had no experience and were/are young. Not likely candidates for cabinet power positions which you emphasized the importance of.

Commiting to gender parity in Cabinet is good policy. If the Liberals win the election they will have a large enough pool of women to achieve gender parity in cabinet and enough women qualified to take power portfolios.

It's a feather in the NDP's cap that they have a higher percentage of women nominees at this time and that they have a good track record in the percentage that is elected. If the Liberals were in that position I would be bragging about it too.

It is a separate issue from commiting to gender equality at the cabinet level just as it is a separate issue when businesses commit to gender equality in the boardroom.

Gender equality in cabinet is important to me. I am confident that Trudeau is going to give women high visibility roles inside and outside of cabinet and they will live up to his expectations.

The argument that the women would then have an extra burden to prove themselves is the same one used against all affirmative action programs.

Sun, 2015-06-28 21:48

#84

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Your made up this bullshit term of seat stuffing which implies something illigitimate about their election or status as MPs.

A candidate is not a seat. A ballot is not a seat.

Once elected -- candidates are MPS not seat stuffing.

Your comment is offensive.

it's over the top offensive.

people should ask themselves if 'Justin' didn't have the Trudeau name would he have the job position he holds. answer is no...to say otherwise would be pure fabrication.

Sun, 2015-06-28 22:06

#85

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

All I said was people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones because the NDP did do some seat stuffing in Quebec. I didn't say anything about the NDP having more seat stuffers, or more female seat stuffers.

As usual you are paraphrasing in order to misrepresent what I said.

The NDP nominated candidates and they won.

What is seat stuffing?

If you are referring to people standing in no-hope ridings that suddenly became winnable ridings this is not seat stuffing since these are candidates until they win. Once they win they have been elected MPS and have the same status as any MP and their voters have every legitimate right to choose them over other parties.

Let's nopt forget that that there are also Liebrals nominated in ridings the Liberals do not expect to win either.

So voters picked NDP candidates on balance over Liberal candidates -- too bad. It seems the voters thought that the Liberal candidates were not as worthy since they did not vote for them. And that may have had a lot to do with the fact that they were Liberals (as well as BQ and Conservative).

What the NDP did is get a bunch of people elected who had not expected to be elected.

Your made up this bullshit term of seat stuffing which implies something illigitimate about their election or status as MPs.

A candidate is not a seat. A ballot is not a seat.

Once elected -- candidates are MPS not seat stuffing.

Your comment is offensive.

I used the term to mean using whatever candidate you can find to fill a seat even when there is no indication they are qualified to run. Like candidates in Quebec who can't speak French or didn't bother staying in Quebec for the election in favor of going on vacation. They had no expectation of winning. They were stunned that they did. Those seats were won based on Jack Layton not based on the identity of local candidates. They were place holders, seat stuffers, clearly not much involved in campaigning as that would require speaking French and being in the province for the election.

They rose to the occasion once elected. They were not deliberately put in unwinnable ridings and neither are the women who are nominated by the Liberals deliberately put in unwinnable ridings or offered less support than male candidates. It's a smear. Your statistics don't prove your claim. The Liberals have been in decline and a state of confusion since 2005. It doesn't surprise me that they had trouble attracting women candidates.

The NDP still has a good lead on the Liberals in percentage of women candidates, again, congratulations. That doesn't mean that the Liberals aren't trying as hard nor that the women theydo have are not sufficient in either quantity or quality to reach gender parity in cabinet including representing powerful portfolios.

Sun, 2015-06-28 22:24

#86

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Your made up this bullshit term of seat stuffing which implies something illigitimate about their election or status as MPs.

A candidate is not a seat. A ballot is not a seat.

Once elected -- candidates are MPS not seat stuffing.

Your comment is offensive.

it's over the top offensive.

people should ask themselves if 'Justin' didn't have the Trudeau name would he have the job position he holds. answer is no...to say otherwise would be pure fabrication.

He wasn't a placeholder. He was chosen deliberately, by election, above a field of other people running for the leadership after winning his own seat.

The NDP appointed many candidates in Quebec in ridings in which there was no nomination battle. That one didn't speak French and another left on vacation so missed the election is a pretty clear indication that they were seat fillers which is the term I was thinking of but stuffers implies the same sort of thing.

When those women were appointed the NDP didn't expect them to win. Is that why women were appointed to those seats? Because they were expected to lose?

The Liberals are not deliberately choosing to run women in ridings they consider unwinnable to bump up their percentage of women candidates. If you want to make that argument spit out the names of the women you think were deliberately put in unwinnable ridings just to bump up the percentage of female candidates.

Sun, 2015-06-28 22:29

#87

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

The NDP appointed many candidates in Quebec in ridings in which there was no nomination battle. That one didn't speak French and another left on vacation so missed the election is a pretty clear indication that they were seat fillers which is the term I was thinking of but stuffers implies the same sort of thing.

WTF are you talking about? "Missed the election"?

Sun, 2015-06-28 22:43

#88

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering, more offensive comments, bizarre logic, stupid characterizations, blatant misrepresentation and blind holding on to comments that have already been responded to without any acknowledgement of what was said. It does not stop.

Your attempt to justify your seat stuffer comment is pathetic. A seat stuffer implies a second class MP. A candidate that has won election has won the right to be considered more than this. They may have been token canddiates before the election, but they were legitimately elected and once they were elected they did not become seat stuffers. Many of these MPs have worked very hard to become excellent Members worthy of re-election. Your stupid suggestion that a candidate is stuffing a seat skips over that whole democratic process thing-- the part where they got elected. And you just watch -- many will get elected again over the latest crop of Liberal choices. Then I guess you will come back here to piss all over the voters -- about who wrong they must have been to not see the Liberal way.

But perhaps there is something to that rumour of Liberal disdain for democracy (except when it elects Liberals).

Sun, 2015-06-28 23:23

#89

pookie

The pearl clutching in this thread is hilarious.

"Seat stuffer" is my new favourite term.

Mon, 2015-06-29 00:11

#90

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The NDP appointed many candidates in Quebec in ridings in which there was no nomination battle. That one didn't speak French and another left on vacation so missed the election is a pretty clear indication that they were seat fillers which is the term I was thinking of but stuffers implies the same sort of thing.

WTF are you talking about? "Missed the election"?

Excuse me, she went on vacation during the campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellen_Brosseau#Controversies_and_crit...

During the 2011 federal election, Brosseau raised controversy when it was learned that she had spent part of the campaign on vacation in Las Vegas.....

An op-ed in the National Post criticized Brosseau's inexperience, writing that she is "an extreme example of what happens when people sign up to run for a party with little or no expectation of actually winning."[34] Two days after the election, allegations were made by both the defeated Liberal and Conservative candidates about irregularities on Brosseau's nomination papers. While each party has the chance to vet each other's nomination papers before the election, the other parties chose not to vet Brosseau's papers because no one believed she had a realistic chance of winning.

My point is that all the parties try to put the best candidate they can find to run in a riding. To imply that Liberals put women in unwinnable seats to up their quota is no more supportable than accusing the NDP of doing the same. Brosseau's seat was considered unwinnable. She didn't win it. Jack did. She just happened to be sitting in it. It wasn't assigned to her because it was a winnable or unwinnable riding.

Likewise, the Liberals looked for women candidates in all ridings and when they found suitable ones they nominated them. Some of those ridings were winnable and some not. There is zero evidence that the Liberals deliberately put women in unwinnable ridings to bump up their quota or that they don't offer them as much support as they do to male candidates which is the claim I am defending against.

Mon, 2015-06-29 00:39

#91

Pondering

pookie wrote:

The pearl clutching in this thread is hilarious.

"Seat stuffer" is my new favourite term.

LOL, they are sooooo sensitive.

Remember this:

A CBC News investigation has revealed the Conservative Party candidate running against Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is a performance artist whose campaign is at least partially intended to "mess with" the Tories.

Performance artist Chris Lloyd was formally acclaimed as the Conservative candidate in the Montreal riding of Papineau in February.

But CBC News has learned his campaign and party involvement is part of an art project he's working on.

Lloyd has been writing a letter to the prime minister nearly every day since 2001. His topics run from the mundane to more critical.

.....

During his talk, Lloyd said he explained to the executives he was an artist doing a project involving politics.

"But as soon as I said 'art' and 'project' and stuff like that, their eyes kind of glazed over a bit," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/chris-lloyd-conservative-candidat...

I do agree with you on the seat stuffer term being useful. "Seat filler" actually refers to people who get a discount or get free seats to a theatre or other form of entertainment to make sure it is packed therefore looks successful and popular. That's not quite the same thing as appointing candidates with no obvious qualifications for office apparently out of desperation.

The base salary of a member of Parliament jumps to $163,700 from $160,200, a 2.2 per cent increase. Senators will receive a 2.58 per cent increase to $138,700 from $135,200. By law, senators make $25,000 less than MPs.Apr 1, 2014How Much Do Canadian MPs And Senators Make?www.huffingtonpost.ca/.../mp-salaries-senators-canada_n_5066137.html

If it isn't a winnable seat running is a thankless task so I guess the salary and perks are meaningless under those circumstances making it difficult to attract candidates willing to run unless you just appoint them and let them go on vacation or use it as an art project. But if they win, they hit the jackpot. I'd quit school for that.

I've no doubt that the Liberals also have some lightweight candidates in ridings in which they have weak support.

Mon, 2015-06-29 02:19

#92

bekayne

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

2011:

NDP had 40% women candidates and 38.8% of their elected MPs were women.

LPC had 29% women candidates and 17.6 percent of their elected MPs were women.

There were 30 ridings where the NDP got 25% of the vote in 2008 where an incumbent NDP MP was not running in 2011. 10/30 candidates were women.

There were 44 ridings where the Liberals got 30% of the vote in 2008 where an incumbent Liberal MP was not running in 2011. 15/44 candidates were women.

Mon, 2015-06-29 03:06

#93

Pondering

Current numbers

NDP Total, 231 135 -male, 96 female (107 to fill)

Liberals total 271 184 - male, 87 female (67 to fill)

Conservatives, total, 255, 205 - male, 49 female (83 to fill)

Most common occupation

NDP, education, but led by a lawyer

Liberals, lawyer, but led by an educator

Conservatives, business, but led by a mail room clerk? Professional politician?

Random question, why don't more political science majors run for office?

Mon, 2015-06-29 03:31

#94

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The NDP appointed many candidates in Quebec in ridings in which there was no nomination battle. That one didn't speak French and another left on vacation so missed the election is a pretty clear indication that they were seat fillers which is the term I was thinking of but stuffers implies the same sort of thing.

WTF are you talking about? "Missed the election"?

Excuse me, she went on vacation during the campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellen_Brosseau#Controversies_and_crit...

During the 2011 federal election, Brosseau raised controversy when it was learned that she had spent part of the campaign on vacation in Las Vegas.....

An op-ed in the National Post criticized Brosseau's inexperience, writing that she is "an extreme example of what happens when people sign up to run for a party with little or no expectation of actually winning."[34] Two days after the election, allegations were made by both the defeated Liberal and Conservative candidates about irregularities on Brosseau's nomination papers. While each party has the chance to vet each other's nomination papers before the election, the other parties chose not to vet Brosseau's papers because no one believed she had a realistic chance of winning.

My point is that all the parties try to put the best candidate they can find to run in a riding. To imply that Liberals put women in unwinnable seats to up their quota is no more supportable than accusing the NDP of doing the same. Brosseau's seat was considered unwinnable. She didn't win it. Jack did. She just happened to be sitting in it. It wasn't assigned to her because it was a winnable or unwinnable riding.

Likewise, the Liberals looked for women candidates in all ridings and when they found suitable ones they nominated them. Some of those ridings were winnable and some not. There is zero evidence that the Liberals deliberately put women in unwinnable ridings to bump up their quota or that they don't offer them as much support as they do to male candidates which is the claim I am defending against.

I pointed to an observable pattern and raised obvious possibilities -- the only possible ones to explain this pattern.

Mon, 2015-06-29 06:03

#95

nicky

It's a little rich for Pondering to insult some NDP MPs as "seat stuffers" when she endlessly fawns over her beloved Justin who is by any measure the most unqualified federal leader in living memory.

Mon, 2015-06-29 13:47

#96

Pondering

nicky wrote:
It's a little rich for Pondering to insult some NDP MPs as "seat stuffers" when she endlessly fawns over her beloved Justin who is by any measure the most unqualified federal leader in living memory.

LOL, well like some of the NDP seat stuffers I think he will rise to the occasion quite nicely. I think it's interesting that I am so much more relaxed and confident of Trudeau's success than you are of Mulcair's given that he is leading in the polls. I think you know that Trudeau is a huge threat.

You can sputter your indignation all you like, gender parity in cabinet is good policy.

Mon, 2015-06-29 13:56

#97

NorthReport

Canadians are used to Liberal promises and that's why Liberals, for good reason, are not anywhere near government any more.

Mon, 2015-06-29 22:32

#98

quizzical

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Tue, 2015-06-30 01:58

#99

mark_alfred

I think the cabinet gender parity thing is a good initiative on Trudeau's part. Having the same rule for the Prime Minister's Office would also be good.

Fri, 2015-07-10 15:47

#100

terrytowel

Canada Prime Minister Jean Chretien Parachuting Female Candidates in 1993 & 1997 to have 75 (out of 308) female candidates run for the Liberals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bprrjYZv4Ok

Fri, 2015-07-10 16:04

#101

NorthReport

Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The
JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact

quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Trudeau promises gender parity in cabinet

Pages