I explained this at length with a blow by blow history. But yes, floor crossings:
In early 2005 the NDP pushed for significant NDP priorities. These went through only thanks to Belinda Stronach being induced to cross the floor and the dramatic vote of a dying Chuck Cadman for the budget..
The sponsorship scandal broke and worsened as the eyar went on: three Liberals crossed the floor with two of them saying they would vote against the Martin government specifically due to the scandal. (The third voted with Martin.)
At the time the NDP had an MP that lost the nomination and sat as an independent. She also vowed to vote against Martin and was unreachable to Layton.
Layton tried to negotiate a new arrangement for the 2006 budget with Martin -- focusing on health care. Martin told Layton to buzz off because he no longer had the votes.
Harper, the BQ and these independents had declared that they were going to defeat the government. Harper was attacking the NDP daily for propping up Harper saying his party should be defeated as well. Layton tried to negotiate for time to delay the fall of the government but Martin would have nothing to do with that.
The idea that Harper needed the NDP was false -- the BQ and even Liberal defectors were committed to bring down the government as well as Harper. In fact Harper would ahve preferred the NDP not support the motion as he clearly intended to use the NDP support of Martin fro earlier in the year in the campaign -- and he said so. Harper did not need a seconder from another party but he likely would have used one of the Liberal defectors (who left the Liberal caucus due to the scandal and vowed to vote down the government) if Layton had not cooperated.
Layton, seeing there was nothing left to do moved to distance himself and supported the non-confidence motions.
The non confidence motion was passed 171-133. The NDP had 18 members. You can see if they had voted with Martin the Liberals would have been defeated 153-151. The Liberals had 133 members but one was the Speaker -- however, one independent Liberal voted with Martin. there were two vacancies including Cadman who had voted with the government before but had later died.
It is an absolute lie to suggest that Layton and the NDP could have prevented the defeat of Martin. There was blood in the water and both the BQ and the Conservatives wanted the defeat and were not going to stop given they had been trying to defeat the government for a year. Only with the death of Cadman and two Liberal and one NDP defection to the side of defeating the government did that become possible. As I say, when Layton saw it was inevitable and heard the rhetoric from Harper about the NDP protecting Liberal sleaze, he put a knife into the already dead body of the Liberal government. It is false to say the NDP took the Liberals down. It is accurate to say they were brought down by their own defections due to the sponsorship scandal.
After the defeat, there were reports that the Liberals planned to use this defeat against the NDP by blaming them for it in spite of the reality of the numbers. Layton's enthusiasm -- designed to create distance was to be used against him. Liberals like Pondering have flogged this talking point ever since. However, the Liberal war rooms stopped when people rightly pointed out that it was bullshit. However, some disaffected New Democrats and journalists either through sloppiness or design neglect to remember all these facts and the numbers and repeat it to this day.
This should be a sticky -- thanks to Pondering we keep coming back to this even though the facts are completely against her.
I have in the past named each of the independents and specific dates but this is the summary.
Nicky
This is the SEVENTH time you have broken your promise.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep the PROMISE you made at the link below
http://rabble.ca/comment/1522906#comment-1522906
To a) Not to respond to any of my thread b) Ignore me
Thank you.
Terryt..l as you may know a unilateral offer without consideration is not enforcable.
You will also recall that I amended my offer not to comment on your posts if you submitted them all under a discrete heading entitled "Shameless Liberal Trolling" or similar title. Unfortunately you have not done so but have chosen instead to pollute numerous different topics with your nonsense.
I'm not the one that made a promise, YOU DID
So Nicky
For the EIGHTH time you have broken your promise.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep the PROMISE you made at the link below
http://rabble.ca/comment/1522906#comment-1522906
To a) Not to respond to any of my thread b) Ignore me
Thank you.
You have made the request. You are not getting the answer you wish. And now for goodness sake, stop polluting this and every other thread with the same post.
Nicky needs to put up or shut up. After all it was he who the promise, not me.
And he/ she has explained her/ his position. You may not like it and if you wish to continue to express that point of view private message her/ him and do not continue derailing this thread with these absurd repetitive posts.
Then he shouldn't respond to me, it is that simple.
So are you going to accept my offer Terryt...l? If not perhaps you should stop responding to me.
But terry towel you do not need to derail threads to get your message across. Private message Nicky and let the rest of us have done with this.
Nicky didn't write anything in blood, swear on a bible, or make a legal commitment. If I saved all the posts in which people swore off responding to me I am sure I would have at least 5 miscreants to chastise but why waste the time. All members have the right to respond to any post they choose to.
Teerryt..l, all ypou have to do is submit all of your posts to the topic "Shameful Liberal Trolling" and I will absolutely ignore you.
Then Nicky should have taken the high road to agree to disagree. & Nicky could have said something in the heat of the moment. That is fine. But the difference here is that he started a campaign on the rabble forum to get people to ignore me. Which gained no traction at all. It is one thing to say "I'm not talking to you again" to saying "I recommend that the rest of you (rabble) stop giving him oxygen." That is the difference. So I'm holding Nicky to his "promise" which broken about 8 times.
You are DEFLECTING. So I'm holding you to your FIRST offer, cause you were the one to start the pledge. Not me. You can't go back and try to rewite your pledge.
Pls keep your promise (which you yourself made) and ignore me. Thanks
Another DEFLECTION as you cannot keep your promises. Besides I'm not the one who said you should ignore my posts.
It was you.
So the question is why can't you keep your promises?
http://rabble.ca/comment/1522906#comment-1522906
Terrytowel I just caught up on this thread. May I have the last two minutes back?
I am not sure what you are trying to achieve but it is not helping you.
People in frustration with another often that they will ignore them and -- speaking for myself -- an effort is actually made. But unless you withdraw from the board these posts are part of the context and you find yourself responding anyway -- and you feel you ahve every right to respond to provocation.
It is unfair to be so obnoxious that you push someone to the point where they declare that they do not want to respond and then try to hold them to that. I don't mean to be nasty to you but you are the most repetative poster here and this is likely the biggest problem for you. I certainly would defend your right to say anything the first time but when you copy that same response to multiple threads people go bananas. In part you are saying your comment was so valuable that it -- in its 20th incarnation -- is more important than the effort someone makes to write something for the first time. Please stop repeating the same post.
Because you asked I will abide by your request. I should mention I have tried (not withstanding the back and forth with Nicky) not to repeat myself on this board lately.
Thanks -- I really think this is harming you so it will be better.
Like I have said, you are the voice of reason here on rabble.ca
And I'll will watch my repeating things. I have tried you know.
I don't, it's a false equivalency. In my opinion the majority of women who become involved in prostitution are harmed by it or regret it. There is definitely a portion of women who consider it a good profession that affords them a generous lifestyle, but I put it to you that those women will continue working as aways. No job this harmful and dangerous to so many women would be tolerated in any other field. Jobs such as firefighter, police officer, soldier, are tolerated because they rescue or defend us and for that they are generally honoured.
Part of bill C-36 references preventing the institutionalization of prostitution as an industry. Supporters reference New Zealand but even there it depends on how you define success. That battle has been fought in other threads. I highly recommend the sex worker's forum for counter arguments. In Ireland 90% of workers are from impoverished countries. Germany has similar numbers. I don't really see the benefit of turning Canada into a brothel for foreign workers even if they really really really want to do it. This is not a "job" that attracts many Canadian women. Nor is it something that many men want access to. Apparently the lifetime number for men who have ever accessed a prostitution is around 7% but if you ask how many did in the past year it drops to 1%. Presumably customers and workers are not one to one. That means the percentage of women who "want" this work is tiny. For that we would allow the blight of brothels that teach men sex is something that can be purchased. They can even choose race and other attributes. That demeans women and sex. Nothing could be more objectifying. If sex can be just a job, then wives should do it for their partners in the same sense that they do any other houseold chores. If we legitimize prostitution then it is just a chore. Rape is diffferentiated from simple assault for a reason.
I have not got access to my own computer tonight so I can't share links but to be fair you must hear both sides and so far the legitimization side has much louder voices. It's important to think of all the ramifications of having super brothels and what that says about all women not just those who work them.
This is a highly respected publication.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-d...
Even if it only got a tenth of that bad in Canada it is a terrible thing to open our door to and to profit from.
I believe it is the executive. A couple of conventions back, under Mulcair, 6 ridings submitted marijuana legalization as a resolution to be voted on. The executive changed it to a resolution recommitting to decriminalization. The NDP has access to experts on every aspect of marijuana so they clearly didn't want to know. If Mulcair can totally hijack the NDP and force it to follow his lead, like Harper has his followers, then the NDP is not much of a progressive party and definitely not to be trusted with the reins of the nation if they are that easily browbeaten.
Yes, or rather whatever principles he has, they don't make up for his other characteristics. There are moment I remember that clarified Trudeau and Mulcair. When the Quebec Soccer Federation banned sports hijabs from high school teams Trudeau condemned it instantly while Mulcair was more diplomatic and sent a letter to the World Soccer Federation. The Canadian Soccer Federation was ready to expel Quebec if they didn't modify their decision. I preferred Trudeau's instant condemnation. He is a man of conviction. He has also called prostitution violence against women which tells me he understands it from my perspective and is supportive of the Swedish model. I was disappointed that he voted against C 36 but I know the only way he would likely amend it would be to remove all penalties from women regardless of their location. I also like his robust defence of the Clarity Act.
This opens up a huge can of worms. First Nations would have to be included in negotiations and would be free to secede from Quebec. Their treaties are with Canada. They could even decide on independence. That's what I would do. But their borders do not follow provincial borders, so once we go down that road the whole separation thing could destabilize the entire country. I believe Canada is much more than the sum of its parts. I don't believe there is any real risk of another referendum so to some extent it is all very theoretical. On the other hand if you read up about the 1995 referendum on wikipedia you will discover there was vote tampering and it was never fully investigated. The difference between yes and no was 1%. The odd thing is the Sherbrooke Declaration isn't particularly popular in Quebec.
Absolutely. I believe he will keep is marijuana promise because it will provide him with bonus taxes and stimulate the economy. Not just recreational, but medical research and industrial and food products from the oil fabric from the rest. It has even been incorporated into cement. The Liberals have a habit of being a step ahead of general public opinion on changing social mores. It couldn't be easier to foresee where marijuana is going. Better to get their first. He will convene an all party committee and he favors ranked ballots which I also favor. The NDP favors MMP which I am not sold on.
Agreed, and I was really offended to hear what I consider right-wing arguments such as high taxes chasing professionals away and the importance of balanced budgets so as not to burden future generations. I find that especially damaging as activists work so hard to educate people away from that kind of thinking because it isn't true.
And what does that say about the party that they can be so easily controlled. I can't answer any more tonight but I will continue tomorrow night.
It was the week right after the Jiam Ghomeshi revelations. An mp approached Trudeau on the bus asking him if he had heard about an incident that was going around. He had not and she told him about it. He immediately set up a meeting between the Liberal and NDP party whips and the two MPs involved. There was also an NDP lawyer present as friend to one of the victims. At that meeting everyone was told that the information given would be used to decide how to proceed.
A week later, without even informing the Liberal caucus first, the two men were suspended pending further investigation. The NDP was given 2 hours notice. Trudeau said it was because he believed what he had heard which left him no choice but to act. The two men were not even told why they were being suspended other than misconduct. Trudeau said it was two MPs from another party. He asked the speaker of the house to set up an investigation and create a protocol for misconduct between MPs.
Mulcair accused Trudeau of revictimizing the women.
The speaker refused to set up an investigation unless the women were willing to make a formal complaint. Trudeau hired a human rights lawyer to investigate and present a confidential report. The men were permitted to review the report and did not contest it although they continued proclaiming their innocence.
Everything else was information released by the NDP including confirming that it was NDP MPs that had made the complaints.
In cases of domestic abuse the police lay charges regardless of whether or not the victims want charges laid while confidentiality is maintained. The names are never reported.
In my view knowing what the men had done Trudeau had no choice but to suspend the MPs. Unlike a normal employer the leader of the party has absolute power to expel a candidate from caucus. These men were lawmakers representing the Liberal party. It is the duty of the leader to dismiss such men from the party.
Trudeau gained a lot of respect from me for his prompt action. All too often such men are protected as Ghomeshi was protected by the women's unwillingness to make an "official" complaint.
These women are also lawmakers. The moment they told the leader of the Liberal party that two Liberal MPs had sexually victimized them it was official. Trudeau had every right to dismiss the men from caucus.
In my view the NDP was afraid the event would benefit Trudeau because he acted, so Mulcair accused him of revictimizing the women. For a full month the NDP released articles and gave interviews while the Liberals maintained silence.
Same here. I was part of the Orange Crush of 2011 but I didn't know about the Sherbrooke Declaration. I liked Mulcair for awhile but the more I got to know him the less I liked him. I think in his personal life he is probably a great guy but I don't like his politics.
I hope you are right that Mulcair is the problem but I don't think you are.
And you know this for a fact because you were personally in on all these discussions?
You have a right to your opinion about how Trudeau or Mulcair handled this, but to not only vicously attack anyone who disagreed with your interpretation and set yourself up as the moral arbiter of what was right and wrong in this situation is disgusting.
This is news to me. You've been on these boards for over 2 years, having been critical of the NDP and Mulcair from the start.
No, because it was all reported.
Who did I viciously attack? Everyone has a right to judge the right and wrong of this situation and to make a moral judgement and declare it. All of these people are political figures, lawmakers, party leaders, it is my duty to judge them. Everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions and to share them. I do feel very strongly about the abuse of women, being one myself. I am delighted that both men were expelled from the party and that after Oct. 19th neither will likely be MPs and I'm glad that it didn't take an "official" complaint for it to happen.
Trudeau never revealed any of the details, not even to the men who were accused. They complained publically that they couldn't defend themselves because they didn't know what they were being accused of.
I wasn't born the day I joined the board. I existed before then and I have often stated that I didn't see Mulcair as angry. I agreed he did a great job cross-examining Harper on Duffy. Early on I didn't like his handling of various issues but I didn't dislike his public persona. I have no respect for the way in which he handled the suspension of the Liberal MPs. He crossed a line and so did Nicole Turmel and Megan Leslie.
I believe the victims gave Mulcair permission to accuse Trudeau publically of revictimizing the women but I don't believe that they asked him do. I think he, or an NDP representative passed the statement by the women asking if they objected to them using it.
Yeah is Pondering claiming she was once something other than a Liberal? Her first posts were scathing criticisms of Layton for bringing down Martin in 2006. She has no shame. Completely absurd.
I voted for Layton and contributed to the Quebec Orange Crush despite what he did in 2005. I voted for Dion. This is only the second time I can recall voting Liberal.
You have no shame with your perpetual personal attacks. You don't get to define who I am. Spending your time telling people not to respond to me and talking about me tells me all I need to know about you.
That again? You have got to be kidding.
We covered the fact that when the Martin government fell, the NDP had already lost the balance of power and could not have stopped that from happening. This is not opinion. You are arguing against objective fact. Simple math.
I ignore most of your stuff these days but this is straight up dishonesty on an issue that has been so well discussed that you cannot claim ignorance.
We also covered the fact that Jack Layton made a deal with Harper to second the motion for the confidence vote. Without Layton there would have been no confidence vote for Martin to lose.
You are being disingenuous to focus solely on the vote numbers ignoring the fact that the vote wouldn't have happened without Layton's deal with Harper.
Back in 2005/2006 I didn't pay that much attention to politics even during the election (although I did vote green). We should probably stay reasonably on topic. but could someone provide me some links to information on what exactly happened?
I was just on another board where this line "The Liberals and Conservatives have made childcare promises for decades – and failed to deliver." from the NDP platform is getting ripped almost as bad as the LPC gun policy, due to Layton apparently pulling the plug on Martin's minority - after Martin had the 5 year, $5 billion dollar deal signed by all 10 provinces. Nobody has contested this claim yet. When you say "Layton no longer held the balance of power" is this because of floor crossings? How could a party lose the balance of power mid-term? And I'm purely guessing here, but I'm assuming that the CPC+BQ must have outnumbered the LPC+NDP, so if two leaders needed to agree on a vote of non-confidence, couldn't Harper have just had the leader of the BQ at the time (still Duceppe?) second the motion if Layton refused?
I'll save any potential response to your specific points (such as it's only a small percentage of women who want to do it - so what?) for later in the weekend when I hopefully have more time. But while actually the smaller arguments are not identical, the major crux of the legalization argument for both is: "Some people are going to do this anyway. It would probably be better if they didn't, but it doesn't harm anyone else if they do, so what right do we have to impose a moral judgement (marijuana/prostitution is wrong) on them? Further, more harm is caused to the individuals by the prohibition of the act then by the act itself. Lastly, by legalizing the (product or service) the government can regulate/license the sale of (product or service), generating revenues to help offset the cost of public education about the dangers of (product or service) and treatment/rehab, etc, while simultaneously dealing a blow to organized crime by eliminating a revenue stream. The intent is not to legitimize (product or service), it's simply to reduce the overall harm caused to society."