Will Linda McQuaig be barred from running for the NDP?

She should be leader.

I don't think she has any interest in running for the leadership.

Based on the piece she wrote a few months ago about her experience running for office, I'm not sure she will even run for MP again:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/03/17/what-i-learned-fro...

Link says:

Quote:

According to McQuaig, a self proclaimed “journalist and author”

I love lines like that. "We hate her, so she can't possibly be a journalist or author." Even though she is paid to do journalism and has published some books, which seems to make her by definition botha  journalist and an author.

I'm not too keen on Ezra Levant, but he is clearly a journalist and author, no scare quotes needed. 

Linda has said in an older piece that she will not run again. It would be a pleasant suprise if she did seek the NDP leadership.

A few weeks ago a "Tar Sands Exec" came out and said that some of it should be left in the ground. Last summer when Linda spoke the truth, I did an online check of the Alberta newspapers. It was suprising to find them tilting in favor of Linda.I am no expert on the affairs in Israel....but I do know west bank settlements started right after the 1967 war when Nasser threatened to wipe Israel off the map. In order to survive, Israel had to launch its only option, a pre-empt air stike.

Having read everyone of Linda McQuaig's books, I can tell you that she is NOT some "self proclaimed journalist and author."

Her publishers list the many praises of her work on each of her books. They come from newspapers , journalists and politicians  from around the world. Go to any library accross Canada and sign out one of her books and see for yourself.

Debater wrote:

I don't think she has any interest in running for the leadership.

Based on the piece she wrote a few months ago about her experience running for office, I'm not sure she will even run for MP again:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/03/17/what-i-learned-fro...

She is unfortunately wrong about this:

Back in my perch in journalism (with no plans to run again), I’m wondering if we’re well served by a conventional wisdom that has reduced the voter to a simple-minded consumer who’s only out for herself.

Could it be that the voter is actually hungry to be treated as a citizen — that is, treated as someone (to paraphrase Canadian author Gilbert Reid) who’s an adult, has an attention span, some knowledge of history and empathy for others, is patient, open to debate, and even willing to make sacrifices for the common good?

While voters don't want to be percieved as simple-minded consumers they are not patient and willing to listen to long debates and complicated explanations and they don't want to make sacrifices either. Nor should they be, trade-offs maybe, but not sacrifices unless they are self-directed. Framing things as sacrifices turns them into a negative and supports Conservatism. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society (Oliver Wendal Holmes). People have attention spans but not for politics.

That doesn't mean people don't understand the benefits of "common good". That is why Canadians are so supportive of Medicare.

All in all Canadians are pretty satisfied with Canada and with good reason. This is a pretty great country. Number one requirement for the federal government is that they are good administrators of Canada as is. It is very true that in Canada governments defeat themselves. it is also true that it generally takes 10 to 15 years for that to happen.

Trudeau, like Harper, will have bad polling days when the public wants to send a message but that doesn't mean on voting day they will choose someone else.

Like it or not, most of the people who are swing voters want the Coles Notes version in the final weeks of the election and see no point in paying attention at any other time. That doesn't make them simple-minded. They rightfully know that paying attention makes no practical difference unless the issue is enormous and even then maybe not. For example, C-51, there was lots of opposition to it but not enough to impact the election because during the election they were looking first for the strongest economic manager and administrator.

The arguments that convinced Quebecers to support universal daycare were not altruistic they were economic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/22/canada-missed-the-boat-on-econom...

California has the fastest-growing economy in the United States despite putting a price on carbon emissions, but Canada has failed to recognize that this is not a "false choice" with a negative economic impact, Orbinski said Monday.

"For Canada, we have been stuck in this paradox," he said. "We are lagging behind economically in terms of the kind of advances that other nations like Germany, Spain, the nations of continental Europe, the U.K., China even, the kind of policies that they're engaging in terms of dealing with the effects of climate change."

The development of alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind power, has fuelled a knowledge- and technology-based economy in California, which has experienced a fifth year of drought driven by climate change, Orbinski said Monday.

Now there is the winning argument. That we would also be doing the right thing for fighting climate change is the bonus that makes people feel righteous, but it is not the driver.

The free market will kill off the oil sands. Alberta is like the horse and buggy workers of history insisting that cars will never take over because horses are more dependable and never run out of gas and rarely breakdown.

The world has yet to reduce overall use of fossil fuels but it will get there because the technologies to reduce their use are developing expotentially and can easily compete economically over the long run. Electric vehicles will reduce air pollution in cities which will lead to cost savings on everything from cleaning to health care. Even without climate change it is economically superior.

There may be trade-offs, but that is not the same thing as sacrifice. People are willing to trade a lot for water they can swim in and drink without fear.

Government is a tool through which we can buy collectively to reduce costs, like a co-op. You want to call that socialism, fine, whatever. I just call it common sense.

swallow wrote:

Any sane person admits some oil has to be left in the ground. The position that all oil must under all circumstances be extracted is impossible on any number of levels. The rest is "tone." 

Linda McQuaig can't be "leader" of the NDP since she doesn't speak French, but if party members were willing to think of leadership differently, she could be the co-spokesperson with (say) Alexandre Boulerice or Romeo Saganash, even without a seat in parliament. (This is the Quebec Solidaire model of leadership - a party "leader" with no effective power, plus two co-spokespersons, one woman and one man, one with a seat in the legislature and the other a social movement activist without a seat). 

Given the NDP suffers from a "lost generation" in that those who ought to be leaders now would normally have come to the party during those years when the party had nobody coming in, this type of model could be a creative solution.

I like Saganash particularly and others. During the last leadership I supported Saganash until he dropped out and then, unfortunately backed Mulcair.

Here is a question: Does Wab Kinew speak French? He is one of the most powerful communicators I have seen in English.

I still rather like Dr. Liu of Doctors without Borders (MSF) -- I do not know how long the terms of the presidency of that organization last so do not know if she might be available. She is another option that might be good -- if she is interested.

The co-leader model should not be dismissed as a credible option for the NDP now.

The question really should be, "Does Linda McQuaig want to be involved with the NDP?" She gave it her best shot twice to be elected? The NDP were blown out of Toronto. mainly due to the "Anyone but Harper" tidal wave. As a journalist, she does not have to tow to the party line. Her voice is one of experience and  ability to create ineresting dialoge on current Canadian/World events. What more can anyone ask from a very proud Canadian citizen.

i wish shes the NDP leader

i voted ndp all my life, i will probably stop voting for any party because of how they treat people like linda and their failure as a party.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Just a note on the California economy, seeing as someone has posted on it already:

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Agriculture (including fruit, vegetables, dairy, and wine production) is a major California industry. Airborne exports of perishable fruits and vegetables amounted to approximately $579 million in 2007. By way of comparison, California exported more agricultural products by air that year than 23 other states did by all modes of transport.

That's green?

No, that isn't green but it doesn't negate the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/22/canada-missed-the-boat-on-econom...

California has the fastest-growing economy in the United States despite putting a price on carbon emissions, but Canada has failed to recognize that this is not a "false choice" with a negative economic impact, Orbinski said Monday.

"For Canada, we have been stuck in this paradox," he said. "We are lagging behind economically in terms of the kind of advances that other nations like Germany, Spain, the nations of continental Europe, the U.K., China even, the kind of policies that they're engaging in terms of dealing with the effects of climate change."

The development of alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind power, has fuelled a knowledge- and technology-based economy in California, which has experienced a fifth year of drought driven by climate change, Orbinski said Monday.

We are still going to be using fossil fuels for some time. We don't need to increase capacity. We have enough. We need to develop other aspects of our economy because oil is going to be a smaller and smaller part of it. Alberta needs to understand that other provinces are not willing to risk catastrophe. That California flies out it's produce is immaterial.

NDP leadership reaction last summer to Linda's public statements was shallow and non supportive. My gut feeling has always

been this was a harbinger of things to come. The obliteration of the NDP in Toronto.

quizzical wrote:

lol what other provinces?

every province already has pipelines including QC.

Not that contain bitumen and just because we have some doesn't mean we have to accept more. We can choose to limit our exposure, and that is what we are choosing to do.

It was pointed out earlier here that Linda has said she is not going back into politics. Whoever started this thread must not be a regular reader of Linda's newspaper articles.I had read that in one of her first return articles in the Toronto Star as well.  It really is a non-issue, unless she has had a change of heart lately.

An interesting dynamic here is that both the Conservatives and the Liberals allow MPs to be more outspoken concerning their personal stance and even the party can take a position not in accordance with the leadership.

The Liberal Party Convention was permitted to vote in favor of guaranteed minimum income even though the party has not adopted it as official policy. They also voted in favor of marijuana legalization which was eventually voluntarily adopted by leadership. The Conservative party has allowed individual members to express their anti-abortion views even if it prevented them from bringing it up in parliament.

I would not call either the Liberals or the Conservatives democratic parties but they seem more democratic than the NDP and more true to their members.

If the NDP loosened the leash a little maybe they would gain more support from traditionally leftist or progressive Canadians.

Maybe this is part the disconnect between the identity members and supporters assign the party versus the way the general public, meaning people like myself, perceive the party.

The party has spent decades deliberately cultivating a centrist public identity so that is how I see them. There were no individual MPs speaking up for marijuana legalization. None speaking out against Israel for their settlement policy. The liberal candidate that condemned Israel's bombing of civilians wasn't forced to retract or resign. Conservative anti-abortionists were permitted to bitterly oppose their party's position and agitate for bills in parliament even if they were prevented from presenting any.

The NDP's message discipline gives insiders and outsiders a very difference perception of the party. NDP supporters condemn me for supporting the Liberals because I see little difference between the NDP and the Liberals, but that is exactly what the NDP's goal has been for decades; to show that the NDP is as centrist as the Liberals. When people have noted how similar the parties are the NDP defence has been along the lines "but we will follow through" basically admitting that the parties are extremely similar.

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

An interesting dynamic here is that both the Conservatives and the Liberals allow MPs to be more outspoken concerning their personal stance and even the party can take a position not in accordance with the leadership.

When it comes to pandering and bootlicking to the Israel lobby, the Conservatives and Liberals are second to none.

The Conservatives are far more religiously loyal to the anti-Palestinian line than anyone in Israel, including Netanyahu. No Con candidate would ever dream of saying anything critical of Israel. Anti-Jewish, sure, but not anti-Israel.

Likewise for the Liberals. They are the second-best friends of Israel. You apparently have forgotten Lesley Hughes, a legendary Winnipeg investigative journalist and progressive, and Holocaust educator, who was turfed by Stéphane Dion in 2008 because he was too stupid and scared to understand an article she had written about 9/11.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/liberals-ask-candidate-to-step-down-over-9... ask candidate to step down over 9/11 comments[/url]

To the resounding applause of the Canadian Jewish Congress, of course. Thanks, Stéphane, mission accomplished.

So the reason I hound the NDP non-stop over this issue is simple. We have a right to expect better of the NDP. The same cannot be said of the Liberals or Conservatives.

I was not saying Liberal policy is any better than Conservative or NDP policy on Israel. I was referring to this:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/gen-andrew-leslies-frank-talk-...

Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie was last seen making Conservative and Sun News heads explode with criticisms of Israel’s “indiscriminate” and “dumb” bombing of civilians in Gaza. But on Saturday at the general meeting of the Liberals’ Ontario wing in Markham, during a foreign policy session for delegates, Mr. Leslie did not talk like a man on a leash.

Andrew Leslie, as a Liberal candidate, was able to openly criticize Israel. When challenged Trudeau stated that Leslie could speak for himself. He did not criticize Leslie much less cut him lose. Have I missed an NDP candidate or MP speaking out against Israel and getting away with it?

Like you, my expectations of the Liberals are not high. They are a centrist establishment status quo party. Unlike the NDP they have never been anything else.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let's stop having a double standard here and expect the same from all parties. If some parties never live up then so be it. It is tiresome having nonstop criticism of the NDP and when anyone points out that it is hypocritcal the Liberal boosters just admit the double standard that there are higher expectations of the NDP.

Really there should only be the same standard for all.

It is ridiculous that we get the tortured logic that the NDP is worse than the Liberals becuase while they really are better than the Liberals, we don't expect as much from the poor Liberal Party.

Let's stop that here, now.

They aren't worse than the Liberals they are the same as the Liberals. I expect better of the Liberals than of the Conservatives. There are some things the Conservatives would never do that the Liberals will. For example, I didn't expect the Conservatives to accept drug injection sites. I do expect it of the Liberals. The Liberals promised to looking into bulk buying of drugs on behalf of the provinces. The Conservatives would never do such a thing.

But yes, I did learn not to expect anything more of the NDP than I would of the Liberal party. That's why I had no trouble supporting Trudeau particularly once he committed to marijuana legalization.

If I cannot expect better of the NDP then they are redundant.

Oh don't be angry Unionist, I'm agreeing with you.  Given the renewal process, now is the time for riding associations to make some clear demands that future election candidates will not be vilified for past reasonable expression of ideas.

I often feel like I'm about to be sternly scolded wheneven I have these fun exchanges with you as you grill me with questions.  But I digress.  Anyway, absolutely, yes, or present.

Regarding the Green Party, it seems to me that they completely knuckled under due to May's pressure.  Just my impression.

ETA:  I do apologize for my initial kinda over-the-top expression of my feeling  --> alas, 'twas a stream-of-consciousness thing that in retrospect was not appropriate (I did edit the above).  I'm a kinda placid laid back guy of average intellect, and so the deep almost unbridled passion (coupled with encyclopedic grilling) that you put into these discussions sometimes does occasionally weird me out.  That said, I respect you expressing your ideas, and doing so in whatever fashion you see fit.

..didn't know where to post this excellent 29 min audio by linda mcquaig. thought i might put this thread to more use if you don't mind unionist? 

Public Ownership Has Led Canadian Development

Linda McQuaig tells the success stories of public ownership, such as Ontario Hydro, the Canadian National Railway, and the CBC.

Phil asks her opinion of the closure of GM Oshawa. McQuaig states that she supports the workers' demand that the plant be nationalized to produce electric vehicles.

Absolutely. Including public transport vehicles. I'd love to see smaller public transport vehicles in smaller centres and less-travelled routes. We have one at the western end of the island, in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, but I don't think it is electric yet.

Boulerice is speaking out again about Palestine, but he is still treading softly. I've been invited to a party at a nearby pub, but his team had the good sense not to call it a victory party.

As for Saganash, as far as I know now he wants to take part in Indigenous politics, not federal parliamentary politics. Especially making UNDRIP reality. He'll be thrilled by the elections in Winnipeg Centre and in Nunavut.

..txs