Official Rabble Floor Crossing Thread

Rev Pesky wrote:

It's not important what Sandra Jansen thought, or who is running the Alberta PC party, or what the media says about floor-crossing.

There are really only two question here.

In the past, have the Alberta NDP expressed a negative opinion of floor-crossing? Yes they have, including the current Alberta NDP leadership.

Did they abandon that position the first time they were the 'receivers' of the floor-crossing? Yes they did.

If any here think no one is going to use this little event in the next Alberta election campaign, think again.

The Alberta NDP could have taken a principled position of supporting Sandra Jansen in her battle with the PC troglodytes, and either accepted her into caucus at the next election, or after a by-election (if Jansen chose to resign and run in one). In the meantime Jansen could have sat as an independent, votiing with the NDP. Principles upheld, and everyone happy, even Jansen's constituents.

As far as the expense of a by-election, I'll just point out that by-elections are held all the time, for a variety of reasons. One more or less isn't going to make a lot of difference.

 

 

Quote:

Gee, are we restricted to your two questions or do we get to have some of our own?

Questions are free.  What are YOUR questions?

I hope they're as plain and reasonable as Rev. Pesky's.

Anyway, full disclosure here.  I'm an "Easterner", from Toronto, no less.  And clearly the only reason I even care about any of this is my desire to put those Westerners back in their place.  Don't be fooled by my chin music about principles, or letting voters decide where their vote goes or whatever.  You can bet I'd NEVER criticize an Ontario party for doing this.

Quote:

Simons emphasizes that many Red Tories, in addition to Jansen, no longer feel comfortable in Kenney's PC machine.

May I just suggest again that the issue here isn't a couple of PCs feeling like their party is taking the wrong path, and wanting out, but rather the idea that having convinced electors to vote for them AND the PC party, they should now ask voters to vote for them AND another party?

That's all it is.  I'm happy to see them turn their backs on the PCs.  But they need to consult their constituents to make sure this is OK by them, too, and the only reasonable way to do that is by running again, and asking for their vote again.

Quote:

Simons emphasizes that many Red Tories, in addition to Jansen, no longer feel comfortable in Kenney's PC machine.

Did I miss a headline?  When did it become "Kenney's PC machine"?

Mighty Middle wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Anyway, full disclosure here.  I'm an "Easterner", from Toronto, no less.  And clearly the only reason I even care about any of this is my desire to put those Westerners back in their place.  Don't be fooled by my chin music about principles, or letting voters decide where their vote goes or whatever.  You can bet I'd NEVER criticize an Ontario party for doing this.

What is interesting Mr. Magoo is that there has been so much talk about this floor crossing being something regularly done in the West. However I pointed out that the NDP Governments in Manitoba and Sask have banned floor crossings, and gave concrete examples.

Yet quizzical (the Westerner) hasn't responded to how floor crossing is banned in those provinces, still using the narrative that Floor Crossings is an accepted Western practice. When clearly that isn't the case.

I guess you haven't heard that we've entered the post-truth era. Nowadays we can just say whatever favours our side without worrying about silly little facts.

jjuares wrote:

...Gee, are we restricted to your two questions or do we get to have some of our own?

You are free to ask as many questions as you want. In that this thread is titled "NDP Accepts Floor Crosser Without Having Run In By-Elxn" I thought I would restrict myself to questions pertaining to this issue. You may do otherwise,

My point was that what happened to Sandra Jansen, her experience in the Alberta PC party, what may have gone through her head when considering joining the NDP, all of the other things that may have influenced her decision, are irrelevant when considering the NDP response. The only thing to consider is why the NDP responded the way they did, specfically because of their past statements on floor-crossing.

I also offered what I thought was a principled position the NDP could have taken in response. A position that would have left their integrity intact, and at the same time emphasised the difference between the NDP and the PC party when it came to how they dealt with women in the party, and offer suport to Sandra Jansen at the same time.

See, the problem is this. Once a political party has sold its principles for 'a mess of pottage' as the saying goes, what is to prevent them from doing the same thing again? And perhaps that future event will be one which you feel strongly about, and which the party decides against your wishes. What then is your response? You have already accepted the loss of integrity, so you can't attack the party on that front.

This is about being able to believe the partry leadership when they say something.

For the record, I am not from 'the East', and the ony pearls I own are pearls of wisdom, and those I don't clutch in fear, but am ready to cast them when the occasion occurs... (yes, folks, that last is a joke, and you're entitled to laugh, either with me or at me).

Mighty Middle wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The only message of my silence is that I don't care to participate in threads started by habitual gossip-mongers.

The topic is the NDP policy on Floor Crossing that is hardly gossip.

quizzical wrote:

never mentioned Sun media once.

quizzical you wrote

quizzical wrote:

lol, he (Lorne Gunter) of the Alberta Report, joining forces with Ezra on how the AB NDP was trying to muzzle journalists fame....

imv, he's not even thin gruel on the credibility scale.....and if you want to talk "principles" as being your motivator then you just made it impossible to stand there "on principle".....lol 

 

Last time I checked Lorne Gunter works for Edmonton Sun which is Sun Media.

jjuares wrote:

 Yes, those outlets are to journalism as what cotten candy is to food. Yes, it is a food but see how healthy you are if you make that a staple of your diet. Someone quoting Lorne Gunter on a site that fancies otself as progressive. FFS

I apologize then. I said before I AM NOT a fan of the work of the Rebel, Edmonton Sun & Lorne Gunter and I wasn't trying to promote their work of right-wing ideology.

But the question was

quizzical wrote:

not 1 bit of criticism from any AB media on it either. it's only an issue in ON i guess lolol

I said yes, there was criticism from Lorne Gunter of the Edmonton Sun.

Now I'm being told that the Edmonton Sun IS NOT MEDIA, despite PEN Canada, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and the Canadian Association of Journalists saying the Edmonton Sun IS MEDIA.

But now that I know Rabble has policy where we cannot refrence Sun Media  I won't make the same mistake twice.

So thanks jjuares & quizzical for letting me know about this unknown policy that posters are forbidden to reference right-wing media to make a point. won't make the same mistake again.

Hmm actually here is Notley's comments on floor crossing from 2014.
And here is the most important part of the quote.

"When the MLA crosses the floor, it means they're abandoning their voters, unless the party has really really gone a different direction from the way they had originally presented themselves."

Now the reason why this is important is that not only Notley but Jansen is also making the argument that the PC's are going in a different direction than they way they had presented themselves. And Notley in 20014 said this is the circumstances that floor crossing is justified. This is exactly the circumstances she was saying floor crossing is justified.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e50lJ7YSM3I

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Hmm actually here is Notley's comments on floor crossing from 2014. And here is the most important part of the quote. "When the MLA crosses the floor, it means they're abandoning their voters, unless the party has really really gone a different direction from the way they had originally presented themselves." Now the reason why this is important is that not only Notley but Jansen is also making the argument that the PC's are going in a different direction than they way they had presented themselves. And Notley in 20014 said this is the circumstances that floor crossing is justified. This is exactly the circumstances she was saying floor crossing is justified. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e50lJ7YSM3I

And what, pray tell, is the 'different direction' that the Alberta PC party is taking now, compared to when they accepted the wholesale floor-crossing of the Wildrose Party. I would have thought that if the PC party was heading further right wing, that would have been the time when it became evident. But apparently Sandra Jansen had no misgivings about that direction, even though it was prior to the last election, wherein she ran on the PC ticket.

Given that the PC party at this point doesn't have a leader, one could question how they are going in a different direction now. The fact is, they're not going in any direction at all, at least until after the leadership election.

 

[/quote]
Well actually they ran as a centrist party last election pointing out that they fell in between WR and the NDP. And of course the heavy favourite to win the leadership wants to merge with the right wing party they denounced as being too extreme. And of course Jansen was against that. Furthermore she pointed out the behaviour towards her was something new to the party. If this isnt a new direction for the party what the hell is it?

jjuares wrote:

...Well actually they ran as a centrist party last election pointing out that they fell in between WR and the NDP. And of course the heavy favourite to win the leadership wants to merge with the right wing party they denounced as being too extreme. And of course Jansen was against that. Furthermore she pointed out the behaviour towards her was something new to the party. If this isnt a new direction for the party what the hell is it?

As I pointed out, that merger (in fact, if not in name) with Wildrose actually took place before the last election. And the rightward direction was pointed out at the time by Rachel Notley. Apparently Sandra Jansen didn't notice it, but the NDP certainly did.

So trying to claim now that suddenly there is some directional change in the Alberta PC party is just a rationalization for the NDP accepting a floor-crosser after being publicly oppposed to such things.

You may be able to fool yourself, but the Alberta voters won't be fooled, and the result of the floor-crossing is likely to be Sandra Jansen losing her seat in the next election, and others pointing to the lack of integrity of the NDP.

The sad part is there was a principled position the NDP could have taken. They chose not to. You agree with that choice, and are now trying to justify it. Sorry, but your argument is not reality based.

jjuares wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:

...Well actually they ran as a centrist party last election pointing out that they fell in between WR and the NDP. And of course the heavy favourite to win the leadership wants to merge with the right wing party they denounced as being too extreme. And of course Jansen was against that. Furthermore she pointed out the behaviour towards her was something new to the party. If this isnt a new direction for the party what the hell is it?

As I pointed out, that merger (in fact, if not in name) with Wildrose actually took place before the last election. And the rightward direction was pointed out at the time by Rachel Notley. Apparently Sandra Jansen didn't notice it, but the NDP certainly did.

So trying to claim now that suddenly there is some directional change in the Alberta PC party is just a rationalization for the NDP accepting a floor-crosser after being publicly oppposed to such things.

You may be able to fool yourself, but the Alberta voters won't be fooled, and the result of the floor-crossing is likely to be Sandra Jansen losing her seat in the next election, and others pointing to the lack of integrity of the NDP.

The sad part is there was a principled position the NDP could have taken. They chose not to. You agree with that choice, and are now trying to justify it. Sorry, but your argument is not reality based.

Huh? Jason Kenny of course is so-con and that is very different from my old MLA who was pro-choice, pro- same sex marriage. Those MLA's are on the way out as a vital part of the PC's. It is interesting that even in 2014 Notley said if there was a change of direction it was acceptable. Now you can give your oppinion that that isn't the case. But guess what? Others are entitled to their opinion as well and can sincerely believe that is the case as many people in this province and in the PC's for that matter do believe. And that doesn't make them unprincipled as much as you want to believe that. Your argument reeks of arrogance. I acknowledge that the idea of a change in direction is a point of debate. You don't. Anyone who disagrees with you is unprincipled.

Mighty Middle wrote:

jjuares if you support floor crossing more power to you

Quote:

Huh? Jason Kenny of course is so-con and that is very different from my old MLA who was pro-choice, pro- same sex marriage.

I'll ask again:  did Jason Kenney win the leadership and I didn't hear about it??

Or has Rona Ambrose taken the party on a wild ride to the right of Le Pen and Golden Dawn, and I didn't hear about it?

In actual policy terms that have actually been implemented, what's this big sea change to the CPC that we're all supposed to acknowledge as the perfectly reasonable exception to the usual NDP policy (and indeed, Notley's stated opinion)?

Please don't answer in terms of one of the leadership candidates.

Quote:

Yes, don't answer in terms of leadership because we know that has absolutely nothing to do with the direction of the party. Sheesh.

Leadership candidates are not the leader of the Party.

If Manuel Figueroa were a candidate for the leader of the CPC, it would not make any sense to suggest that the CPC has become Communist.

If -- IF! -- Jason Kenney is elected leader, and begins to implement unpalatable, hard-right policies that CPC MPs cannot agree with then, and only then, can they say they left the party because that party fundamentally changed.  And then, and only then, can Rachel Notley say "we only welcomed them because we recognized that their party fundamentally changed".

Rev Pesky wrote:

The Alberta NDP could have taken a principled position of supporting Sandra Jansen in her battle with the PC troglodytes, and either accepted her into caucus at the next election, or after a by-election (if Jansen chose to resign and run in one). In the meantime Jansen could have sat as an independent, votiing with the NDP. Principles upheld, and everyone happy, even Jansen's constituents.

 

I think this was the obvious win-win-win solution. So why didn't the Alberta NDP take it? The last opinion poll in Alberta has the Alberta NDP at just 14%, tied for 3rd/4th place with the Alberta Liberals! So this move is likely a strong appeal to the many people who have moved from the NDP back to the PC Party. This move by the Alberta NDP makes sense considering how low the Alberta NDP government's popularity is now and how they have to get people who have switched back to the PC's to move back to the NDP. The Alberta NDP needs Jansen to publicly endorse the NDP government to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Yes, don't answer in terms of leadership because we know that has absolutely nothing to do with the direction of the party. Sheesh.

Leadership candidates are not the leader of the Party.

If Manuel Figueroa were a candidate for the leader of the CPC, it would not make any sense to suggest that the CPC has become Communist.

If -- IF! -- Jason Kenney is elected leader, and begins to implement unpalatable, hard-right policies that CPC MPs cannot agree with then, and only then, can they say they left the party because that party fundamentally changed.  And then, and only then, can Rachel Notley say "we only welcomed them because we recognized that their party fundamentally changed".

Historically there have been crossovers to both the NDP and the CCF, and I'm guessing that in these cases it wasn't seen as a breach of some sort of stance of the NDP or CCF. Generally it's a win for a party that attacts a member from another party to crossover.  I'm guessing that because the NDP has lost more than they've gained via crossovers, that they recently (in Layton's time) came up with the argument of respect for constituents to mute the negativity of losing members so frequently.  My reading indicates this wasn't a strongly held view in Alberta.  Notley's comments condemning the mass crossover from the Wildrose to the PCs was quite qualified and more a criticism of the PCs becoming more right-wing, I feel.

It's the MP (or MLA) who is voted for and elected by the constituents, not the party.  So arguably if an MP or MLA feels he or she can better serve his or her constituents by crossing over into another party or by becoming an independent, then arguably that would be their call.  Granted, while it is the MP or MLA who is elected, it could be argued that their membership in a party is a key factor.  But if so, then they wouldn't even have the right to resign from a party and sit as an independent without a by-election.  I'm not sure if party membership should be the over-riding factor of an MP or MLA.  Should subservience to a party no matter what be attached to MPs or MLAs?  Independence to vote one's conscience against the party, along with independence to even leave the party and join another or sit as an independent, might be a good thing.  If one chooses to defy the party and vote against the directive of a party whip on principle, and is kicked out of the party, does that necessitate resigning one's seat and running in a by-election?  How much of a price do we wish to put on standing up for principle?

If MMP were to come into effect, then specifically for the district reps (as opposed to the riding reps) who would be elected on the basis of party, the idea that crossing over would require a by-election would take on more validity.

Yeah.  My previous thoughts on the matter were influenced by the blatant opportunism that crossings often showed.  However, I don't see that in this case.  In this case, it seems like someone who was bullied by a changing culture of the party she belonged to (the PCs).  Obviously, that would make it hard to effectively represent her constituents.  Why should she have to endure another election now?  Maybe it makes more sense that she should be judged after a full term of service to her constituents.

Quote:

Why would it be about her, and not the electorate?  Sorry if the hateful and spiteful party she chose turned out to be even more hateful and spiteful than she expected, but isn't this whole system supposed to be for the voters rather than the representatives?

Why should the electorate have to endure another election now?  After all, they haven't seen how well she'll perform as their MLA for the full term yet, and so may not have enough information to make a comprehensive decision yet on re-election.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-calls-on-patry-to-resign-seat-af... calls on Patry to resign seat after defection to Bloc[/url]

The NDP wouldn't support a BQ private member's bill to repeal the Clarity Act - despite the fact that the Sherbrooke Declaration negated the very basis of that act. It recognized the 50%+1 principle, and the right of Québec to decide the wording of a referendum question.

That shift (along with the Muskrat Falls issue) led Patry to leave the official opposition caucus and join the tiny BQ caucus. He decided not to run again in the 2015 election.

Quote:

Then how can the electorate of any riding make a decision regarding any candidate who's not yet been elected as an MP/MPP?

If they're disastisfied with the job that was done by the current MP/MLA, then they can try someone new, and evaluate them after the term they were elected for has expired, which is always the case (and should go without saying).  Anyway, I have no further thoughts on it.  For me, it's simply a win for the Alberta NDP that Jansen chose to leave the backward moving PC party and go to the Alberta NDP.  Granted, due to the federal position on the issue (adopted I'm guessing during Layton's time) accepting a crossover would be a mistake.  Here it's a win for the Alberta NDP, though.

Mighty Middle wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Yeah.  My previous thoughts on the matter were influenced by the blatant opportunism that crossings often showed.  However, I don't see that in this case. 

But when Lise St. Denis went from the official opposition (NDP) to the third party (Liberals) there was no opportunism as she had nothing to gain for going a step downwards. From 2nd place party to 3rd place party. NDP MP Guy Caron said

Quote:

New Democrat MP Guy Caron, who chairs the Quebec caucus for his party, came out swinging against what he called an “obviously very disappointing” decision by his former caucus colleague.

“Changing political affiliation is a blatant lack of respect for democracy. It encourages cynicism towards politicians,” Caron told a news conference in Ottawa.

“If the Liberals think it is what the voters of the riding want, we challenge them to run Mme. St-Denis in a byelection,” Caron said, echoing a long-standing NDP policy proposal that would force anyone wishing to switch political parties to vacate their seat and face the electorate. St.-Denis said she would not be stepping down.

NDP party brass then hired a firm to robo call her riding.

Quote:

The NDP hired Strategic Communications who rolled out a ‘robo-caller’ automatic dialing machine which began calling up every single one of the 40,000 voters in her St. Maurice-Champlain riding.

“How do you feel about your turn-coat MP? If you would like to tell her just press the “1” digit on your telephone key pad.”

The automatic dialer took care of the rest, switching the call to St-Denis’ Parliament Hill office one call after another endlessly day and night.

It didn’t take long to jam up all the lines. St-Denis’ secretaries were furious. They couldn’t do any work. She complained to Bob Rae, to Bell Canada, to the NDP, to Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer.  It was no use. The calls just kept coming.

Enough to make St-Denis rue the day she crossed the floor to the Liberals.  Where does political calling end and crank calling begin?

Just like Conservatives have been doing in Mount-Royal to Liberal Irwin Cotler.

This was just the start against St-Denis. The NDP set up a dump St-Denis petition on the internet, to force her to resign and run again in a by-election. It picked up 1,600 names.

Interim party leader Nycole Turmel showed up with two New Democrat MPs in Grand-Mère to demonstrate in front of St-Denis’ riding office.

Two MPs were appointed to look after what the dippers called the “orphan” riding. “Orphan?” as if St-Denis had disappeared off the face of the earth.

They were later fined for violating CRTC rules on robocalls

you're quoting shit without citing it and making claims wthout citation.

there was another poster here awhile back who did this too. was it you or another? haven't seen anyone doing this for a few months now so can't remember.

Quote:

How can they "try someone new" if "they haven't seen how well [they]'ll perform as their MLA for the full term yet?

That was my question.

They can elect him/her for the term.  Then after the term that he/she has been elected for is up, the electorate can assess his/her performance and re-elect him/her if they're satisfied with his/her performance.  Or try someone new if they're not satisfied.