Official Rabble Floor Crossing Thread

mark_alfred wrote:

...It's the MP (or MLA) who is voted for and elected by the constituents, not the party ...

This is a direct contradiction of what Rachel Notley said back when.

Rachel Notley on floor crossing

Quote:

...Often, people vote, not on the basis of the candidate, but rather the party. And so, by doing that, that means voters are selecting the MLA because they believe in what the party stands for.

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

I emphasized the 'really, really', but I think if one watches the video you'll see that I wasn't adding that emphasis. It was put in by Notley herself.

Now the argument of jjaures and others is hinged upon that 'unless the party has really, really gone a different direction'. Well, I think if one was arguing this change of direction happened when the PC's welcomed the leadership and others of the Wildrose party into the fold, I would agree with them. But that happened prior to the last election, while Sandra Jansen was a party member. Yet it didn't prevent her from running as a PC in the election following the event.

In fact one of the criticisms that Notley made at the time of the Wildrose mass floor crossing was that it showed the PC's were moving to the right. And I would agree with that analysis. They must have made some offer to the Wildrose leadership to make the move palatable to them.

But the only change since the election is that the PC's don't have a leader, and are directionless at the moment. 

Another argument the floor crossing supporters have made relates to the possibility of Jason Kenny winning the leadership of the Alberta PC's. But even if he was the devil himself, he couldn't affect a decision taken by the NDP leadership. It's not his credentials we're questioning, it the integrity of the NDP leadership. Kenny may have driven Jansen from the party, but that by itself has no bearing on whether the NDP should accept floor crossers or not.

Good article about the transformation and the degeneration of the Alberta PC party. The sound you just heard is Lougheed rolling over in his grave.
http://albertapolitics.ca/2016/11/jason-kenneys-sleazy-campaign-tactics-...

jjuares wrote:

...Kenney wants to dismantle the party. I think that qualifies as really really going in a different direction.

Is this based on something he said? In any case, it doesn't affect the conversation because Kenney is not the leader of the Alberta PC party. As has been pointed out, the PC party can hardly be 'going in a really, really different direction', at least not until they actually have a new leader.

quizzical wrote:

jason kenney just got fined 5000 for trying to influence the leadership vote of the PCs

i guess you've ignored what has transpired to the 2 lone women PCs contained in the links here, or you don't know wtf you're talking about or you're being deliberately obtuse. which is it rev?

Relax and stop insulting people. If your point makes any sense, it will still make sense if you treat people with respect.

Sorry to intervene, I'm not a mod, but this style of discussion is sickening and toxic to a discussion forum which I care deeply about. We are all on the same side here.

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:

...Kenney wants to dismantle the party. I think that qualifies as really really going in a different direction.

Is this based on something he said? In any case, it doesn't affect the conversation because Kenney is not the leader of the Alberta PC party. As has been pointed out, the PC party can hardly be 'going in a really, really different direction', at least not until they actually have a new leader.

Yeah, it is something he said over and over. So a party can't be going in a certain direction because there is only an interim leader? Well Sandra Jansen disagrees with you but I am sure you know better than she does. I mean she only spent 30 years in the party. What could she possibly know? So when she says that the party is now about right wing " dog whistle politics she must be wrong.

If the federal NDP decides to adopt the Leap Manifesto in the next year, under the Rev's " logic" that can't constitute a " direction" because they only have an interm leader.

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:

jason kenney just got fined 5000 for trying to influence the leadership vote of the PCs

i guess you've ignored what has transpired to the 2 lone women PCs contained in the links here, or you don't know wtf you're talking about or you're being deliberately obtuse. which is it rev?

Relax and stop insulting people. If your point makes any sense, it will still make sense if you treat people with respect.

Sorry to intervene, I'm not a mod, but this style of discussion is sickening and toxic to a discussion forum which I care deeply about. We are all on the same side here.

how about you go after the real toxic people on here like those who are telling people to shut up of fuck off as opposed to bullying me who is merely being impatient and used a "wtf"?

or even look at your own!

Here are some of the comments Jansen has had to endure.

"You are both a disgrace to Alberta."
"Lying bitches."
"Now you have two blond bimbos in a party that is clueless."
"Another useless tit goes NDP."
"Dead meat."
"Sandra should stay in the kitchen, where she belongs."
"Fly with the crows and get shot."
"Dumb broad. A good place for her to be is with the rest of the queers."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/impassioned-sandra-jansen-calls-o...

This should be our focus:  Impassioned Sandra Jansen calls on legislature to stand against misogyny

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/815548995914/

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:

...Well, Notley made this statement years before this event. How inconvenient for you. I guess that is the problem when people hold nuanced and complex positions in a bumper sticker world. Don't worry there are lots of right wing whackjobs and nutbars here who share your outrage. You are in fine company.

In fact it was you who raised the statement by Notley, so if that statement is no longer operable, why did you raise it?

You mention that Sandra Jansen has been in the Alberta PC party for thirty years. That means she was in the party, and remained in the party, during the reign of Ralph Klein. Apparently his slashing and trashing of government services and workers wasn't a problem for her. When Jim Prentice accepted the mass floor crossing of the Wildrose Party, that too was acceptable to her. Even though one would have thought that was a pretty sharp turn, inviting into the party those who had left it because it was not right-wing enough for them. Did it not occur to her that there was a fundamental change in the party at that point? Apparently not.

As far as the comments others have made, and which Sandra Jansen recited in the legislature, they are despicable, but they couldn't possibly have influenced her decision to leave the party because they were comments made after she had crossed the floor. So no matter how despicable we find the comments to be, they are not part of this equation.

There appears to be a need on some peoples part to portray the Alberta PC party as some benign, semi-progressive political force that just lately has turned bad. That is just plain not true.

And whatever happened to Sandra Jansen, either before or after she left the PC's, is not the responsibility of the NDP. If Sandra Jansen was that enamoured of progressive politics she wouldn't have had to cross the floor, she would have already been on the NDP side.

The statement is operable. That is the point. Years before Jansen's move she set the exception. Yes, those comments came after the crossing. However, the PC party is investigating the harassment she says she endured BEFORE she left the party. She also talked about the extreme dog whistle politics that was occurring BEFORE she left the party. Incidentally the other female candidate also dropped out publicly worrying about the rightward drift of the party. Now as for slash and burn, my family was in Saskatchewan during one period of cutbacks and oh that was when Romanow was premier. You might want to ask some workers in Ontario about Rae days. So if you think that the NDP has some pure record in this area , think again. As for Smith's defection to the PC's she said she was frustrated with the social conservatism of the WR. But of course any woman who claims that she was harassed and subject to mysogyny is always going to have her motives challenged. And maybe you are one of these individuals. I don't know. You seem determined to doubt everything else about her.

The federal NDP made a big deal about anti-floor crossing legislation. Some provincial NDPs have adopted that policy some have not. the Alberta NDP has no policy against floor crossing.

Similarly, the federal NDP has made electoral reform/proportional representation a "signature issue" but this has not been adopted by most provincial affiliates of the NDP and therefore you see no move by the Alberta NDP to change to PR in Alberta - nor did you see that in Manitoba or Nova Scotia.

Canada is a federal country and provincial wings of parties don't always see eye to eye,

 

There will not be any floor crossing after the revolution.

Stockholm wrote:

The federal NDP made a big deal about anti-floor crossing legislation. Some provincial NDPs have adopted that policy some have not. the Alberta NDP has no policy against floor crossing.

Similarly, the federal NDP has made electoral reform/proportional representation a "signature issue" but this has not been adopted by most provincial affiliates of the NDP and therefore you see no move by the Alberta NDP to change to PR in Alberta - nor did you see that in Manitoba or Nova Scotia.

Canada is a federal country and provincial wings of parties don't always see eye to eye,

 

Exactly. All this blather about the federal NDP is irrelevant. In 2014 Notley outlined that floor crossing would be justified if the party was changing. Jansen and others have talked about how the so-cons are taking over the PC's. Some have pointed out this is a loophole. Sure, but it is a loophole thst fits. End of story for goodness sakes.
"The dog-whistle politics that I heard at the PC policy conference (earlier this month) were chilling to me: eroding public education, taking away women's reproductive rights and trying to out gay kids in schools."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/17/sandra-jansen-alberta-ndp_n_1305...

So in the space of over a little of a year the new government here has brought in a carbon tax, started phasing in the elimination of coal plants, brought in worker safety legislation, a minimum wage, closed a large private school and many other pieces of legislation all the time dealing with one of the stiffest recessions AB ever faced. The head winds have been tremendous and this government has faced all sorts of crap. Including some real ugly stuff thrown at the premier. And how do posters on this progressive site react? They simply repeat the talking points of the right wing loons attacking the government. Notley has been clear in the past about when she thought floor crossing was justified and any fair minded person would acknowledge that the circumstances here would match that criterion. But not the whackjobs on the right or posters at Babble. I know which side I am on.

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:

...The statement is operable. That is the point. Years before Jansen's move she set the exception. Yes, those comments came after the crossing. However, the PC party is investigating the harassment she says she endured BEFORE she left the party. She also talked about the extreme dog whistle politics that was occurring BEFORE she left the party. Incidentally the other female candidate also dropped out publicly worrying about the rightward drift of the party.

The Alberta PC party is a right-wing political party, and always has been a right-wing political party.

jjuares wrote:

...Now as for slash and burn, my family was in Saskatchewan during one period of cutbacks and oh that was when Romanow was premier. You might want to ask some workers in Ontario about Rae days. So if you think that the NDP has some pure record in this area , think again.

If you can find someplace where I've said the NDP has a pure record, please bring it forward. I won't be holding my breath. What I said is that Sandra Jansen was a member of the Alberta PC party when Ralph Klein was it's leader and premier, and his slash and burn government didn't cause Sandra Jansen to leave the party. She was also a party member at the time of the mass floor crossing of Wildrose, which again, despite the obvious swing to the right, didn't seem to affect Jansen. Which leads us to:

 

jjuares wrote:

...As for Smith's defection to the PC's she said she was frustrated with the social conservatism of the WR. But of course any woman who claims that she was harassed and subject to mysogyny is always going to have her motives challenged. And maybe you are one of these individuals. I don't know. You seem determined to doubt everything else about her.

Danielle Smith was the longest serving leader of Wildrose, and was the leader of the party at the time of the floor crossing. Whatever the party was, or wasn't, could be laid directly at her door.

This is almost amusing. On the one hand you claim the possible leadership of Jason Kenney is driving the Alberta PC party to the extreme right, while you claim that actual leadership of Danilelle Smith was unable to control the drift of Wildrose to the right.

Just to be clear, if Danielle Smith was in fact distressed with the direction of Wildrose, the proper thing to do is to resign the leadership. The fact is, she remained the leader right up until the moment she appeared with Jim Prentice at a news conference after crossing the floor. What did Prentice offer Smith in order to effect the floor-crossing? No one knows, but we do know that Sandra Jansen was not distressed, because if she had been, she would have resigned at that point.

And what do I doubt about Sandra Jansen? I doubt she's a progressive who, unbeknownst to herself, ended up being a thirty-year member of a right-wing big business party. You seem to believe there was some golden age of the Alberta PC party wherein they were the voice of reason and enlightenment, bringing real power to the people, and that somehow they've lost their way, causing Sandra Jansen to suddenly realize the error she has made in supporting the party for the last thirty years.

You're welome to believe that. I don't.

Well, I was a member of the NDP when he was slashing and I didn't leave the party either. Personal loyalties and connections and a history in the party kept me there. May be leaving as a protest if nothing else would have been the best course but like most people I operate from a mixture of motives, concerns and emotions. But I cant speak for Jansen obviously but I do know life long committments are rarely jettisoned as easily as you suggest. And yes, the PC's are a right wing business party but the emphasis should be on business not social policy. Like I said my MLA was pro- reproductive rights and pro- gay rights. This is typical of the PC's. Prentice while a MP voted for the act legalizing same sex marriage. He described himself as a Red Tory. Lougheed when he came to power passed bills against decrimination so there is legacy of less than right wing social policy in the PC's. In education AB had the most progressive curriculum in Canada, emphasizing new methodolgies etc. The PC's are now going to walk all that back. As you said they are a right wing business party, much like the federal Liberals, on social policy they can be alright but when it comes to economic policy they represent the 1% and nobody else.
Actually you were the one focussing onleadership. I pointed out that parties also have cultures and that Kenney was as much a reflection of the right wing drive as a cause. If Kenney loses the PC's may remain but they will be much further to the right on social policy than they have ever been. You kept saying that the party couldn't have a direction because they had an interim leader. I was the one who pointed out that was only one factor and indeed party culture trumps leadership and policy in my view. And of course Jansen seems to share that view as she complained about the tenor and tone of the party. Now, her view which I share, may be wrong but one would be expect her actions to reflect that view. And may be that explains why I didn't leave the NDP when I objected to their policy. Again with Smith you focus on leadership and nothing else claiming everything in that party could be laid at her door. Well in the convention she strongly backed an anti- discrimination resolution which the WR party defeated. A month later she left the party citing this as one of the reasons. Was her defection opoortunism? Absolutely. But it was also opportunism that made her realize that bigotry was not the vehicle to power. She also happens to be a libertarian who doesn't believe in discrimination. During the 2012 election for opportunistic and political reasons she had to defend some bigoted comments by her candidates. So when she jumped ship she fulffiled personal ambition and at the same time found herself in a better ideological home. You seem to believe that people have one motive and it is simple either/or. You have an interim leader you have no direction. You have a permanent leader you have direction. You jump to another party it has to be simp,e opportunism and nothing else. I guess I see more complexity in people's and organization's motives and behaviour. Sorry, for the long reply but I am trying to end this conversation. You and I have profoundly different world views.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

One the one hand, I do think there is a precedent for her sitting as an independent, and that was my opinion right up until I heard what Jansen said in the legislature yesterday.

This is hardly your standard opportunistic floor crossing, since she was personally attacked and driven out of the party. If these are the kinds of tactics that are going to be used by the group determined to take over the conservatives, I think it is not out of order for the NDP to make an exception to the rule  and take Jansen in. It is drawing a line of common decency, which cuts through all political parties here.

The voters will decide, after all.

Agreed.

she has had to have a security team put in place now.

Trump supporting creeps.

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Exactly. All this blather about the federal NDP is irrelevant. In 2014 Notley outlined that floor crossing would be justified if the party was changing.

No matter how bad the PCs have become now that Kenney is the new leader, and no matter whether this qualifies for Notley's "special exception" clause, it still remains that:

1.  how the NDP or any other party feels about an elected MP changing their party affiliation is not as important as how those voters who chose that candidate and their original party feel about it.

2.  the NDP "accepting" a floor-crosser is a matter of them saying "yes, we would welcome you" or "no thank-you, we don't really want you" -- this in no way precludes a by-election.  All it means -- or should -- is that the candidate is invited to run in that by-election with the official support of the NDP.

To put it very simply, the NDP could still welcome Jansen to join them, just as soon as her constituents also agree to that.  There's no need to pretend that Jansen is some kind of "refugee" from the hate and spite of Kenney and his cads, and Notley's humanitarian first task is to give her safe haven.

Yes, they could have done a byelection and maybe they should have but my sole point was taking Jansen in was not incompatible with Notley said in 2014. She gave herself an out and she took it. Whether this was a wise course of action is another argument.

mark_alfred wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

One the one hand, I do think there is a precedent for her sitting as an independent, and that was my opinion right up until I heard what Jansen said in the legislature yesterday.

This is hardly your standard opportunistic floor crossing, since she was personally attacked and driven out of the party. If these are the kinds of tactics that are going to be used by the group determined to take over the conservatives, I think it is not out of order for the NDP to make an exception to the rule  and take Jansen in. It is drawing a line of common decency, which cuts through all political parties here.

The voters will decide, after all.

Agreed.

yup

This might be a good place to make a few observations:

- the NDP can sometimes be wrong. We should be able to discuss this as with any other party without getting in to calls of betrayal. We should also discuss this without demonizing the NDP for being incorrect. Policies evolve and they should. The extreme defence or attack by/on a party is in the way of this evolution.

- the evolution should be logical and with explanation. If it is merely self-serving that would be obvious.

- sometimes with direct experience you can realize that something was wrong and often this will happen when your own interest makes you see something you might otherwise have not seen. This is not something to merely label as hypocritical but a necessary part of experience. This is why there is a difference between those who experience something and those who merely have information of it. Surely we are not incapable of seeing this here?

- positions can be found and held for different reasons and it is not unreasonable to consider these with understanding before admitting they were incorrect.

-sometimes the political strategists in any party come up with spin that is attractive in the short term but not well founded. Attacking other parties strongly at times will carry risk. Ethical thought rater than pure partisanship ought to prevail and it often does not  -- in any party. There is a cultural problem here.

So in this case we have a good example that tests the inflexible position on floor crossing the NDP has taken federally. With that position either we have to say the Federal NDP is wrong to have taken this position or the Alberta NDP is wrong. There reeally is little option here.

People elect members in order to empower them; we respect the knowledge of their party and expect that to be informative but sometimes things change, As Mark and others point out that can mean that the calculation for the member's association could radically change.An inability to change parties may not be a power we should deny individual members.

What this example is explaining is that the federal NDP position is perhaps not correct.

There is no replacing ethics with hard rules. Floor crossing is often unethical but so too may be an absolute prohibition on it.

A catch all prohibition sounds like a good sound-bite but it is not as effective as having to engage either for or against a specific example.

The NDP is now in this position having used the rhetoric of absolutes asking for a specific case. It would be a good idea to remember this and not debate in a lazy way (going for absolutes) the next time there is a point to be made that may be correct in that situation. As well when you use an unreasonable absolute not only do you block an example that is worthy but you also risk being unable to respond to a specific case that is particularly bad with anything other than platitudes.

I don't really care for the other parties in this. But fro the NDP there are some lessons in when you set absolutes and how to respond to things that ought not to be seen in that way.

(Yes I get the federal provincial difference but it is the same people defending both -- or trying to. It would have been easier if the federal party had responded to previous examples in a less absolute manner.)

Full disclosure: I have been all over the road on this. Don't bother looking to find me hypocritical, I will save you the trouble. Learning is good.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So in this case we have a good example that tests the inflexible position on floor crossing the NDP has taken federally. With that position either we have to say the Federal NDP is wrong to have taken this position or the Alberta NDP is wrong. There reeally is little option here.

 

I prefer to think this illustrates that they can both be right, depending on circumstances. And again, it won't be our little debating club which settles the score, but the people of Alberta. And in this case it  is going to influence people in both directions, so there really is not one right answer.