Quebec NDP MP jumping to Liberals?

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

theleftyinvestor wrote:

As for the business of what would happen if someone wanted to cross the floor to the NDP - I guess the only consistent policy would be to ask that MP to sit as an independent, ...

Excuse me, but if someone is elected under the banner of (say) the Green Party, and they declare that they will now support the NDP, how can they sit as an "independent"? Why shouldn't they immediately resign and let their constituents decide? They weren't elected to sit as an "independent".

There seems to be a whole lot of confusion here as to what constitutes "principle".

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

writer wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Biatch! I hate the Liberals!

Biatch? Am I wrong in the understanding that this is a fancy way to write bitch without having to answer for using the term bitch?

From the mindreading of Quebecers to the ignorant dismissal of one very patient inhabitant of that province to the nasty ageism and sexism seen in this thread – it is not inspiring. She left. Get over it.

Right now, a number of party members are not doing social justice and greater equality any favours. Chill out.

Love, hope and optimism. Remember?

Sorry...Traitor!...how's that? 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Ken, it's not like you to create and fight straw men. Please stop attributing my comments here to some support for the Bloc. And your last sentence - that I'm saying "true Quebecers" couldn't intentionally support the NDP's policies - is just plain provocation. Your comments here are unworthy of a response. Your obvious ignorance of Québec is not a bad thing - unless you enshrine and worship it. Try to learn.

 

Then let me ask it this way...would you kindly tell me what it was in the platform the NDP fought the election that the people of Quebec couldn't KNOWINGLY have supported?  I agree that I have things to learn about Quebec politics, but I don't understand why you keep saying that Quebecers didn't know what the NDP was supporting-an assertion that appears to carry with it an assumption that everybody in Quebec knows precisely what you mean by that.

Please, just tell me what it is that the NDP had in its platform that, had Quebecers only known of it(as you assume they didn't), would have been anathema?  The party did finally come out against the Clarity Act, as I understand it, and backed self-determination, and even stronger language rights...so what was it that, to your mind, would STILL have been unacceptable to Quebecers? 

I probably sounded harsher than I should have, but that was in reaction to a tone on your part that seemed much more dismissive of the NDP than many of your recent posts have been.  Apologies for that..but please, just let me in on where you're going with this. 

What I'm really having trouble with here is why, as a left-wing Quebecer, you would noq seemingly(and perhaps I'm reading this wrong)be wanting support for the NDP to decline in Quebec?  Is this about the fact that Mulcair now seems likely to become leader and your differences with him personally about the I/P issue?

writer writer's picture

Ken Burch, do you remember the vey successful ads that ran in Quebec? They were not exactly heavy on policy and platform. They are available for viewing on Youtube, I'm sure. If you are genuinely curious.

Quebecers were told *by the party* to vote NDP for a change. They did. Here we are.

vaudree
writer writer's picture

"The old girl." Okay, seriously, what has happened to this board?

Gaian

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Gaian wrote:
Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Gaian wrote:
@hamiltonian Nor one from human frailty either, clearly. I believe Jack would have understood, at a certain point. But as she said, Jack is dead. Of course, none of that could come from a very narrowly human perspective. There must be "greed" involved.
 

 

What human frailty is involved when you conclude the NDP was not blood-thirsty enough on Lybia and so you will join the Liberals?  That is in essentially what she said in her statement. 

I acknowledge her humanity, but that does not extend to making up pious reasons for what was clearly, from her own words, not a moral or values based act.

As I said, perhaps you have to reach a certain age and experience cancer to understand. This does not absolve her of "crime" on the standard objective scale of human merit. The "human frailty" bit means that she is vulnerable as hell to making the wrong move for the wrong reasons. The idea inherent in "throw the first stone" came from that vulnerability. You know, the "love is better than anger" bit.

Where did I ever once say it was a crime?  Or even imply it was anything but an ethical lapse.  Having stood for public office in the past I have always beleived strongly, fundamentally, that my word and the things I stand for as a candidate of a party are a type of contract with my potentail constituents.  It might be old fashioned, but it is deeply and longly held.  So it violates my ethical beliefs for someone to be elected in such a manner and then to debase that contract with constituents by doing this sort of thing without going back to them for their okay.  It is a strong ethical issue for me.   It is not partisan and it is not something I would support under any circumstance.  I have thrown no stone, other than assess her actions based on her own words.  As someone who has chosen to be in public life, whether she thought she would win or not, and than takes a public action of this nature her age and health status are completely irrelevant so your bringing them up is inappropriate.

And George don't make assumptions about anyone's health status, past or current, or the issues they have faced in their lives.  You don't possess that knowledge and it is also deeply innapropriate.   

Nothing personal intended, BA. Of ocurse I can't know others' situation - although I value highly your ethical postings But that I why I wrote what I did. Of course we are not talking about a "crime"...that's why you find the word in quotation marks, and of course, you never meant "crime" in its legal sense.

The old girl was dropped into a back bench and was not given attention, even while Jack won a state funeral after dying from the same disease. Having arrived in the category sepruagenarian, and wondering how long she might be around, she decided to cross the floor and play an active role in yer last years. She knows she is unlikely to be elected again, of course, but that does not weigh much in the reckoning.

The party was not thinking along human, individeual lines, and got burnt. But she is NOT all the nasty things she has been called here, and if folks live long enough, they just might come to appreciate her position.

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

I don't know why some people are complaining that some of these postings are 'too hard on her'. [...] This is fine with me since she's a non-entity.

Dehumanize much?

Quote:
Que cera and let the Liberals have her.

It's spelled "que sera".

This ugly thread reminds me of the ridiculing of Lesley Hughes, when the Liberals dumped her for allegedly saying something about Zionists in the context of 9/11.

You continue to personally attack anyone who posts in this thread who has a different view than you through guilt by association.  I am kindly asking you to knock it off.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

writer wrote:

Ken Burch, do you remember the vey successful ads that ran in Quebec? They were not exactly heavy on policy and platform. They are available for viewing on Youtube, I'm sure. If you are genuinely curious.

Quebecers were told *by the party* to vote NDP for a change. They did. Here we are.

But the change was, largely, a change in strategy-the idea that left-of-center politics in Quebec could be fought for more effectively by a party that had a chance to go into government in Ottawa than they could be voting for a party that put nationalism first, while retaining some vaguely "radical" policies as a sweetener for the nationalist message, even though that party(the Bloc) was never going to have the ability to implement those polities.  The other part of that "change" was the assertion that working for left-of-center policies was at least equally as important as worknig for self-determination and sovereignty for Quebec as the primary goal.  Given the growth of the CAQ as the main "sovereigntist" force in Quebec, it can now fairly be asked whether sovereignty still has any possible left outcome at all-after all, almost no left policies were brought in in Ireland in its first seven decades of independence, after it was led to independence by a party that put the creation of an independent state above all OTHER objectives.

It's likely that a Quebec dominated by CAQ will be very similar to Ireland under the dismal choices of Fianna Fail vs. Fine Gael.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

 

Quote:

Biatch? Am I wrong in the understanding that this is a fancy way to write bitch without having to answer for using the term bitch?

From the mindreading of Quebecers to the ignorant dismissal of one very patient inhabitant of that province to the nasty ageism and sexism seen in this thread – it is not inspiring. She left. Get over it.

Right now, a number of party members are not doing social justice and greater equality any favours. Chill out.

Love, hope and optimism. Remember?

 

I think "biatch" is sort of a "hip-hop" spelling/pronouciation of the "b word"(at least, as imagined by msm toadies who believe that they are 'in" on hip-hop lingo)-the idea being that, by saying and spelling the ultimate misogynist term in that way,  it is somehow made edgier and more "street", and therefore redeemed from its sexist and reactionary roots by tying it to some notion of popular culture.

Or something.

NDPP

writer wrote:

"The old girl." Okay, seriously, what has happened to this board?

NDPP

too many 'old boys'?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

writer wrote:

"The old girl." Okay, seriously, what has happened to this board?

Indeed.  As they used to say on MIAMI VICE:

"Major Uncool".

Gaian

Old farts can make that observation without fear in democratic venues. But where ageism rears its ugly head, then the literalist pack will feel free to pounce.

Gaian

Wow, what a way to avoid the question of ethics about calling this woman all sorts of nasty things.

But "OLD GIRL'...GOTCHA.

wHAT FUCKING HYPOCRISY

writer writer's picture

Gaian wrote:
Old farts can make that observation without fear in democratic venues. But where ageism rears its ugly head, then the literalist pack will feel free to pounce.

I've flagged the ageism here too. Sexism sucks, whoever indulges in it. I'm not part of some "literalist pack." I am a woman who is sick to the teeth with this kind of crap.

Vansterdam Kid

vaudree wrote:

Sig Laser and Jim Walding were both running to be the NDP candidate for St.Vital and Walding won the nomination by just one vote.  Walding was made Speaker and voted with the Tories to defeat the  NDP government by just one vote.

Dar Heatherington faked her own kidnapping to cover up an extramarital affair.

Interesting musing. I had forgotten about Dar Heatherington. LSD doesn't remind me about her, except in so far as people will probably forget about her and her bizarre actions in ten years too.

When I compare LSD's defection to Emerson's I kind of have a so what feeling. LSD's situation is small potatoes, compared to Emerson's situation where an opposition member switched to become a cabinet minister so I dunno. I don't even think we can say she was/is power hungry, cause it isn't as if she's getting much power. Even when Emerson was blunt about wanting power, it isn't as if she's getting more power. Though I suppose she'll be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. So okay, she'll probably become a critic for the Liberals and have a better seat in the Liberal caucus, two things that annoyed her as an NDPer. I find that, assuming it's her motivation, kind of amusing yet sad (in the sense of it being pity-able).

unionist wrote:

Dehumanize much?

Your arguments are absurd. It seems as if the general tone of your posts are that you'd prefer people say nothing about her because saying and / or speculating anything about her motivation and / or principles (or lack there of) is somehow "mean." Yet, I think I was operating under the misconception that this is a discussion board or something and that traditionally we are allowed to discuss current events (provided it's within the framework of the policy statement - so the sexist statements obviously have no place). Whether or not it's 'smart' to talk about this tomorrow, well, I'll grant that it probably isn't so I can't say I have a whole lot else to say about LSD.

writer writer's picture

Gaian wrote:
Wow, what a way to avoid the question of ethics about calling this woman all sorts of nasty things. But "OLD GIRL'...GOTCHA. wHAT FUCKING HYPOCRISY

You seem to have missed the post where I expressed exactly those concerns. It's the one that asks people to chill out. Scroll up. You can't miss it.

Bookish Agrarian

Gaian wrote:
   Nothing personal intended, BA. Of ocurse I can't know others' situation - although I value highly your ethical postings But that I why I wrote what I did. Of course we are not talking about a "crime"...that's why you find the word in quotation marks, and of course, you never meant "crime" in its legal sense. The old girl was dropped into a back bench and was not given attention, even while Jack won a state funeral after dying from the same disease. Having arrived in the category sepruagenarian, and wondering how long she might be around, she decided to cross the floor and play an active role in yer last years. She knows she is unlikely to be elected again, of course, but that does not weigh much in the reckoning. The party was not thinking along human, individeual lines, and got burnt. But she is NOT all the nasty things she has been called here, and if folks live long enough, they just might come to appreciate her position.

 

You are being profoundly offensive throwing words like 'the old girl' down from your white stallion. 

Gaian

As the man said: "you'd prefer people say nothing about her because saying and / or speculating anything about her motivation and / or principles (or lack there of) is somehow "mean." Yet, I think I was operating under the misconception that this is a discussion board or something and that traditionally we are allowed to discuss current events. Whether or not it's 'smart' to talk about this tomorrow, well, I'll grant that it probably isn't so I can't say I have a whole lot else to say about LSD.

I'm with Unionist on this one

writer writer's picture

I'm with Unionist, too. I just don't think disagreeing with the sexism, ageism and other horrors gives one a pass to refer to an adult woman as an old girl. Go figure!

Gaian

writer wrote:

Gaian wrote:
Wow, what a way to avoid the question of ethics about calling this woman all sorts of nasty things. But "OLD GIRL'...GOTCHA. wHAT FUCKING HYPOCRISY

You seem to have missed the post where I expressed exactly those concerns. It's the one that asks people to chill out. Scroll up. You can't miss it.

TYou sem to have missed my defense of her throughout this ugly thread.

writer writer's picture

BULLETIN: Not all voters read policy platforms! They get their ideas through various forms of communication! This is true for voters in many locations!

Bookish Agrarian, somehow I feel confident that you are uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being called a bitch and an old girl. How are such expressions not dehumanizing? How is it okay to demean women this way? How is it not "too hard" to reduce a grown human being to a bitch? To an old child?

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Then let me ask it this way...would you kindly tell me what it was in the platform the NDP fought the election that the people of Quebec couldn't KNOWINGLY have supported?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing. Nothing at all. Did you miss when I said (a thousand times since May) that the people of Québec did not know what was in the platform when they voted NDP? Did you miss when I said that the reason they voted NDP was not because of the platform? If you did, then maybe I'll just repeat it yet again, and hope for the best.

 

Quote:
Please, just tell me what it is that the NDP had in its platform that, had Quebecers only known of it(as you assume they didn't), would have been anathema?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing at all. I do believe you're not listening.

Quote:
What I'm really having trouble with here is why, as a left-wing Quebecer, you would noq seemingly(and perhaps I'm reading this wrong)be wanting support for the NDP to decline in Quebec?  Is this about the fact that Mulcair now seems likely to become leader and your differences with him personally about the I/P issue?

No, Ken, you are totally, hopelessly, mistaken. I voted for Mulcair on May 2. I voted for him in 2008 and 2007. I knew, on all those occasions, of his pro-Israel stands. I explained those here years ago, to people who weren't aware. I voted for him in May despite his shameful and unforgiveable performance last June with respect to Libby Davies. If you don't understand what I'm saying, let me know and Lord knows, I'll try again.

I don't think very highly of the NDP. I don't think much of electoral politics. I don't see it as the fulcrum of a lot of necessary change in this country. But when I cast my vote, I try to do so in order to help advance the struggle. That's why I have voted Mulcair in recent years. That's why I vote for Québec solidaire. That's why I voted for the Bloc in about 3 consecutive elections. Let me know if you need detailed explanations for all that (although I'm quite sure I've done so over the years).

writer writer's picture

Gaian, I have not. Once again, I don't think it gives you a pass to call her an old girl.

Gaian

But the circus seems to want blood over the mis-choice of one word...one which is used when speaking with sympathy about an elderly woman.

Quite the cultural evolution taking place without my knowing it. Ah, to be young and so, so free to shit upon others over....a word.

writer writer's picture

You could just apologize, having recognized that it was perhaps ill advised. But no, do go on.

As an old woman, I would want no such sympathy, having spent many years growing up. I hope if such a moment arises, I'll have the fortitude to speak my mind about such infantalizing.

In the 60s, it was absolutely fine to call a group of working women girls. It isn't anymore. It hasn't been for a while. I am glad for it.

Gaian

writer wrote:

You could just apologize, having recognized that it was perhaps ill advised. But no, do go on.

As an old woman, I would want no such sympathy, having spent many years growing up. I hope if such a moment arises, I'll have the fortitude to speak my mind about such infantalizing.

In the 60s, it was absolutely fine to call a group of working women girls. It isn't anymore. It hasn't been for a while. I am glad for it.

Apologize, for using the word in sympathetic context as I have done for more than half a century? Or apologize for not keeping up with your literalist's fancy? You admit that I have defended her. But you want blood over a word.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

edmundoconnor wrote:

Sweet heavens, not everyone got to be named a critic.

I think everyone in the Liberal caucus does, though! Laughing

Gaian

writer wrote:

You could just apologize, having recognized that it was perhaps ill advised. But no, do go on.

As an old woman, I would want no such sympathy, having spent many years growing up. I hope if such a moment arises, I'll have the fortitude to speak my mind about such infantalizing.

In the 60s, it was absolutely fine to call a group of working women girls. It isn't anymore. It hasn't been for a while. I am glad for it.

"Girls" was made unfashionable by my late wife and a lot of other militant feminists...a word gone underground.

Bookish Agrarian

writer wrote:

BULLETIN: Not all voters read policy platforms! They get their ideas through various forms of communication! This is true for voters in many locations!

Bookish Agrarian, somehow I feel confident that you are uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being called a bitch and an old girl. How are such expressions not dehumanizing? How is it okay to demean women this way? How is it not "too hard" to reduce a grown human being to a bitch? To a old child?

I have tried to stick to the principle involved.  To me there is a fundamental democratic principle involved in what happened in this case.  Around that there has been some pretty offensive comments from both sides- so many it is hard to keep track.  I agree that those kinds of comments are far beyond the pale in terms of acceptable.  I missed the bitch comment until you had flagged it, but once you had I don't know what I could contribute.  I sort of did that with 'the old girl' comment, but that came from cross posting. 

I agree with you, but I also think some of the comments made to some of us who see an important democratic principle at work here, and maybe because of my background I sense it stronger than others, and dismissing anyone who feels there is an issue as nothing more than party hacks, has its roots in some pretty ugly stuff too.  Not nearly as ugly, but still demeaning and dehumanizing -even if only in smaller relative terms.  So I fully support what you are saying, but I am not going to refrain from calling out the other too.  Maybe it's old fashion but I was taught two wrongs don't make a right.

writer writer's picture

Gaian, It's sexist. Even if you mean it in a "nice" way. Because sexism can work that way. I give up.

writer writer's picture

Well, apparently you are out to revive it. In a nice way.

Gaian

I'm out to revive nothing, but when I make a defense of a human being for their acting "human", I suppose I should only look for literalist nitpicking hereabouts.

Bookish Agrarian

Good grief you folks sure type faster than me.  I respond to, what for me was an important direct question by someone I have enormous respect for, and in that time more than 15 posts have flown in.  I just can't keep up.

writer writer's picture

Gaian, sorry I'm a woman who wants to be treated as an equal. I'm petty that way, I guess. 

What. Ever. I'm out of this cess pit.

BA, thank you.

Bookish Agrarian

Gaian It is not nitpicking to object to a term like 'old girl'.  That would be like saying it is okay to call someone a sexist term because you really were against what they say.  Your motivation is not the issue, the langauge is.  Climb down from the white stallion and apolgize for using such a term and be done with it.  Jeez why is something like that so hard.

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You continue to personally attack anyone who posts in this thread who has a different view than you through guilt by association.  I am kindly asking you to knock it off.

You know, BA, you've gotten much better since the days when I was forced to ignore you. Then you say something like this. I have not personally attacked anyone. Not one person. So either retract, or give examples to justify your statement and advise the mods.

 

Gaian

Had some surgery two weeks ago, and this 73-year-old is sitting here sucking back percocet and rum and feeling sorry for himself...while using terms that were, some years ago, acceptable in talking aabout an elderly woman for whom one had sympathy. And you must admit that I was one of only a couple of people showing sympathy.

You don't accept that? Why is that so hard? My militant, feminist wife knew that it was not meant to be derogatory. She drew the line at "girls" for young women - or not so young.

Why not just accept that it was mistakenly used in a venue for which I should have known better.

writer writer's picture

Jesus fuck. Gaian, pulling a pity party and asking women to indulge the guy is *not* progressive. Why is it my job to swallow your shit? I'm not your wife, nor did I apply for the job. Why can't you simply apologize? Really? I see this as a central problem with this culture. We fuck up, then get all hot and bothered when we're called on it.

Sorry doesn't cost a thing.

Gaian

When in your writing you attempt to level with folks about some of the reasons for your present mood - and pity would be the last ,the absolute last thing I would look for from you, so it wasn't offered up for pity - you just might be able to understand what a discussion of "human" values, time, aging, are all about.

Maybe.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

What an awful thread. If there's a new one when this one ends, could the Mods please moderate it?

writer writer's picture

Perhaps if you'd shown the same kind of humanity, rather than slamming me for pointing out something you are now willing to concede you "should have known better" than to post here.

Ah, privilege has its privileges, expecting what one is unwilling to extend.

MegB

Holy crap.

Gaian, your use of "old girl" is about as sexist as it gets.  Welcome to your two day vacation from babble.

Knownothing, referring to a woman as a bitch (biatch, whatever) also earns you two days off.

As for anyone else who is trumpeting Mme St. Denis' age, drop it.

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You continue to personally attack anyone who posts in this thread who has a different view than you through guilt by association.  I am kindly asking you to knock it off.

You know, BA, you've gotten much better since the days when I was forced to ignore you. Then you say something like this. I have not personally attacked anyone. Not one person. So either retract, or give examples to justify your statement and advise the mods.

 

You have continued to suggest that anyone who thinks there might actually be a fundamental democratic principle involved in this is just merely a party hack and you went so far as to suggest that if Dion were to suddenly bolt to the NDP we would all be looking at things differently- and you continue to assert this.  It is offensive and it amounts to a personal attack when you make such claims about others whether you use their name or not.  Being cute by half with generalizations, when you are saying it about everyone who is posting that see things different than you makes it become individualized.  If you have a problem with the words of particular babblers than use the quote function, I know you know how to use it.  Better than me in fact because I don't know how to break up comments.  Otherwise when you make those kinds of comments you are calling into question the integrity of everyone who has posted, thus making a personal attack on everyone, because again you are questioning people's integrity. 

Oh and I really don't need your condescending approval.

Howard

Boom Boom wrote:

What an awful thread. If there's a new one when this one ends, could the Mods please moderate it?

Second that. Also, thank you to those that were able to keep their comments civil.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, I am sorry by some of the commentary. I supposed I am a fine to talk, considering how I write about Libs, but this all seems pretty off the wall to me. I get that people are feeling really hurt by this. I will tell you I am. It kind of takes a bit of the wind out of the sails so to speak.

But really, all we do is give people ammo writing these kind of things. We know there are Lib lurkers here, so why give them things they want, and make them feel good? This is a typical Lib trick, nothing more, nothing less. If anything it just reminds me why I dislike the Libs so much, and why I continue to dedicate myself to the spread of Social Democracy across Canada. Ms. st. Deni comments just remind how different Libs look at the world then us, and why I don't feel I could ever vote for them. So. lets keep venting here as long as we need, but remind ourselves that we are better then that, and continue to give people reason to vote for us.

I guess to continue then, is there anything else to do, or is this done now? I really don't think this hurts the NDP. I think if anything it reminds people of the reasons they hate politics and also, what to expect from the Libs. I also don't think it does Bob Rae much good either. I think really, this probably more of a positive then a negative. I don't believe the NDP will "dissappear" either in Quebec and the rest of Canada. While people such as Unionist sure gives a considered and educated view inside the minds of Quebec voters, I also recall how often I heard that people felt they could finally vote NDP, and didn't HAVE to vote Liberal. Given all of this, I don't think there is really all that much to be upset about.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Then let me ask it this way...would you kindly tell me what it was in the platform the NDP fought the election that the people of Quebec couldn't KNOWINGLY have supported?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing. Nothing at all. Did you miss when I said (a thousand times since May) that the people of Québec did not know what was in the platform when they voted NDP? Did you miss when I said that the reason they voted NDP was not because of the platform? If you did, then maybe I'll just repeat it yet again, and hope for the best.

 

Quote:
Please, just tell me what it is that the NDP had in its platform that, had Quebecers only known of it(as you assume they didn't), would have been anathema?

Nothing, Ken. Nothing at all. I do believe you're not listening.

Quote:
What I'm really having trouble with here is why, as a left-wing Quebecer, you would noq seemingly(and perhaps I'm reading this wrong)be wanting support for the NDP to decline in Quebec?  Is this about the fact that Mulcair now seems likely to become leader and your differences with him personally about the I/P issue?

No, Ken, you are totally, hopelessly, mistaken. I voted for Mulcair on May 2. I voted for him in 2008 and 2007. I knew, on all those occasions, of his pro-Israel stands. I explained those here years ago, to people who weren't aware. I voted for him in May despite his shameful and unforgiveable performance last June with respect to Libby Davies. If you don't understand what I'm saying, let me know and Lord knows, I'll try again.

I don't think very highly of the NDP. I don't think much of electoral politics. I don't see it as the fulcrum of a lot of necessary change in this country. But when I cast my vote, I try to do so in order to help advance the struggle. That's why I have voted Mulcair in recent years. That's why I vote for Québec solidaire. That's why I voted for the Bloc in about 3 consecutive elections. Let me know if you need detailed explanations for all that (although I'm quite sure I've done so over the years).

Look, I agree with you on the limits of electoral politics.  But it's still bizarre that you are insisting that Quebec support for the NDP had nothing to do with the platform(or that Quebecers didn't KNOW what was in the platform)

How do you KNOW they didn't know what was in it?  Did the NDP forbid its candidates to disclose what was in the platform?  Did the party somehow just plain forget to translate the platform into French?  How could Quebecers not have known what the NDP platform contained?

As far as that goes, did they also not know what was in the Bloc, Verte, Liberal and Conservative platforms?

I mean, Jack Layton was a great guy...but he was exactly the SAME guy when Quebec gave the NDP one seat in 2008 and none in 2006 and 2004.  So the "it was just because of Jack" thing doesn't follow logically.  If that were the case, shouldn't the Orange Wave have hit seven years ago?

If you've explained in other posts why you don't think the NDP's platform has any actual appeal in Quebec, could you at least link to those threads?  I don't want to bother you further on this, but that truly puzzles me.

And I fail to see how you can think it wouldn't hurt the cause of left politics for the NDP to lose support in Quebec-especially since a decline in NDP support isn't going to lead to an emergence of a stronger left alternative, electorally or not, in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada(If I lived in Quebec, I'd join you in voting QS, as I've said in other posts, so we don't have a dispute there).

I didn't mean to upset you, and I'm sorry if I did.  I respect your opinions.  It's just that I don't understand this opinion.  Can you accept that that's all there is to the discussion we're having here? 

Won't belabor this any more, and didn't mean to piss you off.

 

Debater

Very interesting development.  Smile

Hopefully a sign of things to come.  I think more Quebecers such as Lise St. Denis are open to voting Liberal if the Liberals continue to present the party as the best alternative to the Conservatives as Bob Rae has been successfully doing so far.

Bookish Agrarian

Arthur, there are different things that drive all of us in politics.  One of the fundamentals for me is that duty you have to the people who elect you.  So for me it is a fundamental violation of that responsibility elected officials have to the people who elected them to move from one caucus to another without consulting those folks first.  The only way we have to do that ethically in our system is to leave the caucus you are in, sit for a period as an indpendent while you await a by-election and then face the people of your riding in that vote.   Or if we are approaching an election, doing so then.  People vote for all kinds of reasons.  Sometimes it is the individual candidate, for others it is party affliation, or the leader, or by default because they are voting against another party.   But they all have a right to be consulted on this fundamental a change, especially when we are so close to the election.

So for some it might not be a big deal, but for some of us a fundamental violation of democratic principle has been broken.  That doesn't mean that we should squawk like sea gulls for ever more about it.  But nor should we coo like doves that nothing happened and shouldn't challenge someone on their actions and words. 

Bookish Agrarian

Debater wrote:

Very interesting development.  Smile

Hopefully a sign of things to come.  I think more Quebecers such as Lise St. Denis are open to voting Liberal if the Liberals continue to present the party as the best alternative to the Conservatives as Bob Rae has been successfully doing so far.

Yes when lack of ethics are involved expect the Liberals to be at the bottom of it presenting an equally unethical alternative to the Conservatives.

Pages

Topic locked