What does the NDP need to change before the next election? x3

143 posts / 0 new
Last post
enemy_of_capital

quote:


And the NDP has always been in favour of publicly-owned hydroelectric power.

good on them [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

genstrike

First off, I think nationalization would benefit the people of both the regions in question and the country as a whole, although I agree there might be issues of perception.

Second, what is the difference between resource extraction (specifically oil) and hydroelectricity that makes it possibly to nationalize one but not the other?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:
[b] Jack did his part with $7 per day daycare (it could go further but it fundementally changes the education of children, the equality for woman)[/b]

I missed that - where did Jack propose that? We have had it in Quйbec since 1997 (started out as $5 per day), adopted by the PQ and maintained so far by the Liberals.

Too bad no NDP province has seen fit to implement it.

Please send me your source for Layton proposing $7 child care. Never saw it, never heard it, it's not on the NDP website.

enemy_of_capital

quote:


I missed that - where did Jack propose that? We have had it in Quйbec since 1997 (started out as $5 per day), adopted by the PQ and maintained so far by the Liberals.

Too bad no NDP province has seen fit to implement it.

Please send me your source for Layton proposing $7 child care. Never saw it, never heard it, it's not on the NDP website.


you know your right I think my brain made that leap. I remeber vaguely Jack said he would look to Quebecs example to modle an NDP childcare plan but this was last election when we were demanding a reversal on $100 bilion in corperate tax cust instead of a lowly $50 billion. All apollogies. This being the case I cant think of a single proposal of Layton's that espouses anything with an inkling of world changing vigour.

Unionist

No worries, E_of_C. I urge you to lobby your party to:

1. Immediately cancel the Harperite lump sums to all parents. This is regressive and rewards stay-at-home parents under the phony guise of child care.

2. Push for immediate implementation of the $7 plan as a transition to #3 below. Manitoba would be a nice place to showcase it. Then it would seem less insincere when promoted federally.

3. Use all the cash saved under #1, as well as other necessary revenues, to finance the infrastructure of publicly controlled and publicly delivered affordable (ultimately free) child care.

Then I can congratulate Jack for saying what we mean and meaning what we say.

Chester Drawers

Enemy of Capital, do you mean the nationalization of hydro where the federal government directly owns it or just provincial? This can lead to regionalism to the extreme if one sector is treated differently than others.

How do you compensate the millions of Canadians who own oil and gas shares through their pensions, RRSP's and open mutual funds? They would lose millions in future revenues and devaluations in their capital.

Just being the devils advocate here. In order to be successful the NDP has to treat everyone equaly, you can not have situations where some are more equal than others. Once that happens a political movement is lost.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]Second, what is the difference between resource extraction (specifically oil) and hydroelectricity that makes it possibly to nationalize one but not the other?[/b]

Oil and gas companies were handed certain technologies for slant and horizontal drilling techniques by federally-funded(and owned) r&d in 1960s-70s North America. Drilling for oil and gas is now an area of expertise owned by the largest energy companies. This is not something we need to do anyway, if Canadians governments were to use free market mechanisms to nationalise oil and gas revenues, as socialist Norway and Venezuela have demonstrated already. Canada has no business being saddled with national debt and a shortage of doctors, a lack of money for new hospitals in provinces like Ontario and Alberta while massive amounts of energy are siphoned off to the States and profits shovelled out of the country by too many Liberal and Tory governments feigning impotence(they've been on the take. There's no other explanation for decades of bad government and dearth of revenues from oil and gas)

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Too bad no NDP province has seen fit to implement it.[/b]

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/]Quebec's[/url] is not a bad plan - one in five are said to afford access to day care while it's one in eight nationally. I think it's actually 50% of children of day care age in Quebec are in day care programs. Daycare in Liberal Ontario is anywhere from $30 to $50 a day.

[url=http://denisesavoie.ndp.ca/page/174]Bill C-303 NDP takes next step in affordable quality child care in Canada[/url]

quote:

OTTAWA – Victoria’s MP Denise Savoie took the next step to realize a national child care system by defending her private members’ bill – the NDP’s Early Learning and Child Care Act (Bill C-303) – at the start of parliamentary hearings on the legislation yesterday. If passed, Bill C-303 would ensure adequate, stable federal investment in childcare, [b]so that affordable access to quality early learning opportunities is guaranteed.[/b] . . .

Savoie referred to the recent report by the Council for Early Child Development, which found a [b]“chaotic mess”[/b] of early learning programs in Canada. The report also points out that [b]Canada ranks lowest among 30 OECD countries[/b] in the amount of funding provided for early learning


[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
Bill C-303 NDP takes next step in affordable quality child care in Canada
[/b]

I'm pleased to read that the NDP proposes good child care programs while in opposition.

The next step would be to implement some while in government.

Of course, one could say that B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba were not as wealthy as Quйbec in the 1990s, so they needed to focus on other priorities... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Action, please.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Doug

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
And the NDP has always been in favour of publicly-owned hydroelectric power.[/b]

Not federal ownership of hydroelectric power, and there's the difference. Quebec, BC and Newfoundland in particular would all have massive hissy fits if it were proposed that the federal government take over hydroelectricity.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I'm pleased to read that the NDP proposes good child care programs while in opposition.[/b]


And I'm glad that Quebec has a piecemeal daycare system, I really am. It's just that the OECD says Canada ranks dead last wrt funding for childcare after 140 years' worth of old line party rule and firm grip on federal purse strings still in tight control of the two dirty old line parties.

quote:

[b]The next step would be to implement some while in government..[/b]

I fully agree with you on this point. Ottawa needs new blood.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/daycarecosts.html]Provincial daycare rates[/url] 2005 Manitoba and Saskatchewan have some of the most affordable in the country by comparison. Still it's not enough.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

enemy_of_capital

Provincialization would work as well as a provincial NDP policy perhaps it would take the edge of regionalist fears so long as federal law allowed for federal regulation of pircing within our borders.

Fidel

No matter how much they feign impotence on these issues, federal purse strings are still in Ottawa.

And Canada is one of the few rich countries without a national housing strategy, or a national dental officer, or a national drug plan. Canada is a rich country, but it's not so evident.

enemy_of_capital

quote:


No matter how much they feign impotence on these issues, federal purse strings are still in Ottawa.
And Canada is one of the few rich countries without a national housing strategy, or a national dental officer, or a national drug plan. Canada is a rich country, but it's not so evident.

I like the housing plank of this. Why cant we guarentee 100% of all people who actively seek a home have one? eliminating homelessness seems pretty world changing to me [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

babblerwannabe

unionist, would you please answer my question? or anyone else? It bothered me that i can't respond to the attacks my bf waged against the NDP.

George Victor

quote:


I like the housing plank of this. Why cant we guarentee 100% of all people who actively seek a home have one? eliminating homelessness seems pretty world changing to me


And a chicken in every pot while we're at it.
"We" might if "we" could somehow show the electorate the economics that would provide it (without selling out the resource sector completely, including water).

It's all pretty world changing all right. But you and unionist should not worry about details like what to sell to achieve your charitable goals. Around here, any attempt to discuss the economics ends with a warning that the revolutionaries will descend from the hills and make a joke of the discussion.

And returning to this thread after an afternoon out ruminating under the sun and cloud, I guess I now understand Ken's point...

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by JeffWells:
[b]

Yes, it's not like it can't be predicted. And without a major media outlet in the party's corner we have a lot to overcome.

There's a decent chance the next Liberal leader will be from Toronto, in which case this will be more important than ever.[/b]


And the supposed progressive alternate freebie NOW feverishly pushing strategic voting and nice Jack/bad Jack on its page sure sent a contradictory message.
[url=http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Gays_throw_in_their_lot_with_artists_... throw in their lot with artists, Greens[/url]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by George Victor:
[b]

And a chicken in every pot while we're at it.
"We" might if "we" could somehow show the electorate the economics that would provide it (without selling out the resource sector completely, including water).[/b]


George, I don't think many Canadians would be anymore interested in the economics behind an effective national housing strategy here in Canada than they are with national housing strategies and funding social democracy in place in several other rich and competitive economies for a long time. In fact, 41 percent of opinions didn't bother to file so much as a protest vote on the 14th. I think very many Canadians would very, very impressed with the performance of a first NDP government in Ottawa.

Doug

I'm glad that someone like Brian Topp has some good ideas about what to do next:

quote:

So what is to be done, you ask?

My answer is that we'll be thinking very carefully about that throughout the life of the new Parliament.

And that most everyone in our family is going to have a say in it - our Leader; our Caucus; our party elders and veterans; our Provincial and territorial leaders and elected officials; our elected party officials and delegates; our allies in the labour movement, in academia and throughout the broader democratic left.

We're going to need to take a look at how our successful sister parties in other countries moved forward. Possibly without copying their leaders' speeches.

We're going to need to carry forward a lot of what worked for us in this election into the new Parliament and the next campaign -- reasonable amounts of focus, discipline, and issue relevance. Seeking to avoid proposing anything that requires too complicated an explanation, learning from the mistakes of our colleagues in other parties.

So then to the issue of 'earning the public's trust'.

What we have done between 2004 and 2006 is to rebuild our connection to our base.

Most people who have voted for New Democrats in the past are doing so again.

Now we need to persuade people (something in the range of two million additional people) who have never voted for New Democrats to do so.

That means sounding sensible to them on the issues they care about.

Today that is the economy, health care, the environment. Other threshold issues in federal politics include foreign policy, First Nations issues, crime and justice.

In my view, we need to be sure we have done all of our homework on these issues. That we are current, interesting, perhaps a little provocative. And credible.

Visionary in goals; prudent, sensible and incremental in application.”


[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081019.WBWdouglasbe... here[/url]

janfromthebruce

I read the linked article and I think Brian was very smart - winning Canadians trust. We need to put out policy and be the forerunners of what matter most to Canadians. There is nothing more fitting, for example, for the NDP to lead on Health care, as it is so associated with the NDP.
The economic piece is also about building trust. I posted in the comment section, and suggested, as I have here, to tap into the wealth of the very talented progressive economist forum and CCPA. It also links with buying "made in Canada" first. Why not purpose an alternative budget?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Always leaves me a little queasy agreeing with Topp - and its happening more and more frequently

Island Red

What most impressed me about Topp's interview was his comment:

"What I like most about the campaign the New Democrats have just completed is that many party members aren't satisfied with it, or with the results."

I count myself among those within the NDP who are not satisfied with receiving honourable mentions. Yes, the NDP came second in scores of ridings, but we still only increased our share of the popular vogte by a measly 0.6%.

It is possible that the Liberal Party will continue its steady decline, especially as it seems incapable of evolving into a grassroots party as the Conservatives and NDP have managed to do.

However, in politics the past is no predicator of the future, and the NDP must seriously reavaluate its message, as well as its messengers.

The key to success lies in Quebec - win seats there and you'll start winning in the 905/416 belt. The fact is that the NDP lost a golden opportunity to win three more seats in Quebec. The NDP may only have one more chance - the next election - to make serious inroads into Quebec; it must now dispassionately examine how this will be achieved.

Tom Vouloumanos

quote:


The key to success lies in Quebec - win seats there and you'll start winning in the 905/416 belt. The fact is that the NDP lost a golden opportunity to win three more seats in Quebec. The NDP may only have one more chance - the next election - to make serious inroads into Quebec; it must now dispassionately examine how this will be achieved.

As a longtime Quйbec dipper, a witness to the 88 success story and the post '88 rapid decline (read debacle), a two-time candidate during the bleak 90s - when we were a few dozen active members and polling under 2% - and as an active participant in the rebuilding of the Quйbec section in these latter happer years, here are a few thoughts.

It is true that the NDP has officially been reborn in Quйbec, standing now at 12.2% with our first MP ever elected in a general election and our first incumbent ever to be re-elected. We came close (about 3% difference) in Gatineau and got respectable results in Westmount-Ville Marie (22%) and Hull Aylmer (almost 20%) to give but two examples.

In order to win ridings and keep the momentum going we've got one main thing to do: ORGANIZE!

The section doesn't have the membership yet to pull out its vote in multiple ridings, in some ridings we didn't even run a campaign and we got almost 14%. We can't benefit from the support and favourable image we have in Quйbec because of a lack of human capital. Don't get me wrong our membership has really grown but its not at a satisfactory level at which we can begin to get substantial results (i.e. win in ridings)

The NPD-QC must now build solid riding associations by intensive and relenteless membership drives.

We need 2 or 3 meet n greets a year just for new and ol' members to get to know each other. This will help identify the potential party activists as opposed to the the card-carrying members who want to support but no more. This will help build personal and political bonds which are necessary in a growing organization.

We need to re-start our succesful U-NPD/NDP-U courses. These were conferences on fundraising, communications, organzing, party structure as well as party history and the more advanced course on history of the international socialist movement (both of which were humbly taught by your truly). This will bring new and not so new members up to speed on all things NDP.

Another proposition is policy forums. These are free form (as opposed to the resolution pro and aganist type disucssions at party councils and conventions) debates/discussions/conferences on various policy areas that allow members (old and new) and potential members to deepen their understanding of policy alternatives as well as general vision.

We need greater links to civil society organizations and the labour movement.

We need vigorous fundraising.

In essence, we need people, money, outreach and structures of engaging and educating our people in order for us to be a living party and not an electoral machine.

Obviously the above can be applied to any provincial section of the party and nothing here is rocket science. I think though that for Quйbec (and I say this lightly since I am not deeply aware of things going on elsewhere in great detail)this type of grassroots organizing and educating can be potentially very successful given the amount of civil society initiatives in Quйbec that do basically the same things enumerated here except for contesting elections.

It won't be easy, it never has, but it's alot easier than 10 years and a whole lot more fun!

NorthReport

Some good comments here Tom & others.

Vetting of candidates is another issue, and with all due respect to those who ran and had to withdraw because of their past, obviously concealed from the screening process, or even because of inappropriate behaviour during the campaign, the NDP needs a much better process in place to examine and evaluate prospective candidates, as obviously some folks just cannot be trusted to show enough good judgement on their own.

It was apparent that the Liberal and Conservative and Green supportive mainstream press went to town on some of what should not have been NDP candidates.

As a result the NDP was probably several per cent lower in the polls, and probably a few seats less in Parliament than what the NDP otherwise might have received in terms of voter support. The fiasco of what was it, 4 candidates, withdrawing during the actual election campaign itself, created the opportunity for the NDP to be dealt a substantial amount of damage in what otherwise was a well run campaign.

Stockholm

With regard to Quebec, I think that we have built a stronger foundation and we are now taken seriously by the Quebec media in a way that we haven't been for 20 years. Unfortunately, the NDP got somewhat sideswiped this time by the way the BQ resurrected itself thanks to Harper's stupid comments about culture as well as Dion exceeding expectations in the leaders debate.

Next time could be different. There is intense speculation that Gilles Duceppe will soon retire and any of the people likely to succeed him are pretty lackluster.

It is almost certain that the next Liberal leader will be an anglophone and if its McKenna - it will be someone whose french is not all that good.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I don't believe that the next election is our last chance in Quebec. But if we fail to make a breakthrough, it is probably our last chance for a generation.

I'd rather sieze the opportunity now.

And Tom has, in general, outlined the plan.

Dana Larsen

quote:


Vetting of candidates is another issue, and with all due respect to those who ran and had to withdraw because of their past, obviously concealed from the screening process, or even because of inappropriate behaviour during the campaign, the NDP needs a much better process in place to examine and evaluate prospective candidates, as obviously some folks just cannot be trusted to show enough good judgement on their own.

As one of the four candidates to resign, I might have a unique perspective on this issue.

I have actually been approved as a potential candidate three times.

I sought the nomination in my riding when I joined the NDP in 2003, again in 2005 and then again in 2007. Each time I had to fill out the form which asks about criminal record, lawsuits, and any other controversial behaviour.

I have no criminal record and have never been arrested or charged with a crime. But every time I wrote down on the form that I had broken pretty much all of Canada's marijuana laws at some point, and that I wasn't ashamed of this. In 2007 I also mentioned that I helped run the Vancouver Seed Bank, which sold seeds for hundreds of plants, including marijuana seeds.

I always expected someone to call me and ask me to explain this, or to provide more details about my marijuana background and my work. But this never happened over three election cycles.

Frankly I don't think that my activist work, my current marijuana use, my past use of psychedelics, or my Pot-TV videos would be any reason for me to be disqualified from running as a candidate for the NDP. However, it was the timing and manner of my background being released to the national media that created the main problem.

In retrospect, we should have sent out a press release 18 months ago, when I first won the nomination in my riding. At that time, a press release which said "NDP candidate admits past LSD use" or whatever, would not have been a big deal. And then by the time of the election hopefully the issue would be dead. And if there had been a big problem, I could have withdrawn my nomination long before any election call. But nothing like this was done, leaving it to our opponents to release this information at the most damaging time and framed in the most damaging way to myself and the party.

For the record, the videos shown on the news were all 8 to 10 years old. There is one video which shows me driving an hour after taking DMT. This is a short-acting psychedelic substance which wears off entirely within 20 minutes. (DMT is the main psychedelic ingredient of the Amazon shamanic beverage Ayahuasca.) This same video also shows me saying that "I've got one rolled for the road." Marijuana use does not significantly impair driving ability, and I was certainly not impaired while driving on any video. However, even if I was impaired, this is a ten-year old video, and I don't think that is necessarily any reason to bar me from public office.

I certainly could have been even more forthright and detailed about some of the controversial parts of my work. But at the same time, as the former leader of the BC Marijuana Party, former editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine, co-founder of the Vancouver Seed Bank and so on, it seemed to me that there should be no surprise that I have written and said some things that could seem controversial, especially when taken out of context.


quote:

It was apparent that the Liberal and Conservative and Green supportive mainstream press went to town on some of what should not have been NDP candidates.

I generally avoided the media deluge I got after my resignation. But the media that I did do was surprisingly supportive and friendly. For instance, when I appeared on the Mike Duffy show, he called me "a team player indeed" and said "I hope that young people will follow your example of getting involved in the process."

Actually I didn't see any serious attacks against either myself or the NDP over my resignation. Most of the commentary was lighthearted and humorous rather than attacking us.

If having used marijuana or psychedelics means you are forever forbidden from seeking political office, then we will be seeing an entire generation of Canadians excluded from the political process.

The worst part of this was actually what happened to Vancouver Quadra NDP candidate Kirk Tousaw. Unlike my fairly outrageous videos which showed me using psychedelics and apparently toking before driving, Kirk has a single video on Pot-TV which shows him sharing a bonghit with Marc Emery. For Kirk to step down as an NDP candidate, was not fair, and likely a strategic error.

Of course, I'm hardly the only politician from any party who has used marijuana and other drugs.

** Liberal icon Justin Trudeau has smoked marijuana with Marc Emery and other people I know on many occasions. His dad was a past marijuana user and his mom used to smoke pot at 24 Sussex Drive.

** Conservative Rahim Jaffer, who tried to use marijuana against the NDP in his riding and then lost to them, is a past and probably current pot smoker himself, according to a few people I know who were active in the Alliance and Conservative party.

** Ontario NDP MLA Cheri DiNovo used psychedelics and also smuggled LSD into Canada from the USA. "We used to import LSD from California - it was genuine Osley Acid in those days - and we did it in hollowed out bibles." The NDP stood by her, and she won. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheri_DiNovo]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

** Current Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie was charged with two counts of trafficking heroin in 1975, and spent 17 months in a federal penitentiary serving his sentence. [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2003/11/24/24nov03fentie.html]http:...

** Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory used marijuana as a high school and university student, and wrote articles calling for lighter sentences for pot dealers and explaining how he drove while stoned.

** Andre Boisclair became leader of the PQ despite admitting to having regularly used cocaine between 1996 and 2003 while serving as a member of the Quebec legislature.

** Prime Ministers who have smoked or used marijuana include Pierre Trudeau, Paul Martin and Kim Campbell.

** Gilles Duceppe and Jean Charest both admitted to having been pot smokers in the past.

** I wonder if the great Canadian icon and historical novelist Pierre Burton would have been barred from seeking public office because he showed "young people" how to roll a joint in detail on the Rick Mercer show. (Burton was a lifelong marijuana user.) [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lMOxuciYQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
[b]Frankly I don't think that my activist work,[/b]

Agree.

quote:

[b]... my current marijuana use...[/b]

Agree.

quote:

[b]... my past use of psychedelics ... [/b]

Agree.

quote:

[b]... or my Pot-TV videos ...[/b]

[b]DISAGREE.[/b]

quote:

[b]... would be any reason for me to be disqualified from running as a candidate for the NDP.[/b]

Your appearing to smoke while driving, and the scene of your mouth full of a couple dozen or so joints, were enough to disqualify you - unless you had expressed some public sober second thought about the wisdom of the message. You didn't really do that. I hate to lecture, but it made you a non-candidate, and it meant you (like all of us) have some learning to do.

quote:

[b]The worst part of this was actually what happened to Vancouver Quadra NDP candidate Kirk Tousaw.[/b]

[b]AGREE![/b] - as I said right away at the time. That was abusive and cowardly. Pressuring him to step down was a sign of clear hypocrisy on the party's part.

I do hope, however, that you agree that Julian West and (far more so) that lowlife McKeever had to go. The party can't be blamed in West's case IMHO, but in McKeever's, Layton has not, [i]to this day[/i], publicly condemned this creep's statements and actions. That is bad news for the party.

Dana, I think you'll agree I've always congratulated and encouraged you in your activism in my posts over the years. You're a far better fighter in this cause than many talkers (like me). I have also, however, consistently questioned your chosen party's commitment to that cause. The despicable treatment of Tousaw augurs poorly in that regard.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I truly resent how you were treated Dana and am glad to see you're keeping on. The NDP should realize these issues would strengthen their base.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Unionist, will you agree that John Tory should therefore be disqualified if what Dana has posted is true that Tory justified driving stoned?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]Unionist, will you agree that John Tory should therefore be disqualified if what Dana has posted is true that Tory justified driving stoned?[/b]

No.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
Your [b]appearing[/b] to smoke while driving,

Also absent in your smear is any factual evidence of sobriety vs the many elected with actual evidence against them.

quote:

and the scene of your mouth full of a couple dozen or so joints, were enough to disqualify you

Judge much?

quote:

- unless you had expressed some public sober second thought about the wisdom of the message.

He did, although I didn't find it necessary.

quote:

You didn't really do that. I hate to lecture, but it made you a non-candidate, and it meant you (like all of us) have some learning to do.

Wish you'd take that (like all of us) seriously.

remind remind's picture

Well, Dana I hope you run next time, now that all of this is out of the way. As that is the thing once trump cards are used they can ever be used again. And Kirk's resignation still steams me.

Unionist

Gee, RP, if Dana had been filmed swilling whisky at the wheel, would you have said "there's no proof of impairment"?

You may be the only person here who actually sees no problem whatsoever with those videos.

I want a candidate to be a leader. Not a hedonistic exhibitionist who flouts [b]good[/b] laws (like not using psychotropic substances while driving a motor vehicle).

However, you are entitled to vote for whatever kind of social role model you wish. Just don't get too upset when I say bluntly what everyone else (except I guess you) is thinking or has already said.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Gee, RP, if Dana had been filmed swilling whisky at the wheel, would you have said "there's no proof of impairment"?

You may be the only person here who actually sees no problem whatsoever with those videos.

I want a candidate to be a leader. Not a hedonistic exhibitionist who flouts [b]good[/b] laws (like not using psychotropic substances while driving a motor vehicle).

However, you are entitled to vote for whatever kind of social role model you wish. Just don't get too upset when I say bluntly what everyone else (except I guess you) is thinking or has already said.[/b]


What I tried to imply and you conveniently ignore is that many elected representatives actually have convictions of impaired driving, which Dana does not.

I'm not playing mental gymnastics with your thing against drug policy reform. Just wanted to point out your inaccuracies.

Ignore the facts if you want.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]What I tried to imply and you conveniently ignore is that many elected representatives actually have convictions of impaired driving, which Dana does not.[/b]

I don't care. I never accused Dana, whom I respect and support, of having committed a crime. You seem to be having trouble following this subject.

quote:

[b]I'm not playing mental gymnastics with your thing against drug policy reform.[/b]

I fully support the legalization of marijuana, which if you took time out of attacking me at every possible occasion, you might have worked out by yourself.

quote:

[b]Ignore the facts if you want.[/b]

That's a little amusing under the circumstances.

So, what about swilling from a whisky bottle while behind the wheel? Make a good NDP campaign video? With a disclaimer at the bottom saying, "I always stop when I hit 0.079 BAC"?
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Fidel

It's always a phony war on something emanating from the empire's home base. Ariana Huffington's site ran a piece talking about the Bush brothers drug use. It sounds like they were doing coke and drinking holes in their livers while Bush senior was in the White House even. Wild parties for sure.

Coyote

quote:


Marijuana use does not significantly impair driving ability

Nonsense.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
So, what about swilling from a whisky bottle while behind the wheel? Make a good NDP campaign video?[

Nice propaganda. That video was 8 yrs old and a Liberal stunt and more an Ad for the Liberals.

But you knew that.

quote:

With a disclaimer at the bottom saying, "I always stop when I hit 0.079 BAC"?
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Why can't you interact with my question of factually impaired versus your allegations?

I apologize if I seem rude for asking.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]

Nonsense.[/b]


Correct, like alcohol, it should be regulated as just like 1 beer does not a drunk driver make, 1 joint does not a stoner make.

Unionist

Well, back to the thread topic. One thing the NDP must change is not booting out candidates like Kirk Tousaw for using drugs. That's shameful, and I have yet to hear the outrage over that. As for Dana, his story here is like his original one. He did nothing wrong, and anyway it was long ago, and anyway look at all the others, etc. A little more connection with how real people think is required before he runs again.

And more outrage is needed about McKeever. Didn't hear much on this board.

No one expects virtue from the Libs or Cons. Pointing to their lowlife types is not a very good excuse for tolerating our own.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Well, back to the thread topic. One thing the NDP must change is not booting out candidates like Kirk Tousaw for using drugs. That's shameful, and I have yet to hear the outrage over that. As for Dana, his story here is like his original one. He did nothing wrong, and anyway it was long ago, and anyway look at all the others, etc. A little more connection with how real people think is required before he runs again.

And more outrage is needed about McKeever. Didn't hear much on this board.

No one expects virtue from the Libs or Cons. Pointing to their lowlife types is not a very good excuse for tolerating our own.[/b]


The NDP did not boot him out, he resigned.

West Coast Lefty

quote:


I'm pleased to read that the NDP proposes good child care programs while in opposition.

The next step would be to implement some while in government.

Of course, one could say that B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba were not as wealthy as Quйbec in the 1990s, so they needed to focus on other priorities...

Action, please.


I'm in the rare and uncomfortable position of having to defend Ujjal Dosanjh here, but as BC NDP Premier in 2000 he did begin to create a Quebec-style universal child care program in BC. As described in this [url=http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2004/collier.pdf]research paper [/url]:

quote:

In June 2000, the BC NDP introduced a publicly-funded after-school child care program for children from Grades 1 to the age of 12. This seven-dollar-a-day program was only the second publicly-funded child care program to be launched in North America and would cost the NDP $14 million the first year and $30 million for each successive year of operation. The program was not in place long enough to impact provincial expenditure levels and in 2001, it was cancelled by the newly-elected Liberal government.

Ironically, the provincial bureaucrat in charge of creating this program was none other than current BC NDP leader Carole James. It was truly tragic that the NDP started this program so late in their 2nd term, as if they had just had one more year in power, the BC child care program would have been the signature legacy of the 1991-2001 NDP mandate, just as ICBC and the ALR are still around today from the 1972-1975 Barrett government.

Of course, it was all too little and too late and Unionist's critique is essentially correct.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]

The NDP did not boot him out, he resigned.[/b]


And do you recall Jack Layton's comments on his "resignation"?

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Well, back to the thread topic. One thing the NDP must change is not booting out candidates like Kirk Tousaw for using drugs. That's shameful, and I have yet to hear the outrage over that. [/b]

Really, well I heard some. Perhaps, your level of what outrage is, is different than mine.

quote:

[b]As for Dana, his story here is like his original one. He did nothing wrong, and anyway it was long ago, and anyway look at all the others, etc. A little more connection with how real people think is required before he runs again.[/b]

Well, this comment makes it obvious you do not really mean this:

quote:

..Dana, whom I respect and support

Nor does this one:

quote:

want a candidate to be a leader. Not a hedonistic exhibitionist who flouts good laws (like not using psychotropic substances while driving a motor vehicle).

Moreover, what do you mean "how real people think"? You know this type of comment really infuriates me, as well as labelling people hedonistic. There you sit in PQ telling us, out here in BC, that apparently we are not "real people" and really are impinging us all with your "hedonistic" labelling. Because you know what, there are more like Dana out here than not, and we have been doing quite fine on our own, without eastern interference and easterners tellings us basically we are hedonistic losers, and not real people.

And your comments states Dana is not a "real" person, and if he is not then 2million BCers aren't either. Some kind of wonderful respect you got going on there unionist. Pardon me while I call that hypocrisy, at best.

Frankly, I am way more pissed off and outraged that the NDP has someone in their caucus who supported the sale of bulk water as Mulclair has, than I am at Dana's videos of himself, from some isolated day 10 years ago. Moreover, I would not support any efforts towards Mulclair becoming leader of the NDP, for that fact alone. IMV, he cannot be trusted, as a national party leader who perhaps would one day become PM.

What else is for sale? And would he plunge ahead with bulk water sales anyway? And you know what?During the election campaign, you never heard a word of that criticism come out of my mouth. Nor my belief that he should not be a NDP caucus member. Why? It is your choice who you want for an MP, in your province, not mine from way out here in BC. If that is okay with you and other in your riding so beit.

quote:

[b]And more outrage is needed about McKeever. Didn't hear much on this board.[/b]

Again, nonsense on both accounts.

quote:

[b]No one expects virtue from the Libs or Cons. Pointing to their lowlife types is not a very good excuse for tolerating our own.[/b]

Again another elitist labelling comment. And no one should expect virtue from the NDP either, that is a false dichotomy that sets up impossible to achieve conditions. You are not perfect, I am not perfect, and there is not 1 soul on the face of this earth that is.

Unionist

Yeah, good night remind, and thanks for the Liberal talking point about Mulcair. It was scorned here in Outremont, but maybe you'll get some mileage out of it wherever you live.

Incidentally, no candidate in Quйbec, of any party, would ever have been dumped just for being seen smoking a joint. Seems that happens rather frequently in your part of the world, and in your favourite party.

Check out what's happening at home before you cast stones afield.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Fidel

This is "Canadian Politics", unionist. The two old line parties have either been too arrogant about calls for their government ministers to step down, or they were exposed too late after the damage was done and thrown out of power, or resigned to avoid prosecution.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Yeah, good night remind, and thanks for the Liberal talking point about Mulcair. It was scorned here in Outremont, but maybe you'll get some mileage out of it wherever you live.[/b]

Nonsense on the Liberal talking points about Mulclair, you are using that smear as an attempt to marginalize my perspective, and voice. As I said, it was your choice in Outremount to make, not mine out in here BC.

You may have scorned it in Outremount, but it certainly made an impact here in BC, and in this electoral district, where, unlike you in Outremount, we are facing strong challenges for bulk water sales, everyone wants that moutain spring water, you know. In fact, it might well have cost Crawford his seat, as well as other BC NDP candidates a seat. Moreover, it will be continued to be trotted out each and every election here. It played and it played well and it will be a gift that keeps on giving, as long as Mulclair is in the NDP caucus.

If you look back at the polls, the BC NDP numbers dropped after that little goodie was released. But did you hear us out here in BC carrying on making and the deal out of it, that it is? No! Nor did I connect the dots here at babble, about why BC NDP numbers declined suddenly, when people were wondering why, I stayed silent in the face of knowing. But by your standard of measure of outrage and outcry, I should have.

As we could have easily frothed up justified rage over it, but what good would it have done? It would have cost us more seats, than it did. And I say again, it is your choice out there to vote for whom you want.

So during the election period, when it was revealed, I privately decided to say nothing, but made a commitment to myself that Mulclair would NEVER be leader of the NDP. In fact, I said that to you the other day, when you suggested he should be. At that time, I was still reluctant to get into it publically, however, not anymore, when you can throw out the santimonious and urban geocentric tripe, such as you have.

Frankly, it was that anti-environment,"real" jobs first, mindset by some of the union members out here in BC, that prompted the rise of the BC GP, and the ultimate decay of the BC NDP. And I say that as a union member and I will also say that I have had more than my fill of that type of sentiment, for a life time. And should Mulclair ever become leader, I would imagine BC would be mostly, if not completely, lost to the NDP. I know I would park my vote with the GP for the duration, and so would a good many others I know.

Edited to add a comment as unionist changed his post while I was composing.

If you think anyone in BC wanted Dana or Kirk to step down, you are sorely mistaken, that decision was made by the Ontario brain trust and I suppose by the candidates themselves, so they say. But it wasn't because people in BC pushed for it, of that you can be sure.

And I have looked in my back yard to see central Canadians, interfering in our politics here. Either directly or indirectly. Case in point is Mulclair's former desire to export bulk water impacted us, and the NDP chances out here. The choice to recuit him, ended up affecting us. Had he been out here in BC, he would never have been recruited nor elected as a candidate. Bulk water sale support is not a go here, whether it was in the past or not.

Moroever, you do not hesitate to butt into every other area of the country, with your opinions, judgements and attempted guilt trips, so your comment in that regard, towards me, rings a little hollow, at best. And remember you all dismissed Mulclair's actions, as being in the past, but yet you do NOT apply that same standard to Dana's circumstance. What does that say other than hypocrisy?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

wage zombie

I live in Dana's riding and when Blair Wilson came to my door and i asked him what he thought about Dana resigning, he said, "Well Jack Layton's gotta win his seat in Toronto." It sounded like he probably said that to other people too.

(When i assured him, that, no, Jack Layton doesn't have to worry about losing his seat over this (since i told him that i had recently moved from Toronto), he said, "No, probably not, but his wife does.")

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Dana's analysis of how the issues should have been managed is essentially sound. Tell it fully. Tell it frankly. Tell it first.

Done that way, even the video unionist (and maybe others) still considers beyond the pale could have been overcome - with perhaps an appropriate contrite comment from Dana about having used a bad tactic to advance a good cause or something like that.

melovesproles

quote:


So during the election period, when it was revealed, I privately decided to say nothing, but made a commitment to myself that Mulclair would NEVER be leader of the NDP. In fact, I said that to you the other day, when you suggested he should be. At that time, I was still reluctant to get into it publically, however, not anymore, when you can throw out the santimonious and urban geocentric tripe, such as you have.

Frankly, it was that anti-environment,"real" jobs first, mindset by some of the union members out here in BC, that prompted the rise of the BC GP, and the ultimate decay of the BC NDP. And I say that as a union member and I will also say that I have had more than my fill of that type of sentiment, for a life time. And should Mulclair ever become leader, I would imagine BC would be mostly, if not completely, lost to the NDP. I know I would park my vote with the GP for the duration, and so would a good many others I know.


I agree that bulk water sales are a big deal in BC but I wouldn't write Muclair off yet, I think people should be given a chance to change their minds. I haven't made up my mind yet on him, I think we'll get a better idea as time goes on whether he wants to move the party to the right or not. I'd be perfectly fine with an NDP leader from Quebec if I thought they understood the issues which are important to BC. I'm not convinced Muclair has less potential than Layton when it comes to this.

quote:

If you think anyone in BC wanted Dana or Kirk to step down, you are sorely mistaken, that decision was made by the Ontario brain trust and I suppose by the candidates themselves, so they say. But it wasn't because people in BC pushed for it, of that you can be sure.

That's my belief as well.

But I agree with Unionist that driving while stoned is a complete loser for legalization advocates. I'm sure some people could drive without any problems and there is some truth to the fact that stoned drivers become more cautious in contrast to drunk drivers who feel more bold. However, it simply isn't true across the board, some people get very intoxicated when they smoke pot and should not be operating a motor vehicle. I think laws prohibiting driving while high are fair in principle, the problem is there is no accurate way of testing.

Pages

Topic locked