The picture is incomplete: https://canadianviews-ymo.ca/jagmeet-singh-must-get-ass-parliament-post-...
Jagmeet Singh needs to get his ass into Parliament post haste
Thu, 2017-10-05 13:21
#1
indigo 007
Jagmeet Singh needs to get his ass into Parliament post haste
Thu, 2017-10-05 13:27
#2
This was originally in the "Jagmeet Singh suggestion" thread, but I'll move it over here
Elizabeth May suggestion to Jagmeet Singh (via the media) - this is not a personality contest
May slapped down voices approving of Singh’s likely strategy of traveling across Canada with the hope of recruiting new NDP party members, workers, candidates and voters in preparation for the 2019 election.
“It would be quite wrong to say, as some media commentators are saying,” that Singh “doesn’t need to rush to get a seat,” May said. “That again is another way of saying it’s a personality contest, [that] doing the work in Parliament doesn’t matter.”
May said Singh needs to demonstrate his abilities on the floor of the House. “I’m sorry, if you want to hold the confidence of the House and you want to elect enough seats to hold the confidence of the house. You’d better have House of Commons experience, you better actually have displayed what you’re going to do in Parliament as an opposition leader in Parliament.”
NDP leader Singh responded to May, telling The Tyee, “I am comfortable not having a seat in the House. Other New Democratic leaders who have been incredibly successful, like Jack Layton, haven’t had a seat and have spent time getting to know Canadians. I have also said that I am open to counsel on this, so I haven’t made a decision, but I am comfortable with this right now.”
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/10/05/May-Lectures-Singh/
Thu, 2017-10-05 17:27
#3
Because Elizabeth May is the go-to authority on successful party leadership. I sometimes think her worst nightmare would be for the Greens to elect dozens of MPs, for the GPC to be a real party, with a great variety of faces and voices, rather than simply her personal ego club.
Thu, 2017-10-05 18:15
#4
Elizabeth May would likely lose her leadership if there were more Green MPs, the average Green Party member is significantly to the left of May.
Thu, 2017-10-05 18:17
#5
“I’m sorry, if you want to hold the confidence of the House and you want to elect enough seats to hold the confidence of the house. You’d better have House of Commons experience, you better actually have displayed what you’re going to do in Parliament as an opposition leader in Parliament.”
These days, don't leaders typically hold the confidence of the House by winning a plurality of seats, moreso than by the leader "setting an example"?
Interesting that on the one hand, May seems to want us to remember that our system isn't all about the Supreme Leader, but on the other hand seems to suggest that the success of the NDP is dependent on Singh winning a seat somewhere ASAP.
If Singh's provisional strategy helps the NDP earn more seats in the end, I think that will matter more than whether he becomes the new MP for Yellowknife Centre.
Fri, 2017-10-06 05:32
#6
From Mr. magoo:
...May seems to want us to remember that our system isn't all about the Supreme Leader, but on the other hand seems to suggest that the success of the NDP is dependent on Singh winning a seat somewhere ASAP.
That's not really what she said. I think she was saying that Singh has to demonstrate his ability in the House of Commons. Of course that would require he have a seat, but the seat itself is only material in that it gets him into the Commons.
It's also true that if Singh is travelling the country drumming up new NDP memebers, someone will have to lead the NDP caucus in parliament. That creates a situation which dilutes the party leadership. It also creates a situation where it's better for Singh if the parliamentary leader is not that great. After all, when he finally makes it to the Commons, he doesn't want to be trying to follow a terrific act. If his performance in the House is not as good as the NDP's parliamentary leader, that could cause a drop in interest in the NDP right at the moment when it should be rising.
On the other hand, if the parliamentary leader is mediocre, it's a lot easier act to follow, but it doesn't do much for the caucus while Singh is outside the House.
I'm not a big fan of Elizabeth May, but in this case I think she's correct. Get into the House, strut your stuff as leader, and use the rest of your time to travel the country.
Lest we forget, Justin Trudeau spent 5 years as an MP before he ran for leadership of his party. That experience matters.
Fri, 2017-10-06 08:12
#7
alan smithee
Not to be negative but Singh will never be elected Prime Minister because Canada is pretty racist. He could win in the cities but not in the regions surrounding them and rural areas. That's where your solid and reliable 30% right wing fanatisists fester.
I hope I'm proven wrong but I have a very bad feeling. I remember when Canadians had a kinipshit over a sikh that was permitted to wear a turban as an RCMP officer.
I'm sure that racism is alive and kicking and stronger than in many decades because of the clown show happening in the US.
Fri, 2017-10-06 09:10
#8
"You know, most Canadians, if they don't show up for work, they don't get a promotion."
- Jack Layton
Fri, 2017-10-06 09:32
#9
Elizabeth May became leader of the Green party in 2006...she did not enter the House of Commons until 2011....so for five long years she toiled without a seat criss-crossing the country and whining about not being invited to debates between party leaders.
Fri, 2017-10-06 09:53
#10
Mulcair showed up for work every day holding Harper to account and a lot of good that did him and the party. I would have thought one lesson we'd have all learned from 2015 is that what happens in the House is entirely irrelevent to most Canadian voters. I'm not saying that's a good thing. In fact, I think it's terrible. But that's just how it is. And 2019 isn't so far off now. It's smart for Singh to not rise to the bait of a by-election. There's very little return on that, and a loss would be a catastrophe.
Fri, 2017-10-06 09:54
#11
Elizabeth May became leader of the Green party in 2006...she did not enter the House of Commons until 2011....so for five long years she toiled without a seat criss-crossing the country and whining about not being invited to debates between party leaders.
But at least she made two efforts to get into the House, including 1 by election that she was a long-shot to win in.
Fri, 2017-10-06 10:47
#12
progressive17
Because Elizabeth May is the go-to authority on successful party leadership. I sometimes think her worst nightmare would be for the Greens to elect dozens of MPs, for the GPC to be a real party, with a great variety of faces and voices, rather than simply her personal ego club.
I wish there were a "thumbs up" feature on this site to agree with posts with this one...
Fri, 2017-10-06 11:04
#13
He could win in the cities but not in the regions surrounding them and rural areas.
Canada's population is 82% urban. If Singh wins only "the cities", he'll deliver the NDP a crushing majority government. Generally speaking, the areas that wouldn't vote for someone because of brown skin aren't particularly likely to be voting NDP to begin with. I suppose we'll likely go from 6% to 2% in Battle River--Crowfoot, though.
Fri, 2017-10-06 11:30
#14
What about the rest of his body?
Fri, 2017-10-06 11:53
#15
progressive17
He could win in the cities but not in the regions surrounding them and rural areas.
Canada's population is 82% urban. If Singh wins only "the cities", he'll deliver the NDP a crushing majority government. Generally speaking, the areas that wouldn't vote for someone because of brown skin aren't particularly likely to be voting NDP to begin with. I suppose we'll likely go from 6% to 2% in Battle River--Crowfoot, though.
It's not quite as simple as that. Canada's Electoral Districts (ridings) are hugely gerrymandered to benefit the countryside over the cities. Urban ridings can have as many as 100,000 electors while rural ridings can have as few as 40,000. The excuse that is given is that a riding has to more or less conform to a contiguous geographical or political community. Cities can be chopped up by streets. You could have the same number of people voting Conservative and NDP, with the Tories returning 3 MPs and the NDP returning 1.
Fri, 2017-10-06 13:09
#16
Mulcair showed up for work every day holding Harper to account and a lot of good that did him and the party. I would have thought one lesson we'd have all learned from 2015 is that what happens in the House is entirely irrelevent to most Canadian voters. I'm not saying that's a good thing. In fact, I think it's terrible. But that's just how it is. And 2019 isn't so far off now. It's smart for Singh to not rise to the bait of a by-election. There's very little return on that, and a loss would be a catastrophe.
At the start of the 2015 election Mulcair and the NDP were in first place so Mulcair and the party seems to have benefited from Mulcair's strong performance in the H of C. But that lead led Mulcair and the party to run an overly safe campaign often run by parties in first place. The NDP's conservative campaign promise to maintain surplus budgets throughout their first term torpedoed the NDP's campaign as well as Harper's idiotic decision to have an election lasting almost three months. Harper and Mulcair delivered the election in a silver platter to Trudeau who had more than enough time to prove he could compete well with the established and mature Mulcair and Harper.
I think the 2019 election will last a relatively short 5 weeks.
Fri, 2017-10-06 13:41
#17
This stuff about Singh having to parachute into a riding right away is Liberal propaganda and it says a lot about where we are now. They want Singh to run in a riding not good for him so they can complain about him in the byelection as being a parachute: they want it both ways.
The argument of not showing up for work is especially stupid as it compares an elected person to the House not showing up for work in the House with a person not yet elected to the House. The former has their salary paid by the public, the latter by the party.
The NDP will pay Singh's salary until the election which is now less than two years time (call will be before October 2019). During this time the leader will be paid by the party and will show up for the work the party wants done. I am sure that the NDP will not be asking the Liberal party and their silly partisans to be judging what of the party's work he has done or not.
The good news in all this is that the Liberals and their pathetic partisans are clearly worried. They are so desperate as to trot clearly pathetic garbage out that anyone with an ounce of sense can see through. Liberals on this board were quieter for a while with stupid stuff like this -- that showed confidence. Now they are obviously feeling less secure as they are slipping in the polls and coming out with this.
As for the strategy it is quite clever. Singh is raising the profile of Guy Caron by making him leader in the House for two years. This is a direct effort to shore up the NDP in Quebec and a very smart idea. The NDP gets the best of both worlds -- new leader on road across Canada and a face in Parliament that speaks directly to the importance and priority of Quebec.
The better Singh does, the more desperate the Liberals will be and the more crap we can expect from them. Enjoy it. It means they are worried.
Fri, 2017-10-06 15:26
#18
I remember on the night of his win the CBC was reporting that he will not seek a seat until the election. A couple days later I saw a report that is he taking advice where to run. I am not sure what the actual policy is? Don't let the media or pundits push you around they want to build on the idea that there is persoanl contest of coolness between Singh and Trudeau.
Mr. Singh if your advisers can not answer this question in the positve without quafications "Will I win in this riding" don't run in this riding. I will use the anology of North Korea to get my point across. I remember the media was chattering about Japan not shooting down NK missles flying over Japan. If they try to intercept those missles and fail the whole jig is up. The authories say that can intercept those misslies and the public is safe but aslong they do not test the idea they have credility. The meme that your safe is credibiable as long you don't test it. If Mr. Singh tests the idea that he can enter the parliment and fail. The credibility of NDP and Singh is toast. But until that attempt is made the intiviate is with the NDP, they can same whatever they want. Singh will 1 tour the countrty 2 raise money 3 whatever. The important thing Singh credibilty solid unless the idea of by election happens. Dont go until you can win. A loss will damage the party and Mr.Singh in a big way.
Fri, 2017-10-06 15:37
#19
Elizabeth May became leader of the Green party in 2006...she did not enter the House of Commons until 2011....so for five long years she toiled without a seat criss-crossing the country and whining about not being invited to debates between party leaders.
May is clearly a liberal subservient. If she has something negative to say about Jagmeet, I take this as a sign that the liberals are worried. Clearly the liberals don't want to attack Jagmeet directly themeselves at this point in fear of how that may be perceived or twisted to appear.
Fri, 2017-10-06 15:47
#20
This stuff about Singh having to parachute into a riding right away is Liberal propaganda and it says a lot about where we are now. They want Singh to run in a riding not good for him so they can complain about him in the byelection as being a parachute: they want it both ways.
The argument of not showing up for work is especially stupid as it compares an elected person to the House not showing up for work in the House with a person not yet elected to the House. The former has their salary paid by the public, the latter by the party.
The NDP will pay Singh's salary until the election which is now less than two years time (call will be before October 2019). During this time the leader will be paid by the party and will show up for the work the party wants done. I am sure that the NDP will not be asking the Liberal party and their silly partisans to be judging what of the party's work he has done or not.
The good news in all this is that the Liberals and their pathetic partisans are clearly worried. They are so desperate as to trot clearly pathetic garbage out that anyone with an ounce of sense can see through. Liberals on this board were quieter for a while with stupid stuff like this -- that showed confidence. Now they are obviously feeling less secure as they are slipping in the polls and coming out with this.
As for the strategy it is quite clever. Singh is raising the profile of Guy Caron by making him leader in the House for two years. This is a direct effort to shore up the NDP in Quebec and a very smart idea. The NDP gets the best of both worlds -- new leader on road across Canada and a face in Parliament that speaks directly to the importance and priority of Quebec.
The better Singh does, the more desperate the Liberals will be and the more crap we can expect from them. Enjoy it. It means they are worried.
Yep agreed!
I believe August 2019 is the latest for election call. However, The charter sais 5 years, and it can be called sooner by the liberals..
Here's a whacked out side note, Justin can also ask the GG to appoint Jagmeet a seat in the upper house (senate). If there's any open? It's possible? But chances are like lottery jack pot odds.
Fri, 2017-10-06 16:03
#21
I remember on the night of his win the CBC was reporting that he will not seek a seat until the election. A couple days later I saw a report that is he taking advice where to run. I am not sure what the actual policy is? Don't let the media or pundits push you around they want to build on the idea that there is persoanl contest of coolness between Singh and Trudeau.
Mr. Singh if your advisers can not answer this question in the positve without quafications "Will I win in this riding" don't run in this riding. I will use the anology of North Korea to get my point across. I remember the media was chattering about Japan not shooting down NK missles flying over Japan. If they try to intercept those missles and fail the whole jig is up. The authories say that can intercept those misslies and the public is safe but aslong they do not test the idea they have credility. The meme that your safe is credibiable as long you don't test it. If Mr. Singh tests the idea that he can enter the parliment and fail. The credibility of NDP and Singh is toast. But until that attempt is made the intiviate is with the NDP, they can same whatever they want. Singh will 1 tour the countrty 2 raise money 3 whatever. The important thing Singh credibilty solid unless the idea of by election happens. Dont go until you can win. A loss will damage the party and Mr.Singh in a big way.
Good cross analogy, I like it!
I also believe what makes the issue more uncertain is the fact of the Ontario restructuring of the riding borders. The upcoming 2018 provincial election will be the first time Ontario adopts the federal riding boundaries to sendd MPP's to Queens park. And Jagmeet's riding, Bramalea-Gore-Malton among all the other Brampton ridings borders are moved.
I believe Jagmeet and his team want to wait until after the 2018 Ontario provincial election, the earliest before making any atempt at any kind of seat, bi election or general election. I'm sure he will want to be in the east side of Brampton because that's where he has deep grass roots and many supporters knocking on doors! But I'm not ruling out another GTA riding IF the Ontario election goes south for his team in Brampton!
I suspect Horwath and the ONDP is going to work in unison with Jagmeet and make a freekin huge push in Brampton. Try and take advantage of the free publicity and make it easier for Jagmeet to stay close to home.
Fri, 2017-10-06 16:52
#22
Here's a whacked out side note, Justin can also ask the GG to appoint Jagmeet a seat in the upper house (senate). If there's any open? It's possible? But chances are like lottery jack pot odds.
Considering official NDP policy is abolishment of the Senate, that seems like a non-starter.
Fri, 2017-10-06 17:14
#23
Misfit
Rev Pesky. yes Trudeau was an MP for five years before he ran for the leadership. However his attendance record in the House of Commons was horrible. he hardly ever showed up for those five years and instead went on paid speaking tours.
Fri, 2017-10-06 18:00
#24
From Stockholm:
Elizabeth May became leader of the Green party in 2006...she did not enter the House of Commons until 2011....so for five long years she toiled without a seat criss-crossing the country and whining about not being invited to debates between party leaders.
To be fair to May, she did run in a by-election in 2006, and the general election of 2008. She was defeated in both those elections, but she did try to get into parliament.
Fri, 2017-10-06 18:18
#25
From Misfit:
Rev Pesky. yes Trudeau was an MP for five years before he ran for the leadership. However his attendance record in the House of Commons was horrible. he hardly ever showed up for those five years and instead went on paid speaking tours.
That's not quite true, and you know it. From Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen:
The fourth worst record belongs to Liberal leadership candidate Justin Trudeau. While Trudeau missed 36 per cent of the votes in the lower chamber, McGregor emphasizes that most of those misses are related to his leadership campaign and not his 'speaking circuit' career.
However, Singh has exactly the same option. That is, get into the parliament, then travel the country drumming up support (I said as much in the quoted post).
It won't do the NDP any good to have a leader untested by the voters, and the longer that situation goes on, the more difficult it will be to present him as a prospective PM.
What has often been done in the past is a sitting member resigns their seat to make way for a byelection in which the new leader can run. That can either be someone who is getting close to retirement, or as a quid pro quo for some position with the party later on. Either way, it gets the leader in parliament. After that, he could split his time between parliament and the hustings.
Fri, 2017-10-06 18:28
#26
I agree with his plan to wait until 2019 to run in Brampton East.
But if he were to run in a bye election Windsor West seems like a good idea. I believe Brian Masse has 15 years experience and therefore the pension. He also endorsed Jagmeet.
Fri, 2017-10-06 18:32
#27
Elizabeth May became leader of the Green party in 2006...she did not enter the House of Commons until 2011....so for five long years she toiled without a seat criss-crossing the country and whining about not being invited to debates between party leaders.
And despite all that, she has now won her party a huge caucus of...oh, right...
Fri, 2017-10-06 19:04
#28
Misfit
Actually Rev Pesky, I am right and you know it. you just talked about how many votes he missed, but is attendance record was pathetic, and before he ran for leader of the Liberal party, which you say was five years before he became elected leader he was absent most of the time going on paid speaking tours to various charity organizations.
Fri, 2017-10-06 19:10
#29
It won't do the NDP any good to have a leader untested by the voters, and the longer that situation goes on, the more difficult it will be to present him as a prospective PM.
For all the talk of "well Jack Layton didn't have a seat" he was only able to increase his seat total by 5. Going from 14 seats to 19 seats, one of which was his own.
So for all that cross Canada touring Jack did only resulted in garning 4 new seats (not including Jack's seat in Broadview, which he had no time to campaign in).
It was only when Jack was in Question Period was he able to double from 19 seats to 29 seats and then finally to 103 seats (Official Opposition)
Fri, 2017-10-06 19:16
#30
One of the factors which benefitted Layton getting a seat in 2004 was that the Liberals were hit by the Sponsorship Scandal and took a drop in support. They went from Majority to Minority.
It's similiar to 1997 when Alexa became leader and ran in the Maritimes. That was the year when the Chretien Liberals lost most of their Atlantic seats because of the Liberal employment insurance changes.
So both Jack & Alexa were helped by Liberal drops in support when they ran for their seats .
At the moment, Liberal support seems to be softening in the polls, so that could also help Singh when he runs for a seat down the road. However, if Liberal support is still strong in the GTA when Singh runs, it could make it a tougher battle.
Fri, 2017-10-06 22:26
#31
I think by "employment insurance changes" you actually mean, "employment insurance theft", don't you? The Liberals took a program where Canadians paid into a fund that would support them in the event of losing their livelyhood, jacked up the requirements so that almost nobody could qualify, and yet kept insisting that we all contribute anyway. Then they stole all the money out of the fund. Because they're thieves who can't be trusted to hold an ice cream cone, let alone manage the country's finances. Now, because of the Liberals, we have no functional version of an employment insurance fund. Now we just have a hidden tax that everyone pays into, but hardly anyone can draw out from. And of course, they're still doing it. Still stealing our money on a daily basis. Never trust Liberal liars and thieves. The record is clear. These people are scum.
Fri, 2017-10-06 23:34
#32
from Misfit:
Actually Rev Pesky, I am right and you know it. you just talked about how many votes he missed, but is attendance record was pathetic.
The Canadian House of Commons does not publish attendance records. It does publish voting records. And whatever his attendance record was, it will be better than Singh's unless Singh gets a seat.
Sat, 2017-10-07 01:06
#33
progressive17
This stuff about Singh having to parachute into a riding right away is Liberal propaganda and it says a lot about where we are now. They want Singh to run in a riding not good for him so they can complain about him in the byelection as being a parachute: they want it both ways.
The argument of not showing up for work is especially stupid as it compares an elected person to the House not showing up for work in the House with a person not yet elected to the House. The former has their salary paid by the public, the latter by the party.
The NDP will pay Singh's salary until the election which is now less than two years time (call will be before October 2019). During this time the leader will be paid by the party and will show up for the work the party wants done. I am sure that the NDP will not be asking the Liberal party and their silly partisans to be judging what of the party's work he has done or not.
The good news in all this is that the Liberals and their pathetic partisans are clearly worried. They are so desperate as to trot clearly pathetic garbage out that anyone with an ounce of sense can see through. Liberals on this board were quieter for a while with stupid stuff like this -- that showed confidence. Now they are obviously feeling less secure as they are slipping in the polls and coming out with this.
As for the strategy it is quite clever. Singh is raising the profile of Guy Caron by making him leader in the House for two years. This is a direct effort to shore up the NDP in Quebec and a very smart idea. The NDP gets the best of both worlds -- new leader on road across Canada and a face in Parliament that speaks directly to the importance and priority of Quebec.
The better Singh does, the more desperate the Liberals will be and the more crap we can expect from them. Enjoy it. It means they are worried.
Yep agreed!
I believe August 2019 is the latest for election call. However, The charter sais 5 years, and it can be called sooner by the liberals..
Here's a whacked out side note, Justin can also ask the GG to appoint Jagmeet a seat in the upper house (senate). If there's any open? It's possible? But chances are like lottery jack pot odds.
Given the long-standing NDP policy to abolish the Canadian Senate, Mr. Singh would have no choice but to turn down any kind of Senate appointment. This is surely a non-starter.
Sat, 2017-10-07 02:18
#34
This argument is really goofy. We are talking about two years not an entire mandate. If someone stepped aside the PM does not even have to call a byelection for quite soem time and even then the date of it can be longer. A leader trying to get into the House from a third party is also not the same as one that is in government or official opposition where there is an understanding of many memebrs and seats that can be considered.
This entire argument is driven by people agains tthe interest of the leader and party.
This strategy is the right one and the choice of Caron as leader in the House in the meantime is perfect.
The NDP will not be harmed by Singh waiting for the next election given this time-line.
The NDP also does nto ahve a lot of money now. Singh is best working on the finances and other party work than spending a crapload of money to run in a less than ideal seat -- when half that time could be wasted if the PM did not want to helpfully call a byelection in a chosen seat. And the NDP does not have MPs it wants to ask to step aside. Singh running against the widow of an MP who just died tragically might be an idea enjoyed by Liberal partisans here but it is stupid.
Surely we can have discussions other than on issues raised as distractions by Liberals for their partisan purpose?
No serious person who is not on a propaganda campaign is going to make a big deal of this.
Sat, 2017-10-07 02:45
#35
I don't think the issue has been created by the Liberals.
It's a normal question for journalists to ask a new leader whether they plan to run for a seat in the House.
Even some of Singh's fellow NDPers brought the issue up during the NDP Leadership Race. For example, Angus said that it's best for a leader to have a seat, and so did Mulcair.
That doesn't mean Singh *has* to run for a seat, but it's not something that has just been invented by the Liberals. It's a normal part of political life to discuss the pros & cons of having a seat.
Sat, 2017-10-07 14:53
#36
I don't think the issue has been created by the Liberals.
It's a normal question for journalists to ask a new leader whether they plan to run for a seat in the House.
Even some of Singh's fellow NDPers brought the issue up during the NDP Leadership Race. For example, Angus said that it's best for a leader to have a seat, and so did Mulcair.
That doesn't mean Singh *has* to run for a seat, but it's not something that has just been invented by the Liberals. It's a normal part of political life to discuss the pros & cons of having a seat.
Angus said it in his race and was soundly rejected. Bad judgement and trying to use any advantage possible. Using comments by leadership rivals is something that can be thrown against any leader. The sources pushing it now are mostly Liberals. You can see that here especially. It is quite silly when you consider the issues they have to ignore to make that point. The entry to the House is soemthign that less popular parties will have difficulty with, they ahve less urgency and there are good reasons to delay. The NDP has serious divisions in the party that need to be healed, they ahve a major financial problem and not a lot of safe seats to do this with. Anyone who reacts without understanding these is doing so for partisan reasons -- or perhaps to sell an article in a partisan paper.
The issue of less than 24 months to an already scheduled election make this a rather pointless debate.
Yes you can point out that governing parties and the first opposition party doing well in the polls and with 100 or more seats handle things differently than a party that is below 20%, on a serious rebuild and in financial difficulty. If the Liberals want to make it an issue they can, they ahve the media friends to do so. They should not be surprised when the population understands better than they pretend to and the whole thing backfires.
I could think the Liberals should make a big issue of this here and everywhere. But that would be an anti-Liberal bias speaking. They would pay dearly for it. People do not like it when major parties pretend to not get something in order to make a political point when the issue is widely understood by anyone paying attention. If you think there is any groundswell support for a requirement for Singh to get in the House outside of those with membership cards for the Liberal party then you have a surprise coming. The population either understands why Singh would wait (a minority) or simply does not care (a majority).
As for advice for the Liberals this is it: they need to focus to address the specific issues in their control that are hurting them. They need to re-establish their brand again as the centre party and they are unconvincing as a left party (string of brocken promises). They can play to the left when the Conservatives are governing but cannot fool anyone when they are in power. They can lay out as wide a centre as they can and hope that works for them. Since the NDP probably will re-establish itself to the left of the Liberals. Trudeau can more easily get moderate Conservatives as the CP leader gets more exposesed as further to the right of most Canadians. Going after the NDP at this point is a losing proposition when the Liberals are close to the Conservatives and the NDP is only holding about 15%.
Truth is the NDP do not perform well acting as Liberals and the Liberals can fake being NDP for a short time when in opposition but cannot do it credibly as government. The Liberals can only hold back the NDP if they have already held back the Conservatives.
Sat, 2017-10-07 16:25
#37
This stuff about Singh having to parachute into a riding right away is Liberal propaganda and it says a lot about where we are now. They want Singh to run in a riding not good for him so they can complain about him in the byelection as being a parachute: they want it both ways.
The argument of not showing up for work is especially stupid as it compares an elected person to the House not showing up for work in the House with a person not yet elected to the House. The former has their salary paid by the public, the latter by the party.
The NDP will pay Singh's salary until the election which is now less than two years time (call will be before October 2019). During this time the leader will be paid by the party and will show up for the work the party wants done. I am sure that the NDP will not be asking the Liberal party and their silly partisans to be judging what of the party's work he has done or not.
The good news in all this is that the Liberals and their pathetic partisans are clearly worried. They are so desperate as to trot clearly pathetic garbage out that anyone with an ounce of sense can see through. Liberals on this board were quieter for a while with stupid stuff like this -- that showed confidence. Now they are obviously feeling less secure as they are slipping in the polls and coming out with this.
As for the strategy it is quite clever. Singh is raising the profile of Guy Caron by making him leader in the House for two years. This is a direct effort to shore up the NDP in Quebec and a very smart idea. The NDP gets the best of both worlds -- new leader on road across Canada and a face in Parliament that speaks directly to the importance and priority of Quebec.
The better Singh does, the more desperate the Liberals will be and the more crap we can expect from them. Enjoy it. It means they are worried.
Yep agreed!
I believe August 2019 is the latest for election call. However, The charter sais 5 years, and it can be called sooner by the liberals..
Here's a whacked out side note, Justin can also ask the GG to appoint Jagmeet a seat in the upper house (senate). If there's any open? It's possible? But chances are like lottery jack pot odds.
Given the long-standing NDP policy to abolish the Canadian Senate, Mr. Singh would have no choice but to turn down any kind of Senate appointment. This is surely a non-starter.
yes yes yes lots of holes in my side note. That’s why I was clear it was a way out there suggestion. However it does raise a sticky issue about the NDP approach to the senate. I always thought the NDP approach to be a display of sour grapes. It would be a lot easier to pull Canada out of NATO as opposed to abolishing the Canadian senate.
Good topic for members to debate and forward some kind of approach to address at the next delegate meetings. Make an appropriate thread and I’ll contribute comments thanks
Sun, 2017-10-08 14:19
#38
From Huff Post
Saying that Jagmeet Singh doesn't have to attend question period shows a disrespect to the Canadian Parliamentary system and the public. It was NDP party supporters who elected him — it wasn't the Canadian public. And Jagmeet Singh needs to earn their respect and trust. Question period in Parliament is one way to do that.
A party leader provides a cohesive framework and narrative for the party to follow. Party voices aren't always along the same spectrum. Every party has their far right and far left. The party leader hears all those opinions and concerns via the MPs, and creates consensus and a unified front. The party leader is like a boss of any business. You may not need the boss in everyday, but you wouldn't be OK not having the boss show up for two years.
The idea that a party leader needs to be present in the House of Commons is very important; indeed, the NDP lambasted the Conservatives and Liberals whenever their leaders were absent. Now it seems like the NDP are OK doing exactly what they criticized the Liberals and Conservatives for: having an absent leader
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/terezia-farkas/jagmeet-singh-has-chosen-to-...
Sun, 2017-10-08 16:11
#39
From Huff Post
Saying that Jagmeet Singh doesn't have to attend question period shows a disrespect to the Canadian Parliamentary system and the public. It was NDP party supporters who elected him — it wasn't the Canadian public. And Jagmeet Singh needs to earn their respect and trust. Question period in Parliament is one way to do that.
A party leader provides a cohesive framework and narrative for the party to follow. Party voices aren't always along the same spectrum. Every party has their far right and far left. The party leader hears all those opinions and concerns via the MPs, and creates consensus and a unified front. The party leader is like a boss of any business. You may not need the boss in everyday, but you wouldn't be OK not having the boss show up for two years.
The idea that a party leader needs to be present in the House of Commons is very important; indeed, the NDP lambasted the Conservatives and Liberals whenever their leaders were absent. Now it seems like the NDP are OK doing exactly what they criticized the Liberals and Conservatives for: having an absent leader
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/terezia-farkas/jagmeet-singh-has-chosen-to-...
Uhuh.
Let's be clear about how poliics works: one Liberal writes it and another retweets or reposts it. This is a Liberal story.
Here is another quote from the same writer from Twitter:
"proud of PM @JustinTrudeau 
"
another "Absolutely! Trudeau was awesome. "
Expect desperate Liberals to flog this story and the Liberal partisans in the media will keep it going. This reporter may have been nonpartisan at one time but a little bit of research and you can see how very partisan the history is. Anti-NDP / anti CP and pro Liberal articles going back years.
Sun, 2017-10-08 20:11
#40
As for advice for the Liberals this is it: they need to focus to address the specific issues in their control that are hurting them. They need to re-establish their brand again as the centre party and they are unconvincing as a left party (string of brocken promises).
Sean, often your attacks on the Liberals are a bit over the top, but I agree with you completely on your analysis about this issue.
Justin Trudeau has let a lot of people down with his broken promises and with his failure to truly present "real change".
In fact, Trudeau's broken promises began before he was even elected Prime Minister. They started in 2014 when he & his team started fixing Liberal nomination races in favour of his chosen candidates. That was why I quit my local Liberal riding association. Trudeau & his team came in and fixed the Liberal nomination in my riding in favour of a 'star' candidate against the local favourite who actually had more support.
Justin Trudeau also promised to be a major progressive force. So far he has been more progressive in some ways compared to Harper & the Conservatives, such as doing more to advance gay rights issues, going to the Pride Parades and appointing a larger percentage of women to the cabinet. But that is not sufficient. If Trudeau wants to claim that he is more progressive than the NDP, he needs to start showing it in other ways.
Sun, 2017-10-08 20:24
#41
As for advice for the Liberals this is it: they need to focus to address the specific issues in their control that are hurting them. They need to re-establish their brand again as the centre party and they are unconvincing as a left party (string of brocken promises).
Sean, often your attacks on the Liberals are a bit over the top, but I agree with you completely on your analysis about this issue.
Justin Trudeau has let a lot of people down with his broken promises and with his failure to truly present "real change".
In fact, Trudeau's broken promises began before he was even elected Prime Minister. They started in 2014 when he & his team started fixing Liberal nomination races in favour of his chosen candidates. That was why I quit my local Liberal riding association. Trudeau & his team came in and fixed the Liberal nomination in my riding in favour of a 'star' candidate against the local favourite who actually had more support.
Justin Trudeau also promised to be a major progressive force. So far he has been more progressive in some ways compared to Harper & the Conservatives, such as doing more to advance gay rights issues, going to the Pride Parades and appointing a larger percentage of women to the cabinet. But that is not sufficient. If Trudeau wants to claim that he is more progressive than the NDP, he needs to start showing it in other ways.
My bias against the Liberals is was well earned and took many years.
--
The main point about Trudeau and his promises is that he keeps the symbolic ones and largely breaks the ones that cost money. He is consistently there in rhetoric and not when it counts.
Now this is not unique to him or the Liberal party. Other parties do it as well although not at that level of artform.
This is a big issue for me and the biggest reason for my disrespect of Liberals.I have criticized the NDP as well when it makes noises that are not of substance and value in life-changing ways -- becuase when you elect a government you want it to make those moves.
Mon, 2017-10-09 10:19
#42
Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh hold a joint press conference - Watch below
Mon, 2017-10-09 11:57
#43
From Sean in Ottawa:
Uhuh.
Let's be clear about how poliics works: one Liberal writes it and another retweets or reposts it. This is a Liberal story.
But the question is, did the NDP lambast the Liberals and Conservatives when their leaders were not in the house?
Mon, 2017-10-09 12:14
#44
From Sean in Ottawa:
Uhuh.
Let's be clear about how poliics works: one Liberal writes it and another retweets or reposts it. This is a Liberal story.
But the question is, did the NDP lambast the Liberals and Conservatives when their leaders were not in the house?
Yes
“If you want to be prime minister, you’d better learn to be a member of Parliament first,” Layton said at the time. “You know, if most Canadians, if they don’t show up for work, they don’t get a promotion.”
- Jack Layton
"Leaders should be there. Ignatieff ignored his work in Parliament and it cost him and Liberals during the election because Canadians do care,”
- Peter Julian
Mon, 2017-10-09 13:56
#45
Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh hold a joint press conference - Watch below
And the liberal run biased cbc jump in right on Q! After Jagmeet becomes PM, time to slash until the cbc liberals are gone!
Mon, 2017-10-09 14:19
#46
And the liberal run biased cbc jump in right on Q! After Jagmeet becomes PM, time to slash until the cbc liberals are gone!
So you support cutting funding to the CBC? Because last election NDP said they would reverse Conservative cuts to the public broadcaster
Reversing cuts to CBC
Mulcair also reconfirmed his party's promise from earlier this year to reverse $115 million in cuts made by the Conservative government to the CBC.
"It's more important than ever to share the stories of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We need a strong public broadcaster to carry the voices of Canadians across this vast country," Mulcair said.
"Under a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments, those governments have eroded our public broadcaster.
"I am resolutely determined to repair the damage done by Stephen Harper."
Mulcair also said he'd intervene to stop the CBC from selling off any of its properties. "I got news for them. Anybody thinking of buying them between now and the election — don't even bother. We won't let it happen."
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has also pledged to restore the funding cut to the CBC. But Mulcair said today that Trudeau can't be trusted to get the job done.
"Actions speak louder than words and in the case of the Liberals, their entire past record shows we cannot trust them on that," Mulcair said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-arts-cbc-1....
So will the NDP now want to cut funding to the CBC as WWWTT suggests above? Because there will be plenty of voters in cities and urban areas who will not like that, expecially CBC Radio.
Mon, 2017-10-09 14:44
#47
Because Elizabeth May is the go-to authority on successful party leadership. I sometimes think her worst nightmare would be for the Greens to elect dozens of MPs, for the GPC to be a real party, with a great variety of faces and voices, rather than simply her personal ego club.
Butter my butt and call me a biscuit. We agree on something ;)
Mon, 2017-10-09 14:50
#48
From Sean in Ottawa:
Uhuh.
Let's be clear about how poliics works: one Liberal writes it and another retweets or reposts it. This is a Liberal story.
But the question is, did the NDP lambast the Liberals and Conservatives when their leaders were not in the house?
No. They lambasted leaders with seats that didn't take their role as MP seriously. They got their seat and then ignored it. Another example of Feeble Middle not cluing in. Just like they misunderstand "entry level". Wasn't about federal experience, etc. But it was about a politicial dilettante airhead rich playboy that did zip with his life but decided he wanted to play prime minister because his daddy was prime minister. Once again, if Justin Kardashian... oops Trudeau... was Justin Smith, he wouldn't be prime minister today.
Mon, 2017-10-09 16:08
#49
So will the NDP now want to cut funding to the CBC as WWWTT suggests above? Because there will be plenty of voters in cities and urban areas who will not like that, expecially CBC Radio.
[/quote]
You like to quote former liberal cabinet minister Mulcair like crazy. Who cares what the pro liberal legislation Mulcair believes, he's history. The NDP has moved on and couldn't bury Mulcair fast enough!
And If Jagmeet does slash and burn the cbc until the liberal infestation run like rats from a burning house, I'm sure he won't say anything until until it's too late. I'm sure the liberals at that time will squak about it and the conservatives will give the NDP a huge pat on the back!
Mon, 2017-10-09 16:49
#50
From Hunky_Monkey:
No. They lambasted leaders with seats that didn't take their role as MP seriously. They got their seat and then ignored it.
So it would have been better if Justin Trudeau had not run for parliament, but just ran for leadership of the Liberal party? Is that what you're saying?
Mon, 2017-10-09 20:20
#51
The NDP has moved on and couldn't bury Mulcair fast enough!
Mulcair staying EIGHTEEN months as leader after his leadership was rejected is not "burying him fast enough".