Trudeau would only have to answer to the residents of Papineau (who was paying his paycheque as their MP) if they minded him being absent from the House of Commons.
Is that how it works? Only the residents of a riding pay their local MP?
Are you sure of this?
Trudeau would only have to answer to the residents of Papineau (who was paying his paycheque as their MP) if they minded him being absent from the House of Commons.Is that how it works? Only the residents of a riding pay their local MP?
Are you sure of this?
Unless a critical mass of voters somewhere cares it doesn't matter. He answers to the people who elected him so it doesn't really matter where is paycheque comes from. It's their decision and no one else's so they are the only people he had to answer to.
Unless a critical mass of voters somewhere cares it doesn't matter.
What do you mean by "somewhere"?
I was clearly asking about Papineau, and the idea that they alone paid his salary. Do YOU know if that's actually how it works?
I was clearly asking about Papineau, and the idea that they alone paid his salary. Do YOU know if that's actually how it works?
Since a majority of voters in 184 ridings across Canada voted for Justin Trudeau (and gave him a majority government), I doubt they minded he was absent from House of Commons. And the taxpayers of those 184 ridings would more than cover his MP salary, with the leader's top-up he received from 2013 to 2015.
Since a majority of voters in 184 ridings across Canada voted for Justin Trudeau (and gave him a majority government), I doubt they minded he was absent from House of Commons.
Then why not hold your peace and wait to see whether voters also don't mind about Singh? It's not even two years that you'd need to zip it?
Then why not hold your peace and wait to see whether voters also don't mind about Singh? It's not even two years that you'd need to zip it?
I never said it was wrong for Jagmeet to tour the country, nor have I ever said people would mind. In fact I've said it is better for him to be out on the road, than being in Parliament.
I was clearly asking about Papineau, and the idea that they alone paid his salary. Do YOU know if that's actually how it works?Since a majority of voters in 184 ridings across Canada voted for Justin Trudeau (and gave him a majority government), I doubt they minded he was absent from House of Commons. And the taxpayers of those 184 ridings would more than cover his MP salary, with the leader's top-up he received from 2013 to 2015.
This is not about criticizing Trudeau here. It is about the fact that your comparison is bogus.
Others are not mentionning it to the degree you keep saying -- you claim every time.
Some have said that Trudeau spent time on the road but they are not comparing that situation to this in the way you are. You keep saying it is comparable and that's just a load of BS.
By the way -- I am not spending time in the House and that is more comparable since, like Singh, I am not elected to it.
This is not about criticizing Trudeau here. It is about the fact that your comparison is bogus.
Then you will have to call every single political columnist, pundit (across all party lines) and reporters for making the same comparison as "bogus".
Others are not mentionning it to the degree you keep saying -- you claim every time. Some have said that Trudeau spent time on the road but they are not comparing that situation to this in the way you are. You keep saying it is comparable and that's just a load of BS.
Not true - just last week on CTV Question Period they brought it up again and had an entire segment on it, making the same comparison. There were four people on the panel disecting it. There was even an OP-ED about the Trudeau/Singh comparions in Macleans the other day. This has also been discussed to death on Power and Politics and Power Play.
Nowhere in any discussion did I ever hear someone said "well Trudeau was an elected MP, and Jagmeet has no seat so there is a diffrence" Not even the NDP pundits ever said that.
Nobody (outside your narrow viewpoint) really sees flaws in this comparison the way you do. The fact is it's a rather innocous comparison, which you seemed to take an huge offense to.
The amount of people who say there is a difference between Trudeau/Singh (elected vs unelected) could fit in a phone booth
So get over it.
Since a majority of voters in 184 ridings across Canada voted for Justin Trudeau (and gave him a majority government), I doubt they minded he was absent from House of Commons. And the taxpayers of those 184 ridings would more than cover his MP salary, with the leader's top-up he received from 2013 to 2015.
The Liberals received more than half the vote in 87 of the 184 ridings they won. So they received less than majority support in 97 of the 184 ridings they won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election...
Even if every pundit in Canada makes a comparison between Trudeau's HOC attendance and Singh's attendance, its still a stupid comparison to make and just exposes the media's obsession with neutrality, everything must be called equal even if it isn't. Trudeau is an MP, Jagmeet Singh is not an MP. As an MP Justin Trudeau has the right to sit in the HOC and vote on legislation, as a private unelected citizen Jagmeet Singh does not have the right to sit in the HOC and vote on legislation.
That being said, I don't really care about Trudeau not showing up to the HOC as often as other MPs, he has other responsibilities as PM, if he had a perfect attendance I would be more worried.
Even if every pundit in Canada makes a comparison between Trudeau's HOC attendance and Singh's attendance,
No, the media is NOT making a comparison between Trudeau attendance and Singh attendance in QP & HOC. What they are making a comparison on is Trudeau and Singh touring the country as leader of the third party.
Sean in Ottawa takes issue and feels it is an unfair offensive comparison to make because Trudeau was an elected MP, while Singh is not. But nobody in the media and hardly anybody (other than Sean) is pointing that out. The optics & narrative is that the leader of the third party (Trudeau and now Singh) was/is touring the country.
IMHO this is a very miniscule thing to get overworked about when there are bigger things to discuss.
This is not about criticizing Trudeau here. It is about the fact that your comparison is bogus.
Then you will have to call every single political columnist, pundit (across all party lines) and reporters for making the same comparison as "bogus".
Others are not mentionning it to the degree you keep saying -- you claim every time. Some have said that Trudeau spent time on the road but they are not comparing that situation to this in the way you are. You keep saying it is comparable and that's just a load of BS.
Not true - just last week on CTV Question Period they brought it up again and had an entire segment on it, making the same comparison. There were four people on the panel disecting it. There was even an OP-ED about the Trudeau/Singh comparions in Macleans the other day. This has also been discussed to death on Power and Politics and Power Play.
Nowhere in any discussion did I ever hear someone said "well Trudeau was an elected MP, and Jagmeet has no seat so there is a diffrence" Not even the NDP pundits ever said that.
Nobody (outside your narrow viewpoint) really sees flaws in this comparison the way you do. The fact is it's a rather innocous comparison, which you seemed to take an huge offense to.
The amount of people who say there is a difference between Trudeau/Singh (elected vs unelected) could fit in a phone booth
So get over it.
Google the discussion about seats and Singh. Only a minority even bring up Trudeau's absense. Some do say that Trudeau also did not spend much House time at the start. I have not found any that say that what Trudeau did as an elected MP is the same as Singh who is not elected.
You keep bringing that up.
Only you hasve used that as a battering ram against those who said Trudeau as an elected MP had a responsibility.
And if a journalist mentions that Trudeau was not in the House that is not the same as using it to claim people are being hypocritical here for saying an MP should attend.
That person is not here in the context of this discussion where you bring it up as your daily ritual.
YOU need to get over it. Your bullshit equivalency has been called and you are just spamming the board with propaganda ignoring the conversation.
So yes -- both did not spend time in the House. But you keep saying this was just like Trudeau. You keep pretending over and over again that it is the same.
It isn't. It won't be even if you come back here pretending it is 1,000,000 times. And it won't be the same even if some journalists mention the fact Trudeau was not in the House either. Only you are saying the NDP and its leader are being hypocritical on this point.
Perhaps it is time for you to fully evacuate your bowels or add ruffage to your diet..
Even if every pundit in Canada makes a comparison between Trudeau's HOC attendance and Singh's attendance,
No, the media is NOT making a comparison between Trudeau attendance and Singh attendance in QP & HOC. What they are making a comparison on is Trudeau and Singh touring the country as leader of the third party.
Sean in Ottawa takes issue and feels it is an unfair offensive comparison to make because Trudeau was an elected MP, while Singh is not. But nobody in the media and hardly anybody (other than Sean) is pointing that out. The optics & narrative is that the leader of the third party (Trudeau and now Singh) was/is touring the country.
IMHO this is a very miniscule thing to get overworked about when there are bigger things to discuss.
Put bluntly, you do not have the reading comprehension skills to represent other babblers.
The problem with your comparison is that you have been using this to attack the NDP for many weeks. You have been proclaiming that these are the same thing. This is not about me complaining that Jagmeet is touring the Country and that Trudeau did as well. This is you about trying to turn this into a bullshit propaganda that Singh's actions take away from NDP criticism that Trudeau did not attend the House WHILE HE WAS AN MP.
You attacked many people here saying that they were hypocritical by having said Trudeau should attend the House as an MP and are fine with Singh not seeking a seat (with that responsibility) right away.
So if you are lying and know you are misrepresenting what people have said to you (and not just me), STOP.
If you truly lack the skills to understand what people are saying, then refrain from recharacterizing what others have been saying to you for the last 8 weeks. You started this crap before Singh was even elected.
***
"No, the media is NOT making a comparison between Trudeau attendance and Singh attendance in QP & HOC."
Exactly. But you are since you never backed down from your constant comparison on this pooint that you turned into attacks on babblers based on their support for Singh's delay in light of their criticism of Trudeau not attending.
This is not about the media. This is about you and your passive aggressive bullshit on this point.
Sean in Ottawa that phone booth you are standing in must be pretty lonely.
Insert generic insult with absolutely no relevance or meaning here:
Sean that phone booth must be pretty lonely.
It is not just me and you know it. You have had this running argument with many here. You have ignored, attacked, talked around but never acknowledged the difference.
DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN MP WHO IS ELECTED AND A PERSON WHO HAS NOT RUN AS AN MP YET?
YES OR NO
Insert generic insult with absolutely no relevance or meaning here:
Sean that phone booth must be pretty lonely.
It is not just me and you know it. You have had this running argument with many here. You have ignored, attacked, talked around but never acknowledged the difference.
DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN MP WHO IS ELECTED AND A PERSON WHO HAS NOT RUN AS AN MP YET?
YES OR NO
Yes
But let's go back to what I originally wrote
I agree with everything you (Sean in Ottawa) said (in terms of Jagmeet not seeking a seat). Until the right seat comes along they should leave the heavy lifting in QP to others. I mean it worked for Trudeau, right?
Heavy Lifting was a poor choice of words on my part. It wasn't my intension to suggest others would have to do the 'heavy lifting' for Jagmeet. What I meant to say was to let the caucus perform in QP, while Jagmeet tours the country. As that worked for Trudeau..
This is such an innocous comment I don't think it justifies you going nuclear on a sentence that is so miniscule in terms of the big picture. So get a grip Sean.
In fact does anyone else want to weigh in and see anything wrong with the two sentences above? Let's add more people to that phone booth Sean is standing in right now.
Yes
But let's go back to what I originally wrote
That's a lie. Try again.
What you originally wrote and NEVER took back was an attack on babbers who agreed that Trudeau was wrong to ignore the House but are supporting Singh not going in right away.
THIS is the context of all your garbage since trying to bring Singh and Trudeau into the same sentence saying this is the same thing.
But let's go back to what I originally wrote
That's a lie. Try again.
Ok here is what I wrote with links
I agree with everything you (Sean in Ottawa) said (in terms of Jagmeet not seeking a seat). Until the right seat comes along they should leave the heavy lifting in QP to others. I mean it worked for Trudeau, right?
http://rabble.ca/comment/5330906#comment-5330906
Heavy Lifting was a poor choice of words on my part. It wasn't my intension to suggest others would have to do the 'heavy lifting' for Jagmeet. What I meant to say was to let the caucus perform in QP, while Jagmeet tours the country. As that worked for Trudeau..
What you originally wrote and NEVER took back was an attack on babbers who agreed that Trudeau was wrong to ignore the House but are supporting Singh not going in right away.
THIS is the context of all your garbage since trying to bring Singh and Trudeau into the same sentence saying this is the same thing.
From the book Wayward
Yesterday is history
Tomorrow is a mystery
Today is a gift
That's why it's called THE PRESENT.
So Sean get a grip
But let's go back to what I originally wrote
....
That's why it's called THE PRESENT.
So Sean get a grip
Hah. So writes the guy who in this thread researched back two years to throw stuff people said in their faces in unreasonable comparisons. So since you go back years to make a quip let's just look at what you have said in this thread.
Your post which was number 8 in this thread was the Layton quote: "You know, most Canadians, if they don't show up for work, they don't get a promotion."
Your post number 39 is a post from Huffington Post of a piece from a Liberal Terezia Farkas who posted hearts to Trudeau in social media.
Your post 44 repeats NDP criticisms of elected MP Trudeau not being in House in this thread connecting it to Singh. It was a comment Layton made about Trudeau not showing up for work. You have gone on through the entire thread making comparisons between the NDP criticizing Trudeau an elected MP not being in the Commons with Singh an unelected MP waiting for a later opportunity to get elected.
Then to be sure, you took a break from this attack on the NDP to pursue two others: one that the NDP did not get rid of Mulcair fast enough and to turn the words of the NDP against itself on the issue of ability to win. You attacked the NDP to say that there more is wrong than the leadership and posted your lame denial post #58. Post #60 as well. These posts were more attacks on what individual babblers have said trying to hang them up with your allegations of hypocrisy in supporting Singh saying his aim was to take the NDP from third to first.
You attacked WWWTT. Then you brought Singh's comments when he said only the NDP can stop Harper. This is quite the attack on the NDP by you -- especially when you completely ignore the fact that the Liberals used it against the NDP even as they passed them on their way to third in 2011. But high standards are for other parties not your own. Parties -- all of them -- where they can claim voting for other parties is not practical. This has been the favourite go-to for the Liberals for decades.
Then in post #62 you are back on the NDP criticism of Trudeau not being in the House which was the substance of the NDP criticism.
Then in your post #68 you are suggesting political donations mean a party leader should run for a seat quickly. Quite a statement of party finance ignorance. The point of party finance subsidies is to support the work of parties such that they provide democratic competition. As long as a leader works hard for the party any party-subsidized funds are doing what they are supposed to do. This was to continue your train saying there is no difference between a party leader not being in a parliament he is not elected to -- and one not being in a parliament he is elected to.
The BS train continue in your post 74 where you pretend that the NDP complaint against Trudeau was that he toured the country and not that he did this as an elected MP who had chosen to make a committment to attend the House. You completely ignore the issue as you bring this false charge about NDP hypocrisy. You said: "So this is one of a very long list of items where the NDP was sharply critical of Trudeau in 2015, but two years later has done a 180 and instead are taking a page from the Trudeau playbook. That is my only issue."
Then your post 78 congratulates yourself by repeating your lame-ass unoriginal insult about denial. As you continue to deny the HUGE difference between someone not showing up to parliament when they are elected with a person who is not elected.
You continue in post 80 claiming that this attack on Trudeau for not showing up while elected was a mistake they should wear now.
Then in post 83 you claim that the NDP is hypocritical by the fact that a policy set at the federal level should apply to the provincial level even if they did not there proclaim it there. It suggests that NDP policies ought to be the same provincial and federal. Only you don't seem to think that Liberals should also agree federally and provincially because they are immunue to such standards. Only Liberals can have such differences.
Then you have a comment in post 88 attacking the NDP for blasting Trudeau for smoking pot illegally. Of course you don't have to supply a link. Good move-- it makes your post unaccountable as nobody can see who said it -- if it were said at all. When someone found the actual exchange which pointed to hypocrisy of Trudeau, you dissembled in post 92. Again you only hold the NDP to standards. Your own party and leader is immune.
Your post 94 about Singh resigning his Ontario seat you pretended not to mind (it was known the resignation was coming very shortly).
Then you claimed that Singh was going to run Justin Trudeau's campaign in 2019 in post 97. The sheer stupidity of such a statement is obvious: you know so much about a party you oppose that you can predict after a couple weeks that they will repeat a previous campaign?
In Post 99 you repeat the pretence of being ok with Singh campaigning on the public dime comment. This was a couple weeks after the leadership and Singh had already signalled that he was meeting the Ontario leader to resign. Post 102 -- you raise again disingenuously that this issue of resignation is something that does not bother you -- yet you are the only person who is apparently actually concerned about it.
Post 105 you try to use Charlie Angus' leadership debate comments against Sing out of context for the second time.
Then you go way back in time to get a comment from mine (you talk of the present but you like to cherrypick the past more than almost any other here). The differences between the two are significant and my complaint about Trudeau -- that he is an elitist focused on appearance does not seem to be out of place with the stuff we have seen since the election where he has behaved in much the same way on a lot of fronts. But the beauty is you attacking me for being biased. You are a train of Liberal propaganda and ignore everything people say to repeat stuff that has been responded to without answer from you. I do criticize the NDP regularly here over the last decade and a half. But you wish to pretend that you are unbiased and I am biased.
Then Pondering -- who supported Trudeau in the last campaign -- said
" Ummm, the 2019 campaign isn't even close to being kicked off so how can you accuse him of lifting something from Trudeau? Singh was just elected leader. He did not lift his hair or his youth or his snazzy dressing from Trudeau. That he shares those attributes with Trudeau doesn't mean that is why people will or would vote for him. Sean's implication at the time was that those are the only qualities Trudeau had. Those are not the only qualities Singh has therefore just because he said that about Trudeau doesn't mean he has to think the same of Singh. How the hell did you go back far enough to find such a quote? Why do you care? I never agreed with Sean or a lot of other people here on Trudeau. I always said they were underestimating him even when he was at the bottom of the polls. Trudeau had stronger qualities than they realized. Nevertheless Jagmeet Singh is head and shoulders above where Trudeau was when he entered into the first leadership debate of the campaign in 2015. I cringed when he completely ignored the question and launched into a campaign style speech. That will never happen to Jagmeet Singh. I suspect we will hear more from Singh while he is on tour because he is already a good public speaker. Trudeau spoke so poorly it was difficult to fathom that he was being paid thousands of dollars to give speeches. It was obviously his name not his talent as a speaker that got him the gigs giving him a celebrity type persona or image. Trudeau had been a sitting MP for years and had not distinguished himself politically."
That did not give you any pause. In your next post you said "Well if Jagmeet plans to lift the 2015 Trudeau playbook for the 2019 election I guess that saying is true. That "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" in your next post.
Then you say: "Sean in Ottawa this is a discussion forum, not an echo chamber," as if I were the one ignoring the conversation rather than you.
Post 181 you bring back that lame ass denial comment -- one would almost think that you made that up by now. And this is about some conspiracy you allege between Harper and Mulcair to kill the debate. They agreed they did not conspire. I attacked both of them for it yet you tried to pin that on me somehow. You offer no proof of conspiracy and there is only agreement in their arrogant blunder.
Post #204 You make a deal about Singh's joke about being the youngest one. Clearly you need to buy a sense of humour somewhere. But it fit your narrative, so in it went.
In your post 214 you suggest that Singh run against the widow of a popular MP in a byelection. Of course if he did everyone, including you, would have attacked that as of course it would have been horribly distasteful and a political error. But I am sure you, as a Liberal who works their propaganda daily, know that.
Post 219 -- you continue the bullshit train of Justin and Jagmeet being the same.
Then you come in with this comment:
"Until the right seat comes along they should leave the heavy lifting in QP to others. I mean it worked for Trudeau, right?"
By itself it would not have been a big deal. After the previous comments in this thread and the tone and frequency of your attacks gave it different meaning.
Now you might pretend the present has no context -- except when you want it to -- and you give me the sweet comment of the present.
The irony here is that your attacks have been all about trying to get both the NDP and Babblers here to wear the past going back years out of context, while you don't have the guts to face your own words from the last 8 weeks in the same thread.
I would just add it is great that Sean in Ottawa has access to WiFi from that phone booth he wrote his post from. Hopefully there is a drug store nearby so that Sean can get a perscription filled for Valium, because judging by his last missive he really needs one.
I would just add it is great that Sean in Ottawa has access to WiFi from that phone booth he wrote his post from. Hopefully there is a drug store nearby so that Sean can get a perscription filled for Valium, because judging by his last missive he really needs one.
I got through the whole thing without using the word asshole. It was a lot like playing the game Taboo.
I got through the whole thing without using the word asshole.
yet you just did
I got through the whole thing without using the word asshole.
yet you just did
Yes. I was so inspired.
I got through the whole thing without using the word asshole.
yet you just did
Yes. I was so inspired.
Whatever gets you through the day
I would just add it is great that Sean in Ottawa has access to WiFi from that phone booth he wrote his post from. Hopefully there is a drug store nearby so that Sean can get a perscription filled for Valium, because judging by his last missive he really needs one.
That's getting close to straight out personal abuse. Dial it back, MM. Whatever Sean may have said, you've been equally out of line in refusing to let go of what's been proven to be a non-issue. Just. Stop.
My YouTube link was in reference to both of you.
Mewanwhile, Singh, in his first comment on the appointment of Sheila Martin to the Surpreme Court of Canada suggested the bilingualism requirement was not necessary.
Someone from the caucus had to remind him that it was long-term NDP policy that Supreme Court judges be fully bilingual in Canada's official languages.
OTTAWA - NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh was forced Wednesday to claw back a suggestion bilingualism requirements for Supreme Court justices be waived to encourage Indigenous candidates.
...But after his idea generated friction within his own caucus, Singh issued a statement to clarify he "strongly" believes that Supreme Court justices be bilingual with a functional understanding of both French and English, adding it is the only way to ensure Canadians access justice in an official language.
..."That is not a position of the NDP," Quebec lieutenant Alexandre Boulerice said. "He knows it ...
...NDP justice critic Murray Rankin said Singh's original comments were not in keeping with the NDP's position stipulating judges must be bilingual to sit on Canada's top court.
I don't think this is a fatal error, but I wouldn't want it to happen again. The leader of the party should know the various party positions.
That's getting close to straight out personal abuse. Dial it back, MM. Whatever Sean may have said, you've been equally out of line in refusing to let go of what's been proven to be a non-issue. Just. Stop.
My YouTube link was in reference to both of you.
And I agree with you Ken 100%, which is why I included your YouTube link in my response to Sean.
Mewanwhile, Singh, in his first comment on the appointment of Sheila Martin to the Surpreme Court of Canada suggested the bilingualism requirement was not necessary.
Someone from the caucus had to remind him that it was long-term NDP policy that Supreme Court judges be fully bilingual in Canada's official languages.
I don't think this is a fatal error, but I wouldn't want it to happen again. The leader of the party should know the various party positions.
What is even worse (and hasn't been picked up by the media) is that Jagmeet Singh needed help from Guy Caron during a media scrum to answer a question (pulling Singh aside and whispering in his ear). And they did openly in front of the press. Now before you accuse me of being a troll, name any other Leader of a National Party who did something like this in front of a microphone. Guess it is just growing pains, but don't worry I won't mention this again, but it just bares being pointed out.
That's getting close to straight out personal abuse. Dial it back, MM. Whatever Sean may have said, you've been equally out of line in refusing to let go of what's been proven to be a non-issue. Just. Stop.
My YouTube link was in reference to both of you.
And I agree with you Ken 100%, which is why I included your YouTube link in my response to Sean.
wow
That's getting close to straight out personal abuse. Dial it back, MM. Whatever Sean may have said, you've been equally out of line in refusing to let go of what's been proven to be a non-issue. Just. Stop.
My YouTube link was in reference to both of you.
And I agree with you Ken 100%, which is why I included your YouTube link in my response to Sean.
wow
So, Mighty...you agree that what you did to Sean there was straght out personal abuse?
That's getting close to straight out personal abuse. Dial it back, MM. Whatever Sean may have said, you've been equally out of line in refusing to let go of what's been proven to be a non-issue. Just. Stop.
My YouTube link was in reference to both of you.
And I agree with you Ken 100%, which is why I included your YouTube link in my response to Sean.
wow
So, Mighty...you agree that what you did to Sean there was straght out personal abuse?
and this response (which was BEFORE my response which you labelled abusive)
http://rabble.ca/comment/5332186#comment-5332186
is straight out personal abuse and over the top as well. I would think using the word "asshole" is quite personal abuse (though the term was not used in the link I'm referrencing).
Jagmeet Singh’s rookie blunders: Stephen Maher on how the new NDP leader has misstepped and misfired, causing friction inside his party as it falls behind in Ottawa
Welcome to the bigs, Mr. Singh. ...
So, in his first day in Ottawa, Singh failed to denounce a terrorist and made an unfounded accusation of racism. He looked like a talented rookie called up from the AHL complaining to the ref after his first time in the corners of a big rink.
Singh is an appealing, ambitious 38-year-old, and there is a large, friendly constituency open to his leadership, but his previous political experience as deputy leader of the Ontario NDP has not prepared him for this job, and he has surrounded himself with inexperienced loyalists. ...
Longtime New Democrats are watching with concern. The new leader, who does not have a seat in the House of Commons, is spending a lot of time on the road, not a lot of time in Ottawa, which is—duh—where all the cameras are. He has no plans to run for a seat any time soon and his message, delivered to regional media outlets, often diverges from the message his caucus is pushing in Ottawa.
Singh is said to be a quick study, but the veterans who ran the operation for Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair are gone, meaning there is nobody on the coaching staff who can point Singh in the right direction. ...
There are signs that Singh is also causing concern and upset in the caucus that, when he happens to be in Ottawa, he is supposed to lead. ...
It’s Singh’s job to get his party into the story, and he has failed to do that, largely because he is not only not in the House of Commons but not even in Ottawa, which is where, again, all the cameras are.
Singh does not have a chief of staff or director of communications yet in place. He is too often out of step with his caucus. His party is facing the most left wing government since Pierre Trudeau was in office, which poses a difficult political problem for New Democrats.
The good news is that the election is almost two years away and Singh has a winning way, particularly with young people, who will be more important in the next election than any election in a long time.
But if he wants to play in the big leagues, he’d better start showing the fans that he knows where the net is.
Those are edited bits from the longer article, here:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singhs-rookie-blunders/
Meanwhile, Robert Fox resigned after being national director for only 15 months, to be replaced by a member of Singh's transition team.
Seems to me like some infighting going on there.
Jagmeet said he wanted to introduce himself to Canadians by touring the country, which is fine. But strange he has been a no-show at the upcoming by-elections across Canada. With the exception of Scarborough (where a former staffer of his leadership campaign is running) Jagmeet didn't make any appearances in BC, SK, or NFLD. Jagmeet said he was grew up in NFLD and the NDP has support in BC and SK. Yet he isn't going to make an appearance to rally the troops in any of those ridings. Contrast that with Trudeau & Scheer who have made appearances in all four ridings where the upcoming by-election is happening.
In addition political columnist Susan Delacourt tweeted that she asked Jagmeet for an interview and received no reply.
Possibly he's been told the byelections won't go well and wants to distance himself from the results if they're disappointing.
In any case, can we assume the "he has to get a seat NOW" thing has been put to rest? Clearly the only reason the Liberal posters here were pushing that was that they wanted the chance to beat him in a marginal seat, force him to resign as leader and trigger ANOTHER NDP leadership contest.
Jagmeet Singh’s rookie blunders: Stephen Maher on how the new NDP leader has misstepped and misfired, causing friction inside his party as it falls behind in Ottawa
Welcome to the bigs, Mr. Singh. ...
So, in his first day in Ottawa, Singh failed to denounce a terrorist and made an unfounded accusation of racism. He looked like a talented rookie called up from the AHL complaining to the ref after his first time in the corners of a big rink.
Singh is an appealing, ambitious 38-year-old, and there is a large, friendly constituency open to his leadership, but his previous political experience as deputy leader of the Ontario NDP has not prepared him for this job, and he has surrounded himself with inexperienced loyalists. ...
Longtime New Democrats are watching with concern. The new leader, who does not have a seat in the House of Commons, is spending a lot of time on the road, not a lot of time in Ottawa, which is—duh—where all the cameras are. He has no plans to run for a seat any time soon and his message, delivered to regional media outlets, often diverges from the message his caucus is pushing in Ottawa.
Singh is said to be a quick study, but the veterans who ran the operation for Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair are gone, meaning there is nobody on the coaching staff who can point Singh in the right direction. ...
There are signs that Singh is also causing concern and upset in the caucus that, when he happens to be in Ottawa, he is supposed to lead. ...
It’s Singh’s job to get his party into the story, and he has failed to do that, largely because he is not only not in the House of Commons but not even in Ottawa, which is where, again, all the cameras are.
Singh does not have a chief of staff or director of communications yet in place. He is too often out of step with his caucus. His party is facing the most left wing government since Pierre Trudeau was in office, which poses a difficult political problem for New Democrats.
The good news is that the election is almost two years away and Singh has a winning way, particularly with young people, who will be more important in the next election than any election in a long time.
But if he wants to play in the big leagues, he’d better start showing the fans that he knows where the net is.
Those are edited bits from the longer article, here:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singhs-rookie-blunders/
Again... Mulcair spent almost all his time as leader in Ottawa "which is where, again, all the cameras are", and staying there proved to be an absolute failure for him. Why should Singh do anything that was a disaster for his predecessor?
In any case, can we assume the "he has to get a seat NOW" thing has been put to rest? Clearly the only reason the Liberal posters here were pushing that was that they wanted the chance to beat him in a marginal seat, force him to resign as leader and trigger ANOTHER NDP leadership contest.
It is not just so called "Liberals" but many NDP posters here feel Jagmeet should get a seat.
Again... Mulcair spent almost all his time as leader in Ottawa "which is where, again, all the cameras are", and staying there proved to be an absolute failure for him.The NDP was in first place in the polls when the election was called. It was his performance in the election campaign that was a failure.
I doubt the NDP will be in first place when the next election is called, but to be fair I don't think any of the leadership candidates could achieve that, seat or no seat.
It seems that advocates for migrant workers are also unhappy with Singh:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/05/migrant-workers-group-slams-...
Meanwhile keeping things "All in the family" Mulcair former press secretary (George Smith) has departed to work for the BC NDP. His replacement? His identical twin brother James Smith who is now Jagmeet Singh press secretary.
It seems that advocates for migrant workers are also unhappy with Singh:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/05/migrant-workers-group-slams-...
I wonder, if Jagmeet pulls through on his promise and this group praises him, will the corporate media give the story the same coverage? Just asking.
It seems that advocates for migrant workers are also unhappy with Singh:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/05/migrant-workers-group-slams-...
I wonder, if Jagmeet pulls through on his promise and this group praises him, will the corporate media give the story the same coverage? Just asking.
Only if another group complains.
Just to note that Jason Kenney ran in a byelection - and won - in an Alberta riding made available according to the CBC:
The historically conservative Calgary-Lougheed riding...became vacant when MLA Dave Rodney stepped down to allow Kenney a chance to run for the provincial seat.
So that is still a normal practice.
Just to note that Jason Kenney ran in a byelection - and won - in an Alberta riding made available according to the CBC:
The historically conservative Calgary-Lougheed riding...became vacant when MLA Dave Rodney stepped down to allow Kenney a chance to run for the provincial seat.
So that is still a normal practice.
No one ever said it wasn't a normal practice. It's also a normal practice to not take a seat. In this case it's more beneficial politically to stay out of parliament. Apparently Kenny thinks it will most benefit him provincially to try for a seat. Surely you are not suggesting he is acting out of civic duty.
