Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17673 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:51 pm Post subject:
Magoo, tell you what. When parliament is representative of Canada's population, I'll happily say that gender, race, and other marginalizations are no longer something I'll be prioritizing candidate choices around. And you know that a) that's not happening anytime soon, and you also know b) perfectly well why I and everyone else who's concerned about and marginalization think that decent representation is crucially important.
Until then, why not give it a rest, and leave off trying to frustrate folks who care about social equity. You're a white straight guy, right? So you don't have to worry about it, unless you're one of those white, straight guys who actually empathizes with those of us who don't have the same privilege.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1283 Location: Left . . . of the plate
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:33 am Post subject:
Senor Magoo wrote:
So I assumed that the marginalization that I'm told would be addressed by electing a female leader of the NDP was specifically a shortage of female NDP leaders.
How did you get that out of "And does gender affect my voting choice? You bet it does." plus "it's important to support increasing political representation of marginalized groups"?
What other representation could the election of Ashton possibly increase, if not representation at the leadership level?
She's already an MP, so electing her to NDP leader or not electing her to NDP leader isn't going to change the balance in the HoC. It could only possibly add a +1 to the list of female NDP leaders.
I'm really curious now. How did you interpret it? What representation were you thinking of?
Quote:
and you also know b) perfectly well why I and everyone else who's concerned about and marginalization think that decent representation is crucially important.
Ya, I get that. I guess I was just wondering how decent representation is better acheived by electing the fourth female NDP leader rather than the very first Cree NDP leader or the very first Sikh NDP leader. Any thoughts on that? _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1283 Location: Left . . . of the plate
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:43 pm Post subject:
Senor Magoo wrote:
What other representation could the election of Ashton possibly increase, if not representation at the leadership level?
She's already an MP, so electing her to NDP leader or not electing her to NDP leader isn't going to change the balance in the HoC. It could only possibly add a +1 to the list of female NDP leaders.
I'm really curious now. How did you interpret it? What representation were you thinking of?
I interpreted it literally, "representation of marginalized groups" meaning "representation of marginalized groups", not "representation of NDP leaders". And no, I'm not deliberately trying to misrepresent what you're saying. I honestly have no idea what you're saying.
OK wait. Are you saying that since Ashton is already an MP, her becoming leader would not have an effect on increasing the political representation of women, and that if we were talking about a company instead of government, Ashton getting promoted from a low or mid level manager to upper management or CEO would not increase the corporate representation of women? And breaking through the marzipan layer means nothing, that women are adequately represented if we can put enough of them in lower management?
I interpreted it literally, "representation of marginalized groups" meaning "representation of marginalized groups", not "representation of NDP leaders".
Representation where?
Representation doesn't exist in a vacuum. Representation on the national Olympic team or representation among Oscar recipients or representation on the Council of Elders or whatever. But you can't just have some kind of generic "representation".
Quote:
Are you saying that since Ashton is already an MP, her becoming leader would not have an effect on increasing the political representation of women, and that if we were talking about a company instead of government, Ashton getting promoted from a low or mid level manager to upper management or CEO would not increase the corporate representation of women.
I'm not sure how we're getting our wires crossed, but I'm saying that if we were talking about a company instead of government, Ashton getting promoted from a low or mid level manager to upper management or CEO would increase the corporate representation of women?
If Ashton is elected leader of the NDP, she would increase women's representation in the context of NDP leaders. The NDP has had three, now they would have four. Definitely.
In contrast, the LPC has had 18 leaders, none of them women. Women are NOT well represented among LPC party leaders. Women ARE fairly well represented among NDP leaders.
But just as the Liberals have never had a female leader, the NDP has never had an FN leader. Almost half of the NDP leaders have been women, but none has ever been FN. Women are fairly well represented among NDP leaders, but FN people are not well represented among NDP leaders. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
a. Women are underrepresented in many roles in Canada today, including high public office.
b. The leadership of the NDP is a position of high public office its members, and those who will join or participate or advocate in the race, have a say in filling in right now.
Isn't it entirely reasonable to make addressing a one of the factors in a decision in b? A woman in b would push the representation of women forward in a. The fact that women were elected to the specific position in b in 1989 and 1995, and a woman was named to it on an interim basis this year, doesn't dispose of a.
Certainly. If the race for NDP leader were between seven old white guys and a woman I'd wholeheartedly agree that the very best way to promote more equitable representation both in the Leader's office and in the 'trickle down' sense that you describe would be to support that woman.
But as I've noted, using any 'metric' for representation that I can think of, First Nations are even MORE underepresented than white women. Do you disagree?
So if the goal is to promote more equitable representation AND elect a woman, Ashton's a pretty obvious choice. But if the goal is to promote more equitable representation for a group that's never been represented at the Leader level before, a Cree or Sikh leader would be more of a profound change. Wouldn't it? _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
The goal is multifactorial. I think there will be plenty of Ashton and Nash voters, motivated significantly by the importance of representation and participation of women and equity-seeking groups, who if they were around did, or if they had been around probably would have, supported Layton or another candidate with a higher preference than Meslo in 2003, Robinson or another candidate over McDonough in 1995, McCurdy or another candidate over McLaughlin in 1989, or even Broadbent or another candidate over Brown in 1975.
The same would go for Saganash, Singh, and in the context of the NDP, plausibly Mulcair voters, motivated significantly by the importance of representation and participation of equity-seeking groups generally.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17673 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject:
Magoo. Would I be happy if a Cree or a Sikh man were elected a leader of the NDP? Sure. Find anyone on this thread who said it would be a bad idea, compared to yet another straight white guy. My issue is that up until Nash and Ashton said they were in, it was all men. And five of the seven male candidates are straight (as far as we know) white guys, who have lots and lots and lots of power already, especially in our political system.
Which for a party that has expressed the need to have more diverse representation is pretty inadequate.
And you're trying to get people to pit one marginalization against another, which is boring. I kind of have to wonder why you're grinding this axe so very hard. Do you dislike the idea of working to increase the number of women in leadership positions, or something?
Would I be happy if a Cree or a Sikh man were elected a leader of the NDP? Sure. Find anyone on this thread who said it would be a bad idea, compared to yet another straight white guy. My issue is that up until Nash and Ashton said they were in, it was all men. And five of the seven male candidates are straight (as far as we know) white guys, who have lots and lots and lots of power already, especially in our political system.
Also important to point out that the lone Sikh candidate, Martin Singh is also a straight white guy who converted to Sikhism (one of Corey's links when he first declared pointed that out). So while it would obviously be a great change to see a non-Christian or non-Jew head a major political party in Canada, it wouldn't be as big as an actual South Asian Sikh winning the leadership. _________________ I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford
while it would obviously be a great change to see a non-Christian or non-Jew head a major political party in Canada
Sidetrack: Hmm, I can pin down two on the provincial level. Amor De Cosmos was a "Free-thinker," per Wikipedia, which makes enough sense. Raj Pannu, Sikh per the Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples.
I'll bet next to no attention has been paid specifically to the religions of leaders of some of the minor majors like the NB and PEI New Democrats, maybe recently the MB and SK Liberals, perhaps any party in the Yukon. Can anyone think of any other religious-minority or irreligious major provincial party leaders? For minor parties, communists leaders are probably generally irreligious, and Greens probably pretty diverse within a range.
ETA, a really quick web search doesn't pin down any religious identification for Joe or Robert Ghiz. Anyway, pardon the digression, (but add if you can think of anyone, I'm curious now!)
Can anyone think of any other religious-minority or irreligious major provincial party leaders? For minor parties, communists leaders are probably generally irreligious, and Greens probably pretty diverse within a range.
Well there was Dosanjh who was BC Premier for a very short time, then got blown away and subsequently jumped to the federal Libs. But other than that, I can't think of anyone else. And none at the Federal level.
As for the Ghiz family, I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure they're Arab Christians. _________________ I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford
I kind of have to wonder why you're grinding this axe so very hard. Do you dislike the idea of working to increase the number of women in leadership positions, or something?
I'm not averse at all. It just seemed, initially, that you were also supporting Ashton not just because she's from a historically excluded group, but because she's from the same historically excluded group as you.
When I was informed that That Was NOT The Case! and that your support of Ashton has nothing to do with you and her both being women, but rather an attempt to help a marginalized candidate, I pointed out that there are other candidates who are actually MORE marginalized (sorry for the "oppression olympics", but it seems absurd to me to discuss marginalization as though everyone who's marginalized is equally marginalized).
I guess the closest analogy I can think of would be a Jewish guy voting for the Jewish candidate in order to increase diversity among the leadership of the NDP. Certainly Jews aren't WASPs, and still suffer exclusion and marginalization relative to old white males, but really not relative to women or First Nations. If the Jewish guy really wants to promote diversity, a woman or an FN candidate would be more meaningful, wouldn't it? Certainly he's still free to support whomever he wishes, but if he sticks with the other Jewish guy, is it really out of the question to imagine that maybe it's because they're both Jewish guys? _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
• Tehanu is taking one and only factor into account weighing candidates for the NDP leadership, and Magoo has generously stepped forward to try to see if she could broaden the scope of that one and only factor, or
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17673 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:10 am Post subject:
Thanks, Corey. Needless to say, I'm going with (b). And I should know by now not to let Magoo get under my skin, but he has. In this thread, definitely you're the peacemaker.
(And I suspect that this feels like derailing, but sheesh, not only am I under-represented, I keep getting misrepresented, so bear with me.)
Senor Magoo wrote:
It just seemed, initially, that you were also supporting Ashton not just because she's from a historically excluded group, but because she's from the same historically excluded group as you.
When I was informed that That Was NOT The Case! and that your support of Ashton has nothing to do with you and her both being women, but rather an attempt to help a marginalized candidate
Do please point out to me where I said what you are attributing to me in either your first or second paragraph.
I am pleased that Ashton is in the race because the paucity of female candidates has been deeply frustrating (as I said far, far upthread). I like a lot of things about Ashton, and one of the things I like about her is that she's a female candidate, in a sea of guys.
I said that gender affects my voting choice, and yes, I'm sticking to that. I did NOT say it was the only factor.
I also did NOT say that I am attempting simply to help a marginalized candidate, rather than being particularly sensitive to this because I'm also a woman. I AM sensitive about it, and I have no problem saying so. (I am also sensitive to the lack of out LGBT candidates.)
You went on the attack with a zero-sum game, as though I can't raise the concern of a lack of female representation without somehow taking into account every single other marginalization out there, citing former female NDP leaders as though that magically takes away the abysmal under-representation of over half the population of Canada.
And as though I don't have the right to be oh-so-selfishly worried about how women get so damn few seats at the government table.
I did NOT say at any point that I don't support candidates from other marginalized groups joining the race. And yes, I am concerned at the overall lack of representation from ALL KINDS of marginalized groups. But I have no problem saying that I particularly advocate for greater female (and LGBT, let's keep that in there why don't we) representation, because I feel under-represented.
If I don't, who will?
I'm not holding my breath.
Overall, what REALLY makes me queasy is that even in the NDP, the number of people who are considered viable leadership candidates are overwhelmingly straight white guys. Which apparently in your sudden urge to advocate for the First Nations and Sikh candidates you seem to share, hmm?
So, Magoo, what are you doing to encourage other crucially under-represented folks to engage in the race? Or are you just going to take potshots at those of us who are under-represented and who actually think we have a right to be pissed off about it?
Ta-Nehisi Coates, on his blog for The Atlantic, wrote:
Obviously I disapprove of this sign. [The writer is an African American man.] And as I've said before, I don't think opportunistically quoting Shirley Chisholm or factoring out actual human beings to determine their precise privilege quotient is particularly clarifying.
With that said, as with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, it's always good to understand the roots of the angst. For my part, watching a major presidential candidate who's been accused of sexual harassment multiple times, crack Anita Hill jokes, deride the first woman to rise to Speaker of the House as "Princess Nancy," and finish the week by warning other accusers to "think twice," clarifies that particular frustration.
That the frustration is sometimes poorly -- even erroneously -- articulated or given voice by white populists should be duly noted in the starkest terms. But the anger comes from somewhere. I simply have a hard time imagining, in similar context, a presidential candidate berating Obama in such overtly racist tones. "Food stamp president" and flirting with birtherism are pretty close. But there's at least some plausible deniability.
Overall, what REALLY makes me queasy is that even in the NDP, the number of people who are considered viable leadership candidates are overwhelmingly straight white guys. Which apparently in your sudden urge to advocate for the First Nations and Sikh candidates you seem to share, hmm?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting that I share (?).
Quote:
So, Magoo, what are you doing to encourage other crucially under-represented folks to engage in the race?
I'm not an NDP member, nor is anyone I know in meatspace, so it's not like I can say to my marginalized friend "you should run! I'll nominate you!". Pretty good chance I'll end up (indirectly) voting for whoever wins, though. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1283 Location: Left . . . of the plate
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:04 pm Post subject:
Senor Magoo wrote:
Representation where?
Representation doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Heh, that's what I thought my point was. To use the boy crisis example, it's like you're saying that boys are falling behind because more girls than boys go on to university. And then when I (and others) say that you can't look at that one thing in isolation, that it matters to look at it in context, that context being that that when you break it down into which fields (lower or higher prestige leading to lower or higher paying jobs) and which schools (in the US, no gender imbalance at elite schools, and an imbalance in favour of men at science or engineering schools like MIT) and degree levels (bachelor, masters, PHD), boys are not falling behind. To which you respond, repeatedly, that if we only look at that total number, how many girls go onto university vs how many boys, we must agree that boys are falling behind.
I also think that you are misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, the other side. Referring back to your response to Corey's:
Quote:
My values and ideals include that women and other equity-seeking groups should be fully included and well represented at every level of decision-making.
Senor Magoo wrote:
I have no objection to that, of course, but specifically why?
What is it about an MP or MPP who has two X chromosomes (or an X and a Y) that makes this desirable?
We had a female Prime Minister for a while, as did the United Kingdom. Was that a good thing, in and of itself?
I guess I've just never seen any practical good in the idea of representation quotas (154 female MPs, 40 of whom should be black, 18 of whom should be older than 65, two of whom should use a wheelchair...).
I'd rather see a House of Commons that is responsive to the needs of women in Canada than to assume that a House of Commons in which 50.5% of the MPs have two X chromosomes would be responsive to the needs of women.
A House of Commons is not responsive to the needs of women when its representatives are not women, or very few are women. It might be possible in some theoretical world, the same world where a benevolent dictator is responsive to the needs of his people, but in the real world, no. When a group is not represented, their group-specific needs will tend to be ignored or "fixed" in an unsatisfactory, paternalistic way.
Are there individual men who are more responsive to the needs of women than individual women? Yes, but setting up the positions as (a) the gender makeup of the House of Commons is irrelevant to its responsiveness to the needs of women, and (b) all women are more responsive than all men to the needs of women, is a strawman. And using that 50.5% number reflects a misunderstanding of what quotas or other equity measures are trying to achieve. The target is generally agreed to be 30% and it's not based on the idea that only a woman can represent a woman. It's based on the idea of a tipping point, reaching a critical mass of women at which point she will be looked at as an MP, not a female MP, people will stop voting their gender biases while claiming to be voting based on merit, and women's issues become people's issues, making the gov't more responsive to the needs of the community, not just women.
Quote:
If being elected leader of the NDP will somehow address marginalization for women, I guess I'm noting that that's already happened -- three times.
Quote:
So I assumed that the marginalization that I'm told would be addressed by electing a female leader of the NDP . . .
Who told you that the marginalization of women would be addressed by electing a female NDP leader?
The two women years ago elected leaders of the NDP were elected when the party was, relatively and absolutely, much smaller and weaker than it is now.
Audrey McLaughlin was elected leader of the third party that had won 43 seats, against 83 and 169, that had generally disappointed relative to expectations in the '88 election and may have made most of its gains in seats because from Conservative votes in the west splitting to the nascent Reform Party, which people already knew could pose a serious structural threat when it got bigger than a spoiler; the second-place Dave Barrett campaign focused on this.
Alexa McDonough was elected leader once it had lost lost official party status in Commons, was fourth by seat count - 9 seats against 177, 54 and 52 - and a distant fifth, with less than 7%!, in the popular vote.
Nycole Turmel was named interim leader as a result of a health crisis then death, for what will end up being about eight months.
Deborah Grey was similarly interim leader of the opposition for about five months. Kim Campbell was prime minister for about four.
So electing a woman to the the NDP leadership today would elect the second woman to hold full-fledged, into the next election and for Prime Minister leadership a party at or even close to first or second place. And the one and only female leader to have reached this highest tier yet was elected to lead a massively unpopular ruling party into an election, against a really tough OO and two new parties that successfully tearing out key elements of the ruling party's coalition.
In case the distinction sounds a little artificial, let me recast it:
In the 81 years since the Persons Case, women, typically comprising more than half the population, have only been elected permanent leader of any group with official party status in Parliament twice. Only twice, with McLaughlin in 1989 and Campbell in 1993, and not once in the eighteen years since.
There's one other close point of data from the woman who led her party back from the brink to official party status, McDonough. That was far from a foregone conclusion and it owed a lot to her work and her appeal among other factors.
There are three other data points from caretaker, interim leaders, the two above and Elsie Wayne for the PCs in 1998. Elizabeth May has led her party to new heights in popular vote and representation, but that latter is currently peaked at just one seat.
There have been other female Green, CPC-ML, even Christian Heritage and maybe other party leaders, and serious non-winning candidates for Conservative, Alliance, and Liberal leaderships, and there's a serious candidate for the Bloc leadership today. Again, on the question of the representation of women at the highest decision-making levels, these aren't the strongest points of data.
There doesn't seem to be a female prospect even among the ten or so regularly talked about for the coming federal Liberal leadership yet. There might be a chance for Sheila Copps, currently running for the party presidency, and there could certainly be a chance for someone new to emerge.
There might be a chance for Sheila Copps, currently running for the party presidency, and there could certainly be a chance for someone new to emerge.
In spite of Liberals claiming that interim leaders can't become the Liberal Party Leader, it will be Bob Rae. Liberals have no problem lying if they think it will help them to win.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17673 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject:
Just got an email saying Chisholm's out.
Quote:
Dear Friends,
I entered the leadership race because as a former Leader of the Nova Scotia NDP and Leader of the Official Opposition I believed my experience was important and relevant. I also understood and respected the need for the next leader to become bilingual and I committed myself to that goal.
Over the past few weeks I have met hundreds of New Democrats from across Canada. Our conversations have convinced me that our party wants a leader to speak fluently in both official languages from day one.
I cannot reach that objective by March 24, 2012 and therefore I am withdrawing from the Leadership race of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
On May 2, 2011, over 4 million Canadians voted for us and we need to work hard to prove their confidence in us was not misplaced. I look forward to returning to the House of Commons in January to work with Nycole Turmel and our caucus to do the important work Canadians have asked of us.
It has been a privilege to meet so many New Democrats as I traveled the country. I look forward to working with all of you to create a brighter future for all Canadians.
It's going to be a tough choice. Topp and Nash seem to be appealing to the left wing of the party, whereas Mulcair is trying to cultivate the feeling that he's the safest bet for power. I like a lot of what Topp has been saying about taxes, but a part of me does feel that Mulcair is the safest bet for power. On Mulcair's site, he makes an indirect reference to the other candidates (I think he was targeting either Topp or Nash) and equating them with Dion (IE, someone who may have had some interesting ideas, but was not sellable). On the other hand, perhaps Mulcair is the NDP's equivalent of Ignatieff (IE, someone thought to be a sure-bet superstar who falls flat). Still, it does seem he's the most likely to keep Quebec, and perhaps the most likely to attract new votes elsewhere. I don't know. I also like Singh, simply because I like his focus on pharmacare.
It's going to be a ranked ballot. Does anyone know how many choices we'll have? Three? Four?
PS, on an unrelated note, I read an interesting article by Margaret Wente in the Globe. I posted a comment on it along the lines of Douglas' Mouseland which seemed appropriate.
It's going to be a ranked ballot. Does anyone know how many choices we'll have? Three? Four?
I think I have found the answer to my own question. There's an interesting mock vote at this site which seems to indicate that all eight can be ranked.
NDP leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair has snagged a high-profile endorsement from former Manitoba premier and governor general Ed Schreyer.
The endorsement is important for the Montreal MP, who is well-known in Quebec but needs to expand his reach outside his home province.
Schreyer says he believes Mulcair can do in the Prairies — the party's onetime heartland but now a virtual wasteland — what he helped do in Quebec in last May's election.
So it sounds like Mulcair can pick up support from the rest of the country to avoid being pigeonholed as "Quebec's candidate." And though he probably won't make my short-list, there are those whose opinions I respect who are quite receptive to him. Not to whitewash my issues, but my opposition to him has softened somewhat, and I could probably live with him as leader. _________________ This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I initially was pretty excited about Mulcair, but when I was reading his website I saw an article there talking about how he favoured the idea of public-private health-care (aka P3s). I checked this on the Internet and found another article of an interview he gave when he was running for the Quebec Liberals, and he certainly did support P3s (from it: "What we're saying is that you could always get efficiencies from the private sector because it is always more efficient than the public sector. So you could make partnerships between the public sector and the private sector for provision of services.") So, I'm starting to think he might be a bit unpredictable.
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 4004 Location: Central USA, Earth
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:06 pm Post subject:
mark_alfred wrote:
... I checked this on the Internet and found another article of an interview he gave when he was running for the Quebec Liberals, and he certainly did support P3s (from it: "What we're saying is that you could always get efficiencies from the private sector because it is always more efficient than the public sector. So you could make partnerships between the public sector and the private sector for provision of services.") ...
Private efficiency is elephant or at least hippopotamus sheit! Nowadays, both public and private use most of the same Operations Research methods and other science of management constructs. The public sector supplies 'extra service' to correspond to the private sector 'profits', more or less. Both sectors have some corruption and some incompetence with varying degrees of 'sunshine', regulation, and oversight.
... I checked this on the Internet and found another article of an interview he gave when he was running for the Quebec Liberals, and he certainly did support P3s (from it: "What we're saying is that you could always get efficiencies from the private sector because it is always more efficient than the public sector. So you could make partnerships between the public sector and the private sector for provision of services.") ...
Private efficiency is elephant or at least hippopotamus sheit! Nowadays, both public and private use most of the same Operations Research methods and other science of management constructs. The public sector supplies 'extra service' to correspond to the private sector 'profits', more or less. Both sectors have some corruption and some incompetence with varying degrees of 'sunshine', regulation, and oversight.
I totally agree, especially with this: The public sector supplies 'extra service' to correspond to the private sector 'profits', more or less. _________________ “If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
Also important to point out that the lone Sikh candidate, Martin Singh is also a straight white guy who converted to Sikhism (one of Corey's links when he first declared pointed that out). So while it would obviously be a great change to see a non-Christian or non-Jew head a major political party in Canada, it wouldn't be as big as an actual South Asian Sikh winning the leadership.
Inane tokenism. Who cares what race or religion they are? I donated money to Singh's campaign not because of his religion, but because he has made pharmacare a priority of his campaign (which the others have not done).
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6172 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject:
I received an email from The Canadian Arab Federation today, saying the CAF is endorsing Brian Topp as leader of the Nude Ems.
Quote:
We applaud Brian’s dedication to social democracy and fighting for Canadians across the country. Canada has unfortunately regressed in the areas of social and economic equality and we believe in Brian’s plan to bring the country back to the international forefront in these areas. These issues along with his stance on foreign policy, more directly to the Middle East, have given us the confidence to stand directly behind him on his path to the leadership position of Canada’s official opposition.
_________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
Quebec MP Romeo Saganash hasn't built enough support to win the NDP leadership and is withdrawing from the race, he announced Friday.
Saganash was scheduled to make the announcement at 11 a.m. in Val D'Or and according to a news release, the former Cree leader said a lack of financial support and demands on his time were the main reasons for bowing out.
"My mother, sisters and brothers and my children all need more attention than I have been able to provide", Saganash said. "I am unable to devote enough time to them, my constituents or my party and run the kind of campaign that I would like to run."
_________________ This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
It's too bad about Saganash. I'm really surprised that there has been so little MSM hype about the NDP leadership so far. I mean, this isn't a minor party we're talking about here (not anymore): This is the official opposition with over a hundred seats, not some mere third party like those other guys (um...what's their name?...oh yeah, the Liberals. ) _________________ I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 3142 Location: tahsis, british columbia
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject:
The official opposition right now , but I'm afraid a lot of people feel this is like an egg going through a snake and, without Layton, the NDP will slide back to third or even become irrelevant.
There's probably a case to be made that it's because of a lazy lack of coverage by MSM, but, so far, I haven't seen or heard anything which would inspire me to jump up and get excited about any of the contenders. Most of them are strangers to me, and uninspiring ones, at that.
I have no idea what we could do to make the public more aware. This doesn't seem like a "race", more like a limping promenade.
As important as it is to bring First Nations voices to the table, to me Saganash was more than that. For centuries, there has been a strained relationship between Canada's 3 founding nations (First Nations, French, and English). Saganash has a foot in all 3 camps, and for that reason is uniquely well-suited to bring about the urgent task of reconciliation between these 3 nations. I hope that his voice can still be brought forward.
The Evil Twin wrote:
It's too bad about Saganash. I'm really surprised that there has been so little MSM hype about the NDP leadership so far. I mean, this isn't a minor party we're talking about here (not anymore): This is the official opposition with over a hundred seats, not some mere third party like those other guys (um...what's their name?...oh yeah, the Liberals. )
There's a couple of things there. One, I don't think the media is used to the NDP being in second place (I'm not even sure if I am) so once the NDP establishes itself, I think the media will catch up. More importantly, the dominant media narrative going into the 2011 election was that the NDP was going to lose seats, and that Mulcair would be crowned the next leader. The media got that way wrong, and are looking for anything they can latch onto to prove that the Orange Crush was a blip. If the NDP could accomplish what it did in the lead-up to the 2011 election despite being in last place in seats and being ignored in the media, I'm sure they could very easily do much better when in second place they would have the sheer numbers to back them up. And even though they are down in the polls now, consider this: the NDP, with an interim leader not well known and not resonating with the public, is still polling well above the traditional NDP support, while the Liberals, with a well-known leader are still polling well below traditional Liberal support. I think that in a few weeks, the NDP is going to choose a great leader, and will go on and do great things. _________________ This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Paul Dewar, candidat à la succession de Jack Layton, s'est attiré l'appui de deux députés néo-démocrates québécois, Hoang Mai et Hélène Laverdière.
_________________ This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Last night I got a call from Topps campaign. I told them I had already voted - and not for him. She asked me what my problem with Brian was and I told her that Broadbent had a large part in turning me away from Topp; it reminded me of American style politics - bashing the opponent. And it smacks of "old boys club" returning political favours. She told me that Brian never asked Ed to support him and had nothing to do with any of Broadbents messages. I told her I wasn't born yesterday and I have been involved in politics since I was born - she made a snide little comment about how that was an amazing feat. It went downhill from there. I told her I felt that Brian represented the old guard that quite frankly isn't ringing with todays voters - ie: Lingenfelter fiasco. She brought up the incident with Singh and said that he was going to be fined. I informed her I wasn't voting for Singh and she said "but he's tied to Mulcair" and that it was too bad I wasn't making my decision based on fact. I lost it. It was supper time, my toddler was needing my attention and I did not appreciate the condecending tone and I told her as much with a "fuck you this conversation is over" hang up. What really pisses me off is that she basically said to me "too bad your stupid and don't know how to vote." Unfuckingbelievable! This is their strategy? Enrage voters? I have received calls from all of the candidates and it was a pleasant experience. This really confirms my decision not to vote for Topp. Do they not know that one bad call is very bad for the campaign? I never said much about my calls from other candidates - but this - well lets see I called my family, I am posting on here, and I don't think I'm done yet. I really wish I would have got her name. _________________ There is a wisdom of the head, and....a wisdom of the heart. Charles Dickens
When I looked at Topps website the "contact us" tab only had an email reply form. I would rather talk to someone in person. _________________ There is a wisdom of the head, and....a wisdom of the heart. Charles Dickens
There is a number for Jim Rutkowski, Who I guess is writing their news releases. I'm sure you could find the number through him.
And their campaign does have a facebook page.
I just think that unless everyone in their campaign is using this tactic (and I doubt that) they probably need to know about this more than anyone. I bet they could even find out who it is you that spoke to you.
Mulcair once again 'moving the centre to the NDP' through more centre-right dialectics.
The man has a presence I admit, but after several similar incidences I can only conclude now that he is indeed a liberal in social democratic cloth.
I can only suggest that if you're a progressive Dipper, who still hasn't committed to paper, try looking at Nash, Ashton or Cullen in front of either establishment favourite. As a voting block any one of these has a chance; Nash and Cullen probably being ahead of Topp already and running near second. _________________ The time to move is now. Always has been.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6172 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:39 pm Post subject:
I mentioned Willow's encounter with Topp's surveyor to someone I know who once worked with Topp in the Romanow government, and who really loathes him. "Arrogant prick" is, as I recall, the term she used to describe him.
She told me she had a rather productive and respectful conversation with the person who phoned her to conduct the survey. _________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
I had a great conversation with Niki Ashton's husband when he called. He was respectful and wanted feedback.
I was expecting something similar when Topps campaign called. Unfortunately, that was not the case. This woman was mad that I hadn't voted for Topp, her tone being snippy and condescending. She also did the "but the others guys are doing this, and such and such said that" It was infantile. It has been bothering me that Broadbent has been poisoning the well with attacks on Mulcair and the way she come across to me was another indication of how they are running their campaign. I don't find it helpful at all to be bashing any of the candidates. Whoever becomes our next leader - we want to show solidarity, not a bunch of in fighting reminicent of the libs. If she had said what Topp's policy's were, and why she believed that was the best choice - I would have accepted that. But I will not accept being belittled for my choice and I definetly don't like the style of politics they are employing. _________________ There is a wisdom of the head, and....a wisdom of the heart. Charles Dickens
I told her I felt that Brian represented the old guard that quite frankly isn't ringing with todays voters
Yup. I basically get the sense that the Mulcair/Topp camps are representative of 2 cliques in the party that each want to take the party in a certain direction, as opposed to people like Nash, Ashton, or Dewar who have focused more on the grassroots. _________________ This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
8. Thomas Mulcair _________________ This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17673 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:08 am Post subject:
I didn't like Topp much to start with, haven't heard anything from him to change my mind ... and being inundated with spam and robocalls from him was icing on the cake.
I'm either voting online or if I'm feeling energetic will do it online during the conference. Which is kind of a cool idea! TS, maybe we'll get you to post updates from the floor on your smartphone (right?), sort of a message board tweetathon.
Haven't decided my final vote order yet but I'm putting Ashton first. I expect she'll be dropped off PDQ but I want it to be clear that she's the sort of leader I want!
I do like Nathan Cullen a lot but I'm not totally sure about this co-operation with the Libs thing. Pragmatic, yes, but not something I'm in favour of. But he does dig into issues nicely, that's for sure.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
)
Today's Active Topics