The next NDP leader

[Wild Bill]

Canadian Citizenship didn't exist until after WWII.

Canada is a construct.

1867 Dominion of Canada was formed and self-government was granted to Ontario (formerly Upper Canada), Quebec (formerly Lower Canada), New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia (A DOMINION IS A OCCUPATION OR DOMINATION BY FORCE AS TO EXTEND EMPIRE UPON A TERRITORY - IT WAS A BRITISH OCCUPIED TERRITORY.

1982 Canadian constitution was adopted (part deux) (The First Canadian Constitution (as opposed to British Constitution for its Canadian Dominion)

For instance -- the concept of union (in the act of union 1840)... was as a legislative union. NOT a national union since, Canadian Nationality was a Post WWII phenomenon, until after this point in the 1947 - there was no "Canadian Nation" - as a de jure reality.

Act of Union (1840)

So only leaders born after 1947 can be considered "fully Canadian"

Paul Martin for instance was born in the 1930's, he is actually fully a British Subject - although laws may have "morphed" that into Canadian Citizenship.

Stephen Harper.. perhaps the first NON LAWYER, and first "Truely Canadian Prime Minister" is actually the only "Canadian" born Prime Minister - although he is also a British Subject (Commonwealth Citizen).. so still not only Canadian... however anyone born after 1982 is not a commonwealth citizen and ONLY Canadian.

The first Wholely Canadian Prime Minister will come when someone born after 1982 is elected PM, until then people (PM) by default owe allegiance to the Queen/monarch (not country - Nations are people Not land) - it will potentially legally cease to be "her majesties government, except by the nature of the laws that exist in constituent membership in that body or post.

It would be better to say Born in "Cananda" not Canadian Born.

Country = Land of Occupation

Nation = group of people with collective endevour

Nationality = to which nation you belong

citizenship = this tends to be tied into "legal" belonging - you can be a citizen but have foreign national origin (hence naturalization)

Born in Canada (born in the Territory of Canada)

Canadian Born (born by Canadian Nationals)

Canadian (having Canadian citizenship)

Just understand legally the Nation of Canada didn't exist until 1982 - although people like to give it some meat so they say after WWI (some political powers but not full powers) statute of Westminster (some legal powers but not fully) - arguably there are still a few strands left in the umbilical

There has been a big push to "create" Canadian Nationality over the past 100 years, it is almost real these days

It is almost a forced reality because the British don't want "people over here" anymore. I guess Canada is just too exotic and different these days. I bet they think Canada people talk funny too.

next thing you know they will be spelling night like niet.

Still leaves me a bit confused about the dating, William. During WWII I have read in multiple books that British Officers were given a reality check over Canada NOT being a colony! Those Brits took it for granted that Canada would just supply soldiers and they would be under British command. Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Canada was a dominion, meaning a separate country that happened to share the same Queen or King as Britain. MacKenzie King made it quite clear to the British that Canada's soldiers were under Canadian command.

The Air Force was an exception, in that there was no Canadian command. Canadian pilots served under British command, flying in the British air force with no distinction between them and other pilots.

Moreover, Canada paid its own people! They were not on the British payroll. This caused much hard feelings as the Canadian pay rate was better than the British.

How does this fit with Canada merely being a "dominated territory"?

Edited August 29, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Guest Peeves]

Of course there's a Quebec factor. Quebec is part of our country. Why wouldn't there be a Quebec factor in all things political? What a strange statement.

The party membership votes on the leader of the NDP, so the regional composition of the MPs makes little difference.

There wasn't much of a Quebec factor until half the caucus was elected from discontent Bloc members, some of whom don't have offices or phones yet and some politically wet behind the ears.

What I'm suggesting is that Quebec faction as large as it is will have a (more than) proportionately say-vote- on the next leader.

[Guest Peeves]

How does this fit with Canada merely being a "dominated territory"?

I'm a Canadian and while we still have a Queen, I'm Canadian to the core.

Canada is in no way dominated or obliged to support Britain, we are our own masters.

[fellowtraveller]

Of course there's a Quebec factor. Quebec is part of our country. Why wouldn't there be a Quebec factor in all things political? What a strange statement.

The party membership votes on the leader of the NDP, so the regional composition of the MPs makes little difference.

Harper would have won a majority anyway without benefit of any seats from Quebec at all, so Quebec is in fact not a factor poltically at this moment.

That discomforting reality has not escaped the folks in Quebec, since for the first time ever it puts them in the position of irrelevance for now. That will change at the next election, they know they cannot continue to be represented by a party or parties with no clout in Ottawa.

It doesn't matter who takes the NDP loeadership, they won't hold many seats in Quebec next time around. Muclair has the best shot at salvaging something.

[Evening Star]

But in this case, pick Mulcair, lose the non-Quebec dippers.

Because of the growing identity of the NDP as a Bloc successor.

Don't follow at all. Mulcair was a QC Liberal, about as far from the Bloc as you can get, surely. He speaks English as a first language (or at least as well as if it were his first language). I never had the impression that he was especially alienating for English Canadians. For what it's worth, I am a non-QC dipper and think he would be fairly strong.

He is a bit of a loose cannon, admittedly, and probably less of a 'people person' than Layton. Those factors lead me to wonder if Dewar might be better.

What about Megan Leslie? I think she could do well. I do so far think Mulcair is the best choice to keep QC votes without alienating non-Quebecers.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Evening Star

[Wild Bill]

I'm a Canadian and while we still have a Queen, I'm Canadian to the core.

Canada is in no way dominated or obliged to support Britain, we are our own masters.

Exactly! As I said, we SHARE a common monarch! That's NOT the same as British rule! That's why Quebec could theoretically become independent and still keep the monarch, if it so chose. The same with Scotland.

I also happen to believe that Canada is the brightest star in the Queen's tiara!

[cybercoma]

There wasn't much of a Quebec factor until half the caucus was elected from discontent Bloc members, some of whom don't have offices or phones yet and some politically wet behind the ears.

What I'm suggesting is that Quebec faction as large as it is will have a (more than) proportionately say-vote- on the next leader.

Just to let you know, when they say the party membership votes for the leader, they don't mean the party members of parliament.

[cybercoma]

Harper would have won a majority anyway without benefit of any seats from Quebec at all, so Quebec is in fact not a factor poltically at this moment.

That discomforting reality has not escaped the folks in Quebec, since for the first time ever it puts them in the position of irrelevance for now.

Why would you say any province in Canada is irrelevant? Every citizen is just as relevant as another in federal politics. Actually, given that representation is not proportion, one could argue that some citizens are more relevant than others. That's besides the point though, as they all have some sort of relevancy.

That will change at the next election, they know they cannot continue to be represented by a party or parties with no clout in Ottawa.

The official opposition has no clout? On what planet? In fact, the NDP are official opposition in no small part due to Quebec, which expands upon your point of relevancy.

I have a serious problem with people putting down one region/province over another. The reason many people in Quebec are fed up with federal politics is that there's so-called Canadians out there that continue to call them irrelevant. Why wouldn't they want to be autonomous with those constant reminders that they're not wanted in Canada? Why wouldn't they want to govern themselves when the rest of the country doesn't see them as part of the country?

[PIK]

Davies is kind of a fruitcake. She would be an unmitigated disaster for the NDP.

Of others not mentioned so far, I have always kind of liked Charlie Angus.

The crazy left will take over since jack is not around to control them,if davis runs she just might win it and that would put the party back years , we will have to wait and see. Or does the bloc have enough support to keep turmel in it.

[Newfoundlander]

What will happen in the Toronto-Danforth by-election?

[fellowtraveller]

I have a serious problem with people putting down one region/province over anot

I'm, not 'putting down' anybody or any region, simply speaking of how the numbers add up. Many smaller or regions provinces have been in this situation before, it is unusual for Quebec and unthinkable for Ontario.

And no, in a majority govt and our version of Parliamentary democracy the Opposition is scarcely relevant. The unusual wrinkle is that Quebec has no direct influence on the govt, because the MPs they elected can vote en masse on legislation and have no impact on the outcome.

Funny how nobody cared about this shit when Chretien was riding roughshod, now it is a big deal when Harper is in majority.

[Guest Derek L]

Though I don’t agree with the majority of the NDP’s platform, and my vested interests as Conservative would like them to make Mulcair or Davies their next leader, from an objective point of view, I say Paul Dewar……Like the late Mr Layton, Dewar doesn’t come off as extremely partisan (Whether they are is a different mater), and though Dewar might not be as “hip” as Layton, in my view, they both offer (misguided), in my opinion, substance.

My runner up, would be Brad Lavigne…..I don’t know much about the man, but when ever I see him on Power and Politics, in my view, he comes across as respectful and informed.

[cybercoma]

I'm, not 'putting down' anybody or any region, simply speaking of how the numbers add up. Many smaller or regions provinces have been in this situation before, it is unusual for Quebec and unthinkable for Ontario.

And no, in a majority govt and our version of Parliamentary democracy the Opposition is scarcely relevant. The unusual wrinkle is that Quebec has no direct influence on the govt, because the MPs they elected can vote en masse on legislation and have no impact on the outcome.

Funny how nobody cared about this shit when Chretien was riding roughshod, now it is a big deal when Harper is in majority.

Seeing as you registered at the end of 2004, what do you know about what people were talking about before that?

[jbg]

Canada is a construct.

***********

Stephen Harper.. perhaps the first NON LAWYER, and first "Truely Canadian Prime Minister" is actually the only "Canadian" born Prime Minister - although he is also a British Subject (Commonwealth Citizen).. so still not only Canadian... however anyone born after 1982 is not a commonwealth citizen and ONLY Canadian.

The first Wholely Canadian Prime Minister will come when someone born after 1982 is elected PM, until then people (PM) by default owe allegiance to the Queen/monarch (not country - Nations are people Not land) - it will potentially legally cease to be "her majesties government, except by the nature of the laws that exist in constituent membership in that body or post.

What is this incoherent rant post about?

It would be better to say Born in "Cananda" not Canadian Born.

There has still not been a single person born in a country called Cananda

Born in Canada (born in the Territory of Canada)

No such land with that designation.

Just understand legally the Nation of Canada didn't exist until 1982 - although people like to give it some meat so they say after WWI (some political powers but not full powers) statute of Westminster (some legal powers but not fully) - arguably there are still a few strands left in the umbilical

My Hebrew School teacher, in 1967, introduced herself to the class as from Montreal, Canada. Was she fibbing?

next thing you know they will be spelling night like niet.

You need to learn to spell as well. Edited August 30, 2011 by jbg

[betsy]

I've been watching news and some political talk shows. CBC had viewers sending comments on who the next leaders should be. One comment brought up Olivia Chow, along with a request directed at Chow - "will you please consider running?"

A pundit talks about the disparateness among the NDP members and that it was Jack who was the "glue" that held them together. He advises that the NDP needs someone to be the same, and recommends Olivia Chow, despite her poor French.

I put my money on Olivia Chow. She'll be the next leader.

That whole show during Layton's state funeral affair was designed to pave the way for her, imho.

The more I think about it, that funeral affair - regardless whether it was a state funeral or a regular funeral - was well-planned in advance. Layton could've had a hand in orchestrating it, geared to propel his wife (or friend/advisor) to continue his vision, after all apparently he believed in, " a project that requires more than a lifetime."

Runner up will be Layton's close friend and advisor - Topp(?).

[cybercoma]

Your comments are in poor taste, betsy. Layton planned his state funeral to push his widow into leadership? Give me a break. The state funeral had to be approved by Harper.

[bloodyminded]

The more I think about it, that funeral affair - regardless whether it was a state funeral or a regular funeral - was well-planned in advance. Layton could've had a hand in orchestrating it, geared to propel his wife (or friend/advisor) to continue his vision, after all apparently he believed in, " a project that requires more than a lifetime."

Layton could have no possibility whatsoever of influencing, much less "orchestrating," the matter of his State funeral. There's no way to do this.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[mentalfloss]

Mulcair would be the logical choice, but if they pick Topp they're screwed.

[noahbody]

Mulcair would be the logical choice, but if they pick Topp they're screwed.

It'll be Mulcair. Layton's son will run for Jack's seat.

[William Ashley]

No such land with that designation.

My Hebrew School teacher, in 1967, introduced herself to the class as from Montreal, Canada. Was she fibbing?

You need to learn to spell as well.

You went to school, I guess I don't need to explain it.

My opinion is as follows.

Once upon a time people showed up on Turtle Island or the like - some say they were Asians, they say they came from a tree or something. There were giants and monkey-people here before, and a few other people, and the animals are and have been the founding fathers and guides to the people.

Well anyway it may be that people from Europe people called the Verachocas showed up they were magical like Jesus and used the cross as a symbol (the Inca's adopted that symbol also), they were Gingers, although some may have been Blond Aryans. -- They may be related to the Atlantean Empire that traded from places like Gades back about 10,000 BC. The Phoneticians may have then showed up with the odd trade mission with occupants of Scandinavia and elsewhere.

The odd Irish monk may have showed up also such as Brendan.

None the less the Nors eventually came over from time to time, setting up a few settlements and maybe going all around Ontario but maybe not. Places along the coast seem to be a given. The Dorset people who were killed apparently met them, and they were called the Skraelings, but the Vikings retracted due to violent conflicts, and for some reason --- felt threatened by them (this all erupted when the Dorsets lactose intolerance and a gift of cheese by the vikings may have erupted animosity between the two groups.

None the less the portugeuse came over and started enslaving natives, who sort of didn't like that, so they may have decided to start travelling away from the coast. This was called the 7 fires Journey by some groups of Algonkian who just finished traveling from Idaho over a 1000 or so years. By the time they got back to the North Great lakes the French showed up, and conned them by firing a bunch of pistols into trade deals.

None the less. The natives remained "in control of their land up until the 1920's or so in some areas. Meanwhile the British and French killed each other and them, and they killed each other. This war lasted until... they joined one side. None the less over by the 1800's things started to become sort of real with a few thousand people in the village. The population slowly climbed but any democratic election at the time probably would have returned a native as PM -- well there was no PM yet. But there were Governors. 1812 rolls around and the British don't want to fight the Germans, and British to the south so they start to demarcate things.. and this starts the ball rolling on "consolidating the colonies that are left over from the war of 1812 and the revolutionary war.

So fearing an invasion they all get together and most are koshure with the idea of putting things like military organization under 1 governor -- the Governor General. the other colonies get lt. governors, as they are subsideraries and answer to the governor general for issues of military -- but each place still had an executive council and their own legislatures, but certain "Areas" of law would be done by the federal government http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html essentially the Financial System, and Transport/Military and Jails. While the provinces would handle "goods, and people".

Anyway there were some differences of opinion over the years but things progressed somewhat.

None the less they still had to have their motherland - agree to what they wanted to do. Luckily the people over there got annoyed at having to talk about the other peoples stuff and were to lazy to deal with it, so they eventually in the 1930's just said, you do it, time is money.

Canada wasn't too sure about that though, so it waited paitenty, until 1982 when the Queen came over and said, YOU ARE FREE (time is money)

Some stuff happened before that though.. such as in 1947 or so People in Canada saying - we'll handle our own international image. We are "Canadian" (But we can all decide if we are Canadian or British - this lasted for a few years after since some people in Canada were Canadian - others were British - but it took a couple years for the British to decide "they were British" since British didn't exist for a year or two after Canadian existed before that everyone was just a subject of the crown of England or what give you. And Canada was a "DOMINION or Territory DOMINATED by the British, hence British Dominion of Canada.

None the less flags started changing they say because the Canadians were suppose to protect the Egyptians and British from one another and it was confusing to look like the British while they were doing this.

So the bowl started rolling. I mean ball started rolling. Next thing you know the maple leaf got extra special attention, Parliament started flying the leaf instead of the jack. People started to talk funny or rather the British did (I know that was before). None the less...

back to 1982 when the Queen said "YOU ARE FREE". Canadians weren't sure what that ment fully and not too long after the Tory government of Mulrooney came in and won election after election. Canadians eventually opted to vote for Jean Chretien after Kim Campbell went from Minsiter of Defence to PM --- for people of my era I don't fully understand what the hell happened, but apparently, free trade with the Rebel Colonies had something to do with it. It beat spending the time to drive down there to buy stuff and smuggle it back over the border to avoid customs duties. Oh and GST.

None the less, the Liberals said they would reduce the GST but had to wait for 15 years to do it under the next conservative government to do it. Because Mulrooney spent a lot of Money - and they got stuck with the bill. (Ironically so did the next conservative govenrment, but they don't think taxes will help that, on the contrary, they think what happened last time will work again.

Oh and Canada, Canada almost "broke up" or rather THE FREE PEOPLE in Quebec that were occupied for 200 or so years almost voted to seperate but 1% or so of them said no, and the other half got nothing. So they became socialists.

Other things happened, like the west turning from a fur colony to the west, but not to much of that gets attention sept the odd hanging and a railroad.

CANADA!

Edited August 30, 2011 by William Ashley

[jbg]

Are you off your meds?

[William Ashley]

Are you off your meds?

No for real that is what happened.

[Black Dog]

Cocaine is one helluva drug.

[fellowtraveller]

Seeing as you registered at the end of 2004, what do you know about what people were talking about before that?

Do you feel some sort of obligation to be deliberately stupid?

[wyly]

It'll be Mulcair. Layton's son will run for Jack's seat.

that would be my thoughts as well...