On Guard for Thee Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 It's been widely reported. 2012 at the Liberal convention delegates approved a resolution upholding a woman's right to choose. And later on they elect JT as leader. Does that seem to indicate he acted alone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 2012 at the Liberal convention delegates approved a resolution upholding a woman's right to choose. And later on they elect JT as leader. Does that seem to indicate he acted alone? Did he consult caucus on this decision? No? Didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Did he consult caucus on this decision? No? Didn't think so. The party at convention had already laid the groundwork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Usually decisions like this go through some kind of consultative discussions with senior people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Making a mountain out of a molehill. Trudeau is for free choice and Harker is either for nothing or dictating to women what they do with their bodies. Gee, it's almost like Trudeau planned it that way? In any event, Harper will decide and dictate to his members what they will do and say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Usually decisions like this go through some kind of consultative discussions with senior people. The decision was already made.....enforcement was his initiative. If he needs to consult to enforce he wouldn't be much of a leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Usually decisions like this go through some kind of consultative discussions with senior people.so the party voted for it but because he didn't consult with caucus, who won't be required to vote pro choice anyway, he messed up? That doesn't make any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 What of this NDP motion? In a political climate where the Abortion debate has no chance of being re-opened. . . Why are Liberals and the NDP trying to re-open it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 What of it? I was talking about the most recent poll. The NDP is off the radar at the moment. As far as the NDP goes, Andrea Horwath has the potential to come from behind if she plays her cards right. People want change from the Liberals, while Hudak appears to be shooting himself in the foot again. That puts Horwath in a good position, if she can manage to capitalize on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 What of it? I was talking about the most recent poll. The NDP is off the radar at the moment. As far as the NDP goes, Andrea Horwath has the potential to come from behind if she plays her cards right. People want change from the Liberals, while Hudak appears to be shooting himself in the foot again. That puts Horwath in a good position, if she can manage to capitalize on it. I think you've mixed up the threads. I've referring to this. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/abortion-rights-move-by-ndp-to-embarrass-liberals-could-backfire-1.2639811 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 I think you've mixed up the threads. I've referring to this. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/abortion-rights-move-by-ndp-to-embarrass-liberals-could-backfire-1.2639811 Hah. What voodoo is this!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Anyway, Niki Ashton is playing politics with the abortion issue. I don't like it, but I support her purpose. She's trying to get the Conservatives to refund charities that they've defunded. Consequently, she's also forcing sitting Liberals to show their cards. Trudeau said the current caucus wouldn't be held to the standard he has set for future candidates. Forcing a vote exposes those candidates in the Liberal caucus who do not support choice. However, as a past supporter of the NDP, I don't like them playing politics with this issue and strongly believe that there's a better way to go about what it is she's trying to accomplish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 I don't understand why its so unacceptable to maintain a candidate roster (not members) that complies with the current party platform. ... Would a social conservative in the CPC allowed to be a candidate if he was a communist? He'd be allowed a member card, but certainly NOT a party endorsement. Once again (since you might not have noticed the multiple explanations in the thread)... The problem is NOT with a party attempting to enforce a certain policy platform or taking steps to ensure party discipline. Its an understandable and ultimately smart action. The problem is that it contradicts statements that Trudeau had recently made about how his party would be different, more open, etc. You can't criticize the other parties (with a "Boo hiss! Harper runs the tories like a dictatorship! We'll be different! We promise! We won't interfere with riding selections"), while simultaneously setting rules that interfere with riding selections. There is nothing to say on the next policy review convention to extract or reverse this particular policy, especially if they lose votes due to it. Tell that to those who are claiming Trudeau is "protecting the right to choose!". No, he's not... he's implementing a policy that can be reversed at any time. At best its symbolic. At worst, its a crass political move (something that many complain about...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 What do you care? You're not a Liberal and he was never getting your vote anyway. Don't pretend like you care about internal Liberal party politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Anyway, Niki Ashton is playing politics with the abortion issue. So is Trudeau. (After all, why bother with his "pro-choice candidates only" proclamation? There is little chance that strong anti-abortion laws would ever be put in place, even if the Conservatives remain in power.) About the only party right now that doesn't seem to want to play politics with the issue is the Conservative party (as a whole, notwithstanding particular members), who probably want to avoid the issue like the plague. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) What do you care? You're not a Liberal and he was never getting your vote anyway. Don't pretend like you care about internal Liberal party politics. While I am not a Liberal party member (and admittedly I voted conservative in the last election), that does not mean I like each and every action that the conservative party has taken or policy that it has enacted, nor does that mean I wouldn't consider voting Liberal in the future. A takeover by social conservatives in the conservative party, significant scandals that exceed what happened under previous governments, or favorable policies by the Liberal party would all make me consider voting for the Liberals. As such, consistency and trustworthiness is a significant matter, and being hypocritical over this particular issue is something that bears consideration when deciding who to vote for. (Much like a politician who says he's gay would still get my vote, but one who claims he's "100% hetero" yet is caught having man-love in the local truckstop bathroom might make me consider him as untrustworthy... not because I'm anti-gay, but because their actions contradict their public claims.) And since when did "you're not voting for that party anyways" become a useful argument around here? Most people around here are fairly entrenched in who they vote for, so if not voting for someone meant you couldn't criticize, this forum would become very quiet. Edited May 14, 2014 by segnosaur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 I'm not saying you can't criticize someone you don't vote for. I'm saying that this is an internal party issue and not one of public policy. So it seems a bit silly the feigned indignation not just you, but others have for Trudeau on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 I'm not saying you can't criticize someone you don't vote for. I'm saying that this is an internal party issue and not one of public policy. So it seems a bit silly the feigned indignation not just you, but others have for Trudeau on this. And once again... The key part of this issue is how it reflects on how Trudeau would run this country if he were prime minister. Would he be a truly revolutionary leader, being open and honest, building a consensus among people while allowing reasonable dissent? Or would he be the same-old same-old? Would he be an even bigger dictator that Harper is supposed to be? Or will he act like he's caught like a deer in the headlights? Obviously we won't know for sure unless he actually spends time as prime minister, but how he leads his party and how he acts while in opposition will at least give us a hint of how he'd be like if he becomes P.M. And so far, what we are seeing is anything BUT the revolutionary, consensus building leader... instead, we're seeing the dictator, with smatterings of "deer caught in the headlights". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Suddenly you're concerned about consensus building, when you support the Harper Conservatives? How many times have they cut debate short? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 2012 at the Liberal convention delegates approved a resolution upholding a woman's right to choose. And later on they elect JT as leader. Does that seem to indicate he acted alone? A woman has the right to choose throughout Europe, too, but that doesn't mean there aren't laws in place governing the time period and circumstances for later term abortions. Are you going to suggest Swedes don't have the right to choose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 so the party voted for it but because he didn't consult with caucus, who won't be required to vote pro choice anyway, he messed up? That doesn't make any sense. Did the part vote for banning anyone who had any questions about abortion, who might prefer some legislation governing late term abortoins? Did they say "women must have the right to abortions at any time for any reason, even on the last day before they were to give birth"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 What do you care? You're not a Liberal and he was never getting your vote anyway. Don't pretend like you care about internal Liberal party politics. Do I take it from this you have no interest in and will never make any comment on 'internal Conservative party politics'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Suddenly you're concerned about consensus building, when you support the Harper Conservatives? How many times have they cut debate short? Admittedly true. But the lament from the left has been what a dictator Harper is, and how the lovely young Mr. Trudeau will change all that. Now it's beginning to look like he'll actually be more of a dictator, not even discussing major issues with his caucus, not even informing them of his decision! I guess if he, like his father, considers his caucus a bunch of nobodies, he can just let them wait to read about his decisions in the papers like everyone else, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Suddenly you're concerned about consensus building, when you support the Harper Conservatives? How many times have they cut debate short? Hey, I never claimed I agreed with everything the conservatives did. I even stated quite explicitly in post 366: that does not mean I like each and every action that the conservative party has taken or policy that it has enacted. (Heck, I can even point out other things that they've done that I don't like, such as using omnibus bills, or appointing a chiropractor as science minister.) However, when criticizing a party, its not just important to consider the actions of the party, but those of the alternatives. Take for example the flack Harper got for Proroguing parliament. Sounds bad, but when you consider the previous Liberal government had used the same tactics, then that criticism falls flat. At best, Trudeaus actions have shown him to be no better than those of Harper and the conservatives (who again, are admittedly flawed). However, he could even be worse than the conservatives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Hey, I never claimed I agreed with everything the conservatives did. I even stated quite explicitly in post 366: that does not mean I like each and every action that the conservative party has taken or policy that it has enacted. (Heck, I can even point out other things that they've done that I don't like, such as using omnibus bills, or appointing a chiropractor as science minister.) However, when criticizing a party, its not just important to consider the actions of the party, but those of the alternatives. Take for example the flack Harper got for Proroguing parliament. Sounds bad, but when you consider the previous Liberal government had used the same tactics, then that criticism falls flat. At best, Trudeaus actions have shown him to be no better than those of Harper and the conservatives (who again, are admittedly flawed). However, he could even be worse than the conservatives... Rational thought has no place in this forum. In future, please refrain from such antics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.