Big Guy Posted August 22, 2014 Report Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Sana Hassainia, the MP for the Montreal-area riding of Verchères, declared that she is leaving the NDP to sit as an Independent until the next federal election in 2015 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-ndp-mp-sana-hassainia-defects-over-mideast-position-1.2741847 Her immediate excuse is the NDP stand on the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She gave other reasons as well. The Mulcair spin doctors have come out accusing her of poor attendance, having two children while an MP (?). Other spokespersons have explained that their candidates were not properly vetted before the last election and the surprising result (especially in Quebec) left them unprepared. This last while has not been very good for the Mulcair led party. Sana is the fourth MP to leave the NDP ranks since the last federal election in 2011, under the orange wave that swept la belle province under the late party leader, Jack Layton. Bruce Hyer left the NDP for the Greens, Claude Patry for the Bloc Québécois, and Lise St-Denis for the Liberals. Earlier this summer, the party suspended Manon Perreault, another MP from Quebec, after criminal charges were laid against her. The NDP continues to dive in the polls, Trudeau is sucking up all the limelight and Mulcair spends most of his time defending himself. His prosecutor like actions in the last legislature did gain the NDP points but they have since been lost. The surprising good results of the 2011 election were explained as a reaction to the Jack Layton phenomena and when Jack died, many political pundits forecast an unravelling of the party. The Layton magic is gone and the NDP is moving towards the center, further alienating some of its base. Was the 2011 election the “Last Hurrah” for the federal NDP? Can Mulcair keep his party together for a united stand but one more time? Edited August 22, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
jbg Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 Her immediate excuse is the NDP stand on the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Jew-hatred is a great reason to bolt a party -- not. The NDP continues to dive in the polls, Trudeau is sucking up all the limelight and Mulcair spends most of his time defending himself. His prosecutor like actions in the last legislature did gain the NDP points but they have since been lost. The surprising good results of the 2011 election were explained as a reaction to the Jack Layton phenomena and when Jack died, many political pundits forecast an unravelling of the party. The Layton magic is gone and the NDP is moving towards the center, further alienating some of its base. Was the 2011 election the “Last Hurrah” for the federal NDP? Can Mulcair keep his party together for a united stand but one more time? The NDP has no history as an opposition or ruling party, and has no real roots in Quebec. It's like a shallow-rooted tree in a windstorm. Being an extreme party is never easy under FPTP. Thus their agitation for rep-by-prop and why that won't happen. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 Jew-hatred is a great reason to bolt a party -- not. hey now, let me take a thread derail bait-bite here! Particularly given your MLW posting history in this regard, can one not have empathy with the plight of Palestine/Palestinians without you throwing down the "Jew hater" label? Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 hey now, let me take a thread derail bait-bite here! Particularly given your MLW posting history in this regard, can one not have empathy with the plight of Palestine/Palestinians without you throwing down the "Jew hater" label? Ditto. I'm quite sure I'm not a jew hater. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
jbg Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 hey now, let me take a thread derail bait-bite here! Particularly given your MLW posting history in this regard, can one not have empathy with the plight of Palestine/Palestinians without you throwing down the "Jew hater" label?Ditto. I'm quite sure I'm not a jew hater.I mean that MP's ostensible reason for bolting the NDP. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 I mean that MP's ostensible reason for bolting the NDP. which is being attributed to her personal interpretation of the "NDP stand on the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict"... I read/interpret nothing in that NDP stand that would warrant labeling anyone who has concern over that NDP stand as, as you did, "a Jew Hater". I also did a cursory review on the MP's past statements concerning the Israeli-Palestine conflict... I find no "Jew hatred", but am willing to be corrected by something you must be aware of that I have not found. I await your follow-up in that regard. Quote
BubberMiley Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) I await your follow-up in that regard.In my experience, at this point he'll "get his back up", say he's driving his kid to school and can't respond, and then go on a tangent about how you don't want him to have a family. Edited August 23, 2014 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Keepitsimple Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 This lady's departure means nothing in itself. She hardly ever showed up for votes - just a poor choice as a candidate....which is not surprising when you have to recruit candidates in a province that had never embraced the NDP. I think it's common knowledge that in addition to Quebeckers embracing Jack Layton's "common man" persona, they through the Liberals under the bus - not only due to the corruption of AdScam - but with Michael Ignatieff's total inability to connect - as a politician, as a Canadian, and as a person. The perfect storm so to speak. So Mulcair has always had his work cut out to maintain some sort of Quebec dominance - without alienating the ROC.....a difficult tightrope to walk. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted August 23, 2014 Report Posted August 23, 2014 I think it's common knowledge that in addition to Quebeckers embracing Jack Layton's "common man" persona, they through the Liberals under the bus talk about being "thrown under the bus"... current 308 aggregate polling for Quebec: - Liberal support @ 37%, - NDP support @ 29% and - Harper Conservative support @ 14% Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 talk about being "thrown under the bus"... current 308 aggregate polling for Quebec: - Liberal support @ 37%, - NDP support @ 29% and - Harper Conservative support @ 14% That's my point. Quebeckers were ticked off with the Liberals and parked their vote with the NDP. As you can see, it was a protest vote and now they are returning to their traditional voting pattern - at least as things seem to stand right now......as I said - it'll be a tough road for the NDP. Quote Back to Basics
Moonlight Graham Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 Jew-hatred is a great reason to bolt a party -- not. I'm with Waldo, that's a very serious accusation that needs to be backed up with very serious evidence. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
August1991 Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) Was the 2011 election the “Last Hurrah” for the federal NDP?Simple answer: No. That's my point. Quebeckers were ticked off with the Liberals and parked their vote with the NDP. As you can see, it was a protest vote and now they are returning to their traditional voting pattern - at least as things seem to stand right now......"Traditional"? You mean what exactly? "Ethnic"? Do you mean that the federal Liberal Party is like a political party in Lebanon or Iraq? ------- For seats, Quebec will largely be irrelevant in the next federal election. Harper will welcome the 5 seats or so that he may win but he doesn't need them. It will be fun for the rest of us to decide how Trudeau Jnr and Mulcair divide the rest. I look forward to the French debate. In federal elections, disinterested Quebecers typically vote all one way but I suspect this time that Mulcair will capture the BQ vote. If I were to call it now (making up numbers), I'd say 6 Tory seats, 43 Liberal and 27 NDP. The BQ will be shut out. In 2015, who cares about Quebec because ultimately, 2015 will be a referendum on Harper. And everyone knows that most people in Toronto and Montreal don't like Harper. And in 2015, as anyone who does the seat numbers knows, the whole story will be in non-Toronto Ontario. At present, Ontario seat numbers (outside of Toronto) are very, very hard to call. Quebec will only matter in this way: if some Ontario voters know/believe that Harper still has some seats/voters in Quebec, then those Ontario voters will vote Conservative. Why? They'll think: Harper may be a hard-ass WASP but he nevertheless gets along with some of the French. Edited August 24, 2014 by August1991 Quote
Smallc Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 No one will think that. Absolutely no one thinks about that. Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 No one will think that. Absolutely no one thinks about that. Agreed, I don't think such a concept has ever crossed anyone's mind. I may be wrong, maybe there is someone who thought that, once. That would be about it though. In my experience most people don't waste any of their time thinking about Quebec unless the Quebec authorities pull some more crap like harassing business owners for calling spaghetti spaghetti or some other such bull. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
PIK Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 She becomes a MP, involved in 8.7% of the votes and had 2 kids while sitting, while collecting 163g's. Not bad a bad scam at all. And then uses the jews to get out. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 She becomes a MP, involved in 8.7% of the votes and had 2 kids while sitting 2 kids you say! Damn, why do those gals even bother, hey PIK. On the unenlighted scale, the waldo gives your post a 5* rating! . Quote
cybercoma Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) 2 kids you say! Damn, why do those gals even bother, hey PIK. On the unenlighted scale, the waldo gives your post a 5* rating! She gets elected to office for a 4 year term and has 2 kids in the first 3 years, taking a full year off each time. You would think she would have a sense of responsibility to her constituents to defer parental leave to the children's father or perhaps be a little more responsible about her family planning not to get elected to office then ditch more than 50% of her time there to go have kids. Edited August 25, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 She gets elected to office for a 4 year term and has 2 kids in the first 3 years, taking a full year off each time. You would think she would have a sense of responsibility to her constituents to defer parental leave to the children's father or perhaps be a little more responsible about her family planning not to get elected to office then ditch more than 50% of her time there to go have kids. yup! It's a beeatch when some of the gals go off their 'crossed legs contraception'! Quote
PIK Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 yup! It's a beeatch when some of the gals go off their 'crossed legs contraception'!The taxpayer was duped. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) yup! It's a beeatch when some of the gals go off their 'crossed legs contraception'! That has nothing to do with it. Having children is a choice. She chose to have two children back-to-back after getting elected to office for a 4 year term. Her maternity leave took up more than half her time in office so far. She hasn't been there for the constituents that elected her. It's irresponsible and insulting to the constituents she's supposed to be representing. Why didn't her partner take the parental leaves instead? When my MP takes 2 years of leave in a 4 year term, then I'm going to be a little upset about it. I don't care if that leave is for health reasons or maternity. The right thing to do is step down and let someone who's going to do their job represent their constituencies, not get elected and live off the public's dime while staying at home and raising your kids. This would be a whole different story if she didn't take the full leave each time. There are many women executives who take time off to have the child and recover, then come back to work in 6 weeks or so. They share parental responsibilities with their partners because their positions are too important to leave empty while they take leave. She's an irresponsible MP who's getting money for nothing and it looks terrible on the party if they don't ask her to step down. The official story is she quit, but she wouldn't be sour grapes like this if she didn't have the "talk." Edited August 25, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 Having children is a choice. a further enlightened position! But yes, for some it is a choice... others... not so much. I did not realize you were privy to her personal reproductive situation and choices (or lack thereof), therein. perhaps you can educate me on MPs "paternal leave"... my understanding is that because MPs don't pay into Employment Insurance, there is no such thing as parental leave for an MP. It is my understanding that MPs can see deductions from their annual salaries if they're absent from the House for 21 days... unless they're ill, serving in the military or on official public business. the following article, uhhh... might call into question your statements - yes? Babies in the House? Rookie MP Finds Parliament and Parenthood Don’t Mix Quote
cybercoma Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) You can apologize for her behaviour all you want, waldo. She was completely unprofessional as a representative of her constituents. Fact is fathers have parental leave. Her husband could have taken the time off. She was elected to represent people, not to sit at home with her newborns that she decided to have. When I say parenthood is a choice, that is exactly the truth. There is enough information and methods out there that people have the liberty of choosing when to have kids. She chose to do so immediately after being elected to a four year term. It was a completely boneheaded decision that shows she figured the political life was a free ride. Edited August 25, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 You can apologize for her behaviour all you want, waldo. She was completely unprofessional as a representative of her constituents. Fact is fathers have parental leave. Her husband could have taken the time off. She was elected to represent people, not to sit at home with her newborns that she decided to have. showcasing your "fact stretching" isn't apologizing! You clearly spoke an 'untruth' in your previous post when you denigrated her for taking excessive maternity leave. As I understand, she didn't take maternity leave; again, because there is no such thing for MPs. Nice of you to acknowledge you were incorrect in that regard... oh wait... you didn't! This HuffPo article speaks of her going back to work "weeks after giving birth"... the earlier linked reference speaks of her in Parliament session with her first baby... that she caused a bit of a flap in so doing. whatever difficulties you have with her in performing her MP job, I don't see you with a basis to use her child-birth/raising as a contributing factor. . When I say parenthood is a choice, that is exactly the truth. There is enough information and methods out there that people have the liberty of choosing when to have kids. She chose to do so immediately after being elected to a four year term. It was a completely boneheaded decision that shows she figured the political life was a free ride. you don't know what choice was involved... you don't know there was 'a choice'. Oh wait, does a part of your choice optioning include forced pregnancy terminiation? Really? From what I read I see nothing to support your "free ride" reference. . Quote
Smallc Posted August 26, 2014 Report Posted August 26, 2014 IUDs work for almost everyone and are nearly as effective as sterilization. Pregnancy is a choice. Quote
jbg Posted August 26, 2014 Report Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) 2 kids you say! Damn, why do those gals even bother, hey PIK. On the unenlighted scale, the waldo gives your post a 5* rating! . yup! It's a beeatch when some of the gals go off their 'crossed legs contraception'!More insults. And I notice then when directed at others though you give me more than my share. Is the temperature getting to you even in this cool summer (caused by global warming of course)? Edited August 26, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
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.