NDs lose MP Desjarlais.

[err]

If Belinda followed the wished of her constituents (who voted for her as a conservative,not a Liberal) she would have taken a position of an independent and left her constituents to vote in the next election for her as a Liberal.

Belinda seemed to be strong-willed and somewhat progressive in direction. Harper continually rejected any input that she had into party policy and tried to downplay her... He was probably jealous of her for one of many possible reasons. Needless to say, her positions, that she was elected for, weren't being listened to by Harper.... So she left to where she might have influence.... It sounds to me that she is more closely following the wishes of her constituents than the "party"... Or perhaps you think that when people voted for Belinda, they were really voting for Steven Harper???

I suspect that you haven't looked at and don't know what they offer... they're just commies, aren't they Argus..

Calling yourself an NDPer I suspect you know even less about the NDP platform. Based on your posts in the past,spewing negatives about the other parties is the NDP platform.

Should I suppoose from your post that I was correct, and that saying stupid things is part of your party's policies...

[Canuck E Stan]

Belinda seemed to be strong-willed and somewhat progressive in direction. Harper continually rejected any input that she had into party policy and tried to downplay her... He was probably jealous of her for one of many possible reasons. Needless to say, her positions, that she was elected for, weren't being listened to by Harper.... So she left to where she might have influence.... It sounds to me that she is more closely following the wishes of her constituents than the "party"... Or perhaps you think that when people voted for Belinda, they were really voting for Steven Harper???

Do you write soap operas in your spare time?

[Argus]

I don't regard political correctness as a core principle. In any democratic group the core principle should be to represent the interests of your constituents. If you don't follow that core principle you won't be a representative for them - hence the NDP's continued failure.

And that's why Belinda jumped ship, because what she saw as the wishes of her constituents weren't being considered at all by Steven Harper...

Sputtum. Stronach jumped ship for her own sake. There was nothing stopping her from representing the wishes of her constituents.

But what does that have to do with the NDP's complete lack of progress in the last thirty years?

So that even after years of incompetence, corruption and dreadfully boring candidates and platforms from the major parties the NDP still has gained NOTHING. It has yet to come close to equalling the power and respect it held thirty years ago.

I wonder if Argus is jealous that the NDP has a sharper candidate than the Reform/Conservatve party...

Again, what does this have to do with a discussion of the NDP?

[Black Dog]

I don't regard political correctness as a core principle.

And I don't see "political correctness" anywhere in the ND's platform.

. In any democratic group the core principle should be to represent the interests of your constituents. If you don't follow that core principle you won't be a representative for them - hence the NDP's continued failure So that even after years of incompetence, corruption and dreadfully boring candidates and platforms from the major parties the NDP still has gained NOTHING. It has yet to come close to equalling the power and respect it held thirty years ago

Meh. The NDP hit the doldrums in the late '80s, I'll grant, largely due to internal squabbling over the direction of the pary and questonable leadership decisions. But let's not forget that the ND's have never been taken seriously in the big L liberal and small c conservative media establishment. The popular image of the NDP and the reality have never quite meshed.

No, but most of the social issues the NDP prioritises are generally way, way down on the list of working class concerns, presuming they're even ON the list.

See you're wrong in saying the NDP make social issues their top priority. What I heard during the last election was affordable housing, child care, democratic reform, health care, education, and job creation. It's difficult to accuse the ND's of focussing on social issues when social issues have dominated the political debate at the expense of more meaningful issues.

[August1991]

See you're wrong in saying the NDP make social issues their top priority.

Wrong?

BD, step back for a second (or look at the title of this thread).

If it weren't for same-sex marriage, Bev Desjarlais would be a happy NDP member looking at likely re-election. Instead, she clearly has no political future within the NDP.

The current NDP core calls Desjarlais a bigot and compare her to slave-owning racists - regardless of her credentials in defending the interests of the so-called working class.

My main point rather was that the Left around the world is in the process of going through a mutation. The Canadian Left has opted to promote social libertarian values - the freedom to choose a lifestyle.

[Black Dog]

Wrong?

BD, step back for a second (or look at the title of this thread).

Yes. Wrong. The NDP didn't pick the gay marriage fight.

If it weren't for same-sex marriage, Bev Desjarlais would be a happy NDP member looking at likely re-election. Instead, she clearly has no political future within the NDP.

Thing is, Dejaralais had a choice too. She knew her parties stance on SSM. She could have abstained and lived happily ever after. She chose to put her political life with the NDP on the line for SSM and paid the price. By taking such a rigid stand against her own party, Dejarlais herself put social issues before the interests of working folks.

Let's be clear: Dejaralais was no kicked out of the NDP. She lost her nomination bid and chose to sit as an Independent. It was the Dippers of Churchill who, basically, gave her her walking papers. And if you think Churchil Manitoba is a hotbed of "urban voters in favour of the freedom to choose", well...I dunno what to tell you.

The current NDP core calls Desjarlais a bigot and compare her to slave-owning racists - regardless of her credentials in defending the interests of the so-called working class.

NDP policy requires its members to support equality rights. That is one plank in the platform, and there's certainly room for debate on many other issues.

My main point rather was that the Left around the world is in the process of going through a mutation. The Canadian Left has opted to promote social libertarian values - the freedom to choose a lifestyle

I think you're taking an absolutist view based on very thin evidence. When I look at the NDP's platform I see a lot of mentions of economic issues, the environment and, of course social issues. But to say that the party has forsaken the former for the latter based on the defeat of one candidate at the hands of her riding association is a stretch.

[August1991]

I think you're taking an absolutist view based on very thin evidence. When I look at the NDP's platform I see a lot of mentions of economic issues, the environment and, of course social issues. But to say that the party has forsaken the former for the latter based on the defeat of one candidate at the hands of her riding association is a stretch.

Fair enough, BD. I don't mean that the NDP can be reduced down to a gay lobby group.

But I looked through that link you provided to the NDP's platform (thanks, it deserves a thread to itself), and excepting something about steel, brief bromides about the family farm and standing up to the US on trade matters, the bulk of the platform is addressed to young urban people - yups. It appears that they want to be free to choose but they want the government to tell other people how to choose.

It is naive to believe that Desjarlais's situation is not related to her vote against SSM. The NDP has been taken over by the Canadian equivalent of the ACLU/bicycle path/Berkeley/Cambridge Mass type. The Canadian equivalent of the Reagan Democrats are up for grabs. The Liberal Party will probably get them.

[err]

It is naive to believe that Desjarlais's situation is not related to her vote against SSM. 

I think that maybe you should read other people's posts before you criticize them. Black Dog's point is important, and not contrary to your statements, so I'll quote him for you:

NDP policy requires its members to support equality rights. That is one plank in the platform, and there's certainly room for debate on many other issues.

She knew her parties stance on SSM. She could have abstained and lived happily ever after. She chose to put her political life with the NDP on the line for SSM and paid the price. By taking such a rigid stand against her own party, Dejarlais herself put social issues before the interests of working folks.

The NDP requires its members to support equality rights... This involves a lot more than just refraining from calling ethnic people racist names. The vote in question was one that centred on equality rights, something that the NDP stresses. As such, her vote is, in the party's eyes, similar to taking the side of an outspoken racist. Thus, it is simple to see why she was rejected by the party....

[Canuck E Stan]

The NDP requires its members to support equality rights... This involves a lot more than just refraining from calling ethnic people racist names. The vote in question was one that centred on equality rights, something that the NDP stresses. As such, her vote is, in the party's eyes, similar to taking the side of an outspoken racist. Thus, it is simple to see why she was rejected by the party....

NDP members rejected Layton Legalization of marijuana stance, therefore Layton should be rejected by the party according to Err. Yes?

[tml12]

The NDP requires its members to support equality rights... This involves a lot more than just refraining from calling ethnic people racist names. The vote in question was one that centred on equality rights, something that the NDP stresses. As such, her vote is, in the party's eyes, similar to taking the side of an outspoken racist. Thus, it is simple to see why she was rejected by the party....

NDP members rejected Layton Legalization of marijuana stance, therefore Layton should be rejected by the party according to Err. Yes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah but Layton is the party leader and that was not a policy that was being voted on in the House.

When you are a Party with 19 members in Parliament you vote with the party or else...

[August1991]

The NDP requires its members to support equality rights...

Err, that's a Young Urban Person issue - it matters for YUPs.

[err]

NDP members rejected Layton Legalization of marijuana stance, therefore Layton should  be rejected by the party according to Err. Yes?

Canuck... your arguments quite often go to pot... Did you dream this quote up yourself, or did B. Max help you invent it.....

[err]

The NDP requires its members to support equality rights...

Err, that's a Young Urban Person issue - it matters for YUPs.

Equality shouldn't be everybody's issue... So it should be ok to insult women because they aren't equal.. and pay them less while you're at it..... It's only a YUP issue, so we shouldn't be concerned if women, gays, and black people are regularly maligned.... Only YUPs care about that kind of insignificant stuff.... Why should a political party waste their time having a solid position on these kinds of issues....

[Canuck E Stan]

Canuck... your arguments quite often go to pot... Did you dream this quote up yourself, or did B. Max help you invent it.....

Actually it was Jack the Bong on POT.TV that told me all I had to know about the subject and the NDP web site that didn't say a word about it,and your constant(over and over again) rants about corporations(easy way out).....zzzzzzz....and your inability to supply relevant facts to support your arguments.....zzzzz.... or your inability to give references from the NDP platform that you say are Dipper policies and not just yours.....zzzzzz.

[err]

Actually it was Jack ... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH......and your inability to supply relevant facts to support your arguments.....

Just because you don't (or don't want to) listen to what other people have to say, doesn't invalidate their point of view... You just demonstrate your ignorance...

.... or your inability to give  references  from the NDP platform that you say are Dipper policies and not just yours.....zzzzzz.

Here's info on the NDP platform.... They didn't use very many big words, so you should be able to, with only a little bit of help, understand what it means.....

NDP Platform

[Canuck E Stan]

Here's info on the NDP platform.... They didn't use very many big words, so you should be able to, with only a little bit of help, understand what it means.....

Thanks Err,but this doesn't seem to be "official".

The "notes"come from the heart of Conservative country(University of Alberta).

I was hoping you would be able to get something closer to the NDP web site.

Of course anything that I don't understand on the "official" platform that you will post,I'm sure you would be more than happy to explain to me,right?

Seeing as Jack doesn't answer questions about NDP positions sent to him by e-mail.

NDP platform notes from U of A

[Argus]

As such, her vote is, in the party's eyes, similar to taking the side of an outspoken racist.  Thus, it is simple to see why she was rejected by the party....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the NDP will likely be rejected by the voters of that riding next election. Their rigid, absolutist ideology which regards anyone who doeesn't support it as an evil heretic insults too many people. For what they're saying is everyone who doesn't wholehearetedly support homosexual rights is a racist, and since she clearly voted only because of the strong wishes of her constituents, the NDP is saying her constituents are racists. Good luck to the new would-be NDP MP who won the party's nod trying to win with that around her neck.

The new candidate, btw, is a just-out-of school zealot with no life experience or qualifications (but good NDP political connections), who can be counted on voting as she is told, no matter what her constituents think.

[Argus]

The NDP requires its members to support equality rights...

Err, that's a Young Urban Person issue - it matters for YUPs.

Equality shouldn't be everybody's issue... So it should be ok to insult women because they aren't equal

Yes, it should be okay to insult women, or anyone else. It's called freedom of speech and opinon.

.. and pay them less while you're at it..... 

Which no one does, but hey, if you don't like what you're paid then go work elsewhere.

It's only a YUP issue, so we shouldn't be concerned if women, gays, and black people are regularly maligned.... 

No.

Only YUPs care about that kind of insignificant stuff....  Why should a political party waste their time having a solid position on these kinds of issues....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most people have more important things to worry about then whether someone is saying bad things about their gender or ethnic group somewhere.

[err]

NDP Platform 2004: NDP Platform 2004

The NDP's 8 Commitments: The NDPs 8 Commitments

You'll probably not see a platform for the upcoming election until it is called. Too many times, the NDP published their platform early, only to have the Liberals borrow ideas from it...

[Toro]

At least they're not saying "ordinary people". Good Lord. I understand that the Lefties eschew marketing, but must they openly mock it?

[err]

As such, her vote is, in the party's eyes, similar to taking the side of an outspoken racist.  Thus, it is simple to see why she was rejected by the party....

And the NDP will likely be rejected by the voters of that riding next election. Their rigid, absolutist ideology which regards anyone who doeesn't support it as an evil heretic insults too many people. For what they're saying is everyone who doesn't wholehearetedly support homosexual rights is a racist, and since she clearly voted only because of the strong wishes of her constituents, the NDP is saying her constituents are racists.

There are a few lines that the party has to draw. The NDP has a strong emphasis on equality, and one of the recent "hot" issues with all parties has been the "gay marriage" issue. The party expects its MPs to agree with the principles of the party. The party doesn't expect compliance on all issues, but certainly on the key issues of equality. Similarly you would expect the Catholic School Board to only keep teachers who do not contradict the principles of Catholicism, but the school board probably doesn care strongly about the teacher's opinion of economic theory.

The new candidate, btw, is a just-out-of school zealot with no life experience or qualifications (but good NDP political connections), who can be counted on voting as she is told, no matter what her constituents think.

Here, again, I suggest that your are a bit naive about politics. While in theory, politicians do the bidding of their constituents, that is not the reality of it. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any difference between the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives in any given riding... They would be doing as their constituents bid.... But most of us know that is not the way it works.

Most people vote for the party they feel will give them the best reward, whatever the individual thinks that reward to be. They usually vote for the party, not the person. There are outstanding cases where the converse is true.

And when these people vote for their favourite party, it is usually based on the party platform, again, not the person....

Argus, how many times has your local MP called you (or anyone you know) and ask you what your opinion is... (don't bother answering, because we all know the answer)...

The concept of 'doing their constituents' bidding is that they tow the party line, doing as outlined in the party's election platform. As such, I would say that Ms. Desjarlais did not vote as her constituents wished because she did different from what was promised in the election platform that got her elected to the position of MP. Thus, the NDP party did as the constituents bid by selecting a candidate who will faithfully represent the party.

[err]

Yes, it should be okay to insult women, or anyone else. It's called freedom of speech and opinon.

Most people have more important things to worry about then whether someone is saying bad things about their gender or ethnic group somewhere.

Rape is, by and large, an impulse crime largely driven by alcohol or drugs, and is largely physically harmless to the victim (in terms of other physically violent crime).

I guess these quotes show some of the things that you and I differ on in opinion. I know that my opinion is right in line with the NDP's on equality, and it appears diametrically opposed to yours. Can we infer the Conservative/Reform position on women or equality based on your quotes.

[Argus]

The new candidate, btw, is a just-out-of school zealot with no life experience or qualifications (but good NDP political connections), who can be counted on voting as she is told, no matter what her constituents think.

Here, again, I suggest that your are a bit naive about politics. While in theory, politicians do the bidding of their constituents, that is not the reality of it. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any difference between the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives in any given riding... They would be doing as their constituents bid.... But most of us know that is not the way it works.

True. However, I think we can be very sure that only overwhelming opposition from her constituents would have caused her to endanger her political career and standing with the NDP in order to vote no. I'd suggest the only reason she voted as she did was she didn't think she could get re-elected otherwise. To suggest anyone who thought as she thought was equivilant to the Heritage Front is basically a mass insult directed at her constituents - who aren't likely to fail to notice this. This makes it somewhat different fom an MP who merely votes differently from the party on an economic issue. The NDP is basically saying that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a racist scumbag. And since her constituents appear to not support gay marriage, well, are they likely to vote for a party which calls them moral inferiors?

[Argus]

Yes, it should be okay to insult women, or anyone else. It's called freedom of speech and opinon.

Most people have more important things to worry about then whether someone is saying bad things about their gender or ethnic group somewhere.

Rape is, by and large, an impulse crime largely driven by alcohol or drugs, and is largely physically harmless to the victim (in terms of other physically violent crime).

I guess these quotes show some of the things that you and I differ on in opinion. I know that my opinion is right in line with the NDP's on equality, and it appears diametrically opposed to yours. Can we infer the Conservative/Reform position on women or equality based on your quotes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can infer that I believe in freedom of speech, which you evidently oppose, and truth, which seems to outrage you. You've brought up that statement about rape several times now, as if you can hardly believe it was said, yet you have never actually challenged the truth of it - because you can't.

[err]

True. However, I think we can be very sure that only overwhelming opposition from her constituents would have caused her to endanger her political career and standing with the NDP in order to vote no. I'd suggest the only reason she voted as she did was she didn't think she could get re-elected otherwise.

You can imagine it if you wish... If she is more interested in her own skin than representing the party whose banner got her elected, then maybe she should run as an independent.

If you're going to teach at a Catholic school, you better not be saying "Catholicism is wrong"... or you'll lose your job...

The NDP is basically saying that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a racist scumbag. And since her constituents appear to not support gay marriage, well, are they likely to vote for a party which calls them moral inferiors?

I think what the NDP is saying is that the party's representatives better represent the party on key issues. It's pretty simple.

It is you who is falsely projecting the NDP party position.... The term "scumbags" came from you ... that terminology must come from ...well, a homophobe party...

Further, your point that her constituents "appear to not support gay marriage"... is it based on some kind of fact or did it come out of your bag of "Conservative facts"... Has a poll been taken, or should we just wait for the next election.....