2012 NDP leadership convention

[Smid]

Wasn't there a high-profile female MP booted from the NDP caucus for opposing SSM a few years ago?

Bev Dejarlais - Member for Churchill. Subsequently hired by Harper after she was expelled from the NDP. She ran as an independent in 2006, splitting the vote and thus allowing the Liberals to win the seat in that election.

[Hatman 🍁]

And THAT my friends, is the EXACT attitude I was referring to when I said the NDP has an attitude in it that makes people want to leave.

I'm sorry if the gays bother so much Teddy.

[Hatman 🍁]

But same sex marriage is pretty important to me, despite my heterosexuality (I guess I'm a closet metrosexual? .. oh and my girlfriend's bisexual, not that that matters), so it's one of the few issues I would not vote NDP if the candidate and I disagreed.   

[Marokai Backbeat]

And THAT my friends, is the EXACT attitude I was referring to when I said the NDP has an attitude in it that makes people want to leave.

Yeah! Parties should mean absolutely nothing and lack any ideological consistency! Wooh!

[MaxQue]

And THAT my friends, is the EXACT attitude I was referring to when I said the NDP has an attitude in it that makes people want to leave.

Yeah! Parties should mean absolutely nothing and lack any ideological consistency! Wooh!

Well, he is a Liberal supporter. That is a pretty accurate description of the party in the last years.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Litmus tests on a range of issues, and you must pass ALL of them to be accepted. Even the Reform/Alliance never went that far.

It's unacceptable when it's on wrong issues like the US Republicans
And it's unacceptable when it's on right issues like the NDP

I agree with SSM
I agree with free at the point of access healthcare for the poor
I agree with ending the gun registry
But I disagree with Senate Abolition, and the venom that I had on that issue is why I eventually left the NDP and never looked back. I can not, ever, see any circumstances, ever, where I'd, ever, get an NDP membership again. And this is why.

I refuse to be judges as inadequate of a human because I fail to pass your arbitrary litmus tests.

Mazigh is not a bad person, or EVEN a bad New Demcorat, because she opposes SSM.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I can not, ever, see any circumstances, ever, where I'd, ever, get an NDP membership again. And this is why.

And that's why I hope they never listen to you.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Mazigh is not a bad person, or EVEN a bad New Demcorat, because she opposes SSM.

And that's why I hope they never listen to you.

I've edited your quote.

[Hatman 🍁]

I disagree with the NDP on Senate abolition too, but you don't see me whining and running from the party.  I don't see the issue of the Senate as being a litmus test, anyways. At least the NDP sees the Senate as being a total waste of money the way it is now.  You support a party that wants the status quo on the Senate, and that is the truly disgusting thing.

Mazigh isn't a bad person, she has a lot of courage, but I couldn't vote for someone who is against gay marriage.

[MaxQue]

Gun control isn't a litmus test either, considering than some MPs opposed it.
The Liberals are the ones having a litmus on gun control, not the NDP.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

YOU not voting for them is fine, but suggesting that they are not NDP material??

The NDP will have a hell of a time winning government if they keep up this line of thinking. Look at the Tories, and their stance against gay rights and for abortion... Also, look at how many seats in urban areas they have.

The NDP will need suburban and even rural support to win a government, and in order to get that, they can't be tossing people off the boat left and right. It's fine to be personally opposed to certain things - I'd never vote for someone who wanted to actively repeal SSM (though I would vote for someone who "does not like the idea", but won't take steps to reverse it) - but excluding a person from a party on those grounds is a hard pill to stomach.

As for Gun Control, two MP's went against the party and were prohibited from speaking in Parliament, and we'll have to see what the party will do if they continue to oppose them on these issues.

It's this line of thinking, that there is X, and X is a moral issue of some sort, and X is a binary, a black and white, there is a right and a wrong, and if you are not all for X or all against it as the case may be, than somehow you are craaaaaaazy or insane.

The media glossed over that floor crosser's comment about the "attitude" of the NDP driving her away, but I see it as a serious long-term problem for the party if they ever want to get into the driver's seat without the Liberals as an eternal coalition partner.

Then again I wouldn't oppose creating a political system where the Liberals are forever the jr partner in coalition with whomever wins the most seats.

[Holmes]

I have class in a bit so I don't have time to type much. But it's the issue of human rights, not just same-sex marriage, that is the so-called "litmus test". The NDP caucus and membership is diverse in its beliefs, but when it comes to human rights of any kind, they're kept in line. If you don't like that, tough. But an NDP caucus ensures and an NDP government would hopefully ensure that human rights are respected.

[Hash]

And THAT my friends, is the EXACT attitude I was referring to when I said the NDP has an attitude in it that makes people want to leave.

Yeah! Parties should mean absolutely nothing and lack any ideological consistency! Wooh!

Well, he is a Liberal supporter. That is a pretty accurate description of the party in the last years.

Oh come on. I'm a Liberal and I'd have a hard time voting NDP, but I probably wouldn't vote for a Liberal who still opposes SSM and I disagree with the Liberals on a number of things like Senate reform. And there are tons of (mostly ex-) Liberal MPs who were right-wing wastes of sperms and who I would never vote for.

[Holmes]

I wouldn't vote for an NDP candidate who opposes SSM either, but that's pretty obvious.

[lilTommy]

I have to join the chorus, like Hatman/Holmes i wouldn't vote for someone who was against SSM (for obvious reasons too) id support an abolished senate but id rather see an Aussie style elected on PR senate... but thats not a deal breaker for me.

the Monia thing bugs me... as a minority woman how can you support keep another group as a second class citizen? i suppose this gets us into another argument all together so... But in the NDP equality is everything really, our pillars are built on that idea.

I joined that party cause it was principled...

But SSM and other equity issues cab be breakers for the party if they want to grow in suburban 905 and some ethnic communities... especially since the liberals and tories will fear monger and talk sh*t about the NDP in order to win (all you have to do is look at Ferreira in YSW in the ON election). But with the win in BGM that will help the party at least develop a stepping stone to grow from like they have in the Lower mianland in BC

[Holmes]

Kathleen Wynne, as annoying as she is, was also fear mongered too, tbf. And don't forget that anti-LGBT PC pamphlet thing that was going around in the 905.

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, I think we can put SSM behind us for now, as is hopefully a moot issue. However, our Liberal friends are just going to have to deal with the fact that the NDP is a party of ideology (I would say principles), and the Liberals are more, as Rae would say "pragmatic". Fair enough, I think a party should have both principles and be pragmatic.

Some people's brains (such as mine?) are more wired ideologically than others.

[DL]

This is all water under the bridge but as i recall when Mazigh ran in 2004 (back when SSM was a contentious issue) she said that she personally had problems with the idea as a Muslim but that she would NOT vote against SSM if it came to vote in the House of Commons.

[RogueBeaver]

Sorry to interrupt the SSM discussion, but Mulcair skipped last night's debate here in Montreal for a meet-and-greet. Debate was otherwise fairly mild.

[lilTommy]

Sorry to interrupt the SSM discussion, but Mulcair skipped last night's debate here in Montreal for a meet-and-greet. Debate was otherwise fairly mild.

I read that... funny how the media only just at the end noted that Dewar wasn't there and Saganash wasn't either.

Its not a party organised debate, and Mulcair and Dewar had pre-arranged events (scheduled before the west island event). so nothing newsworthy here

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-skips-ndp-leadership-debate-in-montreal/article2315314/?from=sec368

Im more looking forward to sundays Halifax debate to see if were seeing more defined differences... mostly in directions they want to take the party and some on policy.

[Хahar 🤔]

Well, I think we can put SSM behind us for now, as is hopefully a moot issue.

It's nice that Canada has moved past that.

[minionofmidas]

Well, I think we can put SSM behind us for now, as is hopefully a moot issue.

It's nice that Canada has moved past that.

Now if Canada also moved past Sault Sainte Marie and into the Upper Midwest...

[lilTommy]

... more endorsers... for Dewar

http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/2012/01/mathyssen-endorses-dewar-for-ndp-leadership/

Irene Mathyssen (former ONDP cabinet minister in Rae gov't which is funny to me still) and
Claude Gravelle (new crop, i think 2006 Northern ontario breakout)

To me Dewar still isn't high on my rankings; his french is just not there, too rigid and stiff looking, he has some great ideas but then again so do most of the others (minus Cullens joint nominations which is too bad, cause i like that guy to no end)

[RogueBeaver]

So who's the leading second-tier contender? Cullen?

Shocker: Mulcair's eager for a fight with Harper.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1121993--tim-harper-mulcair-knows-ndp-quebec-support-is-no-long-term-lease

[MaxQue]

Does Maythissen is/was a London MP?
London-Fawshane, I think?