Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

From Ken Burch:

If Jack didn't have to get a seat 'til the 2004 election, Jagmeet doesn't have to get one before '19.

​As always, in electoral politics, it is the voters who will decide which strategy is the correct one. Justifications, such as the one above, are interesting, but meaningless. 

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that the NDP would have won a single solitary extra vote or extra seat in the 2004 election if Layton had asked an NDP MP to resign so he could run in a byelection and have had a seat for the year leading up to the 2004 election? I sure don't

Stockholm wrote:

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that the NDP would have won a single solitary extra vote or extra seat in the 2004 election if Layton had asked an NDP MP to resign so he could run in a byelection and have had a seat for the year leading up to the 2004 election? I sure don't

At the time they only had 14 seats, a cushion of 2 to keep official party status. They couldn't afford to risk losing a seat to Liberals or Conservatives just to let Jack Layton sit in the house.

Stockholm wrote:

Even if the Ndp had had 50 seats when Layton became leader in 2003, I still don’t believe that Layton having or not having a seat made any material difference to the outcome of the 2004 election.

Do you think Jack would have gone for it?

“I’d be willing to work with anyone to help achieve our values,” he [Singh] said. “The future’s looking more and more bleak, and I want to get at: how do we build an economy where we all benefit?”

I'm surprised anyone has an issue with this statement from Singh.  Writing off working with the Cons and deeming the Liberals as the only choice just leads to strategic voting.  It also boxes in the NDP.  Consider how effective Nathan Cullen was on the ERRE Committee, when he chose to work with the Cons to get the report done, since the Libs were unwilling.  This was very effective in pressuring the government and revealing that they were not serious about making 2015 be the last election under FPTP.  Also consider that Layton worked with Harper to bring about the apology to indigenous people regarding residential schools.   And, consider that Layton himself was not shy about being willing to work with anyone, Cons included, to get progressive measures forward.  Note this video at around the 1:28 mark.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFIY44RtkTI

Here's a funny thing form the Guardian article posted by Mark Alfred:

Media commentators have asked if Canada is ready for a non-white NDP leader, pointing to a recent poll in which 31% of the 1,477 respondents said they would not vote for a politician who wore a turban and carried a kirpan.

​Notice how the writer jumped from 'non-white' to religious symbols. The two are not interchangeable. 

voice of the damned wrote:

The Guardian's thesis is based on the assumption(held also by Singh) that people who voted for Trudeau because he espoused progressive values are now doing a deeper analysis to see if he's actually implementing those values in a meaningful way.

Agreed that that alone will not cause the Libs to lose.  But, the one (and perhaps only) thing the Libs have going for them is the popularity of Trudeau, and his image of being a good guy.  So, whittling away at that with facts will help.  And, people did expect "real change" from him, so pointing out areas, including foreign affairs, where there's little evidence of change, helps in tarnishing the good guy image of Trudeau. 

More important, though, is people's personal interest.  Those who were interested in seeing electoral reform are furious, and that did get the Libs a lot of strategic votes.  Those votes will not return to the Libs. 

Also, some youth I've met are not too happy, given that 1.) the Libs did not raise the minimum wage, and 2.) they've done nothing about precarious work (in fact Morneau said "We have to accept that", in reference to a question on precarious work).  Regarding the minimum wage, recall that Trudeau derided the NDP's pledge to raise the minimum wage as misleading, in that only raising the federal minimum wage was declared by Trudeau as insufficient (thus hinting that his party would go further than the NDP and perhaps engage with the provinces too on the issue).  After the election he was very clear that he never intended to raise the minimum wage at all.   

The real interest that many voters, specifically homeowners, have is making sure their main investment in life, that being their house, is secure.  If housing prices start to fall dramatically, the Libs will lose (mind you, IMO housing prices need to go down, but slowly rather than via a dramatic crash).  Any party that looks like it could lead to financial insecurity (and thus fears of housing prices crashing) will not win.  This is the main struggle the NDP have, IMO.  They need to make sure that they can overcome this fear, which makes proposing big items (that please the NDP base, but worry some others) tricky.  That said, I like the fact that Singh is talking about some big items like free tuition, increasing the capital gains tax inclusion rate, increasing corporate taxes by 4.5%, pharmacare, drug decrim and greater harm reduction, etc.

cco, you're thinking of the USA, not Canada.  Housing prices didn't crash here.

Here's the statement on the vote on Jerusalem at the UN General Assembly, in which the Libs abstained.  The NDP were not shy in criticizing this (see link), and the statement is in line with NDP policy.  http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-vote-jerusalem-un-general-assembly-...

NDP policy wrote:

New Democrats believe in ..  Working with partners for peace in Israel and Palestine, respecting UN resolutions and international law, supporting peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and an end to violence targeting civilians.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

As far as the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, what was the NDP position? If I remember correctly it was split between those who favoured going ahead with the Conservative engineered deal because it provided well-paying union jobs, and those who didn't want to be involved in arms sales to the Saudis.

In any case, the NDP did not make it a big issue in the last election, so coming forward now to batter the Liberals over an issue which they themselves were very careful in approaching is a bit disingenuous.

As NDP Foreign Affairs critic, Paul Dewer did make it an issue during the election. And spoke about it several times in the lead up to the election. Saying they would cancel the export permits if there were human rights violations.

Watch - September 25, 2015

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/canada-s-relationship-w...

That's interesting, because in the one speech I remember seeing from Mulcair on the topic, he said that the deal was a bad thing, but that it was too late to cancel it. At least that's what I remember. But I haven't been able to watch Dewar's statement yet, so I don't know how much of a contradiction there was between the two positions.

Rev Pesky wrote:

​Maybe Singh needs a history lesson about his own party.

 

Different leader, different policy. For instance Jagmeet Singh said he doesn't oppose running deficits.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Finance and budgetary policies

New Democrats believe in:

a Balancing budgets and confining short-term deficits to severe economic downturns and national security emergencies.

“I’m open to deficits if it’s to keep the economy supported and also to prevent austerity, to continue supporting social programs,”

- Jagmeet Singh

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-picks-up-justin-trud...

Rev Pesky wrote:

From mark_alfred:

Here's the statement on the vote on Jerusalem at the UN General Assembly, in which the Libs abstained.

​The specific question I asked was about the position of the NDP re: Palestinian statehood. Apparently they don't have a position.

I quoted the exact policy from the NDP, which states, "supporting peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders," --> it's s. 4.1(f).  It's right there in my response, Rev Pesky.  Here's NDP policy:  http://xfer.ndp.ca/2017/Documents/2016_POLICY-EN.pdf

Rev Pesky wrote:

​As far as the Saudi arms deal, here is a video of Thomas Mulcair (during the election) explaining the NDP would not stop the deal from going through:

​Mulcair explains why he wouldn't stop Saudi arms deal

​When the questioner asks about the NDP policy of allowing the deal to go through, Mulcair says, "I've said that myself, five times!"

​

However, regarding the Saudi Arms deal, Mulcair's (and the NDP's) position, as I understood it, was that a contract had been signed (by a private contractor rather than government), and legally there was no basis for government to interfere in that contract.  Saudi Arabia is an ally.  We have no official sanctions against them (that I'm aware of).  So, there's no reason to renege on a done deal (not entering into a deal in the first place is another matter, though).  However, as I understood it, conditions upon the deal (and any deal involving military equipment) were that the LAVs were not to be used against the Saudi's own civilians and/or used in human rights violations.  So, (if I'm remembering correctly) after this deal had gone through and some of the LAVs had been delivered, there was evidence that Saudi Arabia had breached some conditions of the deal, at which point the NDP did demand that any further sales be halted, which the Libs ignored.  See http://georginajolibois.ndp.ca/liberals-must-take-principled-action-in-w...

Also, the NDP had, before Singh, called upon the government to implement Parliamentary oversight of arms exports controls, to prevent such deals from private contractors being entered into without transparency and oversight.  Anyway, I think Singh has every foundation from the NDP and the NDP membership to demand better of the government when it comes to arms deals, despite your bizarre protestations against Singh raising these issues. [edited]

To stay on foreign affairs, but to get back to Singh, here's a video of him speaking against a motion by the Ontario Progressive Conservatives (OPC) that expressed support for opposing BDS.  Now, previously, the OPC had tried to pass a bill prohibiting BDS, which was opposed by both the ONDP and the OLibs.  This time, they put forward a motion expressing opposition to BDS, which both the ONDP and OLibs supported.  But, Singh felt it was hypocritical to oppose an anti-BDS bill but be in favour of an anti-BDS motion (if you oppose the bill, then you should also oppose the motion).  Whether it's law or a motion, the sentiment should be the same.  So, alone, he gave a speech on why he opposed the Conservative motion (note that no one else is around him in the video).  True integrity, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a2eZEoR9Ic

From mark_alfred:

However, regarding the Saudi Arms deal, Mulcair's (and the NDP's) position, as I understood it, was that a contract had been signed (by a private contractor rather than government), and legally there was no basis for government to interfere in that contract.

​Which, as it happens, is precisely the same position the Liberals took, for which Singh is now condemning them.

Further from mark_alfred:

Anyway, I think Singh has every foundation from the NDP and the NDP membership to demand better of the government when it comes to arms deals, despite your bizarre protestations against Singh raising these issues.

​He can raise the issue all he wants. He will have to explain the NDP had precisely the same policy during the election, and the government that signed the deal was not the Liberals, but the Conservatives.

And really, is it bizarre to ask for consistency of policy from a political party? I didn't think so, but perhaps from the NDP it is.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

​Maybe Singh needs a history lesson about his own party.

 

Different leader, different policy. For instance Jagmeet Singh said he doesn't oppose running deficits.

"DLDP" might work if we're talking about, say, Lester Pearson purging gays from the civil service, vs. Justin Trudeau apologizing for purging gays from the civil service. It's a little bit trickier when we're talking about a difference between the current leader and the one who came immediately before him, over an issue that is still ongoing.

That said, I think voters have a tendency to compartmentalize foreign-policy apart from everything else, and it's gonna be a challenge to get Canadians to care about the Saudi arms deal either way.

mark_alfred wrote:

as Mulcair was talking about the great tradition of Tommy Douglas and western CCF/NDP governments not running deficits

All of the western NDP governments as well as Douglas' CCF government ran deficits from time to time. The idea that never running a deficit is some sort of NDP tradition is nonsense.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Again Paul Dewer said (during the 2015 election) an NDP Government would terminiate the agreement if there was any evidence of Human Rights abuses from the Saudi's. He made that perfectly clear during the election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/canada-s-relationship-w...

Exactly.  And Singh has been consistent with that.  I believe Singh first raised this when this story emerged:  New video purports to show Canadian-made LAVs being used in Saudi crackdown

From VOTD:

That said, I think voters have a tendency to compartmentalize foreign-policy apart from everything else, and it's gonna be a challenge to get Canadians to care about the Saudi arms deal either way.

​I agree that voter do compartmentalise. At the same time, I think voters imagine a government will have a foreign policy, and that is one of the things that has held the NDP back over the years. They have never had a clearly articulated foreign policy. 

mark_alfred wrote:

I quoted the exact policy from the NDP, which states, "supporting peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders"

Here's a video of an interview of Jagmeet Singh by Evan Solomon on CTV:  'I have to earn the respect of Canadians': Singh on NDP's byelection losses

Quote:

The NDP, which has governed provincially but not federally, is a party member of Socialist International, and Singh’s platform evokes shades of Bernie Sanders. He wants to raise the corporate tax rate to 19.5 per cent from 15 per cent, expand Canada’s universal healthcare system and block Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion, the country’s only major proposed domestic oil pipeline. He also wants to create new tax brackets for high earners, raise levies on stock options and tax 75 per cent of capital gains, up from 50 per cent.

“The first thing I would do would be an expanded social program and electoral reform,” he said, listing options such as paying for pharmaceuticals and dental care, big-ticket items not covered in Canada’s public system. Pharmacare alone would cost almost C$20 billion ($15.5 billion) annually, adding about 16 per cent to federal spending.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-picks-up-justin-trud...

Paul Dewar op-ed "Should we sell Arms to Saudi Arabia?"

What is Canada’s position on the Iranian Nuclear agreement?

Recently these questions have dominated the foreign policy debate in Canada and the United Kingdom. While these are important questions the debate itself reveals something is profoundly lacking.Plaining put what is our foreign policy on arms control both conventional and unconventional? As a country that prided itself on the Ottawa Treaty to Ban Land Mines and leaders in Nuclear Non Proliferation recently we have been missing in action. After a decade of despair in diplomacy particularly in arms control it’s time to put on our skates and get back on the ice. There is incredible opportunity for Canada to make a real difference and now is the time

So where to begin?

Conventional Weapons. Whether it’s the Middle East or North Africa many regions have become awash with small and medium sized weapons which has enabled extremists groups like ISIL, Boco Haram instability and support. Remember what happened in Libya after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011? The weapons stockpiled by Gaddafi were quickly spirited over the border via the black market and were used in Mali and Iraq.

The most obvious way to impact the threat of illegal arms sales is to sign and ratify the UN Arms Trade Treaty. While we may be late to the party we can still be a champion to this important treaty which would help repair the damage of the previous government bizarre reluctance to sign the treaty.

The new Liberal government has committed to sign the Arms Trade Treaty which is a good start but we will need to ratify the treaty as soon as possible to make up for lost time. In fact 130 Countries have signed the agreement and 80 Countries have ratified, this May states who have signed and ratified the agreement will be filing their annual reports, but not Canada, so we need to catch up.

The importance of this UN treaty cannot be overstated it requires countries to adopt reports of exports and end use, national control lists and other regulations and measures.

The treaty lays out various reporting and accountability measures involving government and industry, there is also a role for civil society and our Parliament.

In the case of our Parliament Canada should adopt the UK Parliament’s structure of their House of Commons Committee for Arms Exports and Controls. The UK committee consists of members from the standing committees of Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Business and Skills Development we could assemble a similar committee in our Parliament. This committee could monitor our compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty and provide a forum for industry and civil society to be heard. As we have seen with the Saudi deal once an export is approved it becomes difficult to monitor use and hold end users to account.

Along with signing and implementing the ATT we should become vigorous champions of the treaty and promote its implementation by other countries similar to Canada’s support of the Ottawa Land Mines Treaty.

Nuclear Weapons Along with conventional arms control Canada must contribute to nuclear non-proliferation. Recently The Doomsday Clock, the symbolic countdown to humanity’s end due to the threat of nuclear weapons, was calculated at three minutes to midnight, this should be a wakeup call. Historically Canada has a proud tradition of limiting the proliferation, testing and use of nuclear weapons. However in recent years we have impeded progress on nuclear weapon controls. At a time when we see new states seeking to proliferate and old ones looking to refurbish there nuclear stockpiles Canada is on the sidelines. For example the previous government refused to support the P5 plus one negotiation with Iran and most recently we refused to sign the 2014 Vienna Protocol on Nuclear Weapons.

Despite Canada’s anemic response there has been some positive moves on the nuclear non-proliferation front; in 2009 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s challenged the world to get behind his five point plan proposal to curb and eventually eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons in this was followed by a unanimous motion in both the Canadian Senate and House of Commons in 2010 calling our government to support t Ban Ki-moon’s initiative. Indeed Canada can play a constructive role; we can support the recently negotiated Iran deal by offering financial and human resources to monitor the agreement. We should sign the Vienna Protocol on Humanitarian Effects of Nuclear Weapons

But we can go further we should pursue a global treaty on nuclear weapons. Canada has a unique credibility in taking a leading role in such efforts. At the height of the Cold War, Canada chose not to develop nuclear arms. As a country, we have always known the dangers of nuclear weapons. But we need to engage and inspire a younger generation of people who may not have the intuitive understanding of nuclear weapons that came with life during the Cold War. This September 26th the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons we should host a conference for an eventual Nuclear Weapons treaty.

Canada is a significant world power, we have the experience the trust and self-interest to and lean into the major issues that face our globe, instead of ambiguity and chasten responses let’s with clear vision, clear objectives and the will to follow through. We can achieve more on Arms Control to make the world a safer place and have our country take its rightful place on the global stage.

https://www.facebook.com/pauldewarcanada/posts/10154209664159433:0

Here's the title of the article posted by mark_alfred above.

Jagmeet Singh picks up Justin Trudeau's playbook in next battle for hearts of Canada's left

This title is false. Giving too much credit to Justin's so called "left wing politics". But in a way really not. But only not if you believe that "left wing" does not necessarily translate to socialist values. To me, "left wing" has become a lose term used too often and has almost become to mean nothing really.

Sorry, but this is a typical comment that I make. Typical WWWTT arguing with himself and developing my comment as I write it without editing. Who is the left in Canada anyways? Who are socialists? Is the term "left" a form of soft socialist? Is it a border between socialist and capitalist that people can identify themeselves with whenever it's convenient, depending on how much the corporate media gains traction in demonizing socialisim or dare I even use the term communist?

Ok here's how I'm going to finish my comment. I now believe the "left" is a border between socialism and capitalism. Making up of two types of poeple's who politically identify themeselves as. The first group are capitalists who are starting to get it. Starting to see that capitalism isn't going to improve the lives of the masses and in fact causes harm to society. But this group isn't ready yet to commit themselves to supporting what really needs to be done in government. Then there's the rest of us, true socialists! Those who believe in or in the most part agree with Jagmeet's evolving socialist values that he stands for as posted by mark_alfred. To me it seems that since this article is from a right wing corporate news outlet, their intent would be to divide the liberal support and send it back to the NDP helping Scheer gain in vote splitting.