Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

NDP to Remove Ruth-Ellen Brosseau From Office?


Recommended Posts

Why would the tories care? They have their majority and having an inexperienced mp like this to run against in quebec would be to their advantage. Why would they risk the libs or bloc putting in a stronger candidate?

No kidding. Layton has his work cut out for him with that caucus. It's going to be like herding cats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

She will be fine. This is just a bunch of bull kicked up by the Conservatives.

I doubt if the voters of her riding will rethink their decision after witnessing the performance of the NDP rookies in parliament.

Plus, IMO, some Quebec voters bet on a Tory minority so that their voice will be heard through NDP opposition or even a NDP-led coalition. Since Conservative is on Majority, voting for Bloc or NDP will make no much difference for them.

Edited by From another nation in Canada
Link to post
Share on other sites
She has never once stepped into the riding during the campaign so I expect she also wouldn't show up once in the House. :huh:

Sounds like she has the makings of a great Parliamentarian. </sarcasm>
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other parties should refuse to touch this with a 10-foot pole. There's absolutely nothing to gain for any of them.

For the Conservatives, it makes you look like you're trying to screw with the will of the voters. Adding 1 seat to your count doesn't help you. You already have your majority, and whether it's 6 seats or 7 seats you got badly beaten in Quebec.

For the Liberals, it makes you look like you're trying to screw with the will of the voters, and adds to the reek of desperation surrounding your party. Adding 1 seat to your count doesn't help you. You're still a very distant 3rd.

For the Bloc Quebecois, it makes you look like you're trying to screw with the will of the voters, and adds to the reek of desperation surrounding your party. Adding 1 seat to your count doesn't help you. You're still a very distant 4th and doesn't even get you to "official party" status.

The best thing for all 3 of the other parties would be to sound magnanimous. "The will of the voters is clear. We hope that when the information has been verified, the representative the people chose will have her seat in Parliament." Trying to steal the seat on a technicality will make you look like a dirty lawyer. It'll cost you come next election.

And if you're one of the NDP's opponents, think long game. This election, nothing can stop the Orange Wave in Quebec. But come next election, Miss Brosseau sounds like she could be a pretty beatable candidate. Let her keep the seat warm and take it next time.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to consider: the NDP breakthrough in Quebec makes it likely that they'll be able to attract a better calibre of candidate in the future.

If some of the new NDP MPs turn out to be duds, the party might run more qualified candidates in their place next time around. While a sitting MP doesn't usually have to fight to be the nominated candidate in their riding, I don't think there's anything that says it's automatic. In 4 years, somebody else might say "I want to be the NDP candidate for Berthier-Maskinongé" and Ruth-Ellen may have to earn the nomination against somebody with some life experience and French language skills.

Reform had some real "characters" in the early days (and some of those guys are still in Parliament...) but as the party gained influence and seats in Parliament, they also began to attract more experienced, more qualified, more capable people. The same will happen for the NDP in Quebec. They probably won't have to run bartenders or college kids in the next election... unless they're good candidates.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a bi-election, and Quebecers have jumped of the orange wave, the bloc could win this seat and regain party status...

No. The Bloc would have to win 8 more seats.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, here we go: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Berthier+Maskinong%C3%A9+victor+nomination+paper+questioned/4727585/story.html

Any elector can tender objection (It doesn`t have to be a candidate.) ;

she had 138 nominators, so until 39 of those names are challenged, she`s still well in the clear;

the Conservative candidate was the first to call for a new election, but did not make a formal objection (and the one who did had better be dead certain it will stick, or be known as a poopoo head forever);

and I`m doing my level best to resist making comments about folks getting the governance they deserve.

(Folks didn`t know what they were signing? How could that be? Are they illiterate?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
and I`m doing my level best to resist making comments about folks getting the governance they deserve.

(Folks didn`t know what they were signing? How could that be? Are they illiterate?)

For many people, voting for a political party is like choosing a brand in a grocery store. When you buy Kellog's corn flakes for example, you don't examine the box/contents carefully since you trust that the company cares about its reputation and has verified the contents of the box for you. This is particularly true if Kellog's introduces a new product that you may never have tried before and so you may trust the Kellog's brand name.

Many voters implicitly trust the brand name of the political party and ultimately, they trust the party's leader when choosing which local candidate to vote for.

It is facile to argue that voters should verify more thoroughly their local candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is facile to argue that voters should verify more thoroughly their local candidates.

That's true. However, I think Molly is referring to the people who signed the nomination papers, not the people who voted for her.

However, even that sounds a little dodgy right now...

The Liberals first discovered what they said were irregularities with Brosseau’s nomination papers. Simard said there are at least five people who are clearly not admissible.

One person agreed to add their name to the nomination list, but wrote an address — “Berthierville” — instead of a signature. Another simply did not sign the papers. The Liberals have also heard that the person who collected the signatures told people they were signing a petition calling on the NDP to name a candidate for the race because the riding was without representation from the party early in the campaign.

One man, Rene Young, acknowledged that it was his signature on Brosseau’s nomination papers, though he didn’t remember signing on to support the candidate. His wife’s signature, however, was unrecognizable, he told Radio-Canada.

“It’s like graffiti,” he said.

The Star

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

For many people, voting for a political party is like choosing a brand in a grocery store. When you buy Kellog's corn flakes for example, you don't examine the box/contents carefully since you trust that the company cares about its reputation and has verified the contents of the box for you. This is particularly true if Kellog's introduces a new product that you may never have tried before and so you may trust the Kellog's brand name.

Many voters implicitly trust the brand name of the political party and ultimately, they trust the party's leader when choosing which local candidate to vote for.

It is facile to argue that voters should verify more thoroughly their local candidates.

That is a thin, thin excuse, and honestly, if folks really are that childishly trusting and naive, that stupid and lazy and undemanding; if they truly are so irresponsible in their choices, then they surely do deserve precisely what they`ve gotten!

If people must be spoon-fed the rudiments of their own governance to the point of needing someone to read them the declarations they`ve signed ... then they haven`t earned the right to be consulted. Better that they shouldn`t vote at all than vote in such stunningly unresearched ignorance. :angry:

I much prefer to believe that the folks of that riding did what they did in full knowledge of the implications of their choice. Functionally, they voted `None of the Above`, and that`s a perfectly valid thing to do. (I, for one, will never forget the name of one Joanne Zazalenchuk. I remember her with respect and appreciation.)

They don`t get to claim a mulligan and try to repudiate their choice, and Aw shucks, you fooled poor little me!, blame it on someone else. They aren`t victims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then how do you explain that both the Bloc and Liberal candidates are calling for a new election?

New overall election, or bi-elections in ridings with doubtful NDP MP's?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The best thing for all 3 of the other parties would be to sound magnanimous. "The will of the voters is clear. We hope that when the information has been verified, the representative the people chose will have her seat in Parliament." Trying to steal the seat on a technicality will make you look like a dirty lawyer. It'll cost you come next election.

And if you're one of the NDP's opponents, think long game. This election, nothing can stop the Orange Wave in Quebec. But come next election, Miss Brosseau sounds like she could be a pretty beatable candidate. Let her keep the seat warm and take it next time.

-k

While I agree with nearly everything you said, the cynic in my can't help but disagree with the part in bold. If contempt of parliament, a criminal history of fraud, rants against female reproductive rights doesn't keep people from electing certain Tory MPs, then I hardly see them paying in the polls for stealing a seat from Ms. Brosseau. I suppose they could pay in that riding, but that doesn't put them behind. It just keeps them where they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is facile to argue that voters should verify more thoroughly their local candidates.

I agree with you, but let's be honest here; the MP is going to vote the party line. They could put monkeys wearing fez hats in the seats. It doesn't matter these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is facile to argue that voters should verify more thoroughly their local candidates.

People can agree with that? That it's okay to vote in complete blind ignorance, and that it's someone else's fault when you do? That it's somehow the job of political parties to save you from your own lazy ignorance?

That offends me to my toes.

It is so completely back-assward.... that it's..... just....

beyond description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with that. The Party is a brand. I'm not voting for a Conservative candidate expecting a socially progressive outcome. It doesn't really matter what the local candidate believes. They vote along with the party's policies and ideologies. Otherwise, you would get MPs voting against their party. When does that ever happen? Rarely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you agree with that, it doesn't seem like you can complain about an individual MP being young or unilingual or vacationing in Vegas during the campaign or... You can't have it both ways.

I realize you weren't doing that, cybercoma. But this is the crux of my issue with the tone of this whole discussion. If you think individual candidates are important, then the voters had the opportunity to know who their NDP candidate was and they still voted for her. (It was no secret that she was on vacation during the campaign, for example.) If you think the party brand is more important, then the voters should be satisfied: They voted for an NDP member and they got one. It's fair enough to look into her nomination papers and see if something unethical happened but either way, she seems to have been democratically chosen by her constituents.

Edited by Evening Star
Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you agree with that, it doesn't seem like you can complain about an individual MP being young or unilingual or vacationing in Vegas during the campaign or... You can't have it both ways.

I don't complain about that. They do. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow it amazes me how some people here are so disassociated with reality.

This is someone who has won thousands of votes.

She was approved by elections Canada.

If someone has a claim against this then there will eventually have to be a trial and the acuser will have to bring evidence forward into a court of law.This goes much further beyond than making some claim to an eager media desperate for dirt.

If a judge preceding over this case than comes to the conclusion that her process was tainted then ok,if not then its garbage.

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so all the conservatives know. When I said nothing would come of it, I meant that. Elections Canada has ruled in her favor already. End of story.

http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/elections_canada_rules_overnightsensation_ndp_candidate_valid_05-05-2011

I think I will quote the great Liberal leader Micheal Ignatiff on this one

"The only thing Canadians like less then a loser is a sore loser"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just so all the conservatives know. When I said nothing would come of it, I meant that. Elections Canada has ruled in her favor already. End of story.
Punked, it's hardly the end of the story.

Jean-François Lisée rightly notes that Thomas Mulcair questions why Obama won't show photos of a dead bin Laden but then Mulcair is unwilling to present to the public a living Brosseau. Has the NDP kidnapped her?

Apparently, Mulcair even says that it may be years before anyone sees her:

Pierre Maisonneuve: Peut-être quon la verra un jour? Peut-être que vous aller nous la présenter et quon pourra faire une entrevue avec elle?

Thomas Mulcair: Elle va avoir quatre ans pour faire ses preuves. Il ny a rien qui va me rendre plus fier que de vous lamener et de vous laisser faire une interview avec elle au cours des prochaines années.

Maisonneuve: (rires!) Vous avez bien dit des prochaines années !

Link

----

IOW, the issue is no longer whether her nomination signatures are legitimate, whether she speaks French or even where she is. The question now is will anyone in Quebec get to see her?

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to wait and see. That is all I can say. You guys jump down the throats of the peoples elected officials even before they have had their first day on the job. Wait I am sure you will get plenty to scream about soon, but right now give a chance the people the voters picked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...