Friday, August 05, 2011

"NDP Staffer" Joins Witch Hunt Against NDP

Pretend the following isn't a NDP staffer, who does it sound like?:
The staffer, speaking anonymously to RDI's La période des questions, said it shows a lack of integrity that Turmel held memberships in the Bloc Québécois for four years — until weeks before she announced her NDP candidacy — and in provincial party Québec Solidaire until Tuesday...

But the NDP staffer said there's unease in the party now because the people who selected Turmel as interim leader didn't know about her memberships in sovereigntist parties.

"The profound unease that's taken over the party is that there was a large number of people, the majority of people, who voted didn't know then. And that's a very, very serious unease, because it's a crisis of confidence.

"When we take a party membership, it's not a sign of friendship.... It's a commitment, it's an adherence to a philosophy," he said.

"You can't lead a federalist party when you were sufficiently involved in a separatist party or parties."

Sounds pretty much like every other person who has questioned Turmel on this issue, has problems with the whole affair. Had I just put the random quotes up people would swear it was a Liberal, a Conservative, a hack with an agenda. One question raised her, the staffer says the people who selected Turmel were unaware of memberships, but Turmel has specifically said Layton knew, so which is it?


Dan F said...

Looks like "Anonymous Liberal Staffer" has switched parties, and is now working as "Anonymous NDP Staffer"

Steve V said...

I wonder which "camp" anonymous is from?

Michel said...

Only one MP in QC had staff prior to May 2nd...

D said...

Dan, obviously that is what's going on.

Good on Rae to speak up! It's amazing to me that Dippers just shrug this off. Well, I mean, I guess they have to rationalize it and talk it down.

Think about it: approximately 2% of Canadians hold political party memberships. TWO percent. Clearly, it's not something Canadians take lightly. Quite frankly, it wasn't something I ever too lightly and it was something I had to think about long and hard. The decision was mine and it was a statement more than anything.

I think the whole "supporting a friend" line is bogus. I have a friend and he rang in the federal election AGAINST the candidate I was working for. He asked me to sign his nomination papers. It was difficult but I thought, hey, it's good for democracy. What if he asked me to give him money? Well, maybe. MAYBE. A vote? No. A membership, laughable. But to Mz. Turmel, she NEVER would vote for the Bloc or for separation. The five year membership? FIVE years? Can you even purchase a five year membership? People don't like three year cell phone contracts let alone being on the email list for the Bloc for 5 years and the last two federal elections.

And that resignation note. Wow. Nothing to do with policies. NOTHING? Really? Not the glaring difference between the NDP and Bloc? Personally, she'd rather run for the NDP but I don't think she'd be terribly upset with Bloc representation.

It's a farce. Should she be thrown under the bus for forever? No. In 1993 we actually HAD the separatists as the official opposition. Now we just have these soft sovereignists. I tell ya, if the PQ pulls out some magic and becomes the government in QC we'll see some real interesting developments from that NDP Qubec wing. That will be the real test.

In the mean time, in the RoC, Liberals have to be feeling like the NDP is mortal after all. Don't expect a schism within the NDP over this - they've waited too long and been too lucky to throw this opportunity out the window (just like many Red Tories feel in the CPC). They'll never, EVER want to be third party again and a tonne of contradictions will be put up with internally for the sake of a stab at governance. Liberals need to be diligent and know our audience. With stories like these we should relax and let the Dippers do our dirty work for us.

Steve V said...

I'd like to know why this staffer said people didn't know about her affiliations, when she clearly said Layton was aware?

CK said...

This is just a guess on my part, so don't take it as gospel. I'm basing this on information I have. I do believe this 'anonymous staffer' is NDP. Furthermore, I can probably guess which MP this staffer works for.

I'll put it this way. I have a pretty good idea that Mr. Tom Mulcair is really not a a happy camper these days and it has nothing to do with Mme Turmel's views. Views he actually shares with her when it's convenient for him to do so. I'd venture to say that it's more the fact that he's been snubbed.

CK said...

However, I would really wish that Bob Rae would leave this alone. He is not helping his, nor his party's cause in any shape or form.

He doesn't need to join any with hunts on Mme Turmel. He has experience on his side. He performs well in Question Period. While his caucus may be small, he has talented people, he should make sure they're organized for the fall session.

Harper is going to come up with that hideous omnibus bill, dumb on crime themed, which includes warrantless internet spying, among other such hideous items on the menu. Perhaps Mr Rae and his party should concentrate on finding the best tools to oppose them. Just because Harper has a majority, doesn't mean they should allow him an easy ride. I think that is far more important that Mme Turmel's past affiliations, don't you?

Also, Mme Turmel is not the first Federalist MP to jump from the separatists. Hello Jean Lapierre?

Also, Let's not forget Lucien Bouchard. Yes, before he became Mulroney's environment minister, Bouchard was a member of the Parti-Quebecois nearly from its' infancy. I don't even know if he ever surrendered that membership while a Prog Conservative MP. He also chaired the "Yes" side of the 1980 referendum with Rene Levesque in the late 70s.

Another thing, continued witch hunts on Mme Turmel by the Liberals and the Cons sends a negative message to Quebec Nationalists, and yes, the soft nationalists who are on the fence on the question of sovereignty v federalism. It tells them that once a separatist, you can never become a federalist; that they're never welcome. If the Liberals had a scintilla of a chance of making head way in La Belle province, they just killed it.

Unknown said...

"approximately 2% of Canadians hold political party memberships. TWO percent. Clearly, it's not something Canadians take lightly. "

Riiight. Likewise, 40% of Canadians take elections so seriously that they don't vote.

D said...

Lenny - I hear what you're saying. Even so, on the campaign trail you'll meet self described "life-long" Liberal/NDP/CPC voters who are loyal to their party at the ballot box, they may even put up a lawn sign, but they'll hesitate to take out a party membership. At the door in Winnipeg one woman remarked, "Maybe next time," in response to the membership question even though the party had her support on e-day (and visible support with a sign) in every election since 79. Any guesses as to why this person doesn't invest $10 in the party?

Dale said...

"Any guesses as to why this person doesn't invest $10 in the party?"

Perhaps because acquiring political party membership feels like making an ideological commitment.

I imagine it is the same as those Canadians who will attend religious services on special occasions (weddings, funerals, holidays, etc.) but refuse to attend on a regular basis.

Perhaps the thought is "I vote Liberal on election day and attend mass at Christmas, but I'm not a member of the Party or the Congregation."