Wednesday, April 8, 2009

I Am Opposed to the Young Liberal OMOV Amendment

And you should be too!


Here's our Facebook Group. Join it today.


Photobucket

14 comments:

Chrystal Ocean said...

James, should one be a Liberal to join the FB group? Or is anyone welcome? Am assuming the former.

James Curran said...

Yes, one should be, but short of screening everyone, there is really no Facebook filter for such an occasion. Any suggestions?

leftdog said...

Gawd! You would NEVER want the rank and file members of your Party to actually have a 'vote' or a 'say' in the operation of the Liberal Party would you! Why that would actually be ... (gasp) ... democratic! (And you wouldn't want ANY of THAT .. would you?)

leftdog said...

Postscript:
The youth of any party is the future.
Why shouldn't they have a meaningful say in the affairs of a party?

A BCer in Toronto said...

What the hell are you talking about leftdog? I mean, really, you make even less sense than usual. Maybe try pulling your head out of your ass, figuring out what the issue is, and then try again, m'kay?

leftdog said...

"try pulling your head out of your ass" ... your usual high level of integrity still abounds I see!

Good for young Liberals who are exercising their political voices. Too bad it takes a New Democrat to give them a pat on the back ... not the normal angry attacks from FATcat adult Liberals!!

A BCer in Toronto said...

So I gather you will be moving an ammendment at the next NDP convention then leftdog to create a NDP Youth Commission and guarantee them 25% of the vote in any leadership contest, irregardless of membership numbers?

Right?

I mean, if it's good enough for unions, why not?

A BCer in Toronto said...

And I made the head in ass comment because you came on here spewing vitrol without having any knowledge of the issue. This isn't another wheter youth should have "actually have a 'vote' or a 'say'" it's about wheter they should have more votes and more say than everyone else. Before you lecture about integrity, maybe read-up on the debate you're inserting yourself into.

leftdog said...

Just for starters ... in the last Leadership election of the Federal New Democratic Party AND the last Leadership election of the Saskatchewan New Democrats .. I had the pleasure of a one member one vote system. As a card carrying member of my party, I had a direct vote for leader.

Until your quasi democratic party can make the same claim ..... stuff it!

As for youth ... both the Federal and Provincial wings of my party have structures that allow far more involvement of the youth than your crew does!

My comments here were initially meant to be a little tongue in cheek jab at the Libs for their ongoing inability to let the general membership of the party have meaningful say. You countered with your idiotic (and typically nasty) comment about 'heads up assholes'.

I am glad you are not a New Democrat. Your style, tone and viewpoints are well suited for an undemocratic political party who is eager and active to suppress your youth members!

leftdog said...

Postscript:

And your ANTI LABOUR remark ... "I mean, if it's good enough for unions, why not?" ... clearly shows you for the right winger that you are ... typically wobbling on the far right of the Liberal party when if fact, your venom towards labour would better suit you to be sitting in Stephen Harper's ideological camp!

A BCer in Toronto said...

in the last Leadership election of the Federal New Democratic Party AND the last Leadership election of the Saskatchewan New Democrats .. I had the pleasure of a one member one vote system.

That's what we're trying to pass here actually. And in the NDP system, what percentage of the vote was guaranteed for youth?


both the Federal and Provincial wings of my party have structures that allow far more involvement of the youth than your crew does!

I'm honestly not familiar with the internal structures of the NDP. Could you explain a little the structures your party has in place to facilitate youth involvement?

You countered with your idiotic (and typically nasty) comment about 'heads up assholes'.

And you called me FAT. And then, worse, a Conservative. Not exactly Harvard debating rules mon ami.

And your ANTI LABOUR remark ... "I mean, if it's good enough for unions, why not?"

How is that an anti-labour remark? You're either hyper-sensitive, or just looking for something to distort. Does the NDP not have a quota where organized labour is guaranteed a percentage of the leadership vote? I know they do in Ontario. I'm pretty sure they do in BC. Federally, I don't know.

I was only asking, if the NDP is willing to extend this privilege to labour, would they/why wouldn't they be willing to do the same to youth?

I think that's an entirely reasonable question.

typically wobbling on the far right of the Liberal party when if fact, your venom towards labour would better suit you to be sitting in Stephen Harper's ideological camp!

Yes, you're all about the issue-based debate, aren't you?

Skinny Dipper said...

I remember in the 1992 Charlottetown Accord referendum, Quebec being offered a minimum of 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. That was one reason why voters did not support the accord in the referendum.

I would prefer the candidates battle it out in a Mad Max Thunderdome.

"Two men enter; one man leaves."

Rules: there are no rules.

Deb Prothero said...

Back to the original question, for a moment.

Quotas inspire laziness. If the Young Liberals want to have more say, they should stop their infighting, evidenced over the last four years, and get busy getting new members. By focussing on infighting, they've gone from about 24% down to around 13% of the overall membership. Time to get their eyes on the ball.

No one will stop them from that action and then they will have the influence they so desire.

Now, back to the Thunderdome.

Werner Patels said...

I agree with leftdog. Anyone who doesn't want to extend the right to vote to all members of a party cannot be trusted to do right by society at large.

Delegated votes are the tool behind which cowards hide.