Friday, April 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The "What Do I Know Grit"
liberalsONLINE.ca
About Me
- James Curran
- "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." — Robert Francis Kennedy
People That Visit Often
LiberalsONLINE.ca
MY FACEBOOK
Daily Reads
Bloggers I Like to Read
- LiberalsONLINE.ca
- Impolitical
- Kirbie
- A Creative Revolution
- POGGE
- Roblaw
- Runesmith's Canadian Content
- Tilting at Windmills
- James Bowie
- Red Tory
- Big City Lib
- Woman at Mile 0
- Scott's Diatribes
- Liberal Catnip
- A BCer in Toronto
- Saskboy
- Pundit's Guide
- democraticSPACE
- Rayman
- Jim Bobby Sez
- Murphys Point
- The "What Do I Know Grit"
Main Stream Media
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(43)
- December (1)
- November (2)
- October (5)
- September (6)
- August (1)
- July (1)
- June (3)
- May (4)
- April (7)
- March (3)
- February (3)
- January (7)
-
►
2011
(244)
- December (3)
- November (8)
- October (11)
- September (9)
- August (7)
- July (5)
- June (16)
- May (39)
- April (72)
- March (40)
- February (23)
- January (11)
-
►
2010
(151)
- December (12)
- November (7)
- October (22)
- September (20)
- August (3)
- July (3)
- June (19)
- May (15)
- April (12)
- March (14)
- February (4)
- January (20)
-
▼
2009
(358)
- December (16)
- November (17)
- October (11)
- September (17)
- August (13)
- July (13)
- June (32)
- May (34)
- April (28)
- March (48)
- February (33)
- January (96)
7 comments:
James perhaps you'd be pleased to know that the new rules (that are VERY DIFFERENT from 2006) for the constitutional plenary make it next to impossible for delegates to even be ALLOWED to VOTE on the YLC amendment.
Though maybe I'm being too harsh, you have been a voice for the Liberal grassroots in the past, so maybe you'd speak out against this rule change even though you don't want the amendment passed?
Truth be told the new rule change is quite likely going to make it extremely difficult for OMOV to pass at all either and since youth are having their amendment quashed you can't expect them to fall in line with what the party or you want. Put yourself in their shoes given that this amendment was put forth under the full expectation the rules would be the same as in the 2006 constitutional plenaries.
Just imagine James if there was another const. amendment on the floor that you felt should NOT pass UNLESS an amendment YOU proposed were attached to it. Would you vote for the OVERALL package BEFORE knowing if your amendment was going to pass? (and that you don't get to vote on your amendment unless the overall package passes)
Seems counter-productive in passing the overall motion to set things up this way don't you think?
But that's what LPC seems to have done, will you say anything about it?
Perhap if I even knew what you are talking about, I could asnwer your question.
Secondly, the YLC is being both selfish and ignorant. This party might as well fold if OMOV is not passed. And the YLC's contribution to that collapse will be well-documented.
Further, I will not be donating a single dime to another YLC or OYL event, election or delegate fee anytime soon. Nor will I be asking any of the riding associations that I am a part of to fund youth delegates to any youth events anytime in the near futre.
That, my friend is not a threat. It's a promise.
I will be very disappointed if the YLC submarines the OMOV process. Pointless political infighting shouldn't stand in the way of something that should have been adopted in 2006
James the process in 2006 was as follows:
The exact same OMOV proposal was on the table. The YLC presented the EXACT SAME amendment as they are now.The vote on the YLC amendment took place FIRST. It passed with well over 50% support, but shy of 67%.
THEN the vote took place on the overall package which got LESS than even 50% support.
The YLC put forth their amendment with the expecation the rules would be same, but if you read the rules for the constitutional plenary posted on the LPC website they are now MUCH different. This is how it will go according to these new rules (if you want proof jsut read the rules yourself at the following link here:
Vote on overall OMOV package takes place FIRST. IF it gets 2/3 of support THEN voting takes place on the YLC and other amendments to OMOV vote. Those amendments would then require 2/3 instead of the 50%that was ALWAYS the rule for amendments to amendments before.
So delegates quite likely will not even get to vote on the YLC amendment at all because of this move to quash it with OUT OF THE BLUE new rules that are different from EVERY PAST CONVENTION.
What should the YLC think of this when they put forth their amendment in good faith? Had they known these would be the rules they could have actually put forth their amendment as a separate proposal instead of an amendment to amendment - that would at least ensured people would definitely GET A CHANCE to vote on it. Now they can't based on rules devised AFTER the deadline for constitutional submissions passed.
And I ask again, in giving your answer, please try to take a view of what you would say if this was the procedure for an amendment you STRONGLY DID SUPPORT and that you felt that the overall package SHOUILD NOT be passed UNLESS you were certain YOUR amendment would be included.
If YOU felt like YOU were directly subverted and that the rules were changed after the submission deadline solely to quash YOUR proposal what would you do about it?
Oh and in case it wasn't clear in 2006 and in past conventions 50% support for amendments to amendments was sufficient to attach it to the main proposal, now it's 67% which is big enough change as it is, but the big change NOW is that those votes on amendments to the main proposal will now ONLY happen if the main proposal passes first with 2/3 support.
James not sure why you haven't responded, but I hope you'll try to separate what you prefer form what's democratically justifiable.
If you don't speak out against these rule changes then you'll have zero ability to credibly complain if it happens to you down the line. It's simply a terrible precedent that goes against all established procedure we've ever had at convention, plain and simple whether you agree with THIS amendment or not.
Or does it only matter if get what YOU want? The funny thing is in the end you likely won't because this is going to make it harder to pass OMOV. And while you might blame the YLC for that, really the real blame lies with those people who unilaterally changed the rules without informing any party members.
I would have expected more consistency from you from your past writings about manipulations of procedure.
But I suppose I shoulnd't prejudge, I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say about these new procedures (we don't need to hear what you think about the YLC amendment, we all KNOW that already and we'll just agree to disagree on that front).
And what would you do if you felt like the party was putting the "fix" on YOUR amendment? Would you just sit there and take it, crawl into a corner and say "you win"? Would you do ANYTHING in protest? Why not?
Post a Comment