LPC Ammendments and Policies Online
I know this blog has been annoyingly "inside baseball" of late but, really, what else is going on these days...except for Brian Mulroney's joyful dismemberment of the Conservative Party (again!).
But there is some more internal Liberal news out there with the LPC releasing the constitutional amendments and policies that will be voted on the first weekend at May by Liberals in Vancouver. If 40 pages of constitutional amendments to debate and vote upon doesn't boost convention attendance, I don't know what will!
The Globe summarizes some of the policies here (and, surprise, surprise, guess which policy they're drawn to? The carbon tax has become our own abortion issue it seems), while DT gives her preliminary run-down here - I'll have more later.
But there is some more internal Liberal news out there with the LPC releasing the constitutional amendments and policies that will be voted on the first weekend at May by Liberals in Vancouver. If 40 pages of constitutional amendments to debate and vote upon doesn't boost convention attendance, I don't know what will!
The Globe summarizes some of the policies here (and, surprise, surprise, guess which policy they're drawn to? The carbon tax has become our own abortion issue it seems), while DT gives her preliminary run-down here - I'll have more later.
posted by calgarygrit at
6:16 p.m.
14 Comments:
Resolution 69, Making Poverty History at Home and Abroad, encapsulates the Liberals unwillingness to move beyond were they are now in terms of policy. Yes you got that right. The party feels that debating the whether the Liberals should aim to make poverty history at home and abroad is a “priority”.
The convention will be devoid of excitment.
By
Koby, at 6:57 p.m.
Well, if you needed any evidence that this is the OMOV proposal from Montreal rehashed, here it is: the new proposal has the same typo.
1.1(a)(5)(d) should read "points" not "votes" for consistency. Noticed that in 2006, and here it is again.
Progress, n'est pas?
By
Gauntlet, at 7:50 p.m.
Any word on if a breakdown of the votes is available?
By
Liberal Smither, at 10:08 p.m.
Dan what do you think about LPC making it so you need to pass OMOV first before voting on any amenmdents to it like the YLC one?(and then such amendments need 2/3 support instead of 50% like in 2006).
By
Anonymous, at 11:24 a.m.
Why in hell complicate matters at this point. Let's get this OMOV going and improve it as time goes on. If it doesn't go through because a bunch of kids think they should be more considered than others, I guarantee you will lose supporters.
Get the show on road - keep it simple, stupid.
By
Anonymous, at 1:42 p.m.
The amendment is dead in the water, LPC already killed it with the new rule changes for the constitutional debates.
There's no chance in hell it will pass under the new rules, in all likelihood it will never even come to a vote because of these rules.
But perhaps that's what LPC intended. Not very democratic, but perhaps for opponents of this amendment, the means justify the ends.
By
Anonymous, at 4:06 p.m.
"keep it simple stupid"
It's simply stupid.
By
Anonymous, at 3:47 p.m.
omov is going to lose
By
Anonymous, at 6:45 p.m.
At the end of a long weekend, I'm afraid my mind isn't sharp enough to fully understand the implications of changing the ammendment order around, or whether this is a good or bad move.
I presume these rules were passed long ago, before this ammendment came along, so there's nothing nefarious about it, in that case. As for the result, if the youth ammendment needs 2/3 support to pass AFTER OMOV is passed, then I'd assume OMOV barely squeaks through but the youth ammendment gets defeated.
By
calgarygrit, at 8:49 p.m.
I don't think these rules were passed "long ago" Dan since I don't think there was a single Liberal member (who wasn't on whatever committee drew up these rules) that knew the rules had changed since 2006. If you can tell you know ANYONE, ANYWHERE in the party that was aware of these rules before this week let us know but I think you'll come up empty.
It may not seem like a big deal to you but it could set a very horrible precedent if these rules aren't in fact changed BEFORE convention. The ramnifications are huge because if there's any any other major change the party wants to make to the constitution at future conventions you can rest assured different groups will want amendments, but WON'T be willing to vote for the package unless. Ergo the overall package will fail and what might be deemed "much needed change then" (like OMOV is deemed now) won't happen.
Best to go back to the established practices for amendments to amendments we've had for every convention ever and that ever other party uses too.
By
Anonymous, at 12:15 a.m.
Above it should say:
"but WON'T be willing to vote for the package unless they KNOW their own amendment is going to pass (which requires their amendment to go first). Ergo the overall package will fail and what might be deemed "much needed change" then (like OMOV is deemed now) won't happen.
Best to go back to the established practices for amendments to amendments we've had for every convention ever and that every other party uses too.
By
Anonymous, at 12:18 a.m.
Let me give you an example to show how dumb these new rules are:
Let's say in 2011 Dan Arnold moves an amendment to bind the leader to adopt at least 5 policies that pass at convention.
National Exec doesn't like that and moves an amendment to Dan's amendment to move that down to 1 policy (or for the sake of argument 2 or 3).
As convention approaches it becomes very clear that there's no way there will be 2/3 support for the "main proposal" that Dan Arnold put forth, but there WOULD be the 2/3 support for it IF the National Exec sub-amendment passsed.
Except unfortunately under the NEW rules, the Dan Arnold proposal would come FIRST and people would have to PASS IT with 2/3 in hopes that then everyone would give 2/3 AGAIN to the watered down LPC amendment. Not a very likely proposition.
Except if you read the rules this is EXACTLY how that would play out? Make sense? No I didn't think so.
Under the old rules the LPC sub-amendment would come first and if it got 50% then it would incorporated into Dan's main proposal and then Dan's proposal would surely get the 2/3 needed and Dan Arnold would have brought great progress to the party. Except under the new rules that would never happen....
Won't you stand up to this injustice Dan? Surely you can see it's in your own future interest :).
By
Anonymous, at 12:36 a.m.
There are so many problems with this convention that it's not even funny. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but many in BC are starting to feel as if this convention is being watered down because it's taking place in B.C. The east, especially Quebec, is scared that they are losing their voice at a Vancouver convention and have decided to confine the process as much as possible.
So many people got fucked over by the policy process it's not even funny. On Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the policy with the LEAST AMOUNT OF SUPPORT ON EN FAMILLE GOT PRIORITY from Council of Presidents. You know why? Rumour has it the Quebec Council of Presidents voted as a slate in favour of one policy so that their power was felt at convention. That Human Rights Commission policy, which now has priority, nearly failed on En Famille and generally did terrible in comparison to other policies during that online vote. Am I the only one who predicted that riding president would do no consultation of any kind?
I nearly quit the party after the coup d'etat of the Party by Iggy, but I stayed on in hope for productive policy at the convention. So far, EVERY move by this party has been to water down this thing.
It sickens me that people in this party are so self centered and power hungry that they would go to such ridiculous extents to anger western Liberals. My blood is boiling in rage over nearly every aspect of how this convention has been arranged.
By
Anonymous, at 8:57 a.m.
What's the Human Rights Commission policy that Anon 8:57 is referring to?
By
The Invisible Hand, at 6:12 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home