NDP candidate quits: Endorses Liberal candidate in bid to unseat the Tories 2

83 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
NDP candidate quits: Endorses Liberal candidate in bid to unseat the Tories 2

Continued from here.

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
janfromthebruce

Be interested in where this guys page is and leave a lovely message for him too!

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

Be interested in where this guys page is and leave a lovely message for him too!

It's not that complicated.

[url=http://www.cawlocal2168.com/upc.htm]Here[/url] is Local 2168's website.

His email address is trustee (at) cawlocal2168.com.

And he's the brother on the left.

Please let us know how he responds.

 

Fidel

Dolby should have notified the NDP, and all of the thousands of people in his riding who intended to vote NDP, before announcing it to newsies first. I mean shit or get of the pot, one or the other. Did he suddenly have an epiphany that election campaigns are hard work?

And, why should he think the Liberal Party in phony opposition will actually oppose the Harper regime anytime soon? Actually opposing the ReformaTories is not their style according to the Parliamentary record.

Snert Snert's picture

You cropped out his white flag.

KenS

By the way, it would not surprise me if dolby surfaces as just an out and out member of the Liberal party- possibly as a provincial candidate.

But if he does, that still doesnt put him on a par with Buzz Hargrove.

Buzz gets special attention becaue he hid behind 'strategic voting' when what he was really into was supporting the Liberal party period. And since his value to the Liberal Party was supporting them against the NDP- forget about the strategic voting fig leaf- where it would help the Liberals against the NDP is where he made his public appearances. Even to the point of having his picture taken for the campaign brochure of CAW colleague Peggy Nash's Liberal opponent. [Delicious revenge she beat him.]

And because while doing all that Buzz had the nerve to claim that he was still a Dipper, and to lecture us all on where the party should stand.

 

Ciabatta2

I'm surprised it has taken this long for this to happen.

While all parties have their extreme partisans, lots of NDPers and NDP-inclined  supporters bend-over-backward to maintain the perception that principle is key and take as non-partisan an approach to elections.  (See: Babble.)  I remember getting door-knocked by well-known, visible NDP members in my community, canvassing for Liberals during the last provincial election because the Liberal candidate 'was a real nice lady'.  Okay...?...

So for an NDPer in particular to pull something like this is not surprising.  I don't think he'll be the last this election.

Plus, it takes both ego and principle to run to be a politician.  A move like this, even if well-intentioned, takes a certain amount of arrogance to complete...but the type of arrogance that is too clouded by thoughts of principle.

I don't mean that to sound harsh to the guy - I'm sure he's a good guy and thinks he's doing the right thing - but it's a pretty disrespectful thing to do to your supporters and the electorate.  It's not as if your presence or a party's presence in the election is forcing peopel to vote for them ... if people want to vote Liberal (or whatever party), they can just choose to not vote for you.

Fidel

It's more evidence of the need for electoral reform. He might as well say, Sorry, NDPers, but I'll make good and sure your thousands of votes are cancelled this time around.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote in previous thread

"Sean, I'm going to be unkind:

You obviously spend no time among industrial workers, and you spend no time in a union.

...

So use that word all you like. You've never experienced it in real life. I know you haven't. Because if you had, you wouldn't in your most feverish dreams compare it to changing football teams or political parties.

Sorry to be so harsh."

Unionist-- harsh? How about flat wrong. Since I have already on this site stated I work in a union in conversations with you-- you are calling me a liar.

This is a personal attack and you are wrong.

Yes, I am in a union. Currently.

Yes my employer is a union. Currently.

I work with people in different parties.

That is fine but when they are in one and then use that one's resources to campaign for another that would not be respected.

You miss that point. Clearly you are fully of rhetoric but don't understand loyalty or responsibility. They are quite distinct from differences of opinion. Clearly you can't see the distinction between the two.

Now, more news is out today that this was not a personal decision but a coordinated attack on the NDP by someone pretending to be NDP but was already working with the Liberals planning the bombshell.

Unionist you defend this at the cost of your credibility.

I am losing all respect for you over this. Your equation of personal committment and responsibility with mere differences of opinion in working together make a mockery of everything you say you stand for. Your getting personal here with me -- late at night near the end of a thread no less stinks.

Apparently a whole bunch of Liberals in on the planning of Dolby's show knew-- but nothing for his colleagues.

 

 

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Something smells fishy. Maybe a pay-off.

Unionist

All right. I totally lost it in that other thread last night. I just couldn't believe anyone could call a union activist a "scab" just because they bolt between two parties that I often have trouble distinguishing from each other. I won't change my mind about that.

But my attack on Sean was personal, stupid, deliberately provocative, and (as he correctly points out above) false. I have utmost respect for Sean and his opinions, most of which I share. But that's not even the point. I screwed up badly, and want to retract and apologize to Sean, without reservation, for that.

ETA: Just so everyone knows the stupidity which I committed - and can't delete or edit now that the thread is closed - it was [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-candidate-quits-endorses-l.... I'm sorry.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist -- thank you for that and the very kind personal message.

Since enough of this cannot be deleted-- let me just climb down from my angry remark of losing all respect for you.

I am mystified by the difference of opinion on this but I have not lost respect for you-- and I very much appreciate your words to make this right.

Again thanks

 

ETA I guess it is okay for me to insert a NOT in my own words-- of course I appreciate that it is a political fashion to insert "nots" in previously written statements...

Sean in Ottawa

“I was really worried looking at the polls seeing that (Stephen) Harper could form a majority, so I thought I had to do everything in my power to stop that,” said Dolby, who said he has been wrestling with the decision for about a month.

Dolby said he and his advisers have been meeting with Liberals who convinced him their policies lined up with his values and after one sleepless night he issued a statement to the party, his campaign team and the media all at the same time.

Liberal candidate Graham Warwick said he was surprised Dolby had actually gone and done it, but he had a big hint something was in the works.

According to Warwick, Dolby called him about two weeks ago and asked him to join him at a news conference where he would announce his resignation and throw his support to the Liberals.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/965969--day-of-defec...

Of course the sudden conversion was timed for when Layton was speaking in the 905 -- in Oshawa standing beside CAW... So the NDP message on job creation and corporate taxes was buried. No matter what you think of the parties-- burying a message like that for political games stinks.

The Peggy Nash's rally was also upstaged.

The Liberal comments and talking points that came out immediately were very clean, well-prepared. Looked well prepared in advance.

Now it sure looks like a set-up.

This is very negative not just to principles of decency but also bodes ill at a time when people are walking away from politics.

Engineered, planned, "sincere," surprises are not what social political engagement is about. This whole show was made for TV and timed. I wonder how long ago. We know the Liberal candidate knew 2 weeks ago -- how long did others know? When did the Liberal headquarters know? When did the candidate know? He is lying about the one sleepless night decision  this much we know.

If he chooses to lie about the timing then what are we to believe.

I am back to my earlier comment -- sue him once the campaign ends. Don't let this happen again.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

knownothing wrote:

Something smells fishy. Maybe a pay-off.

Planned yes.

Pay-off -- no evidence or reason to think so.

I think that is an unfair statement and should be retracted actually

Snert Snert's picture

If it's retracted, I'll repost it.

Nobody would give a rat's ass about a similar suggestion pointed at any of the Cons.  Are we just supposed to believe that traitors to the NDP are somehow more honest and ethical than traitors to other parties?

I find it kind of telling that he'd have a series of meetings with the Liberals, and no meetings at all with his own party or his supporters.  How many meetings with the Liberals does a person need in order to drop out of the race and support them?  I'd suggest none at all.  It's not like he needed Liberal permission or something. 

Sean in Ottawa

It is libel. This is about protecting rabble not the guy.

What he did was nasty and stupid but there is no reason to believe it was not on his own updated conviction.

I think he should be sued but we have no informaiton to suggest he was bought-- looks like he was being a jerk for free.

Fidel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Dolby said he and his advisers have been meeting with Liberals ...

In FPTP electioneering terms, it's conspiring with the enemy. The LPC is still our enemy for the duration of the election. Dolby's a traitor and should be treated as one. He's tainted and should be ignored by the party and voters in his riding from now on for having zero integrity. 

And if he's a switch hitter in politics, what kind of union rep is he? Would he also consider siding with company management against fellow workers? Come on! Hit the road, Dolby.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
It is libel. This is about protecting rabble not the guy.

Statements of fact may consititute libel. Wondering aloud about a politician's ethics isn't. If that kind of speculation constituted libel, you'd be able to buy Rabble.ca from a police auction.

Quote:
I think he should be sued but we have no informaiton to suggest he was bought

 

As I wondered above, how many meetings with the Liberals do you need in order to make a "personal decision". Were they just there to hold him and tell him things would be all right? He didn't seem to feel any need for meetings with the NDP, who you would think might have lots more to discuss with him.

 

Boze

Pardon my saying so but what a bunch of NDP hacks.

I have it easy.  My NDP candidate, Michael Crawford, is an excellent candidate and finished 2nd last time, so I have no real decision to make.  I can easily work for his campaign based on "Stop Stephen Harper."  But I look at the "platform" section of his website, and the NDP website, and I can only shake my head because there is nothing to get excited about.  Most of my friends do not vote - half the country will not vote on May 2nd! - and nothing the NDP is selling excites them in the least, except legalizing pot, which is a no-brainer. I don't envy those supporting or working for NDP candidates where the NDP are perrenial third place finishers in an election like this.  I don't agree with the way Dolby went about this - this should be a decision made by a riding assocation - but then again, the absurd party policy of running candidates in every riding and refusing to look at electoral alliances with the Bloc, Greens and Liberals didn't leave him much choice.  The idea that he is somehow disrespecting the voters by trying to deny them the choice to vote NDP is completely absurd.  More perrenial 3rd place finishers from ALL non-Conservative parties should be bowing out of races, especially if the remaining candidate(s) agree to endorse electoral reform!

Most disturbing of all is the idea that some New Democrats appear to have no problem accepting a Conservative majority in exchange for another 10 or 20 seats at the Liberals' expense.  We are one month away from the most radical right-wing government in Canadian history if we don't unseat some Conservative MPs.

KenS

"Some New Democrats" have every opinion and wish under the sun. Do you have any evidence at all that these 'some New Dmocrats' are driving anything.

"Some New Democrats" like the idea of candidates dropping out whether or not there is any basis to the claims for it, that it will do anything except harm the NDP and make even more voters cynical. [The ones that would not ever vote for the other party. Let alone the many who if it comes to a chice between Libs and Cons would prefer the latter.]

"Some New Democrats" have a misplaced hysteria that 4 years of Harper [majority] is substantilly different than another 2 and 1/2 years. The issue is how long they have to govern, not whether or not they have a majority. The solution is unseating them. Stopping them from a majority is a delusion that it will stop, or even mitigate right wing rule.

Boze

As long as they don't have a majority the possibility exists to unseat them.  They were almost replaced by a coalition once before the governor general intervened, remember?  The most important thing is to defeat individual Conservative candidates.  This "hysteria" about a Harper majority is not misplaced at all as anybody who witnessed either the Harris or Campbell regimes should be well aware of.  It is not just about the ability to pass bills, it is about the ability to govern knowing that no matter what you do, the opposition cannot defeat you until the next election.

Fidel

And thanks for that Liberal Party booster spiel. You're pretty good, but I'll still be voting for the proven effective opposition. Smile

thorin_bane

Regardless of Boze rooting for the other conservative party, I have problems with this guy. I was having this conversation yesterday right after I heard and said it smelled like a pile of BS. Unionist-holy cow. Jeff Watson was also a CAW member and ran(and got elected sadly) for the cons in essex, does that also make him on an impregnable rock from criticism? What you did was more partisan than anything you have accused of others here on babble of over the years. Just because someone is in a union it doesn't make them a better person. Sorry I'm not in one, does that make me the enemy by default? Ridiculous. I know you recanted after your usual baiting(which you admit you got intentionally personal on), but jeez maybe step away for a little perspective and stop hating Layton for 3 seconds and see this was an inside job. Regardless of what union he works for.

I would not be surprised to see a nomination for him at a liberal convention. Time will tell. To me the thing that rang hollow was he waited till a few days in and just happen to be on an important day for policy from the NDP. Can someone tell me where in the news cycle this happened. Before or after laytons policy. If it was after, then it is even more suspect. He might have been signalled to do it then. I will agree with stock though. Could have been worse if he waited a little while longer and left the NDP in a bigger lurch. Still 5 weeks left and it will probably be brought up in the debates, but the libs will now face the same questions, so be thankful for small miracles I guess.

Boze

You guys are a joke.  I'm voting and volunteering for Michael Crawford, Jack Layton and the NDP, to unseat my Conservative MP to try to prevent a Conservative majority government.  If I lived elsewhere I might happily vote Bloc or, yes, holding my nose, even Liberal, to defeat a Conservative.  IMO anybody concerned about social justice who doesn't see the danger posed by a Conservative majority, and the differences between Liberals and Conservatives, is either deluding themselves, or is not a real progressive but just an NDP hack.  And no, there is nothing remotely worth getting excited about in the NDP's platform.  I've voted for them every chance I've ever had (that's seven) and come from a long line of socialists and dippers and at this point, they are only worth my time because they have a chance to win.  And that's easy for me to say because I live in Kamloops where they always have a strong showing, so I am never left wondering if my vote was misplaced.  It's not so easy for folks elsewhere, especially people who know nothing about politics or history and look at the Green, Liberal and NDP platforms and can barely detect any difference.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi Boze. I remember you. Don't insult babblers, or you won't be sticking around. This is a final warning. Cheers.

wage zombie

They need to change the wording on this page:

https://secure.ndp.ca/riding/index.php?riding=35020&language=e

Unionist

thorin_bane wrote:
Just because someone is in a union it doesn't make them a better person. Sorry I'm not in one, does that make me the enemy by default?

Yes. Everyone not in a union is the enemy by default.

Quote:
I know you recanted after your usual baiting(which you admit you got intentionally personal on)

Thanks, thorin. I was starting to feel good about the level of discussion here. I did some soul-searching and apologized to Sean, which I think he accepted. Now I'd like to apologize to you for all the usual baiting I've done over the years. I'm not sure if you can see your way clear to forgiving me, but I'd like to cherish that hope.

Quote:
, but jeez maybe step away for a little perspective and stop hating Layton for 3 seconds and see this was an inside job. Regardless of what union he works for.

You know, you're absolutely right. My nonstop hatred for Layton (it keeps me up at night) and my unconditional trust for anyone who calls themselves a union member have totally warped my perspective. I now see it was an inside job - just as you say. Before, I thought that evidence was required. Now I realize it's just my perverse bias and obsession that makes me think that way. Thank you - sincerely.

Quote:
I would not be surprised to see a nomination for him at a liberal convention.

You're right. That slimy scab bastard has nowhere else to go. I see that now. Thanks for switching on my light.

Quote:
Time will tell.

Now I'm not following you. Time flows noiselessly through the ethereal silence of the cosmos. How can time tell? Time can't speak. Perhaps you mean, you can tell time? I can tell tme. Time and again. Now I'm feeling less comfortable with your post.

Quote:
To me the thing that rang hollow

Ok, now I think I'm back on track. Just as a vacuum, which is of course hollow, can somehow ring, so time can speak from the hollow emptiness and vastness of everything. Ok, I'll just have to take it slower... if time will let me, that is.

Quote:
be thankful for small miracles I guess.

I am. I am. Thank you.

 

Vansterdam Kid

Actually I think thorin_bane's point about union partisanship is fair enough and it's one (of many - obviously not all self-inflicted when you have a corporate sphere dedicated to their eradication!) reasons unions have been in decline for a generation or three.

I've worked in union and non-union workplaces for all of my working life (truism!). From both a monetary and a working condition standpoint the union jobs have clearly been superior full stop.

All that being said, the unions have some pretty huge blinders and rose coloured glasses, when it comes to even their own members and addressing their own political relevance. Essentially, for the sake of promoting and protecting the rights of what they see as their "core membership" (i.e. full time employees aged 35-65 who are assumed to be there for life) they make two of their most important constituencies marginalized members by not trying nearly as hard to earn them the same rights as the core members and thus the same level of commitment. These marginal members are essentially part-time workers and young people who are assumed to be out the door in a few years (which is an irrelevant assumption but one that must contribute to the level of disconnect).

Ignore might be a strong word, but I think it's apt, seeing as the level of treatment when it comes to equity and fairness is different between the "core" members and the "marginal" members, even on 'non monetary' things such as seniority accruement, shift allotments and even becoming members of the bargaining committee (thus determining the issues brought up in union-management negotiations) etc are clear and documented (let alone differences in pay and benefits). It leads to a situation where the marginal members have less of a vested interest in the union, since the union doesn't seem to have a vested interest in them, even if the unionized job is clearly superior to what it would be if it wasn't unionized. I think it's a strategic coup on the part of management to have unions that have voted to agree to two-tiered contracts, since it drives a wedge in the union's membership and creates three camps: management/ownership, the core unionized workers and the marginalized unionized workers (let alone the non-unionized workers).

Now all of this is important to electoral politics how, you ask? Well, only in a metaphorical sense. Unions are far from perfect, as the NDP is far from perfect. But unions are far superior to non-unions, as the NDP is far superior to the Liberals (or Bloc, or Greens). While perfection isn't possible since no two sets of world views are alike, for those like Unionist who criticize the NDP for its blinders and rose coloured glasses and emphasize the need for smart strategic voting "to stop" reactionaries (which is a fair enough point that I understand, but simply disagree with), I hope they realize and work on (assuming they have time/energy now a days) the blinders and rose coloured glasses that impede the views of their preferred organizations.

Unionist

Generalize much?

 

Vansterdam Kid

No, don't think so. I'm speaking from my experiences. If it exists in any union local it's not something to cherish and defend.

Unionist

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

No, don't think so. I'm speaking from my experiences. If it exists in any union local it's not something to cherish and defend.

You were talking about just one union local here?

Vansterdam Kid wrote:
All that being said, the unions have some pretty huge blinders and rose coloured glasses, when it comes to even their own members and addressing their own political relevance. Essentially, for the sake of promoting and protecting the rights of what they see as their "core membership" (i.e. full time employees aged 35-65 who are assumed to be there for life) they make two of their most important constituencies marginalized members by not trying nearly as hard to earn them the same rights as the core members and thus the same level of commitment.

I guess I misread it as being a statement about "the unions". Sorry.

 

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

For fucks sake.  SOLIDARITY FOLKS!  I'm not a union member either but lost a job when I refused to let management take advantage of my number crunching to try and crush a union.  My brothers won but the company went under less than 5 years after I left.  We had a good arrangement, the union and I.  We worked together to find ways to keep their workload respectable and increase production through innovation and planning.  However, management wanted me to take it further.

 

The single family owner sold it off through nefarious practice and the new investors went under.  It smelled real fishy.  Likely laundering of money.  (eta:I think they showed up in the States later) Yes, it's easy to see where you can get more value out of your employees.  Where does the opportunity cost and success collide?

 

I'll probably never make as much money again as I did then.  I'm better for it.  I increased production and dropped the costs.  That wasn't enough.  They wanted more blood from the stone.  My numbers proved it was possible.  Only problem was, when I started there, I had to make extra money by working in the hole with the workers on Friday nights, Saturday nights and Sunday. 

 

These guys, much my elder were happy to work with me to improve our production.  We cheered it.  Felt good for the company.  Guys always asked me how we did.  Then, management decided it wasn't enough.  So no, they weren't getting my help anymore. 

 

So, yeah, I don't get political science and books and stuff but I numbers are my thing.  An incremental increase to the NDP would be huge.  Once we move past that we can discuss parties further left to the centre.  (How does left-wing even remain in the vernacular?)  A shift has to happen first.

 

I implore you all to vote NDP, Bloc, Green or IND or further left to send a message.  We will not be ignored.  No staying home, no rejected ballots, no spoiled ballots, no strategic voting.  The NDP has no chance here in Aurora but I'm going to volunteer, hang a sign and vote for them.

 

Change will not come on it's own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

As I guess I established here -- I have contact with more than one union. One thing I can say is they are very different. Not saying one is better than the other, but very different.

I think it is better to try to avoid generalizations as much as possible.

I can also say that unions do some very important and relevant work. Like any organization they can fall in and out of touch and are subject to whatever leadership and management they have-- to rise up or to fall down.

There are a few things you can say though:

I believe their motivations are good; they are more trustworthy than most other organizations; they tend to be more democratic than most; they believe and fight for justice; and they represent working people better than any other organizations.

Yes they are at times out of touch, and yes they make awful mistakes but I'd rather stand with them than any other type of organization.

I think it is this sentiment that you see from time to time here.

Vansterdam Kid

RP - solidarity doesn't equal blind loyalty or not questioning things, even things your allies do, for CAP LOCKS SAKE. Though, as Kim Campbell said, an election is no time to talk about the issues (I'm not being sarcastic - it's a fair enough strategic point, though it obviously wasn't a strategically smart thing to say). Moot point, I basically agree.

Unionist - hmm, maybe it is a generalization seeing as I'm speaking about a local I belonged to previously and another one I belong to now. That said, it seems to be a common problem in other especially private sector unions, like unionized grocery stores and unionized car plants (though the local I'm talking about is actually in the public sector!).

Anyways, enough thread drift for now.

Sean in Ottawa

Wow that verification every time is going to slow down and discourage posts. Can't it wave through the people who have been on this site for years and only spam filter those who just got here in the last couple weeks?

Why punish everyone?

wage zombie

If they are planning to just keep it up for the election period they could add custom code into the module to check the user id and only lauch the spam check if the user id is above a certain level.  It's an easy three line code addition.  The problem is that such code hacks are very difficult to keep track of.  And with development, staging, and production environments and code repositories it's not just a case of changing those lines...it's a case of making sure that other changes in progress don't get accidentally added, etc.

User permissions in drupal are role-based, meaning they can turn off spam filtering for users with a particular role.  That's how the module is designed to work.  I'm sure mods aren't getting the spam filter come up, because they have the moderator role which is likely set to skip the filtering.

If there were a "trusted user" role for long time babblers, it would be trivial to waive spam filtering with trusted users.  While babble would ideally have such a role defined, it's unlikely the devs would be willing to add that role quickly just to make it more convenient for us over the next five weeks--because it's throwaway work.  While it would be of benefit to add such a role, they'd want to think about how it would work, ie. how to determine whether someone is eligible for the trusted user role and how that role will get auto-added to each user.

So the module is designed to be enabled by role, and roles don't currently exist for "long time babblers".  Don't hold your breath.

Devs if you are reading this just patch the module with a small hack, if ($user->uid > 20000) { to enable spam filtering, and then take it out in five weeks when the election is over.  We're dyin here.

Ciabatta2

Boze wrote:

IMO anybody concerned about social justice who doesn't see the danger posed by a Conservative majority, and the differences between Liberals and Conservatives, is either deluding themselves, or is not a real progressive but just an NDP hack.  And no, there is nothing remotely worth getting excited about in the NDP's platform. 

Well, no.  The Liberals had 15 years to do something progressive and what did it result in?  Gay marriage.  Anything else?  Nope, just a litany of slashed programs, financial cuts, bleeding of the progressive tax system (social justice?  WTF) and the situation we're in now where every program is in some sort of crisis mode, losing confidence with the public by the day. 

Yeah, there are a lot of partisan shills on here for both the Libs and the New Dems.  I'll tell ya, I'm happy to vote Liberal, Green, NDP, hell I'd even vote Conservative if they were progressive. I don't give a fig about the colours or the labels.  But only one of those parties are right now.

And that's one of the reasons why the Libs are in a funk.  Part of it is the corruption scandal, but part of it is that they're finding out that it's hard to convince voters to vote for the people who put us in this spot in the first place if there isn't confidence that those poeple is really going to do something to fix it.

If the Libs want to win votes based on being progressive, they should just become more progressive and I think you'd see a pretty walloping defection of New Dems right across the board.  I'm game.  But they're not.

Do you really think that by denying people an option on their voting cards we're going to get a more progressive government?  When people have fewer choices, when the system even represents less of their views, the more people get turned off, and when people don't vote guess what we get - Conservative governments.

That is what Harper is counting on, not voters voting NDP in no-hope ridings - because anyone who cared enough to be strategic would be voting strategically already!!!

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
This "hysteria" about a Harper majority is not misplaced at all as anybody who witnessed either the Harris or Campbell regimes should be well aware of.

 

Well, if we have to avoid the horrors of an old Conservative government, and the horrors of an old Liberal government, it sort of sounds like you're saying "Go vote NDP!"

 

Correct? Or else how will holding my nose and voting Liberal help me ensure no repeats of the Campbell government??

gyor

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Boze wrote:

IMO anybody concerned about social justice who doesn't see the danger posed by a Conservative majority, and the differences between Liberals and Conservatives, is either deluding themselves, or is not a real progressive but just an NDP hack.  And no, there is nothing remotely worth getting excited about in the NDP's platform. 

Well, no.  The Liberals had 15 years to do something progressive and what did it result in?  Gay marriage.  Anything else?  Nope, just a litany of slashed programs, financial cuts, bleeding of the progressive tax system (social justice?  WTF) and the situation we're in now where every program is in some sort of crisis mode, losing confidence with the public by the day. 

Yeah, there are a lot of partisan shills on here for both the Libs and the New Dems.  I'll tell ya, I'm happy to vote Liberal, Green, NDP, hell I'd even vote Conservative if they were progressive. I don't give a fig about the colours or the labels.  But only one of those parties are right now.

And that's one of the reasons why the Libs are in a funk.  Part of it is the corruption scandal, but part of it is that they're finding out that it's hard to convince voters to vote for the people who put us in this spot in the first place if there isn't confidence that those poeple is really going to do something to fix it.

If the Libs want to win votes based on being progressive, they should just become more progressive and I think you'd see a pretty walloping defection of New Dems right across the board.  I'm game.  But they're not.

Do you really think that by denying people an option on their voting cards we're going to get a more progressive government?  When people have fewer choices, when the system even represents less of their views, the more people get turned off, and when people don't vote guess what we get - Conservative governments.

That is what Harper is counting on, not voters voting NDP in no-hope ridings - because anyone who cared enough to be strategic would be voting strategically already!!!

 

Iggy had over 2 years to prove that he was a progressive, but he did not. Look at his voting record at all the regressive steven harper policies he voted for and is on the record supporting, things for which he did not get a single progressive consession.

thorin_bane

Iggy and the leading light liberals even voted againts their own private member bills, most of which where progressive. Well wait they didn't attend or abstained, which in essenence is a vote against.

Boze

Looking at the Liberals' record and the Conservatives' just underscores the difference.  Yes, the Liberals were bad, and yes, the Conservatives are worse, and yes, it can still get much worse.  Well some of us have lived through NDP governments that had many years to be truly progressive and didn't live up to their promises.  There is actually a lot to be proud of about BC's NDP years - relatively speaking - but before the NDP government cut welfare payments and alienated their base the Green party, whatever you think of them, did not exist as a real political force in this province.  Voting is almost always a lesser of evils question anyway and even though the Liberals were not really that much better than the Conservatives, I'm not inclined to believe a federal NDP government would be that much better either, especially since they have seemingly all but abandonned their proud anti-war history.  It would be better, it would be a start, but there is nothing exciting or life-changing for most people in the platform.  So I am voting strategically for the NDP because their candidate has a realistic shot at getting elected and there is nobody who is promising real systemic change who does have a realistic shot.

Centrist

Speaking of a party member/candidate bolting to another party - here's Canada's creme de la creme case of same.

BC's riding of South Surrey-White Rock is represented by the infamous, useless, right-wing, so-con - Russ Hiebert, who claimed the highest MP expenses in Canada one year ago. His riding association and local Con party members are now split - and how split they are in terms of local candidates: Tongue out

Con: Russ Hiebert

Lib: Hardy Staub (former 3-term White Rock mayor who was part of the local Con executive)

Green: Larry Colero (local Con member who has never been an environmentalist)

Christian Heritage Party: Mike Schouten (local Con member who despises Hiebert)

Ind: Aart Looye (local Con member and part of executive who despises Heibert)

So we have 5 Con party members now running for different parties and four of them are running in order to defeat disgraced Hiebert.

And the only REAL opposition candidate in the riding is progressive New Democrat Susan Keeping who has won the YWCA's Women of Distinction Award!

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I believe the correct term is "class traitor."

Just like Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove (TM).

Unionist

Malcolm wrote:

I believe the correct term is "class traitor."

Just like Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove (TM).

Yes, good solid term. But I think you mean "party traitor".

I think a better use of "class traitor" would be (say) for premiers who are swept into provincial government riding on the hopes, dreams, organizational work, and donations of workers - and once elected, turn on their benefactors, tear up their collective agreements, and ban their strikes.

I won't bother providing a list, unless anyone really can't think of the names. Just as a hint, though, Malcolm's province is still in the lead.

KenS

Terms I think apply

not trustworthy

diletante

cavalier

fool

 

Unionist

What terrible things to say about Blakeney, Romanow, and Calvert, Ken! Really!

thorin_bane

Hargrove is an Jack Hole. Lewenza Is OK but basil has always been a goof. I was here when he should have been giving support to Jack Layton in Windsor. Instead he gave support to Martin in an NDP riding. What is strategic about asking NDP to vote liberal in a riding the ndp already had? Sell out.

Fidel

I've stopped listening to everything Hargrove has to say. He's a living oxymoron.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Surprised that even Unionist would launch a personal attack against Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd - and all to defend the greatest quisling of thhem all, Prominent Liberal Party Hack Basil Hargrove (TM).

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Unionist wrote:

Yes, good solid term. But I think you mean "party traitor".

I think a better use of "class traitor" would be (say) for premiers who are swept into provincial government riding on the hopes, dreams, organizational work, and donations of workers - and once elected, turn on their benefactors, tear up their collective agreements, and ban their strikes.

I won't bother providing a list, unless anyone really can't think of the names. Just as a hint, though, Malcolm's province is still in the lead.

And then we had the "class traitor" turned "party traitor" in a certain province that starts with the letter "O".

In any case in Elgin-Middlesex-London a reasonable argument can be made that the only way to defeat a Reformatory is to combine votes on the centre/left.   Here are the past election results from Wikipedia.

Many folks on the left of the spectrum view the Harper government as fundamentally dangerous to this country.   The Liberals are simply disgusting.

So if you have a choice between a government that is dangerous and a government that is disgusting but will have to rely on generally good folks in the NDP and BQ, I think I like the second choice better.

In fact I saw a poll come out that said that if we ended up in a coaltion situation that 59% of folks would prefer that Layton became prime minister instead of Iggy.

Now I don't agree with Ryan Dolby's actions in this situation but I'm not going to denounce him.   This is obviously someone who has spent his life defending the working class in an area that's turning into a rust belt.

And whatever the results of this election I think we're going to need to have some long term discussions on the future of partisan politics in Canada.

I think it's fair to say that about 60% of the electorate holds centre to left-wing views.    How do we make sure that Canada's government represents those views instead of the views of the minority 40%?

The Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens are not going to merge, nor are they going to go away as distinct and separate parties.   But given our FPTP electoral system, there is going to have to be some form of electoral cooperation in future or else we're going to have a very dangerous government in power with some very authoritarian tendencies.

How that happens I don't pretend to have all of the answers.   But it could be that in certain constituencies the parties agree to a "truce" of sorts and come behind a single candidate.   In other areas they compete.

This is the kind of discussion that would be interesting to have on a forum like babble.

 

 

janfromthebruce

Okay, so we have Iggy who prior to finding "campaign from the left religion", the liberal party policies are not different from the Conservatives, and in which Hebert in the TorStar stated upfront. And all the things they are presently, again campaigning on are bullshit that they trot out each election. Iggy knows that most people will vote for this false thing and oh, it's not about them getting into power but ensuring they can fight another day and the NDP lose here.

 

This is so classic liberal I can't believe that people on rabble are believing it. They have trotted out the same meme forever. So yeah vote liberal for Iggy who enabled Bush in torture. So no, the liberals are not progressive in anyway but right vote for the empirer who has no clothes because you want to play Mr. Dressup! geez

Pages