Giambrone by-election imbroglio

235 posts / 0 new
Last post
felixr

Giambrone is a lyin' self-aggrandizing fool and I'm disappointed to see Ontario New Democrats promoting him.

Stockholm

felixr wrote:

Giambrone is a lyin' self-aggrandizing fool and I'm disappointed to see Ontario New Democrats promoting him.

the people you must really be dissappointed in are the voters of Scarboroough-Guildwood who voted in such large numbers for him. To get 29% of the vote in a three week campign in a riding with literally no more than a dozen active NDP members is nothing short of remarkable. Whether you like it or not - Adam Giambrone proved to be the best thing that ever happened to the NDP in Scarborough-Guildwood!

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:

felixr wrote:

Giambrone is a lyin' self-aggrandizing fool and I'm disappointed to see Ontario New Democrats promoting him.

the people you must really be dissappointed in are the voters of Scarboroough-Guildwood who voted in such large numbers for him. To get 29% of the vote in a three week campign in a riding with literally no more than a dozen active NDP members is nothing short of remarkable. Whether you like it or not - Adam Giambrone proved to be the best thing that ever happened to the NDP in Scarborough-Guildwood!

Right Stockholm. Winning is everything, it doesn't matter whether or not you do it ethically.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

nicky wrote:

I'm not at all sure that Amarjeet Chhabra would have done better, much less that the party owes her a nomination in a winnable riding. 

Consider:

1. She only got 1.5% of the vote in thmunicipl election, running last out of 9 candidtes

2. She only managed to round up 12 supporters for her nomintion fight.

3. She showed bad judgment taking her complaint to the press and greatly undermining the party's prospects, not just in Guildwood but the other ridings as well.

These things suggest to be that she is not a very promising politician and that her judgment and regard for the party is questionable.

There was a nomination meeting in which it was shown that all eligible members who were presented and allowed to vote. There was a fast turn around time between the resigning MPP and byelection call - 1 week.

Once the vote happen and Adam won, there was a motion to destroy the ballots and show unanimous support. That was the time to voice complaint and not after the fact, especially after one tweeted that you supported the nominated candidate.

If one changed their mind (too late) one should have waited until after the writ/election period because nothing was going to happen to change the outcome during the election.

In reality it was about not about any of this but sabatoging the party. It didn't look good and acted as a drag.

In my mind's eye, without that "airing their grievances" in the press, Adam could have won.

The time to complain was at the time, and not after one says they support the candidate, after voting for unanimous support and destroying the ballots. To me that shows poor political and ethical instincts.

I respect democracy.

It's not fair to accuse Chhambra HERSELF of involvement in a sabotage campaign.  If her own response was slightly delayed, it was probably simply due to the fact that she was in shock as to how this meeting turned out.

It will be a tragedy if the ONDP concludes that bringing in "star candidates" is always the answer to breaking through electoral thresholds, especially since in the vast majority of cases "star candidates" are to the right of anybody else seeking an NDP nomination(not saying that about Giambrone himself, but he's an aberration in that regard and since in most cases in any party "star candidates" have no commitment to anything other than their own egos .  No good can come of establishing the precedent in the NDP at any level that the leadership should be trying to influence candidate selection as Liberal and Conservative leaders do.

And if Giambrone had won, it would have been nothing more than a victory for the party in name.  No one would have been galvanized or inspired by and no great ideas would have spread as a result of it.  It would not have been a victory for the workers, the poor or the dispossesed, none of which are the sort of people "star candidates" ever care about.

Stockholm

A "star candidate" is essentially someone who a long impressive resume who has done a lot in their life. What's not to like about that? a couple of years ago there was an Ontario byelection and the NDP candidate was a person I and many others would consider a "star candidate"...her name was cathy Crowe - a street nurse famous for her work with the homeless. This idea that "star candidates" are ipso-facto on the right wing of the party is ABSURD.

Oh and PS: I understand that tomorrow a major "star candidate" will announce they are running for the NDP nomination in Toronto Centre for the byelection - and that person is likely to be a favourite of many people very much on the left of the party!!

janfromthebruce

I considered Peggy Sattler a star candidate in London West - long term trustee and former chair of a public schoo board and long time NDP member.

I also consider that Giambrone a star candidate who was elected president of the federal NDP, and elected to Toronto City Council and did great things around city and urban transportation.

Both have been long time members of the NDP even when it wasn't politically popular. eg. Giambrone when he was president and willing to take on such a hard position at such a young age.

And I didn't make any accusations about this person but relayed the facts of the matter. Finished with this.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I wasn't saying all "star candidates" are evil.  But there is a big danger for the ONDP, or any left-of-center party, in deciding that "star candidates" are the answer to every problem.

The real path to success is for left-of-center parties to actually put together a radical program(its pointless to be left-of-center and run on a moderate or "centrist" program...that's what center parties are supposed to do)that deals with both the real day-to-day needs of the electorate and the need to offer a real vision for a different way of organizing life for all, a way that leads to a democratic, humane, dignified and creative world that validates all, finds a way to help all to lead the best and most useful life each can lead and excludes none.

This requires bravery in speaking out for change, in making a positive case for real change, and in defending those who work for the world we need on a frequent or even daily basis...that is, an endorsement and celebration of activists and activist culture as valid players in politics and ativism as a valid and worthwhile form of life, just as worthwhile as moneygrubbing if not more so.

Reducing the whold game to "star candidates" works against that and plays to the notion that the left-of-center is and always will be the minority, that it can only come to power by default when voters reject the right of center rather than actually win on its ideas, and that those who devote their lives to working for social justice, workers' rights, feminism, LGBTQ rights, the FN struggle for justice and other issues should be treated with just as much disdain as the "mainstream" treats them.

For the left-of-center party, everything must be a challenge TO the mainstream and a rejection of the constraints it imposes.  To accept its constraints, even temporarily, and to look down, even tactically, on those the "mainstream" looks down on is to check the Left's principles at the doors of power.

the grey

Brian Glennie wrote:

nicky wrote:

As for the evil party establishment denying her the nomination, it turned out, even in the conspiracy theorizing of her proponents, half a dozen  extra votes for Giambrone, all of which were eventually validated. 

Were they? Could you provide a link, Nicky?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/giambrone-stays-as-scarborough-ndp-candidate-after-challenger-backs-off/article13314337/

In telephone interviews, party spokesman Michael Rosenstock confirmed that NDP lawyers had met with Ms. Chhabra’s solicitor Thursday. He said they offered Ms. Chabbra the “information she had asked for,” but that she did not look at it.

[...]

In a later e-mail, he added: “Everyone who voted at the nomination meeting met the requirements of the vote.”

 

Further, Giambrone was co-chair of candidate recruitment for the province for the next general election ... and it was in that context that it appears he encouraged Ms Chhabra to run.  There doesn't appear to be anything known about who else was approached or was considering running in that election.  Then, there was an unexpected by-election called on extremely short notice.  Adam called Amarjeet to let her know that he would be seeking the nomination, quit his post on the candidate search committee, called through the membership, and won the nomination race.  There doesn't appear to be any evidence that the nomination meeting was improperly conducted.  At most, there's a suggestion that the NDP office was behind in updating its paperwork for a riding where no-one knew a by-election was coming.

 

Any suggestion that Giambrone was a weak candidate is thoroughly rebutted by the strong campaign he ran, and the election results.

Unionist

Ken Burch - you're preaching to the unconvertible. "Get elected by hook or by crook, then we'll show 'em how radical we can be!" That's the condescending and self-deluding mantra. It's far from new, and it will never die. The antics of all modern-day NDP provincial governments prove its immortality.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Well, except for the fact that these days, they only seem to do the "Get elected by hook or by crook" part of the phrase...and they don't even seem to be competent at THAT part of it(as hundreds of thousands of crushed supporters of radical change in B.C. can tell us).

 

Brian Glennie

the grey wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:

nicky wrote:

As for the evil party establishment denying her the nomination, it turned out, even in the conspiracy theorizing of her proponents, half a dozen  extra votes for Giambrone, all of which were eventually validated. 

Were they? Could you provide a link, Nicky?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/giambrone-stays-as-scarborough-ndp-candidate-after-challenger-backs-off/article13314337/

In telephone interviews, party spokesman Michael Rosenstock confirmed that NDP lawyers had met with Ms. Chhabra’s solicitor Thursday. He said they offered Ms. Chabbra the “information she had asked for,” but that she did not look at it.

[...]

In a later e-mail, he added: “Everyone who voted at the nomination meeting met the requirements of the vote.”

 

Yeah, I read that article when it came out and I was really disappointed and dissatisfied with the ONDP’s response.

By saying that she wouldn’t even look at the information being provided, the very “information she had asked for,” Rosenstock seems to be implying that Chhabra was behaving irrationally and that doesn’t ring true to me. Remember, she wasn’t alone in her belief that there were serious irregularities around Giambone’s nomination; this was also the (publically stated) view of the Executive of the Riding Association as well as the registration volunteers who were working at the meeting.

If it’s true that she wasn’t interested in seeing the information the Party presented, I’m inclined to believe it was because they weren’t offering what she and her lawyer came to see - proof that Giambone’s votes came from legitimate members.

janfromthebruce

I prefer to deal with the facts rather than infer and guess. I read the article and it's clear that the lawyer said that all people who voted were legitimate members. The lawyer did not imply anything except state the fact that Chhabra did not look at the documentation. Chhabra did not refute that in the article.

Chhabra suggested and stated that the membership list she was provided did not have all the membership contact information.

Sitting on a riding executive, I know that the membership list is often outdated and especially when it's not election time. The renewal and new membership information goes to provincial office and not the local riding association. It takes quite a bit of time for updates to arrive.

With only 18 members of parliament and now 20 members, there isn't a big infrastructure of staff on the NDP payroll.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch - you're preaching to the unconvertible.

They've all had their fill:

 

Geoff

It's over.  Next crisis, please.

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Not quite over.

 

This from The Star this a.m.:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/08/08/ndp_matriarch_quits_pa...

 

 

 

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Not quite over.

 

This from The Star this a.m.:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/08/08/ndp_matriarch_quits_pa...

 

 

 

nicky

There is absolutely nothing new in the Star story which has not previously been covered by them.It eantss to keep the story front and centre.

The Star is so committed to backing the Liberals that it gives more coverage to Giambrone's controversies than it does to the gas plant fiasco.

janfromthebruce

nicky wrote:

There is absolutely nothing new in the Star story which has not previously been covered by them.It eantss to keep the story front and centre.

The Star is so committed to backing the Liberals that it gives more coverage to Giambrone's controversies than it does to the gas plant fiasco.

exactly and Brennan the reporter takes every opportunity to dig dirt on the NDP, keep kicking it in the face and so on. So those subways are they here yet?

You know Wynne keeps talking austerity except when needing to save seats - so we a subway now which we all have to pay for or not - and all that austerity crap be damned. How can any take her seriously when she does this.

Geoff

Yes, the Star digs up any dirt it can on the NDP, but, knowing that, why does the NDP insist on handing the Star so much dirt to work with?  The Liberals got whacked in the by-elections, and Hudak could find himself out of a job.  We therefore should be basking in the glow of these electoral wins, but somehow we have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

When a long-time New Democrat throws in the towel at the age of 90, something's wrong that can't be fixed by blaming others.  We need to admit we made a mistake, and adjust the rules to prevent such a thing from happening again.  

janfromthebruce

Geoff wrote:

Yes, the Star digs up any dirt it can on the NDP, but, knowing that, why does the NDP insist on handing the Star so much dirt to work with?  The Liberals got whacked in the by-elections, and Hudak could find himself out of a job.  We therefore should be basking in the glow of these electoral wins, but somehow we have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

When a long-time New Democrat throws in the towel at the age of 90, something's wrong that can't be fixed by blaming others.  We need to admit we made a mistake, and adjust the rules to prevent such a thing from happening again.  

I think that finding out the answers first before casting blame is the way to go Geoff.

Unionist

Geoff wrote:

When a long-time New Democrat throws in the towel at the age of 90, something's wrong that can't be fixed by blaming others.  We need to admit we made a mistake, and adjust the rules to prevent such a thing from happening again.  

Admitting mistakes is easy for those who have the courage of their convictions - who fight for principles rather than becoming defensive whenever their party label is perceived as being criticized - and for those whose policy and other decisions are made openly, democratically, and transparently.

The Liberals and Conservatives lack all those features, so they can never admit mistakes. Let's hope the NDP learns from them, in the right way.

Thanks for your comment, Geoff.

 

 

Brian Glennie

janfromthebruce wrote:

I prefer to deal with the facts rather than infer and guess. I read the article and it's clear that the lawyer said that all people who voted were legitimate members. The lawyer did not imply anything except state the fact that Chhabra did not look at the documentation.

Maybe you should read it again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/giambrone-stays-as-scarborough-ndp-candidate-after-challenger-backs-off/article13314337/

There is no lawyer quoted in the article.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I think that finding out the answers first before casting blame is the way to go Geoff.

LOL...Yeah, Geoff! Don't be one of those people who just see what they want to see.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think there is enough seeing what you want to see on both sides of this issue.

Stockholm

I think its cool how the Star has decided that all you have to do is be female and live to the age of 90 - and all of a sudden you get appointed a "matriarch" in the headline of a news story!

I look forward to the day i turn 90 when the Star will start to call me a "patriarch"!!

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

The brass apologists are sickening.

Stockholm

OnTheLeft wrote:

The brass apologists are sickening.

Or - they're right and you're wrong

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

The brass apologists are sickening.

Or - they're right and you're wrong

Even if - like a stopped clock - they were "right" this time, I would still agree with the "sickening" characterization. "My party right or wrong" sucks, even when my party is right.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I can't believe that some of the Giambrone supporters are actually using what amounts to an "the end justifies ANY means" defense here.

It'd be one thing to do that if Transit Boy had actually WON in S-G, but for a third-place finish?

As Seinfeld would say:

"Really?...Really?"

Stockholm

29% is an all-time high for the NDP in a barren riding like Scarborough-Guildwood. With another candidate no one had heard of and in a short three week campaign - the NDP would have been lucky to avoid an Etobicoke-Lakeshore style result (7%)

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I think its cool how the Star has decided that all you have to do is be female and live to the age of 90 - and all of a sudden you get appointed a "matriarch" in the headline of a news story!

I look forward to the day i turn 90 when the Star will start to call me a "patriarch"!!

@Stockholm - please do me a favour and stop acting like such a complete and utter dick. If you want to discount 74 years of participation in the CCF/NDP by Ms. Taylor on you are free to do so, but it doesn't give you a pass for acting like a dick. Your snide dismissal of her as being merely* "female and liv[ing] to the age of 90" is probably one of the most arrogant things I have ever read here on babble.

I somehow doubt that the ONDP is all that different from the ANDP... in lean times they have always depended on the efforts of those like Ms. Taylor to keep the riding associations alive. You know, the party members who do the heavy lifting... who keep the associations registered, who serve on the riding executive in non-election years, who book the halls, who keep the membership lists up to date, who are on the phones talking people into taking signs when the elections are actually taking place, who do the work of renewing memberships, who drop the flyers off at voter's homes when the campaign can't afford to pay the post office to deliver them -- you know, the ones who aren't necessarily in up front and center at conventions bloviating into the mikes, being too damn busy organizing the conventions in the first place.

I don't know Ms. Taylor - but I know her counterparts -- to borrow an expression from one of them "those ladies of a certain age" who have never thrown up their hands in dismay and walked away when the election results were disheartening, but have rolled up their sleeves and worked even harder the next time out. Your dickish comment is an insult to all of them.

 

*yeah, you didn't use the word itself, but "all you have to do" has exactly the same connotations.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Stockholm wrote:

29% is an all-time high for the NDP in a barren riding like Scarborough-Guildwood. With another candidate no one had heard of and in a short three week campaign - the NDP would have been lucky to avoid an Etobicoke-Lakeshore style result (7%)

There you have it.

It's all about winning and nothing else.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

bagkitty wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I think its cool how the Star has decided that all you have to do is be female and live to the age of 90 - and all of a sudden you get appointed a "matriarch" in the headline of a news story!

I look forward to the day i turn 90 when the Star will start to call me a "patriarch"!!

@Stockholm - please do me a favour and stop acting like such a complete and utter dick. If you want to discount 74 years of participation in the CCF/NDP by Ms. Taylor on you are free to do so, but it doesn't give you a pass for acting like a dick. Your snide dismissal of her as being merely* "female and liv[ing] to the age of 90" is probably one of the most arrogant things I have ever read here on babble.

I somehow doubt that the ONDP is all that different from the ANDP... in lean times they have always depended on the efforts of those like Ms. Taylor to keep the riding associations alive. You know, the party members who do the heavy lifting... who keep the associations registered, who serve on the riding executive in non-election years, who book the halls, who keep the membership lists up to date, who are on the phones talking people into taking signs when the elections are actually taking place, who do the work of renewing memberships, who drop the flyers off at voter's homes when the campaign can't afford to pay the post office to deliver them -- you know, the ones who aren't necessarily in up front and center at conventions bloviating into the mikes, being too damn busy organizing the conventions in the first place.

I don't know Ms. Taylor - but I know her counterparts -- to borrow an expression from one of them "those ladies of a certain age" who have never thrown up their hands in dismay and walked away when the election results were disheartening, but have rolled up their sleeves and worked even harder the next time out. Your dickish comment is an insult to all of them.

 

*yeah, you didn't use the word itself, but "all you have to do" has exactly the same connotations.

Lord Palmerston

It's not a "barren riding."  Neethan Shan got 27% there in 2007 (under the invisbile man Howard Hampton) and the paper candidate got 27% federally in 2011. 

Stockholm

bagkitty wrote:

@Stockholm - please do me a favour and stop acting like such a complete and utter dick. If you want to discount 74 years of participation in the CCF/NDP by Ms. Taylor on you are free to do so, but it doesn't give you a pass for acting like a dick. Your snide dismissal of her as being merely* "female and liv[ing] to the age of 90" is probably one of the most arrogant things I have ever read here on babble.

According to Merriam-Webster's diction, the definition of the word "matriarch" is "a woman who rules or dominates a family, group, or state; specifically : a mother who is head and ruler of her family and descendants". It doesn't say that a matriarch is a synonym for "old lady". I would be fine if the Star described her as a "stalwart" - which she clearly is - but matriarch is a word I would reserve for a beloved former leader or a party icon (e.g. Agnes MacPhail, Alexa MacDonough, Shirley Douglas or Libby Davies). New Democrats can decide who they consider to be the matriarchs of the party. We don't need the Toronto Star to anoint them for us.

I think the Toronto Star is making an extraordinary effort to be pyromaniacs vis-a-vis the NDP because the success of the NDP is foiling their little plan to promote Liberals. As a result, NDP dissidents get the royal treatment and called "matriarchs" or "the kind of candidate any part would kill to have" etc...while so-called columnists in the Star like Martin Regg Cohn refer to Giambrone as "a womanizer and a liar" - maybe it takes one to know one!!

We saw a similar pattern in the Star a few years ago when Reid Scott (who???) announced he was leaving the NDP and voting for the Liberals under Dion because he liked the Green Shift etc... Scott was a long forgotten NDP MP who served in the House over 40 years ago from 1962 to 1968 and who was in his late 80s and living in a nursing home...yet somehow the Toronto Star created an above the fold front page headline and sent out Susan "dumb as a post" Delacourt to do a full page story about it. Somehow in the weird wonderful world that is the Liberal echo chamber of the Toronto Star when an octogenerian who was an NDP MP 40-odd years ago decides to vote Liberal - it merits a headline comparable to the day planes were highjacked and flown into the World Trade Centre. Sigh.

Stockholm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

It's not a "barren riding."  Neethan Shan got 27% there in 2007 (under the invisbile man Howard Hampton) and the paper candidate got 27% federally in 2011. 

Shan got 21% in 2007

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Hair-splitting, Stocks, and the comparision with the federal result of '11 is telling...only a 2% increase in the NDP vote share from that to the byelection. 

Amartjeet Chhabra would likely have done just as well as Giambrone-she brought youth, energy, and enthusiastic supporters to the contest.  And yes, Giambrone is known, but in Toronto, not Scarborough...most people in Scarborough would never have heard of him.

So you are making an "the end justifies ANY means" argument...and that argument, if accepted, would cause a disastrous change in the ONDP(and the federal party as well).  Yes, you need to win...but you can do that just as effectively by putting together a strong party program as you can through a fixation with making the riding associations nominate self-designated political rock stars as candidates.

The NDP is supposed to be about people and ideas, not celebrity.  Celebrity politics doesn't lead to meaningful social change.  Trudeaumania proved that once and for all.

Stockholm

"Celebrity" is what we call film stars, entertainers, supermodels etc... Giambrone was President of the federal NDP, a two term city councillor and chair of the TTC (and manages to be an anthropologist in his spare time). You can love him or hate him, but he has a very substantive political career and a long resume tnhat goes way beyond any "celebrity"

Stockholm

Ken Burch wrote:

Amartjeet Chhabra would likely have done just as well as Giambrone-she brought youth, energy, and enthusiastic supporters to the contest.

I guess you're right, she did manage to motivate FOURTEEN people to come to the nomination meeting and vote for her. Sounds like a personality cult was in the making!

Lord Palmerston

So will Giambrone run in Scarbroough-Guildwood again, given his incredible showing? 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Thinking that this thread will likely be closed soon, I've started a successor thread, meant to take a different tone about the discussion, here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/lessons-scarbourgh-guildwoodal-ow-decibl...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Amartjeet Chhabra would likely have done just as well as Giambrone-she brought youth, energy, and enthusiastic supporters to the contest.

I guess you're right, she did manage to motivate FOURTEEN people to come to the nomination meeting and vote for her. Sounds like a personality cult was in the making!

Giambrone only managed EIGHTEEN, so his supporters aren't entitled to snipe or smirk on that particular point.  I don't think they usually get big turnouts at nomination meetings in that particular riding.

Stockholm

Ken Burch wrote:

 I don't think they usually get big turnouts at nomination meetings in that particular riding.

Well according to the article, Joy Taylor thinks the 12 people can't have been eligible voters since she had never met them before. I have news for you - in most ridings there are probably hundreds of passive party members who never go to meetings and would not be known to the party executive...but if they do show up to vote for a nomination candidate - their votes are worth just as much as the riding association president's is. I would see it as a positive step for the NDP to have meetings that are large enough that you don't instantly "know" every single person who is there.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

OK, it would be better to have larger turnouts, but I'm not sure it's really fair to have the small turnout for Chhabra really be a knock on her(OR proof that she'd have been a lame candidate).  If the fourteen for her was a small turnout, the eighteen for him wasn't a hell of a lot better.

Chhabra shouldn't be the person at issue here, anyway. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

The simplist shred of evidence here would for someone to find a single voter that was not eligible.  That would not be hard to do.  The nomination meeting sign in sheet would have the names of the questionable members.  Do they live in the constituency and have they been members of the party for more than 30 days.  The first part only requires a map and a phone book, and the second part can be checked through both proper channels and through other methods if trust is an issue.  The lack of anyone doing this from the constituency which apparently is so adamantly opposed to the result makes me wonder if they are just mad over the fact that a bunch of people living in their riding, who made the conscious choice not to be part of a what must be a pretty dormant organization, came in and made the deciding votes in a nomination meeting.

My answer to them is to get off their asses and build your constituency membership, then a half dozen residents whose membership is held in other constituencies will not be key to winning a nomination.

edmundoconnor

It's a hack job. It's of a piece with all those Star passive-aggressive 'reminders' of Layton living in a co-op. The Star always love to pretend it loves progressives, except when it comes into conflict with supporting Liberals. Then it bashes the NDP mercilessly. Yes, Taylor is entitled and welcome to her opinions, but we all know that if happened to be a Liberal, they wouldn't give her the time of day. The paper also omits the fact that the executive party president spoke in support of Chhabra at the meeting, meaning they had to get someone from outside the riding to chair the meeting in order to avoid a conflict of interest.

However. The party has made a pig's ear of the situation. Calling it "an internal party matter" does not even remotely cut it. While it can sting, sunlight is the best disinfectant. It's best to get all the facts out into the open. The party should show Chhabra and the critics the list of party members who voted (since no-one knows how people voted for sure, I wouldn't play guessing games or cast insinuations about that matter). If what the party says is correct, then once the membership status is confirmed, the critics don't have a leg to stand on. Of course it would be several days late and several dollars short, but such a gesture would be welcome. While nobody has been confirmed as voting in an election they weren't eligible for, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Rumours will swirl, and bad blood will brew.

I wouldn't go as far as Stockholm. If Chhabra or anyone else had got the nomination, I think they would have landed in the mid-twenties, barring screw-ups. Giambrone added a few points by inspiring volunteers (he did, I saw it with my own eyes) and with some name recognition. S--G is one the party should push for at the next general election. A couple more heaves with a great candidate, and we're there.

edmundoconnor

It should be noted that in the comments section of the article there is one S--G riding member who has a rather different take on the events in question.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

edmundoconnor wrote:

It's a hack job. It's of a piece with all those Star passive-aggressive 'reminders' of Layton living in a co-op. The Star always love to pretend it loves progressives, except when it comes into conflict with supporting Liberals. Then it bashes the NDP mercilessly. Yes, Taylor is entitled and welcome to her opinions, but we all know that if happened to be a Liberal, they wouldn't give her the time of day. The paper also omits the fact that the executive party president spoke in support of Chhabra at the meeting, meaning they had to get someone from outside the riding to chair the meeting in order to avoid a conflict of interest.

However. The party has made a pig's ear of the situation. Calling it "an internal party matter" does not even remotely cut it. While it can sting, sunlight is the best disinfectant. It's best to get all the facts out into the open. The party should show Chhabra and the critics the list of party members who voted (since no-one knows how people voted for sure, I wouldn't play guessing games or cast insinuations about that matter). If what the party says is correct, then once the membership status is confirmed, the critics don't have a leg to stand on. Of course it would be several days late and several dollars short, but such a gesture would be welcome. While nobody has been confirmed as voting in an election they weren't eligible for, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Rumours will swirl, and bad blood will brew.

I wouldn't go as far as Stockholm. If Chhabra or anyone else had got the nomination, I think they would have landed in the mid-twenties, barring screw-ups. Giambrone added a few points by inspiring volunteers (he did, I saw it with my own eyes) and with some name recognition. S--G is one the party should push for at the next general election. A couple more heaves with a great candidate, and we're there.

If they really think Giambrone is THAT important to the party, they could make him ONDP transit spokesman up until the election and then have him seek the nomination in a safe or target seat in Toronto itself.  Then, they could have him come out to S-G and campaign for Chhabra or whoever else got the nomination there.  That particular act would do a lot to help heal the wounds left by this episode.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And here's the link to the new thread I've started on the issues arising from this, intended to be a longer-term and less harshly-toned discussion of the SG nomination and related themes:

http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/lessons-scarborough-guildwood-low-decibe...

Hope you'll be there, edmund.  I have found your posts quite interesting in this discussion.

adma

Speaking of reeeally old NDPers in this neck of the woods straying--let's not forget the case of Reid Scott

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/07/12/six_decades_later_new_demo...

Stockholm

In the comments section of the Star hatchet job - an NDP member from Scarborough-Guildwood has an interesting perspective:

"By the way, the Star is doing a hatchet job in this report. Surely it is important to note that this woman (Joy Taylor) nominated Chhabra. She also was the membership secretary and came to my door to leave me a letter claiming my membership wasn't current. Why aren't there any interviews with people like me, who are longstanding NDP members who supported Giambrone and are dismayed at the actions of the riding executive? Why doesn't anyone seem to take note that these same people blocked me from the Facebook page for the riding and deleted one of my posts criticizing them? It seems to me they aren't democratic or fair but if the Star took note of these facts they might not have a story critical of the NDP."

"Not really...integrity means that you use internal processes before taking your sour grapes to the press. She nominated Chhabra, the woman who lost to Giambrone. She also came to my house and left me a letter saying my membership wasn't current when it is (I have my 2013 membership card). Couldn't be that the main stream media have their own bias which leads them to colour this story in a way that hurts both Giambrone and the NDP, could it?"

"I live in the riding and if I'd been able to make the meeting he would have had my vote, which I made public before the meeting. Maybe that's why the list showed me as an inactive member when I have my 2013 membership card in my pocket? Why assume that the Party is corrupt when this woman nominated the defeated person in that contest? Oh, right, this is the Liberal Toronto Star and if they can make the NDP look bad...they will."

"This is the same woman who came to my house after I objected to the executive of the riding association going to the press and left me a letter saying my membership wasn't current. I have my 2013 membership card in my pocket. They also blocked me from the Scarborough-Guildwood NDP Facebook page when I posted my concerns with the riding executive's going to the press. There is a problem in Scarborough-Guildwood but from my perspective it's with this woman and her fellow executive members."

I think the Scarborough-Guildwood NDP should have a general meeting in the very near future...in all likelihood there has been a flood of new members over the course of the byelection campaign and they could easily overthrow this apparent clique of malcontents and elect a new executive of constructive team players!

Pages