NDP dumps Weisleder as candidate

or someone who wasn't willing to act as a member of a team and was only there to forward a personal agenda.   That is also a distinct possibility.

I don't know, last time a prominent NDPer was more interested in forwarding a personal agenda than the team, they made him provincial leader and Premier.

Or 'team player.' Could be interchangeable with 'moderate.'

Anybody know which officially approved eunoch will now be imposed in Thornhill?  Apparently, anyone who could actually inspire enthusiasm and get new people to join the party and work for it is unacceptable.  Can't actually take the risk of WINNING the seat, you know.

They won't reveal their criteria publicly, Erik.  That would be giving up too much power.

Perhaps, but I'd like to see what if anything the party has to say about it.  Hopefully something more than some guy who's too leftwing and too outspoken for our comfort level was nominated, can't have that.

Well let's see what if anything is said about this.  If nothing then I'll just have to assume that's all it is, another arbitrary power play by a backwards executive that only wants our money and votes.  

(re: Erik's post #16)Probably a fair assumption.  And so much for any chance of actually TAKING Thornhill.  That's gone forever, now.  And it's likely that the ONDP vote will drop in a lot of places as a result of this.  There's no way the party will still be able to inspire any enthusiasm in anyone about this campaign.  That's what always happens when you insist that all the candidates be "safe"-you lose.

Yeah really. What utter bullshit. It would cost the party my vote if I had one.

So it goes. Taking the socialist out of the NDP 

There had better be an extremely good explanation for this.

That might be a good start.  Having something that people can refer too.  The problem is the candidate questionaires are likely private documents and it might violate the person's privacy rights. It is kind of a fine line.  But given this and a couple of other incidents it would likely be a good idea for the NDP to codify some of this, asuming it isn't actually and we just don't know that.  Not being a member I am not sure whether it is or not. 

Nope, afraid I don't.

I really dislike our electoral system. Barry's a good man with heart in the left place.

Ok, I apologize. I was trying to be sarcastic, but I obviously failed. I have no idea why they dumped Barry - other than the very likely reasons already stated in this thread.

Maybe they're just trying to prove their evenhandedness - you know, dump Buzz, dump Barry, one right and one left neutralize each other? Chemistry? Math?

Whoops, there I go again.

The only thing surprising about this story is that the party brass didn't even bother to think up an excuse.  That's just sloppy.

That said, I think we can learn a few things about this episode.

I think it is curious that people on the left are told to not be "sectarian" and join the NDP and try to persuade people of your ideas and push it to the left.  Barry Weisleder has been doing that for years, and look at how he is treated in this situation - for the crime of doing what folks from the the NDP constantly tell leftie activists to do.

I think this also indicates that for radicals, NDP entryism, and trying to worm your way into the inner workings of the party, isn't a good tactic.  There's nothing for us in the NDP - just look at the repeated ham-fisted attempts to quash radical ideas in the party - this, the TYND fiasco, the Waffle, hell, off the top of my head, I can think of MLAs who were expelled from the party for opposing NATO in 1949.

I think Barry would have been better off had he spend the last 43 years doing something more productive than this.

Unbelievable.  What an astonishingly cynical move. Not even an excuse. Hello new LPC. Your table is ready, sir.

What were Barry's chances of be elected in Thornhill?

I don't like the Canadian political party culture. Often it's almost like there are only 3 or 4 or 5 individuals in the legislature with 157 and 102 and 37 and 4 and 1 vote. It's not very healthy for democracy. I'd like for there to be such a thing as internal party dissent. Like Galloway in Labour or Svend in the federal NDP way back. 

The problem is, with today's wildly oversensationalizing news media, every single party division is chipped and chipped and chipped away at. Today, when a party doesn't present a unified front, it's left at a huge disadvantage. Invariably, what was going to happen was that Barry was going to make some statements, knowing him, many statements to the left of the platform of the NDP and Horwath. The media would pounce on top of that, a spat ensues, and the NDP campaign is wrecked. In that sense, I can see the logic behind the provincial NDP's decision. 

Still ugly though.

Disgraceful!

Maybe Barry would stand a better chance, and the NDP as well, in another riding.  Or perhaps even choose not to allocate precious resources to an unwinnable riding. The NDP has all kinds of good candidates who live in conservative ridings. I'm thinking of Henry Sader in Ottawa who ran federally a number of times. The phony majority have turned their backs on some excellent choices before. 

Yes the bad electoral system is at play here I'm afraid. Not only does where you live in Canada determine whether your vote counts or not, it dictates party strategies at election time. The electoral system stinks to high heaven, but we still have to play and strategize according to the rotten system.

I'm not trying to be argumentative either just trying to understand what's going on same as anyone. The NDP has always had the inch-wide mile deep support. It's time to expand, and if we want more competitive elections with good people standing a chance of election, then we have to fight and win the battle for democracy. Inch wide mile deep was nice for the era that I grew up, but I suppose the NDP believes we have to actually win some elections in order to help the people who need it. Standing on principles is fine, but it sometimes doesn't have any real effect on child poverty, or homelessness, skyrocketing tuition fees, or manic unemployment rates due to bad governance. 

Sometimes doing things by the book doesn't get the job done. And this rotten electoral system has worked against democracy for too long in this country. I think it's time to listen to what the "specialists" have to say about getting the job done. This is a totally unrelated quote from a Hollywood film that is mostly nothing to do with the thread topic, but I know some of you lefties will recognize it. And there really are human rights and women's being violated in provinces like Ontario according to various United Nations task forces on various issues.

Ward: Just don't lose sight of whose rights are being violated!
Anderson: Don't put me on your perch, Mr. Ward.
Ward: Don't drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson!
Anderson: These people are crawling out of the SEWER, MR. WARD! Maybe the gutter's where we outta be!

In the case of Etobicoke North, Caissa, that's open to interpretation. Diana Andrews brought along "supporters" of her cause to the nomination meeting who may or may not have been members of the NDP. If they were not members, they could complain all they like, but the NDP didn't have to listen. Since we only know that votes were cast in favour of the nominated candidate, the suggestion that the party rejected the democratic will of the riding association in Etobicoke North lacks hard evidence in terms of votes cast.* In Thornhill, such evidence exists of the party overriding the wishes of the riding association.

I have said this before: the ONDP may or may not be doing the right thing in such actions, but they are doing an absolutely terrible job of explaining their reasons to the membership.

* In such cases, I would change the rules such that in an acclamation, the members have the option to reject the acclaimed candidate. Those that choose to reject the acclaimed candidate do so in the full knowledge that the candidate search has to be started from scratch, which, if the election is imminent, may not be the most considered process in the world. I would also encourage those members who voted against said candidate to join the new search committee, since they obviously have a deep interest in who the riding association chooses as a candidate.

People are not making the necessary distinction between being a memeber, even a gadfly member, and being a candidate.  Those are two completely different roles.  As a candidate you can't freelance.  You aren't there to push the party on a particular issue in the midst of a campaign.  You run on the party platform.  That is the current agreed upon policy, not where you want it to go.  If you want to push something you work as a member of the team to get elected and then push from there. Or you don't try to be a candidate and you push policy changes in other ways.  You don't critique party policy in the middle of a campaign.  It seems pretty likely that this fellow would not be willing to do support other campaigns by working with the platform.  

It is simply full of crap to suggest this has anything to do with moving the party right, left, up down, or sideways.  It is about the role and responsibility of a candidate.  Likelihood of winning also has nothing to do with it.  Someone who goes deep into their own personal agenda effects every campaign in every riding.   I can't beleive the lack of concern that people have for all the other candidates and volunteers out there.  But I guess if you have an axe to grind, that's all that matters.

I agree wtih edmundoconnor though.  The NDP has done a terrible job in dealing with these issues in terms of explanations and clarity.  

At least we can be certain you are only here to needle, not contribute in anyway.  So at least we have something to warm our hearts as fall starts to settle in.

I occasionally have a thin slice of baloney on rye with a bit of mustard. When I was busy visiting folks before my enforced retirement, I would join them for a meal, and sometimes it would be fried baloney and eggs - baloney is a low cost way to put meat on the plate, more so if you are living on a low fixed income. I don't decry baloney or even joke about it, because it is a staple for so many. Both of the two stores in this tiny community of 100 on the isolated Quebec coast order two rolls of baloney every month - that gives an idea of how essential it is.

Actually, it is. The party's been pulling this kind of bullshit for the last 50 years, and it stinks to high heaven.

They talk about democracy, but they don't really mean it.

Maybe Weisleder will get the message from this and leave the NDP and run for the Socialist Party of Ontario.

He was a big gaffe waiting to happen, no doubt it was felt it was better to take a smaller hit now.

I'm not sure that there is even a "smaller hit" of any kind. So far this whole Weisleder caper hasn't been a story in the MSM - but if it did become a story - it would probably actually work to Andrea Horwath's advantage in terms of positioning herself as a moderate, mainstream progressive alternative to McGuinty. The NDP probably looks good for rejecting the candidacy of someone who is so clearly wayyyyy out of the mainstream. If he was the candidate you can be sure that the Liberals and Tories would dust off an inch thick file folder of "extreme" past statements by Weisleder that are completely out of synch with the party platform.

So rather than a decision being based on things he has done - being vetted before winning the nomination - he's tossed for things he might do.  That seems about right.

life, this was out of line. Please refrain from attacking people who disagree with you.

Unionist,

I don't always agree with your opinions, but I truely treasure your sense of humour.

Update

excerpt:

Barry Weisleder, whose Thornhill candidacy was rescinded by provincial party officials, said his riding association is "livid" and an appeal is under way.

(it's a much longer story)

Which message? the message that riding associations have no right to choose their own candidates any more?  Now there going to have a bland mushburger in his place, a candidate that no one will even be aware of.  But he'll be "safe", so it won't matter that he'll stand for nothing.  "Safety" is all that matters.

I get that for whatever reason this upsets you and you seem to take it personally.  Do you think though you could refrain from attacking the other candidate, who has a clear record of serving people and for that matter the NDP from what I can see.  If you have a disagreement, perhaps you should focus your upset somewhere other than on them.  Clearly this was handled badly, with the okay to run, and then the taking it back.   But attacking someone who also ran for the nomination shows a considerable lack of class.

In my experience there is good indicators that this was a major gaffe waiting to happen.  So the right decision was probably made, even if it was done poorly, sloppily and feels rather amatuerish.

Is her employer an affiliate?  Certainly if a candidate had an outstanding suit against the party itself that would bar them from being a candidate.  Having an outstanding suit against an affiliate would be a vey grey area which is why I am wondering. 

There is nothing wrong with being critical of Israeli government policies or even of being critical of the idea of Zionism (not that an Ontario provincial election would be the time or the place for such a debate). I also agree that "hard-assed Zionists" in Thornhill are unlikely to vote NDP. BUT, I can assure you that having screaming newspaper headlines about an NDP candidate who has written that "Israel is a death trap for Jews" (on top of about a zillion other equally inflammatory statements) would not just alienate the already alienated. It would make the party look like a repository of kooks and crackpots and would confirm every negative steroetype there is about the NDP in the popular imagination.  

Lagatta, I of course agree with your post entirely (and happy to see you here!), but I think Caissa has long-standing problems with quoting excerpts, so it may have appeared that it was Caissa talking in that post where it was in fact the article he was citing. I think Caissa is very aware of the slander that tries to identify all Jews with support for Israel.

I am referring to the NDP overall, federal and provincial. And I have no doubt that the move to remove 'socialist' would have been successful had there been no Socialist Caucus. It just shows that they can do on thing but they cannot stop executives from doing the other things, removing the 'entryists.' I have never had any delusions or illusions about the NDP, ever.

Ok you keep beating the 'team player' drum bit but what did he do exactly that indicated he was already falling out of place for the provinical election; was this about something that he specifically did or was this just about who he has always been? Am I missing something here that you have already pointed to as act of 'not being a team player?'

It is curious that the party would rescind the nomination considering there is a vetting process. I highly doubt the people doing the vetting weren't already familiar with Barry, given he's at practically every party event. That leads me to think that either (a) some kind of communication happened between Barry and head office that led to the action, or (b) that the nomination process was bogus from the get-go, perhaps being scheduled and having sent out a mailing before the vetting process was finished. This is entire speculation, mind you, so no disrespect intended to the riding association in Thornhill (though I'd be quite surprised if there was much of an organization on the ground there). Having been on riding association boards and EPC's, however, I know that compliance with provincial procedure is based entirely on the good-will of the riding association. Maybe it's not central office that's doing the manoeuvring? 

You don't see ANY irony in your saying I shouldn't say anything negative about the other candidate(who is probably ok, in a bland, mundane, passionless sort of way)when you've been demonizing Barry Weisleder this whole thread? 

You seem to hold the view that sometimes, internal party democracy just doesn't matter-that, in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary, hard-line control by a party leadership can still produce genuinely radical results.  Why?  How can a party with only limited internal democracy be radical in any meaningful sense?

What good ever comes from the suits and the 'crats ever overruling the activists?  Has that ever really helped in the building of any form of left politics?

I doubt that Barry will run for the SPO. Michael Laxer has indicated on Facebook that he and Barry have some areas of (unspecified) disagreement. Not to say that Laxer's views are the SPO's views, but they are unlikely to be wildly divergent.

Some have suggested that Weisleder should have been blocked from running in the first place if he was vetted properly. That doesn't work, because then people get angry about not having had a fair chance. If a party has to remove a candidate, whether they do so before or after the nomination, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. There is simply no good way around this.

The reasoning is also a delicate matter. In some cases, for instance Julian West in 2008 or Andre Forbes in 2011, the reason is pretty obvious, and no self-respecting party would want either one as candidates. But if the reasoning is not obvious to those outside, I imagine the details of those discussions would be subject to confidentiality constrants. It is like when someone is fired from a job, the employer is bound by confidentiality to not speak about it, to not "trash" the fired worker.

Of course, none of this is to say that this was a good decision anyways, and seeing things with nominations here in Manitoba in our election and with my natural inclination to question those in authority, I certainly sympathize with those who have raised concerns. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if we will ever know fully. What I will say is that any time a candidate is blocked either before or after the nomination, it will cause divisions, and blocking candidates should only be done if the party has a rock-solid good reason to do so.

So why doesn't the NDP save some time and just have all of their candidates vetted by the National Post and Sun Media editorial boards?

Oh my god, this is hysterical, coming from you.  In the other thread about Diana Andrews, you attacked her character while admitting you don't even know her, simply based on her "action" of standing up for herself at a nomination meeting where she was being disqualified for undisclosed reasons, in an undemocratic fashion.

And in this thread, even though you've never been a member of the NDP, don't know anyone involved, you're attacking Weisleder and lauding the party for turfing him from a democratically-won candidacy for pretty much no reason whatsoever.  You know nothing about what happened, nothing about what Barry agreed to say or not say during the campaign - nothing, because you're not involved in the NDP, claim to know nothing about the NDP except that you like your candidate.

On the other hand, I've talked to people involved.  My understanding is that Barry went through an extensive vetting process BEFORE the nomination.  He was approved.  He talked to officials at the party beforehand and came to agreements with them about his candidacy and they approved it.  They probably just figured he wouldn't win.

And once he won, fair and square, they're rescinding it.  Instead of running a candidate they like better and bringing up whatever they might have against him AT THE NOMINATION MEETING, you know, like a democratic party would, and letting people in the riding decide, they can him after he wins.

But you know what?  I'm going to call you on all your claims you're making in this thread, from your position of not knowing anyone involved, never having been a member, [insert other standard disclaimers here].

A personal attack against the candidate from the start of the thread with no substantiation whatsoever.  You don't know anyone involved?  Substantiate this claim or withdraw it.  Or better yet, show me a candidate for any party who is running for purely altruistic reasons and stands to gain absolutely nothing, nothing, I tell you! from the race, including not putting forward ideas they personally believe in.

Substantiate this claim.  Prove it.  I know, you aren't a member of the NDP, never been a member, gosh, never even heard of the NDP, can't even spell it, etc. and so forth.  But I'd like to know what you've read.  Post it here, or withdraw the comment.

But you know, even if you do find something, even if he's not much of a team player, so what?  Wow, a politician who isn't a "team player", I'm sure the NDP has never heard of those before, never ran one in their lives.  Check out this example of "team playing".  At least Weisleder is enough of a team player to pull together enough people to have the largest turnout ever in the riding association in Thornhill from what I've heard, and they voted for him to be the candidate.  Not bad.  The other perennial candidate guy, who I'm sure is a lovely person and all, didn't seem able to do that, did he?

What past behaviours?  Working within the party as a member for decades to try to bring about change?  The thing everyone tells people on the left of the party, especially those of us who have left in frustration, to do?  Being a party member doesn't mean checking your brain at the door and following the leader.  It means bringing forth your ideas and trying to get support for them.

You mentioned separate school funding.  Lots of members of the NDP don't like separate school funding.  Michael Prue, a sitting MPP, ran for the leadership of the ONDP and made it part of his leadership campaign.

So tell me about "some policy of his own" that he "goes off on".  Tell me all about what you know he's going to do as a candidate, despite having no idea what conversations he had with the party before running for the nomination and what he agreed to discuss as a candidate.  Why you think he will be any more likely to make an issue of policy disagreements with the party during the campaign than any other candidate (like Michael Prue).  Tell me all about it, Life, based on your vast research on this guy.  And maybe quote your sources.

a) You have no idea what Weisleder was planning to do in his campaign.  I, on the other hand, having talked to those involved, do, so I'm going to tell you.  He was planning to run on the campaign platform and not focus on issues of policy disagreement with the party during the campaign, just like any other candidate.  And he told the ONDP that, and they approved him to run based on that.

b) Why? Because he was democratically elected to run and has done nothing to warrant his removal as a candidate.  Don't like it?  Run someone you like better, and explain to the members in that riding why Weisleder would be a poor candidate and your candidate would be better. 

-----------------------

You probably don't like this tone I'm taking in my post, do you, Life?  Probably think I'm being rather aggressive? 

I am mirroring the tone you've been using throughout this thread, and in others too.  From the start in this thread, you're labelling people's posts as "full of crap", a "load of baloney" calling someone "an ass", saying you "can't believe the lack of concern" on the part of people who disagree with you on this, etc.  And then, you start calling other people on their manners?

It's rich.  Look in the mirror.  Look at the tone you're contributing.  Take some responsibility.

Maybe it wasn't so fair and square - if, for example, a whole bunch of Socialist Caucus people transferred their memberships to Thornhill for the purpose of the nomination, that's a bit iffy. I don't know if that happened but it could be an explanation.

Maybe you have NO PROOF of that.  And maybe it's totally irresponsible and demagogic of you to spread rumors like that.  How can you put things like that out there with that smug "we all know what this is really about" tone that you seem to take about this when you're really pretty much, well, something that rhymes with "mullspitting".  I don't know it that happened but it could be an explanation.

(see...other people can play that game too).

Also, how do you prove why somebody transferred their nomination to a new riding association?  Isn't trying to support a particular candidacy for a nomination the main reason ANYONE, including "social democrats" like yourself, might do something like that?  And how do you know that there wasn't a large Socialist Caucus group in Thornhill that simply hadn't joined the riding association yet OR(for that matter)how do you know that Weisleder didn't actually manage to win the nomination fair and square, by persuading the majority of the riding association that he might actually be the best candidate for that riding ON THE MERITS?

Christ...to here some people in this thread, you'd think the Thornhill ONDP had nominated a cross between Carrot Top, Dr Jeckyll and Pol Pot.

Or maybe Barry was a better candidate and more people voted for him.

I sometimes think half my generation are pod people from outer space. 

Anyhow, the fact the NDP favourite is a perennial loser could have had something to do with it too, and the fact that it's presently an NDP wasteland just makes the whole excercise that much more pointless and dumb.

Can I get an "Aliens For Weisleder" button?

Ha!  I'd buy a few, even wear one to work... (guaranted to get a few interesting queries and lots of strange looks)

Which just goes to show there are appropriate parties to suit everyone. If separatism is all the rage in Quebec, then those parties should do well. Luck to them.

I am still waiting for Life, ... to come up with the list of the political/thought crimes BW is guilty of. What exactly has Weisleder done that makes him 'not a team player' for this election? Particulars please.

******

It is interesting that this has become one of the more livelier threads btw.