NDP dumps Weisleder as candidate

Not really surprising. They may not be able to push to remove 'socialist' by a vote but they can use their executive power to remove anyone clearly identified with the label.

What does 'member of a team' mean, exactly, who decides who 'the team' is playing for or what their goal is?   Is there any objective criteria about 'vetting' candidates, or can the exec just reject anyone they don't like now?

We can assume that the approved ONDP candidate in Thornhill will have no strong convictions at all.  That's what being a "team player" means-it's code for standing for nothing.

I believe the people of Ontario made Rae Premier, but whatever.  What again is the criteria for being ruled out as a candidate after one was otherwise fairly elected, are there any written guidelines or is it totally arbitrary?  

Ugh, unless someone comes up with evidence that this isn't what it looks like--I'll say it again: Ugh!

I'm asking a real question here, does the NDP have any objective criteria for removing candidates post-nomination?  

This stinks.

I suspect a lot of people would like that, but it's very unlikely that that will happen.  Party leaderships, like any other leadership groups, tend to hunker down, say nothing, and try to "ride it out" in situations like this.  They already have their bland, convictionless replacement picked and ready to impose.

I hope to see this on the national media tomorrow. Someone has some explaining to do.

This is absolutely outrageous.  The NDP might consider another name change, one that wouldn't even affect their acronym - just change the "New" to "Non".

Bad for democracy but...phew, that was close.

The NDP has to get a handle on the nominations process.  Vetting before the nomination process is a must.

The team in Thornhill seemed to think he was okay.

What is the criteria for dumping candidates anyways? Whether or not  you agree with decisions to dump candidates, any time a candidate is dumped or blocked from receiving the nomination, it creates problems within said party, especially among said candidate's supporters. There should be an explanation process, otherwise people lose trust in that party.

What a load of baloney some of the stuff I am reading here.  For a number of years I was involved in recruiting candidates for the Greens.  Even they had an agreed upon set of values you had to agree to become a candidate.  I've done some reading on this guy and it is pretty clear to me he isn't a team player.  And no a team player does not mean a moderate, or a sell out, or someone with no values- frankly that kind of talk is just stupid and offensive.  A team player is one, for instance, who doesn't go off on some policy of his own, over the democratic wishes of agreed policy.   I think that is very likely outcome reading some of this guys past behaviours.  If he wants to do that he should do the honourable thing and run as an independent that way he could have pursued his own policy agenda to his hearts content.

Say for instance he decides to attack seperate school funding.  That is not NDP policy and it is the members who constantly seem to say no thanks - not going there.  So regardless of how you feel about it, promoting it as NDP policy in an election would be profoundly undemocratic.  That will effect NDP candidates in every riding and prove a huge discraction for the campaign.  Going after that issue, or foreign policy issues, or whatever in a provincial election is not being a "team player."  All a team player means is understanding that in this day and age everything every candidate does or says in every riding effects every other candidate in every other riding.  Why should the NDP candidate in my riding be knocked off stride because someone in Thornhill decides he is going to pursue his own agenda which may not coincide even with current NDP policy.  Anyone decrying this and pretending there may not have been some issues with this guy really isn't thinking things through.

Now I will admitt I can't for the life of me figure out how come his candidacy wasn't stopped before the nomination meeting.  Whomever did that vetting should be getting a talking too.  In some ways once he was allowed to stand it doesn't seem right.  At the same time the party is probably better off then getting to e-7 and he goes off on some tear that is far outside NDP policy and draws the spotlight on himself not the entire team of candidates and volunteers slogging it out in all the other ridings in Ontario.   To be fair to those campaigns, and if he signalled that he was unwilling to stick to NDP policy, then this was probably the right decision, even if it was handled horriably and almost clownishly amatuerly.

Those who are using some of the rhetoric you are I wonder if you could explain to me why the NDP candidate in my riding and in every other riding should have to endure the kind of spolight focus that would likely happen part way through the campaign when this dude uses his candidacy to sharpen some axes he wants to grind.   He gives no indication he understands the impact his actions would have on other candidates.  Because that is what will happen as he clearly, from reading some of his own stuff, will do something like that and it will impact all candidates.  Don't they count or matter?  A great many of those cadidates will be taking an entire month of work and the like, most probably without pay because they believe in the same values as you.   The same goes for the countless volunteers and donors right across the province- who also share your values.  Surely their is some responsibility to them isn't there?

I think they did the right thing. I'm not at liberty to explain. I'm sure you'll understand what I mean.

ETA: Sorry for the dumb attempt at humour. See my post below.

Agreed.  What's really missing here is the explanation, even if it is something as meaningless as "X's policy positions are not in line with the party's" and then voters can make up their minds whether or not this is valid.  Something like this happens each election - to some extent it is unavoidable - but it is manageable. In the case of the ONDP, of the 90-95 ridings without incumbents, 15 or so where the nomination process is a high profile and professional race, and most only have 1-2 people interested in the nomination, so it should not be that hard to vet canadidates in advance - particularly for someone as 'well known' to the party as Barry.

This sucks for internal NDP party democracy but at the same time it also sucks for democracy if Wayne Redekop or Cindy Forster gets derailed because someone runs who is not in line with the core central party positions.  I don't doubt that for a party like the NDP party staff resources are tight but that party needs to figure this stuff out.