babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
You know, genstrike is right. The Manitoba NDP has been taking its base for granted for a long time. Reading these threads, the results, and the comments on public news boards suggesting that "it's time for the NDP to go," I'm starting to have a sense of malaise about the whole thing. Even if the NDP manages to win a majority next year, there's no way it will govern past 2015. For many people in the province, rather than seeing the NDP as representing the "little guy," they see the party as just part of the backroom political apparatus that only cares about winning elections and will say anything to do so. (Average voter turnouts under this government are lower than they have been before.)
Those in charge of the NDP have devoted a great deal of energy to staying in control and silencing dissent. I can't help but think that if a fraction of that energy was devoted to fighting our real opponents, the NDP would not only be in government, but would own City Hall and a majority of the federal seats in Manitoba.
I DO want the electorate deciding things. That's why I think that people on the left running municipally need to make a decision. EITHER simply run as an independent progressive candidate with no official ties to any party (though they may be known to be an NDP supporter) OR decalre that they want an NDP endorsement and that they will not run unless they get it one. One or the other - not BOTH!
I too am glad Harvey Smith won. There was a lot of whispering by NDP robots about how he was not in full capacity. When you see him around town his physical gate has no doubt slowed down but I have not heard him say anything that would indicate a diminshed physical capacity.
The reality is that, counter to the nonsense that the Winnipeg Citizen's Coalition promoted, you have to make issues about the city what any election is about. Winnipeg is too wide. Way too wide especially when oil prices could spike really, really high at any moment and there is no reason to assume they will go down in any long-term sense. Somehow, some group has to make an understandable case for why Winnipeg is too wide and why urban sprawl is a problem. Having a big documetary series on the CBC local 20 years ago and a big women's forum caucas on it 15 years ago hardly constitues staying on message.
Maybe we should have had a fringe candidate to just kept on saying "Winnipeg is too damn wide" that way they had in NY state but use that as the starting point for something else.
If a city is already "too wide" what is the remedy? Do you propose demolishing entire suburbs and moving all their inhabitants to high density housing projects close to the city centre?
Whoa! Straw man. No, but stop its current growth, force the issue of why the city and the province refuse to set limits.
Do you deny Stockholm that Winnipeg is too wide? Do you deny that further suburbs will cost the city per lot far beyond what the city will tax them for? Again when Linden Woods first developed the lots were costing the city some $40 000 per lot. No doubt that has gone down but not enough to be covered by whatever the lot owners are paying now. Urban sprawl is unstainable. And again, we are facing a future of increasing energy costs; very soon, depending on world events, it will be come too costly to commute by car. Yet our city is planned as if oil will continue to be cheap.
I don't live in Winnipeg and I can't say if its "too wide" (or too tall!), but my point is that the urban sprawl has already happened and Winnipeg is not growing much compared to other Canadian cities - so there isn't that much more new sprawl to contain. Unfortunately, the bad decisions that led to all this sprawl happened 30 years ago - and now its too late to do much about it - unless you like my idea above.
Aside from the fact that in this case it was the party that left the incumbent candidate - Smith - I fail to see how compelling someone to not put his or her name on the ballot somehow offers a better or more open choice to the electorate. Trying to cash in on Smith's hard work and reputation and give him the heave-ho was bad enough. Making prospective candidates sign a non-compete waiver like that would be far sleazier, and in my opinion dig themselves an even deeper hole in the eyes of the public.
In case the results of that specific vote didn't make it clear, the people aren't stupid all of the time.
Stockholm, it is still continuing. If the sprawl were stopped twenty years ago, you could have a viable downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods like the North End and EK and West Broadway wouldn't look like a bomb hit them.
Yes, but the sprawl was NOT stopped twenty years ago - and now no one will ever be able to put the toothpaste back into the toothpaste tube. The damage has been done.
"Making prospective candidates sign a non-compete waiver like that would be far sleazier, and in my opinion dig themselves an even deeper hole in the eyes of the public."
In that case, no one is forcing anyone to compete for the NDP endorsement in the first place. Maybe Harvey Smith should have simply refused to even dignify the process of an NDP endorsement meeting and said right off the bat that he would not accept an endorsement and would run no matter what. What i object to is TAKING PART in a process and then refusing to abide by the results.
Actually, it seems like every few years a new sprawling suburb is being developed. Waverley West and Sage Creek being just two which come to mind. Maybe you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, but it might be a good idea to stop squeezing it.
In what way did he not abide by the results?
They removed their support for him and he did not run as their candidate; Once they severed their political relationship with him it seems to me he is free to do what he pleases. There is nothing in the nomination process that says a person who is turned down for a nomination can't run as an independent.
I didn't mind it when it was MP Bill Casey and the conservatives, and there is nothing wrong with it in this case either. In fact, if anyone is dealing in bad faith here, it is the party.
As far as i know, Smith made an effort to retain the NDP endorsement. I think that he should have withdrawn his name from consideration by the NDP in advance of the meeting and declared that he would go it alone. The moment that he agreed to let his name be placed in nomination - he was agreeing to take part in the process and he should have respected that process or not taken part in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
As far as I can see you are implying that there is an agreement or moral obligation that does not exist. Nor should it, in my opinion, especially given that he was the incumbent.
But even if he were not, it is still anti-democratic. Sure it would be very handy for a party that wanted to stake out political turf, and shut out competition, but it would have robbed the people of their right to choose the candidate they wanted. You have only to look at the results of the election to see that.
But clearly no one is changing anyone's mind here. I think we're done.
Smith, would you be agreeable to having the thread title changed? It will be easier to find in future for anyone looking for discussion on the 2010 civic election.
I don't mind.
I would just like to establish one point. Smith CONTESTED AND COMPETED for the NDP endorsement. Then when he was rejected he decided to run anyways. So why did he bother competing for the endorsement in the first place. If you don't plan to respect the outcome - why participate in the process? Why not just run and say to hell with having to vie for some "bogus" (sic.) NDP endorsement?
Its not a matter of being anti-democratic. I'm glad Smith ran and I'm glad he beat the person who came in second in his ward - who i believe is a Liberal. I just think that you should not contest a party nomination if you don't plan to respect the outcome. That's all.
As the lifestyle becomes more expensive, the suburbs are going to empty out on their own. Every city is suffering from urban decay, but what makes it unique about Winnipeg is that there are several suburban strip malls and commercial developments that have had empty space for a long time. Even Naheed Nenshi in Calgary, who I'm sure wouldn't self identify along the left-right axis, mentioned the costs of urban sprawl.
Regarding Harvey Smith, others here have 2dawall and Smith have already answered your arguments. Even you acknowledge that independent of the party label, he is a solid progressive councillor. I'd add that you are coming across as defending the same type of backroom dealing that we repratedly accuse other parties of and which angers voters. This is an NDP stronghold, and the NDP came in third. What does that suggest to you about how the voters feel aobut the way the NDP did things here?
I wouldn't be expecting an answer any time soon. After all, Smith just fought off 2 parties in a tough political fight, he needs some downtime before issues of council take up his time again! ;)
"I'd add that you are coming across as defending the same type of backroom dealing that we repratedly accuse other parties of and which angers voters."
No, I'm saying that I think its hypocritical to COMPETE in a party nomination/endorsement contest and then refuse to respect the results. If Harvey Smith had said "I categorically reject the idea of parties making official endorsements in the municipal election and I will neither seek nor accept an NDP endorsement in this election. I will run for re-election on my progressive record and I hope that people who support the NDP will support me for that reason" - I would have applauded him and if I lived there I might have even voted for him. But its obvious that he tried hard to win that endorsement and if he had had the NDP endorsement - he would have flaunted it at every opportunity. Then when he lost - suddenly it didn't mean anything anymore. I just object to the hypocrisy.
Was there any backroom dealing or suggestions of impropriety over that nomination or was there a free fair and open nomination meeting where any card carrying NDP member was free to vote - and where Smith lost fair and square? I don't know, tell me.
Here in Toronto, where a slightly similar situation in 2006 for the ward that Olivia Chow had vacated. The NDP held a nomination meeting that was hotly contested. Adam Vaughan - who has proven to be an extremely progressive councillor - DID NOT CONTEST that nomination and ran as a non-partisan independent - and won. I didn't vote for him then, but as it turns out he's been a pretty good councillor and voted for him to be re-elected. I respect the fact that he never sought the NDP nod in the first place and did it on his own. I would have had a far more negative reaction if he had campaigned day and night to win the NDP endorsement and then after losing he decided to run anyways - making a mockery of the whole process.
Sorry, Harvey owes nothing to the NDP, he had every right to run in the civic election and the voters had every right to choose their own representative. The NDP has no official standing at the municipal level, and to act as if it does simply smacks of backroom political wheeling and dealing.
Did Chuck Cadman make a mockery of the process by running federally after having lost his party's nomination?
Did Smith seek and campaign for the NDP endorsement or not? That's all I want to know.
I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I agree that he (like anyone) has every right to run in the election and that everyone has a right to vote for him. We agree on that. What I object to is SEEKING and CAMPAIGNING for an NDP endorsement and leading people to believe that the process is valid and that the endorsement means something and then after losing deciding that the process was a sham after all and then running against the winner. I have no objection to him running for city council. i object to him running for the NDP nomination in the first place when it clearly was meaningless to him. If you take part in a process - you confer legitimacy on that process. Why did he run for it?
I can't read Smith's mind, you'll have to swing by and ask him that yourself.
As for the process, it's quite flawed as has been pointed out. Again, what do the results in that ward say about voter opinions about the whole process?
Sorry to butt in, but long thread.