Part 3
Who's running for the ONDP in 2011? - part III
Sun, 2011-08-07 21:47
#1
Who's running for the ONDP in 2011? - part III
Sun, 2011-08-07 21:53
#2
Continued from [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/whos-running-who-should-be-ondp-2011-par...
Sun, 2011-08-07 21:56
#3
The Welland Tribune doesn't publish on Sundays, but you can read tonight that [url=http://www.wellandtribune.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3248291]Cindy Forster[/url] won the NDP nomination in Welland riding earlier today
Mon, 2011-08-08 17:42
#4
to few people's ultimate surprise given a pre-announcment visit by Andrea Horwath to the Walkerton jail Grant Robertson has declared in Huron-Bruce. Weak Con candidate, but will get the old dead cat bounce, and a desperate Liberal already running high rotation radio adds and making several re-announcements to try and look like she isn't that dead cat walking and this time might just be the charm for Robertson.
Mon, 2011-08-08 22:18
#5
Okay. In the interim btw/ the old thread closing and the new thread opening, here's the $64 question: who's likely to be running for Howard Hampton's seat?
Mon, 2011-08-08 23:02
#6
I heard a rumour that a woman who has been Hampton's long time constituency assistant (and who i think may be FN as well) will be the candidate to succeed him - of course others may run for the nomination as well.
Tue, 2021-11-23 13:43
#7
.
Tue, 2011-08-09 00:02
#8
Okay. In the interim btw/ the old thread closing and the new thread opening, here's the $64 question: who's likely to be running for Howard Hampton's seat?
Fri, 2011-08-12 17:21
#9
[url=http://www.thecord.ca/articles/46679]Isabel Cisterna[/url] and [url=http://www.therecord.com/print/article/576645]Cameron Dearlove[/url] have been nominated for the NDP in Kitchener-Waterloo and Kitchener Centre ridings, and [url=http://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news/full-slate-of-candidates-for-local-ndp/... Cairns[/url] was nominated to run in Kitchener-Conestoga last month
Tue, 2011-08-16 12:41
#10
No real surprise i suspect, Sarah Campbell won the nomination for Kenora-Rainy River
http://netnewsledger.com/2011/08/16/kenora-rainy-river-ndp-choose-campbe...
Tue, 2011-08-16 22:15
#11
So, both NDP incumbents that have chosen not to run for re-election in this campaign (i.e. Hampton and Kormos) have been replaced by female candidates who were chosen at contested nomination meetings. That's good news.
Wed, 2011-08-17 10:02
#12
So, both NDP incumbents that have chosen not to run for re-election in this campaign (i.e. Hampton and Kormos) have been replaced by female candidates who were chosen at contested nomination meetings. That's good news.
... replaced by experienced female candidates in winnable/ridings-we-should-hold ridings :D Great news
Wed, 2011-08-17 21:04
#13
The Welland Tribune doesn't publish on Sundays, but you can read tonight that [url=http://www.wellandtribune.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3248291]Cindy Forster[/url] won the NDP nomination in Welland riding earlier today
Cindy has been a resident of Welland for 50 years. During those years she has engaged in two careers dedicated to caring, Nursing and serving as an elected official representing the people of Welland. She became a Registered Nurse 1973 and for the last 21 years she has been employed full-time by the Ontario Nurses’ Association in the capacity of advocating and representing RNs in the workplace striving for quality patient care. She started to serve the people of Welland in 1994 as a ward councillor until 2000 at which time she was elected to the position of Mayor of Welland and in this capacity served my first term on Regional Council in the dual role until 2003. She was re-elected to Regional Council in 2006 and 2010. She currently serves on the Board of Public Health and Community Social Services Committee, the Corporate Services committee, the Humberstone Landfill PLC and the Accessibility Advisory Committee. She was also Vice Chair of the board of Niagara Regional Housing from 2006-10 and sat as a board member on the Welland Hydro Corporation after hydro was deregulated by the province in 2000.
In her community volunteer work she has served on the Boards of Aids Niagara, The Hope Centre, The Hope House, Welland Public Library, and the Welland and District Humane Society, and volunteered for the Welland Food Drive, Help-A-Child Smile and Women's Place.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cindy-Forster-for-Welland-MPP/21454797859...
Wed, 2011-08-17 21:11
#14
No real surprise i suspect, Sarah Campbell won the nomination for Kenora-Rainy River
http://netnewsledger.com/2011/08/16/kenora-rainy-river-ndp-choose-campbe...
Sarah Campbell was born in Atikokan and raised in Atikokan, Thunder Bay and Perrault Falls.
As a student at Hammarskjold High School she got her first taste of politics when she was elected Student Trustee for the Lakehead District School Board. While in High School she organized two highly successful Unicef campaigns and coordinated a city-wide fundraising challenge for the charity. At the same time, Sarah was elected to the board of the Northwest Ontario Secondary School Association (NWOSSA) and used her position to help coordinate leadership development retreats for her fellow students.
Sarah studied at Lakehead University, where she majored in Political Science and Women’s Studies, graduating with First Class Standing. It was at that time she officially became involved in the NDP, co-founding the Lakehead University NDP Club and joining the Thunder Bay-Superior North NDP riding association executive.
While pursuing her education, Sarah spent her summers working at the Thunder Bay Crown Attorney’s Office, the Ear Falls Sawmill and her parents' tourist camp, Lac Seul Onaway Lodge. Sarah’s hard work and dedication during the 2004 federal election campaign caught the eye of Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton, who asked her to work for him the following summer.
Upon graduation, Sarah accepted a permanent position in his Dryden office, as his Community Outreach Coordinator and Constituency Assistant.
Since that time, Sarah has spearheaded a number of important public information campaigns for Hampton including those against the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) and rising hydro prices. She has visited every community and First Nation in the riding, knocking on doors, manning information booths and holding information sessions.
Most recently, Campbell gained public attention for her energy retailer awareness campaigns, where she warned the public about misleading tactics used by some companies to sign consumers to hydro and natural gas contracts.
In October of 2010 Campbell was elected to the Kenora District Services Board an District of Kenora Unorganized Ratepayers Association, where she represents the Oxdrift sub-district.
Campbell is the past-chair of Hoshizaki Women’s Shelter and Second Stage Housing in Dryden and has been an active volunteer and fundraiser for pet adoption facilities in Dryden and Kenora. She has been the president of the Kenora-Rainy River NDP for the past four years and has held various positions on the Kenora Federal NDP executive, in addition to chairing Election Planning Committees at both levels.
A committed New Democrat, Campbell has worked on 13 NDP election campaigns in the last eight years.
The daughter of a tourist camp owner and with all of her family having worked in the forest industry, Sarah has a deep respect for the challenges facing our tourism industry and our natural resources.
Sarah lives in Oxdrift with her husband Josh Johnson and their cats.
Thu, 2011-08-18 08:20
#15
Interesting article in today's xtra.
Does anyone in the know care to comment?
Thu, 2011-08-18 09:33
#16
The intimation it has anything to do with her sexual orientation, as the article does by its title, is frankly offensive and makes me wonder. Every party has a process to go through - even the Greens who are down to accepting just about any warm body. If there was something in that background, including a lawsuit, the party would have been right to say sit out this one. That she didn't and the way she handled this situation makes me wonder about her fitness as a candidate, notwithstanding, that she was one this spring. A lot can change in a person's life in that period of time. She should have dealt with her life, got that settled and then moved forward from there. I expect she would have had a lot of support in that way. I have little sympathy for her.
Thu, 2011-08-18 09:57
#17
Interesting article in today's xtra.
Does anyone in the know care to comment?
This is a terrible story, where i agree with you Life, i doubt this has anything to do with the fact she's a lesbian. Its xtra, really thats what their all about is covering queer related stories, i doubt its meant to be an NDP bashing article (go to the TO section it covers Cathy Crowe launch)
But what really rubs me the wrong way here is (ok based on the article, i wasn't there so this is how i see it) If this is simply a lawsuit against her employer is that a justifiable reason to not allow her to run? anyone know of a past case that has set precidence? Or is she being bared because its a Union? we all believe in democracy and that means being able to criticize our allies.
Repeated rules were broken, now in this case i don't care if the party is justified! the rules are rules and the executive cannot be so bold as to break them. We do quite a good job at criticizing other parties for doing the same.
some examples mentioned:
"Andrews insisted that she had not received official explanation, or the right to contest the secretary's decision before the provincial council as is her right under the party's constitution."
"He pressed on and asked members to endorse Sharma by raising a card that had been given to members when they signed in. This may have violated the section of the party constitution that requires a secret ballot."
"Section 6.06 (2) of the party constitution requires that "In an uncontested nomination, in order for a member to become the candidate, he/she must be endorsed by a majority of the members present and voting." - Only 4 out of 70! really!
I am leaning towards what Patricia Crooks sais, that indeed this would not have happened in my Riding of TO-Danforth, or in any of the Downtown ridings.
I might not seek the nomination if i was in her place, but she has every right to seek the nomination.
Thu, 2011-08-18 10:32
#18
This is not a crimminal case with a presumption of innocence. This is a civil litigation in which all kinds of embarassing info could come out from the employer (regardless of whom it is) Any party with half a brain would suggest that might not be the best postion for a candidate to be in an election, making the court case the focus of a campaign - because that is what the other parties will do ,make no mistake.
She lost my sympathy the moment she made the claim she had been given no notice. The story then points out that Darlene Lawson had in fact spoken at length to her. I had to google who she is, but it appears she is the "provincial secretary", which I assume means she is the head of the party apparatus. As such there would be no higher word. Making shit up, as this wannabe candidate clearly did, does not speak well to my mind.
I have no horse in the race, and I'm not a member of the NDP, but I call bullshit on the claims being made. It is for instance, not undemocratic to carry on a meeting even if some hurt parties don't like it. In fact that is very democratic. Especially when it is clear they were out of order. The party and the chair might have handled things differently, but with her insistence to carry on as if the conversation with Darlene Lawson never happened, (and I am going from the media report, not insider information - since I am not an insider) leads me to wonder what else could have been done.
Having been around a lot of campaigns in my years on this earth, I can say that I doubt she would have made much of a candidate if she is as toxic as this article makes her seem after you read through the lines of what is and isn't being said.
Edited to add
By the way the section you quoted about present and voting is interesting. Only 4 people voted, but those are who voted, so technically the constitution was covered. It might not make people very happy and it might be a pretty piss poor endorsement, but it does actually follow the rules as strange as it might seem.
Thu, 2011-08-18 11:07
#19
i agree that the candidacy could be problematic due to the legal issues. so is it ndp policy that no one facing legal issues can be a candidate? if their is a policy then the fact of who the employer is does not matter and then all is ok. but if on the other hand this is not the case then i have a problem with selected prohibition and with the failure to have a proper nomination meeting.
Thu, 2011-08-18 16:09
#20
Uh- maybe the lawsuit.
I know it is cool to rush to judgement and all, and believe the NDP 'man' is out to get everyone, but not being involved in the party gives me a little perspective. I tend to think the onesided nonsense of a rather poorly written article trying to hint that this person was denied because she was a lesbian, might be well- a bit one sided and that the people involved representing the party are not evil doers with some sort of evil plan for world domination that starts with working for the ONDP. So if they felt there was good reason, you know maybe there was good reason. The behaviour of the individual as expressed in the article seems to confirm that she probably wasn't the greatest of candidates even with a decent result in Jack Layton's coat tails. And if a conversation advising you from the head of the party aparatus isn't official what the heck is- an embossed letter signed by the ghost of Tommy Douglas?
Thu, 2011-08-18 16:38
#21
You've entirely missed the point of my post. The party needs to have a process and its officials need to follow the process. Otherwise it doesn't really matter who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are because the whole system is arbitrary. This is not the first time [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1011271--cohn-ontari... complaints have been raised.[/url] I would be interested in seeing some sort of response by the NDP to the allegations raised in the article.
Thu, 2011-08-18 17:28
#22
Oh goddess, now you are using chief Liberal cheerleader Cohn to make your point. You were further ahead with the poorly written Xtra article that contradicts itself a couple of times.
Having chaired many, many meetings over the years, it seems fairly clear that the person was out of order and that it was appropriate that officials try to carry on with the meeting, despite the interuptions. I really see little wrong with this situation, other than someone who clearly didn't like the answer she got so tried to make a big production to try and intimidate others into giving her the answer she wanted. As I said, just going on the Xtra article, I have little sympathy for her positon.
By the way disagreeing with your 'point' is not the same as missing it.
Thu, 2011-08-18 18:08
#23
She lost my sympathy the moment she made the claim she had been given no notice. The story then points out that Darlene Lawson had in fact spoken at length to her. I had to google who she is, but it appears she is the "provincial secretary", which I assume means she is the head of the party apparatus. As such there would be no higher word. Making shit up, as this wannabe candidate clearly did, does not speak well to my mind.
She said she had been given no [b][i]official[/i][/b] notice, which may be something different than notice from an official, particularly if (as is suggested in the article) official notice that you have been denied as a candidate affords a right to appeal that denial to Provincial Council. Its kind of like the difference between being locked up in prison without a trial (even if the police explain to you in great detail why they are doing it) versus having an actual trial with full procedural protections.
I'd be interested in hearing from an NDPer about what the party rules actually say. As pointed out in the article, under Article 6 of the [url=http://ontariondp.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CONSTITUTIONFINALUPD... NDP Constitution[/url] the process whereby the Party approves or rejects a nominee would appear to take place after the nomination meeting, not before. However, the nomination meeting is held "in accordance with the rules and procedures established by Provincial Council" so maybe there are some additional provisions there which govern this situation?
Edited to addBy the way the section you quoted about present and voting is interesting. Only 4 people voted, but those are who voted, so technically the constitution was covered. It might not make people very happy and it might be a pretty piss poor endorsement, but it does actually follow the rules as strange as it might seem.
The article says that the chair did not call for votes against the nomination, and if that is correct I don't see how you can call that even technical compliance.
I'm also curious when this lawsuit was filed, since Ms Andrews was apparently a federal candidate for the NDP just a few months ago, and did quite well with [url=http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx?type=2&criteria=Diana%... of the vote[/url]. What has changed?
Thu, 2011-08-18 18:11
#24
I wasn't at the meeting so I don't really know whether what's been reported is actually a factual or accurate representation of what happened. But the record of the current ONDP management is somewhat dubious, as many past Babble threads as well as the Cohn article will show (I'm not aware of any affiliation between Cohn and the Liberals as you allege, but in any case Cohn's motivations don't necessarily negate the validity of what he is reporting). Based on what I've heard (from a number of sources) the current Ontario NDP management has at least an image problem, and I suspect probably a significant governance problem as well.
Thu, 2011-08-18 18:28
#25
Thing is, if she wasn't the best candidate or had some baggage shouldn't it be the members of the riding association who judge whether or not someone is suitable? And do you really want to set a precedent that anyone who has a lawsuit pending or is involved in a greivance with their employer is ineligible to be a candidate (if that's, indeed, what the issue is here)? What happened to being in favour of workers' rights?
Thu, 2011-08-18 19:31
#26
I do think the central party should have the right to reject candidates, even over the riding association's objection. This is a province-wide party engaged in a province-wide campaign, not 107 local campaigns. That being said, the decision to reject a putative nominee is a serious one, and should only be taken with due deliberation and proper procedural safeguards. Under the ONDP constitution, there appear to be such safeguards, but only after the individual is initially nominated by the riding association. Without the benefit of additional information this looks to me like an end-run around those procedural safeguards by certain party officials, because if the individual is blocked from even seeking the nomination, they cannot access the appeal procedures apparently available only after the nomination is made. I think it behooves those party officials to explain themselves.
Thu, 2011-08-18 20:20
#27
I know it is cool to rush to judgement and all,
Certainly, you're not doing that or anything.
The behaviour of the individual as expressed in the article seems to confirm that she probably wasn't the greatest of candidates even with a decent result in Jack Layton's coat tails. And if a conversation advising you from the head of the party aparatus isn't official what the heck is- an embossed letter signed by the ghost of Tommy Douglas?
You've decided, even though you admit you know nothing about this story, aren't involved in the NDP in any way, etc., that she is the problem and she is to blame, and that she would make a poor candidate. You've decided to "call bullshit" on the story, even though practically everyone in the riding association who was present appears to have been taking her side in the dispute. But you're criticizing others for rushing to judgement? Do you even know this woman? Do you know anything about her, or her work, or how she conducted the previous campaign, which sounds pretty successful for that riding?
What "behaviour" of hers are you talking about? Standing for nomination? Asking the party leadership to listen to a room full of people who are demanding she be allowed to run?
It looks to me, from what's in the article, like the Constitution of the NDP requires that a) the party vets candidates only AFTER they are nominated, and b) if they are disqualifying someone, they have to give a "full explanation" to the riding association. Is it possible that this is what Andrews meant when she said she wasn't given "official" notice? That a "personal" phone call from an NDP official might not be considered "official" because it's not in writing, and the riding association has apparently not been informed of the reasons?
Now, it could be that there is a real problem with her candidacy, that suddenly erupted between the time she ran federally a few months ago and her candidacy now. I have no idea what the lawsuit with her union is about, and it could very well be something very contentious. I have no idea.
But apparently, neither does the riding association, in which it appears all but FOUR people wanted her to be allowed to stand for nomination and haven't been given any explanation as to why she shouldn't. No matter what the problem is - and there just might be a very good one - when almost every person in the room says that they don't support the "acclaimed" candidate, and the constitution says that a majority of voting members in the room have to support a candidate in order for them to be "acclaimed" (and only four do, and the rest weren't given an opportunity to vote against because it was clear the majority DIDN'T support him), and the constitution also says that a candidate can not be vetted or disqualified until AFTER their nomination, then it seems to me that perhaps the meeting should be postponed until the issues could be worked out, and any misunderstandings rectified, so that you don't alienate an entire riding association.
Life, I have a lot of respect for you, and enjoy reading your posts when I'm mostly lurking. And you're right, that a lot of folks on babble are very critical of the NDP, myself included, usually from the left. But I would submit that you're as much of a cheerleader for the NDP as the others are critics. You claim that others automatically assume the NDP is always wrong. Meanwhile, with assurances to us that you aren't a party member (although I'm not sure why that should matter - I'm not a party member either, so does that somehow give me more credibility too?), you can be counted on to automatically assume that the NDP is right, and that anyone criticizing them has bad motives, are just chronic complainers, etc. It bothers me, because it's basically just a way to dismiss people's concerns.
Thu, 2011-08-18 20:25
#28
I am not going to comment on the specifics of the situation, since I wasn't there and I don't know exactly what happened, but I will say this:
Thanks to my involvement in Etobicoke North during the 2008 election, I know some of the people quoted in the article. The riding association has only recently come back from the grave, with none really existing prior to the 2008 election. Even if the ONDP has acted perfectly legitimately in this case, the rancour created by the meeting will mean a large section of the executive (and on a riding association that small, the exec really constitutes the bulk of the active riding association) will find other things to do than support and campaign for the ONDP candidate, thus robbing the campaign of local knowledge, energy, and volunteers. It is also concerning that if leading lights in the riding association choose to be inactive, this riding association, like many others its size, may cease to exist for all intents and purposes going forward. This would be a real shame given the results in May, which are the best in EN for a generation.
I find it saddening that both Glyn Wood and Patricia Crooks are (given their comments) unlikely to be helping out the campaign this fall, as I worked alongside them in 2008, and I valued their contributions immensely. I have friends on both sides of this affair, and can only express sorrow that these events have come to pass.
I wish Vrind Sharma the very best.
Thu, 2011-08-18 21:08
#29
Michelle, I don't want to quote your whole post out of length concerns- so let's pretend I did so I am responding to it.
What I was refereing to was her behaviour, as reported at the meeting. I know I am getting old as I am getting closer to 70 than 60, but it does give me a bit of perspective. I've seen this kind of behaviour before many times. As reported it is a kind of bullying, which always sets me off thus my continued interest. She got an answer she didn't like, it seems long before the meeting. Instead of either accepting it, or appealing the decision in some other way through the normal process she came to the meeting and tried to intimidate the meeting into just accepting her. And again, based on the sympathetic report, was very disruptive and extremely disrespectful of the other candidate, the chair and a number of others in the room. I've seen it plenty of times before. Maybe I am reading more into what happened than others based on that, but frankly no one- on either side- comes off very well. Based on my experiences it is clear the upset party was in fact out of order and continued to try to interupt the meeting. In that situation the Chair was placed in a pretty tough spot. Now if it were me, I might have suspended the meeting until order was restored or a few other things, which is why I suggested they might have handled things better. But in the end the person complaining has a fair amount of responsibility in what happened too. Yet the typical reaction is ONDP bad, anyone complaining about them good. All I was trying to suggest is that it cuts both ways. In the end I really don't care. If it hadn't been posted in a thread in which I am interested I probably wouldn't even have noticed.
Speaking of not noticing your accusation of being an NDP cheerleader is a little off the mark. There are at least two or three open threads right now in which I have been very critical of ONDP energy policy for instance. Something people in my neck of the woods take very serious, including the about to be named NDP candidate for the riding. I will admitt to being a cheerleader for that candidate, but then he is someone who deserves a little cheerleading.
Fri, 2011-08-19 01:48
#30
Instead of either accepting it, or appealing the decision in some other way through the normal process
But what is the normal process of appeal? And given that the NDP apparently didn't follow the constitution in the first place, how can you say that the "normal process" was actually being respected by the NDP?
Fri, 2011-08-19 07:40
#31
Fair enough, Life, around you being critical of the NDP's policies somewhere - I missed it. Sorry about that.
Here's the thing about this story. According to Andrews and her supporters (which appears to be almost the whole riding association), the NDP Constitution wasn't being followed. They were trying to disqualify her before she even ran for the nomination, instead of letting her run, possibly win, and then vetting her. According to the quote from the Constitution in the article, the "normal process" is for candidates to run, and if they win, THEN being vetted. And if they don't pass the vetting, the riding association has to be given a full explanation, and the candidate has to be given an opportunity to appeal.
This is not what happened here, clearly. It's not that "she got an answer she didn't like". It's that she and her supporters are saying that the process wasn't followed at all, and she was unfairly disqualified from even running. How does she get to appeal "through the normal process" when they aren't following it?
The normal process, according to the part of the constitution quoted, allows her to run and possibly win the nomination, and if she wins, they can vet and disqualify her and she can appeal that ruling - and if she wins the appeal, she remains the candidate (and obviously if she loses, they find a new candidate). In the scenario that actually took place, it looks like the leadership of the NDP did an end run around that process, refused to allow her to run in the first place, and then declared a candidate "acclaimed" that most people at the meeting did not want. So, there is no "appeal" now - the other guy is now the candidate no matter what she does.
Is it "disruptive" for her and the rest of the riding association to protest a process that they see as unfair and that apparently goes against the NDP Constitution, when it means that they don't get to vote for the nominee that most of them apparently want?
This kind of "well, you've been told, now sit down and shut up or that will prove you were never good candidate material anyhow" kind of thinking has no place in a supposedly democratic party, if you ask me. Especially in a riding like Etobicoke North, where the NDP has to make inroads if they want to do decently. It's a working class riding with lots of people of colour, and the heart of "Ford Nation". The riding association appeared to want a queer woman of colour as their nominee - and instead, they had a parachute from Brampton foisted on them. And this queer woman of colour is supposed to just STFU and take it, because it would be "disruptive" and "disrespectful of the other candidate" for her to protest a disqualification that appears to have been done in a way that she couldn't appeal as per the constitution of the party?
Last I heard, "NDP" doesn't stand for "Sit Down Shut Up Never Question Authority Party", and I doubt that many of its members would subscribe to that sort of philosophy.
Fri, 2011-08-19 08:27
#32
I've since talked to my sources (who were at the meeting) about what happened there, and it seems the riding association is divided beyond all hope of reconciliation, at least in the short term. Both sides are dug into their positions.
I'm curious: given that the riding association was just getting back on its feet after the 2008 election, and usually attracted around a dozen members to its meetings (which has been confirmed as usually the case by my sources), it seems odd that 70 people would suddenly turn up. I realize that a nomination meeting attracts members beyond the old faithful, but for 70 existing members to show up would represent an extremely healthy percentage of a nascent riding association. People seem to be assuming that people who were at the meeting were card-carrying members, something which my sources say was not necessarily the case. If they were not card-carrying members, their voices carried absolutely zero weight with the chair.
Fri, 2011-08-19 08:36
#33
The candidate was ultimately nominated to run for the NDP in Etobicoke North is also a person co our and does not quite fit (or anyone else's) definition of a "parachute" candidate. He grew up in and spent most of his life in Etobicoke North and now lives just a couple of blocks outside the riding boundaries in Brampton.
Given that Etobicoke North is not a high target riding and given that it's not as if the NDP was trying to clear the way for some big name star candidate, you have to wonder why they went to such lengths to make sure this woman was disqualified. Usually parties are happy just to have any place-holder willing to put their name in the ballot in tidings like Etobicoke North. I can only assume that there is an inside story about Diana Andrews and that the is stuff about her that would inevitably come out if she were the candidate that would be seriously scandalous and embarrassing to the party. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of stopping her.
Fri, 2011-08-19 13:03
#34
Michelle, I am hardly from the sit down and shut up crowd. I went through the farm debt crisis and the line in the dirt campaigns of the late 80s and early 90s- I understand being loud and if need be, obnoxious. I just think what they did was very disrepectful of the other candidate and his supporters. I don't care about the NDP. There is a way to do these things and based on my experience anyone who does them they way she did is not someone I would support, or have much sympathy for or at the end of the day be a very good candidate. I also highly doubt that the NDP would have taken this unusuall step without, what they at least beleived, was a good reason so I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And as I said at the beginning I find the claim that somehow this had something to do with her sexual orientation or colour ridiculous and frankly offensive to lay that at the feet of any of the people involved in this situation. Trying to play that card makes me begin to doubt some of the claims made in the story.
Others are free to disagree, but surely I am also allowed to express a different opinion based on my viewpoint- or am I just supposed to sit down and shut up if I happen to see things differently that the rest of the babble crowd?
Fri, 2011-08-19 13:07
#35
Catchfire
And as I said at the beginning I find the claim that somehow this had something to do with her sexual orientation or colour ridiculous and frankly offensive to lay that at the feet of any of the people involved in this situation. Trying to play that card makes me begin to doubt some of the claims made in the story.
Has anyone on babble, except for the inference in the quoted xtra headline, suggested this had anything to do with the colour or sexual orientation of the denied candidate?
ETA: I realize the Liberals are inferring this, but you know, they're shameless.
Fri, 2011-08-19 13:20
#36
Michelle: You seem to be assuming that everyone who attended was a card-carrying member. I have heard that this was not the case (from a source who was at the meeting), and the Xtra! article does not indicate one way or the other. The article refers only to "supporters", who are not necessarily members of the party or that riding association. If you are not a member of that riding association, you can protest all you like, but the riding association doesn't have to pay a bit of notice to you.
Fri, 2011-08-19 13:28
#37
Has anyone on babble, except for the inference in the quoted xtra headline, suggested this had anything to do with the colour or sexual orientation of the denied candidate?
The article's headline is misleading, as the fact that Diana Andrews is a lesbian is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Fri, 2011-08-19 13:35
#38
Catchfire
Correct.
Fri, 2011-08-19 14:29
#39
I would encourage people to write a letter to the editor of Xtra to complain about them using such a grossly misleading headline to their story.
Fri, 2011-08-19 18:48
#40
x
Fri, 2011-08-19 22:03
#41
I can only assume that there is an inside story about Diana Andrews and that the is stuff about her that would inevitably come out if she were the candidate that would be seriously scandalous and embarrassing to the party. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of stopping her.
After all, remember who the NDP nominated right across the Humber in 1990: one George Mammoliti. (Just saying: not that there are any parallels.)
Fri, 2011-08-19 23:46
#42
...and your point is?
Sat, 2011-08-20 21:09
#43
Nothing other than the trivial, fashionable raising of Mammoliti as the classic case of the NDP nominating an embarrassment to the party hereabouts. (Which'd probably matter little except to old-timer wonks, anyway)
Sat, 2011-08-20 21:53
#44
dacckon
The article on xtra didn't reveal anything. I couldn't read between the lines and see what really happened, plus the title was a tiny bit misleading. Althrough the comments posted were more revealing.
The star article on the other hand was just plain silly.
Sun, 2011-08-21 20:38
#45
[url=http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3267051]Grant Robertson[/url] was nominated to run in [url=http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=38017]Huron-Bruc... [url=http://www.am920.ca/news.php?area=details&cat=4&art_id=18417]yesterday[/... -- that's lot of news coverage for a small-town and rural riding!
Sun, 2011-08-21 21:41
#46
There will be more to come too with our weeklies and the MyFM radio stations. There was also an extended interview on the Dock out of Owen Sound I heard as I was driving to Paisley on Saturday. I wasn't able to make the meeting because it was the Heritage Farm Show weekend, but I was talking to Grant there today. He's a long time volunteer. He said they raised more money on Saturday than he thinks they spent in his first campaign. He also joked that there was more media there yesterday than people at that first meeting too. I'm not sure I am supposed to repeat such things, but apparently the Liberals sent their tour spy all the way up to the Queens Bush- for the 2nd time in a month. I don't know what to make of that, maybe some of you more inside people might though, but I am positive that has never happened up here before. Not that I have ever heard anyway.
All and all it was a great day apparently, but now with the news out of Goderich, I expect politics will get set aside for a bit as the region rallies around in our small town way to do what we can to help.
Mon, 2011-08-29 01:37
#47
with the news out of Goderich, I expect politics will get set aside for a bit as the region rallies around in our small town way to do what we can to help.
I send your area my thoughts and best wishes.