NDP candidate quits: Endorses Liberal candidate in bid to unseat the Tories

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Farmpunk

I've chatted with Ryan Dolby many times.  I've seen him in action. 

He's been a standup NDPer, in my estimation.  He was in the room when Jack Layton came to St Thomas in 2009 and talked to more people from Windsor than citizens of St Thomas\EML.  He put a brave face on a hopeless situation during the election of '08 and after.

Much like Brad James, who was parachuted in from Toronto (no local candidate stepped forward) in the last provincial election to run against eventual Speaker Steve Peters. 

If he stays in politics Dolby may be looking ahead and seeing a seat opening provincially, for the Liberals.  Peters isn't running again.  I can't remember if he's been replaced as a candidate yet.  Peters' word carries serious weight in EML.  He could probably toss the riding to Dolby this fall... though I suspect it would be close.

I think watching St Thomas turn into a ghost town, from an intimately inside perspective, and then trying to be an NDPer at the same time has Dolby shell shocked.  He's lashing out.  Can't say I blame him much.    

I think people can quetion his actions while giving a nod to his circumstances. 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
After the nomination he made a commitment to represent the NDP and speak on behalf of the party. His opinion is not just his own.

I can't even begin to fathom your distaste for what this person did. My [b]ONLY[/b] objection is the choice that he made.

Remind me, Sean. When Jack Layton "ran for Prime Minister" in September 2008, did he, and all his elected caucus, mention beforehand that they would be installing Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister in December?

No?

Throw them all out??

Find subtle distinctions?

I find party partisanship revolting and sickening. It always condemns in others what it tolerates in oneself.

 

You don't think that the person in question had pledged to speak for his riding association and his party?

He was asked if he even discussed it with them on CBC tonight and he said no-- just a personal decision.

When you are elected to represent people like in a nomination -- you have a duty to represent and at least not work against them. He ought to have quit but not use the platform to fight the party he democratically represented.

Layton consulted with his party every step of the way and never worked against it-- how do you make this comparison?

Farmpunk

Meanwhile, I'm not sure there's a NDPer in Oxford.  Wonder if there will be one? 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You don't think that the person in question had pledged to speak for his riding association and his party?

Yes... until he quit... then his duty abruptly ended. Layton didn't quit, if memory serves.

Quote:
He was asked if he even discussed it with them on CBC tonight and he said no-- just a personal decision.

So? He wasn't elected. He quit.

Quote:
When you are elected to represent people like in a nomination -- you have a duty to represent and at least not work against them.

He was not elected. He was nominated. Then he quit. And as he did so, he explained exactly why he didn't want to run any more. What was his duty? To keep running and split the vote, even if it had occurred to him (belatedly) that that's what would happen? He had every right to quit. In fact, it was arguably his duty to do so once he had arrived at his conclusion.

Quote:
He ought to have quit but not use the platform to fight the party he democratically represented.

Um, how did he use the platform? Did he campaign for the Liberals? Maybe, but that's not in the news releases I've read. What I've read is that he quit - and stated his reasons. I've seen no accusations that he worked against his party's interests while he still held the nomination. Not one. Maybe I just haven't seen the fully story. Can you refer me to some instance of disloyalty to the NDP or his constituents prior to his resignation?

Quote:
Layton consulted with his party every step of the way and never worked against it-- how do you make this comparison?

That's frankly wrong, Sean. Nonsensical, I might add. No one here knew about the coalition before it was sprung. And even if he did consult with some high rollers in the party inner circle, he never consulted: (a) the members; or (b) the voters who elected him and the other caucus members.

I think what Layton did was fine. More than fine. It was required by the times. Yet he had no more mandate to do that, either from the members or the voters, than Dolby did. Both did what they thought was right. You can fault either one for a wrong decision, if you like (I fault Dolby, but not Layton). But the cries of disloyalty or treachery or indeed of any wrongdoing are bogus.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Ryan Dolby can seek a Liberal nomination but no NDP riding association will trust him again.

I am not without sympathy for his opinion and believe he is sincere about it. But that is not the point. People make a commitment to work with a group and have to respect the democracy of that group. New Dems -- especially Union people ought to realize that a candidate is not a free agent to do with the stage what they will.

As unhappy about the decision if he had done it with the democratic support of his riding association I would have respected it but to hear him admit tonight that he did not so much as give them a warning before going to the media disgusts me.

All politicians of all parties need to learn to respect the people they represent. When they win a nomination they represent a party and a riding association. When they get elected they represent constituents-- not just their own whims and opinions no matter how inspired they may be.

I'd like people to throw Harper out on his ass for the same reason (and a few more).

But how can we expect accountability and democracy from others if we accept this?

Now I am saying this is a big mistake on his part that he should be held accountable for. He does not need to be run down, insulted or called names-- he was not candidate material evidently or he would have consulted before acting unilaterally. But that is it. There is no conspiracy and no nastiness but one huge bone-headed decision.

NDP candidates ought to be reminded who they represent and work for. And once they are elected they represent and work for a whole bunch more people.

Unionist I have no animus for him -- just a requirement to hold our candidates to a democratic standard including a legal obligation. He has done financial harm and that cannot be ignored. The damage is not just to his own riding as well-- his example will be used by Liberals all over the country and the NDP provided him the platform. We don't have to be mean to him but nor should we pretend that what he did was not a huge deal and something that cannot be tolerated. I still say we should say-- sorry Brother but you're served. Or he can offer to make it up somehow but I don't know how he can. A public apology is a start. A call to his riding association that elected him is another step.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist he was elected-- by the NDP members in his riding -- that is what a nomination is.

I said several times I agreed he should quit-- my trouble is with the public endorsement upon quitting on the NDP-built and paid for stage. No mikes would have been in front of him except that he was an NDP candidate.

As well, he ought to have spoken to his association before announcing that he was quitting.

Yes I see a huge difference from Layton. Layton was working in the interest of the people who voted for his nomination, for his leadership and for him as MP. Dolby spurned the people who voted for him as their representative and did not even let them know before going to the media.

I really don't understand your defence here. Don't you think that when people have a democratic process and work collectively their leaders have a responsibility to the collective that elected them? He openly called for the defeat of his own riding association! You have no trouble with that?

And you tell me why he did not resign and keep the rationale to himself as a gesture of respect? Or at least till the next day even.

Why he thought this was his decision to fold a campaign in his riding-- on his own without any consultation with the people that worked to give him that chance.

I work for a union. We don't work that way. I have worked with many, many political campaigns and have never seen a candidate turn on his/her riding association in the middle of an election and call for their defeat by supporting an opposing party from their party platform.

Sean in Ottawa

Life, Universe-- it actually is a written contract. I don't have a copy but it really is.

I am astonished by Unionist's position on this.

Life, the unive...

Unionist says "indeed of any wrongdoing are bogus"

 

What is it you don't seem to get that donated money will have been spent on his campaign before the writ drop. He had to have sat in EPC meeting after EPC meeting knowing that money was being spent on his behalf and that a number of people were giving a great deal of themselves for his benefit. I don't care about the NDP, but he most certainly did betray those brothers and sisters he sat around the table with. It stretches credibilty to the breaking point to believe he just woke up this morning and said - well that's it then I'm packing it in. At best he is a jerk, at worst he abused these good people and allowed them to spend money on him knowing full well he was going to not live up to his part of the unwritten contract between himself and the volunteers and supporters he pretended to be apart of and he didn't even have the class to tell them to their face himself.

It is a disrespect for people and fair dealing that anyone who works in a union environment should never support in any way.

Life, the unive...

Sean I know candidates these days have to fill out a lot of forms and agreements, but I was referring more to the moral obligation a candidate has to the people who work so hard on their campaigns.   If I compare this guy to my local candidate- who treats us volunteers like Queens and Kings and is always reminding us that we are far more important that he is (and means it) - this guy shows a level of arrogance I can't understand anyone defending.

Sean in Ottawa

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Sean I know candidates these days have to fill out a lot of forms and agreements, but I was referring more to the moral obligation a candidate has to the people who work so hard on their campaigns.   If I compare this guy to my local candidate- who treats us volunteers like Queens and Kings and is always reminding us that we are far more important that he is (and means it) - this guy shows a level of arrogance I can't understand anyone defending.

Now that comment I can get behind whole heartedly. That is exactly how I feel.

Farmpunk

Again, there I was able to count on one hand the number of NDP volunteers who worked on campaigns in the last provincial election and the federal election.  First hand account stuff and all that. 

Dolby made his choice.  At least he made some waves doing it. 

Life, the unive...

A great many of the volunteers will have been invisible to a casual observer.   Even in no-hope early Green campaigns we had a good 10-20 people were involved in a variety of ways.  In even a casual NDP campaign at least a couple of dozen people would be involved, many more if you count donors.   Unless this guy was a complete asshat from the being and couldn't inspire anyone wot work for his campaign. 

But really it doesn't matter it it was 1 or 2.  He showed a great lack of class and disrespect to those people.  If he had stepped down before the writ due to the conditions you set out, I wouldn't have a problem with it.   But that is not what he did.  He should be condemned for being an anti-democratice, arrogant twit because of the way he went about this little bit of betrayl to the people from that riding association.

KenS

He went against the collective process in numerous ways- and the parallels would never be tolerated in a union.

There are two seperate things here.

One is his view that "strategic voting" is a good thing. While that is very much a minority opinion in the NDP, it isnt unusual.

Michael Byers has advocated numerous times deals between the parties to not run candidates. Ryan Dolby took a purely individual action in which he used his collective process derived position to make a purely individual choice.

And as far as betrayals go, there is the very concrete betrayal of the people you have worked with. I don't care if in practice there are 'only' a handful of them. It is a calous disregard of those people as individuals, and of the collective process he committed to.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes I see a huge difference from Layton. Layton was working in the interest of the people who voted for his nomination, for his leadership and for him as MP.

I believe he did. I fully supported his decision. But you have not yet grasped the fact that without the very slightest advance warning to you or any other rank and file members or voters, he signed an agreement to make Dion PM and to put 24 out of 30 Liberals in cabinet. Working for the installation of a Liberal government... was that "in the interest of the people who voted for his nomination, for his leadership, and for him as MP"? Yes - in your opinion. And mine. But he [b]sprang[/b] it on them. He probably risked expulsion for supporting another party becoming the government.

Quote:
Dolby spurned the people who voted for him as their representative and did not even let them know before going to the media.

Dolby and Layton both let no one know. But "spurned"?? Dolby clearly thought and believes that the defeat of the Conservative in his riding is precisely in the interest of the people who nominated and worked for him. Do you think not? It's obvious. If so, then tell me again - what difference between what he did and what Layton did - other than that Layton is the leader, and therefore even more responsible (arguably) for upholding complete loyalty to the party and putting his self-interest to the side?

Farmpunk

@Life

That's your estimation of the Dolby situation. 

It's not mine.

And I think Dolby may have started something that maybe needed to be brought out into the open.

 

 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

He went against the collective process in numerous ways- and the parallels would never be tolerated in a union.

Someone above compared him to a scab, deciding on his own to cross a picket line. That's pathetic. As for resigning - every single union rep, from shop floor to top leader, has the right to resign any time she feels like it without talking to anyone. And likewise with freedom of speech when it comes to tactics and strategy - especially once they've resigned. I'm unaware of Dolby being disloyal or breaking ranks while still holding the nomination. Are you?

Quote:
Ryan Dolby took a purely individual action in which he used his collective process derived position to make a purely individual choice.

Nonsense, Ken. Had he campaigned for strategic voting, unilaterally, while under the NDP banner, you could say that. But he quit. And spoke his mind. He had no mandate to do so, but didn't need one. Layton, on the other hand... Why not comment on his sudden surprise signing of a legally binding contract to make Stéphane Dion prime minister? How many people were involved in that decision, do you think?

Quote:
And as far as betrayals go, there is the very concrete betrayal of the people you have worked with. I don't care if in practice there are 'only' a handful of them. It is a calous disregard of those people as individuals, and of the collective process he committed to.

How exactly do you know what the people he worked with think? I know lots of NDP and Bloc and PQ voters who believe in "strategic" voting. Gilles Duceppe shamelessly promotes it. I know scads of people who would rather see a Liberal or Bloc win a riding than a Conservative - and would be prepared to facilitate that with their own votes. How, exactly, do you come to speak for the people that Dolby worked with?

 

Unionist

Let me tell you something else. There are all kinds of ways of building a coalition. Maybe progressive Canadians should be talking about it, rather than just watching it happen on TV the next time it gets sprung on us...

And there are only two people in Canada that I know, for sure, who consider the word "coalition" to be a dirty word.

They are Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

 

KenS

Farmpunk wrote:

Again, there I was able to count on one hand the number of NDP volunteers who worked on campaigns in the last provincial election and the federal election.  First hand account stuff and all that. 

Life already said this, but I want to make it clear.

Unless you actually worked in those HQs- more than passing through to pick up a few signs- you would have no idea how many people are working in them. Even a no hope campaign that can barely keep bodies in the HQ needs a core of at least a dozen volunteers that are putting in a lot of time.

When I was above saying that even if it was "only" 4 or 5 people he betrayed, I was referring to the people who keep even the most dormant of riding associations going between elections.... people Dolby has now been working with probably for several years. Let alone the numbers of volunteers putting in a lot of campaign hours who you did not see with your 'first hand account'.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist I don't get why you can't see the difference.

The NDP always campaigns to work with whatever mandate and does so in recent years at the same time as saying Layton wants to be PM. There is nothing anti-NDP about going in to government with another party.

It is rather anti NDP to call for the defeat of an NDP riding association.

I find you are stretching the logic beyond reason here. I do not expect to be consulted on every decision a leader takes-- except one that repudiates the support they recieved. That is the difference.

Layton acted in the interest of the NDP. He was also party leader. Dolby, who comitted to work within a party did not speak to his leader, any of the people in his party, his riding association, his volunteers-- nobody. He acted in the interest of himself, his interests and those of another party. I am frustrated debating this with you because it seems really beyond belief that you can't see this.

You know from other things I have said here that I am not about blindly following the interest of a party. I am passionate about democratic process and there is a principle here and I cannot see how you could miss it.

Now if Jack Layton suddenly called for the defeat of New Dems and the election of a Liberal majority -- or even the election of ANY Liberal you would start to have a point. Layton only tried to make the most of his MPs and vowed to have more the next time out.

Life, the unive...

Farmpunk wrote:

@Life

That's your estimation of the Dolby situation. 

It's not mine.

And I think Dolby may have started something that maybe needed to be brought out into the open.

 

 

So you stopped by the office once or twice and from that you know how many volunteers there might have been.  Have you ever actually worked on a campaign to have any idea of how many volunteers it takes for even a minimum campaign.  Unless you are suggesting that Dolby was nothing more than a paper candidate who put up no signs, had no leaflets dropped off at homes, or had anyone doing mainstreeting or had no donors and so on.   Because unless you are suggesting that- your sense of how a campaign works, even a no-hoper is quite wrong.

Does it really matter though how many it might have been.  Do you not think he has a responsibility to those people?  Or is it all about the 'greater good' for you and you don't care about the impact on the 'collateral' damage.   Think how those people feel tonight.

If Dolby had done this as a private citizen, or even a former candidate-that is one thing.   However, by not even informing the local riding association and campaign volunteers he crossed a line.  

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Let me tell you something else. There are all kinds of ways of building a coalition. Maybe progressive Canadians should be talking about it, rather than just watching it happen on TV the next time it gets sprung on us...

So people who bust their butts working on a riding campaign, thats something that happens on TV?

You are so ready to make excuses for him, that you look at the fact he is a union brother, and pay no attention to WHAT he did and how that would be thought of by the brothers and sisters if it was union work.

You are even ready to so easily buy the excuse that he was caught unawares. If he was, then the way out was to just quietly resign. But no, he USED his position, which is not his to own and dispose of as he likes, and timed his announcement to effect maximum sabotage of people he has worked with.... because he thought it was the right thing to do.

That's a fine ethic on which to build coalitions.

Unionist

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I told you I didn't support his choice. But you seem to need to go further and say how he betrayed people and sabotaged and tried to wreak maximum damage. That's a little too heavy for me.

 

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Nonsense, Ken. Had he campaigned for strategic voting, unilaterally, while under the NDP banner, you could say that. But he quit. And spoke his mind.

That is formalistic hair splitting Unionist. He announced he was quitting at the same time as why. There is no substantive difference than if he had remained the candidate, said the same thing, then resigned or waited to be removed.

KenS

I'm sure he didnt go about plotting how to wreck maximum damage.

But he did pick his time- used the position which was not 'his'- to have maximum effect. And that heightens the betrayal of the people he worked with, and the betrayal of basic principles of decency and mutuality that should go with that work.

KenS

This isnt about tactics. Its about obligations- to real people.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

I'm sure he didnt go about plotting how to wreck maximum damage.

How do you know so much?

Quote:
But he did pick his time- used the position which was not 'his'- to have maximum effect.

How do you know so much? (I think I'm repeating myself.)

If he were looking for "maximum effect", why not wait till a few days before the vote, wait for a sign in the polls or elsewhere of a Conservative resurgence, then take the stage and dramatically announce that the stakes have all changed, and we need to save civilization, NOW, from the Harper tsunami - and create maximum confusion in NDP ranks with minimum time to fix the damage (e.g., no time to even pick a new candidate)?

Why didn't he do that, Ken, if he was "picking his time" for "maximum effect"?

Quote:
And that heightens the betrayal of the people he worked with, and the betrayal of basic principles of decency and mutuality that should go with that work.

... on the assumption that the "people he worked with" don't actually share his views about the similarity of ideals between him and the Liberal candidate and the danger of re-electing a Conservative. But that's another thing you and I don't know, do we?

 

Life, the unive...

If that's the type of person leading the charge, I want no part of that coalition before or after the vote.   Someone who treats the working people of a campaign so poorly belongs on the other side with the Conseravtives.  At its heart it is the same attitude wrapped up in a progressive bow.

Unionist

Some people think that making huge distinctions between building a coalition before the vote ("BETRAYAL!"), vs. after the vote ("BRILLIANT! CIVIC DUTY!"), is formalistic hair splitting, Ken. We should eschew no tactics at all. We should look at what the situation demands, discuss, and go forward.

 

Unionist

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

 Someone who treats the working people of a campaign so poorly belongs on the other side with the Conseravtives.

See? That's over the top. When the time comes, you won't build a coalition with people like Dolby. Then how, pray tell, will you build a coalition with Ignatieff and Rae and their ilk? How did Jack do that?

This illustrates very clearly my discomfort with the attack on this man.

 

KenS

Unionist: I said that he didn't go plotting it for maximum damage.

I did say he picked his time for maximum effect- that wasnt really intentional. I did and do mean that the timing was deliberate- and that is bad enough. That alone is a betrayal.

Based on how sincere he seems to be, I think he did it rather cavalierly. Like he could see the effect it would have to make a public announcement rather than simply quitting because he didnt find the position tenable any more. There was an opportunity, and he took it. But in doing so, he blithely stepped on other people he had an obligation to.

I agree that Life's statement is over the top. But when people are pissed for good reason, they dont just say reasonable things. Like me saying he timed if for maximum effect when to be more precise, I 'just' thought his timing was deliberate and unethical. Yes, 'maximum effect' is overstating it.

Unionist

Since so many people are speculating about the motives and character of Ryan Dolby, I decided to find out [url=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/CanadaVOTES:_NDP_candidate_Ryan_Dolby_runnin... little more about him[/url]. Interesting interview following this quick bio:

Quote:
Born in Chatham, he moved to St. Thomas in 1994, and recently to the Village of Shedden. An employee of Lear Corporation, Dolby is a CAW Local 2168 member, who serves as Union Benefits Representative, and Local Trustee and Chair of the Union in Politics Committee. A CAW Council Delegate representative, he was appointed to the CAW National Employment Insurance Committee in 2006. He is involved in community organizations ranging from the St. Thomas Action Centre, United Way, the St. Thomas Women’s Shelter and the St. Thomas Fanshawe College Campus Advisory Committee. Having studied at the University of Windsor, he is currently completing the Labour Studies Certificate Program at McMaster University, aiming towards a Bachelor's Degree in Labour Studies.

That was from 2008. According to his [url=http://goo.gl/iwS6X]now deleted NDP page[/url], he is also an associate member of the National Farmers' Union and active in his local church. I wonder if that's why the wikinews interview calls him "Pastor Ryan Dolby"??

 

janfromthebruce

His personal individual decision did not just impact the local riding association, the volunteers who worked on his campaigne and those in the community who supported him but has national ramifications. Yes, scabs make individual choices based on what sincerely believe is the right thing to do in the short run, but in the long run, it's the death of unions and any kind of collective decency.

 

I'm sure buddy will do all right out of this for himself but wrapping himself up in the nationa flag was disgusting.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I remain disturbed, Unionist, by the persistence you are showing in comparing Layton working in a coalition in the interest of his party with a person who worked for the other side using the stage made by the people who contributed to his campaign. I am blown away by your failure to see what is a gulf of distinction. Layton does not need to consult constantly as long as he is leading in the interest of the party-- but even so there were many New Democrats in on those coalition discussions. This is a guy who took all the efforts of volunteers to endorse the other guy. He was not even apologetic when interviewed on CBC today for the people he let down. He did not even recognize that he had some kind of obligation to consult. He thought the nomination was his to do with it what he wants. The better comparison is to Steven Harper and his views about the mandate he has.

I have limited my criticism to the actions under a presumption of ignorance but we are crediting him with massive ignorance in order to let him off of the more serious accusations that are natural with betrayal. I don't get your defensiveness. I would not tolerate or expect this from my union colleagues.

So how would you feel if one person you worked with decided it was in everyone's interest to cross the picket line? Maybe that person decides on his own that it will keep the company in business and save everyone's job. Does that make it right?

Really who gives a damn what he was thinking when he decided that he knew better than all the people working to get him elected all the people who voted for him in his nomination, his party and colleagues. Who cares about the thought process beyond the arrogance of thinking it was his decision alone and one he would not even give the courtesy of notice.

To use another analogy-- if I ever quit a job without any notice and announce publicly my resignation, I would assume that my employer would get the idea that I disrespected them. I would not be liked or appreciated by them. Even an employer I hated would get at least some warning. That's manners. And most employers are in it for money not people donating their time and money. I have worked on campaigns where poor people found pennies to donate so no-- the more I think about this the angrier I get and I am sorry to say this because I really respect you Unionist but the angrier I get at you for what looks like willful blindness at the issues and distinctions that are far too apparent here. Unionist, I have found you to be a person of principle, please reconsider this somehow-- try to look at this another way. I have turned this around in my mind every which way and find neither the excuses nor the comparisons you are bringing. This is not about the fact that this is the NDP and not about the strategic voting thing-- I respect people supporting other parties. This is about the principle of collective decision making. This is something that by your handle I expect you to be expert on.

Life, the unive...

@Unionist

I'm not attacking him- I am addressing his behaviour.  It has NOTHING to do with his politics.   It is about the disdain he showed directly to the people he worked with.   It is the kind of disdain I see in the Conservatives to working people.  I could give a rat's behind if he had decided to do this as a private citizen or even using his position as a former candidate.   But that is not what he did.  He treated the people he worked with as meaningless and worthless.   Surely as a union member you can get that.  It his attitude to others who he had an obligations towards and that attitude much more strongly resembles Conservatives than it does anyone else.  Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

As much as I don't personally like or support Rae and Ignatieff- they have never pretended to be things they are not (well except progressive)   When Rae switched to the Liberals he did it as a private citizen.  When Ignatieff switched from a Bush supporter to a Liberal he did is as a private citizen.  On the other hand this guy had to have sat around a table with campaign workers at some point since and before the writ dropped and never batted an eye as they planned and he agreed to the spending of other people's money on his behalf- (now this is an assumption, but every riding association for every riding in the country would have been holding a meeting of some sort, with the canddiate) sometime in the last few days.  

Yet again it is his reckless disregard for others he worked beside and led that is at issue, not what party he might have decided to support.  Maybe if you had worked intimately in election campaigns you might not be so cavalier towards what those people will be feeling.   Again that's an assumption, but based on the tone of your comments and your lack of empathy for the people he will have hurt personally I can't but help draw that conclusion.

Sean in Ottawa

Jan I get the national implications totally. The damage is yet to be seen.

The reason I focus on the local is that he had responsibility to the local. If a local riding association decided collectively and democratically to damage the national campaign I'd be disappointed but the point is he took a collective good -- the nomination and riding association and damaged it for his own personal reasons. His decision bad or good is partly irrelevant -- it is the fact he did it repudiating the leadership and collective process.

And yes I think there is a very good case to be made that he has acted with the same morality as a scab.

I doesn't change anything that he may be a nice guy, sincere or well-intentioned we have democracy for good reasons. Bad enough to see a prime minister have no use for it -- I don't want to see people on the left embrace autocratic behaviour in defiance of collective decision-making.

Unionist

I think I already said what I thought about the over-the-top comparisons with scabs. This is equivalent to suddenly quitting the CAW and going and campaigning for the Steelworkers, not because he hates the CAW, or loves the boss, but because he has decided - on his own, without consultation and discussion (maybe), in his conscience - that the Steelworkers have the best chance at organizing the (say) hotel sector in his town.

That's the comparison as I see it, though all analogies are somewhat flawed.

I have never stood still for the "my union right or wrong, the others are crap" view. I know very few workers who have that kind of sports-fan mentality. We unite around goals, not around organizational loyalty. That's my approach to politics. Understand why I despise "my party right or wrong"? Same difference.

But quitting the CAW (or whatever) and becoming a strikebreaker in the employ of the boss? That's your comparison? Think about it some more, please. Or don't, whatever.

If Ryan Dolby had said: "I had an epiphany. The NDP sucks. They don't really represent the interests of the workers. It's the Liberal party that does." I would have called him a skunk. Go back and read what he said. Please.

 

adma

What puzzles me is that Ryan Dolby was actually one of those SW Ontario sleeper candidates in what was meant to be a sleeper "anti-HST" NDP target--hardly same-old cannon fodder...

KenS

Unionist, I havent seen you yet consider the question of his obligations to people he worked with.

The individual member of a union who starts working for another union is not analagous at all. If somebody in the riding association decides to work for the Liberals- not somehing people want to see, but it does happen.

If you dont consider the question, we're not talking about the same thing.

[Perhaps a better analogy would be a union president who without telling anyone else, one day makes a public announcement that he is now going to organize for a rival union. That's a little more dramatic than what Ryan did, but I think it is analagous. And big deal that he resigned as President of the Local 5 minutes before he makes his public announcement. That makes him just a private individual 'just speaking his mind' like anyone else?]

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

I think I already said what I thought about the over-the-top comparisons with scabs. This is equivalent to suddenly quitting the CAW and going and campaigning for the Steelworkers, not because he hates the CAW, or loves the boss, but because he has decided - on his own, without consultation and discussion (maybe), in his conscience - that the Steelworkers have the best chance at organizing the (say) hotel sector in his town.

That's the comparison as I see it, though all analogies are somewhat flawed.

I have never stood still for the "my union right or wrong, the others are crap" view. I know very few workers who have that kind of sports-fan mentality. We unite around goals, not around organizational loyalty. That's my approach to politics. Understand why I despise "my party right or wrong"? Same difference.

But quitting the CAW (or whatever) and becoming a strikebreaker in the employ of the boss? That's your comparison? Think about it some more, please. Or don't, whatever.

If Ryan Dolby had said: "I had an epiphany. The NDP sucks. They don't really represent the interests of the workers. It's the Liberal party that does." I would have called him a skunk. Go back and read what he said. Please.

 

I listened to him on the radio tonight.

No apology to the people who worked for his candidacy.

Dismay that he ought to have spoken to the riding association that is financing him before the media.

Wide endorsements of the Liberal party with extensive praise for them.

I don't think I am prepared to assume he was that stupid not to know what he was doing.

I am shocked to see you, Unionist, compare moving to the Liberals to changing unions. Didn't you somewhere speak of them a little less fondly?

Anyway, this is getting ridiculous. He is campaigning for the opposition doing long interviews on the merits of voting Liberal using the efforts of New Democrats to drive his voice out.

Scab is kind.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

I told you I didn't support his choice.

Why not?  Isn't he entitled to support who he wants?

Life, the unive...

Well it seems the theory that this was a sudden revelation gets blown out of the water

Quote:

Dolby said he'd been considering the move for several months, after realizing from discussions with local Liberals they shared his principles

and there's more

Quote:

Liberal candidate Graham Warwick said Dolby told him a few days ago he was considering a move, but the announcement still took him by surprise

From the local paper http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/03/30/17815371.html

So he has been considering it for months, even talked to the Liberal candidate, but never, not once brought it up to people he was working with and sitting around a table sharing plans and goals for the election - which he openly admits to- while they would have been spending donated money on his behalf. He had plenty of time to do this before the writ drop.

How anyone can defend this kind of treatment of the folks in that riding association is totally beyond me. This starts to smell more and more.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I told you I didn't support his choice.

Why not?  Isn't he entitled to support who he wants?

Yes, and I'm entitled to consider his choice as pathetic and wrongheaded. You, on the other hand, are entitled to some as yet unknown third opinion. Why - do you see some contradiction between people having different opinions without calling each other scabs?

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am shocked to see you, Unionist, compare moving to the Liberals to changing unions. Didn't you somewhere speak of them a little less fondly?

Anyway, this is getting ridiculous. He is campaigning for the opposition doing long interviews on the merits of voting Liberal using the efforts of New Democrats to drive his voice out.

Scab is kind.

Sean, I'm going to be unkind:

You obviously spend no time among industrial workers, and you spend no time in a union.

If you did, you would have to work together with people who vote Liberal, Conservative, Green, NDP, Bloc, ADQ, or never at all. People who make racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic comments and jokes. People who tell you that they are being taxed to death and they need someone to the right of Harper to put it all right.

But not one of them will scab on their mates. If they did, well, I won't finish that sentence.

So use that word all you like. You've never experienced it in real life. I know you haven't. Because if you had, you wouldn't in your most feverish dreams compare it to changing football teams or political parties.

Sorry to be so harsh.

 

wage zombie

I can understand and agree that his choice was wrongheaded.  Why would you consider his choice pathetic?

We have had different opinions and I'm quite sure I have never called you a scab.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

I can understand and agree that his choice was wrongheaded.  Why would you consider his choice pathetic?

Because he obviously hasn't got a clue what he's doing. Did he just count up the votes in the last election? Did he just realize that continued Conservative government is a disaster? How about an explanation for why he was running for the NDP and not the Liberals? Does he think their policies are identical, or just the policies of Warwick and Dolby? Pathetic.

Quote:
We have had different opinions and I'm quite sure I have never called you a scab.

And I'm perfectly sure I never said you did - I was referring to the statements of others, not about me, but about someone who made an individual decision about politics, and comparing that to scabbing (which only a non-worker could ever dream of comparing).

 

Unionist

Anyway, this one is even more pathetic:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fantinos-li... Liberal rival defects, throws support behind Tories[/url]

Liberal-Conservative coalition!! Poor Harper. He just can't make that "c"-word draw blood...

 

KenS

I agree that it is not scabbing. Not analagous at all.

But its also not just 'changing football teams'.

KenS wrote:

Unionist, I havent seen you yet consider the question of his obligations to people he worked with.

And I used the analagous situation of the Local Pres who talks to no one in his union. and then suddenly makes a very public switch to organizing another union. But addressing that wouldnt be the only way to address the question.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Because he obviously hasn't got a clue what he's doing. Did he just count up the votes in the last election? Did he just realize that continued Conservative government is a disaster?

Ohhh...so it sounds like he's just not very bright then.  Too bad the NDP didn't nominate someone smarter.  I guess that one would be their own fault.

I mean, you would think "don't nominate idiots" would be common sense, but I suppose there are plenty of counter-examples.

Quote:

How about an explanation for why he was running for the NDP and not the Liberals? Does he think their policies are identical, or just the policies of Warwick and Dolby? Pathetic.

Something tells me that there's no forthcoming explanation.

Lens Solution

Ian Capstick called Ryan Dolby out pretty strongly on P&P earlier tonight.  Capstick said he posted his feelings on Dolby's website, but that Dolby deleted them.

Unionist

I don't think we're communicating very well, wage zombie. I can't figure out what you're trying to say.

And Ken, why would I care about the obligations of Dolby (whom I don't know) to his riding association (whom I don't know)? Is that what's important? Why are you and so many others making judgments about his moral character? Of all the irrelevant (and unknowable, for that matter) issues.

I'm glad that you're not calling him a scab, though. Might as well call him Hitler, unless some people think that's not strong enough to describe the crime against humanity which this monster has committed.

The lesson I learn from the comments here is the toxic nature of partisan politics.

 

Pages

Topic locked