Federal NDP blocking nominations for political reasons

The answer, of course, is to bar any candidate who has ever written, said, or done anything.

In this context aka Mycroft is absolutely bang on. Saying this about protecting the financial interests of the party membership is inane.

We are talking about the party denying the right of all these hard-working members that we are waxing poetic about, who do indeed donate their time and money, the right to vote for the candidate of their chosing to represent them in the riding in which they live. If we are going to tie together money and democracy than I assume we will be refunding the membership dues of anyone who joined the party to support Stuart's candidacy.

The NDP has had a long policy of thumbing its nose at the opinions of the membership, totally disregarding policies adopted at coventions paid for also by these same members that we have to save from themselves. I suppose we should all take it for granted that federal office knows best?

Why not bring Stuart's comments to light and allow all those who have donated their money in St. Paul's then decide if this is who they want to represent them? Did they not make sacrifices to their personal budgets so that they would have this right?

As a small business owner with three small childen there are many other things I could have done with the thousands of dollars I donated over the last several years...now maybe I will. If we want to make this a financial issue, it cuts both ways.

Why, one might ask, should I make these sacrifices if the party leadership, were I living in St. Paul's, not allow me the right to chose my own candidate, not because he said anything homophobic or racist, but simply because he recently criticized party policy in BC in the early 1990's?

Absurd.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

remind wrote:

:rolleyes: @ aka, in total agreement with OO.

That's what you always do when you have nothing substantive to say.

No...that is what I do when I can't be bothered wasting my time and want to show that I read it and already wasted my time,and actually I did add that I agreed with OO, so a comment was made, why repeat?

Quote:

You still haven't answered my question.  You posted links for 4 threads which supposedly give reasons for why the NDP has grounds to bar Stuart Parker as a candidate.  They may be obvious for you, but not to everyone else.  What did Stuart specifically say on babble that necessitates the blocking of his candidacy?

I did not bother answering your question anymore than I would for someone who saw nothing misogynist  in a link given, and asked what offended.

And I said "for starters"..... I did not say just that should block him, but I will add they are  indicative of  an apparent willingness to not give a shit about how his actions and words could  impact upon other candidates across Canada. But perhaps that is what some want, eh?!

Folks, I'm a member and this policy indicates that the party *is* listening to me.

I was horrified to see the last campaign derailed for two of the five weeks, one of which was wasted on Elizabeth May's participation in the debate, and one on why anyone would try and defend one of our candidates who had been driving while intoxicated on a hallucigen and bragging about it on videotape on the internet. And I'm far from alone on this score.

The federal party has to explain to Mr. Parker what their reasons are, and they probably have to explain it to the President of the riding association; but they don't have to explain it to me, and remind doesn't have to try and research and recreate their thinking for LP in a thread on Babble, either. Presumably if the comments are that problematic (and I'm assuming, because party officials are intelligent, ethical people, and not morons, they probably originated from after Mr. Parker switched poltical allegiances), there is not much to be gained by publicizing them further.

It is a mark of maturity to accept that you can't always know everything you want to, because it might violate the privacy of others. The fact that a candidate whose authorization was withdrawn would want to make such a case of it, would tend in my mind to reinforce the idea that there might have been some justification behind any such decision in the first place. I'm not clear how much of this is being driven by Mr. Parker however, and how much by people who are bound and determined to find fault with federal office no matter what.

As I said, however, there is no evidence that federal office is *not* following the wishes of the members in being vigilant about candidate search, and no-one here has presented any such evidence beyond their own personal preconceptions. Certainly the party is following my wishes, and I hope they continue to do so.

Well, ottawaobserver, the only NDP candidate you can blame for wasting a week of airtime on Elizabeth May in the debates is your party leader (and now my MP, who I will vote for in the next election), who was taking heat for trying to block her.

As for Dana - he was always open about his drug activism, so he wasn't hiding anything - and he got the nomination a really long time before the election was called, if I remember correctly.  So I'm not sure why they didn't vet him better.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the NDP vetting their candidates better.  Many of us were calling for it - especially when it came to that creep out in Durham region who posted a bunch of misogynist and violent crap all over Facebook, and then the NDP refused for days on end to revoke his candidacy.  (BTW, it's also the NDP's fault that that debacle went on so long in the media - if they'd made short work of him the moment they found out about it, that would've been that, and it wouldn't have been controversial in the least.)

So now, because the NDP screwed up and didn't vet their candidates last time for illegal activity, sex scandals, and misogynist ravings on the internet, they're going in the other direction and ensuring that no one under the age of 50 can run for office (since everyone under 50 has used online social media to chat with friends, and likely have some intemperate or critical thing written somewhere out there in cyberspace.)

And the funny thing is, it sounds like Stuart didn't even say anything BAD.  Does that mean that everyone in the ONDP who was upset about the Rae government breaking public sector contracts, and lying about public auto insurance, and said so at some point, should never be able to run for federal or provincial office under the NDP banner ever again?

You're going from not vetting anyone for anything, to vetting people for every word they ever said about the NDP publicly ever?  And every policy discussion they ever had with other NDP members, where they might have varied slightly from NDP official policy?

Michelle wrote:

You're going from not vetting anyone for anything, to vetting people for every word they ever said about the NDP publicly ever? 

There go my aspirations for a second career.  Oh well, back the want ads.

No-one will be lining up to use your services as a media relations consultant very soon, LP. You're unable to predict even the most obvious media reactions to common occurences.

Michelle wrote:

As for Dana - he was always open about his drug activism, so he wasn't hiding anything - and he got the nomination a really long time before the election was called, if I remember correctly.  So I'm not sure why they didn't vet him better.

Dana's drug activism was never the problem. The fact he got behind the wheel while stoned is, however, a HUGE problem for me. That put people's lives in danger, and is completely unnecessary, irresponsible, and stupid.

Perhaps the party could have done a better job vetting him, and they might have found the video tape - I can't recall the details of how the video came out, but it was never his pro-pot positions that did him in.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Excellent post, Michelle.  It seems that the NDP is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

With respect, it's not a nut.  It's something much bigger than that.

It's not always easy to figure out what will cause a problem and what won't.  Sometimes a situation can be managed, but only in certain circumstances and not in others.  A candidate might get away with something in one election because the opposition doesn't find it, or they find it but don't run with it because they have candidates guilty of the same thing, or because the public or media  mood is forgiving at that time.  In other times, the same situation could cause a campaign meltdown.

More often than not, the situations that arise during candidate search are not black and white.  Nine times out of ten, reasonable people can disagree over criteria to bump or support a candidate. 

So it's not a nut, more like a bomb squad called in to carefully dismantle an explosive device while it ticks away.  It's a delicate operation fraught with peril.

Ottawa Observer's comments I think are spot on here in that we do not know and should not expect to know the full story ehre and even with the Candidate being here that does not answer the question since he is not the one who made the decision even if that decision was about him.

I find it interesting that nobody has pointed out that the NDP of all the national parties is perhaps the least involved in local riding candidate selection. The reason is a quesiton of finding that democratic balance and as Lou pointed out it is a combination of respecting the national name and reputation of the party for members and supporters across the country as well as local selection.

As well nobody has pointed out that riding associations have been raided and taken over by new members with an agenda at time-- this has happened to other aprties more than the NDP but the experience does show that there is a balance between the local and national will and control of a national political party. I have trouble therefore with absolutes like the NDP should be represented nationally (as they are with each and every candidate) by whomever is elected locally withotu a say in it).

I therefore agree that, for the most part, ridings should choose their candidates which would then be subject to the potential of a national veto. That veto should be managed carefully but it is not without purpose given that each candidate represents both their riding association to the NDP and the NDP to the entire country as well as their riding.

Having said that I think the NDP does a better job of this than any other party by reputation, perhaps it could be improved. Perhaps we do need a more formal ombudsperson or committee where confidential appeals can be made. Perhaps that committee ought to be elected by members at convention. (I am not familiar with the current system-- perhaps some of this is in place, I don't know).

But the suggestion that the national party would have no right to refuse a candidate under any circumstances does not seem practical or democratic as the party may select candidates locally by election but those people repreent far more than those who select them.

The issue of how to address affirmative action in election slates has also been raised as a candidate can only have one gender, one age, one background, one ethnicity but a slate ought to have a variety. This is another distinction in the difference between a single riding association and a national party. The NDP has found several ways to address this and some other parties even use appointments. those appointments have been criticized and defended along the same lines as arguments made here.

And by the way Fidel's post #23 was superb and so was Lou Arab's #55.

Stuart, how would you propose that the party respond when it holds a campaign event on the leader's tour where these comments of yours would be quoted back to the leader?

Apart from the fact that the Gustafson Lake issue was very complex, and should not responsibly be reduced to your simplistic characterization, how on earth would you really expect the above situation to unfold?

ottawaobserver, does this mean that no one should be able to run for the NDP if they ever said anywhere that the NDP broke public sector collective agreements in Ontario, or campaigned on public auto insurance and never came through, just in case they were ever quoted back to the leader during a campaign?

Who does that leave to run for office?  Only people who agreed all along with breaking public sector collective agreements, and people who were fine with backing down on public auto insurance and never said boo otherwise?

I cannot overstate my disappointment with the way Stuart's candidacy has been handled by the NDP.  There are two former NDP premiers in the Federal Liberal caucus.  With have a former Quebec Liberal cabinet Minister now serving as a MP from Montreal.  Aka Mycroft touched on the history of the Reform/Alliance and PC parties which spent years fighting each other before merging into one party.  There is plenty of history of people switching sides in parliamentary politics.  As for Brian's comments, with all due respect, if the federal party feels that it lacks the necessary communication skills to manage critical comments made by a candidate in their past, then they are not smart enough to be doing their jobs.

Unless the federal party produces some other reasons for Stuart to be disqualified, then I will have no choice but to conclude that this is simply an exercise in Stalinist behaviour.

I can not recall if the military involved with this Gustafsen Lake incident? I believe there were planning for involvement however nothing never occurred if my memory is correct.

Edit: I maybe thinking of another incident occurring later in the 1990s.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Stuart, how would you propose that the party respond when it holds a campaign event on the leader's tour where these comments of yours would be quoted back to the leader?

"Every party in Canada has made mistakes during its time in office. Every party has let the public down in its past. New Democrats are different in that instead of denying our mistakes, we learn from them. Instead of demonizing our critics and shutting them out of politics, we have asked them to join our party to make it better.

And the evidence is clear from the fact that activists like Stuart Parker have rejoined the NDP that progressive people all across Canada have a renewed faith in a renewed NDP. Progressive Canadians, especially those who have supported the Green Party in the past see a new and better NDP, a more courageous, a more progressive and a more inspiring alternative."

Is it a scandal when a Tory MP speaks disparagingly about Brian Mulroney's government and his Reform Party activism at the time? No. Is it a scandal when a Liberal MP speaks disparagingly about the Sponsorhsip Scandal and the failings of the Chretien government? No. I think you are imagining a hypothetical scandal that wouldn't unfold because it would be a complete non-event.

Are we talking about the federal NDP here, or one of the provincial parties? There is a difference.

On Gustafsen Lake

http://noii-van.resist.ca/?page_id=28

"Newly elected Grand Chief of the AFN, Phil Fontaine has publicly declared his support for a public inquiry into the Gustafsen Lake affair. In addition more than 140 Chiefs at the AFN leadership convention have called for an inquiry into "excessive force and attempted murder against the Indian people at Gustafsen Lake.."

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/gustlake/aug0197.html

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Yes.  It is the federal NDP that blocked Stuart from getting a nomination because of his criticisms of the actions of BC NDP govts.

First of all it is allegedly and secondly you do not know that is was because of 'criticisms' at all or if it was some specific language he used.  But don't let little things like that get in your way for your witch hunt of those evil, nasty people that work for the NDP.  You know when I read some of these comments, it reminds me of ultra-righters complaining about those evil civil servents.  Same exact tone.

Well with friends like LP and P2 the NDP sure doesn't need any ememies.  No wonder the left seems doomed to marginalization.

And if witch hunt, a common term for someone who grew up in the age of McCarthy is now considered sexist and even mysoginst I apologize- first I've heard of it. 

Edited to add

Although that seems to be mostly just your opinion and interpretation.  I just spent some time searching around the net, including on femminist websites and found the usage of the term 'witch hunt' pretty widely used and accepted.  However, if it bothers you I apologize.

The blockage of Stuart Parker's nomination shows the ills of Canadian democracy.  While we may complain about Harper's dictatorial style, how would Ignatieff or Layton behave if they were prime minister?

In theory, I should be able to become a member of any party (though not at the same time), and vote for any nominated candidate to represent my party in the next election.  That candidate may include myself.  The Conservatives have essentially guaranteed that all current Conservative MPs do not need to face a nomination battle.  Liberal leaders appoint selected candidates to winnable ridings.  The NDP now does not want candidates who may rock the boat or don't have a puritanical past.  We Canadians will end up with plastic Ken and Barbie representatives who as Andrew Coyne describes become members of Parliament in the House of Commons appointed by the leaders of their parties.

By the way, I do know Stuart Parker.  He is definitely not a nut; he's more of a Mounds.

Sometimes, I feel like a nut.

Sometimes, I don't.

Almond Joy's got nuts.

Mounds don't.

ottawaobserver wrote:

To the contrary, Life-TUAE, its origin makes it anything but sexist, since the term comes from a time when the Puritans in Salem wanted to punish any uppity women in their midst by calling them witches, and sought to get them to turn on each other by naming who the other witches were in order to avoid being burned at the stake themselves. That's what a witch-hunt was then. And, as you point out, in McCarthyist times it was a hunt for Communists in the film industry, using the same technique of blackmail. I would suggest the folks at federal office are being convicted without a trial in a similar way, by the very same folks who are accusing you of using this supposedly "sexist" term.

I'm having a great laugh. I'm blacklisted and then immediately accused of McCarthyism without even a hint of irony. 

Well, if you think I drew incorrect conclusions, then you ought to give an example of how one would respond in a scrum if one *disagreed* with your statement, and how to do it in a way that would not derail the entire leader's tour for a day or more.

If you don't think the Obama campaign practiced disciplined communications on a national scale, you haven't read much about the functioning of that team. Yes, one can micro-target messages, but not inconsistent ones, as they will be caught sooner or later. Remember, Obama had to jettison Rev. Wright, but he got to take a whole speech to do it, in a LOT longer campaign period. It was certainly an important moment in the campaign, but you'll notice that Harold Ford was never able to get past the "call me" ads in Tennesee, and a finer example of a potential candidate I don't think we've seen in quite some time.

It's narcissistic to think as a candidate one can just unburden oneself of controversial opinions that others will have to wear and explain, with no notice. It's not even democratic actually. But if that's your precondition for being able to run, perhaps the decision that was taken was for the best all around. I think you might have wound up being very hurt in the hurly-burly of the process otherwise.

While I agree the term witchhunt is not sexist I think the term better describes a situation where a person's public statements are scoured and they are barred if any of them bear the slightest hint of anything less than complete loyalty to the Party to the exclusion of any suggestion that anything the Party has ever done was in error.

Or maybe Orwellian is the better metaphor?