Here are some maps of Scarborough-Guildwood showing the proportions of Black and South Asian visible minorities in the riding.
Krago, is there an online source for maps like this of other Ontario ridings?
Ontario By-elections
Thu, 2013-07-11 15:17
#152
infracaninophile
Thu, 2013-07-11 16:24
#153
autoworker
...
Thu, 2013-07-11 16:27
#154
"Economic royalists"? "Aristocrats"? It seems to me that you're deliberately trying to twist what I've said, to make me out as some crank with a chip on my shoulder. It's that kind of elitist sophistry that makes the working class join the Tea party! Even us dumb-ass plant workers know when were being put in our place. I've read "Animal Farm", btw.I don't share your binary obsession with class. I'm paid to work in a factory. It's a job, not a way of life.And none of the public school teachers in Ontario have anything in common with Mr. Chips, Jean Brodie or even that fictional guy you mentioned.
Where the hell did you get the idea that teachers are aristocrats, auto? And what did they ever do to you? You SHOULD regard them as your fellow workers and be in solidarity with them. They've always stood up for your CAW brothers and sisters. They never backed autp industry management against your interests.
There's no difference in class status between public school teachers and your fellow CAW members. Workers are workers. Teaching young people in underfunded, undersupplied, decaying public schools is just as much work as anything YOU do or anything any other worker does.
And yet, you insist on pegging public school teachers as economic royalists or even as pseudo-aristocrats(that's what that puerile reference to "Mr. Chips" was about). Why? It's not as though what they gained from their union's victories in the past ever came at YOUR expense. And it isn't as though there were ever any situations where teachers hurt you and your fellow autoworkers.
You're twisting what I wrote to imply that I called you or would ever even THINK of you as a "dumb-ass plant worker". And you're twisting reality to deny that teachers ARE workers. Why can't you just admit that they are and that autoworkers and teachers should be on the same side of the struggle? There is nothing elitist or privileged about being a teacher and they don't have it any easier than you. Why do you resent them so much? Why can't you see that the two groups are in it together? Did the teachers' union ever betray the CAW on ANYTHING?
Thu, 2013-07-11 17:30
#155
autoworker
I seem to recall teachers caving in during the Days of Action in '96. They don't make reliable allies, when the chips are down. Besides, with Right to Work just across the river, do you think many of them will care when our plants close, and move to the U.S.? The biggest promoters of Capitalism are teachers. If you're going to shout at me, at least get your head out of your arse, so I can actually hear what you're saying.
Thu, 2013-07-11 18:54
#156
Basically, Stockholm, I trust audra. She saw what went down. I wasn't there but she was.
Really? Where did you read that? Nowhere in her post does she indicate that she was there. Everything she discusses can be pulled from second-hand sources. She discusses tweeting a lot, but I think if she'd been there at the meeting she would have said.
Is your point 'being there' makes a narrative more valid? I'd argue not necessarily. I've made my points critiquing Williams's take on it, and have got slammed plenty for my trouble. I was at the meeting, for what it's worth. CBC b-roll can back me up on this.
Thu, 2013-07-11 19:07
#157
Basically, Stockholm, I trust audra. She saw what went down. I wasn't there but she was.
She wasn't there either...she read about in the newspaper the next day. Edmund O'Connor who has posted in this thread is the one and only eyewitness. I am 100% neutral on who ought to have been nominated as NDP candidate in Scarborough-Guildwood. that decision was to be made party members who live in the riding and no one else. No one has suggested any fraud. No one has suggested anyone voted who wasn't supposed to. No one has suggested a busload of "instant New Democrats" showed up out of no where. It was free, fair process and the local members decided and the local members are ALWAYS right. that's why we ELECT nominees instead of having the party simply pick people. The people have spoken. Period.
Wow, you make me sound like I should be in a book: "Orange Eyewitness – I Was There" :) . I find it's interesting that Audra (well-known in this parish) hasn't chosen to respond a little more, either here or in the comments section on her blog post. Maybe she doesn't respond well to critiques, even if they're written by people who do have certain problems with the party, and want to change it.
Thu, 2013-07-11 19:16
#158
Getting back to the by-election:
The intervention by motormouth Glen Murray into the Scarborough subway debate is interesting. It's an attempt by the Liberals to appear 'pro-subway' while conveniently placing the onus on Ford to approve the funding mechanism to make it happen, which of course he knows Ford will never do. Thus the Liberals can claim credit for the subway idea, but never have to face the consequences of the rubber hitting the road. Plus, they neatly knee-cap the opposition, whom they can paint as anti-subway if they dare to criticize any aspect of the shenanigans. It's pretty neat being able to buy people's votes with the promise of spending their own money, isn't it?
Thu, 2013-07-11 19:38
#159
Basically, Stockholm, I trust audra. She saw what went down. I wasn't there but she was.
Really? Where did you read that? Nowhere in her post does she indicate that she was there. Everything she discusses can be pulled from second-hand sources. She discusses tweeting a lot, but I think if she'd been there at the meeting she would have said.
Is your point 'being there' makes a narrative more valid? I'd argue not necessarily. I've made my points critiquing Williams's take on it, and have got slammed plenty for my trouble. I was at the meeting, for what it's worth. CBC b-roll can back me up on this.
I stand corrected on the question of audra's presence at the event. I inferred and inferred wrongly that she had been. Sorry. My bad.
Thu, 2013-07-11 19:58
#160
I seem to recall teachers caving in during the Days of Action in '96. They don't make reliable allies, when the chips are down. Besides, with Right to Work just across the river, do you think many of them will care when our plants close, and move to the U.S.? The biggest promoters of Capitalism are teachers. If you're going to shout at me, at least get your head out of your arse, so I can actually hear what you're saying.
1)Plenty of teachers have spoken and taught eloquently against capitalism. Howard Zinn did. Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky still do. You might want to read about a man named John MacLean. And all around the world, a teacher commits anti-capitalist resistance every time she or he teaches a working-class child to read. That is why right-wing politicians througout North America are trying to DESTROY public schools and the whole concept of universal education. They want to go back to the days when most people NEVER learned to read or think. Teachers are NOT class traitors. Their work is the work of working-class liberation.
2)Teachers are often of a working-class background. Such people would ALWAYS care if working-class jobs were lost-if for no other reason than that losses of working-class jobs will also mean fewer public schools and fewer teaching jobs. And ANY union member is going to stand with other workers to try and save their jobs(something your friends in the Liberal Party NEVER care about, since they all favor globalization and therefore want to force us all into a permanent race to the bottom. Teachers are it with you.
3)I don't know what went down with teachers vs. other workers in the Days of Action in '96...can anybody else here speak to thrse history on that? I doubt that the teacher were sellouts as a group. It's the leaders that cave in in a labor struggle, NOT the rank-and-file. Buzz Hargrove did and does as much selling-out as anybody in his endless call for "strategic voting"(a term that means nothing but worker and left votes for non-left Liberals in exchange for nothing. The McGuinty years prove, once and for all, that strategic voting produces nothing of value. Hundreds of thousands of union voters voted for McGuinty and his party just to "Get the PC's out"...and they got NOTHING for it. McGuinty did almost exactly what the PC's would have done if the PC's had stayed in power.
4)As to the overall tone of that last post...you may not have a chip on your shoulder, but you do have a large slab of plutonium there. e Do you really blame TEACHERS for bulk of labor setbacks in Ontario? Bob Rae had nothing to do with those setbacks? Hargrove had nothing to do with them? The relentless anti-labor spew from the mainstream press had nothing to do with them? It was all on the teachers?
In the words of the Prophet Seinfeld "Really? Really?".
Thu, 2013-07-11 21:02
#161
autoworker
I've never met Chomsky, Zinn, or Davis, but I know more than a few teachers who've never heard of any of them. I agree that most teachers are of the working class, just as are there are corporate lawyers whose fathers worked on loading docks. The son of our former local president became CEO of Chrysler (good for him). I can go on. But why labour the point? Your exegesis is quite eloquent, Ken, but, alas I don't see the same sense of vocation in many (not all) of the "education workers" that I've personally encountered. You're also correct in your analysis of teachers' concerns about manufacturing job losses, now that interest payments on Ontario's debt is beginning to rival the education budget, which is hard to balance without increasing revenue. What is to be done?
Thu, 2013-07-11 22:10
#162
The intervention by motormouth Glen Murray into the Scarborough subway debate is interesting. It's an attempt by the Liberals to appear 'pro-subway' while conveniently placing the onus on Ford to approve the funding mechanism to make it happen, which of course he knows Ford will never do. Thus the Liberals can claim credit for the subway idea, but never have to face the consequences of the rubber hitting the road. Plus, they neatly knee-cap the opposition, whom they can paint as anti-subway if they dare to criticize any aspect of the shenanigans. It's pretty neat being able to buy people's votes with the promise of spending their own money, isn't it?
This, after nearly a decade since he quit as Winnipeg Mayor mid-term, only opening the door for our current mayor to undo Murray's rapid transit plans in Winnipeg.
Yup. Murray's the Rapid Transit guy!
Fri, 2013-07-12 14:55
#163
"Torontoist has obtained a letter sent Thursday from the Scarborough-Guildwood riding association to the party’s provincial secretary. It briefly outlines an investigation by the riding association into the eligibility of twelve people who attended Sunday’s meeting and were allowed to vote. “Our subsequent investigation revealed that eleven of these twelve walk-in voters could not be verified as members in good standing in Scarborough-Guildwood,” the letter states."
http://torontoist.com/2013/07/ndp-riding-association-questions-eligibili...
Fri, 2013-07-12 15:16
#164
autoworker
"Torontoist has obtained a letter sent Thursday from the Scarborough-Guildwood riding association to the party’s provincial secretary. It briefly outlines an investigation by the riding association into the eligibility of twelve people who attended Sunday’s meeting and were allowed to vote. “Our subsequent investigation revealed that eleven of these twelve walk-in voters could not be verified as members in good standing in Scarborough-Guildwood,” the letter states."http://torontoist.com/2013/07/ndp-riding-association-questions-eligibili...
Perhaps they were a UK Labour Party delegation that took the wrong bus to the airport.
Fri, 2013-07-12 15:46
#165
No one has suggested any fraud. No one has suggested anyone voted who wasn't supposed to. No one has suggested a busload of "instant New Democrats" showed up out of no where. It was free, fair process and the local members decided and the local members are ALWAYS right. that's why we ELECT nominees instead of having the party simply pick people. The people have spoken. Period.
This all seems much less certain today.
Fri, 2013-07-12 17:35
#166
I thought the Ontario NDP was about standing up for ordinary Ontarians, not well-connected insiders?
Fri, 2013-07-12 20:12
#167
I think the NDP riding association is concerned is because it appears as if Giambrone used his influence at the last minute to shove out the female candidate who would probably have been the nominee had he not stepped in.
NDP Riding Association Questions Eligibility of Voters in Scarborough-Guildwood Nomination
http://torontoist.com/2013/07/ndp-riding-association-questions-eligibili...
Fri, 2013-07-12 20:43
#168
At this point, they SHOULD release the actual vote total for the Scarborough-Guildwood nomination contest...if for no other reason than to determine if Giambrone's margin of victory was smaller than the number of people who cast questionable votes.
If it was, Giambrone needs to do the honorable thing and withdraw as the candidate so that the party could nominate someone else in time for the byelection.
Fri, 2013-07-12 21:26
#169
This all seems much less certain today.
The EDA hasn't even come close to suggesting anything was fraudulent. It merely wants to verify the validity of members who voted. Given how less-than-stellar the ONDP's paperwork can be, the opportunity for confusion and fog is so much the greater. Those who see this as part of some grand conspiracy will just add this to their files. Those of us who aren't quite with the conspiracy angle wonder how a party apparently so able to devilishly and formidably thwart EDA wishes puts this zeal and focus when it comes to everything else.
Those who already have a sour view of the NDP are apt to read anything to do with the party as validation of their viewpoint. Otherwise, they might have to question their own beliefs and suppositions.
Fri, 2013-07-12 21:27
#170
That will never happen. Even if the party orders a new vote there is no way to know who the extra people voted for so there are no grounds to call on anyone to step aside. If there is a real problem with who voted the only proper thing to do is to have another meeting and make sure that only members that are entitled to vote actually vote.
I guess what I just don't understand is how you could have a nomination meeting in a riding that people think is a possible win and only 32 people showed up and of those a dozen were questionable. That's not grass roots democracy that's atrophy.
Fri, 2013-07-12 21:39
#171
Only some seats are "winnable", either immediately or in the near future. All are worth fighting for, however.
Fri, 2013-07-12 22:19
#172
OK, there should be a revote, then...and this time, the vote totals should be announced, for transparency's sake if for nothing else. It's not tolerable to have a situation in which it even looks as if a "hot shot" type muscled other candidates out of the way.
Fri, 2013-07-12 22:33
#173
NDP tradition says the loser confers with their scrutineers and then declares the vote unanimous and a motion to destroy the ballots is always made and passed. That part of the story is normal at least in BC. It is a symbolic gesture by the loser that says we are all on the same team and there was only one winner, no matter how close the race.
Sat, 2013-07-13 00:31
#174
NDP tradition says the loser confers with their scrutineers and then declares the vote unanimous and a motion to destroy the ballots is always made and passed. That part of the story is normal at least in BC. It is a symbolic gesture by the loser that says we are all on the same team and there was only one winner, no matter how close the race.
Yup, and I think it shows a great deal about Chhabra's character, that she took the high road and is acting like a team player, putting the best interests of the NDP ahead of her own personal ambitions, even though the circumstances around the nomination are questionable.
Sat, 2013-07-13 08:44
#175
Those who already have a sour view of the NDP are apt to read anything to do with the party as validation of their viewpoint. Otherwise, they might have to question their own beliefs and suppositions.
Do you include Audra Williams in that group Edmund?
Sat, 2013-07-13 09:26
#176
Those who already have a sour view of the NDP are apt to read anything to do with the party as validation of their viewpoint. Otherwise, they might have to question their own beliefs and suppositions.Do you include Audra Williams in that group Edmund?
Short answer: I'm not sure, but I don't think so, oddly enough. Twitter is a medium that does not lend itself to subtlety, and can torque reasonable disagreement into polarizing opposition. Certainly the number of Twitter fights I've had with people I would almost certainly get along fine with in real life bears testimony to that. Snarky retorts better suit Twitter. Subtle explanations, which can take several paragraphs, don't. Williams's blog post bears hallmarks of her anger, and I wouldn't have chosen to express myself in quite the rhetoric that she does (for example: the barfing moment, while heartfelt, felt to me crude and unneeded).
It all depends whether you come to the table with openness or with your mind already made up. Presented with facts, you can either look around for more facts, think critically about the facts you have, or you can come to a snap judgement based on how you feel about the subject in question. All parties need internal criticism, sometimes searing criticism, in order to set right things about themselves. If you're severely critical of the party and a member of that party, you have basically two options: either stay in the hope of changing the party, and know that you face disagreement with your views pretty much everywhere you turn; or you leave, either to set yourself up in exile as non-party-aligned actor (with all the freedom and limitation that entails), or to set up a new party with other like-minded people.
It's interesting that Williams refers to the ONDP as "my party" in her blog headline. That's not just for a witty headline, to my mind. That indicates to me that while she is deeply angry at the party, she still believes in it at heart. The level of anger and outrage in her post isn't indicative of someone who has given up on the party, and is marching off out through the doors in high dudgeon. It is indicative of someone who likes the party deeply, but is extremely angry at the direction its current leadership has taken it. This is why I've been measured in my criticism of her viewpoint and haven't adopted the knee-jerk party loyalist line that some have.
My message to Audra Williams and people who think like her is: since you feel so passionately, please don't just restrict yourself to Twitter and blog posts. Get involved with your EDA, Area Council, Caucuses, and Provincial Council. Organize. Sign up new members. Persuade existing members round to your point of view. Help change the party for the better, and better prepare us to govern this province.
Sun, 2013-07-14 07:11
#177
What looks bad is the optics of this. Gimabrone steps in at the last moment to snatch the nomination away. He hadn't even shown any interest in running and the riding association was just ready to nominate a female candidate and then he suddenly steps down as head of the Candidate Selection Committee and becomes the nominee himself instead.
Sun, 2013-07-14 09:18
#178
How, exactly, did he "snatch" the nomination away from Chhabra? He ran against her in an open and democratic nomination meeting. All these apparent shenanigans would have come to naught if the meeting had chosen Chhabra as the nominee. He won. She lost. Unless you're effectively saying the riding association was so starry-eyed that they tripped over themselves to endorse Giambrone. I happen to think a little more of riding associations than that.
No-one has the divine 'right' to be nominated. Not Giambrone. Not Chhabra. No-one. You have to sweat the process out, and persuade people to vote for you. Giambrone didn't just "become" the nominee. He was voted the nominee. You make it sound like a fait accompli, when it was anything but.
Sun, 2013-07-14 15:29
#179
He ran against her in an open and democratic nomination meeting.
I wouldn't be so certain of that.
Sun, 2013-07-14 18:36
#180
double posting
Sun, 2013-07-14 18:45
#181
"Torontoist has obtained a letter sent Thursday from the Scarborough-Guildwood riding association to the party’s provincial secretary. It briefly outlines an investigation by the riding association into the eligibility of twelve people who attended Sunday’s meeting and were allowed to vote. “Our subsequent investigation revealed that eleven of these twelve walk-in voters could not be verified as members in good standing in Scarborough-Guildwood,” the letter states."
There's a very simple answer to this one. The key part of the quote is that some riding association members complained some eleven people who cast ballots could not be verified as members in good standing "in Scarborough-Guildwood". I note that the claim is not that the eleven were not ONDP members in good standing, but that they were not members in good standing of the Scarborough-Guildwood NDP riding association.
In the Ontario NDP's constitution for at least two decades has been a requirement that people who vote at a nomination meeting live in the riding in which they want to vote to select a party candidate; there is no parallel requirement for people to live in the riding where they choose to hold a membership. I have always been aware of people who lived in one riding and chose for some reason of their own to belong to another riding association. They get to vote for who is riding association president, to vote for who will be elected convention delegate from that riding association, and other things, but cannot vote for that riding association's candidate.
The primary policy reason for this is to prevent people seeking a nomination from "stacking the decks" with outsiders who take out memberships regardless of where they live. (Family members of mine joined a Liberal riding association in which they did not live to vote for a relative on the "married in" side of this branch of my family who sought the Liberal riding association's nomination in a riding where he lived, but where these family members of mine did not live. Signing up people who live outside your riding is a standard part of any contested Liberal nomination meeting process that I have ever heard details about. Granted, I don't hear about a lot about Liberal nomination meeting processes...)
Someone could propose that the ONDP Constitution be amended by removing the right of people to join riding association's other than the one in which they are resident, or alternatively to take the right to vote at any nomination meeting from those members who choose to join a riding association in which they do not reside. But for the present, while some people in Scarborough-Guildwood may well not like that some people who were not members of the Scarborough-Guildwood riding association voted at their meeting, members of the Don Valley North or Scarborough-Rouge River of other NDP riding associations who actually live in Scarborough-Guildwood did have the right to vote at that nomination meeting.
(I, of course, am presuming that these elven people belonged to NDP riding associations elsewhere. But on occasions in the past, I have arranged for someone at Provincial Office to be available so that I could call in with the name and address of a person and ask if they were a member in good standing in some other riding association, and know that at least once the question was asked and answered in a few minutes. There are not lots of these folks, but there are some.)
If someone wants to propose a change to the ONDP Constitution to change this rule, they can propose a motion to a riding association general membership meeting for the next provincial convention. Until that time, it sounds to me like the rules at this nomination meeting were followed as they were designed.
Sun, 2013-07-14 19:45
#182
However "proper" it looks from an inside perspective, keep in mind that something might still stink from an outside perspective--and remember that if anyone embodies "outside", it's the voters.
At this point, I'm worried about the twin Toronto byelections looking more like a hapless Hampton-era throwback--even Giambrone, as "star candidate", being more like Syd Ryan in Scarborough Centre in '99...
Mon, 2013-07-15 11:18
#183
Ottawa South has the highest proportion of people of Arab Visible Minority status of any riding in Ontario:
Mon, 2013-07-15 18:15
#184
He ran against her in an open and democratic nomination meeting.I wouldn't be so certain of that.
As Robo has eloquently pointed out, it is entirely possible that a member lives in the riding but has not yet been "moved" on the list of their local riding association. I myself am still technically a member of Etobicoke Centre riding association, even though I haven't lived there for years. If I were to turn up at a local nomination meeting (in Markham), would I be eligible to vote? I am a member in good standing, and the party is thoroughly aware of where I live. If I did not advise the party of the new riding association of which I wanted to be a member of in good time, I would not be on the local riding association's list, even though I have a current membership card, and ID to prove I live in the riding. A high-profile candidate such as Giambrone may well have got the interest of NDP members in the riding, only some of whom are on the riding association's list. If Scarborough—Guildwood's lists are anything like Etobicoke Centre's (when I first saw them), there's an awful lot of 'dead wood' there simply because people have moved or passed on. Conversely, there will also be NDP members in the riding who the riding association has no idea about because they are technically still on the books for an old riding association.
To avoid a situation like this one in future, I'd suggest an amendment to the constitution to the effect that all members are automatically members of the EDA of the riding they currently live in, with an 'opt-out' clause for those who really don't want to rent asunder from their old comrades.
Mon, 2013-07-15 19:01
#185
autoworker
Now that Giambrone is the candidate, what are his chances to win the riding?
Mon, 2013-07-15 19:56
#186
Now that Giambrone is the candidate, what are his chances to win the riding?
Giambrone is polling a distant third in the riding at 18%. The NDP candidate in the 2011 election placed third with 19% of the vote.
Mon, 2013-07-15 20:24
#187
autoworker
Now that Giambrone is the candidate, what are his chances to win the riding?Giambrone is polling a distant third in the riding at 18%. The NDP candidate in the 2011 election placed third with 19% of the vote.
So, this nomination business is much ado about a losing proposition, and an attempt at resurrecting a once promising political career.
Mon, 2013-07-15 22:31
#188
Executive members of the riding association sent a letter last week to NDP provincial secretary Darlene Lawson, citing concerns about the eligibility of voters at a July 7 nomination meeting. According to the letter, 12 of 32 voters — almost 35% of the electorate — were not on an authorized voting list.
“We know the members, we know the list, and these are names that we have not seen,” a source within the riding executive told the National Post, regarding two groups of voters at the nomination meeting.
The Ontario NDP constitution requires all voters at a nomination meeting to reside in the constituency and to have held membership for up to 30 days.
We know the members, we know the list, and these are names that we have not seen
Mr. Giambrone’s opponent for the nomination, Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra, has also expressed concerns to the party secretary, but said she has “not received satisfactory answers.”
“I am concerned as well that due process was not followed,” she said, adding that she is seeking legal advice.
The riding executive’s letter alleges that “our experienced registration volunteers objected to the membership validity of seven of the 12 walk-in registrants.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/15/ndp-members-question-validity-of...
Mon, 2013-07-15 22:45
#189
So, this nomination business is much ado about a losing proposition, and an attempt at resurrecting a once promising political career.Giambrone is polling a distant third in the riding at 18%. The NDP candidate in the 2011 election placed third with 19% of the vote.
Then again, re said "losing proposition", Neethan Shan ran a serious campaign here in 2007 and got 22%--astronomical by that election's standards, and an early foretelling of the Orange Crush's ethnoburban "reach"...
Tue, 2013-07-16 04:23
#190
How, exactly, did he "snatch" the nomination away from Chhabra? He ran against her in an open and democratic nomination meeting. All these apparent shenanigans would have come to naught if the meeting had chosen Chhabra as the nominee. He won. She lost. Unless you're effectively saying the riding association was so starry-eyed that they tripped over themselves to endorse Giambrone. I happen to think a little more of riding associations than that.
No-one has the divine 'right' to be nominated. Not Giambrone. Not Chhabra. No-one. You have to sweat the process out, and persuade people to vote for you. Giambrone didn't just "become" the nominee. He was voted the nominee. You make it sound like a fait accompli, when it was anything but.
No one said there's a divine right to be nominated or that no one else can challenge, even at the last minute. The point Audra Williams and others are making is that this was not an ordinary candidate who came in. This was someone who had just been head of the Candidate Selection Committee! This would be unusual in any political party if it happened. Someone who was in charge of candidate recruitment suddenly resigns at the last moment is almost in a conflict of interest situation because of their prior position.
http://audrawilliams.me/2013/07/08/its-my-party-and-ill-cry-if-i-want-to/
Tue, 2013-07-16 07:32
#191
Now that Giambrone is the candidate, what are his chances to win the riding?Giambrone is polling a distant third in the riding at 18%. The NDP candidate in the 2011 election placed third with 19% of the vote.
"Forum polled 253 people in Scarborough—Guildwood on Monday and Tuesday and results there are considered accurate to within six percentage points, 19 times out of 20."
Six percentage points is rather a lot, and 253 is rather a small sample. I wouldn't be drawing too many firm conclusions based on one small poll with a larger-than-average margin of error. All I would say is that the NDP has got its work cut out for it in a tough neck of the woods.
Tue, 2013-07-16 07:44
#192
So, this nomination business is much ado about a losing proposition, and an attempt at resurrecting a once promising political career.Giambrone is polling a distant third in the riding at 18%. The NDP candidate in the 2011 election placed third with 19% of the vote.
Then again, re said "losing proposition", Neethan Shan ran a serious campaign here in 2007 and got 22%--astronomical by that election's standards, and an early foretelling of the Orange Crush's ethnoburban "reach"...
Agreed. For another example, I think anyone would have said the prognosis was equally grim in Scarborough Southwest after 2007's results (a shade over 18%). While Dan Harris got elected there federally, it was by no means certain the votes would have carried over to the provincial party. However, thanks to an energetic campaign there in 2011 (of which I played a very small part), the NDP got over 31% of the vote. The level of support got the Liberal incumbent worried enough to issue some hastily put-together pieces of lit slamming the NDP and Bruce Budd, the candidate. Things might have got more interesting still if the PC candidate had won over people who were not committed supporters, and torn away at Berardinetti's right flank. While I think Giambrone has a very tough fight ahead and a win is a big ask, I wouldn't be surprised to see him getting north of 24-25% on the night.
Tue, 2013-07-16 08:13
#193
No one said there's a divine right to be nominated or that no one else can challenge, even at the last minute. The point Audra Williams and others are making is that this was not an ordinary candidate who came in. This was someone who had just been head of the Candidate Selection Committee! This would be unusual in any political party if it happened. Someone who was in charge of candidate recruitment suddenly resigns at the last moment is almost in a conflict of interest situation because of their prior position.
http://audrawilliams.me/2013/07/08/its-my-party-and-ill-cry-if-i-want-to/
The optics of this whole affair are terrible. Dismissing reporters with "internal party matter" simply isn't going to wash. In communications, if there's a problem, you get ahead of the story and address all the allegations head-on, fully admitting blame where necessary. That way your critics have nothing to throw at you.
I could point out nuances and actual bureaucratic explanations for what happened, but now the suspicion that there's some funny business going on has become the story. People outside of politics nuts (i.e. the vast majority of people) don't know and don't care about constitutional minutae or bureaucratic standard procedure. They only know that something stinks. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The party should clean house and own up to any wrongdoings.
Tue, 2013-07-16 09:03
#194
This is my hunch why Adam Giambrone resigned from the Candidate Selection Committee: Once the riding was able to get a minority woman to run for the nomination, Adam Giambrone could contest the nomination. If the Candidate Selection Committee had not been able to get a minority or woman candidate, then it may have been more difficult for the riding to hold a quick nomination meeting. I'm not familiar with the detailed rules about nomination meetings. I do think that NDP riding associations without incumbents do need to perform a candidate search that includes seeking women or minorities to run for the nomination.
Tue, 2013-07-16 10:05
#195
All of those rules only apply to nominations happening in a non-writ period when nomination contests typically happen over a period of weeks if not months. Those rules are null and void when a riding has no candidate and a writ is actually dropped and all of a sudden a party needs to nominate within days.
This story is a bit of a tempest within a teapot...I'd be surprised if anyone in Scar-Guildwood reads torontoist or a tiny story in the national post and Liberals and Conservatives have been elected easily after nomination disputes that were front page news and left blood on the floor (anyone remember how Ignatieff got first nominated in Etobicoke-Lakeshore in 2006 leading to the resignation of most of the Liberal executive there?)
What is interesting is that obviously someone who is on the NDP executive in Scarborough-Guildwood (I can't think of who else could be the "un-named source") would phone up a rightwing reporter at the National Post to try to give the NDP bad publicity. That person should be expelled from the party if their identity is ever revealed.
Tue, 2013-07-16 11:28
#196
This story is a bit of a tempest within a teapot...I'd be surprised if anyone in Scar-Guildwood reads torontoist or a tiny story in the national post and Liberals and Conservatives have been elected easily after nomination disputes that were front page news and left blood on the floor (anyone remember how Ignatieff got first nominated in Etobicoke-Lakeshore in 2006 leading to the resignation of most of the Liberal executive there?)
How is that working for Ignatieff now?
What is interesting is that obviously someone who is on the NDP executive in Scarborough-Guildwood (I can't think of who else could be the "un-named source") would phone up a rightwing reporter at the National Post to try to give the NDP bad publicity. That person should be expelled from the party if their identity is ever revealed.
Absolutely! The NDP is not capable of doing anything wrong, it's all someone else's fault! The NDP is perfect, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise should be ignored and drummed out of the party! And thanks to this approach, Premiers Dwain Lingenfelter and Adrian Dix won their campaigns...oh wait.
Tue, 2013-07-16 12:31
#197
First of all Ignatieff won two elections easily in Etobicoke-Lakeshore before losing in 2011. He flaws are well-know, I was simply pointing out that he originally became Liberal candidate in E-L thanks to corruption and sleaze on a grand scale...and no one in the riding gave a damn - they only turned on him when they saw his terrible performance as party leader.
The NDP is not infallible and there is nothing wrong with criticizing things. What I have an issue with are people in the party phoning up an extreme rightwing publication like the National Post and anonymously spreading gossip. If someone wants to publicly hold a news conference then let them do it. But I don't see what's accomplished by purposely giving ammunition to a rightwing tabloid. I wonder if this person also calls up Sue Anne Levy to give "anonymous tips" about what is happening in the NDP.
If there is any good reason why someone who calls themself a New Democrat would want to give anonymous tips to the National Post designed to make the party look bad - I'd like to hear it. Or maybe the person tried to sell their story to the Star the Globe, NOW, even the Sun and only the national Post would drool enough to run the story.
Tue, 2013-07-16 14:00
#198
autoworker
So, this nomination business is much ado about a losing proposition, and an attempt at resurrecting a once promising political career.Giambrone is polling a distant third in the riding at 18%. The NDP candidate in the 2011 election placed third with 19% of the vote.
Then again, re said "losing proposition", Neethan Shan ran a serious campaign here in 2007 and got 22%--astronomical by that election's standards, and an early foretelling of the Orange Crush's ethnoburban "reach"...
Agreed. For another example, I think anyone would have said the prognosis was equally grim in Scarborough Southwest after 2007's results (a shade over 18%). While Dan Harris got elected there federally, it was by no means certain the votes would have carried over to the provincial party. However, thanks to an energetic campaign there in 2011 (of which I played a very small part), the NDP got over 31% of the vote. The level of support got the Liberal incumbent worried enough to issue some hastily put-together pieces of lit slamming the NDP and Bruce Budd, the candidate. Things might have got more interesting still if the PC candidate had won over people who were not committed supporters, and torn away at Berardinetti's right flank. While I think Giambrone has a very tough fight ahead and a win is a big ask, I wouldn't be surprised to see him getting north of 24-25% on the night.
Indeed, 24-25% would ensure a Tory victory, and provide Hudak with both a beachhead and Official Opposition momentum going forward. Combine this with a possible win in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and he has both flanks covered.
Tue, 2013-07-16 15:08
#199
A stronger NDP showing in the Toronto byelections could help the Liberals by splitting the anti-government protest vote with the PCs. If people think the only way to register a byelection protest vote is by voting PC - the PCs will win both byelections.
Tue, 2013-07-16 15:17
#200
This story is a bit of a tempest within a teapot...I'd be surprised if anyone in Scar-Guildwood reads torontoist or a tiny story in the national post
The significance of this story has nothing to do with whether this affects the outcome of the Scarborough-Guildwood by-election. It's about whether the party is walking the walk.
The NDP is supposed to be the party that champions the underdog... the party that actively seeks to include those who are under-represented in the corridors of power; women, immigrants, POC, the disabled. So when someone who belongs to all those constituencies is treated so shoddily, it's a problem. It's a problem when the co-chair of the candidate selection committee jumps in to personally supplant the very candidate he recruited. It's an even bigger problem if he secured the nomination with the help of ineligible voters. And it's an even bigger problem if the party is seen as disinterested in whether their star candidate secured his nomination legitimately. And frankly, the 'this is just how big boy politics is played' attitude by party apologists is a problem.
Tue, 2013-07-16 15:53
#201
autoworker
Here, in Windsor-Tecumseh, the ONDP will receive most of the protest vote, but I think it's mostly because the Liberals spurned Pupatello's leadership bid. After the by-elections, I believe it's time for Wynne and Horwath to have a serious discussion about PR, and consider forming a coalition in the interim.