babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Buzz Hargrove joins management to nominate Lib Cab Minister

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Buzz Hargrove joins management to nominate Lib Cab Minister
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 11 July 2007 04:26 AM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wish I could say Buzz no longer shocked me but singing the praises of management and a government that stood watch while thousands of manufacturing jobs vanished is a little shocking.

CAW and DCX back Pupatello

quote:
Hargrove said he likes what the McGuinty government has done for the auto industry, health care and welfare.

He said the Ontario Liberals have supported social programs "that I believe would not have happened under the other political parties."

Asked what he thought about standing with Bigland in support for Pupatello, Hargrove said: "I think it's great. The companies aren't our enemies. They're the ones trying to provide us with jobs."



From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Boyd Reimer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14289

posted 11 July 2007 06:50 AM      Profile for Boyd Reimer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hargrove says that he likes what McGuinty has done for health care.

He forgot to consider two health care issues:

1. Nuclear waste lasts for a million years. If it ever gets into our water stream at any point in those million years (which is likely), future historians will strongly disagree with Hargrove.

2. "Pregnant women and children under the age of four should avoid living within 10 kilometres of nuclear power plants, Greenpeace said Tuesday as it released a report criticizing the levels of tritium allowed in Canada." Quote from cbc. See link:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/12/greenpeace-tritium.html


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 11 July 2007 09:12 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
I wish I could say Buzz no longer shocked me but singing the praises of management and a government that stood watch while thousands of manufacturing jobs vanished is a little shocking.

CAW and DCX back Pupatello


I am sorry that windsor has put upon the rest of ontario the twin twits of sanda and dwight...The paper gives them much better coverage than Dave Cooke ever got I will tell you that much.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 11 July 2007 01:06 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone still think that his NDP membership should not have been suspended? Anyone think that he would have behaved any differently with respect to Pupatello's nomination if he was still an NDP member?
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ravenj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5357

posted 11 July 2007 01:08 PM      Profile for ravenj     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The same woman who was the chief mud thrower at Cheri DiNovo? It is sad that the once-progressive CAW is led by this man.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 11 July 2007 08:18 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm shocked that he not only thinks the Liberals are doing a good job - he now says they're doing the BEST job.

They're building a million private hospitals. They de-listed health services like eye exams. They're turning a blind eye to private clinics. And Buzz says they're the "best"

I'm not one of those who think the NDP is flawless. They have flaws. Many. But to say the Liberals are the "best". Well, that just makes you a Liberal... don't it?


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 11 July 2007 11:58 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think he was anything but a lib in dipper clothing. Basil is an opportunist, that is how he managed to secure the "top" job. So he wants to hitch himself to a purported winner. Funny that the local CAW members don't agree with basil though. As usual they will make up the core of NDP volunteers along with us activists.
He must be mighty miffed at being rebuffed by the NDP that he would do his worst against us then against the "enemy" PC's. LOL progressive indeed. You should have heard this asshole drone on at our manufacturing rally down here.

From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 12 July 2007 05:51 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, with Buzz's political skills, I am quite happy his has collected his thirty pieces of silver and joined the Liberals.

What we should watch for is Buzz being used as a left wing spokesperson on the CBC and other news outlets.

That's what we should reserve our vitriole for.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 12 July 2007 05:59 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tommy you just had to go and say it....look out At issue Panel, here comes buzz. I love how McQuaig made ref. to how right bent that panel is each week. Her comment about hebert only there for the horse race is about right. She is the only one you have no idea about(in more ways than one)J/K. But usually it is Andrew Coyne and some other jackass(typicaly from out west) like David Bercuscan, or Lorne Gunter, or Barbara Yaffe(if it is a womans issue panel...wow that is mysoginistic) So 2 rightwingers and someone who isn't about an ideology so much as who is doing well in the polls. Yes a very balanced panel indeed.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 July 2007 06:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Well, with Buzz's political skills, I am quite happy his has collected his thirty pieces of silver and joined the Liberals.

What we should watch for is Buzz being used as a left wing spokesperson on the CBC and other news outlets.

That's what we should reserve our vitriole for.


Hello, he already IS!

Before he formally left the NDP but was already pissing Dippers off, he was often used as the "NDP balance" voice on panel shows and such. He's a good speaker and charismatic on that kind of show, and he's seen as left-wing even if some of the positions he holds are not.

I agree with Mercy. What the heck is he doing endorsing the Liberals on stuff like health care and labour? It's incredible.

I still think that Hargrove, as the spokesperson for the CAW, should not be forced to toe any party line, and if the NDP were to do something stupid, or the Liberals were to do something good, he should feel free to endorse either party's views. It's the issues that are important, not parties.

But now he is doing for the Liberals what the NDP expected him to do - be partisan even if the positions of the party are not in line with what is best for his membership!

I mean, if you're going to be blindly partisan for one party or the other, pick the NDP! But if you're going to take a position of principle and say that you're only going to endorse parties based on their stand on the issues, then how can you endorse a party that is knee deep in privatization when you run the largest private sector union in Canada?

It's just incredible to me.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 12 July 2007 06:58 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, yeah, it could be tricky representing a union like the CAW and having to lobby on the members behalf with parties like the Liberals or tories.

And the NDP has never been perfect.

But, forget political partizan ideology for a moment, and just get down to dealing with people, how can one trust the bait and switch liberals? It's not a political party that can be trusted to keep it's word on anything.

At least, to people like us.

We could dredge up old history, as I like to do from time to time, but current history suffices. Whether it's provincial or federal liberals, they have actively stabbed working people in the back over and over again.

They are a right wing, pro business, anti worker political party that lies.

It defies logic at this point. But it may explain itself after Buzz retires from the CAW.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 12 July 2007 11:42 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post
the CAW has been selling out the workers to management for years... What so confusing about the CAW selling out to the liberals.?? its the same thing...
From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 13 July 2007 03:20 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I agree with Mercy. What the heck is he doing endorsing the Liberals on stuff like health care and labour? It's incredible.

It's political brinkmanship. This turkey is tossing out all principle and vision in return for the dim hope of buying political favours from these creeps.

Hargrove is a political opportunist. He knows damn well the Liberals, both provincially and federally, suck on everything from health care to labour issues to global warming to human rights, etc. (all things the CAW has voted to support)—especially when compared to the NDP. He just figures he can cut some lucrative deals for the CAW particularly in the auto sector with them in return for support that he can’t get from the Conservatives (if he thought he could, you’d start hearing how Harpuke ain’t all that bad after all).

But stupidity does start to set in at two points:

First, when you start to think about just what Hargrove can actually get from the Liberals, you wonder if it’s really worth sticking it to the NDP the way he has and has encouraged his union to do.

For example, if he thinks he’s going to get some serious massive social infrastructure and job creation investment plan out of McGuinty, which his union has repeatedly called for, he’s dreaming in Technicolor. McGuinty’s big corporate backers don’t want such a thing and no matter how much support Hargrove promises to get from them out of the CAW won’t change the government’s direction.

The other of course is if he thinks McGuinty is going to take serious measures to protect the auto industry from corporate down-sizing, especially with the latest predictions of slumping auto sales across the board over the next couple years. It won’t happen—not with the Liberals’ total subservience to IMF-style fiscal policies and the so-called “deep integration” plan with the US economy.

Is this all worth screwing the NDP by supporting auto industry corporate bureaucrats running for the Liberals—like what’s his name at the Toyota plant who has used every legal sleaze move in the book to hold off a union certification vote there? Obviously not. But you can’t tell him that.

Second, is just how does he think he can keep this brown-nosing to the Liberals up until it starts to threaten his popularity within the union. At last year’s convention, the CAW voted to investigate the creation of a new “workers’ party.” While I think that’s a bad idea, and they instead should stick to revitalizing the NDP, that is in fact now official union policy—policy that runs right contrary to the political games Hargrove is playing.

Add to this fact that out here in the west, the CAW’s regional organization and many of its locals are still affiliated to and supportive of the NDP and have no plans to change this (the workers’ party policy is non-binding on locals).

To top it off, Hargrove’s kissy-kissy with his new-found Liberal friends is pretty much focused around helping the union in the auto sector. All the other sectors the union works in—steel, transportation and trucking, railroads, fishing, retail services, health care, general manufacturing, mining and energy, marine, office and technical, etc.—seem to be getting second tier treatment from the national leadership and Hargrove in particular. There’s only so long that can happen before enough people start to get ticked off.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 13 July 2007 04:36 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hargrove is retiring soon and I think you'll find him ever more a Liberal cheerleader, and in the near future with a cushy Ontario govt consultative position.

Buzz is a unique piece of business- but not the first to continuously lecture the NDP it isn't left or socialist enough, before becoming a Liberal hack.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 17 July 2007 04:04 PM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seems to me that y'all are allowing yourselves to be distracted from the real question, which is: whyhas Hargrove forsaken the NDP?

Set the hurt feelings aside for a moment......
Hargrove ultimately answers to his members, and I'm not aware of any huge groundswell there to replace him. His loyalties are not to any party, but to retaining jobs - period.
So, in that sense he is doing exactly what you'd expect from him, he has picked a horse in the race, and is backing it. The horse is the Liberal Party both federally and provincially, which are the political entities that he sees as most likely to do anything to keep the auto industry alive. if that involves pouring money into a vast black uncompettive hole, so be it. The Tories are slightly less likely to do this, and the NDP won't form a government at either level anytime soon.
So, the Liberals it is.
it is just bizness.

It is also laughable to think of Buzz as 'joins management' in the title of the OP. He has been management for decades now.


From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 17 July 2007 08:13 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I thought that poor old Buzz was just a 'socialist' 'without a home.'
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 18 July 2007 10:40 AM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only 'ist' that Hargrove is, is a pragmatist.

So often there is confusion about where the loyalty of union leaders lie.
They aren't leftist, they aren't tireless supporters of the common man, they aren't leaders of social justice and ultimately they don't give a fiddlers f**k about much other than the immediate welfare of their members. If they fail to recognize this, they will themselves be unemployed. There will be no union f there are no jobs.

That is not criticism or praise by the way, just an acknowledgement of reality.
CEOs are supposed to serve their shareholders.
No different for ol' Buzz, he is just doing his job.


From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 July 2007 02:58 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fellowtraveller:
So often there is confusion about where the loyalty of union leaders lie.
They aren't leftist, they aren't tireless supporters of the common man, they aren't leaders of social justice and ultimately they don't give a fiddlers f**k about much other than the immediate welfare of their members.

Buzz Hargrove has taken up one right-wing position after another on a series of issues in the past two years. But your attack is not on him nor his politics - it is on all "union leaders".

More eloquent people than you have tried to destroy unions by dismissing their leaders as being opportunist, selfish bosses. They have failed. You will too. The workers are a powerful force. Expect to find a fist waiting when you attack their leaders.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 18 July 2007 04:29 PM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Expect to find a fist waiting when you attack their leaders.

Is this an example of how a progressive would handle some dissent?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 July 2007 04:50 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Politics101:

Is this an example of how a progressive would handle some dissent?


Hah, "dissent". Hah!

Our unions and our workplaces are filled with nothing but dissent. Everyone speaks their minds, everyone says what they think of their own leaders, politicians, the bosses, the churches, the self-important and the high and mighty. Nothing is sacred.

But when outsiders attack our unions? Oh yes, very progressive to disguise that as an attack against greedy selfish union bosses? We fight back as one, or we're dead. That's not an "example of how we handle dissent". It's the whole history of how we handle those that seek to crush us and our aspirations. Be sure of that.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 18 July 2007 07:11 PM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Isn't using your fists on someone an assault under the criminal code and it seems that you are willing to break the law to silent dissent.

How progressive of you!

I grew up in a union household and spent my entire career in a union workplace and I never advocated the use of violence against another person whether they were union-bashing or on some other matter.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 July 2007 07:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Politics101:
Isn't using your fists on someone an assault under the criminal code and it seems that you are willing to break the law to silent dissent.

How progressive of you!

I grew up in a union household and spent my entire career in a union workplace and I never advocated the use of violence against another person whether they were union-bashing or on some other matter.


How hilarious you are. Look up "metaphor". Then try "figure of speech". What a sad joke.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 18 July 2007 07:27 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fellowtraveller:
The only 'ist' that Hargrove is, is a pragmatist.

If so, he is a fairly ineffective pragmatist. Despite his open pandering to the Liberal Party, he never managed to get them to do anything remotely progressive.

No, I think the only "ist" Basil ever was is an egoist.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 July 2007 07:49 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

Despite his open pandering to the Liberal Party, he never managed to get them to do anything remotely progressive.

Well, the Layton-Martin quasi-alliance, which Hargrove sponsored, lasted 6 months from May-November 2005, did some good things.

But if you date the "open pandering" from December 2005, then Malcolm, yet again, I am forced to agree with you.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 18 July 2007 11:16 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well, the Layton-Martin quasi-alliance, which Hargrove sponsored, lasted 6 months from May-November 2005, did some good things.

But if you date the "open pandering" from December 2005, then Malcolm, yet again, I am forced to agree with you.


Sponsored? Can you clarify this. My impression is that he ran along side the parade and then took credit for leading it.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 July 2007 04:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo:
Sponsored? Can you clarify this. My impression is that he ran along side the parade and then took credit for leading it.

Far more than that. It all came to a head in a Toronto hotel on April 27, 2005 as described in this Globe article by Jane Taber (it's behind a subscription wall). You will recall that the NDP was getting ready (along with the rest of the opposition parties) to defeat the government over the budget. The outcome was the so-called "NDP budget" of summer 2005:

quote:
Organized labour pushed the deal aggressively, threatening to withdraw its support for the New Democrats if Mr. Layton favoured an early election.

Canadian Auto Workers leader Buzz Hargrove played a key role in the negotiations as a go-between and, in fact, delivered a forceful message at the 11th hour on Tuesday to Mr. Martin.

[...] The next day, Mr. Hargrove, who has a good relationship with both Labour Minister Joe Fontana and Mr. Layton, quietly entered the fray.

He had spoken with Mr. Fontana several times during the weekend. More significantly, he and a handful of other senior union leaders, including Ken Georgetti of the Canadian Labour Congress, met with Mr. Layton at a Toronto airport hotel on Monday afternoon.

[...] “We shared with him, quite forcefully, I would add, that the labour movement was not anxious to have an election,” Mr. Hargrove said yesterday.

[...] They told Mr. Layton they would not support him if he planned to side with the Conservatives and Bloc on an early election.

Mr. Layton got the message, and asked Mr. Hargrove to deliver one to the Prime Minister, whom the union leader was scheduled to meet the next day in Windsor.

“A little push and that was my role at the request of Jack Layton,” Mr. Hargrove said. “I said to him that Jack Layton is very unlikely to make a commitment beyond the budget in writing, but I said you have to trust that he is not going to support a non-confidence motion immediately after the budget. He knows he does not have the labour unions’ support for an election and we’re pretty key to that.”


Here's Monte Solberg griping about it later in the House:

quote:
This time, halfway through the process, the government cut a backroom deal in a Toronto hotel room with the leader of the NDP and Buzz Hargrove of the Canadian Auto Workers. Guess what: we now have $4.6 billion in spending that the government itself did not agree with even days before. When the finance minister was being quizzed about that spending by the NDP, he said that “we can't allow the budget to be stripped away piece by piece”. He said that people could not “cherry-pick the budget”.

And Rob Nicholson of Niagara Falls:

quote:
This came about as part of a deal between the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party. I guess it was written on a napkin in a hotel room in Toronto. Then we got the room service bill and found out it was $4.6 billion. Jeepers, talk about an expense account. Buzz Hargrove was acting as the maître d' in this, and fair enough, but again, we have to keep in mind that party and the national interests.

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 19 July 2007 06:07 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Organized labour pushed the deal aggressively, threatening to withdraw its support for the New Democrats if Mr. Layton favoured an early election.

I thought at the time when this came up that Hargrove’s role was much overstated- ditto for the potential of general organized labour displeasure.

Journalists love to play up the ‘inside drama’. A few years before and the potential for labour’s displeasure would have meant something, but not in 2005. And I’m skeptical how unified such a view would have been at any rate[especially with Georgetti, Steel, UFCW for starters].

I don’t think Hargrove did any more than play useful go-between: smoothing over personal trust issues. Of course he’d claim more credit, and of course the usual suspects would agree that it was labour’s doing and harp about it.

The Budget Agreement with the Liberals was very much Layton’s style of politics: the first big manifestation as NDP Leader of what he had been doing for years.

If Hargrove helped, fine. But I’m going to object to anyone but Jack Layton getting primary credit for the Budget agreement.


I would agree with the more central point that Hargrove didn’t start explicitly shilling for the Liberals until after this point in time.

Like a lot of New Democrats I see a considerable amount of continuity with his earlier pronouncements- and question what he was doing
in the NDP. To my mind he's always been an incredible dilitante, and was too fond of using the NDP as one of his own personal bully pulpits.

If it was all about doing what was best for his members then we would have seen him ingratiating himself with the Conservative government- quietly if it would be too much for his pride/ego to be public about it.

There is plenty of self interest common ground between the CAW and the Harper government. But he wouldn't do that because he's decided to come out of the closet and be a Liberal shill.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 July 2007 06:23 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

If Hargrove helped, fine. But I’m going to object to anyone but Jack Layton getting primary credit for the Budget agreement.

Of course the primary credit for the budget agreement goes to Jack Layton, not Buzz Hargrove or anyone else. It's just that the unions (not just Hargrove) were instrumental in swaying him, and the caucus through him, toward not defeating the government in May, which all the pundits of the time were predicting was going to happen. I've never heard any serious theory presented to the contrary.

Also, I never actually saw Hargrove in the media taking credit, or even acknowledging his own role in this. I certainly saw him condemning the November vote to defeat the government.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 19 July 2007 08:42 AM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Buzz Hargrove has taken up one right-wing position after another on a series of issues in the past two years. But your attack is not on him nor his politics - it is on all "union leaders".

More eloquent people than you have tried to destroy unions by dismissing their leaders as being opportunist, selfish bosses. They have failed. You will too. The workers are a powerful force. Expect to find a fist waiting when you attack their leaders. "

"your attack" "destroy unions" "expect to find a fist waiting"

How extremely juvenile.
I have not attacked Hargrove or unions. I have not even criticized what he does. I have pointed out that he is doing his job, his primary job, in trying to first and foremost protect the jobs of his members. Like any high level executive/CEO, his role is political and strategic and he has obviously made his choice with the Liberals being the party most likely to accomplish his prime goal. You don't like his choice because you have confused ideology with pragmatic action? Join the autoworkers and vote him out. Maybe you could threaten him too......but make sure you wash your hands before you touch the ballot or raise your fist - rabies is contagious and your mouthfoam will endanger your brothers and sisters.


From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 19 July 2007 09:15 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have not attacked Hargrove or unions. I have not even criticized what he does. I have pointed out that he is doing his job, his primary job, in trying to first and foremost protect the jobs of his members. Like any high level executive/CEO, his role is political and strategic and he has obviously made his choice with the Liberals being the party most likely to accomplish his prime goal.

Before I respond to this I'd like to note that this has been a rather caustic exchange. There are also issues of substance that interest me. At any rate, what I say is what I say: independently of what it might sound similar to, let alone the tone of that.

If the Buzz strategy is first about protecting the jobs of his members- why has he not tried to work things out with the new government.

When he was campaigning for Paul Martin he went out of his way to poke Harper in the eye- at a time when it was obvious the Liberals might not win.

And after Harper won, he continued the rhetoric... even when it was clear that Harper and Co. would do just about anything to buy votes in Southern Ontario.

He could have even used his cozy relationship with Dalton for a rapproachement with Harper.

Buzz has gone from currying favour with the Liberals to being a Liberal partisan pure and simple.

He has all the tools at hand to play footsie with both Dalton and Harper at the same time, but he has not and will not.

On the more general issue of 'business unionism' and union leaders supporting progressive politics: there is certainly a tension there, but you have falsely dichotomized them.

In practice, union leaders do tend to be more supportive of engaging in progressive politics/issues than the membership ['on average'].

The other side of the coin is that as long as the leadership delivers the bread and butter, the membership in a manner of speaking gives them 'license' to act on their behalf on the broader public stage- to a degree even when a lot of the membership does not entirely agree with the causes being supported.

Its a delicate dance, not a dichotomy.

In many ways Buzz is a category of one when it comes to this dynamic.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 19 July 2007 09:40 AM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Ken, for at least foregoing any threats in your post.

Hargroves dance with the politicians, federal and provincial (and of course limited to the provinces that have significant CAW presence, began before he was elected President in 1992. His first real deviation from a straight NDP ticket was in the Ontario election of 1999.

"If the Buzz strategy is first about protecting the jobs of his members- why has he not tried to work things out with the new government."

This is a good question, and the answer is twofold. Hargrove sees the Liberals as the best bet for the next majority government. Even if that analysis is compeltely wrong, Ontario is the heartland of Liberal seats and it is the heartland of Canadian automaking. No mystery there. The second reason is that Buzz knew there was no way he could turn his membership around 180 degrees from the traditonal support of the NDP and directly to Harper. And... maybe he concluded, correctly, that Harper would not win a majority. Now, he is betting that Harper cannot win a majority, again.

I don't agree there is any dichotomy.

Thre is no dichotomy in Hargroves approach or motivation. If there is, he'd best step aside immediately. If his membership even suspects this, he'll be gone post haste. Any union leader has to put jobs first and foremost. We all have grand ideals and some of us have illusions that somehow social justice is paramount in a trade organization. It is no more so than it is in a corporation, where the first priority is to shareholders. Certainly in both corps and unions, social issues and memeber/shareholder issues can coincide to benefit all. But... when the final job interview for Buzz occurred, you can be sure most of the questions were about making sure the jobs are as secure as possible.


From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 19 July 2007 10:33 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don’t buy that credit you are willing to give to Buzz, FT.

How long until there is likely to be a return of a Liberal government? And how long do the “Big 3” auto plants have?

Nor did it have to be either/or. He could bet on the Liberals at the same time as keeping other options open.

Dalton McGuinty is playing very cozy to Harper, and Buzz can’t?

Look at the 2006 election. Pimping for the Liberals is one thing. But everyone could see that Martin was likely to lose. Any normal pimp would hedge their bets. But not Buzz. He didn’t stop at bear hugs for Martin and Liberal candidates running against NDP MPs, he demonized Harper.

Demonizing is what you would expect from a Liberal partsan.

quote:
The second reason is that Buzz knew there was no way he could turn his membership around 180 degrees from the traditonal support of the NDP and directly to Harper.

The point isn’t about getting the members to support any party. It’s whether his political moves are in the interests of members. He has their blessing to cut a deal with anyone he can. And conversely- his value to any party doesn’t depend on explicitly promising workers votes.

[Nor does the membership vote NDP much more than the general population.]

===

My point about your overdrawn dichotomy referred to your general comment about union leaders. Only the first half of the post was about Buzz.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 19 July 2007 11:58 AM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"How long until there is likely to be a return of a Liberal government? And how long do the “Big 3” auto plants have?"
There already is a Liberal government at the provincial level, and it could be argued that federally the Liberals are entrenched more or less permanently there. It is only a matter of time until the Libs return federally, after all they are the Natural Governing Party.
"Nor did it have to be either/or. He could bet on the Liberals at the same time as keeping other options open."

quote:
Nor did it have to be either/or. He could bet on the Liberals at the same time as keeping other options open.

Agreed, and most businesses do work both sides of the street simultaneously. There is no reason Buzz cannot do the same, though the restrictions on campaign donations restrict this somewhat.I don't claim that Buzz had anything approaching a perfect strategy. I am stating that the way he dumped the NDP and adopted the Libs was intended to benefit his members and that this is and will be his prime priority. There is this ongoing sense on this forum that 'social justice' is somehow at the front of the line for unions and union leaders. It isn't.

quote:
My point about your overdrawn dichotomy referred to your general comment about union leaders. Only the first half of the post was about Buzz.

I don't see any substantive difference between Hargrove and any other leader, other than the reality that he heads up an economic whopper. Protecting the jobs is Job One for any of them. He has done a fair job in that regard so far, I don't think Canada has proportionally lot as many jobs as the US has so far.

That may change soon though. When the big meat cleaver really starts swinging in the auto industry in the US - maybe 2 years from now- it would be naive of us to think that the US govt won't get involved in a big and protectionist way. Whoever succeeds Bush will have no choice but to screw us if tens of thousands of US autoworker jobs are on the chopping block.
And it won't matter much then if Buzz backs anybody or nobody.


From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 19 July 2007 12:45 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am stating that the way he dumped the NDP and adopted the Libs was intended to benefit his members and that this is and will be his prime priority.

I didn't argue with this. [And I don't really think anyone else has either.]

I'm saying that there is more to it than that. Buzz decided in 2006 to be a Liberal shill. He's pushing the business interests of his union while he does that- but only in so far as it fits into being a good shill.

I'll add to that: what galls Dippers so much is not so much his turning against the NDP [lots of those around]- but that until he was kicked out he claimed to still be working for the NDP as well.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 19 July 2007 09:18 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well, the Layton-Martin quasi-alliance, which Hargrove sponsored, lasted 6 months from May-November 2005, did some good things.

But if you date the "open pandering" from December 2005, then Malcolm, yet again, I am forced to agree with you.


Twice in one day? Goodness. (D'you suppose Fred Rose might have been a secret monarchist? ;-)

Actually, I'd date Hargrove's pandering back at least a decade when he started campaigning against the NDP in every federal and Ontario election. So, if we look at the Liberal record over that period - no action on childcare except for a flurry of cheques at the end, 12 year assault on health care funding - I'd have to call Basil a complete failure, even considering the accomplishments of the "NDP Budget) in 2005.

Of course, as I recall, the person who was making the most noise about Basil's role in brokering that deal was Basil himself. Frankly, I rate it on par with Gore's claim to have invented the internet or Dion's claim that he gives a rat's ass about the environment.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 19 July 2007 09:21 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

I'm saying that there is more to it than that. Buzz decided in 2006 to be a Liberal shill.



Basil was a Liberal shill as early as the mid-1990s. The failure of the ONDP to toss his arrogant quisling ass out of the party back them was shameful and cowardly. For a full decade this scheming SOB used his pretendy NDP membership to undermine the party he claimed to support and to get a free pass for the gang of liars and thieves he was really running with.

I'd call Basil Hargrove a vile and odious little shite, but that would be an insult to all the vile and odious little shites out there.

[ 19 July 2007: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 19 July 2007 09:46 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[drift]
quote:
Gore's claim to have invented the internet

Gore never claimed that, he claimed that he sponsored the legislation that financed the internet.

[/drift]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trudeau
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14350

posted 20 July 2007 09:06 PM      Profile for Trudeau     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz Hargrove has my vote.

He can think way ahead of his more narrow, stodgy membership.

He knows times have changed; old style tactics just won't work in this milieu, so he doesn't allow himself to get bogged down in same old same old.

He forsaw the need to partner with industry to save jobs, not raise the cost of employing people through the roof. Better to have jobs, he reasoned, than be on the offence when the big 3 automakers were already bleeding.
And he was right.

While the tried and true complainers whined and cried, he was trying to salvage things on their behalf and stave off a disaster that would have shut them down earlier than they ever could have imagined if he hadn't.

"Solidarity forever", as they like to chant, wouldn't have saved their jobs. He was a realist and pragmatic and promptly separated himself from those who were living in the past with the old confrontative union mentality and won the respect of many for his strategy, and the pity of many who knew how out of step with today his membership really is.

If he is sharp enough to figure out that he had to back a different reality then all power to him!

People forget that the Liberal Party is the party of the unemployment insurance, canada pension, old age pensions, family allowance, social assistance, child tax benefit, veterans allowance, and many other social safety net programs for all and in their ignorance, try to make them out as being like the Conservatives, which they certainly are not. That is simply not true if you know your history.
Buzz obviously knows that so is simply being way ahead again in lining up with a stronger party to fight the Conservatives who has a strong track record for his workers and their concerns.

Having observed Buzz for a long time he is a leader; he is not afraid to think new and different when all around him people are drowning in their own illiteracy about the big picture.

He is able to take the stands, stand alone if necessary and command attention. The man has "not sold out" - that is way too simplistic a view and shows that some people just don't get it even yet.


From: Nunavut | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 20 July 2007 09:21 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
.

Wow!

I am truly, stunned.


ill served by illiteracy,

but Buzz zaps with Liberal loads

.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 23 July 2007 06:32 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trudeau:
Buzz Hargrove has my vote.

People forget that the Liberal Party is the party of the unemployment insurance, canada pension, old age pensions, family allowance, social assistance, child tax benefit, veterans allowance, and many other social safety net programs for all and in their ignorance, try to make them out as being like the Conservatives, which they certainly are not. That is simply not true if you know your history.



And every single one of them forced on the Liberal Party when they were electorally vulnerable. Back a Liberal into a corner and threaten him with electoral oblivion and you MIGHT get progressive legislation out of him.

You have no room to lecture anyone on history, sir, having served up that parcel of lies and half-truths.

The Liberals are the party of interning Japanese Canadians. The Liberals are the party that imposed martial law in peace time because of two isolated criminal acts in Quebec. The Liberals are the party which deliberately set out to destroy medicare through underfunding throughout the 90s, all the while persuading gullible fools like you that they were "not as bad" as the Tories.

Anyone who looks at the Liberal RECORD as opposed to the Liberal RHETORIC understands that the Liberals are every nit as bad as the Conservatives and even worse.

At least the Conservatives don't lie to me about what they believe.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
spiffy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3518

posted 23 July 2007 09:58 PM      Profile for spiffy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:


Basil was a Liberal shill as early as the mid-1990s.
[ 19 July 2007: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]


try the early 90's.

he and bob rae deserve each other.


From: where do you think i'm from? | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
tzarina
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14098

posted 24 July 2007 12:41 PM      Profile for tzarina     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz is just a nutt not worth spending any time to talk about. Next!
From: Sarnia | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 24 July 2007 03:54 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Of course the primary credit for the budget agreement goes to Jack Layton, not Buzz Hargrove or anyone else. It's just that the unions (not just Hargrove) were instrumental in swaying him, and the caucus through him, toward not defeating the government in May, which all the pundits of the time were predicting was going to happen. I've never heard any serious theory presented to the contrary.

Also, I never actually saw Hargrove in the media taking credit, or even acknowledging his own role in this. I certainly saw him condemning the November vote to defeat the government.


Just as an aside, I seem to remember Jack Layton telling a crowd that I was in that the NDP was asking for the unions to "put in their orders" on the budget of that year. I remember later that someone at the CAW local 27 was telling me that Buzz Hargrove had asked for some reforms to the UI system (it might have been something else?) but the messages got screwed up and they didn't end up getting the UI reforms that they had asked for. They said that Buzz was really pissed off about that...


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 July 2007 03:55 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Liberals are the party of interning Japanese Canadians. The Liberals are the party that imposed martial law in peace time because of two isolated criminal acts in Quebec. The Liberals are the party which deliberately set out to destroy medicare through underfunding throughout the 90s, all the while persuading gullible fools like you that they were "not as bad" as the Tories.

Anyone who looks at the Liberal RECORD as opposed to the Liberal RHETORIC understands that the Liberals are every nit as bad as the Conservatives and even worse.


You forgot the turning away of the St. Louis, and the immigration policy of the Liberals towards Jews trying to escape Germany in the 30's. Apparently, one was too many.

And there's the theft from the E.I. Fund. Wage controls.

And their idea of a good Union Leader, way back when, Hal Banks.

Their current idea of a good union leader, Buzz Hargrove is sending his endorsement to the McGinty Liberals, the ones who are using scabs in the on going opseu dispute.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 July 2007 04:01 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thing i find the most irritating about Hargrove is that for years, all he did was take potshots at the NDP for not being leftwing enough and he went out of his way to undermine everyone from Alexa MacDonough to Howard Hampton.

But now, he uncritically endorses righwting Liberals and won't utter one word of criticism of their record and on top of that he has now emerged as Canada's leading anti-environmentalist speaking out against government taking action on climate change.

I heard a speech by the Director of Greenpeace who described Buzz Hargrove as the single most dangerous and power OPPONENT of the environmental movement in Canada today.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 July 2007 04:31 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These things are hard to track, but my "feel" on the plant floor is that, if anything, Buzz's perfidious politics has hurt the Liberals, and may have more CAW members voting NDP than before.

We put a lot of thought into politics, but we're junkies. Most people's politics is visceral.

And if you want a visceral reaction from people, show them a picture of a rat.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
tweety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14875

posted 25 March 2008 06:04 PM      Profile for tweety        Edit/Delete Post
So is Buzz Hargrove really going to run for the Liberals in Toronto Danforth? See this: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Persichilli_Angelo/2008/03/23/5079901-sun.php.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 25 March 2008 06:19 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The link is broken and I can't find the story on Google news.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2008 06:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The proper link

And the proper quote:

quote:
Rae's victory brings the "strategic vote" notion of Buzz Hargrove to a higher level. Now not just votes, but also leaders, are marching from the NDP toward the Liberals. Many New Democrats might be tired of seeing their party being the conscience of Canadians between elections who then send the Liberals or Conservatives into power when the actual election comes.

The only thing missing to close the circle would be an announcement from two former NDP bigwigs that they were running for the Liberals: CAW president Buzz Hargrove in Toronto-Danforth, challenging Layton, and the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, as a Liberal candidate in Trinity-Spadina (against Olivia Chow).


[ 25 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2008 06:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981

posted 25 March 2008 06:45 PM      Profile for ottawaobserver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
The proper link

And the proper quote:

[ 25 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


Bob Rae and Buzz Hargrove... reunited at last... in the bosom of the Liberal Party of Canada... I'm getting all misted up... pass me a kleenex, would you?

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: ottawaobserver ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
TrinityBellwoodsGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14438

posted 25 March 2008 07:46 PM      Profile for TrinityBellwoodsGuy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
These things are hard to track, but my "feel" on the plant floor is that, if anything, Buzz's perfidious politics has hurt the Liberals, and may have more CAW members voting NDP than before.

We put a lot of thought into politics, but we're junkies. Most people's politics is visceral.

And if you want a visceral reaction from people, show them a picture of a rat.


The sad truth is that the plant floor is just as likely to vote Tory as NDP.


From: Trinity-Bellwoods | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 25 March 2008 08:11 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meanwhile, CAW members booed Dion last year, at a rally, with buzz looking on with consternation. I guess when the lib leader votes down the antiscab labour bill, the rank and file do not hale the chief, but give me the heave-ho.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 25 March 2008 08:15 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, but I thought the common enemy was the Cons??? All that whining about Layton, and it's bull.
I have to say, if Buzz runs against Layton who was the gentleman during the last fed election, after Buzz hugged Martin and gave him a CAW coat, I will work in Layton's riding.
And any respect I might have had for any individual members of the libs, well that would be it.
I'd rather not vote at all, than vote for such as slimy political team.

From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2008 08:17 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Before everyone gets all upset, is there actually some indication that this is even a rumour - let alone true?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981

posted 25 March 2008 08:29 PM      Profile for ottawaobserver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Before everyone gets all upset, is there actually some indication that this is even a rumour - let alone true?

The speculation seemed to start with a column by Angelo Persichilli in the Sun. It's a slow news week in Ottawa ... idle hands ... devil's spin ...


From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2008 08:33 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ummm, I just linked to that article, and it says nothing of the sort. It's a slow news day on babble.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 25 March 2008 09:26 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, the rumour has no basis.

And as to speculation: We'll be seeing plenty of Buzz in small 'p' politics, and I have my guess where he'll land when he steps down from CAW Prez.

But even the Liberals are not crazy enough to have Buzz as an actual candidate or MP. And I don't think it's his style. I'll bet that even while he is happily shilling he likes to keep his options open.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 March 2008 02:50 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hearda rumour that Jean Chretien wants to make a political comeback bvy running for the NDP by running against Stephane Dion in St. Laurent-Cartierville!! (well I did stay at a Holiday inn once)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2008 03:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I hearda rumour that Jean Chretien wants to make a political comeback bvy running for the NDP by running against Stephane Dion in St. Laurent-Cartierville!! (well I did stay at a Holiday inn once)

You're a few days early.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
tweety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14875

posted 26 March 2008 03:57 AM      Profile for tweety        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ottawaobserver:
The speculation seemed to start with a column by Angelo Persichilli in the Sun. It's a slow news week in Ottawa ... idle hands ... devil's spin ...

... and then repeated by Mike Duffy on his show yesterday...


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 26 March 2008 04:03 AM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't read that as actuality. I read that as "hey, if the Liberals want to top themselves, then..."
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2008 04:17 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by tweety:

... and then repeated by Mike Duffy on his show yesterday...


No kidding! Did you hear that yourself, or did you hear a friend mention to a stranger that an old flame told her she had read about someone hearing it?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981

posted 26 March 2008 05:53 AM      Profile for ottawaobserver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Ummm, I just linked to that article, and it says nothing of the sort. It's a slow news day on babble.

Sorry, and yes you're right ... but Persichilli's speculation in the last paragraph of the column is I believe what started the questions being raised and all the speculation.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 March 2008 06:16 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm with everyone else in thinking that the rumour is absurd. But, I wanted to address the premise in AP's coilumn.

quote:
Rae's victory brings the "strategic vote" notion of Buzz Hargrove to a higher level. Now not just votes, but also leaders, are marching from the NDP toward the Liberals.

Um, Rae's victory held a seat that the Liberals have easily won since 1993 and also prior to 1984. Not only that, but Rae ran for the Liberal leadership, so running and winning a by-election is not a sign of a march from the NDP to the Liberals. That march happened a long time ago. And, it's hardly the revolution that AP suggests.

From Hazen Argue to Ujjal Dossanj (and Chris Axworthy to Joan Beatty), there have always been people willing to join the Liberals for promises of whatever. Assuming that he's including Hargrove in his definition of "party leaders", that move also happened a long time ago.

More to the point, have NDP voters really been marching to the Liberals? No. The NDP vote went up in 2004 and up again in 2006. The Liberal vote went down in 2004 and down again in 2006. There's been no indication that Liberal support has recovered since that time.

In other words, the "leaders" that are allegedly following voters to the Liberals are following a trend that doesn't exist.

So, basically, we're left with a rumour, and one with very little credibility at that.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jonas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12307

posted 26 March 2008 07:17 AM      Profile for Jonas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh PLEASE let it be true that Buzz is going to run as a Liberal! Then we can enjoy the Libs having to worry what's going to come out of his mouth next and we can just sit back and laugh and laugh - all the way to the polls....
From: Ottawa | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
blake 3:17
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10360

posted 26 March 2008 07:24 AM      Profile for blake 3:17     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At least the Liberals didn't vote for mandatory minimum sentences or rasing the age of consent.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 March 2008 07:34 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
umm...yes they did
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2008 07:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think blake was kidding. I hope blake was kidding.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 26 March 2008 08:37 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps blake meant that the Liberals went along but that they didn't really enjoy doing so.

That's gotta count for something, right?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
blake 3:17
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10360

posted 26 March 2008 11:05 AM      Profile for blake 3:17     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I was just plain old wrong. Was it the motion on the Senate approval that they walked out on?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2008 11:08 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by blake 3:17:
I think I was just plain old wrong. Was it the motion on the Senate approval that they walked out on?

The Liberal "strategy" of recent months is so bizarre that I, too, have trouble remembering whether they voted for, against, or not at all on any particular issue.

For Stéphane Dion and his crowd, it really doesn't matter.

All they know for sure is that if someone gets up in the House and says, "I move we have an election", they must all vote NO!

Unless it's a confidence motion.

In which case they must all LEAVE!

I think.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
tweety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14875

posted 26 March 2008 02:49 PM      Profile for tweety        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Um, Rae's victory held a seat that the Liberals have easily won since 1993 and also prior to 1984. Not only that, but Rae ran for the Liberal leadership, so running and winning a by-election is not a sign of a march from the NDP to the Liberals. That march happened a long time ago. And, it's hardly the revolution that AP suggests.

Actually, the Tories held the seat from 1978 - 1993 without interruption.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: tweety ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 26 March 2008 04:37 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

The Liberal "strategy" of recent months is so bizarre that I, too, have trouble remembering whether they voted for, against, or not at all on any particular issue.

It only seems bizarre if you forget that the Liberal Party is is no way ready for an election. They're still far, far behind the Conservatives on fundraising and probably aren't as organized.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca