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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » London-Fanshawe NDP

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: London-Fanshawe NDP
JasonG
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7603

posted 13 December 2004 12:00 AM      Profile for JasonG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey everyone...
so I am watching CTV for some odd reason this morning, and they decide to have a debate with Bill Siksay, John Reynolds, and (the apparent star of the hour)Pat O'Brien.

So, is it just me, or does Pat get dumber by the day? To equate civil union with marraige is simply not possible; "civil unions" would be considered less important by the Canadian public, and would be classified as a "second-class marraige" in essence.
Pat also stated during the CTV program that his riding supports him.. :S Clearly, he has been in Ottawa much too long.

Anyone else in London and area have anything to say? I plan on telephoning the constituency office Monday morning.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 13 December 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pat O'Brien was only narrowly re-elected, edging out the fantastic Irene Mathyssen, running for the NDP.

The sad thing is that his margin of victory was almost surely provided by those who bought the lie that it was essential to vote Liberal to stop "dark forces" (the Conservatives) from being elected.

In ridings like London-Fanshawe and Trinity-Spadina, the Conservatives were not a factor, so this argument was spurious to begin with. But, when an MP like O'Brien (surely as much a part of the dark forces as Cheryl Gallant or Randy White) is entered into the equation, voting Liberal to stop the Conservatives is like committing suicide to save yourself from being murdered.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 13 December 2004 08:56 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

In ridings like London-Fanshawe and Trinity-Spadina, the Conservatives were not a factor, so this argument was spurious to begin with.

London-Fanshawe was a three way race. The problem is that voting for Pat O'Brien was the same thing as voting for the Conservatives. He is rabidly anti-choice and anti-gay.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 13 December 2004 11:26 AM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
People who are familiar with London-Fanshawe (Andrew Sadler, I imagine you are ) - will know that Pat O'Brien has a very strong base found within the Catholic Community. His base is found with people who are anti-ssm and anti-choice.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 11:31 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be fair, I think here is the calculation that would have gone through peoples minds in June of this year in a riding like London-Fanshawe.

The election looks to be neck and neck between the Liberals and Conservatives. If the Conservatives get even one seat more than the Liberals there is a good chance that Stephen Harper will try to form a government and then a lot of horrible things start to happen very quickly: 1) Instead of Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron getting appointed to the SCC, PM Harper uses his prerogative as PM to dig up a couple of Antonin Scalia type social conservatives that he can pack the court with. 2) good ole Vic Toews - one of the most pathological homophobes in Canadian politics - would probably be named Minister of Justice and he would use that position to do everything in his power to not only stop SSM, but to roll back every law that protects gays and lesbians from discrimination etc...

On the other hand if Pat O'Brien get reelected - however odious his personal views may be, he is still a Liberal and if the Liberal get even one seat more than the Conservatives - Martin remains PM, SCC judges that he appoints are likely to be very socailly liberal, Cotler is Justice Minister and it is probably full steam ahead for SSM.

Of course I would have voted for the NDP in that seat. I'm just describing the logicv behind some peoples voting behaviour and I'm not sure that they are wrong either.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 December 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I'm just describing the logic behind some peoples voting behaviour and I'm not sure that they are wrong either.

Paul Martin did his best to confuse people too. When he was first asked what would happen if Harper got a few more seats than him, he said he would meet Parliament, which of course is the right answer.

But then his pollsters must have taken him aside and said "Paul, remember, we were going to scare the floating NDP voters by suggesting that you would let Harper form a government if he got one more seat than you." To which Martin must have replied: "but we wouldn't really do that." To which the pollsters must have replied "Truth is the first casualty of war, and this is war."

So Paul Martin went out there and baffled the press:

quote:
"It's a common sense proposition that the party that has the most seats is the party that certainly ought to form a government. I mean, it's common sense."

The reporter noted:

quote:
Convention dictates that if that is the case, then the sitting government gets the first opportunity to cobble together enough parliamentary support, even if they win fewer seats than another party.

But no one was listening.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 05:50 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your right Wilfrid, but I am only pointing out that the average person can be forgiven for thinking that it might just be consequential if the Tories had had more seats than the Liberals.

If the Tories had taken even one seat more than the Liberals - here is what COULD easily have happened. Either martin would have resigned immediately OR let's say he tried to stay in power. There is little chance that the NDP would have had enough seats under that scenario to keep the Liberals in power. The Conservatives would have been screaming bloody murder about the will of the people ebing spurned etc... and who knows what kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop-like deal the Tories and the BQ might have cooked up to get an immediate vote of no confidence followed by Clarkson inviting Harper to try to form a government!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
JasonG
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7603

posted 13 December 2004 06:15 PM      Profile for JasonG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:
People who are familiar with London-Fanshawe (Andrew Sadler, I imagine you are ) - will know that Pat O'Brien has a very strong base found within the Catholic Community.

Unfortunately, that is very true, Guepe. While campaigning for Mathyssen in the last election, I encountered a lot of Catholics who were supporting O'Brien; namely in the italian and portuguese communities in the area (even though Mazilli claimed these communities as his own, even though I have never heard him speak a single word of Portuguese).

In my opinion, since the Portuguese and Italian communities tend to be at odds with each other, it is hard to imagine the Conservatives claiming support from the Portuguese population, when most Portuguese-Canadians are Liberals. There is also a Portuguese minority in favour of SSM; they are hard to find, but we did find them while doing leaflet drops and polls for the New Democrats this year. It also helps when you speak the languages

Catholics in London-Fanshawe, which I am one myself, unfortunately hold the belief that Pat is the only one that can speak effectively for them, even though he is not a Liberal at all: the Liberals are a left-of-centre party on most policies, yet Pat leans so far right, it disgusts me as a progressive Catholic.

This whole SSM debate is not about religious rights, nor the rights of gays and lesbians, but for the Liberal Party, it is simply another way to score a few more political points, as well as a way to recover their lost fortunes at the ballot box.

Last point: Pat, have some balls for once, and actually listen to your constituents. We want change; we want our fellow citizens to have the rights they deserve. Do them a favour and REPRESENT them.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
'topherscompy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2248

posted 13 December 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for 'topherscompy        Edit/Delete Post
i grew up in london-fanshawe, and i have to basically agree with jasong. one thing i would add though is that the past election was the closest the ndp's ever come to winning a federal seat in east london. it's a historically liberal seat that's been won by another party once since the sixties, anyway, and that was a pc in 88.

just need to find 3000 more progressive voters eoa, and it's ours i tells ya.


From: gone | Registered: Feb 2002  |  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