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   » "Time to deal with the Buzz problem" - Mel Watkins

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: "Time to deal with the Buzz problem" - Mel Watkins
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 05 December 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very interesting article on Straight Goods this week:
Time to deal with the Buzz problem

Labour and NDP must confront the rogue elephant in the living room.

by Ish Theilheimer and Mel Watkins

quote:
In the week before Parliament was dissolved, it passed the "Workers First" bill — C-55 — mandating bankrupt companies to pay workers what they are owed before other creditors get paid. This happened because the NDP pushed for it in a minority government setting.

In the first week of the election campaign, Buzz Hargrove, leader of Canada's largest private-sector union, publicly and physically embraced Prime Minister Paul Martin, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. With this action, Hargrove delivered a confusing message about strategic voting to ensure another Liberal minority and a clear message of endorsement for the Liberal Party and its agenda.
...
There is a rogue elephant charging around the living room. It is imperative that the top voices in labour condemn Buzz Hargrove's comments and actions strongly and publicly. Also, that the executive of the NDP expel him immediately for giving public support to the leader of an opposing party and undermining the democratic agenda Jack Layton and his party have managed to cobble together.


As much as I agree with Mel, it is perverse to see him call for the expulsion of a member, given that the same thing happened to him during the Waffle. But at the very least we need more high profile members like Mel denouncing Buzz for the hypocrite he really is.

My only quibble with the article is when they write:
"This is the same Buzz Hargrove who owns an NDP membership card, supported Jack Layton's leadership bid..." Is that right? I rember that Buzz actually supported Joe and then at the last minute stabbed him in the back and became lukewarm in his support and said something to the effect that Pierre was a great candidate. I know Buzz publicly supported Jack after his win, but I'm not sure about before.

Edited to fix link - Thanks Paul!

[ 06 December 2005: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 05 December 2005 11:12 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thankfully Mel is in good company...

This letter was printed in the Globe today:

The Buzz on Buzz

Buzz Hargrove is not the leader of the labour movement in Canada (Liberals Touted by CAW Leader -- Dec. 3). He has never even run for the position. But unless we hear from other union leaders, we will anoint him as such. He sure doesn't speak for me.
It's time for the heads of other unions to speak out and remind their members which party did the most for working people and their families in the last Parliament. This election is an opportunity for all union members to show the strength that they have in their numbers. We can turn Buzz's rant into the largest vote the NDP has ever seen.
NANCY RICHE
former secretary-treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
St. John's, Nfld.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 05 December 2005 11:53 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sara's link does not work due to an extra "http" .

Here's the actual address

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Paul Gross ]


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 06 December 2005 07:25 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sara's link does not work due to an extra "http" .

Aha! As a died-in-the-wool Linux user I thought for a moment it was part of a conspiracy by Mr. Gates...kept being re-directed to the "evil empire's" website.

But back on topic...here's a slogan that perhaps some clever button/t-shirt/sweatshirt (it's winter!) maker might want to use.

Feel free anyone to steal it...hey I'm an advocate of "open source" ... on the condition of course that any button's/t-shirts/sweatshirts be union made!!

"BUZZ OFF! I'M VOTING NDP!"

[ 06 December 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 06 December 2005 07:39 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As much as I agree with Mel, it is perverse to see him call for the expulsion of a member, given that the same thing happened to him during the Waffle.

Wafflers were loyal party members and never advocated voting anything but NDP even though the party was far to the right of most of us. Still is.

Hargrove on the other hand is a serial traitor to the NDP who advocates voting for right wing anti-labour parties and politicians on a regular basis.

Yes, throw him out of the party.

[ 06 December 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 06 December 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe Buzz meant to say to vote Liberal if the NDP has no chance in that riding, otherwise if the NDP is competitive then vote NDP. Even if this is the case, I still don't accept his actions, because he's been around long enough to know that no matter what he says or how often he clarifies his position that the media is going to spin this as an endorsement of the Liberals by Buzz and that's how people are going to see it. I fully support having his membership "reviewed" after the election.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 06 December 2005 07:59 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Even if this is the case, I still don't accept his actions, because he's been around long enough to know that no matter what he says or how often he clarifies his position that the media is going to spin this as an endorsement of the Liberals by Buzz and that's how people are going to see it.

Buzz knew exactly what he was doing and exactly how it would be spun by the media.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 06 December 2005 08:05 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JimmyB was a waffler? Who knew?

Buzz is a loose cannon. The problem with shutting him out is he will be ever more vocally critical of the NDP. No other labour leader commands media attention like Buzz. I would think the appropriate question is how to contain the walking disaster that is Buzz Hargrove? I don't know the answer. Maybe it is a clean break, or maybe it's something else. A senate seat would be super. He would no longer represent a constituency. He might be equally erratic but he wouldn't have a staff to back him up. Unfortunately, he'd have to take a pay cut. Anyway, I think Paul Martin probably likes Buzz right where he is.

People are calling for other labour leaders to speak out. But the labour movement is led by gutless wonders. Besides, they don't know how to do media work and except for Ken Georgetti, the media don't know who they are. Georgetti, in a recent Maclean's article, says he talks more often to Martin than to Layton, and that he finds Martin "engaging". Martin's like that with everyone, but Georgetti takes it personally. Martin is playing these two like a fiddle, with their desire to be one of the big boys.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 07 December 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Buzz is a loose cannon. The problem with shutting him out is he will be ever more vocally critical of the NDP.

What has he actually done to support the NDP? From what I've seen, he complains about the NDP not being "left" enough, then endorses the Liberals who are right of the NDP. I say we have more to lose by keeping him.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 December 2005 12:23 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz is his nickname. We should call him by his real name... Belinda.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 07 December 2005 01:32 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
JimmyB was a waffler? Who knew?

The Londonont cell. I started as a precocious 14 year old who got invited to Mary Campbell's house for ... ahem ... shall we say... 'readings' and strategy sessions. The Londonont cell was large and contained a lot of the committed activists - the people who actually did stuff for the NDP - in the area.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 07 December 2005 04:06 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
Buzz has been at this game of his ever since the big conflicts with Premier Rae, and certainly since the 1993 Federal Election. He's not entirely alone in that, some feminist leaders have gone down the same path.

Sara's description of Buzz's multiple backstabbings during the last NDP leadership race omitted the most glaring of all. He condemned Svend Robinson, whom he had previously supported, just as the race was beginning, and that's one of the major reasons, if not THE major reason why Svend did not run in 2003 and instead backed Layton.

It all goes to show that Buzz is a political loose cannon and then some. I really think his currency is down, and wouldn't worry that this will hurt the NDP a lot. Buzz is not a household name the way a major professional athlete or movie star would be. He's a personality only in homes of labour activists and political junkies. And among labour activists, his stock has to be down since the CAW was expelled from the CLC for raiding.

And if the Liberals don't realize that in BC they collect a lot of anti-union votes, I think there may be a nasty surprise waiting for them. As election day draws nearer they may yet discover that Buzz's embrace has been as costly to them as to some of this other victims.

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: MasterDebator ]


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 07 December 2005 04:48 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I got this in my e-mail today. I wonder which StraighGoods editorial they're talking about?

quote:
FIRST, A NOTE: It's December. We haven't paid staff for November. We ran an editorial on Monday and lost a sponsor Tuesday. Independence carries a cost, but we believe investing in truth is worth it.

From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hunky_Monkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6081

posted 07 December 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for Hunky_Monkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I still doubt this will have any impact on e-day. First, if Buzz couldn't deliver union votes to us, he's not going to direct them to Martin. Second, union activits who are already involved in the party aren't going to switch sides. And third, voters in general (non-union) don't give a damn what a union leader thinks when it comes to their politics. It would be nice though to have more people like Nancy Riche (I adore that woman!!) to speak out against Buzz. I never liked Buzz from day one. This latest stunt put the last nail in the coffin.
From: Halifax | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 07 December 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
I got this in my e-mail today. I wonder which StraighGoods editorial they're talking about?
Check out the google cache of their sponsors page. Then look at their sponsors page. The former has the Canadian Auto Workers (until the googlebots sweep through again). The latter does not.

Buzz must have gotten steamed about the Theilheimer/Watkins editorial, and pulled his sponsorship money.

This would be a good time to give a donation to Straight Goods, and the Finger to Buzz.

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ty Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7896

posted 07 December 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Ty Webb        Edit/Delete Post
Typical of the far left. blame everyone else for your problems.

Buzz Hargrove suggested supporting the Liberals under cartain circumstances. So what? He's allowed. Seems to me that it speaks more to the relevency of the Federal NDP more than anybody else.

And look on the bright side, if the NDP fails to make gains (a likely scenario) or loses seats (an even likelier scenario) you've always got Buzz Hargrove to blame. Instead of yourselves.

Looking on the bright side, the NDP would be better off in the end if it lost a few seats this time around. But only if it lost these ones : Vancouver Centre (Svend), Burnaby Douglas (Bill Siksay), Toronto Danforth (Jack), Joe Comartin's seat, and Vancouver East (though that one will never happen). Then some people with ideas relevent to mainstream voters might take charge of the party. It's a nice thought, anyway...


From: I was born to rub you, but you were born to rub me first! | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 December 2005 06:12 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Dagmar was less annoying.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ty Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7896

posted 07 December 2005 06:22 PM      Profile for Ty Webb        Edit/Delete Post

(Do I have to bring out the rolly-eyed thingies again? Do you want some more of that... )


From: I was born to rub you, but you were born to rub me first! | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
PoliticalDiscord
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3854

posted 07 December 2005 06:41 PM      Profile for PoliticalDiscord   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Am I the only one who sees a terrible double standard here?

Ish and Mel are suggesting that the party expel Buzz for supporting Liberals.

Why didn't they support expelling Olivia Chow when she endorsed an independent running against an NDP candidate in the 1999 provincial election?

Why aren't they calling on Peggy Nash to be expelled? She supported the resolution that passed at CAW council...

Why didn't they support expelling the leaders of the various unions who endorsed Liberal candidates in the 1999 provincial election?


www.uncorrectedproofs.blogspot.com


From: Niagara | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ty Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7896

posted 07 December 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for Ty Webb        Edit/Delete Post
Uh isn't it obvious.

The independent she endorsed is probably even further left than the NDP (if it can be done).

There is no double standard. The rule is that you cannot support electable middle of the road mainstream candidates who are not NDP.


From: I was born to rub you, but you were born to rub me first! | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 December 2005 06:54 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nothing is "obvious" if you have to use the word "probably."


The discussion here is about the damage done to this campaign by Buzz Hargrove. While the campaigns of 1999 or 1889 may allow us to divert attention from this topic, bringing them up simply causes babble to become useless for actual discussion of situations which arise.

But you know that, don't you.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 07 December 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that's obvious.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 07 December 2005 10:44 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Labour leaders issuing strong statements of support for the NDP and NDP candidates? Yes.

Expel Hargrove from the party? No. While having Buzz perpetually off-side during elections is infuriating, other parties have their dissenters too... disaffected Liberals Warren Kinsella and Sheila Copps immediately springing to mind.

I love the 'BUZZ OFF! I'M VOTING NDP' button idea someone previously posted though.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 08 December 2005 12:17 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you are tired of the constant betrayals from Liberal Lickspittle Basil, visit:

groups.yahoo.com/group/BuzzOffBasil


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
kyall glennie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3940

posted 10 December 2005 09:49 AM      Profile for kyall glennie   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How many high-profile labour leaders have been featured as the main graphic on the Liberals' website before?

Says it all. Buzz isn't truly endorsing NDP candidates if he finds himself on the Liberal webpage like this.

I certainly find it egotistical, as well, that on the CAW website there seems to be a link on *every* page with a picture of Buzzy Boy so that you can email him. I won't waste my time.

Off to campaign for the NDP! In a seat we're going to win!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
antibuzz
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11317

posted 11 December 2005 03:24 AM      Profile for antibuzz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Everything you need to know about the sheer idiocy of Buzz's strategy is summed up in this photo:

That's right from Sam Bulte's website by the way.

That's right Buzz! You are in fact campaigning against your supposed friend and ally Peggy Nash.

In case you haven't noticed the Liberals that are running against Tories don't want anything to do with you. You're not on their flyers. It's the Liberals that are hoping to defeat New Democrats that are using your endorsement.

Either you're incredibly stupid or you, in fact, want to kill off the NDP to satisfy your own ego.

Either way you'll burn in hell.


From: Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
far away eyes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11170

posted 11 December 2005 03:30 AM      Profile for far away eyes        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it's because most of Buzz's constituents- unionized workers don't necessarily identify with NDP policies. Today's union members don't reliably vote NDP because they believe they are mainstream and middle class. In fact, some union members live in middle class suburbs, two cars, a boat.... They don't identify with some of the NDP's harder left policies and advocates. So Buzz is reflecting his support base.
From: vancouver | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 11 December 2005 03:43 AM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that when some people get too close to that "big comfy fur rug" they just lose their senses and are overcome by a desire for it. Senator Buzz, Ambassador Buzz, the Governor... I think most Canadians see it very clearly and will vote the Liberals out.
From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 13 December 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by antibuzz:
That's right from Sam Bulte's website by the way.
Jesus Christ. Not only is that where Buzz's own EA Peggy Nash is running, but it's a TWO-WAY LIBERAL-NDP race, with the Conservative not having a hope.

2004 results:
Lib Sarmite Bulte 19,727
NDP Peggy Nash 16,201
Con Jurij Klufas 7,221
Grn Niel Spiegel 3,249

Buzz is really the scum of the earth to whore himself out to Liberals in this way. This goes directly against his own resolution about the election:

quote:
I recommend that the CAW endorse the sitting NDP Members of Parliament, and individual NDP candidates in potentially winnable ridings (to be determined following consultation with our local leaders and activists). The list of endorsed candidates would be posted on the CAW web site and distributed to all locals.

I recommend that in other ridings, the CAW not endorse any specific candidates; rather, individual voters will need to decide what best contributes to electing a Liberal minority with NDP balance of power, and stopping the Conservatives.


And yet everything this dipshit is doing is working towards *decreased* NDP support, possibly leading to a Liberal majority.

Buzz Hargrove: Vile lying treacherous scum.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 13 December 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Parkdale-High Park is anomalous in that the number of electors in the 2004 election was greater than the number of electors in the 2000 election.

In most ridings, overall turnout went down. Peggy Nash must have run a phenomenal campaign there in 2004. Here are some statistics from the House of Commons web site.

Election 1997:
Total vote: 42859
Sam Bulte, Liberal: 20692 /42859 = 48.27%
Paul Schmidt, NDP: 8762 /42859 = 20.44%

Election 2000:
Total vote: 41848 : Decrease from 1997: 2.35%
Sam Bulte, Liberal: 20676 /41848 = 49.41%
Paul Schmidt, NDP: 7947 /41848 = 18.99%

Election 2004:
Total vote: 46912 : Increase from 2000: 12.10%
Sam Bulte, Liberal: 19727 /46912 = 42.05%
Peggy Nash, NDP: 16201 / 46912 = 34.53%

Not only did Peggy Nash manage to raise the NDP support level from 19% or so to 34%, but she also managed to increase the overall turnout in the riding by 12.10%! As we know, the turnout in the 2004 election was historically low. This was reflected in Sam Bulte's decline from 20676 to 19727 or 4.59%. Had there been another NDP candidate and not Peggy Nash, their vote would have likely declined by the same amount to around 7589. Instead, Peggy Nash polled 16,201!

We know the NDP targeted the riding, and they were very successful in increasing the overall turnout and the NDP vote. If the riding had been like any other, turnout would have declined by about 5%. This would have meant a total number of electors of about 40,000. Instead, it was 46,912. Not only did the NDP increase the number of electors by about 7,000, but they managed to get every single one of them to vote NDP!

The NDP definitely needs more miracles like this!


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
hypocrite
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11304

posted 14 December 2005 12:27 AM      Profile for hypocrite        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Being:
Parkdale-High Park is anomalous in that the number of electors in the 2004 election was greater than the number of electors in the 2000 election.

In most ridings, overall turnout went down. Peggy Nash must have run a phenomenal campaign there in 2004. Here are some statistics from the House of Commons web site.

Election 1997:
Total vote: 42859
Sam Bulte, Liberal: 20692 /42859 = 48.27%
Paul Schmidt, NDP: 8762 /42859 = 20.44%

Election 2000:
Total vote: 41848 : Decrease from 1997: 2.35%
Sam Bulte, Liberal: 20676 /41848 = 49.41%
Paul Schmidt, NDP: 7947 /41848 = 18.99%

Election 2004:
Total vote: 46912 : Increase from 2000: 12.10%
Sam Bulte, Liberal: 19727 /46912 = 42.05%
Peggy Nash, NDP: 16201 / 46912 = 34.53%

Not only did Peggy Nash manage to raise the NDP support level from 19% or so to 34%, but she also managed to increase the overall turnout in the riding by 12.10%! As we know, the turnout in the 2004 election was historically low. This was reflected in Sam Bulte's decline from 20676 to 19727 or 4.59%. Had there been another NDP candidate and not Peggy Nash, their vote would have likely declined by the same amount to around 7589. Instead, Peggy Nash polled 16,201!

We know the NDP targeted the riding, and they were very successful in increasing the overall turnout and the NDP vote. If the riding had been like any other, turnout would have declined by about 5%. This would have meant a total number of electors of about 40,000. Instead, it was 46,912. Not only did the NDP increase the number of electors by about 7,000, but they managed to get every single one of them to vote NDP!

The NDP definitely needs more miracles like this!


What I find most interesting is how Ms. Bulte has only lost about 960 votes over the last 8 years. It's quite surprising that the Gomery report in no way affected her vote total by a serious margin.

What does seem odd is how the CA/PC vote combined went down by a total of about 3,000 votes and how the NDP vote doubled. Odd. Clearly the PC/CA (whatever party you choose) voters didn't become NDP!

So is that to say that Peggy Nash picked up from Bulte and Bulte picked up from the Conservatives?!?!?


From: Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
hypocrite
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11304

posted 14 December 2005 12:29 AM      Profile for hypocrite        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by hypocrite:

What I find most interesting is how Ms. Bulte has only lost about 960 votes over the last 8 years. It's quite surprising that the Gomery report in no way affected her vote total by a serious margin.

What does seem odd is how the CA/PC vote combined went down by a total of about 3,000 votes and how the NDP vote doubled. Odd. Clearly the PC/CA (whatever party you choose) voters didn't become NDP!

So is that to say that Peggy Nash picked up from Bulte and Bulte picked up from the Conservatives?!?!?


And let me add on to how odd that would be if Bulte picked up from the Conservative tally. Bulte is essentially one of the most left MPs in the Liberal Government which would clearly be a complete contradiction to the Conservative vote.

This doesn't make any sense at all.


From: Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 14 December 2005 12:39 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What, you don't think Conservatives are smart enough to vote tactically?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 14 December 2005 03:22 AM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
In recent days the CPAC-SES polls have shown a decline in NDP support, mainly in Ontario, but also in the West. In both regions there has been an increase in Tory support.

SES NationState Dec 13th

While it's conjecture to say this is a direct transfer, it's also conjecture to imagine that it's the result of some complicated two part manouvre, votes going NDP to Liberal while other votes go Liberal to Tory.

I am wondering if it's possible that Bro. Hargrove's betrayal, and the lack of a firm and forceful NDP counterattack on The Buzz, has contributed to a situation where working class populists have left the NDP column in disgust and caused them to at least temporarily express support for the Tories, the very party that is the target of Buzz's declaration of another in his popular series of "vote strategic" political jihads.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 14 December 2005 03:34 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or the SES polls are wrong. I don't find them very reliable. Everyone here obsesses over them because they come out so frequently, but that doesn't make them accurate.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2005 10:05 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Today's union members don't reliably vote NDP because they believe they are mainstream and middle class. In fact, some union members live in middle class suburbs, two cars, a boat.... They don't identify with some of the NDP's harder left policies and advocates. So Buzz is reflecting his support base.

1. Can you identidy a specific "hard left" NDP policy that might scare middle class union memebrs???

2. There was never a time when unionm members voted NDP in the first place. Maybe its good to have BNuzz do his thing so that the NDP no longer has to get embarrassed in front of the general public by being seen to be under Hargrove's control.

3. As recently as two years ago Hargrove denounced the NDP for being too rightwing and demanded that the party move to the far left. Was he reflecting his memebrship when he said that?

4. Last year he urged the NDP to merge wioth the Bloc Quebecois - now he says to vote Liberal to PREVENTR the BQ from having any influence!!

I think Hargrove is delusional and needs to see s shrink!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 14 December 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
OK here are the results for all 5 parties (then 4 after the P.C./C.A. merger)

1997:
BULTE, Sarmite 20,692 Lib
SCHMIDT, Paul 8,762 N.D.P.
SAWECZKO, Jilian 5,926 P.C.
JAKUBCAK, Michael 5,881 Ref.
WEINBERG, Laura 696 G.P.

Total for Top 5 parties: 41,957

2000:
BULTE, Sarmite 20,676 Lib
SCHMIDT, Paul 7,947 N.D.P.
STRYCHARZ, David 5,681 P.C.
VANCAS, Vicki 4,882 CA
SPIEGEL, Neil 1,161 G.P.

Total for top 5 parties: 40,347

2004:
BULTE, Sarmite (Sam) 19,727 Lib
NASH, Peggy 16,201 N.D.P.
KLUFAS, Jurij 7,221 C
SPIEGEL, Neil 3,249 G.P.

Total for top 4 parties (P.C. and Ref/CA combined into C): 46,398

The PC and Reform/Alliance combinations declined from a total of around 11,700 in 1997 and 10,400 in 2000 to 7221 in 2004. It is very likely P.C. supporters disgruntled with the Conservative Party went with Sam Bulte, and others went to the Green Party. It is also likely that in reality, a number of former P.C. and Alliance supporters just did not bother to vote.

What is most mysterious is the expansion in the popular vote from 2000 to 2004. The riding was changed to include parts of Trinity Spadina, which is also a horse-race between the Liberals and the NDP. However the votes from that part of the riding should have split more or less evenly. What is anomalous is that 100% of the expansion of the popular vote from 2000 to 2004 is accounted for by votes for the NDP. There is something here which bears investigation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ravenj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5357

posted 21 December 2005 01:15 AM      Profile for ravenj     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Take a look at how Hargrove's words are being applied by a LPC candidate in Newfoundland:

"[Hargrove] has said in two-horse races, 'Let's go Liberal,' and I think that kind of sentiment – when it is coming from the traditional NDP vote – speaks volumes."

Full report from CBC


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  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