[AlvinofDiaspar]

I hope not. They'll want to steer clear of habitual liars and members they've already had to slap down for speaking out of turn.

Habitual liar like how exactly? And every party need their attack dog - I can't think of anyone better suited than Adam Vaughan given his ability to eviscerate.

AoD

 

[picard102]

Habitual liar like how exactly? And every party need their attack dog - I can't think of anyone better suited than Adam Vaughan given his ability to eviscerate.

AoD

He says whatever he wishes to be fact, rather than facts, and is prone to hyperbole.

Eviscerate? The guy is as scary as a wet paper bag.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

He says whatever he wishes to be fact, rather than facts, and is prone to hyperbole.

Eviscerate? The guy is as scary as a wet paper bag.

Blatant examples please? And if the last government didn't cause any problems for you in this regard....

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/polit...oid-the-temptation-to-adopt-harpers-practices

Scary is for Halloweeen. As to eviscerate - you should ask the KPMG consultants at a certain deputation.

AoD

 

[WislaHD]

I wonder where she is taking advice from, it was comical to see her complain about the Liberals as the old boy network, shame the reporter did not have the professionalism to ask how she came by her candidacy. She should stick to teaching part time at Ryerson, that is more her speed. It's not like she ever did anything worthwhile when she was with hubby in Ottawa.

I think this guy pretty much sums up my feelings towards Chow and the NDP

I've got something to say to the left...

Why do you keep supporting Olivia Chow? She isn't particularly talented. I can't think of any file she'd be particularly strong on. What would she be able to contribute as, say, a cabinet minister? Don't get me wrong. There are some really excellent NDPers, and some of them unfortunately lost last night. Megan Leslie, Nikki Ashton, Paul Dewer, Nathan Cullen, Charlie Angus, and Peggy Nash are all solid candidates.

So why does the left continually coalesce around Chow? I know she was a city councillor that did a lot of good work for her constituents. Indeed, she has been at the forefront of a lot of identity-related issues. It is Olivia Chow that spearheaded the effort to have 911 services in several languages. And the LGBTQ community owes her a lot for her support.

But frankly, I've never thought she's particularly bright. It is so often that she provides a sad anecdote to justify a policy proposal, making little reference to empirical data. She offers empty platitudes that are designed to raise the emotions of left wing thinkers. When she's challenged on the substance of policy she often becomes combative, as opposed to informative.

I know this isn't a popular comment, but sometimes her lack of linguistic ability offends me. I've done volunteer work in new immigrant communities (like Thorncliffe Park here in Toronto) and have met immigrants who have been here for less than ten years and speak better English than Olivia Chow. She frequently fails to use plurals properly, and at times her English is a bit broken. It's not that I expect her to be a linguist or expert orator. I simply think that if you've been in a country since the age of about 12 it isn't absurd for constituents to expect that a public representative speaks the language well. I would hold myself to the same standard if I moved to a country where English is not the predominant language. I consider it to be a matter of respect for your constituents. Of course, this isn't to say I can't understand her. I do. It's just that I think she's been a bit lazy when it comes to learning proper English, and I think that kind of laziness is unacceptable. It's not as though she is intellectually affected. MPs all over this country learn french when they're in their 40s so that they may broaden their political horizons. And it has nothing to do with her facial paralysis; this condition does not affect one's ability to use a plural properly. And lastly, I don't expect her to be perfect in her linguistic abilities.

I'm a feminist, and I think an intersectional analysis of social issues is really important. The racist and misogynistic vitriol that Olivia Chow has been a victim of, most particularly in the 2014 mayoral election, is beyond reprehensible. Indeed, women, and women of colour, face a lot of unfair obstacles in politics. This issue is systemic, and I don't think any amount of legislation will ever be sufficient to correct it. But I also think the left (of which I somewhat consider myself a part) has a tendency to go too far the other way; standards for leadership and upper echelon roles are temporarily subdued in order to leverage candidates to success, whereas in a strict meritocracy they would not stand a chance. Alternatively, I think we ought to have a strict meritocracy when selecting candidates for representation, but make an effort to mitigate (and attempt to altogether eliminate) the systemic barriers to an individual's bid for leadership. But upon selection, I think a strict meritocracy is in order, lest we coddle marginalized persons. Bear in mind that in some cases a person's identity may actually make them more fit for representation in a strictly meritocratic process; an individual with a Pakistani background, running for nomination of candidacy in a predominantly immigrant Pakistani neighbourhood, is likely more fit for leadership of such a community because their racial/cultural/national identities are of a shared condition.

But notice that this is not the case in Chow's situation. It's not as if Spadina-Fort York was in desperate need for the leadership of someone of any particular identity. The aforementioned criticisms of Chow well illuminate how standards for language, for policy understanding, for communication (as in responding to policy concerns and challenges from other candidates), and for legislative talents have been subdued. It's as if people are worried they are a racist if they don't subdue these standards when considering an immigrant woman of colour. Frankly, I think this manifests itself in a rather condescending treatment of marginalized persons.

Compare Olivia Chow to someone like Megan Leslie, or Kristyn Wong-Tam (a well known city councillor in Toronto), and try to tell me that the latter two aren't aeons beyond Chow in representative ability. The opportunity cost of supporting Chow is too high; whoever you haven't supported may warrant greater accolades for their political abilities, and they would otherwise be able to take her place.

Lastly, I must admit I found it a bit tasteless that she signed a multi-year contract to teach a class on activism and networking, and yet she only did it for a year, and after students had selected the class she quit and decided to run (again) for the NDP. Remember that meritocracy I was talking about? I've no doubt there would be a lot to learn from Chow about activism and networking. Had I attended Ryerson I may have taken that class just because I thought she would be particularly informative in that role. It'd really piss me off to enroll in a class and have her drop out like that. It's a bit classless.

That these shortcomings in ability and character don't negatively affect Chow's reputation in NDP circles is indicative of what I think to be one of the problems with the NDP. That people like Megan Leslie, Nathan Cullen, Charlie Angus, and Paul Dewar don't occupy the same level of popularity in NDP supporter circles (note that these are people who vote NDP - not party insiders) as Chow does is a serious problem. It's as if the party has a proclivity for attracting young, naive, unrealistically idealistic voters who tend to support less qualified candidates. Indeed, it is the so called social justice warrior that would call me a racist for my comments about Chow, and it is the same social justice warrior that would likely vote NDP, regardless of substantive policy concerns. On the surface candidates like Chow and McQuaig do have some appeal. The former being warm and inviting, the latter being a feisty intellectual that isn't afraid to bring some fight to the political discourse. But these candidates fall short when it comes to policy substance and reciprocal communication (watching debates between Chrystia Freeland and Linda McQuaig in the Toronto Centre byelection two years ago demonstrates how unable McQuaig is to deal with opposition without becoming downright abrasive and logically incoherent). The party needs to grow up. That doesn't mean moving to the center. It means getting out of wishy-washy political platitudes, and doing away with equally wishy-washy candidates. It is imperative that the NDP begins celebrating strong candidates.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think this guy pretty much sums up my feelings towards Chow and the NDP

The poster has a point (and I wouldn't have voted for Chow if I was in her riding), but lost me when it defaulted to the a bunch of contradictory comments regarding her linguistic abilities:

I know this isn't a popular comment, but sometimes her lack of linguistic ability offends me. I've done volunteer work in new immigrant communities (like Thorncliffe Park here in Toronto) and have met immigrants who have been here for less than ten years and speak better English than Olivia Chow. She frequently fails to use plurals properly, and at times her English is a bit broken. It's not that I expect her to be a linguist or expert orator. I simply think that if you've been in a country since the age of about 12 it isn't absurd for constituents to expect that a public representative speaks the language well. I would hold myself to the same standard if I moved to a country where English is not the predominant language. I consider it to be a matter of respect for your constituents. Of course, this isn't to say I can't understand her. I do. It's just that I think she's been a bit lazy when it comes to learning proper English, and I think that kind of laziness is unacceptable. It's not as though she is intellectually affected. MPs all over this country learn french when they're in their 40s so that they may broaden their political horizons. And it has nothing to do with her facial paralysis; this condition does not affect one's ability to use a plural properyl. And lastly, I don't expect her to be perfect in her linguistic abilities.

So the individual understood her perfectly, but then went on to complain on and on about Chow's inability to use plural properly because she is "lazy when it comes to learning proper English"? Seriously? And then went on to say that she was demonized?

AoD

 

[allabootmatt]

It'll be interesting to see if Trudeau tries to revive the post of a junior minister (minister of state) for urban issues, which I recall correctly last existed under his father. It would certainly send a message that he plans to have a different relationship than Harper with the country's big cities, and Adam Vaughan would be a very, very obvious candidate.

But as others have said, the Liberals have a pretty deep bench of potential ministers, including from the GTA. You could easily see Morneau, Vaughan, Bennett, and Freeland all in cabinet in some capacity, but I doubt Justin will want it to be that heavily Toronto-weighted. Something will have to give.

 

[Skeezix]

Re: P-HP and Davenport. Peggy Nash and Andrew Cash received virtually the same number of votes as in 2011, but higher turnout put the Liberals over the top.

We don't actually know that to be the case. Had turn-out been the same as 2011, we can't say that the Liberals would not have still won. There is nothing to show those who voted in 2015, but didn't vote in 2011, mostly voted Liberal. The higher turn-out in these ridings may have been due, in part, to the NDP machine in those ridings who (motivated by the polls and the shock of the last provincial election) were even more successful in getting out the NDP vote this time around in an attempt to save these seats.

 

[ShonTron]

Adam Vaughan is an ass. Period. On the other hand, Vaughan has been a good advocate for urban issues, and Chow is a spent force. I don't disagree with the Liberal partisan's comments above concerning her. For a while, the NDP looked like they were going to take Spadina-Fort York, so I see why they were so eager to bring her back for one more round, but in retrospect should have spent the resources elsewhere. I'm glad I didn't spend any energy there.

I'm more disappointed by the results elsewhere. I don't think much of Freeland; I think Morneau's far too right-wing for Toronto Centre, and I'm really disappointed to see Andrew Cash and Peggy Nash gone. The Liberals elected a nobody in Davenport while Cash was a passionate advocate. In Scarborough Southwest, the Liberal candidate disgusts me.

Can't say I'm upset about Chow though. She should have stayed at Ryerson.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It'll be interesting to see if Trudeau tries to revive the post of a junior minister (minister of state) for urban issues, which I recall correctly last existed under his father. It would certainly send a message that he plans to have a different relationship than Harper with the country's big cities, and Adam Vaughan would be a very, very obvious candidate.

Personally I would actually prefer something less ephemeral and potentially powerless - appoint him as the Minister of Infrastructure instead.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

Adam Vaughan is an ass. Period. On the other hand, Vaughan has been a good advocate for urban issues, and Chow is a spent force. I don't disagree with the Liberal partisan's comments above concerning her. For a while, the NDP looked like they were going to take Spadina-Fort York, so I see why they were so eager to bring her back for one more round, but in retrospect should have spent the resources elsewhere. I'm glad I didn't spend any energy there.

I'm more disappointed by the results elsewhere. I don't think much of Freeland; I think Morneau's far too right-wing for Toronto Centre, and I'm really disappointed to see Andrew Cash and Peggy Nash gone. The Liberals elected a nobody in Davenport while Cash was a passionate advocate. In Scarborough Southwest, the Liberal candidate disgusts me.

Can't say I'm upset about Chow though. She should have stayed at Ryerson.

Chrystia Freeland is an articulate and intelligent MP, and we are incredibly lucky to have her in the Toronto caucus. The jury is still out on Morneau. Agree that Nash and Cash are big losses. I am less sad about the loss Craig Scott (who wrote a somewhat petty farewell message on his Facebook page yesterday) (Julie Dabrusin has great potential) and Matthew Kellway (I don't know anything about Erskine-Smith). Vaughan is abrasive and condescending, but I agree that he was the better choice.

ETA: Agreed on Blair.

 

[doady]

If Adam Vaughan and Olivia Chow were candidates in my riding, I would have voted Conservative, no joke.

 

[christiesplits]

Adam Vaughan is an ass. Period. On the other hand, Vaughan has been a good advocate for urban issues, and Chow is a spent force. I don't disagree with the Liberal partisan's comments above concerning her. For a while, the NDP looked like they were going to take Spadina-Fort York, so I see why they were so eager to bring her back for one more round, but in retrospect should have spent the resources elsewhere. I'm glad I didn't spend any energy there.

You summed up my thoughts, pretty much. Vaughan is sharp and is a great asset to Trudeau, but he's a well known asshole who doesn't play well with others. This works fine in council, and leads to great 15 second sound bites, but it will be a problem for him in Ottawa where he will have to tow the party line. Given that there is already a plethora of cabinet-ministers-in-waiting in the GTA, and Trudeau has to balance both regional considerations and gender, I wouldn't be surprised if Vaughan gets left out.

And I think Chow made a huge judgement error in running. She was just coming off a terribly disappointing mayoral campaign, and found a terrific role for herself at Ryerson. She overstayed her welcome in the political arena and paid dearly for it.

I am less sad about the loss Craig Scott (who wrote a somewhat petty farewell message on his Facebook page yesterday)

I initially thought it was sour too, until I read Scott's Twitter feed where he offered best wishes to Dabrusin. I think his letter was more reflective than mean-spirited.

 

[salsa]

I initially thought it was sour too, until I read Scott's Twitter feed where he offered best wishes to Dabrusin. I think his letter was more reflective than mean-spirited.

I assume this is the letter in question:

Dear Friends,

I won't write a full message now as I won't get it right so early after last night's electoral outcome. Perhaps I will write later with more structured thoughts. Or perhaps I will let these comments stand as a sincere reflection of my reflections the day after.

I want most of all to thank the residents of Toronto-Danforth for having provided me the privilege of being the MP for this truly amazing community, where caring for each other is both a general belief and a way of life. And I am so humbled by the support and hard work of hundreds of volunteers who so much believed in the (truly) real, positive change that Canada's first social democratic government could have ushered in. As I said in my speech last night for those of you who were there, you would never know it from how the media over these last 11 weeks alternated between leaders, (occasionally) candidates, voters, and pundits as the 'faces' of democratic participation, but in crucial respects you the volunteer -- whether within riding associations or generally as engaged citizens during elections -- are the lifeblood of our democracy. Thank you, all.

I also appreciate so much the outpouring of thank yous for my work as MP and the many expressions of dismay or even shock (not to mention anger at our broken electoral system) that have come my way. The best I have to offer right now besides the standard 'them's the lumps' is that we can at least celebrate that we are rid of a truly reprehensible regime (I do not say "government" because that sugar-coats what the Harper era had come to be all about). And we can take great pride in the role the NDP led by Tom Mulcair played in that result. The simple fact is that there is no way the Conservatives would not have won again -- probably with another majority -- if the NDP had not been the most effective, dedicated, and, yes, fierce Official Opposition in modern Canadian history for the last four years. Alongside myriad voices from civil society, I and my colleagues -- amazing MPs like Megan Leslie and Paul Dewar and Jack Harris and Jinny Sims and Matt Kellway who were treated like cannon fodder in the anti-Harper convulsion that was yesterday's election -- laid bare, day in and day out, what that Conservative government was all about. We fought them at every turn in battles such as against the Unfair Elections Act and Bill C-51, while -- and if this sounds bitter, I do not hide that it is -- Liberal MPs (not all but far too many) were fundamentally lazy, sitting passively in their corner of the House (assigning the same MP to do all almost all their speaking for the other 35 for four straight years) and arrogantly waiting for the messiah to take them back to the promised land of power (and they were proven 'right' in that calculation). To all my colleagues who like me were not returned last night, thank you for being part of such an amazing caucus for whom doing the right thing and doing one's job as part of an all-hands-on-deck team effort come naturally.

As we head into the 42nd Parliament, Canadians should, in keeping with the generosity of spirit that saw so many convince themselves to hope the Liberals can actually be a source of "real change", cross their fingers that our democracy has actually turned some sort of corner and that the same old Liberals in power will not be the same old Liberals in power. I am willing, grudgingly, to acknowledge that there is reason to be hopeful because the Liberal platform necessarily has elements that deserve to be seen as progressive or, at least, better than what would be on offer from the Conservatives. For all these elements, I sincerely hope the NDP in Parliament and citizens at large will do everything they can to make these platform pieces become reality rather than slip out of sight, through a mix of cooperation and vigorous prodding.

BUT, let me direct and blunt here: arising from the combination of odium for Stephen Harper and his gang and the distorted seat count in relation to the popular vote under our winner-take-all system, Canadians must also be aware of the result 'they' have produced. That is to say, 39.5% of us have handed a majority government (well over 50% of the seats) to a party that, alongside the Conservatives, brought us Bill C-51 and the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (yes, the Liberals voted for BOTH), and a party that will try to bring us the transnational-corporate-rights charter known as the Trans Pacific Partnnership (TPP) with the support of their Conservative fellow travellers who are now the Official Opposition. The same two parties that agree that no greenhouse gas emissions targets (let alone mandatory ones under a pan-Canadian carbon pricing system) need to be set before Canada goes to the Paris Climate Change Conference in several weeks where the fate of a world on the ecological brink will be decided. The same two parties that are united in not wanting to see proportional representation as part of our electoral system. And to take a longer view of the de facto Liberal-Conservative Alliance, the same old parties that over the last decades collectively -- as if they were in a relay 'race' handing the baton back and forth to each other -- left a legacy of gutted transfers to the provinces for such crucial collective goods as affordable housing and gutted funding to Aboriginal communities for such basics as equal education for First Nations kids.

As I sit writing this at a picnic table overlooking Cherry Beach at the south end of this wonderful riding of Toronto-Danforth, serendipity has placed me right beside this image (below) of an empty watchtower looking out over the lake toward a blurred wall of Leslie Spit trees. With a decimated and reeling NDP with only 40+ seats in the House of Commons and with the Cons gazing across the aisle at the Libs as the Official Opposition, there is right now nobody in the watch tower of Canada's Parliament. The Family Compact is back. As such, it will be Canadians at large, engaged scholars, civil society organizations, and a media doing its job that will need to step up and help to fill this hole in democratic scrutiny. Positive change will be lost if you leave it to this House of Commons as generated by this election.

Be hopeful but also be vigilant, be engaged.

Bon courage.

Yours in solidarity and (obviously) frustrated frankness,

Craig

It's unfortunate that the NDP had to get clobbered so hard Monday night. Voters should have sent the Harper government to 3rd place, not the NDP.

 

[Skeezix]

I initially thought it was sour too, until I read Scott's Twitter feed where he offered best wishes to Dabrusin. I think his letter was more reflective than mean-spirited.

I wasn't so much talking about the lack of best wishes to Dabrusin - I assumed that he at least called her on the night of the election. Good to know he also tweeted. I was referring to his snide comments on the work of the Liberal MPs, which is patently untrue, as well the general patronizing tone towards the electorate and the Liberals (the "Family Compact"!). He is dismissive of any aspects of the fight against Harper that we not done by him and his NDP colleagues, is effusive in his praise for his own efforts (I would have been okay with him praising his fellow NDP MPs, but he includes himself), and at times just makes things up (the Liberals and Tories are not united in opposing more proportional representation - Trudeau was clear that this would be the last election fought under FPTP). In other words, the voters were foolish, the Liberals are fools, and only we (me) were fighting save Canada. There is nothing horrifically wrong with it. It's just navel-gazing pettiness.

The NDP lost some great Toronto MPs this week. I never really counted Scott among them, and this kind of proves to me that I was likely correct.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's unfortunate that the NDP had to get clobbered so hard Monday night. Voters should have sent the Harper government to 3rd place, not the NDP.

They are not exactly guiltless however - they chose the Andrea Horwath route - unless one is divining their intentions by something other than their platform (i.e. because it is the NDP), just what are they offering that is particularly progressive?

AoD