MacLeans Says Send Svend Packing

[scribblet]

I know there was a thread earlier on this, but didn't find it... not enough coffe yet - they got the price of the ring wrong though.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics...118179#continue

The presence of Svend Robinson in an election that has government ethics as a key issue is a blight on the New Democratic Party and an insult to the public at large. The voters of Vancouver Centre are obviously free to elect whomever they please. We trust them to see Svend Robinson's opportunism for what it is and make a stand for higher standards of political, ethical, and legal behaviour. In other words, to send him packing.

[shoop]

That would be the most painful choice of my life if I (still?) lived in Vancouver-Centre. Having to vote Liberal to stop Svend. I guess I would do it, but I would feel really dirty after the fact.

[normanchateau]

The presence of Svend Robinson in an election that has government ethics as a key issue is a blight on the New Democratic Party and an insult to the public at large.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One question this raises is whether Layton should have intervened to over-ride the wishes of the local party costitutency association. Martin has been known to do this in the past.

Harper has tended to let the constituency association decide. That's why he tolerated Gurmant Grewal and didn't block him from running in the next election but left it up to Grewal and his constituency association. Similarly, Harper did not block the candidacy of Darrel Reid, the CPC candidate in Richmond, BC. Reid is former President of Focus on the Family and appears to be anti-gay, anti-abortion and even anti-stem cell research. Long time members of the Richmond CPC constuency resigned after Reid won the nomination because of a sudden influx of new, religious conservative and anti-abortion members. Nonetheless, Harper did not intervene but felt it was up to the constituency association to decide.

So the question is should Layton have taken the Martin approach and intervened or the Harper approach which is to leave it up to the constituency association?

[Biblio Bibuli]

That would be the most painful choice of my life if I (still?) lived in Vancouver-Centre. Having to vote Liberal to stop Svend. I guess I would do it, but I would feel really dirty after the fact. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And would you believe that Pinnacle Sports lists that thieving maniac as a favorite?

http://www2.pinnaclesports.com/guestcontes...eral%20Election

If this election's not gonna kill me, nothing will.

GO HEDY GO!!!

[normanchateau]

So should Layton have intervened or should he have taken the Harper approach of non-interference?

[shoop]

Do you have any proof　Harper didn`t talk to Grewal? The way it happened was the best thing for the party. No controversy, he just quietly went away.

Let`s look at two of Martin's *interventionｓ* in 2004. John Bethel in Edmonton East and Billy Cunningham in Burnaby Douglas. Both Martin stalwarts who helped him when he ran against Chretien. Both were out organized and would have lost a fair nomination battle if it were held. No real principle involved, maybe the principle was if you are a Martin loyalist you don`t have to go through a nomination battle.

In light of the above I definitely favour Harper`s approach.

　

Harper has tended to let the constituency association decide.  That's why he tolerated Gurmant Grewal and didn't block him from running in the next election but left it up to Grewal and his constituency association.

So the question is should Layton have taken the Martin approach and intervened or the Harper approach which is to leave it up to the constituency association?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[BHS]

I know there was a thread earlier on this, but didn't find it...  not enough coffe yet  -  they got the price of the ring wrong though.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics...118179#continue

The presence of Svend Robinson in an election that has government ethics as a key issue is a blight on the New Democratic Party and an insult to the public at large. The voters of Vancouver Centre are obviously free to elect whomever they please. We trust them to see Svend Robinson's opportunism for what it is and make a stand for higher standards of political, ethical, and legal behaviour. In other words, to send him packing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some friendly advice: you should use quotes when reprinting a section of an article like that, to avoid plagiarism issues. It comes up in the forum from time to time.

A different aspect: regardless of your opinion of Svend, and judging only by the language of the article, is it fair to say that Macleans is advocating against Svend politically? The section quoted above reads like a Liberal Party talking point disguised as a call for a higher standard of MP ethics. That Svend is running against long term Liberal backbencher (and occasional Cabinet Mininster) Hedy Fry only adds to my suspicion.

[newbie]

The presence of Svend Robinson in an election that has government ethics as a key issue is a blight on the New Democratic Party and an insult to the public at large.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So how does this differ from an entire political party who's only aim is to break up Canada?

[Kiraly]

So should Layton have intervened or should he have taken the Harper approach of non-interference?

Robinson is extremely popular among the hardcore NDP supporter.

Had Layton intervened, there would have been a revolt.

[Yaro]

Robinson is extremely popular period, the funny thing is that if it was Robinsons opponents that had done this he would be a pitbull about it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[normanchateau]

Do you have any proof　Harper didn`t talk to Grewal?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I have no proof and if Harper did talk to Gurmant Grewal earlier this month and asked him to step down, over-ruling even the local CPC constituency association, good for Harper.

But Harper has tended not to intefere in these issues. For example, he allowed the Richmond, BC Constituency Association to select Darrel Reid as the CPC candidate. Reid's candidacy, which came about because of a sudden influx of religious conservative new members can't possibly be good for the CPC.

And despite Grewal's shameful antics prior to the 2004 election, Harper didn't interfere then. Prior to the 2004 election, Grewal had already defied Harper. Harper's office asked Grewal not to hire Rachel Marsden given her unsavoury reputation (not to mention very nasty comments she'd made about Harper) but Grewal did anyway. This all happened before the 2004 election. There's an interesting story about this, including Marsden's comments about Harper, in the Indo-Canadian newspaper Voice which appeared online. Editor Rattan Mall interviewed Grewal about it in May, 2004:

http://www.voiceonline.com/voice/050611/headline4.php

[scribblet]

Don't forget Sheila Copps in Ontario, I think if she had run as an NDPer or independant she could have taken that riding.

I've been told by riding officials that Harper did not intervene, Grewal resigned voluntarily. I did have a copy of his letter but its not on my laptop which I'm using right now. He'd be damned if he did and damned if he didn't, as would Layton I suppose.

It isn't CPC policy to interfere, they leave it up to the EDA to sort it out, more democratic that. In fact, I believe Harper has put forward a proposition in that area, can't find it right now.

Do you have any proof　Harper didn`t talk to Grewal? The way it happened was the best thing for the party. No controversy, he just quietly went away.

Let`s look at two of Martin's *interventionｓ* in 2004. John Bethel in Edmonton East and Billy Cunningham in Burnaby Douglas. Both Martin stalwarts who helped him when he ran against Chretien. Both were out organized and would have lost a fair nomination battle if it were held. No real principle involved, maybe the principle was if you are a Martin loyalist you don`t have to go through a nomination battle.

In light of the above I definitely favour Harper`s approach.