This morning, Vancouver Sun letter writers applauded the provincial New Democrat's by-election win on the newspaper's editorial page. According to Rupinder Kang, the victory "just goes to prove that despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars the provincial government spends on its television ads...British Columbians won't forget the damage this government has done to our province." And Nancy Clegg slammed Liberal whip Kevin Krueger for saying, "'I guess bad things can happen to good people.' Does Krueger really believe that the majority of residents who voted in the byelection did a bad thing by participating in the democratic process?"
But what Sun readers may not realize - because the newspaper didn't tell them - is that those letter writers aren't ordinary British Columbians. They're partisan hacks. Ms. Kang is the director of client relations for NOW Communications Inc., a public relations firm with connections to the New Democrats. She also previously worked as a special assistant to Advanced Education, Training, Technology and Intergovernmental Relations Minister Andrew Petter and was a member of Premier Glen Clark's youth office. As for Ms. Clegg, she ran as the New Democrat's candidate in Newton-North Delta, during last federal election. And she's president of the Kwantlen Faculty Association, which organized a demonstration last February to protest provincial budget cuts.
So let me see if I got this right. If you're a former Federal candidate for the NDP or work for NOW Communications, you're not supposed to have opinions or write letters to the editor etc. Of course a couple of people were blowing their own horns Sean, and why not. I gather sean that you're feathers are ruffled because perhaps Ms. Clegg didn't put under her name, former NDP Candidate in Newton North Delta. I don't know, because frankly I don't read the Vancouver Sun unless it has a feature story on something that interests me. I personally don't like to support their editorial slant, and the same with the Province. And ever since they made their sites pay per view, I think I've bought the Sun something like 2 or 3 times.
It was projected to be a close by election, and in turn was a total rout for the NDP. Campbell was on the air talking about how Big Labour threw big money into the campaign, and how it was the reason for the victory. It wasn't only big labour that won the night for Jagrup, it was a solid campaign and strong election day support and getting out the vote. Rather than making statements about who got involved in the campaign, maybe he should be blaming himself and his cabinet, in particularly that smug little twit Kevin Falcon, for turning a by election into a referendum on his leadership. But thats just the thing with Gordo Bush err Campbell, he never is to blame for anything he does. Look at how he wriggled off the hook over the Maui Owie fiasco. You think Glen Clark or Mike Harcourt or Dave Barrett would have ever gotten away with that.
20 points is 20 points, which is a substantial defeat for the Liberals. And whats with the ejection seat specialist Gulzar Cheema trying to play the race card in all this? I say ejection seat specialist, because he pulled the same stunt in Manitoba when elected to the legislature there. Halfway through his mandate, he went and ran federally, and much like what happened to him this time, got trounced.
Not every east indian voted for Jagrup Brar, and to even insinuate that is utter nonsense. And its funny, because Dr. Cheema sure didn't mind the community's support in the last provincial election. If Cheema were smart, he would stick to shrinking heads, instead of political prognostication and analysis.
Cheema was staring at poll by poll numbers when he made those comments. Wait until you see them for yourself before criticizing his thoughts. (Huge Liberal wins in the south, huge losses in the north, and most likely a sub 10% Indo Liberal vote).
What amazed me in this by-election was the fact that it was to close to call. Who was doing the polling and who was hiding the results? Seems to me polls are usually closer to the actual result than in this particular case.
I think mr holman is showing bias here, instead of annalysing the results he critisizes party members for making comments.So much for freedom of speech eh! What is your point here sean? If you do not provide us with unbiased information you may end up preaching to the converted and only the converted, I don't read you as often as I used to. We have canwest giving us enough right wing rhetoric we don't need it from you too, btw I no longer read any canwest papers!
I simply do not care how many Indo-Canadians voted for whomever - an Indo-Canadian is a Canadian first and foremost in my eyes, no worse nor better than myself, a Norwegian/British/Irish Canadian. We are all simply (extra)ordinary Canadians.
To blame the "ethnic vote" as so many people have lately is rude and disrespectful to the premises and principles upon which Canada is built.
As democratic Canadians, we vote by a secret ballot. No one person's "x" on that ballot is any different than any other person's "x".
Guybrush, I think you missed my point. Dr. Cheema is playing both sides of the same card when he spouts off about perceived "block voting." In 2001, he won rather handily in a riding that isn't a traditional NDP seat. And of course, as you would even agree to, with huge support from his own community.
Among many questions I have, one is, how come its ok for Mr. Cheema to benefit from that perceived block voting support in 2001, yet, in 2004, he's crying the blues about a segregated "polarized" vote, costing the Liberals the by election?
And the second one is, if thats the case, why the 180 degree turn in 3 1/2 years if, as Dr. Cheema said in his remarks, "the Campbell government has been so good to the Indo Canadian community?"
And my third question is, if Dr. Cheema is so confident that he's right, and could win back the riding for the Liberals, why doesn't he contest Ms. Polak's nomination for the May election? Oh thats right, because Mr. Campbell already endorsed her candidacy, which basically adds up to an acclaimation.
I stand by what I said previously, Dr. Cheema, should stick to shrinking heads, and practicing medicine. He's proven 2 separate times that he's a self interesed political opportunist when it comes to representing the constituents he was elected to represent, first in Manitoba and now in BC.
Sorry, Sean, I don't know the individuals you mention, but I think you're really stretching to characterize someone who has protested government cuts as a "partisan hack."
I know many staunch Liberals who'd rather die than vote NDP who've actively protested cuts. From my own experience, I can cite the Vancouver SOS campaign--a broad-based non-partisan collaboration of Vancouver PACs--and the various campaigns against Community Living/Child & Family cuts. Many of us protested cuts and incompetence under the former NDP administration--a role that threatened to become a fulltime career under the Liberals' more ambitious agenda.
So... "Politically active?" Certainly. "Partisan hacks?" No.
Partisan hacks describes them quite nicely.
Partisan hacks describes them quite nicely. DS, you're calling the kettle black.
Actually, its pretty correct to call Ms. Clegg a party hack. She is. But when you say it like its a bad thing, it hurts!
I think the criticism in this piece is pointed towards the Sun, which is okay with me. The more criticism that 'news'paper gets, the better. I'm just not sure what Sean disagreed with so much about Ms. Kang and Ms. Clegg's comments that their signatures, sans affiliation, were so terrible. I read the articles, I read the letters, and they seemed pretty reasonable and weighed opinions. I'm just wondering why Sean has to put *his* opinion in his work- after all, I though journalism was supposed to be unbiased.
"partisan hacks"??
A post about the NDP without a Soviet or Labour reference? Obviously, Mr. Holman is still recovering from the celebration on the Wall story.(Those lovable robber-barons.)
Hope you feel better soon.
Keep up the good work Sean and keep it up for both parties. I love all these New Democrats crying, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!".
Letters to the editor are a highly effective way to influence pulbic opinion and political parties are famous for getting their supporters to write in and pretend to be John Q. Public.
Why would supporters of political parties not qualify as John Q. Public?
Sometimes they do. However, sometimes its a part of a well orchestrated attempt to deliver specific messages and influence public opinion in very specific ways.
I have enough respect for the NDP and how highly organized they are to suspect its the later.
Has everyone forgotten BC's scandal of letter writing back on the 1970s and early 80s? Or how about Paul Reitsma?
I think Sean is right to point out a flaw from the Vancouver Sun in not pointing out the fact the letter writers are not regular public, but part of the very small world of people heavily involoved with politics.
But then he does the same thing to people that are strongly linked to the BC Liberals.
The Liberals also do their best to stack the open line shows with partisan callers and flood the letters to the editor page with cheery Liberal letters. You dont seem to think that is worthy of a story on your website. Ms. Clegg and Ms. Kang are both respected professionals in their fields and their opinions are thoughtful and well-written.
The real question is why has the Indo-Canadian vote switched back to the NDP so decisively, and what does this mean for the Liberals in almost 2 dozen swing ridings. The answers may well determine the election on May 17th.
If you really want to get worked up you should read my response to kegler under "rolling the dice".
There is a story here worth noting among all the "racial block voting" nonsense.
First, whenever any candidate runs he/she needs support. So, if I want to run I reach out for the support of my friends and family - is this a racist activity? No - its a human activity. So if my friends and family happen to be white that's democratic but if they happen to be non-white its racial block voting? No way, that's just the way our system works. So my position is that all talk of racial block votes as somehow invalidating the democratic process is simply crap from sore losers.
Second - and here is the real analysis missed by most of the so-called "pundits" in the BC Liberal camp - wouldn't it make sense for any Party to put forward a candidate that best represents the people of the community they are running in? For example, if the majority of the voters were - say Lutonian - wouldn't it make sense to choose a Lutonian candidate to speak for them?
The real story here is that the collective "brain trust" leading the BC Liberal re-election campaign has decided that a failed strategy once is not good enough - and they appear to be determined to run the same candidate again and, presumably, lose again in May - just to show the voters who's boss and that they won't be pushed around.
Now that's the kind of myopic arrogance I have come to expect from the Victoria gang - the same sort of stupid strategic leadership that will see an NDP government back in power in 2005.
To be fair, only about 35% of the community is Indo-Canadian. This hardly makes it a requirement that a candidate also be Indo-Canadian.
As for the issue of whether or not "block voting" occurred, it is being speculated that about 90% of indo-canadians who voted, voted for Brar and the NDP. If those numbers are accurate, they are pretty overwhelming.
I happen to think that this overwhelming level of support for Brar is unlikely to re-occur in May. In my experience the Indo-Canadian community is more likely to close ranks behind a member of their community in one-off situations like this and, for example, the Dosanjh leadership bid and is less likely to in a general election.
But we'll see.
I grew up in that area, and I can tell you that it is more than a 35% Indo Canadian population. It blows me away everyone trying to say "oh people would never vote based on race". Well people do and you've seen it in this by-election. If you think that was not a factor in in this then you are incredibly naive.
That riding also has a larger "blue collar" population, and the NDP did a good job of getting the vote out, even if it was with paid canvassers. Hopefully the Liberal voters in that riding are not as apathetic in May.
Oh my God, politically active people writing letters to the Editor about other political parties!
Keep up the good work Sean. Break many more stories like this and you'll be up for another prize.
Sorry, Sean, in my earlier note about "partisan hacks" and "politically active"... I missed the part in your original post about the letter-writer who protested cuts being a former NDP candidate. So, Yes, I guess that does make one a partisan hack.
My point, though, was that cuts have aroused many inexperienced but politically active critics who aren't traditional "partisan hacks" because we don't have traditional partisan loyalties. Some would rather pressure the Liberals to moderate their agenda than see the NDP back in; others want a stronger opposition, and others are partisan, but more committed to issues than parties.
So yes, I'm sure the parties marshall their troops for every media opportunity, but the political dialogue is more complex and unpredictable if you have these other activists in the picture, instead of just "party hacks" seizing every opportunity to yank each others chains.
Call me an optimist, but my take on the Surrey by-election is that it will push things like education and social services higher up on the 2005 platforms, which is a start...
OK, OK - hacks are us.
But I find it interesting that this item about folks from one end of the political spectrum who sign their own names to letters to the editor generates so much thread heat while Mr. Holman's previous post about a dirty tricks operator from the other end of the spectrum who apparently makes stuff up and attributes it to non-existent 'concerned residents' in paid newspaper ads generates nary a peep.
Now that's what I call argumentative asymmetry.
Voting by race--now does that only happen to people who are NOT white? Oh, and why have we never elected an Indo-Canadian city councillor in Vancouver? Is it because the white and east asian populations DON'T vote by race?