CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Forum rules


This is a Liberal Party forum meant for like-minded discussion, if you want to flame or debate in open, please use the main Canadian Politics forum.

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:03 am
 


Delvin, my second rule is as follows:

b Factions should be declared in advance
The best way to do this is to have no multiple rounds of voting at the convention. Each voter should get a sheet with the names of all candidates and should rank them in order of preference. After the votes are sorted, the lowest candidate is dropped and his/her votes re-checked FROM THE TOP OF THE LIST, to find the highest ranking candidate who is still not dropped off. And so on till the last candidate.

This has some great advantages:

a. Voters cannot be ignorant of other candidates.
b. Candidates must persuade their voters well in time.
c. We avoid voting with the flow, since no one knows the result of each drop off before their next choice is considered.

This avoids last minute adjustments and behind the scenes negotiation.

There must have been some ugly deals, to make Kennedy go over to Dion, and have joint fund raisers now!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:19 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Delvin, my second rule is as follows:

b Factions should be declared in advance
The best way to do this is to have no multiple rounds of voting at the convention. Each voter should get a sheet with the names of all candidates and should rank them in order of preference. After the votes are sorted, the lowest candidate is dropped and his/her votes re-checked FROM THE TOP OF THE LIST, to find the highest ranking candidate who is still not dropped off. And so on till the last candidate.

This has some great advantages:

a. Voters cannot be ignorant of other candidates.
b. Candidates must persuade their voters well in time.
c. We avoid voting with the flow, since no one knows the result of each drop off before their next choice is considered.

This avoids last minute adjustments and behind the scenes negotiation.

There must have been some ugly deals, to make Kennedy go over to Dion, and have joint fund raisers now!


The preferential balloting question is a valid one and one with many proponents. It is something definitely worth considering. I myself favour preferential ballotting, although it lacks the drama of the current arrangement.

Your repeated indignation over the Dion/Kennedy fundraiser continues to puzzle. Does Dion refuse other requests? Have other candidates proposed joint events that Dion has refused?
Kennedy has spoken often about why he went to Dion, and it is naive to think someone would offer his support unles a prominent cabinet job would be the reward. He's hardly going to quit the race and disappoint all his own organizers just to go back to the unemployment line. Remember Kennedy (unlike Ignatieff) had to risk all or nothing. He had to leave his post as education minister in Ontario. He can't just go back - he has to run again somewhere.

Would Ignatieff's supporters not have expected him to get a cabinet job or some sort of reward if he were to drop out on the third ballot to "crown" a new leader?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:19 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Freedom, to borrow from the song, is another word for nothing left to win
Lily wrote:
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.
Oh thanks, but I know that song by heart, from 'Busted flat in Baton Rouge' down to the 'Sha na na na na na na na'

My point of changing it was a bit different. In this case Iggy had to be muzzled so much even to try for leadership, that it cramped his style, and flamboyance. Iggy fans like him best as the professor, who could walk you through the terribly complicated maze of political and human rights thinking and when you think he would surely stumble, he just chugs on, sure footed and instinctively knowing where to go.

Simple sheer intellectual brilliance.

Actually we prefer him as he is, and did not think that it would add to his lustre at all if he got the leadership. People like Iggy and Dawkins and our canadian Steven Pinker, they don't need office and title to get them anywhere. They have already arrived.

Iggy would have made the party leadership respectable (especially after Chretien,) not the other way around!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:33 am
 


Firecat wrote:
Your repeated indignation over the Dion/Kennedy fundraiser continues to puzzle. Does Dion refuse other requests? Have other candidates proposed joint events that Dion has refused?
I think the question is that Kennedy should raise his own funds to pay back his borrowings, and even if the leader has not been requested by the other candidates, (definitely he has not been asked by Michael,) the idea of such a joint fundraiser is incorrect.

If the leader wishes, then he should make a common pool of funds raised and help out all candidates INCLUDING HIMSELF. In which case, my point about limits to borrowings will seem wise. If people borrow unlimited amounts, the leader would spend more time, and divert more of our election money to help repay reckless borrowing! In this case, the total hock is, as I said a staggering 2.2 million!

Firecat wrote:
Kennedy has spoken often about why he went to Dion, and it is naive to think someone would offer his support unles a prominent cabinet job would be the reward. He's hardly going to quit the race and disappoint all his own organizers just to go back to the unemployment line. Remember Kennedy (unlike Ignatieff) had to risk all or nothing. He had to leave his post as education minister in Ontario. He can't just go back - he has to run again somewhere.
Kennedy was not even a member of Parliament, remember? As for the deal, if that is your understanding, Firecat, as it was mine, then we must jointly suspect that Kennedy is a liar, because he stoutly denied that there was a deal. Only now, with the joint fund raising are we seeing the ugly behind the facade.

Firecat wrote:
Would Ignatieff's supporters not have expected him to get a cabinet job or some sort of reward if he were to drop out on the third ballot to "crown" a new leader?
Sorry, but those of us who have read Iggy's books, sat through his lectures and analysed his speeches, word for word, we cannot imagine him being anything but the leader. We do not fancy him as a minister.

A king cannot be a Vizier. Iggy if not king is still a sage, sought after by world leaders, consulted by governments. And everyday Iggy is more of a king than Dion, with his plagiarised environment document and french passport, will ever be!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:37 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Delwin wrote:
For Always4iggy,

Could you clearly explain what rule was broken, and if none, explain why candidates shouldn't operate as they feel fit as long as they remain within the rules ? Is your issue with the rules themselves or the candidates ?
Delwin, a good question, first of all, as you have guessed, I propose that the rules are incorrect, to be specific, there are two rules which are wrong:

a. Unlimited borrowing is wrong because it lets moneybags in.
Delwin, I do not deny that SOME borrowing levels the playing field. If you stand for example, as a less known member, you have to publicise yourself, send information about your platform, visit constituencies, in short, get exposure, and this costs money. Without exposure, people won't contribute to your campaign. So you NEED to borrow initially. But there should be limits to it. Consider the numbers:

Dion-Kennedy-Martha
Raised per delegate $492.08
Borrowed per delegate $513.65


Rae-Volpe-Brison-Dryden
Raised per delegate $1126.95
Borrowed per delegate $1064.94


Ignatieff
Raised per delegate $701.16
Borrowed per delegate $129.87

Except for Ignatieff, who borrowed initially from Ian Davies, who brought him back from Harvard, all the other candidates went overboard. To be honest, in the Dion faction, Kennedy's borrowings were less in proportion, but there WAS the use of his brother in law's call centre and I am not sure how it was accounted for.

My point, Delvin is that the 'raised' part is what people gave within the rules, the 'borrowed' part is just rich people pouring in money! If you or Lily or Firecat stands for leadership tomorrow, do you want some rich guy to support his brother or friend against you?

I think you will agree that borrowings should be limited, they should be only an initial amount.

My second point is:

Is Dion only Kennedy's leader?
I do agree that Dion has only himself to use to pay back his own borrowings, but should he help pay back for Kennedy? Don't think for a moment that I am saying that he should help pay back for Iggy, because as I said, Iggy borrowed only much less and we are paying it back for him, without Dion.

But ask yourself. Eight candidates fought, and all fair and square. Does the leader belong to some of them?

If your answer is YES then Lily is wrong to say that we are united. We are not, it is each faction for itself and devil take the hindmost.

If your answer is NO, the leader should be above partisan politics, then you have understood what I am saying.

I hope I am making sense, Delvin.


borrowing is a function of how much a lender can reasonably pay back and is self-regulating. Martha Hall Finlay was not going to borrow heavily because she was running for a principle; few thought she could actually win.

Access to funds comes through political connections built over years of community involvement which creates delegate support as well as builds influential connections. A lot of small contributions is necessary to gain the leadership reflecting popular support within the Party; access to large money is a reflection of having built the network of connections one expects a politician to have to effectively govern. If you don't have access to the money, you probably aren't ready for it and you're trying too soon. Loans must be paid back; no one will loan money they do not believe has a real chance at being paid back, just like a bank deciding whether to give you a mortgage. My rich brother might bankroll me to run for city council but he's hardly bankroll me to run for Premier. That's not the kind of judgement that would have made him rich (he isn't.). Maybe once I'd been elected as a councillor he might consider it, but money alone will not put a dilettante in power.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:39 am
 


Firecat wrote:
Kennedy has spoken often about why he went to Dion, and it is naive to think someone would offer his support unless a prominent cabinet job would be the reward. He's hardly going to quit the race and disappoint all his own organizers just to go back to the unemployment line.
Firecat, the interesting thing is that Kennedy made a terrific blunder by quitting when he did!

It was a silly mistake where he checked the total votes but not how the votes were moving. HE WAS ACTUALLY GAINING, when he quit, misreading the voting numbers.


But more about that in another thread :D


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:42 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
There must have been some ugly deals, to make Kennedy go over to Dion, and have joint fund raisers now!
Your stance is much clearer now, and I agree with most of your points. However, the above statement infers that Dion and Kennedy did something wrong. The only arguement I see as valid in this case is that they exploited the rules which were in place. The reason for this seems to be a stategic one, and not an immoral one. I would argue that it points to a flaw in the system and not the candidates themselves. I cannot hold them to account for using these rules in the way that they feel is most benificial to their respective careers. If Dion and Kennedy felt they complimented eachother politically, then what they had done made sense to them. Your argument makes a valid case for change, but I don't think you have a case for impropriety on the part of any of these candidates.


(edited 4 spelling)


Last edited by Delwin on Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:53 am
 


Firecat wrote:
borrowing is a function of how much a lender can reasonably pay back and is self-regulating. Martha Hall Finlay was not going to borrow heavily because she was running for a principle; few thought she could actually win.

Access to funds comes through political connections built over years of community involvement which creates delegate support as well as builds influential connections. A lot of small contributions is necessary to gain the leadership reflecting popular support within the Party; access to large money is a reflection of having built the network of connections one expects a politician to have to effectively govern. If you don't have access to the money, you probably aren't ready for it and you're trying too soon. Loans must be paid back; no one will loan money they do not believe has a real chance at being paid back, just like a bank deciding whether to give you a mortgage. My rich brother might bankroll me to run for city council but he's hardly bankroll me to run for Premier. That's not the kind of judgement that would have made him rich (he isn't.). Maybe once I'd been elected as a councillor he might consider it, but money alone will not put a dilettante in power.
Well, I think it is time for some numbers:

Kennedy
Raised 369,038 Borrowed 201,750

Ignatieff
Raised 917,814 Borrowed 170,000

Dion
Raised 253,636 Borrowed 430,000

Rae
Raised 843,860 Borrowed 845,000

Volpe
Raised 335,935 Borrowed 180,000

Dryden
Raised 175,373 Borrowed 300,000

Brison
Raised 258,621 Borrowed 200,000

Hall Findlay
Raised 107,085 Borrowed 130,000

As I said, only Kennedy borrowed LESS than he raised, but that is because his initial costs were less, his brother in law has a big call centre. Accounting for business help is peculiar and undocumented. How many calls were made exactly, how were the persons calling paid? The call centre strategy was very successful, though.

Whatever that be, Firecat, once adjusted for Kennedy, your points are very good, and you will see that there was not much support for candidates, compared to borrowings.

But your point about self regulating as you will see, was innocently hopeful, but not supported by numbers. People went over board in borrowing, and Dion is now pumping Liberal supporters to pay back!

Ask yourself: If self regulation worked and Kennedy could pay back, then why should he pimp Dion to do it for him?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:08 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
I think the question is that Kennedy should raise his own funds to pay back his borrowings, and even if the leader has not been requested by the other candidates, (definitely he has not been asked by Michael,) the idea of such a joint fundraiser is incorrect. If the leader wishes, then he should make a common pool of funds raised and help out all candidates INCLUDING HIMSELF.


Then organize it and invite the leader. Are you outraged because someone has organized a party before you thought of it?

Always4Iggy wrote:
In which case, my point about limits to borrowings will seem wise. If people borrow unlimited amounts, the leader would spend more time, and divert more of our election money to help repay reckless borrowing! In this case, the total hock is, as I said a staggering 2.2 million!


No, it doesn't seem wise at all. A leader makes times for his MPs. Your indignation is based on your assumption that the leader wouldn't do such an event something if he were asked.

You insist on believing that such events drain money from what would otherwise be a Party contribution. I do not any more than United Way. People support their favourite causes. It is petty to complain if someone also supports another or chooses another instead.

Always4Iggy wrote:
Kennedy was not even a member of Parliament, remember?
Kennedy was Minister of Education in the Ontario Provincial legislature; he resigned his seat to run for the leadership. He has stated he decided early on that Dion and he share dpolicy convictions most with each other than with other candidates and agreed that whichever dropped out first would support the other. Nefarious? Hardly. It is normal and appropriate that candidates make such considerations.


Always4Iggy wrote:

Sorry, but those of us who have read Iggy's books, sat through his lectures and analysed his speeches, word for word, we cannot imagine him being anything but the leader. We do not fancy him as a minister.

A king cannot be a Vizier. Iggy if not king is still a sage, sought after by world leaders, consulted by governments. And everyday Iggy is more of a king than Dion, with his plagiarised environment document and french passport, will ever be!


"If I can't be the boss, I'm going home!" OK. That's not the kind of person we want as a leader. That merely reinforces that Dion was the better choice.

Sorry, no one enters at the top. Trudeau held the Justice Portfolio and stickhandled legislation through cabinet before presuming to the top job. So did Chretien. Prime minister is no job for a man with no experience in a Cabinet and the vote reflected that. By walking off in a huff, Iggy wouldn't get that experience. Fortunately for his supporters he knows this and (unless he's an idiot) learn how to govern by going through the appropriate training as a Minister first.
Ma


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:14 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Firecat wrote:
Kennedy has spoken often about why he went to Dion, and it is naive to think someone would offer his support unless a prominent cabinet job would be the reward. He's hardly going to quit the race and disappoint all his own organizers just to go back to the unemployment line.
Firecat, the interesting thing is that Kennedy made a terrific blunder by quitting when he did!

It was a silly mistake where he checked the total votes but not how the votes were moving. HE WAS ACTUALLY GAINING, when he quit, misreading the voting numbers.


But more about that in another thread :D


On that I agree. I went into this whole phase a staunch Kennedy supporter. However Dion was the selectuion and I'm "Firecat" not "Kennedy4ever". A leader lasts 10 years therabouts. Kennedy 's turn will come as might Ignatieff's (though less likely as he's older) and Iggy definitely will not succeed to the leadership if there's the faintest whiff of Martin-Chretien style feuding going on between Dion and Ignatieff's staffs.
So think on't


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:26 pm
 


Firecat wrote:
Always4Iggy wrote:
I think the question is that Kennedy should raise his own funds to pay back his borrowings, and even if the leader has not been requested by the other candidates, (definitely he has not been asked by Michael,) the idea of such a joint fundraiser is incorrect. If the leader wishes, then he should make a common pool of funds raised and help out all candidates INCLUDING HIMSELF.


Firecat wrote:
Then organize it and invite the leader. Are you outraged because someone has organized a party before you thought of it?


C'mon Firecat, thinking is hard work but you can do better than that, can't you? :?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:08 pm
 


Firecat wrote:
Kennedy has spoken often about why he went to Dion, and it is naive to think someone would offer his support unless a prominent cabinet job would be the reward. He's hardly going to quit the race and disappoint all his own organizers just to go back to the unemployment line.
Always4Iggy wrote:
Firecat, the interesting thing is that Kennedy made a terrific blunder by quitting when he did!

It was a silly mistake where he checked the total votes but not how the votes were moving. HE WAS ACTUALLY GAINING, when he quit, misreading the voting numbers.
Firecat wrote:
On that I agree. Iggy definitely will not succeed to the leadership if there's the faintest whiff of Martin-Chretien style feuding going on between Dion and Ignatieff's staffs.
So think on't

Well, I have a few things, my friend, that I would like YOU to think on.

First, there is an Iggy lobby, definitely, but where is the Dion Kennedy lobby? There is not even a Kennedy in parliament, and his only hope is if Dion finds him a safe seat.

The Iggy lobby had a party the other day, and 75 MP's showed up, but Dion was not even invited. Considering that we have 103 MP's in the house, that was a pretty good show.

Instead of threatening us, Iggyfolk, with the consequences of faction fighting, think about whether you even have a faction to fight against Iggy.

Remember that the vote in Montreal was from rookie delegates, who have no experience and capacity to win elections.

Kennedy made a mistake of giving up too soon and he made a mistake of accepting Dion's terms, but now his whole future hangs on Dion's success, and that looks pretty doubtful as of now.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:18 pm
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Firecat wrote:
Kennedy has spoken often about why he went to Dion, and it is naive to think someone would offer his support unless a prominent cabinet job would be the reward. He's hardly going to quit the race and disappoint all his own organizers just to go back to the unemployment line.
Always4Iggy wrote:
Firecat, the interesting thing is that Kennedy made a terrific blunder by quitting when he did!

It was a silly mistake where he checked the total votes but not how the votes were moving. HE WAS ACTUALLY GAINING, when he quit, misreading the voting numbers.
Firecat wrote:
On that I agree. Iggy definitely will not succeed to the leadership if there's the faintest whiff of Martin-Chretien style feuding going on between Dion and Ignatieff's staffs.
So think on't

Well, I have a few things, my friend, that I would like YOU to think on.

First, there is an Iggy lobby, definitely, but where is the Dion Kennedy lobby? There is not even a Kennedy in parliament, and his only hope is if Dion finds him a safe seat.

The Iggy lobby had a party the other day, and 75 MP's showed up, but Dion was not even invited. Considering that we have 103 MP's in the house, that was a pretty good show.

Instead of threatening us, Iggyfolk, with the consequences of faction fighting, think about whether you even have a faction to fight against Iggy.

Remember that the vote in Montreal was from rookie delegates, who have no experience and capacity to win elections.

Kennedy made a mistake of giving up too soon and he made a mistake of accepting Dion's terms, but now his whole future hangs on Dion's success, and that looks pretty doubtful as of now.

It's astonishing yet at least refreshingly forthright that you willing identify yourself as a factionalist. It is such a mindset that reads a reminder of what has become of factionalized parties in history as a form of "threat"

This is why Trudeau won and won and won, then Chretien won, and won and won... then Martin and his supporters with their mindset lost.



You don't care to address the expectation of joining a party and going into government at the very top as PM? You don't elect us to elect a complete amateur in that fiueld to the highest office in the country?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1550
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:23 pm
 


Boy, and you were the one decrying faction forming. The Libs should be grateful they didn't get Iggy in the top spot if this how he's going to run things as a loser.

Perhaps it would be best for Iggy to return to the Ivory tower. His little foray into the real world is looking more and more like a mistake.

I doubt very much that you're helping his popularity or credibility. Keep up the good work.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:23 pm
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
The Iggy lobby had a party the other day, and 75 MP's showed up, but Dion was not even invited.


I'd say 75 MPs have good political instincts, and the "Iggy lobby" was an ass in snubbing the leader. That won't be forgotten. tsk. A very rookie mistake in politics.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.