Why to support the Liberal Party

[Mongo]

Or possibly the voters decided to support the NDP this time (their national vote percentage was almost double the usual level after all), and were not too concerned about their chosen party candidate's personal qualifications, as is usual these days throughout Canada.

 

[kEiThZ]

Or possibly the voters decided to support the NDP this time (their national vote percentage was almost double the usual level after all), and were not too concerned about their chosen party candidate's personal qualifications, as is usual these days throughout Canada.

Given the amount of time she spent courting the Tamil community, I highly doubt the Orange surge elsewhere played a role.

The results were just unusual but lend credence to my suggestion that ethnic politics played a role. The winner and runner-up were both Tamil speakers. And the Liberal candidate was a distant third in a supposedly safe riding for the Liberals. He didn't speak Tamil.

 

[jeff316]

The Conservative candidate was an immigration lawyer of Indian and European descent who spoke several languages, including Tamil, Hindi and Farsi.

Anyone can play that game. It could be said that the Conservative candidate is a politician's assistant, and is a 'consultant' and a 'small-businessperson'. (She is a not a lawyer.) It could also be said that the Liberal candidate heads a business lobby group and was politician's assistant (to the previous MP no less!). Meanwhile, it could be said that the NDP candidate is a union organizer and is employed by a union and volunteers in the local community and campaigned straight and put her career on the line agaisnt all odds for two years.

See? Easy...

(Actually, I thought Rana was pretty good. Gallyot? Yikes.)

Again, nearby an IT guy with the most whitebread name ever took the NDP party from a distant third to first. In a riding that is 55 percent white. Is that an affront to diversity? Or is that accuraterly reflecting the population?

See how easy that is to cast aspersions on 'qualifications"...?

Easy, again.

Is there a population that votes based on ethnicity? I'm sure there is - just liek others vote on leader, language, class, left-right, lawn sign colour, friendliness, birth location, etc.

But to put anyone's win/loss down solely to ethnic politics is absurd. Particularly in this case, considering an NDP win wasn't an isolated occurrence in the city, or even in Scarborough itself. So you don't have to be South Asian (or any ethnicity) to see that the people making the 'you only won 'cos of the ethnic vote' argument always always come down to partisan feelings.

 

[kEiThZ]

I disagree. But to each his own.

And it's not just my riding or political preferences by the way. There's a reason why the Conservatives only did well in Brampton after getting in Punjabi candidates.

 

[kEiThZ]

(Actually, I thought Rana was pretty good. Gallyot? Yikes.)

So you thought Gallyot was worse. But yet she beat out Sarkar. Now you tell me why that is?

ps. Could you elaborate further on Gallyot not being able to "string a sentence" together. I met all three candidates. And I didn't find her to be a particularly bad communicator. And I would be hard-pressed to label a candidate who can speak several languages that are spoken in the riding, as a poor communicator.

Personally, I'm actually more shocked that Sarkar didn't win.

Again, nearby an IT guy with the most whitebread name ever took the NDP party from a distant third to first. In a riding that is 55 percent white. Is that an affront to diversity? Or is that accuraterly reflecting the population?

Did he aim his campaign predominantly at one subset of residents? Make no mistake about it. NDP events in Scarborough-River were particularly aimed at the Tamil community. Nothing wrong with targetted advertising. But it bothers me when the rest of the community isn't really catered to.

Is there a population that votes based on ethnicity? I'm sure there is - just liek others vote on leader, language, class, left-right, lawn sign colour, friendliness, birth location, etc.

I'm sure it goes on. What bothers me is when this becomes the dominant driver. And this goes for all parties. Not just the NDP by the way. Don't assume for a second that I'm upset because the NDP won here. I'm more offended by how they won. I'd be equally troubled if I lived in Brampton.

But to put anyone's win/loss down solely to ethnic politics is absurd. Particularly in this case, considering an NDP win wasn't an isolated occurrence in the city, or even in Scarborough itself. So you don't have to be South Asian (or any ethnicity) to see that the people making the 'you only won 'cos of the ethnic vote' argument always always come down to partisan feelings.

Right. And that's why she's already bragging about being the first Tamil MP. I'm sure ethnic politics has nothing to do with it.

 

[Mongo]

And it's not just my riding or political preferences by the way. There's a reason why the Conservatives only did well in Brampton after getting in Punjabi candidates.

Well, that is unfortunate if true. But I do not see how to stop this. You can't exactly ban candidates from being the same ethnicity as the plurality of the voters in their riding, and any party will try to maximize their own chances of winning in that riding, including taking advantage of ethnically-based voting patterns.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, that is unfortunate if true. But I do not see how to stop this. You can't exactly ban candidates from being the same ethnicity as the plurality of the voters in their riding, and any party will try to maximize their own chances of winning in that riding, including taking advantage of ethnically-based voting patterns.

I know you can't do anything about it. But that doesn't make it right. And people need to call it out when it happens. Indeed, I routinely have had friends and family who have admitted to me that they voted for or against someone because of their race or religion, etc. I call them out on it.

I am patriotic. And the last thing I want to see in Canada is the problems and practices of the old country brought here. If my MP sees herself as the "first Tamil Member of Parliament", I have some sincere questions about how she can represent for example, Sinhalese Canadians or Indians (both of whom have large contingents in the same riding) who have opposing views on the conflict in Sri Lanka? That's just one issue.

 

[Eug]

I'm sure ethnicity does have some effect here, but one cannot discount the NDP surge as a huge factor. Remember, a barely French speaking person who had never ever set foot in her previously Bloc riding and who played hooky throughout the campaign in Vegas managed to win as well.

With the exception of the very far right, the vast majority of Canadians (even those on the right) agree on the need for immigrants.

Maybe now, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you may not have lived in the prairie provinces say in the 1970-80s.

 

[Mongo]

Maybe now, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you may not have lived in the prairie provinces say in the 1970s.

Which is ironic, considering that the Prairies were largely settled by Ukrainians, Poles, etc. who had just immigrated to Canada.

 

[Eug]

Which is ironic, considering that the Prairies were largely settled by Ukrainians, Poles, etc. who had just immigrated to Canada.

Indeed. It is ironic.

 

[jeff316]

I'm sure it goes on. What bothers me is when this becomes the dominant driver. And this goes for all parties. Not just the NDP by the way. Don't assume for a second that I'm upset because the NDP won here. I'm more offended by how they won. I'd be equally troubled if I lived in Brampton.

Right. And that's why she's already bragging about being the first Tamil MP. I'm sure ethnic politics has nothing to do with it.

So you're offended because a party targetted a specific group of people to vote for them? That's what they are organized to do!

So what is an appropriate "dominant driver"? Why is anyone else's dominant driver less appropriate than yours? What other groups, subjects or topics are verboten? Please tell me what is ok for all of us to base our votes on, but not ok for us to base oru votes on. What's next "he/she only won because they only targeted the right-wing vote"? "He/she only won because they appealed to employed people?" Who are you (or I) to tell others that their preferences in a candidate are inappropriate? Come on.

I'm sorry you feel left out but the "he/she only won because of ________" is a strawman argument always used whenever someone's preferred candidate did not win. It's a blame-game of hopscotch where the target always moves but the assertion can never be proven. And it cheapens the efforts of both the winners and the losers, and it is usually drawn from a sense of entitlement. Politics is a game of losers and we have to learn to accept that.

 

[adma]

The NDP won in S-RR because...

(a) the Liberal incumbent retired, and
(b) the NDP worked hard, and
(c) the NDP candidate was, from all indications, quite disrmingly personable regardless of ethnicity (not unlike Jack Layton relative to Harper and Iggy, in fact), and
(d) Jackmania + the Iggy implosion did the rest. Otherwise, I suspect she might have had half the vote she got--which by seat-history standards, would still have been impressive. (And had Derek Lee not retired, he might have survived just like neighbours Karygiannis + McCallum.)

 

[kEiThZ]

To people painting her as personable, I'd like to know on what basis you are forming that judgement. I interacted with all three major party candidates. And though, I didn't vote for him, I found the Liberal candidate the most polished and personable.

Adma and Jeff, did you interact with Rathika? And did you meet the other two?

 

[adma]

To people painting her as personable, I'd like to know on what basis you are forming that judgement. I interacted with all three major party candidates. And though, I didn't vote for him, I found the Liberal candidate the most polished and personable.

But he was Liberal--in *this* election. And of course, "polished" can be a double-edged sword (like, *too* polished, as in, "stereotypical slick politician type", etc)

 

[kEiThZ]

But he was Liberal--in *this* election. And of course, "polished" can be a double-edged sword (like, *too* polished, as in, "stereotypical slick politician type", etc)

Fair enough.

I certainly didn't find him "slick". He came across as quite sincere, albeit professional, to me.

You're suggesting that Rathika was more personable. I disagree. What about her interaction with you, gave you that impression? I'm genuinely curious.