Anne McGrath wants to know my priorities, and she's given me a list to choose from

281 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

I guess the subtext is that if the NDP is behaving like all the other parties then everything is a-ok.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wouldn't the subtext be that if all parties do this then the problem is our party funding policies, and not specifically those greedy, hands-always-out NDP?

Or should the NDP take the lead here, and live on air and sunlight alone?

quizzical

hyprocrisy, purity, intolerance, and over sensitivity...

fk i would not want to be in a party with this kinda toxic brew.

it'd be like this town only on a nationa scale.

 

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Wouldn't the subtext be that if all parties do this then the problem is our party funding policies, and not specifically those greedy, hands-always-out NDP?

Or should the NDP take the lead here, and live on air and sunlight alone?

Another typical Magoo false dichtomy.  Either the NDP needs to email looking for donations a dozen times a day or it will become the breatharian party.  Don't you ever get sick of peddling this tired nonsense?

I think the real issue is people feel the NDP has no use for them other than their money, and asking for money is the only possible reason to have communication at all.

However, what I find really funny about this exchange is that the reason for me to post today was to suggest to those especially annoyed that they can mitigate the annoyance they're feeling by setting up proper email filters.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think the real issue is people feel the NDP has no use for them other than their money, and asking for money is the only possible reason to have communication at all.

And again, if Stockholm, in post 249, is being straight up then all parties ask for money  That's where they get it from.  Perhaps the false dichotomy is the popular belief that the NDP only does it because they don't care and just want munnee as opposed to the other parties that want you to speak from the heart, and want munnee.

As far as other communication goes, are you waiting for:

"I'm Tom Mulcair.  And I feel really, really crappy about how we treated Morgan Wheeldon, who was only speaking plainly and simply about something that means a whole bunch to him, and I acknowledge that not signing his papers is why we didn't win in 2015..."

wage zombie

The other parties aren't worthy of consideration.  If the NDP is sending out fundraising emails at no greater rate than the Conservatives, who aren't worthy of consideration, then so what?

Basically the arugment is "the NDP aren't doing anything the Conservatives and Liberals aren't also doing."  Wow.  What a high bar.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's how parties raise money now.  Not some kind of moral test.

Hence my suggestion that if the NDP (or you) find it unbecoming, then the alternative is to survive on sunlight and air.  Or else what?  The coins behind the sofa cushions?

Sean in Ottawa

That is not the point. Do you really think that this number of appeals is productive?

Hammering people till they unsubscribe will not get more money -- anyone in charity or political fundraising knows there is a maximum return in terms of volumes of emails.

But the point I raised was not just that they sent to many but this is the only remaining focus you get -- the only extension you can get at NDP HQ is donations. The survey was about donations -- went to donation and as I say if you did not give money you could not go on to the acknowledgment page. And then the issue of giving the email to identify the feedback only to find that they signed you up without your permission for the fundraising emails again.

How does the NDP think this is helping?

I have been on Green lists and just left them to see what they are like-- nothing like this. I asked a Liberal if they got this frequency or this complete take-over of all functions and they said no. I do know when I had to call the other parties for work only the NDP placed the donations to the virtual exclusion of all other contact.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That is not the point. Do you really think that this number of appeals is productive?

I wasn't suggesting that "X" number of appeals would be productive, while "X+1" would be excessive, and "X-1" insufficient.

I'm just saying that if this is how all parties raise the funds for the next election, and also keep the lights on, then maybe it's not proof that the NDP only sees members as walking wallets.

Unionist

So, someone called Dave Hare just emailed me to shame me that I had given no $$ in 2015:

Quote:
Soutien en 2015 : 0 $*
Soutien pour novembre : En attente*
Action immédiate demandée : Donnez 5 $ ou plus avant minuit.

As a matter of fact, I have donated $$$ during the campaign period, to two NDP candidates.

So Dave Hare, are you listening? Fuck off and get a brain transplant. You ungrateful shithead.

Oh, you want $5 before midnight? Ask some other credulous sucker.

Please pardon my impolite characterizations.

 

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

The NDP does tend to send out too many email solicitations for donations.  It is annoying.

FWIW, journalists who make it their business to be on the donor e-mail lists for all the parties say that all the parties are equally guilty of flooding their people with donation solicitations. 

I agree.

All the parties send out too many requests for donations.

They are all guilty of it.

But as you said above, Harper has made it worse.  He abolished the per-vote-subsidy and made the Conservatives into such a big money-raising machine that it forced the Liberals & NDP to increase their fundraising drives to keep up.

Harper was responsible for Americanizing our system and bringing the permanent campaign to Canada in a way we have never seen before.

quizzical

are the Liberals going to put the subsidy back?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Harper was responsible for Americanizing our system

As I understand it, the American system has no specific limits on any individual contribution.

Our system has limits on any individual contribution, so parties need to solicit small amounts from many, rather than obscene amounts from one or two.

So how exactly has he "Americanized" our system?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

So, someone called Dave Hare just emailed me to shame me that I had given no $$ in 2015:

Quote:
Soutien en 2015 : 0 $*
Soutien pour novembre : En attente*
Action immédiate demandée : Donnez 5 $ ou plus avant minuit.

As a matter of fact, I have donated $$$ during the campaign period, to two NDP candidates.

So Dave Hare, are you listening? Fuck off and get a brain transplant. You ungrateful shithead.

Oh, you want $5 before midnight? Ask some other credulous sucker.

Please pardon my impolite characterizations.

 

I turned off email from the Liberal party because it was too spammy. The above sounds like a collection agency, as if it's a debt you failed to pay.

Debater

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Harper was responsible for Americanizing our system

As I understand it, the American system has no specific limits on any individual contribution.

Our system has limits on any individual contribution, so parties need to solicit small amounts from many, rather than obscene amounts from one or two.

So how exactly has he "Americanized" our system?

Prior to the Harper era, we didn't used to have permanent campaigning in between elections in Canada with millions of dollars being spent on advertising & attack ads against opponents.  That normally only happened close to election time.

The Harper Cons spent a record amount of money during the PRE-WRIT period on partisan advertising and on millions of dollars of attack ads against Opposition leaders.

From what I can tell, the UK still operates much the way Canada used to -- not a lot of money spent on attack ads in between elections.

With Harper, he launched ads against Dion, Ignatieff, Trudeau (& even Rae for a short time) a couple of years before the election.

The attack ads against Trudeau started on his FIRST DAY as Liberal leader in April 2013, and continued right until October 19, 2015.

That had never happened in Canadian history before.

mark_alfred

But that happened with Dion as well, before the Cons made any significant changes to election laws.  If anything, the movement to the fixed election date did a lot to put parties in permanent election mode. 

Regardless, hopefully Trudeau will put limits on non-campaign election advertising.  And, hopefully, returning to the per-vote public subsidy of political parties will be considered.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

And, hopefully, returning to the per-vote public subsidy of political parties will be considered.

It's kind of thread drift here, but someday somebody explain to me the logic of the per-vote subsidy:

Why should society give more money to parties that already get more votes, in order to help them increase their visibility through advertising?

I fully support state financing of political campaigns... but this seems a very unfair way to go about it.

How about equal subsidies to parties that achieve a certain minimum percentage of electoral support? Or some other formula. Just not the old one.

I'm starting a new thread on this.

 

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

But that happened with Dion as well, before the Cons made any significant changes to election laws.  If anything, the movement to the fixed election date did a lot to put parties in permanent election mode. 

Regardless, hopefully Trudeau will put limits on non-campaign election advertising.  And, hopefully, returning to the per-vote public subsidy of political parties will be considered.

Another option could be to provide an account for each person allowing them to direct it as they wish to either a political party or even a non profit organization involved in political action. This could be a fixed at say $50/year per person, for example, and people who want to top it up out of pocket may do so (to a set maximum). This would replace the political tax credit subsidy that favours people with more income.

I am sure there are other models.

The thing is the people with money will not want to give up their advantage in influencing politics -- at other people's expense.

takeitslowly

The liberals voted to get rid of the subsidy per vote.

I was also asked to donate to the NDP, i can't do that right now, i am not happy with them.

Cody87

takeitslowly wrote:

The liberals voted to get rid of the subsidy per vote.

I was also asked to donate to the NDP, i can't do that right now, i am not happy with them.

Did they actually, or was it buried in a budget bill when Harper was polling in majority territory in the polls and the Liberals didn't want to topple the government and risk handing him a majority?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

There'd be a good democratic reform for any party to propose and support:  get rid of "omnibus" bills.

Specifically, make it official policy that no bill being voted upon can include provisions that aren't directly and reasonably part of that bill.

So, if a party or MP tables a bill that calls for an increase in health care spending in underserved areas, it would be reasonable to include in it provisions for incentives to recruit doctors and nurses to serve those areas.  It would not be reasonable to include provisions to cut funding to libraries, just because whatevs.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

There'd be a good democratic reform for any party to propose and support:  get rid of "omnibus" bills.

Specifically, make it official policy that no bill being voted upon can include provisions that aren't directly and reasonably part of that bill.

So, if a party or MP tables a bill that calls for an increase in health care spending in underserved areas, it would be reasonable to include in it provisions for incentives to recruit doctors and nurses to serve those areas.  It would not be reasonable to include provisions to cut funding to libraries, just because whatevs.

Agreed

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:

There'd be a good democratic reform for any party to propose and support:  get rid of "omnibus" bills.

Specifically, make it official policy that no bill being voted upon can include provisions that aren't directly and reasonably part of that bill.

The Liberals kind of promised this:

Lib Platform wrote:
Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

 

Unionist

takeitslowly wrote:

The liberals voted to get rid of the subsidy per vote.

I don't think so, TS. Both the NDP and Liberals condemned this move, which was contained in the Conservatives' June 2011 budget, but Harper had a majority, so it was gone.

 

KenS

Haroer waited till he had a majority to do it.

It was an "open secret" before that they wanted to do it, but they never said so.

The Liberals certainly never voted for it. They were the most harmed by it.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

The liberals voted to get rid of the subsidy per vote.

I don't think so, TS. Both the NDP and Liberals condemned this move, which was contained in the Conservatives' June 2011 budget, but Harper had a majority, so it was gone.

 

I thought the Liberals voted for it before that election -- however, it was a vote based on political realities of the day (not wanting an election on the topic). I get the problem -- is one of the things that must be looked at -- this strong-arming of opposition parties with threat of eleciton. Government bills ought to be able to be defeated without an automatic election. On defeat of a government bill the opposition should ahve the choice to move no-confidence. There is little benefit in it be automatic. The Liberals were correct that it was not an issue to force an election on. Now they are in power let's see if they will fix the problem?

Aristotleded24

So I lost it with the last fundraising e-mail they sent that was apparently signed by Tom himself. I replied to it. In a nutshell, I said that the results of the election were horrible no matter how you spun them, that I was seriously considering supporting a different party in 2019, and that Tom should step aside to allow for renewal.

Aristotleded24

Did anyone else receive an e-mail from Anne McGrath inviting them to a telephone town hall? I suppose it's one way to reach members who are spread far out and who don't live near major urban centres, but my experience with them is it's not easy to get through, that the questions come individually and are thus easier to pick off, and there isn't group interaction that is important.

wage zombie

Quote:

In the coming months, I’ll be travelling across the country to meet with supporters involved in this year’s election.

It’s my top priority to debrief with you and as many supporters as possible – and to get your input on what went well, what didn’t, and where we go next.

Thanks for filling out the election survey a few weeks ago. I’ve been sharing your feedback with the rest of the NDP team, and your insight is extremely valuable.

I’m planning to host a telephone town hall on January 21st, 2016 for supporters like you to debrief on the election campaign and share ideas about what’s next.

Would you like to join? Here are the details – please RSVP to let me know you’re interested, and we’ll call you to connect:

www.ndp.ca/townhall

Supporters like you have been our eyes and ears on the ground, and I know you have a lot to offer this election debrief process.

Most importantly, I want your ideas about how you’d like to move forward together.

So, I hope you’ll join me for an honest, open discussion on January 21st, 2016. Let me know if you’re interested, and we’ll call you to connect.

Thanks and solidarity,

Rebecca

Rebecca Blaikie
President
Canada’s New Democrats

Sean in Ottawa

wage zombie wrote:

Quote:

In the coming months, I’ll be travelling across the country to meet with supporters involved in this year’s election.

It’s my top priority to debrief with you and as many supporters as possible – and to get your input on what went well, what didn’t, and where we go next.

Thanks for filling out the election survey a few weeks ago. I’ve been sharing your feedback with the rest of the NDP team, and your insight is extremely valuable.

I’m planning to host a telephone town hall on January 21st, 2016 for supporters like you to debrief on the election campaign and share ideas about what’s next.

Would you like to join? Here are the details – please RSVP to let me know you’re interested, and we’ll call you to connect:

www.ndp.ca/townhall

Supporters like you have been our eyes and ears on the ground, and I know you have a lot to offer this election debrief process.

Most importantly, I want your ideas about how you’d like to move forward together.

So, I hope you’ll join me for an honest, open discussion on January 21st, 2016. Let me know if you’re interested, and we’ll call you to connect.

Thanks and solidarity,

Rebecca

Rebecca Blaikie
President
Canada’s New Democrats

I filled in the survey -- I wonder if they will send me an invite. I certainly don't have one so far.

Pages