Forming a new party on the left - how to do it not whether to do it

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..i would like you to respond to my posts about participitory democracy.  being a better vehical than electoral democracy in both protecting ourselves from the ravages of capital and making our country more democratic.

Why? I was not engaging in saying one was better than the other.

I disagree that one is always better than the other and both are essential. And I see no need that they have to always work together or directly relate to each other.

At times you need to mobilize communities at times you need to gain access to parliament to make changes. Without having to work directly together they are each important for the other.

eastnoireast

i'm not suggesting to wait for the new party to spring forth from the various movements.  for one thing, their knowledge of the political process is often very limited, for example many activists and activist organizations would not know what get out the vote is, let alone it's importance.   so not the best or most likely to successfully conjure up a successful new party.

the theory and machinery of electoral politics requires a distinct set of skillsets, knowledge and interest, and that is what the new party could bring to "the struggle".  it's a different critter than a civil society movement.  and very important.

but it has to be from (at a core/values/policy level), responsive, and accountable to it's intended constituency.  otherwise it's going to get stupid fast.  it seems to be exactly what is driving you from the ndp...
-
anyhow, for what it's worth, i would definitely recommend body-snatching as opposed to building up from scratch.   reform got 10 years butchering canada out of it (granted they started out as a regional party).

"we on the left" currently have a dizzying choice of two dysfunctional national political parties with great brand recognition, existing structures, existing supporters.  

organize just outside one or both.  existing members can join if it's not an actual party.  gather momentum and legitimacy.  ride in to cheering crowds and flowers. 

Slumberjack

eastnoireast wrote:
"we on the left" currently have a dizzying choice of two dysfunctional national political parties with great brand recognition, existing structures, existing supporters.  

We have nothing of the sort.  The only dysfunction is people's continuing allegiance to these entities.  Otherwise the ones in charge of the parties in question know exactly what they're doing.

terrytowel

“We’re no longer new, we’re certainly not democratic. And no one is having a party anywhere.”

NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..i would like you to respond to my posts about participitory democracy.  being a better vehical than electoral democracy in both protecting ourselves from the ravages of capital and making our country more democratic.

Why? I was not engaging in saying one was better than the other.

I disagree that one is always better than the other and both are essential. And I see no need that they have to always work together or directly relate to each other.

At times you need to mobilize communities at times you need to gain access to parliament to make changes. Without having to work directly together they are each important for the other.

..why, because the system is rigged and corrupt. and i challenge the idea that a party can change this. look around the world. look at greece and venezuela. the crisis gets deeper everyday and capital is out of control. we need a system change or we are cooked. this is what we need to get our heads around. participatory democracy is chance to remedy..this is the hope. it works on the ground.

..there is a place for a party but it should be clear that the system must be changed.

eta: we can see where parties have been effective at a municpal level. like in spain where the movements were involved with victories in barcelona and madrid. this is a real shift in power downward.

Unionist

I admire your persistence, epaulo... but just re-read the thread title and you'll see why we have to back waaay up in order to have a constructive conversation. Right now, unfortunately, it's looking a lot like this:

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..ok. txs.

Debater

Andrew Perez: The NDP needs to stake out its territory if it's to survive

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/andrew-perez-the-ndp-needs-t...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I see that Mr. Perez "has worked on several federal and Ontario Liberal party campaigns". He bases his whole article on the fantastic assumption that this time, at last, the Liberals will deliver on all their "progressive" promises, leaving the NDP in the difficult situation of having to support everything the Liberals do. If only. His grand conclusion is that if the Trudeau Liberals implement the full program of the Layton NDP, there'll be no stopping them in 2019 and beyond. I could agree with that, but he might as well assume that Iran will legalize same sex marriage. As Bush the elder used to say "Not gonna happen."

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..i would like you to respond to my posts about participitory democracy.  being a better vehical than electoral democracy in both protecting ourselves from the ravages of capital and making our country more democratic.

Why? I was not engaging in saying one was better than the other.

I disagree that one is always better than the other and both are essential. And I see no need that they have to always work together or directly relate to each other.

At times you need to mobilize communities at times you need to gain access to parliament to make changes. Without having to work directly together they are each important for the other.

..why, because the system is rigged and corrupt. and i challenge the idea that a party can change this. look around the world. look at greece and venezuela. the crisis gets deeper everyday and capital is out of control. we need a system change or we are cooked. this is what we need to get our heads around. participatory democracy is chance to remedy..this is the hope. it works on the ground.

..there is a place for a party but it should be clear that the system must be changed.

eta: we can see where parties have been effective at a municpal level. like in spain where the movements were involved with victories in barcelona and madrid. this is a real shift in power downward.

These are strong points. I don't see them as a contradiction with what I said though except on your first point. I do think that a political party can change this -- in fact I think some of this can only change with a politcal party that wants to.

I also agree that these other movments must be happening and the parties must be informed by them for change to be more likely to happen.

Still I prefer to try something at each end rather than engaging in a chicken and egg argument. Both types of efforts must proceed at the same time. And parties should see that support is conditional and not open-ended.

eastnoireast

Slumberjack wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:
"we on the left" currently have a dizzying choice of two dysfunctional national political parties with great brand recognition, existing structures, existing supporters.  

We have nothing of the sort.  The only dysfunction is people's continuing allegiance to these entities.  Otherwise the ones in charge of the parties in question know exactly what they're doing.

 

well, even if that were true (hubris does not equal knowledge), it doen't mean the parties aren't ripe for takeover.  

the problem is more that the takeoverer's are not ripe.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

I'm supportive in principle of the idea of creating a new left party, but when we get to the reality of how to actually go about bcreating one, things get a lot more grey and complicated.

If the Liberals implement PR, then there's a chance that we could create a new left party. If the Liberals implement an Alternate Ballot, or leave the FPTP system as is, the chances are a lot more slim.

It's also the case that how we go about creting a new party will affect who will join it.

Things such as who puts the call out for a new party, and what that callout looks like.

Many potential supporters of a new party will determine their involvement based on which organizations and prominent personalities are calling for it. And many will want evidence from the get go of solid participation from one or more of either First Nations,Québecois, women, and POC.

Many potential supporters will want a new party to have a critical mass of support in different regions of the country before it becomes too defined. Defining policies without achieving critical mass first will lead many to write off the new party as 'exclusionary' to some degree.

Also, many potential supporters of a new party have determined that the [url=https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/]Leap Manifesto[/url] is the way forwards, and therefore a new party would wisely want to include the Leap manifesto in some capacity.

R.E.Wood

Sean, addressing your question of "how to do it", how about reaching out to people like Paul Manley? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-blocks-paul-manly-son-of-former-mp-f...

Sean in Ottawa

R.E.Wood wrote:

Sean, addressing your question of "how to do it", how about reaching out to people like Paul Manley? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-blocks-paul-manly-son-of-former-mp-f...

Certainly is an idea.

Brachina

eastnoireast wrote:

i'm not suggesting to wait for the new party to spring forth from the various movements.  for one thing, their knowledge of the political process is often very limited, for example many activists and activist organizations would not know what get out the vote is, let alone it's importance.   so not the best or most likely to successfully conjure up a successful new party.

the theory and machinery of electoral politics requires a distinct set of skillsets, knowledge and interest, and that is what the new party could bring to "the struggle".  it's a different critter than a civil society movement.  and very important.

but it has to be from (at a core/values/policy level), responsive, and accountable to it's intended constituency.  otherwise it's going to get stupid fast.  it seems to be exactly what is driving you from the ndp...
-
anyhow, for what it's worth, i would definitely recommend body-snatching as opposed to building up from scratch.   reform got 10 years butchering canada out of it (granted they started out as a regional party).

"we on the left" currently have a dizzying choice of two dysfunctional national political parties with great brand recognition, existing structures, existing supporters.  

organize just outside one or both.  existing members can join if it's not an actual party.  gather momentum and legitimacy.  ride in to cheering crowds and flowers. 

 This is some excellent points.

 This thread is basically is political equivalant of a fantasy football team, all focused on the players (the policies), which ignoring the practical business end.

 A political party that isn't focused on winning elections isn't a political party at all, its a lobby group that pretends its contesting elections.

 Your better off spending your resources on groups that are designed to shift public opinion. The Broadbent Institute did more with one poll on taxes propey backed up with PR to shift the issue within then public sphere then the communist and other parties have done in decades of effort.

If one prefers party politics then an organized verison of the Tea Party within the NDP makes more sense, but that takes organizing, that takes a deep understanding of the instutions of the party and entrenched interests within the party, and it will take a strong understanding of the pyschology of persuasion.

As for a new party of the left, I have a feeling that what I want from such a party and what you people want from such a party is very different.

For me to support such a party it would have to lean towards transhumanism instead of the more luddite shades of enviromentalism, it would have to be dedicated to universal solutions for eradicating poverty such as a basic gargunteered income, instead of devisive solutions that turn genders and races agianst each other, it would have to stand for equality, instead of feminist propogranda, it would have to support truely universal healthcare, it would have to support an understanding of multiculturalism that is dynamic and voluntary instead of being museum piece multiculturalism, its would have to support legalization of weed and prostitution and protect against discrimination against current and former sex workers.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Brachina wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:

i'm not suggesting to wait for the new party to spring forth from the various movements.  for one thing, their knowledge of the political process is often very limited, for example many activists and activist organizations would not know what get out the vote is, let alone it's importance.   so not the best or most likely to successfully conjure up a successful new party.

the theory and machinery of electoral politics requires a distinct set of skillsets, knowledge and interest, and that is what the new party could bring to "the struggle".  it's a different critter than a civil society movement.  and very important.

but it has to be from (at a core/values/policy level), responsive, and accountable to it's intended constituency.  otherwise it's going to get stupid fast.  it seems to be exactly what is driving you from the ndp...
-
anyhow, for what it's worth, i would definitely recommend body-snatching as opposed to building up from scratch.   reform got 10 years butchering canada out of it (granted they started out as a regional party).

"we on the left" currently have a dizzying choice of two dysfunctional national political parties with great brand recognition, existing structures, existing supporters.  

organize just outside one or both.  existing members can join if it's not an actual party.  gather momentum and legitimacy.  ride in to cheering crowds and flowers. 

 This is some excellent points.

 This thread is basically is political equivalant of a fantasy football team, all focused on the players (the policies), which ignoring the practical business end.

 A political party that isn't focused on winning elections isn't a political party at all, its a lobby group that pretends its contesting elections.

 Your better off spending your resources on groups that are designed to shift public opinion. The Broadbent Institute did more with one poll on taxes propey backed up with PR to shift the issue within then public sphere then the communist and other parties have done in decades of effort.

If one prefers party politics then an organized verison of the Tea Party within the NDP makes more sense, but that takes organizing, that takes a deep understanding of the instutions of the party and entrenched interests within the party, and it will take a strong understanding of the pyschology of persuasion.

As for a new party of the left, I have a feeling that what I want from such a party and what you people want from such a party is very different.

For me to support such a party it would have to lean towards transhumanism instead of the more luddite shades of enviromentalism, it would have to be dedicated to universal solutions for eradicating poverty such as a basic gargunteered income, instead of devisive solutions that turn genders and races agianst each other, it would have to stand for equality, instead of feminist propogranda, it would have to support truely universal healthcare, it would have to support an understanding of multiculturalism that is dynamic and voluntary instead of being museum piece multiculturalism, its would have to support legalization of weed and prostitution and protect against discrimination against current and former sex workers.

 

 

First of all I am proposing a party in it to win even if it takes a while to get there.

I think there is a political place for a party with principles on the left and that if the NDP does not want to be that another should take its place.

iyraste1313

"I think there is a political place for a party with principles on the left....."

which principles do you have in mind? Alternatives to globalization, in the context of a Canadian system totally corporatized and globalized? Financially, economically, culturally? Including a mass media prepared to crush any alternative?

No I think this process has been tried enough times to show that it all ends for nought, as media forced political correctness warps the last shred of anything but name alternative.....

at least the idea has been mentioned to build a political movement from the grass roots base of movement organizations....which the NDP and Greens both tried to exploit, only to meet the inevitable fate.......

No a movement based political institution with the objective to transform Canadian Society must remain a populist movement to transform all our institutions including governance albeit in different form, under control of the movement...a movement which must take on the work of transforming our economics and finances from the grass roots up!

Its membership must not just vote but transform itself......Noncooperation with corporations and banksters, boycott of the corporate mass media and begin to build a populist green decentralized society starting from personal commitment.

It is such membership that will never compromise, the only guarantee that its political manifestation won't cave to the lure of corporate money and power...

It is only when such a movement builds success in its forms of economics and finance, its cultural transformation, its new forms of social organization based on populist democracy, that it would be ready to take political power to transform the "laws" to suit the interests of such a movement already built! And replace the corrupt corporate institutions of jurisprudence, money and banking and economic production and distribution.....

Sean in Ottawa

iyraste1313 wrote:

"I think there is a political place for a party with principles on the left....."

which principles do you have in mind? Alternatives to globalization, in the context of a Canadian system totally corporatized and globalized? Financially, economically, culturally? Including a mass media prepared to crush any alternative?

No I think this process has been tried enough times to show that it all ends for nought, as media forced political correctness warps the last shred of anything but name alternative.....

at least the idea has been mentioned to build a political movement from the grass roots base of movement organizations....which the NDP and Greens both tried to exploit, only to meet the inevitable fate.......

No a movement based political institution with the objective to transform Canadian Society must remain a populist movement to transform all our institutions including governance albeit in different form, under control of the movement...a movement which must take on the work of transforming our economics and finances from the grass roots up!

Its membership must not just vote but transform itself......Noncooperation with corporations and banksters, boycott of the corporate mass media and begin to build a populist green decentralized society starting from personal commitment.

It is such membership that will never compromise, the only guarantee that its political manifestation won't cave to the lure of corporate money and power...

It is only when such a movement builds success in its forms of economics and finance, its cultural transformation, its new forms of social organization based on populist democracy, that it would be ready to take political power to transform the "laws" to suit the interests of such a movement already built! And replace the corrupt corporate institutions of jurisprudence, money and banking and economic production and distribution.....

It does not have to be about such extremes.

Principles -- well I said, for one, no pandering to the economic interests of one class to the exclusion of all else. And I refuse to grant that this pandering even makes sense politically.

lagatta

Brachina, no serious progressive party could incorporate antifeminist crap. And I sincerely hope that "in 2016" that it won't be anti-environmental.

Unionist

iyraste1313 wrote:

"I think there is a political place for a party with principles on the left....."

which principles do you have in mind? Alternatives to globalization, in the context of a Canadian system totally corporatized and globalized? Financially, economically, culturally? Including a mass media prepared to crush any alternative?

No I think this process has been tried enough times to show that it all ends for nought, as media forced political correctness warps the last shred of anything but name alternative.....

at least the idea has been mentioned to build a political movement from the grass roots base of movement organizations....which the NDP and Greens both tried to exploit, only to meet the inevitable fate.......

No a movement based political institution with the objective to transform Canadian Society must remain a populist movement to transform all our institutions including governance albeit in different form, under control of the movement...a movement which must take on the work of transforming our economics and finances from the grass roots up!

Its membership must not just vote but transform itself......Noncooperation with corporations and banksters, boycott of the corporate mass media and begin to build a populist green decentralized society starting from personal commitment.

It is such membership that will never compromise, the only guarantee that its political manifestation won't cave to the lure of corporate money and power...

It is only when such a movement builds success in its forms of economics and finance, its cultural transformation, its new forms of social organization based on populist democracy, that it would be ready to take political power to transform the "laws" to suit the interests of such a movement already built! And replace the corrupt corporate institutions of jurisprudence, money and banking and economic production and distribution.....

Worth repeating. So I'm repeating it. Especially the last paragraph.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I am not a fan of chicken and egg arguments.

It is true that a new party would have to earn the privilege of governing if it is to do so. It would have to engage with and be infomred by a wide variety of social movements and activists.

I disagree that it has to be born mature or that it has to be born as a child of those movements.

A political party should have a purpose and a political space that it occupies. From there it builds (or not) to the point where there is a social consensus wide enough that it can take power. We do not need to overthink this or set up barriers to entry that will never be met.

For my part, I would argue that the NDP has built the consensus for such a party. It has created both the room and the expectation. It has now also betrayed that and if it does not right that problem there already exists the purpose in building a new party to deliver that which the NDP promised and so many accepted as worthy.

When the NDP leader stated he was here mostly for the middle class and his party did not revolt -- he built all you need to justify a new party.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not a fan of chicken and egg arguments.

You've said that four (4) times in this thread. We get it.

A few individuals sitting together in a room, developing a "program" with 17 points in it, and then declaring a party into existence based on those 17 points, and saying that everyone who agrees with those points should join and donate and support... Well some people (like me) believe that nothing will come out of that except arrogant sectarian self-delusion.

You're pissed off with Mulcair, you feel betrayed by the NDP... and that's going to be the basis of a new party?

I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not a fan of chicken and egg arguments.

You've said that four (4) times in this thread. We get it.

A few individuals sitting together in a room, developing a "program" with 17 points in it, and then declaring a party into existence based on those 17 points, and saying that everyone who agrees with those points should join and donate and support... Well some people (like me) believe that nothing will come out of that except arrogant sectarian self-delusion.

You're pissed off with Mulcair, you feel betrayed by the NDP... and that's going to be the basis of a new party?

I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong.

Well a group of people starting as a seed to a new project is how anything anywhere has always been started. And this is no matter the source. It does not matter where they come from.

Your argument is like looking at a baby and saying how small and pathetic.

If the small group build it to be open and democratic then it can grow into something bigger. If not it will not.

The NDP, to its credit, did build a following for this kind of party. It also is not this kind of party now and so it has created a void. There are already many people already interested in the ideas the NDP used to champion that Mulcair and his present brand does not -- you do not have to build the need for this -- it exists.

The NDP has also not just blunderedd - it has not just got a crap leader. It has a leader claiming to have as his priority something that is not representative of what the party has long stood for. Its MPs, failed candidates, and leading lights are following this leader without little protest such that it looks like he may remain. This is the problem

Offer a new party and one of two things will happen:

1) the NDP will take back and serve this set of values

2) they won't and those interested in these values will find representation

You are understating the problem and over-stating the barrier to launching something that would be doomed to fail only if the NDP does exactly what we would want it to.

The effect of the Waffle and the NPI in the past provoked a reaction from the NDP. Either of those would have gone on to be a party if the NDP had not responded. However, both of those required strong people within the party to create. At this point nothing like them exist and so unless some organiztion like that comes up it has to be done from outside.

Perhaps it is a two step: push this, have it acknowledged within the party such that an internal movment develops with numbers of people of power in the party and then the party moves to protect its interest. Or not and the new party develops as an independent party. If we are to have either ranked ballots or PR -- this new party initiative would not harm the NDP out of proportion to its gains.

You are right that I am angry. It says something very, very bad about the NDP that a movement like this is not already powerful within the NDP. I lived through 1993 and I did not advocate a new party no matter how bad it looked. With the Bob Rae disaster in Ontario I did not advocate a new party then either. But in neither case did a leader declare loyalty to a classist vision that excludes me in a fundamental way. Not becuase I am not presently middle class (until I retire and am poor again), but becuase this is a betrayal of everything I believe at a core level. You can dismiss as insignificant to you what is fundamental to me but I am not making you do anything. This is fundamental for me and it is a deal breaker in terms of support for the NDP. And yes, in a democracy a group of people invite others and get together than can build something that grows beyond them. There is nothing unacceptable about that. Or unusual.

I have spoken to people in the party - many were either on the fringe like me wondering what to do or they gave the reaction -- "who they hell are you -- we are happy with Mulcair's leadership." If the majority of its members are happy with Mulcair and hjis direction the NDP has a right to go there. And I have a right to recognize and try to address the fact that I have no party left I am comfortable supporting and I think if there are others like me we should try to do something.

So if the party is right and its supporters are mostly happy with Mulcair, then I am wrong, the idea will fail and there is no cahnge to the NDP or a new party. But if they are wrong and only the inner core is satisfied it may take something like this either to give voice to others like myself in a new party or a reaction from the NDP.

I do not hate the party name. If the NDP wants to represent me it can. If they don't want to represent me that it their right -- so is mine to advocate the creation of a new party that does. If the NDP will not engage with its members well some will leave. Some may join other parties or explore a new party. All of this is legitimate and healthy.

And please do not dismiss my position and reasons as insignificant.

 

eastnoireast

eastnoireast wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:
"we on the left" currently have a dizzying choice of two dysfunctional national political parties with great brand recognition, existing structures, existing supporters.  

We have nothing of the sort.  The only dysfunction is people's continuing allegiance to these entities.  Otherwise the ones in charge of the parties in question know exactly what they're doing.

 

well, even if that were true (hubris does not equal knowledge), it doen't mean the parties aren't ripe for takeover.  

the problem is more that the takeoverer's are not ripe.

 

this is what i am talking about, though from a provincial party.  a recent email from the green party of nova scotia:  (bolding mine)

<snip>

Year after year the Green Party NS has put the call out to members and supporters to take the next step in participating in growing the party. Yet, a number of positions have been chronically vacant for several years:

 
Co-President Male

 Co-President Female   

Co-Policy Coordinator Female

 
Critical roles are soon to become vacant:

 Leader   

and therefore Deputy and 2nd Deputy Leaders   

Official Agent


But at the Leadership Convention in February all Executive Roles are open to new candidates, including:

Co-Policy Coordinator Male   

Treasurer, and   

Membership Secretary


<snip>


The reality here is that for anyone who is just fed up with the state of politics in this province, there is a working political machine just waiting for a new driver....... that’s it!   

If you want a platform..... it’s here.  


If you want a membership to build upon..... it’s here.  


One of 4 Provincially Certified Political Parties.......just waiting for you.   

All a small group of people need to do is just go out there and make the thing work.  


<snip>


-

Sean in Ottawa

eastnoireast wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:
"we on the left" currently have a dizzying choice of two dysfunctional national political parties with great brand recognition, existing structures, existing supporters.  

We have nothing of the sort.  The only dysfunction is people's continuing allegiance to these entities.  Otherwise the ones in charge of the parties in question know exactly what they're doing.

 

well, even if that were true (hubris does not equal knowledge), it doen't mean the parties aren't ripe for takeover.  

the problem is more that the takeoverer's are not ripe.

 

this is what i am talking about, though from a provincial party.  a recent email from the green party of nova scotia:  (bolding mine)

<snip>

Year after year the Green Party NS has put the call out to members and supporters to take the next step in participating in growing the party. Yet, a number of positions have been chronically vacant for several years:

 
Co-President Male

 Co-President Female   

Co-Policy Coordinator Female

 
Critical roles are soon to become vacant:

 Leader   

and therefore Deputy and 2nd Deputy Leaders   

Official Agent

 
But at the Leadership Convention in February all Executive Roles are open to new candidates, including:

 Co-Policy Coordinator Male   

Treasurer, and   

Membership Secretary


<snip>


The reality here is that for anyone who is just fed up with the state of politics in this province, there is a working political machine just waiting for a new driver....... that’s it!   

If you want a platform..... it’s here.  


If you want a membership to build upon..... it’s here.  


One of 4 Provincially Certified Political Parties.......just waiting for you.   

All a small group of people need to do is just go out there and make the thing work.  


<snip>


-

The Federal Greens are no ripe for takeover. Although to their credit they did put down a very progressive platform for the 2015 election.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Offer a new party and one of two things will happen:

1) the NDP will take back and serve this set of values

2) they won't and those interested in these values will find representation

Unless this new offering is fronted by some high profile, household name level personalities, its most likely fate would be:

3) Nobody notices.

Sorry, but life is cruel.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Offer a new party and one of two things will happen:

1) the NDP will take back and serve this set of values

2) they won't and those interested in these values will find representation

Unless this new offering is fronted by some high profile, household name level personalities, its most likely fate would be:

3) Nobody notices.

Sorry, but life is cruel.

I am not so sure about that. It needs an effective communications plan but that is my world. And ti does nto need to sit at first place to be noticed. I thin the news that it exists would be covered. And I thin that this would attract others.

No need to be defeatist - it can be done.

Long road to power but its existance would affect the other parties from quite early on. And I suspect it would attract the profile people early on as it would get some attention that would allow those connections to get more.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..there is another approach to the making of a party. it is tied into what we need as a people. the movements developed out of a need to defend ourselves. i don’t know where we would be if the first people hadn’t thrown a barricade in front of the extraction plans.

..we face poverty, homelessness, perpetual war, climate and financial disaster. this is where a party is needed. to help organize and build alternatives. find ways to defend those who are on the front lines today right now facing the brutality of capital.

..and not just making promises that if elected you will be better. that takes resources and focus away from what is needed now. time is not unlimited.

eta:

..somewhere in here could be the common ground in which all folk are welcome. and not the polarizing electoral politics.

iyraste1313

..we face poverty, homelessness, perpetual war, climate and financial disaster. this is where a party is needed. to help organize and build alternatives. find ways to defend those who are on the front lines today right now facing the brutality of capital....

...thank you for this! Exactly what is needed! How to do this and with whom must be the question.....

traditional approaches to political parties will no longer cut it...in this world of oligarchic corporatism and media control!

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..there is another approach to the making of a party. it is tied into what we need as a people. the movements developed out of a need to defend ourselves. i don’t know where we would be if the first people hadn’t thrown a barricade in front of the extraction plans.

..we face poverty, homelessness, perpetual war, climate and financial disaster. this is where a party is needed. to help organize and build alternatives. find ways to defend those who are on the front lines today right now facing the brutality of capital.

..and not just making promises that if elected you will be better. that takes resources and focus away from what is needed now. time is not unlimited.

eta:

..somewhere in here could be the common ground in which all folk are welcome. and not the polarizing electoral politics.

Ok now you are completely losing me -- you say pretty much the same things as I do in terms of what a new party needs to address -- and these are the things the NDP used to be considered for.

Then you add a note saying this woud not be in electoral politics.

Many things do not have to be in electoral politics but that is where a new party or any party belongs. People need a political option to vote for that addresses these very important things. If the NDP does not want to be that party, they should expect people to work to create something new.

If you create a party it is exactly to be in electoral politics and contest elections as well as respond formally to what other parties propose by proposing alternatives.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

sean

..we may share concerns but our approaches are very different. my position takes decision making and places it within the struggles first and foremost. not parliment because parliment is corrupted by an imbalance of power. banks and corps have an incredible influence over decision making. changing the politicians doesn’t undo this influence because the influence is built into processes ie trade. it sets us on a course of doing battle with capital on a level we are guaranteed to loose.

..there is a need to change how and where decisions are made. this means building much broader movements that aren’t divided by electoral differences. building common ground around solutions and struggles that directly challenge both capital and politicians in the local communities where are strength lies. so a new party can alter how it behaves. it can be anything it wants to be and not limited to how other parties behave. it needs to be effective in bringing change not just reform.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

sean

..we may share concerns but our approaches are very different. my position takes decision making and places it within the struggles first and foremost. not parliment because parliment is corrupted by an imbalance of power. banks and corps have an incredible influence over decision making. changing the politicians doesn’t undo this influence because the influence is built into processes ie trade. it sets us on a course of doing battle with capital on a level we are guaranteed to loose.

..there is a need to change how and where decisions are made. this means building much broader movements that aren’t divided by electoral differences. building common ground around solutions and struggles that directly challenge both capital and politicians in the local communities where are strength lies. so a new party can alter how it behaves. it can be anything it wants to be and not limited to how other parties behave. it needs to be effective in bringing change not just reform.

And we have to disagree there. I think the system is corrupted but there is no hope of making change without engaging with that parliament. This is the difficulty there is no opt -out of this sytem no matter how messed up it is . It is not fair but it is real you do have to influence parliament in order to make changes to federal legislation.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..no one is opting out of anything. since various first nations took to having a different vision on extraction this has altered signifiguntly politics coming from ottawa and bc. first nations actions set the agenda. this is engaging parliment from a position of strength. when i posted the results of the tory loss of votes in bc in the last election based on extraction and tankers this is engaging parliment from a position of strength. this also works to protect ourselves in the moment as well. this is more real than the ndp taking power and protecting us against the onslaught of capital.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..no one is opting out of anything. since various first nations took to having a different vision on extraction this has altered signifiguntly politics coming from ottawa and bc. first nations actions set the agenda. this is engaging parliment from a position of strength. when i posted the results of the tory loss of votes in bc in the last election based on extraction and tankers this is engaging parliment from a position of strength. this also works to protect ourselves in the moment as well. this is more real than the ndp taking power and protecting us against the onslaught of capital.

We ahve seen how the government -- through parliament has abused the responsibility of first nations property. To fix this you really only have three things: courts, parliament and public protest. Without the first two the public protest has little value.

One of the significant values of these movements and public protest is that they threaten the political powers when there are political options. Having political options ready adds power to political protest even when it is disconnected from any partisan activity.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

sean

..actually creating common ground with others to build a broader struggle is an option. moving  beyond protest. i will attend this gathering on wed. 

Stories from Women Resisting Tar Sands and Energy East

Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM - 9:00 PM

Thunderbird House 715 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba

We will hear the stories of women from around Canada who are leaders in their communities resisting tar sands and pipeline expansion.

Doors open at 6:45 PM
Opening Begins at 7:00 PM

Speakers Include:

- Chief Fawn Wapioke of Iskatewizaagegan (Shoal Lake 39) Treaty 3 and member of Grassroots Indigenous Water Defence.

- Audrey Yank, from Coule Pas Chez Nous! - large network of grassroots groups from Quebec fighting the pipeline

- Leanne Sutton, from Red Head New Brunswick - resisting TransCanada's Energy East pipeline export terminal in the Bay of Fundy.

Waiting for more speakers to confirm - TBA.

iyraste1313

¨..we face poverty, homelessness, perpetual war, climate and financial disaster. this is where a party is needed. to help organize and build alternatives. find ways to defend those who are on the front lines today right now facing the brutality of capital.¨

the idea of limiting a movement to engage in parliament is wrong! First, success is limited as the corporations control the agenda, via the power of their media, their money...the oligarchic control must be challenged first!

Second this suggests that political power rests with government? What about 1988, 1994 ad nauseum, remember the corporate rights charters? Not to mention the total control of the bureaucracies of government which will always manipulate any potential policy!

No! epaulo´s prescription is bang on! Only my model for a movement political organization extends to actually engaging  alternative models...of production, distribution and social organization...

Alternatives mean decentralization and bioregionalization...which means the focus of electoral activism may be more usefully applied to the regional levels and their federations...

Ultimately power rests with the people, not the corporations, nor governments. We have the power to shut down the system, if and when our alternative processes are challenged by their legislations!

Ultimately power rests in our minds! we must shut off their TV, their drugs, their poisoned foods and look to our friends and communities, not to mention some returning to the land, to continue building our alternatives, which would form the basis of such a populist democratic movement!

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

sean

..actually creating common ground with others to build a broader struggle is an option. moving  beyond protest. i will attend this gathering on wed. 

Stories from Women Resisting Tar Sands and Energy East

Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM - 9:00 PM

Thunderbird House 715 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba

We will hear the stories of women from around Canada who are leaders in their communities resisting tar sands and pipeline expansion.

Doors open at 6:45 PM
Opening Begins at 7:00 PM

Speakers Include:

- Chief Fawn Wapioke of Iskatewizaagegan (Shoal Lake 39) Treaty 3 and member of Grassroots Indigenous Water Defence.

- Audrey Yank, from Coule Pas Chez Nous! - large network of grassroots groups from Quebec fighting the pipeline

- Leanne Sutton, from Red Head New Brunswick - resisting TransCanada's Energy East pipeline export terminal in the Bay of Fundy.

Waiting for more speakers to confirm - TBA.

I do not deny the value of what youa re doing at all.

I am saying the link to the political parties does not need to be one of creation.

lagatta

It would be interesting for you to look at the history of how Québec solidaire was built; not to say that it is some kind of perfect model, or that militants elsewhere would want to do the same, but simply as an existing example: http://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/parti-quebec-solidaire/

The Waffle and the NPI never actually became parties, but they are worth looking at too, as are more local initiatives.

Sadly Syriza, which held such promise, fell into the role of enforcing austerity, but its history, for better and worse, is worth study, as is Podemos in the Spanish state.

http://panorama-quebec.com/cgi-cs/cs.waframe.content?topic=39708&lang=1

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

I do not deny the value of what youa re doing at all.

..i know this sean.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you create a party it is exactly to be in electoral politics and contest elections as well as respond formally to what other parties propose by proposing alternatives.

And therein lies the fundamental disagreement between what some of us see as the role of a party.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If the idea is for this new party to be a parliamentary force then it needs sitting MP's to join it and give it profile.  The right wing when it needs to rebrand does that. Socreds became BC Liberals and Sask Cons became Sask party members.  Both are examples of parties with nowhere to go except down regrouped and formed government when the NDP faltered.  Both of them had MLA's from the old party run for them and that allowed them to take their core supporters with them while they built a new party.

Sean in Ottawa

Not sure Kropotkin what you are getting at since the debate is over whether the party should be born from movements or relate to them after birth. I don't think the issue of floor crossing was being discussed.

Unionist -- sure I think a political party is meant to be a political parliamentary entity. I think most popular movements that succeed do so when they are less partisan in their process and therefore I see no benefit in any set of movements being directly linked to a party. They advance the causes in their way and parties provide the political options in the House. Parties must pay attention to these movements but they are usually best not being tied to each other. This is not by any means a suggestion that non partisan movements are not valuable or that parties should not engage in them.

A political party is itself a different form of movement and it is legitimately started to provide an option for voters. It is a zero-sum game to criticize the idea of starting a political party on the basis that it comes from a political context and is a political entitiy. Most political parties are created by small groups of individuals who want to create an electoral option and they grow it from there.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not sure Kropotkin what you are getting at since the debate is over whether the party should be born from movements or relate to them after birth. I don't think the issue of floor crossing was being discussed.

Oh sorry of course we only discuss things from your perspective. Excuse me, I'll leave you to your personal musings I would hate to broaden the discussion into reality.

You can be a real drag sometimes Sean. WTF is with you and your need to play control freak.  You sure do know how to piss off potential allies. I hope any new party is not founded on the premise that limiting debate is the best way to discuss topics including how to start said new party.

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not sure Kropotkin what you are getting at since the debate is over whether the party should be born from movements or relate to them after birth. I don't think the issue of floor crossing was being discussed.

I know exactly what kropotkin is talking about. I think he made it very clear that a new electoral party has better chances of early success if elected members of other parties are prepared to join it. At least that's the way I understood it. What's the mystery?

Quote:
Unionist -- sure I think a political party is meant to be a political parliamentary entity.

I have no problem with that. My problem is with your sole, unique, limited emphasis on that. I think a progressive political party must actively support and actively participate in a host of social movements. Otherwise, no need to go to all the trouble of bringing another navel-gazing sect into existence.

Quote:
I think most popular movements that succeed do so when they are less partisan in their process and therefore I see no benefit in any set of movements being directly linked to a party.

Good. I have never supported any institutional link between my union (for example), or any of the solidarity movements in which I've militated, and any particular political party. Movements must be loyal to and serve the needs of and be controlled democratically by those who are in the movement. We must maintain freedom of action in that respect. So I'm not sure where you got any contrary impression from what I've written.

Quote:
They advance the causes in their way and parties provide the political options in the House. Parties must pay attention to these movements but they are usually best not being tied to each other. This is not by any means a suggestion that non partisan movements are not valuable or that parties should not engage in them.

I'm pretty much in agreement with that... except that parties must support and participate in popular movements. That doesn't mean they have to subscribe to some pre-fabricated platform of some organization, nor vice versa.

Quote:
A political party is itself a different form of movement and it is legitimately started to provide an option for voters.

That may be the reality, but that doesn't make it an exercise which - without much more - will be useful to what you call the "voters".

Quote:
It is a zero-sum game to criticize the idea of starting a political party on the basis that it comes from a political context and is a political entitiy.

Your use of the word "political" differs significantly from mine.

Quote:
Most political parties are created by small groups of individuals who want to create an electoral option and they grow it from there.

And when a political party disappoints you, you find a small group of like-minded individuals to come up with a tweaked set of electoral promises and give "voters" a different "option"?

This is a lot of things, but I don't think it's what the people of Canada need right now.

 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not sure Kropotkin what you are getting at since the debate is over whether the party should be born from movements or relate to them after birth. I don't think the issue of floor crossing was being discussed.

Oh sorry of course we only discuss things from your perspective. Excuse me, I'll leave you to your personal musings I would hate to broaden the discussion into reality.

You can be a real drag sometimes Sean. WTF is with you and your need to play control freak.  You sure do know how to piss off potential allies. I hope any new party is not founded on the premise that limiting debate is the best way to discuss topics including how to start said new party.

 

WTF I said I did not know where you were coming from and explaned what I thought the issue was as an attempt to find it --

I am not disagreeing with you. I just cannot make out what your point is to know.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not sure Kropotkin what you are getting at since the debate is over whether the party should be born from movements or relate to them after birth. I don't think the issue of floor crossing was being discussed.

I know exactly what kropotkin is talking about. I think he made it very clear that a new electoral party has better chances of early success if elected members of other parties are prepared to join it. At least that's the way I understood it. What's the mystery?

Quote:
Unionist -- sure I think a political party is meant to be a political parliamentary entity.

I have no problem with that. My problem is with your sole, unique, limited emphasis on that. I think a progressive political party must actively support and actively participate in a host of social movements. Otherwise, no need to go to all the trouble of bringing another navel-gazing sect into existence.

Quote:
I think most popular movements that succeed do so when they are less partisan in their process and therefore I see no benefit in any set of movements being directly linked to a party.

Good. I have never supported any institutional link between my union (for example), or any of the solidarity movements in which I've militated, and any particular political party. Movements must be loyal to and serve the needs of and be controlled democratically by those who are in the movement. We must maintain freedom of action in that respect. So I'm not sure where you got any contrary impression from what I've written.

Quote:
They advance the causes in their way and parties provide the political options in the House. Parties must pay attention to these movements but they are usually best not being tied to each other. This is not by any means a suggestion that non partisan movements are not valuable or that parties should not engage in them.

I'm pretty much in agreement with that... except that parties must support and participate in popular movements. That doesn't mean they have to subscribe to some pre-fabricated platform of some organization, nor vice versa.

Quote:
A political party is itself a different form of movement and it is legitimately started to provide an option for voters.

That may be the reality, but that doesn't make it an exercise which - without much more - will be useful to what you call the "voters".

Quote:
It is a zero-sum game to criticize the idea of starting a political party on the basis that it comes from a political context and is a political entitiy.

Your use of the word "political" differs significantly from mine.

Quote:
Most political parties are created by small groups of individuals who want to create an electoral option and they grow it from there.

And when a political party disappoints you, you find a small group of like-minded individuals to come up with a tweaked set of electoral promises and give "voters" a different "option"?

This is a lot of things, but I don't think it's what the people of Canada need right now.

 

No -- I was not clear that he was saying elected people changing parties is the way to go for a new party. Had I understood that was what he meant I could agree that could be part of the strategy.

Your last statement is more disturbing to me.

I am not just dissapointed and the issue is not minor. I really cannot respect your minimizing what this means to me.

The class statements from Mulcair and are the same for me as if for example he came out with anti union statments. Would you just deal or be in search of a new party. Please do not project your values and priorities on me. I am reacting to something that is a big deal. I have been an NDP supporter solid -- loyal -- unlike you for over 30 years. Frankly you owe me an apology on that point-- this is not some trivial dissapointment.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not sure Kropotkin what you are getting at since the debate is over whether the party should be born from movements or relate to them after birth. I don't think the issue of floor crossing was being discussed.

I know exactly what kropotkin is talking about. I think he made it very clear that a new electoral party has better chances of early success if elected members of other parties are prepared to join it. At least that's the way I understood it. What's the mystery?

Thanks Unionist I thought I was very clear.

Sorry Sean but since I thought my message was quite clear I thought you were being obstructive. When the CCF morphed into the NDP most people didn't accuse them of floor crossing. The same thing occurred in Sask after many of the Devine Tories were charged with defrauding the legislature of expense moneys. The new party supplanted the old.

In BC the Socred's stayed on as a shell of its former self but all the movers and shakers changed parties including some of the MLA's who became Cabinet Ministers in Campbell's first government. For a new party on the left to supplant the NDP and become a electoral force it will need a public display of confidence in the new vehicle by some of its left wing caucus and at the riding level the volunteers who got them elected.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not sure Kropotkin what you are getting at since the debate is over whether the party should be born from movements or relate to them after birth. I don't think the issue of floor crossing was being discussed.

I know exactly what kropotkin is talking about. I think he made it very clear that a new electoral party has better chances of early success if elected members of other parties are prepared to join it. At least that's the way I understood it. What's the mystery?

Thanks Unionist I thought I was very clear.

Sorry Sean but since I thought my message was quite clear I thought you were being obstructive. When the CCF morphed into the NDP most people didn't accuse them of floor crossing. The same thing occurred in Sask after many of the Devine Tories were charged with defrauding the legislature of expense moneys. The new party supplanted the old.

In BC the Socred's stayed on as a shell of its former self but all the movers and shakers changed parties including some of the MLA's who became Cabinet Ministers in Campbell's first government. For a new party on the left to supplant the NDP and become a electoral force it will need a public display of confidence in the new vehicle by some of its left wing caucus and at the riding level the volunteers who got them elected.

I did not understand this. I agree to a degree on the Caucus point. Certainly that would be the most ideal. Also workable would be leading lights in the NDP other than caucus  -- candidates who lost, well known NDP celebrities if you will or elder statespeople.

We can consider what happened witht he rise of the reform party -- another populist party. This was a little different as no actual caucus members went at first although they did later. What they had was right wing royalty in the form of Preston Manning son of a rw premier.

So while caucus would be best -- if someone like Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis or NDP royalty made the jump current caucus woudl not be needed. This level would seal the deal and others including cuacus would follow. Second best could be other New democrats Sarah Polly etc. Even Judy Rebick who has flirted with such ideas but not gone over completely. Otherwise, some lost candidates could also.

So I agree that caucus would give instant recognition and seats, support from any known NDP figures could be enough -- even if the process were longer.

That said it might not even take that much for the NDP to realize it is at risk and provoke the kind of reform that might stop such a movement. And as I said I am okay with that. What I want is a committment by the party to stand for social justice rather than chasing a class in a way that to me is a betrayal. Even if Mulcair could be forced to agree to this -- that would not lead me to support him but it would make me want to stay.

The NDP really is in need of renewing its vows to the social justice principles it was founded on. And for me that means I would work against it if it does not do that. Personally Mulcair going is a bonus but his leadership alone is not the problem -- the direction and giving up of principle is. I normally do not distinguish much in this becuase I don't see Mulcair either agreeing to this or surviving a successful push to make this happen. But we need to be clear -- you leave a party for the positions it takes not just the leader. The position and the leader are intertwined but the rationale is not quite. Without the issue of principle I would be a NDP member wanting a leadership change.

The other thing I woudl say is while I can agree that a new party needs a boost to be viable, I do not think it matters how the idea of the new party comes out. I am talking it up and I know that it will need support to go -- but the only way to get that to happen from scratch is to talk it up and hope to get the idea out there. My personal position is this is what I want to see happen as I think it is the tool to either get a new party -- or to have the NDP renew its vows.

swallow

Judy Rebick, now there's a thought. She might work with people in social movements to create a space for discussion of radical politics, politics that puts people first. Maybe that space could start off as a web site. Maybe it could be given a name that speaks to the value of putting people first, and the fear that could strike into the hearts of elites. How about "the rabble"? 

Or, people like her could create a party founded on feminist politics and ecology and social movement values. Maybe they could call it the Citizen Option. Maybe, down the road, it could merge with other progressive forces rooted in left politics. That could be cool, too. 

And we might even consider past efforts to do this sort of thing. Maybe even perusing links to some of those efforts. 

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

Judy Rebick, now there's a thought. She might work with people in social movements to create a space for discussion of radical politics, politics that puts people first. Maybe that space could start off as a web site. Maybe it could be given a name that speaks to the value of putting people first, and the fear that could strike into the hearts of elites. How about "the rabble"? 

Or, people like her could create a party founded on feminist politics and ecology and social movement values. Maybe they could call it the Citizen Option. Maybe, down the road, it could merge with other progressive forces rooted in left politics. That could be cool, too. 

And we might even consider past efforts to do this sort of thing. Maybe even perusing links to some of those efforts. 

Yes, people get mad at her becuase they fear her becuase many poeple respect her and she is intelligent and persuasive. I am not alone in thinking that Canada would have been better off if we had had her as PM. And she might be seen as the conscience of the NDP by a good many. And She was always the real deal in my opinion. I can't say I always agree with her but I usually do and I always respect her. She is the kind of voice that just might make something happen either in or out of the party.

 

Pages