NDP Montreal Convention 2013

326 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

Yeah, when I think of common ownership of industry, I think of communism, not socialism.

For a lot of "socialist" parties around the world, socialism is the middle ground, combining elements of communism and capitalism. Someone who's a communist might say that's a sad reflection on communist principles in 2013, and they might even be right. But it shows how far the terminology has depreciated.

I don't think it's insulting to say that terminology from 150 years ago has been used in so many various contexts that its meaning has been lost. I also think it's a mistake for any reform or revolutionary movement to pull their entire platform from 150 years ago. It reeks of conservatism, and speaks to why their movement has shrunk.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Michelle wrote:

The new preamble suits the party as it is now almost perfectly.  If they could throw the word "liberal" in there somewhere, it would be absolutely perfect.

Michelle, that comment while very perceptive and on, depresses the hell out of me, Frown

felixr

lagatta wrote:

Since then, we can also add unconditional Zionism imposed from en haut.

LOL

lagatta

Why is that funny?

Michelle

Sorry, Arthur.  That's why I'm sticking to gardening these days. :)

Geoff

Whether we use the term "democratic socialism", "social democracy" or "beer and pretzels" isn't the issue. I'm far more concerned that the party's commitment to social ownership, social planning, and the idea that goods and services should be directed toward the people 'and not to the making of profit' will disappear in the new preamble.

To me these commitments represent the kind of 'out of the box' thinking that distinguishes us from the Liberals. It's not simply about labels; it's about how we intend to achieve our goals, even though we all know we're a long way from getting the job done.

I will be a delegate at convention, and I will oppose the proposed changes unless they are modified from the 'pablum' curently being offered up by the party hierarchy.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Geoff wrote:

Whether we use the term "democratic socialism", "social democracy" or "beer and pretzels" isn't the issue. I'm far more concerned that the party's commitment to social ownership, social planning, and the idea that goods and services should be directed toward the people 'and not to the making of profit' will disappear in the new preamble.

To me these commitments represent the kind of 'out of the box' thinking that distinguishes us from the Liberals. It's not simply about labels; it's about how we intend to achieve our goals, even though we all know we're a long way from getting the job done.

I will be a delegate at convention, and I will oppose the proposed changes unless they are modified from the 'pablum' curently being offered up by the party hierarchy.

You nailed it Geoff. Wish I could be there to watch you in action. Maybe I'll meet you when you come to convention when its next in Winnipeg!

Michelle

Geoff, if only there were more people like you in the NDP.  Or, if only it was you and others like you making policy.

Best of luck to you at Convention - and I really mean that.  It would be so nice to be able to take the clothespin off my nose when I vote NDP, for a change.

North Star

Michelle wrote:

Geoff, if only there were more people like you in the NDP.  Or, if only it was you and others like you making policy.

Best of luck to you at Convention - and I really mean that.  It would be so nice to be able to take the clothespin off my nose when I vote NDP, for a change.

I agree, there's absolutely nothing wrong with fighting for these things in the NDP. I tried to at one time and I admit I grew fed up. However if we want to build a real left movement it's going involve the participation of those on the left of the NDP before we can reach out beyond activist circles.

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

I think the new preamble sounds great and perfectly encapsulates a progressive perspective in 21st century Canada. I predict it will pass with 90% of the vote.

I don't think it will get 90% and probably wouldn't pass if the Convention were held in BC.

knownothing knownothing's picture
knownothing knownothing's picture

How can the new preamble pass? It has no hyphen between like minded.

We would look like idiots.

Jacob Two-Two

We believe in Canada's awesomeness, and believe we can make it more awesome! We like stuff that is good and join with others who like good stuff!

The old preamble staked out a position. It explained why the party exists. This one says nothing at all. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So, her dad was on the resolution committe says Rebecca Blakie. I have to tell you, based on his description by her of an experienced and wise voice, this troubles me. I voted for Bill for leader by the way. I am not impressed by this at all.

Brachina

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2013/04/on-topics-of-discussi...

The convention sounds interesting, alot more so then the Liberal Leadership race honestly.

Stockholm

Policywonk wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I think the new preamble sounds great and perfectly encapsulates a progressive perspective in 21st century Canada. I predict it will pass with 90% of the vote.

I don't think it will get 90% and probably wouldn't pass if the Convention were held in BC.

I wonder if there will be a single solitary delegate from BC what with the provincial election campaign almost underway?

felixr

lagatta wrote:

Why is that funny?

Because it's an exaggeration. 

lagatta

From the horse's mouth:

“I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.” [“…je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”]*

~Thomas Mulcair, quoted in Canadian Jewish News, May 1st, 2008

 

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4348/ Thomas Mulcair - Israel, Right or Wrong

Just one of the first reliable sources I found, googling.

socialdemocrati...

The resolutions are mildly interesting. What's remarkable is how much of a national consensus there is, with a lot of resolutions covering similar topics in different words.

ECONOMY: condemning austerity and union busting. proposing more progressive taxes and a financial transaction tax. more equity for specific groups (first nations, disabled, seniors, etc.) more investments in transit, rail, physical infrastructure, and digital infrastructure.

SUSTAINABILITY: water/coastline/lands protection, sustainable management of fishing/lumber/mining etc., pro-alternative energy research, better project assessments, more value-added jobs, anti-northern gateway, anti-fossil fuel subsidies, enshrining the environment in the charter.

EQUITY/JUSTICE: improve administration and benefits for EI, improving/restoring social security (age 65), better background checks for guns, expanding benefits for education/health/childcare, against overloading the provinces, against mandatory minimums, for decriminalization of marijuana, ending poverty, strategies on mental health, housing, guaranteed minimum income, free education.

FOREIGN POLICY: a lot of one offs... seems to be a lot less consensus here, but these resolutions aren't contradicting each other. a possible area of contradiction is defining standards for fair trade versus just shutting down specific trade deals entirely.

GOVERNMENT: openness, transparency, science-based decision-making, electoral reform, senate reform, bilingualism, ending government partisan advertising, ending unilateral prorogation, pro aboriginal rights, and pro Idle No More.

CANADIAN IDENTITY: pro CBC, digital rights and strategy, refugee rights, disabled rights, gender parity in crown corporations...

INTERNAL PARTY: ... pretty all over the place, a lot of it very dry... obviously, the constitution preamble is mentioned here.


NDPP

Dippers Need to Decide if Big Government is Still Essential

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/06/robson-dippers-need-to-decide-if-big...

"How can the federal NDP be debating whether to stop calling themselves socialists?

But the NDP were once proud to be socialists. So I insist on asking how they came to be not so much ashamed of the label as indifferent to it.

If it has no content I agree they shouldn't be using it..."

knownothing knownothing's picture

lagatta wrote:

From the horse's mouth:

“I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.” [“…je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”]*

~Thomas Mulcair, quoted in Canadian Jewish News, May 1st, 2008

 

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4348/ Thomas Mulcair - Israel, Right or Wrong

Just one of the first reliable sources I found, googling.

In his interview with the Straight, Mulcair emphasized that he is also an “ardent supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state”.

“That has always been the NDP’s position,” he said. “We should create a state for Palestinians and we should have a state for Israelis: a classic two-state solution.”

felixr

knownothing wrote:

lagatta wrote:

From the horse's mouth:

“I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.” [“…je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”]*

~Thomas Mulcair, quoted in Canadian Jewish News, May 1st, 2008

 

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4348/ Thomas Mulcair - Israel, Right or Wrong

Just one of the first reliable sources I found, googling.

In his interview with the Straight, Mulcair emphasized that he is also an “ardent supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state”.

“That has always been the NDP’s position,” he said. “We should create a state for Palestinians and we should have a state for Israelis: a classic two-state solution.”

Mulcair has supported Palestine's bids at the United Nations and

Georgia Straight wrote:
 

During the NDP leadership campaign, Mulcair was often portrayed as the most pro-Israel candidate in the race. That was because, in 2008, the left-wing magazine Canadian Dimension published a translated quote from Mulcair, in which he said, “I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.” (“Je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”)

In his interview with the Straight, Mulcair emphasized that he is also an “ardent supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state”.

“That has always been the NDP’s position,” he said. “We should create a state for Palestinians and we should have a state for Israelis: a classic two-state solution.”

He added that this should be achieved “within a framework of international law and UN resolutions”.

“So on the international-law side, we know that the current [Israeli government] settlement policies, for example, go against the fourth Geneva Convention,” Mulcair stated. “So that’s something very clear in the NDP position, which has always been my position.”

Given his opposition to settlements in the occupied territories, theStraight suggested that Mulcair wasn’t an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.

“There is no contradiction between the two,” the NDP leader replied. “You can be an ardent supporter of a country and say that something that they’re doing in that case has to be changed. But it doesn’t mean you’re not a supporter of the country. You have to be very careful with those words. What I’m saying is I’m not going to use my opposition to something that they’re doing as an excuse to call for an end to the state of Israel, which is what some of the adversaries of Israel do.”

Then there is the fact that Mulcair hasn't laid a finger on the NDP's official policy on Israel-Palestine: never has, and never will.

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The resolutions are mildly interesting. What's remarkable is how much of a national consensus there is, with a lot of resolutions covering similar topics in different words.

ECONOMY: condemning austerity and union busting. proposing more progressive taxes and a financial transaction tax. more equity for specific groups (first nations, disabled, seniors, etc.) more investments in transit, rail, physical infrastructure, and digital infrastructure.

SUSTAINABILITY: water/coastline/lands protection, sustainable management of fishing/lumber/mining etc., pro-alternative energy research, better project assessments, more value-added jobs, anti-northern gateway, anti-fossil fuel subsidies, enshrining the environment in the charter.

EQUITY/JUSTICE: improve administration and benefits for EI, improving/restoring social security (age 65), better background checks for guns, expanding benefits for education/health/childcare, against overloading the provinces, against mandatory minimums, for decriminalization of marijuana, ending poverty, strategies on mental health, housing, guaranteed minimum income, free education.

FOREIGN POLICY: a lot of one offs... seems to be a lot less consensus here, but these resolutions aren't contradicting each other. a possible area of contradiction is defining standards for fair trade versus just shutting down specific trade deals entirely.

GOVERNMENT: openness, transparency, science-based decision-making, electoral reform, senate reform, bilingualism, ending government partisan advertising, ending unilateral prorogation, pro aboriginal rights, and pro Idle No More.

CANADIAN IDENTITY: pro CBC, digital rights and strategy, refugee rights, disabled rights, gender parity in crown corporations...

INTERNAL PARTY: ... pretty all over the place, a lot of it very dry... obviously, the constitution preamble is mentioned here.


That sounds really interesting. I hope the convention will be streamed, that sounds like some interesting debates and ideas.

Brachina

felixr wrote:

knownothing wrote:

lagatta wrote:

From the horse's mouth:

“I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.” [“…je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”]*

~Thomas Mulcair, quoted in Canadian Jewish News, May 1st, 2008

 

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4348/ Thomas Mulcair - Israel, Right or Wrong

Just one of the first reliable sources I found, googling.

In his interview with the Straight, Mulcair emphasized that he is also an “ardent supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state”.

“That has always been the NDP’s position,” he said. “We should create a state for Palestinians and we should have a state for Israelis: a classic two-state solution.”

Mulcair has supported Palestine's bids at the United Nations and

Georgia Straight wrote:
 

During the NDP leadership campaign, Mulcair was often portrayed as the most pro-Israel candidate in the race. That was because, in 2008, the left-wing magazine Canadian Dimension published a translated quote from Mulcair, in which he said, “I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.” (“Je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”)

In his interview with the Straight, Mulcair emphasized that he is also an “ardent supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state”.

“That has always been the NDP’s position,” he said. “We should create a state for Palestinians and we should have a state for Israelis: a classic two-state solution.”

He added that this should be achieved “within a framework of international law and UN resolutions”.

“So on the international-law side, we know that the current [Israeli government] settlement policies, for example, go against the fourth Geneva Convention,” Mulcair stated. “So that’s something very clear in the NDP position, which has always been my position.”

Given his opposition to settlements in the occupied territories, theStraight suggested that Mulcair wasn’t an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.

“There is no contradiction between the two,” the NDP leader replied. “You can be an ardent supporter of a country and say that something that they’re doing in that case has to be changed. But it doesn’t mean you’re not a supporter of the country. You have to be very careful with those words. What I’m saying is I’m not going to use my opposition to something that they’re doing as an excuse to call for an end to the state of Israel, which is what some of the adversaries of Israel do.”

Then there is the fact that Mulcair hasn't laid a finger on the NDP's official policy on Israel-Palestine: never has, and never will.

 You won that arguement that's for sure.

Brachina

Some interesting currents I've noticed are changes to how the Bank of Canada operates, changing tax credits so they're of use to low income Canadians, alot of focus on supporting and expanding rail, and support for Quebec's Aerospace industry. That just what I've noticed so far.

Alot of really good ideas that are exciting. Wish I was there.

Wilf Day

Seven resolutions submitted to the NDP Montreal Convention deal with proportional representation. They're in the resolutions book:
Resolutions 5-40-13, 5-42-13, and 5-37-13 are all similar. They have since been endorsed by other ridings. They call for PR to be "a fundamental plank of the next NDP election platform, so that an NDP government will get elected with a strong mandate to make this needed reform a reality."

Resolutions 5-02-13, 6-39-13 and 5-51-13 are also very interesting.

Resolution 5-02-13 may be the most important. It is from Toronto-Danforth, the riding of M.P. Craig Scott, NDP critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform in the House of Commons. As such, it may be the basis for debate in the panel Friday morning, and could form the basis for a panel composite resolution.

Instead of saying “an NDP government will get elected with a strong mandate to make this needed reform a reality” it says “the NDP reaffirms its longstanding electoral commitment to such reform and its firmly held belief that Canadian voters must approve such reform.” But what does this mean? A referendum? Or are we asking that voters approve it in the 2015 election?

Resolution 6-39-13 says “that before the next federal general election, the NDP announce that in the event of a minority government, it is determined to cooperate with other parties equally committed to reforming Canada's electoral system in order to ensure that the subsequent federal general election is held under a system of mixed member proportional representation” which has the same result. (Note: it has been placed in the wrong section of the resolutions book.) This statement reflects Tom Mulcair’s commitment “If needed, we will cooperate with other parties in the House of Commons and the Senate in order to make electoral reform a reality.” Nice.

And then there is a surprise resolution 5-52-13. Submitted by four ridings, it must be part or an organized effort. It says “WHEREAS there are several excellent ways to achieve proportional representation other than Mixed Member Proportional; BE IT RESOLVED that Section 5.2.a. in the policy book be amended to read “Reforming Canada’s electoral system to represent voters proportionally to their votes.” Does anyone know who is behind this, and why? It came in from Kitchener Centre, North Vancouver, Blackstrap in Saskatchewan, and Malpeque in P.E.I.

These will all be discussed in the panel Friday morning starting at 9:00am.

Who's attending?

JKR

Wilf Day wrote:
Resolution 5-02-13 may be the most important. It is from Toronto-Danforth, the riding of M.P. Craig Scott, NDP critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform in the House of Commons. As such, it may be the basis for debate in the panel Friday morning, and could form the basis for a panel composite resolution.

Instead of saying “an NDP government will get elected with a strong mandate to make this needed reform a reality” it says “the NDP reaffirms its longstanding electoral commitment to such reform and its firmly held belief that Canadian voters must approve such reform.” But what does this mean? A referendum? Or are we asking that voters approve it in the 2015 election?

It sounds to me that this resolution is advocating for yet another counter-productive referendum on electoral reform. That would be a disaster for electoral reform as we've seen in the four bogus referendums held in BC, PEI, and Ontario. This resolution should fail or be amended to exclude the part stating "that Canadian voters must approve such reform."

The full resolution is:

Quote:

5-02-13 Resolution on Electoral Reform
Submitted by Toronto-Danforth
WHEREAS the current federal electoral system contains major shortcomings generating a significant democratic deficit;
WHEREAS the decline in voter turnout in federal elections in the last twenty years in Canada is worrying;
WHEREAS any electoral reform process must include the study of all relevant experience with an electoral system that includes both proportional representation and MPs directly elected in ridings;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the federal New Democratic Party reaffirm its desire to reform Canada’s electoral system by way of a system that combines proportional representation and direct election of Members of Parliament from constituencies, that is to say, through a version of mixed member proportional (MMP) representation that is adapted to Canada.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the NDP reaffirms its longstanding electoral commitment to such reform and its firmly held belief that Canadian voters must approve such reform.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the federal NDP’s Critic and Deputy Critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform should consult widely in communities across Canada before the next federal election.

I think Resolution 5-37-13 is the best resolution concerning electoral reform:

Quote:

5-37-13 Resolution on Making Proportional Representation a Reality
Submitted by Northumberland—Quinte West

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the federal New Democratic Party reaffirms its commitment to reforming Canada’s electoral system through a mixed member proportional representation system for Canada.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the federal NDP will make electoral reform and proportional representation a priority issue within Parliament and in communities across Canada.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT this will be a fundamental plank of the next NDP election platform. If an NDP government is elected it will have a strong mandate to make this needed reform a reality within the first year of its mandate.

Hopefully this resolution will form the basis of what goes forward.

Resolution 6-39-13 is a good resolution:

Quote:

6-39-13 Resolution on Mixed Member Proportional Representation
Submitted by Saanich-Gulf Islands

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP strive to form a majority government in the next federal general election and commit to reforming Canada's electoral system through mixed member proportional representation within the duration of its first mandate;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that before the next federal general election, the NDP announce that in the event of a minority government, it is determined to cooperate with other parties equally committed to reforming Canada's electoral system in order to ensure that the subsequent federal general election is held under a system of mixed member proportional representation.

Support for electoral reform should include:

- Enacting MMP before the 2019 election

- Enacting it with very extensive consultation from citizens, organizations, political parties, and experts, but not through a take it or leave it binary yes/no referendum that can be easily manipulated.

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, there are real differences in opinion about how to implement a lot of these things. At least the priorities are clear. MMP, I personally want them to campaign on it, then pass legislation as soon as they're in power, and then be done with it.

There's no way they'll vote on 125 pages of resolutions with a huge convention. I suspect that the convention will start with several parallel "sessions" in smaller committees, and the best resolutions from each will make their way out onto the floor somehow.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The test for me is not if a good resolution is passed at convention although that is the necessary first step. I have helped compose some great resolutions and then seen them passed at convention only to have them never see the light of day in a campaign. If it is not a clear plank in the campaign then any resolution is merely pretty words.

 

Brachina

I suspect simular ideas will be combined decreasing the volume of resolutions by a large amount.

mark_alfred

CBC has an article about the upcoming Convention.  Apparently there's a couple of resolutions on cooperation.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Nothing will make it to the Convention floor that Rebecca Blakie and the Grand Poobahs don't want. We see this in Manitoba; the fix is in!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Arthur that is the way conventions in the NDP have always been. I have been to provincial conventions in Ontario, Saskatchewan and BC and a few federal ones. I have never been to other party's conventions but I presume that they all act the same.

They will merge most of the duplicates into pablum and the controversial ones will be on the bottom of the list for debate and the time will just run out. If some of the good resolutions make it to the floor and pass they will never become a plank in the campaign unless the central office wants them to. That is simply what party politics is all about.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K I know. I guess I was just commenting on what will happen. I agree with your it has always been my expreience, and frankly is the reason I have stopped attending conventions. Its just a dog-and-pony-show in which I don't wish to participate any more. I am of the opinion that it is a waste of time, and frankly am on the verge, after watching Blakie on Friday on P and P, of throwing in the towel. I don't think I can handle many more "it doesn't matter what you think face slaps". Sometimes its just best to throw in the towel and move on.

Michelle

Wow, another mealy-mouthed, sucky, watered-down resolution - this one on electoral reform.  Perfectly in keeping with the new preamble - very nicely done. 

Well, for those of you willing to spend your hard-earned disposible income on the high ticket price of convention plus travel, enjoy yourselves in Montreal - the city is lovely, anyhow, so hopefully you'll get a chance to wander a bit.  For those of you without enough disposible income to go, take heart - it looks like you won't be missing much, and the NDP isn't really about you anyhow.

Welcome to the new Liberal Party, same as the old Liberal Party.  Enjoy third place again, NDP.  Why would anyone bother voting for the upstart content-free Liberal Party when they can vote for the real content-free Liberal Party, headed by the popular Mr. Name Brand?

socialdemocrati...

There are nearly a dozen (maybe more) proposed resolutions on electoral reform. Which one are you talking about?

Brachina

Whatever Michelle.

janfromthebruce

I do hope that the reform resolution gets amended and take out "and its firmly held belief that Canadian voters must approve such reform".

I do know that ridings put forth motions and I respect the democratic right for each riding association members to do so. It does not mean they will pass or not be amended as is. I like the suggestion that in a minority govt situation they work with other parties for electorial reform. I do not want a referendum on a straight yes and no answer.

I do believe that we do have to inclusive of Canadians for ensuring that we respect differences. Not everybody will be happy.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Brachina wrote:
Whatever Michelle.

Brachina, I love your posts and I always look forward to them, but in my opinion, this one was a little over the top, at least at first glance. Michelle, what are you driving at regarding your previous post? Which reolution(s)

cco

I won't be a delegate this year, but seeing as I live in town, I'll certainly be around. Anyone who wants to socialize can shoot me a PM.

felixr

The Alberta NDP voted on a resolution on provincial cooperation at convention in Calgary and it was SOUNDLY defeated. As such, it wouldn't be the first time such a resolution reached the floor of convention for debate, if such an event were to occur. I think Mulcair's position that you can't trust the Liberals would resonate strongly with many NDPers. If we want to look at the last attempt at cooperation, the coalition agreement Jack Layton signed, all the Liberals signed it and the second they stabbed their current leader in the back and chucked him in the ditch the party did a full 180 on its commitment. I never heard a single Liberal MP object to their decision to go back on every MPs signature. An accord with the Liberals is worth less than the ink it is written in.

janfromthebruce

And felixr, the replacement Liberal leader - Iggy - also signed his name on said document, and reneged once enthroned. Layton and the NDP were quite willing to form a coalition and there was quit a bit written about how Liberal operatives acted in the backroom and in the public when they did this.

mark_alfred

Michelle wrote:

Wow, another mealy-mouthed, sucky, watered-down resolution - this one on electoral reform.  Perfectly in keeping with the new preamble - very nicely done. 

[..]

Welcome to the new Liberal Party, same as the old Liberal Party.  Enjoy third place again, NDP.  Why would anyone bother voting for the upstart content-free Liberal Party when they can vote for the real content-free Liberal Party, headed by the popular Mr. Name Brand?

This is an argument I frequently hear from some supporters of "strategic voting".  IE, the NDP is not pure enough, so we may as well vote Liberal.  I suspect this argument was made ever since the NDP started, regardless of who was leading it (IE, whether it was Douglas, Lewis, Broadbent, McLaughlin, McDonough, Layton, or now Mulcair, I'm sure there were those arguing against "wasting" a vote on the NDP and instead justifying voting Liberal by claiming the NDP wasn't pure enough).

Anyway, as Wilf mentioned, there's several resolutions on electoral reform.  I believe all but one backs MMP.  Some are direct (IE, 6-39-13), some are less so.  I had the opportunity to go to my riding association and work with them on resolutions (I didn't, but I could have).  Likewise I had the opportunity to go to the Convention.  There is an unwaged option, and regardless, the fee is tax deductable.  People put in a lot of work for this, which I think is great. 

Michelle

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Michelle, what are you driving at regarding your previous post? Which reolution(s)

Sorry, the Toronto Danforth one on electoral reform (my riding) where they water it down to what sounds like another useless referendum. I meant to quote it from Wilf's post, sorry.  I certainly hope one of the stronger-worded ones passes instead.

But mark my words - no matter which one passes, if the NDP wins under FPTP, they'll suddenly think of a thousand other more important things than electoral reform.  They have never bothered with it provincially where they've won under FPTP, and they won't federally either if they win.  Of course, it's easy to make predictions like that, because it will never be proven or disproven. ;)

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Michelle wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Michelle, what are you driving at regarding your previous post? Which reolution(s)

Sorry, the Toronto Danforth one on electoral reform (my riding) where they water it down to what sounds like another useless referendum. I meant to quote it from Wilf's post, sorry.  I certainly hope one of the stronger-worded ones passes instead.

But mark my words - no matter which one passes, if the NDP wins under FPTP, they'll suddenly think of a thousand other more important things than electoral reform.  They have never bothered with it provincially where they've won under FPTP, and they won't federally either if they win.  Of course, it's easy to make predictions like that, because it will never be proven or disproven. ;)

 

Well I have seen this over and over. I really believed Tom when he said he wanted to bring the center to the NDP. While I dont think there is any doubt he his more to the left then the Libs, I dont think his  vision of the NDP is what I see it as. But the other thing is, Jack (blessed be his memory) had been moving the party in this direction as well. Maybe people just are not ready to vote for a left wing alternative and the NDP vote in 2011 was indeed a protest. Maybe we all got our hopes up too high. Its possible.

Michelle

Mark, I fully support strategic voting.  In my riding (Toronto Danforth), the strategic vote is NDP.  If I still lived in Kingston, the strategic vote would be Liberal.  Either way I have to hold my nose (a little harder for the Liberals, definitely, but still), so it really doesn't matter to me much.  You can put forward as many progressive resolutions as you want at Convention - if the brass doesn't find a way to keep them off the floor, they'll find a way to bury the ones that do miraculously pass and make them a low priority in practice.  Their say-nothing, content-free, "new and improved" preamble pretty much says it all, and I agree with Stockholm that it will probably pass with 90% of the vote.

janfromthebruce

So glad the last election the "strategic vote" went for the NDP. And I wouldn't ever vote Liberal because that would mean I've bought into the "there is no alternative" and Liberals are progressive rhetoric.

And the NDP won once in Ontario in 1990, and it's now 2013. And if the NDP wins under FPTP, I strongly believe they will change the way Canadians select their representatives.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Michelle wrote:

Mark, I fully support strategic voting.  In my riding (Toronto Danforth), the strategic vote is NDP.  If I still lived in Kingston, the strategic vote would be Liberal.  Either way I have to hold my nose (a little harder for the Liberals, definitely, but still), so it really doesn't matter to me much. 

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/05/07/strategic-voting-perils/

Vote NDP in every riding no matter what.

Libs are not our friends.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

knownothing wrote:

Michelle wrote:

Mark, I fully support strategic voting.  In my riding (Toronto Danforth), the strategic vote is NDP.  If I still lived in Kingston, the strategic vote would be Liberal.  Either way I have to hold my nose (a little harder for the Liberals, definitely, but still), so it really doesn't matter to me much. 

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/05/07/strategic-voting-perils/

Vote NDP in every riding no matter what.

Libs are not our friends.

I agree with you. I vote NDP because I support the NDP. I don't vote Liberal because I don't support the Liberals. The NDP holds to values in which I beleive. The Liberals claim to hold values in which I believe but they never stay true to them. If there isn't more proof available of the emptiness of their talk then in a living and breathing Paul Martin, I don't know what else that could be.

Brachina

janfromthebruce wrote:

So glad the last election the "strategic vote" went for the NDP. And I wouldn't ever vote Liberal because that would mean I've bought into the "there is no alternative" and Liberals are progressive rhetoric.

And the NDP won once in Ontario in 1990, and it's now 2013. And if the NDP wins under FPTP, I strongly believe they will change the way Canadians select their representatives.

I do too Jan.

Pages