NDP Socialist Caucus Supports Niki Ashton as Next NDP Leader

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean Cain

Unionist wrote:

What a joke of a thread. School funding is a provincial matter. Don't let the Socialist Caucus divert the discussion away from their statement and endorsement. And frankly, unless I hear Niki call for an end to private school funding, I will remain skeptical as to whether she said it. The federal government has no say in the matter. 

Well, actually, it was others in this thread who began to discuss school funding, which is mentioned in one sentence in my original post (and in one sentence in the 900-word plus statement on the SC website).  I'd rather talk about economic issues and workers' rights.

Unionist

Sean Cain wrote:

Well, actually, it was others in this thread who began to discuss school funding, which is mentioned in one sentence in my original post (and in one sentence in the 900-word plus statement on the SC website).  I'd rather talk about economic issues and workers' rights.

I agree, the diversion didn't come from you.

Would it be possible to get your response on some of the other substantive issues I've raised? Starting with the question of why, if the endorsement is not even binding on Caucus members, does the statement harshly criticize other candidates - knowing full well that caucus members are supporting them? Is it really as simple as: "Well, we decided to endorse Niki, so we had to give reasons why the others are no good"? And why (for example) gloss over Niki's support for the brutal aggression against Libya, while blaming Dewar for that very same crime?

Do all caucus members share the apparent view in the statement that building a movement to Stop Harper is wrong, because the ruling class can just replace him at any time with someone else?

Do all caucus members oppose the stimulus funding which the NDP demanded in respect of manufacturing in Ontario and Québec during the recession?

Do all caucus members scorn the 2008 coalition as the statement does?

Do all caucus members believe that Peggy Nash is "hobbled" by the CAW's strategic voting decision - importantly enough to cite it as a reason to reject her completely (no second, third, or further recommendation)?

Who came up with "no labour concessions"? Have any caucus members ever sat at a bargaining table, during or not during an economic crisis? Do they know what "concession" even means?

Why did the Socialist Caucus demand opening the Libyan border to allow personnel and arms to come to the aid of the so-called "rebels" in April 2011 - instead of just condemning all outside interference in Libya's affairs?

We can start with those. My real question remains: What is a "Caucus" doing inside a party?

 

MegB

toaster wrote:

I mean, no offence to Ashton, but she doesn't really have a chance.  In the future, yes, but just not now.  I think the endoresement would have made Nash more competitive against Mulcair.  These endoresements to the 4th and 5th place (in the polls at least) candidates don't mean much now.

Niki Ashton is the most left of all the leadership candidates, so it makes sense that the SC would endorse her.  Leadership races aren't just about who is going to win.  They're about who will be leading the future of the party.  We have a choice -- we can support candidates who best represent our political beliefs, or we can be more pragmatic -- do what corporations do -- spread the support and $ according to who has the best chance of forming the next government, which will align itself with our self interest.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

Sean we are all radicals because we support or belong to the NDPee! I miss Jack.

Even the ones who fought for the pointless switch from the word "socialism" to "social democracy"?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

flight from kamakura wrote:

me too.  i think something like pulling out of nato is completely nuts, for a lot of reasons,

Gonna send you a pm about that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Brachina wrote:
I wonder how much support does the sc bring to the table, a couple of thousand votes?

...more like 15 or 20 people...essentially Barry Weisleder and a gaggle of his acolytes with delusions of grandeur.

Y'know, Stockholm, it isn't EVIL to be a socialist. 

And I really doubt that Barry Weisleder(not that I agree with him about everything) ever did anything horrible enough to actually deserve this perpetual abuse from you. 

All he's really guilty of is having strong principles and fighting for them. 

Sometimes, you can't do that and be completely nice about it.

Those that want the NDP to run screaming away from the very idea of "socialism" don't really have any strong interest in social justice or helping working people.

(on edit: didn't know that Stock had been told to stay out of the thread when I posted that.)

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Brachina wrote:
I wonder how much support does the sc bring to the table, a couple of thousand votes?

...more like 15 or 20 people...essentially Barry Weisleder and a gaggle of his acolytes with delusions of grandeur.

Oh I think the numbers are larger than that, what is confusing is more the cicada like life-cycle of the caucus... its regular appearance at conventions followed by periods of subterranean dormancy before crawling up the trunk again to issue its mating call at the next conference. [Just to observe, I have no particular ideological bones to pick with the SC, but because of past experience in dealing with certain of their officers/spokespeople, I don't feel particularly guilty in suggesting that they could put a bit more effort into improving their organizational and behavioural skills and am quite comfortable around the ANDP's Labour Caucus referring to them as "Convention Monsters"]

Unionist

Why don't they support Saganash? Their statement said absolutely nothing about him. They must think their endorsement actually means something, and they can't even get a consensus among their own members on the matter. 

 

Fidel

Ken Burch wrote:
Those that want the NDP to run screaming away from the very idea of "socialism" don't really have any strong interest in social justice or helping working people.

Why do the other two very similar parties not state for the record that they basically represent fascism? We know they are lying when they talk about liberal democracy and free market economies.

In fact, all three main parties in Ottawa are claiming to support free market economics. It's easier than explaining 50 years worth of cold war baloney. 

And it's easier for the NDP to explain to people why we do not have free markets in Canada. And we don't. We don't have free labour markets. Our manufacturing sector is run mainly by absentee corporate landlords. Absentee meaning in the modern sense in that the majority share owners are physically located in another country altogether and not just living in mansions on the hilly side of town.

We don't have free markets in energy. Not when Canada's national energy policy is dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America.

We don't have free markets in a lot of areas of our economy. 

And it's much more profitable for the NDP to explain why social democracy makes economies more competitive than economies where laissez-faire capitalism is all there is.

So as long as the other two parties aren't telling Canadians the truth - that neoliberalism is undemocratic and even fascist in certain respects, I don't think the NDP is obligated to have to explain why mixed market socialism works better than that which flopped in 1929 North America, in 1985 Chile, and again by 2008 in N. America. 

Free markets and social democracy - it's worth twice as much as what they are selling down the road. Social democracy sells itself. We don't even have to lie about it, like they have to in regards to the "new" liberal capitalism. We don't have spend hours at someone's front door at election time explaining what actually happened during the cold war.

It's not too late.

Hunky_Monkey

Is Niki the "most left" candidate?? Or is that something some project onto her?

Lord Palmerston

No, it's Mulcair, who is really a closet socialist.  

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

I'm not a member of the Socialist Caucus, but I agree with a lot of their positions, and I'm very tempted to rank Niki Ashton first on my ballot ahead of Nash and Topp, instead of third behind Nash and Topp as I had been planning to do. Assuming my ballot arrives -- it hasn't yet.

I have two big a issues with the Socialist Caucus. The first is that many NDPers, maybe even a majority, instinctively vote against any motions coming from the NDP Socialist Caucus, and sometimes a sizeable number of party members vote against motions that they would actually support if they came without the Socialist Caucus stamp of approval.

I actually expect the Socialist Caucus's endorsement of Niki Ashton to lead some NDPers to not rank her on their ballot when they otherwise would have.

My second big issue with the socialist caucus is Barry Weisleder's (and possibly others) refusal to recognize that that the NDP cannot be transformed into a revolutionary socialist organization, and that the only reason for revolutionary socialists to be involved in the NDP is the lack of a mass revolutionary party in Canada.

Fidel

I'm sure that supporters of the other two parties aren't asking which of their leaders is declaring their black and tan properly for voters to identify with. And they only pay lip service to free markets nowadays. 

The NDP represents social democracy, free and fair modern elections not election rigging so popular with conservatives today. And the NDP represents competitive market economies not obsolete colonial-extractive economies at the root of pollution and global warming issues today.

Hunky_Monkey

Lord Palmerston wrote:

No, it's Mulcair, who is really a closet socialist.  

Actually, he's a closet communist, my Lord :) You'll be so relieved when he wins and announces a complete nationalization of all industry :)

janfromthebruce

Hi Ken,

I belief that some will disagree with me about this, but I don't see there is a difference between saying socialist and saying social democracy but that is me. I often describe myself as a social democrat and proud to belong to the New Democrat Party of Canada. And it is also my belief that Jack helped make that possible.

Ken Burch wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Sean we are all radicals because we support or belong to the NDPee! I miss Jack.

Even the ones who fought for the pointless switch from the word "socialism" to "social democracy"?

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Brachina

Winston wrote:

Prairie Lefty:

I'm not so sure that Niki wasn't out to lunch on what Manitoba's official policy was.  I saw her on CBC television with Evan "Bob Rae" Solomon and she did not even seem to know what the actual and historical rates of corporate taxation were when he queried her on the details of her tax "plan".

That's actually my biggest criticism of her (and to a lesser extent, Nathan and Peggy too) - they seem to have a shallow policy depth.  By that, I don't mean that they are not releasing policy papers or that they are not very well-versed on some issues.  What I mean is that their PERSONAL breadth of knowledge in many public policy areas does not seem to be very deep.  I believe this explains the tendency to talk a lot in terms of values and slogans but not so much in details.

Actually I hear poor Rathika got humiliated because she didn't know the population of Canada, she wasn't even close. Maybe we kneed to make sure thier is a basic knowledge of these factiods. Occasional pop quizes?

Anyway as for the SC the only problem with them is they come off as hostile, like in that letter, my problem is not idealogy. I don't go for red baiting or Blair baiting either. In fact most people that have taken issue with the sc on this thread it seems unrelated to idealogy and more an issue of personalities.

Oh and I was suprised a that Barry didn't join the race himself, I was honestly expecting him to and that may have added some earlier spice to this race.

Oh and like Mulcair, Niki put off dealing with income taxes till 2015 in her rabble interview, just thought that was funny for the "left wing candiate". I loved her answers though, very intelligent.

janfromthebruce

It's true that direct school funding and provision is essentially a provincial matter and determined by our constitution, the present Harper Conservative govt did institute a way to fund "religious education" through tax credits and thus the back door.

Private School Tuition Fees

There are special circumstances in which all or a portion of the fees paid to a private school may be considered a donation, and qualify for the charitable donations tax credit.  Two types of schools may be able to provide charitable donation receipts for all or a portion of fees:

bullet

those which exclusively teach religion, and

bullet

those which operate in a dual capacity, providing both academic and religious education.

So Harper ensured that his supporting base got some perks in the religious education department. And thus funding of education (through the back door) is a federal matter because it's about taxation.

I believe that all children should go to school together because it helps to build a more cohesive society. It doesn't mean that information and education about religions and beliefs is not discussed but that all beliefs and faiths are discussed and no one is elevated.

No more thread drift but it is incorrect to suggest that federal govt is not involved in funding of religious education. They sure are.

That said, it is also my understanding that the federal NDP has a policy that supports secular school system of education in both official languages. Secular again, does not mean an absence of religion but only that all believes are recognized and no religion is given top billing.

 

Sean Cain wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What a joke of a thread. School funding is a provincial matter. Don't let the Socialist Caucus divert the discussion away from their statement and endorsement. And frankly, unless I hear Niki call for an end to private school funding, I will remain skeptical as to whether she said it. The federal government has no say in the matter. 

Well, actually, it was others in this thread who began to discuss school funding, which is mentioned in one sentence in my original post (and in one sentence in the 900-word plus statement on the SC website).  I'd rather talk about economic issues and workers' rights.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Brachina wrote:

Oh and I was suprised a that Barry didn't join the race himself, I was honestly expecting him to and that may have added some earlier spice to this race.

The $15,000 ticket price ensured that that wouldn't happen. Precisely as planned.

Socialist Caucus wrote:
[I]t is painfully evident that none of the seven remaining candidates proposes a clean break with the pro-capitalist direction of the party.

That hardly sounds to me like "praising one candidate to the skies". 

Uncle John

Nationalize Industry?

What Industry?

NDPP

What Nation?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

No, it's Mulcair, who is really a closet socialist.  

He wants to nationalize closets?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Why don't they support Saganash?

er...because he's no longer running?(although, if you really wanted to make Mulcair supporters' heads explode, you COULD ask why they don't support Mulcair, since Saganash has now endorsed him).

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Why don't they support Saganash?

er...because he's no longer running?(although, if you really wanted to make Mulcair supporters' heads explode, you COULD ask why they don't support Mulcair, since Saganash has now endorsed him).

Of all the questions I posed about the SC statement - all of which have gone unanswered - that's the one you chose to focus on?

Fine. Saganash's name is still on the ballot. It took a lot of courage IMHO for him to run, under all the circumstances. Too bad the Socialist Caucus didn't have space to say a word about him. I guess when you're in an electoral race, all you have time for is to exaggerate the merits of your pick and the sins of all the others. The guy who dropped out is history.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Just out of curiousity and nothing more, did the Socialist Caucus have anything to say about Saganash before he dropped out of the race?

Policywonk

M. Spector wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Oh and I was suprised a that Barry didn't join the race himself, I was honestly expecting him to and that may have added some earlier spice to this race.

The $15,000 ticket price ensured that that wouldn't happen. Precisely as planned.

What was the entry fee for the 2003 Leadership election?

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

Just out of curiousity and nothing more, did the Socialist Caucus have anything to say about Saganash before he dropped out of the race?

No. At least, not on their website, assuming Google has spidered and indexed it accurately.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Why don't they support Saganash?

er...because he's no longer running?(although, if you really wanted to make Mulcair supporters' heads explode, you COULD ask why they don't support Mulcair, since Saganash has now endorsed him).

Of all the questions I posed about the SC statement - all of which have gone unanswered - that's the one you chose to focus on?

Fine. Saganash's name is still on the ballot. It took a lot of courage IMHO for him to run, under all the circumstances. Too bad the Socialist Caucus didn't have space to say a word about him. I guess when you're in an electoral race, all you have time for is to exaggerate the merits of your pick and the sins of all the others. The guy who dropped out is history.

 

All I meant is that probably, they thought it served no purpose to discuss a candidate who was no longer active.  I liked and still like Saganash...and yes, they could have mentioned what he might have been like as leader.  Wasn't trying to belittle your overall argument.

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

Moreover, the SC statement endorsing Niki properly condemns Paul Dewar for supporting the aggression against Libya, but seems to forget that Niki Ashton and all the others did likewise

NDPP

'In our book, her age, 29 and her bold feminism, add to her appeal' (SC)

Given the proximity of International Women's Day and  Ashton's endorsement of NATO's 'humanitarian intervention', along with other 'progressive' women MPs, this cautionary piece by John Pilger on the rise of Julia Gillard may be relevant:

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/julia-gillards-rise-marks-the-triumph...

..."The devotion of this new 'feminist icon' to imperial war is impressive, if strange.."

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I think a lot of people here are sympathetic to the views of the socialist caucus, because a lot of us have socialist (anti-imperialist, pro-labor, pro-mixed economy, pro-worker control) leanings.

But an endorsement from an NDP caucus that attacks 6 out of 7 NDP candidates suggests to me that this "caucus" is more interested in dividing the party than building support for their views, or building any kind of consensus at all.

Here's the thing, though (and this is something a lot of other babblers don't seem to get when responding to the various critiques by candidates of other candidates): now is the time for everybody to present their ideas about why they like their candidate and why they're not choosing the other ones. If they can't get behind the leader after convention day, that will be the time for that sort of criticism.

Fidel

Uncle John wrote:

Nationalize Industry?

What Industry?

Come to think of it, what do we make in Canada? I'm looking around the house, and I can't find anything that has a Made in Canada label on it.

I guess we'll have to nationalise a handful of banks, financial services, some strip malls and a lot of hamburger joints.

socialdemocrati...

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:
Here's the thing, though (and this is something a lot of other babblers don't seem to get when responding to the various critiques by candidates of other candidates): now is the time for everybody to present their ideas about why they like their candidate and why they're not choosing the other ones. If they can't get behind the leader after convention day, that will be the time for that sort of criticism.

And here's what I'm saying.

Praise, cool.

Criticism, cool.

But when you write a scathing criticism of 6 out of 7 candidates in the NDP, using words like "pro-capitalist", "disinginuous", "contempt for democracy"... you have to wonder if you're even in the right party.

Like someone walking into a gay bar and screaming "why are there so many homosexuals here?" The right answer is, "what are YOU doing here?"

At best, you're wasting your breath. At worst, you're so tendentious that you shouldn't be surprised when fewer and fewer people take you seriously.

Sean Cain

Unionist wrote:

Why don't they support Saganash? Their statement said absolutely nothing about him. They must think their endorsement actually means something, and they can't even get a consensus among their own members on the matter. 

Actually, many SC supporters thought very highly of Saganash, and were going to place him in their first, second or third choices (I know I was).  He repsonded to our emails and was going to participate in our debate last Thursday.  But that was before he dropped out of the race due to personal reasons.  It's unfortunate.

Sean Cain

Unionist wrote:

Sean Cain wrote:

Well, actually, it was others in this thread who began to discuss school funding, which is mentioned in one sentence in my original post (and in one sentence in the 900-word plus statement on the SC website).  I'd rather talk about economic issues and workers' rights.

I agree, the diversion didn't come from you.

Would it be possible to get your response on some of the other substantive issues I've raised? Starting with the question of why, if the endorsement is not even binding on Caucus members, does the statement harshly criticize other candidates - knowing full well that caucus members are supporting them? Is it really as simple as: "Well, we decided to endorse Niki, so we had to give reasons why the others are no good"? And why (for example) gloss over Niki's support for the brutal aggression against Libya, while blaming Dewar for that very same crime?

Do all caucus members share the apparent view in the statement that building a movement to Stop Harper is wrong, because the ruling class can just replace him at any time with someone else?

Do all caucus members oppose the stimulus funding which the NDP demanded in respect of manufacturing in Ontario and Québec during the recession?

Do all caucus members scorn the 2008 coalition as the statement does?

Do all caucus members believe that Peggy Nash is "hobbled" by the CAW's strategic voting decision - importantly enough to cite it as a reason to reject her completely (no second, third, or further recommendation)?

Who came up with "no labour concessions"? Have any caucus members ever sat at a bargaining table, during or not during an economic crisis? Do they know what "concession" even means?

Why did the Socialist Caucus demand opening the Libyan border to allow personnel and arms to come to the aid of the so-called "rebels" in April 2011 - instead of just condemning all outside interference in Libya's affairs?

We can start with those. My real question remains: What is a "Caucus" doing inside a party?

The NDP Socialist Caucus has existed since 1998 to help move the party to the Left and democratize the organization.  I simply don't know if "all caucus members" support the ideas above, just in the same way I don't know if all NDP members agree with what's in the NDP policy booklets.  Do all NDP members agree with every resolution that brought to the floor of a convention?

What I can tell you is that every decision in the NDP Socialist Caucus is discussed and voted on democratically, either at our annual conventions, usually in Toronto in the Fall, or by our Steering Committee, whose names are included on our website (www.ndpsocialists.ca) under "Contact." 

For the NDP Leadership race, there were four different motions that were brought forth.  Everyone on our email lists, which includes hundreds of people, and the Steering Committee, were sent the motions, which were then debated and voted on either by email, our Facebook page or by phone. 

The winning one, a vote of support for Niki Ashton, received about 60% of the total SC vote.  That motion made the bulk of the SC's statement on our website.  My motion, which called for the first vote for Nash and a second vote for Ashton, received about 25% of the vote.  There were two others that received the remainder.

As for our event with Niki, I personally know of some people who were going to vote for either Nash or Topp, but then switched their vote to Ashton after meeting her last Thursday. 

As for some of the language of the statement, yes, it is quite direct, but I still don't think it's personal.  My motion included wording that was more toned down. 

I don't know what you mean by "binding."  The SC is a democratic organization.  People are free to vote for who they want, yet a majority will vote for Niki, and in fact, since our meeting with her last Thursday, it will now probably be an even higher majority.  The SC wanted to simply make official its endorsement for NDP leader, based on what the majority of SC supporters believe after debate and consultation with the leaders.  At the end of the day, every one has their privacy in the voting booth.

marciam

Sean,

How many members of the socialist caucus actually voted on these motions?  I only observed a handful of emails in response to Barry's very wordy position statement.  There were also 21 votes on the Facebook page, of which Nash and Ashton each received 8.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Now that the Socialist Caucus has been thoroughly grilled over why they had the temerity to cast their support behind one candidate, maybe we can move on to start grilling everyone else who has done exactly the same thing.

Let's start with Libby Davies throwing her support behind Brian Topp. Then we could move on to Romeo Saganash supporting Brian Mulcair. I'll get the popcorn.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Now that the Socialist Caucus has been thoroughly grilled over why they had the temerity to cast their support behind one candidate, maybe we can move on to start grilling everyone else who has done exactly the same thing.

Let's start with Libby Davies throwing her support behind Brian Topp.

Actually, there was quite a bit of that at the time right here on babble. Just page back to the early threads.

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

Now that the Socialist Caucus has been thoroughly grilled over why they had the temerity to cast their support behind one candidate, maybe we can move on to start grilling everyone else who has done exactly the same thing.

Let's start with Libby Davies throwing her support behind Brian Topp. Then we could move on to Romeo Saganash supporting Brian Mulcair. I'll get the popcorn.

If those others come here and open threads to promote their views, I will be happy to grill them. In both cases, I found their brief public explanations unconvincing - both as to whom they chose, and why they would choose one at all, rather than urging a more collaborative approach.

If the Socialist Caucus can't answer some searching questions or face some tough criticism, then perhaps it should stay away from discussion forums. But I like Sean's calm approach to dealing with some of the questions so far, and I'd like to hear more. I'll keep asking my questions until I either get answers or realize that there aren't any forthcoming.

 

Brachina

Unionist has been pretty equally opportunity in his distain for oragnizations making endorsements on be half of thier members, from Unions to Avaaz. He's not just picking on the sc.

JuliusA JuliusA's picture

Left Turn wrote:

I have two big a issues with the Socialist Caucus. The first is that many NDPers, maybe even a majority, instinctively vote against any motions coming from the NDP Socialist Caucus, and sometimes a sizeable number of party members vote against motions that they would actually support if they came without the Socialist Caucus stamp of approval.

I actually expect the Socialist Caucus's endorsement of Niki Ashton to lead some NDPers to not rank her on their ballot when they otherwise would have.

My second big issue with the socialist caucus is Barry Weisleder's (and possibly others) refusal to recognize that that the NDP cannot be transformed into a revolutionary socialist organization, and that the only reason for revolutionary socialists to be involved in the NDP is the lack of a mass revolutionary party in Canada.

I am a member of the NDP Socialist Caucus, and I do not believe that the NDP will ever be a revolutionary socialist organization. Many of us see the party as a platform to talk about and build socialism, as the NDP is Canada's labour party, and attracts mass appeal for those who see the party as being 'left'. As for people dismissing our efforts or not voting for them because they come from us, I would say that those folks are obviously not very principled, and im proud that I belong to a group which is honest and principled, and is not shy or intimidated by the brass. You dont have to agree with us all of the time, but if your seriously not going to vote on issues you agree with simply because they originate from folks like us who organize in the party to bring them forward for discussion, then you have some issues to deal with. Over the last few years, our support has grown considerably, this can be seen at conventions, provincial council meetings, our magazine, 'Turn Left', which grows and improves with each passing convention, and our financial contributors and new website. I encourage NDP members who agree with us to join and help us push the party to the left.

Rabble_Incognito

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Why does this warrant a seperate thread, with a moderator stamp of approval.  I thought the point was to reduce the level of threads.  Surely the Socialist Caucus is not so important it deserves something seperate.  I support having a lot less of these leadership threads, I'm sure I am not alone in thinking that.

How about a whole string of threads.

Ice cream lovers endorse Thomas Mulcair

People who like bikes endorse Brian Topp

If you like 8 year old cheddar you'll love Paul Dewar says cheese loving group

People who live alone with cats endorse Nathan Cullen

Peggy Nash wins the support of farmers who prefer green work pants over blue ones

Simply the best says Yogurt with Fruit Coaltion of Martin Singh

I understand you are trying to be amusing, but based on the zero laughter, and my own take on socialism, I see nothing amusing in what you're writing here, because unlike your examples, there is a clear rationale for having a socialist caucus to the NDP. I am pleased that I can read their views here at Babble.

Btw some of us don't use Facebook because we don't trust a Facebook CEO with a record of violating people's privacy and rights that dates back to his student days at Harvard. Our convention might show there are many more socialists than we all presume. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm all for the NDP to be more left, but I'd also caution the party to wait until it actually achieves government, and then slowly become more left of centre. This is a really conservative country if you look at the combined Conservative and Liberal votes, and taking a more left approach to party policy now will, as far as I can see,  just put the party back into third place federally. And promoting itself as a more left party now will just be gravy for Harper who undoubtedly is looking for more ammo to use against the NDP in the next election. In the meantime, I don't see anyone besides Mulcair who is likely to actually lead the NDP to political victory resulting in the first NDP federal government.

Rabble_Incognito

Sounds like 'bait and switch' to me, Boom Boom. We have to walk a tightrope, admittedly.

But alas, I'm not a politician.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

Sounds like 'bait and switch' to me, Boom Boom. I say we give voters a real alternative.

But alas, I'm not a politician.

The NDP gave the country a real alternative in 2015, and we ended up, thanks to FPTP, with a Harper majority. How's that working for you?

ETA: the sooner we get PR, the better. FPTP is the villain that's keeping the NDP down.

Barry Weisleder

This message is from Elizabeth Byce, member of Socialist Caucus.My support will go To Nikki, but lets face it Sisters and Brothers, at the end of the day when the leader is chosen, the real work of the SC begins.

In my humble opinion, whoever is starring in that leadership role, the NDP still needs to move to the left, go back to its roots and be seen every day of the week pushing a working class agenda forward.

I do not see any other group in the party, except the Socialist Caucus, doing that.

If you do not always , many members on the ground, but there is much work to be done.

Lets get over ourselves,   any leader is only as good as we make them, so lets show whoever gets elected, we in SC  will continue to grow and will always work towards moving the party to the left, even if its with the new leader kicking and screaming.

Comradely, Elizabeth

 

Rabble_Incognito

It doesn't work for me, as you predicted. I always lose arguments based on other people's crystal balls. It's probably because it's not my crystal ball. So here goes:

How about we behave like the Liberals, and then people can split the vote between the Liberals and NDP, and voila, the Harper conservatives get another majority?

I bet you don't care for my crystal ball, huh? Wink

 

Barry Weisleder

I think parts of my message got gobbled up, The tories are hungry again. The missing sentence was, If you do not always agree with our phrasing of things, join us and help. We have many, many members on the ground, but it is a big ground to cover, so come on folks, do not be shy.  We have a lot to do.

Any hopes of becoming Government someday, we have to move our party to the left.   " Just saying"

Solidarity,

Elizabeth Byce

Rabble_Incognito

We have to show working tories and liberals that the NDP represents them better than anyone else - by 'working' I mean real work, not people who make their money off their capital. If you can assuage working tories, we'll win.

And the Euro hasn't taken a dump yet...a great many things can happen to this economy in the next 12 months, so let's not speak too soon. This conversation isn't over until the economic lady sings at the end of 2012/2013.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm not an NDP historian, so others will have to correct me, but when has the NDP moving left ever resulted in forming government at the federal level?

Sean Cain

Unionist wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Now that the Socialist Caucus has been thoroughly grilled over why they had the temerity to cast their support behind one candidate, maybe we can move on to start grilling everyone else who has done exactly the same thing.

Let's start with Libby Davies throwing her support behind Brian Topp. Then we could move on to Romeo Saganash supporting Brian Mulcair. I'll get the popcorn.

If those others come here and open threads to promote their views, I will be happy to grill them. In both cases, I found their brief public explanations unconvincing - both as to whom they chose, and why they would choose one at all, rather than urging a more collaborative approach.

If the Socialist Caucus can't answer some searching questions or face some tough criticism, then perhaps it should stay away from discussion forums. But I like Sean's calm approach to dealing with some of the questions so far, and I'd like to hear more. I'll keep asking my questions until I either get answers or realize that there aren't any forthcoming.

Union, the questions you asked were for "all SC members," as you specifically put it.  I can't speak on behalf of all SC supporters as individuals, just as I would never dare speak on behalf of all NDP members as individuals.  I can try to speak on behalf of the SC and what its proposes through the policies it passes at SC conferences (or online, since we can't all meet every week) through a democratic vote.  Certainly not all NDP members agree on all policies, why do you expect that to happen in the SC? 

Ironically, the decision to make our preferences known about the NDP Leadership race was itself agreed upon by a democratic vote at the SC Conference in Toronto in November 2011.  The SC agreed that we would publish a statement regarding the leadership candidate(s) we collectively support, after a debate and democratic vote.  I seriously don't know how much more "collaborative" you need the SC to be.  

I guess I'm just surprised to see how some people have a problem with this, or are somehow confused about our process.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm not an NDP historian, so others will have to correct me, but when has the NDP moving left ever resulted in forming government at the federal level?

When has the NDP moving right [or remaining static] ever resulted in forming a government at the federal level?

Pages

Topic locked