A word of thanks

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brian Topp Brian Topp's picture
A word of thanks

 

Brian Topp Brian Topp's picture

Possibly more rarely than is fair, I thought I would drop "babble", the folks who run it, and its members a thank you note.

My colleagues and I carefully read discussions on this board in the months leading up to the recent campaign and during it.

Hard to say where good ideas come from, but I'm sure we stole a few from here.

I well understand that there is a wide diversity of political views on this board. But let me say to all who defend our party in these discussions and to all who offer up ideas about how we could do better, that many of us were listening and learning (and still are).

((Like, for example, learning to catch all the nuances in this post!!))

All the best,
Brian Topp

(2006 and 2008 National Campaign Director
Co-chair, Election Planning Committee
The New Democratic Party of Canada)

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Brian Topp ]

thorin_bane

It's also good to know you are hearing from the grassroots, not just the riding associations but from people who are progressive and not a member of the party(ie those that may vote for the party). You're welcome for whatever answers you could glean from the ahem..discussions that happen around this place.

Mojoroad1

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

It's Me D

Yes it is really good the NDP is getting something from our discussion here that it can use. I must say though I was a little confused by this line,

quote:

But let me say to all who defend our party in these discussions and offer up ideas about how we could do better, that many of us were listening and learning (and still are).

Generally those are two different groups, one defending the party and the other offering up ideas [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

thorin_bane

D see my post above, are we having another discussion in this thread. ;P

Mojoroad1

quote:


Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]Yes it is really good the NDP is getting something from our discussion here that it can use. I must say though I was a little confused by this line,

Generally those are two different groups, one defending the party and the other offering up ideas [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Sorry, I have to disagree with you there D....I think there are many people who have constructive criticism, yet still support the NDP.

It's Me D

quote:


Sorry, I have to disagree with you there D....I think there are many people who have constructive criticism, yet still support the NDP.

It was really more of a light-hearted joke but during the recent election, while most of us supported the NDP, a few babblers were obviously on a mission to [b]defend[/b] the NDP and in these cases I really don't think they were open to criticism. Hell I support the NDP! I'm just not always going to defend it, especially when it needs correcting, not defending. But really, I didn't mean to be slanderous [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

janfromthebruce

THANKS. I tend to find at babble a lot of information about what is happening across the country and in different provinces. It gives me a wider sense about what is going on.

It's Me D

Looks like my comment drew an edit in the OP, thanks! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

But seriously, it is great to see the NDP learning from our babbling along with us, even those of us who aren't always faithful party members.

V. Jara

Glad to hear. We may not be geniuses but we are Topp & Co.'s 24 hour trial balloon. I hope the office follows the newdemocratsonline.ca blog roll and presse toi а gauche sites too.

Any other recommendations for the NDP's feed aggregators?

Michelle

Congratulations on an excellent campaign, Brian. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Glad you enjoyed reading babble during it!

Noise

Interesting to know people belonging to campaign teams are frequenting this board.

Take any of my 'come to Alberta' pleas to heart?

Fidel

That's what makes the NDP such a great party, Brian. The two old line autocratic parties tend to pay attention in closed door meetings with [b]"special interest groups"[/b] having [b]"deep pockets",[/b] if you know what I mean. They'd sell their mothers for a bit of cutter. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian Topp:
[b]My colleagues and I carefully read discussions on this board in the months leading up to the recent campaign and during it.

I well understand that there is a wide diversity of political views on this board. But let me say to all who defend our party in these discussions and to all who offer up ideas about how we could do better, that many of us were listening and learning (and still are).

All the best,
Brian Topp

(2006 and 2008 National Campaign Director
Co-chair, Election Planning Committee
The New Democratic Party of Canada)[/b]


I am sure this will encourage all babblers who have wondered whether their time here is wasted. Thank you.

I expect a similar message might come from someone in the Green Party. I also expect a few active Liberals and Conservatives are monitoring babble. As well, I am sure involved non-partisans are doing so. During the hearings and deliberations of the Ontario Citisens' Assembly, some members of it were on babble, but I also know some staff were lurking.

So I would again encourage democratic conservatives, Hugh Segal and Janet Ecker Tories, democratic reform Liberals, and all other like-minded Canadians (that's a 1960 homage, Brian) to join in the babbling.

I don't know of any other babblers who were delegates to the NDP founding convention in 1961. Being 18 then, and 66 now, our ranks may be thinning a bit.

janfromthebruce

One evening I was in Marilyn Churley's office to pick up my daughter and in conversation with a "worker" there, he was reading babble. He said that he did that daily to get a sense of "on the ground" campaigns and pickup tidbits.

Anyway, it appears from Brian that this listening and learning from the babble conversations was very systemic and intentional. Bravo to the NDP campaign team 2008. Michelle was right, overall, it was an excellent campaign.

Bookish Agrarian

Brian just want to add my thank you to the campaign team for the best run campaign, of any party, I have seen in a long time.
I was particularly thrilled that the clear goal was to tell people we are an alternative government, not just the conscious of Parliament.
Best of luck on some well earned down time - if anyone will actually get some [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] and looking forward to what is to come.

duncan cameron

In my lifetime, rabble is the only national public media place I've seen which is NDP friendly. The credit goes to the babblers who joined the site and gave the discussion boards the tone and orientation it has taken: pro-NDP. It was never an editorial decision, though the NDP gets a fair shake editorially, which is also unique among mainstream media.

V. Jara

Yes, thank you Brian. 2008 was a well run campaign. There are things to improve, but generally I believe New Democrats were quite proud of your work.

LemonThriller

Thank you too for checking us out - and please make sure that Jack Layton *never* *ever* says he'll deny a candidate with over 4 per cent of the vote a spot in the national debates.

Because we all know true social democrats want some form of proportional representation in Canada - and if this were Sweden, then E May would already have her seat in Parliament.

(And by the way - I'm an NDP member).

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: LemonThriller ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian Topp:
[b]Possibly more rarely than is fair, I thought I would drop "babble", the folks who run it, and its members a thank you note.

My colleagues and I carefully read discussions on this board in the months leading up to the recent campaign and during it.

Hard to say where good ideas come from, but I'm sure we stole a few from here.

I well understand that there is a wide diversity of political views on this board. But let me say to all who defend our party in these discussions and to all who offer up ideas about how we could do better, that many of us were listening and learning (and still are).

((Like, for example, learning to catch all the nuances in this post!!))

All the best,
Brian Topp

(2006 and 2008 National Campaign Director
Co-chair, Election Planning Committee
The New Democratic Party of Canada)

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Brian Topp ][/b]


Good to see you post in your official capacity.

Some of the capital "D" defenders of the NDP have been spinning this election as a success based on the seat count, but it seems to some of us that this is more spinning of wheels, given the fact that the party did not rise more than a smidgen above its last result, and in fact lost overall votes.

Recently you posted a letter you wrote after you admitted to wanting to "barf" (euphemistically) on one of Canada's only established non-partisan left wing journals because of some commentary critical of present NDP policy positions. You spoke at length about "voting to win" as the key to succesful implimentation of policy, noting past NDP achievements as a result.

So. How is that working out for yah?

TCD

While we're playing "truth or dare" Cueball how's the extra-parliamentary opposition working out for you? I seem to have missed the massive capital-crushing demonstrations your extensive critiquing has inspired. Did I miss something? The NDP got several million people out to vote for higher corporate taxes, and end to war and defending socialized medicine. How many people have you inspired to action? Any action?

You go first and then Brian Topp can respond.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by TCD:
[b]While we're playing "truth or dare" Cueball how's the extra-parliamentary opposition working out for you? I seem to have missed the massive capital-crushing demonstrations your extensive critiquing has inspired. Did I miss something? The NDP got several million people out to vote for higher corporate taxes, and end to war and defending socialized medicine. How many people have you inspired to action? Any action?

You go first and then Brian Topp can respond.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: TCD ][/b]


I dunno TCD, I was on the street protesting the war right when they invaded Afgahnistan. In fact almost the day after GWB made his "with us or against us speech."In fact was a key organizer of many of the intitial demonstrations against the war way back when. I have been interviewed on TV as well. I'll point out that that was 5 years before you deadbeats caught up.

I have been assidiously promoting the case of people such as Omar Khadr and against anti-muslim prejudice in general 5 years before an NDP MP had the courage to stand up in the house and demand that the Harper government demand his return to Canada.

I am glad the NDP finally got on board. So in terms of the extra-parlimentary opposition, and how it goes... I'd say very well. But talking to you, you would think that things like opposing the war, and demanding Khadr's return just occur out of the blue in caucus through some sort of tantric envisioning process.

Now, I guess since you seem to be acting as Mr. Topps agent, perhaps you can get him to respond.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

[b]Fact[/b]:
It was a Liberal government with phony majority power which handed Omar Khadr over to the American inquisition to be tortured. And then they lied in parliament to the NDP that the vicious empire would not be allowed to violate his basic human rights.

[b]Conclusion:[/b]
Arrogant, paternalistic Liberals enjoying the phoniest electoral majority ever at the time couldn't be trusted to tell the truth to Canadians.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fact: This thread is about the election campaign.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

It was, overall, a very well run campaign, Brian.

But I gotta say, the number of times I found myself cheering what you had to say was a little distressing to me. And possibly to you as well.

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

TCD

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

I dunno TCD, I was on the street protesting the war right when they invaded Afgahnistan. In fact almost the day after GWB made his "with us or against us speech."In fact was a key organizer of many of the intitial demonstrations against the war way back when. I have been interviewed on TV as well. I'll point out that that was 5 years before you deadbeats caught up.

I have been assidiously promoting the case of people such as Omar Khadr and against anti-muslim prejudice in general 5 years before an NDP MP had the courage to stand up in the house and demand that the Harper government demand his return to Canada.

I am glad the NDP finally got on board. So in terms of the extra-parlimentary opposition, and how it goes... I'd say very well. But talking to you, you would think that things like opposing the war, and demanding Khadr's return just occur out of the blue in caucus through some sort of tantric envisioning process.

Now, I guess since you seem to be acting as Mr. Topps agent, perhaps you can get him to respond.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


I'll let Mr. Topp take care of himself.

In the absence of his response let me note: for a person who has been engaged in - let's be frank - unsuccesful political struggle you seem very "results oriented" when it comes to New Democrats. Your glee at the fact that the party that ran on a platform of withdrawl from Afghanistan, exposed the true costs of the war in Afghaistan, and is credited in some quarters with forcing Harper to announce a withdrawl date from Afghanistan, won only seven new seats is confusing at best.

Let's face facts: the war in Afghanistan continues, Khadr (and many many others) are still imprisoned. You think you've done "well". I think, given your lack of success in actually changing anything much at all, you may want to reconsider your assessment. Doing "well" will be getting out of Afghanistan. Doing "very well" will be not going there in the first place. I'm sure your insta-protest filled you with a feeling of self-importance but it likely didn't mean shit to the Afghan family whose home was blown up that night.

I'd like to see the NDP do better but I'm not sure we need a lecture on success from someone who judges it by how quickly he can "hit the streets" before returning to his comfortable home having accomplished nothing other than getting himself on tv.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Of course Topp is not going to post a response. He just came to spam the board with his ad.

You are confused. You alledge that the NDP made the Tories announce a due date on the war in Afghanistan. That is speculation. I know for a fact that the NDP's anti-war stand comes directly from a strong coalition of activists who basically had to force the NDP to take a strong antiwar position.

So on the one hand you want to have the NDP take credit for changing the course of action of the Federal government, and then deny that it was the antiwar activists who dragged the NDP kicking and screaming to that position.

So lets face the facts, either the antiwar movement was effective at drawing attention to the issue, and then succesful at lobbying the NDP to take that stand, which in turn (according to your assertion) forced the Tories to set a withdrawal date, and was effective, or it was not effective.

And what does this out of the blue ad hominem attack upon me have to do with the question I raised, directly relating to the subject, and Topp's previous attack upon This Magazine, and his "play to win" theme?

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Of course Topp is not going to post a response. He just came to spam the board with his ad.
[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

Touche.

Michelle

Okay, that's just hostile, Cueball. Knock it off. There's nothing wrong with what Brian posted here, and he was completely aboveboard about his affiliation and his reason for posting. So cut it out.

Cueball Cueball's picture

It actually didn't start off hostile. Not nearly as hostile as the completely off topic, ad hominem attack upon me for no reason whatsoever.

I agree that my initial question was not very "nice", but if someone from the NDP is going to come to the board officially representing the NDP, I don't see why a straight question on the apparent lack of success of the NDP, in the light of Mr. Topp's previous statements here, "barfing" (sic) on one of the few established independent lefty magazines in Canada, and enounciating his ideas about "playing to win" is completely justified, I should think, and it was not phrased in a hostile manner.

The real issue of discussion in that article, in This Magazine that Topp wanted to "barf" on was not "playing to win" but the [i]content of NDP policies[/i] today, and those of the past.

But that is the arguement in a nutshell, "playing to win" v "policy". I say that simply "playing to win" without reference to "policy" has not proved sufficient to garner the NDP any measurable success.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

George Victor

quote:


So lets face the facts, either the antiwar movement was effective at drawing attention to the issue, and then succesful at lobbying the NDP to take that stand, which in turn (according to your assertion) forced the Tories to set a withdrawal date, and was effective, or it was not effective.


Or, to vie with the above complex strand of reasoning...perhaps the antiwar movement members themselves took their lead from people who took their cues from historical CCF/NDP positions on the subject of war, and the first cause was actually J.S.Woodsworth on the parliamentary vote to go to war in 1939, and Tommy Douglas's 1970 rejection of the War Measures Act.

There's been a strong, anti-war tradition throughout the party's history. I remember joining a few thousand chanting folks on parliament hill singing "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today." And then there was that walkabout in front of the Spanish embassy protesting something by Franco.

Too complex? Not if we're talking about the cerebral processes at work among the moral minority. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by George Victor:
[b]

Or, to vie with the above complex strand of reasoning...perhaps the antiwar movement members themselves took their lead from people who took their cues from historical CCF/NDP positions on the subject of war, and the first cause was actually J.S.Woodsworth on the parliamentary vote to go to war in 1939, and Tommy Douglas's 1970 rejection of the War Measures Act.

There's been a strong, anti-war tradition throughout the party's history. I remember joining a few thousand chanting folks on parliament hill singing "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today." And then there was that walkabout in front of the Spanish embassy protesting something by Franco.

Too complex? Not if we're talking about the cerebral processes at work among the moral minority. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Well right. But its silly to assert that the parlimentary process is effective, but then opine that public sentiment and preassure are inefective. Because we all know that parties (such as they are these days) closely gauge public sentiment in determining how they establish policies.

In fact the OP, which TCD is "defending" in fact more or less states this point itself.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

George Victor

quote:


Well right. But its silly to assert that the parlimentary process is effective, but then opine that public sentiment and preassure are inefective. Because we all know that parties (such as they are these days) closely gauge public sentiment in determining how they establish policies.


Yep, I'll never forget the reaction of the great unwashed (nominal New Democrat supporters) who condemned Tommy Douglas for his rejection of the War Measures Act.

Oh, the moralists crawled down a few months later, but not the great unread, whose moral position can never be questioned. But that's the dilemma for New Democrats, cue. Too goddam many of the populist flock don't read. (And may I say that your position generally assumes that they do??? Or can?
Or do I have that wrong?)

Cueball Cueball's picture

I would say that the issues are issues of principles. Principles are founded on political philosophy. Moral guidance comes from there. Action from analysis based in those principles.

Douglas clearly saw that the "war measures act" was an overeaction and an abuse of power because he had a fairly clear set of principles to guide his analysis. Therefore he was able to lead on the issue.

Douglas was not alone in this movement, but actually part of a wider movement called the left, which shared fundamental philisophical ideas.

I don't see a lot of leadership coming from the upper echelons of the NDP, and rather now it floats in a populist vacuum. Its the difference between building a movement, and presiding over a sentiment.

And, I reject categorically, arguements that are based on the idea that there is a 'flock' that does, or can not, or will not read as elitist. I think Douglas would agree with me on that score. He was after all a proponent of the expansion of free public education.

George Victor

quote:


Douglas clearly saw that the "war measures act" was an overeaction and an abuse of power because he had a fairly clear set of principles to guide his analysis. Therefore he was able to lead on the issue.

Douglas was not alone in this movement, but actually part of a wider movement called the left, which shared fundamental philisophical ideas.

I don't see a lot of leadership coming from the upper echelons of the NDP, and rather now it floats in a populist vacuum. Its the difference between building a movement, and presiding over a sentiment.


Douglas had a "fairly clear" set of principles? And his stand that October day lost him a lot of voters because of the vast ignorance that is promoted by a right-wing media.

Unfortunately, it's also "sentiment" that the cons work on with their huckster advertising practices, made possible by deep pockets and a lot of chamber of commerce member benefactors. That's what the great unwashed is awash in.

It's not being elitist to say that newspapers and magazines have been replaced by the boob tube. Just another fact.

No, cue, we can bellyache about the situation until hell frosts up, but to blame New Democrats for not assuming the role of martyr that you fancy, in this socio/political environment, makes no sense. It's a frustrating situation, but made more painful by your unfair accusations. Take a vacation in Cuba when cold weather hits and reflect, over a Cuba libre, what they have had to put up with there. Now there's determination and self-control !

Well, all this thinking has had the desired effect of bringing on sleepiness. It's been a bad day and I couldn't shut down the gray matter. (or is it grey?)
G'nite.

madmax

It is clear to this observer and relatively new poster to Babble, that the NDP campaign, did pay attention to many of the posts and comments on this forum. (I know that the CPC, LPC, pay attention to posts and comments on other forums I am on)

It is ironic to me, to hear some partisan critic engage in questioning the success of the NDP campaign. On and off topic, spinning while getting trapped in his own words. That is to bad because this thread was simply a thank you to the readers and posters here on babble.

With that, some people don't know when to quit, or that the election is over.

I appreciate the thanks given on this board. I like another poster look forward to at least two other threads with thanks from the campaigns of LPC, GP.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: madmax ]

It's Me D

quote:


It is ironic to me, to hear some partisan critic engage in questioning the success of the NDP campaign.

Who are you talking about now? Cueball is a partisan critic? For what party? Or is every critic of the NDP an enemy partisan now?

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by George Victor:
[b]

Douglas had a "fairly clear" set of principles? And his stand that October day lost him a lot of voters because of the vast ignorance that is promoted by a right-wing media.

Unfortunately, it's also "sentiment" that the cons work on with their huckster advertising practices, made possible by deep pockets and a lot of chamber of commerce member benefactors. That's what the great unwashed is awash in.

It's not being elitist to say that newspapers and magazines have been replaced by the boob tube. Just another fact.

No, cue, we can bellyache about the situation until hell frosts up, but to blame New Democrats for not assuming the role of martyr that you fancy, in this socio/political environment, makes no sense. It's a frustrating situation, but made more painful by your unfair accusations. Take a vacation in Cuba when cold weather hits and reflect, over a Cuba libre, what they have had to put up with there. Now there's determination and self-control !

Well, all this thinking has had the desired effect of bringing on sleepiness. It's been a bad day and I couldn't shut down the gray matter. (or is it grey?)
G'nite.[/b]


What are you talking about?

George Victor

quote:


What are you talking about?


Getting you into a more reflective, less ill-mannered mode mate. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

Brian Topp Brian Topp's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]It was, overall, a very well run campaign, Brian.

But I gotta say, the number of times I found myself cheering what you had to say was a little distressing to me. And possibly to you as well.

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Not at all brother. Compared to the complexities of Saskatchewan politics and governance, these ten-province three-territory polylingual five-party federal contests seem simple(r) and much easier to find common ground on!

all the best bt

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by George Victor:
[b]

Getting you into a more reflective, less ill-mannered mode mate. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


What precisely was so unmannered in my question:

quote:

Good to see you post in your official capacity.

Some of the capital "D" defenders of the NDP have been spinning this election as a success based on the seat count, but it seems to some of us that this is more spinning of wheels, given the fact that the party did not rise more than a smidgen above its last result, and in fact lost overall votes.

Recently you posted a letter you wrote after you admitted to wanting to "barf" (euphemistically) on one of Canada's only established non-partisan left wing journals because of some commentary critical of present NDP policy positions. You spoke at length about "voting to win" as the key to succesful implimentation of policy, noting past NDP achievements as a result.

So. How is that working out for yah?


Perfectly civil really, considering the tenor the statement of Mr. Topp that I a referring too, where he thought he would like to "barf" on This Magazine for having the termerity to publish criticism of the NDP in its pages:

quote:

I sent the letter below to the editor of "This Magazine" after barfing on their current issue. Looking forward to seeing if they print it:

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007434]Dear "This Magazine" (Re: Laxer article on NDP) [/url]

Nor is it unmannered in comparison to TCD's ad hominem attack which immediatly followed my quite reasonable question. But of course my experience with partisans is that they generally "wear rose coloured glasses but are blind in one eye."

Your missive in no way answers the essential question raised by Mr. Topp's interventions on this web site, and that is simply despite the supposed value implied by a "pragmatic" and "realistic" approach that year after year has seen the NDP slowly shred anything recognizable as a principled left wing stand on the issues (to the point now where the NDP leader is promoting "tough on crime" policies, even) because that is supposed to pay off in some kind of electoral progress, no such thing has actually happened.

The NDP after 30 years of retreating on core principles associated with left wing philisophy, for the sake of positioning itself for imminent electoral victory is still mired below 20 pecent mark of both opinion polls and electoral results.

The suposedly pragmatic strategy championed often under the flag "of running to win," has failed. The fact of the matter is that the NDP lost, yet another election, and in fact did not even measurably increase its vote share.

Rather than thanking people here, I am suprised he is not apollogizing.

I see, despite the fact the Topp seems more than capable of dishing it out in the case of Laxer and This Magazine, he has, as I predicted, not responded to the direct question about the recent failure of the NDP in the last federal election.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Stockholm

quote:


Perfectly civil really, considering the tenor the statement of Mr. Topp that I a referring too, where he thought he would like to "barf" on This Magazine for having the termerity to publish criticism of the NDP in its pages:

I don't blame him for wanting to "barf". There's nothing wrong with people engaging in some constructive criticism. But This Magazine put a picture of Jack Layton behind bars as if he had been a convicted rapist on the cover of the magazine - which i thought was a gratuitous nauseating display that added nothing of any value. Then the publish a recycled article by Jim Laxer that was virtually identical to the article he published in the Walrun a few months earlier, which in turn is identical to what he keeps writing in his blog and which in turn is identical to what he had to say when he ran for and lost the NDP leadership in 1971 to David Lewis and subsequently got expelled from the party along with the rest of the Waffle crowd.

Constructive criticism is one thing - but reading some incoherent regurgitated crap that is the same recycled argument that was used 37 years ago - is worth "barfing" over.

Laxer seems like he can't forgive the NDP for wanting to win an election and take power. He'd rather that the party be some esoteric freak show that plays the role of being some quaint ideological bookend that everyone can look upon like some endangered species.

If anyone seriously thinks that the NDP would do better in elections by adopting the kind of Stalinist policies that Cueball advocates - we need only look at how many votes the Communist Party of Canada got to know how far that would get us.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Wrong, you have been regugitating the arguement for a softer core, "pragmatic" and "realist" policy position, on the premise that this would show net gains, to which Laxer has been responding for the last 30 years. My point is that your position is neither pragmatic or realistic, as 30 years of electoral defeat has shown.

Moderator alert: [b]Clear Red-baiting[/b] in progress.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Stockholm

It has given us net gains. In 2000, the NDP had 8.5% of the vote and 13 seats. Now we have 18.25 of the vote and 37 seats. I call that progress. I don't see the Communist party of Canada having any election results to brag about.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]If anyone seriously thinks that the NDP would do better in elections by adopting the kind of Stalinist policies that Cueball advocates - we need only look at how many votes the Communist Party of Canada got to know how far that would get us. [/b]

Moderator alert: [b]clear redbaiting in progress.[/b] Is there anyone in the NDP who simply can not get away for completely vapid ad hominem partisan attacks?

I'd like that comment expunged. People were just getting used to the idea that I am a Liberal, now, 30 years behind, as usual, Stockholm wants to tag me a Communist because he has no arguments other than flag waving.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]

If anyone seriously thinks that the NDP would do better in elections by adopting the kind of Stalinist policies that Cueball advocates - we need only look at how many votes the Communist Party of Canada got to know how far that would get us.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ][/b]


Surely you are not so naive as to think that, under the present system, a party's vote count is a function of its policies.

PS: Calling Cueball a stalinist - or an advocate of stalinist policies - is ridiculous beyond belief.

KenS

Amazing how one little yapping poodle manages through sheer volume to dominate these conversations.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ad hominem.

Stockholm

maybe while we are at it, i can complain about your "orange-baiting"??

There is nothing wrong with being a Communist. Its a perfectly legitimate ideology - even if its been a total failure everywhere its been tried.

If Communism isn't the right word to describe the ridiculous policies you seem to advocate - what would you rather they be called? I assume you regard "social democrat" or "progressive" to be insulting words to describe "petty bourgeois reformers" - so those words are out - I suppose if you were called an 'anarchist" you might scream that you were being "black-baited" (black being the colour that anarchists favour).

so what will it be?

Cueball Cueball's picture

It will be discussion based on something other than name calling. Stockybaba have ever even read anything I have said about Stalin, or Lenin for that matter?

I have nearly 20,000 posts on this board. Please find for me the posts where I advocate for the implimentation Stalin's policies, or say anything more positive about Stalin, other than the fact that he seemed to be a capable adminstrator.

And when did I suddenly become the topic of this thread? Why of course, when you had no arguements available.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Pages

Topic locked