Given the allegations made recently about bland, older, mainly white and exclusively male NDP politicians...

66 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
Given the allegations made recently about bland, older, mainly white and exclusively male NDP politicians...

...isn't it time to finally recognize that Niki Ashton, by comparison, deserved essentially none of the venom and derision directed towards her during the leadership contest?

That she never deserved to be treated as though she had no business even seeking the leadership?

​That, compared to sexual harassment and worse, an allegedly "stiff" speaking style and the use of words liken "intersectionality" are trivial shortcomings-assuming the mention of intersectionality, one of the easiest-to-explain political concepts ever devised, is a shortcoming at all-and never merited the scorched-earth campaign that was run to make sure she didn't even get close to victory?

That, maybe at this time, she is exactly the sort of person, even if she isn't going to be leader yet(or ever) whose ideas should be listened to and given an influential role in the direction the party takes from here?

Jagmeet has great potential as leader, and the best way he can realize that potential is to listen to people with the most cogent ideas.  If the intent of the scorched-earth campaign against Niki was to make sure that he never listened to anything she had to say, I'd argue that that really needs to be rethought.  

The NDP isn't going to grow its vote at all from 2019 if it's path is the path of "safety"-it can only do that if the party can truly present itself as the party of a different vision of Canada.  The ideas Niki presented are some of the keys to that.

 

 

 

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And in hindsight, was it really THAT intolerable that a young, radical woman was standing for the leadership?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That, compared to sexual harassment and worse, an allegedly "stiff" speaking style and the use of words liken "intersectionality" are trivial shortcomings

OK.  But nobody was choosing between a gropey white man and intersectionality.

Quote:
And in hindsight, was it really THAT intolerable that a young, radical woman was standing for the leadership?

She didn't win, but who said that if she had it would be intolerable?  You're putting words in the mouths of those who chose someone else.

cco

Ken, I feel like your post is addressing two different things, so let me try to unpack them. One (the one your post seems more focused on, given the title) is misogyny. I happily supported Nki throughout the entire campaign, and though she was the only female candidate, I don't remember most of the vitriol against her being gender-based. Indeed, I've been involved with the NDP through two leadership races now, and while Niki was similarly dismissed in 2012, Peggy Nash wasn't, to my recollection.

The bigger issue, from my perspective, was that she was dismissed out of hand for being one of those people who believe the government should have a stronger hand in reforming the economy -- you know, what the CCF was originally founded on, and what it's gradually been walking away from since the Winnipeg Declaration, year by year. I feel like this issue needs to be separated from the important discussion about putting an end to the toxic environment for women in politics. It didn't take gropers to make me a socialist, and it was wrong for Niki to be treated as a nuisance whether or not Peter Stoffer sexually harrassed his employees. Singh needs to listen to Niki's ideas, not because she's a woman or because of sexual harrassment in politics, but because those are the ideas that are vital to the future of the NDP and Canada as a whole. Being the party of reduced ATM fees is not an adequate substitute for democratic socialism.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

No, nobody was choosing between "a gropey white man" and intersectionality(nobody knew at the time of the leadership contest that sexual assault would become the issue it has become with the NDP and other parties in Canadian politics, or at least those who knew what had happened hadn't warned against anyone else), but there was this consistent tone, not only in the right-wing press where'd you expect it but from those who presented themselves as "the grown-ups" in the party, that embracing any of what Niki Ashton supported could somehow only lead to disaster and that it was presumptuous and absurd for her even to be in the race.  She was treated as the candidate who HAD to be stopped and whose ideas were somewhere between ridiculous and an existential threat to the NDP.  There was a level of hostility towards her and what she stood/stands for that was massively out of proportion to that of any other leadership candidate.

It's fair to ask, in hindsight, if any of that was in any way at all merited.  It people simply didn't support her, fine-but why was there a freak-out at the very idea that she could be leader or that the party could listen to anything she had to say?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

cco wrote:

Ken, I feel like your post is addressing two different things, so let me try to unpack them. One (the one your post seems more focused on, given the title) is misogyny. I happily supported Nki throughout the entire campaign, and though she was the only female candidate, I don't remember most of the vitriol against her being gender-based. Indeed, I've been involved with the NDP through two leadership races now, and while Niki was similarly dismissed in 2012, Peggy Nash wasn't, to my recollection.

 

The bigger issue, from my perspective, was that she was dismissed out of hand for being one of those people who believe the government should have a stronger hand in reforming the economy -- you know, what the CCF was originally founded on, and what it's gradually been walking away from since the Winnipeg Declaration, year by year. I feel like this issue needs to be separated from the important discussion about putting an end to the toxic environment for women in politics. It didn't take gropers to make me a socialist, and it was wrong for Niki to be treated as a nuisance whether or not Peter Stoffer sexually harrassed his employees. Singh needs to listen to Niki's ideas, not because she's a woman or because of sexual harrassment in politics, but because those are the ideas that are vital to the future of the NDP and Canada as a whole. Being the party of reduced ATM fees is not an adequate substitute for democratic socialism.

It was largely what you say, and I didn't mean to tie it as closely to gender as my OP and title made it sound.  It was, to me, a combination of the ideological thing-at this point, I hope we can all agree that it was ridiculous for anyone to rip her to shreds for using the term "intersectionality", and that we know all get the validity of the concept, and understand that intersectionality is not just "identity politics"-and, at some level, a visceral sense some Dippers seemed to have that she wasn't what "a leader" should look and sound like.

Niki was raked over the coals, derided, mocked, treated like a joke in a way no other NDP leadership candidate has ever been treated.  After what's happened in the last few weeks, can anybody argue that she and her ideas came anywhere close to deserving that?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No, nobody was choosing between "a gropey white man" and intersectionality(nobody knew at the time of the leadership contest that sexual assault would become the issue it has become with the NDP and other parties in Canadian politics, or at least those who knew what had happened hadn't warned against anyone else), but there was this consistent tone, not only in the right-wing press where'd you expect it but

What does any of that have to do with the thread title?  Where do the allegations against white, male and "exclusively" (??) NDP members factor in?

Quote:
It people simply didn't support her, fine-but why was there a freak-out at the very idea that she could be leader or that the party could listen to anything she had to say?

I think a lot of people didn't think she was ready for Leadership (disclosure: me included) but if everyone was going to work double-shifts to ensure that Singh wouldn't even listen to her, where's that coming from?  Who is trying to prevent him from having a working meeting, or assigning her to a project, or whatever?  Where are you hearing these voices saying "NO, JAGMEET!  FOR THE LOVE OF GORD, DON'T!"?

Also, Ken, we can't just take everything a politician says and wrap it up into a parcel that everyone either embraces or rejects.  I think Ashton said lots of things that resonated with NDP members, but they didn't entirely overshadow things she said that didn't. 

Suggesting that not electing her == rejecting everything she's ever stood for is an unhelpful simplification.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Who's to say what truly makes someone "ready" for leadership?  Tom Mulcair was, by most conventional metrics, the single "readiest" candidate in the 2011 leadership contest.  Can anybody still argue that his performance, tactics, and strategy were superior to those of any of the people he defeated for the leadership?

And, while I like Jagmeet Singh in many, many respects, "readiness" played next to no role at all in te case for electing him leader-the entire pitch was reduced to "he could be OUR Justin" and "they love him in Toronto and Vancouver".

And I'm not challenging the leadership results...they were what they were...but it seems to me that next time, there needs NOT to be a concerted effort to STOP any particular candidate or faction or idea.

Everytime the NDP establishment says "we can't do THAT", the result is usually missed opportunity and often lost ground.

It did the party no good to stop Laxer and suppress the Waffle in 1971(David Lewis led the party to the smallest number of vote and seat gains possible in 1972-he made sure the party could make no inroads in Quebec by forcing it into a right-wing "we won't even consider self-determination" position that guaranteed every the party would once again lose in every Quebec riding, and he drove away the energy of the New Left while gaining no additional votes or support in any other demographic to make up for it) and the costing the party half its seats in 1974 by forcing an early election for no obvious reason and at a time when it was not clear that an early election would even lead the NDP to a good showing.
 

It did no good to have Lewis and Tommy Douglas himself working the convention floor pleading with delegates to stop Rosemary Brown in 1975-Ed was ok as leader, but his era was defined by a singular inability ever to seize the moment or promote any alternative vision that resonated with the electorate-or for Svend Robinson and later the NPI to be seen as people and things that needed to be blocked at all cost, leaving the party, once Jack's personal magnetism was gone, with no core values to hold people's loyalties and no direction forward.

It's the fixation with safeness and "respectability" that always causes the NDP to lose the moment.

Why not just admit that "respectability" will just leave the party with the same 15% to 20% it always seems to hover between nationally(or occasionally drive it much lower, as it was throughout the Nineties), and will inevitably cost the party the remnants of the Quebec beachhead.

I hope it's now clear to everybody that "safety" and "respectability" aren't really worth anything-that matters is a vision of what life COULD be, of something currently just beyond our grasp but reachable and within sight.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Who's to say what truly makes someone "ready" for leadership?

I hope you would agree "anyone qualified to vote on a leadership vote", or else tell us who else should.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Who's to say what truly makes someone "ready" for leadership?

I hope you would agree "anyone qualified to vote on a leadership vote", or else tell us who else should.

I agree that those are the people who will decide who is leader. 

But my question is really more "what is the measure of readiness" than anything else.

And in future, there should be no heavy-handedness in trying to influence who they choose or who they don't.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But my question is really more "what is the measure of readiness" than anything else.

I will have to recuse myself and let those who actually voted answer you.

Quote:
And in future, there should be no heavy-handedness in trying to influence who they choose or who they don't.

Whose hand was any heavier than someone else's?  Were Ashton supporters not also vigorous in their support of Ashton (which is no different from their un-support of the rest)?

 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
 

And, while I like Jagmeet Singh in many, many respects, "readiness" played next to no role at all in te case for electing him leader-the entire pitch was reduced to "he could be OUR Justin" and "they love him in Toronto and Vancouver". 

I think it's his opponents who reduced it to "he could be our Justin" not his supporters. 

Ken Burch wrote:
 I hope it's now clear to everybody that "safety" and "respectability" aren't really worth anything-that matters is a vision of what life COULD be, of something currently just beyond our grasp but reachable and within sight. 

I don't think Singh was the safe choice I think he inspired people to vote for him. Niki Ashton didn't. I admire her a great deal, I think she is an amazing woman with a bright future but I think Singh will do better than she would have. As to her ideas I'm pretty sure Singh has his own and decides who he listens to for himself. 

Going too far right doesn't work but that doesn't mean going far left will work or even thinking in terms of right and left. I really think that is self-defeating because voters don't want to be put in boxes saying they are left or right when they don't feel they are either. They have individual views on individual matters. What is someone who is anti-abortion and anti-pipeline? What about pro-pipeline and pro-immigration? 

Singh may be male but he isn't white, old or bland. I don't think Niki lost because she is female. I think if she were male she still would have lost based on her leadership qualities not her sex. 

Does she have specific policies that you think Singh is neglecting to take into consideration?

cco

Pondering wrote:

What is someone who is anti-abortion and anti-pipeline?

Traditionally, I believe they seek the leadership of the Green Party.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
 

And, while I like Jagmeet Singh in many, many respects, "readiness" played next to no role at all in te case for electing him leader-the entire pitch was reduced to "he could be OUR Justin" and "they love him in Toronto and Vancouver". 

I think it's his opponents who reduced it to "he could be our Justin" not his supporters. 

Ken Burch wrote:
 I hope it's now clear to everybody that "safety" and "respectability" aren't really worth anything-that matters is a vision of what life COULD be, of something currently just beyond our grasp but reachable and within sight. 

I don't think Singh was the safe choice I think he inspired people to vote for him. Niki Ashton didn't. I admire her a great deal, I think she is an amazing woman with a bright future but I think Singh will do better than she would have. As to her ideas I'm pretty sure Singh has his own and decides who he listens to for himself. 

Going too far right doesn't work but that doesn't mean going far left will work or even thinking in terms of right and left. I really think that is self-defeating because voters don't want to be put in boxes saying they are left or right when they don't feel they are either. They have individual views on individual matters. What is someone who is anti-abortion and anti-pipeline? What about pro-pipeline and pro-immigration? 

Singh may be male but he isn't white, old or bland. I don't think Niki lost because she is female. I think if she were male she still would have lost based on her leadership qualities not her sex. 

Does she have specific policies that you think Singh is neglecting to take into consideration?

I wouldn't frame it as Singh refusing to take specific policies of hers into consideration as much as his possibly having been persuaded not to listen to anything she might suggest at all.  He has a good idea in wanting to reference income inequality, but he's not going to lead the NDP to gains if he limits his approach to that.

What I'd like to see him incorporate(and I think there are a lot of others who'd agree) is to present a genuine challenge to the idea that what corporations and the financial sector want should matter than what everyone else in the country and the world want, the kind of challenge that Niki and no other leadership candidate was willing to make.

I'd also democratizing the party decision-making process, giving the party convention and rank-and-file New Democrats a real say in what the party stands for and what it does rather than limiting control of those decisions to the leader her-or-himself and those who advise the leader.  Also, it would help to start making a real connection between the party and the social movements, rather than continuing the pointless tradition of keeping activists and activism as arms-length.

And it's not about "left or right"...it's about boldness vs. timidy, about a strong expression of conviction rather than a fixation with looking "safe" and "respectable"-hardly anyone is impressed by "respectability" anymore, especially among people who agree with or are close to the NDP on the issues.

What impresses the electorate now is a willingness to proposes bold solutions, to really SAY what you're about as a party and what you will do.  Boldness and frank expression of principle have been the things the NDP has been terrified of since...well, pretty much since 1961-with the sole exception since then of Tommy Douglas' heroic opposition to PET's pointless imposition of modified martial law(and unjustified collective punishment of the entire Canadian left) over a couple of kidnappings.

I'm not arguing that it was an injustice that Niki didn't win the leadership, btw.  What I am saying is that, in hindsight, it's clearly been shown that her campaign and her ideas were far less dangerous and threatening for the party than the personal conduct of a lot of sitting and former NDP politicians.  

And this would be a good time for Jagmeet and the party to acknowledge that what she was talking about is valid and that she should be given a much more influential role in the party than she currently has.

What is there to lose?

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
What I'd like to see him incorporate(and I think there are a lot of others who'd agree) is to present a genuine challenge to the idea that what corporations and the financial sector want should matter than what everyone else in the country and the world want, the kind of challenge that Niki and no other leadership candidate was willing to make. 

That is way too vague and ideological. It's voters eyes glazing over material.  

Ken Burch wrote:
I'd also democratizing the party decision-making process, giving the party convention and rank-and-file New Democrats a real say in what the party stands for and what it does rather than limiting control of those decisions to the leader her-or-himself and those who advise the leader.  Also, it would help to start making a real connection between the party and the social movements, rather than continuing the pointless tradition of keeping activists and activism as arms-length. 

That is a recipe for lack of direction. They need to stay connected to social movements but they can't set the agenda when it comes to campaigning and winning an election.

Ken Burch wrote:
And it's not about "left or right"...it's about boldness vs. timidy, about a strong expression of conviction rather than a fixation with looking "safe" and "respectable"-hardly anyone is impressed by "respectability" anymore, especially among people who agree with or are close to the NDP on the issues. 

Boldness yes, radicalism, no. The NDP membership is much farther left than the voters the NDP needs to appeal to in order to win elections. 

Ken Burch wrote:
What impresses the electorate now is a willingness to proposes bold solutions, to really SAY what you're about as a party and what you will do.  Boldness and frank expression of principle have been the things the NDP has been terrified of since...well, pretty much since 1961-with the sole exception since then of Tommy Douglas' heroic opposition to PET's pointless imposition of modified martial law(and unjustified collective punishment of the entire Canadian left) over a couple of kidnappings.

Lest we forget Quebec requested the help. It wasn't imposed. 

I agree that boldness is important and I think Singh's focus on inequality has an opportunity to be that. 

Ken Burch wrote:
I'm not arguing that it was an injustice that Niki didn't win the leadership, btw.  What I am saying is that, in hindsight, it's clearly been shown that her campaign and her ideas were far less dangerous and threatening for the party than the personal conduct of a lot of sitting and former NDP politicians.  

I don't see what one has to do with the other. One can not support those MPs and not support Niki. She struck me as too academic activist in her delivery to appeal to voters. 

Ken Burch wrote:
And this would be a good time for Jagmeet and the party to acknowledge that what she was talking about is valid and that she should be given a much more influential role in the party than she currently has.
 

What has changed since Singh won the leadership position? Singh has been keeping Caron close. I don't know who else. He may well speak with Niki in private. You seem to think that she has been slighted and the party has to specifically acknowledge her as though she has been proven right about something.

Ken Burch wrote:
What is there to lose?

Votes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What I am saying is that, in hindsight, it's clearly been shown that her campaign and her ideas were far less dangerous and threatening for the party than the personal conduct of a lot of sitting and former NDP politicians.  

I think that's called "damning by faint praise".

Her ideas, evidently, were less destructive than accusations against one current NDP representative and one former NDP representative. 

OK.  Fair enough.  Bending the knee to a half-dozen complainers over "to the left" can't be as bad as allegedly being creepy.  So is there a giant "We APOLOGIZE, NIKI" card that anyone who didn't support her needs to sign now, or what? 

I'm not sure what you want here?  Recognition that "intersectionality" is the way of the future?  A humble admission that radical ideas beat experience the way rock beats scissors?  For everyone to conclusively agree that no matter how loopy a proposal is, it's not worse than sexually harrassing?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It's not about what I want...it's about what a lot of people in Canada want, especially, I think, a lot of people who would vote NDP but at the moment don't vote at all because they see the party as a place where they aren't welcome and their ideas are treated as a joke by the party bureaucracy.

And I don't want an apology for Niki...she's a grown-up and can take care of herself.  It's about getting a recognition that the way the party treated her ideas and her supporters was inappropriate and needs to change.

There simply isn't this large group of people who vote NDP but ONLY if it makes a big show of leaving activists and activism out in the cold, or who can't stand the idea of the rank-and-file of the party having a real say in what it stands for, or even who can't tolerate any serious criticism of what the Israeli army does to Palestinians. 

There's a place for a leader, but that leader, whoever it is, needs to be accountable to those she or he leads at all times, and should base policy on what the people of the party they lead would like to see it stand for...most of which isn't actually unpopular.

As to the corporate thing I said about, it's not eye-glazing-it's visceral.  The voters would be galvanized by a party that said "we're going to put YOU first, rather than Bay Street and the banks.  We reject the idea that what's been done to the people of North America since the late Seventies never had to be done and we can create something better...something that leaves no one out in the cold, something that discards no one, something that gives ALL of us a say!"

How is that not going to be far more appealling than meaningless pap like "we're for sound management"(as if there's anybody who isn't) "and we'll be fiscally prudent"(which is a phrase that no longer means anything but "we'll just keep on cutting even though you voted to STOP the cuts, and we don't care if you don't like it").

People who are invested in any part of the status quo(other than preservation of the healthcare system, of course)aren't going to vote for any party other than the Liberals or Conservatives, and people who center "balanced budgets" don't care about anybody but themselves.  The people "mainstream NDP" campaign tactics have been designed to appeal to are the people who are never going to vote NDP no matter what.  It's not a question of "if we just keep sliding a few centimeters more towards the center, we'll will them over sometime".  

It's not asking too much for the NDP to reject the "TINA"(There Is No Alternative) canard on economics and spending.  The party has gained nothing by embracing it.

 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
 And I don't want an apology for Niki...she's a grown-up and can take care of herself.  It's about getting a recognition that the way the party treated her ideas and her supporters was inappropriate and needs to change.

Other than not voting for her to become leader what did they do? What was inappropriate?

Ken Burch wrote:
There simply isn't this large group of people who vote NDP but ONLY if it makes a big show of leaving activists and activism out in the cold, or who can't stand the idea of the rank-and-file of the party having a real say in what it stands for, or even who can't tolerate any serious criticism of what the Israeli army does to Palestinians. 

The Convention will determine direction. Right now you are talking about Mulcair's policies. 

Ken Burch wrote:
 As to the corporate thing I said about, it's not eye-glazing-it's visceral.  The voters would be galvanized by a party that said "we're going to put YOU first, rather than Bay Street and the banks.  We reject the idea that what's been done to the people of North America since the late Seventies never had to be done and we can create something better...something that leaves no one out in the cold, something that discards no one, something that gives ALL of us a say!"

Those are empty words. What do you think Singh means by "inequality"? Voters need concrete proposals not pretty words. Singh will have to back up his focus on inequality with specific policy intended to reverse it.

Ken Burch wrote:
​ The people "mainstream NDP" campaign tactics have been designed to appeal to are the people who are never going to vote NDP no matter what.  It's not a question of "if we just keep sliding a few centimeters more towards the center, we'll will them over sometime".  

Did you not pay attention during the 2015 election? The NDP was in first place. I agree that tactic won't work going forward but it almost did work and going radical left isn't going to work. 

Ken Burch wrote:
It's not asking too much for the NDP to reject the "TINA"(There Is No Alternative) canard on economics and spending.  The party has gained nothing by embracing it. 

Are you saying that is Singh's approach to the economy? 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm saying we don't, at this point, know what his approach is and it's going to come down to how he fleshes it out.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
I'm saying we don't, at this point, know what his approach is and it's going to come down to how he fleshes it out.

On that we agree, at least to some extent. For me it's always relative. It's best of of 3, or 2 for me. Realistically my vote goes either of two ways. Liberal or NDP, usually NDP. Singh will probably disappoint me. I am already disappointed they aren't saying more about the trade deals. That doesn't mean he won't propose important policies to reverse income inequality. I don't think he would have made such a point of bringing it up if he wasn't planning on addressing it. 

Either way the "pick a leader" moment is over. Singh is it. For me that means pick one, Trudeau or Singh. Singh is so far ahead of Trudeau I find it difficult to imagine any circumstance that would change my opinion. 

Realistically Trudeau will win the next election barring some unimaginable earth-shattering event. I hope that Singh will be able to make some inroads but if not I hope the party doesn't lay the failure at his feet. Trudeau is coming into the election in which he will probably be in the strongest position he will ever have. Prior to his 1st term there were still a lot of doubts that have since been put to rest. With his first reasonably successful 1st term under his belt Canadians will vote for stability. He is still seen in comparison to Harper and now Trump. Canada is seen in relation to the US and Europe. 

It's going to be very difficult for Singh to advance the party this election but it would be equally difficult for any of the leadership contenders. Out of them all I still think Singh has the most potential. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
especially, I think, a lot of people who would vote NDP but at the moment don't vote at all because they see the party as a place where they aren't welcome and their ideas are treated as a joke by the party bureaucracy.

Quote:
It's about getting a recognition that the way the party treated her ideas and her supporters was inappropriate and needs to change.

That actually kind of sounds like an apology.

That's just silly, Ken.  Surely there must be some other party where their radical ideas would be welcomed?

If you're unaware of any, I could suggest a few.

But we can hardly moan that we feel "unwelcomed" by the Conservatives because we support equal marriage and the legalization of weed, when there are other parties who agree and would be delighted to receive our support.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
I'm saying we don't, at this point, know what his approach is and it's going to come down to how he fleshes it out.

On that we agree, at least to some extent. For me it's always relative. It's best of of 3, or 2 for me. Realistically my vote goes either of two ways. Liberal or NDP, usually NDP. Singh will probably disappoint me. I am already disappointed they aren't saying more about the trade deals. That doesn't mean he won't propose important policies to reverse income inequality. I don't think he would have made such a point of bringing it up if he wasn't planning on addressing it. 

Either way the "pick a leader" moment is over. Singh is it. For me that means pick one, Trudeau or Singh. Singh is so far ahead of Trudeau I find it difficult to imagine any circumstance that would change my opinion. 

Realistically Trudeau will win the next election barring some unimaginable earth-shattering event. I hope that Singh will be able to make some inroads but if not I hope the party doesn't lay the failure at his feet. Trudeau is coming into the election in which he will probably be in the strongest position he will ever have. Prior to his 1st term there were still a lot of doubts that have since been put to rest. With his first reasonably successful 1st term under his belt Canadians will vote for stability. He is still seen in comparison to Harper and now Trump. Canada is seen in relation to the US and Europe. 

It's going to be very difficult for Singh to advance the party this election but it would be equally difficult for any of the leadership contenders. Out of them all I still think Singh has the most potential. 

I ACCEPT that the "pick a leader" moment is past.  This thread is not about challenging Singh's place as leader. OK?

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
especially, I think, a lot of people who would vote NDP but at the moment don't vote at all because they see the party as a place where they aren't welcome and their ideas are treated as a joke by the party bureaucracy.

Quote:
It's about getting a recognition that the way the party treated her ideas and her supporters was inappropriate and needs to change.

That actually kind of sounds like an apology.

That's just silly, Ken.  Surely there must be some other party where their radical ideas would be welcomed?

If you're unaware of any, I could suggest a few.

But we can hardly moan that we feel "unwelcomed" by the Conservatives because we support equal marriage and the legalization of weed, when there are other parties who agree and would be delighted to receive our support.

What party do you recommend for someone who supports the traditional (90's-2000's) definitions of racism and sexism, equal marriage, legalization of weed, and protecting the environment but pro-nuclear power? Not taking a stand doesn't count, so a one-issue party (eg. marijuana party) doesn't work.

Hunky_Monkey

How about you accept the fact that some people just don't like Ashton and it has NOTHING to do with gender.  It has to do with the type of politician she is and how many don't see her as leadership material.

Most of those I spoke with during the leadership who did NOT like Ashton were actually feminist women within the NDP.  

Get a grip, Ken.  Jesus.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

How about you accept the fact that some people just don't like Ashton and it has NOTHING to do with gender.  It has to do with the type of politician she is and how many don't see her as leadership material.

Most of those I spoke with during the leadership who did NOT like Ashton were actually feminist women within the NDP.  

Get a grip, Ken.  Jesus.

It's telling that you framed it as just not "liking" her.  
​It would be one thing to oppose someone for a position...that's legitimate, that's just fine...but what non-reactionary case was there for mocking  and belittling her as a person and treating every idea associated with her as if it was a joke?

Or, for that matter, going postal over and over again just because she committed the trivial offense of using the word "intersectionality", a concept you can explain to anybody in about 30 seconds?

Why wasn't it enough just to make a positive case for somebody else and for some other ideas?  Why treat her with a level of hostility that wasn't shown to any other leadership candidate?  Why treat her supporters as if they had no business being in the party at all, when you knew that driving them away and shutting them up could only cost the NDP supporter without bringing in any new ones from anyplace else on the spectrum?

Even if you didn't want Niki, her ideas are nothing but good, and the things she and her supporters champion are good for the NDP base and are generally quite popular.

Why was it so important to you, as a prime example, to single her out for derision, and to keep doing so even when you knew-as everyone did, weeks before the results were in-that she wasn't going to win the leadership?

​It's not as though any good would have come of forcing her to withdraw from the race, and it's not as though the party gains anything from anathemizing the ideas associated with her-the establishment of internal party democracy can only be for the good, and there's nothing but positive things that can come from the NDP treating social movements and social activists as valid parts of politics and life.

Singh won.  I think he's got a chance to do good things.  At this point, I'm just saying he should listen to Niki and what she was talking about as much as he listens to anybody else in caucus and that next time, whoever seeks the leadership is open, that there NOT be an all out effort to get the party to say no to change, as it has always said no to it in the past-and as all those past no's have had nothing but disastrous consequences.

I seriously doubt any actual living breathing left-wing woman had it in for Niki or thought she shouldn't even have been in the leadership contest.  They might not support her, but why would they have found it intolerable that she was even a candidate?  

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Or, for that matter, going postal over and over again just because she committed the trivial offense of using the word "intersectionality", a concept you can explain to anybody in about 30 seconds?

1.  nobody went "postal".

2.  the fact that "intersectionality" can be explained relatively easily doesn't mean it resonates with anyone outside of a very small group of people.

Quote:
Why treat her with a level of hostility that wasn't shown to any other leadership candidate?

3. I would love to hear the other candidates' thoughts on what kind of hostility was directed at them.

Quote:
I seriously doubt any actual living breathing left-wing woman had it in for Niki or thought she shouldn't even have been in the leadership contest.

4.  I seriously can't remember any actual, living breathing left-wing man saying she shouldn't have been in the leadership contest either.  Was there one?  Who said "this cannot continue until Ms. Ashton is formally excluded"?

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
How about you accept the fact that some people just don't like Ashton

Of course some people don't like Ashton. The NDP is a big organization, so that is bound to happen within an organization of that size. Some people didn't like Jack Layton, and I can guarantee you that there are people within the Ontario NDP who don't like Jagmeet Singh. The thing about professionalism is that you are able to put aside your petty squabbles and work together towards a common goal.

But to test your hypothesis of how disliked Ashton is, take a look at her Wikipedia page. You'll note that in every election she contested, she won more total votes than the election previous, even when redistribution is taken into account. What's noteworthy is that one of these federal elections saw the NDP seat count fall off a cliff, and 2 of the "safe" provincial seats in this area fell the year after. So how does someone who is as unlikeable as you claim to be do this well under those circumstances?

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
It has to do with the type of politician she is and how many don't see her as leadership material.

Let's take a look at what has been revealed about the types of politicians in the NDP in the last 6 months:

Wab Kinew-Manitoba NDP leader, accused of domestic assault

Stan Struthers-Former Manitoba Cabinet Minister, multiple accusations of tickling and inappropriate touching

Peter Stoffer-Former Nova Scotia NDP MP, accusations of inappropriate touching and propositioning staffers

Erin Wier-Saskatchewan NDP MP, under investigation for harassment.

Granted, 3 of these accusations were not known at the time of the federal leadership race, but the accusation against Kinew had come out by then. So I'm struggling what is it about Ashton that makes her more unfit to hold public office than someone who has been accused of mistreating women?

Furthermore, I remember the discussions about Kinew. I'm troubled that your posting history at the time seemed to express more concern for the fact that the accusations were made public than the fact that someone had accused Kinew of assaulting her in the first place. And don't give me that crap about it being exposed for political advantage. The charges were filed in court and were accessible to anyone who knew how to search for these court documents. It was not a question of if this would become public knowledge but when.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Most of those I spoke with during the leadership who did NOT like Ashton were actually feminist women within the NDP.

Your case against Ashton relied heavily on anecdotes of "I know former NDP politicians who think this, I know many feminists who said that." Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who it was you spoke to, no way of knowing exactly what was said, and no way to independently verify this information. In short, this was a dishonest, bullshit tactic on your part to attempt to give your posts more weight and authority than they deserved.

You don't like Ashton. Fine, that's your opinion. Own your opinion and take responsibility for it. Don't try and pawn it off on other people.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
the fact that "intersectionality" can be explained relatively easily doesn't mean it resonates with anyone outside of a very small group of people.

Bernie Sanders was derided for being a socialist and he is currently the most popular politician in the United States.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.

?

Hunky_Monkey

Ken Burch wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

How about you accept the fact that some people just don't like Ashton and it has NOTHING to do with gender.  It has to do with the type of politician she is and how many don't see her as leadership material.

Most of those I spoke with during the leadership who did NOT like Ashton were actually feminist women within the NDP.  

Get a grip, Ken.  Jesus.

It's telling that you framed it as just not "liking" her.  
​It would be one thing to oppose someone for a position...that's legitimate, that's just fine...but what non-reactionary case was there for mocking  and belittling her as a person and treating every idea associated with her as if it was a joke?

Or, for that matter, going postal over and over again just because she committed the trivial offense of using the word "intersectionality", a concept you can explain to anybody in about 30 seconds?

Why wasn't it enough just to make a positive case for somebody else and for some other ideas?  Why treat her with a level of hostility that wasn't shown to any other leadership candidate?  Why treat her supporters as if they had no business being in the party at all, when you knew that driving them away and shutting them up could only cost the NDP supporter without bringing in any new ones from anyplace else on the spectrum?

Even if you didn't want Niki, her ideas are nothing but good, and the things she and her supporters champion are good for the NDP base and are generally quite popular.

Why was it so important to you, as a prime example, to single her out for derision, and to keep doing so even when you knew-as everyone did, weeks before the results were in-that she wasn't going to win the leadership?

​It's not as though any good would have come of forcing her to withdraw from the race, and it's not as though the party gains anything from anathemizing the ideas associated with her-the establishment of internal party democracy can only be for the good, and there's nothing but positive things that can come from the NDP treating social movements and social activists as valid parts of politics and life.

Singh won.  I think he's got a chance to do good things.  At this point, I'm just saying he should listen to Niki and what she was talking about as much as he listens to anybody else in caucus and that next time, whoever seeks the leadership is open, that there NOT be an all out effort to get the party to say no to change, as it has always said no to it in the past-and as all those past no's have had nothing but disastrous consequences.

I seriously doubt any actual living breathing left-wing woman had it in for Niki or thought she shouldn't even have been in the leadership contest.  They might not support her, but why would they have found it intolerable that she was even a candidate?  

 

 

You're so full of yourself it's almost funny.

I took issue with Angus over things as well.  Let me guess, I'm against older, white, able-bodied, heterosexual men now?  

My point about "intersectionality" stands.  It might excite people in a bubble like yourself and those in the left-wing bubble, but it does nothing with the vast majority of voters.

Hunky_Monkey

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
the fact that "intersectionality" can be explained relatively easily doesn't mean it resonates with anyone outside of a very small group of people.

Bernie Sanders was derided for being a socialist and he is currently the most popular politician in the United States.

Did he campaign on "intersectionality" on the campaign stump?  Was it a major theme of his campaign?  Jesus lol.

Hunky_Monkey

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
How about you accept the fact that some people just don't like Ashton

Of course some people don't like Ashton. The NDP is a big organization, so that is bound to happen within an organization of that size. Some people didn't like Jack Layton, and I can guarantee you that there are people within the Ontario NDP who don't like Jagmeet Singh. The thing about professionalism is that you are able to put aside your petty squabbles and work together towards a common goal.

But to test your hypothesis of how disliked Ashton is, take a look at her Wikipedia page. You'll note that in every election she contested, she won more total votes than the election previous, even when redistribution is taken into account. What's noteworthy is that one of these federal elections saw the NDP seat count fall off a cliff, and 2 of the "safe" provincial seats in this area fell the year after. So how does someone who is as unlikeable as you claim to be do this well under those circumstances?

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
It has to do with the type of politician she is and how many don't see her as leadership material.

Let's take a look at what has been revealed about the types of politicians in the NDP in the last 6 months:

Wab Kinew-Manitoba NDP leader, accused of domestic assault

Stan Struthers-Former Manitoba Cabinet Minister, multiple accusations of tickling and inappropriate touching

Peter Stoffer-Former Nova Scotia NDP MP, accusations of inappropriate touching and propositioning staffers

Erin Wier-Saskatchewan NDP MP, under investigation for harassment.

Granted, 3 of these accusations were not known at the time of the federal leadership race, but the accusation against Kinew had come out by then. So I'm struggling what is it about Ashton that makes her more unfit to hold public office than someone who has been accused of mistreating women?

Furthermore, I remember the discussions about Kinew. I'm troubled that your posting history at the time seemed to express more concern for the fact that the accusations were made public than the fact that someone had accused Kinew of assaulting her in the first place. And don't give me that crap about it being exposed for political advantage. The charges were filed in court and were accessible to anyone who knew how to search for these court documents. It was not a question of if this would become public knowledge but when.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Most of those I spoke with during the leadership who did NOT like Ashton were actually feminist women within the NDP.

Your case against Ashton relied heavily on anecdotes of "I know former NDP politicians who think this, I know many feminists who said that." Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who it was you spoke to, no way of knowing exactly what was said, and no way to independently verify this information. In short, this was a dishonest, bullshit tactic on your part to attempt to give your posts more weight and authority than they deserved.

You don't like Ashton. Fine, that's your opinion. Own your opinion and take responsibility for it. Don't try and pawn it off on other people.

You just have difficulty accepting the fact that Ashton turns off a lot of people on the national stage, huh?

Cheryl Gallant wins her riding with solid wins too.  Does that make her national leadership material for the Tories?

No one is saying Ashton isn't allowed to hold public office.

There are women I would have loved to see as leader.  Lots of men I would have hated to see as leader.  Not sure why disliking Ashton makes anyone a sexist.

As for posting what I hear from other people, I have every right to.  

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
You just have difficulty accepting the fact that Ashton turns off a lot of people on the national stage, huh?

So does everybody. Even Saint Jack of Layton was considered a used car salesman, but we put aside our differences and worked to elect him as Leader of the Opposition.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Cheryl Gallant wins her riding with solid wins too.  Does that make her national leadership material for the Tories?

Whatever shortcomings Gallant may have as a politician, to the best of my knowledge, touching women inappropriately and beating them up is not on that list. And that's the crux of the thread: what is it about Ashton that is so much worse or disqualifies her for leadership more than mistreating women? That question hasn't been answered.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Not sure why disliking Ashton makes anyone a sexist.

That's your label and your interpretation. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
As for posting what I hear from other people, I have every right to.

You have a right to post pretty much whatever you want to post. The rest of us have a right to challenge what you've posted and/or call you out in any dishonest attempts to use your posts to advance an argument.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
So does everybody (turns off a lot of people). Even Saint Jack of Layton was considered a used car salesman, but we put aside our differences and worked to elect him as Leader of the Opposition.
The membership didn't put aside their differences and work to elect Layton party leader. The people who didn't like Layton worked to elect someone else as leader.

Now if Ashton had been elected leader and people were still taking pot shots at her, your analogy would make some sense. But she wasn't.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Whatever shortcomings Gallant may have as a politician, to the best of my knowledge, touching women inappropriately and beating them up is not on that list. And that's the crux of the thread: what is it about Ashton that is so much worse or disqualifies her for leadership more than mistreating women? That question hasn't been answered. 

As far as I know, Singh has not been accused of mistreating women. 

I don't get the logic here. Some men have been accused of misconduct or worse that have been representatives of the NDP. Did Niki run against them and lose? Why is any parallel being drawn at all? 

Niki's use of the word "intersectionality" is just a indicator that is easy to point to to illustrate Niki's academic persona which would be unlikely to attract support from the average voter. Yes, the word is easy to define. The point is that it has to be defined at all and that once defined it is something most people will be repelled by when it comes to choosing who to vote for. The word is like a red flag denoting "radical social justice warrior who wants to tax everyone at 75% to support lazy people and criminals" to non-academics. The majority of Canadians are non-academics. 

As to Niki's ideas. Which ideas are you referring to? Is there a specific idea that Singh doesn't know about? Is Niki being ostracized by caucus? 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
Whatever shortcomings Gallant may have as a politician, to the best of my knowledge, touching women inappropriately and beating them up is not on that list. And that's the crux of the thread: what is it about Ashton that is so much worse or disqualifies her for leadership more than mistreating women? That question hasn't been answered. 

As far as I know, Singh has not been accused of mistreating women. 

I don't get the logic here. Some men have been accused of misconduct or worse that have been representatives of the NDP. Did Niki run against them and lose? Why is any parallel being drawn at all?

I'm not going after Singh on this point. Wab Kinew was accused of beating a woman, that information came out before the Manitoba NDP held its leadership vote and he won anyways. How is that less of a concern for some people here than whatever imaginary crimes or perceived shortcomings that Ashton had? Why does whatever it is people criticize Ashton for make her not leadership material, but somehow we can overlook an accusation of domestic assault?

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Why does whatever it is people criticize Ashton for make her not leadership material, but somehow we can overlook an accusation of domestic assault?

Because the NDP, in all its manifestations (federal, provinces), has long since morphed into a party of mostly uncritical followers, and a "leadership" who believes that Canadians are selfish conservative reactionaries who will never support a progressive political platform. Therefore, the membership bows down to the Leader, and the Leader must be someone who will not scare the ruling class. But you already knew that. And if you didn't, just read the comments in this thread. Or anywhere else. Or observe this weekend's national convention.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Why does whatever it is people criticize Ashton for make her not leadership material, but somehow we can overlook an accusation of domestic assault?

Because the NDP, in all its manifestations (federal, provinces), has long since morphed into a party of mostly uncritical followers, and a "leadership" who believes that Canadians are selfish conservative reactionaries who will never support a progressive political platform. Therefore, the membership bows down to the Leader, and the Leader must be someone who will not scare the ruling class. But you already knew that. And if you didn't, just read the comments in this thread. Or anywhere else. Or observe this weekend's national convention.

Sadly, this is very true and continues to be even though it is this point of view that lost the last election while the party was so risk-averse that it turned itself into a non-factor.

I think many political activists have such a low opinion of the electorate  that they dare not take any steps towards what they claim to believe. This is how the NDP has developed a pattern of standing for very little when it counts most. In many cases this is not about the party having the wrong point of view but of lacking the courage to really put that view to the people and submit it for judgment.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Why does whatever it is people criticize Ashton for make her not leadership material, but somehow we can overlook an accusation of domestic assault?

Because the NDP, in all its manifestations (federal, provinces), has long since morphed into a party of mostly uncritical followers, and a "leadership" who believes that Canadians are selfish conservative reactionaries who will never support a progressive political platform. Therefore, the membership bows down to the Leader, and the Leader must be someone who will not scare the ruling class. But you already knew that. And if you didn't, just read the comments in this thread. Or anywhere else. Or observe this weekend's national convention.

Indeed...the "My God, we can't actually STAND for anything!" wing of the NDP is well-represented in this thread...and in many respects their timidity doesn't reflect the attitude of Singh, who at least seems to be open to some degree of actual change.

Look at it this way, folks...the party has chosen timidity for decades.  Timidity usually leads to the same 15% to 20% of the vote.  In 2015, timidity(in this case, the pointless insistence on making a balanced budget, something that nobody but billionaires care about, into the main argument for electing an NDP government, as opposed to leading with any of the small but worthwhile proposals for change) led the party from a lead in the summer of '15 to a loss of a third of its 2011 vote share and more than half its seats in the election held only months later.

Timidity and safety are never going to elect an NDP government.  It's pointless to try to look "safe" or "respectable", or to present the party as only just barely different than the Liberals.  

I think Singh has the potential to see that-but he needs to be listening to the boldest voices in his caucus, not those who always say "No No Podemos" instead of "Si Si Puede".

robbie_dee

Nikki Ashton did very well in the leadership election. She finished third, but with 17.4% of the vote she was just a couple of percentage points behind the white male anglophone second place finisher (Angus), and she almost doubled-up the white male francophone fourth-place finisher (Caron). Your post says you want to redeem Ashton from allegedly unfair, sex or age-based criticism. Sure, by all means, I would agree Ashton should not be unfairly criticized because she is a woman or because she is (relatively) young. And I am sure there are people out there who did judge Ashton harshly because of her sex or age, as we still live in a prejudiced society. But I would argue that in addition to being wrong, they are decidedly in the minority within the NDP.

The results of the leadership race suggest to me that the NDP membership, on the whole, certainly looked past such criticisms. Ashton was decidedly in the mix throughout the race, she got to be on the same podium as the rest of the contenders and, as mentioned above, her results were certainly consistent if not better than  those received by the other also-rans. The real story of the race, though, was the compelling campaign run by a relatively young man of colour, Jagmeet Singh, who simply crushed all the competitition to get elected on the first ballot and become the first non-white leader of a major national political party. I assume, and would certainly hope, that Jagmeet is trying to listen to all of his former leadership rivals and to see to it that they feel their input is valued and that they and their supporters feel included. Obviously he picked Caron as house leader instead of either Angus or Ashton, but that may have something to do with the fact that Caron is from Quebec and there is a particular urgency for the party in trying to hold onto what's left of the party's support there. Is there reason to believe that Ashton is being uniquely put down or excluded?

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

Niki's use of the word "intersectionality" is just a indicator that is easy to point to to illustrate Niki's academic persona which would be unlikely to attract support from the average voter.

I like the concept of intersectionality, but the problem is that I like to continue applying the concept until I've reached the level of the individual - at which point group identity is irrelevant because everyone is different in some way.

I disagree with your assertion that the average person would be unlikely to support an academic or someone with an "academic persona."

Exhibit A:

Here's how an academic rates in interest compared with our various party leaders, and "intersectionality," over the last year. The issue isn't with academics, the issue is whether or not the academic in question can present their message in a way that resonates with people.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Wab Kinew was accused of beating a woman, that information came out before the Manitoba NDP held its leadership vote and he won anyways. How is that less of a concern for some people here than whatever imaginary crimes or perceived shortcomings that Ashton had?

Did Kinew run against different opponents in a different race?

This is similar to "why did *I* get a parking ticket, when that other guy was also parked in a 30-minute parking zone for 36 minutes and he didn't get a ticket???"

When someone you don't like doesn't win:  "They didn't win because they didn't convince enough people to vote for them.  They had every opportunity to woo us, and they dropped the ball!".

When someone you do like doesn't win:  "They didn't win because of sexism, racism, able-ism, xenophobia, the MSM and the deep state".

Quote:
The membership didn't put aside their differences and work to elect Layton party leader. The people who didn't like Layton worked to elect someone else as leader.

Quote:
The membership didn't put aside their differences and work to elect Layton party leader. The people who didn't like Layton worked to elect someone else as leader.

Yes.  That's not even a "fail".  That's literally how it's supposed to work.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And as to intersectionality, all you have to do to explain it to people is to say "look, some folks have had it worse and still have it worse, so when you work to make life better, you just need to make sure you adjust your plan or your idea to account for that and to give everybody a truly fair shot".  

Putting it that way appeals to most people's basic instinct for fairness and understanding.  And who could possibly be harmed?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Some words are best left to academics and avoided by politicians. I think for many people the use of language like intersectionality sends them to the verge of decompensatation. You can convey the concept of intersectionality in far more poetic ways that make way better sound bites.

Intersectionality is the intersecting systems of privilege and oppression. Privilege is when someone doesn't have to face an institutionalized form of oppression, and oppression is when they do have to face it. Just because one person has one form of privilege doesn't mean they only have privilege. So what are these intersecting systems?

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/intersectionality-101-understanding-you...

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You can convey the concept of intersectionality in far more poetic ways that make way better sound bites.

The problem isn't that it's like trying to do differential calculus in Base13.

It's that even when people understand what is IS, it's not clear how it's up there with the economy, the environment, foreign affairs, or things that aren't about a fringe group working with another fringe group.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

And as to intersectionality, all you have to do to explain it to people is to say "look, some folks have had it worse and still have it worse, so when you work to make life better, you just need to make sure you adjust your plan or your idea to account for that and to give everybody a truly fair shot".  

Putting it that way appeals to most people's basic instinct for fairness and understanding.  And who could possibly be harmed?

Sure everyone will say "yes, whatever" because you aren't saying anything concrete. It certainly won't get votes from anyone who isn't already a dedicated NDP voter. It isn't that the word is so complicated it's that the word broadcasts "out of touch academic activist". It's like the word "manifesto".  People stop listening. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Some words are best left to academics and avoided by politicians. I think for many people the use of language like intersectionality sends them to the verge of decompensatation. You can convey the concept of intersectionality in far more poetic ways that make way better sound bites.

Yes exactly my point. As Layton said, kitchen table language. So far Singh has great political instincts and that does matter. 

I don't understand why this thread exists. There has been no evidence that Niki is being shunned by anyone or that Singh isn't hearing her out. She presented her ideas when she was running against him. The convention hasn't even happened yet. The party is no where near putting out a platform. 

Ken, I understand you are a strong supporter but so far all your accusations are too general. I don't see what you are seeing. You say you accept that Singh is leader but you seem to want him to adopt Ashton's policies without specifying which policies you want him to adopt. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You can convey the concept of intersectionality in far more poetic ways that make way better sound bites.

The problem isn't that it's like trying to do differential calculus in Base13.

It's that even when people understand what is IS, it's not clear how it's up there with the economy, the environment, foreign affairs, or things that aren't about a fringe group working with another fringe group.

It's not as though it's a choice of talking about intersectionality OR the issues you listed there.  It's perfectly possible to present a message that includes ALL of those things together.  It's not as though it has to be bread-and-butter OR transformation.  And there's nothing in this discussion that equates to "a fringe group working with another fringe group".

People like Niki or Libby Davies(the Niki of an earlier era, when you get right down to it)or Svend Robinson, in his day or Rosemary Brown on the B.C. provincial level couldn't have repeatedly been re-elected in the ridings they represented if they weren't able to address practical day to day issues.  

You've set up a false dichotomy here. 

​The NDP can have it's feat on the ground and still see beyond the horizon.  It's not that difficult.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You've set up a false dichotomy here.

Really?  Not as false as "either you support(ed) Ashton and intersectionality, or you clearly hate women/radicals".

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
 It's not as though it's a choice of talking about intersectionality OR the issues you listed there.  It's perfectly possible to present a message that includes ALL of those things together. 

I disagree. It is a choice. After witnessing the 2015 election it is very clear that only one or two top messages get through. Other than that it's general impression or image. 

Aside from that everyone will try to get a leader to say something controversal and if they don't they will still try to spin it that way. You get elected by staying unswervingly on message sometimes to the extent of plugging it in anywhere when you don't want to or can't answer a question. Don't you remember Trudeau's performance at the first debate. Trudeau's answer to, I think the first, question had absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. 

This is actually where Trudeau is weak. He is a very intelligent man but he doesn't think fast on his feet. He has his arguments memorized backwards and forwards so it usually doesn't show. 

I could be wrong but Singh strikes me as a person who does think fast on his feet and I'm sure he's more knowledgable than Trudeau. 

The problem is the Liberals are making progressive noises like maybe pharmacare. People will vote Liberal for that in a heartbeat. It won't matter if the NDP promises it too. If that turns out to be the case, the Liberals promise pharmacare, then the NDP is better off strategizing for 2023 which takes a bit of a different approach. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You can convey the concept of intersectionality in far more poetic ways that make way better sound bites.

The problem isn't that it's like trying to do differential calculus in Base13.

It's that even when people understand what is IS, it's not clear how it's up there with the economy, the environment, foreign affairs, or things that aren't about a fringe group working with another fringe group.

Actually the concept is very relevant to changes in how we run our economy. I think you need to actually read what the term means because this post just makes you sound totally ignorant of the meaning of the term and its usage in the conversation around building a fairer and more just society.

"Fringe group" is a wonderfully colourful turn of phrase that highlights your true colours on most issues. 

Pages