Proposed NDP name change
I've seen this mentioned in a few threads, but unless I'm mistaken, there isn't a thread devoted to this.
"Our party was born in 1961 -- we're not 'new,' " said Savoie, who is supported by the Victoria federal NDP riding association. The issue is expected to be debated at the party's national convention in mid-August in Halifax.
The issue has already raised some opposition, with many party activists joining the Facebook group "Keep the 'New' in the NDP".
The text of one of the name-change resolutions going to the Halifax convention was posted to the group:
Where as, the name of the NDP, New Democratic Party has been in place since 1961 at the founding convention. The word “new” does not reflect the history of the party’s achievements after 48 years of existence;
Where as, the name “Democratic Party” will associate our members with fair, strong and progressive principals that will be a brand that social democratic citizens can relate with also.
Where as, there is nothing new with social democracy and citizens and the media identify our political party with the abbreviation and acronym of NDP instead of saying New Democrat Party. Being identified as a political social party with an acronym is not good brand association. Our Democratic Party should be associated with the full meaning of being a Democratic which our modern progressive party reflects in its daily policies and principals today and into the future. Citizens and media will then refer to our party as Democratic which will reflect the meaning of our direction.
Be it resolved that Article 1: Name , of the Constitution be amended by removing the word “new” from the Party’s name and keeping only “Democratic Party” as the official name of the Party.
If changing the party name is HQ's idea of vision, then no thanks. A name change without any change in substance is no change at all. Why do I get this bad feeling that the NDP HQ geniuses are just trying to conflate the NDP's name with the US Democrats in an effort to get more media coverage? Very pathetic looking if you ask me. I guess Obama's people will be there to answer all questions
Too true, but then again, changing the name to "democrat" could have some significance as a signal that the centre-right in the party no longer has any use for the left wing anymore. Any of us. Was there any party wide discussion on the other possibilities I wonder, like for instance the marginally more acceptable (and more distinctive) "Social Democrat" possibility or something using the word "Progressive" in it? From the looks of it, no.
Thanks spatrioter
It's a good idea, and long overdue, ever since the Bob Rae debacle, while he was premier of Ontario..
I'm not sure what people are babbling (literally) about. One riding association has put forth a resolution about a name change. I have no idea if other riding associations have put forth other resolutions about the party name and I have no idea what the party leadership thinks of the whole issue. I have no idea if it will pass or fail. I also don't see how the presence or absence of the word "new" in the party name is a "right/left" issue. To me, its simply an aesthetic matter of personal taste. If some of you have other ideas about what the name of the party ought to be, then i suggest you come to the convention and put forth a resolution calling for another new name.
Actually the Party was alrady christened with a new name last August at Jack Layton's constituency office - NO DAD's PARTY.
The clear anti-father bias has earned the party this new moniker now it just needs to be made official.
Warren Kinsella visiting us again?
I think it's a great idea. People will really get a sense of where the party is at.
I'm not sure what people are babbling (literally) about. One riding association has put forth a resolution about a name change. I have no idea if other riding associations have put forth other resolutions about the party name and I have no idea what the party leadership thinks of the whole issue. I have no idea if it will pass or fail. I also don't see how the presence or absence of the word "new" in the party name is a "right/left" issue. To me, its simply an aesthetic matter of personal taste. If some of you have other ideas about what the name of the party ought to be, then i suggest you come to the convention and put forth a resolution calling for another new name.
It may have signifance, as I said, as a signal that the NDp leadership think the American Democratic party is one to emulate, despite Obama's far from progressive record so far. If its gone up for debate on the convention floor then it must have some backing elsewhere. Why more sensible and accurate alternatives like "Social Democrat" aren't up for consideration may also be significant.
I think it's a great idea. People will really get a sense of where the party is at.
You mean like not supporting Sharia law? I'm ok with that part.
It is a riding association resolution. It is coming to the floor, IF IT DOES, through that means. It is close to meaningless, especially since it has not passed, nor been defeated yet as an indication of what anyone thinks beyond the riding association. I too think the word 'new' was a very foolish decision. Does that make me some kind of right wing tool?
On a more important note can we start a pool on how long 18064 will be here.
Noones making any judgements re any particular members here. The "NEw" Democrat party is still ok however, in the sense of a party supposedly believing in some new kind of democacy, whether social democratic or democratic socialism, political positions with some defined progressive philosophies behind them but scarcely attempted in North America. I have yet to meet anyone who puts much stock in the existing name as the party's main problem, either way, but I'd be open to other more meaningful alternatives.
Which just goes back to the point again, why is "Democrat" the only alternative being up for discussion, when so many other possibilities have been dismissed before, and a clearly right of centre liberal party in the States already holds that name(?) One riding association's resolution can bring this about?
Because someone, or a group of someones in ONE riding association thought - hey I have an idea. T'ain't some kind of conspiracy. No one is bringing anything about unless it passes, which I highly, highly doubt.
In fact I would be surprised if it even makes it to the floor for debate.
" The "NEw" Democrat party is still ok however, in the sense of a party supposedly believing in some new kind of democacy, whether social democratic or democratic socialism, political positions with some defined progressive philosophies behind them but scarcely attempted in North America."
Maybe we could rename ourselves the Reform Party!
Cute Stockholm. I happen to be a big social reformer at heart and I firmly believe this country is in dire need of it, but alas that name has been ruined too.
Ok B-A, youre more up on these things than I am, I'll take your word for it for now....and keep my fingers crossed. I know these debates over cosmetic name changes may seem silly but they can be taken as meaningful signals by some, especially given the apparent popularity of Obama with some in the NDp. (a left-of something who can actually win, hey! but at what cost...? etc etc, you know the arguments by now)
Meanwhile, all the news coverage and pundits in the US are going on and on about Obama being such a leftwing radical who is VASTLY more "liberal" that he led us to believe during the campaign. They all think that between his universal health care plan and appointing Sotomayor to the Supreme Court - the US has gone Communist!
Well, the media down there is only slightly to the left of...well, ours.
I think Social Democratic Party (SDP/PDS ) is a more accurate and attrcative name than Democratic Party (DP/PD) . It would reflect a slight shift to the left ..
I wasn't there, but I was told shortly after the founding convention that a resolution to name it the "Democratic Party" was promoted by Val Scott, who at he time was a candidate in Downsview, ."
In Canada saturated by US media, probably about 80% of the population looks favourably on the Democratic Party in the US.Why not take advantage of that. No matter if Obama screws up, Canadians are still going to heavily favour them, and have good associations with the name.
It's always been a talking point of the social democrats that we support both political and economic democracy.
In any event somebody came up with the idea of adding the "New" from the name we had been called by as we were forming. All this did was continue the practice of calling the social democratic party by initials, which did make us seem out of the mainstream of English speaking politics, a radical party, more like a European party that was known by initials rather than a name. That might have helped if Canadians were willing to accept it. About 75 years after the founding of the CCF, it seems obviousl that they are not. Calling ourselves Social Democratic Party would get the inevitable SDP.
Calling ourselves the Democratic Party, and make clear that the Democratic also applies to economic democracy.
Yeah, I could live with a Canadian SDParty. Social Democracy as a position betwen socialism and liberalism is almost unheard of in the States too, another small bonus.
ETA: Yes, "Democrat" maybe popular with those who get most their politics from tv, Banjo, but I can prctically guarantee you that the name wouldn't be so popular among the activist core in the NDP or our left-leaning majority, federally, and wouldn't convince many to our right that weve "changed" either, so may lose more than we'd gain. We already have a middle of the road Liberal party, along with a good deal of suppressed resentment against the States so I really don't think it would fly very far.
Anyhow, other threads I should get back to.
and for some historical and Quebec links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_social_d%C3%A9mocratique_du_Qu%C3%A9b...
------------------------------------------
Parti social démocratique du Québec From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, searchThe Parti social démocratique du Québec (PSD) was the Quebec wing of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It was founded in 1939 as the Fédération du Commonwealth Coopératif and was led by Thérèse Casgrain from 1951 to 1957 and by Michel Chartrand from 1957 to 1960. The name Parti social démocratique was adopted in 1955.
The party was refounded in 1963 as the Nouveau Parti démocratique du Québec.
Social Democratic Party would be a better reflection of the party base and could give a better sense of what the party would/could stand for. Not that "social" adds much to the NDP brand that the Canadian public doesn't already consider rather painfully obvious. It would be nice if any name change also took into account the acronym that would result in French (e.g. PD isn't the greatest combination of consonants). The party isn't green enough to become the Green Democrats like Duncan Cameron has suggested.
I think Social Democratic Party (SDP/PDS ) is a more accurate and attrcative name than Democratic Party (DP/PD) . It would reflect a slight shift to the left ..
Never happen.
Serious comment: It doesn't make a damn bit of difference, it's just a bit of branding that will only affect political junkies (of course, this is a political discussion board on the series of tubes, so no wonder it is discussed here). And regarding reflecting a shift to the left, isn't changing the name of the party before changing policies kind of putting the cart before the horse? If the NDP changes their name tonight, I'm going to wake up tomorrow with the same premier, the same MLAs, the same provincial government, the same local MPs, and the same policies. It will just be the Left-Anarcho-Communist-Labour-Socialist-Fuck Capitalism Party that is raising my tuition and refusing to bring in anti-scab legislation instead of the NDP.
Slightly less serious comment: How about "The S-word Party"? You know, because we can't say "socialist"
It might be helpful to the party to drop the word "new" and also to take a name that would distinguish it from the USA Democratic party.
If the New Democrat activists want to gain more support among Canadian voters it might help to have an intensive re-examination of their policies and to launch a vigorous public information campaign to inform people about party policies.
As it is now the NDP is stuck as a fourth party. Big enough to get noticed but not big enough to make any real difference in federal politics.
I wasn't there, but I was told shortly after the founding convention that a resolution to name it the "Democratic Party" was promoted by Val Scott, who at he time was a candidate in Downsview, ."
In Canada saturated by US media, probably about 80% of the population looks favourably on the Democratic Party in the US.Why not take advantage of that. No matter if Obama screws up, Canadians are still going to heavily favour them, and have good associations with the name.
It's always been a talking point of the social democrats that we support both political and economic democracy.
In any event somebody came up with the idea of adding the "New" from the name we had been called by as we were forming. All this did was continue the practice of calling the social democratic party by initials, which did make us seem out of the mainstream of English speaking politics, a radical party, more like a European party that was known by initials rather than a name. That might have helped if Canadians were willing to accept it. About 75 years after the founding of the CCF, it seems obviousl that they are not. Calling ourselves Social Democratic Party would get the inevitable SDP.
Calling ourselves the Democratic Party, and make clear that the Democratic also applies to economic democracy.
You could call the motion the "deep integration" motion.
And in the mood of some in this thread (and the apparent need felt out there in Victoria) to provide a new name and create new interest for an "aging" party, probably the name Social Anti-tax Independent Democratic Party would provide a nomenclature big enough to capture the interest of the Great Out There.
Push to change the NDP name comes from the top
Social Democratic or Progressive Democratic, but please not Democratic. One Democratic Party in the world is enough!
From what little I have read read about this issue, I do know that nothing that happens at the convention is going to affect what name the NDP runs under in the election expected sometime in the coming year. I suspect that if a resolution passes calling for changing the party name - it will lead to some sort of a task force in "re-branding" the party that would make recommendations that would then have to be ratified down the road etc...
Social Democratic or Progressive Democratic, but please not Democratic. One Democratic Party in the world is enough!
Theer are plenty of parties called "Democratic" in the world besides the one in the US. The Democratic Party of Japan is about to dump the Liberal Democrats in Japanese election happening in a few weeks. The Italian Communist Party has also rebranded itself as the Democratic Party and there are plenty of other examples.
...then again why not rename the party the National Socialist Party of Canada? or on second thought...
I was being somewhat facetious. I was referring more to the substance of the party. Particularly, as its divisions are currently on display as it tries to pass a health reform bill with a "public option."
Aside from wanting to jump on the Obama bandwagon, this proposal is about getting rid of the acronym.
If you've paid attention to party branding over the past while, you'll notice that they've moved from "Canada's NDP" to "Canada's New Democrats". Jack Layton is referred to as "New Democrat Leader", etc.
So if you're looking for an alternative name that will be amenable to the branding geeks, it shouldn't be something that will be shortened into an acronym (like Social Democratic Party).
The Democrats and Republicans in the US aren't even "parties" as we understand it in Canada. There is virtually no party discipline and they are each filled with iconoclasts and grandstanders who vote however they want. In our system, if the PM had a solid majority in both houses of parliament - he would be able to dictate 100% of the legislation and it would be passed instantly - no questions asked. The best way to describe the Congressional Democratic "party" (and I use that term loosely) is that it consists of 245 Garth Turners running around trying to upstage each other.
There is a great deal of discipline in the Republican party, particularly in the House. In the Bush years, they were able to pass all sorts of nutjob legislation in the House with little or no opposition, before it either died or was modified in the Senate.
The house GOP seems a bit more disciplined - mostly because there are no moderate Republicans anymore - their districts have almost all elected Democrats. The Senate is a different story. Keep in mind that it wasn't so long ago that the Democratic "Party" was home to both George McGovern and George Wallace. In the US you get this whole phenomenon of "Republicans for Obama" or "Reagan Democrats" etc... in Canada, you cease to be part of a party the moment you endorse someone from another party - as Basil Hargrove learned.
I think there might be an appetite to change the NDP name, but not necessarily to Democratic party. If the resolutions committee brings it to the floor of convention Layton and crew are taking a big risk that it will get shot down- Obama entourage in tow or not. They would be better to pick a name that would preserve the left-of-centre nature of the party or let the idea die. If the convention delegates vote it through, they will look like sheep. When the CCF changed its name, it wasn't just a name change. It came out of the unity of Labour with the CCF movement, and "New" unfortunately came out of the Labour-CCF byelection candidates that won improbable election under a "New Party" banner (even then leftists weren't keen on agreeing on names), while the CCF was still debating whether it should merge.
Push to change the NDP name comes from the top
Well that closes the deal. I mean if it is on a blog it must be 100% accurate.
You do have a point. Using the same name as a US party does have an unpleasant sound. Most of us do appreciate even those little differences in language that we have, such a "labour" and "councillor." But a rose is a rose is a ... More important to help a party which has the following in its platform:
Refocus the mandate of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to promote and protect Canadian cultural industries, and transfer mandates that conflict with this objective to other agencies.
Provide sustained funding for the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada, and enhance federal film incentives to encourage film and television production.
Establish targets and a strategy to expand screening and distribution of domestic films in Canada.
http://www.ndp.ca/platform/otherpriorities/supportingculture
If I were a bigwig in the party (and contrary to popular beliefe - I am not) and I wanted to change the name of the party. I would NOT try to get the convention to pass a resolution out of the blue that not only called for changing the name of the party, but also called for what the new name ought to be. This is just asking for trouble. Instead, I would try to get a resolution passed that gives all the reasons why the word "new" has to go and why we need a new name etc... but not actually say what the new name should be. In other words, give the party a mandate to investigate a name change, THEN come back at next convention with a recommendation for the party to ratify.
That's what I would do too, and my hairpiece is quite small.
That's why I think the claims that the 'brass' is behind some Orwellian plot is a bit hard to bear. Doing it the way Stockholm suggest would mean the entire exercise would be one in which there could be endless hours of comments about possible names from pundits and some actual attention as a new name is unvieled. I have to believe the 'brass' is at least as smart as me, if not Stockholm.
I think it is a great idea.
I guess that makes sense.
I read about a poll in which Calgary residents, concerned about the taint of the British Empire and Queen Victoria that the name "Alberta" brings to their province, favo(u)r calling themselves Iowans.
I like the name "New Democrat" just fine. The new is vague enough to engender a lot of different types of change that the party says it is for (although my membership as of late has felt quite a bit like riding a paper tiger).
How about "New Republican Party". That way you can keep the "New" in order to stay in touch with the"old" and still have some of that glorious mainstream media US market "branding" rub off as free collateral republicity.
Well that closes the deal. I mean if it is on a blog it must be 100% accurate.
As discussed here on babble, Gerald Caplan also described it as a move from the top in the Globe.
I guess it's possible that numerous Members of Parliament just suddenly decided that this was an important issue all at the same time. But given how most issues in the party are dealt with, it doesn't seem likely that caucus members would speak out publicly on internal party affairs unless it was authorized. Seems to me like a case of astroturfing.
If I were a bigwig in the party (and contrary to popular beliefe - I am not) and I wanted to change the name of the party. I would NOT try to get the convention to pass a resolution out of the blue that not only called for changing the name of the party, but also called for what the new name ought to be. This is just asking for trouble. Instead, I would try to get a resolution passed that gives all the reasons why the word "new" has to go and why we need a new name etc... but not actually say what the new name should be. In other words, give the party a mandate to investigate a name change, THEN come back at next convention with a recommendation for the party to ratify.
If recent history is any indication, none of the current "bigwigs" in the party will be there by the next time a convention rolls around, so assuming the initiative is coming from them (which by many accounts it is), it would make sense to have it come forward at this year's convention.
If I were a bigwig in the party (and contrary to popular beliefe - I am not) and I wanted to change the name of the party. I would NOT try to get the convention to pass a resolution out of the blue that not only called for changing the name of the party, but also called for what the new name ought to be. This is just asking for trouble. Instead, I would try to get a resolution passed that gives all the reasons why the word "new" has to go and why we need a new name etc... but not actually say what the new name should be. In other words, give the party a mandate to investigate a name change, THEN come back at next convention with a recommendation for the party to ratify.
They may yet do that as the convention process, the resolutions coming to the floor, etc. is a variable completely within the party brass' control. Now if they could only master mind control of all the delegates- wouldn't that be a sight to see.
Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)
Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)
But... but... but Eric, above, said the party was opposed to medieval systems of jurisprudence.
"As discussed here on babble, Gerald Caplan also described it as a move from the top in the Globe."
That tells me absolutely NOTHING. If there is one person who knows ZILCH about what the brass of the NDP are up to its Gerry Caplan. He might have known what the bigwigs were up to 20 years ago when he was one himself - but I suspect that nowadays when he writes about what he thinks the leadership of the NDP are up - it means that he looked at himself in the mirror and talked to himself. The rest of that article by Caplan was so useless and badly written that it makes anything he wrote about the possible name change lack any credibility.
If I were a bigwig in the party (and contrary to popular beliefe - I am not) and I wanted to change the name of the party.
Is that the popular belief? I always thought otherwise. Fringe of party establishment was my bet, but representative of it, ideologically speaking.
I'm glad someone mentioned that. Denise Savoie is not likely a covert CIA agent.
But there are many places in the world with a "Democratic Party" that is quite right-wing. The name Democratic Party means nothing. And PDP (Progressive Democratic Party) is no improvement on NDP.
How about the New Christian Democratic Party, or if that isn't "Big Tent" enough, the "New Christian Wicca Catholic United Pagan non-practicing Jewish Muslim Working Family Gay Lesbian Transgendered Feminist Meat-Eating Vegan Democratic Party?"
Who cares, really? I like "NDP," but it's just a name. I think the fact that some want a name change for no reason says way more than whatever potential names they may throw out. This party, the Left in general (at least in the "developed world") is stagnant.
You can say "its just a name", but branding is very important and that's why packaged goods companies and organizations spend gazillions of dollars on research and strategies around how to "brand" themselves etc... at the very least, just having a new brand can also be an opportunity (if handled skillfully) for a party to reintroduce itself to the public. It seemed to work well for the PCs in Saskatchewan to rebrand themselves as the Sask Party and for Social Credit in BC to rename itself BC Liberals. The name of the party is obviously not the be all and end all - but its also not something to be underestimated.
You can say "its just a name", but branding is very important and that's why packaged goods companies and organizations spend gazillions of dollars on research and strategies around how to "brand" themselves etc... at the very least, just having a new brand can also be an opportunity (if handled skillfully) for a party to reintroduce itself to the public. It seemed to work well for the PCs in Saskatchewan to rebrand themselves as the Sask Party and for Social Credit in BC to rename itself BC Liberals. The name of the party is obviously not the be all and end all - but its also not something to be underestimated.
I think that the "rebranding" of SP and BCL are just sort of hold-ons for long standing political sympathy. They could have continued contesting, and potentially winning, elections under their previous name.
This concept of "rebranding" for the sake of some EXCEEDINGLY MINOR electoral gains (does anyone imagine that if the NDP changed its name to Democratic Party or another similar name will actually make major gains, other than potentially causing some weird rift in the party membership) just smacks of a superficial waste of time.
YOu could use the same argument to say that the NDP should have just kept on using its 1970s logo forever - no matter how dated it started to look or that the style of party signs should still use 70s still Times Roman lettering and orange/brown colour schemes etc... No one is saying that a new name is going to lead some political earthquake in Canada - just like I don't think that when Kentucky Fried Chicken rebranded itself as KFC - it suddenly caused their chicken sales to double - but it is all part of an incremental process.
*snore*
Well, there used to be a party that called itself "The Rhinoceros Party". They're not around anymore so that name is up for grabs.
The BC Liberals are NOT the Social Credit party. That party at least pretended to be collectivist, and called themselves "conservative." The BC Liberals are far more ideologically right-wing and call themselves "liberal." The Socreds were not free market fanatics.
Well, there used to be a party that called itself "The Rhinoceros Party". They're not around anymore so that name is up for grabs.
They became neorhino.ca and are the only vehicle for change in this world.
The linked article says "Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name." That seems to be Victoria plus Windsor West.
Have any other name change resolutions come in? Any for "Progressive Party" which seems to me the only viable alternative?
How about "The Peoples' Reactionary Front"?
I don't know why Social Democratic Party is not viable.
Among others, Peter Stoffer proposed it years ago.
The name and colour change was a spectacular success for the Reform party. They went from fringe party to governing party. The NDP should follow that model.
Their policies are much better than their branding, so they have more room for political growth by improving their weakest point - their branding.
The linked article says "Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name." That seems to be Victoria plus Windsor West.
Have any other name change resolutions come in? Any for "Progressive Party" which seems to me the only viable alternative?
Progressive Party has an even more ridiculous abbreviation than Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party.
I'm fine with discussing a name change, but I'm not interested in the branch plant connotations of "Democratic Party".
Me either Scott!
I personally support dropping the New and becoming simply Democrats.
If this resolution comes up at convention I will vote for it.
However how would this affect provincial parties? Membership in the federal NDP is maintained by provincial parties. Like everyone else's, NDP membership card is provincial and says BC NDP on it.
So changing the name of the federal party would not change what is on my membership card.
We would have both NDP and Democratic parties, until each province moved to change their name too, which could take a long time if ever.
As discuused by others there was a period of several years before the Federal CCf became the federal NDP. After that it ws up to the provicncial sections of the CCF to dencide to change their name.Sakatchwewan CCF held out for a few years.
then there are issues in Ontwrio, as well as in othe provincial sections as to sharing of membership with the federa; NDP/
Seriously could not support the NDP if they changed it to only the Democratic Party, it would be a branding that would be unacceptable to me. It is just as bad as "Jack Layton's NDP" crap. Perhaps worse.
Canadians do not like American...politics that much. And the ones that do, do not like the US Democratic party.
I note that the word "progressive" is up for grabs these days in Canadian politics. ;)
How about the Progressive Deservachance Party?
I suppose using "Democrat" will make people think we're trying to be like Obama even more than we already are.
But come on, there's dozens of parties around the world that call themselves "Conservative," "Liberal," "Democrats," "Republicans," and more.
However, given our already brazen attempts to ally ourselves with the Obama camp, changing the name to Democrats right now will probably be seen as another step in that direction.
Could we please drop the notion of the Progressive Party Wilf. I mean really do you want us to be know as PeePee? Hasn't NDPee-er been bad enough?
I propose the ultimate Canadian solution - lets have a commission!
Or we could have a reality show - sort of like Canada reads, but with each person making the case for a new name.
Or the Democratic Associations Party and we could then be dappers, instead of dippers.
perhaps the egalitarian democratic party might work? ;)
Or the Canadian Egalitarian Democratic Party and then we could call ourselves C(K)-eggers.
As the lady said: "A rose is a rose is a rose."
Or would it not smell as sweet by any other name?
And shouldn't we be concerned with attributes beyond odour?
Yes but just once it would be fun to go into a group of people and say "Hi I'm from the Cegger Party"
I don't get it?
A Kegger is a party focused around the consumption of a Keg of beer.
Not that I would have ever participated in such a thing.
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Another suggestion for the mix: Solidarity (party). Translates well. Reflects elements of the NDP philosophy. Has coat-tails with certain communities.
Disadvantages: clearly disrupts the linkage with provincial ND parties, although there is Quebec Solidaire which also suggests you could make it a national franchise (e.g. Solidarity BC, Solidarity Manitoba, Solidarity Alberta, etc). Still kind a bit of a throw-back nomenclature wise, but I cautiously like it. Quebec Solidaire also has a much smaller appeal/support than the NDP currently- being as it has started out so militantly to the left. I also like Green Democrats (although the NDP doesn't seem to want to be that green). Democratic Party, I could live with it, but it's a real downer.
The Institute for Economic Democracy
Sustainable World Development - Elimination of Poverty and wars
There are two primary causes for both poverty and war:
1. Two crucial concepts: Plunder by trade, and Property rights law, as applied to nature's resources and technologies, denying others their rightful share of what nature offers to us all for free.
2. We are culturally trained to unsustainable conspicuous consumption, unaware that much of this wealth is unearned through causes one and two listed above.
http://www.ied.info/
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Exactly right.
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Then you are basically saying that NEW Democratic Party doesn't mean anything other than that you believe in democracy and that you thik there is something novel about that!
Well, it could be about new forms of "democracy". There has been some discussion about democracy outside of the quadra-annual popularity contest. Workplace democracy. Corporate democracy, and so on and so forth, but... well... it's the NDP so it's not. Can't even get the caucus and the executive to abide by member voted policy platforms, so it's hard to imagine the NDP proposing "new" democratic forms. They can't even hold to the older forms, such as respecting the vote of the membership.
Or is that what the "new" is about? "New" as in non-binding democractic processes.
Keep it as NDP - just change what the acronym to what it really means - No Dad's Party -
OK, we get it - you hate the NDP and always have. So instead of tormenting yourself by making the same criticisms ad nauseum - why not investigate the 20 or so other official parties registered with Elections Canada and find one that suits your ideology and then come back and try to get people to join it.
What's an untrue father?
OK, we get it - you hate the NDP and always have. So instead of tormenting yourself by making the same criticisms ad nauseum - why not investigate the 20 or so other official parties registered with Elections Canada and find one that suits your ideology and then come back and try to get people to join it.
As for "always" hating the NDP, no. Actually, I used to vote NDP, and was a member. My entire family have been members of the NDP, and come generally from the left. My sister in law voted in the BC election for the Liberals for the first time on the issue of the Carbon Tax. My mother did not vote. In the last federal election I voted independent, my mother for the Liberals, and my wife for the NDP, on the strength of Chow's candidacy alone, and not the party.
It would be easier to overlook the NDP's errors and stop making pertinent critcism, if the NDP was not so intent on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. The NDP taught me to distrust it, and reject it.
Now, do you have anything to say about the ideological value of the word "democracy", other than the fact that it is the opposite of "authoritarian" in line with what V. Jara was talking about?
I see, the "high priest" says the NDP is guilty of having committed "errors". I guess it must be so.
The excutive and caucus and the executive have knowingly and willfully disregarded democratic process, and run rough-shod in an arrogant manner over its own membership, time and time again. "Errors" is a nice way of putting it. Frankly, someone should sue them.
Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)
But... but... but Eric, above, said the party was opposed to medieval systems of jurisprudence.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind. First, is that what party A really wrote in the first place? Second, is party B even being serious? Three, does the opinion of any one party represent the views of the whole party, or is there in fact any one party position on this, that or the other? Although I know that the last one is tough for certain Babblers to keep straight.
Since you seem so concerned about "our" views Re democracy and medieval jurispridence though, I will add that I for one still prefer our flawed parliamentary system to one where unelected theocrats can override any legislation they deem unorthodox, but I can still recognise that certain medieval reforms like Magna Carta were important steps forward historicially, and allowing women the right to inherit half of what their male relatives did would probably be seen as quite radical in 5th century Arabia or Europe. Hey, I'm a complicated guy.
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Then you are basically saying that NEW Democratic Party doesn't mean anything other than that you believe in democracy
Yup. The old name is almost as bad as the idea for the new name. The old name has the word "new," which would only be true so long as the party was 1 year old or as Cueball thoughtfully putting it, into something creative like novel ideas for furthering democracy. The new name, Democratic Party, stinks because it is linked to a very corrupt and disillusioning party in the US.
Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)
But... but... but Eric, above, said the party was opposed to medieval systems of jurisprudence.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind.
What was your quip about "sharia law" about, if not baiting? Or were you just engaging in wild and entirely off-topic Muslim bashing, in order to show that even prejudice can be a "democractic" value?
The linked article says "Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name." That seems to be Victoria plus Windsor West.
Have any other name change resolutions come in? Any for "Progressive Party" which seems to me the only viable alternative?
Progressive Party has an even more ridiculous abbreviation than Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party.
I quite like "Progressive" for a generic party name, since its no longer being coopted by conservatives. Its fairly inclusive, moreso than Social Democrat really, but still implies a foward looking leftist orientation -at least for most Canadians. Wouldn't have to be "Progressive party" alone, could be something in combination like Progressive citizens or Canadian Progressive or Progressive Democratic Alliance or any such where the abreviations don't come across as the "PP" or CCRAP, no.
Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)
But... but... but Eric, above, said the party was opposed to medieval systems of jurisprudence.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind.
What was your quip about "sharia law" about, if not baiting? Or were you just engaging in wild and entirely off-topic Muslim bashing, in order to show that even prejudice can be a "democractic" value?
Oh, Cueball playing the victim again. My comment had nothing to do with supposed "Muslim bashing" and everything to do with your hypcritical ability to ceaselessly attack NDPers for far less than the assorted dictatorial regimes you spend the other half of your time here defending -whether you admit that's what youre doing or not. And it was of course only in response to another of your pointless and uncalled-for jibes. As I've said before, I do not consider present day Iran a representation of modern "Islam" anymore than I'd consider the present Republican party "Republican" -just another of your off-the-wall comparisons. Now, back to the grownups again.
Serious comment: It doesn't make a damn bit of difference, it's just a bit of branding that will only affect political junkies (of course, this is a political discussion board on the series of tubes, so no wonder it is discussed here). And regarding reflecting a shift to the left, isn't changing the name of the party before changing policies kind of putting the cart before the horse? If the NDP changes their name tonight, I'm going to wake up tomorrow with the same premier, the same MLAs, the same provincial government, the same local MPs, and the same policies. It will just be the Left-Anarcho-Communist-Labour-Socialist-Fuck Capitalism Party that is raising my tuition and refusing to bring in anti-scab legislation instead of the NDP.
Well, actually thats kind of what I and a few other "New Democrats" here were already saying but apparently somemore radical leftists here are taking it as a serious sign of more moves towards an Obama-North kind of party. I tend to agree on this one, at least in that it might be taken as the wrong kind of signal to the leftwing at present, but c'mon now, you can't just dismiss it as window dressing on one hand but a sign of nefarious intentions on the other. And FYI, the BC NDP did keep tuitions down during their last lamented term, one thing they did right.
Slightly less serious comment: How about "The S-word Party"? You know, because we can't say "socialist"
Thats cute too, but Layton himself did use the "socialist" word a few times when first elected, something Alexa wouldn't do, and of course received all sorts of flack for it among eastern liberal types at Torstar and elsewhere. The NDP has never been just a "socialist" party either but an alliance between social democrats and democratic socialists plus other progressives, social activists and unionists etc, like the CCF was an alliance between socialists and communists and some other leftists who fit neither description easily. Maybe why vague terms like "NEw Democrat" or "Progressive" may still be seen as more politic among some.
Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)
But... but... but Eric, above, said the party was opposed to medieval systems of jurisprudence.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind.
What was your quip about "sharia law" about, if not baiting? Or were you just engaging in wild and entirely off-topic Muslim bashing, in order to show that even prejudice can be a "democractic" value?
Oh, Cueball playing the victim again. My comment had nothing to do with supposed "Muslim bashing" and everything to do with your hypcritical ability to ceaselessly attack NDPers for far less than the assorted dictatorial regimes you spend the other half of your time here defending -whether you admit that's what youre doing or not. And it was of course only in response to another of your pointless and uncalled-for jibes. As I've said before, I do not consider present day Iran a representation of modern "Islam" anymore than I'd consider the present Republican party "Republican" -just another of your off-the-wall comparisons. Now, back to the grownups again.
Right. As I said, you were engaged in off topic baiting, or spurious Muslim bashing. One or the other.
Thanks for confirming my initial suspicion that you were trolling me pure and simple, if not stalking by introducing "sharia law" into a discussion about the NDP name change. Completely off topic and irrelevant, and nothing but pure trolling.
The topic here is the NDP and its name, not Sharia law. As for those threads where that is discussed, you can find a quote somewhere surely where I advocate and defend it, on one of the threads where it is discussed, otherwise it appears that your comment is nothing more than one of your wild-eyed off-topic smear jobs.
I didn't even say anything nasty, but here you are smearing and trolling me all over again, just because of my crack about medieval systems of jurisprudence.
But, while we are at it I might as well clarify. My point is quite simple, there is nothing theoretically different than a government that rules on the authority of the "devine right of Kings" and government that rules on the authority of god, as defined by Islam. What is important is the degree of seperation between the secular and absolute monarchal power, or absolute theocratic power, and most importantly how these relate to democratic proccess -- secularism is no guarantee against dictatorship, just ask any Russian. As I have pointed out before the idea that supreme temporal authority should reside through the direct rule of the clergy is relatively new in majority Islamic states, and begins with the Ayatollah Khomeni. It is not traditionally Islamic, in fact. And indeed, some Islamic scholars have argued that such is against Islamic practice of Sharia law.
Theoretically at least, Egyptian law is guided to a certain extent by Sharia, and was enshrined in the constitution as operant basis of all Egyptian law in 1980. Even you must be able to see that Iran, is not Egypt.
But, and perhaps this will interest you: A gallup pole revealed that more Egyptians support the idea that Sharia should be the basis of all legislation than Iranians, even though Egypt is clearly the more secular of the two countries:
Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia
That said, why oh why are you trolling me with bullshit comments about Sharia, and my supposed support for "dictatorial regiemes", in a thread about the NDP and its friggin name? Can't you contain yourself, even a little bit, without entering in with this kind of off topic defamation, even here? Are there not enough Iran threads for you to accuse me of being "with the terrorist" in?
The zeitgeist of our time seems to be that if you say anything remotely critical of Israel, you get accused of being anti-semitic - and at the same time more and more if you say anything remotely critical of Sharia Law or of human rights abuses in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc...you get accused of being anti-Muslim racist.
I can only assume that people who are "spinning" for Hamas etc... looked at how successful Israel has been in discrediting legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies as anti-semitic and they figure "hey what a great strategy. Next time anyone says anything about women being stoned to death for adultery in Iran, we will just dismis them as anti-islamic racists!"
Well the Zeitgeist of this site is that if you say anything negative about the NDP, people call you a Liberal. This time though Eric has gone off the deep end, and into a pool with no water by suggesting that I am therefore a proponent of Sharia law. Talk about if you are not with us, you are with the "Terrarists".
While you are at it, you might read up thread a bit and observe that I said Eric wat baiting me with his observationsa about Sharia, OR coming out with some wild off-topic anti-Muslim ranting that has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand, and so seemed to be latently prejudiced. Since then Eric has admitted that I was right in my first guess, and he was merely accusing me of supporting Sharia law, and the Iranian government.
How about Nuance Deficit Party?
"Well the Zeitgeist of this site is that if you say anything negative about the NDP, people call you a Liberal."
...or a Trotskyist or a Green or a general malcontent...
That is what is so funny. Reduced to the ad hominem, sans arguement, any name will do. Usually Eric goes after me for being a red, today I am a "Sharia-Red", or some such. Hyphenation is Canadian obsession so why not? Even though these ideologies are completely incompatible. But who cares about the meaning and purpose of ideology and political philosophy, its the NDP we are yammering about, it's all about branding and polling.
Now... back to the essential meaninglessness of the word "democratic" in the context of a political party. What it's opposite? The Authoritarian Party of Canada?
OK, OK.....
Now for a brief intermission of comedy.....
From "The Life of Brian",
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
</end comedy stylings of Python>
Thanks, Moj.
And Stock, if you want to read a Muslim who isn't big on Sharia try Tarek Fatah,s Chasing a Mirage. I'll put up smething on the book lounge.
And he's an Ontario New Democrat. Best of both worlds.
"Well the Zeitgeist of this site is that if you say anything negative about the NDP, people call you a Liberal."
...or a Trotskyist or a Green or a general malcontent...
I don't know, I find I usually get hit with Liberal a lot more than with anything left of the NDP ("Trotskyist"). I'd almost be happy to be called a Stalinist or a Trot on babble, it would be a welcome change from Liberal and it is probably a bit more accurate (although still way off)
Everyone knows small-c communists are actually Liberals, eh?
Hey, that reminds me - the name Labour Progressive Party is available...
The BC Liberals are NOT the Social Credit party. That party at least pretended to be collectivist, and called themselves "conservative." The BC Liberals are far more ideologically right-wing and call themselves "liberal." The Socreds were not free market fanatics.
As for a name change I think the federal NDP should be true to what they are and their overriding message and call themselves the "We Aren't Neo-Cons." Using socialist or social democrat in the name will alienate the liberal voters the party wants to appeal to.
However just dropping "New" IMO would be in keeping with the current mindset in Ottawa. I can imagine the next election as the party relies on the fact it paid a Democrat political operative to speak to its convention and has meet with the Emperor's staff although not the Emperor himself. Now that the Empire has a velvet glove back over its iron fist it is fitting that they drop the "New" in light of the rush to show how close their ties are with the new progressive overseers.
WB, kropotkin, nice to see you out and about.
Why not just go back to the Regina Principles of 1932 and this time call a spade a shovel: not "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation," but ANTICOMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA. From such a perspective, it then becomes entirely logical to dump "New" from the name "New Democratic Party." But please: go all the way. Apply for status within the Democratic Party National Committee in Washington DC. Ever since David Lewis' efficient little gang some 40 years ago figured out the essential bias of the Laxerites against truly transformative change and happily unleashed the flame-throwers against the Waffle and the very notion or mention of Canadian independence , the locale of the beds in which the NDP hierarchy feel truly comfortable sleeping has become more than clear. Recently, once again, on the matter of Durban 2 — for example — we watched leader Jack lay his ton of guano over the very idea of defending Palestinian rights or even questioning whether the Israeli junta is less than 1000% democratic in the only true, i.e. US-ian, sense of the word. Under the guise of defending "peaceful" methods or "social-democratic" change, for example, the NDP has worked very hard in hundreds of struggles everywhere across the country to sabotage any actual defence of rights of women, youth, workers, immigrants, Native people etc that come under attack from the authorities. That's a broad brush statement so I'll get down to cases. In Nova Scotia, the Dexter majority government is already getting the boudoir ready for the arrival of the fuel retailing monopolies. In the media, they're making a big show of turning over fuel price regulation to the Utilities and Review Board [URB]. The media, quoting everyone carefully, is lleging that this depoliticises the price-setting process by taking it out of the Cabinet's hands. All this is being said and-or implied without ANYONE ever pausing to mention, just by the way, that the Minister of Finance enjoys full powers to reverse any decision of the URB, or remove any member or members of the URB for cause, at any time! For sure: there's indeed nothing whatsoever "new" about this kind of "democracy". Back in the 1970s, the NDP, then in third place as a small opposition fraction, blathered in the provincial Legislative Assembly about how the Regan Liberals, to alleviate people's pain over rapidly rising power rates, should institute a "humane disconnection policy" [direct quote from then-party leader Jeremy Akerman] at the then "publicly-owned" Nova Scotia Power monopoly!
Closing for length.