Why I rejoined the NDP

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Northern Shoveler wrote:

6079 it is not just your views that are acceptable on babble.  And if you are going to use stupid excuses for a drive by then at least get your facts straight.  I gagged when I saw this video in April. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-harper-duets-with-youtub...

Well sure enough, Seems like she put him on the spot,  but he does mumble something in there after the "no religion" bit. Guess the camera was rolling, but he couldn't quite leave it alone.

Frankly, I just hadn't heard of it, NS. 

And I think I can question someone's point without it being an argument that no opinion other than my own is valid, NS. What would they call that now.... a straw argument?

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

I agree it was using the quote about transformation and rebirth. From what I see around me, it appears most people who are interested politically may not agree 100% with the politics of their party but do most of the time with the majority. If I waited around for the perfect party I would be waiting forever. So I would much rather work within the NDP.

Sorry I forgot we were on babble where it is verboten to speak ill of the NDP.  Any dissent from NDP boosterism will at every turn be met with the opposite of love.  Jack's words were obviously only meant for dealing with the right wing in this country. They deserve respect and love but not those to the left of the NDP.  They are not to be treated with love they get both barrels of the babble shit shotgun.

Lewis knew very little about Roy and what she stands for but that didn't stop him from using her poetic call to use other means and not electoral politics to bring about change..  Stephen Lewis is a white man of privilege who stole the words of a third world feminist activist who stands against the forces of globalization. He used it to aggrandize another white man of privilege.  

The piece is about confronting Empire.  No where in the speech does she talk about a social democratic electoral strategy.  It was just theft by a white man who believes he can use anyones words for his own political purpose. But hey he was not really using the quote in its context he was really using it out of context to make a whole different point about spirituality. Bullshit!!!  If that was the case he should have stuck to quoting J.S. Woodsworth or Tommy at least he might have picked an appropriate quote since he would have been familiar with their writings.

Roy is not a social democrat and has never advocated for change through electoral politics. Misappropriation is wrong especially by first world politicians who are the anthesis of the type of change Roy advocates for.  Social democrats gave us bombs in Libya one month and a while later they appropriate Roy's words. Just as disgusting as Harpo singing Imagine.

Arundhati Roy wrote:

Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness : and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we're being brainwashed to believe.

The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling : their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.

Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.

Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Northern Shoveler in his FIRST post about the Roy quote wrote:

I found his appropriation of Roy's words, when he has never shared her vision, rather typical of a smooth politician.  Much like Harper singing Imagine.  

6079 in response to my FIRST comment about Roy wrote:

Is it just me or is this thing about the quote starting to seem a bit ham-handed and belaboured? 

Go bother someone else.  For me to belabour something I would have had to state it more than once. Like I said above your opinions are not the only ones allowed on babble.  You did not state your opinions but attacked my opinion on ridiculous grounds.  Typical of your posts I will admit but somedays it is just toooo tiresome.

Why not, just for a change, try arguing with anyone that presents a right wing viewpoint?  Give it a try you might find it as satisfying as your persistent attacks on anyone with ideas further to the left of a third way social democrat.  

Really try it you might like it even if it goes against your grain.

Stargazer

Yes 6079, it certainly is. Hey why not just attempt to get people to not vote NDP, then not vote at all because the NDP isn't "pure enough" for them. Because the alternatives - not voting, voting Con, voting Liberal, are just soooo much better

Stargazer

Opps DP

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I occasionally criticize the NDP (for example, for not taking a stand against Gary Doer's promoting the Keystone XL Project) solely with the intent of trying to get it to move into a more progressive direction. It's now the only game in town with the demise of the BQ (which wasn't really a very progressive party at all, but it was for a while the main alternative to the Conservatives) for me.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Stargazer wrote:

Yes 6079, it certainly is. Hey why not just attempt to get people to not vote NDP, then not vote at all because the NDP isn't "pure enough" for them. Because the alternatives - not voting, voting Con, voting Liberal, are just soooo much better

Sorry you see it that way. I've highlighted the part of the quote from Lewis that I find offensive.  Jack Layton's politics which is what this is about were not Roy's politics.  It was not his fucking mantra and the proof is in his support of D2P.  Read the whole Roy speech and then tell me you honestly believe that Jack Layton shared Roy's views on politic activism, let alone thought of her words as a mantra.

Lewis wrote:

My wife Michele reminded me of a perfect quote from the celebrated Indian novelist, activist and feminist Arundhati Roy. Jack doubtless knew it. He might have seen it as a mantra. "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I can hear her breathing."

6079_Smith_W

Actually NS, I wasn't primarily talking about you, but there have been repeated references to that quote and how approriate it was - not in a political speech, but a eulogy. So yes - belaboured.

Sorry if I am starting to wonder what the greater crime is - cultural approriation or saying something good about a member of the NDP at his funeral.

I thought Lewis was actually talking about the social ideal. Whether he or Layton or even you and I have a perfect understanding of that (as I am sure we do not) I think he made the reference in order to point out that the person he was talking about wanted to bring about that new world, and actually did some things to help.

Did our departed friend do a perfect job? No, and if we are determined to pick apart his funeral I think one of the speakers made mention of him saying that himself. 

But how can the failings of an imperfect person detracts from that perfect ideal? For that matter, I don't think it negates  work that he did to help bring it about. 

 

 

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Read Roy's speech and try to digest her message.  Think about what she says about Empire.  Open your mind to the depth of her ideas.  If this was Jack's mantra then why have we never heard him reference her in any election campaign.  Why did he not speak about anti-imperialism in the last election?  That is Roy's message not some Hallmark poetry about building a better world.

On this board any one who speaks forthrightly about globalization and anti-imperialism is most often savagely attacked by the social democrats. It seems obscene for some of the same people to then want to also appropriate the leading voice of the movement and stand by the claim that it was Jack's mantra.  

 

All hail the NDP, they will save the day.  [my attempt to try to fit in with the dominate ethos]

Erik Redburn

I didn't know one had to subscribe to the entirety of someone's beliefs to quote them.  That must make life awfully complicated.   Does that include articles too or just words spoken outloud?

Erik Redburn

Hi Stargazer, it's good to see you again.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Erik Redburn wrote:

I didn't know one had to subscribe to the entirety of someone's beliefs to quote them.  That must make life awfully complicated.   Does that include articles too or just words spoken outloud?

Read her speech.  The quote is from a specific context. Hell the tittle of the piece is Confronting Empire, not Making the World a Nicer Place.  Jack supported D2P not the idea of confronting empire.  He actually stood for something and that something was good and honourable it was just not the anti-imperialism that Roy stands for.  Lewis made a mistake in his choice of quotes.  Why is that so hard to admit? 

http://www.zcommunications.org/confronting-empire-by-arundhati-roy

Erik Redburn

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Read Roy's speech and try to digest her message.  Think about what she says about Empire.  Open your mind to the depth of her ideas.  If this was Jack's mantra then why have we never heard him reference her in any election campaign.  Why did he not speak about anti-imperialism in the last election?  That is Roy's message not some Hallmark poetry about building a better world.

On this board any one who speaks forthrightly about globalization and anti-imperialism is most often savagely attacked by the social democrats. It seems obscene for some of the same people to then want to also appropriate the leading voice of the movement and stand by the claim that it was Jack's mantra.  

 

All hail the NDP, they will save the day.  [my attempt to try to fit in with the dominate ethos]

 

Nah, I never believed the NDp would 'save the day'.  I don't believe social democrats like Roy can either.  I left that kind of hopefullness behind me when I was a kid.  I've said all along that Jack Layton wasn't perfect, but the only ones who try to silence me here are those who keep quoting Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.  I get the occasional chalenge from overly partisan NDPers but I can handle them too.   When it comes to the largest left-of-centere electoral configuration in NOrth America, I think the best strategy is try to do something positive to change it, like suppoprting left-of-other candidates when it counts.   Dropping out just isn't an option anymore.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Erik Redburn wrote:
 

 I don't believe social democrats like Roy can either. 

You've lost me.  Roy is a social democrat?  Do you know anything about her?  

Erik Redburn

I've probably read more Roy than you have.  Do you think she wouldn't support the most left of party with a chance of winning, within the mostly middleclass North American context?

Lets get this back on topic here.  You and "ikosmos" can support anyone you want to (or not) but going after some newbie who happens to support others is hardly fair, given the contaxt of your own arguments.   I just find repeateding the same points endlessly rather boring; I don't even like repeating myself after a certain point.   

Erik Redburn

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:
 

 I don't believe social democrats like Roy can either. 

You've lost me.  Roy is a social democrat?  Do you know anything about her?  

 

Yes I do.  I know she isn't arguing in favour of revolutionary warfare as a solution, but is in favour of democratic reforms.

Erik Redburn

Welcome to Babble Shartel.  Don't let the divisions here intimidate you, post whatever you like.  Sure you'll get plenty of reaction here if it has sanything to do with the much hated/loved NDP.    :)    

Gotta run now myself, the real world beckons.

Erik Redburn

Oh, before I go again.  I do appreciate your POV too Northern S.  I've seen enough of you now to see that youre honest in your critiques and will at times defend the dowdy old NDP from unfair accusations.   I also agree that the present NDP leadership has to become more attentive to its own leftwing again.  My whole purpose here has been to try and draw together social democrats and democratic socialists again, rebuild that missing link.   Well, one of my purposes.   Haven't been very succesful here, I admit. 

shartal@rogers.com

In my humble opinion at this point in history in Canada an argument about the preference of social democracy or democratic socialism contributes to the central struggles against neoliberalism and 21st century capitalism about as much as arguing whether a lead hand is part of the working class or how many revolutionaries can dance on the head of a pin.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Anti-imperialism is either part of a party's ethos or it isn't.  Layton unilaterally revoked the party policy on NATO around the same time as Roy's oft quoted speech was given.  I understand that Jack believed that moving into the centre especially on foreign affairs was a wise political move.  I have no problem with that viewpoint I just have a problem with Lewis appropriating the very movement that Jack and his people sought to under cut in the left wing discourse in this country and his insistence that her anti-empire message was Jack's mantra.  Lewis started the hyperbole not me of Ikosmos.  

genstrike

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
In my humble opinion at this point in history in Canada an argument about the preference of social democracy or democratic socialism contributes to the central struggles against neoliberalism and 21st century capitalism about as much as arguing whether a lead hand is part of the working class or how many revolutionaries can dance on the head of a pin.

I'm sorry you see it that way, but I think that these are serious discussions to be had in these times.

Look at social democracy around the world.  It can't cope with the neoliberal era and is crumbling.  Social democratic parties around the world have succumbed to neoliberalism and turned into Blairite monstrosities.  These are parties which are incapable of struggling against neoliberalism and capitalism, and have instead worked to implement neoliberalism wherever they govern.

I live in a province governed by the NDP.  I already had to take a wage freeze thanks to their response to the economic crisis.  If the crisis deepens instead of recovers, the NDP (if re-elected) is going to be under a lot of pressure to implement austerity measures to take it out on the working class.

This is something which is clearly relevant to my daily life, and to struggles against neoliberalism in my neck of the woods.  Just folding up the tent and retreating into the NDP is not an option if I want to effectively resist the sure to be upcoming austerity measures.

And, lets not ignore the fact that without a vision for a better world, parties like the NDP are rudderless, constantly drifrting rightward, under the sway of neoliberal currents.

Aristotleded24

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Layton unilaterally revoked the party policy on NATO around the same time as Roy's oft quoted speech was given.

I thought the NDP changed its policy around NATO sometime in the 1980s?

Aristotleded24

genstrike wrote:
Look at social democracy around the world.  It can't cope with the neoliberal era and is crumbling.  Social democratic parties around the world have succumbed to neoliberalism and turned into Blairite monstrosities.  These are parties which are incapable of struggling against neoliberalism and capitalism, and have instead worked to implement neoliberalism wherever they govern.

Even in Britain, the Labour Party is taking steps away from its recent Blairite path, as did the NDP in BC by electing Dix (who proposed higher corporate tax rates) as its leader. The Blairite star is falling, and will likely impact the NDP sections that are still currently under control of the Blairites. (Okay, maybe Selinger will be re-elected in Manitoba, but that has just as much to do with the PCs ineffective campaigning as anything else.)

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Layton unilaterally revoked the party policy on NATO around the same time as Roy's oft quoted speech was given.

I thought the NDP changed its policy around NATO sometime in the 1980s?

You thought wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529

Erik Redburn

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
In my humble opinion at this point in history in Canada an argument about the preference of social democracy or democratic socialism contributes to the central struggles against neoliberalism and 21st century capitalism about as much as arguing whether a lead hand is part of the working class or how many revolutionaries can dance on the head of a pin.

 

There are real differences in the party regarding policy, and thats why I think democratic socialists and social democrats should BOTH start talking again, meaning listening as well.  Until there's some serviceable understanding among members, some sense of common direction, however they're to be achieved, these differences will keep directing attention away from what should be our common enemy.

genstrike

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Even in Britain, the Labour Party is taking steps away from its recent Blairite path, as did the NDP in BC by electing Dix (who proposed higher corporate tax rates) as its leader. The Blairite star is falling, and will likely impact the NDP sections that are still currently under control of the Blairites. (Okay, maybe Selinger will be re-elected in Manitoba, but that has just as much to do with the PCs ineffective campaigning as anything else.)

Really?  I don't know all the details, not living in the UK, but I do follow a fair number of UK blogs.  It seems to me that:

1. Ed Miliband was never a significant shift away from Blairism.  He simply represented Blairism with a slightly more human face than his brother, and hasn't been that forceful in opposing cuts (because he knows a Labour government would be implementing them if it had the chance)

2. A lot of high ranking Labour types, including Ed Miliband, have been talking up this idea of "Blue Labour" as of late - which is an ideology so right-wing that Tony Blair himself thinks it is a conservative sellout.

Peter3

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Anti-imperialism is either part of a party's ethos or it isn't.  

This is not and never has been so. Even a cursory reading of the disagreements between Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg is enough to make clear that there have always been many shades of grey in the debates among progressives/socialists/proletarian internationalists on these matters and one person's anti-imperialism has been another's infantile disorder since these theories were coined.

Jack Layton did not revoke policy.  He didn't have that authority. Like every leader of every party I can think of, he assigned his own priorities to the parliamentary agenda. If it is anyone's position that party leaders are obliged to do exactly what party policy stipulates and to do nothing else until policy is realized, I respectfully submit that there are no parties of any stripe, anywhere that work that way for the simple reason that reality intrudes on the idealized prescriptions of policies in infinitely various and unpredictable ways.

The membership has the right to vote on the leader's performance on a regular basis, just as they have the authority to pass policy. If Jack Layton's decision to put his own ideas on how to deal with NATO into play offended the membership they had the tools to give the leader a lousy performance review. They didn't.

I think that the fact that the NATO policy exists is a manifestation of the reality that anti-imperialism is part of the NDP ethos. An ethos, however, is not a prescription or an agenda for action. It is the moral foundation for beliefs about how the world should look somewhere down the road. The business of getting to that point is inevitably messy.

I belong to and support (in the broadest sense) the NDP for a bunch of reasons, none of which depend on me supporting every particular about its policies, elected members or leadership. For what it's worth, I have serious problems with the dismissive attitude toward the membership of the functionairies running the NDP at the moment. I also have very serious questions about the actions of that group around the current leadership situation. Yes, Brian, that includes you on all counts. Regardless, these are normal disputes in a large-tent organization with a mandate to seek support from a diverse and changeable electorate.

I also belong to and support a variety of other organizations and informal groupings because I understand that activism within a parliamentary political party is not ever going to be enough by itself to move the social consenus on issues of substance (such as Canadian participation in international bodies). It is generally through the processes of civil society that pressure for change is brought to bear on political parties, not the other way around.

Lurking on Babble I am reminded sometimes of a conversation I had with a CPC(M-L) member more years ago than I care to contemplate. After too many beers we were carping at each other in what I am sure we both thought was learned and enlightened language about the way forward.  At one point I made some statement about something being the point of something or other and he slammed the table and shouted, "The point is the Revolution!"

I remember him being slightly taken aback when I responded with equal vehemence," Oh for fuck's sake. The point is social justice. Revolution is just one possible tool, and a damned messy one if it comes to it." Or words to that effect. We were students, after all, and rhetoric about revolution and social justice aside, the point was really to drink until we fell down, so my recolllection of the exchange is a little foggy.

Political parties are tools. Some exist for purely utilitarian purposes, permitting access to the levers of political power. I see the Liberal Party that way. I don't believe that the NDP's ethos, to use NS's term, is of that sort. Some have dismissed the NDP as being a party of protest, but I think that is a trivialization. I believe that those who founded and have since led the NDP saw and see it as a tool for societal change. I am aware that there are those, including some with whom I have collaborated collegially and fruitfully on important projects who dismiss this belief as naive and misguided. Oh well.

I think that the charge that people like Jack Layton and Stephen Lewis were/are imperialist agents, or just unconcerned with imperialism is silly. They made decisions about specific issues in specific political contexts, some of which has been hard to reconcile with the policies (and perhaps the ethos as well, at times) of their party. Some I can live with, some I find mystifying, some piss me off. They're hardly unique, even when compared to some iconic Marxists. Vladimir Lenin advised the German Communist Party to suck it up and be quiet about the Treaty of Versailles, for what are pretty easy to characterize as purely pragmatic reasons.That's life in the real world.

Edited for grammar: changed "doesn't" to "didn't".

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I don't give a fuck about Rosa Luxembourg or Lenin.  I am not a fucking commie.  So direct your moralistic, holier than a marxist crap for someone else.

A party that does not understand the world we live in and NATO's current role is not a party I can support.  I may vote for them if the candidate is the best choice but unlike in the past I will not be sending them thousands of dollars during elections and volunteering full time.  Both of which I did for many years when I had Siksay to speak on my behalf.  Social justice is the goal of electoral politics not revolution is an obvious truism. How is voting to criminalize gay sex and to bomb civilians related to social justice.  When I hear Do-War talking about viagra rape myths I know that the party has drank the koolaid and is Ready Aye Ready to serve the empire.

I could have just voted Liberal like many of the brand new NDP'ers on its band wagon. I was one of those fools who thought having a left wing voice in parliament was more important than defeating the Conservatives. I still think that but I hear the voices in the party calling for merger and for more ex-Liberal politicians to take the lead. 

I have heard the "liberal"  line for decades.  "We must work within the system and vote for incremental change and achieve social justice within the system."  My work is done because I am now out numbered by left liberals.  I wish you all well and hope for your sakes that you don't get fooled again by liberal sycophants.  

Careful though now that the NDP is within striking distance of power the "real" politicians are seeking to jump on the bandwagon and reproduce the Liberal's winning strategy of running from the left and ruling from the right.  Just think of us old anti-war lefties as midwifes and now that the NDP has matured it no longer needs us since it has way more new friends in the playground all looking to be friends with the popular kid. 

 

Gaian

Better red than dead! ( :) )

Peter3

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I don't give a fuck about Rosa Luxembourg or Lenin.  I am not a fucking commie.  So direct your moralistic, holier than a marxist crap for someone else.

Goodness gracious! Such passion. But commie? Who uses that term?

As for Rosa and Vlad, their arguments are part of the history of anti-imperialist politics, whatever you think of their broader politics. Many of the arguments you make have been recycled repeatedly in different contexts for a long time. I mentioned iconic Marxists only to make the points that even highly ideological anti-capitalists have difficulty agreeing on how to confront the problem, and that they are not above making the odd pragmatic decision that pisses off the purists when circumstances are right.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

 A party that does not understand the world we live in and NATO's current role is not a party I can support. etc...   

OK. Go do your thing and good luck to you. No, I'm not being snarky. I mean it. I have no beef at all with anybody organizing around the issues you embrace, outside the world of electoral politics. It is important work.

But, with respect, your sweeping condemnation of the NDP and those who work on its behalf as pro-imperialist, anti-gay sex and the rest of it is a baseless trivialization of the challenges of working within a parliamentary system. As I said, I believe that if a person wants to change the world she is going to need to use all of the tools at her disposal. That includes electoral politics.

This is a thread about why people choose to join the NDP, if I understand it properly. I used a response to a small part of your critique as a jumping off point for my own thoughts on the subject. If that was offensive, I apologize unreservedly. On the other hand, I don't agree with much of what you have to say about the subject and I am not about to be shouted or ridiculed into silence by you or anyone else.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Maybe we should start new threads attacking the Cons and Libs and, you know, focus on the enemies of progressive politics for a change. Sealed

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

No problem I can get with the team spirit here at babble.

Rah rah NDP.  The only hope to save the world is voting NDP.  And for the NDP to win we must all be pragmatic and not expect them to push too hard against the status quo since most voters comfort zone is within that status quo.  

Is that good enough.  Do I pass the babble purity test yet?  

This is so much fun to be with the in crowd.  I should have joined the Liberals two decades ago instead of stupidly railing against the status quo and working my ass off on stupid socialists campaigns.  I would now be in the enviable position of being wooed by the NDP for my support.  But no I was dumb enough to support Svend and Bill and Libby out here on the left coast. 

I can see the NDP has moved on to that electoral paradise in the middle of the political spectrum so I guess I'll just have to park my ideals at the door and accept any compromise necessary to woo those good liberal voters who gave us Chretien and Martin as progressive PM's.  Hell I should have voted for them as well. How stupid I was to believe that socialists who speak like socialists should be part of the political discourse in Canada.

I am going to rejoin the NDP so I can get on a winning team for a change. All hail the new ruling elite.  

Pat Martin for leader.  And will someone please stop Libby from talking she only hurts the parties changes of attracting that all important liberal vote.  

Rah rah NDP rah rah NDP rah NDP 

6079_Smith_W

Actually NS, I think people should have the freedom to choose any party or philosophy they want to try and  make the world a better place. I don't think anyone is insisting everyone become New Democrats.

But I do object to the pile on which seems to be happening against those who, for whatever reason, feel a vote for the NDP, or active engagement in the party, is the best option. 

Making that decision does not automatically mean that someone supports bombing Libya, the Keystone pipeline,  uranium mining in our province, or our current membership in NATO.

And frankly, I am a bit annoyed, because many of these  alternative arguments - from those who oppose voting and parliamentary democracy outright, to bookschooled communists and socialists  who insist Stalin just got it wrong because he got wrapped up in the capitalists' game of chicken, to those who think it can be solved with spraypaint and bricks - are arguing from positions which defy scrutiny because they distance themselves from anyone who has ever actually used their philosophies in the exercise of power.

I have no problem working with anarchists, communists, socialists, or even (on occasion) self-described capitalists on issues of mutual concern. 

But if someone dumps on me for my decisions and values, that person might expect a response.

Am I wrong? Perhaps, but I don't think if someone started a thread about being a committed anarchist or communist it would get quite the same response.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Rah rah NDP

Pat Martin for Leader.  Lets move the party into power.

Rah rah NDP

Electoral power is the game and Pat is the man.  Rah rah NDP

Aristotleded24

Northern Shoveler wrote:
No problem I can get with the team spirit here at babble.

Rah rah NDP.  The only hope to save the world is voting NDP.  And for the NDP to win we must all be pragmatic and not expect them to push too hard against the status quo since most voters comfort zone is within that status quo.  

Is that good enough.  Do I pass the babble purity test yet?  

This is so much fun to be with the in crowd.  I should have joined the Liberals two decades ago instead of stupidly railing against the status quo and working my ass off on stupid socialists campaigns.  I would now be in the enviable position of being wooed by the NDP for my support.  But no I was dumb enough to support Svend and Bill and Libby out here on the left coast. 

I can see the NDP has moved on to that electoral paradise in the middle of the political spectrum so I guess I'll just have to park my ideals at the door and accept any compromise necessary to woo those good liberal voters who gave us Chretien and Martin as progressive PM's.  Hell I should have voted for them as well. How stupid I was to believe that socialists who speak like socialists should be part of the political discourse in Canada.

I am going to rejoin the NDP so I can get on a winning team for a change. All hail the new ruling elite.  

Pat Martin for leader.  And will someone please stop Libby from talking she only hurts the parties changes of attracting that all important liberal vote.  

Rah rah NDP rah rah NDP rah NDP

I get the distinct impression that you are more interested in proving yourself right and picking fights than anything else. You are not the only person who was worked to implement socialist ideals. Your characterization of people working within the NDP (many of whom have expressed simliar concerns over the direction of the NDP as you do) as being mindless cheerleaders is frankly insulting. I don't know what you are trying to prove, but you are not making many friends with those kind of posts. Isn't this a left-wing discussion board? Shouldn't we all be in agreement on the same generalities, in spite of specific differences we have? Then why are you so vitriolic towards anyone who disagrees with you?

KenS

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Layton unilaterally revoked the party policy on NATO around the same time as Roy's oft quoted speech was given.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I thought the NDP changed its policy around NATO sometime in the 1980s?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

You thought wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529

The NATO policywas not revoked by Jack Layon at all- let alone 'unilaterally revoked' by him. It was done on the floor in Convention, and Jack had nothing to do with it, even indirectly.... at the 2003 Convention, when Jack was totally pre-occupied with becoming Leader.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Your characterization of people working within the NDP (many of whom have expressed simliar concerns over the direction of the NDP as you do) as being mindless cheerleaders is frankly insulting. 

Actually my poor attempt at humour was directed at 6079.  He has stated himself he has never been all that active in the party and he insists that we must all now cheer for the NDP or just not talk about disagreements.  An outsider telling me I can't make negative comments about a party I have worked for in numerous elections over decades.  If not on babble where can one discuss the shortcomings of the NDP from a left wing perspective?  I presume that because the party has drifted far enough to the centre or centre right that 60798 now feels comfortable with it.  

I also post not so funny posts sometimes because of the NDP posse that harasses anyone on this board with left wings views that are not supported by the NDP.  Go lecture Stockholm and Fidel et al for me, please.

melikesocialism

KenS wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Layton unilaterally revoked the party policy on NATO around the same time as Roy's oft quoted speech was given.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I thought the NDP changed its policy around NATO sometime in the 1980s?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

You thought wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529

The NATO policywas not revoked by Jack Layon at all- let alone 'unilaterally revoked' by him. It was done on the floor in Convention, and Jack had nothing to do with it, even indirectly.... at the 2003 Convention, when Jack was totally pre-occupied with becoming Leader.

If you bothered to read the article that NS highlighted, you would see that Jack had pretty much declared that the policy was being ignored by the party leadership. He arbitrarily decided that what was required was a transformation of the alliance, which was not mentioned at all in the policy. It unequivocally opposed  Canadian membership in NATO. While the policy was not formally revoked until the last convention prior to the recent one in Vancouver. it was pretty clear that Jack had decided to ignore it.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ NS #87

I feel so special knowing this is all about me. My guess is you read this comment from another thread:

"Thing is - I'm not even a staunch supporter of the NDP, nor do I think one has to be to support them in the things which they are doing right."

Which was kind of my way of saying I am not an executive member or staffer (or a cheerleader), and that if I saw another party as a better choice I would go for it. Beyond that, I didn't specify what my involvement has been since I didn't really think my membership status and work history was important. 

And while I don't think my new status as an "outsider" has any bearing on my actual point at #83 - which could apply equally to anyone supporting any political party or philosophy - I suppose it could just as easily be a compliment as a put-down, eh?

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I have no problem with keeping the NDP's feet to the fire  but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water!

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

I have no problem with keeping the NDP's feet to the fire  but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water!

Good I guess that means NEXT election you will vote for them.  

The party is gaining members and supporters all the time but some of us are not as enthusiastic as the new converts. The NDP is the only left wing electoral game in town.  That is why I have supported it all these years.  If it becomes a left liberal party as it seems to be drifting towards it will have a better chance of forming government but little chance of making anything except cosmetic changes to our economy and it will have no room for an independent foreign policy.  

So I'm supporting Pat Martin because electoral success is the holy grail of electoral politics and a good liberal minded leader would attract a lot of those liberal votes that are so crucial to the NDP making the next step into power.  Cool

Gaian

Good luck in your support of Pat Martin. You will be part of a very small minority. The new Quebec contingent, in particular, ua bound to be in support of something far more substantial (less cosmetic)... :)

Hoodeet

While this fun babble/discussion is going on about the Orange Boys,  have you seen the Green Party's email today raising the alarm and urging opposition to the Herpes gang's crime-bill-on-steroids?

While the NDP and the Liberals are wringing their hands and pointing fingers and figuring out where and how to stab one another in the back, Elizabeth May is first out of the gate to rally people against a bill that could end up bludgeoning citizens for suspicion of  ecoterrorism or suspicion of thinking  about undermining corporate profits, etc.

The May-bashers can take time out of their sectarian sparring about the NDP and blush today, and perhaps refrain from future bashing.

If the NDP has sent out a equally strongly worded communiqué, I stand corrected.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Oh shit an email.

 

My life has changed.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

If the Quebec MPs prove to be far more progressive than the likes of Pat Martin, we're in for some interesting times indeed. Laughing

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Gaian wrote:
Good luck in your support of Pat Martin. You will be part of a very small minority. The new Quebec contingent, in particular, ua bound to be in support of something far more substantial (less cosmetic)... :)

I have just been convinced by the logic that achieving power is the only pragmatic goal for a party and that in Canada that means moving to the centre.  Are you some sort of lefty radical that doesn't understand the realities of electoral politics?  

Smile

We need the centrists in the party to step up and lead the way to the New Jerusalem.  Of course the New Jerusalem they are leading us to is the "capital" of a racist apartheid state but thats okay its still Jerusalem.

Cool

 

KenS

melikesocialism wrote:

KenS wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Layton unilaterally revoked the party policy on NATO around the same time as Roy's oft quoted speech was given.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I thought the NDP changed its policy around NATO sometime in the 1980s?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

You thought wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529

The NATO policywas not revoked by Jack Layon at all- let alone 'unilaterally revoked' by him. It was done on the floor in Convention, and Jack had nothing to do with it, even indirectly.... at the 2003 Convention, when Jack was totally pre-occupied with becoming Leader.

If you bothered to read the article that NS highlighted, you would see that Jack had pretty much declared that the policy was being ignored by the party leadership. He arbitrarily decided that what was required was a transformation of the alliance, which was not mentioned at all in the policy. It unequivocally opposed  Canadian membership in NATO. While the policy was not formally revoked until the last convention prior to the recent one in Vancouver. it was pretty clear that Jack had decided to ignore it.

I did 'bother' to read the article.

So let me see now. An old article from a media hack- people who can never be bothered to get right what is going on in the NDP- that, and the various interpretataions you make all make of it is more relevant talking about the facts of what happened.

That article NS posted is not a support for his totally erroneous statements about what Jack allegedly did.

He arbirarily and unilaterally did nothing. The old NATO policy was ditched on the Convention floor in 2003 [not recently], after being reviewed by the Internaltional Relations Committee... of which Svend Robinson was then a member. Jack had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Long thread.

Pages

Topic locked