ONDP: Can Balance a Budget in Heels! Part 2

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stuart_Parker

You've provided us with a moving life narrative and family history, remind, one similar to that of many of my allies in my early days in the NDP.

But at the end of the day, your logic says that it is not only unproblematic but inclusive and emancipatory for the party to produce ads congratulating its Chinese candidates for their ability to balance the books of a laundromat, its Filipina candidates on their ability to balance the budget while providing childcare, etc. Fundamentally, your logic would accuse me of "pigeonholing" American blacks if I objected to an an ad depicting a grinning Barack Obama helping out at a cotton or watermelon harvest.

Reinforcing images that have helped to perpetuate and structure the oppression of groups is a highly problematic move. There are plenty of black farm labourers in the US whose experience the hypothetical Obama cotton harvest ad might describe or speak to to this very day. But that doesn't make reinforcing those images a good idea.

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
Thanks for that very moving and eloquent account, remind.

You're welcome, but was not trying to be moving, was stating realities for women within the NDP, as remember MORE women vote NDP than men. But yet some men seem to think they have the final and only words.

Quote:
I don't agree with you about the Horwath posters

Don't care actually. As I do not see any:

Quote:
(especially the defensive pandering about business,

Please do explain why you see it as pandering, and defensive, as I do not.

Quote:
fiscal "responsibility" and the environment).

This mocking of those who would pigeonhole and negatively label, well really here I mean  lie, for political reasons about what the NDP, is  so obvious I cannot understand why some do not get it. Then again maybe I can.

Quote:
And themes about women that were acceptable 65 years ago may seem wrong today

What themes, seriously what themes?

Quote:
 for instance, we wouldn't want the leader to call herself "Mrs. John Doe" and talk about her special duty to cook the family meals.

This was not even close to being portrayed in the posters, and it is a strawperson, as it does not come close to being a comparative illustration.

Quote:
But my respect for your POV has just gone up.

Don't care whether it went up or down actually.  But I will state; I am tired of men explaining to me what feminist is, or isn't, and giving me their approval/disapproval of my opinions and position as one.

Bookish Agrarian

Just popped into this thread after being told about it.

Can't express how funny I think it is that there are a bunch of men trying to explain to remind what is sexist or not. 

Hello- is this thing on?

Saw the posters in the flesh, not one complaint- also a lot of very strong feminist New Democrat women I know were getting a great laugh out of them. 

But please don't let me interupt - I can't wait for the next episode of explaining feminism/sexism to remind to come on. 

Kloch

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Can't express how funny I think it is that there are a bunch of men trying to explain to remind what is sexist or not. 

Can't express how funny it is when someone doesn't know the difference between assertion and argument.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

The posters don't "evoke" a 1950s image of womanhood.  They play off an image that virtually everyone in the potential NDP voter universe would agree is hopelessly dated and sexist.  As such, they are not affirming that image, but mocking it.

I'm still not convinced they're particularly good posters / messaging.  But some of the criticisms offered on this (and the previous thread) are blatant evidence of the humour deficit among leftists.

I am concerned, however, about what I perceive to be a blatantly sexist belittling of remind and her point of view by certain posters.  I know its inconvenient when one of those people you're trying to speak for respectfully disagree with your shibboleths, but a little less abuse and a little more engagement might have been a more constructive approach.  Treating a woman with paternalistic contempt hardly enhances you feminist credentials.

Finally, in response to a comment by (I think it was Aristotle) on the other thread, I agree that one set of posters / ads etc. is not going to persuade an indoctrinated voter overnight that the NDP really can balance a budget.  Shoring up perceived weaknesses is not an overnight effort - and frankly, that's why such messaging is better done outside the writ period.

That it is a long and tedious process is not a reason not to do it.  Indeed, if we look at how the hard right have managed to rehabilityate themselves in mainstream political discourse over the past 40 years, we see (among other things) exactly that kind of innoculatory messaging on a consistent basis.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well, many women in the previous thread found the posters troubling. Personally, I find the fiscal conservative message in a time when fiscal conservatives have decimated the economy, and are now using the same propaganda messages to effect a new war on the lower classes worldwide, to be more than troubling. It's very disappointing considering the high hopes I have for Andrea Horwath.

I don't really find the "in heels" message sexist. Vacuous, perhaps. I don't agree with it but like remind says, it could easily be found in second- and third-wave feminist manifestoes. I consider the "clip and save" slogan to be more problematic.

Unionist

Remind, I said upthread and I say again, that I don't really care about the cute "heels" stuff - I'm more bothered by the right-wing messaging. The NDP is not losing elections because people think they're big spenders or tree-huggers or want to shut down small businesses. That's why it's pandering to defend against those charges. It's pandering to some elitist spin doctor image of where working folks' mentalities are at.

remind wrote:

Quote:
And themes about women that were acceptable 65 years ago may seem wrong today

What themes, seriously what themes?

I was referring to your cookbook - not to the posters. The Mrs. David Lewis, and the "especial responsiblity" of women to prepare healthful food. All I meant to say is that that may have been fine then, but it wouldn't work today.

remind wrote:
Unionist wrote:
 for instance, we wouldn't want the leader to call herself "Mrs. John Doe" and talk about her special duty to cook the family meals.

This was not even close to being portrayed in the posters, and it is a strawperson, as it does not come close to being a comparative illustration.

Why be so hostile, when I'm being appreciative of your viewpoint? The fact that I don't agree with you about the messaging is no reason to be hostile, or to say "I don't care what you think", and so on.

 

Stuart_Parker

BA, no person's record on an issue renders them infallible. I hope this is a forum where ideas rise and fall based on their merits and their merits alone. As I said upthread, I am absolutely confident that if these were Tory or Liberal ads depicting a female leader or candidate, the outrage here would be unanimous. Unfortunately, some posters on rabble seem to temporarily disable their feminist, peace activist or socialist analyses and positions when there is a danger of them conflicting with the NDP party line.

Unionist

Remind, I said upthread and I say again, that I don't really care about the cute "heels" stuff - I'm more bothered by the right-wing messaging. The NDP is not losing elections because people think they're big spenders or tree-huggers or want to shut down small businesses. That's why it's pandering to defend against those charges. It's pandering to some elitist spin doctor image of where working folks' mentalities are at.

remind wrote:

Quote:
And themes about women that were acceptable 65 years ago may seem wrong today

What themes, seriously what themes?

I was referring to your cookbook - not to the posters. The Mrs. David Lewis, and the "especial responsiblity" of women to prepare healthful food. All I meant to say is that that may have been fine then, but it wouldn't work today.

remind wrote:
Unionist wrote:
 for instance, we wouldn't want the leader to call herself "Mrs. John Doe" and talk about her special duty to cook the family meals.

This was not even close to being portrayed in the posters, and it is a strawperson, as it does not come close to being a comparative illustration.

Why be so hostile, when I'm being appreciative of your viewpoint? The fact that I don't agree with you about the messaging is no reason to be hostile, or to say "I don't care what you think", and so on.

ETA: Crossposted with Cueball. I also don't find the posters particularly "sexist", and that was never the point of my posts here - although I recognize that some women and men do.

remind remind's picture

Catchfire wrote:
Well, many women in the previous thread found the posters troubling.

Many women? 3, though I suppose given the many more men who weighed in stating they were sexist, 3 seems like many.  One is not a feminist, the other I consider no friend of the NDP or the working class even, and well, Maysie has her own take, and I respect her for it even if I do not agree, and believe she overlooked how fuckin funny the mockery is.

Unionist wrote:
Remind..."heels" stuff - I'm more bothered by the right-wing messaging.

There wasn't any, so I do not know why you are bothered by something not there.

Quote:
The NDP is not losing elections because people think they're big spenders or tree-huggers or want to shut down small businesses.

I disagree.

unionist wrote:
Why be so hostile,

I wasn't being hostile, you injected a hostile tone upon my words all on your own, though I may get hostile if phoney accusations of such continue to occur and I am forced to discount such claims.

Quote:
when I'm being appreciative of your viewpoint?

Really? That is what you call your tokenist approval, immediately followed by the discounting of my words/position because you disagree with them. As you so clearly again indicated, as below.

Quote:
The fact that I don't agree with you about the messaging is no reason to be hostile, or to say "I don't care what you think", and so on.

I don't care, it is none of my business what you, or other men think of me, and it is not hostile to say so.

And throughout my life it has been my experience that men who throw out token approvals, follwed by actual disapproval/disavowing expect women to be ever so appreciative of the patriarchial gratuitous pat on the head, and ignore the implications behind statements of how wrong we women are, when we disagree with men. And I find that troubling in one who claims right wing messaging in the posters.

But...again, I will say, I am going to get hostile if you keep on making false accusations and holding expectations of me in response to your words.

Stuart_Parker wrote:
Unfortunately, some posters on rabble seem to temporarily disable their feminist, peace activist or socialist analyses and positions when there is a danger of them conflicting with the NDP party line.

Your erroneous words are so fucking sexist and patriarchial, that you show yourself for exactly what you are. #%$#%&^#@*(^%$.

Thank the Goddess the NDP are spared your ilk.

edited for formatting

Stockholm

Kloch wrote:

I have no issue with women role models.  I think there should be more.  Of the ones we have, couldn't we celebrate more Alexa McDonoughs' and less Margaret Thatcher's.  The posters invoke more the latter than the former.

Margaret Thatcher won three straight majority governments while Alexa MacDonough was electorally a total failure - what does that tell you?

Bookish Agrarian

Stuart_Parker wrote:

BA, no person's record on an issue renders them infallible. I hope this is a forum where ideas rise and fall based on their merits and their merits alone. As I said upthread, I am absolutely confident that if these were Tory or Liberal ads depicting a female leader or candidate, the outrage here would be unanimous. Unfortunately, some posters on rabble seem to temporarily disable their feminist, peace activist or socialist analyses and positions when there is a danger of them conflicting with the NDP party line.

Thanks.  I appreciate the heads up.

I'll let the women who I was standing right beside, all strong feminist ass-kicking, social activist, union supporting women, looking at the actual real posters right in front of us and laughing at the, as remind put it, mockery of the messages sent out about women and the NDP almost daily- that they just don't understand feminism, sexism, or humour for that matter. I am confident they will appreciate hearing that they just can't wrap their heads around the big issues and needed a man to explain it to them.

So again a really big thanks. 

Stuart_Parker

BA, remind,

I see that you would rather attack things I haven't said rather than things I have and that you quoting specific parts of my posts arises out of some kind of formulaic procedure rather than an attempt to engage with the actual meaning or contents of the sentences you quote. This is, of course, par for the course with you two; you have built twenty or thirty of me out of straw in our previous interactions and are well on your way to making another one. Obviously, there is little point in me continuing to attempt some kind of rational dialogue with you two.

I think the rest of the posters can recognize the Palinesque move of playing identity politics to defend conservative positions, so I think I'll just skip amateur hour here and check out the real deal at a Tea Party rally where they at least do it well.

remind remind's picture

What is really FF is those men who first bring identity politics into it in respect to the posters,  and then take exception to others following through and stating NO sexism in the posters.

 

Stuart, your ego just doesn't quit does it.....again thank the Goddess the NDP are well rid of you.

Kloch

Stockholm wrote:

Kloch wrote:

I have no issue with women role models.  I think there should be more.  Of the ones we have, couldn't we celebrate more Alexa McDonoughs' and less Margaret Thatcher's.  The posters invoke more the latter than the former.

Margaret Thatcher won three straight majority governments while Alexa MacDonough was electorally a total failure - what does that tell you?

That you have no political morality of any kind, beyond winning elections at all costs.

Kloch

Watching people use identity politics to defend right-wing economic and environmental political policies is amusing.

Michael Laxer Michael Laxer's picture

I don't have a problem with promoting fiscal responsibility as PART of a campaign.

My problem is taken in their totality the four posters ONLY emphasize our fiscal and environmental conservatism. Nothing else.

To me this is a profoundly stupid strategic move. (And while, anyone who knows the kind of openly leftist and hopeless campaigns I have run in, I never went into them thinking I had the remotest chance of winning them. I did them to represent the NDP in two ridings where there was no chance of winning and to run on a socialist platform municipally in another, but presumably the ONDP is trying to win the next election, so strategy is critically important.). Any poster like any one of these should be counterbalanced, and indeed overshadowed, with others that seek to inspire and empower with ideas like Pharma Care, Standing Up to Corporate Interests, Fighting for Better Wages Etc.

Someone else put up a great quote on Facebook:

"Larry Haiven put it well: "...the NDP will no doubt refer to Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. They may remind people...that Douglas insisted on balancing his province's books as one of his first priorities. But Tommy Douglas was not just about balancing budgets...Tommy Douglas had social imagination; he had great ideas of what he was going to accomplish, like medicare, public automobile insurance, rural electrification, children's dental care and many more. He announced these things publicly and lifted people's spirits in the promise of what they could do collectively. He and his immediate successors took on the vested business and professional interests and rallied people to demand better. In recent years, NDP governments across Canada have been all about dampening people's spirits, especially the party grassroots. The NDP has become a promise of better management of crisis.""

That is the problem here to me. There is nothing inspiring or empowering in this messaging and if, as some have suggested, this is a response to Ford's victory it learns all of the wrong lessons from it.

I might note, for what it is worth in what seems an increasingly nasty and personal debate here, that on my Facebook page, where I have posted these photos for debate, many women have found them sexist and disappointing and have said so, so I don't think it is reasonable to try to claim that Stuart's views are not shared by any women on the left or in the NDP. If you go on Facebook and read what many women on the left and in the party are saying you will find that this is simply not true and that many do share his views. I am sure others do not. It is a debate, after all, and it is possible for different activists to find different things offensive for different reasons. Feel free to check my page on Facebook if you think that I am not being truthful. The wall is public.

I am sure there also are those who think it is mocking sexism and that it is a clever strategy. Presumably they would not have produced them otherwise.

I will leave it to others to decide this one, but it would appear to be an open question among the activists in the party and out of it (and the ONDP, of course, is not only trying to appeal to those at provincial council...that would constitute a couple hundred votes in a province of millions, so if it does rub some people the wrong way as "sexist" that is worth noting...at least if the ONDP wants to win an election or get the votes of these folks, as opposed to winning a debate on Babble)

Finally, I would say that trying to win the left vote and beat the Liberals and Tories by drawing inspiration from Thatcher as opposed to Alexa, who brought the party back from the brink federally (when she left we were only slightly lower in the polls than we are now and we were firmly back on the national stage) and who was a terrific leader and an inspiration to many women in the NDP and Canada as a whole... well good luck with that!

Polunatic2

So if these posters are brilliants mockeries of times gone by, what is their purpose? To firm up the NDP base or to reach beyond to voters from other parties who may not quite "get it"? 

Kloch

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

So Michael are you claiming that those women that I stood beside and looked at the actual real posters with when we were out in the hall talking about other issues should have their views dismissed?  Because that seems to be what you are saying to me.  I was at Council, in fact my daughter was with me, and she loved them, and not one single person ever raised an objection about them.  Are you really suggesting that these women, all of them strong, thoughtful women, couldn't see what they are intended for and that people on Facebook, who were not there and are seeing really poorly rendered photos of them have a better understanding?  Because that sure seems to be what you are saying, and frankly I find it rather offensive.

 

 

Which part of "It is a debate, after all, and it is possible for different activists to find different things offensive for different reasons" did you not understand?

Bookish Agrarian

delete

JimWaterloo

I guess these posters did not leave an impression on me and I don't think that they do elsewere as a search on google, google news, even a google blog search does not bring anything up on this so to me, this is one of the few places that has anything to say about the posters.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Margaret Thatcher won three straight majority governments while Alexa MacDonough was electorally a total failure - what does that tell you?

It tells me that when Alexa stood up in the House, in October 2001, to condemn Chrétien's joining Bush's mission in Afghanistan, she should instead have kicked some ass:

"War" is not a 4-letter word! Nuke Afghanistan! Then let's take the Malvinas!!!

Instead, she played the usual simpering elitist latte-slurping socialist weak-kneed bleeding heart that true Canadian workers despise.

Thank God for Andrea's new spin doctors.

Now, when do we get the poster about "More Cash for Catholic Schools!"

remind remind's picture

Sorry Michael, do not 'do' Facebook, never really understood why I did not other than dial up makes it  hard to access, but then I just heard this am, that someone named their child "Facebook", and understood then why I find it so yuckily populist and corporately incideous.

ETA: And Michael, you made claims above about what happened at provincial council about the posters, that were quite blatently incorrect, as others who were there have stated concretely otherwise. Now, why should anything you say have any validity? Not saying it doesn't just sayin....also, given that you stated something happened that didn't , in respect to feminists at council and their actions, I find it pretty offensive that you continue to try and push your sexist premise. Even moreso when you do not acknowledge your former portrayal of what happened at council as being incorrect.

Polunatic, I see the posters as a branding message that "the fight is on", is all. Done in a very funny way.

You know it is pretty damn sexistly insulting to the point of a personal attack, when men state, or infer, that one has given up their way of life for partisan reasons. That they then think they are the purveyours of what is sexist and what isn't, takes sexism on the left by some men, to a whole new level.

Of course the male hypocrisy on the parts of some in this thread is also astounding. Oh and lack of consistency is truly amazing.

Kloch

remind wrote:

Michael, you made claims above about what happened at provincial council about the posters, that were quite blatently incorrect, as others who were there have stated concretely otherwise. Now, why should anything you say have any validity? Not saying it doesn't just sayin....also, given that you stated something happened that didn't , in respect to feminists at council and their actions, I find it pretty offensive that you continue to try and push your sexist premise. Even moreso when you do not acknowledge your former portrayal of what happened at council as being incorrect.

So Michael is sexist for stating his opinion that the photos are sexist?

By the way, how do you know the people who said there was no anger about the posters aren't the ones who are lying.  We're all, for the most part, a bunch of anonymous people here.  There's no objective way to determine one way or another, so it's a pretty futile discussion.  You want to believe there was anger, fine.  If you don't, that's also fine.  Makes no difference to me in a major way.

In any case, my main issue is the right-wing pandering, which is probably why they will disappear down the memory hole, never to be seen again.

Kloch

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Margaret Thatcher won three straight majority governments while Alexa MacDonough was electorally a total failure - what does that tell you?

It tells me that when Alexa stood up in the House, in October 2001, to condemn Chrétien's joining Bush's mission in Afghanistan, she should instead have kicked some ass:

"War" is not a 4-letter word! Nuke Afghanistan! Then let's take the Malvinas!!!

Instead, she played the usual simpering elitist latte-slurping socialist weak-kneed bleeding heart that true Canadian workers despise.

Thank God for Andrea's new spin doctors.

Now, when do we get the poster about "More Cash for Catholic Schools!"

Alexa took the party from single digits to around 15%.  Jack took it from 15% to .... about 16%, and only won more seats because of vote splits and a Liberal collapse.  I guess by Stockholms logic, Jack is a bigger loser than Alexa.

Sunday Hat

So I'm clear: balancing budgets is akin to an illegal declaration of war?

I'm glad we've cleared up that the biggest sin is being soft on the Papists.

Bookish Agrarian

remind, I though this might interest you since I was an attendee.

So just for the record there were 4 posters at the head of the escalators as you came up to the Council area.  Everyone saw them, although you had to get a little closer to read them at my age.  Just 4.  The place wasn't plastered with them and they were on those easel sort of thingies you see menus on or playbills that sort of thing.

There was also a poster of Andrea along the side hall where we registered.  I don't remember if that one had any writing on it- as it was a bit cramped in that area with the registration tables, people milling about and so on.  Andrea looked strong and like a leader in all 5.

I saw lots of people laughing at them.  Not one person complained that I ever heard or saw.

No mention of them was made during Council, unless it happened to be when I was in the bathroom or out talking to other folks in the hall.  If they were mentioned, it certainly couldn't have been much controversy as I was never away that long.  And believe me if there would have been this groundswell, or even an idividual so upset about them, people would have been to the mics- as they always do. There was ZERO indication that they were the NDP message for the election, certainly not the sum total of all things NDP. 

Andrea gave a great speech that ripped into the Liberal record on a number of issues - all from a staunchly progressive stance.  And was given several rounds of applause before, during and after the speech.  She made it clear that the Conservatives and their views are not the answer.

When the discussion from the newly formed EPC took place, it was clear what the likely themes of the campaign will be.  Just like the Liberals and Conservative themes are already pretty clear.  It should be no surprise to anyone who knows Andrea that they were practical, focused and in line with progressive values and about making life better and more affordable.

This claim that it is some kind of indication of a run from the right is total 100 per cent fantasy and not based on a single thing that happened. 

I had to be in the building for meetings after Council was over, the posters to my recollection were still there.  In other words they were not removed until the cleaning up from the weekend began.

If I had to guess, I would guess that these might have been one offs for the Leaders Levee and Council to poke a little fun at the way the NDP and women in politics always get framed and then to turn that framing on its head.  Maybe we will see more of them, maybe not.  I certainly hope so because my daughter, attending Council as a delegate for the first time, thought they were great and frankly I think as a young woman she has more political smarts than a bunch of old men (including me).  So if she liked them I expect that a lot of other folks will get it.

ETA

By the way I know Life's partner and daughter as they are quasi-neighours.  Two stronger feminists I can hardly think of.  If they thought they were funny and not sexist then that's worth noting for me.  And I hardly think their views should be dismissed, when people who clearly were not at Council, are free to make all kinds of untrue claims.

remind remind's picture

Thanks for the accurate accounting BA, some just wanna make shit up, I guess to make themselves feel like someone.

They really are a hilarious turn about on the erroneous messaging the NDP usually gets from those who bear the left ill will.

Oh and kloch, this being the one and only time I will respond to your words. Neither Scott, or BA, are anonymous here. Especially not Scott who uses his own name and thus has huge credibility for doing so. Michael Laxer stated he was not there.

remind remind's picture

Sunday Hat wrote:
So I'm clear: balancing budgets is akin to an illegal declaration of war?

I'm glad we've cleared up that the biggest sin is being soft on the Papists.

Ya, well building sand castles in the air and kicking them down is easier than making credible juxtapositons or analogies. :D

Unionist

As I have pointed out, Andrea's background and political instincts are light years ahead of the fawning sycophantic spin doctors. As long as she sticks to those instincts and ignores the kind of "experts" who populate some of these threads, she will do fine.

Wait, I've got another one:

"GUN is not a 4-letter word!"

Doug

Since when was balancing the budget (in or out of heels) not progressive? When we borrow money - and even worse, get into the position where we HAVE to borrow money - we don't have the option but to dance to the tune of our creditors. See how Ireland's been doing lately if you disagree. The Ontario NDP needs a plan to close the gap over the next term of government. Bob Rae might not personally be the problem of the Ontario NDP anymore but the record of his government is.

As for business not being a swear word, sure, any NDP leader would be delusional for thinking the business community will ever collectively endorse them and they're probably doing something horribly wrong if that does happen. That said, it's also delusional to pretend that (at least in the short to medium run) the prosperity of working Ontarians doesn't depend on the profitability and growth of the businesses that employ them. That isn't saying it's a sufficient condition - success needs to be shared - but it is a necessary one. 

Getting an early start to defending against the problems some people have with the NDP before they get used by the other parties in their messaging seems like a fine idea.

remind remind's picture

Funny, I would give her the same advice, and the only "experts" in this thread that I can see,  are the usual men who like to think they are.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

* I don't know about anyone else, but where I perceived sexism was a series of posts which, as I saw it, discounted remind's opinion and even, as I saw it, questioned her capacity to have an informed position on what constituted sexism.  In general, I find men lecturing women about what's sexist to be . . . well . . . sexist.

* I don't think the proposed "campaign" is particularly effective or well executed, but that has virtually nothing do with the mostly over-the-top attacks I've read here.

* It isn't uncommon in politics, marketing or even social protest to riff off of a stereotype.  Clearly that's what this is about.  The suggestion that this is intended to evoke a 1950s image of womanhood is too daft to be taken seriously.  Whether it successfully satirizes the stereotype and thereby accomplishes the presumed goal is another question.  I'm not convinced it does.

* If this is intended as a set of innoculation messages, then OF COURSE it is going to focus on areas where teh electorate generally see the party as weak - ie, that the party is fiscally irresponsible or that the party is seen as mindlessly anti-business.  This sort of campaign is about addressing negative perceptions, not reinforcing positive ones.  So the criticism that this only focusses on these areas is . . . odd.

* BTW, I'm tired of the way the purer than pure around here keep repeating the right wing frame that fiscal responsibility is "conservative" or right wing.  It's complete bullshit.  Real leftists oppose the massive transfer of public wealth to the banks and financial institutions.

* At no point did Stockholm (or anyone else) suggest that we should emulate the POLICIES of Margaret Thatcher.  The attacks on him using that meme are stupid, childish, offensive and pretty much standard fare on Babble.

* There is nothing wrong with learning from the strategies and tactics of your opponents.  Indeed, only fools refuse to do so.

remind remind's picture

Malcolm wrote:
 ...It isn't uncommon in politics, marketing or even social protest to riff off of a stereotype.  Clearly that's what this is about.  The suggestion that this is intended to evoke a 1950s image of womanhood is too daft to be taken seriously.

Exactly on both accounts, the riff is so obvious that it makes the mockery all that more funny.

Quote:
 Whether it successfully satirizes the stereotype and thereby accomplishes the presumed goal is another question.  I'm not convinced it does.

It would seem some do not want  it to work, and are dead set on it not achieving its goal. Hence the campaign trying to suggest it is other than what it is. Even though  it is as you say "daft" for them to pretend it is other.

Quote:
* If this is intended as a set of innoculation messages, then OF COURSE it is going to focus on areas where teh electorate generally see the party as weak - ie, that the party is fiscally irresponsible or that the party is seen as mindlessly anti-business.  This sort of campaign is about addressing negative perceptions, not reinforcing positive ones.  So the criticism that this only focusses on these areas is . . . odd.

Really there is no way for it to have any other intent.

Quote:
* BTW, I'm tired of the way the purer than pure around here keep repeating the right wing frame that fiscal responsibility is "conservative" or right wing.  It's complete bullshit.  Real leftists oppose the massive transfer of public wealth to the banks and financial institutions.

I agree. On all acounts.

Quote:
 There is nothing wrong with learning from the strategies and tactics of your opponents.  Indeed, only fools refuse to do so.

 

Agree again.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Actually Malcolm the real lesson from the last Toronto Mayoralty campaign is that tracking the media messaging of the right (and treating the electorate like gullible fools in the process) is a recipe for disaster. Smitherman's attempt to playing right on the issues, and progressive on rhetoric simply meant that no other media message was available other than fiscal conservativism. In the environment bereft of left critique voters (including an astonishing number of NDP voters -- 26% of Ford's voters -- went with Rob Ford, and his grass roots populism, which was just chock full of left wing messaging -- as I pointed out he was the only candidate who dared use the word "working class".

The result was the working class voted for him in droves.

So it would seem the ONDP has learned absolutely nothing and is actually applying the strategy of the major loser in that campaign and is preparing to launch itself down the same road that killed George Smitherman, and handed the right overwhelming victory.

More importantly the NDP should stop navel-gazing about media message and focus on mobilizing people on the issues, in the same manner as Rob Ford. Ford committed most of his resources not to creating an appealing soft sell media image, but a brash grass roots campaign, that survived in a seriously anti-Ford media environment.

I don't even think Mike Harris was treated so badly by the press.

All these posters tell me is that ONDP has not learned anything. Is continuing down the same road as they have for the last 20 years, which is working harder and harder to be indistinguishable from the opposition, and justifying doing so because it is "learning from the strategies and tactics of your opponent", which is NDP code for adopting their non-platform, "message" driven campaign because it "works".

Well, it didn't work. Smitherman was killed at the polls. This strategy, emulating the opposition, has had precious little impact on NDP fortunes and the ONDP is no where near winning government in Ontario, and is not even as popular as it was before Bob Rae was elected, and has absolutely no chance of winning the Federal government.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

[quote=Doug]When we borrow money - and even worse, get into the position where we HAVE to borrow money - we don't have the option but to dance to the tune of our creditors. See how Ireland's been doing lately if you disagree.[/quote]

I suppose when you reach the point where economic policy only makes sense when voiced through dehistoricized, uncontextualized aphorisms like "balanced budgets," this is the conlusion you draw about what his happening in Ireland. When, in actual fact, rather than bullshit about balanced budgets, I'd like to hear a politician say this:

 

Unionist

Here's some negative perceptions the ONDP might want to address:

1. They don't keep their best promises - like auto insurance.

2. They kick workers once they're in power - like tearing up negotiated contracts.

3. They're ambiguous on LGBTQ rights - like when the NDP government allowed same-sex benefits to go down to defeat in a free vote.

Are those posters coming soon?

No?

Too left-wing?

See, those are negative perceptions based on people's real-life experience - not like the "big time spender" nonsense.

Stuart_Parker

Malcolm, if we're working with the "disagreeing with a woman is sexist (and frankly unchivalrous, unmanly and not befitting the largesse to lower orders expected of a beneficiary of patriarchal privilege)" theory, let's just welcome Phyllis Schaffley as an authority on female emancipation and be done with it.

Michael Laxer Michael Laxer's picture

Remind you said

 

"Michael, you made claims above about what happened at provincial council about the posters, that were quite blatently incorrect, as others who were there have stated concretely otherwise. Now, why should anything you say have any validity? Not saying it doesn't just sayin....also, given that you stated something happened that didn't , in respect to feminists at council and their actions, I find it pretty offensive that you continue to try and push your sexist premise. Even moreso when you do not acknowledge your former portrayal of what happened at council as being incorrect."

 

No I did not. I said NOTHING at all about council. What I said was

 

"I might note, for what it is worth in what seems an increasingly nasty and personal debate here, that on my Facebook page, where I have posted these photos for debate, many women have found them sexist and disappointing and have said so, so I don't think it is reasonable to try to claim that Stuart's views are not shared by any women on the left or in the NDP. If you go on Facebook and read what many women on the left and in the party are saying you will find that this is simply not true and that many do share his views. I am sure others do not. It is a debate, after all, and it is possible for different activists to find different things offensive for different reasons. Feel free to check my page on Facebook if you think that I am not being truthful. The wall is public.

I am sure there also are those who think it is mocking sexism and that it is a clever strategy. Presumably they would not have produced them otherwise.

I will leave it to others to decide this one, but it would appear to be an open question among the activists in the party and out of it (and the ONDP, of course, is not only trying to appeal to those at provincial council...that would constitute a couple hundred votes in a province of millions, so if it does rub some people the wrong way as "sexist" that is worth noting...at least if the ONDP wants to win an election or get the votes of these folks, as opposed to winning a debate on Babble)"

 

This has nothing whatever to do with what happened at council.

 

Nor did I say the posters were sexist. I said that many women in the party and outside of it felt that way.

 

That you are not on Facebook is fine. This is not the Matrix. Other people do actually exist...and they have said they felt the posters were sexist on Facebook. Many of them are women and many of them are in the NDP. That you disagree is fine, but ranting at me will not make their opinions go away.

 It is, however, kind of silly.

So, if you want to take shots, why not take them at what I actually wrote instead of trying to facelessly make everything personal.

 

remind remind's picture

Wow cue, that is a huge leap into an area that Malcolm had not discussed, or mentioned, nor which is evident in the photo display that is being discussed. Given that it is a mockery, one can hardly attribute it to "Ford" anything.

As such your post is a red herring.

 

 

remind remind's picture

Michael, heads up, I was not "ranting at you", nor was I indicating those opinions that differ from mine who you state are on Facebook should go away. And I was addressing what you wrote, how about you go back over your own posts in the other thread.

Michael Laxer Michael Laxer's picture

This is the ONLY thing I wrote in the other thread.

 

"There is no question the posters are real. They are all over Facebook, including on my page.

As I am friends with the entire caucus and a couple dozen people on exec I am quite certain that they would have contacted me to tell me I had been the victim of a hoax and would have told the many others who have shared the links.

Further, other people, in the comments on Facebook, have confirmed seeing them. And WITH the slogans on top. You can find these comments on facebook if you look.

Fidel, as you essentially called the guy who took the pictures a liar, who was hurling abuse? You continued even after he said he had taken them, where, and that they were not fake. This would piss anyone off.

I certainly hope we never see them again, for if these are to be campaign posters we are screwed.

But they are real, so why not discuss the posters and what they indicate policy wise and tone wise and if they are a good idea as it was the ONDP that produced them."

 

As you can plainly see I wrote nothing at all about reaction at council. I said that the posters were real. That is the ONLY thing I said, other than that I thought they were not a good idea. I never stated anywhere what I thought feminists or anyone else at council thought about them

 

PERIOD!

 

So what exactly are you talking about? 

Kloch

Sunday Hat wrote:

So I'm clear: balancing budgets is akin to an illegal declaration of war?

I'm glad we've cleared up that the biggest sin is being soft on the Papists.

 

A simple "I know you are but what am I?" would've sufficed.  Fewer words, takes up less bandwidth.

Stuart_Parker

Michael, are you seriously expecting remind to respond to the words you post versus the words she needs to believe you posted? Are you unfamiliar with this web forum?

Stuart_Parker

Kloch wrote:
A simple "I know you are but what am I?" would've sufficed.  Fewer words, takes up less bandwidth.

The rubber-glue thing is a timeless classic. I don't see why these NDP acolytes vary from that time honoured schoolyard-tested formula.

Kloch

I have to say, better comedy I have not seen in while.  The discussion has gone something like this:

The posters are fake.

The posters are real, but they are an attempt to preempt right-wing attacks

The posters are real, and criticism them for being sexist is itself sexist

... and now...

The posters are real and they may just be used as one-offs for the convention

 

So the NDP deliberately created 4 posters with right-wing messaging as a joke for it's own base?  Well, whatever keeps your faith in the party alive, Comrades.

Joking aside, my bet is we won't ever see them again.  The real question for me is: what lesson will they learn from this debacle?  If the NDP keeps trying to out-flank the Libs and Tories with right-wing messaging, they are going to drive voters to the Tories.  It's a doomed strategy and will likely expose them on their left-flank to the Liberals. 

remind remind's picture

Oh, my sincere apologies Michael, there was a post in that 1st thread that I thought you had written, as it sounded close to what you were saying, only now upon review I see it was a JALL, who is brand new poster, who wrote the lies about the alleged happenings at the ONNDP Provincial Council. Should have looked at the name instead of just presuming it was a continued rant of yours.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

remind wrote:

Wow cue, that is a huge leap into an area that Malcolm had not discussed, or mentioned, nor which is evident in the photo display that is being discussed. Given that it is a mockery, one can hardly attribute it to "Ford" anything.

As such your post is a red herring.

A while back I asserted that the campaign is being conducted with an eye on the Rob Ford campaign. Indeed, ALL politics in Toronto is being discussed with an eye to that campaign. For one thing, Toronto is one of the most important constituencies to influence in the provincial elections, especially for non-Conservative parties. Stockholm and other all responded to my observation regarding that election and "learning from oppnonents" as Malcolm has, and this part of this discussion flows from my observations abotu Rob Ford.

If the NDP is not developing its campaign in the context of the Rob Ford victory then the advise they are getting is even worse than I thought. It would be dellusional not ot consider the upcoming provincial election in the terms of the recent Toronto experience.

Any marketing person who think that the provincial NDP party should go into an election campaign with the phrase "Tax and Spend" on a poster, should be fired immediatly. Any advise they are giving should be discarded.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well this has been a fine thread. I don't suppose we could give it a good night's sleep before starting up again, eh?

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked