ONDY slugfest

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KenS wrote:

But whoever is behind it- whatever the poltical leanings involved- there has always been wariness in the NDP about "instant memberships" for internal voting. Ujjal Dosanjh's leadership campaign being the case of this most people would have heard about.

Is this a drive by smear of a liberal or the current President of the BC NDP?  Are you stating that the people running that leadership campaign broke the rules? Personally I think that is a stretch because they merely stretched the rules to the breaking point and with a little duct tape they were never quite broken.  Was it dirty and nasty and underhanded?  Absolutely!!!  and if you check your fats you will find the same back room wheeler dealers are in control of the pitiful BC NDP.  thanks for making my point about the need to get rid of the cabal leading the BC NDP.

KenS

Underhanded or not, rules broken or not, was not my point. It is just as I said- anything that can be called 'instant memberships' is controversial in the NDP... whoever is doing it... even if they are more running the show than anyone else.

StarSuburb

A Liberal "friend" of mine flipped me this from the latest issue of the Ontario Young Liberals email

 

Meet the Brand-New Ontario New Democratic Youth.  Many LOLZ Sure to Follow...

 The Ontario New Democratic Youth Turns Left.  Really, Really, Really, Far Left.  Actually.

And you thought OYL AGMs could get kind of crazy.

 

A radical leftist group has just literally taken over the Ontario New Democratic Youth (basically the NDP's OYL). 

"Hold on a second, Gabe," you might say. "Aren't you being a bit over-the-top?"

 

No!  I just had the pleasure of reading an article in a publication called "Fightback: The Canadian Marxist Voice of Labour and Youth" in which the author boasts, in detail, of how a group of self-proclaimed "radical Marxist" Young New Democrats ("Democrats" is being generous here...) stacked the ONDY Convention in Hamilton last weekend. 

Story is here: http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/613/1/

 

Their slate won every single executive position for which they nominated a candidate, a controlling majority of the Exec.  And they proceeded to pass a series of hilarious policy resolutions. 

It would appear that this was possible for three reasons:

1 - Their convention only had 75 delegates, so bring 40 of your closest friends and you too can be the Co-Chair.
2 - They do not enforce a membership cut-off, so anyone can show up to the election, sign a form, and vote.  Seriously. 
3 - The political gods thought I deserved some major lolz.

 

Model Parliament is going to be CRAZY!!!!

If you happen to have NDP friends who have told you any hilarious stories about the weekend convention, I would be thrilled to hear from you at gderoche@oyl.org.

Furthermore, if you find this as entertaining as I do, please join the Opposition Watch Comms Comm. Again, this can be accomplished by emailing me at gderoche@oyl.org

I love it when people go nuts in an election year.  Oh well.

edmundoconnor

I'm not going to take any lessons from a youth wing who can't wait to sell out their principles in return for power. Those meetings must be 'crazy' indeed. How many voters do you want to sell down the river today?

I have to love someone who can say 'Opposition Watch Comms Comm' with a straight face.

Who's Ralph Googdale, by the way?

Gabe De Roche, Director of Communications for the OYL, should look into that.

Polunatic2

Fascinating. 

Quote:
At one point, they introduced an amendment to the resolution against police brutality so that only “non-violent” opponents of brutality would be supported. They claimed that the resolution would advocate violence and attempted to paint the left as extremists. The debate was incredibly principled on the side of the movers of the resolution, arguing that the label “violence” is a slippery slope. Who decides what is, and is not, “violent”? 

I universally condemn police brutality. But who decides where to draw the line on tactics? Rock throwers who attack small businesses and medical clinics as well as symbols of capitalism? Bank bombers? Certainly not the sellouts who organize around elections or plan useless marches that go in circles chanting chants that no one listens to. And certainly not the "right wing" ONDP. After all, the other side are war mongers with nukes, fighter jets and chemical weapons so no actions under the rubric of "diversity of tactics" can ever be debated by the movement. The tactics are sacrosanct. Critics are silenced. Who are the real victims here? 

aka Mycroft

Quote:

Subject: Call for Meeting to Elect ONDY Executive

Call for Meeting to Elect ONDY Executive

Provincial office has received a number of complaints from NDP members regarding the validity of the recent Executive elections at ONDY.

Upon investigation, the Administrative Committee of the party has established that:

A significant number of the attendees who voted, were not eligible to do so as they were not members in good standing, as stipulated in the ONDY and ONDP Constitutions
The conference was notified that the voting process for the Executive election must adhere to the ONDY Constitution to be valid
Ineligible ballots were cast, which affected the election results, and ineligible candidates were elected

Therefore, the Administrative Committee of the ONDP does not recognize the Executive election results for ONDY held on November 7, 2010.

The Administrative Committee is calling a special meeting on Sunday November 28, 2010 at 12:30 pm following Provincial Council at 89 Chestnut Street, Toronto with the specific purpose of holding an election for the ONDY Executive. ONDP members holding valid membership for 30 days or more, and who are under the age of 26 are eligible to run for election and to vote. Eligibility of valid membership in the ONDP will be verified and proof of age is required.

Administrative Committee

Ontario’s New Democrats
--------------------

Cueball Cueball's picture

Polunatic2 wrote:

Fascinating. 

Quote:
At one point, they introduced an amendment to the resolution against police brutality so that only “non-violent” opponents of brutality would be supported. They claimed that the resolution would advocate violence and attempted to paint the left as extremists. The debate was incredibly principled on the side of the movers of the resolution, arguing that the label “violence” is a slippery slope. Who decides what is, and is not, “violent”? 

I universally condemn police brutality. But who decides where to draw the line on tactics? Rock throwers who attack small businesses and medical clinics as well as symbols of capitalism? Bank bombers? Certainly not the sellouts who organize around elections or plan useless marches that go in circles chanting chants that no one listens to. And certainly not the "right wing" ONDP. After all, the other side are war mongers with nukes, fighter jets and chemical weapons so no actions under the rubric of "diversity of tactics" can ever be debated by the movement. The tactics are sacrosanct. Critics are silenced. Who are the real victims here? 

Clifford Olsen is no more deserving of police brutality than any rock throwing anarchists or peaceful protesters. The principled position is to support victims of police brutality, regardless of their own activities.

Sure, if you want to have a debate about what kinds of activities are condoned by an organization that is all well and fine, but trying to shoe-horn that in, via amendment, into a discussion about victims of police brutality is to sully a discussion of basic rights by politicizing it.

edmundoconnor

I have to love the ONDP. Quoting the constitution as holy writ when it suits them, quietly skating over it when it doesn't.

Even if they manage to dump the exec that was elected at convention, this will not be the end of the matter. The deposed exec and their supporters won't be going away, and they'll make plenty of noise going and in the wilderness. It's kind of sweet and naive for the powers-that-be to imagine that if a compliant exec is elected that everything will be okay again. Will TYND be de-chartered (again) and will the new exec be okay if organisers and reps in the field sit on their hands rather than help build ONDY (and by extension the ONDP)? If I was in their position, I'd be strongly tempted to do just that.

aka Mycroft

So should the ONDY executive that has been vacated refuse to accept the Administrative Committee's decision and attempt to challenge it at Provincial Council? If they fail at Provincial Council should they boycott the new election as illegitimate and just ignore it and solider on as the "real" ONDY vs whowever is elected on October 28 (or should they run in the election and then refuse to accept the result if provincial office bars large numbers of people from voting?

aka Mycroft

Is membership in the NDP limited to social democrats? If so, you'd have to purge not only a significant number of individuals on the left of the party who is a socialist and believes that the capitalist market economy should be replaced with a socialist economy (even if only gradually). You would also have to purge a far greater number of members on the right-wing of the party (many of whom are in quite senior positions) who are ideologically liberal rather than social democrat and are generally opposed to public ownership of a significant percentage of the economy or large scale redistribution of wealth.

If socialists, be they Trotskyist, Marxist, or some other vairety, are allowed to be members of the NDP then why shouldn't they be permitted to win election to positions?

Cueball Cueball's picture

There has been a lot of discussion about changing the name. Could just get rid of the "Democratic" part. Then it would just be the "New Party". I like that. It has that amorphous meaningless tenor of fascist organizations. Indeed, it does.

 

Hamiltonian

The old guard has been finding ways to shut down the voices of anyone who does not agree with them by enforcing and ignoring rules as it suits them, removing people from exec., and de-certifying. Many people have become so aliened, disenfranchised and fed up that they have left the party - queer caucus chair, ethnocultural committee chair, past ONDY chairs, to name a few. The canary in the coal mine is when members of our most vulnerable committees begin leaving the party.

Removing people from the party should not be the party's first response. The party should be fostering dialogue instead. Had the party made more of an effort to cultivate a strong and meaningful relationship with the youth wing, it is likely the circumstances leading up the de-charting of TYND would have never occurred. De-chartering the TYND backfired. Rather than fading quietly into the night with their marching orders, the youth organized and fought back. In the end, the youth slate the old guard feared will get in, the party is left looking autocratic, and many potential members are left with a sour taste in their mouth and leave the party. This is terrible internal governance - especially right before an election. It's time the party adopted a new attitude on how to manage internal relations - one that's focused on restoring relations rather than going straight to the chopping block. 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Cueball wrote:

Clifford Olsen is no more deserving of police brutality than any rock throwing anarchists or peaceful protesters. The principled position is to support victims of police brutality, regardless of their own activities.

Sure, if you want to have a debate about what kinds of activities are condoned by an organization that is all well and fine, but trying to shoe-horn that in, via amendment, into a discussion about victims of police brutality is to sully a discussion of basic rights by politicizing it.

 

Possibly thread drift, but . . .

I absolutely agree that police brutality should be condemned regardless of the victim or what the victim was doing.

That said, it seems to me that there is a legitimate legal exemption for "reasonable force."  If the actions of a person constitute an immediate threat to others, the use of commensurate and proportional force sufficient to mitigate or eliminate the threat is justified.  For example, the use of a firearm to incapacitate someone shooting at a crowd may be appropriate.  The use of a firearm to incapacitete someone waving a sword at a crowd is probably not.  The use of physical force (ie, taclke and cuff) to restrain the sword wielder may be appropriate.  Tackling and cuffing a peaceful protester who is just standing there is probably not.

In other words, the application of a given amount of force may constitute police brutality in one case but not in another.

Had the police at the 20 been doing their job on Saturday (instead of having been instructed to stand by and give "vandals" a free pass), then tackling, cuffing and detaining rockthrowing individuals would have been a reasonable application of force.  Tackling, cuffing and detaining peaceful protestors - the same actions in a different context - was a clear and unequivocal abuse of police power.

All of which, of course, has almost nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Stockholm

Setting aside these procedural questions - there is still the problem of making sure the ONDY is not taken over by Trotskyists who don't believe in social democracy and who could bring the party as a whole into disrepute. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Police brutality is not and never has included justifiable force. It only covers cases where unjustifiable force is used.

I'd like you to give me examples where persons who have suffered rough treatment at the hands of the police are not accused of provoking the action by their own actions by the police? I have never heard of a case where the police have volunteered that they brutalized someone without having just cause.

The determination of cases of police brutality are determined in a court. I don't see how the NDP is going to pre-determine, who it does and does not support except on the basis of the police view of the situation, since they are the only other witnesses. In that case the resolution would amount to the NDP supports no one who is accusing the police of brutality, since the police in ALL cases claim that the use of force was justifiable and commensurate with the level of threat.

As one person is said to observe at the meeting: "He said that people are innocent until proven guilty and that workers' organizations shouldn't be passing judgment but unquestionably defending people's civil rights."

Precisely right. Is the NDP going to set up tribunals of individuals to determine who were engaged in violent acts and so therefore were not a victims of police brutality, and then issue certificates of support on a case by case basis?

It is completely clear and evident that there were massive violations of human rights at the G20, including fairly wide spread police brutality. Condemning that police brutality is simple enough.

In cases where justifiable force was used, there simply was no police brutality, of course.

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
Setting aside these procedural questions - there is still the problem of making sure the ONDY is not taken over by Trotskyists who don't believe in social democracy and who could bring the party as a whole into disrepute.

Good point. After all, guys like Bob Rae, Glen Clark, Gary Doer, Greg Sellinger, Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert were all from the Trotskyist wing of the NDP. It's the Trotskyist wing responsible for such errors as not bringing in public auto insurance as promised, attacking public servant contracts, not pushing for anti-scab legislation or dropping the bar for organizing in union drives, and generally fostering an out-of-touchness about the NDP, the result of which is that the general public sees the NDP as "politics as usual" instead of standing up for the little guy.

Oh, these people actually didn't come from the Trotskyist wing of the party? My mistake.

Stockholm

All the people you list managed to win elections. No one has ever won election ANYWHERE on the planet earth running on the kind of Trostkyist platform you read about in "fightback". If that kind of "bread riots in St. Petersburg-style" rhetorical actually appealed to anyone - you would think that there might be a single solitary election ANYWHERE on this planet where a party of the extreme left was getting more than single digit support. But alas, there is none. In election after election after election, parties to the left of mainstrean social democratic parties keep getting utterly humiliated with low single digit support.

Aristotleded24

You're the one making up strawmen about "bread riots in St. Petersburg-style." As for the people I listed, yes they won elections in the short run, but the NDP has suffered severe long term setbacks in 3 of the 4 provinces I've mentioned.

By the way, since you don't like people you deem to be "crackpots," and you are an expert at winning, how about the fact that your city elected a crackpot mayor? I find it funny that you claim "crackpots" cannot win elections when Ford proved otherwise, unless you think blaming cyclists for their deaths and making disgusting remarks about AIDS appeals to the electorate.

And regardless of whether or not you agree with the "Fightback" group, the fact that the ONDY was taken over by them speaks volumes about how weak the Ontario NDP actually is.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Actually, the Communist Party of Russia candidate usually comes in second in Russian presidentially elections, often exceeding by far the support the NDP gets in Canada.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

And regardless of whether or not you agree with the "Fightback" group, the fact that the ONDY was taken over by them speaks volumes about how weak the Ontario NDP actually is.

Good point.  Incredibly, despite the fact that the NDP support is at a solid 19% in the polls, the local Toronto organization was not able to mobilize its membership and its candidate for mayor, who most certainly was no crackpot, scored a dismal 12% at the polls.Ward 20 for example, had one of the lowest turnouts of any ward in the city, even though that is bedrock NDP territory with both the provincial MPP and Federal MP being NDP.

I imagine the atmosphere at the level of the riding associations is so toxic that no one wants to show up for meetings.

Stockholm

The person you speak of who won 12% of the vote in the mayoral race was not a serious candidate and was not in it to win - as a result people in the NDP quite rightly concluded that it was better to concentrate limited resources on winning council races rather than throwing good money after bad on a hopeless quixotic mayoral campaign that was more like a leisurely farewell tour/retirement party.

Stockholm

Cueball wrote:

Actually, the Communist Party of Russia candidate usually comes in second in Russian presidentially elections, often exceeding by far the support the NDP gets in Canada.

Actually, in the last Russian presidential election, the Communist party candidate got 17% of the vote despite being the only candidate running against Putin's marionette and having the entire anti-government vote to himself.In the last legislative elections in Russia, the Communist got 12% of the vote. I'll take the NDP's level of support in Canada over the piddling % of people in Russia who want to go back to Brezhnev and the KGB.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The reason the Communist Party is now only getting 12% in Russia, is because Russians can vote Putin and go back to Brezhnev and the KGB, litterally speaking, since Putin is a former KGB Colonel.

Stockholm wrote:

The person you speak of who won 12% of the vote in the mayoral race was not a serious candidate and was not in it to win - as a result people in the NDP quite rightly concluded that it was better to concentrate limited resources on winning council races rather than throwing good money after bad on a hopeless quixotic mayoral campaign that was more like a leisurely farewell tour/retirement party.

You mean the NDP is not serious and can not win. Your argument sounds like the excuse of a jilted loser in love: "I wasn't really interested anyway... "sniff". That is what I take from that.

This expresses precisely the problem of weakness in the ONDP. It is so weak that its youth wing can be easily taken over by marginalized Trotskyiests, and can not field what you think is a  "serious" candidate in Toronto's Mayoralty race, in a constituency that can be counted among the most left leaning in the country.

Incredibly the NDP candidate that did run, only won in two polls in the entire city and won no wards.

They don't even field a candidate in Ward 20 anymore. The candidate that does run in that half of Olivia Chow's riding, doesn't seem to think being identified with the NDP is worthwhile.

Fidel

Stockholm wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Actually, the Communist Party of Russia candidate usually comes in second in Russian presidentially elections, often exceeding by far the support the NDP gets in Canada.

Actually, in the last Russian presidential election, the Communist party candidate got 17% of the vote despite being the only candidate running against Putin's marionette and having the entire anti-government vote to himself.In the last legislative elections in Russia, the Communist got 12% of the vote. I'll take the NDP's level of support in Canada over the piddling % of people in Russia who want to go back to Brezhnev and the KGB.

What if, in 1991, many Russians indicated they wanted a democratic market socialism and not western style capitalism?

[url=Business">http://books.google.ca/books?id=1RILxwPOfK8C&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=Russia+... Studies[/url]

Needham&Dransfield wrote:
Opinion polls taken in 1991 showed that most citizens in the Soviet Union favoured some form of democratic market socialism. ... In China, too, a survey found that two-thirds of the population favoured a form of 'democratic socialism.'

 [url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122-2,00.html]Majo... of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism[/url] 2009

jrootham

I see no evidence that Joe Pantalone was not in it to win.  I see a lot of evidence that a number of huge and unlikely things would have to break his way for him to win.

I am not real happy with some NDP positions, but I understand and have considerable respect for the idea that if you don't win elections you have no power to do anything.  On the prairies and in BC you could move the party away from elections uber alles and still win, not so in Ontario.

The Toronto Mayoralty race is nowhere near being a left wing happy hunting ground.  Remember it is mostly the suburbs.  Your assertion to the contrary calls into question your grasp on political reality. The only reason Miller won was the right wingers self destructed.

Colin Vaughan ran against the idea of the downtown NDP machine.  No way is he joining the party.  There have always been reasonable options to NDP in city politics.  Ward 6 Communtiy Organization, anyone?  I don't think Adam is as principled a player but the cost of ousting him is vastly higher than the gains.

The NDP is very weak in Ontario as illustrated by the capture of ONDY.  This is not a good thing.  I do think part of the problem is the capture of the party by the apparatchiks.  However, having the party counter captured by a crowd that sounds like a bunch of Barry Wiesleder clones is not going to help.

 

Aristotleded24

jrootham wrote:
The Toronto Mayoralty race is nowhere near being a left wing happy hunting ground.  Remember it is mostly the suburbs.  Your assertion to the contrary calls into question your grasp on political reality. The only reason Miller won was the right wingers self destructed.

The other thing Miller had in his favour was the Liberal machine behind him in all parts of the city, as opposed to this go around when that machine was behind Smitherman.

jrootham

A big chunk of the NDP members in TS don't want to be part of that kind of political machine.  The history of this riding has it frequently (but not always) at odds with the NDP leadership.  Part of the consequence of that is the general decision that Adam Vaughan is an acceptable representative on city council.

That actually speaks to a commitment to democracy locally that transcends allegiance to the NDP.

In what respect is it game over?  Is the game the idea that the NDP has to control all levels of elected government in this part of the world?  Why is that a good game?

Cueball Cueball's picture

I didn't say Joe Pantalone was not out to win. That is Stockholm's "I wasn't really interested" loser's defence.

Explaining why Adam Vaughan doesn't like the NDP is all well and fine. It still does not obviate the fact that the NDP lost the council seat and does not run a candidate in what is one of the most left constituencies in Toronto, and instead has surrendered it without a fight to someone, who you confess is opposed to their being an NDP "machine" in downtown Toronto.

If there was such a "machine" it would develop and run a candidate against such a person. But there isn't. So they don't. Game over.

I agree that the Mayor's race is not a left wing "happy hunting" ground. I never said it was. I said Toronto is one of the most left leaning constituencies in the country. The point is that the NDP should at least be competative in such an environment. Apparently, it is not. Nor do NDP'rs on this board seem to think that the NDP can even field a serious candidate (Stockholm), while you conclude that it is simply not even worth it to try and unseat Adam Vaughan.

Why would defeating someone who is opposed to the NDP and replacing them with someone from the NDP be bad for the NDP -- this just makes no sense from the perspective of a party. Saying that the cost of "ousting him (Vaughan) is vastly higher than the gains" is basically saying the same thing that Stockholm has said about Pantalone. The NDP simply does not have a viable candidate.

Not being able to attract viable candidates indicates that the party has serious problems.

Cueball Cueball's picture

You seem to simply be arguing my point, and pretending it is a counter-argument.

jrootham

What is the point you are trying to make?  The only meaning I can reliably extract from your posts is that you don't like the NDP.

Please be clearer.

 

Fidel

I think he's trying to say fire good, NDP bad. Or something like that. His word speaky is the same since we found him dancing with wolves.

Cueball Cueball's picture

jrootham wrote:

What is the point you are trying to make?  The only meaning I can reliably extract from your posts is that you don't like the NDP.

Please be clearer.

I don't know how you could be clearer. You have basically reiterated all my points but with positive spin. I say the situation inside the riding association is so toxic that they can't get out the vote in Ward 20 and you spin that as:

jrootham wrote:

A big chunk of the NDP members in TS don't want to be part of that kind of political machine.  The history of this riding has it frequently (but not always) at odds with the NDP leadership.  Part of the consequence of that is the general decision that Adam Vaughan is an acceptable representative on city council.

The failure of the NDP to get it together in Ward 20 is now some kind of "commitment to local democracy". What has really happened is that Vaughan has taken advantage of the disarray of the NDP inside TS, and the NDP is too weak to contest the council seat. Vaughan, would likely be an acceptable centrist candidate for the NDP but he won't touch the NDP because he wants to get out all the liberal vote, the left-liberals and the right-NDPr's.

If the NDP were to run someone in Ward 20 it would have to be to the left of Vaughan, and that would just open up the debate about what the NDP is all about, and no one wants that, since they might have to stop pretending they are all in the same party together organized around the similar principles.

I can't see what would be intrinsically wrong with running someone against Vaughan, since the worst thing that could happen is that you would lose, and Vaughan would win. No. I think intrinsic political alliances are at work between the provincial party organization, and Vaughan and no one wants to offend Vaughan. This isn't about principle. I think this is a deal, where the entrenched right of the party squelches the left because they don't want to rock the Vaughan boat.

I don't think this is about commitment to local democracy, I think it's about not running a candidate to the left of Adam Vaughan.

KenS

Since I dont know the particulars I'll let Jim answer that. But one thing I do know- you arent listening or addressing what Jim said so far.

There isnt a "machine" such as you are talking about Cueball. Weak, powerful or whatever, it does not make decisions like you posit. When it comes down to supporting candidates in municipal elections, riding association activists are able to do as they want and very independent minded. That independence has to be taken into account even for provincial and federal elections, let alone municipal.

If the local Dippers have no interest in running someone against Vaughan- and its the same if just a minority of them want to- thats it.

remind remind's picture

Cue, are you avidedly working towards turning downtown TO into a right wing  stronghold?

genstrike

jrootham wrote:

That actually speaks to a commitment to democracy locally that transcends allegiance to the NDP.

Unless you're in Fightback

KenS

You understandabley missed the thread drift genstrike- the discussion had shifted to the municipal election. And the reference is to what the local Dippers decided they did or did not want to do around the ward race.

jrootham

Municipally Trinity-Spadina and it's historical equivalents (Ward 6) has been a leftist stronghold since the block ward system was killed off in the ealry 70's.  Dan Heap, Dan Leckie, Alan Sparrow.  Many local politicals position themselves to the left of the NDP without going all Trotskyist.  The only time the left lost a civic election here was when the NDP was being homophobic over George Hislop.  That let Gordon Chong win a seat.  He was defeated, as an INCUMBENT, the next election.  That also killed off the W6CO.  

Trinity Spadina has a large and somewhat informal left base that mostly supports the NDP but is now supporting Adam at council.  It has nothing to do with any left liberal support, municipally that is irrelevant.  Here the left gets what it wants, and right now it wants Adam.

There is no deal.  Given the amorphous nature of the left here any deal would have to be public.

Cueball Cueball's picture

KenS wrote:

There isnt a "machine" such as you are talking about Cueball. Weak, powerful or whatever, it does not make decisions like you posit. When it comes down to supporting candidates in municipal elections, riding association activists are able to do as they want and very independent minded. That independence has to be taken into account even for provincial and federal elections, let alone municipal.

I didn't bring up the NDP "machine" idea Rootham did.

Jrootham wrote:

Colin Vaughan ran against the idea of the downtown NDP machine.  No way is he joining the party.  There have always been reasonable options to NDP in city politics.  Ward 6 Communtiy Organization, anyone?  I don't think Adam is as principled a player but the cost of ousting him is vastly higher than the gains.

To which I said pretty much what you just said:

Cueball wrote:

If there was such a "machine" it would develop and run a candidate against such a person. But there isn't. So they don't. Game over.

remind wrote:

Cue, are you avidedly working towards turning downtown TO into a right wing  stronghold?

No the NDP is. If it is really the case that they are supporting Adam Vaughan by default. Indeed, Adam Vaughan is not only not very left. He actually endoresed the union busting George Smitherman for mayor.

Stockholm

jrootham wrote:

...That let Gordon Chong win a seat.  He was defeated, as an INCUMBENT, the next election....FYI - that was Jack Layton who beat Chong and started his political career.

jrootham

I hadn't remembered that, Stockholm.  

It's not the NDP that is supporting Adam, it's the leftists in TS.  At that point in the campaign, endorsing Smitherman is not indicative of much.  What happens next will depend on how Adam behaves.  If he sucks up to Ford too much he will lose the election.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Out here we run civic parties that are independent of the NDP but left wing and most NDP activists are supporters and volunteers.  In Vancouver a left party COPE and a liberal party Vision beat the snot out of the right wing NPA. COPE and Vision for all their bitter differences got behind a single mayoral candidate. In Burnaby the BCA is a left liberal party with an NDP membership being a precondition to joining but there are no other official ties to the party.  The left has won council and the Mayor's chair for decades.  The BCA deliberately plays down the NDP connection but plays up its left roots in our civic history.  In the FPTP system they were rewarded with all the seats in the last election and the Mayor cruised to an easy win

So is the ONYD kerfuffle a symptom of underlying problems with left and left liberal coalition?  Seems to me that civic green sustainable issues are something that should build coalitions.  Red baiting to protect the holy grail of a narrow parliamentary model of left politics doesn't seem to be making much headway. Maybe its time for the left liberals to stop trying to define a party whose name claims it is democratic. Throwing people out while vilifying them is the stupidest way to get young people engaged in politics. Without youth energy like the Calgary Mayor's race the ONDP is doomed to third party obscurity in a two horse race.

Cueball Cueball's picture

You asked me to be clearer. Now I will ask you to read for content. Again, you seem to be posting my arguments and posing them as a counter-argument. I did not say the NDP is supporting Adam. I said, the NDP is not supporting anyone. It has no candidate. You argued variously that NDP'rs in the ward think Adam is good enough. Here you are playing the game I said is being played: supporting a candidate by default, by not running against him.

You endorse this postion.

Supporting Smitherman indicates that Adam feels he can oppose the NDP mayoralty candidate and that will not effect him in TS. Maybe Adam feels that way because the NDP is afraid to run against him.

Adam wont suck up to Ford at all. Adam will play opposition to Ford because he wants to be mayor. And much of the NDP organization thinks having Adam as mayor might not be such a bad idea. Another reason the NDP "certainly not a machine" doesn't want to offend Adam. Hint: once Adam runs for mayor, the ward will be open again.

I really can't say that I value highly your political acumen.

KenS

Cueball wrote:
You argued variously that NDP'rs in the ward think Adam is good enough. Here you are playing the game I said is being played: supporting a candidate by default, by not running against him.

The game you speak of, and the 'rules' you make up for them are yours.

Jim made teh simple point that the lefty Dippers in the ward decided Adam was good enough. Because its muncipla politics, thats the end of it.

There is no point anyone from outside the ward [and TS riding association] even considering options that dont exist. When there is a nomination the party has the option if it wants of running an uphill battle against the apparent favourite of the riding activists. [And then make peace with them if the candidate they wants wins.] But without the nomination process there is only the amorphous concensus of the local NDP activists.

You are on the one crticising the NDP for not being a vey adaept organization. But at the same time because this 'machine' could have had an alternative candidate if it wanted, the fact it didnt means that Adam was in practice what it wanted.

Doesnt make sense.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fourth party obscurity.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So is the ONYD kerfuffle a symptom of underlying problems with left and left liberal coalition?  Seems to me that civic green sustainable issues are something that should build coalitions.  Red baiting to protect the holy grail of a narrow parliamentary model of left politics doesn't seem to be making much headway. Maybe its time for the left liberals to stop trying to define a party whose name claims it is democratic. Throwing people out while vilifying them is the stupidest way to get young people engaged in politics. Without youth energy like the Calgary Mayor's race the ONDP is doomed to third party obscurity in a two horse race.

Nonetheless, there really is a problem with the entryist methodology and it can be very destructive. One hopes that the internal strength of ones organization is good enough to overwhelm them in caucus. Throwing them out through procedural games indicates serious weakness. The fact that the ONDY has the Trots is indicative of a deeper sickness, and the fact that the ONDP has to use invasive surgery to solve the problem a sign of serious weakness.

KenS

Yes, everyone has said that. But reading wider meaning than that- what the NDP wants- is not 'obvious.'

Cueball Cueball's picture

The players in the TS riding association are happy with Vaughan.

Cueball Cueball's picture

That is a bunch of crap. Wards 20 NDP has had nomination processess in the past. Indeed, in the election that Vaughan won, there was a big internal contest in the riding association between Olivia Chow's chosen successor, Helen Kennedy and Tam Gossen. The reason that there is no nomination process now is because the situation in the riding association completely toxic, as a result of that.

Obviously the NDP riding assocaition is comfortable with Adam.

They had absolutely no compunction running against Karen Sun in Ward 19 (an independent and popular riding activist), but were a no show against Vaughan.

Yes, I do criticize the NDP for not being very adept at organizing. That is why I pointed out that any fears Vaughan might have about an Civic NDP machine can be laid to rest. It no longer exists, as much as it ever did. Now, the NDP is simply irrelevant, as far as Vaughan is concerned.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Cueball, if ever you want to respond to anything I actually said in my post, I'm game for a discussion.

If all you want to do is rave about your contempt for the NDP based on a false and misleading twisting of my comments, then I'm not.

All I said was that the same level of force which would be justified in one situation would constitute police brutality (or at least police misconduct) in another.

Never said a damned thing about always believing the police claims.  That was just the voices in your head.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Where did I attribute that thought to you?

So your position is now that nothing you said related to anything I said about the proposed amendment providing that the NDP would only "support" victims of police brutality who were "peaceful". Ok, well all I did was outline further the problems with that amendment, in real terms.

What could be the possible purpose of amending a generic boilerplate denunciation of "police brutality" in circumstances where it is completely clear and evident that there were numerous cases of unwarranted force used by the police in order to suppress peaceful protest?

Honestly, the amendment only serves to hopelessly muddy the waters by implying that there was widespread violence by a lot of protesters, when in fact, those cases are very few indeed. It is only reinforce the position of the authorities, and given that the police will invariably accuse people who accuse them of police brutality, basically make it a motion to support no one, since all stand accused of "violent" activities.

They treated Torontonians like cattle.

jrootham

I obviously didn't write clearly enough, since both Cueball and KenS got it wrong.

In TS the left is larger than the NDP.  The TS ridings execs (there are 2, provincial and federal) are not the dominant players in city politics.  They become significant players if candidates want the NDP blessing, but only then.  I would bet they are not happy with Adam being the councillor, but right now they don't think (probably rightly) that they can do anything about it.  It is the larger left, not the NDP, that has decided to support Adam.

At this point there is no formal left civic organization in TS.  This gives Adam more room to maneuver, but I'm pretty sure he understands that there are things he can't do if he wants to be reelected.  I would say his comments on contracting out are both unexpected and playing with fire.

OK that's the thread drift part.

On the main point of the thread.  I would absolutely agree that resorting to crude procedural mechanisms to evict entryists is a sign of weakness.  

Pages

Topic locked