babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
i agree with mike
why are we letting the same group of people who helped us lose party statuts, bankrupted us and are sacring away youth, professionals and minorities still run the show!? in any other party these epople would have been sent home already
time to say thank you to sandra, penny, howard, merv, andrew, mike and all the rest. give them a nice parting gift. ask them for donations, to volunteer on elections, and to vote for us, but move on
there are too many fresh and talented members waiting in the wings to really do something with this party
I belong to a union and am an executive member. I am not calling on the NDP to cut its ties to unions. Nor am I being 'anti-union' by questioning the ethics of our financial ties to them. Conservatives and Liberals are in-bed with big business the same way the ONDP is in-bed with labour. Both relationships impose a conflict of interest. My concern is that the same people have been at the helm for a long time and are doing a terrible job. It's hard to develop progressive policy, especially around the issue of public school funding, when you're worried about losing the support of unions (ie/ catholic school teachers union). I also question the focus in on paying back loans to unions (by budget cuts such as delaying convention) rather than trying to grow our support base.
Not to mention that the unions co-signing for loans does not conferr any power on them- even informal power.
[Let alone there is no information about how much they are co-signing for... and even if we had that information, the time frame for paying off the loans.. etc.]
And a note that suggesting that its time for officers to be replaced belies earlier suggestions that you want accounatability; and fits nicely into others' suggestions that it isn't about the substance of the criticisms, its about agendas to get rid of people.
I do not support any president that thinks she is above the constitution and will violate the constitution in order to carry out her agenda. You caught me Ken [eye roll].
You do seem intent on sabotaging your position.
Thats your opinion that its a conflict of interest. I among others don't agree. Your opinion is your business. But you are using it as more than your opinion. You are trumping it up into being part of a problem much bigger than the ethics of relationships.
Loans have to be paid back in a timely manner no matter who the money is owed to. And "timely" means you have to pay down repidly during non-election years. You can question the wisdom of how much debt should have been taken on. But that is entirely seperate from the issue of paying the debt down once you have. The speed which the loans have to be paid down has nothing to do with money being owed to unions in particular. I don't care if you are a union and exec member, where you look for scapegoats says something to me. [Not that it is really relevant to the larger points- its a comment on yousaying you are not anti-union.]
Whether you like to admit it or not Ken, the fact that unions co-signed our loans compromises our relationship with them - you are a fool to think otherwise. If that were not the case than ONDP would accept a similar relationship with big corporations. We do not accept donations from Corporate Canada because we do not wish to compromise our integrity. We should be placing the same boundaries around our relationship with labour.
Basic personnel principle in non-union as well as union workplaces:
No matter how much individuals may have been told how their practices are really bad, etc.... the clock to them possibly being disciplined, let alone threatened with termination or told their resignation is expected, does not BEGIN until they have been formally warned that their practices may lead to consequences.
In other words, people get a chance to act accordingly. The fact they 'should have known' from what people were already telling them informally, is immaterial.
That goes for managers as well as plebes.
I'll do you the favour Mike of ignoring you called me a fool.
I've put in years on party finance committees doing budgets and dealing with loans. I know all about formal and informal obligations. I also know that unions in the ONDP in particular have more influence and different influence than what you get just from reading organization charts.
But like I said, co-signing loans conferrs on them no further influence. You are entitlled to your opinion it is undue influence. But you are making of it much more than an opinion. You went so far as to say that the loans are being paid at the speed they are rather than spending money on Conventions because the unions co-signed the lines. And you showed no inclination to qualify that after I pointed out the loans would have to be repaid post-haste whoever held them.
Elected officials, such as presidents, are under different rules and are subject to impeachment.
Put it as a resolution and start working to support it. But stop treating it as if what you call a compromised relationship is a fact.
I'm allowed to question what influences the priorities of our party.
Indeed they are. And you can't get support to impeach them until after they have had an official assessment of their actions and they have had a chance to respond.
My global point stands, notwithstanding some different specific mecahnics of how it plays out.
Ken why do you think that labour would be any less influential on the party's agenda compared to corporations?
pssst by the way the federal NDP is already doing it...
I already affirmed more than once you are entitled to your opinions, and for them to be respected.
But where I come from this isnt called "questioning:.
Are you doing free association now? Where do you get the idea I say that unions have less influence than corporations? [Not that I really want to know where that one comes from.]
As to the coy "psst, the federal party is already doing it"... it was a federal law change that compelled tht NDP to no longer take union donations. [But cool since the other parties had to also stop taking their MUCH larger corporate donations.]
And you consistently missed the overall point: we CHOSE and choose to not accept corporate donations, we CHOSE and choose to have unions play a role within the party.
For the record, I favour unions and the NDP ending the formal relationship. I think its in our mutual interests- and we are moving that direction anyway. [The unions don't have the formal relationship with the US Dems- and its even stronger.]
But that doesn't change me contesting how some people portray the relationship. Even if at the same time I think that one of the benefits of ending the formal relationship would be a chance to put to rest and not be distracted by what to my mind is paranoia even amomng members and allies about the relationship.
ON, or perhaps TO, should become a country in it's own right, perhaps then the ROC would be much better off......
Wait... is that Remind or Bill Murdoch?
Hello everyone! I just wanted to tahnk you all for discussing my first post and welcoming me to Babble. I appreciate the advice offered and look forward to posting again.
Reading your comments has been very interesting. Here are a few observations:
What I find most interetsing is that no one commented on the possible plight of 12 workers of your party. Not sure if this is a socialist greater good over the individual thing, but I thought it intriguing as yours is the party of labour.
I have to also pointout that although not as many of you poste das the other two parties, you are more interetsing than than the conservatives, but not as civil with one another as the liberasl.
I also found it intersting in looking at other connected themse that conversation alway pro- (or re-) gressed into the same debate, mainly polarizing philosophical views of your party. It seems to a non-partisan observer that these issues need to be hashed out at some point so you can focus on the actual issue at hand, like 12 NDP workers who, according to your own party's definition, may be exploited.
Thanks again
PoliSci Tanya
I don't think ONDP are imploding. There are always internal issues. There have undoubtedly been tougher times than now.
I received a voicemail and email from Andrea the other day announcing the formation of a Toronto area council for the NDP.
The meeting is being held:
Saturday, March 27
10:00 a.m. (with social from 5 - 8)
Steelworkers Hall, 25 Cecil Street, Toronto
This is a very interesting point and one that we should all take to heart. Thanks for pointing this out, Tanya.
I think it is important to note that this is not a sponsored NDP messageboard and, as you can see from some posters, includes non-NDP leftists and Greens. While there is a concentration of New Democrats here, a more representative sampling of NDPers would be the party's e-mail discussion listserv, Mouseland. This might be more productive for you if you intend to use this for any academic work you might be doing.
You seem a little unfamiliar both with the way threads tend to develop on web forums and with how discussion works within political parties. It seems like you are at an early point in your studies. I wish you the best of luck with them!
Welcome to rabble.ca.
To be fair that could be because it's an unsubstantiated rumour.
What Mycroft said. It could be a 'real rumour', or it could mostly be the sound of axes being ground.
For myself, its both the kind of think I take seriously, and as a rumour I wait to see. Hesitant to give someone stirring up trouble with nothing the satisfaction of people assuming there is much truth to the rumour.
If its true, we'll keep hearing about it, and withe more confirmable/dis-confirmable 'handles' on it.
I seriously recommend that people take up the offer to form a Toronto area riding council.
You'll find it gives you an easily attended to and manageable means of sharing concerns and taking your own initiatives. The alternative of attempting to wade through Council is a hard slog even when there is no active resistance. There you ahve to get so many 'blessings' just to get to the point of talking.
An area council is both nimble and has influence even without any formal authority.
And Andrea is to be commended for encouraging it. Even knowing nothing about staff and key volunteers at Cecil Street, I'll bet odds are high that the idea was met there with some lack of enthusiasm.
well thats all in toronto and a lot of us do not live in toronto and only get together with other ndpers at councils
i would also point that this toronto council is run by some of president cliffords lap dogs. sorry to be blunt but this suggestion brings us back to where this whole debate began. brining up these concerns are not going to go anywthere there cause they are people concerned with their own political careers, not the party
i think the ginger project meeting is gonna be better time spent if you want to be heard and work for progressive change
j
These kind of area councils go the direction of people that attend them. There are only so many "lap dogs."
Non-partisan? Yeah, and the apples in the grocery store are all from Ontario.
Ken, you're showing your age. It's now Richmond Street, even if they still use mousepads with the old Cecil Street address on them (my mother-in-law has one for her computer in Saskatoon).
How can it be "run" by anyone, given that it has yet to hold its inaugural meeting and has no officers of any kind? Also, given that anyone who is a paid-up ONDP member and lives in Toronto can turn up to vote (and run), does that mean we're *all* lapdogs (I presume King Charles Spaniels)? Indeed, I've got a number of robo-calls and personal emails actively encouraging me to come out to this event. Not exactly the kind of activity expected if the party brass wanted this thing locked up nice and tight.