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 think that was how it was seen. I don't expect any merger talks or non-compete agreements anytime soon. Peter was very persuasive about keeping our options open.
After further reflection I believe you're right. I do still wish it had come to a vote, but "weasily" was uncharitable.
I'm sure he did. It's just not the best metaphor in the situation.
Quite agree. The anchor metaphor was inept, to say the least. It's one thing to say that 'socialism' is no longer appropriate, quite another to say that the term is actively bad for the party. That's some buying into the MSM narrative, there. Incidentally, I believe he was wrong, either way he put it.
Barry Weisleder (have I spelt it right?) went for another clunking metaphor. Was it something in the air?
By the way, when I worked on her campaign, I simply called Nettie Wiebe one thing: awesome.
I'm still darn sorry that transit wasn't debated once on the floor. Several delegates (and MPs) had spent considerable energy combining several transit-related resolutions into something substantial (1-10-11, since you ask), that not only showed our aspirations, but what we wanted to do with it. I was at the mic most of the first session trying to hustle things along to get to our resolution by calling the question. Hoang Mai came over afterwards to thank me for my efforts.
And by the way, shut up, James Moore.
I agree that it was right to refer it, and obviously Convention agreed. It should never have been brought before Convention without wide, meaningful consultation beforehand on both content and language. Defeat it and it would have probably still have come back next Convention in some form, perhaps without the wide consultation required (I agree that it probably didn't have the 2/3rds and maybe not even 50%). Topp wants a new preamble to have overwhelming support when it comes back (I talked to him afterwards). I don't know if that will be possible. The label is not as important as what we mean by the label, and that is why the definition of what we chose needs to be clear in the preamble (and discussed beforehand). I also agree that it needed to be more inclusive; I didn't think the wording was appropriate for a Party that aspires to be government.
FWIW, I see Part Martin's clunker of a speech has been posted on youtube for posterity's sake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OO-mUh3W8
He really milked that metaphor: "Our anchor is fouled up on the rusted hull of some old ship that sank in the last century." Deservedly booed.
CTV just reported that Layton's approval rating is 97.7%.
The provincial party has contributed substantially to the NDP's Toronto pride presence through various means. The Ontario LGBT caucus made the request of the federal LGBT caucus as Ontario was looking to expand its presence beyond Toronto (the caucus not being active outside of Toronto has been a long-standing complaint from non-GTA members).
Elections and reports from Randall and Dany gobbled up most of the time at the caucus meeting, and so we didn't have much time to discuss anything else. I know from Jack's office that he is definitely going to be at Toronto Pride, and I will press his office for him to be present at London and Ottawa, also.
It was 97.9%. I was in the hall.
CTV being off by .2% is a major scandal! Should we all write in to complain?
The Kirsty Duncan that Peter Stoffer said that he could work with was clearly not the same Kirsty Duncan I campaigned against in Etobicoke North in 2008.
To be honest, I'm not familiar with the name Kirsty Duncan at all - that threw me off a bit.
thanks Jeff. Who knows but maybe when more eyes look at the amended preamble it may inspire very inclusive social democratic/socialist language/meaning that many within the NDP could embrace, or moreover it evokes NDP riding associations across Canada to engage in debate/conversation in what is a social democrat/socialist, is it inclusive, does it reflect us in all its stances.
I wonder who the 2.1% who did not approve - hmm. And no I am asking a rhetorical question and don't want to start a whole topic in this - oh please, no.
p.s. I would have given Jack a thumbs up!
The NDP celebrates By Gerry Caplan (Rabble.ca article)
I am a little confused as to why the motion on a possible merger with the Liberal Party was even put to the convention. Even though there was a concerted effort to change the wording of the pre-amble to the Constitution to make it sound more palatable to liberals and others, it did not happen. So, the NDP is still a party based on the principles of democratic socialism.
Why would we want to merge with the Liberals? A merger implies that both sides would get something. I can see what the liberals might think they are getting - the possibility of being part of a governing party. But what would we get from them? Get Bob Rae back, after he repeatedly accused those of us who believe in democratic socialism and the need to get rid of capitalism as being misguided and out of touch? What does he have to contribute to the NDP?
I would appreciate it if someone could explain why this question was even put forward for consideration.
I dont think I would approve Layton, but that explains why I am no longer member of the NDP. I would still vote for them, but I cant really feel excited about them.
I presume Layton got a 97.9% approval rating because of the party's success May 2nd - and his 'missteps' since then were ignored or forgiven.
The party appears to becoming awfully leader-centric by emphasizing Layton over and above the party itself. Are they copying Harper's strategy of plastering the leader's name everywhere?
Likely the ones that are not impress with the NDP's support of Canada's illegal war in Libya.
Just a couple of months ago Pauline Marois won 93% support. There's a lesson there, even for Jack at 97.9%. The PQ and the NDP are both movement parties. Electoral success is going to mean betrayal to a good portion of the memberships if the leaderships appear to stray too far from their movements' principles. Even in the run-up to an election they're positioned to win.
Libya isn't sitting well. A few more like that, and there will be rumblings. Don't take your left wing for granted.
Sage advice, but where else can they go?
Well, I'm no May fan, but her Libya vote is surely going to help the Greens appear as an alternative for disillusioned New Dems.
If the rightward-ho! folks in the NDP think their left will just grumble and take it, they may be surprised. The threat of losing electorally won't mean much. The left is used to losing. Losing is no biggie, if "winning" means not much more than a new boss.
They can continue to be involved in social activism at the local, provincial and federal level; pursue the establishment of a socialist political party; write on Babble and elsewhwere; try to develop local workers assemblies; restart local alternative newspapers as some of us are attempting to do here in Kingston; find a socialist candidate to vote for if possible or make sure your ballot is rejected to challenge the legitimacy of the electoral process; and use the words socialist, democratic socialism, capitalism, class and imperialism whenever possible.
I guess I'm not the one to talk, because I voted BQ last time, but I'd be careful if I were an NDP member - if I take my vote away from the NDP to the Greens (or didn't vote at all) I might accidentally usher in another Conservative majority next time.
I agree it was quite the clunker.
I don't think the sponsors, resolutions committee or the panel expected it to be defeated (and it wasn't close). It and the organization resolution were moved ahead of the preamble change to ensure they got to the floor. As I said, I don't expect there to be talks any time soon, and the Liberals seem to have ruled it out for the time being. If merger were to become an issue in their permanent leadership race (if they can afford to have one), it might become more than a theoretical possibility. I would agree they don't have much to offer us beyond a few mildly progressive MPs.
I think that the resolution failed because the speakers in favour of it were so awful. I inititially thought I would support the "anti-merger" resolution. Then three people in row who were shrill, abrasive, crackpots spoke in favour of the resolution shooting their mouths off with ad hominem attacks on all Liberals as being "evil" and they so overstated their case that it made the whole resolution look embarrassing and provocative. I changed my mind and voted against the resolution and so did everyone at my table.
Passing an anti-merger resolution would be gratuitous and unnecessary. The NDP has TRIPLE the number of seats that the Liberals have. Who cares about the Liberals - they are DEAD. To even discuss them in the context of a non-merger resolution is a sign of weakness and insecurity. I am not at all in favor of a "merger", but I am against explicitly ruling it out. Why not say nothing and leave the ball in the Liberal's court. Let them be the ones who have to answer the question "do you want to merge with the NDP?"
Who were the sponsors and why do you think it was defeated?
Way to describe fellow NDPers you disagree with.