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
Who were the sponsors and why do you think it was defeated?
There are lots of people in the NDP I can respectfully disagree with who are decent, well-spoken people. Here were people speaking for a resolution I was in favour of - who turned me off so much, i changed my mind.
I believe it. A few years ago Stockholm's shrill, abusive, partisan antics hereabouts convinced me to vote Green.
It was a merge of two resolutions from Toronto Centre (I think we all know who the MP is) and Edmonton East (the non-compete agreement portion). I think the opposition was quite unexpected. Peter Stoffer spoke well on it even though his main argument was that he respected and could work with an number of Liberal MPs. I think some of the pro speakers wasted the opportunity to make reasoned arguments by speaking more to the proposed preamble than against a merger. The best argument for the resolution (and also for ranking it lower as well), which wasn't made in the panel or on the floor that I recall, is that the Liberals aren't interested.
If anyone from the Socialist Caucus (all three of you) are reading this - take my advice. The NDP is way too big for you to have any influence. The party just voted 98% to confidence in Layton's approach so the extreme left is totally diluted and represents a maximum 2% of the party. Give up!
A far better strategidy would be to join the Green party and try to stage a sort of "hostile takeover". The Green party has so few members and is so disorganized that the 20 or 30 people who make up the Socialist Caucus of the NDP could easily take control of the Green party in a snap. Then stage a coup against Elizabeth May and install Barry Weisleder as the new leader of the Green party of Canada. Think about it.
I can accept your thesis that there is a division between those who identify as socialists and those who identify as social democrats. I can also agree with your assertion that "the establishment" are in the latter group.
I cannot agree with your assertion that those who identify as socialist therefore identify with the so-called Socialist Caucus. Indeed, I'd suggest that the vast majority of New Democrats who identify as socialists do NOT identify with the small but noisy sectarian group led by Barry Weisleder. Indeed, I know many people who identify as being on the left of the NDP and who prefer socialist to social democrat who want nowt to do with the Socialist Caucus. The surest way to undermine a left initiative in the NDP is to have Barry Weisleder and the Socialist Caucus endorse it.
There is exactly zero evidence to support this thesis. It is based on a series of false assumptions about voter behaviour. Advocates of this position either do not understand politics or do not understand arithmetic. (Of course, one must allow for the possibility that they understand neither.)
A tweet offered the thesis that some of the 2.1% would be people who misread the resolution, since voting confidence in Layton meant voting no on the resolution - which may have been counterintuitive to some. I think, though, that wouldn't explain more than a couple of decimals.
oooh my goodness. This is delicious.
I'm all in favour of merging with the Liberals in groups of two or three at a time. I have no interest in merginng with the rotting hulk of frustrated entitlement which is the institutional Liberal Party of Canada.
I'm not one of the few members of the Socialist Caucus but great advice. Obviously, the majority of NDP members are not as quick to jettison the socialist principles of the party as you thought so I might not lead any exodus at the moment. But, we will see what happens in the next year or two. If Layton continues to fail to represent progressive values (e.g., support of Libyan assualt, lack of support for Palestinian emergency aid), your suggestion will be seriously considered by many. Jim Harris hijacked the Green party but it can be hijacked back.
Hmmmm..... if I recall correctly, the convention failed to remove the word 'socialist' from their constitution - right?
That wasn't merely because people wanted to retain the word 'socialist'. It was obvious that it wasn't the time or the place for a discussion of wording that hadn't been subjected to wide consultation beforehand. There were other problems with the language, and I don't think that minor changes to the content and more poetic and inclusive language will be enough to achieve overwhelming support. We do a lot of talking about our core values, vision, and principles but agreement on what exactly they are let alone how to express them in accessible language may be difficult if not impossible to agree on. I think the Socialist Caucus would have difficulty talking to the Greens because they speak different languages. It doesn't matter so much what the label is so much as how we define what the label means (assuming we actually need to label ourselves rather than just clearly state what we stand for and who we stand with).
Regarding the socialist caucus, well I wish there was another socialist caucus. Something evolutionary and pragmatic, something where we could discuss what to do after a social corporatist model is established as a way of moving forward and putting the final nail in the coffin of class conflict. Someone should make a progressive social democrat caucus thats logicially and scientifically revisionary.
Right. It would be pure fantasy to spin this as any sort of victory for the so-called Socialist Caucus. It would be like attributing to the outcome of WWII to the fact that Argentina had declared war on Germany on March 27, 1945.
Sometimes the so-called Socialist Caucus ends up on the winning side of a vote. This is usually despite themselves.
And in any event, an establishment motion to refer the matter to the executive for a rewrite hardly constitutes a victory for anyone, really.
I'm curious about one thing - if 50% plus one vote is good enough for the Sherbrooke Declaration, then why isn't isn't 50% plus one vote enough to change the NDP constitution?
Actually, I had something else in mind when I wrote what I did - that "socialism" is so near and dear to the majority of the NDP that it will be difficult to remove the wording from their constitution.
Does any conservative party for the corportate welfare state use the word capitalism in their constitution? Not even the most capitalist country in the world has that word anywhere in its federal constitution. Apparently laissez-faire capitalism are dirty words in U.S. government and electoral politics ever since actual capitalism collapsed in 1929. And the more they try it on for size since 1980, the more it tends toward the big swan dive all over again. And it would collapse but good if it wasn't for thjeir policies of socialism for rich people floating the whole mess today.
Malcolm has observed:
Polunatic2 wrote:If the NDP & Libs had a limited non-compete agreement in the past election, Harper could have likely been defeated and Layton would be Prime Minister today.
There is exactly zero evidence to support this thesis. It is based on a series of false assumptions about voter behaviour. Advocates of this position either do not understand politics or do not understand arithmetic. (Of course, one must allow for the possibility that they understand neither.)
I think there is lots of evidence that Liberal voters favour the NDP as their second choice. There has been plenty of debate on this point in various Babble threads. Calgary Grit has examined the recent polls on second preferences and concludes that a preferaetial ballott would have deprived the Conservatives of twenty seats and, quite likely, government.
They don't need to mention it because, to them, a world without capitalism is like a day without privilege. It's unimaginable. It's their assumed Ground of Being. That's why, IMO, I like a constitution that challenges that assumption.