NDP policy not an instructional manual for party

NDP Far-Left Could Attack Mulcair Anytime

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/08/29/ndp-far-left-could-attack-mulcair-...

"...The party's long-term base will be extremely unhappy if they arrive at the promised land of an NDP government only to find themselves governing from the centre for a four-year term.

It's total congitive dissidence to decline a tax for the rich while having Linda McQuaig, author of The Trouble with Billionaires...as a candidate.

The base's skepticism of Mr Mulcair's sincerity has no doubt increased..."

sherpa-finn wrote:

Needless to say the MSM tried to make the "disappearing" of the NDP policy manual a top story for a day, playing on the 'hidden agenda' angle.

FWIW, I went to the websites of both Libs and Cons to look for their manuals of member / convention resolutions. But predictably could find neither.

http://www.liberal.ca/documents/

Anyway, even if the NDP were just doing the same as the Liberals and Cons, is that any defense? Is there something shameful about the resolutions democratically passed at convention, that they have to be "disappeared" at election time? Once upon a time the party had the slogan "Democratic is our middle name".

Well spotted, brookmere! And full credit to the Libs.

As Unionist flags, many NDP members / interested parties will have downloaded the NDP document so its not exactly Top Secret material.

I presume the thinking on this was very much spin control (and generally ill-advised, I would add). 

The Liberal documents on their website are very clearly labelled as convention Resolutions, filed year by year. So no fear that any reasonable person would "mistake" them for a party platform.

The copy of the NDP Policy Manual I have in hand is a consolidation of resolutions over many years - effectively the members' best and most recent thinking on a whole range of issues. So it actually does look and read like a Party Platform. With some things in there that I suspect will not be in the 2015 Platform - if we ever see such a beast.

So I suspect some folks down at HQ just started to get the willies about 'mixed messages' and pulled it ....

On the topic of party platforms,- here's a personal flash from the past: many years back when I was actively involved in the Labour Party in the UK, - the internal selection of the party's "Platform Committee" was one of the most politically fraught processes within the Party (ie bringing the various political tendancies into outright conflict). But at the end of that process, you then had an agreed platform (called a Manifesto, in the day!) that was published and upon which the party would then run.

If you were fortunate to get elected to form gov't, - holding the Cabinet's feet to the fire on the pledges made in that Manifesto was what kept members busy / entertained for the ensuing years.

Thank you, oldgoat. Your stints here are breaths of fresh air. And I feel as badly about this as you do.

lolol you already stated  long ago you were voting liberal.

oldgoat wrote:

First of all, I would expect that any NDP government would end up disappointing on some levels.

I would be outright shocked if it did not.

As for me, I am prepared to see Mulcair move the party away from me in some things (as he already has) so long as the victory as a whole can move the political reality of this country as a whole closer in my direction (and more importantly, something that will be functional). That at least will provide something to build on that we do not have at the federal level, given the climate of war built by Harper.

That is the only struggle I see for the next seven weeks.

Sending back the party card? Well considering that getting one in the first place was for me a compromise of principle done for practical necessity, giving it back on principle would be a bit of a contradiction. Also complicated because the federal and provincial memberships are one and the same.

That grassroots battle is ongoing IMO. As has been mentioned, it was here long before him; it is here in the provinces, and yes, it may indeed lead to another schism - or not.

quizzical wrote:

lolol you already stated  long ago you were voting liberal.

I also said I vote strategically. I won't make my final decision until we are much closer to Oct. 19th because if by some wonder the Liberal candidate in Mulcair's riding looks like she might actually win, even by a long-shot, I will vote Liberal to vote for Trudeau. I have a sister who lives in a riding that will go Liberal barring something dramatic like a declaration of war. I think my mother is in a sure bet NDP riding but I am not certain. I haven't checked out my other relatives yet but we all vote strategically. None of us are committed to a party. We are the fickle disloyal voters Quebec is famous for.

I just thought Oldgoat's comment was interesting because he is still supporting the local NDP candidate even though he doesn't feel he can support the party as a whole.

[quote=oldgoat]

Something I could see coming from this, is an intra-party divide, if not outright schism.  I could see something like the Waffle movement, or the NPI coming to life with a renewed energy.

This is such a nonsensical thread. The NDP almost certainly took down their policy manual so as not to get it confused with the platform and give their opponents targets. People who love a conspiracy think this is a big issue but voters concerned with the economy and the environment know better. I believe people who think this is an issue could spend their time more wisely by making sure their tinfoil hats are on securely. This thread is almost as goofy as the "Does Ed love Tom thread?" or whatever the hell it was called.

The platform is always front and centre in an election campaign. That's not the issue.

The platform always differs from convention policy. That's not the issue.

Elected NDP governments don't implement all of convention policy, or of the platform for that matter. That's not the issue.

The issue is that those at the top of the NDP made a clumsy attempt to hide the convention policy, which has had the predictable effect of drawing more attention to it and to differences between it and the platform.

How did they do that, brookmere?

Funny, I went back to February 2011, and didn't find a link to the policy book on the mainpage at all. At least that was on the site earlier this year, so it could be surreptitiously removed without telling us.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110225092750/http://www.ndp.ca/

Having said all that, what's wrong with having your campaign platform reflect the stated policies which were endorsed by the grass roots of the party.  Perhaps I'm just naive'.

oldgoat wrote:

There are a couple of entries upthread that quote me, but add a sentence at the end that I did not make.  I removed them.  It wasn't especially offensive, but it suggested I was making political predictions which I am not makeing, and of which I have no idea. People post quotes within quotes within quotes.  Please be mindful of respecting what others have posted.

I am very careful about quoting, and I did not add any sentence to your quotation in post 17. It now reads as if I had done so, but the actual post I made is in the quotation by Pondering, in post 18, at least for now. I don't know what is going on, but I quoted you accurately.

oldgoat wrote:

Having said all that, what's wrong with having your campaign platform reflect the stated policies which were endorsed by the grass roots of the party.  Perhaps I'm just naive'.

I think I said it SHOULD reflect it, and since we haven't seen the campaign platform that is going to be put up, we don't yet know to what degree it does or doesn't.

But they aren't the same document, most notably because a campaign platform is based on what a party plans to do during a specific mandate.

And it is often tempered by concerns not necessarily reflected in the policy manual (as, indeed a policy manual doesn't necessarily reflect the views of all members).

And I think it is important oldgoat. As I said in the other thread, I think it is good that the quote from 2001 is publicized. As for the timing of holding a navel-gazing session during an election campaign, I am not so sure, though I am certainly not telling anyone they shouldn't do so. It is just that I figured out how things balanced out for me and what my goal was before the writ was dropped.

Someone edited my post before you did, to add that sentence. Look at post 18 to see what I actually wrote.

This was written in 2006:

In the aftermath of the Conservative election victory, the left needs to revisit a question dating back to the founding of the ccf: the relationship between the party and progressive movements. From the beginning, tension has existed between those devoted to movement politics (trade unionists, farmers, and today, civil society groups) and those principally concerned with electoral politics; between those committed to building people’s institutions and transforming the political culture, and those who insist that winning votes, seats, and eventually power (at the provincial and federal levels) is all-important. When the ccf first won in Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas in 1944, this tension was immediately evident. Many, imbued with a strong western Canadian belief in direct democracy, thought that the Douglas government should adhere exclusively to policies set at party conventions. But Douglas maintained that the government was responsible to all of Saskatchewan and that his cabinet was responsible to the provincial legislature. His view prevailed, and has been followed by social-democratic governments in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Yukon. The premier and Cabinet would rule, taking into consideration the will of the party convention as one voice among many in its formulation of policy.

With Harper in office, Maude Barlow thinks that “dialogue and healing need to take place” among progressives. For her, the road ahead should spring from an alliance of forces from inside and outside of Parliament, including New Democrats, some Liberals, and some members of the Bloc. “If Stephen Harper wins a majority in the next election,” she says, “we will lose decades in the social struggles we are involved in.”

Strategic co-operation is one thing. But Canada needs a progressive party willing to do battle in both the social and economic policy arenas. Today’s ndp is heir to a seven-decade social-democratic tradition; forsaking this legacy would kill an important part of what makes Canada distinctive. The ndp’s survival is threatened most by its move to the centre, which has led many to conclude that the country does not need two liberal parties. A critical outlook on capitalism and the need to champion the interests of the non-affluent majority were the reasons the party was founded. Those reasons remain compelling today. The ndp should fight to expand its influence—but this does not mean that its leaders should give in to the cynical politics of short-term electoral advantage, as they did in the recent federal election.

http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

I found the entire article very informative but there is much disagreement with it on rabble.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if that is what they are doing, we hold them to account. But I do not see a productive and reasoned discussion happening on that during this campaign. And short of handing the election over to someone else, I don't see much in the way of options either... for those who consider this a perennial conflict in need of immediate remedy.

Hold them to account how?  I don't think it will happen, but say what many want does occur, the Liberals are wiped out in this election and the Conservatives and the NDP become the two main options, both promising balanced budgets as their top priority. What has changed?

The Liberals are being clever by acknowledging they will be running a deficit, and it could increase from what they have predicted based on conditions when they take power. It's perfectly reasonable because we have been running a deficit for years and it's looking like we are back in recession. Promising a balanced budget year one is foolish and yet Mulcair is making that his central commitment.

Mulcair is doubling down on his message that the most irresponsible thing a government can do is run a deficit whereas some economists are saying that 10 billion in our economy is a rounding error.

It is important for people to understand that the deficit is not the be all and end all of running a responsible government. That is like telling people it's a bad idea to go into debt to buy a house. Debt wise Canada is in extremely good shape in comparision to other G7 countries. We are a wealthy country in resources. We can afford to invest in our country. It's not helpful to have the NDP denouncing deficits.

I have no doubt that the membership of the NDP is on average considerably more progressive than the Liberal membership but the NDP membership is not running the party. They were not permitted to vote on marijuana legalization, what else are they not permitted to vote on?

As a whole Liberal policy vis a vis Israel doesn't seem much different from the NDP's, but....

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/transcript-lpc-hopeful-andrew-...

(Andrewy) Leslie: So, every nation has the right to defend itself. Every nation has the right to defend its people. So keep that as a thought bubble.
Then there’s this little Chinese gentleman about 2,700 years ago who said, in Cantonese: ‘Never do what your enemy wants you to do.’ So, just keep that as a thought bubble . His name was Sun Tzu.
So what does Hamas – who’s actually guided and directed by [whos has] funding and the leadership provided mainly by Iran and Syria – what did they want Israel to do? They want Israel to, essentially, fall into the trap of igniting world opinion against them, by killing civilians.
So, if you know that — and the Israeli Army and the political system are quite astute, because they’ve had to live in that awful part of the world for quite some time, so they know what’s going on — don’t do what your enemy wants you to do.
So, Hamas launches rockets attacks. Up until the moment the Israeli ground forces launch their invasion there had been three fatalities after 2,700 rockets have been fired at Israel, because they have a system to knock them down.
So, tunnels [in Gaza] were not an issue at the time. They go in, they obviously get involved in the street fighting.
Hamas throws more and more resources at it and more casualties are caused by the Israelis using very heavy weapons systems, firing indiscriminately onto Palestinian women and children.
You know what the body count is now. So Israel has actually lost this war.
Because it’s not… all warfare is a continuation of the political dialogue by other means. There’s a guy called Clausewitz…
So if I were advising the Israeli Prime Minister I would say ‘don’t send any ground troops until you really really need to. Because you are just going to do that what your enemy wants you to do.

The questioner was a Conservative plant.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/03/top-trudeau-adviser-under-fire-for-...

Speaking to reporters in Rimouski, Que., Trudeau stood by Leslie though not necessarily by his comments.

"Mr. Leslie can speak for himself," the Liberal leader said when pressed by reporters on his views of Leslie's remarks.

"I'm proud to have such a strong military commander with a deep record of service to Canada on my team."

Trudeau also repeated the Liberal policy he first enunciated earlier this summer, that Liberals stand for a two-state solution in the Middle East with Israelis and Palestinians living in peace beside each other.

......

On Wednesday, NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice declined to comment on the specifics of what Leslie had to say but did tell reporters that he believes Trudeau needs to have a discussion with his top defence and foreign affairs adviser.

I suppose Boulerice is one NDPer who thinks all reps should march in lockstep. It would have been better if Boulerice and the NDP had used it as an opportunity to promote greater balance.

I can't go so far as to say relieved, but I am conforted by the thought that Leslie expressed a somewhat nuanced view and that Trudeau did not denounce him for it or expel him from the party or rush to disclaim his views. This is a man who advises Trudeau so it matters to me that he was able to openly express his view without Trudeau having a fit.

No question or statement from Pondering has ever been honest.

No Pondering, because whether they achieve that particular goal isn't really a deal breaker for me; I don't actually expect them to do it.

And I am not aware that it is a break with any party policy, though by coincidence it is something Justin Trudeau has expressed a great deal of interest in.

Personally, I don't believe that this is any sort of Herculean task. A competent administration with smarter priorities will not have a problem balancing the budget. Canada is a bit on the ropes, but it's still hugely wealthy and prosperous. If your top priority is balancing the budget, then you don't mind pissing off rich people to do it, by taking their money. If your top priority is kissing rich people's asses, like the Libs and the Cons, then you practice your sad face in the bathroom mirror and you come out and tell us a deficit is inevitable. Boo hoo.

What's the matter Justin? Stephen? Is Canada out of cash? No, no. The richest Canadians are richer than ever, but you have to understand that they are important and you aren't, so obviously we aren't going to get the money from them. You'll just have to suffer instead. No thank you. I think the rich can pay a lot more than they currently do, and making up that gap will easily balance the budget.

Why do people assume that if the NDP has to do something unexpected to balance the budget, that it would involve cutting services? Their whole political demographic is the segment that wants to protect services. That would be absurdly dumb. If they have to do something extreme that they didn't predict, it is much more likely to be raising more taxes. As much as they would be savaged for that, it wouldn't be half as catastrophic as betraying their base.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No Pondering, because whether they achieve that particular goal isn't really a deal breaker for me; I don't actually expect them to do it.

If you don't believe Mulcair, I wonder who will.

Pondering wrote:

If you don't believe Mulcair, I wonder who will.

You know Pondering, if you are going to play gotcha, it is a bit more effective if you use the actual point, rather than taking an offhand reference and twisting it into something else. Did I say I don't believe him, or that was why I don't expect it will happen?

And you might want to look at some polls if you think no one does. He seems to be doing better than some other party leaders.

Fact is I do believe Mulcair's intent on a number of core issues which I think are of high priority, like transfer funding. So given the news that that campaign promise might be delayed by a balanced budget (take note, Jacob TT) you might understand why a balanced budget is not a deal breaker for me.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-health-care-1.3206188

But I can also understand why he puts it forward as a priority in talking to those who might NOT trust the NDP on economic issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-health-care-1.3206188

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he will put a balanced budget ahead of social spending.

So you are saying you DO believe him, and you think I don't? That's interesting.

Too bad as I already noted, it doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread - him allegedly tearing up the NDP policy book (which we will find out once the platform is reposted on the site).

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he will put a balanced budget ahead of social spending.

So you are saying you DO believe him, and you think I don't? That's interesting.

Too bad as I already noted, it doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread - him allegedly tearing up the NDP policy book (which we will find out once the platform is reposted on the site).

Yes, I do believe him. He would put a balanced budget first because he would be hell-bent on proving the NDP is a responsible economic manager so worthy of re-election preferably with a majority. Social spending would have to wait.

The Liberals would put social spending first because they placed their bets on longer-term savings and growing the economy and they have the credibility to do it.

There is no denying that the NDP are riding high in the polls so in this moment they are the most likely to have the opportunity to prove themselves.

No matter who wins there will be plenty of room for everyone to say "I told you so".