Politically homeless: More bang for my political buck
"The question is already being asked is Singh just another empty suit in this age of celebrity politics where posers and dilettantes prevail..."
The answer is Yes. NDP=No Difference Party. A plague upon all their houses, for all their houses are most certainly a plague upon us.
Just vote for the one which is most likely to defeat the one you hate the most. That way you don't have to vote for anything. Works for me!
And you also have another choice with FPTP. Just vote for the one who has no chance at being elected and end up being represented by the one you hate the most. That way FPTP voting makes things worse for you. FPTP doesn't work for me!
It's a pointless rant. The NDP can either be a protest party or a political party with aspirations of winning seats. The majority of members support the moderate path that allows for electibility over the radical approach of being a mouthpiece for protesters. That is what members have chosen. Members voted and chose Singh as leader.
People dissatisfied should create another party because within the NDP they are outnumbered by the moderates.
People dissatisfied should create another party because within the NDP they are outnumbered by the moderates.
It would make sense to at least try shaming the moderates first.
People dissatisfied should create another party because within the NDP they are outnumbered by the moderates.
I don't think the left side of the NDP are about to create a more leftist party because they know that would just lead to even more vote splitting on the left that would just help the Conservatives and Liberals get elected.
I don't think the left side of the NDP are about to create a more leftist party because they know that would just lead to even more vote splitting on the left that would just help the Conservatives and Liberals get elected.
So they're putting their grievances aside in the interest of a united Left?
I don't think the left side of the NDP are about to create a more leftist party because they know that would just lead to even more vote splitting on the left that would just help the Conservatives and Liberals get elected.So they're putting their grievances aside in the interest of a united Left?
I think they're trying to work out their grievances within the NDP rather than create a new party that would just split the vote.
That's super. But meanwhile, they're putting their grievances aside in the interest of a united Left?
Because it's terrible to split the vote, but it's not a whole lot better if they just declare the NDP to be right wing sell-outs. A new "real left" party would at least be honest.
Billyard is a little inconsistent in his political pronouncements:
...There was no mention of endorsing the Leap Manifesto. At a time when the environment is a critical issue for the country none of our parties want to deal with it. Making “the leap” is a very inviting necessity.
...His provincial counter parts Horgan and Notley are not helping the NDP brand. They are on the wrong side of critical issues. Horgan’s BC NDP leans heavily towards neoliberalism. He persists in building the Site C dam which is a financial fiasco in the making.
I'll just point out that hydroelectric dams were a big part of what the Leap Manifesto was calling for. The support documentation for the Leap Manifesto calls for:
...270 new 1300MW hydroelectric powerplants.
I'm not sure where the Leap Manifestians thought they were going to build all those hydro plants, but I'm assuming they knew enough to know it wouldn't be the Sahara Desert.
People dissatisfied should create another party because within the NDP they are outnumbered by the moderates.It would make sense to at least try shaming the moderates first.
Why is that? Shouldn't the majority prevail? Don't the wishes of the members count? As far as I know the NDP has always been a moderate left party from its birth. Whenever it has been in government it has been moderate. We have two examples right now. The NDP is no where near embracing the Leap Manifesto nor should it. Anything with the word Manifesto in it is electoral suicide. Singh's position on Palestine, even though it is far better than Mulcair's, gains him little. I think that there is a faction within the NDP that cannot be won over.
For better or for worse Singh will lead the party through the next election. If he is seen to be taken down by party infighting it will look very bad on the NDP. There is nothing to lose by supporting him through the next election and that does not mean boot-licking. It means working internally. Singh is not so terrible that he deserves less than Mulcair got from the party. Singh is definitely more progressive than Mulcair was. No one insisted that Mulcair start releasing policy before the election.
Because it's terrible to split the vote, but it's not a whole lot better if they just declare the NDP to be right wing sell-outs. A new "real left" party would at least be honest.
A new "real left" party would be honest like the Marxist Party and the Marxist-Leninist Party both are but like them it would also be irrelevant electorally. Members of the federal NDP at least are in a party that has a shot at forming a government in their lifetimes.
What is it that you think the Left supports that is so freaking unpopular? There's no massive backing for Canada having a large war budget, OR for unquestioning support for everything Netanyahu is doing to Palestinians, OR for maintaining the supremacy of capital over labour at any cost, or for a balanced budget for the SAKE of a balanced budget. You seem to have a visceral hatred of the Left, and it's hard to see what the Left could have done to you to come close to deserving it.It's a pointless rant. The NDP can either be a protest party or a political party with aspirations of winning seats. The majority of members support the moderate path that allows for electibility over the radical approach of being a mouthpiece for protesters. That is what members have chosen. Members voted and chose Singh as leader.
People dissatisfied should create another party because within the NDP they are outnumbered by the moderates.
Why shouldn't the NDP try to get elected by trying to actually win the argument?
A new "real left" party would be honest like the Marxist Party and the Marxist-Leninist Party both are but like them it would also be irrelevant electorally. Members of the federal NDP at least are in a party that has a shot at forming a government in their lifetimes.Because it's terrible to split the vote, but it's not a whole lot better if they just declare the NDP to be right wing sell-outs. A new "real left" party would at least be honest.
Excuse me, but "real left" is not synonymous with Maoism or Stalinism. Jeremy Corbyn's ideas are a lot closer to what most people who are leftists support. And the NDP hasn't exactly flourished by staying in this "we're not really much o anything, and for god's sakes we're not for socialism or against war or anything!" It's not the 1940s and it's not as though the only possible paths are hardline Leninism or the kind of "social democracy" that's so obsessed with proving it's not "Red" that it ends to the Right of the Right on foreign policy. There's no "menace" to steer clear of anymore.
A new "real left" party would be honest like the Marxist Party and the Marxist-Leninist Party both are but like them it would also be irrelevant electorally. Members of the federal NDP at least are in a party that has a shot at forming a government in their lifetimes.Because it's terrible to split the vote, but it's not a whole lot better if they just declare the NDP to be right wing sell-outs. A new "real left" party would at least be honest.
Excuse me, but "real left" is not synonymous with Maoism or Stalinism. Jeremy Corbyn's ideas are a lot closer to what most people who are leftists support. And the NDP hasn't exactly flourished by staying in this "we're not really much o anything, and for god's sakes we're not for socialism or against war or anything!" It's not the 1940s and it's not as though the only possible paths are hardline Leninism or the kind of "social democracy" that's so obsessed with proving it's not "Red" that it ends to the Right of the Right on foreign policy. There's no "menace" to steer clear of anymore.
What is it that you think the Left supports that is so freaking unpopular? There's no massive backing for Canada having a large war budget, OR for unquestioning support for everything Netanyahu is doing to Palestinians, OR for maintaining the supremacy of capital over labour at any cost, or for a balanced budget for the SAKE of a balanced budget. You seem to have a visceral hatred of the Left, and it's hard to see what the Left could have done to you to come close to deserving it.It's a pointless rant. The NDP can either be a protest party or a political party with aspirations of winning seats. The majority of members support the moderate path that allows for electibility over the radical approach of being a mouthpiece for protesters. That is what members have chosen. Members voted and chose Singh as leader.
People dissatisfied should create another party because within the NDP they are outnumbered by the moderates.
Why shouldn't the NDP try to get elected by trying to actually win the argument?
That is exactly what they should try to do. Win the argument. The NDP cannot win all of the arguments at the same time. If they try they lose all of the arguments.
I am not against the left. I support The Leap Manifesto which is why I find it so frustrating that the NDP is intent on shooting itself in the foot, again.
Why is that? Shouldn't the majority prevail?
Should the majority prevail? Correct me if I'm astray here, but everything I've seen from the left in the last few years suggests that the left's core social goal is to make sure the minority (however defined) has equal representation with the majority. The more minority you are, the more interested the left is in empowering you. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, necessarily, but the tyranny of the majority is a real thing.
Don't the wishes of the members count?
Which members?
No one insisted that Mulcair start releasing policy before the election.
I agree with the sentiment that Singh should keep the powder dry. They did insist that Trudeau release policy before the election, and he didn't, and that seemed to turn out fine (for Trudeau). "Please Trudeau, release your platform early so the excitement wears off before the election and so we can steal and/or attack it for a year like we're doing with your pot plan!"
Why would Singh release policy before the election? To stop a mutiny? Another classic example of self-sabotage by the NDP.
I'm looking to become politically homeless. Been totally disillusioned with the NDP for ages now. Planned on staying around to vote for Nikki Ashton, then bail. At this point it's just a matter of getting around to it. As I live in Oshawa, I'll still vote for them. While I have always approached strategic voting with something of a raised eyebrow, I can see where it's a valid thing to do, and might very well do so in another riding. Were I to live in a totally Tory stronghold, I'd likely vote communist.
Here's the thing I've repeatedly asked: If Singh doesn't release policy, if he doesn't do what I suggested and announce he's willing to listen to IDEAS that could lead to policy from the grassroots, if he doesn't make it about ideas at all, which is what it sounds like Pondering is suggesting), what chance is there of actually increasing support for the NDP between now and the election? This is kind of important, y'know...if the NDP starts the 2019 campaign at the same level of support it currently holds, it has no chance of doing anything more than finishing third-place again.
The personal attacks on Jagmeet for his position on Khalistan have already made it impossible for the party to make gains solely on personal charisma/magnetism. That aspect of his appeal is now gone. So what does that leave the NDP, if it also refuses to talk about ideas-which is the essentially what refusing to release policies means.
My recollection, btw, was that people DID want Mulcair to release policy ideas in the years before the 2015 election-and that they were begging him to LISTEN to his party's core supporters. He released no ideas and he refused to listen. We know what that led to.
It's necessary to put policies, to put ideas, out in the public discussion in order to build support for them. Without ideas, what the hell does a party even have? We already know the NDP can't beat the Liberals and Conservatives by default, by saying nothing and hoping somehow that both will screw up horrifically. The only parties that can win by default are the Liberals(when facing a Conservative government) and the Conservatives(when facing a Liberal government). It doesn't work for anybody else.
The NDP isn't The Left they are just left of the Liberals. The majority of members of the NDP, at least those who cared to vote, voted for Singh to become leader and voted again at the convention to support him. I don't think that means agreeing with his every word but it seems like some members of caucus want to undermine him, in particular Charlie. The cracks he has made about attending galas and GQ made it clear to me that Charlie would rather the NDP lose than win under Singh (so he can be got rid of).
tyranny of the majority is a real thing
I was referring to the majority of members of the NDP. They supported Singh. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court are our protections against the tyranny of the majority. Not perfect obviously but I would say we are headed in the right direction on racism and minority.
Why would Singh release policy before the election? To stop a mutiny? Another classic example of self-sabotage by the NDP.
Exactly. To win the NDP has to play it's cards close to the chest while maintaining principles.
The notion that the social movements can win by banding together I think is misguided. Among activists there is a ton of overlap but not necessarily amongst followers. One of the reasons I think there is too much focus on left right is that swing voters don't fall neatly into those categories. If they did they wouldn't be swing voters. The more issues you take a stand on the more likely you are to alienate a segment of the population without necessarily gaining much support.
For example, I could not vote NDP if Singh or the party came out in favor of legalizing prostitution. Like cannabis legalization it's a major driver for me. Had I thought Trudeau would support both I would not have voted for him. For someone else immigration may be the hot button issue, or basic income, or any other number of issues.
Principle has to matter, for example on Palestine. Singh has censured Israel a couple of times, which is more than happened under Mulcair. I'm glad Josh recognized it. He isn't going as far as some would like but I think his comments were unassailable which is important for the NDP if it wants to be more than a protest party. Singh is also supporting dealing with drug use through the health system rather than the legal system.
To go back to the original article being commented on, on being politically homeless, that is always a personal choice. There is no party that represents me in policy or ideology and that is probably true of most people. People just don't divide up that neatly. There are non-party political systems.
What matters to me is what actions they will actually take that will impact my life directly or indirectly. Moving the country in a prosperous direction, short of some other radical issue, is at the top of my concerns. The second driver for me is environmental protection although I hesitate to put it second. Trudeau has been clever to tie the two together. He bills himself as a consensus builder but there is no consensus possible on issues such as Transmountain. Greater protection on the coast is not a compromise unless it is accepted by both sides which it is not.
Some want Singh to come out against the pipeline but why? He is taking the wiser course in saying that Trudeau has not kept his word on the review process. He can add to that disrespecting provincial and municipal bylaws.
One thing Layton was right about is "first you have to win". I don't think that translates into lie, cheat and steal, but giving your opponents ammunition for little to no gain undermines the ability to win.