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 understand that with so many delegates, there has to be some structure to keep things from chaotically disintegrating, but do we really want to go the route of the other parties? How can we honestly claim that the NDP is different from other parties and is actively concerned with people if we emulate anti-democratic tendancies practiced in other parties? Is this what the membership of the party has worked so hard towards?
As for the argument that maybe the party was afraid of being ripped apart over disagreements by the media, are we the only party affected by that? I'm sure that thought has caused other parties to "handle" dissent as well. Perhaps the problem then isn't the way the NDP handled this, but with a media empire looking to exploit weakness and divisions for its own benefit without providing any meaningful information? Maybe this is an issue all parties could work on, regardless of our disagreements in other areas?
I did read the article (albeit a while ago now), and the thing I couldn't figure out was how the party was ever put into a position where we would have it in the party platform that we supported things like raising the age of consent and GETTING TOUGH ON CRIME! /sarcasm.
Were you trying to say that I missed something?
Well, you asked how the "age of consent nonsense" ever got through the convention, and this article had a long section explaining how that got manoeuvred. I hope babblers will excuse me for quoting it here - and if I totally misunderstood your point, Joshua, then I doubly apologize:
[Edited by Michelle to change redflag's name]
[ 22 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
This is rather difficult to achieve when most delegates get the resolutions the night before Convention. With some of the better resolutions though, there is sufficient background information in the whereases, with some opportunity for proponents and opponents to provide more during the debate. I was in a different panel, so I can't comment on the manipulation described in the article. What I saw was considerably more subtle, involving some rather strange priorization by the Resolutions committee which our panel was reluctant to change. Thus some good resolutions were not adopted and will essentially die, as they will not be referred to Federal Council. I wasn't too concerned though, as the resolutions I was concerned about were priorized very high and were adopted and passed. Others might not perceive this as manipulation at all, and sometimes I wonder how well informed the Resolutions Committee is even about existing policy. Other panels were not as reluctant to discuss priority, with the result that they adopted fewer resolutions than they might have otherwise.
Different panels approached the task given them differently. I expect the process will look considerably different next time, incorporating feedback received as well as the resolution changing the policy process.
Most people in the party share the view that the invasion and destruction of civilian infrastructure and the bombing of civilians constitutes a war crime. Even the people who took the Israeli advise to flee the area were murdered anyway as they drove down the highway as instructed.
I didn't attend the convention but if I had it would have had one more vote. I don't think it is unfortunate to have a political party that reflects my political views that is why there is more than one party in a democracy.
JOIN THE GREEN PARTY!!!
The NDP are the past, It's the greens time to shine.
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
You'll have to excuse me, sometimes I have issues with conveying my thoughts properly and clearly.
But yeah, as I was to understand it, ONDY knew that we were planning on voting for this idea in parliament long before the federal convention. In fact, the age of consent issue came up at an ONDY meeting in June! So, if my understanding is accurate, then the federal caucus of the party would have to have decided that they were going to support this disaster long before the convention.
So, after all that, what was the rationale behind our caucus getting behind such a bad idea? We're they really interested in raising the age of consent and then putting bizarre and confusing restrictions on youth sexuality or is there some sort of political capital to be gained by voting with the Cons on this? Personally, I cannot see anything which would be worth selling out the rights of young people, but I suppose that's a whole other story to the old foggies we have on the hill. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Blah. I hope that makes more sense?
This was my first convention so I can't compare it to another. But John K's post reminded me of something that I don't believe has been articulated here, nor in Corvin's article. The convention was a real learning opportunity. From riding the train with Saskatchewan delegates to hearing the groups and speakers presenting. And from meeting people I might not always agree with. Even now from JohnK's post: how many in urban centres considered that it is now harvest season? I was amazed by the diversity of the party and how it all comes together. An example: I believe that the internet and the party site are valuable tools for growth and connection. I spoke to the assembly to this effect. Another speaker brought up the very valid point that not everyone is connected for a variety of reasons. In my milieu trading email addresses or website info is par for the course. Its important as people working for social justice we acknowledge that buying a computer and internet connection may be not be feasible for some. Just as we know that poorer schools don't have access to the same technical equipment as richer schools.
Its a pretty big tent and there is definitely room and reason for debate and complaint. I don't believe that any of those groups working to be heard will let their issues die. For me personally, I was glad that the Quebec Section finally had a chance to show the rest of the party that it was alive and well. I know from having read some posts on babble that many doubted how real the NDP presence was in Quebec.
PS: And I got a rabble mouse pad!
Dear James,
You do not get rabblers to join the Green Party by yelling "JOIN THE GREEN PARTY!!!". It doesn't work. You have to be more subtile. Please do not risk my covert operation to get rabblers to vote green. Thank you
- WCG
Interesting article by the way. I think Layton's greatest test is going to come up this January, about 8 months before the next election and during the liberal convention. If he's not careful, he could bleed a lot of support between the liberals and greens, as all opposition parties show how (or if) they will put the brakes on Harper's agenda. In January, we could very easily see a moderate sized political shift.
By the way, in a good for rabble bad for the NDP moment, this article is now on the Green Party of Canada homepage.
I just spotted this article linked to from the GPC webpage and was surprised. I suppose the reason might be that it's one more story that the GPC is mentioned in.
Regarding James' post, I met him at the GPC convention. James is a solid young guy and his enthusiasm for positive change was refreshing for me to see. He is, like myself when I first stumbled into this forum, likely unaware of the ins and outs of how things are done here and what is or isn't the best way to go about posting here.
You're right, it does make more sense [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .
Now I understand - you're saying that the Party leadership was supporting the Conservative legislation long before the Convention? You are absolutely correct. And it is absolutely horrendous as far as I am concerned.
Unfortunately, not being an NDP insider, I have no idea how such back-room decisions are made. But I do speculate as to why: The Party spin doctors are terrified that principled opposition to Harper's social-conservative bill would be misunderstood by voters and risk losing votes. There may be another explanation, but I can't imagine what it could be, because most NDP supporters are not social conservatives.
[Edited by Michelle to change redflag's name]
[ 22 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
To echo (or perhaps misinterpret) mayakovsky, I thought convention was great fun, mostly in spite of as opposed to because of the policy debates and resolution panels. I enjoyed renewing old friendships and seeing old comrades (mayakovsky included), hearing some great speakers, and seeing Quebec City (it was my longest time there since the Summit...)
A few thoughts, off the top of my head, about the article:
1- On the Hetu and Laliberte defections: I think these, along with the infamous Summerville incident, have gotten much too much play. Laliberte is now working for the FTQ, and from what I understand doesn't wanna go against their political line. I think Corvin is also slightly wrong about attributing Hetu's leaving to his contention that Layton is betraying the party's "activist base". I don't have Hetu's Le Devoir article in front of me, but if i recall correctly, I think Hetu makes the opposite contention (ie. that Layton is beholden to activists, and out of touch with Canadians). What's more, the two concrete examples I remember him giving were Layton's "expulsion" of Bev Desjarlais, and our recent anti-war stance - a far cry from leaving the party because it has betrayed its activists...
2- On the Sherbrooke Declaration. The declaration surprised me by being so soft, and essentially a re-hash of old policy. That being said, I thought it was fairly solid, and I'm glad the party as a whole was able to adopt a position in favour of Quebec's national rights. BUT, the near-unanimity makes me wonder how many delegates actually read the thing... That being said, I think Khadir is wrong in emphasizing this'll cost us in the prairies. I know some (many) Quebec Leftists who believe that rural Saskatchewan hates Quebec, but the reality is that most people here simply don't care about constitutional issues all that much. Sask elected 12 of 14 Conservatives, and if they can cozy up to Quebec, why can't we? (and I'm not one for defending the virtue of all that is rural Sask)
Actually it was the wording of the resolution on AOC that would have killed any dissent. The NDYC resolution was going to order the NDP caucus to vote against any increase in the age of consent no matter what the bill consisted of. Instead, the caucus will be free to vote as they wish on this issue and will probably split on it and that is fine by me sin ce there is clearly nowhere near any consensus in the party on the issue.
Your memory is accurate. He laments Layton's surrounding himself with activists from "English Canadian" groups, centralizing power as no other leader has done, and becoming alienated from the party membership and riding associations. He bemoans the defeat of Alexa's "Third Way" overture (not calling it that), which he thought would pave the way for the NDP to become a "big" party, along the lines (he says) of parties in Europe, India and Latin America:
Je quitte le NPD (Carl Hйtu)
And do most people believe the murder and kidnapping of soldiers is child's play? Do most people believe the intentional targeting of Israeli civilians with Katyusha rockets should be forgotten? Oh and one more thing;
Jewish Exponent
Or do Israelis just not count?
[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: ohara ]
Heh, I remember handing out those cards. They listed the NDP's five 'commitments' (the main one was 'end hallway medicine') and urged voters to "Keep this card, we'll keep these commitments". I later found out that this 'commitment card' technique was copied directly from Tony Blair's successful 1997 campaign (horrors!). [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Soldiers getting themselves captured is a result of soldiers napping, not kidnapping. You are confused on this point, still.
Don't be so silly. Nobody is disregarding the rocket attacks on Israeli, see for example Amnesty International's condemation of these attacks as war crimes. Murder and kindnapping of ANYONE is a serious offence, and I think would be recognized as such by most on this board. The point you are missing is that it is very difficult to abstract the larger middle-east conflict into this specific event, such that you can point fingers and say that so and so started it - this approach in and of itself is quite silly. You further fail to recognize that about 1200 Lebenase, mostly citizens, were killed, compared to about 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, who were killed. As if this disparity was not enough, the infrastructure damage to Lebanon in comparison to Israeli, likely dwarfs the disparity in the loss of life statistics.
Those sneaky bastards! Soldiers are people too and need their sleep like the rest of us.
Why doesn't hezbollah counter with war planes and helicopter gunships ?. Are they cowards ?.
[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Vehitetu harvotam le'itim vehanitotehem le'mazmerot.
Lo yisa goi el goi herev, lo yilmedu od milhamah.
i think we can agree to disagree about solving the middle east here in the convention thread,, i know you were this close.
i hope others noticed the big plastic pot plant in the lobby of the convention main room entrance.6ft tall i was amazed they had it there and no one saw it.all pot leaves in plastic,,i wish we could post photos here.
I have many pictures of activists/delegates under it as proof ,,,
i mean if we are allowed to just hijack this thread and all......
i have a pet issue my self..
[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: kulvahs ]
I, for one, am glad I don't have to go knocking on doors explaining to concerned parents that their fourteen-year-olds deserve the "right" to have sex with adults. As a socialist, I would much rather spend the next year arguing about solutions to poverty, unemployment, trade and virtually anything else.
With respect to Corvin's reporting, the bias is a little overpowering. Delegates who support the Caucus position are "union-friendlies" and part of a "rent-a-crowd" when they rush in to fight a motion that they oppose or support. Delegates who oppose the Caucus position using the same tactics are noble warriors for a just cause.
I'll let folks in on a secret: if the NDP was really more interested in winning than internal democracy the debate never would have happened. Talk to a Liberal or Conservative activist about what happens at their conventions if you ever have a chance. They don't debate policy. We do. Endlessly.
I'll admit that the party bureaucracy doesn't always play fair - but I think people might want to consider the possibility that the convention supported the Caucus positions because the majority of rank-and-file delegates supported the Caucus positions.