Home » Babble » rabble community » rabble news features
babble-intro-img
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.

The NDP convention revisited

72 replies [Last post]

Comments

Michelle
Offline
Joined: May 10 2001
October 2, 2006 - 12:48pm
#61
I'll bet you're not biased at all though, are you?

Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004
October 2, 2006 - 4:33pm
#62
That's right, This is it. Mel Hurtig said when he was involved with the party, Liberals spent a ridiculous amount of time in closed door meetings hammering out which lawyers would get government contracts and which contractors would be given passes to the public troff.

It's easy being an MP for the two old line parties. Who wouldn't want three months of vacation a year, a hundred thousand dollar salary, an automatic gold-plated pension after two terms, a free o' charge gourmet meal plan at the Chateau Laurier and nothing to do in the commons but wear a newspaper over your big head trying to sober up from the night before ?. And then there are the wild parties downtown at taxpayer's expense! My goodness! And wait til they get kicked up to the senate! The good times just never end for good friends of big business and banking elite in this frozen Puerto Rico du Nord

[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


Lazy Tony
Offline
Joined: Jan 6 2006
October 2, 2006 - 5:48pm
#63
quote:Originally posted by Is this it?:
Since when were party members supposed to sit on their hands when decisions that effct the party's future are at stake?

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.


Since when did the NDP become a party that works to take rights away from people? You might not have believed in youth's right to make choices, but it was their right under the law, and you are working to take it away. Whose rights will be next?

Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004
October 2, 2006 - 6:53pm
#64
The NDP wants to stomp all over the RIGHT for allowing 1.4 million Canadian children to live in poverty after 100 years of stoogocratic rule in this frozen Puerto Rico, Tony.

Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
October 2, 2006 - 6:55pm
#65
quote:Originally posted by Is this it?:

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.

Have you considered staying at home? Please don't knock on my door.

Concerned parents. What a crock. No one even knew what the law said before Harper (that other "socialist") introduced this social-conservative legislation.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004
October 2, 2006 - 7:11pm
#66
This is just the CPC's trying to appear to be progressive on social issues. Mountains and mole hills. Meanwhile, 1.4 million Canadian kids aren't living very well.

Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005
October 2, 2006 - 8:35pm
#67
quote:Originally posted by Is this it?:
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.

My own assessment of the convention, shared by other delegates, was that the policy discussion was a little thin, and I don't think that was an accident. And I'm pretty sure that if the party brass wants to prevent contentious resolutions from being debated (many of the resolutions discussed passed quite easily) they won't be debated.


Polunatic2
Offline
Joined: Mar 12 2006
October 2, 2006 - 10:15pm
#68
quote: If the convention allowed more time on the convention floor for debate of resolutions, and if less time was allotted for multiple people speaking in favour of the same resolution, then we could have gotten many more items debated and passed.
Right on. The kind of rules that allow that should be changed. We used to have a similar dynamic at my union conventions when I first started attending a few years ago. "Contentious" issues were kept off the floor by dragging out non-contentious issues with several 5 minutes speeches.

Some of the changes we were able to implement at convention itself:
1) 3 minutes max per speaker
2) If 3 people speak pro OR con in a row, the chair has to ask for an opposing view or else the question is put to a vote.
3) The resolution's submitting body gets to speak to it first when it make it to the floor.
Contentious resolutions were often killed by moving closure before anyone got to speak in favour.

So if you want a more democratic party, you've got to examine the rules and get them changed to encourage an atmosphere of fair debate (like here on babble!) [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
October 2, 2006 - 10:48pm
#69
quote:Originally posted by Lazy Tony:

Since when did the NDP become a party that works to take rights away from people? You might not have believed in youth's right to make choices, but it was their right under the law, and you are working to take it away. Whose rights will be next?


What is the law now. Got a link to the actual text?


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
April 2, 2011 - 12:14am
#70

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Is there nothing else worth writing about regarding the NDP convention beyond the fact that the NDP has essentially taken no hard and fast position on whether or not canada should have the same age of consent as the Netherlands (though a higher AOC than Mexico)

No, that was just the bad part.

The good parts were calling for Canada to get out of Afghanistan; condemning Israel's attack on Lebanon; and supporting Québec's nationhood and right to leave if it desires.

See? There's lots worth writing about!

Memories.

 


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007
April 3, 2011 - 4:58pm
#71

And an awful lot of research and good old digging on the part of a union leader looking for a convenient copout to explain voting for Liberals and Conservatives on the part of union membership.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
February 3, 2013 - 1:30pm
#72

Unionist wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Is there nothing else worth writing about regarding the NDP convention beyond the fact that the NDP has essentially taken no hard and fast position on whether or not canada should have the same age of consent as the Netherlands (though a higher AOC than Mexico)

No, that was just the bad part.

The good parts were calling for Canada to get out of Afghanistan; condemning Israel's attack on Lebanon; and supporting Québec's nationhood and right to leave if it desires.

See? There's lots worth writing about!

Memories.

 

More memories.

Oh, and by the way, here is a working link to Corvin Russell's excellent report of that time:

Revisiting the Convention: A Retrospective


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments