NDP brass treads water in Halifax -- No new name, no new policies

Thanks for the overview from your position. Interesting.

Thank you.

I think it is time for a new leader.

One of the most frequently told jokes at the NDP convention was that if there was a resolution up for debate that you wante dto see DEFEATED, all you had to do was get Barry Weisleder to speak in favour of it and then it was guaranteed that 95% of the dlegates would vote NO.

Good to see stalwart NDPers reverting to personal smears and attacks rather than debating issues. And one wonders why the party remains mired in third or fourth place ... Nice to see nothing has changed with you, Stock.

I'm trying to offer some constructive ideas to the so-called socialist caucus. They might actually gain a modicum of influence and accomplish something the odd time, if their spokesperson wasn't such an abrasive, object of ridicule.

Actually, I have a better idea, since the Green Party has about one twentieth the number of members that the NDP has, the socialist caucus should simply leave the NDP and try to stage a hostile takeover of the Green Party. If you have a hundred or so zealots its a lot easier to seize control of a party that only has about a thousand members in the whole country than to expect any influence over a party with about 80,000 members.

What I'd really like to know is why they even stay with the NDP at all. At convention after convention after convention after convention, the socuialist caucus brings in resolutions 100% of which get defeated by wide margins, they run candidates for executive positions in the party - and those people all lose by huge margins, they yell and scream that if they party doesn't see things their way they will march out in protest.... and then two years later at the next convention, the same cast of characters is back once again so the whole exercise can be repeated like Groundhog Day.

"No new policies?"

That's a serious insult to the party's Aboriginal Commission, which wrote Resolution 6-06 "Expanding Party Policy on Rights of Aboriginal Peoples." The panel moved it up to second place, and it was adopted in plenary. It followed the new format, to expressly add four new explicit and excellent paragraphs to the Policy Book. And they wrote four more new points in Resolution 5-2 which also passed. And they wrote a new policy on acknowledging the sovereignty of Inuit, Inuvialuit and Innu, which also passed.

Similarly the Disability Rights Committee, which wrote four new paragraphs to be added to the Policy Book to expand policy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, got them moved up to 6th spot in panel, and passed them in plenary.

And then there was the Quebec section, which lobbied in panel and passed in plenary a new policy to transfer federal Quebec cultural funding to Quebec (except the CBC and NFB), and another new policy to protect French Language rights of employees in federally-regulated workplaces in Quebec.

And the CLC's resolution to increase EI payments to 60% of insured earnings (the one point on EI missing from the Policy Book), adopted.

And Halifax riding's three new points for the Policy Book on strengthening the CBC, adopted.

And the Quebec Section's new policy on energy resources.

And CUPE national's specific amendment to direct stimulus spending to public transit, retrofitting, and energy-efficient urban design. 

And the Northern Ontario Council's new statement on Green Collar jobs.

And several dozen other resolutions adopted.

I guess it's not "new" unless Barry Weisleder moved it?

I also like how he dismisses policies dealing with such things as "eternal positions on child poverty, pay equity, aboriginal rights, national child care, violence against women and arts funding, plus calls to reduce high credit card rates, to protect pensions and expand employment insurance." as "old chestnuts" (sic.). Its nice to know that the SC regards all of the above as being so trivial!

Stockholm, one could just as easily say then that you are dismissive of and trivializing:

"a shift to green energy, massive social housing and public transit construction, as well as proposals to abolish student debt, raise the minimum wage to $16 an hour, get Canada out of NATO, and strengthen solidarity with Cuba, Venezuela and Palestine."

Wilf those things that passed, should IMV be juxpositioned with those things that did not.

First, that is an ungodly wall of text.

Second, Barry, I honestly don't know why you're still trying.  It seems like you're trying to turn the NDP into something it isn't and something it will never be - a mass anti-capitalist party of struggle.

Third, what is with your dismissive attitude towards the rest of the radical left which isn't in the NDP?  We aren't in a "phone booth", we simply recognize that the NDP isn't a "mass working class party" and trying to get it to adopt an anti-capitalist agenda or become a party of struggle or revolution is futile.  I live in Manitoba, so I know.  At most, it's a party of a certain section of the brass of the labour movement, a large chunk of whom are complete opportunists.  Heck, we couldn't even get the Manitoba NDP to pass a motion against raising tuition fees when it was one of their campaign promises last election and we had young members completely for it.  It was crushed by collusion between the party brass and the MFL brass.  Even when we do get motions passed, they aren't acted on when in government - there are literally decades of resultions in favour of anti-scab legislation in Manitoba, but we won't get it because Gary Doer literally promised the business community that it wouldn't happen - and you were saying something about a working class party?  Honestly, you're starting to sound like one of those Marxist Tendency jokers who says everyone is sectarian but us because we're practicing entryism without an exit strategy, when other radical left groups are doing some very good work given their size.  Winnipeg is Not For Sale was the initiative of a very small radical left group, the Communist Party played an important role in protests against the privatization of Winnipeg's water, groups like OCAP help defend the rights of poor people, and the IWW just organized the first union in a Starbucks in Quebec (after the workers were turned down by both the CSN and FTQ)

I think the best thing that the radical left can do is stop shitting ourselves about the NDP.

Very well said, gs.

"What I'd really like to know is why they even stay with the NDP at all"

That's an excellent question. Stock. I wonder too. Barry, are you still there? Could you offer some insight? The socialist wing of the NDP, despite being an unwanted guest in the NDP house, provides the NDP with street creds among the young and disaffected. A credibility it really hasn't earned, as gs can testify, or deserves, as Stock acknowledges. One could argue that the NDP actually holds back the movement from finding its own voice and forming its own political constituentcy, especially one centred around a green, sustainable socialist vision, that is all but impossible while self-trapped within the NDP.

So what gives?

It's the dog, ma.

Gee, I must travel in the wrong circles. I've never met anyone "young and disaffected" who told me that they still had faith in the NDP thanks to the fact that Socialist Caucus and Barry Weisleder are still in the party. Has anyone else ever met such a person?

Stock you are right the NDP has absolutely no street creds with any young disadvantaged person al

Nobody's perfect Barry, and of course I don't agree with everything you say, but it's clear you give a shit, and are working from the inside, as opposed to taking shots from the outside. In other words you are prepared to roll up your sleeves and do the hard work involved, that is NOT being done by some, and of course not all, but some of these armchair quarterbacks.

Thanks though Barry, both for your feedback and your efforts.

Its a cool read in the best form of good old fashioned propoganda.  I did notice a typo or error in the name of the Manitoba Premier who is Doer and not Dewar. 

And all jokes aside about motions and resolutions, there is little doubt the NDP held a policy convention whereas the Liberals held a convention. 

The NDP needs to have a group pulling it left, just as the Conservatives need a group pulling them right.  New ideas, or radical opinions are good for political parties.  While all the kerfuffle of the waffles was occuring, I as a regular voter had no idea the internals of the NDP during this period.  The NDP also needs their right wing, or policy will not get thoroughly debated.

There are some strong NDP partizans here, and Stock... just because you dislike the messenger, doesn't mean the message is entirely wrong.  I figure, this being a Leftwing board, this is the kind of posting that gets people talking.

On rightwing forums, I have to read really stupid shit, like DEATH PANELS when discussing improvements to healthcare.

This posts are a nice break away from stupid talk, regardless of whether you agree with the poster. It does tickle the brain, and shows a true left wing perspective.

Oh.. I can see Russia from my house.

OK, I actually will say that I respect the fact that there are people on the far left of the party who try to put forth their ideas etc... and its healthy for a party to have that leve of internal debate. Its just that the "Socialist Caucus" tends to always overstate their case and in many cases for every one resolution they put forward that actually contains a grain of truth, there are five others that are totally out to lunch and whose mere presence in the policy resolution manual only serve to open the NDP to ridicule.

For example one of their resolutions (which was voted down almost unanimously thank goodness) said that the NDP be barred from ever forming a coalition with any other party - with the exception of coalition with other "workers parties" - I mean honestly what do they think this is? France or Spain in 1936 with "Popular Front" coalitions of socialists, communists and anarchists being formed? (BTW: those popular fronts also included the middle class small "l" liberal Radical parties in both countries who are quite comparable to the Liberal Party of Canada!). Then at the convention you would have the absurd spectacle of a resolution being voted on calling for free elections in Iran and a release of political prisoners there - and the SC speaking out against it because the resolution doesn't include a preamble condemning the United States!

...and this notion that somehow the Socialist Caucus deserves credit for stopping the party from dropping the "New" in NDP and that this was some sort of ideological triumph of left over right smacks of delusions of grandeur. Honestly, I've chatted with people from all walks of life in the party about the name change and I met people from the party establishment who were both for and against it and I met people from the left and right who were for and against it - almost entirely for practical or aesthetic reasons.

Just because some of the people here aren't in the NDP doesn't mean they don't do things outside the NDP.  A lot of people left of the NDP are involved in struggles in their community in other ways.  I pointed to a few things in my previous post which were the result of people left of the NDP, not to mention people who are involved in their unions or student unions.  A lot of the people who managed to kill the SPP are outside of the NDP.  And it's not like there aren't people in the NDP who aren't doing anything productive either.

Of coruse, it's easier for NDPers to score political points by painting a picture of anyone left of the NDP as doing nothing.

I think there are a lot of people out there, especially young radicals, who still have some notions that the NDP is a socialist party and can be recovered.  Groups like the Socialist Caucus and Fightback are, in my opinion, participating in this self-delusion of some sections of the non-anarchist radical left regarding the NDP.

There were some good policies passed. With proper process though, many of these should have already been in the policy booklet. Green collar jobs in particular should be motherhood. All jobs should be green jobs or sustainable livelihoods except for industries in transition, and calling them green collar ghettoizes them.

There are occasions when it is pointless to even bother responding to genstrike.

I believe this to be one of them.

Then why did you? Can't resist an insult?

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Then at the convention you would have the absurd spectacle of a resolution being voted on calling for free elections in Iran and a release of political prisoners there - and the SC speaking out against it because the resolution doesn't include a preamble condemning the United States!

I imagine Barry is "still trying" for the same reason you are "still trying" to influence people here at babble. The difference being that the NDP is a mass organization where one can reach many people with socialist ideas, whereas babble is a small discussion-circle dominated by non-activists who are in no position to influence anybody.

No, the difference being that I frequent political forums in my spare time because I enjoy discussing political issues, not because I take this seriously as the place where some big struggle for socialism will happen (I'm no different from most other babblers, including yourself, in that respect).  Barry is talking about how many people he's recruiting and how many papers he is giving out - if I'm trying to recruit on babble I'm obviously doing a shitty job of it because I haven't even mentioned my political affiliations, never mind tried to sign anyone up.

They're not that hard to figure out.

Well lets play a game then - send me a personal message and I'll tell you if you're right.

Really? In politics? Wow. It strecthes the imagination, I admit ...

C'mon, Stock, when you're, you're right and you are right.

Can't argue with that.

Ouch. I think they must be masochists, Stock!

There is a certain familialarity to it all I'll give ya that ...

I have to admit I have not met such a person, either. I've haven't met a "young and disaffected" person who told me they still had faith in the NDP, period, but that's immaterial to the debate at hand. And, again, 'tis true, I have not met such yound and disaffected a person.

So, back to where we were. Stock is right. Barry, why in hell's name are you still with a party that disrespects you, disrespects your interests and values, and where you're obviously not wanted? Stock has a valid point. Can't be disputed. Resolution, candidates, all 100 percent defeated 100 percent of the time. Remember in high school that unrequited crush, Barry? Maybe it is time for socialists to accept reality and find a new political home. Am I wrong here?

If there were another mass party on the left with 80,000 members and name recognition with every voter in Canada, I'd be the first to tell Barry he's wasting his time with the NDP.

Please let me know when that party shows up. 

Isn't that very similar to the argument the pro-Obama democrats used to argue the left should stay with Obama rather than defect to the Greens?

Let's detail it again:

• the socuialist caucus brings in resolutions 100% of which get defeated by wide margins
• they run candidates for executive positions in the party - and those people all lose by huge margins
• then two years later at the next convention ... the whole exercise can be repeated

It's not encouraging. Not to go all capitalist on you, but what is the return on your investment including the emotional investment?

I would suggest even Marx would walk on this deal.

The Socialist Caucus is not the left wing of the NDP.  The Socialist Caucus is a social club of a few people who are always attacking anyone who disagrees with them, including those on the left of the party.  One should never confuse the two.

Yet another group of people written off by the NDP brass, and parroted down through talking points.

I suspect Karl Marx would have no trouble seeing the profound differences between the NDP and the Democratic Party of the USA.

I also suspect that if Weisleder and the rest of the Socialist Caucus had left the NDP for - whoever (?) - they wouldn't have recruited "over eighty" new members and distributed nearly 1,000 copies of "Turn Left", while getting exposure for socialist ideas on CPAC.

And we wouldn't be discussing this on babble.

If I had a choice between 140 more years of old line party plutocracy and something new, I'd choose something new every time. Whigs n Tories in Ottawa gets old after, well, all your life long as is the case for every Canadian who's ever lived. I get the strong impression that theyre taking Canadian voters for granted at this stage of the game

Wow I'm NDP brass and/or a parrot. Who knew!

I was merely expressing my views based on my experience.  There are members of the socialist caucus who the moment they get up I can tell you, almost word for word, what they will say - and often it is not on point, but a hobby horse.  And again.  The socialist causus does not represent people on the left of the NDP.  They are a social group - represented at meeting after meeting by the same people over and over.  I know lots of people on the left of the party that have no use for their hobby horses so lets not confuse the Socialist Caucus with the left of the party. 

Support them if you want that's your right- but do not suggest they are the left of the party - that is factually incorrect.

Long ago, I attended a Young New Democrats convention where someone moved, with a straight face, an amendment calling for everyone to have an above-average income. The Socialist Caucus loved it, and lined up to speak in favour of it. After a few speakers, the mover stood up and said it had been pointed out to him that his amendment was a mathematical impossibility, so he was withdrawing it. Best satire I ever saw at an NDP gathering.

M Spector

Good point.

Well then why don't they joint the Conservative party and then they can get even more exposure and attention?

In the end the Socialist Caucus does no one any harm and provides a bit of comic relief at conventions.

The SC certainly managed to damage the NPI.   We did manage to keep their language out of our proposals, but their presence was not a good thing.

The official socialist caucus only represents one small group of socialists, inside the NDP or out.  There's a lot more of them than you think Stockholm, more perhaps than the centre-right that dominates the party executive now. 

I can name-drop dead white guys too - I bet Sam Dolgoff would have no trouble seeing the true nature of the NDP.

The only reason we are discussing this on babble is because Wiesleder himself brought it up, not because the SC has somehow become a powerful socialist voice in society through entryism into the NDP and a smug sense of superiority towards any independent radical left initiatives.

If that was true then they would have their slates winning elections to the party executive and their resolutions would be getting passed instead of being rejected en masse by landslide margins.

Frankly, I was under the impression that the "Socialist Caucus" only existed at conventions. The individuals I have met who so identify have consistently failed to respond to communications, pass on documents that they had promised to distribute, etc. etc. But I will grant they are very dramatic and have being professionally indignant down to an art form.

I'm not an SC member, but I wish the many intelligent and progressive people on this board would actually address the substance of Barry's post instead of engaging in personal attacks.  For the record, the "Team Layton" cult of personality branding on everything at HFX 09 (including the string on the Convention name tags!) was disturbing to me, the chair did make arbitrary and incorrect rulings on several occasions that suppressed legitimate dissent and discussion, and even those of us (like me) who supported the coalition in December need to be very concerned that the NDP gave up key policy positions on Afghanistan and corporate tax cuts to join the stillborn coalition, with little or no concessions on the Liberal side.

I differ from Barry in that I don't agree there were no discussions of substantive policy issues, and if anything, the Obama speakers (esp Marshall Ganz) were talking about a radical engagement with supporters and volunteers and a truly decentralized campaign model that is the exact opposite of the command-and-control, paid phone banks, stick-to-the-message box model the NDP has used in the last 3 elections.  It was obvious from the Brian Topp/Betsy Myers exchange that the NDP campaign cadre has no clue what real inclusion and "open-source" campaign models actually mean - using Facebook and Twitter simply to ask for $$ and say "Yay Jack!" is not real authenticity or grass-roots mobilization.  Obama's government agenda is centre-right at best but the campaign itself was a truly radical departure from the cynical manipulation that is epidemic in political parties today, and Barry clearly doesn't understand that distinction. 

But to repeat - while I disagree with many of Barry's points, he made a solid contribution to the Convention and to this board, and he deserves more respect than he is being given by many posters on this thread.

I wasn't name-dropping; I was directly responding to Frustrated Mess who mentioned Karl Marx.

As for Sam Dolgoff, I highly doubt that someone who couldn't even grasp the true nature of the Cuban revolution could be trusted to see the "true nature of the NDP". LOL! 

The OP could easily have been ignored, but babblers decided to discuss it.

Thanks WCL, as you raise some concerns I share as well.

The NDP needs to show to its general membership that it is seriously willing to start applying throughout the entire NDP organization, the many superb orgainizing ideas gleaned from the multitude of guest speakers, otherwise the Ganz, Gerard, Myers, contributions will have been made in vain, and disenchantment will set in.

I don't know the hierarchial structure well enough, but perhaps Peggy Nash, the new President, might be in a good position to assist the "bosses" to soon move on this issue, before it becomes forgotten, unintentional or otherwise. 

Possibly a good strategy would be to ensure there is some concrete movement about this before making additional financial contributions.

In Trinity Spadina Olivia has already run one evening course based (AFAIK) on the Marshall Ganz work.

Very solid stuff.  How to tell your story in a way to capture the attention and interest of volunteers.  How to recruit by finding aligned interests.  Connecting with community leaders.

The course was cut down from a year long seminar to three and a half hours.  It doesn't fit.  There was lots of good feedback on what worked and what didn't, so I expect future courses to be tuned better.

If party members get trained on that course and it becomes part of the NDP culture, it will have a truly transformative effect on the nature of the party.  That evening was a good first step.

Thanks jrootham, as it sounded like fantastic stuff. 

There was one thing that perhaps stood out, from what little I did see of the convention, as the most significant part for me, and that was to admit that the NDP organizers doesn't have all the answers, and to ask the people in the many communities for ideas, and to ask for suggestions and/or help in finding the answers to their issues, as they usually know best themselves, what works best for them.

Was this aspect of Manz's presentation a significant part of the process in the Trinity-Spadina initial event.

Email exchange
The NDP talks about winning, but is it actually ready?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-ndp-talks-about-winning...

Ed Broadbent has bold advice for his party

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/broadbents-bold-advice/arti...

I agree - liked this nugget of "truth":

Here's Mr. Broadbent: “One of the things that's irked me about this silly talk about changing the name of the party is we're not a democratic party, we're a social democratic party, the core value of which is equality.”

He said the issue has become “deeply important” to all north Atlantic democracies. He noted that European Union finance ministers, with the exception of Britain's, have agree to report on growing inequality at their next meeting.

“I don't think it's there yet in Canada, but I think it should be. And if there's one party that ought to be talking about it, it's us.”

The growing gap which increases inequality in Canada should be the NDP's litmus test. The numbers and who it effects should be known. The NDP policies should be promoted that will shrink this growing gap - particularly economic. Canadians would be "very surprised that it does not just effect the poor" but the shrinking Middle class of which they are being squeezed in.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Only implicitly.  The focus was on the mechanics of making connections, the underlying assumption was that there are shared values and that the net result was a combined effort on the interests of NDP organizers and the interests of the volunteers.

One thing I didn't highlight.  This was not a talking heads presentation.  It was in large measure a learn by doing exercise.  It would be very feasible and interesting to do it several times, in the process getting to the point of being able to lead it yourself.

Also, the action we focused on doing was to do small group community meetings about what kind of government would work for us.  The whole focus was very bottoom up.

If this exapnds, it will be interesting to see the collision between the bottom up swell and the top down rock.

ETA

As far as the Federal NDP winning goes, I noted in another thread that there are no Social Democratic parties in FPTP systems with compentent centrist parties, including Canadian provinces.

Canada's voters already have two far-left options in the two Communist parties. Perhaps their lack of success should tell us something.

It certainly speaks to the overwhelming success of the cold war rhetoric that prevailed during the second half of the twentieth century. The rhetoric is especially effective if you try to murder any members of the party that show the potential to win seats.

The CCF went out and gave informative lectures over and over in every little town and small hall they could find. Trying to out spin the corporate spin doctors in the MSM is a fools game in my opinion that only enriches Canwest and Black Press etc. The NDP MP's in BC all are very diligent on having forums and town hall style meetings to get their perspective out to the populace but there seems to be little of that in areas that have no NDP MP. Slogging it out with grassroots education is the only way to begin to overcome the pervasive corporate message of beggar your neighbour for the good of your family. If the NDP is afraid of the MSM it is doomed to never make any great strides.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Barry Weisleder doesn't seem to realize that the NDP is not a party of "proletarian revolution" and never will be.  I think it should continue to reach out to small "l" liberals as it is the only mainstream progressive party.  Ignatieff has made it clear that the Liberals are a centre-right party. 

The Socialist Caucus doesn't claim to be a "powerful voice in society."  We are rank and file members of the NDP who are concerned about the rightward drift of the party at the federal and provincial levels.  Many of us were long-time NDP members before the Socialist Caucus started in 1998.  This has nothing to do with "entryism."

It is true that many of our resolutions do not make it to the convention floor, but many others don't as well.  This is because far too much time at conventions are dedicated to speakers and other "media friendly" activities.

Turn Left, the newspaper of the Socialist Caucus which I edit, discusses many of the policies we stand for.  I notice that those who are against the Socialist Caucus rarely challenge these policies but instead resort to personal attacks.

I would be far more interested to hear why people like Stockholm are against a reduced workweek, public ownership of the oil industry, sanctions against Israel, zero university tuition, or the creation of a publicly-owned pharmaceutical program.

Stockholm, your personal attack on Barry at the beginning of this thread was out of line, and you know it.  If you have nothing to say about his ideas, stay out of the thread.  If you have something to say about his ideas, say it and leave off the attacks.  Thanks!

What does the Liberal Party need? :D

The NDP is on the left now? Because pretty much every other thread I've read here that references the NDP makes the case that they're a bunch of centrist sell-outs on a collision course with the far right, all but indistinguishable from Harper's cons.

But if the NDP shouldn't cozy up to those further to the right in exchange for votes and seats and power, why should the SC cozy up to the NDP? Where's the purity, man, where's the purity!!?!

Maybe this just isn't done  but why not change their name(s) to something like the Equality Party or the Blue Collar Party, or pretty much ANY name they like that doesn't shriek "USSR"?  I mean, if your politcal opponents started making the word "Communist" a dirty word starting a half-century ago, wouldn't now be a great time to leave that word behind?  Then they could focus on their platform and let people judge the platform on its own merits.

I have a question for Barry. In terms of a potential coalition with the Liberals:

You've also spoken against the coalition attempts of last winter. What do you think should have been done differently? As for working with other parties, one of the most common complaints I hear about politicians when the subject comes up is that they care only about their own turf and they cannot work together. In order to get things done, people have to work together and make compromises, and politics is like that too. If the NDP had taken the approach that you are advocating, we wouldn't have health care, student loans, PetroCan, FIRA, and the list goes on. Yes, the NDP should never compromise its core values, but if it can force another party to implement its ideas, why not?

I like the idea of a reduced workweek or more paid holidays as a means of capturing more of the benefits of improved productivity for workers. It's not, however, a big job creator because not everyone's labour is equally substitutable - the lump of labour fallacy - so it shouldn't be promoted as one. It's also a big challenge to implement in some public services where there's a scarcity of qualified people as there is, such as health care. It's also not mostly in federal jurisdiction.  Public ownership of the oil industry is a good and just idea in theory and it works very well in Denmark and elsewhere. In practice, what with the regional nature of politics in Canada, it's a no-hoper of a policy at the federal level. Provinces with oil are not about to countenance federal interference in what they see as a resource they should control. Unlike when Petro-Canada was created, that's not just Alberta now.

As for sanctions against Israel, that's asking for a big political battle here to little practical effect there. Israel-Canada trade isn't hugely important to either country. If it attracted international imitation, maybe it would be worth it, but that's doubtful.

The federal government doesn't have much directly to do with tuition fees so policy in the federal party should focus on more funding for post-secondary institutions and student aid. At the provincial level, no, I don't support free tuition. A nominal, not overwhelming fee (so lower than today's fees by quite a bit!) encourages students to take their studies seriously and not to take longer than they must. In a situation of limited resources, provinces also have to consider if colleges and universities are the best place to spend new education dollars. From a progressive point of view, this isn't self-evidently so. Consider the case of aboriginals. Tuition is free for aboriginal people right now. For most of them this doesn't make a difference as they aren't qualified to use that opportunity. The high school graduation rate is dismal. It surely makes more sense to provide more resources for primary and secondary education rather than to provide even more for the relative few aboriginal post-secondary students. This may well be true when it comes to education in general. Money put into early childhood education could be a better choice than money put into reducing tuition.

Publicly owned pharmaceuticals? Absolutely! Drugs identified or created with public dollars should remain in the public domain if we can possibly arrange it. It's risky, though. It could easily be a big expensive flop just as easily as a great success. Most potential drugs don't make it all the way from discovery to clinical use. I just hope someone's prepared to stand up in question period to defend the government when some molecule they spent $300 million on developing and testing proves unsafe.

What members of the Socialist Caucus don't appear to appreciate is that policymaking is much more complicated than waving a manifesto and hoping that something magically happens. There's limited resources. There's winners and losers. The winners may not be supportive and the losers are definitely going to scream bloody murder to anyone who'll listen. There will be unanticipated effects and mistakes. In short, there's only so much that a government can hope to produce in four years and manage to get re-elected at best and at worst not to see too much of their work dismantled by the next government.

Class-Strugglist Social Labour or Socialist Left would be a good start (I suggested this myself, BTW). :)

Karl Marx wrote a chapter in Capital on the real reason why workers should struggle for a shorter workweek. It isn't about benefits of improved productivity, nor is it about creating jobs, nor is it about reducing emissions (Work Less Party):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/32-hour-workweek-t88097/index.html [63]

Seems to me all those things you mentioned happened without the NDP having to enter into a Koalition.

Is there any evidence behind this?  And if this is true,

Furthermore, it can also be a negative.  Having these yearly fees, such as flat fees just introduced at the U of T or the proposed new graduate student fees which were defeated at the U of M a couple years ago encourage students, especially those who have to work part time, to take on more than they can handle.  Trust me - as someone who once got a 23% on a midterm, I know what it is like to have more courses than you can possibly devote attention to and wind up with a bunch of C's or D's.

Why do we have limited resources?  If we reversed years of neoliberal policies, withdrew from Afghanistan, and slashed military spending, I bet we would be absolutely swimming in dough.

Actually, that is not true.  Tuition is not free for aboriginal students, and the Post-Secondary Student Support Program for aboriginal students is ridiculously underfunded, to the point where there are thousands of people on waiting lists.  The program was never sufficient to begin with, and funding increases were capped at 2% per year, less than inflation, never mind population growth in what is one of (if not the) fastest growing sections of Canadian society.

The SC are raising issues from their perspective.  Of course, they are going to meet people who are not in agreement!!!  This Party has swung to the Right under Layton even though they promised to be more focussed on the issues arising from the grass roots memberships.  This is clearly not happening!!!

Layton and this leadership has sacrificed principles for electability.

This is not the Party and the inheritors of the early pioneers in the CCF.

Too bad they ended up with neither.

That's true, MS, but circumstances were such in the 60s and 70s that made such gains possible without a coalition. That's certainly not the case today. Seems to me that Weisleder's view that the NDP is some kind of mass party of the working class goes hand in hand with the visceral opposition to any kind of coalition. I have problems with both of these propositions.

I agree.  The NDP is trying to imitate its cousins in the U.K., the Labour Party.

I will not get into a debate over the Labour Party but suffice to say it is on the rocks and may not recover for the next election in the U.K.

For the NDP to go down the same path would be disaster in Canadian Politics.  I, personally, agree with the comments from the SC and I do not see enough room for two Liberal Parties in Canada.

Why not? What's to prevent the NDP making deals with the current governing party at any given time to implement key progressive legislation in return for NDP support on some other government initiative(s)? That's traditionally been the way the NDP gets things done while being in perpetual opposition, and it really only works in minority government situations - the kind we can look forward to more often in the near future.

No need to form Koalitions where NDP MP's are essentially seconded to the Liberal Party pro tem.

I also question whether the NDP is some kind of mass party of the working class, but 'entrists' have to work with whatever host is available.

This is not the same country that existed then either. Our two dirty-rotten old line parties have been slowly but surely handing it over to foreign ownership and control. And if some large minority of voting Canadians prefer things that way, then I guess there's no point in voting NDP. Have bananas and Liber-Tories long time.

DAY O!

So, "foreign ownership and control" is what's keeping the NDP from sticking to the Regina Manifesto? Is that your point?

Because - as I said - the conditions are different. The economy isn't growing as it was in the 60s. Demand for skilled and semi-skilled labour in the manufacturing sector has vanished (comparatively speaking), and with it the need of capitalists to reproduce such labour, which is always one of the drivers of social programs. Today's neoliberal reality wasn't even a bad dream then. The Cold War is over and the "good guys" have "won". And the Pearson/Trudeau Liberals are a far cry from the Harper Conservatives. Harper needs no deals with the NDP, neither for political survival nor to serve the needs of his economic masters - not in the current context anyway - whereas the Liberals may still need a coalition partner in some form or another for purely base political motives.

Since then there have been significant changes with lop-sided trade deals signed by our stooges in the then Liberal government in 1994, Mulroney's FTA in 1989, as well as the privatization of money and credit in 1991. And those were federal level deals not provincial. But for some reason I feel this is still missing the mark with you people, and I have no idea why. The NDP needs federal power in order to change things. It's as simple as that.

Last time I looked Harper had a minority government. They might be willing to buy NDP support on a confidence vote by throwing a few crumbs - like EI reform. And it wouldn't require NDP MP's accepting positions in the Harper cabinet.

This was the NDP's dream - supported by several babblers - in Jan. 2006. Hasn't worked out that way, has it? They got sucked into making amendments to the Clean Air Act, allowing Harper to buy time and kill Kyoto altogether. Can you paint a more likely scenario than EI reform where such a temporary marriage of convenience might credibly happen under current conditions?

And if the Liberals get in, we can kiss off any chance for a recovery in this country for at least ten years. The Liberals will be very good to the banks and energy companies while putting the rest of the country on the bum. Questionable things will happen at a snail's pace, and we'll end up importing expensive fossil fuels west of Quebec at some point. 

Unionist, I was under the impression that you didn't see Iggy as any better than Harper. 

I don't. But these two individuals don't define the political programs of their respective parties. Anyway, I'm not promoting any kind of coalition at this time, but I certainly supported the attempt to create one last year. I just question the logic of those who see such tactics (for me) as matters of principle.

That sort of beast never existed in Canada where region or religion have always trumped class as a motivating factor in politics.

True we could go back to the "good old days" (sic.) pre-Layton when we were rattling around at 8% in the polls and has 13 MPs.

But you can't put a price on purity, Stockholm.  Better to be a big loser on your feet, or something like that.

Somehow criticisms of the NDP's desire to actually get more votes and be elected always remind me of "indie" music fans who end up droning that such-and-such a band — now successful and actually earning money and eating — are "sellouts".

"You used to be about the class warfare, man..."

Also like how once upon a time someone invited Lillian Hellman to a resort on Long Island. She refused saying "no one goes there anymore - it's too crowded!!"

Snert too bad you are a rock music fan who is unable to question the exploitation of youth by these bands who make zillions off very poor and working class youth.  If these bands were about supporting working class and poor youth, they would be adopting an agenda that seeks to support youth.  How many bands have actually spoken out at the moment about the crisis that many youth are facing and adopted positions that would support youth???

They often use and abuse their support base including the abuse of women fans.

This debate is fundamentally about two traditions in Socialist thought.  The tradition that is being critiqued by the SC is the view that turning the Party to the Right brings electoral victories.  While this has happened in some SD Parties, it is often at the expense of principles that are taken to be about the removal of class, gender, race and other barriers that stop working class and poor people from advancing in society.

Sorry to sound teacher ish, but, these are important debates to be understanding on the Socialist left.

Many youth are abandoning the SD Parties including my own family members because they have not promoted their direct interests.  All they experience are rising tuition debt and more exploitation at the workplace because the SD Party, in their case the Labour Party in the U.K., has abandoned them.  Their housing, education, healthcare, pensions have all been slashed.  They have witnessed a Labour Party giddy with power who will spend taxpayers money on cleaning their moats, i.e., some rivers that surround their mansions, rather than funding programs like education that they need to understand their situation!!!

Gee, it looks like Layton and Harper didn't get your memo: 

Exploitation?? Huh.

No, seriously though. Exploitation???

So, tell us, MS, which parts of the "legislative agenda" of the NDP do you think Layton will "extract" from Harper?

You see this is the damn if you don't damned if you do meme of the media in regards to the NDP these days.

In a minority parliament it is expected that party leaders will meet to see if there is common ground.  From there the reporter goes onto the entirely baseless, not supported by quotes, contention that this is about avoiding a fall election.  There is zero evidence that this is the NDPs goal and plenty of evidence to the contrary, but here it is trotted out.

Say off the top there is nothing to discuss and the media derides the NDP as being irrelevant because they are objecting to things before they are even released.

It is a far different standard than what the Liberals are held too.

Personally I still partake of the orange kool-aid, but get a little tired of those who try to tell me it is a fine burgundy.

LOL@bagkitty

Yeah, that stupid reporter should know you can't trust anything that Rick Boychuk, Layton's communications director, has to say.

So funny...and so true!

After meeting with Harper, Layton said that the PM does not seem to understand the extent of unemployment and the hardships it is causing.

Layton said he will be voting to end the minority government.

I'm sure some here will find fault with that. Can't wait to hear the abstract reasoning from theory.

God how the neocons looking in must laugh at this timeless juvenility, so well known to "socialist" venues through the years.  And of course the "proletariat" could not give a fiddler's fart at this point, if it's not about job creation.  Could not find that in the above posts. And I'm sure they would not want to see "capitalism on trial" (OP) in lieu of job creation. Scary stuff.

The quotes make the NDP position clear and events since I posted have borne that out.

The comments inserted in the story by the reporter - the ones about this is a meeting to avoid an election - are not based on anything Boychuk said or they would be in quotes.  It was pure rank speculation and typical of the media's spin of late. 

It was a meeting for the mutual purpose of not being able to be accused of not discussing things with the government or NDP before a non-confidence vote is taken and therefore not worth getting excited about.

I think the term "brass" and "establishment" are being over-used here.  Just because some people disagree with Barry Weiesleder doesn't mean they're apologists for the NDP leadership.

You have no idea how journalism works, do you?

I love your pre-emptive strikes. Why not start refuting all those future fault-finders right now? If you "can't wait", why wait?

"Cause I knew you'd come through, u. 

Although, again, the speculating seems to have died down since Jack clearly wasn't "treading water."  Can't wait (again) to see where the next bout of speculation on the failure of the "NDP brass" leads us. (edited for spelling)

Personal attack and baiting.

Personal attack and baiting.

Personal attack and baiting.

Personal attack and baiting.

Barry Weisleder, despite what you may think of him, is a respected union activst who founded the Occassional Teachers Bargaining unit for the OSSTF and also sat on the executive of OPSEU. That doesn't sound like someone who is a member of some kind of NDP social club. What have you done for anyone lately other than whine about personal attacks and baiting, except of course when you are their author?

"God how the neocons looking in must laugh at this timeless juvenility, so well known to "socialist" venues through the years.  And of course the "proletariat" could not give a fiddler's fart at this point, if it's not about job creation.  Could not find that in the above posts. And I'm sure they would not want to see "capitalism on trial" (OP) in lieu of job creation. Scary stuff."

People in my neighbourhood would like their jobs back and some idea that they will be able to more than subsist in their old age.

Egos aside, any thoughts on how the chatter advances their belief in the NDP's capacity to do these things? Give serious thought to your own neighbourhood. Got anything substantial to propose THAT THEY MIGHT BUY?

So it isn't okay to attack Barry W. who is taking a public leadership role?  Can we attack Stephen Harper and describe how he has characteristics that make him bad as a PM?

You mean attacking the head of an organization or the organization itself might not amount to an attack against the person? So, in as much to say, if I say "Brad Levigne is a dickhead" and the "NDP is full of assholes like that", it might not amount to an attack upon every member of their oganization, or any particular person who posts on this web site who is a member of the NDP, as a person?

But today its Barry, and his RWG/SA buddies, and is George calling for moderation? Hardly. New Hypocrites.

The above comments indicate to me that elements in this Party are so firmly entranced on the Right that they cannot be bothered to recognise that they too will be led down the garden path with this leadership.  Layton showing up at a meeting with Harper and threatening to bring down Harper is no threat at all when you are almost dead last in the Polls!!!

A real threat would have been if this Party did have a leadership firmly based in grass roots organisations whereby there would have been more clout to any threats.

As such the NDP is a divided house with a leadership adrift and giddy with neo liberal policies which will not threaten the neo cons or the neo libs.  Instead of name calling and personal attacks recognise the problems for this Party with a leadership like this!!!

If the left in this country wishes to have a credible alternative to corporate capitalist parties, then quit attacking the SC who, at least, have proposed some policies to deal with the current crisis and have demanded accountability from this leadership in the NDP at the moment. 

"But today its Barry, and his RWG/SA buddies, and is George calling for moderation? Hardly. New Hypocrites."

George is asking for people to consult their neighbours. And if their neighbours think that their "policies to deal with the current crisis" do not look like answers to their problem, if the neighbours are not ready to storm the bastille - take a deep ideological breath and surface in the real world.

I have no idea how this thread got to over 100 but I'm closing for length.