NDP Convention This Weekend!

142 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch

The issue isn't just "supporting Gaza".  It's also the necessity to make a clear statement that it is totally, universally unacceptable to deliberately impose hardship on a civilian population because those making the imposition don't like that leadership.  That is not negotiable. 

Besides which, the objective of such an imposition(that is, to starve the civilian population into rising against said leadership)has never been achieved anywhere in which such tactics have been used. 

You don't have to like Hamas to support the flotilla.

JeffWells

The hypocrisy of the executive not trusting the membership, while claiming to love open debate, is what sticks with me.

dacckon dacckon's picture

They should make a statement like this "We support aid to Gaza but not aid that lands in the hands of Hamas" But the reality is that some of it will unfortunately end up in the hands of the rich Hamas. Some weapons might be unfortunatly smuggled on board as well. If it was Fatah, it would be 100% easier to support the flotilla.

 

Anyways, the debate on PR is interesting. It mentions the far right in Europe which has seats due to PR. What type of pr are they proposing though?

 Oh, the long form census is run by Lockheed Martin, I learn something new every day.

Ken Burch

Then again, the far right in Canada has a majority under FPTP.  And the obvious answer to that is to use the German idea of a threshhold.  In Germany, it's 5%...in Canada or the U.S. I'd say that 4% or 3% might be better.  And also, Canada doesn't have an organized neo-Nazi movement that could get its act together enough to take advantage of pr.

notaradical

Polunatic2 wrote:
Not sure if there are any resolutions on Libya

 

Quote:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT New Democrats support UN efforts for the protection of civilians from violence and the establishment of a ceasefire.

Quote:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT New Democrats demand that Canada's role must be strictly within the scope of the UN resolution mandate

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

They should make a statement like this "We support aid to Gaza but not aid that lands in the hands of Hamas" But the reality is that some of it will unfortunately end up in the hands of the rich [sic] Hamas.

 

Maybe the NDP should say they support giving aid to Gazans, regardless of who they elected as their democratically legitimate government.  Rather than parrot the Zionist propaganda that has swamped the discourse on Palestine in the western world, the NDP could take a principled, objective stand on the issue of aid to Gaza.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

abolish that House which is full of loser candidates, party hacks and bagmen.

...and thwarts the democratic will of the House of Commons!

...the "democratic will of the House of Commons" being, of course, a synonym for the "undemocratic will of the pseudo-majority Conservatives in the House of Commons".

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

notaradical]</p> <p>[quote wrote:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT New Democrats demand that Canada's role must be strictly within the scope of the UN resolution mandate

Passing such a resolution would, of course, merely be  putting the NDP's stamp of approval on the Security Council's illegal meddling in the internal affairs of Libya.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

M. Spector wrote:

...the "democratic will of the House of Commons" being, of course, a synonym for the "undemocratic will of the pseudo-majority Conservatives in the House of Commons".

What made me respond was a comment by Nathan Cullen during the policy session today that the Senate killed a bill on fighting climate change - I can't remember correctly, but I think it was something along the lines of "Climate Change Accountability Act". It was passed in the House of Commons, and killed in the Senate.

Fidel

dacckon wrote:

Its hard to support Gaza(one of the poorest regions in the Arab world) with a Hamas goverment in power. Its not that Israel's right wing govt deserves praise, its that they simply have a bigger,gutless, shameful lobby and massive influence in the media.

Hamas has developed a democratic wing of the organization and won election in the 2000s. The west is not happy with this adventure into legitimate politics. Our warmongering leaders preferred it when Hamas was just a militant organization and even terrorists, which for all intents and purposes they still are. And the Russians support them and Hezbollah through Iran.

And yet we have people wanting the NDP to pick sides in this one. The right would propagandize hell out of such maneuvering by the NDP. Imagine how right wing newz media and political stooges for Uncle Sam/Israeli fascists would play this up for political gain. The Rooskies and NDP arm-in-arm against team freedom and democracy here in the west. There are people who would love nothing better than for the NDP to open themselves up to a colder war propaganda campaign against the left. 

It's as if Marx said to go out and fuck things up for the social democrats trying to win the battle of democracy. Of course, he said no such thing and which leads us to believe some people are either novice Marxists or just full of baloney, one or the other.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Even when the NDP becomes government in 2015 Smile it's going to be tough for them to take the public stands we all want to see - for the reason I gave earlier, and echoed by Fidel.

 

 

ps: I wish I had voted NDP on May 2nd, but I didn't see the Orange Wave coming. No signs or posters anywhere, nothing. And the candidate didn't make any trips down here on the coast. I'm glad he won, even though as far I recall he didn't run any kind of a campaign.

vaudree

Did anyone see the Stephen Lewis speech or the tribute to the youngsters?  Both were a bit light (though enjoyable) which considering that Lewis usually reduces people to tears in his speeches may be a good thing.

Egypt opened up its border with Gaza but seems to have closed it up again.

Seems that the NDP supports aid to Gaza - just not the Flotillas because they don't want to be blamed for encouraging suicide (which is how they officially view the flotillas):
Statement on Gaza flotillas

June 9, 2011

In difficult situations of conflict, it is important to respect people's right to peaceful protest, and the protection and safety of all parties involved must be a priority.

Earlier this week, I met with the Israeli Ambassador and urged the government of Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza. I also indicated that it was not New Democrat policy to support the flotilla but reiterated New Democrats' concern for the safety of protesters and urged that the utmost caution be used.

New Democrats echo the United Nations' concerns about potential clashes between Israeli forces and the activists, and urge restraint on all sides. The NDP has consistently called for an end to the blockade of Gaza to alleviate the human suffering caused by the conflict. We also recognize Israel's legitimate security concerns with respect to the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and have called for effective international arrangements to address these concerns.

This position is in keeping with the UN Security Council resolution 1860, which called for "an immediate ceasefire in Gaza leading to a full Israeli withdrawal, unimpeded provision through Gaza of food, fuel and medical treatment, and intensified international arrangements to prevent arms and ammunition smuggling."

We continue to urge the Canadian government to play a balanced and constructive role in the Middle East.

http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-on-gaza-flotillas

 

Unionist

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

Nellie Weibe (not sure I got her name right)

She's known around here as "Nettie," but a Barbie doll keeps beating her in elections.

She's also known as "Wiebe".

 

JeffWells

vaudree wrote:

Did anyone see the Stephen Lewis speech or the tribute to the youngsters?  Both were a bit light (though enjoyable) which considering that Lewis usually reduces people to tears in his speeches may be a good thing.

I saw Lewis's speech. I was very disappointed he used his time to cheerlead the $2 million "humanitarian" window-dressing the NDP extracted for Libya as the price of signing on again with its bombing.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

What made me respond was a comment by Nathan Cullen during the policy session today that the Senate killed a bill on fighting climate change - I can't remember correctly, but I think it was something along the lines of "Climate Change Accountability Act". It was passed in the House of Commons, and killed in the Senate.

Yes, it was a private members' bill passed by the H of C; all the Conservatives voted against it. Now, of course, the Conservatives can kill such legislation in the House, without any help from the Senate.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Stephen Lewis praised the humanitarian window dressing on Libya? Well that's disappointing.

Sorry, I'm just not into the school of thought that destroying infrastructure with a plan to rebuild it is a good thing.

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

James Laxer's take on the death of democratic socialism, as announced by "unnamed officials" in the leadership of the NDP. Apparently European Socialist parties have yet to be informed.

http://blog.jameslaxer.com/

 

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

Debate on the Party Executive's resolution to purge the Party Constitution of any reference to democratic socialism is scheduled for Sunday morning. If passed, the NDP will be well on its way to becoming a pale imitation of the Liberal Party.

Policywonk

JeffWells wrote:

International resolutions coming up now. If I'm understanding correctly, the resolution on the boat to Gaza was bumped down the order paper from no. 2 to no. 10 without consultation. Tension brewing.

And Paul Dewar. Seriously, the NDP needs to do better than Paul Dewar.

Not exactly. It was defeated in panel (not necessarily fairly) and drops back below the 9 resolutions that were either passed or tabled. Oddly enough if the constitution preamble had been defeated in panel it would still have been third because only two resolutions were passed and none tabled.

Policywonk

Coldwell wrote:

Debate on the Party Executive's resolution to purge the Party Constitution of any reference to democratic socialism is scheduled for Sunday morning. If passed, the NDP will be well on its way to becoming a pale imitation of the Liberal Party.

There does seem to be enough opposition to prevent it from getting a 2/3rds majority, if not a simple majority.

Hunky_Monkey

Coldwell wrote:

Debate on the Party Executive's resolution to purge the Party Constitution of any reference to democratic socialism is scheduled for Sunday morning. If passed, the NDP will be well on its way to becoming a pale imitation of the Liberal Party.

Yes... because the Liberal Party is such a... social democratic party.

Ken Burch

the problem is, the label "social democratic' no longer actually means anything and doesn't hold the party to anything.  Any time a party leadership tries to distance the party from its core values, bad things happen.

Hunky_Monkey

Ken Burch wrote:

the problem is, the label "social democratic' no longer actually means anything and doesn't hold the party to anything.  Any time a party leadership tries to distance the party from its core values, bad things happen.

Social democracy means something to most people. I'd venture to guess that most New Democrats would consider themselves social democrats rather than socialist if you asked them. It's quite silly to think describing the party as social democratic in it's constitutional preamble means we're becoming the new Liberal Party.

janfromthebruce

I agree with what Hunky_Monkey says here.

 

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

the problem is, the label "social democratic' no longer actually means anything and doesn't hold the party to anything.  Any time a party leadership tries to distance the party from its core values, bad things happen.

Social democracy means something to most people. I'd venture to guess that most New Democrats would consider themselves social democrats rather than socialist if you asked them. It's quite silly to think describing the party as social democratic in it's constitutional preamble means we're becoming the new Liberal Party.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Uncle John

Social Democrat has not been Socialist at least since World War I when the SPD supported Kaiser Bill instead of calling for the working class to boycott the war.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Uncle John wrote:

Social Democrat has not been Socialist at least since World War I when the SPD supported Kaiser Bill instead of calling for the working class to boycott the war.

 

it's a sidebar but an interesting and important one. Not that I'm particularly interested in piling on the NDP when there seem to be so many willing to do that from a right wing perspective.

There has been a great deal of water under the bridge since but, in fact, the origin of the social democrat/communist split was precisely this issue of war and peace in World War One and preceded the Russian Revolution by some years. Social democrats have a very long history, especially in the imperialist countries, of being pro-war and pro-imperialism. So this pro-bombing (of Libya) is not a surprise by the Canadian social democratic party.

ScotianGuy1981

The international policy aside from trade is starting to show a rift in the party between those that identify with the democratic Socialist Caucus and those that are within the "establishment" or the social democrats. As a socialist it irked me that Broadbent would be open and say "social democrat and democratic socialist, I use them interchangeably". I am thinking don't you know the difference, one is the people control decide the direction of their social based economy; the other has nothing about economic system and is content with a regulated capitalism system and welfare state? Don't you realize how many of those allies from Socialist International are just as right wing as our Conservatives or central as our Liberals? 

Based on politicalcompass.org in Canadian terms - 

UK Labour is right wing, socialist in Green Party

Germany SPD right of centre, socialist and Marxist in Die Linke

Australian Labour very right wing, socialist in Green Party

French Socialist is left of centre (social democratic) as all socialist has in Le Party Guache

As for the stances on war and peace, it's like the establishment is afraid to offend Israel and Zionist. Anyone that spoke up against the current situation of gets slapped for it. 

 

al-Qa'bong

laine lowe wrote:

Stephen Lewis praised the humanitarian window dressing on Libya? Well that's disappointing.

Sorry, I'm just not into the school of thought that destroying infrastructure with a plan to rebuild it is a good thing.

Heckuva job, Stevie.

Quote:

The BBC's Jeremy Bowen said he saw two bodies at the scene, one in an ambulance and one being taken out of the rubble. He said journalists were also taken to a hospital in Tripoli and shown the same two bodies. In all, he said he saw the bodies of three adults and two young children whom authorities said were killed in the strike early Sunday.

 

NATO airstrike kills five more Libyan civilians

The NDP should get off the pot, come clean, and endorse a resolution supporting the empire's right to bomb n*****s.

JeffWells

They knew they didn't have the two thirds to change the preamble, so Brian Topp moved that the language be referred back to the executive to avoid a vote, and that carried on simple majority.

I like Topp, but that was kinda weasily. Better to just defeat it, IMO, and hear the membership.

JeffWells

And frankly stunned that the resolution rejecting outright merger talks with the Liberals was defeated.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

JeffWells wrote:

And frankly stunned that the resolution rejecting outright merger talks with the Liberals was defeated.

Are you sure that's what the resolution said? I heard that the resolution was to shut out talks with Liberals, period - didn't hear the word 'merger' in there. Peter Stoffer said he had enjoyed working with several Liberals MPs over the years and gave a list which included Stephane Dion, and he paid tribute to Dion for having the courage to introduce the Green Shift. The camera panned to Dion, who smiled at the compliment. One of the speakers prior to Peter Stoffer invited Dion to join the NDP.Laughing

notaradical

Boom Boom wrote:

Are you sure that's what the resolution said? I heard that the resolution was to shut out talks with Liberals, period - didn't hear the word 'merger' in there. Peter Stoffer said he had enjoyed working with several Liberals MPs over the years and gave a list which included Stephane Dion, and he paid tribute to Dion for having the courage to introduce the Green Shift. The camera panned to Dion, who smiled at the compliment. One of the speakers prior to Peter Stoffer invited Dion to join the NDP.Laughing

Quote:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party reject any proposals to merge with the Liberal Party.

JeffWells

I don't see the text of the complete resolution, but from [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1011414--new-democra... Star[/url]:

Quote:
The resolution would have had the party “refuse any and all discussion” of a merger with the federal Liberal party, and also any talk of a noncompete agreement with the Liberals in the next federal election.

I dunno; this just strikes me as an odd gesture of non-self-confidence, when the party should be projecting the opposite.

 

Polunatic2

If the NDP & Libs had a limited non-compete agreement in the past election, Harper could have likely been defeated and Layton would be Prime Minister today. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Interesting that the NDP rank and file at the convention shot down an anti-merger resolution with the Liberals. That's something that  can't be blamed on Jack Layton or Brad Lavigne, for once. Laughing

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

re: the "socialist" debate just before the vote: Pat Martin described "socialist" language as an anchor that was dragging down the good ship NDP; while the chair of the socialist caucus (Mississauga) described "socialism" as a rocket ship.Laughing

6079_Smith_W

Whether one is in support of merger, cooperation or non-compete or not, there is no reason why the party should paint itself into a corner and shut a door permanently when it does not know what may happen in the future, and there is no compelling reason to do so. 

They did right to turn down the resolution, especially since it was a resolution to not even discuss the matter. Sorry, but I am highly suspicious of the notion that one should not be allowed to even talk about something.

If that time ever comes I think people who comprise the party at that time will be mature enough to make that decision for themselves. Trying to lock down the future is nothing but pointless fearmongering.

janfromthebruce

That was not how I saw it and watching on CPAC. Topp suggested that something as important as the preamble needed to be looked at by NDP artists, musicians, poets and in our riding associations. He suggested it was pretty good and that the Labour council supported it and did not have problems with it but that it needed to be more inclusive, reflective of our membership, and have those who are gifted in language to rewrite it.

That it was important that NDP left the convention united. So I didn't find what he said weasily or anything but honest and reflective.

 

JeffWells wrote:

They knew they didn't have the two thirds to change the preamble, so Brian Topp moved that the language be referred back to the executive to avoid a vote, and that carried on simple majority.

I like Topp, but that was kinda weasily. Better to just defeat it, IMO, and hear the membership.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Policywonk

Boom Boom wrote:

re: the "socialist" debate just before the vote: Pat Martin described "socialist" language as an anchor that was dragging down the good ship NDP; while the chair of the socialist caucus (Mississauga) described "socialism" as a rocket ship.Laughing

I thought Martin's use of the anchor metaphor was lame, if not idiotic. An anchor is supposed to prevent a ship from drifting into danger, or perhaps to stabilise a ship in heavy weather. On the other hand, "rocket ship" was over the top.

6079_Smith_W

He probably meant it in the same context as "millstone".

Policywonk

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Whether one is in support of merger, cooperation or non-compete or not, there is no reason why the party should paint itself into a corner and shut a door permanently when it does not know what may happen in the future, and there is no compelling reason to do so. 

They did right to turn down the resolution, especially since it was a resolution to not even discuss the matter. Sorry, but I am highly suspicious of the notion that one should not be allowed to even talk about something.

If that time ever comes I think people who comprise the party at that time will be mature enough to make that decision for themselves. Trying to lock down the future is nothing but pointless fearmongering.

I think that was how it was seen. I don't expect any merger talks or non-compete agreements anytime soon. Peter was very persuasive about keeping our options open.

JeffWells

janfromthebruce wrote:

That it was important that NDP left the convention united. So I didn't find what he said weasily or anything but honest and reflective.

After further reflection I believe you're right. I do still wish it had come to a vote, but "weasily" was uncharitable.

 

Policywonk

6079_Smith_W wrote:

He probably meant it in the same context as "millstone".

I'm sure he did. It's just not the best metaphor in the situation.

edmundoconnor

Policywonk wrote:

I thought Martin's use of the anchor metaphor was lame, if not idiotic. An anchor is supposed to prevent a ship from drifting into danger, or perhaps to stabilise a ship in heavy weather. On the other hand, "rocket ship" was over the top.

Quite agree. The anchor metaphor was inept, to say the least. It's one thing to say that 'socialism' is no longer appropriate, quite another to say that the term is actively bad for the party. That's some buying into the MSM narrative, there. Incidentally, I believe he was wrong, either way he put it.

Barry Weisleder (have I spelt it right?) went for another clunking metaphor. Was it something in the air?

By the way, when I worked on her campaign, I simply called Nettie Wiebe one thing: awesome.

Policywonk

janfromthebruce wrote:

That was not how I saw it and watching on CPAC. Topp suggested that something as important as the preamble needed to be looked at by NDP artists, musicians, poets and in our riding associations. He suggested it was pretty good and that the Labour council supported it and did not have problems with it but that it needed to be more inclusive, reflective of our membership, and have those who are gifted in language to rewrite it.

That it was important that NDP left the convention united. So I didn't find what he said weasily or anything but honest and reflective.

 

JeffWells wrote:

They knew they didn't have the two thirds to change the preamble, so Brian Topp moved that the language be referred back to the executive to avoid a vote, and that carried on simple majority.

I like Topp, but that was kinda weasily. Better to just defeat it, IMO, and hear the membership.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

I agree that it was right to refer it, and obviously Convention agreed. It should never have been brought before Convention without wide, meaningful consultation beforehand on both content and language. Defeat it and it would have probably still have come back next Convention in some form, perhaps without the wide consultation required (I agree that it probably didn't have the 2/3rds and maybe not even 50%). Topp wants a new preamble to have overwhelming support when it comes back (I talked to him afterwards). I don't know if that will be possible. The label is not as important as what we mean by the label, and that is why the definition of what we chose needs to be clear in the preamble (and discussed beforehand). I also agree that it needed to be more inclusive; I didn't think the wording was appropriate for a Party that aspires to be government.

JeffWells

FWIW, I see Part Martin's clunker of a speech has been posted on youtube for posterity's sake:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OO-mUh3W8

 

He really milked that metaphor: "Our anchor is fouled up on the rusted hull of some old ship that sank in the last century." Deservedly booed.

edmundoconnor

I'm still darn sorry that transit wasn't debated once on the floor. Several delegates (and MPs) had spent considerable energy combining several transit-related resolutions into something substantial (1-10-11, since you ask), that not only showed our aspirations, but what we wanted to do with it. I was at the mic most of the first session trying to hustle things along to get to our resolution by calling the question. Hoang Mai came over afterwards to thank me for my efforts.

And by the way, shut up, James Moore.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

CTV just reported that Layton's approval rating is 97.7%.

edmundoconnor

Boom Boom wrote:

CTV just reported that Layton's approval rating is 97.7%.

It was 97.9%. I was in the hall.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

CTV being off by .2% is a major scandal! Should we all write in to complain? Laughing

Pages

Topic locked