NDP leadership race

657 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Also the Leap can be a starting point for discussion of how the transition to a low carbon/carbon neutral economy

In the same way that "we should go live in Alaska" is a roadmap to Alaska.

CanadaApple

josh wrote:

Mainstreet poll:

Cullen 17

Lewis 11

Singh 11

Julian 10

Boulerice 4

Ashton 4

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ndp-leadershi...

I think Lewis isn't going to run since he's said he's not interested so I wonder where that 11% of his would go?

brookmere

A plurality of the 598 New Democrats in the April 15 and 16 survey of 5,012 Canadians

Mainstreet is actually talking about NDP voters, not members. Bad reporting by the NP. Of course preferences of members could be much different.

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/cullen-someone-else-lead-ndp-leadership...

With the NDP beginning their search for a new leader, Mainstreet polled NDP voters and among them Nathan Cullen leads a potential race with 17% – tied with ‘someone else’.

mark_alfred

brookmere wrote:

A plurality of the 598 New Democrats in the April 15 and 16 survey of 5,012 Canadians

Mainstreet is actually talking about NDP voters, not members. Bad reporting by the NP. Of course preferences of members could be much different.

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/cullen-someone-else-lead-ndp-leadership...

With the NDP beginning their search for a new leader, Mainstreet polled NDP voters and among them Nathan Cullen leads a potential race with 17% – tied with ‘someone else’.

Quote:

“Among NDP supporters, Rachel Notley has the highest favourability score with +60, followed in a distant second by Nathan Cullen at +28 and a strong third for Jagmeet Singh at +27. This could be a factor in the upcoming leadership as Notley’s influence in the party grows.”

“The Leap Manifesto is a hot topic among respondents, with 53% saying they are following this very closely and another 27% somewhat closely. This compared to just 16% combined who said they were not following it closely or not at all. Approval is split with a majority saying they approve (58%) vs 31% who disapprove. The breakdown among support is interesting with strong approval (17%) and strong disapproval (20%). This issue will continue to dominate headlines and the coming leadership contest,” finished Maggi.

So Premier Notley is the favourite, yet the majority support 'Leap'.  This shows how contradictory and, sadly, unthinking the NDP membership truly is.  The NDP has jumped the shark. 

mark_alfred
Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

According to this Brosseau is considering it:  http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201604/...

From the article (my translation):

Quote:

When asked why she would be interested in the leadership, the NDP MP argued that there was "a lot to be done" to help Canadians who want to join the middle class.

"Before being elected, I was a single mother who wanted to be part of the middle class. I find that the situation hasn't improved since I won in 2011," she said.

I hope she was misquoted, or only partially quoted, or wasn't paying much attention.

Does anyone know what she really thinks? Or is that it?

 

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

So Premier Notley is the favourite, yet the majority support 'Leap'.  This shows how contradictory and, sadly, unthinking the NDP membership truly is.  The NDP has jumped the shark. 

This is old news, unfortunately. The NDP membership has no history, tradition, or recollection of ever being listened to or being treated as decision-makers. Not surprising that they would give casual or contradictory answers to questions like these.

Geoff

Policywonk wrote:

progressive-patriot wrote:

I like Nathan Cullen, and of the candidates who have expressed even a scintilla of interest, he does appear to be the strongest (although I'm keeping an open mind with respect to Boulerice), but I do think that the Party needs younger leadership. 

My preferred criteria would be the following:

Under 50

Pragmatic but with some bold ideas

Opposed to LEAP (we cannot/will not win or even do respectably if we contradict Notley's entire green argument, and promise to end all trade agreements)

Perfectly bilingual

Charismatic, comfortable in a crowd

Preferably female 

Some name recognition (somebody from the outside is okay, maybe even a good thing, but they have to at least be a recognisable name in some households)

 

Jennifer Hollett is definitely charismatic, comfortable around people, young and well-known but probably too inexperienced (though that didn't hurt Justin, but 2015 was an unusual election), and I have no idea where she stands on LEAP or if she speaks French

Jenny Kwan is articulate, youthful, smart and politically seasoned, but again no idea if she speaks French, what her position is on LEAP or how well known she is outside of BC

Niki Ashton is youthful, articulate, smart, fluent in French and charismatic, but I'm not sure about how pragmatic she is (I know she's not a member of the so-called Socialist Caucus, but the fact that they endorsed her in 2012 did me pause). I really can't bring myself to trust the judgement of somebody who thinks that it's politically smart to completely contradict/undermine Rachel Notley's climate change strategy and campaign on things as radical as "end all trade agreements," so she'd have to be opposed to LEAP for me to support her.

Ruth Ellen Brousseau is a household name (sort of), smart, articulate, bilingual, but probably not experienced enough for the job of leader

Peggy Nash isn't the most effective communicator, she was a good MP, I just don't know how good she'd be as a leader. 

Olivia Chow, nothing against her, but she's not very charismatic. 

Megan Leslie is relatively well-known, youthful, charismatic, personable, I think reasonable (she didn't seem to support LEAP in its entirety; I think she just wanted to stimulate discussion), bilingual, politically seasoned, basically the perfect candidate - BUT she's not running......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between being against all trade agreements and being against those that are anti-democratic. Also the Leap can be a starting point for discussion of how the transition to a low carbon/carbon neutral economy can take place but I feel some sections are badly written and some of the "demands" don't make sense (and not necessarily the ones you may be thinking of). I feel some of the opponents of the discussion about the Leap don't quite understand the urgency of dealing with Climate Change. 

I think some of the opponents may well "understand the urgency of dealing with Climate Change", but they understand even more clearly the urgency of having no job, losing their homes and burning through their life's savings.

I voted for the LM resolution at Convention; however, we also passed several resolutions based on the principle of 'leaving no one behind'. If we are not mindful of that principle in our discussion of the document, the LM will leap quickly into the dustbin of history, taking the NDP with it.

I'm not suggesting that we, as supporters of the discussion, are not sensitive to the problems facing our comrades working in the energy sector, but we all need to make sure they know we are sensitive to their very real issues.

What we don't want are supporters of the LM process shouting 'Keep the oil in the ground", while its opponents shout back, "Keep your cars in your garages, keep your thermostats off, etc." That would not be a healthy debate.

brookmere

Since the misconception seems to be cascading I will point out once again that Mainstreet, as they said clearly in the text quoted, was reporting on those voters they contacted who said they would vote NDP. Not members. Obviously it would be not be feasible for any pollster to do a poll of NDP members without being given a membership list by the party.

Debater

I don't know why some people are suggesting Notley should run for the NDP Leadership.  She is only 1 year into her term.

She's not going to quit her job before her term is finished.  She's not Sarah Palin.

Aristotleded24

brookmere wrote:
Since the misconception seems to be cascading I will point out once again that Mainstreet, as they said clearly in the text quoted, was reporting on those voters they contacted who said they would vote NDP. Not members. Obviously it would be not be feasible for any pollster to do a poll of NDP members without being given a membership list by the party.

What's the point of all this polling anyways? We still have to figure out how and when this process rolls out, never mind that there are no officially declared candidates and it is impossible to predict how the campaign will go. Campaigns do matter. Just ask Manitoba Opposition Leader Rana Bokhari.

brookmere

I once went to a talk by Angus Reid and he explained that pollsters do political polling to demonstrate the accuracy of their methods to commercial clients, which is where the real money is. Voter preference is really the only polling activity where there is a reliable independent check of its accuracy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Just ask Manitoba Opposition Leader Rana Bokhari.

Um, who??

Do you mean "Manitoba Opposition Leader [whomever the NDP chooses]" or "Manitoba bronze-winner Rana Bokhari"?

R.E.Wood

Agreed - there's no chance Notley will leave her current job, so there's no point including her name in any federal leadership conversations.

Re: REB - is she suggesting she might run as the candidate to advance the cause of poorer people rising up into the middle class? 

 

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Just ask Manitoba Opposition Leader Rana Bokhari.

Um, who??

Do you mean "Manitoba Opposition Leader [whomever the NDP chooses]" or "Manitoba bronze-winner Rana Bokhari"?

Bokhari went into the Manitoba election with a good chance of the Liberals coming in second place, and were second place in some polls recently. Their campaign ran their public support into the ground.

A more relevant way of stating that could have been: "Campaigns matter, just ask BC Premier Adrian Dix," or "Campaigns matter, just ask Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Just ask Manitoba Opposition Leader Rana Bokhari.

Um, who??

Do you mean "Manitoba Opposition Leader [whomever the NDP chooses]" or "Manitoba bronze-winner Rana Bokhari"?

Bokhari went into the Manitoba election with a good chance of the Liberals coming in second place, and were second place in some polls recently. Their campaign ran their public support into the ground.

A more relevant way of stating that could have been: "Campaigns matter, just ask BC Premier Adrian Dix," or "Campaigns matter, just ask Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow."

In this thread the most accurate way of saying that would be, "Campaigns matter just ask Prime Minister Tom Mulcair!"

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Just ask Manitoba Opposition Leader Rana Bokhari.

Um, who??

Do you mean "Manitoba Opposition Leader [whomever the NDP chooses]" or "Manitoba bronze-winner Rana Bokhari"?

Bokhari went into the Manitoba election with a good chance of the Liberals coming in second place, and were second place in some polls recently. Their campaign ran their public support into the ground.

A more relevant way of stating that could have been: "Campaigns matter, just ask BC Premier Adrian Dix," or "Campaigns matter, just ask Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow."

In this thread the most accurate way of saying that would be, "Campaigns matter just ask Prime Minister Tom Mulcair!"

Laughing

Policywonk

brookmere wrote:

Since the misconception seems to be cascading I will point out once again that Mainstreet, as they said clearly in the text quoted, was reporting on those voters they contacted who said they would vote NDP. Not members. Obviously it would be not be feasible for any pollster to do a poll of NDP members without being given a membership list by the party.

People being polled can self-identify as members.

 

White Cat White Cat's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

White Cat wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

We did not adopt the Leap manifesto. Period.

Huh. The way the media was playing it I assumed the NDP already took the Leap.

NDP resolution that was passed wrote:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that speaks to the aspirations, history, and values of the party.  We recognize and embrace the opportunity to confront the twin crises of inequality and climate change with an inspiring and positive agenda — to transform society as we transition to an economy beyond fossil fuels. The specific policies in the manifesto can and should be debated and modified on their own merits and according to the needs of various communities and all parts of Canada, but the goal of transforming our country according to the vision of the manifesto is harmony with the core beliefs and tradition of the NDP.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party looks forward to meaningful opportunity to debate the Leap Manifesto in riding associations across the country;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT these discussions be part of a pre-convention policy process in the lead up to 2018.

IMO, this is the perfect position for the party to take on the Leap.

Just goes to show the kind of processing power involved when a group of informed activists gets together and makes a decision on some issue.

Mulcair shows the fallacy of leadership. He thought it was a good idea to water down his watered-down commitments during the campaign. That set him up to be sandbagged by the Liberals claiming to be left of the NDP. The same trap they sprung on Andrea Horwath in Ontario a year earlier.

If there had been some kind of system where leadership was more accountable to activists and activists played a stronger role in strategy and platform, the party would be way better off.

 

White Cat White Cat's picture

BTW, we're in the same kind of period of social activism that existed during the 1960s. What happened back then? Pierre Trudeau was able to charm the activists to the Liberal party. Of course, he betrayed them which is how he lost the 1972 election.

Justin Trudeau is trying to do the same thing with his '1party' nonsense. He wants to capture all Canadian activists, especially ones inspired by Bernie Sanders, to secure a 2019 majority.

So the NDP needs to get these activists on board and lay the foundation for taking the country back to the successful Keynesian 'New Deal' policies that created modern living standards in the post-war era.

It's time to stop walking straight into traps the Liberals set for the party.

 

mark_alfred

White Cat wrote:

BTW, we're in the same kind of period of social activism that existed during the 1960s. What happened back then? Pierre Trudeau was able to charm the activists to the Liberal party. Of course, he betrayed them which is how he lost the 1972 election.

He won a plurality (though not a majority) in 1972.  Anyway, he did not lose that election.

White Cat wrote:

Justin Trudeau is trying to do the same thing with his '1party' nonsense. He wants to capture all Canadian activists, especially ones inspired by Bernie Sanders, to secure a 2019 majority.

The 1party stuff doesn't look like anything other than a data mining scheme.  There's nothing anyone would find particularly progressive for Canadians in it.  It's just the Liberal Party promoting itself.  It's not a policy for the public at large, from what I've seen.

White Cat White Cat's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

White Cat wrote:

BTW, we're in the same kind of period of social activism that existed during the 1960s. What happened back then? Pierre Trudeau was able to charm the activists to the Liberal party. Of course, he betrayed them which is how he lost the 1972 election.

He won a plurality (though not a majority) in 1972.  Anyway, he did not lose that election.

White Cat wrote:

Justin Trudeau is trying to do the same thing with his '1party' nonsense. He wants to capture all Canadian activists, especially ones inspired by Bernie Sanders, to secure a 2019 majority.

The 1party stuff doesn't look like anything other than a data mining scheme.  There's nothing anyone would find particularly progressive for Canadians in it.  It's just the Liberal Party promoting itself.  It's not a policy for the public at large, from what I've seen.

Yes, I meant to say Trudeau Sr. was reduced to a minority in 1972 despite all the Trudeau-mania in 1968.

But the reality is most Canadians don't realize Justin Trudeau is full of shit. According to the popular blogger Montreal Simon, Justin is Bernie Sanders.

So New Democrats have to own Bernie Sanders. This guy represents NDP values not establishment values like Justin Trudeau and Hillary Clinton. New Democrats have to fight for these activists.

The NDP should eliminate its membership fee and open the floodgates to activists. Let activists play a much greater role in the direction the party takes.

Think bold and have the goal of redefining Canada in the 21st century: a century of real democracy and participation from the people. The New Democracy. No more handing power off to a corrupt looter establishment to muck everything up.

 

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
White Cat wrote:
BTW, we're in the same kind of period of social activism that existed during the 1960s. What happened back then? Pierre Trudeau was able to charm the activists to the Liberal party. Of course, he betrayed them which is how he lost the 1972 election.

He won a plurality (though not a majority) in 1972.  Anyway, he did not lose that election.

White Cat wrote:

Justin Trudeau is trying to do the same thing with his '1party' nonsense. He wants to capture all Canadian activists, especially ones inspired by Bernie Sanders, to secure a 2019 majority.

The 1party stuff doesn't look like anything other than a data mining scheme.  There's nothing anyone would find particularly progressive for Canadians in it.  It's just the Liberal Party promoting itself.  It's not a policy for the public at large, from what I've seen.

i wonder if any of the 1.6 million tax payers dollars Justin decided he needed for IT is going to 1party site building?

mark_alfred

Poll on the NDP leadership, which, co-incidentally, no one has yet declared an intention to enter yet.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/309813173/Mainstreet-NDP-Leadership

So far, "undecided" leads the pack at 26%, followed by Cullen and "someone else" in a tie for second, followed by Singh and Lewis at 11% in a tie for third place in this poll.  Julien is fourth at 10% followed by Boulerice and Ashton tied at 4%.  Personally I feel Lewis should step up to the plate rather than cowardly sniping from the background. 

White Cat White Cat's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Poll on the NDP leadership, which, co-incidentally, no one has yet declared an intention to enter yet.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/309813173/Mainstreet-NDP-Leadership

So far, "undecided" leads the pack at 26%, followed by Cullen and "someone else" in a tie for second, followed by Singh and Lewis at 11% in a tie for third place in this poll.  Julien is fourth at 10% followed by Boulerice and Ashton tied at 4%.  Personally I feel Lewis should step up to the plate rather than cowardly sniping from the background. 

Like to see how Linda McQuiag would poll. Read how she handles the Leap manufactured controversy:

Why the ruckus over the Leap

She's a real fighter. Wouldn't put up with establishment browbeating. She would grab the bull by the horns and turn the tables. Reframe the debate.

A lawyer-politician like Mulcair, however, responds to establishment bullying by taking internal polls, backing down and watering down his position.

New Democrats must have vision is they are to win elections and undo all the destruction Cons and Liberals have wrought on the country with their failed neoliberal economic reforms over the past 30 years.

Real leadership is having a vision that inspires people.

Debater

I don't think McQuiag plans to run for office again.

But you make some good points above.

mark_alfred

Lewis, Klein, McQuaig, DiNovo -- to me it makes sense to have someone who truly believes this Manifesto stuff running the show.  Why just consider the idea?  Run full on it and see what happens.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Given that most of the people I would choose first are saying they will not run I am at this point thinking that Alexandre Boulerice looks like a good choice. He needs more exposure to voters outside of Quebec but I think he has the ability to become the antidote to Trudeau.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

So Premier Notley is the favourite, yet the majority support 'Leap'.  This shows how contradictory and, sadly, unthinking the NDP membership truly is.  The NDP has jumped the shark. 

This is old news, unfortunately. The NDP membership has no history, tradition, or recollection of ever being listened to or being treated as decision-makers. Not surprising that they would give casual or contradictory answers to questions like these.

It seems human beings, including even New Democrats, are imperfect and flawed.  Of course it's important to have minute exact scrutiny upon New Democrats coupled with mass condemnation for anything that's not absolutely perfect while letting others, like Liberals, off the hook.

White Cat White Cat's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

It seems human beings, including even New Democrats, are imperfect and flawed.  Of course it's important to have minute exact scrutiny upon New Democrats coupled with mass condemnation for anything that's not absolutely perfect while letting others, like Liberals, off the hook.

Mass condemnation from the establishment media? They are going to condemn the NDP no matter what. If left-leaning they are pie-in-the-sky. If centrist, right-wing Thatcherites. (No condemnation for the Liberals because they represent establishment interests.)

Bernie Sanders shows how to defeat establishment corruption: get activists on the ground to engage the people. Then everyone begins to realize all the establishment lies and manipulations.

The future is the movement. Getting people to believe in something. Getting people to fight for something. The 1930s and 1960s produced these kind of movements. New Democrats can lead the movement that is emerging today.

Stockholm

mark_alfred wrote:

Lewis, Klein, McQuaig, DiNovo -- to me it makes sense to have someone who truly believes this Manifesto stuff running the show.  Why just consider the idea?  Run full on it and see what happens.

All four of these individuals are unilingual anglophones who have stated publicly that they have no interest in running for the NDP leadership - 

Let's go back to discussing actual plausible potential candidates like: Nathan Cullen, Jagmeet Singh, Alexandre Boulerice, Niki Ashton etc... (not that I am suggesting any of these people would be likely winners or even candidates but they at least all have the minimum prerequisite of being bilingual and having some political experience) 

R.E.Wood

I like Alexandre Boulerice very much, and the feeling grows as I pay attention to seeing and learning more about him. This is a fun little minute with him, for example:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/alexandre-boulerice-60-seconds/

It's also sweet that the Conservatives hate him - anything that raises conservative blood-pressure has my support Wink

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/05/alexandre_boulerice...

White Cat White Cat's picture

Stockholm wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Lewis, Klein, McQuaig, DiNovo -- to me it makes sense to have someone who truly believes this Manifesto stuff running the show.  Why just consider the idea?  Run full on it and see what happens.

All four of these individuals are unilingual anglophones who have stated publicly that they have no interest in running for the NDP leadership - 

Let's go back to discussing actual plausible potential candidates like: Nathan Cullen, Jagmeet Singh, Alexandre Boulerice, Niki Ashton etc... (not that I am suggesting any of these people would be likely winners or even candidates but they at least all have the minimum prerequisite of being bilingual and having some political experience) 

Linda McQuaig speaks French. 

All the 'plausible' candidates are lackluster to say the least. A mediocre leader will be great for building Junior's legacy which is why the establishment media pulled out the big guns to blow Mulcair out of the water in the first place.

New Democrats need star power to defeat Trudeau and his slick media machine. Every other play is a loser. It will take a couple of elections before Canadians even know who Nathen Cullen is.

New Democrats voted for leadership change. Now it's time to recruit a leader who can make a difference. The 52% who voted to dump Mulcair need to show up on Linda McQuaig's doorstep. She's the only one who has what it takes to finish what Jack Layton started.

Policywonk

White Cat wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

White Cat wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

We did not adopt the Leap manifesto. Period.

Huh. The way the media was playing it I assumed the NDP already took the Leap.

NDP resolution that was passed wrote:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that speaks to the aspirations, history, and values of the party.  We recognize and embrace the opportunity to confront the twin crises of inequality and climate change with an inspiring and positive agenda — to transform society as we transition to an economy beyond fossil fuels. The specific policies in the manifesto can and should be debated and modified on their own merits and according to the needs of various communities and all parts of Canada, but the goal of transforming our country according to the vision of the manifesto is harmony with the core beliefs and tradition of the NDP.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party looks forward to meaningful opportunity to debate the Leap Manifesto in riding associations across the country;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT these discussions be part of a pre-convention policy process in the lead up to 2018.

IMO, this is the perfect position for the party to take on the Leap.

Just goes to show the kind of processing power involved when a group of informed activists gets together and makes a decision on some issue.

Mulcair shows the fallacy of leadership. He thought it was a good idea to water down his watered-down commitments during the campaign. That set him up to be sandbagged by the Liberals claiming to be left of the NDP. The same trap they sprung on Andrea Horwath in Ontario a year earlier.

If there had been some kind of system where leadership was more accountable to activists and activists played a stronger role in strategy and platform, the party would be way better off.

 

Mulcair was held accountable to activists at Convention. Howver that still leaves the rest of the Leadership apparatus, political and administrative.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Policywonk wrote:

Mulcair was held accountable to activists at Convention. Howver that still leaves the rest of the Leadership apparatus, political and administrative.

Now there's a rat's nest that will not be easily eradicated.

Policywonk

White Cat wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

White Cat wrote:

BTW, we're in the same kind of period of social activism that existed during the 1960s. What happened back then? Pierre Trudeau was able to charm the activists to the Liberal party. Of course, he betrayed them which is how he lost the 1972 election.

He won a plurality (though not a majority) in 1972.  Anyway, he did not lose that election.

White Cat wrote:

Justin Trudeau is trying to do the same thing with his '1party' nonsense. He wants to capture all Canadian activists, especially ones inspired by Bernie Sanders, to secure a 2019 majority.

The 1party stuff doesn't look like anything other than a data mining scheme.  There's nothing anyone would find particularly progressive for Canadians in it.  It's just the Liberal Party promoting itself.  It's not a policy for the public at large, from what I've seen.

Yes, I meant to say Trudeau Sr. was reduced to a minority in 1972 despite all the Trudeau-mania in 1968.

But the reality is most Canadians don't realize Justin Trudeau is full of shit. According to the popular blogger Montreal Simon, Justin is Bernie Sanders.

So New Democrats have to own Bernie Sanders. This guy represents NDP values not establishment values like Justin Trudeau and Hillary Clinton. New Democrats have to fight for these activists.

The NDP should eliminate its membership fee and open the floodgates to activists. Let activists play a much greater role in the direction the party takes.

Think bold and have the goal of redefining Canada in the 21st century: a century of real democracy and participation from the people. The New Democracy. No more handing power off to a corrupt looter establishment to muck everything up.

 

That was the first election I voted in. I remember all the "The Land is Strong" BS.

 

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

So Premier Notley is the favourite, yet the majority support 'Leap'.  This shows how contradictory and, sadly, unthinking the NDP membership truly is.  The NDP has jumped the shark. 

This is old news, unfortunately. The NDP membership has no history, tradition, or recollection of ever being listened to or being treated as decision-makers. Not surprising that they would give casual or contradictory answers to questions like these.

It seems human beings, including even New Democrats, are imperfect and flawed.  Of course it's important to have minute exact scrutiny upon New Democrats coupled with mass condemnation for anything that's not absolutely perfect while letting others, like Liberals, off the hook.

I believe you're the one who called the NDP membership "unthinking". No??? My response was (in essence) that they have been buulied into submission over decades of being treated as if they don't run the party. I missed your reply to that. Why are you talking about Liberals?

The Liberal party is not run by its members. Never was, never will be.

The NDP supposedly is. But the members have been disenfranchised. They should rise up and assert themselves. Then pieces of shit like Brad Lavigne et al won't be able to hijack their aspirations and dreams.

You agree, of course - don't you?

mark_alfred

Beats me what the NDP should do, to be honest. 

White Cat White Cat's picture

Policywonk wrote:

White Cat wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

White Cat wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

We did not adopt the Leap manifesto. Period.

Huh. The way the media was playing it I assumed the NDP already took the Leap.

NDP resolution that was passed wrote:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that speaks to the aspirations, history, and values of the party.  We recognize and embrace the opportunity to confront the twin crises of inequality and climate change with an inspiring and positive agenda — to transform society as we transition to an economy beyond fossil fuels. The specific policies in the manifesto can and should be debated and modified on their own merits and according to the needs of various communities and all parts of Canada, but the goal of transforming our country according to the vision of the manifesto is harmony with the core beliefs and tradition of the NDP.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party looks forward to meaningful opportunity to debate the Leap Manifesto in riding associations across the country;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT these discussions be part of a pre-convention policy process in the lead up to 2018.

IMO, this is the perfect position for the party to take on the Leap.

Just goes to show the kind of processing power involved when a group of informed activists gets together and makes a decision on some issue.

Mulcair shows the fallacy of leadership. He thought it was a good idea to water down his watered-down commitments during the campaign. That set him up to be sandbagged by the Liberals claiming to be left of the NDP. The same trap they sprung on Andrea Horwath in Ontario a year earlier.

If there had been some kind of system where leadership was more accountable to activists and activists played a stronger role in strategy and platform, the party would be way better off.

Mulcair was held accountable to activists at Convention. Howver that still leaves the rest of the Leadership apparatus, political and administrative.

What I had in mind is, what I'd call, a Response Team. Members/activists elect delegates in a Response Team that takes issues and concerns to the leadership team (via Skype.) The leadership talks to the Response Team which gets back to the activists. (Say a minimum of 10 activists have to sign a response request ticket.)

During an election campaign this becomes a Rapid Response Team. Here the back and forth interaction has to be done in a much tighter time frame, like 48 hours at the most.

This not only allows the flow of ideas from informed activists to the leadership, it can also allow leadership to instruct activists to focus on a particular issue and interpretation.

Fact is, Nature designed humans (according to our nomadic past) to use the leadership model in a crisis (quick thinking and acting required) and egalitarian direct-democracy during peacetime. So having the right mix of leadership and group participation will maximize the decision-making capabilities of the whole.

It can also allow members to take part in more decision making through votes. Like during the last campaign Mulcair fired a number of candidates for making apparent inflammatory remarks about Israel. It could be set up so the leader has to get a majority of votes by participating activists in an online vote before firing a candidate. This would insulate the leader from the decision.

There are many different ways a system like this could be designed. I think the NDP has to redesign itself to take full advantage of the social media. Technology allows the NDP to be more of a people party today than 50 years ago.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Given that most of the people I would choose first are saying they will not run I am at this point thinking that Alexandre Boulerice looks like a good choice. He needs more exposure to voters outside of Quebec but I think he has the ability to become the antidote to Trudeau.

I'm thinking the same thing.

scott16

White Cat wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

White Cat wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

White Cat wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

We did not adopt the Leap manifesto. Period.

Huh. The way the media was playing it I assumed the NDP already took the Leap.

NDP resolution that was passed wrote:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that speaks to the aspirations, history, and values of the party.  We recognize and embrace the opportunity to confront the twin crises of inequality and climate change with an inspiring and positive agenda — to transform society as we transition to an economy beyond fossil fuels. The specific policies in the manifesto can and should be debated and modified on their own merits and according to the needs of various communities and all parts of Canada, but the goal of transforming our country according to the vision of the manifesto is harmony with the core beliefs and tradition of the NDP.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party looks forward to meaningful opportunity to debate the Leap Manifesto in riding associations across the country;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT these discussions be part of a pre-convention policy process in the lead up to 2018.

IMO, this is the perfect position for the party to take on the Leap.

Just goes to show the kind of processing power involved when a group of informed activists gets together and makes a decision on some issue.

Mulcair shows the fallacy of leadership. He thought it was a good idea to water down his watered-down commitments during the campaign. That set him up to be sandbagged by the Liberals claiming to be left of the NDP. The same trap they sprung on Andrea Horwath in Ontario a year earlier.

If there had been some kind of system where leadership was more accountable to activists and activists played a stronger role in strategy and platform, the party would be way better off.

Mulcair was held accountable to activists at Convention. Howver that still leaves the rest of the Leadership apparatus, political and administrative.

What I had in mind is, what I'd call, a Response Team. Members/activists elect delegates in a Response Team that takes issues and concerns to the leadership team (via Skype.) The leadership talks to the Response Team which gets back to the activists. (Say a minimum of 10 activists have to sign a response request ticket.)

During an election campaign this becomes a Rapid Response Team. Here the back and forth interaction has to be done in a much tighter time frame, like 48 hours at the most.

This not only allows the flow of ideas from informed activists to the leadership, it can also allow leadership to instruct activists to focus on a particular issue and interpretation.

Fact is, Nature designed humans (according to our nomadic past) to use the leadership model in a crisis (quick thinking and acting required) and egalitarian direct-democracy during peacetime. So having the right mix of leadership and group participation will maximize the decision-making capabilities of the whole.

It can also allow members to take part in more decision making through votes. Like during the last campaign Mulcair fired a number of candidates for making apparent inflammatory remarks about Israel. It could be set up so the leader has to get a majority of votes by participating activists in an online vote before firing a candidate. This would insulate the leader from the decision.

There are many different ways a system like this could be designed. I think the NDP has to redesign itself to take full advantage of the social media. Technology allows the NDP to be more of a people party today than 50 years ago.

This sounds expensive. I think the Liberals and Conservatives could afford this technology but not the NDP.

I think they would have to decide between this Technology and money for the next campaign.

Did you consider money while thinking of this? Don't get me wrong I like the idea.

CanadaApple

R.E.Wood wrote:

Re: REB - is she suggesting she might run as the candidate to advance the cause of poorer people rising up into the middle class? 

That's what it sounds like to me. It could work and might resonate with people. I'd like to see though how well she'd do in the pressure of a leadership race and in debates (has she done any?). And I'm not sure but I think the media would be very hard on her like they were when she was first elected.

I agree with Debater that it makes no sense for Notley to run for the federal leadership. Maybe once she's had a few successful (and that's the key) terms as Premier under her belt but not now.  

 

White Cat White Cat's picture

scott16 wrote:

White Cat wrote:

What I had in mind is, what I'd call, a Response Team. Members/activists elect delegates in a Response Team that takes issues and concerns to the leadership team (via Skype.) The leadership talks to the Response Team which gets back to the activists. (Say a minimum of 10 activists have to sign a response request ticket.)

During an election campaign this becomes a Rapid Response Team. Here the back and forth interaction has to be done in a much tighter time frame, like 48 hours at the most.

This not only allows the flow of ideas from informed activists to the leadership, it can also allow leadership to instruct activists to focus on a particular issue and interpretation.

Fact is, Nature designed humans (according to our nomadic past) to use the leadership model in a crisis (quick thinking and acting required) and egalitarian direct-democracy during peacetime. So having the right mix of leadership and group participation will maximize the decision-making capabilities of the whole.

It can also allow members to take part in more decision making through votes. Like during the last campaign Mulcair fired a number of candidates for making apparent inflammatory remarks about Israel. It could be set up so the leader has to get a majority of votes by participating activists in an online vote before firing a candidate. This would insulate the leader from the decision.

There are many different ways a system like this could be designed. I think the NDP has to redesign itself to take full advantage of the social media. Technology allows the NDP to be more of a people party today than 50 years ago.

This sounds expensive. I think the Liberals and Conservatives could afford this technology but not the NDP.

I think they would have to decide between this Technology and money for the next campaign.

Did you consider money while thinking of this? Don't get me wrong I like the idea.

It wouldn't be too expensive. It'd all be based on common web technology which can use the same degree of security measures that banks use. So I could hazard to guess that designing a system that can accommodate voting would be at most a few tens of thousands of dollars.

For example, create a website called "NDPTalk.ca." People who become members of the federal NDP will be given accounts and passwords. They are encouraged join in the discussion groups which are similar to babble's. Develop ideas. Share strategies and talking points. Etc.

Someone can come up with a suggestion or concern they want to address with the leadership team. They create a new topic with a link to the response request ticket. These receive up-votes only. If they get enough votes it's passed to a delegate who has access to the leader (via Skype, so geography is not an issue.) The delegate represents the activists who voted for the request. Then the delegate posts the response in the topic message group. Activists can then perhaps submit a follow up request that also requires a certain number of votes.

Activists could also come up with key campaign platform planks which are decided by vote. Say there are 30 proposed planks and activists are only allowed to submit 10. They decide the top 10 by ranked ballot. Activists could be given, e.g., 5 absolute planks and 5 at the discretion of leadership.

So this creates a back and forth relationship between the leadership team and activists. The leader could be arrogant and dismissive of activists. But they would pay the price.

I think it would be best if such a system would be open to the public for reading. That sends a message of trust. Plus other parties would send spies, so it would be impossible to keep the information secret. The website could also have some discussion groups open to the public. This is a good way to get feedback. Helps identify weak points. Tests policy ideas before they are finalized. It would also be a great way of recruiting new members.

Getting people to join the New Democrats in droves is the most important part, IMO. We have to create a Bernie Sanders type movement in Canada. Revive the movements of the 1930s and 1960s, but make it permanent.

It's a movement to end neoliberalism, once and for all. I think that defines all NDP goals when it comes right down to it. That's what positions the NDP to become the natural governing party of the 21st century. Because they will be the ones who killed neoliberalism and all the corruption that went along with it — the shit that put civilization on the verge of self-destruction. It will never be forgotten.

The 21st century will be built on putting an end to establishment control of democracy. Democracy is not democracy unless it's pure, unadulterated democracy. The people are not children who need keepers. It's the establishment that's out of control and needs to be reined in by responsible people looking out for the future of their children and grandchildren. And that's what the New Democracy movement stands for. That's what changes everything.

 

White Cat White Cat's picture

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

So Premier Notley is the favourite, yet the majority support 'Leap'.  This shows how contradictory and, sadly, unthinking the NDP membership truly is.  The NDP has jumped the shark. 

This is old news, unfortunately. The NDP membership has no history, tradition, or recollection of ever being listened to or being treated as decision-makers. Not surprising that they would give casual or contradictory answers to questions like these.

It seems human beings, including even New Democrats, are imperfect and flawed.  Of course it's important to have minute exact scrutiny upon New Democrats coupled with mass condemnation for anything that's not absolutely perfect while letting others, like Liberals, off the hook.

I believe you're the one who called the NDP membership "unthinking". No??? My response was (in essence) that they have been buulied into submission over decades of being treated as if they don't run the party. I missed your reply to that. Why are you talking about Liberals?

The Liberal party is not run by its members. Never was, never will be.

The NDP supposedly is. But the members have been disenfranchised. They should rise up and assert themselves. Then pieces of shit like Brad Lavigne et al won't be able to hijack their aspirations and dreams.

You agree, of course - don't you?

I think the NDP should open up the floodgates to progressive activists and give them more say over the direction the party takes. There are a lot of people out there who want to put an end to this failed neoliberal era the establishment parties inflicted on us. It's a 1930s and 1960s kind of movement brewing.

If one looks at this mathematically, NDP members would never have to worry about the party being taken too far left or right because the distribution of progressive activists would anchor the party somewhere between the far left and the neoliberal right-of-center (left-leaning centrist central tendency.)

NDP members have two years before selecting a leader. So my guess is that they should act to bring in sweeping changes themselves, rather than rely on a leader to do it.

Mulcair was a leader who wielded too much control. The cost of leadership premium didn't pay off in benefits. For example, he should've devised a strategy to avoid the 'right of the Liberals' sandbag, which he had a year to prepare for. (It was used on Andrea Horwath in the 2014 Ontario election.) Instead he kept watering down his promises, which not only must have been very disheartening to supporters, it meant walking right into a trap he should've known was waiting for him.

If Mulcair had feedback from activists on the ground, he would've run a better campaign.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

White Cat wrote:

It wouldn't be too expensive. It'd all be based on common web technology which can use the same degree of security measures that banks use. So I could hazard to guess that designing a system that can accommodate voting would be at most a few tens of thousands of dollars.

For example, create a website called "NDPTalk.ca." People who become members of the federal NDP will be given accounts and passwords. They are encouraged join in the discussion groups which are similar to babble's. Develop ideas. Share strategies and talking points. Etc.

Someone can come up with a suggestion or concern they want to address with the leadership team. They create a new topic with a link to the response request ticket. These receive up-votes only. If they get enough votes it's passed to a delegate who has access to the leader (via Skype, so geography is not an issue.) The delegate represents the activists who voted for the request. Then the delegate posts the response in the topic message group. Activists can then perhaps submit a follow up request that also requires a certain number of votes.

Activists could also come up with key campaign platform planks which are decided by vote. Say there are 30 proposed planks and activists are only allowed to submit 10. They decide the top 10 by ranked ballot. Activists could be given, e.g., 5 absolute planks and 5 at the discretion of leadership.

So this creates a back and forth relationship between the leadership team and activists. The leader could be arrogant and dismissive of activists. But they would pay the price.

I think it would be best if such a system would be open to the public for reading. That sends a message of trust. Plus other parties would send spies, so it would be impossible to keep the information secret. The website could also have some discussion groups open to the public. This is a good way to get feedback. Helps identify weak points. Tests policy ideas before they are finalized. It would also be a great way of recruiting new members.

Getting people to join the New Democrats in droves is the most important part, IMO. We have to create a Bernie Sanders type movement in Canada. Revive the movements of the 1930s and 1960s, but make it permanent.

It's a movement to end neoliberalism, once and for all. I think that defines all NDP goals when it comes right down to it. That's what positions the NDP to become the natural governing party of the 21st century. Because they will be the ones who killed neoliberalism and all the corruption that went along with it — the shit that put civilization on the verge of self-destruction. It will never be forgotten.

The 21st century will be built on putting an end to establishment control of democracy. Democracy is not democracy unless it's pure, unadulterated democracy. The people are not children who need keepers. It's the establishment that's out of control and needs to be reined in by responsible people looking out for the future of their children and grandchildren. And that's what the New Democracy movement stands for. That's what changes everything.

Most of this seems reasonable enough, except the parts where the word "vote" appears. Using the level of security commonly used for online banking is insufficient for this purpose. In this Nov. 2012 paper from the MIT Technology Review, that is made pretty clear:

David Talbot wrote:

A decade and a half into the Web revolution, we do much of our banking and shopping online.   So why can’t we vote over the Internet? The answer is that voting presents specific kinds of very hard problems.

The unsolved problems include the ability of malicious actors to intercept Internet communications, log in as someone else, and hack into servers to rewrite or corrupt code. While these are also big problems in e-commerce, if a hacker steals money, the theft can soon be discovered. A bank or store can decide whether any losses are an acceptable cost of doing business.

Voting is a different and harder problem. Lost votes aren’t acceptable. And a voting system is supposed to protect the anonymity of a person’s vote—quite unlike a banking or e-commerce transaction—while at the same time validating that it was cast accurately, in a manner that maintains records that a losing candidate will accept as valid and verified.

So, you could follow this plan, if you don't mind your up-voting being subverted, at least some of the time. I don't know how acceptable that would be to you, but it isn't acceptable to me as a participant.

CanadaApple

Is their any one from outside the party other than Avi Lewis who could run for the leadership? 

Unionist

I've already suggested Mike Duffy. Is no one listening? At least he has been found not guilty of wrongdoing with respect to expenses etc. How many MPs can say the same?

Also - why do you say Avi Lewis is "from outside the party"? Is that factual? Just wondering.

CanadaApple

Unionist wrote:

Also - why do you say Avi Lewis is "from outside the party"? Is that factual? Just wondering.

Ah, I guess I should have been more clear. When I said outside the party what I really meant was someone who has never held political office for the NDP Federally or Provincially. Poor choice of words on my part. I think Lewis is a member though I think I heard he only became one recently so he could push for the Leap Manifesto from within the party (edit: which I personally don't have a problem with).  

Unionist

CanadaApple wrote:
I think Lewis is a member though I think I heard he only became one recently so he could push for the Leap Manifesto from within the party (edit: which I personally don't have a problem with).  

I don't have a problem with that either. I can't join the NDP, because of their draconian monogamistic rule that I can't support any other provincial party where a provincial NDP exists.

Their loss.

 

mark_alfred

There's no provincial NDP Quebec wing currently, is there?

Pages

Topic locked