Jump to navigation
I'm told the group Fightback is supporting Horwath.
Quote: At what point did the Socialist Caucus decide that ending catholic education (and dividing the working class BTW) was more important than, say.... socialism?
That SUCKS. I'm sure the "we can end child poverty or we can end separate school funding - we cannot do both" crowd is thrilled.
I want a socialist platform AND an end to Catholic school funding. How any so-called "socialist" can defend public funding for religious schools is beyond me. I don't get it. I must be missing a gene or something.
"I would think that, with the onward march of the Greens,"
Hah! The so-called greens have been so utterly marginalized by the way the economic collapse and their invisible leadership in Ontario. If they are marching its with one gear for forward and three for reverse.
I have not heard a peep from the so-called greens since the election. Do they even still exist or have they filed for bankruptcy yet?
You will find them very active online. True believers. (Although they have stopped sending me updates for some reason. Harris & Co. made sure they have an excellent digital linkage to home base. Sorta Obamish in its professionalism. I'm sure they will come out talking green economy again, and wind turbines and solar. All without the details of how it would remedy anything. Devil's always in the details.
Yep, just now tried Tim Rudkins, their communications guy. Still answering the phone number I got back in spring 07.
I think, Stock, that the fact they are not mentioned by the media is a decision of the media, not to be interpreted as collapse because of the seeming contradiction between a simultaneous concern for economy and environment??????? Or do I misread you there?
I actually wondered why the Socialist Caucus didn't runa candidate of their own - just to make their point. But then it hit me that they probably know that if they ran someone, that person would get about 1% of the vote and it would expose how totally marginal they are within the party.
It's sad that having a debate on Catholic school funding seems to be the most controversial idea in the ONDP today.
I used to be one of those on the Left that was just too enlightened and too radical to engage with the NDP (who in my mind were simply Liberals in a hurry). I certainly believed, and continue to believe that Third Way Leftism only makes sense as a Liberal conspiracy designed destroy democratic socialism. You see, once you concede that capitalism is the legitimate underwriter of democracy, you've effectively driven a wedge into the heart of democratic socialism.
So many like me would engage in social and political activism, striving for social justice and democratic reforms and at election time hold our noses and vote NDP. I will continue to do that, may even keep my membership active. Around 10 years ago I decided to get active in the NDP. Donate, volunteer, etc... But my affair with the NDP is officially on the rocks. If the NDP (NEW DOOMACRATIC PARTY) wants to win my heart back, it needs to make a sharp left turn not sidle up to the Liberal mushy middle. Who are we trying to kid?
In the MSM we have have no advocates and no voice. This is why posting neoliberal inflected crap on here is disgusting. It's not because we are beyond reproach. It's because when you use their rules and their measuring stick, we will always come up short. At a time when the inherent contradictions of capitalism rear their ugly head, instead of calling out the beast, we shy away. We have become a laughing stock and pitiable. We have conceded the terms of engagement themselves and thus only look increasingly anachronistic and silly. The acrimony and vitriol, the faux indignation, the disingenuousness in these threads doesn't help.
My hope: After having tried to go down the middle road (what do folks think was the strategy of our last campaign?) and having had our butts handed to us, we return to being unrepentant democratic socialists; visionaries who live or die by their conviction that a better world is possible, visionaries who believe that true democracy and true socialism are possible, and that that can only be achieved democratically. We have nothing to lose, but a few seats. Most of our principles, our dignity, and our persistence have already been forfeited in our flirtation with neoliberalism. In my view, the middle of the road leads not only to our demise, but to our pitiable, sad, and undignified demise.
In the last two years, I have had two wonderful occasions to celebrate the NDP. First, was listening to Stephen Lewis call out "capitalism" and implore the NDP to act on its democratic socialist roots. Second, was a mere couple of weeks ago when the NDP stood in the face of popular ignorance and stood up for democratic principle, education and the rights workers. When was the last time you heard the word "capitalism" used contemptuously? That the NDP can't bring themselves to do so is not a mark of pragmatism but of shame!
A smarmy, mushy, middle of the road leader of middling intelligence won't do it for me. And then there's the negative stuff, as if I needed more of a reason not to support Prue. That the handful of members of the socialist caucus somehow decided to endorse Prue defies explanation. I suppose it must have been around Prue's wanting to open up the school funding debate. It certainly couldn't have been based on ideological affiliation.
Stockholm wrote: I actually wondered why the Socialist Caucus didn't runa candidate of their own - just to make their point. But then it hit me that they probably know that if they ran someone, that person would get about 1% of the vote and it would expose how totally marginal they are within the party.
Having to front $15,000 was a disincentive to having more than four candidates.
People are throwing around socialism like it's some narrowly defined holy grail. Well I have got news for you, how many corporate donations fund our socialized medicine that we constantly hold up to the U.S. as another example of our moral superiority.
Lord Palmerston wrote: It's sad that having a debate on Catholic school funding seems to be the most controversial idea in the ONDP today.
AA wrote: People are throwing around socialism like it's some narrowly defined holy grail. Well I have got news for you, how many corporate donations fund our socialized medicine that we constantly hold up to the U.S. as another example of our moral superiority.
Here's a test: will Michael Prue say the word "socialist"? Go find some evidence.
I just find it amusing that a candidate who is proposing all of the things the "Socialist" Caucus opposes (cozying up to business, soliciting their donations, campaigning to cut their taxes) but they're backing him because, evidently, the biggest issue facing the working class is closing Catholic schools.
Funny, but not not funny haha.
So I take it that the companies which will produce all the necessities for our "energy economy" will not be corporations? What would they be? Tiny workshops operated by guilds. Would it be like when Mao tried to increase steel production by using backyard foundries. Perhaps it will be a giant co-op and everyone will work on the barter system.
In trying economic times you have to face reality. Money is needed to beat the other well heeled parties and at this time in history it's the corporations that have the cash. Plus the assumption that all corporations are the boogie man does not really hold as much water as it did in one's high school days.
With regards to the question of catholic school funding you like so many others have been taken in by the disinformation that's been put out there. Why is the notion of having open debate so frighting to the misinformed.
P.S. Being steered by brokerage politics, where we move to the centre, let polls make our decisions for us, try to be everything for everyone, relinquish our democratic socialist heritage may well lead to, as is Prue's motto "results we've never had before". I'm just not in the same hurry to reach extinction as Prue, Horwath & Bisson are.
I'm not advocating a regressive politics. Rather I want bold, progressive politics that refuse to forfeit our democratic socialist core. I don't want Liberals voting for the NDP if they think they can retain their neoliberal ideologies and assuage their guilt by supporting a party that cares about social justice. Moving to the centre is not the only way to become relevant.
I think the NDP could rebrand itself in such a way that it engages young voters again, in such a way the many Green supporters actually realize that they're really NDP'ers (many young Green supporters have no idea they're supporting a libertarian party; they want a party that stands up the environment and they also think the party stands for newer different kind of politics), in such a way that the "Left" feels enthusiastic about the NDP and thus begins to take a more active role in mainstream politics, and in such a way that Labour and the NDP become once again undivided partners in the fight for social & economic justice in this province.
I believe Peter Tabuns, in this regard, "is leading the way" to a bold NDP I could be really proud of. Like the other candidates (yes, Prue included), he's a good organizer and a very likable person. But, I cast my support as someone not affiliated with the Tabuns campaign. I've never volunteered or worked for his campaigns. Wonder if the other shills around here can make the same claim regarding their candidates of choice. In my view, Tabuns stands out in his intelligence and insight. He has proven and unmistakable Green credentials. Tabuns is more of a "leftist" than his rivals for the leadership. He has strong appeal for two demographics which should be a source for growth for the NDP: the urban and the young voter (ONDY we all know has endorsed Tabuns). Truth be told, my first choice is Stephen Lewis, barring that I'd happily settle for Peter Tabuns as leader of the ONDP.
Here I was thinking Peter would have trouble connecting with youth (or the middle-aged) what with him being in his 60s come the next campaign, and a bit of a wonk, and kinda dull, and (as that Liberal ass noted) looking a bit like Admiral Stockdale.
But then I saw this and realized he's down with the kids.
I am all for having an open debate on almost any issue. However, why is it I suspect that the forces wanting the NDP to back a single public school system won't accept the verdict even if the majority of delegates say thanks but no thanks. No matter how soundly rejected -it will still be mytholgized as some 'backroom manipulation.' I'm not saying resounding defeat is inevitavle, but if it does happen I predict that that will be the reaction to it. I will have to see some kind of signal from some that they are actually prepared to have a debate, which by defintion means you might lose the argument. At this point I am not all that convinced that those that say they want an open debate on the issue really are prepared to have one in which they lose.
yawn......Toronto debate tomorrow though! Any takers as to whether the candidates will come out blazing or bore the room? Haven't heard much debate in this forum on who has the dominate style. Anyone been to the debates? Thoughts? Opinions?
The debates have changed in character. Each candidate does seem more at ease but I think boredom may have crept in due to the lack of insightful questions from the audience. I think a another negative has been some of the horrid technical problems. It often took on shades of a high school AV club. The ONDY debate was a real horror that way.
Green party youth do know they are supporting libertarian ideas. A significant cohort subscribe to those ideas in part because parties like the NDP have not done an effective job explaining why the state has an important role.
Arranging for someone to get an endorsement by manipulating the process does not make for a legitimate endorsement either. Considering Tabuns has been campaigning for this job for more than a year, rearranged his office budget so he could divert his budget into hiring full time campaign workers and does not have it sealed up by now. That speaks volumes about his appeal.
that's a tough one to follow, but i'll do my best.
a google search of the terms "peter tabuns" and "deputy mayor" brings up 228 results.
why'd i search those? because for some reason, prue's people have an issue with it...
from their facebook page
TORONTO—The Prue campaign today called on fellow Ontario NDP Leadership candidate Peter Tabuns to do the right thing and stop referring to his experience as ‘deputy mayor’ of Toronto.
In the view of Michael Prue’s campaign, it is at best extremely confusing to inadvertently conflate the current Deputy Mayor role currently filled by Toronto Coun. Joe Pantalone, with its many powers and responsibilities, with the largely ceremonial roles performed on a rotating basis by the nearly half of the members of the old 17-member (one mayor and 16 councillors) who periodically served as ‘Acting Mayor.’
...Read the entire release at www.prueforleader.ca
pretty funny stuff. they've got a former councillor basically saying the deputy thing wasn't really called that, it was 'acting' and basically they went around cutting ribbons when the real mayor was out of town.
not very bright. not bright at all, opening yourself up to an accusation you fudged your resume. and don't think the liberals didn't already know about it. they've already had operatives showing up at events.
it may very well be 'inadvertent', as Prue's people say, but any liberal war room type worth their consulting fee wouldn't bat an eyelash before blowing it all out of proportion.
Closing for length.