Proposed NDP name change

112 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2009-07-24 22:25

spatrioter

I've seen this mentioned in a few threads, but unless I'm mistaken, there isn't a thread devoted to this.

Quote:
Victoria MP Denise Savoie raised the idea in an interview this week with media outlet Public Eye Online, saying the party needs the name change to reflect its broader focus.

"Our party was born in 1961 -- we're not 'new,' " said Savoie, who is supported by the Victoria federal NDP riding association. The issue is expected to be debated at the party's national convention in mid-August in Halifax.

The issue has already raised some opposition, with many party activists joining the Facebook group "Keep the 'New' in the NDP".

The text of one of the name-change resolutions going to the Halifax convention was posted to the group:

Quote:
“Amend Party Name”

Where as, the name of the NDP, New Democratic Party has been in place since 1961 at the founding convention. The word “new” does not reflect the history of the party’s achievements after 48 years of existence;

Where as, the name “Democratic Party” will associate our members with fair, strong and progressive principals that will be a brand that social democratic citizens can relate with also.

Where as, there is nothing new with social democracy and citizens and the media identify our political party with the abbreviation and acronym of NDP instead of saying New Democrat Party. Being identified as a political social party with an acronym is not good brand association. Our Democratic Party should be associated with the full meaning of being a Democratic which our modern progressive party reflects in its daily policies and principals today and into the future. Citizens and media will then refer to our party as Democratic which will reflect the meaning of our direction.

Be it resolved that Article 1: Name , of the Constitution be amended by removing the word “new” from the Party’s name and keeping only “Democratic Party” as the official name of the Party.

Fri, 2009-07-24 22:40

V. Jara

If changing the party name is HQ's idea of vision, then no thanks. A name change without any change in substance is no change at all. Why do I get this bad feeling that the NDP HQ geniuses are just trying to conflate the NDP's name with the US Democrats in an effort to get more media coverage? Very pathetic looking if you ask me. I guess Obama's people will be there to answer all questions

Fri, 2009-07-24 22:50

Erik Redburn

Too true, but then again, changing the name to "democrat" could have some significance as a signal that the centre-right in the party no longer has any use for the left wing anymore. Any of us. Was there any party wide discussion on the other possibilities I wonder, like for instance the marginally more acceptable (and more distinctive) "Social Democrat" possibility or something using the word "Progressive" in it? From the looks of it, no.

Fri, 2009-07-24 22:54

NorthReport

Thanks spatrioter

It's a good idea, and long overdue, ever since the Bob Rae debacle, while he was premier of Ontario..

Fri, 2009-07-24 22:54

Stockholm

I'm not sure what people are babbling (literally) about. One riding association has put forth a resolution about a name change. I have no idea if other riding associations have put forth other resolutions about the party name and I have no idea what the party leadership thinks of the whole issue. I have no idea if it will pass or fail. I also don't see how the presence or absence of the word "new" in the party name is a "right/left" issue. To me, its simply an aesthetic matter of personal taste. If some of you have other ideas about what the name of the party ought to be, then i suggest you come to the convention and put forth a resolution calling for another new name.

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:09

A True Father

Actually the Party was alrady christened with a new name last August at Jack Layton's constituency office - NO DAD's PARTY.

The clear anti-father bias has earned the party this new moniker now it just needs to be made official.

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:13

NorthReport

Warren Kinsella visiting us again?

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:15

Cueball

I think it's a great idea. People will really get a sense of where the party is at.

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:21

Erik Redburn

Stockholm wrote:

I'm not sure what people are babbling (literally) about. One riding association has put forth a resolution about a name change. I have no idea if other riding associations have put forth other resolutions about the party name and I have no idea what the party leadership thinks of the whole issue. I have no idea if it will pass or fail. I also don't see how the presence or absence of the word "new" in the party name is a "right/left" issue. To me, its simply an aesthetic matter of personal taste. If some of you have other ideas about what the name of the party ought to be, then i suggest you come to the convention and put forth a resolution calling for another new name.

It may have signifance, as I said, as a signal that the NDp leadership think the American Democratic party is one to emulate, despite Obama's far from progressive record so far. If its gone up for debate on the convention floor then it must have some backing elsewhere. Why more sensible and accurate alternatives like "Social Democrat" aren't up for consideration may also be significant.

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:25

#10

Erik Redburn

Cueball wrote:

I think it's a great idea. People will really get a sense of where the party is at.

You mean like not supporting Sharia law? I'm ok with that part.

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:27

#11

Bookish Agrarian

It is a riding association resolution. It is coming to the floor, IF IT DOES, through that means. It is close to meaningless, especially since it has not passed, nor been defeated yet as an indication of what anyone thinks beyond the riding association. I too think the word 'new' was a very foolish decision. Does that make me some kind of right wing tool?

On a more important note can we start a pool on how long 18064 will be here.

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:49

#12

Erik Redburn

Noones making any judgements re any particular members here. The "NEw" Democrat party is still ok however, in the sense of a party supposedly believing in some new kind of democacy, whether social democratic or democratic socialism, political positions with some defined progressive philosophies behind them but scarcely attempted in North America. I have yet to meet anyone who puts much stock in the existing name as the party's main problem, either way, but I'd be open to other more meaningful alternatives.

Which just goes back to the point again, why is "Democrat" the only alternative being up for discussion, when so many other possibilities have been dismissed before, and a clearly right of centre liberal party in the States already holds that name(?) One riding association's resolution can bring this about?

Fri, 2009-07-24 23:59

#13

Bookish Agrarian

Because someone, or a group of someones in ONE riding association thought - hey I have an idea. T'ain't some kind of conspiracy. No one is bringing anything about unless it passes, which I highly, highly doubt.

In fact I would be surprised if it even makes it to the floor for debate.

Sat, 2009-07-25 00:08

#14

Stockholm

" The "NEw" Democrat party is still ok however, in the sense of a party supposedly believing in some new kind of democacy, whether social democratic or democratic socialism, political positions with some defined progressive philosophies behind them but scarcely attempted in North America."

Maybe we could rename ourselves the Reform Party!

Sat, 2009-07-25 00:18

#15

Erik Redburn

Cute Stockholm. I happen to be a big social reformer at heart and I firmly believe this country is in dire need of it, but alas that name has been ruined too.

Sat, 2009-07-25 00:27

#16

Stockholm

Meanwhile, all the news coverage and pundits in the US are going on and on about Obama being such a leftwing radical who is VASTLY more "liberal" that he led us to believe during the campaign. They all think that between his universal health care plan and appointing Sotomayor to the Supreme Court - the US has gone Communist!

Sat, 2009-07-25 00:40

#17

Erik Redburn

Ok B-A, youre more up on these things than I am, I'll take your word for it for now....and keep my fingers crossed. I know these debates over cosmetic name changes may seem silly but they can be taken as meaningful signals by some, especially given the apparent popularity of Obama with some in the NDp. (a left-of something who can actually win, hey! but at what cost...? etc etc, you know the arguments by now)

Sat, 2009-07-25 00:41

#18

Erik Redburn

Well, the media down there is only slightly to the left of...well, ours.

Sat, 2009-07-25 00:43

#19

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

I think Social Democratic Party (SDP/PDS ) is a more accurate and attrcative name than Democratic Party (DP/PD) . It would reflect a slight shift to the left ..

Sat, 2009-07-25 00:54

#20

WillC

I wasn't there, but I was told shortly after the founding convention that a resolution to name it the "Democratic Party" was promoted by Val Scott, who at he time was a candidate in Downsview, ."

In Canada saturated by US media, probably about 80% of the population looks favourably on the Democratic Party in the US.Why not take advantage of that. No matter if Obama screws up, Canadians are still going to heavily favour them, and have good associations with the name.

It's always been a talking point of the social democrats that we support both political and economic democracy.

In any event somebody came up with the idea of adding the "New" from the name we had been called by as we were forming. All this did was continue the practice of calling the social democratic party by initials, which did make us seem out of the mainstream of English speaking politics, a radical party, more like a European party that was known by initials rather than a name. That might have helped if Canadians were willing to accept it. About 75 years after the founding of the CCF, it seems obviousl that they are not. Calling ourselves Social Democratic Party would get the inevitable SDP.

Calling ourselves the Democratic Party, and make clear that the Democratic also applies to economic democracy.

Sat, 2009-07-25 01:10

#21

Erik Redburn

Yeah, I could live with a Canadian SDParty. Social Democracy as a position betwen socialism and liberalism is almost unheard of in the States too, another small bonus.

ETA: Yes, "Democrat" maybe popular with those who get most their politics from tv, Banjo, but I can prctically guarantee you that the name wouldn't be so popular among the activist core in the NDP or our left-leaning majority, federally, and wouldn't convince many to our right that weve "changed" either, so may lose more than we'd gain. We already have a middle of the road Liberal party, along with a good deal of suppressed resentment against the States so I really don't think it would fly very far.

Anyhow, other threads I should get back to.

Sat, 2009-07-25 01:10

#22

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

and for some historical and Quebec links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_social_d%C3%A9mocratique_du_Qu%C3%A9bec

------------------------------------------

Parti social démocratique du Québec
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Parti social démocratique du Québec (PSD) was the Quebec wing of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It was founded in 1939 as the Fédération du Commonwealth Coopératif and was led by Thérèse Casgrain from 1951 to 1957 and by Michel Chartrand from 1957 to 1960. The name Parti social démocratique was adopted in 1955.

The party was refounded in 1963 as the Nouveau Parti démocratique du Québec.

Sat, 2009-07-25 01:20

#23

V. Jara

Social Democratic Party would be a better reflection of the party base and could give a better sense of what the party would/could stand for. Not that "social" adds much to the NDP brand that the Canadian public doesn't already consider rather painfully obvious. It would be nice if any name change also took into account the acronym that would result in French (e.g. PD isn't the greatest combination of consonants). The party isn't green enough to become the Green Democrats like Duncan Cameron has suggested.

Sat, 2009-07-25 02:04

#24

Cueball

peterjcassidy wrote:

I think Social Democratic Party (SDP/PDS ) is a more accurate and attrcative name than Democratic Party (DP/PD) . It would reflect a slight shift to the left ..

Never happen.

Sat, 2009-07-25 02:28

#25

genstrike

Serious comment: It doesn't make a damn bit of difference, it's just a bit of branding that will only affect political junkies (of course, this is a political discussion board on the series of tubes, so no wonder it is discussed here). And regarding reflecting a shift to the left, isn't changing the name of the party before changing policies kind of putting the cart before the horse? If the NDP changes their name tonight, I'm going to wake up tomorrow with the same premier, the same MLAs, the same provincial government, the same local MPs, and the same policies. It will just be the Left-Anarcho-Communist-Labour-Socialist-Fuck Capitalism Party that is raising my tuition and refusing to bring in anti-scab legislation instead of the NDP.

Slightly less serious comment: How about "The S-word Party"? You know, because we can't say "socialist"

Sat, 2009-07-25 07:13

#26

marzo

It might be helpful to the party to drop the word "new" and also to take a name that would distinguish it from the USA Democratic party.

If the New Democrat activists want to gain more support among Canadian voters it might help to have an intensive re-examination of their policies and to launch a vigorous public information campaign to inform people about party policies.

As it is now the NDP is stuck as a fourth party. Big enough to get noticed but not big enough to make any real difference in federal politics.

Sat, 2009-07-25 07:44

#27

Cueball

Banjo wrote:

I wasn't there, but I was told shortly after the founding convention that a resolution to name it the "Democratic Party" was promoted by Val Scott, who at he time was a candidate in Downsview, ."

In Canada saturated by US media, probably about 80% of the population looks favourably on the Democratic Party in the US.Why not take advantage of that. No matter if Obama screws up, Canadians are still going to heavily favour them, and have good associations with the name.

It's always been a talking point of the social democrats that we support both political and economic democracy.

In any event somebody came up with the idea of adding the "New" from the name we had been called by as we were forming. All this did was continue the practice of calling the social democratic party by initials, which did make us seem out of the mainstream of English speaking politics, a radical party, more like a European party that was known by initials rather than a name. That might have helped if Canadians were willing to accept it. About 75 years after the founding of the CCF, it seems obviousl that they are not. Calling ourselves Social Democratic Party would get the inevitable SDP.

Calling ourselves the Democratic Party, and make clear that the Democratic also applies to economic democracy.

You could call the motion the "deep integration" motion.

Sat, 2009-07-25 08:27

#28

George Victor

And in the mood of some in this thread (and the apparent need felt out there in Victoria) to provide a new name and create new interest for an "aging" party, probably the name Social Anti-tax Independent Democratic Party would provide a nomenclature big enough to capture the interest of the Great Out There.

Sat, 2009-07-25 10:46

#29

spatrioter

Push to change the NDP name comes from the top

Quote:
Sources high in the NDP tell me this is not simply an effort by one constituency association or MP, but rather the push is coming from the top. Federal office, Layton, the whole gang.

Sat, 2009-07-25 10:52

#30

josh

Social Democratic or Progressive Democratic, but please not Democratic. One Democratic Party in the world is enough!

Sat, 2009-07-25 10:58

#31

Stockholm

From what little I have read read about this issue, I do know that nothing that happens at the convention is going to affect what name the NDP runs under in the election expected sometime in the coming year. I suspect that if a resolution passes calling for changing the party name - it will lead to some sort of a task force in "re-branding" the party that would make recommendations that would then have to be ratified down the road etc...

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:01

#32

Stockholm

josh wrote:

Social Democratic or Progressive Democratic, but please not Democratic. One Democratic Party in the world is enough!

Theer are plenty of parties called "Democratic" in the world besides the one in the US. The Democratic Party of Japan is about to dump the Liberal Democrats in Japanese election happening in a few weeks. The Italian Communist Party has also rebranded itself as the Democratic Party and there are plenty of other examples.

...then again why not rename the party the National Socialist Party of Canada? or on second thought...

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:11

#33

josh

I was being somewhat facetious. I was referring more to the substance of the party. Particularly, as its divisions are currently on display as it tries to pass a health reform bill with a "public option."

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:13

#34

spatrioter

Aside from wanting to jump on the Obama bandwagon, this proposal is about getting rid of the acronym.

If you've paid attention to party branding over the past while, you'll notice that they've moved from "Canada's NDP" to "Canada's New Democrats". Jack Layton is referred to as "New Democrat Leader", etc.

So if you're looking for an alternative name that will be amenable to the branding geeks, it shouldn't be something that will be shortened into an acronym (like Social Democratic Party).

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:17

#35

Stockholm

The Democrats and Republicans in the US aren't even "parties" as we understand it in Canada. There is virtually no party discipline and they are each filled with iconoclasts and grandstanders who vote however they want. In our system, if the PM had a solid majority in both houses of parliament - he would be able to dictate 100% of the legislation and it would be passed instantly - no questions asked. The best way to describe the Congressional Democratic "party" (and I use that term loosely) is that it consists of 245 Garth Turners running around trying to upstage each other.

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:20

#36

josh

There is a great deal of discipline in the Republican party, particularly in the House. In the Bush years, they were able to pass all sorts of nutjob legislation in the House with little or no opposition, before it either died or was modified in the Senate.

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:27

#37

Stockholm

The house GOP seems a bit more disciplined - mostly because there are no moderate Republicans anymore - their districts have almost all elected Democrats. The Senate is a different story. Keep in mind that it wasn't so long ago that the Democratic "Party" was home to both George McGovern and George Wallace. In the US you get this whole phenomenon of "Republicans for Obama" or "Reagan Democrats" etc... in Canada, you cease to be part of a party the moment you endorse someone from another party - as Basil Hargrove learned.

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:45

#38

V. Jara

I think there might be an appetite to change the NDP name, but not necessarily to Democratic party. If the resolutions committee brings it to the floor of convention Layton and crew are taking a big risk that it will get shot down- Obama entourage in tow or not. They would be better to pick a name that would preserve the left-of-centre nature of the party or let the idea die. If the convention delegates vote it through, they will look like sheep. When the CCF changed its name, it wasn't just a name change. It came out of the unity of Labour with the CCF movement, and "New" unfortunately came out of the Labour-CCF byelection candidates that won improbable election under a "New Party" banner (even then leftists weren't keen on agreeing on names), while the CCF was still debating whether it should merge.

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:48

#39

Bookish Agrarian

spatrioter wrote:

Push to change the NDP name comes from the top

Quote:
Sources high in the NDP tell me this is not simply an effort by one constituency association or MP, but rather the push is coming from the top. Federal office, Layton, the whole gang.

Well that closes the deal. I mean if it is on a blog it must be 100% accurate.

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:52

#40

WillC

Quote:
you could call the motion the "deep integration" motion.

You do have a point. Using the same name as a US party does have an unpleasant sound. Most of us do appreciate even those little differences in language that we have, such a "labour" and "councillor." But a rose is a rose is a ... More important to help a party which has the following in its platform:

Quote:
Ensure Canadian television and telecommunications networks remain Canadian-owned by maintaining effective regulations on foreign ownership.

Refocus the mandate of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to promote and protect Canadian cultural industries, and transfer mandates that conflict with this objective to other agencies.

Provide sustained funding for the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada, and enhance federal film incentives to encourage film and television production.

Establish targets and a strategy to expand screening and distribution of domestic films in Canada.

http://www.ndp.ca/platform/otherpriorities/supportingculture

Sat, 2009-07-25 11:56

#41

Stockholm

If I were a bigwig in the party (and contrary to popular beliefe - I am not) and I wanted to change the name of the party. I would NOT try to get the convention to pass a resolution out of the blue that not only called for changing the name of the party, but also called for what the new name ought to be. This is just asking for trouble. Instead, I would try to get a resolution passed that gives all the reasons why the word "new" has to go and why we need a new name etc... but not actually say what the new name should be. In other words, give the party a mandate to investigate a name change, THEN come back at next convention with a recommendation for the party to ratify.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:02

#42

Bookish Agrarian

That's what I would do too, and my hairpiece is quite small.

That's why I think the claims that the 'brass' is behind some Orwellian plot is a bit hard to bear. Doing it the way Stockholm suggest would mean the entire exercise would be one in which there could be endless hours of comments about possible names from pundits and some actual attention as a new name is unvieled. I have to believe the 'brass' is at least as smart as me, if not Stockholm.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:02

#43

Cueball

I think it is a great idea.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:03

#44

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
In Canada saturated by US media, probably about 80% of the population looks favourably on the Democratic Party in the US.Why not take advantage of that. No matter if Obama screws up, Canadians are still going to heavily favour them, and have good associations with the name.

I guess that makes sense.

I read about a poll in which Calgary residents, concerned about the taint of the British Empire and Queen Victoria that the name "Alberta" brings to their province, favo(u)r calling themselves Iowans.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:06

#45

Papal Bull

I like the name "New Democrat" just fine. The new is vague enough to engender a lot of different types of change that the party says it is for (although my membership as of late has felt quite a bit like riding a paper tiger).

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:09

#46

spatrioter

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Well that closes the deal. I mean if it is on a blog it must be 100% accurate.

As discussed here on babble, Gerald Caplan also described it as a move from the top in the Globe.

I guess it's possible that numerous Members of Parliament just suddenly decided that this was an important issue all at the same time. But given how most issues in the party are dealt with, it doesn't seem likely that caucus members would speak out publicly on internal party affairs unless it was authorized. Seems to me like a case of astroturfing.

Stockholm wrote:

If I were a bigwig in the party (and contrary to popular beliefe - I am not) and I wanted to change the name of the party. I would NOT try to get the convention to pass a resolution out of the blue that not only called for changing the name of the party, but also called for what the new name ought to be. This is just asking for trouble. Instead, I would try to get a resolution passed that gives all the reasons why the word "new" has to go and why we need a new name etc... but not actually say what the new name should be. In other words, give the party a mandate to investigate a name change, THEN come back at next convention with a recommendation for the party to ratify.

If recent history is any indication, none of the current "bigwigs" in the party will be there by the next time a convention rolls around, so assuming the initiative is coming from them (which by many accounts it is), it would make sense to have it come forward at this year's convention.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:09

#47

Cueball

How about "New Republican Party". That way you can keep the "New" in order to stay in touch with the"old" and still have some of that glorious mainstream media US market "branding" rub off as free collateral republicity.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:09

#48

V. Jara

Stockholm wrote:

If I were a bigwig in the party (and contrary to popular beliefe - I am not) and I wanted to change the name of the party. I would NOT try to get the convention to pass a resolution out of the blue that not only called for changing the name of the party, but also called for what the new name ought to be. This is just asking for trouble. Instead, I would try to get a resolution passed that gives all the reasons why the word "new" has to go and why we need a new name etc... but not actually say what the new name should be. In other words, give the party a mandate to investigate a name change, THEN come back at next convention with a recommendation for the party to ratify.

They may yet do that as the convention process, the resolutions coming to the floor, etc. is a variable completely within the party brass' control. Now if they could only master mind control of all the delegates- wouldn't that be a sight to see.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:10

#49

Papal Bull

Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:14

#50

Cueball

Papal Bull wrote:

Eh, I don't know. I think that may upset the monarchist contingents of the NDP. ;)

But... but... but Eric, above, said the party was opposed to medieval systems of jurisprudence.

Sat, 2009-07-25 12:16

#51

Stockholm

"As discussed here on babble, Gerald Caplan also described it as a move from the top in the Globe."

That tells me absolutely NOTHING. If there is one person who knows ZILCH about what the brass of the NDP are up to its Gerry Caplan. He might have known what the bigwigs were up to 20 years ago when he was one himself - but I suspect that nowadays when he writes about what he thinks the leadership of the NDP are up - it means that he looked at himself in the mirror and talked to himself. The rest of that article by Caplan was so useless and badly written that it makes anything he wrote about the possible name change lack any credibility.

Pages

Topic locked