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.
Is that the popular belief? I always thought otherwise. Fringe of party establishment was my bet, but representative of it, ideologically speaking.
The Italian Communist Party has also rebranded itself as the Democratic Party and there are plenty of other examples.
I'm glad someone mentioned that. Denise Savoie is not likely a covert CIA agent.
But there are many places in the world with a "Democratic Party" that is quite right-wing. The name Democratic Party means nothing. And PDP (Progressive Democratic Party) is no improvement on NDP.
How about the New Christian Democratic Party, or if that isn't "Big Tent" enough, the "New Christian Wicca Catholic United Pagan non-practicing Jewish Muslim Working Family Gay Lesbian Transgendered Feminist Meat-Eating Vegan Democratic Party?"
Who cares, really? I like "NDP," but it's just a name. I think the fact that some want a name change for no reason says way more than whatever potential names they may throw out. This party, the Left in general (at least in the "developed world") is stagnant.
You can say "its just a name", but branding is very important and that's why packaged goods companies and organizations spend gazillions of dollars on research and strategies around how to "brand" themselves etc... at the very least, just having a new brand can also be an opportunity (if handled skillfully) for a party to reintroduce itself to the public. It seemed to work well for the PCs in Saskatchewan to rebrand themselves as the Sask Party and for Social Credit in BC to rename itself BC Liberals. The name of the party is obviously not the be all and end all - but its also not something to be underestimated.
You can say "its just a name", but branding is very important and that's why packaged goods companies and organizations spend gazillions of dollars on research and strategies around how to "brand" themselves etc... at the very least, just having a new brand can also be an opportunity (if handled skillfully) for a party to reintroduce itself to the public. It seemed to work well for the PCs in Saskatchewan to rebrand themselves as the Sask Party and for Social Credit in BC to rename itself BC Liberals. The name of the party is obviously not the be all and end all - but its also not something to be underestimated.
I think that the "rebranding" of SP and BCL are just sort of hold-ons for long standing political sympathy. They could have continued contesting, and potentially winning, elections under their previous name.
This concept of "rebranding" for the sake of some EXCEEDINGLY MINOR electoral gains (does anyone imagine that if the NDP changed its name to Democratic Party or another similar name will actually make major gains, other than potentially causing some weird rift in the party membership) just smacks of a superficial waste of time.
YOu could use the same argument to say that the NDP should have just kept on using its 1970s logo forever - no matter how dated it started to look or that the style of party signs should still use 70s still Times Roman lettering and orange/brown colour schemes etc... No one is saying that a new name is going to lead some political earthquake in Canada - just like I don't think that when Kentucky Fried Chicken rebranded itself as KFC - it suddenly caused their chicken sales to double - but it is all part of an incremental process.
*snore*
Well, there used to be a party that called itself "The Rhinoceros Party". They're not around anymore so that name is up for grabs.
Well, there used to be a party that called itself "The Rhinoceros Party". They're not around anymore so that name is up for grabs.
They became neorhino.ca and are the only vehicle for change in this world.
The BC Liberals are NOT the Social Credit party. That party at least pretended to be collectivist, and called themselves "conservative." The BC Liberals are far more ideologically right-wing and call themselves "liberal." The Socreds were not free market fanatics.
The text of one of the name-change resolutions going to the Halifax convention was posted to the group.
The linked article says "Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name." That seems to be Victoria plus Windsor West.
Have any other name change resolutions come in? Any for "Progressive Party" which seems to me the only viable alternative?
How about "The Peoples' Reactionary Front"?
I don't know why Social Democratic Party is not viable.
Among others, Peter Stoffer proposed it years ago.
The name and colour change was a spectacular success for the Reform party. They went from fringe party to governing party. The NDP should follow that model.
Their policies are much better than their branding, so they have more room for political growth by improving their weakest point - their branding.
The text of one of the name-change resolutions going to the Halifax convention was posted to the group.The linked article says "Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name." That seems to be Victoria plus Windsor West.
Have any other name change resolutions come in? Any for "Progressive Party" which seems to me the only viable alternative?
Progressive Party has an even more ridiculous abbreviation than Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party.
I'm fine with discussing a name change, but I'm not interested in the branch plant connotations of "Democratic Party".
Me either Scott!
I personally support dropping the New and becoming simply Democrats.
If this resolution comes up at convention I will vote for it.
However how would this affect provincial parties? Membership in the federal NDP is maintained by provincial parties. Like everyone else's, NDP membership card is provincial and says BC NDP on it.
So changing the name of the federal party would not change what is on my membership card.
We would have both NDP and Democratic parties, until each province moved to change their name too, which could take a long time if ever.
I personally support dropping the New and becoming simply Democrats. If this resolution comes up at convention I will vote for it. However how would this affect provincial parties? Membership in the federal NDP is maintained by provincial parties. Like everyone else's, NDP membership card is provincial and says BC NDP on it. So changing the name of the federal party would not change what is on my membership card. We would have both NDP and Democratic parties, until each province moved to change their name too, which could take a long time if ever.
As discuused by others there was a period of several years before the Federal CCf became the federal NDP. After that it ws up to the provicncial sections of the CCF to dencide to change their name.Sakatchwewan CCF held out for a few years.
then there are issues in Ontwrio, as well as in othe provincial sections as to sharing of membership with the federa; NDP/
How about the Progressive Deservachance Party?
Seriously could not support the NDP if they changed it to only the Democratic Party, it would be a branding that would be unacceptable to me. It is just as bad as "Jack Layton's NDP" crap. Perhaps worse.
Canadians do not like American...politics that much. And the ones that do, do not like the US Democratic party.
I note that the word "progressive" is up for grabs these days in Canadian politics. ;)
I suppose using "Democrat" will make people think we're trying to be like Obama even more than we already are.
But come on, there's dozens of parties around the world that call themselves "Conservative," "Liberal," "Democrats," "Republicans," and more.
However, given our already brazen attempts to ally ourselves with the Obama camp, changing the name to Democrats right now will probably be seen as another step in that direction.
Could we please drop the notion of the Progressive Party Wilf. I mean really do you want us to be know as PeePee? Hasn't NDPee-er been bad enough?
I propose the ultimate Canadian solution - lets have a commission!
Or we could have a reality show - sort of like Canada reads, but with each person making the case for a new name.
Or the Democratic Associations Party and we could then be dappers, instead of dippers.
perhaps the egalitarian democratic party might work? ;)
Or the Canadian Egalitarian Democratic Party and then we could call ourselves C(K)-eggers.
As the lady said: "A rose is a rose is a rose."
Or would it not smell as sweet by any other name?
And shouldn't we be concerned with attributes beyond odour?
Yes but just once it would be fun to go into a group of people and say "Hi I'm from the Cegger Party"
I don't get it?
A Kegger is a party focused around the consumption of a Keg of beer.
Not that I would have ever participated in such a thing.
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Another suggestion for the mix: Solidarity (party). Translates well. Reflects elements of the NDP philosophy. Has coat-tails with certain communities.
Disadvantages: clearly disrupts the linkage with provincial ND parties, although there is Quebec Solidaire which also suggests you could make it a national franchise (e.g. Solidarity BC, Solidarity Manitoba, Solidarity Alberta, etc). Still kind a bit of a throw-back nomenclature wise, but I cautiously like it. Quebec Solidaire also has a much smaller appeal/support than the NDP currently- being as it has started out so militantly to the left. I also like Green Democrats (although the NDP doesn't seem to want to be that green). Democratic Party, I could live with it, but it's a real downer.
The Institute for Economic Democracy
Sustainable World Development - Elimination of Poverty and warsThere are two primary causes for both poverty and war:
1. Two crucial concepts: Plunder by trade, and Property rights law, as applied to nature's resources and technologies, denying others their rightful share of what nature offers to us all for free.
2. We are culturally trained to unsustainable conspicuous consumption, unaware that much of this wealth is unearned through causes one and two listed above.
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Exactly right.
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Then you are basically saying that NEW Democratic Party doesn't mean anything other than that you believe in democracy and that you thik there is something novel about that!
Well, it could be about new forms of "democracy". There has been some discussion about democracy outside of the quadra-annual popularity contest. Workplace democracy. Corporate democracy, and so on and so forth, but... well... it's the NDP so it's not. Can't even get the caucus and the executive to abide by member voted policy platforms, so it's hard to imagine the NDP proposing "new" democratic forms. They can't even hold to the older forms, such as respecting the vote of the membership.
Or is that what the "new" is about? "New" as in non-binding democractic processes.
Keep it as NDP - just change what the acronym to what it really means - No Dad's Party -
OK, we get it - you hate the NDP and always have. So instead of tormenting yourself by making the same criticisms ad nauseum - why not investigate the 20 or so other official parties registered with Elections Canada and find one that suits your ideology and then come back and try to get people to join it.
What's an untrue father? 
OK, we get it - you hate the NDP and always have. So instead of tormenting yourself by making the same criticisms ad nauseum - why not investigate the 20 or so other official parties registered with Elections Canada and find one that suits your ideology and then come back and try to get people to join it.
As for "always" hating the NDP, no. Actually, I used to vote NDP, and was a member. My entire family have been members of the NDP, and come generally from the left. My sister in law voted in the BC election for the Liberals for the first time on the issue of the Carbon Tax. My mother did not vote. In the last federal election I voted independent, my mother for the Liberals, and my wife for the NDP, on the strength of Chow's candidacy alone, and not the party.
It would be easier to overlook the NDP's errors and stop making pertinent critcism, if the NDP was not so intent on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. The NDP taught me to distrust it, and reject it.
Now, do you have anything to say about the ideological value of the word "democracy", other than the fact that it is the opposite of "authoritarian" in line with what V. Jara was talking about?
I see, the "high priest" says the NDP is guilty of having committed "errors". I guess it must be so.
The excutive and caucus and the executive have knowingly and willfully disregarded democratic process, and run rough-shod in an arrogant manner over its own membership, time and time again. "Errors" is a nice way of putting it. Frankly, someone should sue them.
Problem with Democratic Party is it doesn't mean anything other than the party believes in democracy, which is like saying "we believe in elections" (because that's about as far as the NDP's commitment to democracy goes internally). This doesn't help you when you are a third place party. If people want something uninspiring or bland they can vote for either of the two first and second place parties. As a third place party you have to work hard to get noticed. Getting a blander name doesn't help your case.
Then you are basically saying that NEW Democratic Party doesn't mean anything other than that you believe in democracy
Yup. The old name is almost as bad as the idea for the new name. The old name has the word "new," which would only be true so long as the party was 1 year old or as Cueball thoughtfully putting it, into something creative like novel ideas for furthering democracy. The new name, Democratic Party, stinks because it is linked to a very corrupt and disillusioning party in the US.
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.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind.
What was your quip about "sharia law" about, if not baiting? Or were you just engaging in wild and entirely off-topic Muslim bashing, in order to show that even prejudice can be a "democractic" value?
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.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind.
What was your quip about "sharia law" about, if not baiting? Or were you just engaging in wild and entirely off-topic Muslim bashing, in order to show that even prejudice can be a "democractic" value?
Oh, Cueball playing the victim again. My comment had nothing to do with supposed "Muslim bashing" and everything to do with your hypcritical ability to ceaselessly attack NDPers for far less than the assorted dictatorial regimes you spend the other half of your time here defending -whether you admit that's what youre doing or not. And it was of course only in response to another of your pointless and uncalled-for jibes. As I've said before, I do not consider present day Iran a representation of modern "Islam" anymore than I'd consider the present Republican party "Republican" -just another of your off-the-wall comparisons. Now, back to the grownups again.
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.
Well, actually thats kind of what I and a few other "New Democrats" here were already saying but apparently somemore radical leftists here are taking it as a serious sign of more moves towards an Obama-North kind of party. I tend to agree on this one, at least in that it might be taken as the wrong kind of signal to the leftwing at present, but c'mon now, you can't just dismiss it as window dressing on one hand but a sign of nefarious intentions on the other. And FYI, the BC NDP did keep tuitions down during their last lamented term, one thing they did right.
Slightly less serious comment: How about "The S-word Party"? You know, because we can't say "socialist"
Thats cute too, but Layton himself did use the "socialist" word a few times when first elected, something Alexa wouldn't do, and of course received all sorts of flack for it among eastern liberal types at Torstar and elsewhere. The NDP has never been just a "socialist" party either but an alliance between social democrats and democratic socialists plus other progressives, social activists and unionists etc, like the CCF was an alliance between socialists and communists and some other leftists who fit neither description easily. Maybe why vague terms like "NEw Democrat" or "Progressive" may still be seen as more politic among some.
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.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind. First, is that what party A really wrote in the first place? Second, is party B even being serious? Three, does the opinion of any one party represent the views of the whole party, or is there in fact any one party position on this, that or the other? Although I know that the last one is tough for certain Babblers to keep straight.
Since you seem so concerned about "our" views Re democracy and medieval jurispridence though, I will add that I for one still prefer our flawed parliamentary system to one where unelected theocrats can override any legislation they deem unorthodox, but I can still recognise that certain medieval reforms like Magna Carta were important steps forward historicially, and allowing women the right to inherit half of what their male relatives did would probably be seen as quite radical in 5th century Arabia or Europe. Hey, I'm a complicated guy.
The text of one of the name-change resolutions going to the Halifax convention was posted to the group.The linked article says "Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name." That seems to be Victoria plus Windsor West.
Have any other name change resolutions come in? Any for "Progressive Party" which seems to me the only viable alternative?
Progressive Party has an even more ridiculous abbreviation than Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party.
I quite like "Progressive" for a generic party name, since its no longer being coopted by conservatives. Its fairly inclusive, moreso than Social Democrat really, but still implies a foward looking leftist orientation -at least for most Canadians. Wouldn't have to be "Progressive party" alone, could be something in combination like Progressive citizens or Canadian Progressive or Progressive Democratic Alliance or any such where the abreviations don't come across as the "PP" or CCRAP, no.
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.
If youre going to bait people in the third person you should at least keep a few complexities in mind.
What was your quip about "sharia law" about, if not baiting? Or were you just engaging in wild and entirely off-topic Muslim bashing, in order to show that even prejudice can be a "democractic" value?
Oh, Cueball playing the victim again. My comment had nothing to do with supposed "Muslim bashing" and everything to do with your hypcritical ability to ceaselessly attack NDPers for far less than the assorted dictatorial regimes you spend the other half of your time here defending -whether you admit that's what youre doing or not. And it was of course only in response to another of your pointless and uncalled-for jibes. As I've said before, I do not consider present day Iran a representation of modern "Islam" anymore than I'd consider the present Republican party "Republican" -just another of your off-the-wall comparisons. Now, back to the grownups again.
Right. As I said, you were engaged in off topic baiting, or spurious Muslim bashing. One or the other.
"What was your quip about "sharia law" about, if not baiting? Or were you just engaging in wild and entirely off-topic Muslim bashing..."
Thanks for confirming my initial suspicion that you were trolling me pure and simple, if not stalking by introducing "sharia law" into a discussion about the NDP name change. Completely off topic and irrelevant, and nothing but pure trolling.
The topic here is the NDP and its name, not Sharia law. As for those threads where that is discussed, you can find a quote somewhere surely where I advocate and defend it, on one of the threads where it is discussed, otherwise it appears that your comment is nothing more than one of your wild-eyed off-topic smear jobs.
I didn't even say anything nasty, but here you are smearing and trolling me all over again, just because of my crack about medieval systems of jurisprudence.
But, while we are at it I might as well clarify. My point is quite simple, there is nothing theoretically different than a government that rules on the authority of the "devine right of Kings" and government that rules on the authority of god, as defined by Islam. What is important is the degree of seperation between the secular and absolute monarchal power, or absolute theocratic power, and most importantly how these relate to democratic proccess -- secularism is no guarantee against dictatorship, just ask any Russian. As I have pointed out before the idea that supreme temporal authority should reside through the direct rule of the clergy is relatively new in majority Islamic states, and begins with the Ayatollah Khomeni. It is not traditionally Islamic, in fact. And indeed, some Islamic scholars have argued that such is against Islamic practice of Sharia law.
Theoretically at least, Egyptian law is guided to a certain extent by Sharia, and was enshrined in the constitution as operant basis of all Egyptian law in 1980. Even you must be able to see that Iran, is not Egypt.
But, and perhaps this will interest you: A gallup pole revealed that more Egyptians support the idea that Sharia should be the basis of all legislation than Iranians, even though Egypt is clearly the more secular of the two countries:
Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia
That said, why oh why are you trolling me with bullshit comments about Sharia, and my supposed support for "dictatorial regiemes", in a thread about the NDP and its friggin name? Can't you contain yourself, even a little bit, without entering in with this kind of off topic defamation, even here? Are there not enough Iran threads for you to accuse me of being "with the terrorist" in?
The zeitgeist of our time seems to be that if you say anything remotely critical of Israel, you get accused of being anti-semitic - and at the same time more and more if you say anything remotely critical of Sharia Law or of human rights abuses in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc...you get accused of being anti-Muslim racist.
I can only assume that people who are "spinning" for Hamas etc... looked at how successful Israel has been in discrediting legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies as anti-semitic and they figure "hey what a great strategy. Next time anyone says anything about women being stoned to death for adultery in Iran, we will just dismis them as anti-islamic racists!"
