I guess that's what passes for political activism these days.
Dana's NDP Convention Report
Tue, 2009-08-25 21:54
#52
M. Spector
Tue, 2009-08-25 21:57
#53
I was only half-serious.
Tue, 2009-08-25 22:07
#54
Catchfire
I don't see anything wrong with your suggestion, LP. It's not like you were suggesting that such an action would be the beginning and end of your political activism. That was Spector's extrapolation.
Tue, 2009-08-25 22:27
#55
RevolutionPlease
Another reason I hesitate to sign up for the NDP. Keep up the good fight Dana.
Tue, 2009-08-25 23:50
#56
I think Dana has shown incredibly poor judgement, and that his banning from convention is a result of his own actions.
I didn't ask you why he was banned. I asked you whether you agreed. The Waffle was banned from the NDP in the 1970s because of its opinions - not its "actions". The NDP appears to care only about organizational loyalty and electability (ironic, this latter part, because of its perennial failure to inspire even its natural constituency). What bothers me about your posts here, frankly, is your mixing Dana's 10-year-old foolish video with his banning from convention. I find that connection troubling. I disagreed vocally with those babblers who thought that video was harmless or even positive, and I said so here. But totalitarian control of opinions and speech which do not even conflict with party policy is way over the line. Brad Lavigne should not be allowed anywhere near a democratic organization. His banning should be the result of his actions.
Wed, 2009-08-26 00:25
#57
If Dana had not made himself the issue, his resolution or one of the similar ones would have had a very good likelihood of passing, I believe. He turned it into a sideshow, made himself the story, and did nothing for his own cause. I see that kind of grandstanding has sucked in a fair number of posters here on Babble, but it's rarely effective in making real progress.
You folks poo-poo the legal concerns being raised about whether the donations would place some people over the limit, or constitute a contribution by an entity other than a person. But not only do I think they're valid, I think not protecting the party against those types of allegations would have been highly irresponsible of its national director, particularly in this climate where party finance rules are becoming so politicized by the Conservatives.
I think there's a growing constituency to deal with drug use in a smarter way. Dana can never be the poster-boy for that issue and expect it to succeed, however, due to his past actions, particularly on those videos. Some actions have long-term consequences, I'm afraid, and that's one of them for him.
It's a separate issue, but those actions were also costly for other NDP candidates, volunteers and contributors, and could easily have contributed to our shortfalls in Vancouver Island North and Surrey North, plus our coming up short in Kamloops, Nanaimo-Alberni and Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge in the last election.
It's very hard for me to see Dana as the aggrieved party here, rather than all those folks who slogged their hearts out last time, only to be faced with a backlash based on the actions of someone they might never have met, but who indirectly gave everyone a bad reputation by boasting on a videotape about driving under the influence of intoxicants.
Wed, 2009-08-26 00:30
#58
RevolutionPlease
I appreciate your analysis, OttawaObserver but I think you might be a bit old on this issue, pardon the ageism but it needs to be said.
Wed, 2009-08-26 00:44
#59
You folks poo-poo the legal concerns being raised about whether the donations would place some people over the limit, or constitute a contribution by an entity other than a person. But not only do I think they're valid, I think not protecting the party against those types of allegations would have been highly irresponsible of its national director, particularly in this climate where party finance rules are becoming so politicized by the Conservatives.
Lavigne could have cautioned Dana, asked him to stop, and done likewise with any delegates who may have accepted financial assistance. How does barring him from entering the room resolve the issue of contributions? Were the delegates who took money barred? Was any effort made to ascertain who they were? The aim was quite different.
It's very hard for me to see Dana as the aggrieved party here, rather than all those folks who slogged their hearts out last time, only to be faced with a backlash based on the actions of someone they might never have met, but who indirectly gave everyone a bad reputation by boasting on a videotape about driving under the influence of intoxicants.
Now you're getting confused. He was disqualified as a candidate for the video. That was last year. He was barred from entering the room for the contributions. That was this year. Is the video being used again?
Wed, 2009-08-26 01:06
#60
While this post might be considered thread drift I just came across this story where it states that a court in Argentina has just ruled that simple possession for ones own use isn't illegal in that country.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/08/25/argentina.drug.decriminaliz...
Also points how Brazil is heading in the same direction and then of course we know that Mexico went a step further.
Wed, 2009-08-26 01:31
#61
I appreciate your analysis, OttawaObserver but I think you might be a bit old on this issue, pardon the ageism but it needs to be said.
Actually, I don't take offence, because it is true that I see this differently now than I would have when I was younger and "the man" was always out to get people (the way I saw things then). The story hurt us last year in seats we could have won and in two we wound up losing.
Believe me, I've earned every wrinkle and grey hair I've got, trying to learn from my past mistakes. I'm not embarrassed to be a bit old on an issue, because hopefully that comes from a bit of experience the hard way.
Wed, 2009-08-26 01:37
#62
You folks poo-poo the legal concerns being raised about whether the donations would place some people over the limit, or constitute a contribution by an entity other than a person. But not only do I think they're valid, I think not protecting the party against those types of allegations would have been highly irresponsible of its national director, particularly in this climate where party finance rules are becoming so politicized by the Conservatives.
Lavigne could have cautioned Dana, asked him to stop, and done likewise with any delegates who may have accepted financial assistance. How does barring him from entering the room resolve the issue of contributions? Were the delegates who took money barred? Was any effort made to ascertain who they were? The aim was quite different.
It's very hard for me to see Dana as the aggrieved party here, rather than all those folks who slogged their hearts out last time, only to be faced with a backlash based on the actions of someone they might never have met, but who indirectly gave everyone a bad reputation by boasting on a videotape about driving under the influence of intoxicants.Now you're getting confused. He was disqualified as a candidate for the video. That was last year. He was barred from entering the room for the contributions. That was this year. Is the video being used again?
I didn't feel confused when I wrote it, as I did say "it's a separate issue, but ..." when I began the second half of the post. However neatly you are able to separate the video last year from how Dana was going to be viewed this year, though, not everyone else out there would be as sophisticated as you, Unionist.
The guy who was driving high on a video last year and bragging about it, is not the best poster-child for marijuana law reform this year, to most of the folks who would have to be won over for such a provision to ever pass into law. This is why I pointed out to Dana on Babble weeks before the convention that I thought he would see more progress on his resolution if he took himself out of the equation. And I say that as someone who voted for a drug law reform resolution in my own riding.
Sometimes we best serve our issue by leading the storming of the ramparts, and sometimes we do it the most good by standing aside and letting others in a better position to do so go for it instead.
Wed, 2009-08-26 01:53
#63
Unionist you are a valuable contributor here, however on this overall issue, I have to agree with ottawa observer.
Wed, 2009-08-26 02:05
#64
More discouraging words:
"Regular marijuana usage robs men of sexual highs" (New Scientist)
Luckily, most don't notice.
Wed, 2009-08-26 02:16
#65
I appreciate your analysis, OttawaObserver but I think you might be a bit old on this issue, pardon the ageism but it needs to be said.
So do you think the "pardon" makes a comment like this acceptable. ;)
To play devil's advocate, what if the tables were turned, and it was said young people, for example, don't have enough life experience to be aware of the big picture. By-the-way I am not suggesting that, and I do enjoy reading your posts.
Wed, 2009-08-26 10:18
#66
remind
Personally, I do not believe Dana's video caused any voter degradation in BC, if anything perhaps his forced resignation caused voter degradation.
And I think it is too ff, for people in the NDP echelons to believe such is the case,. IMV, they apparently are way out of touch with the voters in the areas OO named , except perhaps Pitt Meadows and the religious vote. Who I doubt would vote for the NDP in the first place.
Wed, 2009-08-26 11:03
#67
I would definitely like to see some changes occur in regards to how the federal NDP runs their conventions, so that we can create a system which is truly democratic and grassroots.
I came up with some suggestions to improve things. This main one is it replace the resolutions prioritization with a system where deligates vote on resolution priority in advance of the convention.
I was wondering the people who spoke agains raising the priority of the resolution said.
Wed, 2009-08-26 12:55
#68
Personally, I do not believe Dana's video caused any voter degradation in BC, if anything perhaps his forced resignation caused voter degradation.
And I think it is too ff, for people in the NDP echelons to believe such is the case,. IMV, they apparently are way out of touch with the voters in the areas OO named , except perhaps Pitt Meadows and the religious vote. Who I doubt would vote for the NDP in the first place.
I suspect we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on that point, then.
Wed, 2009-08-26 13:08
#69
remind
Fair enough, though I weight in my favour given I actually live in BC and know the territories in question.
Wed, 2009-08-26 13:09
#70
You know I am all for democracy, but I think this voting for resolution priority thing is actually rather undemocratic. What happens is that issues that aren't sexy, or say most people don't understand like agriculture policy get pushed down and only the squeaky wheel gets their grease, or it opens up the NDP to manipulation by single issue groups.
I don't know how you open things up and make sure policy discussion is broad enough to actually be reflective. It is a very hard circle to square. Maybe that is a topic for a seperate thread though.
Wed, 2009-08-26 13:37
#71
Yes, autocratic control is soo much better. Count me as a lost vote.
Wed, 2009-08-26 13:53
#72
Fair enough, though I weight in my favour given I actually live in BC and know the territories in question.
Lived and worked there myself. We probably experienced different "villages within the city" however.
Wed, 2009-08-26 14:09
#73
"Nobody who hates pot THAT much votes for a party like the NDP anyway."
Its not just about pot. Its about advocating for the legalization of ALL drugs - and contrary to what a lot of babblers may like to believe, i suspect that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who vote NDP are opposed to that. I realize that if you spend you life among social activists in downtown Toronto or Vancouver - you can start to believe that everyone is an NDP/Green/Communist swing voter and that people who vote NDP are all pot-smoking neo-hippies who go to anti-globalization marches wearing mismatched socks. The reality is that the number one predictor of whether someone will vote NDP is whether their income is low or high. I suspect that there are actually a very large number of people who vote NDP in places like Sackville-Eastern Shore, north Winnipeg, Northern Ontario, Windsor, hamilton, Churchill and various suburban BC ridings like in Surrey - who are not all that big on drug legalization and who may not be all that big on cannabis legalization either and if the NDP were depicted as a party that was being infiltrated by former Marijuana Party activists etc... it would make the party look whacky and fringe and not to be taken seriously.
I'm not arguing against decriminalization of marijuana. That is already NDP policy and i agree with it. But I think you are kidding yourself if you think that there is no political price to be paid anywhere in canada for being viewed as the "pro-drug party".
Wed, 2009-08-26 14:13
#74
Pogo
Personally, I do not believe Dana's video caused any voter degradation in BC, if anything perhaps his forced resignation caused voter degradation.
And I think it is too ff, for people in the NDP echelons to believe such is the case,. IMV, they apparently are way out of touch with the voters in the areas OO named , except perhaps Pitt Meadows and the religious vote. Who I doubt would vote for the NDP in the first place.
Living also in the area in question I would say without question that his video cost us votes and votes outside his seat. I was always getting people asking me what kinds of candidates we were running. In the lower mainland we have a famous bait car video of a thief on crack, drugs in cars hits a nerve. More than that though is the general slacker image. People are electing someone to represent their interests, to facilitate deals for the community. They don't want a slacker.
Wed, 2009-08-26 14:20
#75
The NDP already has to fight against a stereotype that its made up of slackers and pie in the sky flower children with supposedly impracticle ideas etc... incidents like the Larsen kefuffle play into that image - therefore it does a lot more damage. If Larsen had been a Tory who was forced out - it wouldn't have done so much damage to them because whatever negative stereotypes people have about Tories - they don't involve thinking that the party is full of pot smoking flower children. Its more of a problem for the Tories if a candidate of theirs was once a white suprmacist!
Wed, 2009-08-26 14:29
#76
Yes, autocratic control is soo much better. Count me as a lost vote.
Yes that's exactly what I was saying. Jeez
Wed, 2009-08-26 14:35
#77
Fair enough, though I weight in my favour given I actually live in BC and know the territories in question.
Hi remind,
I too am going to have to respectfully diasgee with you on this issue, and I usually do live in BC as well. ;)
Wed, 2009-08-26 15:05
#78
remind
"Different villages" oo?
We should talk about how many stayed home in North Island, Nanaimo, and Kamloops then perhaps?
Wed, 2009-08-26 15:11
#79
peterjcassidy
The NDP already has to fight against a stereotype that its made up of slackers and pie in the sky flower children with supposedly impracticle ideas etc... incidents like the Larsen kefuffle play into that image - therefore it does a lot more damage. If Larsen had been a Tory who was forced out - it wouldn't have done so much damage to them because whatever negative stereotypes people have about Tories - they don't involve thinking that the party is full of pot smoking flower children. Its more of a problem for the Tories if a candidate of theirs was once a white suprmacist!
The main negative publicity from the MSM on the Halifax convention-dropping the name" New"Sorry Brian amse we cant' allwow you to attemnd any more convetnion. Your ideas are bad for our image. Then, lets s keep out those academics in their tweed coats and the braless feminists and the outrgeous gays and the nasty trade unionists and the immigrants and poor who just ruin our TV image with their cray ideas. . . Let's make sure our next convention is full of white middle class middle income small businessmen in sutis and ties who can talk of how we need to cut social programs and taxes and jail the deviants. Tha'ts the way to power/ . Image is everything you know. Sccrew principel and policy.,
Sorry Stock, I just couldn;t resist. 
Wed, 2009-08-26 15:24
#80
Stock is clearly more in tune with the MS. At least, in the absence of a believable economic alternative that will provide jobs - something beyond repeating words like "green", that is. What's the "policy" that gets screwed by staying away from this particular green plant?
Wed, 2009-08-26 15:44
#81
Its not just about pot. Its about advocating for the legalization of ALL drugs
I agree that while most Canadians support legalization of marijuana, they do not support "legalization" of methamphetamine or heroin.
Of course, the word "legalize" is a vague term which can mean many things. I don't advocate that injectable heroin be made as readily available as cannabis products should be. But perhaps opiates could be made legally available to those who are already addicted to them, under a doctor's prescription and supervision.
I think a growing number of Canadians now support terms like "harm reduction" and things like needle exchange and Supervised Injection Sites. The idea that using police and prisons as the primary way of dealing with illegal drug users is a failed effort.
I think a large number of Canadians would agree with the phrase "illegal drug use should be treated primarily as a health and social issue instead of as a criminal one."
If you take a look at the resolution we had put together for the NDP Convention, it is based more on a "tax and regulate" model for cannabis, and an acknowledgement that we need to come up with a better way of dealing with other drugs, based on principles other than criminalization.
---
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the NDP advocate for the elimination of all fines and criminal penalties for personal cultivation and possession of cannabis, and the establishment of a taxed and regulated framework for production and distribution of cannabis to adults;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP support a broad federal review of the impacts and harms caused by current drug policies, to select the best model for the government to implement a non-criminal, regulatory approach to psychoactive substance use that is based on reducing risk and harm, emphasizing prevention, public education, health promotion and safety.
---
Whenever I speak about drug use, I try to point out that the main factors in the danger of using any substance is the dosage and potency. Injecting a pure version of any substance is generally going to be far more harmful, risky and addictive than drinking or eating a diluted version. So clearly injecting pure alcohol is far more risky than drinking a beer, just as injecting methamphetamine is far more risky than eating a pep pill. In the same way, chewing whole coca leaf is not harmful and could be considered beneficial, while injecting pure cocaine is much more risky and harmful. This is different than our usual way of thinking about these plants and substances, and certainly our laws make no difference between coca leaf and pure cocaine, or between a mild opiate drink and injectable heroin.
Wed, 2009-08-26 21:37
#82
"Different villages" oo?
We should talk about how many stayed home in North Island, Nanaimo, and Kamloops then perhaps?
OK, I'll bite.
In the case of Vancouver Island North and Nanaimo-Alberni, the NDP raw vote stayed constant or slipped a very tiny bit, while the Conservative raw vote increased, and the Liberals' fell bigtime. The Greens picked up some of that falling Liberal vote (more so in Nanaimo-Alberni where John Fryer was running), but most of the rest stayed home or went Conservative. Turnout in both cases was down 3 percentage points (a small drop compared to many parts of Ontario).
In Kamloops, the NDP raw vote actually increased along with the Conservatives, and the Liberal vote (which is usually much higher in Kamloops than anywhere else in the Interior) again dropped substantially, half going to the Conservatives 3/4s of the rest going to the NDP and 1/4 going Green. Turnout was not down in this case. The NDP was 10 percentage points (just under 6,000 votes) behind the Conservatives.
So, to answer the question, the NDP missed winning these seats NOT because its vote stayed home, but because it was unsuccessful in winning over disaffected Liberals. I can't believe Dana's video had nothing to do with that.
Wed, 2009-08-26 22:07
#83
remind
Respectfully OO, there is no way in hell Dana's video had anything to do with it.
My point about voters staying home, and perhaps even voting in Green Nanaimo Alberni and VIsland north stands. I would safely bet the majority of NDP supporters in both ridings are pot smokers, at the least.
Kamloops, was Crawford's to lose and lose he did. On his own merit and lack of campaigning. He was invisible. Blamming Dana for his failure is unbelievable.
Plus alientating the large dermographic of pot smokers there did not help, they might as well vote for Ken, at least he has represented many of them in court, more likely than not, so they know he does not judge them. :D
Wed, 2009-08-26 22:59
#84
Respectfully OO, there is no way in hell Dana's video had anything to do with it.
My point about voters staying home, and perhaps even voting in Green Nanaimo Alberni and VIsland north stands. I would safely bet the majority of NDP supporters in both ridings are pot smokers, at the least.
I know it's not true that the majority of NDP supporters in Nanaimo-Alberni are pot smokers, and I doubt it's true in Vancouver Island North. NDP voters did not overall switch Green in Vancouver Island North in 2008, as Catherine Bell held her raw vote almost to a person from 2006, and she had picked up most of the remaining Green vote back then. New Green voters came from disaffected Liberals in that riding. Maybe 600 NDP voters abandoned the NDP for the Greens in Alberni; not enough to win by a long stretch.
remind, Dana's video offended pot smokers too, you know. Apart from modelling behaviour that is unsafe to oneself and others on the public roads, it was braggartly. And I think if we consult with even the most progressive pollsters, we would find that that incident had a big impact on helping disaffected Liberals decide not to vote NDP.
But I'm guessing we move in very different circles to come up with such differing perceptions.
Wed, 2009-08-26 23:11
#85
remind
I doubt it, and I find it very offensive that you think so, or are trying to say so.
Think this conversation should be done before more irrepairable damage occurs.
Wed, 2009-08-26 23:23
#86
radiorahim
What's clear to me, is that the spin doctors and control freaks are clearly in control of the NDP these days. They want to make sure that the NDP is "on message" and that nothing potentially "embarassing" happens.
But we're now in the internet era and the party apparatchiks clearly don't "get it". What would have probably been a "non event" has become an embarassment for the party brass. It looks good on these control freaks.
Wed, 2009-08-26 23:29
#87
I doubt it, and I find it very offensive that you think so, or are trying to say so.
Think this conversation should be done before more irrepairable damage occurs.
Certainly didn't mean to offend, but no point me making things worse.
Wed, 2009-08-26 23:41
#88
What's clear to me, is that the spin doctors and control freaks are clearly in control of the NDP these days. They want to make sure that the NDP is "on message" and that nothing potentially "embarrassing" happens.
But we're now in the internet era and the party apparatchiks clearly don't "get it". What would have probably been a "non event" has become an embarassment for the party brass. It looks good on these control freaks.
You're giving this issue way too much credit. The only place where anyone seems to care about what happened to Dana Larsen is among about half a dozen people who post on babble. In the real world, the so-called "spin doctors and control freeaks (sic.)" did the right thing. The mainstream media ignored Dana Larsen and there were no embarrassing news stories about the NDP having serious resolutions calling for the legalization of all drugs. The system worked and they all feel vindicated.
If you think being "on message" all the time is a bad thing, try the alternative and see how far you get when you keep going "off message". That's how you lose support and lose elections - by going off message all the time.
Wed, 2009-08-26 23:43
#89
remind
Can't wait for the NDP vote to collapse frankly
Wed, 2009-08-26 23:47
#90
Be prepared to wait and very very long time....you may not live to see the day.
Wed, 2009-08-26 23:48
#91
Cueball
You make the NDP sound as appealing as refrigerator mold.
Thu, 2009-08-27 00:04
#92
Boom Boom
I yearn for the days of Ed Broadbent, I loved the guy.
Thu, 2009-08-27 00:04
#93
we're now in the internet era and the party apparatchiks clearly don't "get it".
The only thing that amazes me more than the dedication of the rank-and-file party members is the strategic incompotence of the people calling the shots.
Thu, 2009-08-27 00:12
#94
RevolutionPlease
So do you think the "pardon" makes a comment like this acceptable. ;)
To play devil's advocate, what if the tables were turned, and it was said young people, for example, don't have enough life experience to be aware of the big picture. By-the-way I am not suggesting that, and I do enjoy reading your posts.
I would say my post unwise and regretted and lacking in wisdom. ;)
Perhaps, it is an issue that I see as somewhat important to the circle I run in and what I meant was the NDP was just playing to old tropes. I'd prefer them to be ahead of the pack.
Just frustrated, my bad.
Trying to get back on topic:
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the NDP advocate for the elimination of all fines and criminal penalties for personal cultivation and possession of cannabis, and the establishment of a taxed and regulated framework for production and distribution of cannabis to adults;BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP support a broad federal review of the impacts and harms caused by current drug policies, to select the best model for the government to implement a non-criminal, regulatory approach to psychoactive substance use that is based on reducing risk and harm, emphasizing prevention, public education, health promotion and safety.
I think the resolutions Dana quoted earlier are not the least scary and would resonate with a majority of Canadians. No matter the issues with Dana, were those resolutions not reasonable?
Thu, 2009-08-27 00:24
#95
Here's the problem: everyone assumes that the rest of the country thinks along the same lines as they and their circle of friends do. It's really really hard to break outside of that and understand the ways that different groups see the world. People who are a bit older and have lived and worked in many more parts of the country have a slightly easier time doing it as a result of their life experience, but probably not all of them are equally good at appreciating it either.
For myself, I probably should have known better than to raise the Dana issue all over again here, but some volunteer work I did for the convention got stepped all over and all my time wasted because of what Dana did there. I don't expect an apology, but just wanted to point out that it rarely occurs to the prima donas the impact their actions have on so many others (also notably including the mover of the drug law reform motion in our riding).
Thu, 2009-08-27 00:31
#96
RevolutionPlease
I'm sorry to hear that OO. It's important to hear the other side. Hopefully this can be better managed in the future by the end prohibition lobby.
Thu, 2009-08-27 00:39
#97
The mainstream media ignored Dana Larsen and there were no embarrassing news stories about the NDP having serious resolutions calling for the legalization of all drugs. The system worked and they all feel vindicated.
Well actually my little protest outside the convention was covered in the Canadian Press, BC's Province Newspaper, The Black Press, Now Magazine and The Coast Reporter, and I was on the front page of the Weekend Metro in Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa and Halifax, plus I was on CTV and Global TV News. I even inspired two editorial cartoons.
And why would a resolution on ending the drug war be embarrassing? Both national newspapers support legalized cannabis, and there's tons of columnists and journalists all across Canada who also support ending prohibition. More Canadians support drug policy reform than currently vote NDP, so it would seem like a vote-winner to me.
Thu, 2009-08-27 00:40
#98
This thread is miscategorized, as it definitely belongs in the comedy section. 
Thu, 2009-08-27 01:03
#99
More Canadians support drug policy reform than currently vote NDP, so it would seem like a vote-winner to me.
One problem is that political strategists don't care about people. They care about only one person: the elusive middle Canadian. This person is invariably white, male, middle class, middle income, residing in a medium sized city, in a middle income suburb, middle of the road politically, with a white picket fence, 2.3 kids, and some very traditionalist and conservative economic opinions. This man doesn't like change or vision, he doesn't want to rock the boat, and he doesn't give two shits for the poor or victims of oppression. Trust me, I've seen an NDP government take a right-wing position which >75% of the population opposed. But the middle Manitoban (or at least his representatives in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Chamber of Commerce) wanted it, so it was done. It doesn't matter if a left-wing idea is popular, we must be careful not to scare the elusive middle Canadian.
Personally, I've never met this guy, although I read the media speaking on behalf of him.
And this middle Canadian doesn't like things which are different. He finds it scary. And since you're different, you must be banished for you might scare the hypothetical middle Canadian so much that he might not leave the boundaries of his hypothetical white picket fence and vote for The Party.
Thu, 2009-08-27 01:41
#100
some volunteer work I did for the convention got stepped all over and all my time wasted because of what Dana did there.
Hi OttawaObserver, I am curious as to what this was? I can't see how I disrupted anything or harmed the volunteer work of anyone else. I just sat outside the convention building with my sign, and I only spoke with people who came up to me and initiated conversation.
What specifically did I do at the convention that I should not have done? Would it have been better if I had done as Brad Lavigne and Drew Anderson wanted, which was to stay at home and quietly accept my banishment?
Or do you mean it was wrong to try and buy an ad, book a table and promote drug policy reform issues as I have been doing non-stop within the NDP for the past four years?
Thu, 2009-08-27 01:50
#101
The NDP already has to fight against a stereotype that its made up of slackers and pie in the sky flower children with supposedly impracticle ideas etc... incidents like the Larsen kefuffle play into that image - therefore it does a lot more damage. If Larsen had been a Tory who was forced out - it wouldn't have done so much damage to them because whatever negative stereotypes people have about Tories - they don't involve thinking that the party is full of pot smoking flower children. Its more of a problem for the Tories if a candidate of theirs was once a white suprmacist!
No matter what the NDP does, it's NEVER going to be able to "out square" the Tories and the Liberals. And as New Labour shows, once you've made an obsessive effort to be as uptight as the right, you're not going to be able to do anything in power that's worth doing. New Labour did a few tiny increments on education and social welfare, but they were trivial compared to the war Tony got them into just to prove that, in the words of the Billy Bragg song "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here". The law and order vote will always be anti-NDP and there's no good reason to even TRY to get it.
The only way to deal with attacks on your supporters for being too activist, too idealist, too "pie in the sky", is to actually DEFEND activists and idealists and to defend the idea that people like that are as valid and as important in politics as any Liberal fundraiser or Tory investment banker. If you DEFEND your base, you can win.
I"m sure even you, Stock, would agree that it could never be worth having a federal NDP government if the party had to go Blairite to get it, and that it would automatically morally disqualify an NDP government from calling itself an NDP government if it ever involved itself in anything remotely like the Iraq War or sending people to Gitmo.