Time for a donor boycott of the BC NDP

kropotkin1951 wrote:

And the third way has been presented to the voters of BC by Harcourt, Clark, Dosanjh and Taylor in the last five elections.  We won one because "third way" type voters people were so pissed at the Socreds they voted for Harcourt and one a second one because Wilson split the.  Even when Wilson a true third way leader became an NDP cabinet minister it did not sell to the people.  

So tell me what radical ideas were in the last five election campaigns that need to be dropped?  It seems from were I am sitting that your defeatist third way has been the central focus for the last number of campaigns unless you can point me to all those radical ideas that were presented.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Bill Siksay is a person you as an NDP'er laugh at and claim it is funny that I think he is a real leftie.  But don't worry we will still elect him despite your believe that his socialist ideals and priorities are not acceptable to Canadian voters.  When you start vilifying people like Bill I know the BC NDP is not for me.  Neither Bill nor Libby would be acceptable candidates for your third way party but Pat Martin would fit in just fine. That says it all.  

Firstly Bill Siksay is a great New Democrat and a MP, but he is not a radical in any sense of the word.

As for the last 3 elections being run on a third way platform, I disagree. The last few elections have been run on a poorly run ad hoc populist platform.  There was no truly thrid way polices, they were just a bunch of different policies mushed together.

Okay I can agree with that as long as you don't try to tell me the BC NDP ran on any kind of overtly left wing platform in the last three elections.  I certainly agree that they have become a populist party that Vander Zalm could lead just as easily as Ralston and they look real good together at anti-HST events.

Bill was the only person with the courage to oppose the Conservative crime bill that puts gay teenagers at risk.  He has consistently stood on principal over issue like crime and war.   I have had many many long talks about politics with him since I consider him a friend as well.  You should ask him some time what he thinks of the British role in the world vis a vis the War on Terror.  If your idea of a third way NDP'er is Bill then I suggest either you don't really know his political views or your definition of third way ideas is different than mine.

If Bill is not a radical what do have to worry about than in running as a socialsit party

interesting reading for both sides of the 3rd way issue, and personally, i see the 3rd way as different that what kro and nbeltov do, and i do not see  a 3rd way as Bill clinton or Tony Blair type politics..as it plays out in the social realm

havana wrote:

The premise of this thread was not a mean spirited attempt to discredit Carole James.

My belief is that a "donor boycott" is ALREADY in progress. Let's just get this over with as soon as possible and accept the fact that multi-decade donors, activists, and lifelong New Democrats like myself are now sitting on their money and discontented with the current leadership. It is no coincidence the the fundraising goals in the May 2009 were not met.

A donor boycott will not bankrupt the Party. The money will not be lost, just postponed.

In the perilous cash flow situation the BCNDP is now in, it will simply bring into focus the lack of support for the current failed platform and leadership group. Let's get on with building an activist party that will win in 2013 and finish with this tear down project.

I can tell you, your boycott was unsuccessful. As year end fundraising produced great results with over $250k in before xmas.

Fidel wrote:

Why should we ditch Carole James when the BC NDP has such a large lead over Campbell's Liberals in opinion polls right now? Don't we usually talk leadership change when the party is down in the polls?

So if the NDP are riding high in the polls in B.C. today,  why tear down the party only to face re-building it to a point of popularity where the BC-NDP are now,  which is anywhere from eight to thirteen percentage points ahead of Campbell's Liberals in opinion polls plus or minus 3.5% for error?

Mean Moe wrote:

Third way politics isn't about moving right, nor left. It's about transcending these dogmatic fiefdoms and adopting a progressive and pragmatic outlook.  It's about being rational about the role of government and the role of the private sector.  It's about people coming first, and sometimes people are best served by the private sector and sometimes government. But neither has a monoploy on the truth or the right path.

Di wrote:

If Tony Blair and Bill Clinton represent Third Way politics, it is definitely to the right of what we need. Socialism doesn't exclude small business, or pragmatism for that matter. You can have socialist principles without being dogmatic. It just seems like the NDP is losing its way, losing touch with its roots, and not connecting with the general public who are looking for a viable political solution. I think being left, green and supporting small business and communities is pretty rational and pragmatic. Why use a tag like third way when it's been so badly tainted by Blair, Clinton and their ilk?

All I see are market-oriented approaches with language of social equity. No third-wayer, or not-Blair or Clinton third-wayer has ever really figured out how to do this in the face of interregional competition for mobile capital.

j.m. wrote:

All I see are market-oriented approaches with language of social equity. No third-wayer, or not-Blair or Clinton third-wayer has ever really figured out how to do this in the face of interregional competition for mobile capital.

1) We live in a market oriented society. Love it or hate it, it is what it is.

2) No one has found a way to deal with capital mobility, except for the race to the bottom.  That said, nothing is stopping us from trying our damn best.  The best formula most likely lies in a combination of incentives to invest and penalties for divesting in the region. Either that or a global fair trade agreement needs to be in place to ensure a set standard.

This has been an issue for most left leaning governments in the developed world including previous NDP provincial governments. However if investors can make a profit in a region, they will invest. Look at China.

Mean Moe wrote:

j.m. wrote:

All I see are market-oriented approaches with language of social equity. No third-wayer, or not-Blair or Clinton third-wayer has ever really figured out how to do this in the face of interregional competition for mobile capital.

1) We live in a market oriented society. Love it or hate it, it is what it is.

2) No one has found a way to deal with capital mobility, except for the race to the bottom.  That said, nothing is stopping us from trying our damn best.  The best formula most likely lies in a combination of incentives to invest and penalties for divesting in the region. Either that or a global fair trade agreement needs to be in place to ensure a set standard.

This has been an issue for most left leaning governments in the developed world including previous NDP provincial governments. However if investors can make a profit in a region, they will invest. Look at China.

Thanks for your response: 

Living in a market-oriented society is not grounds for abandoning other futures. This "end of history" discourse is so stifling to the left that it makes this third-way shit, which is a nice way for letting capital perpetuate uneven development while promising the people what it cannot, the only "logical choice". I think it's great that people don't want to abandon social equity but this TINA syndrome is provides nothing new.

You know if the BC NDP wants to reconnect with voters it has to talk about real social issues.  It needs to talk about the money going to Fort John's filthy filthy oil extraction process but it can't because it was Glen and the boys who originally got the industry going with tax payers money at the same time as they cut BC Benefits.  They need to talk about poor peoples access to justice.  The legal aid programs were decimated by the LIberals but again the Clarkite third way people with Moe in the forefront said sorry balancing the books is more important than legal aid.  It needs to talk about the total lack of any Employment Standard investigations into rampant abuse of the ESA.  It needs to talk about the fact that child labour is legal in BC.  It needs to talk about building a local business community tied to local natural resources.

It needs to stop sounding like Vander Zalm and being an anti-tax populist party that refuses to talk about the issues because they want to suck up to Howe street. The working poor in BC don't need to hear that the people who have made them destitute will be given the head seat at the table so they can lead us to the promised land of global imperialism.

Fidel wrote:

So we've had comparisons between Carole James and British terrorist Tony Blair. and now we're encouraged to think of the BC NDP in the same light as Bill Vanderscam, another discredited version of the conservative party.

We have been plagued by crooks and warmongers in our corrupt petro-state, but the NDP are hardly on the same level as social credit or conservative party crooks, or even the Libranos. This thread has been taken over by extremists.   

My god, a thread taken over by extremists?  We can't let people left of the NDP talk about things on babble!

Havana has requested that this thread be prorogued.

Will the moderator follow his advice?

Stay tuned.

I agree with Fidel, but the extremists haven't taken over anything.  It just seems that way because most sane people are just shaking their collective heads at them.  It is the same with the BC NDP, but we need to speak up so that the public don't think these people are all the party members.

The old squeaky wheel theorem.

Someone named [url=http://www.beyondrobson.com/news/2010/01/coca_campbell/]Norm Deplume[/url] of the Unassociated Press wrote:

Quote:

Under Campbell's leadership, numerous government employee contracts have been torn up while MLA salaries have nearly doubled. Minimum wage is the lowest in Canada, BC has the highest child poverty rate, and homelessness has tripled. Legal aid funding was slashed by 40%, and the social safety net has been decimated. BC Ferries and BC Rail were sold, the latter in a less-than-transparent manner to say the least. The Convention centre was $450 million over budget, and our rivers were sold to the highest bidder. Despite the 'green' image due to the introduction of the Carbon Tax, BC was the only province in 2009 to increase its GHG emissions, largely due to huge oil and gas subsidies

Now that's what I call a neoliberalorama Liberal Party style in Beautiful B.C.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Mean Moe it is too radical to talk about the dirty oil fields in BC but not about the Tar Sands.  Legal aid for people is also a far to radical idea okay I can see that I mean poor people don't need access to the courts.  And obviously the workers being denied their proper rights are trivial and too even bring it up in discussion if too radical.   The fact that BC allows child labour with no oversight by the ESA is not worth talking about anyways since it really isn't exploitive for children to work right?

No it's not to radical to talk about any of those issues, and it isn't radical to try to solve those issues.  It is tone and content that used to describe those issues and the motive of others around those issues, that make it extreme.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Yup I agree that it seems that all that stuff is way to radical for the BC NDP to even discuss but hey keep sending us requests for money so Sihota can sit down with the Howe street business execs and plan my brave new world. I just keep asking why is it the BC NDP wants to keep its socialist identity it is time to drop the facade and take all references to socialism out of your party's constitution and documents.  If the NDP as a socialist party thinks that talking about child labour in this province is too radical then they are lying about who they really are.

I don't have issue with differences of opinion or critics, but I do have a problem with people outrightly attributing motives to persons that have never shown that motive, nor ever stated anything that could remotely attribute those characterizations of them. Please be reasonable and intelligent. Arguing  facts and if you wish to prescribe motive or unsubstantiated characterizations please tone down the rhetoric, it makes you look ignorant.

So Fidel it is too radical to talk about the dirty oil fields in BC,  legal aid for people, workers being denied their proper rights and the fact that BC allows child labour with no oversight by the ESA?

A party that makes its central message about the HST and the Carbon Tax will never reach out to the very people that need a progressive voice to vote for.  When the NDP sounds like liberal lite they become irrelevant, especially in this era.  You are asking me to trust that whatever Moe, Bruce, Mike and Adrian decide is going to be good despite the fact they are so uncomfortable with the issues they don't even want to talk about them.  I remember an excellent campaign that promised nothing but a just society and yes I was too radical then to vote for the message even from the charismatic Trudeau.  I voted for the party that was willing to talk about corporate welfare and they lost so you are right it is a poor electoral strategy. 

[etd: my computer burped, honest]

This strategy for not supporting one party invariably strengthens the outlook for re-election of the party in power. Just sayin'

They're not evil, they're just driven by self-interest to the point of appalling greed and with certain special intyerest groups willing them psychically to succeed in politics on behalf of big money. It's a combination of luck and the stars lining up for them, we can be sure of it. It's hard to lose when there are a very lucky handful of people with such strong and positivist mental powers passing the Liberals good vibes the way they do. Liberal politicians receive this positive energy and in turn are just very positive in their outlook when it comes to seizing power, I mean, when the Liberals take advantage of political opportunity. As Obi Wan said in a movie once, use the force. I think BC Liberals use the force all the time. They are the party of good vibes and all that is light and good. They make things happen because their's is a happening party filled with people who are full of bright light and practice enlightened ways.

Personally, I don't blame them for it.  The are trying to do well in society that allows such behaviour.

I blame the boomers.  They had a chance to fix just about everything in the developed world and ended up buying in.  The one time that a generation with a new outlook has the critical mass to alter history and they take the money and run.  Think about it:

• 30+ years of reduced pollution and a less severe climate change
• Strengthened social programs, healthcare and education.
• Way less poverty
• No or far fewer wars or terrorism
• And a stronger focus on community and less on the individual.

Alas, the hippies sold out and now refuse to let go of a system that they refused to change.

The rest of us after them are now left with the mess and trying to find the best way to clean it up.  So if you want call someone evil, it should be the WHOLE BABY BOOM GENERATION.

Great MM and thus you and the BC NDP need nothing from me.  With that attitude why would anyone want to work on behalf of your party?