Polls, and the extention of polls.

Canadians had a national housing program with Trudeau supported by the NDP. Ontario Lib-NDP pact from 1985-87. Ontario's Liberals won a majority after the NDP made them look good. These federal Liberals need to look good soon or they will sink into electoral obscurity more than they already have.

I don't think Iggy is another Trudeau. But then again, theyre getting nowhere with Iggy being Iggy. Voters might vouch for his character, if he had any. They need the NDP to spruce them up and make the LPC appear to be a party the stands for the interests of human beings in general in this Northern Puerto Rico.

George Victor wrote:

Careful, Fidel, you are corresponding with a Bay Street beneficiary there, an insider.  :)   'Course, we're all beneficiaries, but some work harder at hiding that.  Makes for more revolutionary-sounding, less convoluted positions.

You certainly aren't hiding the fact that you are a pretty creepy guy who prefers insinuation ad hominem to argument.

But I'm sure that the posse will decide that you are the white knight (innuendo is ok hereabouts) and that I will pay the price.  But great Gaia, putting a bully in his place has its rewards.

And how did you let it "slip?" :"I am married to an elementary school teacher you fucking moron."

 It is a fact that the NDP has to live with, Cue.   Canadian workers are into the market.  They won't buy bullshit revolutionary spiel.  When you come to terms with that and quit hounding New Democrats, perhaps you won't get caught up in contradictions.  Or do you think that your innuendo does not hurt?

Nothing snide or cheap there, Cue.  I am also benefitting from the travails of a wife-teacher.  Nothing to hide, there.  It is simply a fact that teachers benefit from the corporate earnings out there on the market.  The NDP is working within that understanding...and should - in my mind - be more upfront about it by suggesting ways to tame the market tiger.  

I don't fucking care about your fucking wife. If you want to talk about her that is fine. I don't. I certainly would never use her to demonstrate some debating point to try and impugn your motives. I never have. But you are talking about MY fucking family so FUCK RIGHT OFF.

Fidel wrote:

It's all part of the Marxian plan for creeping socialism, GV. First we win the battle for democracy, then we take over the factories down the road. Oops! They off-shored a lot of the factories, you say? I guess we'll have to alter the plan a little.

- realistically speaking, probably the plan won't need much altering - if 'winning the fight for democracy' is top of the agenda - I don't see us winning that, sadly, so the rest is immaterial ... we'll strut our few minutes on the babble stage, all sound and fury signifying nothing, as the capitalists get on with what they get on with ...

Lord Palmerston wrote:

 

peterjcassidy wrote:

I dont see this coaliton Good Green Jobs mobilizes people or builds organiztional strength through uniting people on a common progresive .From what little I see,and I may weel be wrong, I suspect a photo op or Liberal prop front group of soem kind/

A lot of people involved seem to be NDPers.  Where do you get this idea?

I looked  at the link provided.

Cueball wrote:

peterjcassidy wrote:

I dont see this coaliton Good Green Jobs mobilizes people or builds organiztional strength through uniting people on a common progresive .From what little I see,and I may weel be wrong, I suspect a photo op or Liberal prop front group of soem kind/

I am glad you are making it clear that you consider that a coalition containing the bulk of Toronto anti-racism activist organizations, local immigrant community organization of non-white folks, and the bulk of Toronto labour unions is suspect of being a front for "the enemy". 

Its good to know what side of the line you are on. Not that I am surprised to see NDP'rs take that kind of stand. Far be it from me to suggest that the NDP truly supports the labour movement, anti-racism or immigrant communities, in anything but name only, let alone deed. Case in point, really.

Cueball, you cited this coaliiton as an example or model of organization or mobilizing, based it seems, primarily on the membership of the group. Iv'e looked at the link you provided and don't see very much to admire in the way of organization or mobiliizng around good green jobs or any other issue. What am I missing?  Can you point to things this group,with its impressive list of members, has done in the past four  years to organize or mobilize ,  things that you admire or wish to hold up as a model or example?

For example I would be interested in what organization or mobilization, other than a few press conferences and a video or two, the coalition did around  th ,causes it did take up, which seem limited to EI cuts and  Toronto Hydro issues, Doesn't seem too many people were involved in any substantial way in the work of the coalition on those issues- no marches, rallies, meetings, no mass mobilization or any kind. What am I missing?,  Another example, it doesn't  seem the coalition played a very active role in the Toronto municipal workers  strike which would have a big impact on members from organizations or communities in the coalition   people who walked by smelly garbage while the swimming pools were closed and they had their welfare cheque delayed   communities who were subject to propaganda from media and politicos like Tory and Smitherman and Rossi and Ford about the need to reject the pro socialist pro labour policies of David Miller and Joe Pantalone and to welcome legislation sending public sector strikers back to with reduced sick pay and pensions  or welcome initiatives to privitize public sectors. Seems to me there should have been some organization and mobilization in favour of Good green Jobs around that time and there is a great opportunity to  organize and mobilize around good green jobs in the Toronto Mayoralty race. Having John Troy moderate a debate doesn't cut it for me.

Then  can you point to any significant role for the anti-racist, local immigrant community organizations, non-white folk, in this coalition other than lending their name to the coalition or joining in for the odd  photo op or press conference.?  Because if their coalition really did good work amongst those communities or those communities were able to play a significant part in the coalition ,I think we would all like to hear about it and learn.

solidarity

Peter

Cueball wrote:

No because events like the G20 are not the particular domain of any particular group. They are the domain of a larger national agenda where numerous issues are brought under the umbrella in a single campaign through a coalition.

I agree. And I'm advocating for the NDP's non-participation. I think the NDP can support such events in a variety of ways and be participants in those events but the idea that it is the NDP's job to function as a primary organizer derives from an implicit admission that the "movement" is in even worse shape than the party.

Quote:

It is precisely these moments where a party that asserts that it is the voice

I think this entails the NDP putting its needs ahead of the social movements it purports to assist. Anarchists, Communists, Greens and progressive Liberals don't want the NDP putting its stamp on an event they are helping to organize. It would be both presumptuous and undermining of these larger movement activities for the NDP to present itself as the voice. I care too much about the success of movement activities to want my party to narrow their base by attempting to brand them as its own.

Quote:

of a larger (composite) ideological view needs to take a direct roll. But, if the NDP does not sit at the table, then it will have no voice in how events will unfold, and likewise be disconnected as events unfold.

There is a big difference between respectful participation and styling ourselves the spokespeople and organizers for a much broader coalition than the one we currently comprise.

Quote:

Indeed this disconect can be seen in the way that the party was really not prepared for dealing with the PR fallout from the flash point vandalism that occurred, and found itself floating along with the Harper agenda, first at city hall where the city concil voted unanimously to commended Chief Blair and the Toronto PD for a job well done,

I agree with you that the conduct of the New Democrats on council was shameful but if you want to argue that these people were the representatives of the NDP in this instance by virtue of holding party cards, you cannot concurrently make the claim that the party was uninvolved in organizing the peaceful protests. A large proportion of organizers held party cards but, like the councilors, were not selected as representatives of the party.

Ultimately, you have to pick a lane here: either neither the councilors nor many of the organizers were representing the NDP or both the councilors and many of the organizers were representing the NDP.

Quote:

and even in Jack Layton's initial statement, where he added his voice to the howling chorus condemning the "violence" of the protestors, without any real counter point about the removal of civil liberties or the police violence perpetrated against the peaceful protests that were assaulted by the police.

This was clearly the wrong reaction and disappointed me too. But I don't accept your analysis that if the NDP had attempted to institutionally brand the event as its own, things would have been better. Jack said the wrong thing because he was, as has been usual since '06, campaigning to the centre. Institutional involvement in organizing the protest is orthogonal to the party's tendency to make insufficiently courageous statements as they pursue soft liberal voters. A different leader could have taken a much more progressive position without anything being different about the party's organizational approach to events like the G20 protests.

Stuart_Parker wrote:

Cueball wrote:

No because events like the G20 are not the particular domain of any particular group. They are the domain of a larger national agenda where numerous issues are brought under the umbrella in a single campaign through a coalition.

I agree. And I'm advocating for the NDP's non-participation. I think the NDP can support such events in a variety of ways and be participants in those events but the idea that it is the NDP's job to function as a primary organizer derives from an implicit admission that the "movement" is in even worse shape than the party.

I didn't say that the NDP should be the primary organizer. I said the NDP could show up to the meetings, and participate as other interested parties.

stuart_parker wrote:

I agree with you that the conduct of the New Democrats on council was shameful but if you want to argue that these people were the representatives of the NDP in this instance by virtue of holding party cards, you cannot concurrently make the claim that the party was uninvolved in organizing the peaceful protests. A large proportion of organizers held party cards but, like the councilors, were not selected as representatives of the party.

Ultimately, you have to pick a lane here: either neither the councilors nor many of the organizers were representing the NDP or both the councilors and many of the organizers were representing the NDP.

This is just prevarication on point. Obviously elected officials on council who benefit from their connections to the NDP organizing machine are different than members who show up to meetings as volunteers are rank and file without the support of the organization.

But you again are missing the point. I am not condemning the act of defending the Toronto Police for their actions at the G20, I am underscoring how the disconnect between the G20 organizing, and the party, its leaders led to the NDP (covertly on the council or overt) came out very flat-footed on the issue. Something, that I doubt would have been the case had the NDP been more actively involved in the whole process.

Layton's statement, seems really to indicate total disconnection, and even surprise, at what was going on.

We're clearly in complete accord on the following:

(1) the NDP needs to stop its positioning, centrist discourse and make more controversial, principle-based statements

(2) the NDP needs to focus on making longterm changes to public discourse and recruiting a more stable, committed membership base

(3) these things are not just more principled but more pragmatic

Where we disagree is what the NDP should be spending its time on when it comes to working to change public discourse and building a more committed base. You tend to see these efforts as being things that are outside the activities of normal political parties. I tend to see conservative US and Canadian politics since 1992 as a better model of building a larger, more radical base than the kind of pre-1990s organizing you want us to go back to. I think that's the substance of our disagreement -- you're looking to the CCF, I'm looking to the Tea Party.