NDP Convention This Weekend!

To be honest, I'm not familiar with the name Kirsty Duncan at all - that threw me off a bit.

I wonder who the 2.1% who did not approve - hmm. And no I am asking a rhetorical question and don't want to start a whole topic in this - oh please, no.

p.s. I would have given Jack a thumbs up!

I am a little confused as to why the motion on a possible merger with the Liberal Party was even put to the convention. Even though there was a concerted effort to change the wording of the pre-amble to the Constitution to make it sound more palatable to liberals and others, it did not happen. So, the NDP is still a party based on the principles of democratic socialism.

Why would we want to merge with the Liberals? A merger implies that both sides would get something. I can see what the liberals might think they are getting - the possibility of being part of a governing party. But what would we get from them? Get Bob Rae back, after he repeatedly accused those of us who believe in democratic socialism and the need to get rid of capitalism as being misguided and out of touch? What does he have to contribute to the NDP?

I would appreciate it if someone could explain why this question was even put forward for consideration.

I presume Layton got a 97.9% approval rating because of  the party's success May 2nd - and his 'missteps' since then were ignored or forgiven.

The party appears to becoming awfully leader-centric by emphasizing Layton over and above the party itself. Are they copying Harper's strategy of plastering the leader's name everywhere?

Just a couple of months ago Pauline Marois won 93% support. There's a lesson there, even for Jack at 97.9%. The PQ and the NDP are both movement parties. Electoral success is going to mean betrayal to a good portion of the memberships if the leaderships appear to stray too far from their movements' principles. Even in the run-up to an election they're positioned to win.

Libya isn't sitting well. A few more like that, and there will be rumblings. Don't take your left wing for granted.

Boom Boom wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

 Don't take your left wing for granted.

Sage advice, but where else can they go?

Well, I'm no May fan, but her Libya vote is surely going to help the Greens appear as an alternative for disillusioned New Dems.

If the rightward-ho! folks in the NDP think their left will just grumble and take it, they may be surprised. The threat of losing electorally won't mean much. The left is used to losing. Losing is no biggie, if "winning" means not much more than a new boss.

I guess I'm not the one to talk, because I voted BQ last time, but I'd be careful if I were an NDP member - if I take my vote away from the NDP to the Greens (or didn't vote at all) I might accidentally usher in another Conservative majority next time.

melikesocialism wrote:

I am a little confused as to why the motion on a possible merger with the Liberal Party was even put to the convention. Even though there was a concerted effort to change the wording of the pre-amble to the Constitution to make it sound more palatable to liberals and others, it did not happen. So, the NDP is still a party based on the principles of democratic socialism.

Why would we want to merge with the Liberals? A merger implies that both sides would get something. I can see what the liberals might think they are getting - the possibility of being part of a governing party. But what would we get from them? Get Bob Rae back, after he repeatedly accused those of us who believe in democratic socialism and the need to get rid of capitalism as being misguided and out of touch? What does he have to contribute to the NDP?

I would appreciate it if someone could explain why this question was even put forward for consideration.

I don't think the sponsors, resolutions committee or the panel expected it to be defeated (and it wasn't close). It and the organization resolution were moved ahead of the preamble change to ensure they got to the floor. As I said, I don't expect there to be talks any time soon, and the Liberals seem to have ruled it out for the time being. If merger were to become an issue in their permanent leadership race (if they can afford to have one), it might become more than a theoretical possibility. I would agree they don't have much to offer us beyond a few mildly progressive MPs.

Stockholm wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

And frankly stunned that the resolution rejecting outright merger talks with the Liberals was defeated.

I think that the resolution failed because the speakers in favour of it were so awful. I inititially thought I would support the "anti-merger" resolution. Then three people in row who were shrill, abrasive, crackpots spoke in favour of the resolution shooting their mouths off with ad hominem attacks on all Liberals as being "evil" and they so overstated their case that it made the whole resolution look embarrassing and provocative. I changed my mind and voted against the resolution and so did everyone at my table.

Passing an anti-merger resolution would be gratuitous and unnecessary. The NDP has TRIPLE the number of seats that the Liberals have. Who cares about the Liberals - they are DEAD. To even discuss them in the context of a non-merger resolution is a sign of weakness and insecurity. I am not at all in favor of a "merger", but I am against explicitly ruling it out. Why not say nothing and leave the ball in the Liberal's court. Let them be the ones who have to answer the question "do you want to merge with the NDP?"

Who were the sponsors and why do you think it was defeated?

Policywonk wrote:

melikesocialism wrote:

I am a little confused as to why the motion on a possible merger with the Liberal Party was even put to the convention. Even though there was a concerted effort to change the wording of the pre-amble to the Constitution to make it sound more palatable to liberals and others, it did not happen. So, the NDP is still a party based on the principles of democratic socialism.

Why would we want to merge with the Liberals? A merger implies that both sides would get something. I can see what the liberals might think they are getting - the possibility of being part of a governing party. But what would we get from them? Get Bob Rae back, after he repeatedly accused those of us who believe in democratic socialism and the need to get rid of capitalism as being misguided and out of touch? What does he have to contribute to the NDP?

I would appreciate it if someone could explain why this question was even put forward for consideration.

I don't think the sponsors, resolutions committee or the panel expected it to be defeated (and it wasn't close). It and the organization resolution were moved ahead of the preamble change to ensure they got to the floor. As I said, I don't expect there to be talks any time soon, and the Liberals seem to have ruled it out for the time being. If merger were to become an issue in their permanent leadership race (if they can afford to have one), it might become more than a theoretical possibility. I would agree they don't have much to offer us beyond a few mildly progressive MPs.

Who were the sponsors and why do you think it was defeated?

I believe it.  A few years ago Stockholm's shrill, abusive, partisan antics hereabouts convinced me to vote Green.

If anyone from the Socialist Caucus (all three of you) are reading this - take my advice. The NDP is way too big for you to have any influence. The party just voted 98% to confidence in Layton's approach so the extreme left is totally diluted and represents a maximum 2% of the party. Give up!

A far better strategidy would be to join the Green party and try to stage a sort of "hostile takeover". The Green party has so few members and is so disorganized that the 20 or 30 people who make up the Socialist Caucus of the NDP could easily take control of the Green party in a snap. Then stage a coup against Elizabeth May and install Barry Weisleder as the new leader of the Green party of Canada. Think about it.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I wonder who the 2.1% who did not approve - hmm. And no I am asking a rhetorical question and don't want to start a whole topic in this - oh please, no.

p.s. I would have given Jack a thumbs up!

A tweet offered the thesis that some of the 2.1% would be people who misread the resolution, since voting confidence in Layton meant voting no on the resolution - which may have been counterintuitive to some.  I think, though, that wouldn't explain more than a couple of decimals.

I'm all in favour of merging with the Liberals in groups of two or three at a time.  I have no interest in merginng with the rotting hulk of frustrated entitlement which is the institutional Liberal Party of Canada.

Stockholm wrote:

If anyone from the Socialist Caucus (all three of you) are reading this - take my advice. The NDP is way too big for you to have any influence. The party just voted 98% to confidence in Layton's approach so the extreme left is totally diluted and represents a maximum 2% of the party. Give up!

A far better strategidy would be to join the Green party and try to stage a sort of "hostile takeover". The Green party has so few members and is so disorganized that the 20 or 30 people who make up the Socialist Caucus of the NDP could easily take control of the Green party in a snap. Then stage a coup against Elizabeth May and install Barry Weisleder as the new leader of the Green party of Canada. Think about it.

I'm not one of the few members of the Socialist Caucus but great advice. Obviously, the majority of NDP members are not as quick to jettison the socialist principles of the party as you thought so I might not lead any exodus at the moment. But, we will see what happens in the next year or two. If Layton continues to fail to represent progressive values (e.g., support of Libyan assualt, lack of support for Palestinian emergency aid), your suggestion will be seriously considered by many. Jim Harris hijacked the Green party but it can be hijacked back.

That wasn't merely because people wanted to retain the word 'socialist'. It was obvious that it wasn't the time or the place for a discussion of wording that hadn't been subjected to wide consultation beforehand. There were other problems with the language, and I don't think that minor changes to the content and more poetic and inclusive language will be enough to achieve overwhelming support. We do a lot of talking about our core values, vision, and principles but agreement on what exactly they are let alone how to express them in accessible language may be difficult if not impossible to agree on. I think the Socialist Caucus would have difficulty talking to the Greens because they speak different languages. It doesn't matter so much what the label is so much as how we define what the label means (assuming we actually need to label ourselves rather than just clearly state what we stand for and who we stand with).

Boom Boom wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

If anyone from the Socialist Caucus (all three of you) are reading this - take my advice. The NDP is way too big for you to have any influence.

Hmmmm..... if I recall correctly, the convention failed to remove the word 'socialist' from their constitution - right?

Right.  It would be pure fantasy to spin this as any sort of victory for the so-called Socialist Caucus.  It would be like attributing to the outcome of WWII to the fact that Argentina had declared war on Germany on March 27, 1945.

Sometimes the so-called Socialist Caucus ends up on the winning side of a vote.  This is usually despite themselves.

And in any event, an establishment motion to refer the matter to the executive for a rewrite hardly constitutes a victory for anyone, really.

Malcolm wrote:

Right.  It would be pure fantasy to spin this as any sort of victory for the so-called Socialist Caucus. 

Actually, I had something else in mind when I wrote what I did - that "socialism" is so near and dear to the majority of the NDP that it will be difficult to remove the wording from their constitution.

Malcolm has observed:

Polunatic2 wrote:

If the NDP & Libs had a limited non-compete agreement in the past election, Harper could have likely been defeated and Layton would be Prime Minister today.

There is exactly zero evidence to support this thesis. It is based on a series of false assumptions about voter behaviour. Advocates of this position either do not understand politics or do not understand arithmetic. (Of course, one must allow for the possibility that they understand neither.)

I think there is lots of evidence that Liberal voters favour the NDP as their second choice. There has been plenty of debate on this point in various Babble threads. Calgary Grit has examined the recent polls on second preferences and concludes that a preferaetial ballott would have deprived the Conservatives of twenty seats and, quite likely, government.

Long thread!