The stars are aligning for the NDP in 2015, with the right federal leader, and so I see no need to get involved with very defensive schemes like Cullen's clunker.
I don't want the right federal leader. I want the left federal leader!
On a more serious note, in addition to the changing of the political cycle in provinces where the NDP traditionally dominates, the NDP is also showing new strength in provinces like Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador that it can build on.
It'a also worth noting that, despite being shut out in Saskatchewan, the NDP's percentage there is the federal election was actually one of the highest in the country. There will be a redistribution in Saskatchewan before the next federal election, and I cannot imagine the present de facto gerrymander to survive.
Stuart's clam that weighted voting wuld advance membership sales in Quebec flies in the face of all evidence.
So Tory membership didn't significantly rise in the Maritimes and Quebec after they instituted this system after their first convention? I seem to recall it did. What is the evidence you are using? I know what mine is.
THe more common experience would suggest it leads to "Post Office Republican" style sclerotic organization where the few members in place would prefer the disproportional influence not be diluted by new members.
Well, this certainly explains my experience of the entire Ontario NDP during my time in Toronto. I never expect head office aparachiks to do a good job of signing up members. And that's okay. That's not their job.
The people who do sign up members are candidates for the leadership and candidates for nomination. That is and has always been how most new members are recruited.
So, let's imagine the current leadership race were being fought under the Liberal or Tory constitution versus ours. Now, if Nathan Cullen wants to get more votes, the most logical place for him to sign up members under the current NDP constitution is wherever it is easiest and cheapest to get them. Because all members' votes are equal, the most logical place to seek out new members is wherever his campaign is already strong.
Now, let's suppose he was running under the Liberal or Tory rules. Now, he could sign up 100 members in Prince George or Prince Rupert or Vancouver and get 100 votes or, he could use the same resources to sign up 15 members in Chicoutimi. If there are only 15 pre-existing members in Chicoutimi, he has just obtained 50% of the vote in Chicoutimi whereas if there are 500 members in Prince George, he has only obtained 20% of the vote there. Under the Liberal system which grants 14 votes per riding, signing up 100 members in the hypothetical Prince George gets Nathan 2.8 votes but signing up 15 members in the hypothetical Chicoutimi gets him 7. Under the Liberal and Tory rules, leadership candidates prioritize signups in the lowest-membership ridings, yielding a more regionally-balanced, truly national organization.
But what Stuart also fails to understand is that a Quebec membership is ALREADY more attractive for the six plus leadership campaigns than one in Surrey. Yes, the Quebec member and the Surrey member have equal votes, but (and why is this so hard for someo f you to grasp?) ALL OF THE CAMPAIGNS NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A GROUND GAME IN QUEBEC, AND THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO PRODUCE MEMBERSHIPS.
Bolding is not a substitute for sustained, coherent argumentation. Campaigns have limited resources. The proportion of those resources assigned to Quebec will be determined, I hope, based on a rational cost-benefit analysis. Adrian Dix's campaign for the party leadership in BC is indisputable evidence that signup strategies that play to the media are in all ways inferior to those that most efficiently recruit members given financial and temporal constraints.
If Nathan Cullen (just to pick someone) just sells memberships in Surrey, BC New Democrats and Saskatchewan New Democrats and Manitoba New Democrats an Nova Scotia New Democrats will all say to themselves "Cullen can't do squat in Quebec." Not only does he not get votes in Quebec, HE LOSES VOTES EVERYWHERE ELSE TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The question is this: what is the ratio of votes gained to votes lost? How many members did Adrian Dix piss off with his Surrey signups. Numerically, how does that number compare to the number of votes those signups obtained? You seem to have this idea that the key voting issue for New Democrats in BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba is going to be "how is this guy playing in Quebec?" Are talking about the same Canadian West in which I grew up and live today?
Let me assure you: the main voting issue for New Democrats in the West is not "how big are this guy's Quebec rallies?"
This issue is over. The rules are set and they are not going to be changed - howevermuch marginalized whining we see on babble. The only thing gained by the tenacious repetition of this meme is the reinforcement o the corporate media meme.Sorry. I'm a New Democrat. Not interested in playing your game.
Sorry. I'm a New Democrat too. I'm sure that upsets you. But you might want to consult a dictionary about the meaning of the words in this affiliation before you continue proclaiming that to be a member of the party is to agree with you and to stop expressing opinions other than the status quo.
Someone in thread 24 said "How many Francophone members can the executive of the McGill NDP club competently sign up?"
This ignores the fact that the co-President of the McGill Club at the time of the election was Matthew Dubé, a francophone, who ran in his home riding of Chambly-Borduas, and got 29,591 votes compared with 19,147 for the Bloc incumbent. Dubé was also co-President of the Quebec Young New Democrats at the time of his election. He has no doubt signed up many Francophone members.
Wilf, this is an empty argument. We had paper candidates in Quebec who did not campaign, spent no time in their ridings and did not collect their own signatures who got over 20,000 votes. Are you going to use their vote totals to argue that they are going to run kick-ass membership drives too?
Also, the entire party in Quebec has a few hundred Francophone members. Why would you conclude that he, in particular, signed up a large proportion of them?
We all need to know the Quebec MPs better, not get sucked into the idea that they were mostly fence-posts. A few NDP candidates were; they mostly lost. Only a handful were elected.
Statistically, did our paper candidates do appreciably worse?
Let's suppose that Cullen's proposal comes to fruition. Let's also say that in a particular constituency the Liberals and NDP are each fielding a candidate for joint consideration. What's to say the candidate who loses won't say, "%@!@#%$ it, I'm running as an Independent anyways?"
Yep. And how well do independents who aren't incumbent MPs or hosts of highly-rated talkshows do? Even most incumbents who lose their party's nomination get defeated running as indepdenents.
Would all the parties be able to transfer 100% of their votes to the joint candidate? Of course not. Would the consensus candidate get significantly more votes than in open competition, you bet.
Not the point.
Independents generally cannot win. But an Independent in a huff at not getting the nomination strongly tends to kill the candidate's chances who did get it.
"Would the consensus candidate get significantly more votes than in open competition, you bet."
But the question is would they increase their NET versus the Conservative. Very different questioned, which Malcolm outlined the dynamics of above. When you run the numbers, it doesnt look good for your assumed premise. Its not fancy math- Malcolm has run it six ways to Sunday. If you care, you can run them yourself. Or you can continue to stand on "what must be true."
NDP leadership hopeful Dewar's social media campaign compared to Obama's 2008 bid
Mr. Dewar said his Facebook strength so early in the campaign is "no fluke" because that's what he's focused on. "I've been doing this before, but I think it's one of the ways you can reach out and touch people, particularly a certain demographic&mdas;young-and people who get their information different ways. I've found it's a very effective way of generating interest, but also of getting people to join a campaign," he said.
Ottawa Observor, Do you know if Dewar has been for sometime making use of social media? Mabe even notably extending well beyond building his riding organization?
So, yeah, Layton was saying keep NAFTA - but improve it. Son of a gun. I thought the NDP was for scrapping NAFTA.
ETA: I just posted this below Duncan's article: the only difference between Mulcair and Layton on NAFTA is that of degree.
As Bill Blaikie very sagely pointed out during the 2002/2003 leadership race, even way back when the NDP was fighting the original FTA during the Free Trade Election of 1988, one of the problems the party had with the agreement was that once you were in it would be very difficult to get out because our economy would naturally become more oriented towards making products for export and simply pulling out would cause an untenable disruption to people lives, jobs and busiesses.
Riding by riding non-compete agreements ARE the paved road to merger. Adding a local democractic veto does not change that- it just takes out the draconian element of shoving things down riding associations that is an absolute non-starter in the NDP.
Very true. While I'd be more than ready to believe that Nathan Cullen doesn't hope/believe this will lead to merger, it is worth pointing out that this is exactly the kind of process that led the Liberals and Social Democrats to merge in the 1980s.
Filling out that point:
When two parties look at everything that in practice goes with a non-compete agreement, they only do it as the toe in the water for merger down the road.
And in the UK case it did not work like: "lets talk about merger, and we'll try this out with the non-compete agreement [the Alliance]." It started with the talk of non-compete for the same [narrow] practical benefits people in Canada are looking for.
There are myriad structural reasons it works like that. A big one being that once you enter those negotiations, the world view of the cadre starts blurring the distinctions of why you exist. As the road is followed, those opposed to the process who still see and need that distinction, incresaing do not vote and agitate against the process, they give up and leave.
Which is why on the activist/cadre level the sum of the two parties is not equal to the parts. And there is a parallel phenomena with voter choices come the election.
But for all too many, that does not deterr them from just looking at the "obvious" party A + party B equals.....
Independents generally cannot win. But an Independent in a huff at not getting the nomination strongly tends to kill the candidate's chances who did get it.
Ask Nikki Ashton about that.
MPs who lose their nomination and then run as Independents have a better base from which to ruin the chances of their party's successor, of course. That's what happened both to Ashton the first time, and to Ray Funk next door in the Saskatchewan Churchill riding as well, if I recall.
NDP leadership hopeful Dewar's social media campaign compared to Obama's 2008 bid
Mr. Dewar said his Facebook strength so early in the campaign is "no fluke" because that's what he's focused on. "I've been doing this before, but I think it's one of the ways you can reach out and touch people, particularly a certain demographic - young - and people who get their information different ways. I've found it's a very effective way of generating interest, but also of getting people to join a campaign," he said.
Ottawa Observor, Do you know if Dewar has been for sometime making use of social media? Mabe even notably extending well beyond building his riding organization?
Topp converted his personal Facebook profile to a politician's Facebook page. Dewar re-purposed his politician's Facebook page to his leadership Facebook page, and he had already had a pretty wide following on it. Mulcair had not been on FB before the campaign, and just started a Facebook page last week. Ashton had been using her personal profile, but someone started a Draft Ashton page for her leadership, and then she started a politician's Facebook page, which I assume will get repurposed. The draft Chisholm page was a community page or whatever this is (you couldn't see it unless you were logged in to Facebook), but then he recently converted his personal Facebook profile to a politician's page like Brian did. Cullen's camp took over the draft Cullen page, as did Romeo Saganash, both of which started with the leadership race.
In fact the rapid growth of Saganash's page was pretty amazing, given the short timeframe it occurred over. So, I wasn't surprised to see the pressure on him to finally run in the end. The GoPeggy draft Facebook page recently started to show the same momentum. I'm assuming that's no accident.
ETA: Yes, I'm clearly spending WAY too much time on Facebook ;-)
Well... if the end result is a situation that is improved for "the vast majority who have been left behind since NAFTA came into effect in 1994", isn't that close enough to replacing NAFTA with what should have been there all along?
No. It's mostly unverifiable rhetoric, noble distant future aims. Scrapping NAFTA would be an eminently verifiable stand. That's why I'm curious as to whether any of the NDP candidates would propose that. I doubt it.
NAFTA is but one of the trade deals that needs to be scrapped. This right wing experiment in corporate trade agreements has demonstrably hurt the people of the world. Time for one or more of the candidates to denounce the whole lot of them including with US corporations and Colombian cartels and Israeli military industrial complex. As well I hope the new leader will also point out how the same types of deals are destroying the working people of countries like Honduras.
Something has to give and it is the hold that corporate power has over not only our economy and politics but the global nature of the system created in the last 40 years. The status quo is not acceptable.
I think the OWS movement should give impetus to the NDP to reconsider just "improving" these awful trade deals which disenfranchise so many. I'm still pondering Layton's 2008 letter to Obama - did he go far enough?
So, yeah, Layton was saying keep NAFTA - but improve it. Son of a gun. I thought the NDP was for scrapping NAFTA.
ETA: I just posted this below Duncan's article: the only difference between Mulcair and Layton on NAFTA is that of degree.
As Bill Blaikie very sagely pointed out during the 2002/2003 leadership race, even way back when the NDP was fighting the original FTA during the Free Trade Election of 1988, one of the problems the party had with the agreement was that once you were in it would be very difficult to get out because our economy would naturally become more oriented towards making products for export and simply pulling out would cause an untenable disruption to people lives, jobs and busiesses.
Thankfully you bring history and the reality of average Canadians to this exchange of heroic and etherial proposals,AM.
Statistically, did our paper candidates do appreciably worse?
Yes. See post #57 in this thread:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp%E2%80%99s-new-quebec-caucu...
For another example, based on overall swings Joannie Boulet would have won Haute-Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia. Instead, the local media spent the whole campaign loudly trying to find her, without success. She got the record for the most invisible phantom candidate. No wonder the Bloc's new young star won.
I did a comparison with projections to see what candidates withstood the provincial trends.
NDP shadow cabinet member and local star Robert Aubin in Trois-Rivieres got 13.8% over trend.
New Bloc star Jean-François Fortin got 13% over the trend in Haute-Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane—Matapédia, while Liberal star Nancy Charest got 6.4% over trend and an invisible NDP candidate got 19.3% less than trend. Next door Gaspésie--Îles-de-la-Madeleine is far enough from Montreal that the Orange wave weakened, but the Bloc got only 7.2% over trend, so the NDP still squeaked in despite getting 8.2% under trend. Nearby in Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, by-election victor Bernard Généreux naturally got a lot more than the provincial trend over the 2008 vote. The NDP candidate François Lapointe got 2.5% less than the trend, which is why he only squeaked in in a recount. In this area of the weakened orange wave, Guy Caron distinguished himself in Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques by getting 2.3% over trend.
Nycole Turmel, NDP star, got 11% over trend in Hull-Alymer.
Françoise Boivin, similar NDP star, got 10.6% over trend in Gatineau.
New Democrat Pierre Dionne Labelle in Rivière-du-Nord got 10.1% over trend.
NDP shadow cabinet member Pierre Nantel got 9.1% over trend in Longueuil--Pierre-Boucher.
Liberal incumbent Alexandra Mendès got 9.1% over trend in Brossard--Laprairie, not enough to hang on against the NDP’s shadow cabinet member Hoang Mai. By contrast, one-time Liberal star Denis Paradis got only 3.9% over trend in Brome—Mississquoi, nowhere near enough to stop the NDP’s Pierre Jacob.
NDP shadow cabinet member Manon Perreault got 8.9% over trend in Montcalm.
NDP shadow cabinet member Marie-Claude Morin got 8.9% over trend in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
NDP Sylvain Chicoine got 8.8% over trend in Châteauguay--Saint-Constant.
NDP Jean-François Larose got 8.4% over trend in Repentigny.
NDP Réjean Genest got 8.4% over trend in Shefford.
The NDP’s youngest shadow cabinet member Christine Moore in Abitibi—Témiscamingue got 8.2% over trend in her third try for the seat.
New Democrat Alain Giguère got 8.2% over trend in Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.
Thx Wilf I guess some of our new "NDP" posters have very little respect for our new MP's. It is almost like they sound like liberals not Dippers. But Stuart says he is an NDP partisan so taking him at his word I presume we will never have to hear him making such disparaging comments about our MP's again. Wilf clearly has shown the electoral results around the province had little to do with the McGill club and everything to do with the quality of candidates that ran. Jack was obviously a big factor but IMO as big a factor in the orange wave was the star team he put together.
So Stuart get with the program and stop sounding like a disgruntled liberal sowing negative MSM talking points.
Part of the reason no one in the NDP outside of Québec has heard or seen of Mulcair is that if he even sneezed when Jack Layton was speaking in question period then he ran the risk of the media writing a story about how he was hellbent on overthrowing Layton. The inconvenient truth is that Mulcair largely did the job that Layton asked him to do and also pushed the NDP into a much higher profile and more nationalist footing in Québec. That he ruffled feathers among Ottawa staffers would not surprise me in the least. For the last several decades that has been one of the most out-of-touch offices on Québec politics that you can see around. A lot of the bilingual (Québec) staffers the NDP has now are young people that were brought in thanks to people with vision like Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair. For instance the Québec NDP staffer that handled all press during the orange surge (e.g. "where are the candidates?" "who are the candidates?" "where is Ellen?" etc) doesn't look a day over 30.
At the same time, the party trying to whitewash how slow it is in sending membership cards to people in Québec is a poor joke. The fact is that people expect to get their cards, especially older people, and they often don't and there are often backlogs and it is often disorganised. Membership is also an issue with provincial NDP parties but less so. I can't believe the party doesn't take the time to reflect on how badly this makes it look. I can understand why the party doesn't put a big premia on sending out membership cars (e.g. people don't renew, they tear them up then want to tape them back together, the party changes logos, etc) but people expect them and at the VERY least the party should provide people with some evidence of their membership beyond having their name on a list at a nomination meeting or convention...something most of the NDP's supporters in Québec have never even seen. So if Mulcair is questioning the efficiency or professionalism of this situation, then good for him, bravo!
As for the Surrey endorsements, they are very strong endorsements (e.g. good MLAs, MPs), but they are also part of the "cool" crowd with the BC NDP. I think Mulcair is going to have a fair deal of trouble expanding his support among sitting MPs etc beyond Québec because so much of the establishment is behind Topp in some places that if you endorse Mulcair, and even if he wins, you still have to work with the provincial establishment that is not happy with you. This is one of Topp's strategic strengths and is a reason for him to get the endorsements out in the open early, because it has a chilling effect on his rivals' possible endorsers.
At the same time, the party trying to whitewash how slow it is in sending membership cards to people in Québec is a poor joke. The fact is that people expect to get their cards, especially older people, and they often don't and there are often backlogs and it is often disorganised. Membership is also an issue with provincial NDP parties but less so. I can't believe the party doesn't take the time to reflect on how badly this makes it look.
I'm not even sure if the BC NDP still sends out membership cards if they do it is way after the fact. During the leadership race out here the website signed up many members who instantly got a receipt acknowledging their membership in the party. So who in Quebec are we chasing for votes? Dinosaurs that don't understand the internet or young people who likely would prefer to go on line and pay their $10 bucks and get an instantaneous membership and the right to vote? As noted over and over ad naseum this system has led to the highest number of memberships in any province.
So if I have this right the BC NDP did too good an job in recruiting members therefore screwing over the people of Quebec but the method they used to get those high membership numbers are also an insult to Quebec voters. So lets design a weighted system that ensures those brown skinned Sikhs ion BC don't have any undue influence in a party they have joined in large numbers. They are not Quebecois so they cannot lay claim to any discrimination in the Canadian federal context they in fact are the problem when it comes to Quebecois desires to be involved the NDP.
Thx Wilf I guess some of our new "NDP" posters have very little respect for our new MP's. It is almost like they sound like liberals not Dippers. But Stuart says he is an NDP partisan so taking him at his word I presume we will never have to hear him making such disparaging comments about our MP's again. Wilf clearly has shown the electoral results around the province had little to do with the McGill club and everything to do with the quality of candidates that ran. Jack was obviously a big factor but IMO as big a factor in the orange wave was the star team he put together.
So Stuart get with the program and stop sounding like a disgruntled liberal sowing negative MSM talking points.
He tried to run for an NDP nomination. Does that pass your purity test?
He tried to run for an NDP nomination. Does that pass your purity test?
I was very careful to presume he was a Dipper even if he sounds like a liberal. Does that pass your purity test? "Purity test" is such an old cold war canard better suited to red baiting than discourse.
So is this really the Stuart Parker who lead the BC Green party for many years and couldn't even get a nomination in Ontario when he tried? If his knowledge of Ontario politics is as facile as his knowledge of Quebec politics then I can see why he wasn't made a banner carrier.
David "Shriek" is a an "NDP" hack but that still doesn't stop him from using MSM talking points better suited to progressive opponents than progressives. Many Dippers on this board think that a very left personality should be in the Marxist Leninists and not running for nominations in the NDP and he managed to win one unlike Stuart. So yes I stand by my view his ideas are akin to MSM liberal talking points.
NS, your posts here are another great example of the main fallacy I encounter on rabble: longstanding NDP members' tendency to confuse brand with ideology or principle. It is this confusion that led to thousands of British Columbians losing social assistance, disability treatment and, ultimately, the roofs over their heads in BC in the 1990s as NDP members turned a blind eye to their government's attacks on the poor, First Nations and environmentalists. Your presentation of blind institutional loyalty as some kind of personal virtue is, like your ad hominem attacks on me, an indictment of your position, not mine.
Riding by riding non-compete agreements ARE the paved road to merger.
Are you aware of any political parties that have ever merged through such a process? I'm certainly aware of parties that have made such agreements and haven't merged. Is your certainty based on any real-world experience?
I offer a number of counter-examples from my own province. The Vancouver civic left has run joint slates of 2-3 parties in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1999, 2005 and 2008. In Victoria, there was a similar arrangement in 1999. In addition, the French national election was won in 1995 by a coalition of Greens, Socialists and Communists who had a similar joint slate agreement. And, to be clear, COPE has not merged with the Civic Independents, Civic NDP, Green Party or Vision Vancouver. The Victoria Civic Electors have not merged with the Greens Party. The French Communist, Socialist and Green parties have also not merged.
It was from a reporter covering his news conference, and the news release was easily discoverable. Sheesh.
http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/media/nathan-cullen-asks-for-mandate-to-co...
Just saying- but I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding because he was neither a Conservative, OR a Liberal. I doubt I was alone.
Life, based on your past posts, I would be very surprised if you didn't vote exactly the way the New Democratic Party asked you to vote in any election. So, if the NDP asked you to vote for a Bloc, Liberal, Green or Communist candidate in the next general election, would you really defy the party to which you have demonstrated such unswerving loyalty?
Riding by riding non-compete agreements ARE the paved road to merger.Are you aware of any political parties that have ever merged through such a process? I'm certainly aware of parties that have made such agreements and haven't merged. Is your certainty based on any real-world experience?
As mentioned above, this is exactly the sort of process that lead to the merger of the British Liberals and Social Democrats.
MPs who lose their nomination and then run as Independents have a better base from which to ruin the chances of their party's successor, of course. That's what happened both to Ashton the first time, and to Ray Funk next door in the Saskatchewan Churchill riding as well, if I recall.
I think the important question to ask is "compared to what?"
We are comparing Greens, Liberals and New Democrats all running candidates against to each other to the risk that some disgruntled members of one or more of these parties might choose to run an independent candidate against a consensus candidate. Certainly, compared to nobody running against the consensus candidate a possible independent bid is bad. But compared to two-and-a-half national parties duking it out for the anti-Harper vote, a risk of a potentially popular bid by a disgtruntled Liberal or New Democrat looks pretty damned good.
As mentioned above, this is exactly the sort of process that lead to the merger of the British Liberals and Social Democrats.
While I don't agree with the Cullen strategy, this doesn't tell us anything. The SDP was a right-wing breakoff from the British Labour Party that ideologically was not all that different from the Liberals. Ironically, these SDP folks were well to the left of New Labour.
Son of a gun. Is Mulcair really saying he supports NAFTA??? If he is, he just lost my support.
Quote:"Attractive as he may be for those NDP members who want to see someone with the ability to project onto the national stage in both linguistic communities with great charm, and aplomb, Mulcair, in a short space of time, has created serious doubts about his suitability as a leader."
The linked article from our erstwhile intellectual leader avoids confronting the "buy America" deal now before the U.S.Congress. There's no allowance for Canadian exceptionality this time around. Just where do Canadian manufacturers ship their jobs?
Charm and aplomb my ass.
What is also missing from that less than fulsome article is Mulcair's critical position on Canadian monetary policy. He's the only person who has said diddly squat about our petro dollar and the way it has disadvantaged manufacturers exporting...anywhere.He's actually challenging our "economist" PM and the core of Conservatism in the west to explain the bifurcated nature of the Canadian economy, something everyone else is afraid to touch...or are unable to understand.
I know that such economic details spoil a good, firm, ideological and nationalist position, but they really should be presented in any essay that's expected to be taken seriously.
The question is, Boom Boom, how do we create instant trade relationships with the rest of the world that will mean jobs for the younger crowd. Family folk just might want something to sustain hope for the future of their progeny. Jobs for graduates, that sort of thing, just might be a consideration out there in the real world. We old farts don't have to worry about such things, eh?
Of course the environment has to be central to all economic considerations. But a political party has to keep mainstreet in mind, and not too vulnerable to the nasties,as the Liberals discovered under a very green leader a couple of years back. If only it were all so cut and dried.
As mentioned above, this is exactly the sort of process that lead to the merger of the British Liberals and Social Democrats.Riding by riding non-compete agreements ARE the paved road to merger.Are you aware of any political parties that have ever merged through such a process? I'm certainly aware of parties that have made such agreements and haven't merged. Is your certainty based on any real-world experience?
Fair enough. Why do you feel that this is a more likely scenario in this situation than the French and Canadian counter-examples I just detailed? It seems to me that the British case, which involved the Liberal Party which had not held power nor run a full slate of candidates in over half a century, standing aside for a new party that had not existed in the previous election, in a handful of seats the party held or was targeting as less comparable than the examples I offered. A third party that had been chronically unable to capture even 10% of the seats in parliament endorsing candidates for a small new party, many in districts it had not contested in the previous election, doesn't seem anything like the situation we face in Canada today.
So, aside from this alleged "precedent," is there anything about the specifics of Cullen's proposal that elicits that worry?
Part of the reason no one in the NDP outside of Québec has heard or seen of Mulcair...
Ridiculous. Delegates to the 2006 federal NDP Convention heard him speak. To say nothing of many of us keeping track of election results in the by-election and in the 2008 election, where he won a seat for the NDP for the first time in a general election.
NS, your posts here are another great example of the main fallacy I encounter on rabble: longstanding NDP members' tendency to confuse brand with ideology or principle. It is this confusion that led to thousands of British Columbians losing social assistance, disability treatment and, ultimately, the roofs over their heads in BC in the 1990s as NDP members turned a blind eye to their government's attacks on the poor, First Nations and environmentalists. Your presentation of blind institutional loyalty as some kind of personal virtue is, like your ad hominem attacks on me, an indictment of your position, not mine.
Sorry but you got the wrong tree to bark up. I fought against my party when it instituted BC Benefits and denied new services to developmentally disabled people (the same as the Liberals are rightly being condemned for today) I also spoke out against using lawyers fees as general revenue not as a revenue source for legal aid. Oh yeah and I ripped up my card when an Attorney General named Dosanjh said he was going to Ottawa to propose a three strikes law for pot.
I still think your talking point equating the McGill club to the whole of the NDP in Quebec is a MSM sounding idea that is not born out by the facts. I said your ideas were wrong and accepted your assertions that you are a current supporter. You on the other hand have speculated about my past. What was that definition of ad hominum attacks again?
The main thing is getting the Conservative vote down. In Quebec, they get it - their popular vote fell to just 17% in the last election. In ROC, the Conservatives got 48%, compared to 26% for the NDP and 20% for the Liberals. While it's true FPTP gives Harper a "false majority", that doesn't change the fact that he got a hell of a lot more votes than everybody else.
The main thing is getting the Conservative vote down.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And to some extent, this will mean getting former Conservative voters to vote NDP. It can be done, but not if we assume that Conservative voters are off-limits, and give up on trying to win them over.
The main thing is getting the Conservative vote down.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And to some extent, this will mean getting former Conservative voters to vote NDP. It can be done, but not if we assume that Conservative voters are off-limits, and give up on trying to win them over.
Certainly Harper replacing Liberal scandals with scandals of his own and pointing out the massive budget deficits could go a long way towards this goal.
It was from a reporter covering his news conference, and the news release was easily discoverable. Sheesh.
http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/media/nathan-cullen-asks-for-mandate-to-co...
Just saying- but I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding because he was neither a Conservative, OR a Liberal. I doubt I was alone.
Life, based on your past posts, I would be very surprised if you didn't vote exactly the way the New Democratic Party asked you to vote in any election. So, if the NDP asked you to vote for a Bloc, Liberal, Green or Communist candidate in the next general election, would you really defy the party to which you have demonstrated such unswerving loyalty?
Should I giggle now or later over the fact that you decried an ad hominem attack and then made one two posts later?
I have only ever voted for a specific NDP candidate in my riding. Someone who knows more about the issues I care about then most people in his party unfortunetly. I am not now, nor have ever been a member of the NDP. If I lived in another riding I might or might not vote NDP. What I don't like is some of the constant bullshit I see spread around here about the NDP from those who have no clue what they are talking about. I just don't like bullies- and many of the posters who do that sort of thing are also verbal bullies.
I do however dislike the Liberals as much as the Conservative, although for different reasons. That is what the math challenged can't seem to get their mind around. In the absense of a non Conservate, or non Liberal tainted candidate I might vote for some other option, spoil my ballot or just stay home. This is one of the reasons I helped found the Green Party of Ontario over 20 years ago when I didn't like the direction of any of the big three parties. I freely admitt now that was an error on my part. You see there are a great many of us who strongly dislike the Liberals. Probably just as many Liberal supporters who strongly dislike the NDP. Force us to support one or the other and our vote will go somewhere other than where you think. No matter how many times you try it 1+1 will never equal 3. Say were are only 10 per cent of the relative vote of the Liberals and NDP. That's all it takes. Any way you do the math the Conservatives end up winning. There is only one scenario where they don't. That's getting less voters to vote Conserative. But then that takes work and energy and the intellecutally lazy who won't even do basic math wouldn't want that would they.
It also makes me howl with delight, that many of the people claiming the NDP are not left enough, are also the very ones who want the NDP to move to embrace a right wing party like the Liberals. There is zero logical consistency in that. Zero. The Liberals are a right wing party filled with hypocrits, liars, cheats and enemies of progressive politics. That a few Liberals have deluded themselves otherwise does not change this reality. In the end I prefer an enemy that is honest, not one who tries to be my friend. And as I said, I doubt that I am alone.
The Liberals are a right wing party filled with hypocrits, liars, cheats and enemies of progressive politics. That a few Liberals have deluded themselves otherwise does not change this reality. In the end I prefer an enemy that is honest, not one who tries to be my friend. And as I said, I doubt that I am alone.
I think this bears repeating. The LPC has never been a progressive party and never will be.
I was surprised and disappointed that Nathan does not understand that no one owns my vote or anyone else's except their own. I have never and I will never consider voting Liberal no matter how many times I am told in election after election that they really are a left wing alternative. They aren't.
Yeah, if people want to form a Popular Front Against Harper that's their right. But you don't have to refer to the LPC as "progressive" in doing so.
As mentioned above, this is exactly the sort of process that lead to the merger of the British Liberals and Social Democrats.Riding by riding non-compete agreements ARE the paved road to merger.Are you aware of any political parties that have ever merged through such a process? I'm certainly aware of parties that have made such agreements and haven't merged. Is your certainty based on any real-world experience?
Fair enough. Why do you feel that this is a more likely scenario in this situation than the French and Canadian counter-examples I just detailed?
I don't think the British experience is more valid than the counter examples you gave, but you asked for examples, so... Quite apart from the historical examples, I think there are a variety of pressures in Canada--media, electoral--that would make it very possible for this sort of process to become a first step towards merger or at least produce unending discussion about it.
It was from a reporter covering his news conference, and the news release was easily discoverable. Sheesh.
http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/media/nathan-cullen-asks-for-mandate-to-co...
Just saying- but I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding because he was neither a Conservative, OR a Liberal. I doubt I was alone.
Life, based on your past posts, I would be very surprised if you didn't vote exactly the way the New Democratic Party asked you to vote in any election. So, if the NDP asked you to vote for a Bloc, Liberal, Green or Communist candidate in the next general election, would you really defy the party to which you have demonstrated such unswerving loyalty?
I live in a constituency where the only question the NDP has is whether or not it will make back its deposit. Yet I still vote NDP. In 2008, the Liberals ran Jon Loewen, who was a former Manitoba PC who had made noises about privatizing health care. He might have been more "electable" than the NDP candidate, but how would that have been any different substantially than having a Conservative represent the riding.
No, NS is right, parties do not own votes, and if a joint nomination process or whatever had supported Loewen as the candidate, I would not have gone along with it. I might have voted Green, or maybe even the local Christian Heritage candidate could have won me over in that scenario. And I know that the NDP has a poor chance, but that's why I'm involved, because I believe in the principles as stated on the back of the membership card, and it's part of the process of winning over more people so that the party becomes more viable.
And I know that the NDP has a poor chance, but that's why I'm involved, because I believe in the principles as stated on the back of the membership card, and it's part of the process of winning over more people so that the party becomes more viable.
That is the push pull problem. How much striving for electoral success and how much standing on principals. The liberals were all about electoral success and had a long and successful run however they had and have no principals. IMO.
I never voted liberal because I think a battle over principals is what politics should be about.
I live in a constituency where the only question the NDP has is whether or not it will make back its deposit. Yet I still vote NDP. In 2008, the Liberals ran Jon Loewen, who was a former Manitoba PC who had made noises about privatizing health care. He might have been more "electable" than the NDP candidate, but how would that have been any different substantially than having a Conservative represent the riding.
This is a valid point - but keep in mind that IF there was a joint NDP/Lib/Green nomination meeting in Winnipeg South (as opposed to a pure Liberal meeting) - it is much LESS likely that even if the winner of the contest was a card carrying Liberal it would be someone as rightwing as Jon Loewen. Any Liberal who wanted to win that joint nomination would probably need to position themselves as a "left liberal" to have much of a chance of winning the nomination in the first place.
Riding by riding non-compete agreements ARE the paved road to merger.
Are you aware of any political parties that have ever merged through such a process? I'm certainly aware of parties that have made such agreements and haven't merged. Is your certainty based on any real-world experience?
As mentioned above, this is exactly the sort of process that lead to the merger of the British Liberals and Social Democrats.
Fair enough. Why do you feel that this is a more likely scenario in this situation than the French and Canadian counter-examples I just detailed? It seems to me that the British case, which involved the Liberal Party which had not held power nor run a full slate of candidates in over half a century, standing aside for a new party that had not existed in the previous election, in a handful of seats the party held or was targeting as less comparable than the examples I offered. A third party that had been chronically unable to capture even 10% of the seats in parliament endorsing candidates for a small new party, many in districts it had not contested in the previous election, doesn't seem anything like the situation we face in Canada today.
So, aside from this alleged "precedent," is there anything about the specifics of Cullen's proposal that elicits that worry?
Is that last sentence supposed to be a joke Stuart? The specific objections are far more numerous than your brush off selections of addressing a bit of it.
Part of the problem is that you dont appear to pay attention to inconvenient arguments that are central to what you are discussing.
What you called the "alleged precedent" is the closest and most comparable situation that exists. Westminster system, and all the party dynamics very close to ours in Canada. And your UK history is off- both the Libs and SDP had candidates stand aside in the Alliance, neither was as marginal as you portray them, and they targeted much more than a 'handful' of seats
The examples you use are not comparable at all. The Canadian examples are civic alliances that bear little resemblance to the structure of political parties. You may prefer to blow political parties apart. And I would consider an agenda fopr that. But we are her talking about best results possible with the strucure we have.
The French example is not comparable either. Although possibly a shade less uncomparable than the Canadian civic examples.
And you have simply ignored the arguments both from the structural take, and looking at the numbers, that demonstrate the assumption that party A + party B is something with net benefits against the Conservatives. Which presumably is why Michael Byers repudiated his proposals- on looking at the evidence rather than just saying 'this makes sense'.
Not necessarily so. As I understand it, most NDP members are more long term, in other words sort of true believers. Whereas the Liberals and Conservatives have lots of 'instant' members who are there to support a particular candidate and may or may not be 'true' party members. Unless that circle was squared I can see enormous room for manipulation by more right wing, and/or single issue candidates to win.
Then again if the feeling was that a rightwing Liberal was likely to win any joint L/NDP/G nomination meeting in Winnipeg South - I suspect the Winnipeg South NDP association would never agree to have a joint nomination meeting in the first place so it would all be a moot point.
At the same time, the party trying to whitewash how slow it is in sending membership cards to people in Québec is a poor joke. The fact is that people expect to get their cards, especially older people, and they often don't and there are often backlogs and it is often disorganised. Membership is also an issue with provincial NDP parties but less so. I can't believe the party doesn't take the time to reflect on how badly this makes it look.
I'm not even sure if the BC NDP still sends out membership cards if they do it is way after the fact. During the leadership race out here the website signed up many members who instantly got a receipt acknowledging their membership in the party. So who in Quebec are we chasing for votes? Dinosaurs that don't understand the internet or young people who likely would prefer to go on line and pay their $10 bucks and get an instantaneous membership and the right to vote? As noted over and over ad naseum this system has led to the highest number of memberships in any province.
So if I have this right the BC NDP did too good an job in recruiting members therefore screwing over the people of Quebec but the method they used to get those high membership numbers are also an insult to Quebec voters. So lets design a weighted system that ensures those brown skinned Sikhs ion BC don't have any undue influence in a party they have joined in large numbers. They are not Quebecois so they cannot lay claim to any discrimination in the Canadian federal context they in fact are the problem when it comes to Quebecois desires to be involved the NDP.
I signed up for the BCNDP just before the leadership contest cutoff, and received a membership card in the mail along with voting instructions well in advance of the race.
The main thing is getting the Conservative vote down.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And to some extent, this will mean getting former Conservative voters to vote NDP. It can be done, but not if we assume that Conservative voters are off-limits, and give up on trying to win them over.
Agreed!
However, we have the problem of former Liberal voters to identify themselves as more on the 'right' side of the political spectrum who would rather vote Conservative than NDP.
Here in South Shore-St. Margarets is a prime example.
Had the Conservative vote stayed the same as in 2008, Gordon Earle would've won this seat. But the collapsing Liberal vote went to Gerald Keddy instead by a margin of 5-1, giving Keddy the highest vote total he's ever had in this riding.
The NDP has steadily eaten into the 'soft-left' Liberal support since 2004, but now the Liberals are down to their 'vote Liberal or not at all' core vote.
Finding a way to get right-of-centre Liberals (or Red Tories) to vote NDP? Gonna be tougher than you think.
Bolding is not a substitute for sustained, coherent argumentation.
- snip -
. . . before you continue proclaiming that to be a member of the party is to agree with you and to stop expressing opinions other than the status quo.
Tripe, Stuart.
First of all, the coherent argument has been presented over and over and over ad nauseum and you (and others choose to ignore it.
In order to be viable, a candidate has no choice but to demonstrate significant caacity and effectiveness in Quebec. Any candidate who fails to do so will not be viable, not only in Quebec, but across the country. I have no doubt that there ma be the odd New Democrat who doesn't care a fig whether or nt we hold on to our gains in Quebec. They are an inconsequential minority.
So you have the question completely wrong. It isn't a cost benefit analysis about memberships in Quebec versus memberships elseweher. Failure to generate memberships in Quebec will lose votes everywhere else. I'm not going to vote for a candidate who can't demonstrate capacity and effectiveness in Quebec. Neither will you. Neither will the vast majort of New Democrats who have been dreaming about a Quebec breaktrough for decades.
In other words, even in this pure OMOV race, a Quebec membership sold is at least twice as valuable as a membership sold anywhere else because it demonstrates the necessary capacity. A membership sold in Surrey gets one vote in Surrey. A membership sold in Sillery gets one vote in Sillery PLUS it demonstrates to the undecided member in Saltcoats that the candidate deserves to be taken seriously.
As to your latter rhetorical flourish, I have never claimed that all New Democrats must agree with me. However, I do think people need to exercise some responsibility - which I do not see in this constant harping over a dead letter.
The rules are set.
The particular change to the rule you want cannot be accomplished without an amendment to the constitution.
Unless you are calling for an emergency federal convention to deal with a constitutional amendment, then the only thing gained by this constant harping about the rule in question is to reinforce the key messages that the corporate media (and, FWIW, the Liberals, Conservatives and especially the Bloc) would like to have reinforced.
Now, you may think it is responsible or helpful for New Democrats to undermine the party on a public site. I respectfully disagree.
