NDP Socialist Caucus Supports Niki Ashton as Next NDP Leader

toaster wrote:

I mean, no offence to Ashton, but she doesn't really have a chance.  In the future, yes, but just not now.  I think the endoresement would have made Nash more competitive against Mulcair.  These endoresements to the 4th and 5th place (in the polls at least) candidates don't mean much now.

Niki Ashton is the most left of all the leadership candidates, so it makes sense that the SC would endorse her.  Leadership races aren't just about who is going to win.  They're about who will be leading the future of the party.  We have a choice -- we can support candidates who best represent our political beliefs, or we can be more pragmatic -- do what corporations do -- spread the support and $ according to who has the best chance of forming the next government, which will align itself with our self interest.

 

flight from kamakura wrote:

me too.  i think something like pulling out of nato is completely nuts, for a lot of reasons,

Gonna send you a pm about that.

Stockholm wrote:

Brachina wrote:

I wonder how much support does the sc bring to the table, a couple of thousand votes?

...more like 15 or 20 people...essentially Barry Weisleder and a gaggle of his acolytes with delusions of grandeur.

Oh I think the numbers are larger than that, what is confusing is more the cicada like life-cycle of the caucus... its regular appearance at conventions followed by periods of subterranean dormancy before crawling up the trunk again to issue its mating call at the next conference. [Just to observe, I have no particular ideological bones to pick with the SC, but because of past experience in dealing with certain of their officers/spokespeople, I don't feel particularly guilty in suggesting that they could put a bit more effort into improving their organizational and behavioural skills and am quite comfortable around the ANDP's Labour Caucus referring to them as "Convention Monsters"]

Ken Burch wrote:

Those that want the NDP to run screaming away from the very idea of "socialism" don't really have any strong interest in social justice or helping working people.

Why do the other two very similar parties not state for the record that they basically represent fascism? We know they are lying when they talk about liberal democracy and free market economies.

In fact, all three main parties in Ottawa are claiming to support free market economics. It's easier than explaining 50 years worth of cold war baloney. 

And it's easier for the NDP to explain to people why we do not have free markets in Canada. And we don't. We don't have free labour markets. Our manufacturing sector is run mainly by absentee corporate landlords. Absentee meaning in the modern sense in that the majority share owners are physically located in another country altogether and not just living in mansions on the hilly side of town.

We don't have free markets in energy. Not when Canada's national energy policy is dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America.

We don't have free markets in a lot of areas of our economy. 

And it's much more profitable for the NDP to explain why social democracy makes economies more competitive than economies where laissez-faire capitalism is all there is.

So as long as the other two parties aren't telling Canadians the truth - that neoliberalism is undemocratic and even fascist in certain respects, I don't think the NDP is obligated to have to explain why mixed market socialism works better than that which flopped in 1929 North America, in 1985 Chile, and again by 2008 in N. America. 

Free markets and social democracy - it's worth twice as much as what they are selling down the road. Social democracy sells itself. We don't even have to lie about it, like they have to in regards to the "new" liberal capitalism. We don't have spend hours at someone's front door at election time explaining what actually happened during the cold war.

It's not too late.

No, it's Mulcair, who is really a closet socialist.  

I'm sure that supporters of the other two parties aren't asking which of their leaders is declaring their black and tan properly for voters to identify with. And they only pay lip service to free markets nowadays. 

The NDP represents social democracy, free and fair modern elections not election rigging so popular with conservatives today. And the NDP represents competitive market economies not obsolete colonial-extractive economies at the root of pollution and global warming issues today.

Hi Ken,

I belief that some will disagree with me about this, but I don't see there is a difference between saying socialist and saying social democracy but that is me. I often describe myself as a social democrat and proud to belong to the New Democrat Party of Canada. And it is also my belief that Jack helped make that possible.

Ken Burch wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Sean we are all radicals because we support or belong to the NDPee! I miss Jack.

Even the ones who fought for the pointless switch from the word "socialism" to "social democracy"?

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

It's true that direct school funding and provision is essentially a provincial matter and determined by our constitution, the present Harper Conservative govt did institute a way to fund "religious education" through tax credits and thus the back door.

Private School Tuition Fees

There are special circumstances in which all or a portion of the fees paid to a private school may be considered a donation, and qualify for the charitable donations tax credit.  Two types of schools may be able to provide charitable donation receipts for all or a portion of fees:

those which exclusively teach religion, and

those which operate in a dual capacity, providing both academic and religious education.

So Harper ensured that his supporting base got some perks in the religious education department. And thus funding of education (through the back door) is a federal matter because it's about taxation.

I believe that all children should go to school together because it helps to build a more cohesive society. It doesn't mean that information and education about religions and beliefs is not discussed but that all beliefs and faiths are discussed and no one is elevated.

No more thread drift but it is incorrect to suggest that federal govt is not involved in funding of religious education. They sure are.

That said, it is also my understanding that the federal NDP has a policy that supports secular school system of education in both official languages. Secular again, does not mean an absence of religion but only that all believes are recognized and no religion is given top billing.

 

Sean Cain wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What a joke of a thread. School funding is a provincial matter. Don't let the Socialist Caucus divert the discussion away from their statement and endorsement. And frankly, unless I hear Niki call for an end to private school funding, I will remain skeptical as to whether she said it. The federal government has no say in the matter. 

Well, actually, it was others in this thread who began to discuss school funding, which is mentioned in one sentence in my original post (and in one sentence in the 900-word plus statement on the SC website).  I'd rather talk about economic issues and workers' rights.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Nationalize Industry?

What Industry?

Lord Palmerston wrote:

No, it's Mulcair, who is really a closet socialist.  

He wants to nationalize closets?

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Why don't they support Saganash?

er...because he's no longer running?(although, if you really wanted to make Mulcair supporters' heads explode, you COULD ask why they don't support Mulcair, since Saganash has now endorsed him).

Of all the questions I posed about the SC statement - all of which have gone unanswered - that's the one you chose to focus on?

Fine. Saganash's name is still on the ballot. It took a lot of courage IMHO for him to run, under all the circumstances. Too bad the Socialist Caucus didn't have space to say a word about him. I guess when you're in an electoral race, all you have time for is to exaggerate the merits of your pick and the sins of all the others. The guy who dropped out is history.

 

M. Spector wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Oh and I was suprised a that Barry didn't join the race himself, I was honestly expecting him to and that may have added some earlier spice to this race.

The $15,000 ticket price ensured that that wouldn't happen. Precisely as planned.

What was the entry fee for the 2003 Leadership election?

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Why don't they support Saganash?

er...because he's no longer running?(although, if you really wanted to make Mulcair supporters' heads explode, you COULD ask why they don't support Mulcair, since Saganash has now endorsed him).

Of all the questions I posed about the SC statement - all of which have gone unanswered - that's the one you chose to focus on?

Fine. Saganash's name is still on the ballot. It took a lot of courage IMHO for him to run, under all the circumstances. Too bad the Socialist Caucus didn't have space to say a word about him. I guess when you're in an electoral race, all you have time for is to exaggerate the merits of your pick and the sins of all the others. The guy who dropped out is history.

 

All I meant is that probably, they thought it served no purpose to discuss a candidate who was no longer active.  I liked and still like Saganash...and yes, they could have mentioned what he might have been like as leader.  Wasn't trying to belittle your overall argument.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I think a lot of people here are sympathetic to the views of the socialist caucus, because a lot of us have socialist (anti-imperialist, pro-labor, pro-mixed economy, pro-worker control) leanings.

But an endorsement from an NDP caucus that attacks 6 out of 7 NDP candidates suggests to me that this "caucus" is more interested in dividing the party than building support for their views, or building any kind of consensus at all.

Here's the thing, though (and this is something a lot of other babblers don't seem to get when responding to the various critiques by candidates of other candidates): now is the time for everybody to present their ideas about why they like their candidate and why they're not choosing the other ones. If they can't get behind the leader after convention day, that will be the time for that sort of criticism.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Here's the thing, though (and this is something a lot of other babblers don't seem to get when responding to the various critiques by candidates of other candidates): now is the time for everybody to present their ideas about why they like their candidate and why they're not choosing the other ones. If they can't get behind the leader after convention day, that will be the time for that sort of criticism.

And here's what I'm saying.

Praise, cool.

Criticism, cool.

But when you write a scathing criticism of 6 out of 7 candidates in the NDP, using words like "pro-capitalist", "disinginuous", "contempt for democracy"... you have to wonder if you're even in the right party.

Like someone walking into a gay bar and screaming "why are there so many homosexuals here?" The right answer is, "what are YOU doing here?"

At best, you're wasting your breath. At worst, you're so tendentious that you shouldn't be surprised when fewer and fewer people take you seriously.

Now that the Socialist Caucus has been thoroughly grilled over why they had the temerity to cast their support behind one candidate, maybe we can move on to start grilling everyone else who has done exactly the same thing.

Let's start with Libby Davies throwing her support behind Brian Topp. Then we could move on to Romeo Saganash supporting Brian Mulcair. I'll get the popcorn.

M. Spector wrote:

Now that the Socialist Caucus has been thoroughly grilled over why they had the temerity to cast their support behind one candidate, maybe we can move on to start grilling everyone else who has done exactly the same thing.

Let's start with Libby Davies throwing her support behind Brian Topp. Then we could move on to Romeo Saganash supporting Brian Mulcair. I'll get the popcorn.

If those others come here and open threads to promote their views, I will be happy to grill them. In both cases, I found their brief public explanations unconvincing - both as to whom they chose, and why they would choose one at all, rather than urging a more collaborative approach.

If the Socialist Caucus can't answer some searching questions or face some tough criticism, then perhaps it should stay away from discussion forums. But I like Sean's calm approach to dealing with some of the questions so far, and I'd like to hear more. I'll keep asking my questions until I either get answers or realize that there aren't any forthcoming.

 

Left Turn wrote:

I have two big a issues with the Socialist Caucus. The first is that many NDPers, maybe even a majority, instinctively vote against any motions coming from the NDP Socialist Caucus, and sometimes a sizeable number of party members vote against motions that they would actually support if they came without the Socialist Caucus stamp of approval.

I actually expect the Socialist Caucus's endorsement of Niki Ashton to lead some NDPers to not rank her on their ballot when they otherwise would have.

My second big issue with the socialist caucus is Barry Weisleder's (and possibly others) refusal to recognize that that the NDP cannot be transformed into a revolutionary socialist organization, and that the only reason for revolutionary socialists to be involved in the NDP is the lack of a mass revolutionary party in Canada.

I am a member of the NDP Socialist Caucus, and I do not believe that the NDP will ever be a revolutionary socialist organization. Many of us see the party as a platform to talk about and build socialism, as the NDP is Canada's labour party, and attracts mass appeal for those who see the party as being 'left'. As for people dismissing our efforts or not voting for them because they come from us, I would say that those folks are obviously not very principled, and im proud that I belong to a group which is honest and principled, and is not shy or intimidated by the brass. You dont have to agree with us all of the time, but if your seriously not going to vote on issues you agree with simply because they originate from folks like us who organize in the party to bring them forward for discussion, then you have some issues to deal with. Over the last few years, our support has grown considerably, this can be seen at conventions, provincial council meetings, our magazine, 'Turn Left', which grows and improves with each passing convention, and our financial contributors and new website. I encourage NDP members who agree with us to join and help us push the party to the left.

I'm all for the NDP to be more left, but I'd also caution the party to wait until it actually achieves government, and then slowly become more left of centre. This is a really conservative country if you look at the combined Conservative and Liberal votes, and taking a more left approach to party policy now will, as far as I can see,  just put the party back into third place federally. And promoting itself as a more left party now will just be gravy for Harper who undoubtedly is looking for more ammo to use against the NDP in the next election. In the meantime, I don't see anyone besides Mulcair who is likely to actually lead the NDP to political victory resulting in the first NDP federal government.

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

Sounds like 'bait and switch' to me, Boom Boom. I say we give voters a real alternative.

But alas, I'm not a politician.

The NDP gave the country a real alternative in 2015, and we ended up, thanks to FPTP, with a Harper majority. How's that working for you?

ETA: the sooner we get PR, the better. FPTP is the villain that's keeping the NDP down.

It doesn't work for me, as you predicted. I always lose arguments based on other people's crystal balls. It's probably because it's not my crystal ball. So here goes:

How about we behave like the Liberals, and then people can split the vote between the Liberals and NDP, and voila, the Harper conservatives get another majority?

I bet you don't care for my crystal ball, huh? 

 

We have to show working tories and liberals that the NDP represents them better than anyone else - by 'working' I mean real work, not people who make their money off their capital. If you can assuage working tories, we'll win.

And the Euro hasn't taken a dump yet...a great many things can happen to this economy in the next 12 months, so let's not speak too soon. This conversation isn't over until the economic lady sings at the end of 2012/2013.