NDP Convention (Thread 3)

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDP Convention (Thread 3)

--

NorthReport

This will be the challenge for the delegates. Should be lots of fun.
The Two Political Constants -- Change and Rumours

 

For the NDP, who are about to meet in Halifax in their national convention, the word is that the party will be taking several new directions. First, there is a resolution to drop the word "New" from the party name, and re-branding the party as the "Democratic Party".

Second, the NDP are now plotting a slow steady path that some in the party believe may lead them, eventually, to political party. This is a sharp contrast to the approach taken by Jack Layton in the past two elections where the NDP leader has told Canadians he is applying for the job of Prime Minister.

Perhaps NDP delegates in Halifax should be paying particular attention to the convention speech by Manitoba Premier Gary Doer. If delegates are looking for a direction that includes greater political chances of success, they may find it in Doer's track record.

 

http://netnewsledger.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11...

melovesproles

Quote:

Second, the NDP are now plotting a slow steady path that some in the party believe may lead them, eventually, to political party.

What does that mean?

 

Hoodeet

I couldn't believe the time and space wasted on trivia like facial hair on a party leader on the previous convention thread.

As for the name change, obviously the most powerful and vociferous elements in the NDP are in love with Obama and don't mind being part of a Democratic Party.  Couldn't they at least propose the CDP (Canadian Democratic Party) - kind of like the CAW vs. the UAW?

DP is also open to bad retro (post ww II)  jokes about the party's fate as "displaced persons".  Go ahead, be morons.

The paradigmatic joke comes to mind of Joe Shit who went to a shrink to resolve why people laughed at him. The shrink suggested he change his name.  He returned with the same complaint a month later.  When the doctor asked what he'd changed his name to, he said "Pete".

In fact, it's the substance of the party that needs to be addressed.   Dissing Judy Rebick is a stupid cop-out.  She was quite right when she pointed out that all the scheduled speakers except one will be white and mostly males.  Where are all the young people and the Canadians of different ethnicities, who are to be the footsoldiers of the party?

And yes, by all means, study what made the NDP successful in N.S. and Manitoba. 

For what little it counts or matters,  I'm not bothering to maintain my membership in the party, name-change or not, and I won't bother re-joining until it changes radically from its recent obsession with the leader (we elect MP's, not a president, in case the "Democrats" had lost sight of that, and the NDP is supposed to be grass-roots and cooperative) and from its panting after imitating US presidential campaigns for corporate shills like Obama and from its shape-shifting trying to keep up with the big tweedledum-tweedledee parties here in Canada.

If there's going to be a strong NDP candidate in my riding, I'll work for her or him.  Otherwise, put energy into issues and into organizations like the Council of Canadians.

 

 

Stockholm

"DP is also open to bad retro (post ww II)  jokes about the party's fate as "displaced persons".  Go ahead, be morons."

Gee if it was that simple, why don't we all start referring to the Liberals as the "LP" and make a lot of jokes about how they are as out of date a vinyl and how long-winded they are because they are long playing...

Seriously, I'm a bit of an agnostic on the issue of dropping the "N" in "NDP", but I think that the idea that the party would then be known as the "DP" is absurd - nobody calls something that is one word long by its acronym - when was the last time you hearc the Democrats in in the US called the "DP"??

Buddy Kat

Re : Time wasted on facial hair...

Well I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this is the nature of political leadership nowadays. Gone are the days when a good speech would get you support. Nowadays you wear a wig (toupe)..hire image consultants and present yourself like your in a beauty pagent. Optics is everything and some parties have figured it out.

It sucks I know but when you hear people saying they are going to vote for Wall intead of Calvert and they base it on physical appearance and conversly when you hear people say ..Harper has wet lips, he always has wet lips I'm voting for someone else ...you get a good grip on what the obvious majority of Canadians vote for. It's a frigging beauty pagent! Even Iggy I notice gets painted with the most humongous eyebrows....There was even an ad...yes they will spend party money on an ad showing off Laytons big muostache...remember the ad backfire when they crossed the line with chreatins mouth...and altho it was making fun of a physical deformity ..it took the media to point it out and rile Canadians ..they can't think for themselves I'm sorry to say. Canadians are extremely gullible and yes they should be concerned about there leaders appearance because of it.

When Canadians turn on there tv they want to see hollywood dancers and beauty queens, actors and actress's and foxy newscasters and good looking political leaders who represent THEIR country. That's the basis of there political intellect.

Stockholm

This is true to a point, but there are also a lot of politicians in Canada who crashed and burned because they were too "pretty" to the point of being "plastic". Look at how we vomitted up John Turner and Stockwell Day (to name a few). In fact in Canada some of our most successful politicians were downright UGLY - like Diefenbaker or Chretien or Ralph Klein!

Buddy Kat

Well they looked downright ugly at the end of their political careers that's for sure... Dief didn't look that bad at the beginning of his career...Klien didn't look bad at the beginning ,but alcohol can have a major effect on appearnace after years of heavy drinking.

Stockwell doesn't look to pretty now either..actrually he looks sickly...the media did a good job on him showing that jet ski , blow it out your ass vid at nauseum...that and the prop episodes made him look like a idiot. God help jack if he did something provocative ..mind you that get up he was in during the carribean festival could of been blown up by the right media , they missed that one I guess. They had a field day when the wheel fell off Martins horse cart in Regina.

The media makes and breaks them..can you imagine the media covering harpers wet lips all the time pointing it out.....Do you want a leader that drools over the documents and his pay cheque? Do you want a leader that when the queen shakes his hand she wipes off the drool? Do you want a wet lipped neocon running your contry?...After hearing about this wet lipped stuff i started looking for it..and sure enough.Surprised maybe it's just the power of suggestion.

 

NorthReport

Very supportive words from Ed.

NDP more relevant than ever: Broadbent

"Even governments of the right who created the current mess in the first place, have now had to say some of the policies that social democrats have been advocating all along are right."

Broadbent also praised party leader Jack Layton for his vision on issues such as health, housing and the environment.

Under Layton's tenure as leader, there have been three federal elections, with the NDP being the only party to increase its popular vote, as well as the number of elected MPs, he pointed out.

"When Jack started out, we had 13 MPs. We are now up to 37, and when I left the federal leadership 20 years ago, we had 44," said Broadbent.

"I have no doubt that whether the election is this fall or this spring, Jack and the NDP are going to return to the House of Commons with the largest number of seats we've ever elected."

 

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/08/14/broadbent-convention014.html

 

Uncle John

I wish you all the best if you are heading to the convention.

I may not agree with everything you believe in, but if you are participating in the political life of this country, all power to ya!

remind remind's picture

Wow, a man disliking commentary about a male politicians appearance, yet women politicians appearances are fair game, all the time. Not once in a blue moon.

ETA: no actually I do not, in fact I hope the grass roots there makes their displeasure felt and that would be a success.

One can watch it live at:

http://www.ndp.ca/

 

 

NorthReport

 Was there ever any doubt? Smile

 

NDP will stick to its roots: Layton

Debate about a possible name change for the party won't dominate the convention, said Layton, who declined to reveal his feelings on the matter to avoid influencing how delegates vote.

"The vast majority of the discussion will be about the economy, the economic crisis we're facing and how we need a government that's on the side of Canadians as they grapple with the tough times that we're in," he said

 ----

Before Broadbent spoke, delegates chanted, "NDP, NDP," prompting him to joke, "I think the name of the party is the NDP, isn't it?"Laughing

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/08/14/broadbent-conventi...

SeniorCitizen

"The vast majority of the discussion will be about the economy, the economic crisis we're facing and how we need a government that's on the side of Canadians as they grapple with the tough times that we're in," he said

 

Hmm...too bad that the legalization of marijuana won't be part of the discussion about the economy. It seems the party wants to avoid that issue.

remind remind's picture

Layton is fabricating, the NDP  brass are NOT sticking to the party's roots, they have highjacked it.

I have seen CoC AGM's more democratic than what is going on in Halifax.

NorthReport

The brain trust of the NDP isnt all bad . They must be doing a lot of things right, otherwise they would never be able to generate this kind of headline. Tongue out

NDP convention a crash course in science of victory

 

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-crash-course-in-science-o...

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

 

NDP will stick to its roots: Layton

 

Doesn't that conjure up an image of being buried?

They really should hire some speechwriters with a slight sense of humour and nuance. Their speeches might be less dull and embarrassing. Maybe Obama can help...

 

Unionist

Dewar is no friend of anything progressive. He authored the statement praising Harper for announcing that Canada would be the first country to boycott Durban II. The statement went up on ndp.ca but was mercifully removed within two days after the outcry it generated. [url=Here">http://dialoguewithdiversity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic... is an example[/url] of the attack on Dewar at the time, but there were dozens if not hundreds like it. Ultimately, after months of silence, Dewar was ordered to write to then-foreign minister Emerson (while Wayne Marston, the boycott's co-author, was ordered to write to Harper) asking him to "reassess" the very boycott that Dewar had screamed for in the first place. The man should not be allowed to represent this party in public.

ETA: You can still read most of the original January 2008 pro-boycott statement [url=here[/url]">http://notimeformetaphors.blogspot.com/2008/06/ndp-reconsiders-durbanfin..., along with the about-face letters of May 29, 2008.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture
Unionist

One reason I left the party, decades ago, was the unabashed declaration by party functionaries (who happened to be in government at the time when they could actually do something) that they were not bound by convention policy. A reminder of that unfortunate truth was the September 2006 convention decision to demand immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. The party's defence critic abandoned that demand before the ink was dry and was never called to account - because, of course, it was only a matter of time before the same retreat was to be disclosed in the leader's own statements.

That's why it's wrong to pay undue attention to the resolutions, except as a barometer of the consciousness and aspirations of the healthy forces within the party - the ones on the ground, engaged more or less in real-life struggles. Besides that, they provide only a veneer of transparency and internal party democracy: "Discuss, debate, and decide whatever you like - subject to our veto."

I do, however, find it particular troubling that there is no hint of reaffirmation of the Sherbrooke Declaration in the resolutions. It was a historic moment in September 2006 when the convention finally, after decades of waffling, gave formal recognition to Québec's right to self-determination. This must have come as an embarrassment to the party chiefs, who ensured that not even a hyperlink to that document could be found on the main party website. What surprises me is that even the Québec section has proposed no resolution on that issue. If they are dazzled by the encouraging election of Mulcair and the poll results into thinking that they can retrench to the old ways, they will wake up to find themselves annihilated in Québec once again - which would be tragic, in the classic sense (being lured by past victory into future defeat).

 

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Mr. Broadbent is one of those who oppose a rebranding.

Party founder Tommy Douglas “once said the New Democratic Party is the New Democratic party and it will remain that as long as New York remains New York,” he told reporters. “And I think that means a long time. And, as with a lot of other things, Tommy Douglas was pretty smart.”

But New Democrats like Paul Dewar, the MP for Ottawa Centre, see things differently.

“I think it's really important, at a time that we are having our convention, that we look at who we are and where we are going,” said Mr. Dewar. “And part of that is what we call ourselves.”

Well...here is another reason for those in his riding to stop voting for Dewar, really he needs to lose his seat.

We know who you are Mr Dewar and where you would go, and you are not any friend of women, nor indeed the NDP .

 

Sarann

Many important resolutions are being dealt with in Halifax and all eveyone is focusing on is the prospective name change.  This is especially true of the mainstream press in this country.  How we can have a politically knowledgeable electorate in this country with such a press is a good question.  Our publicaly funded CBC is not carrying the convention.  What is going on here?

Unionist

Sarann wrote:

Many important resolutions are being dealt with in Halifax ...

Name one, please - that is, one whose outcome is not known in advance - or, one which will represent an important step forward for the party.

Quote:
... and all eveyone is focusing on is the prospective name change.

If a single party leader said, "the name change is of no importance", then I would sympathize with your complaint as to "everyone" focusing on it. But obviously, this was some misguided spin doctor idea of how to pump newsworthy life into a party without actually tampering with the content.

Quote:
Our publicaly funded CBC is not carrying the convention.  What is going on here?

I wouldn't carry it either. Shouldn't radio and TV be interesting? I'd consider carrying reports from the convention corridors, about  activists and movements not allowed or not too welcome, about ordinary people's views on the issues... But to carry live footage of talking heads posturing... well, maybe on CPAC, but not elsewhere.

 

remind remind's picture

To be fair unionist, the Sherbrooke Declaration stands, one does not need such a resolution at every convention, and one cannot pretend that just because it isn't reviisited at every convention that it does not exist.

Quote:
Monday October 6 2008 - We have put up a link to the Seniors' Charter as proposed by the NDP that ensures respect, dignity and security for our seniors. This is a very important matter to the New Democractic Party. We have also put up a summary of the Sherbrooke Declaration, describing the relationship the NDP wishes to have with Québec.

http://www.francoiseboivin.com/en/home.html

 

remind remind's picture

Now back to Dewar, thanks unionist for indicating another of his less than stellar actions, but we also cannot forget his voting on Bill C484, where he voted with the Con's Bill to target women's choice rights.

Unionist

remind wrote:

To be fair unionist, the Sherbrooke Declaration stands, one does not need such a resolution at every convention, and one cannot pretend that just because it isn't reviisited at every convention that it does not exist.

 

I agree with you, remind, there should be no need to reaffirm it each time, but I have concerns. Shortly after the convention, the NDP got sucked into supporting Harper's "Québécois are a nation" resolution, without taking the time to understand that in his formulation, it meant "old stock" Quebeckers and not everyone. The BQ also opportunistically supported it, because they figured that they could still use it to advantage. But as formulated, it goes against self-determination in the civic and non-ethnic sense, besides tying this so-called "nationhood" to "within Canada".

Secondly, I repeat - where is the full text of this important Declaration? You can find it if you search for a while, but you sure won't find it on the party website, not even through a link. Boivin's page gives only a summary.

Finally, I repeat - the NDP mustn't get complacent about Québec, and I see nothing in the resolutions that reflects any sense of urgency about making gains there.

 

Unionist

remind wrote:

What would you like to have seen added or changed to this?

Thanks for posting that, remind. What happened to the right to self-determination??????? Did I just miss it, or did they remove it? That was the historic achievement of September 2006 and the Sherbrooke Declaration. Is it gone?????

Quote:
Also the QC caucus is meeting today, so I am not sure what you could know about what they are putting forth in addition to what is permanently there, along with the Sherbrooke Declaration.

My comments were based on the resolution book linked by Cueball, which indicates which ones were proposed by the Québec section. You mean they can introduce new resolutions after their meeting today?????

(By the way, thanks for switching to QC! Appreciated.)

 

remind remind's picture

The NDP's official site gets completely renewed after each election, which I think is a bad idea. They need to have ALL historical documents carried forward on it too, though the permanent POLICY document is.

However quibbling now, that only the Sherbrooke Declaration  overview is presented, when you claimed before it was now where, is a bit much to accept. Looking only to bash indicates much.

Only 15 Liberals voted against  Harper's "Québécois are a nation" resolution,  and none of them were QC MP's, and the resolution is not even binding legally. So disparaging the NDP and Bloc only, is a bit outrageous.

Now, in respect to the NDP's  position on QC:

Quote:
At the 2006 Convention in Quebec City, delegates resolved to create a policy book bringing existing policy into a comprehensive document that would be accessible to members and non-members who were interested in the Party’s policy goals.

The resulting policy book was developed by the Party’s Policy Review Committee and forms the basis of debates at all future Conventions. It has been distributed to riding associations, affiliates, and youth chapters so that amendments to the document can be considered by delegates at the 2009 Halifax Convention.

The policy book contains the principles and policy as formulated and voted on by Party members. Thus, amendments should focus on the text that follows “New Democrats believe” and not on the preamble at the beginning of each section. The preamble is simply an introductory narrative to those policies.

Quote:
For New Democrats, cooperative federalism is also asymmetrical federalism; recognizing and encouraging
Quebec’s unique national character in North America, with French as the language of daily life and work.
Our federalism supports Quebec’s right to its own progressive economic and social practices, and to the
development of its own sense of nationhood.

5.4 Official Languages and Bilingualism New Democrats believe in:

a. Upholding the Official Languages Act and the language rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
b. Strengthening the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages
c. Enhancing minority language services in education, community health, and child care, in consultation with representative organizations
d. Ensuring better representation of linguistic communities in public broadcasting (CBC-Radio-Canada); and
e. Strengthening exchange and immersion programs for students, civil society and businesses

5.5 Quebec and Asymmetrical Federalism New Democrats believe in:
a. Recognizing the national character of Quebec, based in particular on a society with French as the language of work and the common language of the public domain; a unique culture expressed through a sense of identity and belonging to Quebec; a specific history; and political, economic,
cultural and social institutions of its own
b. Affirming asymmetrical federalism, recognizing Quebec’s need for appropriate tools to meet its unique challenges
c. Recognizing that Quebec can withdraw, with compensation, from federal programs that fall within its jurisdiction
d. Supporting Quebec’s role in promoting the French culture in North America, while respecting the right of linguistic minorities within and outside Quebec; and
e. Creating the conditions enabling Quebec to sign the Canadian Constitution

http://www.ndp.ca/sites/default/files/hfx09/Policy.pdf

What would you like to have seen added or changed to this?

Also, the QC caucus is meeting today, so I am not sure what you could know about what they are putting forth in addition to what is permanently there, along with the Sherbrooke Declaration.

remind remind's picture

Huh? The whole damn policy states the right to self determination. What do you think recognizing the national character means other than that?

Where is that link? I lookd for it.

Unionist

remind wrote:

Huh? The whole damn policy states the right to self determination. What do you think recognizing the national character means other than that?

 

Look, I have no intention of debating this with you. The right to self-determination means the right to SEPARATE without interference by others. That's what convention adopted. That's what Françoise Boivin still has on her "summary" that you linked to. I can't friggin' believe that the entire 137 page policy book you just referred me to doesn't include the right of Québec to separate. If this is for real - can someone please clarify this for me? - then the NDP can go royally fuck itself, in Québec and everywhere else. That was reason number 2 I left the NDP in the 1970s - because they rejected the Waffle's drive for recognition of Québec's right to self-determination.

This is not about semantics, remind. This is about whether they recognize Québec's right, or not. It would be as if a party had "a women's right to abortion on demand" in its policy book, then deleted that and replaced it by: "respect for a woman's sovereignty over her body".

 

remind remind's picture

unionist...  it is indeed about semantics, you would not have tried to deflect away by saying it wasn't, if it wasn't. And you went on to debate this with me, as such I see you saying that you won't, as meaning I am not allowed to respond to your, what I believe to be,  erroneous comments.

Our federalism supports Quebec’s right to its own progressive economic and social practices, and to the development of its own sense of nationhood.

I call the right to develop its own nationhood, the right to self determine, and please do stop trying to play politics with women's rights compares.

 

Unionist

Remind, if that's what the NDP's latest verbiage means, then it's finished in Québec (as it was since the 1930s) and it can go fuck itself. If you don't understand that Québec's right to separate is a fundamental part of any democratic platform, then I feel very sorry for you. As far as "comparing with women's rights", I was simply trying to provide an analogy. You want to debate whether women's rights are more or less important than nation's rights? I know some people who invaded Afghanistan because they said that women's rights trumped national sovereignty.

Anyway, this is a serious question. If the NDP has dropped explicit recognition of the right to self-determination, I have a lot of people to talk to in my riding, my union, the peace movement, and elsewhere about the next election. If it's just a mistake, they had better correct. Otherwise, they are now more backward than the Supreme Court and the Clarity Act. Time to wind up this bullshit party of hypocritical power-seekers (and might as well add - perennial losers) and build something healthy.

 

remind remind's picture

Blah blah blah blah

the development of its own sense of nationhood.= self determination

Bookish Agrarian

Well so much for the media wags who acted like a name change was some massive NDP priority eminating from the top. Anyone who thinks that such a resolution couldn't have been moved up the priority list if it was a priority hasn't been to a convention.
I also like the comments from the grassroots member who actually wrote the resolution.
As I have been saying all along much ado about nothing.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090816/NDP_convention_090816/20090816?hub=TopStories

Time runs out on NDP name-change vote

 

The Federal New Democratic Party will keep its name, for now, as time ran out at the annual convention in Halifax before officials could move a resolution to consider dropping the word "New" from the party's name.

Delegates were originally expected to vote on the resolution Sunday, but party officials had warned on Saturday they might not have enough time.

The resolution, which, if passed, would have led to consultations on changing the party's name, was to have been introduced within a one-hour period. However, that ended before the resolution could be brought forward.

The proposed change had some critics suggesting that the NDP hoped to align itself more closely with Democrats in the United States.

Convention delegate Mariano Klimowicz, a co-author of the name-change resolution, denied the claim, and said dropping "New" from the party's name would help Canadians better understand the party's platform.

"We're very, very distinct from the Democratic party in the United States," said Klimowicz, 51. "We're more socialist-minded, more program-minded."

Bärlüer

remind wrote:

Blah blah blah blah

the development of its own sense of nationhood.= self determination

Uh, no.

Self-determination = the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state.

"sense of nationhood" = Harper-resolution-type crap that doesn't really mean anything.

George Victor

Yep, BA, that's what Ed Broadbent told Mike Valpy in an interview published Saturday in the Globe, and told delegates in a speech.  In the interview he said "One of the things that's irked me about this silly talk about changing the name of the party is we're not a democratic party, we're a social democratic party, the core value of which is equality."

As Valpy writes it, Broadbent "reached back into historyand talked about the reasons why Canadians once embraced the mythology of themselves as a sharing, caring society, a society that extolled equality and the dignity of its members, and how those labels became the glue of social cohesion.

"He baldly used the T-word: taxation. That sharing, caring society of government pensions, universal health care, comprehensive employment insurance, the expectation that every boy and girl with ability could go to university all was paid for 'by adequae levels of progressive taxation'."

The party must return to the theme of equality, he said, and tax the rich - he included himself in that category. "We ought to be paying more. That's where the ethics and practicality come together", A push for equality"not only helps middle-income people and the poor, it helps everyone: in health outcomes, levels of participation, reductions in crime, you name it. Maybe we can make that persuasive argument."

 

remind remind's picture

Uh, yes,  Bärlüer

Political nation and the constitution of the State

Quote:
The political nation, used in the domains of international law and politics is the political subjects which exerts the political sovereignty.of a democratic state.

...In the domain of political sciences, the political nation is the holder of the sovereignty which shapes the fundamental norms governing the functioning of the state.

 

Thanks for the update BA, and thanks George

Bärlüer

remind wrote:

...In the domain of political sciences, the political nation is the holder of the sovereignty which shapes the fundamental norms governing the functioning of the state.

The operative word in the quote was "sense". It evokes feelings, perceptions—"we'll let you feel however you like". It seems precisely fashioned to elude any sort of legal entitlement to actually do something about this popular perception/will... especially since there already exists a term in international law (self-determination) that has this clear, established meaning: "the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state".

Wishy-washiness instead of clear language. If you mean to include self-determination, just say it.

If the NDP is turning its back on the Sherbrooke declaration, it can kiss my vote goodbye. (I'm among the voters who elected Mulcair, BTW.)

sandpiper

This Marshall Ganz speech at the New Democrat convention was really inspiring. You all should take check it out! It gets better and better as it goes on; I encourage you to watch the whole thing and rejoin or re-engage with the New Democrats to help move your movement: http://www.ndp.ca/hfx09/winningfromthegroundup

I'm a difficult New Democrat, but was so proud of the resolutions we passed here this weekend, (and proud that a couple resolutIons that failed too, like the West-East pipeline). This was my first convention, and after a rocky Day One, Day Two really rocked my world.

remind remind's picture

Sense =

  • Main Entry: 1sense
  • Pronunciation: \ˈsen(t)s\
  • Function: noun
  • Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French sen, sens sensation, feeling, mechanism of perception, meaning, from Latin sensus, from sentire to perceive, feel; perhaps akin to Old High German sinnan to go, strive, Old English sith journey — more at send
  • Date: 14th century

1 : a meaning conveyed or intended : import, signification; especially : one of a set of meanings a word or phrase may bear especially as segregated in a dictionary entry

5 : consensus <the sense of the meeting>

Nothing wishy washy about sense in the political legal meaning at all. Especially when used in conjunction with nationhood, it means consensus.

It is up to those in QC to decide on their own nationhood, no one else.

Absolutely no different than the definition of self-determination, both are "consensus".

  • Main Entry: self–de·ter·mi·na·tion
  • Pronunciation: \-di-ˌtər-mə-ˈnā-shən\
  • Function: noun
  • Date: circa 1670

1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
2 : determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political state

There are certainly enough reasons to bash the leadfership at this time, however, this is not one occasion

As ignoring that the Sherbrooke Declaration is in place, that the policy absolutely recognizes that those in Quebec, by consensus, get to decide their nationhood and that Mulcair is Deputy Leader and a pit bull for QC, is to  make a mountain out of a grain of salt.

 

 

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

Bärlüer wrote:

remind wrote:

Blah blah blah blah

the development of its own sense of nationhood.= self determination

Uh, no.

Self-determination = the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state.

"sense of nationhood" = Harper-resolution-type crap that doesn't really mean anything.

I couldn't agree more.

Unionist

Bärlüer wrote:

If the NDP is turning its back on the Sherbrooke declaration, it can kiss my vote goodbye. (I'm among the voters who elected Mulcair, BTW.)

That makes two of us, neighbour.

Since hailing the adoption of the Sherbrooke Declaration by the 2006 convention, I have expressed in these pages my concern at the party's failure/refusal to post or even provide a link to the Declaration.

Now, remind was kind enough above to provide me with a link to some new purported [url=http://www.ndp.ca/sites/default/files/hfx09/Policy.pdf]NDP policy book[/url] which I had never seen or heard of. Here is what it says about Québec:

Quote:
5.5 Quebec and Asymmetrical Federalism

New Democrats believe in:

a. Recognizing the national character of Quebec, based in particular on a society with French as the language of work and the common language of the public domain; a unique culture expressed through a sense of identity and belonging to Quebec; a specific history; and political, economic, cultural and social institutions of its own

b. Affirming asymmetrical federalism, recognizing Quebec’s need for appropriate tools to meet its unique challenges

c. Recognizing that Quebec can withdraw, with compensation, from federal programs that fall within its jurisdiction

d. Supporting Quebec’s role in promoting the French culture in North America, while respecting the right of linguistic minorities within and outside Quebec; and

e. Creating the conditions enabling Quebec to sign the Canadian Constitution.

Plus this:

Quote:
For New Democrats, cooperative federalism is also asymmetrical federalism; recognizing and encouraging Quebec’s unique national character in North America, with French as the language of daily life and work. Our federalism supports Quebec’s right to its own progressive economic and social practices, and to the development of its own sense of nationhood.

That's all.

I have no clue what the official status of this pamphlet is, but someone has taken obvious pains to eliminate Québec's right to self-determination from the platform. As I said before, if this is the case, the NDP reverts to its historic position of chronic losers who just don't get it. I hope it's not true, but I intend to find out, and I would appreciate others doing likewise.

 

remind remind's picture

*snerk*

genstrike

Hasn't the NDP pretty much always been a federalist party?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well at some point someone looked at their "progressive" handbook and noted that "self-determination" is indeed in it, and it became part of official party policy vis Quebec. Unionist is now noting that someone left their handbook at home before drafting the new statement about "asymetrical federalism".

Unionist

genstrike wrote:

Hasn't the NDP pretty much always been a federalist party?

Yes, but favouring federalism is not inconsistent with recognizing the democratic right of the nation of Québec to exercise its sovereignty and establish its own state, if it so chooses, without external threat or interference. For decades, the CCF-NDP refused to recognize that fundamental democratic right - until September 2006, when the NDP convention overwhelmingly ratified the Sherbrooke Declaration, which explicitly affirms that right. That doesn't mean the Sherbrooke Declaration is "anti-federalist" either - it is not.

Not recognizing Québec's right to separate means being prepared to use force to prevent its exercise of the sovereign will of Quebeckers. This is not an insignificant matter.

Quebeckers have shown they will support and elect parties that promote a federal state - but not without the right to leave.

Stockholm

EVERYONE supports Quebec's right to self-determination. I know of no party in Canada that favours forcibly keeping Quebec in Canada after a clear majority of Quebecers vote Yes to a refewrendum question on independance

George Victor

With such logic, you are interfering with the creation of an invented scenario requiring much imagination, Stockholm.  Let artists have their creative moment.

 

remind remind's picture

LOL, yup george.

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
I do, however, find it particular troubling that there is no hint of reaffirmation of the Sherbrooke Declaration in the resolutions. It was a historic moment in September 2006 when the convention finally, after decades of waffling, gave formal recognition to Québec's right to self-determination. This must have come as an embarrassment to the party chiefs, who ensured that not even a hyperlink to that document could be found on the main party website. What surprises me is that even the Québec section has proposed no resolution on that issue. If they are dazzled by the encouraging election of Mulcair and the poll results into thinking that they can retrench to the old ways, they will wake up to find themselves annihilated in Québec once again - which would be tragic, in the classic sense (being lured by past victory into future defeat).

What's so troubling about that? The NDP adopted Sherbrooke and is now party policy. What would be accomplished by re-affirming it?

Frankly, I think even in Quebec the issue is becoming less important among the general public. In the past 6 years, every time the issue of Quebec sovereignty came up in a referendum and the PQ chose to bang that drum they were beaten back hard. It was only when Pauline Marois downplayed the issue that the PQ was allowed to come back. And is this issue really of great importance to people outside of political circles in Quebec or elsewhere? How many people actually know that there is a déclaration de Sherbrooke in Quebec or outside? Us policical people in our ivory towers might be impressed with this kind of talk and using rhetoric like "self-determination," however I personally believe that there are more pressing issues, like the environment, economy, economic inequality, infrastructure etc that require much more immediate attention.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I do, however, find it particular troubling that there is no hint of reaffirmation of the Sherbrooke Declaration in the resolutions. It was a historic moment in September 2006 when the convention finally, after decades of waffling, gave formal recognition to Québec's right to self-determination. This must have come as an embarrassment to the party chiefs, who ensured that not even a hyperlink to that document could be found on the main party website. What surprises me is that even the Québec section has proposed no resolution on that issue. If they are dazzled by the encouraging election of Mulcair and the poll results into thinking that they can retrench to the old ways, they will wake up to find themselves annihilated in Québec once again - which would be tragic, in the classic sense (being lured by past victory into future defeat).

What's so troubling about that? The NDP adopted Sherbrooke and is now party policy. What would be accomplished by re-affirming it?

I agree, one of the great things about having a policy convention is that you can come up with all these great sounding policies, and not bother to speak about them again, except when it is politic to do so. It would seem that an honest person would note somewhere on any leaflet it produced that the NDP respects the fundamental right of the people of Quebec to self-determination, since that seems to be a pretty fundamental question, imo.

For example, that above offering on "Asymetrical Federalism" could be neatly prefaced by some innocuos statement like,"Notwithstanding the NDP's supports the inaliable right of the people of Quebec to self-determination, it also believes that all Canadians are best served by Asymetrical Federalism, wherein the Canadian enjoy the fruits of both diversity and unity," or some such.

Heh.

NorthReport

Unionist wrote:

That's why it's wrong to pay undue attention to the resolutions, except as a barometer of the consciousness and aspirations of the healthy forces within the party - the ones on the ground, engaged more or less in real-life struggles. Besides that, they provide only a veneer of transparency and internal party democracy: "Discuss, debate, and decide whatever you like - subject to our veto."

How is the NDP party structured?

I heard Layton quoted tonite saying that the National Council will address at least one of the resolutions that did not get passed to do wiith removing or reducing  the tax on small businesses.

 

Pages

Topic locked