NDP Constituion and policy

[scribblet]

Lies should never be tolerated.

Yea, like the lies about the aforementioned "bible-thumping, neo-con, anti-abortionist, anti-human rights, right-wing conservatives" get a grip...

[punked]

Pot = black quit with the attacks and stick to intelligent discussion, I didn't say I didn't trust them, I wanted info. that's what I got. They are part of your party, they seem to think they represent something, they call themselves NDP... so quit with the personal attacks.

Again their candidate in the last leadership race got 1.1% of the vote from the whole party. We have a one member one vote system so that means they are about 1-2% of the whole party. Sorry.

[punked]

They made a phone call to someone within the NDP and were told 20%, how is that not doing their homework? It would seem to be a much more reliable source then you.

No they called the Socialist Caucus. After saying they would never trust a socialist instead of calling the actual party which would tell you they make up very little of the party.

They also linked to the website acting like these people were a major part of the part. Which they aren't. That is a lie. I'll call out liars at this point in the game everyone deserves to know the truth not some crazy ring wing hysteria.

Edited May 1, 2011 by punked

[Posc Student]

Lets get back to the main question and see if we can get the party's constitution.

[BubberMiley]

You are dead wrong. Saskatchewan was a dump before Wall came in and cleaned up Calvert's mess. That is the simple truth about Saskatchewan and everyone knows it.

You are dead wrong (and I can prove it). Saskatchewan stopped receiving equalization in 2007 under the NDP ("Saskatchewan left the ranks of equalization receiving provinces in 2007"). Wall didn't become premier until November.

I can remember everyone marvelling at the economic progress Saskatchewan made and yet they still decided it was time for a change in government.

That is the simple truth about Saskatchewan and everyone (but you) knows it.

Edited May 1, 2011 by BubberMiley

[scribblet]

No they called the Socialist Caucus. After saying they would never trust a socialist instead of calling the actual party which would tell you they make up very little of the party.

They also linked to the website acting like these people were a major part of the part. Which they aren't. That is a lie. I'll call out liars at this point in the game everyone deserves to know the truth not some crazy ring wing hysteria.

Where did I say 'never trust a socialist' I called the source from a link saying they are the NDP socialist caucus. Their website and information is out there, if the NDP itself does not agree, then should repudiate them, so far I've seen nothing, and neither would the NDP answer the CBC reporter.

Nothing I've said is a lie, stop with your personal attacks and stick the subject without calling names.

Post the constitution or provide a link please, transparent or opaque !

Edited May 1, 2011 by scribblet

[punked]

Where did I say 'never trust a socialist' I called the source from a link saying they are the NDP socialist caucus. Their website and information is out there, if the NDP itself does not agree, then should repudiate them, so far I've seen nothing, and neither would the NDP answer the CBC reporter.

Nothing I've said is a lie, stop with your personal attacks and stick the subject without calling names.

Post the constitution or provide a link please, transparent or opaque !

Wait remind me about their power. They got a whole 1% of the vote from our party. Scary 1%. HAHAHAHAHAHA that is that. That is their power in our party.

[scribblet]

Wait remind me about their power. They got a whole 1% of the vote from our party. Scary 1%. HAHAHAHAHAHA that is that. That is their power in our party.

Okay - so no link or constitution - is it a secret or what ?

[RNG]

Wait remind me about their power. They got a whole 1% of the vote from our party. Scary 1%. HAHAHAHAHAHA that is that. That is their power in our party.

Dodge noted.

[Posc Student]

It doesn't seem like NDP want people to ask questions.

[Evening Star]

You know, I'd actually like to see the constitution myself. Still, I don't know if this is actually as big of an issue as people are making it out to be. I don't see the LPC constitution on their website either. Until the election campaign, the NDP did have extensive lists of fundamental principles on all the major issues on the website. I'm not sure why they took them down tbh but I thought both that they were good and that they were not as radically socialist as the quotes in the linked articles suggest. Layton's Speaking Out is publicly available and contains a couple hundred pages of his views on the major policy issues. The party's campaign platform indicates the actual policies they are running on.

I'm curious whether you guys are actually concerned that the NDP has a hidden agenda to nationalize the commanding heights of the economy.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Evening Star

[scribblet]

That is my concern, what or how much they would actually try to nationalize etc. Granted they would need a good majority to do so, but one would think that if they no longer subscribe to the previous manifestos, that they would want it to be out there, they wouldn't even answer the CBC reporter's questions. It's in their best interests to do so IMO A quick google search brings up the LPC and CPC constitutions right away.

[bloodyminded]

They made a phone call to someone within the NDP and were told 20%, how is that not doing their homework? It would seem to be a much more reliable source then you.

An unprovable anecdote is not a "reliable source."

[cybercoma]

Why is everyone so hopelessly clueless.

The NDP does not support radical socialists. Read the article on the New Brunswick Waffle Movement that I posted on here several times already:

Abstract:

In the spring of 1970, several members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Fredericton, New Brunswick, unofficially formed the New Brunswick Waffle. The group was inspired in part by the Waffle in Ontario and sought to influence the policies and direction of the New Brunswick NDP. It represented a fusion of Old Left and New Left politics and was comprised of leftists espousing an eclectic range of political ideas, including socialists, left-libertarians, and Trotskyists who belonged to the Young Socialists (YS), the youth wing of the League for Socialist Action (LSA). The NB Waffle was officially launched in September 1970 and soon became a prominent force within the New Brunswick NDP. The NB Waffle secured a surprise victory for its manifesto "For a Socialist New Brunswick" at an NB NDP convention in September 1971. This precipitated a split within the party that

resulted in its suspension by the

federal NDP

council

, and following an NB NDP special convention in late November 1971, the group effectively ceased to exist. Meanwhile, the NB Waffle itself had been dividing into Trotskyist and non-Trotskyist factions, and the events later sparked an intense debate within the Canadian Trotskyist movement around the issue of "entryism." During its short duration, the NB Waffle attempted to provide a radical socialist critique of the province that anticipated the growing skepticism towards the status quo that emerged in the Maritimes in the 1970s. The group also had a minor but noticeable influence on the NB NDP and the province's labour movement. As an episode in the history ofthe left and the larger political culture ofNew Brunswick, the NB Waffle was a reflection of the national, continental, and global political ferment of the late 1960s and early 1970s and represented a unique New Brunswick variation on this theme.

source: http://gradworks.umi.com/MR/63/MR63717.html

If you have access through your institution, I recommend reading the article. Especially those of you that are bent on partisan bickering, claiming the federal NDP is a "socialist" party. They are not radical leftists.

[bloodyminded]

Why is everyone so hopelessly clueless.

The NDP does not support radical socialists. Read the article on the New Brunswick Waffle Movement that I posted on here several times already:

Abstract:

In the spring of 1970, several members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Fredericton, New Brunswick, unofficially formed the New Brunswick Waffle. The group was inspired in part by the Waffle in Ontario and sought to influence the policies and direction of the New Brunswick NDP. It represented a fusion of Old Left and New Left politics and was comprised of leftists espousing an eclectic range of political ideas, including socialists, left-libertarians, and Trotskyists who belonged to the Young Socialists (YS), the youth wing of the League for Socialist Action (LSA). The NB Waffle was officially launched in September 1970 and soon became a prominent force within the New Brunswick NDP. The NB Waffle secured a surprise victory for its manifesto "For a Socialist New Brunswick" at an NB NDP convention in September 1971. This precipitated a split within the party that

resulted in its suspension by the

federal NDP

council

, and following an NB NDP special convention in late November 1971, the group effectively ceased to exist. Meanwhile, the NB Waffle itself had been dividing into Trotskyist and non-Trotskyist factions, and the events later sparked an intense debate within the Canadian Trotskyist movement around the issue of "entryism." During its short duration, the NB Waffle attempted to provide a radical socialist critique of the province that anticipated the growing skepticism towards the status quo that emerged in the Maritimes in the 1970s. The group also had a minor but noticeable influence on the NB NDP and the province's labour movement. As an episode in the history ofthe left and the larger political culture ofNew Brunswick, the NB Waffle was a reflection of the national, continental, and global political ferment of the late 1960s and early 1970s and represented a unique New Brunswick variation on this theme.

source: http://gradworks.umi.com/MR/63/MR63717.html

If you have access through your institution, I recommend reading the article. Especially those of you that are bent on partisan bickering, claiming the federal NDP is a "socialist" party. They are not radical leftists.

Wow, some actual information. That's a novel approach, cybercoma.

Yes, of course the NDP aren't "radical leftists." They fall within a many decades-old tradition (ie older and more traditional than the Conservative Reformists, incidentally) in the politics of Western democracies.

[BubberMiley]

As a radical leftist, I can assure you the NDP are not like us. Here in Manitoba, I can't tell the difference between them and the tories.

Take a look at their recent union negotiations with government employees.

[Smallc]

As a radical leftist, I can assure you the NDP are not like us. Here in Manitoba, I can't tell the difference between them and the tories.

Pretty much. I probably won't vote NDP next time, and I'm fine with that for the most part (I think after 12 years, a government starts to run out of ideas).

[Molly]

As a radical leftist, I can assure you the NDP are not like us. Here in Manitoba, I can't tell the difference between them and the tories.

Take a look at their recent union negotiations with government employees.

I grok that. I found it a substantial challenge to find much difference between Roy Romanow and Mike Harris.

[Hydraboss]

So, just so we're perfectly clear here...if anyone who supports the NDP says "that's the way it is" then we are to stop questioning and just accept their statements as fact. If someone who supports the Conservatives tries the same tactics when allegations of candidates/MPs being "bible thumpers"

or "against women's rights"

or "support taking away abortion rights"

or "all being creationists"

or "going to throw everyone who smokes a joint in jail for two years"

or "have ulterior motives to utterly destroy other parties"

or whatever....even if it's completely without basis....THAT is to be taken as gospel because of some anecdotal "evidence".

The existence of metrics or documented proof only counts if you're right wing and trying to defend yourself. If you're left wing, then everyone MUST take them at their word. Especially when "only 1%" of a party believes in something....it's okay to accuse the entire Conservative party of following the beliefs, just don't try it with the NDP.

I'll tell you

Again I am telling you

Which they aren't. That is a lie.

They got a whole 1% of the vote from our party

That is their power in our party.

An unprovable anecdote is not a "reliable source."

The NDP does not support radical socialists

They are not radical leftists.

of course the NDP aren't "radical leftists."

I can assure you the NDP are not like us.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure what your argument is implying by saying I should be taken at my word, considering you cut out the part where I posted a verifiable historical fact about the federal NDP crushing the socialist element of the NB NDP before it even got off the ground. It seems like you're advocating for being able to say whatever the hell you want about the NDP whether it's the truth or not. Well, you can. It doesn't make it true and it makes you look like an idiot if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Most of the things you posted about the Conservatives are judgments made about the activities of the CPC.

[Evening Star]

Basically, I'm guessing that this is the situation:

The NDP has a constitution with some stuff about democratic socialism in the preamble. The NDP has not actually been governing (provincially) or advocating (federally) according to the principles in the preamble to that constitution for decades now and are probably less socialist than the federal Liberals were 30 years ago. However, they have not changed that constitution, for whatever reason. (You know, India's national constitution still describes it as a socialist state.) Most NDP members and voters subscribe to the NDP's platform, actions, and voting record as opposed to some stuff that's written in their constitution. As a result, now that it's starting to matter and people are interested, the party is reluctant to publicize the constitution since they realize the cognitive dissonance.

I'm not necessarily defending the reluctance but trying to explain what I suspect to be the case. I don't actually think that anyone needs to worry that the NDP would nationalize the banks and abolish landlordism (or even e.g. renationalize Petro-Canada and Air Canada) even if they won a majority government (which is almost definitely not going to happen this week).

[BubberMiley]

The existence of metrics or documented proof only counts if you're right wing and trying to defend yourself. If you're left wing, then everyone MUST take them at their word.

Don't take me at my word. Educate yourself. Look at how the NDP negotiated with the public employees this year and compare it with other governments. It's documented.

[Hydraboss]

Don't take me at my word. Educate yourself.

Bubber, I know you posted supporting info (you were the only one) and I know I snipped it for effect. The point of my post was to show how in this thread (re: the NDP constitution) there is a huge push to just believe what I say cause it's true. When conservatives try to use that tactic because people use the same wide brush to paint the whole party, it doesn't hold water (ie: the moron in Sask that made the crack about pulling funding for abortion - suddenly the CPC absolutely will reenter the abortion debate and strip women of the right). You obviously don't see the connection.

I could give two shits whether or not I see the NDP constitution, but I think it should be out on the table for those non-NDP supporters that are about to vote for them. If there is a "socialist caucus" in the party, then I guess when they publish that they represent 20% and the official NDP website doesn't contradict it, then they represent 20% of the party. As far as I'm concerned, until the NDP state in bold letters what they stand for, they stand for whatever people say they do. "Trust me, I know..."

[Scotty]

Wow someone knows nothing about Political parties in Canada. The socialist caucus Might and I am over estimating here make up 5% of the NDP membership. There resolution fail every convention, and they never make it to the floor. Only and idiot would link to their website and pretend they are some major force in the NDP.

Would Libby Davis be a member of that caucus?

[Scotty]

Interesting that legislation publicly put forward by the NDP is a form of hidden agenda.

Well it's more of an agenda they aren't talking about in the election, and it can be more clearly demonstrated than the 'hidden agendas' often suggested to be held by the Tories.