The NDP has been relatively conservative from the beginning. It was conservative relative to the CCF. The CCF was for eradicating capitalism and would not rest until it had established the Co-operative Commonwealth in Canada. Most of the NDP leadership wanted to turn it into a version of the UK Labor Party. Lately many have wanted to follow the Third Way of social democratic parties in Europe. So if the NDP were to decide to become the Democratic Party this would simply be part and parcel of the evolution of the NDP further to the right. If as the author claims the party is so conservative perhaps it will have a much better chance now in Alberta!
If NDPers consulted their grandmothers when in doubt as the author suggests they might get a radical earful!
The New Conservatives
Calgary HeraldAugust 18, 2009
Woodrow Wilson once said a conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt.
He could have been referring to today's federal New Democratic Party, which at its weekend convention decided "Everything old is new again." Delegates rehashed decades-old policies that leader Jack Layton limply tried to say offered Canadians a new way of thinking.
Sorry, Jack, there's nothing new to the NDP ideology about environmentally friendly jobs, ending rules that prevent homosexuals from donating organs, demanding action to prevent violence against aboriginal women, or enshrining childcare into law. Anything different on the agenda -- like a proposal to phase out income tax for small business--never made it to the convention floor.
Alexa McDonough, former NDP leader, defended the same old, same old, as tradition. "Of course there needs to be change as the world changes around us. But what isn't going to change is our basic values, and most of our policies simply build on those values." Canadians have rejected those values for more than 30 years. Then, the "New" in New Democrats was true. The party is so stuck on the past, it refused to vote on a proposal to drop "new" from its name. It's all rather '70s, except this is the 21st century.
Alas. By the Democratic president's definition, there's only one word for today's unchanging and unchangeable NDP--conservative.
Showing posts with label NDP name change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NDP name change. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
NDP needs to change risk-averse policy
Actually the so-called risk averse policy is very risky for a supposedly left wing party. In Great Britain where the Third Way worked for labour for many years the Labour Party was the alternative to the Conservatives but as the article notes the NDP is a fourth ranked party. Generally people do not see it as an alternative governing party but part of the opposition. Adopting pragmatic main stream parties designed to appeal to most everyone simply leaves the NDP competing for the same group as the Conservatives and Liberals and those parties are already better at that and have more funds They will lose supporters to parties such as the Greens on the environment and to the Liberals as well since they will be seen as having similar policies to the middle of the road NDP but a better chance at governing.
One problem with the NDP is that it is impatient for power even though it has been relatively successful at the provincial level. J.S. Woodsworth the famous CCF leader was quite pleased when the CCF was able to garner 16 per cent of the vote running on an outright socialist platform. Even though he had only a handful of elected representatives they were able to push the old line parties much further to the left than if he had been concentrating on moving to the middle to try and elect more members. However, during all of its existence the NDP has been more concerned with gaining power and has dropped any pretence of trying to replace capitalism by a socialist system. Even a social democratic program is probably too radical for the NDP now or the new party whatever it will be called. This article is dead on the mark but no doubt it will be rejected as leading the NDP back into the wilderness. Sometimes the wilderness is good for the soul.
Risk-averse party will be relevant again when it dumps pragmatism and embraces controversy
August 13, 2009 David Goutorassistant professor of labour studies at McMaster University
As the New Democratic Party's convention prepares to open tomorrow, it appears the main topic for debate will be a proposed name change to "Democratic Party."
Many initial impressions of the idea seem to be positive, particularly because adopting a new name (ironically by dropping the word "New") has been seen as a means of getting the party out of the rut it has been stuck in the last few years.
These initial impressions are entirely wrong.
The NDP's focus on a name change is actually a perfect manifestation of the thinking that has put the party in its current rut. In particular, focusing on the party's name is exactly the type of unimaginative, play-it-safe move that has become typical of the NDP. This cautiousness, in turn, is exactly the approach the NDP cannot afford.
At the most basic level, today's NDP is a truly remarkable phenomenon: it is a fourth-place party, usually stuck in the teens in the polls, and purporting to represent the most marginalized groups in society – yet it has become stubbornly risk-averse, acting as if it has too much to lose to speak out strongly on many key issues facing the country.
When it comes to strategy, the NDP was certainly bold in lunging for power through the coalition. It also has a notable amount of talent in its parliamentary caucus, with even right-wing commentators praising NDP MPs for being knowledgeable and performing effectively in parliamentary committees.
But when it comes to the party's main policies, a mind-numbing blandness has set in. There are few instances where the NDP has boldly taken a controversial position on a key issue.
If you have visited the NDP's website frequently in the last couple of years, you were much more likely to read about credit card rates, bank fees, and insurance premiums than central economic, social, or foreign-policy questions.
A particularly deep part of the NDP's rut is that avoiding controversy has become to be seen as the "pragmatic" approach. Standing out on major issues, meanwhile, is viewed as the "radical" approach that will keep the NDP on the fringes. But if pragmatism means anything, it is paying attention to results. The results of the recent "pragmatic" approach are in, and they are dispiriting.
The party failed to break out of fourth place, or even break its old record for seats in Parliament, in an election against the weakest leader the Liberals have ever had in Stéphane Dion. Moreover, the NDP suffered greatly from the backlash against the proposed coalition government, with Jack Layton's personal popularity especially hard hit.
Dismissing more controversial stands as a "radical" tactic is also ridiculous. If there is one thing that the NDP has to recognize, it is that Canadian politics has moved so far to the right that the party no longer needs to take radical positions to stand out. Eminently moderate positions are now far outside the so-called mainstream.
The best example is Canada's biggest foreign policy issue: Afghanistan. At its last convention in 2006, the NDP adopted the policy of withdrawing Canadian troops and negotiating with the Taliban.
But after facing a backlash from some quarters, Layton and other NDP leaders have been far from eager to pursue this issue. Indeed, it has been widely noted how rarely Afghanistan is seriously debated in Ottawa at all.
Meanwhile, over the last three years, opposition to our mission in Afghanistan among the Canadian public has grown to the point where it is now the majority view. Staying out of Afghanistan (or at least avoiding combat roles) is also the position of the overwhelming majority of NATO countries.
A vast number of security and defence experts in the West have been vocal in complaining about flaws in NATO's strategy. Most recently, negotiating with at least some members of the Taliban has been seriously contemplated by the British and American governments.
All of this should constitute a major vindication for the NDP.
Instead, the party's sense of "pragmatism" has dictated that it avoid upholding its own position, even as Canadian voters, key allies, and experts in the field come to agree with most of it.
Another example is trade policy. This, too, should be fertile ground for the NDP, as the free-trade orthodoxies still revered by most Canadian politicians and pundits have steadily lost credibility in much of the rest of the world.
Protectionism has been rising gradually in the U.S. for years, as witnessed by the softwood lumber dispute.
Many Latin American governments openly reject free-market nostrums. Last year, the refusal of rich Western nations to actually practice free trade caused developing nations to walk out of negotiations on farm subsidies at a World Trade Organization meeting. .
Even if it is too much to ask for the NDP to challenge free-trade theology head on, at least it could have insisted that in an era of globalization, Canadian leaders need to recognize major shifts in attitudes outside our borders. It could have emerged as the main voice warning Canadians about the most recent wave of protectionism, including the "Buy American" policy, and demanding that Canada stop acting as the world's naïve little cub scout about trade matters.
In short, the NDP is not stuck far behind the other parties because it has lacked opportunities to offer distinct policies that would have, with time, proven to be both prescient and popular. What has been missing is the basic will to take the heat that comes with going against the grain.
Whatever the party wants to call itself, the biggest priority at this convention should be shaking out of the fundamental culture of risk-aversion, of venturing nothing but still hoping to make gains, that has taken over the NDP in recent years.
David Goutor is the author of Guarding the Gates: The Canadian Labour Movement and Immigration, 1872-1934.
One problem with the NDP is that it is impatient for power even though it has been relatively successful at the provincial level. J.S. Woodsworth the famous CCF leader was quite pleased when the CCF was able to garner 16 per cent of the vote running on an outright socialist platform. Even though he had only a handful of elected representatives they were able to push the old line parties much further to the left than if he had been concentrating on moving to the middle to try and elect more members. However, during all of its existence the NDP has been more concerned with gaining power and has dropped any pretence of trying to replace capitalism by a socialist system. Even a social democratic program is probably too radical for the NDP now or the new party whatever it will be called. This article is dead on the mark but no doubt it will be rejected as leading the NDP back into the wilderness. Sometimes the wilderness is good for the soul.
Risk-averse party will be relevant again when it dumps pragmatism and embraces controversy
August 13, 2009 David Goutorassistant professor of labour studies at McMaster University
As the New Democratic Party's convention prepares to open tomorrow, it appears the main topic for debate will be a proposed name change to "Democratic Party."
Many initial impressions of the idea seem to be positive, particularly because adopting a new name (ironically by dropping the word "New") has been seen as a means of getting the party out of the rut it has been stuck in the last few years.
These initial impressions are entirely wrong.
The NDP's focus on a name change is actually a perfect manifestation of the thinking that has put the party in its current rut. In particular, focusing on the party's name is exactly the type of unimaginative, play-it-safe move that has become typical of the NDP. This cautiousness, in turn, is exactly the approach the NDP cannot afford.
At the most basic level, today's NDP is a truly remarkable phenomenon: it is a fourth-place party, usually stuck in the teens in the polls, and purporting to represent the most marginalized groups in society – yet it has become stubbornly risk-averse, acting as if it has too much to lose to speak out strongly on many key issues facing the country.
When it comes to strategy, the NDP was certainly bold in lunging for power through the coalition. It also has a notable amount of talent in its parliamentary caucus, with even right-wing commentators praising NDP MPs for being knowledgeable and performing effectively in parliamentary committees.
But when it comes to the party's main policies, a mind-numbing blandness has set in. There are few instances where the NDP has boldly taken a controversial position on a key issue.
If you have visited the NDP's website frequently in the last couple of years, you were much more likely to read about credit card rates, bank fees, and insurance premiums than central economic, social, or foreign-policy questions.
A particularly deep part of the NDP's rut is that avoiding controversy has become to be seen as the "pragmatic" approach. Standing out on major issues, meanwhile, is viewed as the "radical" approach that will keep the NDP on the fringes. But if pragmatism means anything, it is paying attention to results. The results of the recent "pragmatic" approach are in, and they are dispiriting.
The party failed to break out of fourth place, or even break its old record for seats in Parliament, in an election against the weakest leader the Liberals have ever had in Stéphane Dion. Moreover, the NDP suffered greatly from the backlash against the proposed coalition government, with Jack Layton's personal popularity especially hard hit.
Dismissing more controversial stands as a "radical" tactic is also ridiculous. If there is one thing that the NDP has to recognize, it is that Canadian politics has moved so far to the right that the party no longer needs to take radical positions to stand out. Eminently moderate positions are now far outside the so-called mainstream.
The best example is Canada's biggest foreign policy issue: Afghanistan. At its last convention in 2006, the NDP adopted the policy of withdrawing Canadian troops and negotiating with the Taliban.
But after facing a backlash from some quarters, Layton and other NDP leaders have been far from eager to pursue this issue. Indeed, it has been widely noted how rarely Afghanistan is seriously debated in Ottawa at all.
Meanwhile, over the last three years, opposition to our mission in Afghanistan among the Canadian public has grown to the point where it is now the majority view. Staying out of Afghanistan (or at least avoiding combat roles) is also the position of the overwhelming majority of NATO countries.
A vast number of security and defence experts in the West have been vocal in complaining about flaws in NATO's strategy. Most recently, negotiating with at least some members of the Taliban has been seriously contemplated by the British and American governments.
All of this should constitute a major vindication for the NDP.
Instead, the party's sense of "pragmatism" has dictated that it avoid upholding its own position, even as Canadian voters, key allies, and experts in the field come to agree with most of it.
Another example is trade policy. This, too, should be fertile ground for the NDP, as the free-trade orthodoxies still revered by most Canadian politicians and pundits have steadily lost credibility in much of the rest of the world.
Protectionism has been rising gradually in the U.S. for years, as witnessed by the softwood lumber dispute.
Many Latin American governments openly reject free-market nostrums. Last year, the refusal of rich Western nations to actually practice free trade caused developing nations to walk out of negotiations on farm subsidies at a World Trade Organization meeting. .
Even if it is too much to ask for the NDP to challenge free-trade theology head on, at least it could have insisted that in an era of globalization, Canadian leaders need to recognize major shifts in attitudes outside our borders. It could have emerged as the main voice warning Canadians about the most recent wave of protectionism, including the "Buy American" policy, and demanding that Canada stop acting as the world's naïve little cub scout about trade matters.
In short, the NDP is not stuck far behind the other parties because it has lacked opportunities to offer distinct policies that would have, with time, proven to be both prescient and popular. What has been missing is the basic will to take the heat that comes with going against the grain.
Whatever the party wants to call itself, the biggest priority at this convention should be shaking out of the fundamental culture of risk-aversion, of venturing nothing but still hoping to make gains, that has taken over the NDP in recent years.
David Goutor is the author of Guarding the Gates: The Canadian Labour Movement and Immigration, 1872-1934.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Martin against NDP name change..
Martin has a good point. The "new" in New Democratic Party has lost its referential aspect of denoting that it is new but it retains its emotive significance as part of a brand name as the advertisers would put it. As Martin puts out other instances where the term "new" no longer denotes new are widely accept such as New York or New South Wales and on and on.
The success of the Doer government has little to do with the name but a great deal more to do with the fact that in practice the Doer government has been little more than a progressive conservative government rather than a Conservative government. As a result the term NDP in Manitoba has lost its radical scare value for the most part. Anyway Manitoba has often had NDP governments and the sky did not fall.
Winnipeg Free Press
Taking 'new' out of NDP a dead N: Martin
By: Mia Rabson
OTTAWA -- Would a New Democrat by any other name be the same?Canada's largest lefty party is gathering in Halifax beginning Friday for its annual meeting and one of the items on the agenda is to consider removing the "new" from New Democratic Party.
The party has had that moniker since 1961 when the western-based Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress joined forces to form a new national party.
The Conservatives got flak for calling themselves Canada's New Government for almost two years after they were elected in 2006.
So almost a half-century of being the "new" NDP is longer than one would consider novel.
While issues such as reforming the tax system, greening Canada's policies and protecting the needy are among the weightier items being considered at the convention, it's almost certain the great name debate will get the most attention.
That ruffles Manitoba NDP MP Pat Martin's feathers.
"I'm completely against it and resent the attention it's getting," Martin said. "Should Nova Scotia just be called Scotia? Should New York rush to change its name to York?"
He said it would make no sense for the party to distance itself from its most successful chapters, particularly the NDP in Manitoba which has ruled for a decade under Gary Doer and is still riding high in popularity and voter satisfaction.
The federal NDP has for years been searching for a way to duplicate the secret of Doer's success. This convention seems to be marking a big step in doing that with resolutions drawn from Doer's own playbook. That includes one to eliminate the national small business tax.
So dumping the "new" from their name, and distancing themselves from Doer's brand, seems like a counterintuitive plan.
The success of the Doer government has little to do with the name but a great deal more to do with the fact that in practice the Doer government has been little more than a progressive conservative government rather than a Conservative government. As a result the term NDP in Manitoba has lost its radical scare value for the most part. Anyway Manitoba has often had NDP governments and the sky did not fall.
Winnipeg Free Press
Taking 'new' out of NDP a dead N: Martin
By: Mia Rabson
OTTAWA -- Would a New Democrat by any other name be the same?Canada's largest lefty party is gathering in Halifax beginning Friday for its annual meeting and one of the items on the agenda is to consider removing the "new" from New Democratic Party.
The party has had that moniker since 1961 when the western-based Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress joined forces to form a new national party.
The Conservatives got flak for calling themselves Canada's New Government for almost two years after they were elected in 2006.
So almost a half-century of being the "new" NDP is longer than one would consider novel.
While issues such as reforming the tax system, greening Canada's policies and protecting the needy are among the weightier items being considered at the convention, it's almost certain the great name debate will get the most attention.
That ruffles Manitoba NDP MP Pat Martin's feathers.
"I'm completely against it and resent the attention it's getting," Martin said. "Should Nova Scotia just be called Scotia? Should New York rush to change its name to York?"
He said it would make no sense for the party to distance itself from its most successful chapters, particularly the NDP in Manitoba which has ruled for a decade under Gary Doer and is still riding high in popularity and voter satisfaction.
The federal NDP has for years been searching for a way to duplicate the secret of Doer's success. This convention seems to be marking a big step in doing that with resolutions drawn from Doer's own playbook. That includes one to eliminate the national small business tax.
So dumping the "new" from their name, and distancing themselves from Doer's brand, seems like a counterintuitive plan.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
NDP considering dropping "new" from their name.
Perhaps the party ought to have a new name but becoming the Democratic Party would confirm only that the party is moving further to the right than ever and trying to associate itself with the Democratic Party in the U.S. Maybe the NDP position on Afghanistan should change as well and the party should urge Harper to keep on sending troops and supplies idefinitely to support their hero Obama and the Democratic Party of the U.S.
One thing is sure there will be nothing about socialism in the name. No doubt even the name Social Democratic Party will be too radical. The party seems to be adopting the Third Way of Labour in the UK in fact embracing capitalism to try and save a few remnants of the welfare state and concentrate on getting a group of "progressives" into power so as to enjoy the perks of power.
So will the acronym be DP party? Dimwits party. Depressed Party. Doldrums Party.
NDP considering dropping 'new' from their name
By Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News ServiceAugust 3, 2009
NDP leader Jack Layton at a Toronto campaign stop, Sept. 29, 2008.
Photograph by: Brett Gundlock/National Post, National Post
OTTAWA -- Nearly 50 years after the New Democratic Party was founded, its members are soon to decide whether to lop "new" from their name.
The question is whether to do it abruptly in two weeks at a convention in Halifax or to put it to a consultation process and make the decision in two years at the half-century mark.
Whether the NDP should be renamed the "Democratic Party" promises a lively debate and vote by about 1,000 delegates at the party's national biennial convention in Halifax Aug. 14-16th.
"It's simply that we're no longer new," Windsor West MP Brian Masse said in an interview.
"We're an established Canadian party that has shaped many public policies in Canada, that has been instrumental in health care, pension reform and progressive environmental and economic issues. I think this is a natural evolution. Drop the new from the name and run with the 'Democratic Party.'
Masse and other proponents of the change reject the idea the NDP seeks a shortcut association with the more popular Democratic Party in the United States.
"I don't think anybody's going to confuse Barack Obama and Jack Layton," scoffs NDP activist Ian Capstick, a media consultant who worked for Layton, the party leader, for several years.
Five riding associations have proposed resolutions for the convention to remove "new" from the name. Three of them - Windsor West, Victoria and Western Arctic - want it done at the convention.
Two others, Ottawa Centre and Hull-Aylmer, propose the national executive conduct consultations on a name change and come up with recommendations for the next convention two years away at the half-century mark.
"If we just change the name without changing the way we do business, it's not really a worthy project," says Paul Dewar, MP for Ottawa Centre.
While Dewar wants to "get the ball rolling" on a name change and believes NDP provincial governments are open to a change, he says it has to be part of more profound internal renewal.
He says the NDP has to modernize its methods to connect better with Canadians involved in environmental, human rights and other issues outside of party politics.
In related resolutions, delegates will be asked whether to separate the NDP's provincial and federal memberships, which total about 70,000.
"As the caucus gets larger, as we build our infrastructure and get our party into more of a breakthrough mode, these issues are taking on a greater significance," says NDP national director Brad Lavigne.
The NDP holds 36 of 308 seats in the Commons, making it the smallest of the four parties. It holds two of ten provincial governments - Nova Scotia and Manitoba - and has in the past governed in B.C., Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon, but never at the federal level.
NDP national director Brad Lavigne says Layton is not weighing in on the name change or membership split. Layton does not take a position on constitutional proposals, which require a two-thirds majority. It's up to the grassroots to decide, Lavigne said.
The Canadian Labour Congress has not taken a position yet either, said a spokesman for the union umbrella organization.
"I don't think it can be cosmetic," said Capstick. "We have a problem. We're not hitting over 20 per cent in the polls. And it's not a problem that's unfixable. We are a growing political movement that can grow bigger faster. A re-branding exercise would allow us to refocus."
Capstick says other parties, notably the Conservatives, have survived and flourished through such changes. The remaking of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation into the NDP in 1961 "revived the left."
Masse says his riding association intends the change as a positive step that reflects pride and confidence in a party with a 48-year record of achievement. He is not campaigning really hard for the change, however. "I don't believe in a confrontation for a name change," he said.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
One thing is sure there will be nothing about socialism in the name. No doubt even the name Social Democratic Party will be too radical. The party seems to be adopting the Third Way of Labour in the UK in fact embracing capitalism to try and save a few remnants of the welfare state and concentrate on getting a group of "progressives" into power so as to enjoy the perks of power.
So will the acronym be DP party? Dimwits party. Depressed Party. Doldrums Party.
NDP considering dropping 'new' from their name
By Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News ServiceAugust 3, 2009
NDP leader Jack Layton at a Toronto campaign stop, Sept. 29, 2008.
Photograph by: Brett Gundlock/National Post, National Post
OTTAWA -- Nearly 50 years after the New Democratic Party was founded, its members are soon to decide whether to lop "new" from their name.
The question is whether to do it abruptly in two weeks at a convention in Halifax or to put it to a consultation process and make the decision in two years at the half-century mark.
Whether the NDP should be renamed the "Democratic Party" promises a lively debate and vote by about 1,000 delegates at the party's national biennial convention in Halifax Aug. 14-16th.
"It's simply that we're no longer new," Windsor West MP Brian Masse said in an interview.
"We're an established Canadian party that has shaped many public policies in Canada, that has been instrumental in health care, pension reform and progressive environmental and economic issues. I think this is a natural evolution. Drop the new from the name and run with the 'Democratic Party.'
Masse and other proponents of the change reject the idea the NDP seeks a shortcut association with the more popular Democratic Party in the United States.
"I don't think anybody's going to confuse Barack Obama and Jack Layton," scoffs NDP activist Ian Capstick, a media consultant who worked for Layton, the party leader, for several years.
Five riding associations have proposed resolutions for the convention to remove "new" from the name. Three of them - Windsor West, Victoria and Western Arctic - want it done at the convention.
Two others, Ottawa Centre and Hull-Aylmer, propose the national executive conduct consultations on a name change and come up with recommendations for the next convention two years away at the half-century mark.
"If we just change the name without changing the way we do business, it's not really a worthy project," says Paul Dewar, MP for Ottawa Centre.
While Dewar wants to "get the ball rolling" on a name change and believes NDP provincial governments are open to a change, he says it has to be part of more profound internal renewal.
He says the NDP has to modernize its methods to connect better with Canadians involved in environmental, human rights and other issues outside of party politics.
In related resolutions, delegates will be asked whether to separate the NDP's provincial and federal memberships, which total about 70,000.
"As the caucus gets larger, as we build our infrastructure and get our party into more of a breakthrough mode, these issues are taking on a greater significance," says NDP national director Brad Lavigne.
The NDP holds 36 of 308 seats in the Commons, making it the smallest of the four parties. It holds two of ten provincial governments - Nova Scotia and Manitoba - and has in the past governed in B.C., Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon, but never at the federal level.
NDP national director Brad Lavigne says Layton is not weighing in on the name change or membership split. Layton does not take a position on constitutional proposals, which require a two-thirds majority. It's up to the grassroots to decide, Lavigne said.
The Canadian Labour Congress has not taken a position yet either, said a spokesman for the union umbrella organization.
"I don't think it can be cosmetic," said Capstick. "We have a problem. We're not hitting over 20 per cent in the polls. And it's not a problem that's unfixable. We are a growing political movement that can grow bigger faster. A re-branding exercise would allow us to refocus."
Capstick says other parties, notably the Conservatives, have survived and flourished through such changes. The remaking of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation into the NDP in 1961 "revived the left."
Masse says his riding association intends the change as a positive step that reflects pride and confidence in a party with a 48-year record of achievement. He is not campaigning really hard for the change, however. "I don't believe in a confrontation for a name change," he said.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)