babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Discussion of Topp/Campbell email NOT related to Afghanistan or foreign policy

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Discussion of Topp/Campbell email NOT related to Afghanistan or foreign policy
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 07 November 2008 09:05 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brian Topp posted an interesting e-conversation he had with Les Campbell.

If you're interested in discussing the aspects of the discussion that pertain to Canada's military presence in Afghanistan and foreign policy generally, please do so over on the original thread. That seems to be where the conversation's gone there.

I think there's a lot of other aspects to the discussion and that discussion could happen in this thread.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 07 November 2008 09:13 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks tcd. I appreciated it.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 09:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Robbie Dee already posted this article over here for discussion: Uniting the "Left" Pt II
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 07 November 2008 09:31 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Les Campbell's ongoing obsession with getting the NDP to adopt the "Third Way" is interesting.

The fascinating thing about the most recent US election was how much the Democrats rejected the Clinton policy of "triangulation". That doesn't mean they became particularly radical, or even left-wing, but the Clinton-era strategy of loudly refuting different "left" policies didn't happen. Recall how Clinton proudly attended the execution of Ricky Rector a man with the mental age of a 9 year old? How he slashed welfare rates? embraced free trade? Clinton made a point of rejecting everything grassroots Democrats valued.

Obama's campaign was very different. The triangulation was still there (Obama moderated positions all over the place) but it was not central to his strategy. If anything, his strategy was to motivate and inspire the Democrat base in the same way that Karl Rove and Bush motivated and inspired the Republican base in 2004. He emphasized his opposition to Iraq, his opposition to NAFTA, his readiness to dialogue with Castro, the support he got from organized labour.

Bottom line: I think Campbell's missed this development. He's still of the belief that the key to NDP success is loudly refuting their "socialist" past and embracing capitalism. I never thought that made much sense in a three to five party system and I really don't think it makes much political sense when the wheels are coming off the unregulated capitalist system.

Gordon Brown was heading to an historic defeat at the hands of Britons burned out and uninspired after a decade of New Labour's
wheeling and dealing. Now he has a new lease on political life. Why? Because he's unaplogetically nationalizing banks and promising to spend his way out of recession, deficits be damned. In this context, New Democrats don't need to be pledging fealty to banks and corporate Canada. They need to be articulating an alternate vision.

I think Mr. Topp's on the right track.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 07 November 2008 09:34 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Robbie Dee already posted this article over here for discussion: Uniting the "Left" Pt II
That's great. I think the exchange actually has very little to do with "uniting the left" (sic) and a lot to do with what the NDP has to do next. If people disagree they're welcome not to post.

From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 07 November 2008 09:38 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This was the most interesting quote of the Topp article for me:

quote:
Where we have some daunting work to do is on the ground.... We need our version of the 50-state strategy, without foolishly dissipating resources.

First of all, what is the 50-state strategy? I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what it is about/is for.

As I understand it, the main practical impact/value of the 50-state strategy is that it is a fundraising strategy to raise money to hire a couple of organizers in non-democratic states. The rest is a dog and pony show.

As for the non-practical benefits, there are many. For one, people in non-democratic states (and even non-democratic areas of democratic states) feel like the party cares about them. They feel like their donation is being used to their benefit/put to good use (an idea easy for fundraisers to reinforce). It gives these supporters hope and thus motivation to volunteer or organise. This is where the breakthroughs happen. Once you can create a platform (and election) on which your supporters can organise, good things start to flow towards your party.

So if the NDP is serious about this, then what they really want to do is first try and get supporters in the 200+ non-NDP ridings excited about the idea, they then need to create a platform for organising, and sloooowly start dropping in the physical infrastructure (e.g. manpower, fundraising visits by politicians, phone numbers etc.) to make it happen.

Because Canada has the population of 1 red state and is the 2nd largest country in the world, keeping costs down will be very difficult. The US Democratic Party never loses sight of the fact that the program is intended as a fundraising initiative. As such, that is the way for the NDP to start and then they can look at where/how to move in resources based on the fundraising response they get. I think the NDP might be shocked to see where the support comes from (assuming it comes at all).

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: V. Jara ]


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 07 November 2008 09:48 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with that, though, on a practical note, the NDP needs to start focussing on the next fifty seats we can win. For example, I think the NDP needs to pick up a lot of seats in Toronto but, outside the lakeshore ridings ridings have very little infrastructure.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 07 November 2008 10:21 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From what interested me in Campbell's piece:

quote:
While it might make you unpopular within our ranks, I'd suggest that you quietly meet with Preston Manning, Rick Anderson and the others who helped unite the right — there are lessons to be learned.
...
Sponsor town hall meetings. Develop a method for public input in the policy renewal process. Commission papers. Launch a cross-country "listening" tour.

The funny thing about Preston Manning, is that he spent a long time researching English Canadian "populist" political movements before he launched his Reform Party career. This inevitably led him to study the NDP and its predecessors, in addition to many other movements. He took a lot of old positions, combined them with a consultative democracy approach, and generated a lot of excitement.

Layton once tried a similar approach. Check out this page with 2004 videos of Layton and Libby Davies holding public consultations on what should be included in the next federal budget. Little did they, or anyone else, know the NDP would have the power to write part of the budget in 2005. I found the video interesting at the time, even though I wasn't anywhere near the event.

The NDP could launch some "national crises" consultations/tours, made as non-partisan as possible, to generate framed discussion and dialogue on key issues. This could be a useful technique for a very complicated issues like Afghanistan, global warming, or the economy; where consultation events could serve public education as well as political feedback purposes.

As for a "unite the left" movement, I have my doubts. The reason it worked for the right is that the "unite the right" movement was really a "bury the progressive conservative party" movement. I don't see any opportunity for that to occur on the left, unless maybe people catch wind of the fact that Elizabeth May has bankrupted the Greens. A big part of the problem on the left is that people don't care if they win. This is partly because the left is spoiled. The "so-called left" gets at least 60% of the vote, so united or disunited it often forms government. The division on the left is about how to divide the government spoils. On the right, the PC party lost its desire to soldier on once 24 Sussex seemed too distant.

If the Greens look ready to collapse, the NDP probably want to be ready to receive Green supporters with open arms. The NDP can stand to lose some prejudices and learn from the Greens. In advance of such an occasion the NDP could consider making some overtures to the party base. The prospect still remains unlikely, for reasons mentioned above.

Edited for spelling.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: V. Jara ]


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 07 November 2008 10:27 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
I agree with that, though, on a practical note, the NDP needs to start focussing on the next fifty seats we can win. For example, I think the NDP needs to pick up a lot of seats in Toronto but, outside the lakeshore ridings ridings have very little infrastructure.

True, and you're unlikely to see the party devote resources elsewhere. Any 50-state strategy has to be a net fundraising gain for the party, or else the policy's a flop.

The money from a 50-state strategy goes into one big opaque pot, what comes out is up to the party's discretion. How much more money a 50-state strategy is worth for the NDP is a debatable question. Maybe the US Democrats could help provide the answer.


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 10:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps a change in thread title, now that what you mean by issues "not related to Afghanistan, or foreign policy," is clear.

How about "Discussion of Topp/Campbell email focussed on fundraising."

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 04:50 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
TCD- your link to this thread in the original thread takes you to the forum list, not to here. You might want to edit the link in the other thread.

Interesting discussion between Campbell and Topp, and I noticed a few comments in the other thread lost in the flow of a discussion about intervention in Afghanistan. Not sure when I'll be able to add my two cents.

Its fine that robbie dee posted the Campbell and Topp discussion to the "Uniting the Left" discussion because it has SOME content that fits there.

But the discussion is much larger than that, not to mention that like Topp I'm essentially not interested in those particular suggestions of Campbell's.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 05:09 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "50 State Strategy" is not only more than a 'fundraising strategy'- it isn't that first of all.

To the degree that there is a financial/revenue side to it it is the simple adage that if we spend money in all those places we have always treated like lost causes, the revenues as will as the tangible benefits will come back to us.

And the equivalent to the 50 State Strategy is not focusing on the next 50 most winnable ridings. That is what is always done [whether or not it is done well].

The equivalent would be the 308 Riding Strategy- where the party resolves to do something with tangible organizational benefits available to activists in every riding- and if there are only 2 of them.

The same as with the 50 State Strategy there are 3 main points to this approach.

You are building for the long term. To win government you need more than the next 50 most winnable seats. That means you need to be doing tangible on the ground work now to plant those seeds.

There is also an immediate benefit to the national and regional campaigns. Those campaigns are taken more seriously by supporters, potentially supporters and the media when people see support developing in places it had not existed. And all that takes is signs on lawns.

And then there is that revenue side. The bulk of party operatives are undersandably reluctant to see less money spent on winning now, to 'invest' it in longer term development. Without getting into them now, there are more pragmatic answers to that than "be brave" and "do the right thing". It isn't difficult to recoup those expenditures with new revenues in the pretty short term. Even easier in Canada fedrally with the per vote party funding.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 05:52 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tommy Paine:

quote:
Actually, I went back to look at the exact quote from Campbell's e-mail: "No undue regard to special interests, including organized labour"

I have to ask, what makes organized labour stand out that it merited mention before other "special interests".

We are left to wonder what those other "special interests" are that Campbell chose not to mention. Special interests inside the party? Special interests outside the party?


Since I've been involved in discussions with Les in the past, I think I'll venture to answer for him.

There are two different things being addressed here. One is the NDP's proclivity to address 'identity to politics': being expected to say the right things for a variety of constituencies.

So where that comes in, it isn't organized labour in particular that is being referred to.

The reference would be to the special role organized labour plays within the NDP- even now that that has been somewhat formally and informally dimisnished. And I think it is fair to say that in practice there are no other 'special interests.'

while I have disagreed with Les in the past on this, and I don't think its a coincidence he would use the term 'special interest'.... there is an issue being raised that is not necessarily linked to Les not being the friendliest to organized labour.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 08 November 2008 06:43 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The wierd thing is that while workers do or don't vote NDP because of those formal labour ties, they surely take their que when that bond is sundered.

That's my experience with the antics of Buzz Hargrove, anyway. I'm doubtfull it brought many if any votes to the Liberals, I doubt it hurt the NDP that much.

But what did do was disenfranchise workers from politics in general-- confirming a perception that no one in politics speaks to their issues.

But then, maybe that's what Campbell wants?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 November 2008 06:49 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's my experience too. I certainly have not noticed any reduction of CAW ranks within local NDP riding associations or taking part in NDP events.

And for those wondering given my Green vote in the last fed election, yes, I still do follow the local NDP, and I still have contributed to some local campaigns (but not to the national campaign) and I did not contribute at all to my local Green campaign (not even as a volunteer) as it appeared, to me early on it would be rather ineffectual. They are all obsessed with "looking" professional when they should be obsessed with getting out the message. in my view.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 08 November 2008 07:01 AM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
while I have disagreed with Les in the past on this, and I don't think its a coincidence he would use the term 'special interest'.... there is an issue being raised that is not necessarily linked to Les not being the friendliest to organized labour.

Now I don't know anything about Les's background with the NDP, except that he was an executive type in the Manitoba govt before 1994 - 14 years ago. Since that time, he has been working in the US and influenced by US politics. In the US, organized labour has greatly diminished and is a very former shadow of itself. Perhaps he sees this as a good thing, I have no idea. That said, when someone who is supposedly "progressive" uses or evokes conservative ideology of "special interests" it sends a tingle feeling up my spine. Shifting the frame here ignores the bigger "special interest" and that of globalized capital and corporations organized to ensure that "working ordinary people" whether involved in unions or not remain divided.
If there is to be a shift in the New Democrat focus it needs to focus on ordinary Canadians, and assume that we all work, whether organized or not.


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 08 November 2008 07:37 AM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
TCD- your link to this thread in the original thread takes you to the forum list, not to here. You might want to edit the link in the other thread.
Fixed. Thanks.

On the NDP's connection to organized labour, I think Campbell is, again, working on some outdated assumptions.

In the 80s and 90s, certainly in the UK and the US, the right-wing was able to win by convincing the public that the Democrats and Labour were beholden to fat-cat union bosses. The labour connections was a liability and - particularly in the UK - Labour made gains when they pointedly refuted it.

As Topp notes, that's not really the case today. To some extent that's because organized Labour's been chastened and it's hard to paint them as all powerful when they're so transparently weak. To a larger extent it's becasue Labour's at the begining of a possible renaissance and (while things are far from perfect) they are better - particularly on the PR front. Janitors should make a decent wage; manufacturing jobs are the backbone of the economy; the minimum wage should go up - this is all good populist stuff. Obama was happy to be connected to it.

I think history's increasingly leaving Campbell in the dust. His analysis is dated.

That said, organized labour needs to keep focussed on positive campaigns that are about increasing the numbers of organized workers and helping ALL working people. An inward looking labour movement that's about disenfranchising the members, holding on to gains for a few isn't helping anyone and doesn't deserve the support of the NDP (or anyone).


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 November 2008 07:44 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In some ways the NDP is already following a Canadian version of a 50 seat strategy. We now have sats in every province except PEI and Saskatchewan - and while we have no federal seats in the latter we are clearly a factor and in contention there.

For many, many years, the NDP election strategy consisted of targetting BC, Saskatchewan, the north end of Winnipeg and a few selected seats in Ontario and that was it. Now (partly due to the cash windfall from the campaign finance reform) the NDP is much more a national party. Our share of the popular vote in Atlantic Canada is now higher than it is in the West (even if you exclude Alberta), while there is only one seat in Quebec, the party got almost half a million votes there and now has vastly more infratsructure than before to grow more. There are clearly areas that we need to focus on - there are a lot of very low income ridings in the GTA that would be fertile NDP territory in any other Canadian city and that needs to be rectified. We also need to build on the beach heads in NF, AB and QC.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 08 November 2008 07:59 AM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
Fixed. Thanks.

On the NDP's connection to organized labour, I think Campbell is, again, working on some outdated assumptions.

In the 80s and 90s, certainly in the UK and the US, the right-wing was able to win by convincing the public that the Democrats and Labour were beholden to fat-cat union bosses. The labour connections was a liability and - particularly in the UK - Labour made gains when they pointedly refuted it.

As Topp notes, that's not really the case today. To some extent that's because organized Labour's been chastened and it's hard to paint them as all powerful when they're so transparently weak. To a larger extent it's becasue Labour's at the begining of a possible renaissance and (while things are far from perfect) they are better - particularly on the PR front. Janitors should make a decent wage; manufacturing jobs are the backbone of the economy; the minimum wage should go up - this is all good populist stuff. Obama was happy to be connected to it.

I think history's increasingly leaving Campbell in the dust. His analysis is dated.

That said, organized labour needs to keep focussed on positive campaigns that are about increasing the numbers of organized workers and helping ALL working people. An inward looking labour movement that's about disenfranchising the members, holding on to gains for a few isn't helping anyone and doesn't deserve the support of the NDP (or anyone).


TCD, you said what I was trying to say. Thank you. All working people cause we all work - that needs to be the assumption rather than the focus.


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 November 2008 08:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reading Les Campbell, I agree that his analysis is very dated. Its as if he left Canada in 1994 and like Rip Van Winkle - he thinks its still 1994. It reminds me of people who still think that the main impediment to NDP growth is the idea that the NDP will run deficits and spend money and that therefore the solution is for the NDP to be "plus royaliste que le roi" and start advocating for massive cuts in social spending be something like the neo-con New Zealand Labour Party of the late 80s!

I can see why someone MIGHT have thought that way during the worst of the Rae years in Ontario when the whole western world was focused on deficits and nothing else. But we are now in a very different time and place.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 08 November 2008 08:20 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wel, there is a lot afoot these days.

Organized labour is struggling with the effects of globalization and Nafta. They haven't found an answer to that, and I don't believe there is one within the scope of organized labour.

There might be a rebirth for organized labour if labour is seen, once again, by governments in Canada and in the U.S. as a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth.

Because when we reduce all our economic woes to the essential cause, it is that too few people have too much money. And until that is resolved, things will continue to go ill for working people.

What no polical party has caught on to yet is essential effect of all this for workers and farmers and others. That for a large-- and ever growing-- number of Canadians there is not enough stability to make plans. Which is why the concept of "HOPE" struck such a chord south of the border.

Cobbling together a platform based on that can't be done from the top down, from existing institutions.

It has to come from the bottom up.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 08:25 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would in general- and certainly around the issue of organized labour- leave out the effect being in the US has on Les.

The exception I would make is his thinking on Afghanisatan- and that discussion got all the oxygen in the last thread.

Les represents a general approach to labour that is common in the NDP even if it is far from a majority way of thinking. [And even farther off some kind of 'media' is we are looking at the activist cadre rather than the membership in general.]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 08:42 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a post from West Coast Lefty that got lost in the deluge of posts on Afghanistan in the earlier thread. I'm taking the liberty of reposting in entirety. So if you want to reapond remember its just my name on the post, WCL said it, not me.

It is a good discussion, and I find myself (to my surprise) agreeing with many points from both Les and Brian, such as:
Les C wrote:

quote:
Unless you are content to continue the honourable tradition of being the marginal, ineffective conscience of the nation - and I don't think you are - there are two interconnected alternatives:
1) Enter a period of intense policy renewal to modernize the party and aggressively stake out centre-left political ground to capture disaffected Liberals in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces and potential Conservative/NDP switchers in the Western provinces

This is what we need to do but Les's focus is a bit narrow - we need to capture disaffected Libs everywhere, not just Ontario and Atlantic, Green voters confused by May's strategic voting messaging, and esp young people who didn't feel motivated to come to the polls.

It's clear that we've re-established our 1980's Broadbent base, but it's equally clear that we won't break through the 18-20% ceiling with the umpteenth version of the "kitchen table/working families" campaign next time.

Which brings me to Les' excellent suggestion that:

quote:
The NDP, in pursuing internal renewal, should invite all interested citizens to take part in the discussion. Give young people a reason to get involved in politics. Start a debate about a united left. Sponsor town hall meetings. Develop a method for public input in the policy renewal process. Commission papers. Launch a cross-country "listening" tour. Enlist NDP MPs and ask them to reach out to supporters of the other parties. Capture the agenda, downplay partisanship and emphasize hope. Try to recreate the Obama feeling in Canada by asking everyone to get involved.

I agree with the above but would add a strong internet/Facebook/Youtube/blogging aspect to the renewal process, again to engage young people, with babble itself, as well as the "Blogging Dippers" (or whatever their curent name is) potentially being a key delivery model for this engagement process. Commissioning "papers" and traditional partisan NDP events won't cut it with the Obama generation - truly interactive process and non-staged town hall meetings open to all are what we need.

Let the Libs rip each other apart yet again during their leadership, while the NDP talks about building a progressive movement in Canada. I don't see the focus necessarily as uniting or merging parties (as Brian states, neither the Libs or the Greens seem interested anyways), but rather defining a progressive agenda for the 21st century and building a grassroots movement to mobilize around it, regardless of which party is in power.

But in terms of a future NDP breakthrough, Brian hits it on the head in terms of defining the problem when he says:

quote:

The fundamental barrier to doubling our vote and winning office is trust.
It is generally agreed that our hearts are in the right place. Now we need to persuade that our heads are, too.

So to persuade a winning plurality of voters that we merit their support, we have some work to do on what we have to say:

- Libertarian economics as practiced by the former head of the U.S. Fed are, literally, bankrupt. The whole world can see that a more balanced market economy - with an appropriate role for the public interest, implemented and where necessary enforced through our democratic institutions - is the future. We can lead the discussion of what that needs to look like in Canada.

- Public services will prove their worth during the harder times coming. EI, public health care, child care & child benefits; public pensions, accessible training and education, smart public engagement in economic development. These are not going to look like frills in these times. We can lead the discussion about how to strengthen and modernize these services, and manage them fearlessly and effectively, so that they really work.


While the NDP's problem is winning the trust of a plurality of voters, Brian's tentative policy ideas above unfortunately represent more of the same-old NDP policy wonkese, which has zero resonance outside of party and labour insiders, and some academics.

Brian's last 2 bullets above could be taken directly from any Liberal platform since the 1993 Red Book, and it is that failure of vision and imagination in NDP policy that led in part to the rise of the Green Party as a viable political force, as well as a disaffection of young people and the general public from politics in general ("they're all the same")

Obama ran on simple and dramatic changes in direction for the US - end the Iraq war, health care for all Americans, ending dependence on foreign oil with a new green energy economy - and voters understood it, turnout went up dramaticaly esp with young people, etc.

As I posted in an earlier thread, the NDP's signature achievement is medicare - a radical change in Canada's social safety net based on a totally simple idea - health care is a universal right, regardless of income. It was the federal Libs that eventually brought medicare in nationally - but it would have never happened without the NDP, and if other parties want to steal our ideas and implement them, that is a victory for us as well.

So, what's the new medicare? Ending homelessness in Canada by 2020 would be one idea, a national child care program, restoring our manufacturing base by moving to a zero-carbon auto sector in 10 years, are just a few suggestions. I'm just putting those out as examples, there are many other great ideas that could be used besides those.

A simple, understandable rallying cause such as those suggested above, could serve both as the center piece of the NDP platform, and as a focal point for discussions with other parties under the "East of Lakehead" scenario.

This approach would brand the NDP in a positive way, help to overcome the "trust" issue by being specific as to what our priorities are, and focus our campaign on a positive vision for the future, as Obama did so well in the US.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 08 November 2008 09:55 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Much of what Les Campbell says should be non-controversial, leaving aside Afghanistan.

Where he goes astray is:

quote:
No undue regard to special interests, including organized labour.

Jack's approach has been to strengthen links to community groups and popular movements. The labour movement is, of course, the largest of these.
quote:
The Ontario NDP has always seemed to me to be an unruly collection of special interests rather than a disciplined, cohesive unit like the Manitoba or Saskatchewan NDP.

A false dichotomy. Let's be both.

Of course, the other problem Les has is that "West of the Lakehead New Democrats have succeeded in limiting the role of Liberals in provincial politics" and therefore he does not mention electoral reform. Yet he admits "If a real opportunity develops to work up an East-of-the-Lakehead solution that allows us to move forward, we should investigate it." No kidding. And that of course includes proportional representation.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 08 November 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Here is a post from West Coast Lefty that got lost in the deluge of posts on Afghanistan in the earlier thread. I'm taking the liberty of reposting in entirety. So if you want to reapond remember its just my name on the post, WCL said it, not me.

Thanks Ken, I appreciate the re-post.

quote:
Bottom line: I think Campbell's missed this development. He's still of the belief that the key to NDP success is loudly refuting their "socialist" past and embracing capitalism. I never thought that made much sense in a three to five party system and I really don't think it makes much political sense when the wheels are coming off the unregulated capitalist system.

Gordon Brown was heading to an historic defeat at the hands of Britons burned out and uninspired after a decade of New Labour's
wheeling and dealing. Now he has a new lease on political life. Why? Because he's unaplogetically nationalizing banks and promising to spend his way out of recession, deficits be damned. In this context, New Democrats don't need to be pledging fealty to banks and corporate Canada. They need to be articulating an alternate vision.

I think Mr. Topp's on the right track.


Exactly right, though Les had a good idea on the grass-roots renewal process.


quote:
So if the NDP is serious about this, then what they really want to do is first try and get supporters in the 200+ non-NDP ridings excited about the idea, they then need to create a platform for organising, and sloooowly start dropping in the physical infrastructure (e.g. manpower, fundraising visits by politicians, phone numbers etc.) to make it happen.

This is the right direction, but it will be very difficult to achieve in our current united fed/prov structure. I've learned from bitter experience that suggesting a separate fed NDP is a non-starter, but my challenge to those who oppose the separation is, how do we get organization and infrastructure for a "50-state strategy" in place in federal ridings when the key people/resources/funding are all dedicated to provincial NDP imperatives most of the time?

For example, in BC, virtually all the key activists and all of Provincial Office is focused on the May 2009 provincial election (some energy is directed to the Nov 15 municipal elections and to the 2 Vancouver by-elections the NDP won on Oct 29). If by some miracle we win government in May 2009, the party apparatus will be 100% devoted to fighting the corporate media backlash - if James gets defeated by Campbell, a BC NDP leadership race is all but certain. Meanwhile, Harper and his crew are spending every waking moment working to defeat Black, Siksay, and the rest of our incumbents, as the fed Libs will do once they pick a new leader. Again, we have to stop being a "part-time party" federally if we really want to do a 50-state strategy for the federal NDP.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 08 November 2008 11:40 AM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Jack's approach has been to strengthen links to community groups and popular movements. The labour movement is, of course, the largest of these.
I know that was Jack's stated thesis in the leadership race but, as leader, he's had his greatest success when he's ignored the (inaccurately named) "popular movements".

Let's be honest: the environmental "movement" told Jack to support a carbon tax, the leadership of the "social movements" told Jack to offer unconditional support to the Liberal party and formed the backbone of the "Think Twice" coalition, the childcare "movement" myopically endorsed Paul Martin's weak-ass childcare "strategy" and, as a result, handed Stephen Harper an issue he could ride to victory, the marijuana "movement" spent most of the last campaign doing the Liberals bidding and attacking Layton for not making legalizing pot his key platform plank.

There's nothing "popular" about these people and they don't constitute much of a "movement".

With each successive election Jack has paid less attention to these people and his growing success indicates that he's on the right side.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 08 November 2008 12:53 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
I know that was Jack's stated thesis in the leadership race but, as leader, he's had his greatest success when he's ignored the (inaccurately named) "popular movements".

Let's be honest: the environmental "movement" told Jack to support a carbon tax, the leadership of the "social movements" told Jack to offer unconditional support to the Liberal party and formed the backbone of the "Think Twice" coalition, the childcare "movement" myopically endorsed Paul Martin's weak-ass childcare "strategy" and, as a result, handed Stephen Harper an issue he could ride to victory, the marijuana "movement" spent most of the last campaign doing the Liberals bidding and attacking Layton for not making legalizing pot his key platform plank.

There's nothing "popular" about these people and they don't constitute much of a "movement".

With each successive election Jack has paid less attention to these people and his growing success indicates that he's on the right side.


Yes and somewhat no. It is true that these movements are losing their voter cache for the NDP, but they are also important message multipliers. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc. are able to get together audiences for events the NDP might show up at, and they are also able to multiply coverage of NDP policies by commentary in the media and communications with their supporters.


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 12:59 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

So if the NDP is serious about this, then what they really want to do is first try and get supporters in the 200+ non-NDP ridings excited about the idea, they then need to create a platform for organising, and sloooowly start dropping in the physical infrastructure (e.g. manpower, fundraising visits by politicians, phone numbers etc.) to make it happen.

Intuitively makes sense as a more modest replication of what works with ridings that are 'winnable' or developing in that direction.

But you cannot drop in resources- no matter how modest- where this is not some minimal level of prior development.

But the '308 Riding' idea is to offer any activist anywhere something organizationally concrete, whether they have that prior development or not.

Literally, if there are two NDP activists in Upper Backwater flung across 50,000 square km, you have something for them.

But that 'something' bears little relation to the kind of resources parties are used to putting into developing ridings.

quote:

This is the right direction, but it will be very difficult to achieve in our current united fed/prov structure. I've learned from bitter experience that suggesting a separate fed NDP is a non-starter, but my challenge to those who oppose the separation is, how do we get organization and infrastructure for a "50-state strategy" in place in federal ridings when the key people/resources/funding are all dedicated to provincial NDP imperatives most of the time?

Actually, when it comes to strategy and longer term development, its provincial section imperatives ALL the time. Sporadic dedication or resources to federal campaigns means there is NO traction for anything longer term.

I wouldn't say there is no sympathy for the federal party seperating- but I'd agree there is no appetite for pushing it.

But there is no reason the federal party cannot start incrementally bypassing the sections. It has been doing so with fundraising for some years now.

And maybe elsewise.

Before the election there was a posting for someone to do riding training. I don't know if the position was filled, and know nothing of the overall thinking behind posting the job.

It's certainly far too big a job for one person.

Getting back to my point above: that it isn't about dropping in the same kind of resources [just "somehow" spreading that farther].

We shouldn't expect to send an organizer everywhere. It isn't going to happen, and in the days of web based training and interaction, it isn't necessary.

It is Howard Dean that brought the 50 State Strategy to the Democratic Party. It was his platform in successfully running for the chair of the party- and he had to push it uphill through all the layers of committees.

And the basic idea behind it comes not surprisingly from the Dean Campaign. There are people all over the place just waiting to be connected. And the Net provides the means of giving them all the tools.

That does mean you put more organizers out in the field than you previously dedicated to working in places you aren't strong. But those organizers don't directly very many of the people they are working.

Nor are they working some kind of 'organizational pyramid'- which is what sending out organizers to ridings is.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 08 November 2008 01:01 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

But what did do was disenfranchise workers from politics in general-- confirming a perception that no one in politics speaks to their issues.

Sometimes the NDP ends up speaking more for the interests of organized labour rather than workers in general - these are often similar, but not identical.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 08 November 2008 01:05 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's how I would run a 308 riding strategy if I was going to do one:

1) It would start out as a fundraising letter announcing the new initiative and asking for support. The letter would be mailed to all supporters and separate fundraising stats would be kept for NDP held and non-NDP held ridings.

It would ask for money to hire 2 new organisers to spearhead the initiative.

2) The two organizers would have nice sounding titles but in reality be 1 fundraiser and 1 (new media, e.g. web pages) communications expert. They would have three tasks: First, develop an effective 308 riding fundraising strategy for NDP non-incumbent (maybe non-30% of the vote or higher) ridings; Second, develop the ability for effective two-way communication with people in these ridings; Third, start dreaming of the kind of on-the-ground organizing platform/activities the NDP could do once steps 1 & 2 pan out.


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 01:12 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This on the ground developmental work is definitely what turns my crank, and as Brian Topp said, the NDP needs much more of this.

But I agree with Les Campbell that the NDP is both inadequaet and shallow on policy. Brian didn't say we're doing OK- getting better... but it may be read as implicit in what he said. And here I see no signs of improvement.

We're still mostly reacting and nventing on the fly what looks good. There may be more of a unifying vision behind that than there was in the past, but that is way too little.

The NDP needs a policy renaissance. Period.

Thats much easier said than done. The cynics- including many in the party as well as the kind that proliferate here- think it doesn't happen because the powers that be don't want it.

Kick starting a policy renaissance in North America is no small feat. Intellectual shallowness is the hallmark of our left.

And while we can look to the US for a lot of useful pointers in how to organize, they are worse off than us when it comes to policy. And I'm not talking about the pathetic state of their policy content, such as it is. I mean how utterly clueless they are as to what to do about it- even given the chance.

So I think the biggest reason Jack Layton and others have done nothing for strengthening the NDP's capacity to develop policy and initiatives is because they have no idea where to start. [Which is not at all true for Jack on other 'organizational health and development' issues.]

But that's no excuse for doing nothing.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 01:16 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Here's how I would run a 308 riding strategy if I was going to do one...

You are prejudging.

You start with a commitment that you are going to offer something organizationally concrete to everyone, and then you pull in lots of people and start talking about what and how.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 08 November 2008 01:19 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You may be right KenS
From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 08 November 2008 01:35 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by V. Jara:

Yes and somewhat no. It is true that these movements are losing their voter cache for the NDP, but they are also important message multipliers. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc. are able to get together audiences for events the NDP might show up at, and they are also able to multiply coverage of NDP policies by commentary in the media and communications with their supporters.


True, but their support comes with a lot of caveats and is usually equivocal. So, the Sierra Club, in 2006, can, after claiming the NDP deserved support, turn around and say, "Think Twice" and declare that everyone should vote Liberal. New Democrats, having endorsed their organization earlier, are left to scramble.

By contrast, when the NDP took on our "allies" over an issue - like the carbon tax - we've suffered no consequences, and in fact have been rewarded. Greenpeace, Suzuki and others attacked the NDP for not endorsing their stupid regressive tax and Canadians, by and large, ignored them.

And we had bigger rallies.

I think we're better off building support for a movement where we define the goals, rather than relying on fair weather friends who bring aboslutely nothing to the table.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 08 November 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

You are prejudging.

You start with a commitment that you are going to offer something organizationally concrete to everyone, and then you pull in lots of people and start talking about what and how.


Fair enough but there's no harm in brainstorming some ideas.

I do think we need boots on the ground. I'm always struck by the disconnect between party youth who seem to want to do something and the fact that we have hundreds of ridings that need work. In community organizing models it's a given that you fundraise your own salary. If we can get twenty organizers doing that in twenty empty ridings we'll be somewhere.

I guess this is separate from the "308" strategy but I think the key lesson we should be learning from Democrats is how did they get volunteers (a) to work do hard (b) in a co-ordinated fashion?


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 08 November 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Actually, when it comes to strategy and longer term development, its provincial section imperatives ALL the time. Sporadic dedication or resources to federal campaigns means there is NO traction for anything longer term.

I wouldn't say there is no sympathy for the federal party seperating- but I'd agree there is no appetite for pushing it.

But there is no reason the federal party cannot start incrementally bypassing the sections. It has been doing so with fundraising for some years now.

And maybe elsewise.

Before the election there was a posting for someone to do riding training. I don't know if the position was filled, and know nothing of the overall thinking behind posting the job.

It's certainly far too big a job for one person.

Getting back to my point above: that it isn't about dropping in the same kind of resources [just "somehow" spreading that farther].

We shouldn't expect to send an organizer everywhere. It isn't going to happen, and in the days of web based training and interaction, it isn't necessary.

It is Howard Dean that brought the 50 State Strategy to the Democratic Party. It was his platform in successfully running for the chair of the party- and he had to push it uphill through all the layers of committees.

And the basic idea behind it comes not surprisingly from the Dean Campaign. There are people all over the place just waiting to be connected. And the Net provides the means of giving them all the tools.

That does mean you put more organizers out in the field than you previously dedicated to working in places you aren't strong. But those organizers don't directly very many of the people they are working.

Nor are they working some kind of 'organizational pyramid'- which is what sending out organizers to ridings is.


Not everyone is net connected or net savvy- especially seniors citizens and they compose the bulk of the electorate. That being said, the internet could be used to reach some people. You can also develop mail out materials like Moveon.org has. For example, sending people DVDs for a small donation, helping to organise meet-ups , screenings; sending people issue campaign organizing materials, having supporter input mechanisms, promoting local events, supporters speakers...etc.


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 02:26 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess this is separate from the "308" strategy but I think the key lesson we should be learning from Democrats is how did they get volunteers (a) to work do hard (b) in a co-ordinated fashion?

They learned from the Dean campaign that thre are people everywhere who want to do something.

The Dean campaign didn't know what to do with people and wasted their work.

The Dems break work up into small bits- and they mount some tasks we would never dream of.

Its not so much a matter of people working hard, but of them neing put to work smart. When you have all the tasks broken up, standards people are to meet [how many to phone, how many repeats, etc.], and an oversight system, [all of that web-based], it isn't hard to plug people in.

And it has more to do with the 50 State / 308 Riding strategy than you might think.

I was in Michigan during the election. And bear in mind that many weeks before the McCain campaign had explicitly conceded Michigan.

I took a call for my father from the Obama campaign. This piqued my curiousity since I know my father is not a registered Democrat, so I chatted up the volunteer.

They were calling down throught the VOTERS LIST! Talk about cold calling. And where was she: red, red state North Dakota.

Now she may be also recruited to do work in Butte County; but alternatively, she can participate in a winning campaign.

Thats the 308 Riding Strategy: you want to help, we've got something for you to do. The braver and more adventurous you are the better. [You don't have to be ready to organize your neighbours. Maybe later for that.]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 02:32 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Greenpeace, Suzuki and others attacked the NDP for not endorsing their stupid regressive tax and Canadians, by and large, ignored them.

Point of information.

As far as federal politics goes, I'm pretty sure Greenpeace did not, nor any other major NGO. David Suzuki was the outlier, backing off to a neutral stance [NDP versus Liberal climate change action plans] taken by the other NGOs.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 08 November 2008 03:42 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ken, you're on to something re:why Dean failed and what the Dems have improved since. The calling system you speak of has taken the Democrats about 5 years to build to its current state. The calling system is backed up with an aggressive turn out the vote effort on e-day.

Giving volunteers something to do between elections would be a great idea. As it stands the party has no idea what to do with people until the campaign starts. The only option for would be volunteers is "contact the constituency association." Giving people concrete, simple, and well-tracked tasks to pursue would be a good idea.

The Democrats keep their volunteers busy by always having activities or an election somehow, somewhere for volunteers to call in for.

The NDP could easily mobilize volunteers between elections to do lit drops in many of the 308 ridings. They could organise some volunteers to call in to byelections and provincial elections. They could organise volunteers to call in to Parliament or mail MPs to lobby on certain issues. As I mentioned before, volunteers can be persuaded to organise DVD screenings, or pay for and watch them by themselves, and help advertise events. Some volunteers may also want to help organise visits by NDP politicos, or letters to the editor like the the Bruce Grey Owen Sound activists on this board.

The NDP could also seek to make the party more competitive at the local level by working with riding associations to help them try and improve their own fundraising and rebate making possibilities.

A lot of the NDP "campaign school" materials are available in print and could be made available to many more people.


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 08 November 2008 03:49 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Point of information.

As far as federal politics goes, I'm pretty sure Greenpeace did not, nor any other major NGO. David Suzuki was the outlier, backing off to a neutral stance [NDP versus Liberal climate change action plans] taken by the other NGOs.


Pembina rated the NDP 3rd on climate change policies (behind the Liberals, 2nd, and Greens, 1st).

David Suzuki said he would never vote NDP again, because in his view they were demagoging the carbon tax issue for political gain.

Not sure about the others, but I remember hearing a mixture of praise and criticism on TV.

Frankly, I think the environmental movement's reaction to the NDP last election was pretty even handed.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: V. Jara ]


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 08 November 2008 04:06 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
In some ways the NDP is already following a Canadian version of a 50 seat strategy. We now have sats in every province except PEI and Saskatchewan - and while we have no federal seats in the latter we are clearly a factor and in contention there.

For many, many years, the NDP election strategy consisted of targetting BC, Saskatchewan, the north end of Winnipeg and a few selected seats in Ontario and that was it. Now (partly due to the cash windfall from the campaign finance reform) the NDP is much more a national party. Our share of the popular vote in Atlantic Canada is now higher than it is in the West (even if you exclude Alberta), while there is only one seat in Quebec, the party got almost half a million votes there and now has vastly more infratsructure than before to grow more. There are clearly areas that we need to focus on - there are a lot of very low income ridings in the GTA that would be fertile NDP territory in any other Canadian city and that needs to be rectified. We also need to build on the beach heads in NF, AB and QC.


It's true that the NDP has become more of a national force, but they still only focus on 50-80 target ridings. The rest are written off. The one exception is Quebec, where the NDP has realised they have to build from zero and has set about trying to do it. There are a lot of New Democrats out there who haven't been given the full chance to participate in a winning movement or campaign.


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 08 November 2008 04:28 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Point of information.

As far as federal politics goes, I'm pretty sure Greenpeace did not, nor any other major NGO. David Suzuki was the outlier, backing off to a neutral stance [NDP versus Liberal climate change action plans] taken by the other NGOs.



Dave Martin speaking on behalf of Greenpeace said it was "a strategic mistake on Jack Layton’s part to oppose the carbon tax... He has ceded the environmental turf to the Liberal party. If I was active in the NDP, I would be angry."

If that's not an attack I don't know what is.

I know that a lot of New Dems came from Greenpeace and a lot of others have gone there but as an "ally" they're about as useful as a lead swimtrunks.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 November 2008 05:10 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Failure of Norway's Carbon Tax WSJ
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 08 November 2008 06:44 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Dave Martin speaking on behalf of Greenpeace said it was "a strategic mistake on Jack Layton’s part to oppose the carbon tax... He has ceded the environmental turf to the Liberal party. If I was active in the NDP, I would be angry."

If that's not an attack I don't know what is.


Alice Klein had to dig pretty hard to find someone to say that. That speaks to how badly Alice Klein wanted to get someone to back her up. I'll stand on what I said about the public positioning of Greenpeace.

And Klein was barking up the wrong tree attributing the reticence of NGOs in expressing a party program preference it to tax charitable status. They all freely criticised the conservatives, and like I said maitained neutrality about Liberal versus NDP plans.

I argued with the criteria Pembina used, but I don't think the ranking exercise they did was some kind of set-up. Nor did they feature that the NDP came third- you had to read the whole thing to get that.

Ranking on criteria hardly counts as an attack.

But I don't disagree with your larger point. And think this specific disagreement is a tangent.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 08 November 2008 07:10 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by V. Jara:
Ken, you're on to something re:why Dean failed and what the Dems have improved since. The calling system you speak of has taken the Democrats about 5 years to build to its current state. The calling system is backed up with an aggressive turn out the vote effort on e-day.

Giving volunteers something to do between elections would be a great idea. As it stands the party has no idea what to do with people until the campaign starts. The only option for would be volunteers is "contact the constituency association." Giving people concrete, simple, and well-tracked tasks to pursue would be a good idea.

The Democrats keep their volunteers busy by always having activities or an election somehow, somewhere for volunteers to call in for.

The NDP could easily mobilize volunteers between elections to do lit drops in many of the 308 ridings. They could organise some volunteers to call in to byelections and provincial elections. They could organise volunteers to call in to Parliament or mail MPs to lobby on certain issues. As I mentioned before, volunteers can be persuaded to organise DVD screenings, or pay for and watch them by themselves, and help advertise events. Some volunteers may also want to help organise visits by NDP politicos, or letters to the editor like the the Bruce Grey Owen Sound activists on this board.

The NDP could also seek to make the party more competitive at the local level by working with riding associations to help them try and improve their own fundraising and rebate making possibilities.

A lot of the NDP "campaign school" materials are available in print and could be made available to many more people.


I like your ideas. Thanks for making great suggestions.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 November 2008 09:27 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you're the VP of a riding association - its up to you and the rest of the riding executive to give your members "fun things to do" between elections. You can't expect party HQ to do everything. The number of NDP members across Canada who actually volunteer in campaigns is a lot smaller than you think. Its not as if tens of thousands of people are just sitting around doing nothing waiting for a phone to tell them to spend all their free time for the next two years knocking on doors in ridings that they don't live in.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 08 November 2008 10:35 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you're the VP of a riding association - its up to you and the rest of the riding executive to give your members "fun things to do" between elections. You can't expect party HQ to do everything. The number of NDP members across Canada who actually volunteer in campaigns is a lot smaller than you think. Its not as if tens of thousands of people are just sitting around doing nothing waiting for a phone to tell them to spend all their free time for the next two years knocking on doors in ridings that they don't live in.

Not interested in responding to you or buying the bait.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 November 2008 08:03 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not "bait". I'm making a perfectly serious point. The NDP is a party that is almost 100% dependent on VOLUNTEERS - and there are fewer and fewer of them all the time because in this day and age people just don't feel like knocking on the doors of strangers and getting shouted at and having dogs sicked on them.

If you want there to be more grassroots activity in your riding - then party members in that riding have a role to play to make it happen. You can't just sit passively back and moan about how NDP HQ isn't sending in hundreds of people from outside the riding to do all the work for you. Do you think these people grow on trees?

Do you think that all Brian Topp of Jack Layton have to do is press a button and BOOM, a phalanx on unpaid NDP volunteers will suddenly appear in Bruce County ready to knock on doors and sign up members and host pot luck dinners?

I'm not sure what exactly you expect the federal party to do? The resources have to exist in the first place before you can deploy them.

I'm sure that if people in any riding in Canada want to get a really active NDP riding association going and start having lots of activities to involve people - the party will send you truck loads of advice on how to go about and will give you all kinds of tips and may even have party luminaries come and give speeches etc... but ultimately, party organization doesn't just appear out of thin air - LOCAL people who actually LIVE in the ridings in question have to get involved and make it happen.

If someone has constructive ideas of what the federal party can do to help local party members in ridings where the party currently has little or no profile to build up an organization - then I would love to hear about it. But this isn't the US where Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee spent something like $500 MILLION on this election cycle.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 09 November 2008 09:43 AM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's not "bait". I'm making a perfectly serious point. The NDP is a party that is almost 100% dependent on VOLUNTEERS - and there are fewer and fewer of them all the time because in this day and age people just don't feel like knocking on the doors of strangers and getting shouted at and having dogs sicked on them.

I have been an NDP member for over 10 years so I do not need to be told about the volunteer nature of the organization. In this past election, I quit liked knocking on doors and I did not get shouted at or have dogs sicked on me. This was not my experience or others who also campaigned. I am not suggesting that my truth is more truthful than yours, I'm just pointing out that you are painting a lopsided argument rather than provide "balance" for some reason.

quote:
If you want there to be more grassroots activity in your riding - then party members in that riding have a role to play to make it happen. You can't just sit passively back and moan about how NDP HQ isn't sending in hundreds of people from outside the riding to do all the work for you. Do you think these people grow on trees?

I see that there is an assumption being painted here in which there is a suggestion that I am "sitting passively back and moaning", in fact I am not passive and nor have you seen me moan. Perhaps you would like more straw for your hand?
quote:
Do you think that all Brian Topp of Jack Layton have to do is press a button and BOOM, a phalanx on unpaid NDP volunteers will suddenly appear in Bruce County ready to knock on doors and sign up members and host pot luck dinners?

I was responding to posters above generated positive suggestions and thought some were good than the negative. I was supporting a consorted effort nationally, going across Canada with townhalls open to hall, and would like to be a part of that - as a volunteer who would put lots of time and effort into doing that. I also know quit a few folks locally who would also like to be associated with that. I found your last comments offensive,negative and demeaning.

Also noted, is that the generation of positive ideas and folks commenting and making suggestions also ended after your "jump on my small post." Another derailed topic section.


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 November 2008 10:01 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be demeaning in any way. I think it would be a good idea for the NDP to put together a strategy for an almost constant campaign and to create a strategy that can be used in riding after riding that is directed at building up support and organization etc... maybe there needs to be a particular strategy directed at ridings where the NDP needs to do "missionary work". Places where support is much lower than it ought to be (ie: all those ridings in suburban Toronto that have very low incomes where the NDP is off the map).

But, my only point is that the NDP has extremely limited resources and its all a zero sum game. Every hour or penny spent trying to build support in a riding where support is currently low, is also a penny or hour taken away from priming the pump in ridings that were near misses last time.

One of the reasons why the federal NDP took 17 seats in Ontario with 18.5%, while the Ontario NDP got just 10 seats with 17% of the vote in Ontario is that the federal NDP was really brutal about targeting resources towards winnable seats and practicing "triage". The ONDP got greedy, the spread themselves too thinly and tried to target too many seats and the results was losing half a dozen seats by extremely narrow margins.

Running a 308 riding campaign sounds great on paper - but if you put more into the weak areas, it means you are removing resources from the "low-hanging fruit" - and then you lose seats.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 09 November 2008 10:08 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes Stockholm, nobody here was moaning or saying anything that would warrant your straw person comments about people waiting for the party to do something for them.

And the Democrats in the US didn't build that system by having the big whack of cash first.

Since in the US they face the same long term phenomenom of volunteers being harder to come by, wouldn't it indicate that maybe we have something to learn from the fact they now have so many volunteers available?

What the Dean Campaign taught everyone is two things. One is that there are an unbeleiveable number of people out there ready to do something. And the second is that you can use the net to reach them and connect them.

Those two facts of 'long term trend of fewer volunteers' and 'unbeleivable number of people out there wanting to do something' are not at all mutually exclusive.

Getting volunteers is the same as fundraising: if you use the same old tired methods then you are going to be asking the same limited pool of people, and big surprise: the results show.

So when parties go outside the means they have always got volunteers, another big surprise: there are lots of people out there.

And it doesn't even require the internet. The internet just showed the principle of 'Do Something That Excites People' and hang out a big 'Come On In Sign,' and guess what happens.

That was what the Dean Campaig was about. It was a spectacular failure because they had no idea how to put all those people to effective work. It wasn't rocket science correcting that.

The 50 State Strategy does something less spectacular, but it works by the same principle of reaching out further for people to people who were already wanting to do something- you just never reached them before.

So there are/were a whack of people all over the map ready to get involved and volunteer for the Democratic Party- just for its boring old self even [before the Obama Campaign buzz].

While the execution of connecting to those people is not trivial, the principle of how it works is very simple.

I'm by no means moaning and waiting. I want to kick the party in the butt and get it to do what is in all of our interests- whether we live in Porcupine or downtown Toronto.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 November 2008 10:20 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The good news is that i think that in this past election the NDP had the most sophisticated web presence. Mst candidates had facebook pages and seemed to be using them to great effect to get people involved at the local level. I also liked how we used the Orange Room and twitter etc...

Obviously there can always be more and I'm sure we will be studying what lessons can be learned in terms of what worked and what didn't and looking at things that Obama did in the US that we can apply in Canada.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 09 November 2008 10:23 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But, my only point is that the NDP has extremely limited resources and its all a zero sum game. Every hour or penny spent trying to build support in a riding where support is currently low, is also a penny or hour taken away from priming the pump in ridings that were near misses last time.

One of the reasons why the federal NDP took 17 seats in Ontario with 18.5%, while the Ontario NDP got just 10 seats with 17% of the vote in Ontario is that the federal NDP was really brutal about targeting resources towards winnable seats and practicing "triage". The ONDP got greedy, the spread themselves too thinly and tried to target too many seats and the results was losing half a dozen seats by extremely narrow margins.

Running a 308 riding campaign sounds great on paper - but if you put more into the weak areas, it means you are removing resources from the "low-hanging fruit" - and then you lose seats.


This is the same kind of arguments made against the Dems 50 State Strategy- which payed benefits even faster than expected.

It sounds like such a truism to call it a zero sum game. But the actual expenditures and related revenues don't work out like that.

We are NOT talking about just election campaigns so it is not like the ONDP spreading itself across too many ridings in the last campaign.

Where POSSIBLY the zero sum game comes in is that spending money on development in no hope ridings 2 years before the next election COULD be money that does not go into a campaign chest before the next election.

"Could be" if it wasn't replaced. But it is replaced because new sources of fundraising are opened up in the process. A 50 State or 308 Riding Strategy pays for itself with revenue streams that would not exist otherwise. It is not a zero sum game.

And this will happen even easier in Canada with per vote funding. Guess where you get the most raw vote increase per expenditures? And with new fundraising opened up, you don't even have to wait for the next election to see those expenditures replaced, and then some.

Once the process is set in motion, it is self financing.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 November 2008 10:40 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The ultimate in having a 308 riding strategy was on display in this past election. QUEBEC. For the first time in 20 years the NDP made a major push for the 75 seats in Quebec and while we only took one - we moved the popular vote up to 12.2% (in 2000 it was 1.5%!!) and we are now in range in many ridings and all those extra votes in Quebec mean more dollars per year.

But the party has to make some judgment calls on where there is potential and where there isn't. I think that there is clearly a lot more untapped NDP potential in Montreal than there is in rural southern Alberta or in Burlington or Richmond Hill!

While its true that the Democrats targetted more states this time than last time - it still had its limits. Obama didn't spend one red cent running ads in Utah (which is full of ultra rightwing Mormons) but they did put money into North Carolina etc...

Any way you slice it - parties have to choose their battles.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca