babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Please share some ideas with me for convention resolutions for my NDP riding association

mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

;


Comments

mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Hello fellow Babblers.  My riding association is having a meeting in a little over a week.  I can submit resolutions to them to be considered for the convention in Edmonton.  The resolutions can be no more than 200 words.  So, if you have any ideas, do share. 

PS, that includes all Babblers, whether Orange, Green, Blue, Red, or a beautiful Rainbow.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Resolution to support the call of Shuswap elder Wolverine, the AFN and others, for a full and open federal public inquiry into all aspects of the 1995 Gustafsen Lake matter.

https://www.facebook.com/harsha.walia/posts/10153894435059337

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/gustlake/aug0197.html

http://rabble.ca/comment/1122557#comment-1122557

 


off-the-radar
Offline
Joined: Nov 11 2015

Resolution to study how to adopt the LEAP manifesto and transition immediately to an environmentally sustainable society as Earth and humans are running out of time.

Thanks for asking "mark alfred" and love how you invited comments from the rainbow of Babblers!


knownothing
Offline
Joined: Mar 24 2011

Does anyone know the location of the convention? Is it in a hotel?

April 8-10 in Edmonton is all I can find. Nothing on the NDP site about it.

 


swallow
Offline
Joined: May 16 2002

Resolution for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia would be good. 

I assume the convention will be in Rachel Notley's backyard, with free hotdogs for all comers and special backrubs for babblers. 


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Resolution to declare social solidarity with people who are low income and to require the party and leader not to direct policies to help the middle class without including them and placing them as a priority.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Thanks fellow Babblers, great stuff so far!


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005

A resolution in favour of adding pharmacare, home care, optometry and dental care to Medicare?

A resolution in favour of free post-secondary education?

A resolution in favour of a minimum basic income?

A resolution that the right to basic requirements such as food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, recreation, and transportation should be guaranteed in the constitution?


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

knownothing wrote:

Does anyone know the location of the convention? Is it in a hotel?

April 8-10 in Edmonton is all I can find. Nothing on the NDP site about it.

It's at the Shaw Centre.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Resolution to declare social solidarity with people who are low income and to require the party and leader not to direct policies to help the middle class without including them and placing them as a priority.

How about this, on taxes:

Quote:

  • A progressive tax system.
  • Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.
  • Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.
  • Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.
  • Combatting tax shelters and money laundering.

 


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Resolution to declare social solidarity with people who are low income and to require the party and leader not to direct policies to help the middle class without including them and placing them as a priority.

How about this, on taxes:

Quote:

  • A progressive tax system.
  • Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.
  • Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.
  • Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.
  • Combatting tax shelters and money laundering.

 

I agree with some of that -- I would not target tax reduction for the middle class until we have enough government revenue to pay for the programs we need: childcare, homecare, long-term care, pharmacare, better income security for elderly and better coverage for the unemployed. That said, if the larger corporation pay their share more could be available but I would not place middle class cuts ahead of these other priorities. I think the only income tax cuts we should be making are a substantial increase to the basic exemption.

I would prefer to add this and remove the middleclass altogether:

"Link corporate taxes to swalaries and employment to ensure that corporations who do not invest in Canadian workers pay more than those who do"

As well since nobody can even agree on the middle class I prefer middle income and no mention of class anywhere.


knownothing
Offline
Joined: Mar 24 2011

Unionist wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Does anyone know the location of the convention? Is it in a hotel?

April 8-10 in Edmonton is all I can find. Nothing on the NDP site about it.

It's at the Shaw Centre.

Thank you


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005

Maybe a resolution could support allowing the general public to establish bills in the House if Commons that have to be debated and voted on. A web site could be established where he most popular ideas of the public could be put forward in the House of Commons.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

JKR wrote:

Maybe a resolution could support allowing the general public to establish bills in the House if Commons that have to be debated and voted on. A web site could be established where he most popular ideas of the public could be put forward in the House of Commons.

Generally I dislike direct democracy initiatives but this is a truly interesting idea. It allows an initiatve from the public but does not sidestep or take away accountability or responsibility from elected representatives. My first thought it that I like it.

The House will end up debating things we may not need to discuss but the politicians if they all agree can dispense with the debate quickly on record.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Unionist wrote:

How about this, on taxes:

Quote:

  • A progressive tax system.
  • Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.
  • Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.
  • Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.
  • Combatting tax shelters and money laundering.

 

How wry.

I do agree with the implied critique of the campaign though.  It was far too shy in trumpeting the current policies, be it raising taxes on corporations or the Sherbrooke Declaration.  The NDP and Mulcair just should have dived in and not worried so much about potential soundbites being used by the Liberals and Cons.  Soundbites would be found anyway, so just go for it and don't be shy.  Hindsight is 20/20 though.  Next time.


Michael Moriarity
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Maybe a resolution could support allowing the general public to establish bills in the House if Commons that have to be debated and voted on. A web site could be established where he most popular ideas of the public could be put forward in the House of Commons.

Generally I dislike direct democracy initiatives but this is a truly interesting idea. It allows an initiatve from the public but does not sidestep or take away accountability or responsibility from elected representatives. My first thought it that I like it.

The House will end up debating things we may not need to discuss but the politicians if they all agree can dispense with the debate quickly on record.

I rather like the idea too. The biggest problem I see is that drafting legislation is difficult to do well. It takes the skills of a lawyer, as well as the idea of what the law should do. There would have to be some way of putting the public's suggestions into a form that could actually be debated and voted upon. Then, of course, the problem would be that the final version might not accurately reflect the intentions of the citizen sponsors. However, I think these problems could be overcome, given sufficient resources, and that it would be an investement that would improve our democracy.


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005
Michael Moriarity wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Maybe a resolution could support allowing the general public to establish bills in the House if Commons that have to be debated and voted on. A web site could be established where he most popular ideas of the public could be put forward in the House of Commons.

Generally I dislike direct democracy initiatives but this is a truly interesting idea. It allows an initiatve from the public but does not sidestep or take away accountability or responsibility from elected representatives. My first thought it that I like it.

The House will end up debating things we may not need to discuss but the politicians if they all agree can dispense with the debate quickly on record.

I rather like the idea too. The biggest problem I see is that drafting legislation is difficult to do well. It takes the skills of a lawyer, as well as the idea of what the law should do. There would have to be some way of putting the public's suggestions into a form that could actually be debated and voted upon. Then, of course, the problem would be that the final version might not accurately reflect the intentions of the citizen sponsors. However, I think these problems could be overcome, given sufficient resources, and that it would be an investement that would improve our democracy.

Maybe this web site could have a resident lawyer that translates the public's most popular suggested bills into proper legalese and then the people on the web site could vote on whether they agree with the version the lawyer has come up with. If the people on the web site disapprove of the lawyers legalized version, the resident lawyer would have to take another crack at producing an acceptable bill until the people on the web site approve of his legalized version.


Michael Moriarity
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

How about going all in, by creating a new officer of parliament, like the Auditor General, who would have a staff, including lawyers, and would be charged with the responsibility of establishing and maintaining a web site to get the suggestions of the public for new laws. This site would allow any Canadian voter to put forward ideas for laws, and maintain a running total of supporters for each idea. Once a month or so, the most popular idea could be converted to a draft bill, then passed on to parliament for debate. It would certainly result in some interesting debates and votes in parliament.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Michael Moriarity wrote:

How about going all in, by creating a new officer of parliament, like the Auditor General, who would have a staff, including lawyers, and would be charged with the responsibility of establishing and maintaining a web site to get the suggestions of the public for new laws. This site would allow any Canadian voter to put forward ideas for laws, and maintain a running total of supporters for each idea. Once a month or so, the most popular idea could be converted to a draft bill, then passed on to parliament for debate. It would certainly result in some interesting debates and votes in parliament.

Again, I have no problem with this as it goes through elected MPs rather than around them. They ahve the responsibility to say when a law is inconsistant or unworkable and they have the long term responsibility. These are the problems I always had with other direct democracy approaches. If anyone has a problem with this I would be interested as I just don't see one. It also has the advantage of giving a reason to draw people in to the process which would be healthy.


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005
Michael Moriarity wrote:

How about going all in, by creating a new officer of parliament, like the Auditor General, who would have a staff, including lawyers, and would be charged with the responsibility of establishing and maintaining a web site to get the suggestions of the public for new laws. This site would allow any Canadian voter to put forward ideas for laws, and maintain a running total of supporters for each idea. Once a month or so, the most popular idea could be converted to a draft bill, then passed on to parliament for debate. It would certainly result in some interesting debates and votes in parliament.

This sounds like a wonderful idea. One of the best ideas about democracy and just general Canadian politics I've heard in a long time!


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

There is an e-petition site on the government website that is open to citizens to create petitions on issues.  For petitions to be hosted on this site and for petitions to be presented to the House, it must be sponsored by a Member of Parliament.  The site is https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en

I think generally the way laws come about is that people will approach their MP with a concern, perhaps backed by a petition or other lobbying, and from there a law or a motion or other action will be taken.  I guess I doubt that a "suggestion box for laws" website would pass muster, frankly. 


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Anyway, thanks again for the suggestions.  Because I'm new to the riding association, and to the experience of being a part of a riding association, I shied away from putting forward any resolutions -- so my apologies to those who made their great suggestions.

The riding association is very new.  It's in Eglinton-Lawrence, which really hasn't had anything significant in the way of a riding association ever.  There's been some great work by some activists who dream of advancing the NDP in this area, in the hope that one day the NDP may win there.  I believe this will be the first time that a delegation from this riding attends the Convention in April.

This association did get some great help from the central campaign.  In fact, Mulcair took a gamble and ran a star candidate here (Thomson, a former finance minister from Saskatchewan), with the idea of growing the NDP and countering the Ontario myth of the NDP as poor financial managers (IE, it was intentional to run Thomson against former Conservative finance minister Oliver).  This is similar to Layton taking a gamble and running Mulcair and other stars in the highly unlikely battles in Quebec.  Alas, there was no luck this time around, but hopefully next time.

At the AGM meeting, a full Board was chosen (I'm a Member at Large -- a good place to start, I figure).  The activists organizing this riding association created a large board to include a lot of new comers.  The idea is to have a lot of us reach out to community organizations and network with them (IE, environmental, LGBTQ, anti-poverty, housing, etc.)  This seems the way to go.

There are a lot of different opinions about issues within the group.  But everyone shares a basic commitment toward a more egalitarian Canada.  I think ultimately there is a lot of compromise that occurs.  But the focus of working with and reaching out to the community is the best, I feel.  This will be how the NDP succeeds, eventually (I do still have faith it will happen one day).  Thus, the focus of our riding association.

Thomson gave a good speech about how even though the NDP did not win, that it was a good election in that people did vote for change from the Conservatives.  The NDP played a role in fostering an appetite for progressive change, so that is something to be proud of.  But, alas, the change chosen was not the NDP.  When waves hit, sometimes there's not much that can be done.  The idea is to keep trying and working, which would be true even if the NDP had won the last election (IE, that would simply have been the beginning of the work, rather than the end.)  Advocating for a more progressive egalitarian society is something that never ends.  It's an ongoing pursuit, I feel.


swallow
Offline
Joined: May 16 2002

Congrats on being chosen for the board!


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Thanks!


Debater
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2009

mark_alfred wrote:

This association did get some great help from the central campaign.  In fact, Mulcair took a gamble and ran a star candidate here (Thomson, a former finance minister from Saskatchewan), with the idea of growing the NDP and countering the Ontario myth of the NDP as poor financial managers (IE, it was intentional to run Thomson against former Conservative finance minister Oliver).  This is similar to Layton taking a gamble and running Mulcair and other stars in the highly unlikely battles in Quebec.  Alas, there was no luck this time around, but hopefully next time.

The Thomson candidacy was a huge miscalculation.  One of the worst of the campaign.  Thomson was so gaffe-prone that not only did he not end up helping the NDP, he may have actually hurt it.  (eg. driving even Toronto-Danforth into voting Liberal on E-Day because of his musing of the NDP working with a Conservative Minority).

I had to agree with what a National Post writer said the day after the election -- Thomson's 6% score is one of the worst ever for a 'star' candidate.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Debater wrote:

The Thomson candidacy was a huge miscalculation.  One of the worst of the campaign.

Oh wow, do I ever agree with Debater on this... maybe not for the same reasons... but Thomson was part of the problem, not the solution.

Andrew Thomson's Candidacy Exposes a Much Bigger Problem for the NDP

 


brookmere
Offline
Joined: Jun 23 2005
Are you confused about the state of the province’s finances? Uncertain whether Saskatchewan is running a) a balanced budget, b) a $500 million deficit or c)a $700 million deficit?” Bruce Johnstone, the financial editor of the Regina Leader-Post, wrote on March 24, 2007. “After this week’s provincial budget, you have every right to be confused. I certainly am and I’ve been covering these things for nearly 25 years. 
“The Fiscal Stabilization Fund (FSF) was created in 2000-01 to stabilize the fiscal position of the Province from year to year and to facilitate the accomplishment of long-term objectives,” the 2007-08 budget reads.

This appears similar to the Budget Stabilization Fund (aka BS Fund) established by the BC Socreds. That "fund" actually had no money in it, it was simply an accounting device to move revenues around from one fiscal year to another to give the appearance that the government was running a surplus in a given fiscal year when actually it was spending more money than it was taking in, i.e. running a deficit.

This is the kind of nonsense that "balanced budget in evey fiscal year" orthodoxy gets you.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Debater wrote:

The Thomson candidacy was a huge miscalculation.  One of the worst of the campaign.  Thomson was so gaffe-prone that not only did he not end up helping the NDP, he may have actually hurt it.  (eg. driving even Toronto-Danforth into voting Liberal on E-Day because of his musing of the NDP working with a Conservative Minority).

Layton said the same thing:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFIY44RtkTI

The apology to First Nations for the residential schools and the elimination of the unfair tax on women's hygiene products were brought about by working with Conservatives.

Thomson's statement:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oz5-7XX73Y

I'm actually partial to what he was saying.  I don't see a huge difference in Liberals and Conservatives.  But yeah, it was not in keeping with the Harper must go theme.  But buying into the theme of "Harper must go" rather than "Canada needs the NDP now" was a mistake.  The NDP should have pushed its agenda and slammed both the Conservatives and Liberals in equal measure, rather than focus solely on how to get rid of Harper (IE, we're open to a coalition, we'll never work with Harper, etc.)  So IMO the gaffe was the NDP's rather than Thomson's.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Unionist wrote:
Oh wow, do I ever agree with Debater on this... maybe not for the same reasons... but Thomson was part of the problem, not the solution. Andrew Thomson's Candidacy Exposes a Much Bigger Problem for the NDP

I don't know squat about Saskatchewan. But the former Conservative now Liberal blogger you linked to reminds me of a lot of the criticisms I used to see about David Miller, former NDPer who for a time was mayor of Toronto. A lot of right wingers would accuse Miller of fudging the books, etc., just like this blogger who quotes various Saskatchewan Party types. I take it with a grain of salt. People aren't perfect, but I'm sure Thomson would be better than Moreau or Oliver. Just like I'm sure Miller was better than Ford or Tory, despite all the right-wing trashing of him.


epaulo13
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2009

We’ve been approached by several local NDP ridings who are debating resolutions to endorse the Leap Manifesto at the upcoming NDP convention — is yours? Let us know!

https://www.facebook.com/TheLeapManifesto


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments