The NDP should do a name change.

[The Crazy Canadian]

I've been a member of the NDP for 5 years and contribute monthly to the party. I think it's about time to change it's name to better reflect it's political ideology. We have a Liberal Party, we have a Conservative Party, why not change the name to the Progressive Party?

I think it would be a good move to do so. Most of the party stands behind progressive/social democratic principals, so why not have a party call itself what it is? It's one thing that has bothered me for so long and would like to see an internal debate about this within the party. Anyone else thinks this would be a good idea?

[Canuckistanian]

1. I'm not against the idea

I just don't see the need.

[The Crazy Canadian]

2. I think it would have an appeal to the younger generation.

Plus it could help voters know where we stand and draw some votes from the Liberals, mostly from the left end of the party.

[Canuckistanian]

8. But what is scaring them away from the NDP?

Not sexy enough?

[The Crazy Canadian]

9. I get the feeling the younger generation would be more interested in

joining the Green Party instead. We should focus on bringing in new blood and new ideas. The New Democratic Party just sounds so hallow.

[Maple]

10. The NDP

is seen as just as extreme as the Tories, only in the opposite direction. Another 'wing' party.

And after our experience with Bob Rae, Ontarians aren't likely to go in that direction again.

I'd vote for a 'progressive' party, but not if it's just the NDP renamed.

A new name hasn't helped the old Reform party either, and they've done it several times.

[The Crazy Canadian]

11. The Reform Party changed it's name when things looked bad.

They where looking to go national and changing its name to the Canadian Alliance didn't help in that respect. They were still considered the Reform Party. But they did swallow up the Progressive Conservatives to come out as the Conservative Party.

I think things are looking good for the NDP, with the recent "NDP" budget getting passed and all. I think a name change when things are looking good is better then when things are getting desperate. I think the name change would better focus the party on where we are and what we stand for. The NDP name itself remains for a lot of people that its just some radical socialist party.

[Maple]

13. 18% isn't 'looking good'

and just renaming a 'radical socialist party' won't improve your standings.

[The Crazy Canadian]

14. I don't think we are far from the Conservatives, a few % points away the

last time i saw it and number 2 in Ontario. Jack Layton has been a good leader and doing something dramatic like a name change would be an improvement. Renaming the party to better reflect it's ideology will go a long way down the line, i hope anyways.

[Maple]

15. But you've been there for 60 plus years

it isn't going to get any better. This is all there is.

Instead of just a cosmetic change...change the ideology.

Same thing as the Cons will have to do if they EVER want to get elected.

[The Crazy Canadian]

16. I think the ideology should be updated and tweaked, that's about it.

I think the real impact could be a name change, not only for the members of the NDP but for the voters too. It'll be like, "hey, we're the Progressives, like it or leave it".

Core policy programs will remain the same:

-strengthening the universal health care system
-strengthening the public education system
-improve environmental regulations
-don't get involved in US imperialistic wars
-regulate corporations
-cut tax loop-holes for the wealthy

I think this is better than the pro-corporate policies of either the Liberals or Conservatives.

[Maple]

17. That isn't what you're known for

not one Canuck in a thousand would recognize any of those things as NDP.

They are also motherhood items...the question is 'how'?

[The Crazy Canadian]

18. When you come out with the name change, it'll be a great opportunity to

express some of party's core policies - keep it simple and short. Some buzz in the media about it will be great exposure to the public.

[Maple]

19. People know the 'core policies'

They just don't like them.

[The Crazy Canadian]

20. The NDP has to work with a hostile corporate media which always

depicts them as fringe. I think they've done an amazing job and i'm suggesting a name change to improve the party's fortunes. The Liberals have moved right-ward and pretty much represent the views and value similar to those of the DLC in the US. I think Canadians have been suckered into believing that the Liberals are the moderate and sensible party while their nothing more than corporate whores.

[Maple]

23. It isn't a hostile corporate media

That's the same excuse the Cons use for their poor performance.

It's just the media...part of the job, and you have to deal with it.

Goodness knows, the media has spent the last year trouncing the Liberals, but they don't complain about it all the time.

It's policy. Only policy.

If you have reasonable sensible ones, media coverage reflects that.

Canadians haven't been 'suckered' into any such belief... for over 60 years? C'mon.

The Opposition parties have recently been handed a gift, on a silver platter.

The AG report and Gomery.

The Liberals dropped to record lows in the polls. People hated them.

Opposition parties should have been flying high. Instead they are even lower than the Liberals...now that takes talent.

Policy. Only policy.

[iverglas]

26. ah yes, the editorial fairy

It's policy. Only policy. If you have reasonable sensible ones, media coverage reflects that.

If you have reasonable, sensible policies, the Aspers and Blacks of the world will line up to put approving editorials under your pillow ...

[Maple]

28. That would be the NatPost

if you're talking Aspers and Black.

We do have other papers ya know.

[iverglas]

29. yes, we do have other papers

... and quite a lot of them are owned by the Aspers, I'm sure you know. The Post very definitely ain't the only one.

http://www.montrealnewspaperguild.com/canwestlinks2.htm
http://thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1020377092988&call_page=TS_Letters&call_pageid=968332189003&call_pagepath=News/Letters
(2002 figures, which I don't think have changed much)

CanWest's Geoffrey Elliot rejects the CJFE call for an inquiry into media concentration, saying his company owns "less than 14 per cent of the 1,163 newspapers in Canada. According to the Canadian Newspaper Association (CNA), CanWest Global's Southam Publications group owns 27 of 91 such titles, or 29.7 per cent. A more meaningful measure of print impact is circulation. The CNA's data for mid-2001 show that Southam's English-language dailies were circulating 11.4 million copies per week — 41 per cent of the total. In other words, two out of every five copies of English-language dailies sold in Canada were Southam papers. Even if French-language papers are thrown into the mix, Southam accounts for one-third of all daily newspaper circulation.

Of course, CanWest isn't limited to newspapers; it's CanWest Global. Just as the Globe & Mail's corporate controllers also have CTV, remember?

Many people here live in a city where at least one of the major newspapers isn't Asper?


And just btw (on edit), I would expect that when I say "the Aspers and Blacks of the world", it would really be very, very plain that I am describing a class that consists of somewhat more than an Asper and a Black, and might just include the likes of the folks at Bell Globemedia, f'r instance. A response consisting of a reference to the National Post (a major sin of omission in any event, even if we were only talking about Aspers) does just smack of disingenuousness again.

[Bassic]

33. We do, but mot many.

Wake up and smell the coffee

[Maple]

35. Funny, the Cons

insist ALL our media are leftwing, and that's what's holding down THEIR party's chances.

Maybe both your parties should stop blaming the media for your problems?

[Bassic]

32. Well I, for one, would. And I've never voted for the NDP

[Maple]

38. I'd vote for peace on earth too

but the trick is achieving it.

[iverglas]

22. anybody to the right of social democrat

... e.g. any Liberal ... is going to say that the NDP is "just some radical socialist party" no matter what it's called.

"Radical" is pretty much in the eye of the beholder, given that everybody can just define it to mean whatever s/he wants and then use it in a sentence: if a party wants to change how anything is done, it's "radical".

"Socialist", the NDP really is not and has never been. But it's always fun to label it that.

Few people have any clue what "social democratic" means. The abuse of the label in Europe over the last couple of decades hasn't helped much even for those who pay some attention. And the fact that the term might as well be Martian in the US doesn't help either, given the penetrating presence of USAmerican political discourse in Canada. Just look at how the USAmerican notions of "liberal" and "conservative" are gaining ground here, despite the fact that they have little to do with our political context. "Social democrat" just doesn't exist on that tiny narrow spectrum.

I've generally been of the view that what would help is if the NDP did something to firm up the vision of what its policy core is, rather than just change its name (again).

There's always been a bit too much blowing in the wind for my taste. One election it's "free trade!", another it's "health care!", etc. etc. -- whatever issue looks like its name is on this year's balloon, we shoot at it.

Not that the party can necessarily do much about that. We don't get to frame the debate. (No one necessarily does, but we're in a weaker position than some for that purpose.)

I think that the lesson that the Reform/Alliance/Conservative experience might teach us is that people aren't fooled by such things. Same wolf, different sheepskin, in that case, and everybody knows it.

What would the NDP be wanting to fool people about? I know that's not the reason for *your* proposal, but I tend to think that that's the question people would have if the party were to morph into some other party without some very good reason, i.e. some significant change in substance as well as name. And I imagine that the suspicion would be "what do those radical socialists have to hide, and what are they trying to slip past us?"

And I don't think we need such a sea change in substance. A social democratic party is what's needed at present. I do think we should probably be a bit more focused and explicit about being social democrat, though.

[Maple]

24. During the last election

Layton announced he was a 'socialist'.

That, coupled with a few idiotic policies, sank him.

[iverglas]

25. uh ... so?

So Layton's a socialist. He may also be a Christian, and/or a golf fanatic.

That would not mean that the NDP is a socialist party, or a Christian party, or a golf party.

Good grief, if someone were to say that during the last election, Martin announced he was a 'Roman Catholic' (which he has certainly done), what point would we think s/he was trying to make?

Layton's a socialist. I'm probably a socialist too. And I'm no more demanding that Canada be socialist than Martin is demanding that Canada be Roman Catholic.

A party's policy agenda is simply not the same thing as any individual's political philosophy -- not even the leader's.

Me, I'll be waiting for Paul Martin to come out and say that he's a corporatist capitalist, which I have no doubt he is, and which philosophy I have no doubt he would personally like to see implemented for the political/economic organization of Canada. A little honesty in politics can be so refreshing, doncha think?


That, coupled with a few idiotic policies, sank him.

And that does continue to be your opinion of the matter.

[Maple]

27. Translation: unelectable

Canadians won't elect a socialist party. Sorry.

And Martin isn't a 'corporate capitalist' either

It's not 'my' opinion...the Liberals got elected. Even with all the AG uproar.

You really have to get away from this left/right shit.

[iverglas]

30. you're so cute!

Canadians won't elect a socialist party. Sorry.

You see, as long as you keep calling the NDP "socialist", the chance that Canadians will elect the NDP may just be held down. Funny how you've not actually established that the NDP is "socialist" ... or even responded to assertions, or the obvious fact, that it isn't ... so maybe you're just advancing some sort of general principle not directly relevant to the discussion here, eh?

Of course, the funny thing is how many Canadians *do* elect the NDP. Why, I've done it several times myself. I did it in the very last federal election.

So we have to add: as long as you keep representing "Canadians" as a monolithic entity that elects only one party, to only one level of government, when the truth is nowhere like that, well, your statement is true, at least so far.

Now, is there any chance we could leave off being so disingenuous? Did you really think that I was saying that it was "your opinion" that the NDP was defeated? --

you: Layton announced he was a 'socialist'.
That, coupled with a few idiotic policies, sank him.
me: And that does continue to be your opinion of the matter.
you: It's not 'my' opinion...the Liberals got elected. Even with all the AG uproar.

So ... maybe I could say that a few unsavoury scandals got the Liberals elected? That's not my opinion! - they got elected!!

Obviously, dirty dealings get the Liberals elected, just like having a socialist leader gets the NDP defeated. No wonder the Liberals just keep on being corrupt!

Of course, I could say this about as accurately as you can say that Layton's announcement that he is a socialist and an alleged few idiotic policies sank the NDP, I'd say.

I mean, that's my own humble opinion: that there were several other factors that at least had a hand in the NDP's failure to sweep the polls. I would assume that it's your own humble opinion that filthy corruption isn't the only factor in the Liberals' victories. Mind you, we might think that it's one factor -- given how much of it they engage in, they must surely think it works.


And Martin isn't a 'corporate capitalist' either

Actually, I said he is a corporatist capitalist. And, uh, give me a fuckin break.

The long-time head of a huge and hugely profitable corporation that wanders the world looking for (and doing its best to create) the political conditions that are most conducive to its ability to exploit people and resources and tax systems for the profit of its owners ... isn't a corporatist capitalist. Right.

[Maple]

34. No, I'm gorgeous

And everyone in the country but you apparently, knows the NDP is socialist.

They have their die-hard base, as do the Cons, but both are unelectable as govt.

Canadians don't like extremes...and that's what the wings are. Both left and right. Liberals are middle-of-the-road. It's the secret to their success....although it's hardly rocket-science.

Even Preston Manning eventually figured it out. 'Why did the Canadian cross the road? To get to the middle,' he said.

Martin said in his leadership address that he would be mainstream middle, neither right nor left, and he's done exactly that.

[iverglas]

36. it's such a fine mantra

They have their die-hard base, as do the Cons, but both are unelectable as govt.

Too bad somebody doesn't chant it longer and louder and harder in Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, and even Ontario.

And in numerous municipalities round the country, where NDP mayors and NDP-majority municipal councils have long been elected. Of course, not by Canadians. Heaven forbid. Martians came down and voted in those elections.

Canadians don't like extremes...and that's what the wings are. Both left and right. Liberals are middle-of-the-road.

So you and they say. Like I've said before ... it does just tend to depend on where the road gets put.

How blinkered to you have to be not to see that what is "middle of the road" today was "extreme left-wing" barely two generations ago? Universal health care? Universal old age pensions? Same-sex marriage? Lordy. They weren't running down the middle of any road back in 1960.

I'm sure Hitler and Stalin were in the middle of one road or other, eh? And Stalin would probably have called our dear Liberal Party extreme right-wing, while Hitler would undoubtedly have called it extreme left-wing ... and I shiver to think what he would have called the NDP. Kinda what you do, I guess. Although, from his perspective, he would have been slightly more accurate.

And from your perspective, you're accurate. But who the hell cares? Why is a policy good simply because it's somewhere in between two other policies? Who the hell cares what it's in the middle of?

Maybe what we should do is start up a Marxist-Leninist party, so that the whole road is broadened markedly over to the left, and the Liberals will have no choice but to move left if they want to stay in the middle ...

Martin said in his leadership address that he would be mainstream middle, neither right nor left, and he's done exactly that.

And next time I want to accept the definition of either "right" or "left" offered by a fat cat corporatist sleazoid, I'll let him know.

I can't believe that you don't actually appreciate how utterly meaningless it is to describe something as politically "middle of the road".

And I'm sure you positively must appreciate that any party that actually aims to be "middle of the road" will simply wander back and forth as the parties on its left and right shift course. As long as it is able to represent itself, at least, as being somewhere in between them, it just never has to have any policies of its own; it's just "not them" and "not them". Damned negative way of doing things, I'd say.

And everyone in the country but you apparently, knows the NDP is socialist.

Next time I talk to my mum, who has voted NDP for 2 decades or more now, I'll be sure to ask her whether the NDP is a socialist party.

Of course, you're right, you could just ask me. Since I do have a clue what "socialist means", and you appear not to have any, that would probably be an excellent idea.

Why does someone keep saying something so obviously and utterly false?

[Maple]

37. If, after 60 plus years,

you haven't figured out that your dogma/ideology/policy is unelectable, no one can help you.

In Ontario, municipal govt has no parties...you elect individuals.

Ontario overshot the mark on strategic voting one time, and got stuck with an NDP govt. Never again. Not provincially, not federally.

I've been around a long time...and no 'leftwing' policies have not become middle of the road. Neither has rightwing policy.

Don't be daft enough to drag Hitler and Stalin into this, since both were considered socialist, and they are hardly the kind of examples you'd want to promote.

We already have a Marxist-Leninist party thanx, and they are as crazy as the rightwingers.

Martin was quite clear on what he meant by being neither left nor rightwing.

"I don't believe in right wing dogmatism. I don't believe that trickle down economics works, or that rising levels of inequality speak to a healthy society. I don't believe in left wing dogmatism. I don't believe you can run a government with bankers pounding at the door. I don't believe you should borrow from your children or grandchildren."

Why ask your mother? Can't you figure things out by yourself?

Or is it that you just vote like your family always has, and never worked out what you yourself think?

Isn't it time?

[iverglas]

39. la di dah

In Ontario, municipal govt has no parties...you elect individuals.

Taking Canada's capital as an example, it elected a mayor who made no bones about being NDP. If people won't vote for a "socialist" party, why in blazes would they vote for a "socialist" mayor? Or for all the "socialist" municipal councillors they have voted for over the years? I mean, you don't actually think that Jack Layton first came out of the NDP closet when he became leader of the NDP, do you?

People elect Parliaments in exactly the same way they elect city councillors and mayors -- by voting for individual representatives. And one hell of a lot of Canadians have voted for NDP candidates for Parliament, and elected NDP members of Parliament, over the years.

I don't know what you have invested in this, um, theory of yours, but it just don't fly. There is no "Canadian" way to vote. Some Canadians vote one way, more Canadians may vote a different way in any given riding, or nationally. This "Canadians do" and "Canadians don't" crud is about as meaningful as any other dumb and/or obnoxious stereotype anyone might come up with about any other group.

Ontario overshot the mark on strategic voting one time, and got stuck with an NDP govt.

I don't think I've ever actually heard that theory in explanation of the NDP provincial government in Ontario. Seriously. Whose is it?

The outgoing government was Liberal. Are we suggesting that Conservatives voted NDP to get rid of Liberals? I don't quite see how *that* would fit into your worldview.

Ah, here we are; the CTV's Paula Newton said it:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1087065957630_74/?hub=TopStories

CTV's Paula Newton said one of the most concrete examples of strategic voting gone wrong was when a provincial NDP goverment was elected in Ontario in 1990.

"Afterwards, Ontarians confessed, 'we didn't really want to elect Bob Rae (the NDP leader); we wanted to punish Liberal Premier David Peterson.'"

Uh ... that is not "strategic voting".

The voters voted for the NDP and not for the Liberals -- but hardly because they were trying to keep the Conservatives out of power, I think. *That* would have been strategic voting. All they had to do to keep the Conservatives out of power was to vote Liberal, duh.

But again ... "Ontarians confessed ...". Well, I sure as hell didn't. And I'm an Ontarian through and through.

I've been around a long time...and no 'leftwing' policies have not become middle of the road. Neither has rightwing policy.

I dunno. The words I type are right there in front of you. How come you figure you can just ignore them and act like you're responding to something completely different?

Was universal health care "middle of the road" in 1960? Were universal old age pensions? Them were the questions on the table. Let me help you: no, they were not "middle of the road". They were NDP policy ... you know, that stuff way off in the ditch on the left side of the road.

And lookie now. They're so middle of the road that nobody even talks about old age pensions, and no politician dares tamper with health care.

Oh, and don't forget same-sex marriage. Suddenly it's Liberal policy to support it, so it's by definition middle of the road, eh? And yet imagine, a decade ago, trying to even get it onto the road.

The road veers left, Liberals veer left. But the road veers right, the Liberals veer right, too. Such leadership we get from them!

Don't be daft enough to drag Hitler and Stalin into this, since both were considered socialist, and they are hardly the kind of examples you'd want to promote.

Aha, I was right. Ya don't have a clue what "socialist" means. But I guess we may as well come right out and say it, eh? The NDP is a bunch of closet Nazis.

"I don't believe in right wing dogmatism. I don't believe that trickle down economics works, or that rising levels of inequality speak to a healthy society. I don't believe in left wing dogmatism. I don't believe you can run a government with bankers pounding at the door. I don't believe you should borrow from your children or grandchildren."

And anybody who believes a word that comes out of his mouth needs his/her head examined.

Me, I'll just scratch mine and wonder why someone who doesn't believe in trickle-down economics, or think that rising levels of inequality are a good thing, would have handed out all those juicy tax cuts to all those upper-income folks back when he was Finance Minister. ... Nope, I'm stumped. You do know that rising levels of inequality are the main reason for our steady slide down the list of best places to live in the world in the last few years, right? And that his influence as Finance Minister has quite a bit to do with that?

Why ask your mother? Can't you figure things out by yourself?
Or is it that you just vote like your family always has, and never worked out what you yourself think?
Isn't it time?

See, I told you you were cute!

My parents began voting NDP around the time I began running as an NDP candidate. Funny how things sometimes work, ain't it?

[Maple]

40. Hey if you want to promote this stuff

yet again... and lose...yet again...I don't mind.

I'll be voting Liberal.

Municipal politicians can claim they are a member of any party they like, but votes are on individuals, not parties or party platforms.

The mayor of Ottawa's personal politics have nothing to do with municipal affairs...which is roads, garbage, street lights, local zoning and the like.

People elect MPPs and MPs on a party basis...no matter what kind of dork is running locally. Actually you vote for the leader, not the local.

Canadians have voted in a federal Liberal govt for 80% of Canada's history....so yeah, it's the Canadian way to vote...middle of the road.

The fluke vote for the NDP govt in Ontario was dissected and analyzed for the whole horrible looooong 5 years they were in. Never again. Shouldn't have happened in the first place. No one was more surprised than the NDP.

People voted NDP to trim the Liberals to a minority..we just overshot the mark. An amateur view of strategic voting

The Cons weren't an issue back then. We'd had 30 years of them.

I'm 59 iverglas...and you can't explain anything in Canadian politics to me. I've held office myself, so I'm more familiar with the situation than you.

And I'm a realist, with no illusions.

The NDP will never be government in Canada

PS...Nazi...National Socialist Party...sorry, but that's what it stands for, like it or not.

Martin is as middle of the road as it gets. Since both you and the Cons hate him, he must be doing something right.

Get over it.

And hey...as a party recruiter...well, don't give up your day job.

[SnowBack]

41. Ontario under Bob Rae was just fine...

Other than the fact he had the media looking for things to go after him about... CFRB and the Toronto Sun had a field day.... unfortunately

[Maple]

42. Ontario under Bob Rae was a disaster

The catch phrase was 'stay alive till 95'....so we did.

And then we got rid of him

[Maple]

3. They have argued

about it for years. So far they haven't found a compromise.

They aren't 'new' anymore...yet if you drop that they sound like the American party.

'Social democrats' already have baggage.

And nobody can agree on the meaning of 'progressive'

Ask at rabble.ca what they think about it.

[nine23]

4. As long as Harper continues showing up at photo ops looking like this...

...desperately trying waaayyy tooo hard cultivating his..um... "tough guy" western cowboy persona, any strategy changes are pretty much redundant, wouldn't you say?

[Canuckistanian]

6. "psst! Is it working? Are they buying it?"

Lipstick on a pig....

[CanuckAmok]

5. I dunno...a name reflecting a party's values seems so Uncanadian.

And, frankly, a little confusing.

[Canuckistanian]

7. How 'bout the New Electoral Reform Democracy party

The NERDs.

[AlwaysQuestion]

12. NDP-Progressive--Name change won't do it

Talk to a lot of Canucks who think our political system is superior to that of the States. In some respects it's true--but I think marginally so. We are very much corporate driven with our own set of exceedingly rich internationalists who set the agenda. The NDP will never fly here under any banner.

I have no love for the Liberals who've managed to piss away money like the rest of us do water. They are completely to blame for the decline of our medical health system. Mind you, the medical profession as a whole would like to see us go the American system. I mean they were none too pleased when the Health Care system was originally set up and fought its initiation claw and tong. They're fairly salivating now at the prospects of earning some REAL dough. Which reminds me, does anyone here know the site where you can get the annual salaries of B.C. doctors? I had it once but lost it during a computer crash. Let me tell you it's an eye opener. Lots and lots of salaries in excess of 500,000 and even 1 mill. But it just ain't enough. Greed knows no boundaries. And that's just an example.

The only thing I give Chretien credit for is his refusal to get our "troops" and "war machinery" (okay, laughs are allowed) involved in Iraq. Still he's a wee weasel. And the Conservatives although still right of the Dems in the States are very much the handmaiden of corporations.

NDP turned Progressive and given a shot at governing? I don't think so, though I wish it would be so.

[cheeseit]

21. How long can a party be "New" for?

:shrug:

[Bassic]

31. Interesting idea if they do that and take steps to appeal to

French speakers, they might even get a few ridings in Québec.