It's always strange to be away from your usual media sources for a few days, and then to come home and catch up. It's even stranger to find that what has been reported corresponds very little to what you've been experiencing. That's what I feel this morning, having just arrived back home from the New Democratic Party convention in Halifax.
The headlines in The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir today both suggest that some how delegates were robbed of the chance to discuss a name change for the party, specifically dropping the "New." An oxymoron, supposedly. Not in keeping with the idea that party ought togo right in order to win votes.
"Names change debate fizzles," says the Globe. Le Devoir's headline says about the same, and the lead paragraph talks about the name change as "one of the most controversial issues" on the convention docket. There also is much hand wringing about the way the party reaffirmed many of its lefty policies.
But that's what the people there wanted--and it is also, I'm sure, what the people of Canada want.
I was there from 9:30 a.m on Friday until the closing, and I heard practically no one talk about the name change. The two motions didn't even get forwarded from the preliminary sessions where they were considered with a recommendation that they be debated on the floor of the convention. There were far more important things to talk about like child care, and defending health care, and sustainable development, and the crisis in the salmon fishery and... Well, the list goes on and on. I haven't counted but a good 350 resolutions had been submitted from across Canada, perhaps 75 were forwarded from the preliminary sessions with recommendations for further consideration, and maybe 30 were approved on the floor. The rest of the resolutions that made the first cut may be further considered by the National Council.
The convention ended with Leader Jack Layton talking rousingly about "taking Canada back" from the Conservatives. That would make a great campaign slogan. And what about this for a campaign song?
"Don't throw the past away
You might need it some rainy day
Dreams can come true again
When ev'ry thing old is new again"
Note: Hugh Jackman lyrics, of course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
That's a good effort at trying to spin that away, Mary, but he fact is that this name change was the only thing that was giving you any positive spin from the media and in the media.. and your delegates not only didn't get around to voting on it, it appears that some of them were intent on it never even getting to the floor to be debate (reading an 8 page motion verbatim word for word when there's only an hour time allotted smells of an indirect filibuster/stall tactic).
When you've got NDP delegates and an NDP MP accusing anti-change the name delegates of that, that's not easily brushed away, Mary.
The NDP party leadership blew it by not allotting more then an hour for motion debate (makes it appear like they were purposely trying to stifle debate on certain motions) and the filibustering delegates used an undemocratic tactic completely unworthy of a party named the "new Democratic Party", and the fact of the matter is, none of your passed/debated motions will create any of the press that this one motions did.. and will continue to do because of how it was stifled.
Talk about hearing what you want to hear!
Media coverage of a bad idea is not a good thing. What is sad is the press (and, damn it, I've been a member in good standing for a long time) didn't listen to any of the discussion about pension reform, sustainable development, EI etc which culminated in Jack Layton's stirring call to "Take Canada Back."
Scott... talk about spinning and not knowing what ACTUALLY happened. The original order of the resolutions was set, and then went to the panels, WHERE THE MEMBERS HAD THE CHANCE TO REORDER THE RESOLUTIONS!!!!
The fact is that some delegates tried to move both Name Change resolutions up, but they lost the vote, TO THE DELEGATES!!!! THE DELEGATES VOTED NOT TO MOVE IT!!!! So this just isn't some grand party scheme to avoid something.
"The NDP party leadership blew it by not allotting more then an hour for motion debate"
Actually every motion block had an hour of debate. There were 8 motion blocks and one emergency motion block. Thus 9 hours of debate. This is just Liberal misinformation from people uninformed of everything accept party talking points. The way you talk you would never know there was over 60 resolutions debated on the floor this week, and that does not include an hour of agenda debate on Friday.
Not sure what Scott saw happen at the convention, it appears he read the mainstream media and did not talk to delegates.
Its cool that some delegates felt passionate about the resolution to change the name. Its understandable they are upset.
The delegates decided what was to be debated. Not the party brass, not Jack Layton, not some back room boys.
The idea that the NDP missed an opportunity is legit, saying the NDP undemocratic because the media's issue was not debated is not.
The NDP is known above all by its initials, in French as in English. DP has an obscene connotation in English, and is an old-fashioned derogatory name for gay men (pédé) in French.
Seems someone even wanted to rename the NDP the "Equality Party"! Boy, they hadn't checked that one with the Québécois delegates!
Was Anne Lagacé-Dowson there? I was so disappointed that she didn't win, though Westmount remains a tough seat to take from the Libs (although it includes a big swath of downtown Montréal and the southwestern Plateau as well as the city of the same name).
Indeed there was little coverage in the mainstream media of the actual issues before Convention; what little I know I've read at rabble.ca
Do hope you had the chance to get out for a walk in the walkable old parts of Halifax, though even that old city, like Québec, is ringed with shameful suburban sprawl.
Post a Comment