Saturday, November 13, 2010

Marxist Takeover of Ontario NDP Youth?

Fully quoting an article in the most recent issue of the Ontario Young Liberal's The Activist newsletter:
A radical leftist group has just literally taken over the Ontario New Democratic Youth (basically the NDP's OYL). 

"Hold on a second, Gabe," you might say. "Aren't you being a bit over-the-top?"

No!  I just had the pleasure of reading an article in a publication called "Fightback: The Canadian Marxist Voice of Labour and Youth" in which the author boasts, in detail, of how a group of self-proclaimed "radical Marxist" Young New Democrats ("Democrats" is being generous here...) stacked the ONDY Convention in Hamilton last weekend. 

Story is here: http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/613/1/

Their slate won every single executive position for which they nominated a candidate, a controlling majority of the Exec.  And they proceeded to pass a series of hilarious policy resolutions. 

It would appear that this was possible for three reasons:
1 - Their convention only had 75 delegates, so bring 40 of your closest friends and you too can be the Co-Chair.
2 - They do not enforce a membership cut-off, so anyone can show up to the election, sign a form, and vote.  Seriously. 
3 - The political gods thought I deserved some major lolz.

Model Parliament is going to be CRAZY!!!!

.... I love it when people go nuts in an election year.  Oh well.


Hehe. So much for that whole "there's no longer a ginger group in our party!" schtick. 


The Ontario NDP - blasting themselves so far back into their socialist past that they make Ed Milliband blush! Baha.

12 comments:

  1. From what I have seen of of the Ontario NDP leader, Andrea Horwath, on TV and read about her on different websites, I think she will ignore the youth wing. She doesn't seem like a person who will listen to the "Che Guevara" supporters in her party.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a resident of the city north of Hamilton where Horwath resides and built her career, I'd question her commitment to moderation at any point in time. She's a lefty of the leftists. The ONDY may have a sympathetic ear, ya know?

    Mind you, not many people listen to the ONDY anyways, so you're probably right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By "taking over" the you seem to mean democratically elected as per the rules of the organization. Imagine that? Why are people are amazed when a group of people who have a particular cause have the organization and foresight to carry it through, actually do it? If they were a group of self-styled moderates who wanted to bring the party more to the middle of the political spectrum no one would have bothered to talk about it because that would be considered to be perfectly fair. People love democracy until it serves up results that they find objectionable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Even if it was a group of fuzzy loving creatures, it's still considered a "takeover," given that they purposely ran a slate of candidates aimed at gaining a majority, and purposely took advantage of both the rules and the lack of certain rules in order to stack the votes in their favour. It's a political takeover.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would agree with kirby the rules exist for a reason. The youth showed up and took over as per the regulations.
    All parties have a safety valve and can ignore their delegates or policies from the convention.

    Ignatieff and Layton have done so too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At last - something that CanadianSense and i can agree on. We may be on opposite ends of the political spectrum but we'll agree on democracy - if you empower people and give them democratic rights, sometimes you won't like what they decide. That's the price you pay.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And? The point is that it's still a "takeover" - even CS said so. I didn't say anything was wrong or illegal about it, and putting words into my mouth is not the right way to make friendly conversation, hm. The fact is, it's a takeover. Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why would I or kirbycairo disagree with a public fact?

    When did "takeover" become a negative?

    Some are friendly and some are not in the business world. In most cases laws with teams of lawyers are involved. The same happens within political circles.

    The leadership change to dump Dion was modified, some call it a takeover by MI's camp. BR was not happy the convention or a wider contest to count votes did not take place in selecting the new leader.

    The gatekeepers in this instance failed in anticipating the takeover by a group of citizens that were well within their rights to propose new policy.

    The takeover fear is baseless as it won't matter if the executive can ignore the decisions of this group.

    The message is "thank you" for showing us a flaw in our rules and regulations and we will fix it so this won't be repeated.

    The decision makers in the back room will simply ignore the grassroots or "fringe" voices within the party. It happens all the time.

    I believe EVERY party leader has within their arsenal to deploy the nuke option against the riding or candidate if necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CS,

    Is there any actual point to what you're typing here? Because I don't remember even saying that a takeover was negative in any way, aside from the fact that I'm not a fan of Marxists, as I assume most modern Dippers are not as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Marxists, Yugi-oh tournament players, Liberals etc.

    It does not matter.

    Canadians are voting and donating their time and money to the political party they support. This is just not a good time to be a Liberal atm.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That has to be the most stretched conclusion I've yet to see in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Volkov - I think that it is clear that in most people's perception the use of the word "takeover" would have a negative connotation and that when people use the word is seems likely that they intend it in a negative way. Furthermore, I think we can question the idea that any group of people who are like-minded and assert their general will in a democratically organized institution, can be rightly called a "takeover." I think such a categorization robs the word "takeover" of its meaning. I suppose that one could argue for a 'weak' and a 'strong' use of the term, but given the historically negative use of the word, there must be a better way to express such events.

    ReplyDelete