It's no big secret that there have been problems within the party, but if even half of what appears here is true, we're in big trouble:
Jump to navigation
It's no big secret that there have been problems within the party, but if even half of what appears here is true, we're in big trouble:
When I saw this I emailed a friend who has been on council for a number of years and a candidate. He says it is factually wrong in a lot of places, childish in others, and just plain idiotic in yet more. He also wonders if the Liberals are restless. In short your claim of even half being true seems far fetched.
It wasn't a claim (I have no idea how accurate any of it is), its more of a concern. I hope your friend is right because the party doesn't need the distraction.
While the author might or might not have (a few) valid points, they needlessly wrap it up in hysteria and overblown rhetoric, thus sabotaging any points they were trying to make. I see plenty of accusations and claims, but precious little evidence.
I figured that it was a steaming pile when I read the words 'year zero'. Generally, that's a bad sign.
It's part of the standard Conservative whisper campaign runup to all elections. Their intellectually challenged following need attack ammunition given that Hudak will give them fuckall idea about what he intends to actually do...besides lower taxes, of course.
I think it is far more likely the Liberals George. In my years of experience the Liberals are almost always the dirtiest campaigners. The Cons are usually to hamfisted to be truly effective and the NDP is often unwilling to get down in the mud even when they need to.
The tactics would seem to vary riding by riding, party by party,Ltu. The Cons depended mightily on the whisper campaign in Peterborough. Those folks were not "hamfisted." But perhaps that only reflects the political waters where my first hate-on took hold. However, it was the Cons who foirst imported political talent from the U.S. in '95, as I recall.
I actually enjoy the Precy blog and think it is a real breathe of fresh air to a stagnant party. I also find it amusing that you folks seem to be doing exactly what Percy is accusing the party in general of being guilty of in the first place, sticking your heads in the sand.
Rather than paying attention to real concerns like the fact that the party fundraised for a building it did not buy, kept the truth from its won membership, is in a real labour crisis and possibly a strike situation, is 3 millon in debt and counting, and fundraising is practically non-existent, you concentrate on your dislike of these issues being raised in the first place, the package they come in, or even better, you try and cover-up by using the NDP's last and most deperate recouse--paranoia. All reminiscent of the Mubarak loyalists...
Yes boys, the liberals and the conservative are so freaking terrified of the powerhouse NDP that they spend all their time hatching plans against the NDP. All of the NDP's current woes can be traced back to what lurks outside in the big bad scary world, not to the NDP's history of mismanagement and bad decison-making. Newsflash, the NDP is very far down the list of concerns of the two main parties. Each party has its own internal wing that ranks as a "third" party before the NDP does.
Seems to me the lesson in Percy's blog is that the NDP needs to start looking at the mounds of dogshit in its own backyard that has piled up over the years before pointing anymore fingers.
@edmundoconnor, nothing personal, but you're no party insider by any stretch, you'd would have no idea of which points are valid or not. The financial documents speak for themselves.
Perhaps this thread could be about the substantive issues rather than about the now tiresome traditional NDP whinning.
The blog of "Wright Percy" was obvious started to raise shit in the NDP. Who is this character?
Obviously a Conservative creation to appeal to the easily led, the anti-social, the JALLs.
I didn't see much in the post that rose above high-school level tittle-tattle. I saw a lot of assertions, claims, but no evidence to back it up. I didn't see links to any of the incriminating documents in the blog post. If he/she/ze has them, surely Wrightpercy could post them for all to see? If the evidence is as damning as he/she/ze says, where's the harm? If 'the financial documents speak for themselves', then I'd like to hear them speak, rather than rely on what people say they say.
Its a misnomer that 'financial documents speak for themsleves'. They rarely do. As pointed out, wrightpercy did not provide them. But even if they were provided, its all about interpreting what you have in front of you.
There is nothing self-evident about any of this.
JALL, don't you think it could be possible, just for a second that it might be because people who might know something about it feel it is full of shit. Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make it true- especially when not a single shred of evidence is presented. Frankly I would take the word of my friend who is way more in the know than me, than some over-the-top screed based on what mostly appears to be gossip.
I am not sure what to make of any of this. Someone forwarded the wrightpercy blog to me and I went over it, finding some of it more interesting than the rest.
The accusations in the blog are serious, and in some cases very personal.
As I am no longer a New Democrat, I don't really care. The party has burned its bridges with many people, so it is hardly a surprise that someone would turn the tables, fairly or otherwise. And the NDP has never been above this kind of stuff...an organizer publicly violated my privacy rights without anything being done.
Humorously, the blog must have struck a note, however, as I accidentally came across this blog in response...
Looks like the ONDP is not above getting personal...and they had better hope they are right about Kelly, who I know, or they may find that these things cut both ways.
Seems you aren't above a little drive by smearing yourself. It seems highly unlikely that this blog is by the "ONDP". Far more likley it is some young over-enthusiastic supporter(s). Anyone with half a bone of common sense and decency would not attempt your type of smearing. So your attempt to smear indicates that the NDP is probably far better off without your presense -and I say that as someone who is not a member, and only a sometime supporter and doesn't know or give a rat's ass who you are.
Check for Liberals under the covers.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the internet it has come to our attention that there is blog. This blog is run by the anon "Percy Wright" and she/he/they use it to smear people with internet rage.
Call us a bunch of Ontario NDP cry babies, but we just don't like how petty the anonymous blog is.
Over all, we find that she/he/they isn't interested in debate for the purpose of growth, but only focused on the destruction of individuals.
With that in mind, we are going open a public, collaborative space to talk about WHO IS PERCY WRIGHT."
Then they directly accuse Kelly Foote.
I have smeared no one. The website exists. Period. People can judge for themselves.
As for Liberals, I hate the Liberals. And I can't stand the neo-liberal NDP.
So a pox on wrightpercy and percywright. This is what the NDP has come down to.
Nice try, Not only are you a smear jobber, you are dishonest from one post to the next. You clearly tried to imply the ONDP was behind that blog. It seems highly, highly unlikely.
Seems the NDP is lucky to see the back of you
Maybe so..., the NDP is no doubt better off without leftists, but you seem unduly interested in it for someone who has no idea who I am!
I really don't care one-way-or-the-other, but I note that I write under my own name and you are...who the fuck knows?
I was not being dishonest. The blog is CLEARLY from someone in the upper ranks of the ONDP as they seem to know a lot about Kelly. They even go so far as to say "He will twist your words and make it sound like a scandal. I know that I've told him stuff and now I regret that it is being used to attack people. Sorry all."
Seems to be an insider to me...or someone who wants to seem like one.
But your tactics are typical Life...Blame the Messenger...I really have no desire to debate this.
I will say it is NOT a smear job to post a link, but it is a farce to make it seem so.
Actually, I just realized the true irony of this...
You are saying I smeared the ONDP by posting a link that DEFENDED the ONDP.
Is that not kind of stupid?
Insulting and unnecessarily antagonistic. Tone it down please.
Since it seems so difficult for you I will spell it out more clearly.
You made a specific claim that the ONDP (the organization) was behind the 2nd blog. That is so unlikely even the most obtuse person would know that saying such thing is a deliberate attempt to mislead and smear. Clearly, given the level of proof-reading on the site alone, the most likely explanation is that some enthusistic supporter(s) (and I would guess given the level of energy required someone quite young) decided to try to fight back instead of just ignoring such clear factless gossip. That alone tells me it is not some highly placed New Democrat, or that it is a concerted attempt by the ONDP as you suggest. Your continued unwillingness to withdraw that accusation lowers you to the level of both bloggers.
My interest is I don't like liars, smearers or bullies of any kind. Again I am not an NDP member, and only an occassional supporter, but I have grown weary of the bullshit kind of attacks I see coming constantly from fair weather progressives of the NDP. If you want your own party go start one and see how far you get. I helped start the Greens in Ontario in the 80s because I was concerned about the lack of attention to the enironment, I did not snipe at the NDP from the sidelines but went out and did something positive. Not once did I ever attack the NDP or its leadership - I understood that they were focused on other issues and their leaders (with the exception of Bob Rae and that impression was formed before he became Premier) cared and believed in what they said. I see the exact same committment in 99.9 per cent of New Democrat leaders, candidates and local representatives today. Today I am an unaligned voter who works for change through other means that electoral, but have supported strong local candidates based on their personal qualities
Your claim that the NDP does not want lefties is just utter bullshit. If getting elected was all a lot of those people wanted, or believed in they would go work for or be candidates for the Liberals or even Conseratives, even being a Green under the right wing leadership it now has is a damn sight easier than being an NDP candidate in most of the province/country. However getting elected is only a secondary goal as a way to implement their beliefs and concerns. They work hard to bring a different voice and perspective- giving of themselves, their limited financial resources, energy and committment. Many of the candidates I have seen over the years are so highly skilled they could have done much better for themselves financially by keeping their heads down and just working a way at a job or whatever. But instead they go out and give their all, take time away from family, endure constant attacks from the right and I am sure work themselves into health problems by the end of a campaign. Andrea Horwath is the best leader of any party I have seen in a long time and she deserves support if people actually care about progressive politics. In short all of these people (and it is people who make up a party from staff, leadership, candidates and local people) are, for the overwhelming majority, caring and concerned human beings and yet some like you shit all over them and de-humanize them by the kind of rhetoric you use at every turn. The kind of folks your attitude represents are the very reason the right wins today and I am tired of pussy-footing around that fact.
And I must say that I am rilly, rilly miffed at the top-down neoliberal setup in our Northern Puerto Rico, meaning the Puerto Ricanized version of Canada since Mulroney and Chretien. Yes, there is another layer of government in Canada which hath created the neoliberal/neofascist bureaucracy at the highest levels. Even higher than Ontario, BC or Alberta. And, no, we're not talkin' aboot ther bosses in Warshington either. Ottawa. That's right, Ottawa as in "da feds" with wiley characters such as Mulroney on the take and the lyin Brian who fled the PMO not so long before the little strangler from Shawinigan seized phony majority power in 1993 and we was stuck with thereafter for twelve long years in the phoniest majoritarian sense. Ha!
The second blog is comical, really.
A few points:
I am writing as someone who actually worked on the campaign, and worked closely with Kelly. Whoever wrote this post clearly didn't. I invite others to judge the rest of the blog accordingly.
I disagree with Kelly on a wide range of issues (we had some great arguments), but this sort of thing is embarrassing. I subscribe to Life's idea that some overzealous character decided to some freelance flaming, and wrote big, hoping no-one would call them on it. They should consider themselves called out.
Michael, I think your guess that it might someone who wishes to seem like an insider, but isn't, is more correct than you know. Certainly the evidence above would seem to corroborate that line of thought.
Volunteer Co-ordinator/Research Chair
Chris Moise TDSB campaign
I am glad you posted, as that is what I was trying to do...call them out.
I have no idea who wrote the second blog, insider, pseudo-insider, insider wanna-be etc...but whoever it was was attempting to A) Stand up for the ONDP and B) Malign Kelly Foote, with whom I have also disagreed, but whom I count as a friend. (and I would note that being an NDP insider does not make one immune from being wrong about virtually everything, nor does it prevent one from making false accusations. I have been a personal victim of this.)
I was not attempting to say that Andrea Horwath woke up one day and decided to do this! That is absurd. But someone did, and they felt they had a right to make these accusations.
While you may be right about them being an outsider, the blog is directed at a single person...and this is odd. It also does not make any attempt to refute the original blog's claims, whatever their validity.
I am very glad that you stood up to them and their ugly claims here. Well done!
I might note that it is also clearly an attempt to "out" wrightpercy, whoever that is. That they would pick on Kelly is interesting, as he is no longer a New Democrat.
I suppose I simply feel that only someone in the party with a vested interest in discrediting the original blog, right-or-wrong, would have bothered to do this, and that their choice of Kelly, who is not a well-known figure outside of NDP circles anymore than we are, is telling. I doubt that most NDP "outsiders" have heard of any of the "dissidents" or Kelly.
So why do it at all?
Gee all this stuff I've never heard about the ONDP before makes me think I should vote Liberal next election. They may be running the province into the ground, but at least they're a cohesive bunch.
Except they stand for nothing and are Mike Harris with a "human face".
Mike, you made your point thanks, now get lost!
I'm not that interested in the personal attacks on the blog, as I think they distract us from the more significant problem facing the party. We're a well-meaning bunch, but the vehicle we're using to turn our best intentions into action is out of gas. The CCF figured this out by the end of the 1950's, and they had the courage and foresight to transform the party into something more relevant to Canadian progressives.
Obviously, the outcome has not been an overwhelming success, so here we are, 50 years later, facing the same dilemma. How does a social democratic party communicate its message to the electorate? At the federal convention in Halifax the party honchos wouldn't entertain even a discussion of the direction of the party, and they manipulated the rules of order, in a most unethical way, to quash the debate. The ONDP is no better; in its present formation, the party is pretty much dead. The election results since the defeat of the Bob Rae government are evidence of that fact.
Rather than 'circle the wagons' in defence of the party's status quo by parsing the various claims made in the "Percy Wright" blog, why not show the same courage that the CCF did half a century ago, and engage in a substantial debate about how to transform the NDP into a more relevant social democratic party. "Percy Wright" is not the problem, but a symptom of a much deeper problem - the NDP itself.
Who died and made you leader?
And you disagree with my point that the Liberals are "Mike Harris with a Human Face"?
Really, what part?
Why should I "get lost"?
Is this not a democratic forum?
Tune into a news broadcast from the Middle East...that kind of discourse isn't "on" anymore.
Despite my disgust at Mr. Laxer's continued attempt to link the response blog to the NDP as a party- with zero evidence -your comments are undemocratic and have no place on this board.
I don't know how you can make that claim. Now maybe I am just getting long in the teeth, but I have seen the sucess of progressive politics ebb and flow, just like conservative politics. We are living in hateful times, but that does not mean some other party with a new name, but generally the same policies (ie progressive) would fair much better. Our time will come again. Likely sooner than we realize.
By the way your comments about the CCF are wrongheaded. It was not that the CCF had run out of gas. But rather they recognized that splitting their energies between agrarian socialism and the labour movement made no sense. Unless you are suggesting there is some other 'movement' that could be brought into the tent that equaled the size of those two movements at the time what you propose seems like a big waste of time.
I was a teenager involved in the NFU at the time. I well remember the discussions amongst my elders, many of whom were also CCF members. The discussion was most certainly not about running out of gas, but how to work with their brothers and sisters in the labour movement to defeat the old line capitalist parties. True as demographics changed the rural part of the new party disappeared to the point that progressives in and outside the party seem to have forgotten that rural people are not all conservatives and no longer seem to care a whit about rural issues, but it was about moving forward, not trying to shore up.
By the way I have seen links for the original blog posted to a number of stories in the comments sections of news outlets, especially if it is positive for the NDP. So I think it stretches credulity to claim it is just some poor hard done by person. This seems very much like a dirty tricks campaign which may have spurred on some person who is eager, but far from an insider since their rebuttal seems to be similar stupid gossip to create such a ham fisted defense that is as bad as the original site.
Life, I appreciate your response. At the 2000 federal convention in Winnipeg, I had the privilege of sitting with a couple who had attended the CCF's founding conference and who taught me a lot about the party's history, a history that I would not want to misrepresent. Incidentally, they were also supporters of the New Politics Initiative, which was crushed by the party establishment.
Nevertheless, by the end of the 1950's support for the CCF had pretty much hit rock bottom, which suggested the need for an extreme makeover that resulted in the name change to the NDP. Today, I think there are other movements that we need to be included in our party, including environmentalists and those social justice advocates who have yet to embrace the NDP.
I don't know if a name change is necessary, but I don't think we should rule out the option, and I certainly don't think the exercise of reinventing the party is a waste of energy. Spinning our wheels by refusing to change, on the other hand, is a waste of time and energy that we just can't afford.
NorthReport, this comment is unacceptable. Dial back your zeal or you'll be taking a break. This is a warning.
Again, antagonistic and hostile. If I have to ask folks to tone it down again, I'll close the thread. And that would serve no one.
So far, all we've heard is hearsay. At any rate, would anyone want an ONDP that couldn't stand up to scrutiny?
Just have to add that as one who knew Jim Laxer in his nationalist hayday, Mike here is doing damage to the name...shrinking its image.
I'll bet a lot Jim would not welcome your concern.
I dont like the condecension myself.
George, perhaps you missed both my and Rebecca's request that the attacks on Michael Laxer stop. To help jog your memory I'm giving you 24 hours off.
I am a social democrat at the voting booth but a socialist at heart. And I think that social democracy itself was a really good idea 20 or 30 years ago. It's still the best system in the world where it exists today in purest form in Nordic countries. And now we can see certain countries and especially Sweden striving to be "oil-free" economies and leading on the energy transformation scene with some of the lowest per capita and lowest per GDP carbon emissions among developed economies. And those countries are free to write their own national energy policies because they are freer than countries with energy intensive and energy exporting economies like Canada that signed dumbest free trade deals in history.
Social justice is only a bit to the left of social liberalism. That political-economic idea is even more outdated than social democracy though. I think had social and economic liberalism been more successful and not led industrialised economies toward this global warming crisis and financial meltdown, then we I think the NDP should be more supportive than they are. But I think more now than ever before what's needed is socialism with an emphasis on cleaning up the economy and shifting to greener energy sources and greener economy on a whole. Sweden's social democracy is not perfect, but at least they have the freedom to pursue change and tweak where necessary. Canada, OTOH, does not have that kind of freedom with NAFTA and governments in Ottawa pursuing longer term free market goals laid out by WTO diktats and capitalist central planning under GATS agreements. IMHO, we don't want to water down the already soft left wing economic agenda in social democracy so much that by the time we do win federal election the party's ability to govern effectively would be neutralized by centrist ideology. I really believe now is the time to try to pull voters to the left if only a little toward social democracy with an emphasis on greening the economy. Liberals merged with conservatives to create neoliberalism, and that way isn't working. If we want our style to work we need to insist on the already watered down package at the very least and nothing less.
Wonder if Kelly will be at Council this weekend, might be worth going just for the dramatic tension. Is no one else suspicious that someone registers just so he/she can initiate this thread? Whoever wrightpercy is, he/she sure seems to like the attention. I will say that I'm no fan of a site that dedicates itself to the vindictive defamation of others and doesn't allow any contrarian views to be expressed. Seems to me such libel could only rest on a view of wholly unregulated freedom of expression, yet the same is not returned in kind when it comes to comments. A little cowardly is all I'm sayin.
I think the possibility of Kelly Foote coming to council is on a par with me winning the 6/49. And I don't buy a ticket.
Well the original blog is gone!
Either he/she/it got spooked or the party has more influence than I thought (just kidding).
Evidently whoever wrightpercy was they got the fuck out of Dodge!