Talk:New Democratic Party/Archive 1

The "NDP's senate seat"
I note that someone has added a record of the "NDP's Senate seat". Lillian Dyck is, in fact, an "Independant New Democrat" and not a part of the NDP caucus, as the NDP does not support the exsistence of an unelected Senate. When she got the senate seat from then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, Jack Layton indicated that he would have accepted her as a member of caucus as an elected offical, but not as a appointed senator. Therefore, should they not be listed as having zero Senate seats?

A discussion of the NDP's current status that does not relate the number of seats earned to the party's popular vote is incomplete. For most of its life, the party has had a higher popular vote than its seats indicate.

I'm not sure there is evidence for the statement that the NDP is for 'strong gun control'. Some provincial wings oppose strong gun control, and the Federal party is somewhat ambivalent, if IRC.

I went ahead and replaced designating the Liberal Party as "centrist" and the Conservative with "right-wing" with "centre-left" and "centre-right," respectively, to more accurately describe the political reality of the parties.

I can see why you'd want to work him in somewhere, but is it really "Tommy Douglas's Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)"?

He didn't start the party (in the sense that you could perhapse rightfully say "Preston Manning's Reform Party"), and he was also leader of the federal NDP for a time wasn't he? - stewacide 02:03 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

Quick correction - Bill isn't the house leader, but the parliamentary leader. "House leader" is the official term for the party whip, IIRC. It's currently Libby Davies. - Montr&eacute;alais

House Leader is someone who negotiates with other House Leaders and argues points before the Speaker. A Whip is someone who gets MPs in to vote and to vote by the party line. The current whip is Yvon Godin.

-- Removed today's edit by 24.235.186.61. Wild speculation about other people's personal opinions are irrelevant to explanation of party structure. -J. 142.169.111.110 00:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categorization
The article talks of the NDP as a federal and provincial party entity. The categorization has been changed to Canadian federal political parties. Is this the right thing to do? How should the NDP be categorized in this sense? --Timc 18:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is largely about the federal party - the provincial parties each have their own article. I was trying to put all Canadian political party articles either into "federal political parties" or into a category for the individual province political parties. Perhaps most of the information here should be moved to New Democratic Party of Canada, and this should just be a barebones page talking about the different organizations. john k 18:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean. It might be less confusing to move it to New Democratic Party of Canada.  As to whether this page should be a disambiguation page or a redirect, I think that warrants some discussion.  Personally, I think it might be best to redirect to this article, because there are links to all of the provincial parties from here. --Timc 12:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One problem is that the provincial parties are actually wings of the federal party, and if you belong to a provincial party you belong to the federal party. The same is not true of Canada's other federal parties. - Montr&eacute;alais 16:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not an NDP member, but is it true that there are "separate" (in name) parties, with shared membership? In that instance, a case could be made for classifying the New Democractic Party of Canada as a federal political party, and each provincial party as a provincial political party?

Well, I'll leave the debate to the Canadians, and see what emerges. john k 16:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

As for Quebec provincial parties, there are several people (including MNA Nathalie Rochefort) who are members of the PLQ and NDP. I can't think of any Péquistes who are also NDP members. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * With my deepest, deepest respect, I'll beg to differ! How about Pierre Ducasse, who has stated that he voted for the Parti Québécois in 2003 and for the YES side in 1995? How about Dr. Amir Khadir, the now official UFP representative? ...who was candidate for the Bloc Québécois and demanded to the Parti Québécois to become a PQ candidate before going to the UFP and supporting the NDP in 2004? The natural links are there. René Lévesque himself stated more than once that the NDP was a party where he would have seen himself and compared the PQ to the NDP when explaining the nature of the PQ to international reporters. I'll remind you that the original NDP provincial wing in Quebec was co-founded by none other than Jean Duceppe, the famous actor who also helped found the Parti Québécois. He was one of the strongest supporters of sovereignty and the PQ and is the father of... yes, Gilles Duceppe, who is member of the PQ and kind of a supporter. :) All I heard of people hesitating last election, in the sovereigntist side, was hesitation betwen the Bloc and the NDP. Even well-known people like the signer of Mes Aïeux (in an article of the monthly Le Québécois). I personally even spoke of it with the NDP candidate in my riding and he told me that they got along great with the Bloc. Rochefort in one strange case: to the left without beign for sovereignty. In Quebec, the two are quite natural allies. Jack Layton has had very good words about the Bloc and many PQ past ministers, and his respectful attitude (at last! we've been waiting for something like that since Pearson) for the sovereigntists, did not fall in deaf ears. This even prompted Bernard Derome, on the SRC, to tell Layton that it seems the NDP is federalist in Canada and sovereigntist in Quebec. You know, which supporters do you think Layton and the party hoped to gain the sympathy of by establishing a distinct Quebec NDP face (up to special logo witht the fleur-de-lys) and proclaiming proudly a Quebec nation? The true pool of potential vote for the NDP in Quebec is simply in PQ support, certainly not in the PLQ or ADQ, two parties completly disconnected witht he heart of the Quebec left: social-democracy and national sovereignty. Also, Mr. Layton himself commented on the Parti Libéral du Québec and Natalie Rochefort, and it was quite amusing. In a public chat for Cyberpresse.ca, he was asked how the Liberal Party could take Rochefort. Layton answered: What I'm wondering is what Nathalie Rochefort is doing in Jean Charest's Liberal Party! --Liberlogos 18:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Um, my question was not about nationalists/sovereignists who support the federal NDP, but about people who are members of the NDP and the PQ. - Montr&eacute;alais

Terrorist vs. Member
I am curious about the change in Rose's description from "FLQ terrorist" to "FLQ member." Is there a question over whether he was a terrorist? Surely the problems with the NDP weren't caused by him merely being a former FLQ member, but an active participant in terrorist activities. HistoryBA 02:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Timc: your change works for me. HistoryBA: I agree with you. Bonhumm sent me an e-mail, so we are beginning a discussion on this issue. I'll post his comments here when I receive them, unless, of course, he posts them here him/herself. Kevintoronto 13:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You guys can stop scratching your heads about those byzantine terminolgy debates because, in any case, the mention of Rose is irrelevant in the NPD article in the first place, for the simple reason that the whole sentence where he is mentioned is false. Clearly, someone has been writing some incredible political fiction story there. Let's put some order into this. Here's the real story as it really happened, in chronological order (the chronology is important, as we shall see, in order to get an accurate picture). And, before someone asks, let me mention that I have direct personal knowledge of these events, because I was there when the provincial and federal parties decided to sever their ties. Should anybody need further confirmation or details, they can find it directly in the archives of the parties for the years mentioned below. Here is a short account of what happened: - 1989: The provincial party further clarifies its position in the canadian constitutional debate by clearly declaring in favor of the independence of Quebec. - Autumn 1989: Provincial elections in Quebec. The platform adopted by the provincial NDP centers around social-democracy, ecology and the independence of Quebec. - 1989: Discussions take place inside the provincial NDP as to the relevance of keeping organisational ties with the federal NDP. Different groups inside the provincial party had different, and somewhat contradictory, motivations for favoring that option (a summary of those different motivations and their interrelations would be interesting but, for the sake of brevity, I will not enter into this explanation here). Anyway, eventually, a majority of the officers of the provincial party came to favor the option of a complete separation of the two parties. Thus, the provincial party's officers suggested that option to the federal party's officers. A proposition to this effect was drafted in order to be presented to the convention of the federal party held in the autumn of 1989 in Winnipeg. - Autumn 1989: the Winnipeg convention of the federal NDP officially confirms the separation of the two parties (it takes the form of a modification to the constitution of the federal party, providing for the existence of a Quebec section dealing exclusively with federal politics, instead of an affiliated provincial party involved in both provincial politics and federal politics, as was the case until then and as it is still the case in the other provinces). - 1990: The convention of the provincial party also officializes the separation, and modifies its own constitution accordingly, removing any reference to federal politics and to the federal party. - From that point, the two organizations are definetely fully independent. The provincial party reorganizes its functioning along purely provincial lines and the Quebec section of the federal party reorganizes its fuctioning along purely federal lines. - Autumn 1994: Provincial elections in Quebec. Paul Rose appears in the picture, as a wannabe NDP candidate in a riding (IIRC, he was not allowed to run as candidate because of his parole status). - Late 1994 or early 1995: The provincial party changes its name from NPD to PDS. Ideas about a name change had been surfacing at regular intervals for many years inside the provincial party. They finally decided to proceed to a change at that point in time. - 1996: Paul Rose becomes leader of the PDS. - Important points to note: Firstly, the origin of the debate on the separation of the two parties resided essentially inside the provincial party. The proposition for the separation of the two parties was presented to the the federal party as a proposition coming from the provincial party. This was in no way thought of as an expulsion. It was done of a mutual accord of the two parties. (Purely technically, one might call it an expulsion only in the sense that the provincial officiers should logically have waited for the provincial convention to officially adopt a resolution on the matter before presenting the proposition at the federal convention. They did it in the opposite order, probably for the practical reason of not having to wait until the next federal convention. So, technically, there existed a period of a few months at the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, between the dates of the two conventions, during which the constitution of the federal party had alredy been modified while the provincial party had not yet definitely adopted the change.)  Secondly, the acceptation by the federal party of the proposition of separation of the two parties has nothing at all to do, at any moment, with any point of the political programme or of the political platform that had been adopted by the provincial party, be it about the matter of the constitutional question and the independence of Quebec or about any other matter. The federal party fully respected the right of the provincial parties to freely and democratically define their political platforms and to elect their officers. The political positions of the provincial party were not an issue for the federal party when considering the proposition about the separation of the parties and, IIRC, were not mentioned or considered in the debate that took place at the federal convention. Thirdly, Paul Rose was not a member of the party and was not even remotely in the picture at that time. He became involved with the party only several years later, around 1993-1994. He became leader in 1996. Note that that is six years after the two parties have definitely severed all their ties. Rose is not in any way or manner connected with the separation of the two parties that occured in 1989-1990, unless you want to have time flowing backwards. I notice that the same false statement has been reproduced in the articles about the NDPQ, the PDS and in the article about Rose, although with different variants and contradictions with other elements of those same articles. Apparently, copying has been done from one erroneous article to the other without bothering to verify the facts. Strange process at work there. Someone started from a few disconnected facts (the two parties separated at some time, provincial party had positions on independance, Rose was leader at some time), each of which could be true taken in isolation and in its appropriate context, mixed them all together in disorder and out of context, added pure fictional speculation of his own to try to artificially connect them together with an inexistant relation of causality and to try to fill in the gaps, and in the end of the process managed to produce a complete falsehood, oblivious to the contradictions or to the fact that the dates don't match. Not to mention that it makes the federal party falsely look as some dictatorial organization that tries to dictate to the provincial parties what policies they can or cannot adopt or which officers they can or cannot elect. Anyway, all that to say that IMHO the terminology debate is not really the problem here. -J. 142.169.105.155 14:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Democratic socialism
Links that demonstrate that the NDP is "democratic socialist", including encyclopedia articles, a 1993 statement by the NDP national convention, and something from the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation.

Also.. to quote from the NDP Constitution: "The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs."

Douglas-Coldwell Foundation

The Canadian Encyclopedia

Federal NDP

Encyclopaedia Brittanica

Kevintoronto 15:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Knowles
As this is a historical look at the party, shouldn't Stanley Knowles be in it? I'm not sure how many other (if any) other party leaders of any kind have been made officers of The Order of Canada. He was an important figgure... Weaponofmassinstruction 03:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Populism
Michaelm: please explain your justification for adding populism to the description of the NDP's roots, or remove it. Thanks. Kevintoronto 13:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

colour
I'm wondering if there should not be a difference in the CCF colour compared to the NDP? The PC's and the New Cons are different because they were different parties. Anyone who knows something about history know that the CCF and the NDP are different (not just a name change)

ex


 * Please continue this discussion at Talk:Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Thank you.

Senate policy
The article states that the NDP is in favour of abolishing the senate. Is this accurate party policy, or are they more in favour of senate reform? I think this would be important to clarify if it is the case. --Comics 19:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * They are against the Senate, but at least one supporter (myself) support Senate reform. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the number of Senate seats since the NDP does not recognize the Senator Paul Martin appointed.

Liberals...centre?
Should Liberals be considered centre in the political spectrum? TDS (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * More or less. Very roughly speaking, a typical election in recent years has had around a third of Canadians vote for parties to the right of the Liberals (Reform, Alliance, PC, Conservative), a third of us have voted Liberal, and a third of us have voted for parties to the left of the Liberals (NDP, Bloc).  Sounds fairly "centre" to me. WilyD 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a distinction between whether they're relatively centrist ie. compared to the country as a whole, or whether they're centrist as in having policy in the centre of the "true" political spectrum. In the same way that the Democratic party is seen as leftist in the context of American politics, it's more a centre or even centre-right political party in a largely conservative country. The Liberal party has the added complication of changing significantly with Canada's ever-changing political landscape, moreso I believe than many other parties. The debate of where exactly they lie on the political spectrum is interesting, but I'm not exactly sure how we can incorporate that into a brief mention of the NDP's political context. It's definitely worth a mention in the Liberal Party's article though, and in a brief look over I didn't find anything. Jammoe 10:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Proportional Representation Vs other issues
"The NDP may play an important role in getting legislation passed, particularly instituting electoral reform with proportional representation (PR). PR enjoys at least tacit support from all the opposition parties, which would apparently see elections to the House of Commons modelled on the system used in Germany. Also, there is historical precedent to the Liberals and NDP cooperating such as in the early 1960s and 1970s that laid the national framework for universal healthcare, expansion of employment insurance and the indexing of pensions."

While the NDP does support electoral reform, does that issue need explicit mention in a section concerning new developments? Why not mention fighting health care privatization, Kyoto protocol, "workers first" legislation or any other issue that has been of NPD priority, far ahead of proportional representation. Also, is it a fact that the PR system as used in Germany is advocated over that used in Ireland, France or any other of the vast majority of democratic nations that use some form of PR (but not Canada, the U.S. and Australia)? Finally, the last sentence in the paragraph above doesn't seem to belong there. It's true, but shouldn't that be mentioned in the section of past achievements and left out there? (Finally, the word "modeled" only has one "l"). I'm a new user to Wikipedia, so I hope someone tells me if I should go ahead and make changes myself, or wait for input from others before.--Skinny Fists 22:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Modelled can have two "l"s. There is no reason to force US spellings on all Wikipedia articles.  HistoryBA 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a Canadian who's clearly been living the U.S. for too long. I'd still like to have someone comment on the other issues I brought up though.--Skinny Fists 22:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes in the areas discussed above.--Skinny Fists 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Trudeau
What evidence is there to support the statement that Trudeau joined the Liberals "because he did not belive the NDP had a chance of ever forming a government"? I had understood that the decision to join the Liberals had more to do with fighting Quebec nationalism than anything else. HistoryBA 14:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, and from what I've read, Trudeau joined the Liberals because his ideology and thinking made a turn to the right at some point during the sixties. Keep in mind that the NDP was a lot more left-wing then than it is now. My guess is that Trudeau, being the wealthy member of the bougeoisie that he was, no longer felt comfortable with the NDP's adherence to defending the rights and gains made by the working class in the first half of the 20th century.

Trudeau flirted around with socialism in his younger years, but, due to his wealthy background, was unable to make the real commitment needed to be a socialist (or even a social-democrat). 207.6.31.119 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So Trudeau left the NDP because he no longer shared the party's ideology, not becuase he thought the NDP couldn't win? If that's the case, the passage I quoted above is incorrect.  I have removed it from the article until someone can provide some evidence to support it.  HistoryBA 13:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Quebec independence
what is the stance of most NDP members on Quebec independence? --Revolución (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems most MPs well MPs who were elected as of 2004 supported the Clarity act, and Layton supported it in 2006.

Bob Rae
I think that the changed/reverted sentence on Bob Rae is problematic. I'm not sure what the anon. editor meant by POV but I think that when it appears as the lone factor it has the effect of making it read as the primary one. Was there not a another factor in the decline of the NDP over the whole 15 year period? At the very least the extreme popularity of the NDP governments in BC seems comparable. When Broadbent left they had twice as many seats there as in Ontario. Did the federal party not make any mistakes of its own also? The section may also seem POV because Rae has parted ways with the NDP and blaming him alone for the decline of the national party may sound like scapegoating or just sour grapes. --JGGardiner 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

regarding NDP's quebec separatism policy
Different members of the party have different feelings on Quebec separatism, of course they all have to say that they support a united canada they do have different opinions on issues regarding the process of separation. Some members support the clarity act and some are against it. The clarity act is an act that did not pass but would have set specific goals that would have to be met to allow quebec to separate such as percentage of people who vote for separation and how different regions would separate, etc...

Actually the Clarity Act did pass. Jack Layton (see his page) initially opposed it but supports it now. McDonough and Blaikie among others broke ranks with Layton during the last election to say that they supported it when he did not. --JGGardiner 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction overhaul
I've done some work on the intro, as it describes the political parties from a U.S. pov (not that there is anything wrong with that, but the reader would assume a Canadian outlook.) Also, saying the NDP represents the far left of the political spectrum in parliament is a little misleading, as some bloc MP's are socialists, and some Canadians vote for the marijuana party. Anyways hopfully my edits work out OK--Colle 01:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Page edited to add criticism
Please note page was edited to reflect addition of area with criticism of NDP party. Please do not vandalize.

Criticism of Page - NDP muffling free speech
- As you can see, the page has been vandalized. Criticism of the party is being deleted. Shocking how free speech on Wkipedia "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is closely watched.


 * I don't see anything! Looks good to me! --[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|30px]]SECRET POLICE  22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to believe that most political WP articles, this one included, are overly-protected by their partisans. However, the criticism section removed here did not seem worthy of inclusion.  The version that I saw included one comment that was very vague and general (weak on defence) and one that was extremely specific and trivial (campaign workers for one particular candidate expressed mildly controversial opinion).  From what I have seen, party articles tend to include only major controversies or scandals rather than criticisms of general policy directions.  --JGGardiner 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a general topic, about the NDP from the CCF to present day. Criticism is either partisan, of a particular ndp gaffe --Neither is appropriate.  There are people who literally have careers in stopping the NDP,  if we let the misguided souls begin adding criticism, the propaganda would certainly overtake the page.--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]]Colle 23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the recent criticism edit. And I agree that pages on political parties are too general to include lists of every gaffe made by their many members.  But I must add that anyone is allowed to edit WP articles, whether partisans or opponents, even yahoos and crackpots.  Even non-partisans can lend a hand.  I think that we should worry about what is written, not who wrote it.  In this case, I believe that we are in total agreement that the criticism was not warranted.  --JGGardiner 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Principles, Policies and Problems
The principles section is still problematic. Here is a particularly worrisome portion for example:

To a New Democrat, the investment in and care of a homeless person - to transform that individual into a happy and productive member of society - to ultimately appreciate the sactity of human life - is greater than an investment in an unliving 'thing' or 'things' such as a set of new clothes or a second car, when such item(s) may not be truly of need.

It is fine to list and detail their policies but one can not justify them. Every political position has a political justification. It isn’t that it is wrong, it is just that Wikipedia is not the place for that. I’m sure that this section would make a wonderful speech or essay or political pamphlet. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You can not advocate for a policy, however right, just, logical, reasonable you do it. I think this is all well written but WP just isn’t the place for it. For the moment I don’t want to change anything because I think it is important that it be reconstructed collaboratively so that we can detail the party’s policies and principles in a proper detailed and objective manner. --JGGardiner 19:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the justification? That is an awkward sentance, but it looks like someones attempt at explaining the position, not justifying it.  It's just saying the NDP values adressing the needs of society before the wants of the privilaged.--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]]Colle 21:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can enumerate the position to say that they want to provide support to homeless people, you can detail it to say how, you can even say why they do it if there is some unusual reason. But you can not say why a political position is a good idea.  That is advocacy.  You can't do that.  It's not bad or wrong.  I don't even think that it is awkward.  It just does not belong here.  Just as how you can not go to the Conservative page and say they support tax cuts because tax cuts are a good idea and they will improve the economy and make people richer.  WP is not a soapbox.  --JGGardiner 22:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've said that, but its the flowerly language that is the problem, not the information the author is trying to get across.  It does not try to explain why the basic needs of the disadvantaged should be adressed before the wants of the rich, it just says that is NDP policy.  Pages on conservatism say the opposite --that satisfying the growing material desires of the advantaged classes is what best drives the economy, and helps the poor via the "trickle down effect".  Except in the conservative pages they tend to state that like it is a fact of life.  If that is not pov, this sure as hell isn't--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]]Colle 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't completely agree with that but I'm glad that we've found some common ground, that there is a problem. Hopefully we can have some good collaboration to make this page as good as it can be.  --JGGardiner 04:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely!--Colle 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JGG - the "To a New Democrat" stuff sounds quite loaded, philosophical and much like an advertisement. People from the right side of the fence would just tell you that they're helping the disadvantaged with a tax cut or twenty. The CPC and the NDP are both on my watchlist, even though I don't much care for the NDP. It would be a shame if the pages became stupid flamewars - flamewars tend to start when you say that the other side of the debate just doesn't care. Including the theory behind all your political viewpoints is just asking somebody to come by and poke holes into it. Does that really belong in the NDP article? Some people ought to be editing Proletarian Revolution instead... --Sheldonc 11:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dippers"
I do not believe that title merits half of the introduction. I do not believe NDPers generally use it, nor does the media.-- Colle || Talk -- 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is not a mainstream term and has only a short history, unlike Grits and Tories.  I'll delete it and see if someone can make a case for it to be restored.  HistoryBA 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't include it either although it is somewhat common. I've actually heard it used most in a derogatory sense and not an equivalent to "Tory" or "Grit" as the article implied.  --JGGardiner 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No objections from me. I had expanded it from a one-sentence statement initially written by an anon user without context, but I agree wholeheartedly that it had to be either explained or deleted. It simply wasn't serving any useful purpose as originally written. Bearcat 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there is one alternate name that seems fairly common. I notice that Albertans tend to say NDs rather than NDPers which makes sense as the logical shortening of New Democrats.  I'm not an Albertan myself but this seems very widespread among Albertans in my experience.  Perhaps someone knows better than I do.  --JGGardiner 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've actually noticed the same. Can't even begin to explain it, since what I thought was the reason (the provincial party calling itself "Alberta New Democrats" rather than "Alberta New Democratic Party") doesn't seem to be supported by either their logo or their website. But I have noticed it. Bearcat 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Question for y'all: an anon IP has twice edited this article to include populism in the infobox as a defining ideology of the NDP. Although they certainly have populist roots, I'm not entirely convinced that this is an accurate description of where the party stands today — but I don't want to revert it without discussion since it's been added more than once. Any input? Bearcat 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized this page. Please fix this error.


 * Definitely not populist now, nor is it social liberal. -- WGee 00:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Barrett?
I removed this sentence:
 * Some have felt that Barrett would have made a more effective leader than McLaughlin, since the NDP had long been the voice of Prarie discontent, but...

First of all, this is the first appearance that Dave Barrett makes in the article, and there is no context provided (the discussion about McLaughlin's ascension to the leadership appears in an earlier paragraph). Secondly, what has McLaughlin or Barrett got to do with the Prairies or Quebec? She is from the Yukon, he is from BC. Instead I substituted something about the popularity of the NDP in other regions of the country relative to Quebec. If somebody wants to add something about Barrett, it should be provided in context, and - given its anecdotal nature - cited. Fishhead64 21:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberal?
How does the NDP represent "liberal" views??? Social democratic/democratic socialist/left-wing/centre-left...for sure. But "liberal"...no way. Verged —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 22 August 2006
 * YES WAY. Look up what the word actually means, rather than apply your own bias. If you look up the word "liberal" at Wiktionary the NDP as a party definitely fit the relevant definitions. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "liberal", in the small-l sense, can mean a lot of things. In many parts of the world, "center-left" falls into that definition, and I assumed that's what the author of said statement meant during my first glance over it. Perhaps if you elaborate on what exactly you object to in that definition (bearing in mind that it clearly does not refer to the views of the Liberal Party of Canada). --SpartanCanuck 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They are liberal in a way that they like to defend worker's rights, they are against the Iraq war, very keen on the environment, etc. zblewski

It also says on their website that they are are for eliminating all discrimination agaisnt people based on their ethnic origin, sexual orientation, and gender. 74.100.0.150 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends if they are neoliberal, but I think the liberal party is, not NDP, yet...--74.237.54.62 (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The NDP is "liberal" in the sense that they are Social Liberals. Just how liberal and how far to the left is debatable, but they've never been a centrist or conservative party, that's for sure. One could say that they've moved a bit towards the center in recent decades, but that again is debatable; Did they move, or did the Canadian political landscape move under their feet? I say that since their founding as the CCF right up until the present day they've consistently been the most liberal and the furthest to the left of the three major political parties (unless you consider the Greens to be a major party, and I don't.) Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Allthenames... I can only partially agree with the first sentence of your comments, the rest is completely inaccurate. The political landscape in Canada has been shifting to the right for the last 30 years or so, so if the NDP is now perceived to be more "centrist" then they have become much more of a big tent party, and, with the exception of certain wings of the party, changing with the times. The political landscape was much different during the CCF years. Also, the word "liberal" when applied to the political landscape has become almost meaningless in modern usage, unless you qualify your definition based on regional meaning or with a qualifier such as "classical liberal", "social liberal", etc., but even then meaning is vague at best. I prefer to restrict my use of the word to either capitalized use in a phrase (i.e. Alberta Liberal Party), or in non-political use (i.e. a liberal helping of potatoes) because otherwise it almost always carries an unintended connotation. Also, the use of the terms "left", "right", "left-leaning", "right-wing" etc when referring to Canadian political parties is simplistic at best and divisive and misleading otherwise and should be avoided whenever possible. More here: http://www.politicalcompass.org for a better model and to better explain what I mean. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Troops called 'terrorists'
Should there bee a small bit about a NDP riding association saying that the mission is being guided by the United States and that Canadian troops are acting like “terrorists.” ? There is alot of talking in the news media, and with the NDP's convention this weekend, what do you think? Should it be added? SFrank85 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that a withdrawn preamble to a resolution proposed by one riding association, which hasn't been adopted by the party because it was slated for presentation at a policy conference that hasn't happened yet, deserves special mention. Or, at least, if it does, then Reform Party of Canada should mention the policy resolution to overturn the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that failed at that party's 1994 policy convention, because it's not neutral point-of-view to decide that only one party's internal controversies deserve to be spotlighted on Wikipedia. Bearcat 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Wiki policy is on including policy resolutions--whether they made it to the convention or were withdrawn--but the article about it is factually incorrect. This part, "likening them to terrorists." is flat out wrong and is even contradicted in a later sentence: "Canadian troops risk end up acting like terrorists,". Clearly the preamble says they face a risk of acting like terrorists not that they are terrorists and the article should be changed to reflect that.--Robert McClelland 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The with amount of controversy and media speculation surrounding the event, there is no way this controversy should be excluded from the page. Doing so would be censorship. If Mclelland doesn't like the wording, fine, let's work on it, although I stand by what I originally wrote. I understand Mclelland is actively involved with the party and its policies, but there is no reason that anyones political beliefs should trumpet how information is stored on wikipedia. This controversy must be mentioned, and failing to do so is nothing short of censorship and an attempt to hide the uglier parts of the history of the party..--Splatto 10:22, 11 September 2006

Sorry, Mr. Splatto, but I can't agree with your assessment. We are, after all, talking about a proposed resolution brought forward by a single constituency, that was promptly withdrawn. To put it another way, it was a "media scandal-du-jour" rather than an event of encyclopedic significance. There's quite a bit that could be said about the NDP's position on Afghanistan, but the previous edit was obvious POV-pushing. CJCurrie 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the text previously added to the page was a bit slanted. However, under the heading "Principles, policies and electoral achievement" nothing is said about defense policy nor the NDP's position about Afganistan. Would someone that knows something about this add something? Or is their position a bit too unpopular perhaps? Not a word in the entire article mentions this. --Sheldonc 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I quite agree that we should add something about the party's take on Afghanistan -- let's just make sure it isn't slanted. CJCurrie 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll write something up about the NDP's position on Afghanistan. Contrary to what Mr. Splatto says, I'm not actively involved in the party or its policies. Because I'm new to how wiki works I have two questions though. Should this go under the first section, "1 Principles, policies and electoral achievement"? And can the index have more than one level of nesting like this: 1.1.1? --Robert McClelland 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (i) I'd put it near the end of the article (ie. file in chronologically).
 * (ii) Yes.  CJCurrie 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (iii) I'd definitely touch on it, the party's radical stance on Afghanistan is one of their defining characteristics

NDP Conventions
Does anyone know if they have any information about past conventions? I was watching on CPAC and this one is the 22nd convention. We should create an article something along the lines of this one: Labour Party Conference -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The NDP is supported by the Canadian Islamic Congress and visa versa. This explains why Layton wants Canada out of Afghanistan and why he has attempted to smear the US rather than admit that he's representing his membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetang007 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of Jack Layton
We have professionally-done portraits of Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, Ed Broadbent, Audrey McLaughlin, and Alexa McDonough, yet an informal, impromptu image of Layton&mdash;he isn't even facing the camera. His facial expression is rather gloomy, as well. Thus, could somebody find a more encyclopedic photo of Layton? I would do so myself, but I'm quite busy with other things both within and without Wikipedia. -- WGee 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A new image for Alexa McDonough needs to be found also that doesnt violate any rules.Kelownian 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Base of support
Who tends to support the party? As far as I know, it's urban progressives, union workers and farmers, but a)should something on these lines be included b)is it citable? Biruitorul 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to look at opinion poling information, I think. Historically, it is true that the original base of support for the NDP (then the CCF) was the impoverished farmers of the 1930s, but today farmers seem to have turned against the NDP. Look at Saskatchewan, the NDP's province of origin; In the last provincial election the Saskatorries won nearly all of the rural ridings. The NDP won just two rural ridings, and those were both northern ridings where there are virtually no farms. 'Nuff said. As far as unions go, I don't know enough about how unionists vote to comment on that, I'll leave that to someone else. As far as urban progressives go, it's safe to say that none of them are voting Conservative; Beyond that, it's not quite clear who they do vote for. Because of the three-way split on the left between the Greens, the NDP and the Liberals, the urban progressive aren't all voting for the same party. This is, by the way, the reason Harper won the last election. In the last election the Conservitives only won 39.6% of the popular vote. If you add up the popular vote received by the NDP, the Greens and the Liberals, it totals 53.4%. If the left would just unite under one party instead of constantly splitting the vote three ways, they'd mop the floor with the conservatives. Trouble is, none of those three parties see the need to merge, for reasons I won't go into here. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The simple reason that Harper's team won a majority last time was because the Conservative candidates won a majority of the seats available in our first-past-the-post system. Percentage of the popular vote on a national scale is relevant, but more from a general interest perspective rather than how it might affect number of seats.


 * A more complex explanation is that support for both the federal Liberal Party and the Bloc imploded. If the Green Party were to merge with the Liberals or the NDP then any value they bring to the table vaporizes. Similarly, why would the NDP want to become part of the White Cat Party? Unless we see a major revival of the Liberal Party of Canada, and a continued trend in Quebec to NOT vote Bloc, it is unlikely we will see other than Conservative majority or minority in next few future elections. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about 2006 election
The article now says: "On January 23, the NDP won 29 seats, a significant increase of 10 seats from the 19 won in 2004. ...  The NDP kept all of the seats it held at the dissolution of Parliament .... [I]t gained five seats in British Columbia, five in Ontario, and the Western Arctic riding of the Northwest Territories."

If it held all its old seats, and picked up five plus five plus one, it seems like the gain was 11 seats, not 10. Can someone clarify or correct? JamesMLane t c 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It won 19 in 2004, but held 18 at dissolution. 18 held + 11 won = 29 won. Biruitorul 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-written the sentence to include this fact, so that other readers don't think we added it up wrong. JamesMLane t c 09:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)