this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025

36 points (84.6% liked)

New Democratic Party

905 readers

1 users here now

For those that seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of people who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour, co-operative, feminist, human rights and environmental movements, and with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, to build a more just, equal, and sustainable Canada within a global community dedicated to the same goals.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

leftwingmememachine@lemmy.ca

MarkG_108@lemmy.ca

The NDP is limiting 'cis' men in leadership signatures? Um, not quite. Let's talk about it (i.ytimg.com)

submitted 2 months ago by recursive_recursion@piefed.ca to c/ndp@lemmy.ca

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is idiotic. The NDP could easily just make a rule that no identity group from some big list, including cis men, can be more than 50%. Instead, they have a rule just for cis men that gives their political opponents easy ammo. The CPC are explicitly targeting this same demographic, and the NDP gives ammo to them and conservative media like the NP for taking easy shots.

It is so stupid politically that I seriously question the NDP's basic competence as a political party, and I'm an NDP supporter. I want them to make a comeback, but this will just needlessly alienate a key demographic. 🤦

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's why we gotta do well in this leadership election. We gotta go to class and universality on every issue. Don't know which candidates are gonna have that agenda yet.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We need a Jack Layton spiritual successor or else Carney will lead us to a Poilievre government without any accountability.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Carney is ALREADY a conservative. I think Poilievre has hit his ceiling, and will rise no further. I think Carney is going to be our big problem as progressives for the foreseeable future, and I think he has the potential to be a lot more effective in reshaping Canada than PP ever could. PP is interested in silly social nonsense and self-aggrandization, while Carney has a hard on to further amplify the global corporate hegemony.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Don't discount PP's abilities. He barely lost to Carney and he might survive to lead in another election. Carney's honeymoon is already showing signs of fading. The housing situation is likely getting worse for years to come. Grocery prices won't be going down. So Carney's in for being the face of worsening material conditions. Surviving that on propaganda alone would be difficult. The next election could very well be between PP and whoever's on the NDP side.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've been watching PP with horror and dread since Garth Turner was a cabinet minister. I think PP can't beat Carney because Carney has no moral integrity and will quite happily give the right whatever they would have wanted from PP, dressed up in some slick faux compassionate PR. Honestly, I don't see a huge difference.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Exactly, people have been swooning over Carney’s smooth talking lies treating him like he’s our “knight in shining armour”

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

He definitely won’t vote for proportional representation. He will just ignore the issue avoiding Justin’s public relations blunder.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

he has the potential to be a lot more effective in reshaping Canada than PP ever could

This is conjecture at best. Assuming anyone can do accidentally what the CPC do purposefully is a bit of a reach.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

I mean obviously it's conjecture, I'm not sure why you are highlighting that. I'm also not sure we're even talking about the same thing, re: "what the CPC do purposefully". I also did not suggest an accident. Carney is as blue as Liberals come.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean I agree in general, but I don't think we understand the practical difficulties that would follow with a vaguely worded rule like that.

You'd have to have it up to 60% at least I think to allowed for flexibility, otherwise you'd have to have exactly 5050 men and women. And then what about if over 50% are Canadians? Shouldn't they be? Then if you're 5050 men and women but you lose a man, you have to take in a man, you can't take a woman. So then when doing that decision, aren't they practically very explicitly discriminating. Then they also prolly can't be the same as the majority ethnicity. But then again also not the majority religion. And depending on what sort of group you have in there and how you define groups, might be kinda challenging.

I get the issue, and I get trying to fix it, but I don't think the attempts made here today have got anyone closer to that.

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't see this as rocket science. These are supposed to be people vying for roles in governing the country. If they can't figure this out pretty quickly, they shouldn't be given the responsibility of governance. I mean, to make it simple, they could have just set the rule as a minimum of 50% of votes must come from cis women, non-binary, and trans people. Mission accomplished. It would have been the same rule, but with a framing that is encouraging diversity rather than limiting cis men. Framing it the way they did is like watching them have an easy layup but then tripping on their own shoelaces.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah that is a much better framing.

Unfortunately politicians don't have honesty and the wellbeing of others as incentives.

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Briefly, the leadership candidate needs 500 signatures, half of which need to be from people self-identifying as something other than a cis dood. The idea here is to encourage diversity in a still very cis dood centric field, which politics is

Source: I'm running for NDP leadership

Edit: who tf down voted and why?

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think there would be a lot less (uninformed) reactionary freaking out if the diversity element was stated something like "no more than 50% from any one of the following identity groups" and then list various identities: CIS male, CIS female, any identified ethnic origin, LGBTQ+, etc, etc.

Rather than only singling out cis males specifically.

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

This is well said; and was exactly discussed in at least one federal NDP commission

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for getting involved and using the fediverse!

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You're so welcome; and glad to be here! Maybe you too would like to get involved with the NDP?

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Personally I’m already signed up with the party though I will keep an eye open for the candidate that uses Mastodon 😉 as they will definitely earn extra points for me in the leadership race. Using Twitter and BlueSky is fine for reach however please allow folks to view your content through Mastodon as well to have a safe and secure way to keep in touch.

[–] slykethephoxenix@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Edit: who tf down voted and why?

People full of hate these days. You should ask for mod privileges of this sub from one of the admins, as I think both mods are currently inactive.

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Huh. Interesting idea

[–] slykethephoxenix@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Source: I’m running for NDP leadership

How's that going?

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Early days yet! Just got the package, haven't paid the ridiculous fees yet

[–] slykethephoxenix@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Are you going to allow/promote/encourage these types of things if elected leader? https://youtu.be/jF-jlSKJuI8

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you recognize the political incompetence of framing the rule the way that it is on the books?

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Hence why this was brought up at at least one commission meeting. In-groups and out-groups are incompatible with the egalitarian principles leftist, progressive parties espouse

Edit: nevertheless, some groups need a little extra help to become equal with other groups. How would you propose going about this important task?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

nevertheless, some groups need a little extra help to become equal with other groups. How would you propose going about this important task?

How about we treat people as if their votes are equally valuable maybe?

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As I posted below, I wouldn't mind if it was just reframed as a minimum of 50% needing to come from cis women, non-binary, and trans. The exact same rule but worded in a way that isn't so potentially alienating for a major group of voters.

It's just so incredibly lacking in any political nous that it makes me feel like the party is politically clueless, which is not a great feeling when you support the party.

But hey, I'm not a leadership candidate. What's your idea for it?

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As you so rightly point out, the central party has lost its way. A complete overhaul from its current strongly centralised state, to a more grassroots, democratic one is needed: a reclamation of the party by its members, and for its members - and hence for all Canadians. Too long has Canadian politics suffered in the two-party shadow of our southern neighbour: it's time for a viable third party to ascend to the government

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you part of the Reclaim the NDP movement?

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you the agm who recently joined the discord?

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't know anything about that 😏

[–] Presently42@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Very well!

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago

So, you're saying a cis (I didn't choose the label) person cannot be the 251st signature specifically because of an intrinsic protected quality or characteristic, that being cisgender.

Sounds discriminatory to me.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 months ago

I didn't originally, but I was forced to downvote after the edit because complaining about downvotes is always an automatic downvote.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is why they keep losing. They need to stop fucking around, and start taking this seriously.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What, "this"? Did you watch the video? There's nothing wrong here. I agree with the presenter: "This is clearly a dumb, rage-bait issue."

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Last election you had to get 50% of your votes from NDP members who identified as women. No one was outraged. This year they added transmen to the bucket by changing it to 50% non-cis men. If anything this means men have more say than last time since you could get all your votes from men and transmen with no votes from women at all (not that that's likely).

As usual, conservative outrage from people who don't understand basic words, logic, or have any grasp of history.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

No one was outraged, because no one else managed to successfully outrage farm them.

[–] leastaction@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

The last thing the NDP needs is to fragment through various culture wars. This is fundamentally a workers' party. Let's keep our eyes on the ball.