Talk:New Democratic Party

Democratic Socialism

Why does the side box refer to the NDP as a party of "democratic socialism"? The party does not campaign as a democratic socialist party. The published summary of the NDP website refers to the NDP directly as "Canada's social democratic party", with no reference whatsoever anywhere on its website to "democratic socialism" or "socialism" (except to say that NDP policies are NOT socialist).

Given the fact the party itself does not identify as socialist, I've removed that reference from the sidebox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism is listed in the Preamble of the Federal NDP Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.168.90 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Democratic socialism keeps being added to the ideology section of the infobox without any discussion. I am fully aware that the preamble to the constitution says that the NDP is a democratic socialist party, however that is clearly not what they support today (although some members of the party do). I see no issue in saying that the NDP has democratic socialist roots elsewhere in the article, nor do I have a problem with it saying that to this day, the constitution still says "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." But the first thing that a reader sees is the infobox, so I feel that it is misleading to a casual reader to say that it is a democratic socialist party when it is not widely considered to be one today. Another IP address has added the term again today, however I have not reverted it and I will leave it be until we can come to a consensus here. MitchellDuce (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite a source stating it's no longer part of their platform, that would probably help to discourage reversion. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It would really be much more the responsibility of those who want it added in the first place to provide cited evidence that the term does accurately describe or characterize the party's platform. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the WP:BURDEN doesn't fall on me. Regardless, I'm posting a link to the 2008 platform as a courtesy: http://xfer.ndp.ca/campaign2008/Platform_2008_EN.pdf. I assure you, there won't be anything in there saying that the NDP intends to abolish capitalism or do anything like that. MitchellDuce (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How many major democratic socalist parties actually want to abolish capitalism these days? Anyway, if the party has shifted away from democratic socialism, the history article should mention that shift and cite an appropriate source. If they have not shifted away from democratic socialism, it should be mentioned in the infobox and main article and a supporting source should be cited. In either case, a source explicitly supporting the assertion would be useful. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nobody's responsibility to find a source to prove a negative. In the absence of a legitimately reliable source indicating that the party does currently espouse a "democratic socialist" platform, the alternative is "no mention at all", not "find a source to prove that they're not socialist or the unsourced claim gets to stay in the article anyway". Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Failing to mention a party's original ideology in the infobox seems like clear-cut recentism. I just checked the articles for a few non-Canadian political parties, the infoboxes in the Democrat and Republican articles have lists of both current and historical ideologies, while the article on the UK's Labour Party lists their constitutional ideology (Democratic Socialism) and three ideological currents: Social Democracy, Third Way and Neoliberalism. Anyway, I've added a missing information tag to the history of the New Democratic Party article, requesting details on the ideological shift. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone find the Federal NDP Constitution so we can end this debate once and for all? Another note, I acknowledge that social democracy is the predominant ideology, but most social democratic parties (if you look at the Socialist International) have democratic socialist streams, such as the NDP Socialist Caucus or Fightback. I would argue that since there is no separation of Federal and Provincial Membership and since the provincial parties clearly have mention of Democratic Socialism in the Constitutional Preamble, we should at least mention place Democratic Socialism as a Minority faction or partnered ideology with Social Democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought... "We will not check our socialism at the door" - Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario New Democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.15.92 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The NDP Constitution as amended in Halifax in 2009 declares in its preamble that " 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. The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership; The New Democratic Party holds firm to the belief that the dignity and freedom of the individual is a basic right that must be maintained and extended; and The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty."

I see no justification in removing the label 'Democratic Socialism' from the sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.165 (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The NDP is ultra-socialist. The communists, crypto-communists, reformed communists, ex-communists, all like to call themselves "social democrats" or "democratic socialists". That's the trend over at the SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL that the NDP is a member of, as was its predecessor the CCF before it. The SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL just covered Jack Layton's win in the May 2, 2011 federal elections with front-page headline and photo, and link to an article. I've PDF'd them and placed them at CALAMEO in case they vanish from the front page. In addition, you will find an article by The New American explaining PRECISELY what the SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL is, and if you search The New American site, you will find lots more information on the SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL, and world government they are planning:

You may find Jack Layton's (NDP's) true political affiliations quite interesting - the SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL (SI ) - from whom Jack takes orders (as opposed to from his electorate):

http://www.socialistinternational.org/

This is a REPORT of the SI on its SAO PAULO conference which discusses new global institutions of global governance, and new international architecture, the nation-state being no longer "important":

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=186&ArticlePageID=77&ModuleID=18

These are the Participants at the SAO PAULO conference, including Dawn Black for the NDP:

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=186&ArticlePageID=813&ModuleID=18

Layton's NDP and the SI are working on creating a world government. However, this is old news, the SI has been working on that since well before NDP became a member of the SI.

A couple of Permanent Links on JACK being front-page news at the SI web site after the May 2011 federal elections:

[1] http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790ecbedacfe6d8

[2] http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117900cdcff141f85

AND

[3] "The Grasp of the Socialist International by William F. Jasper (New American 16 February 2010) -- "http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790b9685aedc3f2

That last article will explain to you precisely WHAT the Socialist International is, and where it comes from. Its roots are SOVIET, it's the continuation of the old Soviet Communist International, a plan for communist world government.

A lot of people voted for Jack because they know Stephen Harper is annexing Canada to the USA and Mexico. However, JACK is a friendly guest speaker at the Model Parliament for North America hosted by the North American Forum on Integration. He secretly promotes CONTINENTAL UNION, the annexation of Canada to the USA and Mexico, because it's needed to complete the world communist government made up of Marxist-model continental unions.

Visit me on Facebook. And at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada?feature=mhee#g/a

Kathleen Moore HABEAS CORPUS CANADA The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Progressive Tax

where did that go on here?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Quebec Solidaire

isnt that affilated with the NDP?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, officially Quebec Solidaire is not connected to the New Democrats in any way. Though the ideology may be similar, Solidaire is a grouping of socialists, feminists, environmentalists and sovereigntists. On the topic of sovereignty, the two parties disagree, with the New Democrats adopting a nationalist policy. -- DaHamiltonian (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• It's certainly possible that some individuals might be simultaneously associated with the QS provincially and the NDP federally, but no, there's no formal affiliation at the organizational level. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal?

How does the NDP represent "liberal" views??? Social democratic/democratic socialist/left-wing/centre-left...for sure. But "liberal"...no way. Verged

• "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)

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? [1] 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—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)

Coalition

---

Jack is more Machiavellian than anything else. He masterminded a conspiracy to bring down the Harper government and then launched the conspiracy during a January 2009 government update, within three weeks after the election. Support for the coalition is strong in Toronto, were a single conservative seat can't be found and in Quebec where many nationalists, since the defeat of the last referendum, are quite happy to see Quebec as a "demandeur" province via the Bloc. However, a majority of westerners and a plurality of respondents everywhere else favoured an immediate election call instead, according to a NANOS poll. In Western Canada, 65 per cent of respondents indicated a desire for an election. It seems that Jack has set off a national unity crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetang007 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What a horrible use of the term Machiavellian, which is a book about the importance of having a ruler keep power at all costs for benefits of security and growth. A coalition is not about keeping someone in power at all costs... quite the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.56.14 (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the most spectacularly wrong analysis of anything that I've seen in years. Layton masterminded a conspiracy? Bullpucky; he wasn't even the primary instigator of the coalition in the first place, and a perfectly normal and legal process hardly equals a conspiracy anyway. This comment was clearly posted by somebody much more interested in taking partisan potshots than in being encyclopedically accurate. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2009 (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)

Social and Economic Justice?=

This is a rather ambiguous term which I have removed from the introduction of the article. It would be hard to find a party in Canada that would NOT say that it supports these ideals, though they would have very different conceptions of what they mean.

Vandalism

It seems that some readers believe that NDP is an extremist leftist party led by Joseph Stalin. Perhaps this page should be locked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.96.86 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Lillian Dyck

I added back in the 1 member of the Senate that the NDP has. NDP recognition is irrelevant to the facts, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. GreenJoe 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Party recognition is not irrelevant to the matter; there is no member of the Senate who is entitled to sit in NDP caucus meetings or speak on behalf of the party on a political issue. Party recognition is the crux of the matter, not an irrelevant aside. It's correct to note the matter of Lillian Dyck in the article, but it's precisely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we can't misrepresent her as being a member of the NDP caucus. Quite apart from the question of her parliamentary status, she doesn't even hold a membership in the party as an individual. Bearcat 22:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed opportunity there sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Party logo in the 1970s and early 1980s"

Is it me, or is the logo meant to be an abstract depiction of the Canadian Parliament? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.201.68 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Affiliated membership/union votes

I suggest that the bulk of my 00:36(CST) April 2nd Post be allowed to stand. Perhaps with some minor edits, eg. some alternate wording for 'so dominated by', or placing the Winnipeg Declaration before the addition, replacing the idea of interchangability with the idea that it is often reported 25% of the vote is simply allotted to labour/union affiliates or (labour) unions. At 25% the article stands much better than at 45%, but it seems to me the intent of the constitution was to extend affiliated membership well beyond unions, and if this were brought into fruition it would cut down on the unions 25%, if this is not reasonable I would at least like to see a discussion of why it isn't Thank you Jethro 82 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp90s.PNG

Image:Ndp90s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp80s.PNG

Image:Ndp80s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp70s.PNG

Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Municipal

I don’t think that we should include the municipal politicians and Miller in particular. None of the federal parties represented in Ottawa have municipal wings and all have members elected as mayors. It is simply true of every party everywhere that its members are active in levels where the party does not itself participate. It reads as though the note is there to say that New Democrats are successful. --JGGardiner 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Name should be changed to "New Democratic Party of Canada" to distinguish the federal party from the provincial parties and of "NDPs" of other countries

I know that the federal NDP has direct links with its provincial counterparts, unlike the federal Liberals or federal Conservatives, but since this is talking about the federal party, I think this page should be renamed "New Democratic Party of Canada". There are political parties named the "New Democratic Party" in Albania, Saint Vincent, and Sri Lanka. Renaming this article would help alleviate some of the accusations that the English wikipedia is North-American biased. When seaching "New Democratic Party", a disambiguation page should pop up to reduce potential frustration from non-Canadian wikipedia viewers. User:R-41

WP:NAME says to use the most common name. I'd argue it should be called "NDP" instead of the suggested new title. But if that can't be done,t he current name is better. GreenJoe 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not the case when searching "Democratic Party", if it was, the U.S. Democratic Party should show up. Oh well, if that's the case for wikipedia as a whole then I'll accept it. Though I think that English Wikipedia has got to change some policies such as that one to reduce the accusations of North American bias. user:R-41

The party is not called the New Democratic Party of Canada! I cringe whenever someone calls it that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If this page we're to be moved, it would be to New Democratic Party (Canada) as per convention, and not New Democratic Party of Canada because that's not the proper name. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Bearcat 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While there may not be any other "New Democratic Parties" it would be useful to have (Canada) added so that people using categories to navigate will know that this is a Canadian party. Reginald Perrin 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The New Democratic Party (NPD; Nouveau parti démocratique in French) is a political party in Canada. I think that clears it up for anyone reading the article. Honestly, titles do not need to be dab'd just for the sake of it. The title tells you who the subject is. The article can tell you everything else. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Skeezix1000 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There are over 2500 pages that link to "New Democratic Party". Of those who want the name changed, who is willing to volunteer to go in and fix all of the links that will now be to a dismbiguation page? It wouldn't actually be 2500 fixes since a few hundred might be from talk pages that don't really have to be corrected, but the remainder would have to be. I think before a change is made, you should sort out amongst yourselves who is going to undertake this time-consuming and tedious task. If the idea is to make "New Democratic Party" a redirect to "New Democratic Party (Canada)", then it would just be a waste of time -- there would be no point renaming the article -- Royalguard11's comment explains well why there is no need to put excess information in the article name. Ground Zero | t 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I see no need to change, as it really seems to be fixing a problem that doesn't exist. (Boy, that was a wordy way to say "if it ain' broke, don't fix it.) Agent 86 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ndp70s.PNG

Image:Ndp70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Election 2008

Canada is voting on October 14, 2008. Please make sure this article is kept current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.121.111 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Plane

Who paid for the NDP plane? Is it charter or does Air Canada provide it? --Zybez (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Centre-Left?

Not a big deal, but I think it's a bit confusing to list the NDP as a centre-left party when the Liberal party is also listed as centre-left as well - given that the NDP is most certainly left of the Liberal party. I'd suggest that the NDP would be better described as Left-wing_politics, as centre-left is really a stretch based on NDP ideals. If anyone knows of any other identifiers that might be better, please post them. If anything, I think describing the NDP as 'centre' anything is disparaging to the party. I'll wait a week or so, and if there are no objections I'll go ahead and make a change. --Savant99 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be more technically accurate to describe the (federal) Liberal Party as 'centre' and the NDP as 'centre-left'. --Autospark (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If this was mentioned 4 years ago, (re: Liberal position) then I would agree. However, the Liberals have indeed swung to the left, and there are many in the party that want the Liberals to swing back to the centre. However, from a strict ideology standpoint, I do find it hard to believe that the NDP occupy any part of the 'centre' given their positions on the issues. If anyone can point out centrist ideals that the NDP hold it would be helpful, as I haven't seen any such ideals noted on the actual NDP page itself. It should be noted I don't support a change simply because of the relative position of the Liberal party, it's the NDP ideals that would seem to indicate (to me) that they really don't hold any centrist ideals. I was rooting around on the NDP.CA website to find any references, and I could not find anything that described the party as centrist. However, I did find a page that quoted an article about a party candidate "...said New Democrat Brian Masse, who is the federal Member of Parliament for Windsor West. The NDP is Canada's left-wing party." (ref) While the text is a quotation of an article, it would stand to reason that they would not republish text that did not represent their party's point of view. Barring any objections, I will make the change and use the link above as a reference to support this change. --Savant99 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Liberals have indeed swung somewhat to the left, but I'm not so sure about the big differences between the Liberals and the NDP, apart from a few. ~ Troy (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed "centre-left" to "moderately left". The term centre-left usually refers to a coalition of liberals and social democrats, although the New Labour Party uses the term to describe their ideology. However neither of these usages are applicable. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how the NDP in any way occupies the political centre. There is not a single cited reference or source that indicates that they are a centre party and as their own constitution defines them as a party aligned with the socialist movement, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of them occupying the centre. The article itself indicates that one leader "attempted" to move the party towards the centre. Does that not alone verify that they are not a centre party already? Additionally, all of their policies fall on the left side of the spectrum with the focus of more government control over industry, larger social programs and redistribution of wealth from corporations and the wealthy to the poor to middle class. HastelloyX (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The list of policy positions says the party supports reform of the Senate, but the blurb on Lillian Dyck says they don't recognize her because they support abolishing the Senate. Which is true? -Rrius (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the NDP's type of reform for the Senate, is abolishment. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping environmental protection

I really have an issue with the usage of the word "Sweeping". What does it mean to be sweeping? It sounds way too biased. jlam (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, after reader this article, I feel as though I have just read a NDP paid advertisement... 216.99.54.62 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

A friend of mine from Canada told me today that the NDP are thinking of changing their name to just democratic party. I hav no links or other scores to back it up, but just infoming wiki to say HEADS UP! and watch for info. IMO, chaning it to Labour, or Labour Co-Operative Party, would be a better name. --74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is true, I can verify that as both a Canadian and a member of the New Democrats. There are also numerous links to this story, such as this one from the National Post . Personally, if the party is going to continue its rightward drift, to become the moderate voice in Canadian politics, the name is perfect...but if we are to stay true to our ideals, something like Social Democrats would be preferred. DaHamiltonian (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As a democratic socialist, I'd hate to see the one party I can support drift any more to the right. Also: it's really, really hard to say you support the DP with a straight face. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.81.176 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New Democratic Party of Canada is the official name of federal NDP 142.150.49.164 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Against Canadian Forces?

"Cut all funding to the Canadian Forces"

I have just recently seen this line in the article. Do we have proof of this? I don't believe it is true. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The NDP does not want to completely get rid of the military. I'll remove the dubious point. MitchellDuce (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism

Progressivism has been repeatedly been removed from the infobox without discussion or rationale. I would like to discuss its removal here before before it is removed again. MitchellDuce (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism needs to be remove as you have not provided any source of information that the NDP calls themselves progressivism. If we were to list every single ideology that the NDP falls in - then we might as well start a whole new article, listing all possible ideology that NDP has. The ideology list should be clear/simple and summerize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.3.213 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's something unclear and unnecessarily complex about listing a grand total of two ideological labels in an infobox? For one thing, the NDP uses the word "progressive" in several places on its very own website; in truth, I strongly suspect that you don't even know what the word means. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that NDP uses that word? The Progressive Conservatives uses the word all the time before they merge with Canadian Alliance. I do know what the word means but then why not add other ideologies with it? Dirigisme, Social liberalism, Left-wing politics? Beside, why all of a sudden you add progressivism to the list without explaining why? You need to cite the source of why you added it, otherwise the information unreliable.

He's right dude, unless you have something to prove they call themselves 'progressive', what can stop me from adding communism to the ideology title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.132.65 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this one more time: the NDP's own website repeatedly demonstrates the party describing itself as "progressive". No further proof is required beyond that. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me proof, give me the link - and that all I required, I have not found anywhere in NDP website that call themselves 'progressive'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canatoba (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact that a person has to be either ideologically blinkered or resolutely stupid to take issue with describing the NDP as progressive (while simultaneously not taking issue with describing them as socialist), let's take the following into account:

1. The party's own fundraising materials state: "Join me today and help build a strong and progressive Canada".
2. Here in B.C., NDP governments elected in 1972, 1991, and 1996 have established a lasting legacy of progressive legislation for British Columbians.
3. Now, as leader of Canada's NDP since 2003, he’s making progressive politics a main feature on Parliament Hill...In this minority parliament, his NDP team has fought hard for more innovation and progressive solutions for working families.
4. Ottawa-Vanier NDP: Working hard for progressive change in your community.
5. The mission of the New Democratic Party (NDP) is to elect progressive governments who will work in partnerships with Saskatchewan families and communities to build that society.
6. "The NDP is very progressive and we have a great leader in Jack Layton."
7. "The New Democratic Party is a progressive political party in Canada with a social democratic philosophy."
8. "While we plan for the future and celebrate the past decade in government, it's important to recognize the progressive policies that the NDP has put in place with the support and the direction of the people of the province."
9. "As a member, you’ll help ensure there’s a progressive voice on Parliament Hill and in Queen's Park on issues that matter to you."

Further examples abound of the party, its own elected MPs and MLAs and MPPs, and its own membership extolling the virtues of progressivism and describing the party as a progressive one. This sampling should be enough, but let's point out that you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that the NDP aren't a "progressive" party — you just keep asserting that they're not with no other proof outside of the "because I said so" school of evidence. What exactly is your problem with the word "progressive" here? Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Progressivism forms an important part of their ideology and should remain in the infobox.UBER ^(talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not like your attitude, I do not have any problems with the wording - you need the source in order to declare something like this - whether its obvious or not.

I do have evidence, my early evidence against progressive was that YOU DON'T HAVE any evidence to support progressive. You failed to provide any ration evidence. What you provide are sources for provincials NDP's not the federal version - NONE OF YOUR SOURCE officially declared that the party follows progressivism ideology. Your source simple show a statement from NDP using the word progressive, doesn't mean that they follow progressivism. Harper use the word Socialist couple times, does that make him a socialist? You need to be more civilize, retorting to a cranky child is no way to behave on wikipediaCanatoba (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Relax tiger. The evidence for progressivism has been amply demonstrated above. Now I have a question for you: where is the evidence that they are populist? Until you provide such evidence, I will reinstate the previous version of the infobox. The burden of proof is on you here.UBER ^(talk) 00:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Canatoba, Harper does not use the word socialist to refer to himself or his party, whereas all of the references provided by UberCryxic are referring to the NDP. Secondly, the federal and provincial New Democratic Parties are all one big party, but operate separately (unlike most other political parties in Canada). Article XIII, section 1 of the federal party's constitution says, "Each province of Canada shall have a fully autonomous provincial Party, provided its constitution and principles are not in conflict with those of the Federal Party." I think that's enough proof. Lastly, you said "NONE OF YOUR SOURCE officially declared that the party follows progressivism ideology," whereas they all do. They do not just "[use] the word progressive," they all specifically refer to the NDP as being progressive. I think that we can say that this case is closed - it's not worth anyone's time to carry on debating a widely accepted fact. If you still have concerns, I would advise you to read the Wikipedia article on progressivism and maybe educate yourself on what it means. MitchellDuce (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above comment refers to a comment made by Canatoba which he has since removed. MitchellDuce (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, these references were provided by Bearcat, not me. Otherwise I agree with what you said.UBER ^(talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism

I removed the ideology "Democratic Socialism" since the NDP does stand anywhere near socialism plus the fact that there is no evidence that suggest the NDP follow socialism ideology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.42.244 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

True, NDP move to the right after CCF merge with CLC - no longer advocating revolutionary, abolition of capitalism, nationalization of industries and businesses, etc. - Fellow Traveler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.55.168 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

no one has anything to say? wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.13.108 (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted

I've deleted this part "The New Democratic Party began as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, a democratic socialist farmers' movement." Which is not 100% as NDP also started off as Canadian Labour Congress. The reason is because the same statement is made twice in the following paragraph when it comes to discussing the CCF.Canatoba (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)