Speaker:

Greetings, friends. My name is Jess McLean, and I'm here to provide you with some blueprints

Speaker:

of disruption. This weekly podcast is dedicated to amplifying the work of activists, examining

Speaker:

power structures, and sharing the success stories from the grassroots. Through these discussions,

Speaker:

we hope to provide folks with the tools and the inspiration they need to start to dismantle

Speaker:

capitalism, decolonize our spaces, and bring about the political revolution that we know

Speaker:

we need. If you've been listening to the show for a while, you'll know I am no fan of the

Speaker:

NDP. This hasn't always been the case. My position on and in the party shifted over time. But

Speaker:

eventually I arrived at a place of complete contempt for the so-called Workers' Party.

Speaker:

The stories you'll hear in this episode help explain that. And if anything, this last year

Speaker:

has only solidified my position and left me more dismayed but wholly validated for where

Speaker:

I'm at, thinking the NDP actively contributes to the erosion of the political left in Canada.

Speaker:

Their centrist policies are shifting the spectrum, but they also have this suppressing, moderating

Speaker:

effect on those who know the way forward isn't. with the systems oppressing us. A good majority

Speaker:

of the members of the NDP would agree that capitalism is the problem, but the energy spent inside

Speaker:

isn't engaging in anti-capitalist efforts. Instead, it's in ways where it can be maintained. The

Speaker:

members knew before October 2023 that the occupation of Palestine was illegal and needed to be stopped.

Speaker:

But all of that energy spent trying to get the party leaders to hold that line have produced

Speaker:

next to nothing when it counts. Any sacrifices to be made to stop the genocide still rests

Speaker:

on the grassroots members and massive mobilizations done without any assistance from the NDP. In

Speaker:

fact, any elected officials or candidates who have dared push them on this have been sidelined

Speaker:

and publicly attacked. Ontario MPP Sarah Jem is likely the most notable here, but she is

Speaker:

by far from the only one. Our next guest Sean McGilvray will give you even more examples

Speaker:

just from Nova Scotia. Not just candidates being removed for their support of Palestine, but

Speaker:

of the countless ways in which the NDP has sold out its base. With few repercussions. This

Speaker:

isn't to say that people haven't kicked up a storm or there hasn't been any bad press, but

Speaker:

certainly not enough to elicit any genuine reflection or changes from leadership. Nova Scotia NDP

Speaker:

is right now celebrating a three-seat gain, but their new position of official opposition

Speaker:

isn't due to any vote gains from their last election in 2021. The Liberal Party there,

Speaker:

as it has in other provinces, collapsed and the NDP couldn't secure any of that. The Conservatives

Speaker:

have an even steeper majority now, and I can guarantee the people over there are not looking

Speaker:

back and reflecting on the minor blip in the news that became of the removal of Eastern

Speaker:

Passage candidate Tammy Jackman. I won't say more on that now because Sean will walk us

Speaker:

through it, but Before we get into the interview, I want to speak to the NDP members still in

Speaker:

the party. Still paying dues, still volunteering, maybe going door to door. What is your threshold?

Speaker:

This is especially for folks angry. Sending angry emails, demanding backdoor meetings with

Speaker:

their connections, attempting to hold the party accountable. Where is all that courage your

Speaker:

Jack Layton spoke of? I can tell you from first-hand experience that the party has been purging

Speaker:

our comrades for decades, and to a very particular end. The NDP now do nothing but serve to de-radicalize

Speaker:

us, water us down, keep us cycling through the mechanisms provided to us by the ruling class.

Speaker:

For all I know this was always their purpose. discouraging third ways and marginalizing the

Speaker:

most radical amongst the Canadian political left. Traditionally socialists, but certainly

Speaker:

not limited to. Now we use the poem. First they came for the socialists to explain what solidarity

Speaker:

is, the importance of not waiting until it happens to you. But when it comes to writing wrongs

Speaker:

within the party, most people just look away. You'll hear for a long time. Thousands of members

Speaker:

are out there thinking they are being pragmatic by working the system, biding their time, building

Speaker:

social and political capital, mostly just not knowing what else to do to secure better representation,

Speaker:

better governance. And the result has been a completely unaccountable leadership, who operate

Speaker:

in much the same way the Democrats do. on the fear folks have of the alternatives, and looking

Speaker:

past their base towards the right. For a moment, I'd like you to imagine what we could have

Speaker:

done with all that time and energy, all those donations. If the NDP had been committed to

Speaker:

being an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist party, one determined to deliver indigenous sovereignty.

Speaker:

We'll never know the impact of so many generations thinking the party was the only hope to obtain

Speaker:

or even influence power. How many saw this as the only legitimate entry point to politics?

Speaker:

We'll never know where we could have been if the people provided with such a platform had

Speaker:

been as courageous as the people fighting for a free Palestine right now. So this episode

Speaker:

and really this entire podcast is about Not just proving these institutions weren't built

Speaker:

for us. We feel that. We want to provide alternative ways in which we can affect change, even inside

Speaker:

the legislature, without legitimizing one of the players benefiting from that system, who

Speaker:

has no interest in doing the hard work. But it seems to continue to be this canon event,

Speaker:

an experience one has to go through personally to appreciate it. I just wish it wasn't that

Speaker:

way. I wish the playlist we've compiled that has scores of testimonies from the inception

Speaker:

of the party to its current form. I wish that was enough. And the other warnings people have

Speaker:

provided were enough to spur people out of that institution and into something new. But I don't

Speaker:

think we're there yet. This is the same with all the stories of struggle we've shared and

Speaker:

examples of revolutions we learn about. The goal is to get our people to the point of resistance

Speaker:

before they have to experience the oppression so personally and devastatingly while they

Speaker:

still have the energy to fight. So for now let Sean and by proxy Tammy's experience get the

Speaker:

air it deserves what they're putting their hope, love, and courage into. Welcome, Sean. Can

Speaker:

you introduce yourself to the Blueprints audience? Hi, my name's Sean McGilvery. Up until very

Speaker:

recently, I was a dedicated New Democrat of seven years, working on activities, both in

Speaker:

my local EDA and with the Central Party, including doing audio for events, making large signs,

Speaker:

even doing a little bit of Oppo. Um, and now I, as a result of some recent events and no

Speaker:

longer member of the party, I'm also a volunteer with some other organizations like abortion

Speaker:

support services, Atlantic, and the sort of local Palestine movement in Halifax, such as

Speaker:

it is I provide audio for most of their demonstrations and some of the demonstrations too, including

Speaker:

those with the indigenous community. I think a lot of ears perked up right away when you

Speaker:

said you were formally a member of the NDP. Let that foreshadow what this episode is going

Speaker:

to be about. Let's first share the event you just alluded to. My audience may or may not

Speaker:

know why I am no longer in the NDP. I'm sure that will come up today. That's a teaser. But

Speaker:

why are you no longer in the party? So I, as I mentioned, have been pretty close to the

Speaker:

cause of Palestinian liberation, I think, as a lot of people in the party and without the

Speaker:

party have also been doing. I have been involved, like I said, for about the last year. in regular

Speaker:

demonstrations to that effect. And was also pretty dedicated to working with the NDP and

Speaker:

sort of not, I don't think, out of a sense of total naivety or necessarily even believing

Speaker:

in the system. I feel like I tried to go about it from a very pragmatic approach. And I feel

Speaker:

like even my departure had its pragmatic aspects. But all of which is to say, a candidate named

Speaker:

Tammy Jakeman. who is someone I had worked with for quite a long time. I was her writing association

Speaker:

president in Eastern Passage for five years. And I've been through an election with her

Speaker:

and you get all the trauma bonding that goes with working on an election together. I didn't

Speaker:

know you were in Eastern Passage as well. That's personal. I moved to Cole Harbor, actually

Speaker:

in between the back-to-back provincial and federal elections in 2021. But I had worked with Tammy

Speaker:

for most of my most formative years with the NEP. I got involved first in Eastern Passage.

Speaker:

I had just moved out there and I was looking to get involved. I was even considering running

Speaker:

myself because I didn't know what the level of activity was out there. And so I started

Speaker:

going to NDP events and pestering people and trying to find out how to get involved. And

Speaker:

eventually I ended up going to this candidate nomination meeting, which was already an acclaimed

Speaker:

nomination and got involved with that candidate's campaign. And from there remained active with

Speaker:

the party in Eastern passage as it's riding association president as so frequently happens

Speaker:

once you get involved. I'm trying to count on my hands like how many people I don't have

Speaker:

that many fingers have given that entry point, you know It's not to say that your story isn't

Speaker:

special. I'm sorry Sean, but yeah, it's just um, that is very reminiscent of most people's

Speaker:

experience I think you know you tiptoe in and then you You quickly get involved. I keep finding

Speaker:

this way and I'm gonna date myself this way But I keep finding ways to invoke this slogan

Speaker:

from a TV show called candid camera And it had this sort of theme song jingle sort of thing.

Speaker:

And the tagline was sort of like, when you least expect it, you're elected. And once that's

Speaker:

the thing is like, it's very difficult and opaque as to how to get involved with the party initially,

Speaker:

but once you do, God help you. Like once, once you're in, you'll be, it'll be turning down

Speaker:

the reader, calling me to join the executive and calling me to do this and that. And, but

Speaker:

anyway, so I worked with Tammy Jacob for a long time. And I also have been working with someone

Speaker:

named Rana Zaman for a while too, on these rallies. And Rana was a federal candidate and she was

Speaker:

booted from her federal candidacy after handily winning a contested nomination, which she clearly

Speaker:

brought out tons of her community. She won the contest and then the party capitulated to Cija

Speaker:

as they've done so many times and Cija of course has its local affiliate here at the Atlantic

Speaker:

Jewish council and they're affiliated with many such councils across the country. And so they

Speaker:

objected to specifically a post of Rana's. which criticized Israel's actions during the Great

Speaker:

March of Return, criticizing them for, you know, having their snipers, murder medics and maim

Speaker:

children and doing, you know, all the sorts of things that they documented we did. And

Speaker:

Seja, of course, objected to that and the party ended Rana's candidacy rather quickly after

Speaker:

that. And she, I felt this was one of the most embarrassing things. And Jess, I know that

Speaker:

you've had lots of opportunity for embarrassment at the hands of the NDP. But I, this was still

Speaker:

I think in more ways, you know, being at the subsequent nomination meeting where the losing

Speaker:

candidate was acclaimed anyway, votes were taken and discarded, but then their membership money

Speaker:

was taken and kept. And there are Muslims out front of our nomination meeting protesting.

Speaker:

Truly not just much. Justifiably. Having worked with Rana made me familiar with the regularity

Speaker:

with which the NDP ends candidacies over those candidates' support for Palestine. You know,

Speaker:

you think of Paul Manley. who won the second Green Party seat ever after the Fed Party ended

Speaker:

his candidacy again on thin allegations of anti-Semitism. And so they demonstrate not knowing that they're

Speaker:

willing to bow down. They're willing to lose seats over it and have lost at least one seat

Speaker:

over it. But this isn't what caused you to leave the party, is it? This is leading up to it

Speaker:

because I had a great sensitivity to this exact issue. Like this was, and that's why I want

Speaker:

to underscore, like when the NSNDP sort of on behalf of Sija bullied Tammy into ending her

Speaker:

candidacy. This was the one line the party couldn't cross with the one person that couldn't cross

Speaker:

it with me. And especially with me having this enhanced knowledge of like, you know, the party

Speaker:

has this history of chucking people because of their support for Palestine. This was the

Speaker:

reason pretty much that I stopped considering offering for the NDP that I stopped considering

Speaker:

running is that like, they have demonstrated their cowards on this issue. And I don't think

Speaker:

that like my greatest risk in running for the NDP is the NDP. That's the threat. And after

Speaker:

a year of all the things we're seeing on our phones, the absolute stuff that only first

Speaker:

responders see, like some horrifying things, after seeing a year of that and after having

Speaker:

to call the leader of the party to account in provincial council, after having done all those

Speaker:

things, they did just the worst possible thing they could have done. And this is one of the

Speaker:

reasons why my decision to leave was nearly instant once I read the party's message and

Speaker:

their sort of throwing of Tammy under the bus. To run you through the events of it briefly,

Speaker:

from my perspective, I guess, I got a call on like the Saturday of the second weekend of

Speaker:

the election. It was from the chief of staff of the party, James Pratt, with which you might

Speaker:

have some familiarity because you knew he was involved the second I mentioned it happened.

Speaker:

I have many little birdies. I'll just tell you that many little birdies. You immediately responded,

Speaker:

James Pratt. I was like, I didn't say anything about James Pratt. Neither did the article

Speaker:

I just said. Like whenever the party fucks up, my DMs are just absolutely full with what happened.

Speaker:

Totally. I bet they are. So this is what happened. They called me and they said, and what they

Speaker:

said to me is basically what they did. They sort of told her that CJ was going to make

Speaker:

her life miserable, that her candidacy would only get worse. And it was kind of like, we'll

Speaker:

allow you to continue, but you're doomed if you do. They called me to tell me that she

Speaker:

had elected to end her candidacy. And I think the reason they did this is that they knew

Speaker:

that I would walk. Damage control or attempted. Yeah, they were, he was like, this is the thing

Speaker:

like this, this James guy really think like they're what the way he put it to me was that,

Speaker:

you know, there's no local regional legacy media on politics in Nova Scotia on a long weekend.

Speaker:

So we're going to do it now. We're going to try and wait out the weekend, keep our heads

Speaker:

down and hope it goes away. These don't take the weekend off cell phones and social media

Speaker:

accounts. Don't take the weekend off, unfortunately. And, and so that's something they didn't consider

Speaker:

in their strategy. And I think it might have come back to bite them a little bit. And I

Speaker:

think I was. part of that. They called me to like, and to try and feign concern for Tammy

Speaker:

too, which is one of the really galling things about this is they're, they're faint, they're

Speaker:

making it as if they're protecting her. When people write to them, the party has been responding

Speaker:

first by, you know, feigning concern for Tammy and then validating the smear against her that

Speaker:

CJ has made, which is that it's a conflation to talk about. And this was the week everyone

Speaker:

learned the word conflation apparently, because I keep hearing it all of a sudden that it's

Speaker:

a conflation to say that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide. Effectively, you can't

Speaker:

because Tammy quote tweeted the Auschwitz Memorial and said something about the Israel, the genocide

Speaker:

happening in Gaza right now. And that's what the party is saying is a conflation and quote

Speaker:

unquote. And it's not, but in addition to capitulating to what they have told me is a bunch of bullying

Speaker:

because, you know, James is on his phone call to me, told me, oh, you know, we see just so

Speaker:

awful and their tactics are just a bullying and it's, and it's, it's such a shame. Oh,

Speaker:

it's, you know, it's, I think, I think that is part of it for sure. I do, I do think that

Speaker:

You know, people have talked about Zionists have infiltrated the party and like there is

Speaker:

the odd Zionist in that party like I've met them and had like discussions about their annoying

Speaker:

centrist political beliefs in the comment sections of my tech talks but. But ultimately, this

Speaker:

is tactical cowardice and incompetence to an extent, and I think that is going to be born

Speaker:

out I think it's going to be born out that it did them more damage to capitulate than to

Speaker:

stand up to. What is effectively a third party lobby group in the in acting in the interest

Speaker:

of a foreign country. This is a thing like the whole like you might want to say and provincial

Speaker:

politicians might want to say, you know, Palestine is not a provincial political issue. But what

Speaker:

is of issue, I think, to Canadians right now nationally is foreign interference in our electoral

Speaker:

process. And that's what we're seeing right now we're seeing an organization with another

Speaker:

nation's name in its name. bullying our politicians into pulling candidates. And I think that we

Speaker:

should be seeing this at least partially through a lens of foreign interference in our electoral

Speaker:

politics, because that's exactly what's happening. I don't even care where it comes from. It's

Speaker:

based on upholding a genocide and an illegal occupation. Canadian politicians, I mean, some

Speaker:

of the NDP might be an exception, but this is the Canadian project as well, right? We are

Speaker:

colonial occupation. We... we operated much in the same way we committed a genocide that

Speaker:

we don't want people talking about and we sure as hell don't want them attributing it to the

Speaker:

Canadian state. We like to pass that on to the English as though we had nothing to do with

Speaker:

it. But yeah, I think like one of the

Speaker:

Folks can see the polls and they can see the liberal slipping and they can see a couple

Speaker:

of good ads they might like by the NDP. But all in all, this kind of behavior that you've

Speaker:

seen, that Sean has described in just Nova Scotia, we have seen in Ontario, we have seen in British

Speaker:

Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, we have testaments from all of those places of them behaving like

Speaker:

this, and the repercussions. Now sure, most of the public doesn't give a shit about the

Speaker:

Eastern Passage candidate for NDP. Like, let's be honest, we love Tammy, you know her, we

Speaker:

don't think it's right and as part of the progressive family we care, but the NDP sees it won't carry

Speaker:

any political damage from this. But they completely rely on the labour of people who are sold.

Speaker:

on them as a mechanism for change. The people that do labour for them believe their voice

Speaker:

should matter within the party and for the most part have immovable values. And they're just

Speaker:

breaking all of these pressure points, like for you it was someone close to you, for other

Speaker:

people it's a certain issue they won't hit on. Their failure to get behind disabled people

Speaker:

and you know there's tons of examples. of them being vindictive against autistic members and

Speaker:

candidates trying to remove them for their advocacy against ABA. Like that's a shout out to Joel

Speaker:

Harden who many people admire and think he is a form of positive change but even he admittedly

Speaker:

behaved in this very way, you know, didn't like what people had to say and thought to remove

Speaker:

them from the party. You're losing all of this labor. Even if you're just talking about like

Speaker:

the signs and all the work Sean does alone for the very small province of Nova Scotia, whose

Speaker:

resources within that party are so depleted, some would describe as the party doesn't really

Speaker:

exist there. I mean, from other provinces, if you looked at the activity that, you know,

Speaker:

Ontario and some other provinces have, it's shocking when you talk to how many people are

Speaker:

actually active within the East Coast provinces for the NDP. So the labor, it's not normal

Speaker:

for someone to do signs for 10 writings. My point is that once they go into this federal

Speaker:

election or any even a provincial election, they need the same people they've burned to

Speaker:

do a lot of the legwork. You know, young people come in finding their way in politics. I just

Speaker:

talked to a new patron of ours who's just again finding their way in politics and thinking

Speaker:

perhaps their first step would be to contact their local NDP writing association. You can

Speaker:

only imagine what my advice was, however, you know, I do say people sometimes have to go

Speaker:

into this system, see it, so they can fully understand how electoral politics actually

Speaker:

works, so that when you need to apply pressure, you know, you don't waste your time in certain

Speaker:

positions. But the damage that they're doing through, through acts like this, that they

Speaker:

don't really sit and think about, you know, like they're just concerned of like, will this

Speaker:

Nova Scotia media pick this up and blow What will that mean? And they try to do calculations

Speaker:

and really none of them seem to involve. Like, what will this do to our base? Like there's

Speaker:

the whole like don't attribute to malfeasance. What can be explained by incompetence sort

Speaker:

of argument where like, yeah, I know they've grossly over like miscalculated. This is the

Speaker:

thing is like not only are these people venal and amoral, they're bad at their jobs. So James

Speaker:

Pratt and you can, you're probably better qualified to offer a background on James Pratt than I

Speaker:

am. But my understanding is that he was. Jack Layton's campaign manager or something to that

Speaker:

effect. He's also the person who gave Matthew Wieldon, who was a federal candidate elsewhere

Speaker:

in Nova Scotia, a few elections back, gave him half an hour to rescind his candidacy or it

Speaker:

was going to be rescinded for him for the same reasons. There are young folks coming into

Speaker:

the party. Like there's that joke about I've seen this meme go around of, you know, there's

Speaker:

a like an E-girl and like a really old man asleep. sitting in his seat like next to each other

Speaker:

on the bus and it's described as like this is what every NDP EDA meeting looks like. Very

Speaker:

very young people and then very old people. A lot of whom want the same things actually

Speaker:

I think people sometimes think that like oh there's too many old people in the party and

Speaker:

that's the problem it's like if anything there's too many of my generation in the party there's

Speaker:

too many Gen Xers like Gen X centrists where you have like the old folks who joined the

Speaker:

party 20 years ago who joined an explicitly socialist party and absolutely want those policies

Speaker:

and the young people who want socialist policies now and think that's the party they've joined,

Speaker:

not realizing that Thomas Mulcair has gotten in and mucked with the Constitution and all

Speaker:

these things and it's been watered down and it's nearly ideologically, you know, identical

Speaker:

to the liberals, federally and I think in Nova Scotia too. I'm hearing from candidates that

Speaker:

say our campaign lost all momentum after that happened. I'm hearing people saying that like

Speaker:

supporters are ripping their signs out of their lawns, they're retracting their offers to donate,

Speaker:

they're retracting their offers to volunteer now saying, I don't know who to vote for. So

Speaker:

it's an election issue now. Yeah, let's hit on why it bothered so many people this time.

Speaker:

Because I mean, surely over in Nova Scotia, you folks aren't in some sort of bubble. You've

Speaker:

seen what the Ontario NDP has done to Sarah Jama, and how they just generally behaved with

Speaker:

the Israeli lobby. I don't know if you folks are all over there satisfied that Heather McPherson

Speaker:

is wearing a pin and standing up and hollering once in a while in the legislature, but they

Speaker:

have been far from champions for Palestine and have kicked countless people out of the party.

Speaker:

I mean, I'm included in that. We can't remove ourselves from the fact that we're in a different

Speaker:

time now. Like when we're talking about Palestine, you talked about Canada getting removed in

Speaker:

2018. Right? return was in 2018, early 2019. So, you know, people's knee-jerk reaction to

Speaker:

seeing someone removed over Palestine would not hit the same as it does now, right? Absolutely.

Speaker:

Because it's hard to imagine anybody who's seen what we've seen for the last year and still

Speaker:

not doing everything possible, including defending candidates who are being demonized by Sijah,

Speaker:

even as they acknowledge how awful Sijah is. Right. So to not have that courage in this

Speaker:

moment is unquestionable. You know, like you just we don't understand it and we are finding

Speaker:

courage where we maybe never had it before. And, you know, I think that the Heather McPherson

Speaker:

thing and the like Matthew Green in the in the House of Commons with their, you know, the

Speaker:

kofi is or watermelon pins or whatever. I hearing the leader recite Sija talking points when

Speaker:

he's asked about Palestine and he starts talking about scared Jews in Montreal. when he's not

Speaker:

been asked about that and he's pivoting to all the same talking points he's been fed by this

Speaker:

organization. It really just makes Matthew Green's efforts look like Nancy Pelosi and Kenton.

Speaker:

Yes, people need to understand Heather and Matthew were just tokens to make sure that they capture

Speaker:

folks so that anybody that is on the fence that just needs something, anything to hold on to

Speaker:

an electoral politics can say, well, oh, the NDP at least are standing up and saying X,

Speaker:

Y and Z. They are starting petitions where nobody else is doing anything. I mean, I talked to

Speaker:

somebody who was really thrilled about their bear in Mississauga and how awesome they were.

Speaker:

And I was like, we're ready to throw a fucking parade because somebody's trying to uphold

Speaker:

the charter. Like someone's doing the bear fucking minimum. And we're like, oh, thank you so much.

Speaker:

Like I will forget all the other things that you've ever done because there's just like

Speaker:

one little glimmer of hope there. So I want to ask folks, like I want to ask you, but like

Speaker:

I think there's a lot of people out there listening that are in the same boat. And I was, I saw

Speaker:

them do horrible things, you know, prop up John Horgan while he sicked the RCMP on land offenders

Speaker:

and was just clearing old growth and brought him into federal convention at that very year

Speaker:

when there was a petition against him, like no distancing of that awfulness. And so many

Speaker:

people walked from the party then. I stayed. I stayed because I thought I could change the

Speaker:

party, right? And I stayed with a lot of other comrades who thought the same thing. But then,

Speaker:

you know, like it was, I mean, eventually they kicked me out for trying to change the party,

Speaker:

but many, many people dropped out. There were trigger points for everyone. Sarah Jama was

Speaker:

a big trigger point again. And then Nova Scotia now has had its own trigger point. But from

Speaker:

your perspective, why did you stay after they gave you so many reasons to leave? I ultimately

Speaker:

thought I did think that I could at least exert some leverage. I don't know if I thought that

Speaker:

I could fundamentally change the party. There was an inflection point after again, after

Speaker:

having been involved for a long time and involved especially in a lot of like central activities

Speaker:

and around the governance. You were probably out by the time the 2021 federal convention

Speaker:

happened, but it was a technical debacle in addition to being a procedural and no, I think

Speaker:

I ran as federal president there. Oh, really? Was that the one? I'm pretty sure that's the

Speaker:

year I ran for party president. First name starts with a D. Last name was Koli, K-O-H. Yeah,

Speaker:

DJ. Yeah, that was my opponent. We got 30% of the vote with the two-week campaign. And was

Speaker:

that the one where they very, very obviously filibustered the Palestine bill? Yes. Like,

Speaker:

nakedly so. In fact, I would argue they did it in a way that made it clear that someone

Speaker:

had their finger on the scale procedurally, because. The chair has an earpiece the entire

Speaker:

time, and whenever there's conflict. sits and waits and listens for instructions. Folks who

Speaker:

missed that, this was the filibuster of all time, but just very quickly, it was so bad

Speaker:

that they'd stretched the discussion prior to that. It was something to do with a situation

Speaker:

in India. I'm not even going to pretend to have all the details for whatever that was. And

Speaker:

it got to the point where people rebutting revisions... What do you call the amendments? Sorry, people

Speaker:

who were rebutting amendments had written talking points. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they had anticipated

Speaker:

the suggested amendment and they had written already three minutes of talking points to

Speaker:

refute that. And this went back and forth and back and forth. Whereas any other issue, you

Speaker:

would have had somebody be able to get to the mic and call the question saying, we've talked

Speaker:

about this enough. Let's call the question. We don't have all day to spend on this. That

Speaker:

never. really happened with that particular motion and it left like two minutes for the

Speaker:

Palestinian question. So they really just didn't want any back and forth. They would allow people

Speaker:

to read like the first statement and then they sent it to a vote. The reason I kind of went

Speaker:

out on this, even though it's not really what we're talking about, because when we talk,

Speaker:

when people talk about reforming the NDP, we have like so many episodes dedicated to like

Speaker:

the different mechanisms within the party and how they work and convention. is one of the

Speaker:

most controlled spaces in the party, yet it holds the only key to accessing the levers

Speaker:

of power within the party. The alleged levers of power, the democratic positions, right,

Speaker:

so they elect an executive council that is supposed to run the party and then there's another episode

Speaker:

that explains that it doesn't actually run the party anyway. So winning those elections doesn't

Speaker:

really do much anyway, but they've done whatever possible to just completely control those spaces,

Speaker:

which in the end controls the dialogue within the party, because that is the only space that

Speaker:

members actually get to get into a same room with like all their counterparts and MPs and

Speaker:

party brass and unions and discuss what it means to be an NDP'er. Like where are we going to

Speaker:

stand on these very important issues? And it's only the most popular issues that get talked

Speaker:

about. So even with the in its legitimate design, the design that everyone smiles and nods and

Speaker:

says, this sounds really democratic, everyone just votes on what we're even going to talk

Speaker:

about. So only the most popular and agreed upon points even end up on the agenda in the first

Speaker:

place. So, you know, part of this episode isn't just hear Sean's story. It's also for me to

Speaker:

kind of get out. the many, many ways in which the NDP serves as like a very moderating force

Speaker:

for us as a space where we spin our wheels and de-radicalize, not as individuals, but as effectiveness

Speaker:

because you have real radicals still in there thinking, you know, they're fighting for the

Speaker:

abolishment of police and prisons and free transit, things that shouldn't be radical, but you know

Speaker:

what I'm talking about. They're there, but... they are not getting anywhere within that party.

Speaker:

And if you look at the Palestinian cause, as an example of this, decades were spent trying

Speaker:

to get the party to take a half decent position on this. And not only were they like just unpopular

Speaker:

at the time, like you just couldn't get members to come along and that work had to be done

Speaker:

and it took a long time. And maybe it took exposing of the Israeli state a little bit more, a little

Speaker:

bit more on masking to get people along. But in the end, we found out that wasn't the case.

Speaker:

We know that it was just thwarting by party brass for years and years since the years of

Speaker:

Jack Layton, and they've only gotten better at it suppressing the Palestinian question,

Speaker:

so to speak, all across in every way imaginable. And that is just one issue that even once you

Speaker:

thought there was a glimmer of hope, even when people started to celebrate the fact that they

Speaker:

finally took a decent position on where they stood with Israel. I don't remember the language

Speaker:

that was finally adopted. But in practice, it meant nothing but a watermelon pen, the calling

Speaker:

for a ceasefire without the celebration of Palestinian resistance whatsoever. This touches on nearly

Speaker:

every organization, every institution, I think, nearly in existence in our society, is that

Speaker:

there is this divide between the ostensible democratic governance of that institution and-

Speaker:

the staff layer of that institution and the relationship between those two things and the

Speaker:

way that we seek to check the power of one over the other. And I think that conventions are

Speaker:

great example, you know, we labor over these policy positions and we research them and we

Speaker:

debate them and we pass them. They go into a policy book and that policy book goes on a

Speaker:

shelf. It might as well go in the shredder. And what people think that they're doing when

Speaker:

they do that is that they think that they're instructing caucus what to do. But they're

Speaker:

not. They're instructing the party, which is a separate entity, to ask caucus to do something.

Speaker:

And that's the most leverage you'll ever get over caucus. And it doesn't really mean anything.

Speaker:

And there was a motion that was passed after convention at one of our provincial councils

Speaker:

in Nova Scotia asking that the party provide regular reports as to how each of the policy

Speaker:

positions in our policy book that is now constituted of all these resolutions people have made.

Speaker:

They asked them for regular reporting as to progress on each of those. And all of the caucus

Speaker:

people and staff people all objected to it. They're going to do their like whatever Pric

Speaker:

campaign they delivered this time, whatever platform is what's going to come out. And they

Speaker:

did a big platform consultation to manufacture consent, but none of it means anything. I was

Speaker:

at those consultations. I heard the things that people were asking for and none of them are

Speaker:

in the platform. No one's asking for a gas tax holiday during a climate crisis. No one's asking

Speaker:

for you to lock in a 2.5% rent increase for landlords who rapaciously increased their rents

Speaker:

as much as they possibly could when people were at their most desperate. All kinds of awesome

Speaker:

things that people in the party wanted and the mechanism that is put in front of them to ostensibly

Speaker:

provide that is a sham. Yeah. I'll link folks to another episode that where we walk through

Speaker:

the many mechanisms and actually the very deliberate choices made under Jack Layton. to remove the

Speaker:

power of the policy book from the platform or private members bills or any possibility of

Speaker:

like tangible work on those issues. I am going to be devil's advocate for just a second. Well,

Speaker:

I've had many people, you know, come back at me for, you know, all the things that we're

Speaker:

saying right now, obviously. I'm sure you have too. And one of the things that I have learned

Speaker:

to hate most, and you use this word, so this is just, this is also a mini attack on you.

Speaker:

So just come at me is they would argue that by behaving the way that they are doing in

Speaker:

the current political climate, whatever that means, they're being pragmatic. They are going

Speaker:

after maybe low hanging fruit, whatever they can get. Be realistic, Sean. We're not going

Speaker:

to get dad in Nova Scotia. So they are doing what they think is possible within the systems

Speaker:

available to them. And surely you can relate, right? And we've all been there. Like I am

Speaker:

not, I have been completely open into my many years of trying to use the mechanisms within

Speaker:

the party and, and elsewhere. That's one of my points there on how they moderate us is

Speaker:

by forcing that pragmatic approach or. selling that as the most reasonable way forward. There

Speaker:

was a speech I heard just today, it was about pragmatism. And so when you said that word,

Speaker:

I wrote it down and underlined it. And I was like, I've got to go back to that speech. So

Speaker:

I'm going to play it here. And then we'll react together, because it's a struggle that everyone

Speaker:

has, right? When we're talking about electoral politics being the kind of pragmat approach,

Speaker:

we can't abandon it. And anyway.

Speaker:

gathered here on the streets instead of in that room up there look at the hundreds of people

Speaker:

Vancouver, in Halifax, in Fredericton, and know that we are reading these same words, that

Speaker:

we are orienting to the same horizon of Palestinian liberation, and know that another kind of literary

Speaker:

world, one that doesn't traffic in blood money and self-interest, but in solidarity and collective

Speaker:

power, already exists because we the people have made it so. This year, the Giller closed

Speaker:

its gala doors on everyone but literary and corporate elites. So we brought our counter

Speaker:

gala to their door and to the streets. We fielded a lot of critiques in bad faith from people

Speaker:

like the ones who are who are in that room across the street at the Giller gala since this campaign

Speaker:

started. Literary elites who have said we're criticized us for expanding our targets to

Speaker:

include indigo books and the Israeli foundation. for not trying to make slow institutional change

Speaker:

from the inside of the sector, for not trying to find a third way, a more quote unquote pragmatic

Speaker:

way. And to that, I wanna share the words of the political theorist, Joy James, who writes,

Speaker:

"'If you're gonna use the word pragmatic "'to discipline radicals, "'my preference is that

Speaker:

you say nothing at all.'" If you want to discipline rebels, then pony up something tangible. Raise

Speaker:

bail funds, pay for their attorneys, feed their kids while they're inside, or try to get them

Speaker:

out. You cannot lecture risk-taking people about being politically infantile out of your own

Speaker:

accumulations. There's nobody we admire who is pragmatic. Everybody could have been pragmatic,

Speaker:

but if they were, we would not have any ancestors. So I want to do away with this false binary

Speaker:

between writers and organizers. Culture alone, the work we do on the page will not be enough.

Speaker:

Reasoning with, trying to reform the cultural institutions that prop up this state will not

Speaker:

be enough. We have to be willing, at the very least, to take risks for each other, to relinquish

Speaker:

the false accolades, the fancy galas, all of them the oppressor's incentives to keep us

Speaker:

from actively building solidarity with each other. rated E for everything. I'll leave that

Speaker:

in, but that definitely is rated for everyone. OK, let me just talk about that for a second,

Speaker:

and then I'm going to go to you. OK, Sean, because I'm sure you heard it, but I'm going to draw

Speaker:

the parallels to the NDP there. What you heard there was a member of the Writers Against the

Speaker:

War on Gaza. We had them on to talk about their resistance to the Giller Prize that is funded

Speaker:

by Scotiabank. And as you've heard, they've expanded. their horizons, they've also included

Speaker:

tactics that would definitely not be described as pragmatic. And when she speaks of, you know,

Speaker:

another world, she's encouraging authors to see beyond the structures created by Scotiabank

Speaker:

and the Giller Prize, because it's not just a gala, right? It's readings and it's an economy

Speaker:

of its own within that particular sector. And that's what keeps people scared of put- butting

Speaker:

up against it because they feel like that would eat into their bottom line or the possibility

Speaker:

of exposure or getting their word out, being heard, right? The writers having their voice

Speaker:

silenced and she's encouraging them, there is already other systems there. We are demonstrating

Speaker:

this to you. You don't have to be in those gallows. You don't have to be in those rooms to effect

Speaker:

change. And this wasn't to say, you know, you hear her scolding perhaps people who would

Speaker:

lecture. radicals, right? That's not to say that's what Sean was doing. But we definitely

Speaker:

do get lectured on being pragmatic within the NDP. That is something as soon as you try to

Speaker:

reform it from within, you will have long time members come to you and maybe they'll say there's

Speaker:

no point. You're not the first person to do this. Use what's there. This is what's possible

Speaker:

within this realm. I I've got an inside line with Merit. I'm going to sit down and talk

Speaker:

to Merit about the wrongdoings her party is doing. And I will come back to you folks and

Speaker:

tell you what she said. Backdoor solutions, right, that remain open to just a few. So the

Speaker:

NDP parallel there to the speech you just heard is also the maintaining of legitimacy through

Speaker:

using use elites. And that doesn't mean financial elites within the party, but I mean insiders,

Speaker:

people with friends in the party, with connections, with the ability to maybe be heard once in

Speaker:

a while, and they really close out to everybody else. They're still unable to maintain, but

Speaker:

they lean heavily on those insiders and that kind of exclusivity. So after hearing that,

Speaker:

you know, and talking about trying to remain in the party and be... as pragmatic as possible

Speaker:

and there are still mechanisms in there, you know, surely influence can be wielded. Like,

Speaker:

how do you feel about all that now? Well, it's funny. And one thing I really had to acknowledge

Speaker:

from that speech is, is the use of the term third way, because this is obviously a term

Speaker:

that we've certainly heard before in the NDP. And you know, where we're talking about the

Speaker:

latent era, you know, I don't know if, if a lot of people share this view of mine, but

Speaker:

In my view, Leighton was the beginning of the end of a meaningful left in the NDP. I think

Speaker:

that was in the same way that like when I'm door knocking and the people who hate poor

Speaker:

people and drug addicts the most are the people who got just a little taste, they just get,

Speaker:

they've got me like a side by side in their driveway or they got like a nice, like a little,

Speaker:

little boat or like a skidoo or maybe a nice truck and like when I was going to the door,

Speaker:

uh, with, uh, free ambulance rides on the platform. last time provincially we offered. We're gonna

Speaker:

wave ambulance fees. So radical. Right, and people were furious. That junkies are gonna

Speaker:

be using that as a taxi service. And our hospital's in an industrial park in Dartmouth. And when

Speaker:

the NDP got a little taste of proximity to power with the electoral result they got from the

Speaker:

Jack Laitin campaign, that was it. And they were all in on orange liberalism and getting

Speaker:

outflanked by the liberals on the left, you know, campaign after campaign. Hearing the

Speaker:

Third Way invoked with the word pragmatism in the same sentence, it really causes you to

Speaker:

think of like, you know, this is like, you can easily see like, this is how we got here in

Speaker:

a lot of ways. And you can definitely, there's definitely an argument to be made for that.

Speaker:

I think that in terms of what I did in the party, I feel relatively good. Like I was the only

Speaker:

person to speak up at a number of junctures, the only person to try and hold power to account

Speaker:

when no one else really did, in front of like an audience of their peers, like in provincial

Speaker:

council, like having the... Rules and Privileges Committee hauled in front of provincial council

Speaker:

to explain a decision they had made, a disciplinary decision where they protected someone who was

Speaker:

transphobic. I remember. When the leader got up in the legislature and said, I condemn Hamas,

Speaker:

bad things are bad, blah, said nothing about Israel when Israel's already well into its

Speaker:

carpet bombing campaign. Because she had said, you know, targeted attacks on civilians and

Speaker:

children are never acceptable. And so the question I put to her after a brief intro was... Will

Speaker:

you now condemn the state of Israel for their targeted attacks on women and children? And

Speaker:

what happened, her answer was almost immaterial, because what happened immediately then was

Speaker:

the entire room erupted in applause. And that's not really a thing that happens at provincial

Speaker:

council meetings. You know what I mean? Like, it's a business meeting. You go through every

Speaker:

line of the budget. It's just rubber stamping things. It's procedural stuff, right? So it's

Speaker:

not a rah-rah thing for the most part. And so in establishing that and in building the social

Speaker:

capital it took to get that to happen, to get people to listen to me. Because they eventually,

Speaker:

over time, after I've been involved for seven years, people in the party will hear me out.

Speaker:

When I get on that microphone, which is not very often, but when I do, they listen. And

Speaker:

for me to have the opportunity to be in the room and to demonstrate to the leadership that

Speaker:

they're out of step with the membership on this issue and they need to change course. I wouldn't

Speaker:

have been in that position if I hadn't stayed as long as I did. So like, what did it accomplish?

Speaker:

I don't know. You knew that would be my question, Ayesha. You can't argue in favor of pragmatism

Speaker:

and not have any results to show for it. Right? This is the thing. You can't, if you're going

Speaker:

to lay claim to pragmatism, you have to produce some results and I don't know if it did with

Speaker:

the leadership, but leaders can be replaced. If we finally get a leadership race anywhere,

Speaker:

I mean, that thing seems to be on by the wayside for the party, too. Well, yeah, because the

Speaker:

knives don't come out, I don't think, quickly enough in this party when leaders lose. We

Speaker:

just expect to lose. And this is the thing about this sort of third-way centrist approach the

Speaker:

party is taking is that the proposition used to be adhere to your values and you'll probably

Speaker:

lose. But now the proposition is surrender your values and lose anyway. And it's a fundamentally

Speaker:

unattractive proposition. And that's what kind of like, you know, there's just like, if that's

Speaker:

the proposition, like, why am I even doing this? Like, you know, like publicly sell out my values

Speaker:

and then pick up like five seats. You know, there's just like the cost benefit doesn't

Speaker:

work. But in terms of like what I did in the party and what I did with my time in the party

Speaker:

and the way that I left the party even, I didn't just like, okay, well, I'm done. Like I tried

Speaker:

to make it count. I tried to, because I felt like I had an opportunity. in leaving and in

Speaker:

doing so publicly and in naming names, I felt that I had an opportunity, hopefully, to shift

Speaker:

the perception of this sort of like standard operating procedure just capitulating to CJ.

Speaker:

They're making the calculus that it will be easier to capitulate and we need to change

Speaker:

that. And I thought I had an opportunity to change that and I took it. I don't, I don't

Speaker:

know that anyone else really did anything of that level. I don't think anyone else necessarily

Speaker:

like walked away. So like, I don't know, like, that's kind of how I feel about my time. I

Speaker:

can't tell you that it's worth For everything I put in, I don't think I can sit here and

Speaker:

tell you that it was, that it, like, that's something that I think everyone should do.

Speaker:

I think you should go and invest a bunch of years in a party that, like, is probably doomed

Speaker:

and then throw a big flip when you quit. And that wasn't my end goal. I really did aspire

Speaker:

to exert internal influence on the party, and it's whether we like it or not, electoralism

Speaker:

is how power is decided in our society. For now. the most part. Like, we talk about people

Speaker:

party a lot and we have a lot of demonstrations and we do some direct actions and whatever,

Speaker:

but like, that's how power by and large is decided in our society. And I don't feel like as a

Speaker:

person of relative privilege, I don't feel like I can just kind of, like, walk away from that.

Speaker:

I feel like I feel obliged to engage with it somehow in some way that hopefully has some

Speaker:

kind of positive objectives. Okay, I'm going to push back on that. Definitely it's how we

Speaker:

select representation, but I would argue it's not how power is decided. you've just explained

Speaker:

very much so that, you know, Sija wielded a lot more power than the entire provincial council

Speaker:

or, you know, generally if you polled people living here, people living in Nova Scotia on

Speaker:

how they felt about the genocide in Israel, that's not what's influencing them. So powerful

Speaker:

decisions are being made by capital interest, it seems. We can say foreign, but again, we've

Speaker:

a million times over boiled this down to imperialism and the interests of US interests and capital

Speaker:

interests, and that's really what the genocide in Gaza is about in the end. So I wouldn't

Speaker:

say we are abandoning electoralism. We're definitely abandoning partisanship because that's really

Speaker:

got us nowhere because we're not abandoning electoralism because... In essence, we already

Speaker:

have. If you look at the NDP even as like the most progressive option, we elect landlords,

Speaker:

lawyers, we put advisors in charge, corporate advisors, you know, lobbyists that also work

Speaker:

for Metro, groceries, Airbnb, big oil and gas. In essence, by propping up... a party like

Speaker:

the NDP, you are abandoning it to the capitalist class still. It's our behavior within this

Speaker:

electoral system, in this representative democracy, in the way that we view the best of us, right,

Speaker:

who should go represent the best of us. And we have seem to seemingly collectively decided

Speaker:

that it's the richest amongst us. I mean, the system also requires money, but even when we

Speaker:

do a lot to mitigate that, we still are looking to elites to lead us. We are still selecting

Speaker:

them from amongst other choices and for the most part and so in the end although we've

Speaker:

done all these contests we've sent the same class off to make decisions against our best

Speaker:

interest. Part of it goes back to the professionalization of the party that began or related it's one

Speaker:

of the reasons I say that he's sort of the beginning of the ending like I see it I see it through

Speaker:

the lens a lot of businessy language. Like what we're doing is moving forward on a go-forward

Speaker:

basis with best practices. Like that's what they're doing. Even the way they refer to members,

Speaker:

you're like paying units now. Oh yeah, no, it's a business. Like this, and that's, I think,

Speaker:

how some of the staffers see it because that's their, it's their job to an extent. Like I

Speaker:

think that, and there is an extent to which I think that we see the class interests of

Speaker:

the consultant class represented in platform, because that's who it's actually coming from.

Speaker:

I don't think it's not meaningfully coming from the membership. I think they tried to obtain...

Speaker:

consent from the membership to do something when they did platform consultations this time

Speaker:

which were new but I don't think it I don't see a line between what was said in those meetings

Speaker:

and what made it its way into the platform I think it was all you know Pricewaterhouse Cooper

Speaker:

didn't delight it to death if I had realized like who they had gotten themselves in bed

Speaker:

with because he's a new hire right he's he was only hired I think in the last year when somebody

Speaker:

went on mat leave he goes around he works his way around yeah so I mean I once I once I started

Speaker:

finding out about him I was like oh here we go it's we've got we caught Fed party disease

Speaker:

we caught We got the contagion of the federal party with. Well we passed our awful provincial

Speaker:

director onto the federal party. So it's just, it's all polluted. Right. Like this is the

Speaker:

Anne McGrath thing or Lucy Watson, one of those Lucy Watson, Lucy Watson became the federal

Speaker:

director, like the notorious like, and yeah, and watching, you know, I've been basically

Speaker:

checked out of the federal party since 2021 when Jim Ead Singh had a big like everyone

Speaker:

here's John Horgan. He's really great and awesome. And then the next day he announced that he

Speaker:

was going to go ahead with the site. See damn. And that was when I called the federal party

Speaker:

and had them cancel my PAC. But yeah, I at the time was like based on the way the membership

Speaker:

felt in the meetings and based on some conversations I'd had in private with some of the caucus,

Speaker:

I had hoped that there was the some runway for them to take a more really appropriate position

Speaker:

on this and that they would show some leadership and they just didn't. And it's like, I feel

Speaker:

I feel let down. And again, because I, you know, we talk about resources and who's provided

Speaker:

resources when I agreed to do the science for the party, they agreed to provide me a number

Speaker:

of things they did not provide. And so, because I needed those things, namely volunteers. I

Speaker:

had to very publicly on my Instagram just basically become like Captain NDP and I've got my hat

Speaker:

on and I'm showing all the tools that I use and I'm showing all the signs and I'm putting

Speaker:

up and I'm like, come join the NDP sign army and I've recruited 20 of my own volunteers.

Speaker:

I had to so publicly advocate for the party to get the resources that I needed that when

Speaker:

they publicly did this, they left me no choice. And that's one thing that they probably was

Speaker:

probably lost on them is like, well, I've very publicly been like the like the only two things

Speaker:

on my Instagram page are Palestine and the NDP basically. And like, you've put me in the position

Speaker:

where one of them has to go. Because they're mutually exclusive at this point because of

Speaker:

the cowardice they've shown and because of the way that they continue to smear this candidate.

Speaker:

Yeah, I mean, at that point. For me, the pragmatic thing to do, I guess, was to, yeah, OK, I need

Speaker:

to create political accountability for what's happening. There needs to be something scarier

Speaker:

than CJA. I keep thinking back to the discussion I had with Dimitri Lascaris, the most recent

Speaker:

one, and I wanted to ask him about how he felt about international law now, because, I mean,

Speaker:

even months into the genocide and various ICJ, ICC rulings, nothing had moved. Canadian-wise,

Speaker:

globally is another discussion as well. But even after more rulings and more findings,

Speaker:

we've revisited the discussion. And at first, he really thought there was a certain amount

Speaker:

of pressure that the international community would be able to provide to Canadian politicians

Speaker:

that would essentially force their hands. Like how long could you act in contravention of

Speaker:

all of these statutes you've signed onto? And, you know. your obligations to the international

Speaker:

community. And even if they didn't want to come along, they would have to. You could be successful

Speaker:

in that realm. And although obviously we've seen arrest warrants now issued for Benjamin

Speaker:

Netanyahu and others, and Trudeau promising he would arrest Netanyahu should he set foot

Speaker:

on Canadian soil, Demetri kind of when he revisited it, he looked back and what he said was that

Speaker:

he had underestimated I believe he used the word callousness of our politicians. They're,

Speaker:

even here, you know, we espouse the theory of change that, you know, enough public pressure

Speaker:

in various forms, all together, will make politicians move. They have to, right? They want to get

Speaker:

reelected. But this has bucked that trend completely. We have to reevaluate our electoral systems

Speaker:

when... No amount of street protests, petitions, inner disagreements within parties, bad press,

Speaker:

international rulings, deaths, evidence. None of that has moved even the most progressive

Speaker:

politicians in Canada. I think we have underestimated our ability to influence people within that

Speaker:

electoral system. I think they have set themselves up for... So closely now, even our working

Speaker:

class party, this professionalism Sean talks about includes the ability to people who work

Speaker:

within the party to get hired after, to be appealing to capital after. Right? And so they're not

Speaker:

listening to us at all anymore. At all. They are only listening to capital. And so when

Speaker:

we, I'm scratching my head to think of something scarier than Cija. And I don't think people

Speaker:

like my answer because it's not even just people in the streets. Like if you just took as many

Speaker:

people into the streets as possible, just directed at the NDP saying, fuck you, hold the line,

Speaker:

hold the goddamn ideological line, and you got every NDP member to call, email. I don't know

Speaker:

if you'd move them. We don't know anymore. This threshold is unimaginable at this point because

Speaker:

I would have thought turning on your Instagram account for like five minutes would be enough.

Speaker:

to get you to refuse to participate in the next fucking house meeting unless Canada stops sending

Speaker:

arms to Israel. When you do that, Sean, Sean quit because his friend got removed from a

Speaker:

candidacy, but our politicians in there are sitting on their asses talking about a GST

Speaker:

holiday for two months, bragging about it, and haven't done sweet fuck off for Palestine for

Speaker:

a litany of other issues that people will cry about at convention. that are like so deeply

Speaker:

personal and systemic and need addressing. And they've just ignored it because it's just not

Speaker:

in their interest. And the NDP base is some of the worst. You want to know why? Not because

Speaker:

they're bad people at all. These are my comrades. I love probably most of them. The ones that

Speaker:

I don't they know who they are. But these are good people. But these are good people between

Speaker:

a rock and a hard place. These are people who don't have, like if you're conservative and

Speaker:

you just think, you know, Pierre Poliev is just a piece of shit and he's just not for you,

Speaker:

you could probably hold your breath and vote liberal, not see, you know, materially you

Speaker:

won't really see much of a difference, especially if you're in the majority here. Especially

Speaker:

if you're in Nova Scotia, because this is one problem we have in Nova Scotia, is that there

Speaker:

is so little daylight between the three political parties. For example, the ostensible conservative

Speaker:

government right now just burned through two consecutive billion budget surpluses in 22

Speaker:

and 23, and then in 24 posted a deficit budget. What's conservative about that? There's not

Speaker:

like this isn't like the thing is the conservatives aren't meaningfully conservative. The the ostensibly

Speaker:

leftist NDP aren't left. Like they're all offering some kind of tax breaks when we're running

Speaker:

a deficit. Like it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't there's no like this is the thing like

Speaker:

when we like I've been on the doorstep a bunch now. I try to stay away from it because there's

Speaker:

other places I can be more useful. And what people say over and over again is when the

Speaker:

NDP were in power here because they were there was an NDP government under Darryl Dexter here

Speaker:

in Nova Scotia. More than a decade ago, he is we're just like the rest of them and they're

Speaker:

not wrong. And this is the thing is that people don't come to the NDP when they want the status

Speaker:

quo. They come to the NDP when they want change. So it's not good enough and it'll never be

Speaker:

good enough for the Democrats to try and be a better research liberal part which is sort

Speaker:

of what they are. It's a liberal party that wants to have an abortion clinic in Cape Breton

Speaker:

now. We're in a liberal party that proclaims an endometriosis awareness day. You know what

Speaker:

I mean? Those little incremental improvements are not going to be. And it's part of this,

Speaker:

again, it's the whole business as usual thing. Like when you tell electoralists who are not

Speaker:

voting, you just disappear in a pop of smoke to them. You know what I mean? So there's 50%

Speaker:

of this province, because that's roughly what our election turnout rates are at right now

Speaker:

is about 50%. In my own writing, it was 38% in the last provincial election that bothered

Speaker:

voting. There's a whole political party, there's a whole super majority of people out there,

Speaker:

like a majority of the potential electoral vote who want nothing to do with anything on offer,

Speaker:

who don't want politics as usual. I'm with them. I'm one of those people. That's where I'm at

Speaker:

now too. Like I don't like business as usual isn't going to cut it. And not even from, dare

Speaker:

I say it, a pragmatic standpoint. This is the thing is like there's, you can, you can lay

Speaker:

claim to pragmatism as I have done, but you have to show results or it's a hollow claim.

Speaker:

You know what I mean? You have to show that you've done something that couldn't have been

Speaker:

done otherwise. It's also sometimes to legitimize your work too. Like the system forces you,

Speaker:

did you check those boxes? Did you try everything legitimate first? Cause then I'll authorize

Speaker:

you to step it up. then you can look to a third way when you've proven. But here, we try to

Speaker:

advocate for people to just try those third ways first. Because in the end, they end up,

Speaker:

you have to apply, like Sean says, you have NDP in power, you got liberals, conservatives,

Speaker:

whoever they are, you still have to go at them from the same way once they're in power, right?

Speaker:

You still have to approach them from whatever kind of way, whether it be pragmatic or radical,

Speaker:

and to get stuff done. But before we wrap up, I just I do want to make one more point about

Speaker:

the NDP base again, who like I'm not trying to demonize this. The point of this is to demonstrate

Speaker:

just how they do moderate us, like how they pull us in with these promises and their theories

Speaker:

of change that they pretend to advocate for. And they sometimes use the language we need

Speaker:

to hear. But when it really counts, when they're talking outward. when they're talking to the

Speaker:

public, they actually use the language of capital in the right wing quite a lot. Means testing

Speaker:

and everything except a GST. My point is the base there becomes the most ineffective base

Speaker:

also because they often refuse to hold the powerful to account. For the same reason they don't

Speaker:

leave the party is because they're afraid of the alternatives. They aren't going to go to

Speaker:

the Liberal Party or the Conservatives, so they don't want to burn down the NDP. Even most

Speaker:

people who leave don't leave like Sean. They just quietly take their memberships away so

Speaker:

that they can balance internally with their morals. They know that they're not actually

Speaker:

financially contributing to this. They might get their vote. They might hold their nose

Speaker:

and vote because, again, they don't want to vote Liberal and they don't want to vote Conservative

Speaker:

and there's no good independence on the ballot, perhaps. Whatever. But they are so... Empowered

Speaker:

Lee within the system for the most part and I have been in there I don't care how many

Speaker:

examples of people you can give me like Sean or myself There are many that were very vocal

Speaker:

all the time I mean, there's some of us that enter spaces like that and there's nothing

Speaker:

we can't do but rail against it I'm talking mostly to my neurodivergent comrades, you know,

Speaker:

like you will smell it right away the authoritarianism It'll just you'll get the tingles right away

Speaker:

and you will you will fight back I know you will but you will be alone for the most part

Speaker:

Sean was not followed by a flood of people saying they had also ripped up their membership or

Speaker:

Made a stitch video saying me too The other writings in candidates they may have lost momentum,

Speaker:

but they did an issue statements. They also did not stand behind her Tammy is probably

Speaker:

feeling very alone right now All these people that talked about a big progressive family

Speaker:

are now trying to distance themselves from her as much as possible, even though privately

Speaker:

they will express dismay and disappointment. Publicly, they won't say shit. Even in provincial

Speaker:

council, it's very rare someone stands up and sticks their necks out and worries about whether

Speaker:

or not they'll be asked to be a candidate or asked to work on this campaign or be a favourite,

Speaker:

because it will come with a lot of slack. Because every time you talk shit about the NDP online,

Speaker:

in person, the response is, what do you want the conservatives to win? What do you want?

Speaker:

You think the liberals are better? It's like this really black and white dichotomy. If you

Speaker:

follow American politics, it's a familiar refrain, right? Like the, what, you know, if you criticize

Speaker:

Kamala Harris, you're a Trump supporter, right? And it's the same way. But in the same way

Speaker:

that like, this is the thing about these electoralists and their ostensibly expertise is that I don't

Speaker:

think they were paying attention to this most recent American election. Or they're listening

Speaker:

to the pundits who are ignoring the elephant in the room, because none of these pundits

Speaker:

will talk about the fact that 14 million people who voted for Joe Biden declined to vote for

Speaker:

Kamala Harris. Like there was no big shift of support from the Democrats to the Republicans.

Speaker:

Both of them lost net voters, just the Republicans lost fewer. They lost three million, whereas

Speaker:

the Democrats lost 14 million. And so this is the thing, like I... And it's one of the things

Speaker:

that worries me about trying to have, you know, in doing what I did in making it loud and messy

Speaker:

and making it clear what happened to me and clear with the membership and with people in

Speaker:

my life who trust me and who trusted my trust of the party. Cause like I said, the pundits

Speaker:

aren't getting it right. The people who are, you know, you're looking to on the news, all

Speaker:

the, all the former party hacks who became public relations, you know, the heads of public relation

Speaker:

firms or whatever. I mean, and that's nearly all that describes basically every pundit that

Speaker:

you'll see on CBC or CTV. They're all, I used to be in the party and now I'm like a. Now

Speaker:

I'm with Navigator or something. You know what I mean? That's the career path. And you're

Speaker:

right to acknowledge that in terms of that's what some people are thinking about is, where

Speaker:

do I land from here? And that applies to politicians, too. There's all kinds of politicians that

Speaker:

are thinking about what kind of cushy private sector job am I going to land in once my term

Speaker:

is over and once I've got my pension nailed down. But yeah, it does give me pause to think

Speaker:

about if they don't understand that Palestine just cost them that election. That's the thing.

Speaker:

Does it matter? to that Palestine cost them of the election if they don't realize it and

Speaker:

no one acknowledges it. I don't know. I don't know if they if it that's what worries me.

Speaker:

But this is like, yes, like I see a ton of people like withdrawing their support. It's not just

Speaker:

the party faithful. Its voters are infuriated like they've been they've been close to this

Speaker:

issue. They were hoping for leadership on it from their party and they're being really disappointed

Speaker:

and don't know who to vote for. So I do think that people are reacting. I think there are

Speaker:

a lot of people on the base who are really mad and who are pushing back. But I just, that's

Speaker:

what concerns me is the sort of, it can be very difficult to convince somebody of something

Speaker:

if their profession depends on them not understanding it, as has been said. So. I mean, I think you

Speaker:

wouldn't have to use the word, I think people are really pushing back because. My perception

Speaker:

is they're pushing back because that's what I'm seeing on my, like in the just voluminous

Speaker:

comments on my, because like a 30,000 view TikTok, like Nova Scotia provincial TikTok is not a

Speaker:

thing. Like that's not a thing that happens. Like so. Watching and resonating and understanding

Speaker:

is one thing, but then taking the initiative to actually hold them accountable is another.

Speaker:

So I think that yeah, a lot what you're going to see is this quiet withdrawal, this quiet

Speaker:

withdrawal of labor and volunteerism, this quiet withdrawal of people maybe thinking about being

Speaker:

a candidate for them the next time. I know this has happened so many times over. I cannot believe

Speaker:

people still sign up to be candidates. When my friends do it still. I try not to pass judgment,

Speaker:

but obviously I am right now, but it's like, why are you expecting anything different? Because

Speaker:

it's you? Because you know more people? Because they wouldn't do that to you? My friends, they

Speaker:

did it to Sarah Jama, and you need to see the numbers she won in Hamilton and the strength

Speaker:

of support that the Ontario NDP gets in Hamilton and relies on in Hamilton, and they did not

Speaker:

give a fuck. Not two shits. They did not relent at all. Many, many people resigned from the

Speaker:

Ontario NDP. Many people are volunteering now for Sarah Jemma that would have put their labor

Speaker:

into the NDP and refused to. But they still go online and brag about how their donations

Speaker:

are up. And they did not issue any apology. They did not bring her back into the caucus.

Speaker:

They didn't even humor the idea. They keep humiliating her by not standing next to her when she wore

Speaker:

the kaffir or anything like that. And so it really goes- Just to my point here that it's

Speaker:

like you can do these things and I'm happy you resigned and I hope more people are pushing

Speaker:

back. But if you're still going to give them donations and you're still going to just give

Speaker:

them a vote and not try to hold them accountable in any way, they're going to keep repeating

Speaker:

this behavior because it's working for them. I mean if you're still funding headquarters

Speaker:

then what prerogative do they have for change because their values aren't it?

Speaker:

Yeah, and So I know that there's a there's a cost. I know that there is a political and

Speaker:

logistic cost to what happened that would probably not have existed if I hadn't done what I did.

Speaker:

So like, I don't know, I think there's all kinds of ways to have an effect inside and outside

Speaker:

politics. I think that you are more powerful in the Nova Scotia NDP as a disaffected liberal

Speaker:

voter than you are as a loyal Democrat. Yeah, there's all kinds of ways to engage with the

Speaker:

system. I think, I feel a certain obligation. I think I've said this previously. Like I feel

Speaker:

obliged to do something with the political system that I ostensibly, by virtue of demographics,

Speaker:

have some kind of enhanced access to the levers of. That is a fair assessment. I mean, you

Speaker:

said it, I didn't. But I mean, when you spoke about being heard and felt like you were listened

Speaker:

to, your time in the party is one thing, but surely your demographics also help as being

Speaker:

a white male inside the party. But in the end, if you push back hard enough, your persona

Speaker:

non grata, essentially, or you leave on your own accord. That was sort of the only morally

Speaker:

and morally tenable position for me was to do what I did. Like I made an honest try. I tried

Speaker:

to push the needle. I think I got some people in the party thinking differently and I got

Speaker:

people in the party coming up and thinking differently to me. But in the end, can I make the leadership

Speaker:

do things? No, it's true. And no, I tried to put all the information in front of them. I

Speaker:

tried to even give the leader some runway because I didn't name the leader when I made my videos.

Speaker:

Were you being pragmatic? I was. I was absolutely being pragmatic. I was trying, okay, well,

Speaker:

let's give the leader a little bit of runway to get in front of this and like you can reverse

Speaker:

course and Halifax knows this is the thing is that this is a very, like there, there's like

Speaker:

South Shore for ceasefire and there was like an antagonist for Gaza organization, but by

Speaker:

and large, when you're talking about people who are organized on the issue of Palestine,

Speaker:

you're talking about HRM, which is the base of power for the Nova Scotia NDP. Very, very

Speaker:

urban party as it is in so many other places. So this strikes right at the heart of their

Speaker:

power. How I don't know if it's if it's changed their outcome, but I want them to come away

Speaker:

from this realizing that they miss or like thinking that they miscalculated and or knowing they

Speaker:

miscalculated and that they That people want more about you know from them their supporters

Speaker:

want more from them on this issue. Maybe the conservatives and liberal supporters don't

Speaker:

But, but that's what that's what the base wants and there's going to be a lot of hardship if

Speaker:

you if you show cowardice and capitulate to see Joe Well, let's hope Jagmeet is watching.

Speaker:

Surely Kamala learned this lesson the hard way, or maybe she didn't, who knows? But thank you,

Speaker:

Sean. Thanks, Jess, I appreciate it. That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of

Speaker:

Disruption. Thank you for joining us. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status

Speaker:

quo, please share our content. And if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. So until

Speaker:

next time, keep disrupting.