Comments on: NPA makes a move to get more members

By: NPAdeathwatch

NPAdeathwatch — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:56:34 +0000

Oh please, just window dressing (very rare that happens versus the trashing of vision vancouver)– these guys ran the NPA and are rabid political operatives— if you think this blog is about journalism and isn’t purely political then your mistaken.

By: City Caucis isn't the NPA

City Caucis isn't the NPA — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:24:42 +0000

NPAdeathwatch:

Given that they regularly run columns trashing the NPA, by what logic do you assume that City Caucus is the mouthpiece of the NPA?

By: Darcy McGee

Darcy McGee — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:29:17 +0000

> When you run a party based on nothing
> but negative energy you get a destroyed
> party

though it can take a while. the republicans have been doing it for decades, and the harper tories have been doing it for years.

By: NPAdeathwatch

NPAdeathwatch — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:42:00 +0000

if anyone wants to figure out why the npa is dead look at how the same people who ran the party under sam sullivan run their current mouth piece blog (citycaucus). When you run a party based on nothing but negative energy you get a destroyed party with no energy….junk in, junk out, who wants to be apart of something when all it does is crap over everything.

By: Darcy McGee

Darcy McGee — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:44:12 +0000

Incidentally, as a slight elaboration of this:

> It’s never stopped them from winning in
> the past.

in response to Michael’s comment that “They’re trying to appeal to the Vision base…” I should add that Michael is WAY off base. They’re not trying to appeal to anybody: they’re just trying to win the damn election.

The NPA doesn’t give a damn about the working class or young adults and never has. They’re savvy enough to at least not look like they’re alienating them, but don’t confuse that with caring.

They just want to win.

By: Darcy McGee

Darcy McGee — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:12:16 +0000

> …but they aren’t going to accomplish that
> if their candidates still come from the
> same pot of wealthy Shaunessy families.

It’s never stopped them from winning in the past. This is why we /need/ some type of ward system in place: this asshat of a city has persistently elected a group of people who get a little worried when they start to approach the Main Street area that they’ve gone too far east.

That and the fact that the Mayor’s mandate is not ethically, morally or electorally any different than the rest of the 10 councillors, resulting in a council dominated by milquetoast opinions negotiated in backrooms by people who are unwilling to take a stand for their neighbourhoods.

Just a thought mind you.

The very notion of a “Non Partisan” political party is so ridiculous that it’s sublime.

By: Marcus A.

Marcus A. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:20:08 +0000

What good is a reduction to a $10 membership fee if they’re still asking council candidates for $10,000?

They’re trying to appeal to the Vision base – the working class, young adults, and people that aren’t otherwise politically engaged…
…but they aren’t going to accomplish that if their candidates still come from the same pot of wealthy Shaunessy families.

By: Not Running For Mayor

Not Running For Mayor — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:32:02 +0000

The NPA would be better served by going back to square one. They lost their way during the Sam days and lost their focus. Wether or not they can rebuild will be up to the voters.

By: Addison Gant

Addison Gant — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:53:24 +0000

This move sounds more like a blow-out sale at Costco than anything it was intended to be.

$10 for a membership in a collapsed party is as much of a rip-off as $20. Don’t they realize that you have to offer substantial reason(s) to join the party, other than the half-price membership fee?