Grassroots NDP group calls on party faithful to redirect donations to local riding associations
"This election, Canadians showed that the NDP feels out of reach as a viable political option," the group — called Reclaim Canada's NDP — said in a press release sent out Saturday afternoon.
The group said that by reallocating funding directly to riding associations, "progressive community organizers can access the resources required to meaningfully and equitably rebuild the NDP without being bureaucratically tangled with the party's management."
According to Elections Canada, a candidate's campaign is eligible for reimbursement if they were elected or received at least 10 per cent of the valid votes.
Reclaim Canada's NDP said New Democrats in less than 50 ridings out of 343 met that minimum threshold for reimbursement — which puts the party at risk in future elections."Not only was this a bad election for us, but millions of Canadians represented by the NDP going forward ... are going to have a harder time being represented in those election periods as well," said Ji Won Jung, a spokesperson for the group.
The NDP also faces another challenge in the House of Commons. Its caucus is too small to be a recognized party, meaning it's lost funding for the leader's office and research bureau. The NDP was reduced to seven seats in the April 28 election — five short of the 12 needed to be a recognized party in the House of Commons.
In its press release, Reclaim Canada's NDP also said the party's upper management "has since come under fire for several controversies."
In May, three New Democrat MPs — Leah Gazan, Lori Idlout and Jenny Kwan — wrote a letter disputing the party's appointment of NDP MP Don Davies as interim leader and said the process "failed to uphold democratic and transparent principles."
Jung said the group decided the most effective way for the NDP to build toward the future is focusing on riding associations rather than the central party.
"I wouldn't call this a financial concern. I think this is much more structural concern about how this recent federal election was conducted, how resources were allocated and how fundraising has been managed and directed the past while," they said.
According to a document posted on the website of Reclaim Canada's NDP, the group's goal is to convince between five and 10 per cent of the NDP's federal donor base to cancel donations to the central party and send them directly to local riding associations.
The group provides an email template donors can send to the NDP.
"I will continue to support the NDP, but on a local level, and I will continue resuming my central donation once I see the party regain the trust of its grassroots and the working class," the template reads.
CBC News has reached out to the NDP for comment.
Rachel Blaney, a former NDP MP for the B.C. riding of North Island-Powell River, told CBC News she hopes the message Canadians take away from the group isn't that the party is struggling with unity.
"Every group always has to have times that are challenging," Blaney said. "We're coming close to a leadership campaign. I think it's really important that people who are running for leadership in this party understand the need for some significant grassroots engagement."
"It was really the people on the ground in my community that kept me centred," Blaney said. "I don't think this is about division as it is about a need for a very important conversation about how we come together after such a significant defeat."
Jung said the group hopes the press release starts a conversation to "figure out what our way forward would be working together as New Democrats."
"As a message to Canadians and to New Democrats everywhere, we are very united. We are all fighting for the same things," Jung said. "We want a fairer future for Canadians."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
WSJ Opinion: New York City Gears up for a Long, Hot Socialist Summer
From the award-winning opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, the Journal Editorial Report sees columnists and members of the Journal Editorial Board debate the major economic, political and cultural issues of the day. From the policy debates to the political fights, each week get critical perspective and the analysis you need on developments from Washington.

Wall Street Journal
40 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
WSJ Opinion: The Supreme Court Wraps up its Term
From the award-winning opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, the Journal Editorial Report sees columnists and members of the Journal Editorial Board debate the major economic, political and cultural issues of the day. From the policy debates to the political fights, each week get critical perspective and the analysis you need on developments from Washington.


Forbes
41 minutes ago
- Forbes
Say It Repeatedly, The Fed Isn't Nor Can It Be ‘Independent'
Facade of the Marriner S Eccles building of the United States Federal Reserve, on a bright and sunny ... More day in Washington, DC, United States, July 24, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) The Fed can never be independent. Economists should spare readers of any further commentary calling for what can't be. Long before the Fed existed, and just the same to this day, there were and are all manner of private, profit-motivated sources of credit ready to liquefy financial institutions enduring near-term liquidity problems despite quality assets. Those entities, including combinations of actual banks, also acted and act as regulators par excellence precisely because no private entity lends blithely. Which speaks to the Fed's superfluity. Though created to lend to 'solvent banks,' no solvent bank would ever need the Fed. See the previous paragraph. Which means the Fed exists to suffocate the message of the market. Fed officials are appointed by politicians, frequently after months and years spent courting those politicians. Considering Ben Bernanke alone, eager to prove he was a 'Republican' as a way of currying favor with Republicans who might whisper to then President George W. Bush about his alleged attributes, Bernanke courted countless Republicans in addition to Bush on the way to a spot at the top of Fed. No doubt others, including yours truly, have for years pointed to numerous instances of fighting between politicians (this includes presidents) and central banks as evidence that central banks are 'independent' in name only, but if anything, the commentary was similarly superfluous. The Fed is an outsourced creation of Congress whose officials are appointed by presidents and confirmed by Congress. Of course it's political, and the opposite of independent. After which, see its superfluity yet again relative to market entities that have long and capably filled central bank functions of providing near-term liquidity to the solvent, along with regulation to ensure sound operation based on those loans. Which is just a comment that the Fed is excess by political design, whereby it does what market actors won't do, and have never done. Despite this, economic figures in academia like Alexander Salter continue to write wistfully about so-called central bank independence. That they're writing about it explains the impossibility. What's political in creation quite simply can't be. Yet even if it was? It wouldn't matter. Economists are still economists, which means they're not independent of the myriad fallacies that stalk their profession. The Fed employs more economists than any other entity in the world, and economists believe economic growth causes inflation. Quite the opposite, but 'independent' economists at the Fed expose the central bank to even greater superfluity with their view that credit, which is a productive effect of growth (we borrow money for what it can be exchanged for), must be shrunken when – yes – the economy is growing. That's evidence of a central bank in thrall to a fallacy, and ready to further suffocate actual market signals. And it's not the only one. While money in circulation is always and everywhere a mirror of economic activity, Salter caucuses with a growing crowd of PhDs that believes central banks can and must centrally plan so-called 'money supply' so that they can by extension centrally plan rates of unemployment, national income, and the screaming falsehood that is GDP. These individuals in thrall to monstrous fallacy rooted in central planning describe themselves as 'market monetarists.' That they doth protest too much with their self-description insults understatement. The Fed on auto-pilot? Salter et al have paid lip service to the latter too, but then who writes the code to operate the proverbial robot? The same economists who believe in the same fallacious economic notions? Well, yes. The Fed was created to do for the U.S. political class what market actors would not. Which means the Fed exists to intervene politically where market actors would not. The Fed isn't independent, and can't be.