Dp
NDP leaders suffer no consequences for big losses: Left Chapter blog
Thu, 2015-11-05 21:04
#52
Thu, 2015-11-05 22:42
#53
The leader embodies the ideas of the party.
I frequently can't explain myself any better than saying it's a gut feeling, but a gut feeling is based on knowledge. It's just knowledge that is more difficult to communicate.
3 early incidences informed my opinion of Mulcair. His attack on Keystone in the states, his muted reaction to the soccer hijab ban, and his introduction of the Unity Act when it had no chance of passing. In my opinion these all illustrated poor political instincts. That can't be corrected. More recent examples are Mulcair's reaction to Trudeau saying he would cancel the F-35s and his whine about Trudeau's cabinet having 30 members.
It seems to me that your gut deeply dislikes the NDP. It's as if the NDP were E. coli.
I voted NDP in 2011, based on the party not on Layton because of what went on in late 2005. I had no problem with Mulcair until the early incidences I mentioned. I still like him as a person, just not as a politician. The question remains if the executive is going to continue the Liberal lite policy and continue ignoring the rank and file. This was not the strategy of the leader. It's the strategy that the party chose. Even the membership when they chose Mulcair as leader validated the executive's chosen direction.
Even though the NDP is only slightly left of the Liberals, if that, some NDP supporters insist that the Conservatives and Liberals are the ones who are identical therefore all progressives should vote NDP. The Liberals are about to make that very obviously untrue.
Like it or not the changes that Trudeau will make will be seen as a reflection of generational change. He has more modern values.
His answer for having chosen to gender-balance cabinet was "because it's 2015" and it went viral.
http://time.com/4101382/emma-watson-harry-potter-justin-trudeau/
Why a gender balanced/50:50 government?"Because it's 2015!"Coolest thing I've seen in a while.
U Canada. #Heforshehttps://www.youtube.com/embed/LLk2aSBrR6U …
and....
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made headlines Wednesday when he announced that half of his cabinet ministers are female, a decision he justified with the simple explanation that “it’s 2015.” The move won him international praise and more than a few swoons.
http://time.com/4101749/justin-trudeau-women-cabinet-parliament-government/
The Liberals took their loss and a majority Harper government to step back and reset. They used an interim leader and a leadership race to do it. In my opinion the NDP has to do exactly the same thing. Mulcair has got to go well before 2019 to give the party a chance to renew itself.
Thu, 2015-11-05 23:37
#54
The leader embodies the ideas of the party.
I frequently can't explain myself any better than saying it's a gut feeling, but a gut feeling is based on knowledge. It's just knowledge that is more difficult to communicate.
3 early incidences informed my opinion of Mulcair. His attack on Keystone in the states, his muted reaction to the soccer hijab ban, and his introduction of the Unity Act when it had no chance of passing. In my opinion these all illustrated poor political instincts. That can't be corrected. More recent examples are Mulcair's reaction to Trudeau saying he would cancel the F-35s and his whine about Trudeau's cabinet having 30 members.
It seems to me that your gut deeply dislikes the NDP. It's as if the NDP were E. coli.
I voted NDP in 2011, based on the party not on Layton because of what went on in late 2005. I had no problem with Mulcair until the early incidences I mentioned. I still like him as a person, just not as a politician. The question remains if the executive is going to continue the Liberal lite policy and continue ignoring the rank and file. This was not the strategy of the leader. It's the strategy that the party chose. Even the membership when they chose Mulcair as leader validated the executive's chosen direction.
Even though the NDP is only slightly left of the Liberals, if that, some NDP supporters insist that the Conservatives and Liberals are the ones who are identical therefore all progressives should vote NDP. The Liberals are about to make that very obviously untrue.
Like it or not the changes that Trudeau will make will be seen as a reflection of generational change. He has more modern values.
His answer for having chosen to gender-balance cabinet was "because it's 2015" and it went viral.
http://time.com/4101382/emma-watson-harry-potter-justin-trudeau/
Why a gender balanced/50:50 government?"Because it's 2015!"Coolest thing I've seen in a while.
and....
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made headlines Wednesday when he announced that half of his cabinet ministers are female, a decision he justified with the simple explanation that “it’s 2015.” The move won him international praise and more than a few swoons.
http://time.com/4101749/justin-trudeau-women-cabinet-parliament-government/
The Liberals took their loss and a majority Harper government to step back and reset. They used an interim leader and a leadership race to do it. In my opinion the NDP has to do exactly the same thing. Mulcair has got to go well before 2019 to give the party a chance to renew itself.
So what would the NDP have to do to regain your vote in the next election?
Fri, 2015-11-06 02:51
#55
Umm, look around: sixtysomethings rule in current world politics: Hillary, Corbyn, Trump, Jeb, Carson, Sanders (71) etc etc.
Casual ageism not a helpful analysis, esp when us older folks are involved, ha.
We're talking about Canada here.
In Canada, Federal leaders rarely become First Term PM's once they are as old as their 60's. Period. That's what the historical record shows and what Mark Sutcliffe was getting at in that piece.
American politicians tend to be older on average than in Canada. But most of the folks you mention are not likely to go anywhere anyway. The only one who will probably make it is Hillary Clinton, and she is a unique person. Mulcair is not Hillary, and he is fooling himself if he thinks he is.
Fri, 2015-11-06 03:33
#56
So what would the NDP have to do to regain your vote in the next election?
The marijuana issue will be dead because either Trudeau will have legalized or broken his promise, either way it would no longer influence my vote.
Another major sore spot for me is the Sherbrooke Declaration. I wouldn't need the NDP to reputiate it, just leave it on the backburner and if challenged say something like it is old so would need to be updated if another referendum seems to be in the offing. So it's dormant.
I"m expecting Trudeau do do a lot of stuff that will please me but I will look beyond that at platforms and tone or values because I will be looking to the future not the past.
I'd like some amendments to Bill C 36 to ensure that under no circumstances is a sex worker criminalized and to put more supports into place but legalization is a deal-breaker for me. I will never vote for a party that wants to legitimize it as an industry. Pragmatism would serve the NDP well on this file. Most people unconnected to the industry who support it only do so mildly. Those who are opposed do so strongly and they well outnumber those who are strongly in favor. The NDP will need to pick the issues they are ready to fall on their sword for. This shouldn't be one of them.
Fall on sword issues are the environment and income inequality so by extension trade deals and "wall street".
But in any case, those are my priorities and opinions. I'm not claiming anyone else shares them.
On the other hand they only have to offer me better than what the Liberals have to offer. I think that much is true of all voters.
It would definitely take a new leader. I am partial to Niki Ashton but I would accept Megan Leslie or someone like them. Male is fine too but not Cullen. I think the NDP should strongly consider aiming for official opposition then a win. Give the new leader a few election cycles to build a following like Jack Layton needed. I think that means choosing someone young and progressive but still pragmatic.
Things can change on a dime in politics but looking at Canadian history and taking into account Harper's reign of terror Trudeau will have at least two terms unless something spectacular happens and even then. The NDP has to take the long view and choose issues they know they will be proven right about within the next 4 to 6 years. If they show they can predict the future it strengthens the case that they should be leading the country.
Fri, 2015-11-06 07:11
#57
I realize it's foolhardy to start speculating on the 2019 election when so much is unpredictable. When Mulroney won in 1988 the consensus was that he had built an unbreakable winning coalition that would last a generation...five years later the PCs were reduced to two seats.
That said, I don't expect the Trudeau Liberals to be a one term government. But they would only have to lose a handful of seats in 2019 to lose their majority and the the NDP would be in a position of influence etc.... Remember that the original trudeaumania of 1968 was followed by a liberal crash to minority status four years later.
Fri, 2015-11-06 09:21
#58
When Mulroney won in 1988 the consensus was that he had built an unbreakable winning coalition that would last a generation...five years later the PCs were reduced to two seats.
It was the NDP's result in 2011 that was the real mirror of the PC win of 1988. Both were based on the support of soft Quebec nationalists, and in each case that base turned out to made of sand.
Fri, 2015-11-06 09:48
#59
Except that the PCs swept Quebec in two consecutive elections - 1984 and 1988 and then they were annhilated in 1993. If the Meech Lake accord had passed, the BQ would never have been created and the PCs likely would have maintained their stranglehold in Quebec.
The NDP is still the second largest federal force in Quebec with 16 seats and it didn't lose ground because "soft nationalists" went back to a more nationalist option (as happened to the PCs in Quebec in 1993 when their support went BQ en masse). In fact the BQ suffered further losses down to just 19% of the vote and the areas where the NDP held on were more often than not areas that are traditionally nationalist areas like east end Montreal, and smaller industrial towns like Trois-Rivieres, Sherbrooke, Drummondville, Ste. Hyacinthe, Rimouski etc... The NDP did OK with the soft nationalist - what they lost were the generic 'let's get rid of Harper" vote who decided that the Liberals had a better chance of beating the Tories than the NDP did - it was the exact same phenomenon as in Toronto and in Atlantic Canada.
Another example of these "thousand year reichs" that end up being short-lived would be the Ontario Liberals in 1987. They won what is still the biggest landslide ever in Ontario with 95 out of 125 seats and 47% of the vote and at the time everyone said that the Ontario liberals would be the new PC dynasty that would last forever and ever and ever....then three short years later Peterson was blown out of the water by the NDP under Bob Rae.
Fri, 2015-11-06 10:37
#60
Umm, look around: sixtysomethings rule in current world politics: Hillary, Corbyn, Trump, Jeb, Carson, Sanders (71) etc etc.
Casual ageism not a helpful analysis, esp when us older folks are involved, ha.
We're talking about Canada here.
In Canada, Federal leaders rarely become First Term PM's once they are as old as their 60's. Period. That's what the historical record shows and what Mark Sutcliffe was getting at in that piece.
"rarely" is not a predictive term; the future is dynamic
sons of former Prime Ministers rarely become PM themselves, but voila;
and 69-year-old ex-First Ladies "rarely", in fact never, get elected President; we will see in 2016
so for a dynamic experienced party leader like Mulcair to advance politically in his 60s, nothing impossible about that, and no flimsy op-ed can establish the contrary in advance
Fri, 2015-11-06 10:43
#61
The NDP did OK with the soft nationalist - what they lost were the generic 'let's get rid of Harper" vote...
Good points. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the NDP's biggest mistake in Quebec was assuming that its vote in 2011 was made up of soft nationalists who wouldn't go over to the Liberals, and tailoring its campaign to this assumption. Because obviously the NDP was blindsided by this shift in support. It happened in this election elsewhere in Canada of course, but it had happened elsewhere in Canada in previous elections (e.g. 1993).
Fri, 2015-11-06 11:55
#62
Please don't call Pondering a troll. You may disagree with her but she most definitely does not fall under babble's definition of troll. Thanks. Oh, and dial back the snark. That would be great.Pondering, The NDP is going through a period of introspection about its leadership.
It will make its own decision.
It certainly does not need advice from trolls like you who have done nothing but criticize the party at every turn.
Your "input" is unseemly.
Fri, 2015-11-06 12:06
#63
Because obviously the NDP was blindsided by this shift in support. It happened in this election elsewhere in Canada of course, but it had happened elsewhere in Canada in previous elections (e.g. 1993).
If we want to go into the "glass half full" analogy - in 1988 the NDP had its best ever performance, then in 1993 the PCs had become so unpopular that the anti-PC vote went Liberal, BQ and Reform and the NDP was reduced to 9 seats, loss of official party status and just 6.9% of the vote nationally. As disappointing at the 2015 results were its a far cry from what has happened to the NDP in other elections where an anti-Conservative wave produced a Liberal majority such as 1993 as cited above and 1974 when the NDP was reduced to 16 seats and David Lewis was personally defeated in York South.
Fri, 2015-11-06 13:25
#64
So what would the NDP have to do to regain your vote in the next election?
The marijuana issue will be dead because either Trudeau will have legalized or broken his promise, either way it would no longer influence my vote.
Another major sore spot for me is the Sherbrooke Declaration. I wouldn't need the NDP to reputiate it, just leave it on the backburner and if challenged say something like it is old so would need to be updated if another referendum seems to be in the offing. So it's dormant.
I"m expecting Trudeau do do a lot of stuff that will please me but I will look beyond that at platforms and tone or values because I will be looking to the future not the past.
I'd like some amendments to Bill C 36 to ensure that under no circumstances is a sex worker criminalized and to put more supports into place but legalization is a deal-breaker for me. I will never vote for a party that wants to legitimize it as an industry. Pragmatism would serve the NDP well on this file. Most people unconnected to the industry who support it only do so mildly. Those who are opposed do so strongly and they well outnumber those who are strongly in favor. The NDP will need to pick the issues they are ready to fall on their sword for. This shouldn't be one of them.
Fall on sword issues are the environment and income inequality so by extension trade deals and "wall street".
But in any case, those are my priorities and opinions. I'm not claiming anyone else shares them.
On the other hand they only have to offer me better than what the Liberals have to offer. I think that much is true of all voters.
It would definitely take a new leader. I am partial to Niki Ashton but I would accept Megan Leslie or someone like them. Male is fine too but not Cullen. I think the NDP should strongly consider aiming for official opposition then a win. Give the new leader a few election cycles to build a following like Jack Layton needed. I think that means choosing someone young and progressive but still pragmatic.
Things can change on a dime in politics but looking at Canadian history and taking into account Harper's reign of terror Trudeau will have at least two terms unless something spectacular happens and even then. The NDP has to take the long view and choose issues they know they will be proven right about within the next 4 to 6 years. If they show they can predict the future it strengthens the case that they should be leading the country.
So it sounds like you would vote for a party that has a great environmental policy. That would probably require that they come up with a comprehensive and concrete plan on reducing CO2 emissions to a certain level within a certain time frame. Hopefully that will be done next month during the environmental conference in Paris. It also sounds like greater income equality is another important issue for you. So you probably would like a party that has policies like a guaranteed annual income, increasing tax rates for higher income earners, increasing capital gains taxation rates, and increasing corporate tax rates. As far as your interest in having fair global trade, maybe a party that has a policy that Canada will lobby extensively for a global trade pact that protects the environment and increases labour protections? And you would like a leader like Niki Ashton or Megan Leslie to advocate for these kinds of policies.
Sounds good to me.
Fri, 2015-11-06 13:47
#65
I think its wonderful news that Obama has officially killed the horrible Keystone XL project that would have done so much environmental destruction and led to an export of Canadian jobs to the US. I think Mulcair was a visionary when he went to the US and urged American law makers to reject this horrible project that would have bene bad for Canada.
In reality nothing anyone said in Canada was of any consequence to Obama and this was all about US domestic poliutical considerations, but i hope Tom Mulcair and the NDP can at least feel vindicated that Keystone XL is DEAD. Hallelujah!
Fri, 2015-11-06 14:26
#66
Umm, look around: sixtysomethings rule in current world politics: Hillary, Corbyn, Trump, Jeb, Carson, Sanders (71) etc etc.
Casual ageism not a helpful analysis, esp when us older folks are involved, ha.
We're talking about Canada here.
In Canada, Federal leaders rarely become First Term PM's once they are as old as their 60's. Period. That's what the historical record shows and what Mark Sutcliffe was getting at in that piece.
"rarely" is not a predictive term; the future is dynamic
sons of former Prime Ministers rarely become PM themselves, but voila;
and 69-year-old ex-First Ladies "rarely", in fact never, get elected President; we will see in 2016
so for a dynamic experienced party leader like Mulcair to advance politically in his 60s, nothing impossible about that, and no flimsy op-ed can establish the contrary in advance
A comet could hit Canada and kill us all before we have a chance to vote again. The future can never be predicted and yet bookies still set odds and parties still strategize trying to find the perfect leader and winning conditions.
Going from 3rd to a majority is unheard of but it didn't come out of the blue. Unusual conditions years in the making made it less far-fetched. Being in third was an anomaly for the Liberals so they had a lot of latent strength. Clinton isn't just an ex-First Lady. She has had a long political career separate from her husband.
So yes, unusual things can happen but they don't happen in a vacuum. There are conditions that change the odds and that is what is being discussed in this thread.
Fri, 2015-11-06 14:46
#67
So it sounds like you would vote for a party that has a great environmental policy. That would probably require that they come up with a comprehensive and concrete plan on reducing CO2 emissions to a certain level within a certain time frame. Hopefully that will be done next month during the environmental conference in Paris. It also sounds like greater income equality is another important issue for you. So you probably would like a party that has policies like a guaranteed annual income, increasing tax rates for higher income earners, increasing capital gains taxation rates, and increasing corporate tax rates. As far as your interest in having fair global trade, maybe a party that has a policy that Canada will lobby extensively for a global trade pact that protects the environment and increases labour protections? And you would like a leader like Niki Ashton or Megan Leslie to advocate for these kinds of policies.
Sounds good to me.
Yes for sure. If the NDP had taken a stronger stance on the trade deals, like the Council for Canadians and CUPE I would have voted NDP despite everything else, same goes for pipelines or the oil sands in general. Either one of those issues would do it.
The trouble is I tend to agree that if the NDP adopted either they would win my vote but not this election.
It takes a leap of faith about where the future is going and what people will support when we get there.
I don't believe Energy East or Keystone or trans mountain or any other pipeline will be built. I think the oil companies know it but can't give up and can't quite believe it. The oil premiers have to keep trying but they know the situation is desperate.
Over the next four years, Trudeau is going to pick the low hanging fruit and there is a lot of it. He will be hard to beat.
Fri, 2015-11-06 14:57
#68
I don't believe Energy East or Keystone or trans mountain or any other pipeline will be built.
You might be right.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/11/06/obama-rejects-keystone-pipe... ‘disappointed’ Obama rejects $8 billion Keystone pipeline[/url]
Fri, 2015-11-06 15:10
#69
Because obviously the NDP was blindsided by this shift in support. It happened in this election elsewhere in Canada of course, but it had happened elsewhere in Canada in previous elections (e.g. 1993).
If we want to go into the "glass half full" analogy - in 1988 the NDP had its best ever performance, then in 1993 the PCs had become so unpopular that the anti-PC vote went Liberal, BQ and Reform and the NDP was reduced to 9 seats, loss of official party status and just 6.9% of the vote nationally. As disappointing at the 2015 results were its a far cry from what has happened to the NDP in other elections where an anti-Conservative wave produced a Liberal majority such as 1993 as cited above and 1974 when the NDP was reduced to 16 seats and David Lewis was personally defeated in York South.
[/quote
Fri, 2015-11-06 17:54
#70
The leader embodies the ideas of the party.
I frequently can't explain myself any better than saying it's a gut feeling, but a gut feeling is based on knowledge. It's just knowledge that is more difficult to communicate.
3 early incidences informed my opinion of Mulcair. His attack on Keystone in the states, his muted reaction to the soccer hijab ban, and his introduction of the Unity Act when it had no chance of passing. In my opinion these all illustrated poor political instincts. That can't be corrected. More recent examples are Mulcair's reaction to Trudeau saying he would cancel the F-35s and his whine about Trudeau's cabinet having 30 members.
It seems to me that your gut deeply dislikes the NDP. It's as if the NDP were E. coli.
I voted NDP in 2011, based on the party not on Layton because of what went on in late 2005. I had no problem with Mulcair until the early incidences I mentioned. I still like him as a person, just not as a politician. The question remains if the executive is going to continue the Liberal lite policy and continue ignoring the rank and file. This was not the strategy of the leader. It's the strategy that the party chose. Even the membership when they chose Mulcair as leader validated the executive's chosen direction.
Even though the NDP is only slightly left of the Liberals, if that, some NDP supporters insist that the Conservatives and Liberals are the ones who are identical therefore all progressives should vote NDP. The Liberals are about to make that very obviously untrue.
Like it or not the changes that Trudeau will make will be seen as a reflection of generational change. He has more modern values.
His answer for having chosen to gender-balance cabinet was "because it's 2015" and it went viral.
http://time.com/4101382/emma-watson-harry-potter-justin-trudeau/
Why a gender balanced/50:50 government?"Because it's 2015!"Coolest thing I've seen in a while.
and....
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made headlines Wednesday when he announced that half of his cabinet ministers are female, a decision he justified with the simple explanation that “it’s 2015.” The move won him international praise and more than a few swoons.
http://time.com/4101749/justin-trudeau-women-cabinet-parliament-government/
The Liberals took their loss and a majority Harper government to step back and reset. They used an interim leader and a leadership race to do it. In my opinion the NDP has to do exactly the same thing. Mulcair has got to go well before 2019 to give the party a chance to renew itself.
So what would the NDP have to do to regain your vote in the next election?
You are talking to someone who has consistently lied about being a "swing" voter while endlessly repeating Liberal talking points and maligning this whole online community and angering people to levels I have never seen for her entire posting history. There is nothing the NDP can do or say to convince her.
Next.
Sat, 2015-11-07 21:17
#71
You are talking to someone who has consistently lied about being a "swing" voter while endlessly repeating Liberal talking points and maligning this whole online community and angering people to levels I have never seen for her entire posting history. There is nothing the NDP can do or say to convince her.Next.
A swing voter is someone open to voting for more than one party which I am. I did make up my mind early on and have been open about my reasons including having been able to vote for the leader of the party. I felt very empowered. It was a smart move on the part of the Liberal party because I couldn't help but feel more invested in Trudeau's success. His defence of the Clarity act at a university in Quebec delighted me and when he announced he would legalize marijuana I was sold.
I didn't start getting anti-NDP until Mulcair started doing things like introducing the Unity Act, refusing to support legalization, and his muted response to the hijab soccer ban.
NDP talking points are repeated endlessly here as well. It's unavoidable when discussing politics particularly during an election.
Sun, 2015-11-08 14:32
#72
I occurs to me that the worse part of this election was that Mulcair won his own seat. If he had lost it would be way easier to get rid of him.
Sun, 2015-11-08 15:37
#73
I occurs to me that the worse part of this election was that Mulcair won his own seat. If he had lost it would be way easier to get rid of him.
Ok. I'm sorry. Though in fairness, my vote wouldn't have been enough.
Sun, 2015-11-08 16:05
#74
I occurs to me that the worse part of this election was that Mulcair won his own seat. If he had lost it would be way easier to get rid of him.
Ok. I'm sorry. Though in fairness, my vote wouldn't have been enough.
I agreed with you when you cheered the defeat of Pat Martin. I feel the same about Mulcair although it is likely that if I lived in his riding I also would have voted for him.
Sun, 2015-11-08 18:14
#75
I occurs to me that the worse part of this election was that Mulcair won his own seat. If he had lost it would be way easier to get rid of him.
I didn't think Mulcair would lose his own seat, even though some of the people in the media were portraying it as a strong possibility going into Election Night.
There was a small chance of it happening if the Montréal Liberal Wave had gotten bigger. Mulcair's margin of victory dropped below 50% and narrowed to just 10 points.
But it usually takes an even bigger collapse for a Federal leader to lose. It's only happened to 3 Federal leaders in recent decades.
Kim Campbell in 1993 in Vancouver Centre (to Hedy Fry)
Michael Ignatieff in 2011 in Etobicoke-Lakeshore
Gilles Duceppe in 2011 in Laurier-Sainte Marie
Even John Turner didn't lose his own seat in 1984, despite having the worst Liberal result in history at that time.
And even Audrey McLaughlin retained her Yukon seat in 1993, despite the collapse of the NDP to 9 seats.
(David Lewis lost his York South-Weston seat in 1974, but that's going back 40 years.)
So people were getting ahead of themselves on October 19 when they predicted Mulcair would lose his seat.
That's also why it was unlikely Trudeau would lose his seat even when the NDP was #1 in Québec.
Sun, 2015-11-08 18:30
#76
But it usually takes an even bigger collapse for a Federal leader to lose. It's only happened to 3 Federal leaders in recent decades.
Not to quibble, but didn't it happen to Duceppe more recently? Like, three weeks ago?
Sun, 2015-11-08 18:33
#77
Debater you missed the point.
Sun, 2015-11-08 19:01
#78
I know your point was that it would be easier to get rid of Mulcair if he had lost his own seat.
I was just interested in taking a look at the history of Federal leaders as part of the discussion.
And yes, I guess Duceppe did lose again recently!
Wed, 2015-11-11 09:11
#79
NDP talking points? You mean progressive ones, which is why you think they aren't Liberal ones. You and your fake names on the CBC are so pro trudeau its disgusting. Hardly a critical thought of the Liberals passes between your ears.