Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

890 posts / 0 new
Last post
cco

Ken Burch wrote:

In that second vote, in the name of avoiding any bad blood from the previous contest, I'd argue for a rule that none of the candidates in the last leadership contest could run again.

This is preposterous, unconstitutional, and anti-democratic. For federal council to unilaterally disqualify candidates from the last round to avoid "bad blood" would put a stake through the heart of the party. The most recent leadership race wasn't nearly as bloody or bitter as 2012's, and yet nobody was banned from the party after that one. Not to mention the precedent it'd set: Hey members! Not a fan of anybody in this race? Don't worry. Pick the one you think will be weakest, undermine him/her, and within a year we can get a do-over s/he'll be banned from running in.

Sean in Ottawa

While I am pessimistic about Singh now, he was given a mandate that really completes with judgment in the next election. I don't think there is merit in trying to push him out after this short time.

The NDP should not continue as it is through the next eleciton. At the very least a taking stock conference to discuss with members what needs to happen now might be a better idea.

The NDP has to have a position on the key priorities Canada faces now and some of those have changed somewhat since the last leadership. A focus on the movement, party, platform and campaign strategy rather than the leadership might be very welcome. I think Singh should be clear what his plan is and be given an opportunity to implement it. At this moment, I am not clear that there is a plan.

I do not see a profile of a strong Quebec deputy leader. Why is that? Wasn't Caron to be in that role? Why do we not see this elevated? He is supposed to be leader in the House yet we never hear much in this capacity. Maybe Singh needs to share more of the stage with Caron.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Here's a key question: If Outremont is lost to the Liberals in a byelection, as seems to be a real possibility, will there still be any chance of the NDP avoiding disaster in 2019?  Remember, any election in which most or all seats in Quebec is a loss from which the party can't recover, because it can never be anything but a third party if it's only representing anglophones in the ROC.  

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Well, the NDP will always be the "conscience of parliament" even if they go to 10 seats. Every silver lining has a cloud.

Here's the thing:  people really, REALLY need to let go of the idea that the NDP can have a conscience, OR can contend for power, but can never contend for power AND have a conscience.

An NDP that checks its conscience at the door wouldn't be worth HAVING in power, because treating conscience as an inconvenience means standing for nothing, or for making devil's bargains that negate any possible small gains for good such a government quite produce.  If the NDP formed government in Ottawa pledged to keep Canadian troops fighting against the Arab/Muslim world wouldn't have the resources or the will to do anything significantly progressive or humane while in office.  It might do a few "photo ops" with the historically oppressed, but it wouldn't do anything to make life different for the better for them, or for the "ordinary people" some of us think can never find common ground with the historically oppressed or with the activists who make the cause of other people's liberation their own.

AN NDP that works on the assumption that contending for power means being just as cynical and dismissive towards the idea of conscience and towards people of conscience as the Liberals and Conservatives couldn't be worth HAVING in power.  Conscience is the ONLY reason for the NDP to exist.  Without that, it has no reason to even nominate candidates.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Here's a key question: If Outremont is lost to the Liberals in a byelection, as seems to be a real possibility, will there still be any chance of the NDP avoiding disaster in 2019?  Remember, any election in which most or all seats in Quebec is a loss from which the party can't recover, because it can never be anything but a third party if it's only representing anglophones in the ROC.  

Yes. But the way to avoid disaster will be found only in what profile the NDP provides to Guy Caron and the quality of how that is manifested.

Singh has to suck this up. He cannot act like he is the entire leadership of the party. If he does, then his leadership will fail. If he opens his leadership to a trusting collaboration with Caron then he can save his leadership and avoid disaster.

He does not have to share official status as leader more than he is already with Caron as Parliamentary leader. What he does have to do is make sure that Caron has the highest profile representing the party in Quebec and a significant profile in Ottawa. He has to give room for Caron to initiate sharing some of his ideas on economics. This next eleciton will be fought on economics, trade and jobs -- this we can see very clearly now.

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP has to give up on this idea of exceptionalism when it comes to morality and conscience. All parties are in theory  level when it comes to this and at times they fail. One is not more responsible than the others.

The NDP might even want to speak openly about this -- if you think we are the ones you trust as conscience then why are you not electing us?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Conscience is the ONLY reason for the NDP to exist.  Without that, it has no reason to even nominate candidates.

Conscience without consciousness is probably better than consciousness without conscience.

Rev Pesky

 

progressive17 wrote:

Conscience without consciousness is probably better than consciousness without conscience.

In that conscience is a product of consciousness, it would be difficult to have conscience without it.

MapleInTheEye

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

While I am pessimistic about Singh now, he was given a mandate that really completes with judgment in the next election. I don't think there is merit in trying to push him out after this short time.

The federal NDP went from a bad leader in Mulcair to a horrible leader in Singh. Mulcair was a sellout NDP leader who could care less about the socialist ideals the party was built on. He served in a relatively conservative government, considered working with Harper, and then became leader of the NDP to hold onto political power. He is worse than Hillary Clinton when it comes to someone who would do anything for power, seeing some discussions on other parts of this forum I'm surprised anyone supported Mulcair since political opportunists tend to be hated the most.

Singh is ideologically more in tune with the NDP than Mulcair ever could have been, but he is really just a wealthy pretty boy who likes to dress up. No he didn't grow up in wealth per se, but he's a wealthy lawyer today and has been for years. He just doesn't jive well with a blue collar NDP base. The guy is more of a classy dresser than Trudeau, so I don't know why anyone in the NDP supported him to become leader. While he may care about common people, he doesn't connect well with common people. I think he's more interested in fashion than policy, seeing his social media posts over time. He comes across as more self-obsessed than Trudeau.

Grab your popcorn and get a large size. This tragedy will air non-stop for years to come while the NDP continues to lose with Singh. He looked like a nervous child in virtually all TV interviews for months after he became leader. He wasn't ready, he doesn't connect with the blue collar base, and he is just not the leader the NDP needed.

There's little Singh will do to attract votes from Trudeau.

Caissa

Singh needs to go.

josh

Singh blames the leadership race and the Weir and Moore matters for the poor byelection showing.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/06/19/leadership-race-metoo-allegations-contributed-to-byelection-loss-singh/

voice of the damned

“We had a period of time where we had a leadership race and that takes away from your ability to have a clear leadership in directing the work, so we’ve had some difficulties and we’ve got some work to do.”

So is it a commonly noticed trend for parties in the aftermath of a leadership race to lose byelections?

Caissa

Singh's in denial.

voice of the damned

Caissa wrote:

Singh's in denail.

 

Yeah, but I hope the party doesn't get screwed.

robbie_dee

Gloria Galloway, "Federal NDP Has Trouble Raising Cash as it Prepares for the 2019 Election," Globe and Mail, June 20, 2018

Quote:

The federal New Democrats face a number of political challenges as they prepare for an election that is now a year and a half away. But a top issue is money: They don’t have much.

Still crawling out of debt after the 2015 vote, the NDP is struggling to raise the funds it needs to mount a competitive campaign in 2019.

Donations are down. Donors are down. And, despite the optimistic air of leader Jagmeet Singh, there is nothing to suggest a change in financial fortune is on the horizon.

In 2017, the NDP managed to raise less than $5-million from individual contributors. Compare that to 2011 when the per-vote subsidy, which was phased out by the Conservatives, meant the party started with more than $7-million before raising a single dollar.

“The last three years weren’t easy,” party president Mathieu Vick said in a telephone interview on Tuesday.

NorthReport

Let’s live in the real NDP world. No matter what the leader does or doesn’t do the Liberals combined with the CBC and the corporate media we’re going to try and crush him/her. The NDP has always had to fight elections with one arm tied behind its back so this is nothing new Singh is leader will be leader until at least after the next election so suck it up. There is growing disenchantment with Trudeau as well and my hunch is that he will lose the next election but I’m quite sure the Liberals won’t dump him before the next election either

R.E.Wood

Singh's campaign to gain the leadership was very effective. Enter the race late, consume all the oxygen in the room (ie: media coverage) by virtue of his ethnicity and religion and bespoke suits, sign up large numbers of (likely temporary) new members from specific demographic regions in the hope that they will a) overwhelm the existing party membership, and b) create a perception that Singh's win is inevitable, thus depressing turn-out from members who might otherwise have felt excited about other candidates. Above all: distract people by any means necessary from the fact that Singh is completely inexperienced and unprepared to be federal leader, lacks policy knowledge, and has poor debating & public speaking skills. Shiny objects! People think Trudeau's socks are cool? Just wait til they see Singh - he doesn't even wear socks! People think Trudeau dresses well? Singh's bespoke suits will dazzle them! People like Trudeau's selfies? Well, Singh can take even better selfies! And certainly some previously-existing members were distracted by the shiny objects as well and decided to vote for Singh.

But, frankly, every single reason Singh was elected leader was the wrong reason. If we wanted to connect with real average people across this country we should have chosen Angus - coast to coast to coast (including Quebec, where if he worked hard - and he would have - the people would have accepted him and appreciated his efforts to improve his French skills). Caron also would have been good at this, as his humour would have connected effectively with Canadians across the country, and he had the policy and economic chops to back it up. And if we wanted to connect with various activist groups and be an environmentally-focused party, Ashton was the choice. All three of them had the federal experience necessary (which is to say, any experience at all), and came across as honest and genuine in their own ways, as opposed to a deflecting Toronto lawyer who was just faking it.

Singh was a poor debater in the campaign and continues to be a poor public speaker, always with an expression of a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car. He lacked policy knowledge then, and still needs to be corrected by his MP's. He was indecisive and took ages to come to decisions on pressing matters during the campaign, and that hasn't changed either. He comes across as entitled and arrogant. He has a bad habit of talking endlessly in verbose non-answer circles when he doesn't know the answer to a question. And his optics are all wrong for a supposedly-socialist party (riding his expensive folding Gazelle bike in his $2000 suits when he gets out of his expensive BMW), as this article points out:

https://bravecanada.ca/jagmeet-singh-should-be-careful-labelling-others-...

Singh may want to think twice before accusing others of being from “a world of the elite and those who are extremely wealthy.”  A custom designed suit wearing, BMW driving, Toronto lawyer turned politician doesn’t immediately bring to mind someone who understands the realities and struggles of most Canadians.

Have I missed anything? Undoubtedly. He has a very long list of faults! But whenever he was criticized during the campaign (and it's still happening here today) someone cried "Racism!" No, it's not racism to call out any of the faults I've listed here. Many "cons", very few "pros", and yet he won for the reasons I mentioned. The wrong reasons. And here we are with the NDP vote collapsing in Quebec and every seat there at risk. Lots of other seats will be at risk, too - MP's like Angus and Ashton will get re-elected on their own merits (if they get re-elected) because Singh will not play well on the Prairies, or in most of BC (apart from the lower mainland and urban Vancouver Island). But I guess we'll make it up in Brampton and Surrey. Yay. 

R.E.Wood

From the link robbie_dee shared in post #716, I'd just like to share this (which goes along quite nicely with my last post):

Mr. Singh was elected to lead the party in the fall of last year, in part on his ability to raise funds for his leadership campaign. But it is not at all clear that the people who donated cash to help him become leader will continue to contribute to the NDP itself.

gadar

We all know Singh is not stepping down voluntarily. And it will wreck the party if he is forced out. Dont have a choice but to stand behind him and make the best of the situation. Go NDP Go Singh

josh

R.E.Wood wrote:

From the link robbie_dee shared in post #716, I'd just like to share this (which goes along quite nicely with my last post):

Mr. Singh was elected to lead the party in the fall of last year, in part on his ability to raise funds for his leadership campaign. But it is not at all clear that the people who donated cash to help him become leader will continue to contribute to the NDP itself.

Not a surprise.  These entryists joined just to elect him leader.  Now they want nothing to do with the party.

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

gadar wrote:

Go NDP Go Singh

Quite so.  And the sooner he goes the better. 

Sean in Ottawa

gadar wrote:

We all know Singh is not stepping down voluntarily. And it will wreck the party if he is forced out. Dont have a choice but to stand behind him and make the best of the situation. Go NDP Go Singh

Blind loyalty will do nothing as well.

The party needs a conversation with members about strategy and its position. Unfortunately, the party does not have a clue that this is essential or how to do it.

There needs to be a very public conversation here to engage people.

As well the party has to understand how to generate earned media as it cannot afford to buy its way into the competition. It has been much of a year since Singh became leader and nothing of value is being generated in this way. A series of directions conferences in specific areas both in the party and with respect to policy would be a start.

The NDP should generate a national conversation on trade and the economy.

Right now doing nothing is by far the weakest move.

The party needs to understand that business as usual means failure. The party cannot behave and compete by trying to be like the others. It has to light a fire or interest and activism.

I am not convinced any of those who entered the last leadership race had what was needed. You need someone like Megan Leslie, a person who understands that the NDP is not like the Liberals and Conservatives nationally -- in that role, you have to be an activist. Leslie is young enough to come after the probable wreckage of the next election.

Others include people like Elisapee Sheutiapik - who has been involved with the NDP or even soemone like Sally Armstrong.

Many here already know that I particularly like Pamela Palmater and Joanne Liu -- Not sure if either could be persuaded.

These are the types of activists that I think should be running the party. People who would engage Canadians rather than talk over them and about them.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The other thing is, if Singh wants to avoid disaster, he has to get some actual POLICIES out there.  He has to give the party something tangible to offer voters.  There's only a short period of time now before the election, and it's nearly too late to actually start winning people over.

The man has charisma, but we now know charisma and empty declarations of "values" can't make any difference.

This SHOULD have been a winnable byelection.  At a bare minimum, the party should have been able to hold its 2015 vote together.  It's entirely on Singh that the result Monday night was a disaster and its entirely on him, if he does NOT go, to turn things around.

He needs to listen to Caron, he needs to listen to Ashton, he needs to listen to Angus, he needs to listen to the activists and the social movements, the people who know how to organize and build popular enthusiasm for change.

If what he is doing now isn't working yet, it's not GOING to work.  The choice is change, or collapse.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

The other thing is, if Singh wants to avoid disaster, he has to get some actual POLICIES out there.  He has to give the party something tangible to offer voters.  There's only a short period of time now before the election, and it's nearly too late to actually start winning people over.

The man has charisma, but we now know charisma and empty declarations of "values" can't make any difference.

This SHOULD have been a winnable byelection.  At a bare minimum, the party should have been able to hold its 2015 vote together.  It's entirely on Singh that the result Monday night was a disaster and its entirely on him, if he does NOT go, to turn things around.

He needs to listen to Caron, he needs to listen to Ashton, he needs to listen to Angus, he needs to listen to the activists and the social movements, the people who know how to organize and build popular enthusiasm for change.

If what he is doing now isn't working yet, it's not GOING to work.  The choice is change, or collapse.

Correct.

I think he also has to bring other activist people into the party -- or at least to engage with them.

He is still on an extended publicity tour and that is not helpful.

JKR

Caissa wrote:

Singh needs to go.

I think unless he resigns, which I think is very unlikely, it's in the best for the NDP that Singh remain leader at least until the next election. I can't see how a civil war within the NDP over the next year and a half leading into the election could help the party.

JKR

josh wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

From the link robbie_dee shared in post #716, I'd just like to share this (which goes along quite nicely with my last post):

Mr. Singh was elected to lead the party in the fall of last year, in part on his ability to raise funds for his leadership campaign. But it is not at all clear that the people who donated cash to help him become leader will continue to contribute to the NDP itself.

Not a surprise.  These entryists joined just to elect him leader.  Now they want nothing to do with the party.

I think the party should change how it elects the leader. A few ridings should not be able to decide the whole election. Maybe the country should be divided provincially or into regions?

Pondering

Has there been a survey asking NDP members why they voted for Singh? Are there any links? 

What makes anyone think the NDP would be fairing better under one of the other people who ran for the leadership?

Why does everyone want Singh to basically lay out his platform so far before the election? Could it be  you want him to lose?

The latest byelection probably went Conservative because of the quality of local candidate. He was well known and liked. It likely had nothing to do with Singh. 

The NDP will do poorly in 2019 because the Liberals are back to their traditional strength federally. The votes the NDP received that traditionally went to the Liberals didn't signify a change in philosophy of voters. Their choice is not ideological. The Orange Crush was more due to Liberal weakness than NDP strength. Sure Layton was well-liked but had the Liberals also had a well-liked leader the Orange Crush would not have happened. Ontario voted for Ford based on fiscal conservatism. 

The majority of Canadians are fiscally conservative and socially progressive. With few exceptions, like sex ed, Conservative parties have moved away from social conservativism and focused on the fiscal. The Liberals are just a little less fiscally conservative but socially progressive. The economy being the number 1 election issue means the contest is now between the Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals are favored due to social progressiveness coupled with fiscal conservativism. When Liberals are down there is a large enough faction of voters to give Conservatives a win. The NDP cannot be sufficiently conservative fiscally to take those votes. 

This is why it is a fallacy to think of Liberal voters + NDP voters as all "progressives" that the parties are splitting between them. Many Liberal voters swing to the Conservatives not the NDP when the Liberals are weak. 

From what I have seen of the polls Singh has brought the NDP back up into traditional territory. Much of the criticism is shallow as was the criticism of Trudeau. Trudeau was under-estimated because his foes were focused on his appearance and inexperience. He was doubted even by his own party in the run up to the election. Mocked. He still won the election. 

Now, unlike Layton and Mulcair, Singh is facing a much stronger renewed Liberal party. No leader could deliver much advancement this election. The NDP has to rebuilt. If it is still a party divided that will make Singh's  job that much harder. Be careful what you wish for. There are no obvious better choices for leadership on the horizon. There are plenty of worse ones, like all the ones that lost against Singh. 

Instead of trashing Singh support the NDP. 

NDPP

Ken Burch wrote:

Conscience is the ONLY reason for the NDP to exist.  Without that, it has no reason to even nominate candidates.

NDPP wrote:

"Remember the pretend socialist party of Canada that refuses to use the word socialist? NDP just voted down a resolution on Palestine. What an appalling, fetid disgrace."

https://twitter.com/AndrewMitrovica/status/964934753727037440

NorthReport

NDP in 2015 lost votes in Quebec because of the NDP's position on the niqab.

Why be surprised that the NDP is losing votes in Quebec due to the leader wearing a turban. 

gadar

NorthReport wrote:

NDP in 2015 lost votes in Quebec because of the NDP's position on the niqab.

Why be surprised that the NDP is losing votes in Quebec due to the leader wearing a turban. 

So the NDP should bow to bigotry and get a leader without a turban?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Has there been a survey asking NDP members why they voted for Singh? Are there any links? 

What makes anyone think the NDP would be fairing better under one of the other people who ran for the leadership?

Why does everyone want Singh to basically lay out his platform so far before the election? Could it be  you want him to lose?

The latest byelection probably went Conservative because of the quality of local candidate. He was well known and liked. It likely had nothing to do with Singh. 

The NDP will do poorly in 2019 because the Liberals are back to their traditional strength federally. The votes the NDP received that traditionally went to the Liberals didn't signify a change in philosophy of voters. Their choice is not ideological. The Orange Crush was more due to Liberal weakness than NDP strength. Sure Layton was well-liked but had the Liberals also had a well-liked leader the Orange Crush would not have happened. Ontario voted for Ford based on fiscal conservatism. 

The majority of Canadians are fiscally conservative and socially progressive. With few exceptions, like sex ed, Conservative parties have moved away from social conservativism and focused on the fiscal. The Liberals are just a little less fiscally conservative but socially progressive. The economy being the number 1 election issue means the contest is now between the Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals are favored due to social progressiveness coupled with fiscal conservativism. When Liberals are down there is a large enough faction of voters to give Conservatives a win. The NDP cannot be sufficiently conservative fiscally to take those votes. 

This is why it is a fallacy to think of Liberal voters + NDP voters as all "progressives" that the parties are splitting between them. Many Liberal voters swing to the Conservatives not the NDP when the Liberals are weak. 

From what I have seen of the polls Singh has brought the NDP back up into traditional territory. Much of the criticism is shallow as was the criticism of Trudeau. Trudeau was under-estimated because his foes were focused on his appearance and inexperience. He was doubted even by his own party in the run up to the election. Mocked. He still won the election. 

Now, unlike Layton and Mulcair, Singh is facing a much stronger renewed Liberal party. No leader could deliver much advancement this election. The NDP has to rebuilt. If it is still a party divided that will make Singh's  job that much harder. Be careful what you wish for. There are no obvious better choices for leadership on the horizon. There are plenty of worse ones, like all the ones that lost against Singh. 

Instead of trashing Singh support the NDP. 

Where did you ever get the idea that it costs the NDP votes to offer policies?  Policies are the only thing the party has to win votes with.  We now know Singh's personality, in and of itself, can't make any positive difference.  We know that votes can't be won(or in the case of Quebec, held onto)by vague statements of values.  We know that there's no meaningful gains that can be made through bland focus-group tested phrases uttered as tasteful graphics go by in campaign ads.

Policies, statements of what the party would do if elected, are the ONLY thing that works.  It's not possible go increase votes by doing what you seem to advocate and campaigning like it's impossible for the NDP to win the argument on the issues of the day.  It's not possible to be elected "by default".

The NDP has been doing it your way the whole time since Singh's been leader.  Other than the provincial gains in Ontario, there's nothing at all to show for it.

Nothing that hasn't worked yet CAN work.  There's nothing to gain by "staying the course"-other than for the Liberals, who can do nothing but gain at the NDP's expense if the party keeps doing what you and Jagmeet advise-in other words, doing nothing.

 

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

gadar wrote:

So the NDP should bow to bigotry and get a leader without a turban?

It's not unreasonable, much less is it evidence of bigotry, for a socialist party to expect its leader not to detract unduly from the party's political message--that is to say, its relentless efforts to shift the terms of debate to substantive policy matters.  It's difficult enough for the NDP to penetrate the wall of hostility and mockery erected by the corporate media without sending out confusing signals of its own that leave the electorate wondering what we really represent.  Why would the party not be concerned about making its task considerably more difficult by electing a leader whose attire and grooming habits naturally raise questions in the minds of average citizens about the importance he attaches to orthodox religious beliefs?  None of which is to say that we ought not to elect a Sikh as national leader.  But there's much to be said for choosing a secular adherent.  Likewise when it comes to orthodox Jews and so on. 

If such a concern is always to be regarded as sheer bigotry, then I suppose we ought to accept with equanimity the election of a Hare Krishna or Whirling Dervish as our next federal leader. But would it be politically wise? 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

NDP in 2015 lost votes in Quebec because of the NDP's position on the niqab.

Why be surprised that the NDP is losing votes in Quebec due to the leader wearing a turban. 

What is the data that you have that suggests this is the main issue?

Should we not be open to the idea that the NDP was found to be lacking relevance?

To take this position is to give up and conclude that there is nothing the NDP or Singh could have done.

That is a mistake and self-defeating.

JKR

Pondering wrote:
This is why it is a fallacy to think of Liberal voters + NDP voters as all "progressives" that the parties are splitting between them.

I don't think anyone thinks all Liberal voters are progressive.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
   Where did you ever get the idea that it costs the NDP votes to offer policies?  

I never said that. The NDP must offer policies, during the election campaign, not now. If Singh puts his platform out now it will be destroyed by the time the election period begins. In 2019 the NDP has to appear fresh. It won't if Singh gives in to the haranguing. 

 

Ken Burch wrote:
   It's not possible go increase votes by doing what you seem to advocate and campaigning like it's impossible for the NDP to win the argument on the issues of the day.  It's not possible to be elected "by default". 

While the NDP in Ontario didn't win they gained a great deal this election by default. There was no years long built up. Horwath might have done better if she had not attacked Trudeau. There was something  else she did after that but I forget what it was. 

Trudeau did nothing for years, and won the election. He did that by having no policy to be attacked. All the attacks focused on his being shallow, lacking in experience and having no policy.  The "no policy" criticism died when he released his platform. 

The NDP is often too busy promoting what it wants rather than offering voters solutions to what they percieve as problems or dealing with objections. For example, one of my big problems with PR is the insistence on adding more MPs. We don't need more MPs. They are a waste of money. I want a system that really transfers power from parties to MPs. I want to elect the PM directly. I don't vote for a party.  I came around to supporting Dion's model which is on Fair Vote Canada but nobody liked it or wanted to discuss it. 

The elephant in the room is neoliberalism. People have broadly bought into neoliberal economic theory and the philosophies that support it. They don't even know what to demand beyond bandaids. They buy the argument that Transmountain is a longterm huge financial benefit if it is built, or that it will be economically disasterous if it isn't built. They have bought into the notion that we must be "business friendly" which means low taxes ignoring all the other reasons a business  chooses to local somewhere.  There are many other false notions people have about minimum income and pharmacare, green technology, etc.

What is needed more than anything is the spreading of economic facts that undermine the false narrative people have been sold. I think that is easier for activists to address than for politicians. Politicians are always suspect.

To get back to Singh, he is doing what Trudeau did not that Trudeau invented the approach. Staying out of the line of fire is a tried and true tactic for a new leader especially as a third party. He's traveling around. Doing the circuit. You may argue that a different tactic would be better but you cannot argue that this approach is wrong from the standpoint of maximizing votes. His Toute le Monde en Parle episode went well. The NDP didn't lose a seat. The Liberals had the seat not the NDP. 

Is it the standpoint now that only the leader matters? The leader is solely responsible for winning seats? If that is the case then the leader should dictate votes in the House. 

josh

According to Le Devoir, by way of Paul Wells, some NDP sources are talking about replacing Singh before the election.

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/530724/le-npd-entame-un-examen-de-conscience

Pondering

josh wrote:

According to Le Devoir, by way of Paul Wells, some NDP sources are talking about replacing Singh before the election.

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/530724/le-npd-entame-un-examen-de-conscience

It's a BS article.  Singh never argued that only an indigenous language and English should be needed to become a judge. He mentioned it but corrected it an instant later. That is not arguing. It does not say the NDP is considering a leadership change. It says some malcontents in the party are for it. Maybe they have been reading rabble. 

It's a hatchet job. 

robbie_dee

josh wrote:

According to Le Devoir, by way of Paul Wells, some NDP sources are talking about replacing Singh before the election.

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/530724/le-npd-entame-un-examen-de-conscience

I'm not surprised there is grumbling. But replacing Singh with Angus for example, and Angus clearly would be the most likely alternative, will do nothing for the party's prospects in Quebec. Not to mention that there is formal no mechanism to remove Singh so the most likely way to get to the outcome the grumblers want is to keep taking potshots at him and hope he eventually decides he's had enough and resigns. That isn't exactly going to strengthen the party's position in the meantime.

MapleInTheEye

R.E.Wood wrote:

Singh's campaign to gain the leadership was very effective. Enter the race late, consume all the oxygen in the room (ie: media coverage) by virtue of his ethnicity and religion and bespoke suits, sign up large numbers of (likely temporary) new members from specific demographic regions in the hope that they will a) overwhelm the existing party membership, and b) create a perception that Singh's win is inevitable, thus depressing turn-out from members who might otherwise have felt excited about other candidates. Above all: distract people by any means necessary from the fact that Singh is completely inexperienced and unprepared to be federal leader, lacks policy knowledge, and has poor debating & public speaking skills. Shiny objects! People think Trudeau's socks are cool? Just wait til they see Singh - he doesn't even wear socks! People think Trudeau dresses well? Singh's bespoke suits will dazzle them! People like Trudeau's selfies? Well, Singh can take even better selfies! And certainly some previously-existing members were distracted by the shiny objects as well and decided to vote for Singh. 

 

Quoted for truth. 

Pondering

MapleInTheEye wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

Singh's campaign to gain the leadership was very effective. Enter the race late, consume all the oxygen in the room (ie: media coverage) by virtue of his ethnicity and religion and bespoke suits, sign up large numbers of (likely temporary) new members from specific demographic regions in the hope that they will a) overwhelm the existing party membership, and b) create a perception that Singh's win is inevitable, thus depressing turn-out from members who might otherwise have felt excited about other candidates. Above all: distract people by any means necessary from the fact that Singh is completely inexperienced and unprepared to be federal leader, lacks policy knowledge, and has poor debating & public speaking skills. Shiny objects! People think Trudeau's socks are cool? Just wait til they see Singh - he doesn't even wear socks! People think Trudeau dresses well? Singh's bespoke suits will dazzle them! People like Trudeau's selfies? Well, Singh can take even better selfies! And certainly some previously-existing members were distracted by the shiny objects as well and decided to vote for Singh. 

Quoted for truth. 

Quoted because this level of disrespect and insult to NDP members who supported Singh, the majority by the way, is a cancer destroying the NDP. Why do you even belong to or support the party if you think the majority of members are so shallow? You are so far above everyone else why not start another party and reveal your brilliance to the country? 

What's shallow is the attacks on Singh. Everyone had the same opportunity to drum up memberships. Singh belongs to a strong community that was inspired by him to join the party. Those new members deserve to be welcomed and respected not treated as illegitimate because they share a religion with Singh. If Singh is disrespected and overthrown by party insiders I'm sure they will leave the NDP. I wouldn't blame them. Who would support a backstabbing racist party?

It's legitimate to question the impact Singh's turban has in Quebec and the ROC too. Singh has been trying, and to some extent succeeding, in demistifying his religion and showing the country that he is still a normal guy. Criticizing him for doing so is illuminating. 

Singh supporters were not distracted by shiny objects. They looked  at the rest of the contenders and decided they were all worse than Singh, and they were. There is no messiah on the horizon to rally around.  

  • Singh 53%
  • Angus 19.4%
  • Ashton 17.4%
  • Caron 9.4

 I supported Caron not Singh until after he became leader. I agree that his turban will have a negative impact on votes. Every potential leader is going to have aspects that appeal to different segments of the population. Maybe the turban will be an insurmountable obstacle but it is not inevidable. 

Without Singh Angus would have won by a slim margin with Ashton a close second. I wonder how Angus would have handled the Weir situation as Weir claims Angus and Mulcair were out to get him on the carbon tax issue. Neither Ashton nor Angus would be doing any better than Singh at this point and could be doing worse. 

NorthReport

Well said Pondering.

All that is going on here is the usual Liberal, and their supportive groupies, like the CBC media, attacks on the NDP about a year before the next election, combined with a couple of disgruntled ex-NDPers whose candidate did not win the NDP leadership. 

wage zombie

Singh was my third choice but he was an acceptable choice.  Since then, my opinion of him has only improved.  At this point I am quite happy with him, and quite happy with what he's doing in the party.  I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have as leader right now, and I think any calls to not have him as leader are ridiculous.

I don't know anyone in the party under 40 who has a negative view of Singh.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau did nothing for years, and won the election. He did that by having no policy to be attacked. All the attacks focused on his being shallow, lacking in experience and having no policy.

Unlike Singh, Trudeau had his party in first place for most of the time after he was elected party leader. The Liberals were also winning bi-elections after Trudeau became their leader.

Pondering wrote:

... one of my big problems with PR is the insistence on adding more MPs. We don't need more MPs. They are a waste of money.

There is no need to add MP's to implement PR. PR can be implemented with the current amount of MP's.

 Unfortunately, I think there's a good chance that after the 2019 election the NDP will once again have far fewer MP's in Parliament because of FPTP than the proportion of their votes would indicate that they should have. So it is likely that once again people who vote for the NDP will have their votes marginalized by FPTP. The 2019 election seems like it will likely be a very competitive battle between the Liberals and Conservatives and to avoid FPTP vote-splitting the NDP, Greens, and BQ are going to be squeezed out in the process. Recent bi-elections seem to be pointing to the likelyhood of there being a two-party race in 2019, which makes sense since FPTP is a two-party system. The same phenomena of returning to a predominantly two-party race is happening in the UK as parties like UKIP and the LibDems are being squeezed out.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
   Where did you ever get the idea that it costs the NDP votes to offer policies?  

I never said that. The NDP must offer policies, during the election campaign, not now. If Singh puts his platform out now it will be destroyed by the time the election period begins. In 2019 the NDP has to appear fresh. It won't if Singh gives in to the haranguing. 

 

Ken Burch wrote:
   It's not possible go increase votes by doing what you seem to advocate and campaigning like it's impossible for the NDP to win the argument on the issues of the day.  It's not possible to be elected "by default". 

While the NDP in Ontario didn't win they gained a great deal this election by default. There was no years long built up. Horwath might have done better if she had not attacked Trudeau. There was something  else she did after that but I forget what it was. 

Trudeau did nothing for years, and won the election. He did that by having no policy to be attacked. All the attacks focused on his being shallow, lacking in experience and having no policy.  The "no policy" criticism died when he released his platform. 

The NDP is often too busy promoting what it wants rather than offering voters solutions to what they percieve as problems or dealing with objections. For example, one of my big problems with PR is the insistence on adding more MPs. We don't need more MPs. They are a waste of money. I want a system that really transfers power from parties to MPs. I want to elect the PM directly. I don't vote for a party.  I came around to supporting Dion's model which is on Fair Vote Canada but nobody liked it or wanted to discuss it. 

The elephant in the room is neoliberalism. People have broadly bought into neoliberal economic theory and the philosophies that support it. They don't even know what to demand beyond bandaids. They buy the argument that Transmountain is a longterm huge financial benefit if it is built, or that it will be economically disasterous if it isn't built. They have bought into the notion that we must be "business friendly" which means low taxes ignoring all the other reasons a business  chooses to local somewhere.  There are many other false notions people have about minimum income and pharmacare, green technology, etc.

What is needed more than anything is the spreading of economic facts that undermine the false narrative people have been sold. I think that is easier for activists to address than for politicians. Politicians are always suspect.

To get back to Singh, he is doing what Trudeau did not that Trudeau invented the approach. Staying out of the line of fire is a tried and true tactic for a new leader especially as a third party. He's traveling around. Doing the circuit. You may argue that a different tactic would be better but you cannot argue that this approach is wrong from the standpoint of maximizing votes. His Toute le Monde en Parle episode went well. The NDP didn't lose a seat. The Liberals had the seat not the NDP. 

Is it the standpoint now that only the leader matters? The leader is solely responsible for winning seats? If that is the case then the leader should dictate votes in the House. 

You have to offer policies...or at least strong ideas...to challenge neoliberalism.  Horwath made the massive gains she made largely because in the run-up to the campaign and during it, she offered policies and ideas.  In many respects, while Horwath wasn't able to lead her party to power, she won the argument and that will make a huge difference in years to come.  Thanks to that, at the next election, the ONDP, whoever leads it, can say "want something better?", whereas if they stuck to your say nothing strategy, all they could say was "Had enough?".  And that's a huge difference, because it isn't possible for the ONDP or any other left-of-centre party anywhere to win anymore by just saying "Stop THEM!".  Stopping THEM!-by which I mean the generic right-wing party of uglies everywhere, not Van Morrison's 1960sBelfast R&B band-without having something clearly different and better to offer than THEM!, simply doesn't work.  

How do you fight neoliberalism by doing what Justin did and, effectively, doing nothing?  
Also, the Liberals were almost always much more popular than the NDP DURING the years when Justin did nothing-largely because Mulcair did NOTHING outside of parliament, and largely because Mulcair made the party a place where not only activists but IDEAS and IDEALS were not welcome.  The only time Mulcair was ever effective, in party support terms, as a leader was when he fought C-51 with all the passion Tommy Douglas brought to his lonely opposition to the imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970.  Mulcair then pissed all the goodwill and enthusiasm away by talking about nothing but balanced budgets during the televised economics debate-knowing that only the wealthy and the right-wing obsessed about keeping the damn budget balanced, that nobody who'd even think of voting NDP would prioritize that-and then avoiding all future leaders debates.  Yes, the niqab thing did additional damage-though it's still weird that most of the people who swung away from the NDP in Quebec swung to the PLC, a party which had the EXACT SAME POSITION as the Liberals on that issue-but even before that, the party had plummeted from 34-35% and the lead to 26-27% and third place, and once they were back IN third place the only thing that could possibly happen was for the NDP vote to go all the way back down to the meaningless 19%-20% it used to get in the late Seventies and Eighties.

Yes, the NDP needs to challenge neoliberalism...but it can only challenge it by being able to tell the voters "not only is this wrong, but we've got these things we're going to do instead that will be better for you".  The NDP has great values and some sort of a better vision for society-there is no valid reason to fear the idea of trying to inspire voters with that vision, with appealing to the natural wish most people have for a clear improvement on the dreariness of the now.  Justin's charisma no longer really works, and Jagmeet's charisma has proved to be an illusion.  If Jagmeet doesn't go(and he would need to make that decision soon) he needs to change-he needs to make the leadership structure collegial, needs a strong Quebec face within the leadership, and finally needs to actually connect with the social movements and let go of the party's decades-long delusion that what those movements want is somehow at absolute odds with what "ordinary Canadians" want or need.  It doesn't have to be an end of social and economic injustice OR a better deal for "regular folks just trying to get on with their lives".  An end to social and economic injustice WOULD BE a better deal for regular folks just trying to get on with their lives.  And, contrary to your perception, most activists are THEMSELVES regular folks just trying to get on with their lives.  Activism usually derives from what people actually experiece in their lives, and activism isn't about asking for special favors for a few-it's almost always, in the end, about justice for all, because the freedom of the many is bound up in the liberation of all.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Also, when the NDP promotes "what it wants", it's probably at least in part because the party sees "what it wants" as actually being beneficial to the electorate.  It's not like they put things in the policy book or the platform just for grins and giggles-NOTE: I won't use the "Austin Powers" version of that phrase here.

The situation is heading towards disaster here, Pondering.  It won't be possible for the NDP to gain seats and votes during the next general election campaign if it loses every byelection running up to it.  It won't be possible for the NDP to hold ANY Quebec seats at all if Outremont goes Liberal in the by-election.  Doesn't that concern you in the least?  Do you even WANT the NDP to hold its current ground?  It can't recover in future elections if the party goes down to 20 seats again, and the party will have no reason to exist if it goes back to ONLY electing MPs in Ontario, the Prairies, and B.C., as the NDP is currently on track to do.  

Did you support Singh because you WANTED him to run the party into the ground?

josh

Singh says NDP won’t bail on Canada-Israel parliamentary group.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/06/20/jagmeet-singh-israel_a_23464097/

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..singh doesn't run the party no more than mulcair did. the problems that the ndp faces lies much deeper than the leader. people on this board having been talking about those problems for years with no resolution in sight.

..blaming the leader without dealing with those deeper issues is a dead end. not to mention that it provides the false notion that all you need is the "right leader". more was needed than just corbyn and as we see today corbyn is not enough. 

josh

The NDP should only hope that it had a leader half as good as Corbyn.  While other socially democratic parties are getting wiped out throughout Europe, Corbyn has managed to keep his party running even with the Conservatives.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

josh wrote:

The NDP should only hope that it had a leader half as good as Corbyn.  While other socially democratic parties are getting wiped out throughout Europe, Corbyn has managed to keep his party running even with the Conservatives.

..this is only a partial analysis. no one person can do what you say he is doing. we all know this yet he gets the credit. this super hero mentality has to end. corbyn labour is a collaboration.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

..singh doesn't run the party no more than mulcair did. the problems that the ndp faces lies much deeper than the leader. people on this board having been talking about those problems for years with no resolution in sight.

..blaming the leader without dealing with those deeper issues is a dead end. not to mention that it provides the false notion that all you need is the "right leader". more was needed than just corbyn and as we see today corbyn is not enough. 

It's not JUST the leader.  There's an urgent need for the establishment of internal party democracy, and it is essential that the rank-and-file have control over what goes into the platform and the policy book.  Since 1961 as a certainty, and perhaps from the beginning(I don't know how policy decisions were made in the CCF era), the party has been run by a cynical, dismissive internal party bureaucracy whose guiding principle has always been that the rank-and-file are idiots who should never have any real say in what the party is about.  Since 1961, this approach has almost always kept the party in third place.  It did massive damage in the 1960s and 1970s, when the party refused to engage with the New Left, and has done more of the same in the post-WTO era, keeping the party at arms-length from the only people in left-of-centre politics with any new ideas and any real enthusiasm for working for change.    This notion that the NDP has to be kind of grumpily dismissive of idealism and transformative politics hasn't done the party any good-there simply is not any large group of people who WANT a break from the status quo, but sneer at most of the people working for such a break.  Why not just admit that activists are not the enemy, that open discussion is not the enemy, that passion and enthusiasm are not the enemies?

Fully agree with you about Corbyn-it IS a collaboration, and that's why Corbyn's enemies are so obsessed with driving Momentum, the incarnation of that collaboration, out of the party, by smearing it as antisemitic and conspiratorial and cultish when it is clearly neither of those things.

Pages