Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

890 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Pondering wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:
 This idea was based on monumtem, that Singh beat Trudea at every clash.  Success leads to more success kind of thinking.   The major problem there was no monumtem no victores agaisnt, Trudeua can fail a dozen times and in the end he will win if the monumtem is broken.  Truduea rans the show and with that comes, the PM, the well funded party.  He can lose many fightings but Singh loses one fight its over.  And Singh and NDP lost fights one after the other.  By election to by election, Singh was branded the person run over Trudeau.  Once it became  common news that he was a potitical dud it was to late.  Now we have crippled leader and no policy messaging what the NDP stands for.  Everything was built on personality of the leader, rather than policy.  

On what basis did you make that determination. I don't recall any of his supporters presenting those arguments. Singh does have some of Trudeau's qualities but that doesn't mean that is why he was elected. Do you really think that when the election rolls around the NDP won't have  any policy or platform to introduce? 

Who, out of the candidates presented for leadership would have better numbers than Singh right now? Do you think Angus, who was in second place, would have done better in the byelections?

Singh was vocal about he dominate trudeua, and he entourarged the idea of fight of leaders.  And the media was only to to happy push the idea of a clash of the leaders.  I will find some articles to point to this out.  

This was before he won the leadership of the NDP?  (before or after I will read the articles)

SeekingAPolitic...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/jagmeet-singh-is-trudeaus-worst-...

This is very shallow article which is least of its problems, but these should have been downed played by Signh and NDP. This is more of the extreme stuff but I find lesser articles.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Notley may have a majority but if she dared oppose pipelines her resignation would be forced.

..forced by whom?

Well, her pollsters might sit her down and say "Look, opposing pipelines is electoral suicide in Alberta", and if she continued with her opposition, there would probably be a revolt of one form or another within the party. Whether it's someone challenging her for the leadership, or MLAs bolting from the party(I'd wager on the former being more plausible), she likely wouldn't make it to the next election.

..it's speculation and feeds into the notion that there is no alternative. and that's nothing but a big fat lie. 

SeekingAPolitic...

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-throws-down-the-gaun...

Maybe this said in humour, maybe he was misquoted.  This is not necessary, the rivalary on the superical features of a an individual should ot be the basis of politics.  The media built the trap and NDP and Signh were happy exploit the free pubilsity but it came with a price.  

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Who, out of the candidates presented for leadership would have better numbers than Singh right now? Do you think Angus, who was in second place, would have done better in the byelections?

I think Angus would have done as poorly in ridings with large francaphone populations as Singh but Angus may have been able to do much better in blue collar ridings, especially those outside of Quebec. Angus's weakness was his lack of fluency in French. I'm not sure what ridings Singh has an advantage over Angus in, outside of the Brampton and Surrey areas. Those areas may have given Singh a strong advantage in the NDP leadership election but I'm not sure how that will help the NDP in the general election.

Pondering

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/jagmeet-singh-is-trudeaus-worst-...

This is very shallow article which is least of its problems, but these should have been downed played by Signh and NDP. This is more of the extreme stuff but I find lesser articles.

She is certainly not a supporter. Lots of critics go there. I'm referring to Singh himself promoting that as a reason to vote for him or supporters saying those are reasons they vote for him. The NDP should not respond to trash journalism. It just gives them oxygen. Again, not Trudeau's tactic, but one he followed and continues to follow. He avoids being  put on the defensive and when he must respond he uses a canned result until everyone gets bored and moves on. Singh will show his political hand for the election and not before. It isn't the only approach but it has been a successful one for many politicians. 

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Notley may have a majority but if she dared oppose pipelines her resignation would be forced.

..forced by whom?

Well, her pollsters might sit her down and say "Look, opposing pipelines is electoral suicide in Alberta", and if she continued with her opposition, there would probably be a revolt of one form or another within the party. Whether it's someone challenging her for the leadership, or MLAs bolting from the party(I'd wager on the former being more plausible), she likely wouldn't make it to the next election.

..it's speculation and feeds into the notion that there is no alternative. and that's nothing but a big fat lie. 

Forced by the people of Alberta. There would be demonstrations not seen since the days of referendums. Probably riots. Even progressive westerners that come to post on this board defend pipelines. I'm not saying she  has to be as enthusiastic as she is but no premier of Alberta could outright oppose pipelines. I think the main underlying argument is that as long as we are burning oil we might as well be burning theirs. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The majority of Canadians support Medicare and would support Pharmacare.  True.  Thing is, Singh isn't even talking about things like Pharmacare.  He's largely avoiding talking about any issues at all.

As to the Left, they actually have reached the people.  Most Left ideas are relatively popular.  This isn't reflected in polls on party support because no major party(and I'll even count the Greens as a major party for the sake of this argument) offers those ideas as part of its program.

Plain fact is, since 1961 the NDP has ALWAYS said "we ain't a bunch of damn lefties"...and there's nothing to show for fifty-seven years of saying that.  

I'm not saying the NDP should be run BY the social movements-just that there's no reason for the party to be just as disdainful of them as the Libs and Cons are.  Most people aren't demanding that of the NDP.  And if it worked, there'd have been Dipper governments in Ottawa by now.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I thnk a new leadership race would be a distraction from the urgent work the party needs to do irrespective of the leader.

The NDP's problem is that it is lacking relevancy. Support for it is lacking meaning, particularly in Quebec.

What I think the party should do is organize conferences regarding responses to the position Canada is in and provide some orginal options before the people.

Without this, the party will be severely reduced after the next eleciton.

I think the major problem with parties like the NDP and greens is that they are mostly outside looking in. They need to ahve a compelling reason to be asked to enter. Too oftent he NDP and the Greens tend to behave like established alternate parties instead of parties trying to establish themselves as the a real alternative to power.

The people do not need another alternating same-voice party. They do not need another party that is just a bit different either as the Liberals and Conservatives manage to differentiate themselves adequately for the population.

These parties have to show clearly why they are here, how their solutions are different, what people will get by electing them.

I think the NDP at times gets lulled into a false sense of security that they can either bash down another party and get power (as the major alternating parties do), leave the impressiont hey would manage better, or simply have a leader that looks better than the other two. The party has to have a compelling program and alternative to what they would do with power. Failing to do this requires severe damage to both the Liberals and the Conservatives at the same time. This is not a likely event and therefore the happy accident will not lead to NDP governing any time soon.

The Greens are weaker but more aware of their situation.

Both parties have to stop thinking that they can ape the other parties and this will somehow work for them. The reality is that it never has. So they have to act different or hope for a miracle implosion of another party. For the NDP, a reality check is in order: such an implosion is more likely to make the NDP become a "Liberal" party than actually bring something new. The NDP to be able to grow to the point of getting power -- without becoming a Liberal Party -- means that it will have to forget about the implosion scenario and instead create a cultural shift and desire for something new.

It needs to remember that it is an activist party or really not going to be considered useful at all except as a potential replacement for the Liberal Party should it really mess up.

To my mind this is the critical transformation required to bring the NDP to power -- as the NDP -- and not some warmed over version of the Liberal party after a scandal deep enough for that party, in name, to vanish.

Put another way, there is no shortcut to the requirement to win people over by activism rather than sales. Is the NDP willing to go the more difficult route to try to win power for the type of party it was meant to be rather than trying to supplant the Liberal Party and present, mostly, the same option that the Liberals present today.

Trust me, if the NDP did choose the former it would save itself a lot of the jealousy and bitter fealings towards the Liberal party and allow itself really to be differnt rather than effectively concern trolling the country to the effect that it really is, even though the people are just not getting that idea.

The NDP should stop -- right now -- pretending that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same. This pretense is in the way of the NDP really developing something truly different. The party tries to show it is itself a shade different while claiming the Conservatives and Liberals are exactly the same. If it admits that there is a difference between those parties then it has to find a better reason to exist than be an alternative that is basically a shade away from what we already have.

I know these are harsh words but the party has to decide if it will truly make an effort not to win power just for itself but for the philosophy it was designed to promote.

To that end the party does not have to remain stuck in the past. That would be a mistake. Instead it has to produce progressive solutions for today. There is more than a chocie between the social democratic ideas of the 1950s and the capitalist ideas of the 21st century. The party has to articulate this. Or, even if it does not die, it deserves to.

Sorry but that is where we have been for a couple decades, while hoping for some happy accident to replace the Liberal Party. Really, who cares if the party is not actually bringing anything substantively new in terms of outlook? Let's start by actually becoming a movement again instead of pretending that we are.

One more comment -- this does not mean that we are just more left but that we are actually different. It is not a question of degrees. So ask the questions: Why does this party exist? How is it fundamentally different in more than just degrees? What would this look like in terms of transformative policies? What would a basic platfom essentially contain, for the party to really be the change we sing about?

Bluntly: Is there a different, practical, realistic, alternative to the present axis of Liberal/Conservative approaches? I think so, but it seems that many in the NDP do not since they keep coming up with the same old, same old. This is the same situation facing left parties in other countries. They are being forced to confront the more difficult and worthwhile choice to  be different versus offering little more than a branding choice with the rhetoric of caring more while offering little else.

The NDP leader knows he is not a Liberal. He needs to tell the people of Canada why and what that means.

Pondering

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-throws-down-the-gaun...

Maybe this said in humour, maybe he was misquoted.  This is not necessary, the rivalary on the superical features of a an individual should ot be the basis of politics.  The media built the trap and NDP and Signh were happy exploit the free pubilsity but it came with a price.  

Maybe he  was  joking! Of course he was joking but with purpose. As many here have noted his turban puts some people off because they have all sorts of misconceptions about what it means to be a Sikh and the wearing of a turban. Removing it on the Mercer Report and joking about it demystifies it. 

He is going on talk shows like Toute le Monde en Parle and The Social because it's the best way for people to get to know him as a person more than as a politician. This is political marketing 101 for a new leader as is visiting ridings personally. In no way was he suggesting people should vote on the basis of his hair or Trudeau's hair. He isn't stupid and neither are Canadians for wanting to get to know the person behind the politician. Not talking about his turban and its purpose would be ignoring the elephant in the room. This pre-election period is exactly the time he should be responding to curiousity about his beliefs and about his turban. Did you know that Sikhism is not traditionally homophobic? 

Trudeau successfully personalized himself to Canadians. Canadians like him. That doesn't mean he can do anything but it gives him the benefit of the doubt. People want to support him. Attacking him unfairly or personally offends people. That doesn't mean he can't be attacked. It just means the attacks have to be razor focused on a specific policy that people strongly oppose, like Transmountain. The kind of issue people say, okay, I like Trudeau but he still isn't a good PM because this is a bad decision. Portraying Trudeau as a good guy that has it wrong is an easier sell than Trudeau is an evil capitalist

It is highly unlikely that the NDP will be above their traditional support in 2019 because of the lay of the political landscape. Canadians almost always give a PM a second term in office as long  as he is adequate. Scheer is doing surprisingly (to me) well. It is almost inevidable that the NDP will be in third place this go around and may well lose seats. That is not all on Singh. That isn't to say he is above criticism but the level of condemnation suggests some degree of transference. 

Sean in Ottawa

My post #810 is an attempt to find if the party wants to get elected for the sake of being elected or whether the party actually is wanting to bring something real and new to the table.

SeekingAPolitic...

Pondering wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/jagmeet-singh-is-trudeaus-worst-...

This is very shallow article which is least of its problems, but these should have been downed played by Signh and NDP. This is more of the extreme stuff but I find lesser articles.

She is certainly not a supporter. Lots of critics go there. I'm referring to Singh himself promoting that as a reason to vote for him or supporters saying those are reasons they vote for him. The NDP should not respond to trash journalism. It just gives them oxygen. Again, not Trudeau's tactic, but one he followed and continues to follow. He avoids being  put on the defensive and when he must respond he uses a canned result until everyone gets bored and moves on. Singh will show his political hand for the election and not before. It isn't the only approach but it has been a successful one for many politicians. 

I will concede that I went to far, I can not find a press release from party building a rivalry between these 2 men.  All I can say that the media was trying to hype a rivarly for its on purcahse of selling their product.  I can not certianly tell who is a Signh supporter vs media pundits trying hype up a rivalry to sell adds.  

Well argued, a agrument that cannot be supported by fact is a best an opinion.  This current thread passage is an opinion.   

 

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My post #810 is an attempt to find if the party wants to get elected for the sake of being elected or whether the party actually is wanting to bring something real and new to the table.

And a very good post it was.  It’s clear that the party insiders believer in the former at the expense of the latter.  Maybe it will take a thumping in next year’s election to get them to embrace the latter.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Notley may have a majority but if she dared oppose pipelines her resignation would be forced.

..forced by whom?

Well, her pollsters might sit her down and say "Look, opposing pipelines is electoral suicide in Alberta", and if she continued with her opposition, there would probably be a revolt of one form or another within the party. Whether it's someone challenging her for the leadership, or MLAs bolting from the party(I'd wager on the former being more plausible), she likely wouldn't make it to the next election.

..it's speculation and feeds into the notion that there is no alternative. and that's nothing but a big fat lie. 

Forced by the people of Alberta. There would be demonstrations not seen since the days of referendums. Probably riots. Even progressive westerners that come to post on this board defend pipelines. I'm not saying she  has to be as enthusiastic as she is but no premier of Alberta could outright oppose pipelines. I think the main underlying argument is that as long as we are burning oil we might as well be burning theirs. 

..rioting is a comment a la david dodge. notley could tell the truth pondering. you have argued many times (with good reason) that the pipeline wasn't needed. are you suggesting that the only ndp option is continue to lie through their teeth?  

voice of the damned

I'm not sure I've ever seen Albertans rioting against anything, even the NEP. It was left to the good folks of Salmon Arms BC to pelt Trudeau's train with rotten fruit.

But yes, otherwise, Pondering is correct. It would end anyone's Alberta politicians political career if they came out against pipelines.

As for "Just tell the truth!!", well, "Pipelines are unneccessary" isn't a truth statement like "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west", ie. you can't just prove it by asking people to look out their window for ten seconds. There'll always be someone on the other side of the argument ready to massage the stats the other way, and the public will believe one side or the other depending at least partly on pre-conceived notions.

I admit I am agnostic leaning toward "pro" on building pipelines, and I don't think there is an argument you could present to me in one short paragraph that would lead me to automatically conclude that the other side was wrong.  

voice of the damned

But here's a challenge...

If you think that the anti-pipeline argument can be made simply by "telling the truth", go onto an Alberta message board with a pro-pipeline slant, and see how far you get just repeating "the truth". I'd be curious to see how far well you do with that.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..with all due respect votd. i was responding to pondering who does believe the pipeline is unnecessary. i will expand on this later as i have to go out now. it will fit in nicely with the direction this thread has taken.

R.E.Wood

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My post #810 is an attempt to find if the party wants to get elected for the sake of being elected or whether the party actually is wanting to bring something real and new to the table.

And a very good post it was.  It’s clear that the party insiders believer in the former at the expense of the latter.  Maybe it will take a thumping in next year’s election to get them to embrace the latter.

I agree - very good post, Sean. The kind of broad soul-searching and development of innovative new policies you describe is not going to happen until after the next election. If the NDP suffers major losses (which I believe is going to happen), Singh will have to go, and the process for the next leadership will need to be much more profound and transformative than just putting another new "Liberal-lite" face on the same old party. 

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..rioting is a comment a la david dodge. notley could tell the truth pondering. you have argued many times (with good reason) that the pipeline wasn't needed. are you suggesting that the only ndp option is continue to lie through their teeth?  

If Notley said no to Transmountain and no to Keystone XL she would be forced to resign. The argument "If you are going to burn oil it might as well be Alberta's" is too solidly entrenched to breakthrough in Alberta. You might be able to convince them otherwise over a period of decades. 

I'm not saying Notley or the NDP should lie. I'm saying Notley was elected to represent the wishes of the people of Alberta, not her own and not the NDP's. Opposing pipelines would be bait and switch. Parties don't get elected, representatives do. 

As lay people we really don't "know" anything for a fact. I don't know for a fact that climate change is real. I have to trust the news that weather patterns are changing and that scientists know what they are doing. I don't even literally know that the world is round. I believe that there will be no market for twinned Trans Mountain oil within years of it being built or that it will have to be sold at such a discount that it will not justify the expense of Transmountain. I think the oil crash will be very sudden and oil companies executives are draining money from the industry as fast as they can. When the crash comes taxpayers will be left holding the clean-up bag. But that is all opinion not fact and most Albertans disagree. 

It isn't just Albertans who support the pipelines. Shocking though it may be there is at least a 50/50 split Canada wide. Many Canadians agree that if oil is being burned it might as well be Alberta's oil so that Canada benefits financially. Stories about tankers delivering foreign oil to Canadians refineries doesn't make sense on the surface. The argument that Canadian refineries should be burning Canadian oil is a strong one. Many Canadians agree that it is unfair to block Alberta oil from getting  to the international market. That argument just got way stronger because of Trump. 

Democracy, to me, means you have to convince people not dictate even when in power. On most things the people are content to let politicians figure it all out but not on issues they feel strongly about. For example, the Conservative party, with a majority, technically could have passed an abortion law or dismantled Medicare. Dismantling medicare in particular would cause a revolt. Every MP would have demonstrations the likes of which Canada has never seen. We don't elect serial dictators even if it seems like it sometimes. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My post #810 is an attempt to find if the party wants to get elected for the sake of being elected or whether the party actually is wanting to bring something real and new to the table.

And a very good post it was.  It’s clear that the party insiders believer in the former at the expense of the latter.  Maybe it will take a thumping in next year’s election to get them to embrace the latter.

I agree - very good post, Sean. The kind of broad soul-searching and development of innovative new policies you describe is not going to happen until after the next election. If the NDP suffers major losses (which I believe is going to happen), Singh will have to go, and the process for the next leadership will need to be much more profound and transformative than just putting another new "Liberal-lite" face on the same old party. 

I agree with all the above comments. In particular, I think there is zero chance that the sort of transformation Sean imagines will take place before the next election, because the people who have the power to make it happen are committed to the failed plan that put them into the positions they now hold. Only after an electoral disaster, which 2019 may well be, will there be a possibility of serious change in the NDP.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

pondering

..they underling theory behind your position re notley is that albertains and canadians are conservative/liberal and not ndp..as you have stated upthread. i reject that notion not only because it is constructed through a party lens, but that people don't live their daily lives thinking like that. it is not based on reality.

..populations are not a reflection of parties. canada like any other country is governed by power and power governs by manufacturing consent. it has nothing to do with democracy and it has nothing to do with what people want. i can only point to the total insanity of the tar sands project to safely say that this is not what the majority of albertains want.

..in the case of alberta, i contend that the government is captured by the oil industry as in the case of bc by the lng. this is made possible by a number of mechanisms with one of the most powerful being the trade deal. the trade deal was never meant to be about trade but a way to override democracy..which it has done. this i believe is well understood by polititians of every stripe.

..what i find most interesting is the response of the ndp to the capture. it never admits to it but plays along with the charade that the people need it, that the people want it, so they have no choice but to give the people what the want. the ndp, at no time, does it expose this and turn to the people for support. as what happened in greece even after referendum that put the population on the side of the government in reject what the eu was demanding.  

..i also agree with what sean is saying but would add that this organizing doesn't have to wait and can be built around the struggle in ont, mb and everywhere else. the que students are not just a bunch of lefties. nor is the pipeline resistance. nor are the posties. nor are the teachers in the strike i posted about up thread. it's about organizing around the issues that matter. 

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My post #810 is an attempt to find if the party wants to get elected for the sake of being elected or whether the party actually is wanting to bring something real and new to the table.

And a very good post it was.  It’s clear that the party insiders believer in the former at the expense of the latter.  Maybe it will take a thumping in next year’s election to get them to embrace the latter.

I agree - very good post, Sean. The kind of broad soul-searching and development of innovative new policies you describe is not going to happen until after the next election. If the NDP suffers major losses (which I believe is going to happen), Singh will have to go, and the process for the next leadership will need to be much more profound and transformative than just putting another new "Liberal-lite" face on the same old party. 

I agree with all the above comments. In particular, I think there is zero chance that the sort of transformation Sean imagines will take place before the next election, because the people who have the power to make it happen are committed to the failed plan that put them into the positions they now hold. Only after an electoral disaster, which 2019 may well be, will there be a possibility of serious change in the NDP.

Ultimately I think that the existential discussion in the NDP of power or compromise is related to a fundamental question which might be better characterized as party or principle. If there is no loyalty to party except as a vehicle to a purpose then the NDP will have purpose whereas if the loyalty is to the party over the purpose then there can only be a victory for an empty shell of a party. I would never deny that some compromises must get made in the short term for political success; you would be naive to suggest otherwise. However, if you sacrifice consistently enough you can get to the point where the loyalty is to a party of empty rhetoric. In the end, the risk is losing on both as the population can see through this and you end up with neither power nor principles.

The NDP has juggled this so long that they have not even examined their principles for such a long time that they now have to figure out what they are and update them, not for the purpose of compromise and power, but out of relevancy for the times. This is what needs to happen for the party itself to be relevant. Once relevant, a strategy to win an election can move forward. Without that step we are asking people to elect a largely empty box.

I know this is an uncomfortable reality for the NDP supporters who quite rightly consider the issue of the ineffectiveness of principles without power. Unfortunately, they also have to engage with the reality that power without principles is worse since there is no longer a choice to build on.

Somehow, and this is the most difficult part, the party has to make the strategic compromises needed without becoming one of the others. It has to move closer to power without giving up its purpose in seeking it. I know that hard-core New Democrats optimistically feel that they have this balance right. I think that the judgment of Canadians is more mixed. Some agree but enough do not agree. These voters will carry responses like: all parties are the same, voting makes no difference, why not vote Liberal to get the  compromise in power etc. You cannot simply protest that you are different -- you have to show this consistently.

I have made the argument for years that the NDP consistently plays petty politics -- like all the others. This works for other parties who, when they bash down the other parties, have a chance at power. When the NDP does this they do two things: first they help the alternate party which is not them, and second, they make people believe that the NDP is no different.

This is part of the dynamic I have tried to explain for years: the NDP cannot gain power by doing what works for the other partiues thinking it will work for them. They should not waste time whining about double standards: it is not a double standard becuase the NDP is supposed to be different. Strategies that would work for the NDP necessarily are different.

Some of this is true of the Green Party as well but to a lesser degree.

An example I gave in the Ontario thread was that the NDP should take a position consistent with support for PR, that the Liberal Party should be accorded party status. The rule for other parties would be to take strategic advantage wherever possible. The rule for the NDP would be to recognize that support of PR is an important strategy and that principled positions make the party apprear (and be) different and strategic advantages without difference only supports the ongoing alternation. The excuse about what is fair is also misplaced. This is not about fair. This is about being the change you want to see. It is about showing the people that you are worth the re-alignment you are asking them to risk on. Parties in the alternate lane for power only have to wait for the other party to stop for gas. The NDP is not in that position.

When the NDP gets opposition status once in a blue moon it fantasizes that it has arrived. Without the real work behind the transformation this progress for the NDP will either be shown as an illusion where the party returns shortly to distant status or the party will show itself to be the illusion as it morphs into a Liberal party. The opposite of illusion is substance.

The NDP must focus on this. The deck chair changes of leadership will make no difference without this being done.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I totally gave up on the NDP when it voted to bomb Libya but I must say it is symbolic for me that Pondering has become a staunch NDP'er.

I love when people adopt their new religion with such fervour.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 I thnk a new leadership race would be a distraction from the urgent work the party needs to do irrespective of the leader. 

I think the point for many is that a leadership change is needed  to do the urgent work you refer to. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
These parties have to show clearly why they are here, how their solutions are different, what people will get by electing them.  

Yes, but they have to keep it simple and defend the numbers. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 Put another way, there is no shortcut to the requirement to win people over by activism rather than sales. Is the NDP willing to go the more difficult route to try to win power for the type of party it was meant to be rather than trying to supplant the Liberal Party and present, mostly, the same option that the Liberals present today. 

I think it needs to avoid being labeled an activist party whatever that even means. Many people translate activist to radical and radical to risky. It plays into stereotypes parties like the NDP get smeared with. Layton was right about the importance of language. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 The NDP should stop -- right now -- pretending that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same.  

Yes it needs to do that, then forget about the other parties and what they are doing or not doing. The party needs to take an honest look at Canadians and see where they are and to what degree that can be  realistically altered. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I know these are harsh words but the party has to decide if it will truly make an effort not to win power just for itself but for the philosophy it was designed to promote.

To that end the party does not have to remain stuck in the past. That would be a mistake. Instead it has to produce progressive solutions for today. There is more than a chocie between the social democratic ideas of the 1950s and the capitalist ideas of the 21st century. The party has to articulate this. Or, even if it does not die, it deserves to.

I think the party needs to forget about philosphy and the other political parties and just focus on Canadians and how the lives of the 99% can be improved (that includes the upper middle class). The party needs to be specific issue based. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The NDP leader knows he is not a Liberal. He needs to tell the people of Canada why and what that means.

But not in the form of specific policies until the election period opens up and even then with no more than 3 top policies. Syriza rejected the left/right dichotomy and focused all attention on austerity. Canada is not in such dire straits so needs more than one policy but the strategy is sound for the NDP in Canada. Reject the left/right definitions as a waste of time and perjorative. Don't try to address everyone's justice issues or solve all social ills. Once in power governments can address all the issues they want. Trudeau is breaking promises left right and centre while doing things that were not in his platform. I'm not saying the platform should be a lie or attempt to mislead. It just doesn't have to be a comprehensive document of everything the NDP would like to see happen. It just needs to present a feasible economic plan that would improve the lives of the 99%. 

I see that Singh keeps Guy Caron close and that gives me hope that Caron will play a strong role in creating the platform particularly from an economic standpoint. 

That will be the moment to judge Singh and the party executive. 

Maybe I am being overly optimistic and you are all right and the platform will just be Liberal Lite again and Singh is a dud. As Sean noted there can be no leadership convention until after the next election. To think otherwise is folly. If Singh is as terrible  as  some of you think then he will crash and burn without any help. What is the benefit of assuming the worst now?

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:
 ..they underling theory behind your position re notley is that albertains and canadians are conservative/liberal and not ndp..as you have stated upthread. 

Not quite. I am not speaking of the parties when I say that Canadians are fiscally conservative. I mean they are "don't rock the boat" types that prefer a stable status quo or lower taxes but still support medicare and public education etc. They are risk adverse. They still aren't Conservatives because most Canadians have socially liberal views. Multiculturalism has fostered a live and let live attitude. There is no question of rolling back LGBTQ rights. The Liberal party melds what looks like economic conservativism coupled with a socially liberal approach. There is a reason they get elected so much. The Conservatives became less crazy because they don't threaten abortion rights or LGBTQ rights in Canada at any rate. It makes them even more the natural alternative to the Liberals which they have been since forever. There is a reason the Liberals and Conservatives have handed off power to each other since forever. The Canadian people are not the enemy but the phrase "know thine enemy" comes to mind in the sense that it is important to acknowledge where most Canadians are politicly. 

Many years ago I saw a program about a famous guest orchestra conductor. He said he aways began by following the orchestra in his conducting then bringing them from there to where he wanted them to be. We have to start by going to where people are then bringing them step by step to where we believe they should be. 

For example, to know what micro-aggressions are and understand the harm they do a person first needs a basic understanding of racism and how inequality is perpetuated. 

For example a great in against the trade deals is the ISDS. It's Canada insisting on it both with CETA and TPP. Canadians are massively against corporations being able to sue us. There is no left right and centre on this issue. Canadians are fairly united. Another one is privacy. C 51 has faded into the background but it is ripe for debate. Privacy issues are growing. There is a significant movement that would get behind the NDP on privacy rights. Pharmacare needs no explanation. The NDP should snap up everything that already has the majority support of Canadians. It's low hanging fruit. On defence spending increase it but focus it on defending our coasts and borders in particular the Arctic.  Radically increase our rescue capabilities as the resource can be used at home when not abroad. 

That's just off the top of my head, not an organized plan. My point is to forget about politics for a moment and just think about what can easily be changed that people want. Start there. Emphasize those issues. Then flesh out the rest of the platform remembering that it will all be attacked so less is more. The NDP has to prove itself with Canadians before it can be transformative. 

 

NorthReport
Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I totally gave up on the NDP when it voted to bomb Libya but I must say it is symbolic for me that Pondering has become a staunch NDP'er.

I love when people adopt their new religion with such fervour.

That isn't exactly the case. The NDP has always been my most natural choice. 2015 was an exception. Mulcair was politicaly tone deaf. Dissing Keystone in the US while promoting EE as a substitute pissed me off because I was against EE from the beginning. It surprised me that Mulcair  didn't know or underestimated the strength of opposition there would be against EE in Quebec. As if we would let a pipeline go through the province when we rejected fracking for oil due to the environmental threat. Then there was the reefer madness nonsense claiming we smoked the equivalent of oregano in the past not the oh so dangerous cannabis of today. There there was the Sherbrooke Declaration debacle and his failure to denounce the soccer hijab ban. It's not just that I disagreed with these positions is that I thought they were bad political decisions rooted 20 years in the past. In contrast Trudeau supported legalization, Quebec federalism, and didn't push EE. I believed Trudeau could oust the Conservatives and Mulcair could not. I never wavered even when Trudeau sank to 3rd position and Mulcair was riding high. 

I supported Caron for the leadership but Singh has won me over. I believe he is sincere, progressive, and has better political instincts than Mulcair had. I think he will be able to handle Trudeau and was the best of the bunch in the leadership candidates. Unfortunately I think the NDP is very poorly placed for this election. This isn't a change election. People will be sufficiently satisfied with Trudeau's economic performance to give him another majority. At worse he will win a minority. If the NDP can hold around 20% I will deem that a success and good enough to build on for 2023 and 2027. 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

 ..they underling theory behind your position re notley is that albertains and canadians are conservative/liberal and not ndp..as you have stated upthread. 

Not quite. I am not speaking of the parties when I say that Canadians are fiscally conservative.

..no that's not the comment i was i was referring to. maybe the comment was from another thread, things meld sometimes. then again maybe i just misread something. apologies pondering if i have erroded.

..the rest of my post stands though. 

..no that's not the comment i was i was referring to. maybe the comment was from another thread, things meld sometimes. then again maybe i just misread something. apologies pondering if i have errored.

..the rest of my post stands though. 

brookmere

Parkin: Not coincidentally, it was the same transformation John Horgan’s B.C. NDP achieved in its 2017 election. Singh played a considerable role there, too.

It's not the same transformation at all. The BC NDP has a long history of electing Indo-Canadian MLAs including Canada's first Sikh premier. Also, Singh didn't enter the leadership race until after the BC election and was little known in the province. He did come out to support a few candidates during the election campaign but I wouldn't say he had a "considerable" role in the NDP's gains. One could just as well say he was in BC to gain exposure for his own leadership campaign which began soon after.

 

NorthReport

Dosanjh and Rae - Canada’s media go to people when they want to trash talk the NDP

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

 ..they underling theory behind your position re notley is that albertains and canadians are conservative/liberal and not ndp..as you have stated upthread. 

Not quite. I am not speaking of the parties when I say that Canadians are fiscally conservative.

..no that's not the comment i was i was referring to. maybe the comment was from another thread, things meld sometimes. then again maybe i just misread something. apologies pondering if i have erroded.

..the rest of my post stands though. 

..no that's not the comment i was i was referring to. maybe the comment was from another thread, things meld sometimes. then again maybe i just misread something. apologies pondering if i have errored.

..the rest of my post stands though. 

Happens to me too. Canada is not nearly as polarized as the US. Canadians see our three parties as different but not radically so. All three parties cling to the centre because that is where most Canadians are. We are radically moderate. Part of the Conservative base is US style but not most of it which is why the Conservatives here can't do what Trump does. It would never fly in Canada. It would not have taken weeks to stop separating children from their parents here. 

In my view the NDP has to focus on big policy moves that would please Canadians not cater to all justice movements any more than justice movements should cater to a specific political party. The environmental movement in Canada does not care who is in power only what they do. If an NDP government makes the right environmental moves they are supported but the same goes for Liberal or Conservative governments. The goal of the environmental movement isn't to get the NDP elected. It is to force whomever is in office to priorize the environment. 

In fact the  Green party in BC is getting a lot of credit for forcing Horgan to stick with opposing the pipeline. I don't know if that is true or not, just that I have read it in several editorials. Horgan can't back down because the Greens would topple the government. 

Adopting a bunch of social movements in the hopes that the collection is enough to get elected is a losing strategy for the left. The path to power lies with the 99%. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

 ..they underling theory behind your position re notley is that albertains and canadians are conservative/liberal and not ndp..as you have stated upthread. 

Not quite. I am not speaking of the parties when I say that Canadians are fiscally conservative.

..no that's not the comment i was i was referring to. maybe the comment was from another thread, things meld sometimes. then again maybe i just misread something. apologies pondering if i have erroded.

..the rest of my post stands though. 

..no that's not the comment i was i was referring to. maybe the comment was from another thread, things meld sometimes. then again maybe i just misread something. apologies pondering if i have errored.

..the rest of my post stands though. 

Happens to me too. Canada is not nearly as polarized as the US. Canadians see our three parties as different but not radically so. All three parties cling to the centre because that is where most Canadians are. We are radically moderate. Part of the Conservative base is US style but not most of it which is why the Conservatives here can't do what Trump does. It would never fly in Canada. It would not have taken weeks to stop separating children from their parents here. 

In my view the NDP has to focus on big policy moves that would please Canadians not cater to all justice movements any more than justice movements should cater to a specific political party. The environmental movement in Canada does not care who is in power only what they do. If an NDP government makes the right environmental moves they are supported but the same goes for Liberal or Conservative governments. The goal of the environmental movement isn't to get the NDP elected. It is to force whomever is in office to priorize the environment. 

In fact the  Green party in BC is getting a lot of credit for forcing Horgan to stick with opposing the pipeline. I don't know if that is true or not, just that I have read it in several editorials. Horgan can't back down because the Greens would topple the government. 

Adopting a bunch of social movements in the hopes that the collection is enough to get elected is a losing strategy for the left. The path to power lies with the 99%. 

It isn't a choice BETWEEN the social movements and the 99%-and it's not as though that 99% of the population is united in opposition to or lack of need for, social movements; if that were the case, those movements wouldn't exist-It's possible to connect with both.  And none of the NDP's problems have ever come as a result of any attempts to engage with social movements, because the NDP has never EVER made such an attempt.

The social movements simply aren't to blame for any disappointing election results.  The "tone-deafness" you and I both decry in Mulcair was largely a result of his fixation with keeping the party a billion kilometres away from activism.   

What you do is to talk about inequality(which also means talking about corporate power AND class), AND, at the same time, make it clear that the NDP is a party in which you are welcome to work to get the party to support the causes you support.  The public isn't going to hold that against the NDP, so long as the NDP finally makes a clear and decisive break from its support for the neoliberal austerity consensus on economic policy and on social spending.  

As a historical example:

In 1988, the NDP started the campaign in second place, with 30% of the vote.  It had a great potential to grow from that(remember, at one point in 1986, the party had been at 40% support nationally and in the lead in Quebec).  The reason the breakthrough didn't happen-the vote share increased by less than 1% from 1984, and there was a trivially small 12 seat gain comparared to the massive breakthrough that could have occurred-was that Ed Broadbent refused to make the campaign a fight against NAFTA, and insisted, for no valid reason, on restating NDP support for the no-longer-necessary Cold War consensus by vowing to keep Canada in NATO if elected, while at the same time offering nothing on domestic issues but a general defense of the social welfare state.  In choosing timidity, in choosing "risk-aversion", Broadbent took away any possible reason for voters to swing from the PC's or the Liberals TO the NDP.  The status quo was preserved because the party did what you are still insisting it has to do today-keep it safe, keep it bland, keep the changes small.  

What, exactly, do you blame social activists FOR? 

My God...does this all go back to the October Crisis with you?

Do you hold every leftist who will ever be born for the fact that some leftists in 197o, before and ONLY before Cross and Laporte were kidnapped, not having any way of knowing what was about to happen, attended rallies in support of the FLQ?  I ask because it sometimes sounds as if that's where time stopped for you-as if you can't ever let what happened in 1970 go and will always use it as an excuse to treat the Left as the enemy, or at best to set yourself up as the Official Arbiter of the Left-Most Limits of Life.

Look, what happened to Laporte should not have happened.  Everybody agrees about that. But that was forty-eight years ago.  Next to nobody on the left of today was around then-and even those who were around then immediately and irrevocably broke with the FLQ.  Not only that, but there is nothing the left of 1970 could possibly have done to prevent the kidnappings or to prevent the death of Laporte.

And there's certainly nothing anybody who wasn't born in 1970 could have done to prevent those events.

Why does it seem to be so hard for you to accept any of that?

 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
What, exactly, do you blame social activists FOR?  

I would use the term credit not blame and I credit them for all the social advancements that have been made from women's rights to protecting the environment.

I go to the butcher for meat. I like meat and butchers. I go to pet shops for pet food. It's the right place  to go. I would have a problem with a pet shop and butcher in one shop. Each has its place. I am in favor of social movements. I have enormous respect for activists and the work they do. I have explained this before so please let it sink in. Activists=good. Social movements=good (usually). I consider myself firmly on the left.

Ken Burch wrote:
 It isn't a choice BETWEEN the social movements and the 99%-and it's not as though that 99% of the population is united in opposition to or lack of need for, social movements; if that were the case, those movements wouldn't exist-It's possible to connect with both.   

Right now for political parties it is not possible to both promote social movements and convince people you won't get carried away with tax and spend policies. It would suck all the attention away from the 99% issues. The media heads for whatever they can make the most controversial and they still favor the Conservatives. 

The results of the election are determined in the last few days when people tune in to decide before going  to vote although some do watch the debates. The time between elections is for image making and keeping your head down not presenting policy. The only thing getting through to the majority of swing voters is a vague impression of the leaders. Dion not a leader and Ignatieff just visiting worked because people don't pay that much attention to policy which makes it very easy to mislead them. They never even had a chance because nobody was interested in listening to them. The "type  of men" they were knocked them out of the running. Trudeau branded himself as a progressive good guy through feminism, support for indigenous peoples and marijuana legalization. He had the benefit of his name giving him air time to do it. Even though he was well-liked his numbers tanked and he dropped to 3rd place due to perceived lack of policy. In the background, although it was announced, he had a huge economic team working on his budget for a full year. They had multiple scenarios worked out because Trudeau's deficit declaration was a fairly last minute decision. 

The number one election issue is always the economy. Undeserved though it may be the NDP and the left in general have been painted as spendthrifts who can't be trusted with the public purse. 

The NDP will need an extremely credible economic plan and a tight short message or two that can be repeated so often you think you might gag if you hear it again. 

The NDP should steal one of Trudeau's stock phrases. They should say the middle class and those working to join it need Pharmacare etc.

Even though social movements try to gather support for their issue they don't care about votes. Political parties have to consider which hills they are willing to die on. If they try to be everything to everyone they fail. 

I said Trudeau was doing the right thing even when he dropped to 3rd place right before the election. If the NDP and Conservatives had known in advance that he was  going to announce a deficit the election might have gone differently. 

I recall Sean just after the election saying that people would catch on to the nature of Trudeau's "middle class" tax cuts. There were newspaper articles about it. People are not paying attention. That is why the messaging from the right is so effective. They keep it short and focused on as few issues as possible. 

 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The results of the election are determined in the last few days when people tune in to decide before going to vote although some do watch the debates.

 

Isn't it difficult for a party to win an election if it's lagging behind in popularity heading into the final weeks of an election?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

The results of the election are determined in the last few days when people tune in to decide before going to vote although some do watch the debates.

Isn't it difficult for a party to win an election if it's lagging behind in popularity heading into the final weeks of an election?

Yes, but there is danger in peaking too early and in showing your hand too early. Trudeau entered the election period in 3rd place. He won't be doing that again because he will be running in a different position and different time. The most frustrating thing about Mulcair is that he ran in a change election when men like Corbyn and Sanders were rising. Even though Layton brought the party more to the centre he would have recognized the opportunity to go left. He never would have let Trudeau outflank him. But that was 2015 against a Harper government that was long in the tooth. 

2019 is not a change election. It is rare for a PM not to get a second term. Numbers show Canadians are reasonably content and still see Trudeau as the best PM material by far against Scheer and Singh. Unlike Trudeau Singh is an unknown. Not only does he not have a famous father who is the favorite PM of recent history, he also wears a turban. 

I'm not saying Singh should wait until the last week of the election to reveal his platform. The platform is revealed in the buildup. The NDP is not going to win the election in 2019 and 2023 is a longshot. I think the goal for 2019 is to maintain as many seats as possible while presenting a solid alternative economic plan for Canadian prosperity. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

I recall Sean just after the election saying that people would catch on to the nature of Trudeau's "middle class" tax cuts. There were newspaper articles about it. People are not paying attention. That is why the messaging from the right is so effective. They keep it short and focused on as few issues as possible.

I still think this will happen more broadly. However, I think it has happened when it comes to the majority of those who speak about the tax cut, who are not directly partisan Liberals.

It is true that the truth usually comes out but it is also true that at times it happens so late that the issue is barely still being talked about.  I do think that if people were asked to think about it, they would not have the impression that they were being sold when it was first offered.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
It is true that the truth usually comes out but it is also true that at times it happens so late that the issue is barely still being talked about.  I do think that if people were asked to think about it, they would not have the impression that they were being sold when it was first offered.

I agree. Unfortunately people don't think about it. The NDP federal minimum wage was quickly considered a bait and switch because it was easy to explain and understand that it wouldn't apply to very many people. 

I totally agree that the left is, in broad strokes, correct about the problems we are facing and the solutions. Getting voters to listen long enough to understand is the issue we need to surmount somehow. The right found ways to get people to agree with them. The left has not. Sure mass media has a lot to do with that but it isn't the only reason particularly with the advent of social media and the rejection of traditional media sources. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

It is ridiculous to think that the Conservative steamroller will not crush all.

The polls are staying CAQ and CPC, and they will remain CAQ and CPC until the respective elections. Then the elections will come, and we will see massive majority CAQ and CPC governments. Learn it, live it, and love it. This is the democratic will of the people, and you are toast. There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. You had your chance for decades, and all you chose to do was destroy your own advantage through infighting. You were widely seen by the people as hating each other, so how could you be trusted not to hate the people?

This is a sea-change. People know that everyone acts in their own self-interest, including the Left. Over and over again, you will hear it from the Canadian masses. "You are only in it for yourselves. You are promising not to screw us, and you will screw us. The others are promising to screw us, and they will screw us. They are sincere. You are not."

You are beyond ridicule.

As the Left wants the most change, it means that the Left wants society to bend to the Left's self-interest more than anyone else. Personally speaking, members of the Left leave it to charities and religious institutions to actually help people in need. They lead demonstrations, based on guilt, against selected targets, when the real villain is their own self-interest.

If they organized to help the poor, they would not be needed politically, and hence they would not gain power. Therefore the Left has no interest in personally helping the poor. Instead, they want to force people who cannot afford to help the poor to do so.

"Dumb" voters have figured this out. Morality is the most immoral thing of all, as Nietzsche wrote. "Altruism" can be added to "Morality" as that which is immoral, as "Altruism" is about a feeble and ineffective attempt of "laying up your treasures in Heaven", for your own self-interest. When you enforce "Altruism" on others, you are nothing more than a tyrant of a very ancient kind.

Your job is to provide comfort and calm to suffering. If you do not do that, you are as useless as the mountains of plastic waste in Mumbai.

You will not do anything, however. So you will always remain on the outside, looking in, and avoiding the suffering as much as possible.

Pondering

Well that was pretty harsh. You are using too broad a stroke. What is true of some people on the left is not true of others. There are many non-denominational groups directly helping the poor. There are lawyers working probono. There are demonstrators giving their time and taking a personal risk in opposing Transmountain. I may answer in greater detail later. 

pietro_bcc

The problem with Singh's NDP is that its basically a continuation of Mulcair's time as leader, he doesn't represent change at all and the NDP remains center leaning slightly left. For example last night I saw Guy Caron on Power and Politics regarding the involvement of Canada in the Mali civil war. And instead of taking the left wing position that we shouldn't be sending troops to yet another quagmire, he was agreeing with James Bezan that we weren't sending enough soldiers to the war in Mali. Once again the NDP is attacking the Liberals from the right. Where is the anti-war choice that I can vote for?

Pondering

Canadians are not ready for the argument that we should withdraw from the UN. As members of the UN we contribute forces. This is a good example of the difference between social movements and politics. If the NDP takes on every issue they will make no impact on any because no one will be listening and the NDP would be lucky to hit 15%.

The NDP is absolutely centre left. Singh is left of Mulcair. I am happy Guy Caron is  high profile. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The NDP is absolutely centre left. Singh is left of Mulcair. I am happy Guy Caron is  high profile. 

It sounds to me like you think the NDP should be just a notch or two to the left of the Liberals?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

The NDP is absolutely centre left. Singh is left of Mulcair. I am happy Guy Caron is  high profile. 

It sounds to me like you think the NDP should be just a notch or two to the left of the Liberals?

Not exactly. I think the NDP should put blinders on and not look at the Liberals or Conservatives at all for a bit. Just look at Canadians and try to figure out a opening or a wedge, a means of disrupting assumptions and taking control of the conversation. Personally I think trade deals are the key. Then focus on the topic relentlessly in the hopes that the message will make it through to people. 

The message has to be short. 

I do think the NDP could use the help of activists and social justice movements but not directly by being involved with or pushing the NDP. Rather by educating people on the issues, such as trade deals, giving a party such as the NDP the opening to offer solutions to a receptive public. 

It is a catch-22 that a wealthy country like Canada that could easily afford to finance massive improvements is so comfortable that people don't pay attention and vote against their own self-interests. A country like Greece, whose citizens have awoken, is too poor to revolt. 

This brings me back around to the topic of manufactured consent recently mentioned by epaulo in a post I lost but thats a whole other conversation so maybe for a different thread. 

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

What do you mean the NDP should put blinders on? That is all they do! The Conservative steamroller is coming, because the so-called "Left" doesn't care about anyone but themselves.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

What do you mean the NDP should put blinders on? That is all they do! The Conservative steamroller is coming, because the so-called "Left" doesn't care about anyone but themselves.

Not blinders in general. Blinders are used for horses so they don't get distracted by things happening on the sides. Their vision is kept on the road ahead. The NDP should keep their focus on Canadians rather than on the Liberals and Conservatives (and the past) but not forever. Just while getting their platform together. Then of course they have to compare what they have to what the others of offering. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

What do you mean the NDP should put blinders on? That is all they do! The Conservative steamroller is coming, because the so-called "Left" doesn't care about anyone but themselves.

Not blinders in general. Blinders are used for horses so they don't get distracted by things happening on the sides. Their vision is kept on the road ahead. The NDP should keep their focus on Canadians rather than on the Liberals and Conservatives (and the past) but not forever. Just while getting their platform together. Then of course they have to compare what they have to what the others of offering. 

One of the major reasons Canada moved as far to the right as it did in the Eighties and Nineties was that the Right spent a LOT of time, when out of power, making a case for radical change.  At least in the short term, the Right "won the argument".  If they did, why do I get the feeling that not only do you think the NDP CAN'T win the argument, but that it shouldn't even be MAKING an argument?  

Do you really feel the party needs to leave the status quo narrative largely unchallenged?  If so, why?  And how does a party in the NDP's position make any progress By leaving the status quo narrative largely unchallenged?

 

Pondering

posted instead of previewing

pietro_bcc

Pondering wrote:

Canadians are not ready for the argument that we should withdraw from the UN. As members of the UN we contribute forces. This is a good example of the difference between social movements and politics. If the NDP takes on every issue they will make no impact on any because no one will be listening and the NDP would be lucky to hit 15%.

The NDP is absolutely centre left. Singh is left of Mulcair. I am happy Guy Caron is  high profile. 

The only reason we're sending troops to Mali isn't because we have to to remain in the UN, rather its so Trudeau could have his precious security council seat. The NDP should say to hell with the security council seat. While Trudeau is focused on killing people in Africa so he could have his prestige, the NDP is going to focus on improving the lives of Canadians. Play hardball, actually engage in politics if Singh thinks he'll become prime minister by backing up the conservative rhetoric against Trudeau than he'll be sorely mistaken.

If you actually poll Canadians, support for the war in Mali will be low, as will Canadians' concern with the security council seat. They care about healthcare, education and taxes.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Personally I think trade deals are the key. Then focus on the topic relentlessly in the hopes that the message will make it through to people. 

 

What sort of message do you think the NDP should be conveying about trade deals? I think Canadians in general are supporting free trade now that Trump is threatening to have a trade war with the whole efin world. He's even attacking Harley Davidson! I don't see the NDP rocking the boat concerning trade, especially in the current political climate. I think that under FPTP the NDP will almost by necessity continue to propose safe, mainstream, middle of the road, milquetoastian policies. I think if we a major political party to propose more radical policies we will have to establish electoral reform first.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Personally I think trade deals are the key. Then focus on the topic relentlessly in the hopes that the message will make it through to people. 

 

What sort of message do you think the NDP should be conveying about trade deals? I think Canadians in general are supporting free trade now that Trump is threatening to have a trade war with the whole efin world. He's even attacking Harley Davidson! I don't see the NDP rocking the boat concerning trade, especially in the current political climate. I think that under FPTP the NDP will almost by necessity continue to propose safe, mainstream, middle of the road, milquetoastian policies. I think if we a major political party to propose more radical policies we will have to establish electoral reform first.

The ISDS provision. Canadians are majority against it. They don't want corporations to be able to sue us. Canada seems to get sued more than it sues others. Trump doesn't want the ISDS provision. The ISDS provision is one of the sticklers with CETA as well. All Canada has to do is say yes, we will take it out. It would even be giving Trump a win. 

Lets have a conversation about how corporations play countries off against one another. We can add some rules about minimum taxation and taxes being paid in the country in which the profits are generated. Lets start adding inspection of factories for goods headed to Canada. We should have a minimum international standard on child labour and the most basic safety assurances that factories are not in danger of collapsing. We don't have to impose western standards but neither should we be accepting goods created through slave or child labour.  It is our responsibility to ensure that the factories we are buying from are being environmentally responsible within reason. That is, they don't have to adhere to our regulations but they can't be dumping raw sewage into the drinking water either. It's time for minimum world standards linked to trade. 

I think Canadians would be extremely supportive and the people of other countries would be very enthusiastic too. 

Cost of dollar store goods would go up a bit but few Canadians want to save 50 cents at the expense of child or slave labour or dangerous factories that could collapse on workers. 

Although I haven't looked at the Leap in years I recall it ending with some suggestions on the transition economy. 

The NDP is not going to win this election or even make much in the way of gains. At least it's unlikely. So I see this election as at best setting the party up for 2023 or at worst for 2027. 

When Trudeau declared his support for legalization Canadians did not support it in the majority although a majority did support decriminalization. Trudeau read the tea leaves and decided he could get ahead of the game because that is where opinion was headed and even those who didn't support legalization didn't necessarily feel strongly about it. It's just become so common it was inevidable. 

If the NDP accepts that the numbers in 2019 are not going to be good then it can play the longer game. What will the landscape be in 2023 and 2027? Where will the oil industry be? What will the housing situation be? What kind of work will be available for Canadians? In 23 and 27 Canadians should be able to look back and see that NDP policies would have led to better outcomes. 

Pages