NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh

300 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives win the day on climate change even if they only represent the 1 in 3 voters who think climate change is not a problem. That's how FPTP works when there are more than two political parties and the vote gets split. During the 2015 election the Conservative vote stayed mostly the same while the other voters fluctuated between the Liberals and NDP.

I am really tired of political junkies treaing politics as if there is a deep chasm between one political party on the right, 2 or more parties on the left, and that this chasm is so vast and so wide that there is no way a leftie could convince someone on the right to join their team. Let's look at Western Canada as an example. It used to be very strongly NDP. Then 1993 came along, and Reform was able to capitalize on the populist sentiment that the NDP once represented. Now this region is very staunchly Conservative. Furthermore, Conservatives are always trying to appeal to working people and presenting a populist face, while the left just ignores this region. That is a key reason why BC ridings that voted NDP in 2005 voted Liberal this time around in spite of their corruption and that the current NDP-Green coalition is hanging by a weak thread.

Please, can someone on the left come and talk to us Western Canadians? The Greyhound cuts are disproportionately hurting the smaller communities that are key to Conservative victory, and this is an issue just crying out for federal government intervention. Show these communities in clear terms why the public policy programme advocated by the Conservatives is failing, and then maybe we can elect good MPs who will stand up for the communities rather than having to be embarassed to be from this part of the country.

Aristotleded24

jerrym wrote:
Following each of the four elections that the Liberals have won since 1997 in which they campaigned on reducing emissions every time, greenhouse gas emissions have risen substantially despite these promises. Voting the same way and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity, especially when the Liberals adapt Harper's emissions standards, continue  their fossil fuel industry subsidies, provide exemptions on carbon pricing to the biggest greenhouse gas emiiters, and spend billions on fossil fuel projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Further to your point jerry, the Conservatives actually presented emission reduction targets in 2015, unlike the Liberals. If climate change was your issue, then an honest ranking of the parties on that issue would have placed the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals.

gadar
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I am really tired of political junkies treaing politics as if there is a deep chasm between one political party on the right, 2 or more parties on the left, and that this chasm is so vast and so wide that there is no way a leftie could convince someone on the right to join their team. Let's look at Western Canada as an example. It used to be very strongly NDP. Then 1993 came along, and Reform was able to capitalize on the populist sentiment that the NDP once represented. Now this region is very staunchly Conservative. Furthermore, Conservatives are always trying to appeal to working people and presenting a populist face, while the left just ignores this region. That is a key reason why BC ridings that voted NDP in 2005 voted Liberal this time around in spite of their corruption and that the current NDP-Green coalition is hanging by a weak thread.

I'm a political junkie who loves stats. I always have to check my own memories against the actual results. One needs to look at both the seats and the percentage of the vote to really get an idea of the history of voter swings. During the years that I volunteered in Burnaby-Douglas we saw voters mostly go back and forth between the Liberals and the Conservatives.  For a few elections in a row the most popular corporate party candidate was a Liberal and he out polled the Conservatives but not the NDP. When that individual was no longer running the race looked more like the rest  of the province in those days i.e. a battle between the Cons and NDP. In 2008 about 2/3's of the votes that left the Liberals went to the Cons and the NDP and Greens both gained about 17% each. I think that most voters switch back and forth between the Cons and Libs but there is a minority that switch between the Libs and NDP/Green.

The NDP lost its BC vote by adamantly taking the wrong side of the Constitutional Referendum.  BC voters, like in Quebec, said no way leaving the Centre of the Universe led NDP on the wrong side of history and the majority of NDP voters.

 

 

JKR

It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

When Conservative voters are treated as this evil unreachable brand of voters by the left, resulting in the left not even trying to talk to them, does that come as a surprise?

JKR

When has the left treated Conservative voters as being an evil unreachable brand of voters? When has the left not tried to talk to them? In the last election the NDP even included a pledge to maintain balanced budgeting to attract conservative voters. They also soft pedalled changing Cannabis laws. What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
When has the left not tried to talk to them?

I think the left is happy to talk TO them, but rarely WITH them.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:
It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

The dynamics of each province are different but I still think that in actual elections the most common swings are back and forth between Liberal and Conservative candidates.That is if you only look at those that actually switched in an election not what random Canadians told pollsters they would do if they ever did switch.

In the 2015 election the Conservatives in BC and went from 45.5% to 30% in Ont they went from 44.4% to 35%. Drops of 15.5% and 9.6%. The NDP dropped from 32.5% to 25.9% in BC and from 25.6% to 16.6%. Drops of 6.6% and 9%. The Liberals went from 13.4% in BC to 35% and 25.3 to 44.5% in Ont. Gains of 21.6% in BC and 19.2%.

So to recap. In BC the Liberals gained 21.6% and the Conservatives lost 15.5% and the NDP lost 6.6%. In Ontario the Liberals gained 19.2%  and the Conservaitves lost 9.6% and the NDP lost 9%.

I guess it shows that in BC about two thirds of voters that swing go between the two corporate parties. In Ontario it seems to be less pronounced.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
When has the left treated Conservative voters as being an evil unreachable brand of voters? When has the left not tried to talk to them? In the last election the NDP even included a pledge to maintain balanced budgeting to attract conservative voters. They also soft pedalled changing Cannabis laws. What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

Platform schmatform. Nobody believes politicians these days. Party platforms are great to use as garden fertilizer, but that's about it. I'm talking about starting by having a presence in these communities, along the lines of the Lethbridge Declaration that Niki Ashton proposed in her 2012 NDP leadership campaign. Guy Caron also understands the importance of courting rural voters.

Let's compare countries. In Canada, the left and the NDP has had almost no presence in the small-c conservative areas for at least a decade. In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns. Now in Canada, large chunks of the West and Ontario are safe Conservative seats, out of reach for anybody. In the US, the Democrats are becoming more competitive in red states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. So which of these 2 approaches do you think works?

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
When has the left treated Conservative voters as being an evil unreachable brand of voters? When has the left not tried to talk to them? In the last election the NDP even included a pledge to maintain balanced budgeting to attract conservative voters. They also soft pedalled changing Cannabis laws. What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

Platform schmatform. Nobody believes politicians these days. Party platforms are great to use as garden fertilizer, but that's about it. I'm talking about starting by having a presence in these communities, along the lines of the Lethbridge Declaration that Niki Ashton proposed in her 2012 NDP leadership campaign. Guy Caron also understands the importance of courting rural voters.

Let's compare countries. In Canada, the left and the NDP has had almost no presence in the small-c conservative areas for at least a decade. In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns. Now in Canada, large chunks of the West and Ontario are safe Conservative seats, out of reach for anybody. In the US, the Democrats are becoming more competitive in red states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. So which of these 2 approaches do you think works?

I think one important difference between the US and Canada is that in the US the Democrats are the default party of the left while here in Canada federally the Liberals are the default party of the left. The Republicans are in control of government in the US and are failing in very many respects so naturally the Democrats are benefitting there by default. Here in Canada the Liberal government's failures are benefitting the Conservatives, the other default party in Canada. Unfortunately this is how our two-party FPTP system seems to be working in Canada at the federal level and how the two-party FPTP system works in the US.

Aristotleded24

What does FPTP have to do with the fact that the left routinely ignores small and rural communities where the Conservatives tend to dominate?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

No more immigrants.  Reconsider equal marriage.  Support our troops.

That's where the parley goes pear shaped.  It's easy to imagine a meeting of the minds if all you're going to talk about is how the elites are taking their munnee, but there's a lot more on people's minds than just economics.

cco

Under FPTP, it's a waste of time and money to campaign in a riding the Conservatives are going to win by 50 points. Under PR, every vote counts (yes, give or take the details of the system), so there really is a point in the left appealing to small and rural communities as well as major cities.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns.

Sanders was running for the Democratic nomination. Each state with a given population counts just as much as any other regardless of how the general election vote goes. In fact, as far as bang for the buck goes, campaigning in states where the Democrats are weak is more effective since there are fewer Democratic voters who have to be won over.

Regarding Democratic gains in those states cited, most of it is due to the increasing Hispanic population and the Republicans' abandonment of that constituency under Trump, a complete reversal from their strategy under the Bushes. There is no way the Conservatives or Liberals are ever going to stop courting minority groups, although the Conservatives are willing to write off some smaller ones such as blacks or First Nations.

gadar

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

No more immigrants.  Reconsider equal marriage.  Support our troops.

I agree, there is a group which does not have a political home currently. This group ends up with the Cons by default. 

A SoCon party with progressive economic agenda has a future in Canadian politics. 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:
It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

The dynamics of each province are different but I still think that in actual elections the most common swings are back and forth between Liberal and Conservative candidates.That is if you only look at those that actually switched in an election not what random Canadians told pollsters they would do if they ever did switch.

In the 2015 election the Conservatives in BC and went from 45.5% to 30% in Ont they went from 44.4% to 35%. Drops of 15.5% and 9.6%. The NDP dropped from 32.5% to 25.9% in BC and from 25.6% to 16.6%. Drops of 6.6% and 9%. The Liberals went from 13.4% in BC to 35% and 25.3 to 44.5% in Ont. Gains of 21.6% in BC and 19.2%.

So to recap. In BC the Liberals gained 21.6% and the Conservatives lost 15.5% and the NDP lost 6.6%. In Ontario the Liberals gained 19.2%  and the Conservaitves lost 9.6% and the NDP lost 9%.

I guess it shows that in BC about two thirds of voters that swing go between the two corporate parties. In Ontario it seems to be less pronounced.

The disconnect between polls that suggest to some people that the switchers are NDP-Lib and what you are saying is that these polls are not about switchers but the parties people say they will consider or parties they name as a second choice.

The majority in each party do not switch but when a pollster asks them to say what their second choice is the NDP and Liberals may name each other or the Greens to avoid naming the Conservatives. Most of these people may say they are open to the other or may say that they this is the second choice. This is an indication that many Liberals see the Conservatives as below second choice and the NDP as the second choice. Most of those voters don't actually switch.

So the the majority of Liberals may have the NDP as their second choice but actually never switch while the actual switching goes on among the minority of Liberals who participate in Con-Lib switching.

This is the conclusion you draw when you place the results of switching next to the polls of second choice.

I have named second choice to a pollster many times -- but have never ever voted for my second choice -- so far.

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
Under FPTP, it's a waste of time and money to campaign in a riding the Conservatives are going to win by 50 points. Under PR, every vote counts (yes, give or take the details of the system), so there really is a point in the left appealing to small and rural communities as well as major cities.

That is a complete misunderstanding of what I am saying. Political campaigns only happen every few years. I'm talking about what goes on in between the campaigns, on the ground on a daily basis. What are left-supporters in the smaller communities even doing in the mean time? Are they organizing around important issues? Maybe they can raise funds by selling t-shirts about something. Heck, maybe even rent a community hall for a social event that tells other lefties that they are not alone and the non-lefties that they are there. I'm not saying these are the perfect magic bullets, but throwing out some ideas. What is the party infrastructure doing during this time? Are they actively trying to nurture grassroots community support, or just relying on flash and image to get them through each election cycle?

Aristotleded24

brookmere wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns.

Sanders was running for the Democratic nomination. Each state with a given population counts just as much as any other regardless of how the general election vote goes. In fact, as far as bang for the buck goes, campaigning in states where the Democrats are weak is more effective since there are fewer Democratic voters who have to be won over.

Actually during the Primaries, Sanders lost by large margins in states like Texas and South Carolina. The Sanders campaign made many calculations about which states to campaign in and which ones to write off in 2016. It was only after the election was over when he had the freedom to travel the country and meet with people and really listen without the pressure cooker of an election campaign that his ideas were slowly able to percolate.

brookmere wrote:
Regarding Democratic gains in those states cited, most of it is due to the increasing Hispanic population and the Republicans' abandonment of that constituency under Trump, a complete reversal from their strategy under the Bushes. There is no way the Conservatives or Liberals are ever going to stop courting minority groups, although the Conservatives are willing to write off some smaller ones such as blacks or First Nations.

The Conservatives did write off First Nations, you're correct about that. The percentage of the population that is First Nations is also growing on the Prairies. Now outside the large metropolitan areas and the far north, how many rural Prairie seats did the Conservatives lose?

My point about going into the communities and talking to people (especially outside of an election time where you have much more time to build meaningful relationships) still stands.