NDP leadership race 4

1774 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Maybe you think I don't deserve respect, or maybe you think everything I had to say was worthless, but then why bother responding at all? Why be snide?  Did you not like this part of my post?

I just thought it was silly.  Nobody's "giving up".

Ponder the possibility that you don't think the NDP (and all the other parties, for that matter) deserve respect.

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
So Tommy Douglas, in opposition to deficits, was right-wing?

Tommy Douglas ran deficits. You or anyone else interested are welcome to argue whether this means Douglas was truly in opposition to deficits.

His policy was to run balanced budgets when feasible, which he did. This is something entirely different from running balanced budgets every year regardless of circumstances, and more so when combined with no personal income tax increases for anyone. And still more so when your level of government isn't receiving fiscal transfers from above.

This is accurate and well put. It is also sound policy. It has been articulated at times by the NDP -- although it was not listened to. Deficits are a finance tool and they need to be in the toolbox. Overused and they are not there when you need them.

Deficits do not have to be run all the time if you are honest about what you are doing and the revenue you need. Deficits are often the product of governments proposing unaffordable tax cut fantasies.

Sean in Ottawa

As for Singh being a boon for the Conservatives, the Liberals have a couple years left and can revist their broken electoral reform promise if they like. The NDP is not in it to fail so the Liberals can succeed so entitled Liberals need to think about that. If the Liberals are worried about a false majority CPC government they can talk to the NDP about reform to prevent that. They might even want to consider bringing in some more policies to help median and lower income Canadians rather than upper income people as they generally have been.

There are a number of policies the NDP and Liberals could agree on -- perhaps they should discuss them and build an agreement that the parties could work together if no false Liberal majority can be found.

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Maybe you think I don't deserve respect, or maybe you think everything I had to say was worthless, but then why bother responding at all? Why be snide?  Did you not like this part of my post?

I just thought it was silly.  Nobody's "giving up".

Ponder the possibility that you don't think the NDP (and all the other parties, for that matter) deserve respect.

You thought it was silly because you were nitpicking instead of reading for comprehension or you would realize I called Jagmeet Singh a credible leader. As I had pointed out Trudeau's strengths and the difficulty in beating him in 2019 I wanted to communicate that I still think the NDP can make huge gains. Can you honestly say there is a good chance of the NDP winning in 2019? I realize Trudeau went from 3rd to 1st in a matter of months so it is possible but possible and probable are not the same thing.  The NDP will certainly have to do much better than point at broken promises.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 As for Singh being a boon for the Conservatives, the Liberals have a couple years left and can revist their broken electoral reform promise if they like. The NDP is not in it to fail so the Liberals can succeed so entitled Liberals need to think about that. If the Liberals are worried about a false majority CPC government they can talk to the NDP about reform to prevent that.

Since Trudeau became leader of the Liberal party the only people talking about strategic voting are NDPers and Conservatives not Liberals. The Liberals have a majority government. They probably expect to get another one and I think they will succeed, not that I want them to.  They have no reason to negotiate with the NDP. I am not happy with the NDP

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 They might even want to consider bringing in some more policies to help median and lower income Canadians rather than upper income people as they generally have been.
I recall your posting something to the effect that once tax time rolled around people would realize that Trudeau had given the significant cuts to the upper middle class and the wealthy. Didn't happen. The big child tax credits or whatever they are called now has made them happy. People won't pay attention to the details. The only people reading the pundits opinions between elections are people into politics. Even during the election period a lot of people ignore the news and vote based on one issue or based on what they think of the person running.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 There are a number of policies the NDP and Liberals could agree on -- perhaps they should discuss them and build an agreement that the parties could work together if no false Liberal majority can be found.

It's not a false majority. Our system works by ridings which are not all equal. It was designed that way on purpose to balance the power of regions. PR would defeat that purpose. I do hope that BC manages to institute PR before the next election. I think provincially it could work well.

 

 

cco

Pondering wrote:

It's not a false majority. Our system works by ridings which are not all equal. It was designed that way on purpose to balance the power of regions. PR would defeat that purpose. I do hope that BC manages to institute PR before the next election. I think provincially it could work well.

Huh. I thought FPTP was inherited from the British, not designed by the fathers of confederation to create false majorities to "balance the power of regions", however you think that works. If there's a regional balancing element anywhere in the 1867 constitution, it's the Senate. How well did that work out? And if FPTP is needed to somehow balance regional power, why is it unnecessary in provinces? I'm guessing the Lower Mainland and Fort St. John have different interests, too.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Huh. I thought FPTP was inherited from the British, not designed by the fathers of confederation to create false majorities to "balance the power of regions", however you think that works.

Perhaps it was devised in Britain to similarly balance the power of regions.

But realistically, if "regions" are to have the same rights as "voters" or "citizens" then neither PR nor FPTP are appropriate -- both would need to make compromises that are the exact opposite of their intent.

You cannot say "everyone's vote should be equal and everyone's vote should count" and then pro-rate some votes to count more than others.

And you cannot say "every region should be equal and every region's interests should count" and then allow all citizens' votes to count equally.

What if we just stopped thinking that Thunder Bay has special needs that must be met by the electoral system?  What if we left regional concerns to the Provincial/Territorial governments and municipal governments?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Our system works by ridings which are not all equal. It was designed that way on purpose to balance the power of regions. PR would defeat that purpose. I do hope that BC manages to institute PR before the next election. I think provincially it could work well.

Historically our FPTP system has been favoured by the governing Conservatives and Liberals as FPTP establishes a two-party system. FPTP favours the top two political parties, in Canada's case at the federal level these parties have and continue to be the Conservatives and Liberals. The fear of splitting the vote under FPTP greatly hinders the establishment and viability of 3rd parties. It is no accident that the only time the Liberals favoured electoral reform was when they fell into 3rd place. Stephen Harper and other Conservatives also favoured electoral reform for a short time when Reform and the PC's were splitting the vote. If the Liberals were still in third place they would still support electoral reform. If Reform and the PC's were still splitting the vote, they too would still be supporting electoral reform. They don't support FPTP to give power to the regions; they support FPTP to give power to themselves.

Sean in Ottawa

It is true tht the Liberal Party itself is not presently speaking about strategic voting directly. But Liberal sycophants here are raising the fear that the NDP is some kind of boon or stalking horse for the Conservatives -- basically it is the same twisted argument using the broken promise of the Liberals' electoral reform to attack the NDP as a benefit for the Conservatives given the existence of the FPTP suystem. It is clear now that at least some Liberals here want to keep this system as a tool to use to muster support to the Liberals that might otherwise want to support other parties. They want people to forget electoral reform.

They also want people to think that middle class tax cut helped the middle, even as more and more people no longer associate themselves with the middle class. I suspect this move is in part due to the way the Liberals have identified the middle class by income at a level that is in fact where the upper middle to upper actually is. People are seeing they are not part of it. Sadly they do not, yet, realize that it is in fact the Liberals who have wrongly identified it and the real median income is still around $40,000. Many Canadians have realized that they are not in the mid class that the Liberals have identified but I am confident that they will discover soon that this definition is wrong. Then you can expect them to get rather angry if the Liberals have not done something to help the REAL middle by then.

As I see we are hearing here that the Liberal tax policies are so popular, I wonder why these articles have been written?

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/11/canucks-believe-middle-class-dream-...

https://globalnews.ca/news/3793205/canadians-middle-class-economic-futur...

This argument is coming from both right and left-- that the Liberals are not helping the middle so much as they say they are.

That said, the small business policies are likely popular among the left. It is the other tax policies that are ganing resentment-- even if there are no big news stories this is a steady drip as people realize they are not in the middle class as defined by the LPC and that those promises were not for them.

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet Singh is on video saying in 2015 that the NDP (then the official opposition) is the only party that can defeat the sitting government. That the NDP only needs 35 seats to win while the third party has no path to victory as they need over 100.

So now I'm not sure how Jagmeet can frame the next election as he said (on video) that it is next to impossible for the third party to win. Unless he does a mea culpa, which so far he hasn't.

pietro_bcc

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jagmeet Singh is on video saying in 2015 that the NDP (then the official opposition) is the only party that can defeat the sitting government. That the NDP only needs 35 seats to win while the third party has no path to victory as they need over 100.

So now I'm not sure how Jagmeet can frame the next election as he said (on video) that it is next to impossible for the third party to win. Unless he does a mea culpa, which so far he hasn't.

"Well Justin Trudeau did it in 2015, so clearly I was wrong about that." would be the approximate response if asked, which it won't.

Its such a nonissue that any mention of it by the Liberals would be laughable and pathetic.

Mighty Middle

pietro_bcc wrote:

Its such a nonissue that any mention of it by the Liberals would be laughable and pathetic.

Just like the Canadian public was laughing when the NDP made Justin Trudeau HOC attendance an issue for two years. It didn't make an impact at all!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:

Its such a nonissue that any mention of it by the Liberals would be laughable and pathetic.

Just like the Canadian public was laughing when the NDP made Justin Trudeau HOC attendance an issue for two years. It didn't make an impact at all!

Given that what the NDP said then didn't end up hurting YOUR party at all, why can't you let this go?  Why bear a grudge for a NON-injustice?

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

Given that what the NDP said then didn't end up hurting YOUR party at all, why can't you let this go?  Why bear a grudge for a NON-injustice?

The NDP needed to opt for a more authentic candidate, rather than “run the 2015 Justin Trudeau campaign in 2019.”

- Charlie Angus

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Mighty Middle, your campaign here amounts to "the NDP masturbates, even as they say they don't, and we all know that nobody else does".

I might have hoped you'd tire of it before the rest of us, but at this point I really wouldn't give a rat's ass if Rebecca elected to invoke the "no trolling" clause of the AUP.  You're not being honest any more.

JKR

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jagmeet Singh is on video saying in 2015 that the NDP (then the official opposition) is the only party that can defeat the sitting government. That the NDP only needs 35 seats to win while the third party has no path to victory as they need over 100.

It made sense to say this when the NDP was in first or second place in the polls while the Liberals were in third. Unfortunately the NDP election campaign team supported strategic voting during the election after the Liberals moved into first place and the NDP was in third and at that point it drove strategic voters to the Liberals.

Mighty Middle

Mr. Magoo if you don't like what I'm writing, just skip over my posts. It is that simple. You will avoid so much grief just putting me on ignore.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Given that what the NDP said then didn't end up hurting YOUR party at all, why can't you let this go?  Why bear a grudge for a NON-injustice?

The NDP needed to opt for a more authentic candidate, rather than “run the 2015 Justin Trudeau campaign in 2019.”

- Charlie Angus

Obviously people didn't agree with Angus' summation of Jagmeet Singh's strengths. Jagmeet Singh is authentic. The superficial similarities to Trudeau do not disqualify him. Angus may have lost votes for saying that about Singh. He was out of line and that statement proves that the NDP was right not to choose him. He plays old school politics and that just doesn't fly anymore. It's insulting to compare Jagmeet Singh to Justin Trudeau in terms of background and preparation for the role of party leader. Singh has a much stronger background. He is not lacking in authenticity just because he isn't an NDP antique.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jagmeet Singh is on video saying in 2015 that the NDP (then the official opposition) is the only party that can defeat the sitting government. That the NDP only needs 35 seats to win while the third party has no path to victory as they need over 100.

So now I'm not sure how Jagmeet can frame the next election as he said (on video) that it is next to impossible for the third party to win. Unless he does a mea culpa, which so far he hasn't.

Nobody but you cares. Voters don't remember what happened a few months earlier. They aren't going to remember or care what Jagmeet Singh said in 2015. If anyone brings it up Singh can point out that the Liberals did go from 3rd to 1st so obviously it can be done.

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

Obviously people didn't agree with Angus' summation of Jagmeet Singh's strengths. Jagmeet Singh is authentic. The superficial similarities to Trudeau do not disqualify him. Angus may have lost votes for saying that about Singh. He was out of line and that statement proves that the NDP was right not to choose him. He plays old school politics and that just doesn't fly anymore. It's insulting to compare Jagmeet Singh to Justin Trudeau in terms of background and preparation for the role of party leader. Singh has a much stronger background. He is not lacking in authenticity just because he isn't an NDP antique.

From wikipedia

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is an idiom commonly used that refers to any person or group who goes along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

It's not a false majority. Our system works by ridings which are not all equal. It was designed that way on purpose to balance the power of regions. PR would defeat that purpose. I do hope that BC manages to institute PR before the next election. I think provincially it could work well.

Huh. I thought FPTP was inherited from the British, not designed by the fathers of confederation to create false majorities to "balance the power of regions", however you think that works. If there's a regional balancing element anywhere in the 1867 constitution, it's the Senate. How well did that work out? And if FPTP is needed to somehow balance regional power, why is it unnecessary in provinces? I'm guessing the Lower Mainland and Fort St. John have different interests, too.

I should have said provinces not regions as Canada is a federation of provinces some of which joined based on the guarantee of voting power greater than their populations in the form of seats. In effect individual PEI votes are worth more than the votes of individual Torontonians because seats are not created based on population. They are assigned by province.

I didn't say FPTP is needed. I'm open to change if I am convinced it will lead to an improved outcome. I just don't see PR as putting more power in the hands of the people. I see it as putting more power in the hands of parties as they wheel and deal after every election. There are some great countries that use PR but there are some awful ones and mediocre ones too so PR is not some guarantee to a more enlightened government. I don't think the problems we are experiencing are due to the particular voting system we use. I think they are due to neoliberalism and lack of knowledge on the part of citizens.

I don't know how individual provinces distribute their seats. I believe Quebec gives more weight to rural votes. Even so I think PR at the provincial level might work. I hope that BC is successful in their bid to move to PR in part because we would have an example of how it plays in Canada provincially if not federally.

I'd like to try it in Quebec too. I think that it is less likely that we would end up with regional parties as in a Montreal party and a Quebec party. I would want a high threshold to gain a seat in order to prevent the rise of racist parties and the like while still allowing for parties like Quebec Solidaire to rise.

Even federally I was tentatively in agreement with Stephane Dion's PR system. I don't agree with parties getting "top up" seats that they select the candidates for. That seems to be the only system agreeable to most NDP supporters.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Obviously people didn't agree with Angus' summation of Jagmeet Singh's strengths. Jagmeet Singh is authentic. The superficial similarities to Trudeau do not disqualify him. Angus may have lost votes for saying that about Singh. He was out of line and that statement proves that the NDP was right not to choose him. He plays old school politics and that just doesn't fly anymore. It's insulting to compare Jagmeet Singh to Justin Trudeau in terms of background and preparation for the role of party leader. Singh has a much stronger background. He is not lacking in authenticity just because he isn't an NDP antique.

From wikipedia

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is an idiom commonly used that refers to any person or group who goes along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure.

I don't think anyone has been drinking any kool-aid but you are free to think so.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
t is true tht the Liberal Party itself is not presently speaking about strategic voting directly. But Liberal sycophants here are raising the fear that the NDP is some kind of boon or stalking horse for the Conservatives -- ...

The people here are nobodies. Nothing said can be attributed to the Liberal party in general or any other party for that matter. In my opinion there is very little evidence that people actually vote strategically in significant numbers. Trudeau specifically stated that he would never take that approach as it is weak. I believe him. It is a loser's argument.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
They also want people to think that middle class tax cut helped the middle, even as more and more people no longer associate themselves with the middle class. I suspect this move is in part due to the way the Liberals have identified the middle class by income at a level that is in fact where the upper middle to upper actually is. People are seeing they are not part of it.

I don't think they will care or even think about that. They will look to the money in their pockets from the child tax credit. Singles won't be any worse off. Most swing voters will vote based on who they think can best run the economy and the country.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Many Canadians have realized that they are not in the mid class that the Liberals have identified but I am confident that they will discover soon that this definition is wrong. Then you can expect them to get rather angry if the Liberals have not done something to help the REAL middle by then.

I don't think many swing voters will be paying any attention to that. Those voters that swung wildly between Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair in the eleven week campaign are not fact checkers.  Each one of them hit first place in the run up to the election.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
As I see we are hearing here that the Liberal tax policies are so popular, I wonder why these articles have been written?

Because political pundits have to say something. The only people paying attention are who most people would refer to as political junkies.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/11/canucks-believe-middle-class-dream-...

https://globalnews.ca/news/3793205/canadians-middle-class-economic-futur...

This argument is coming from both right and left-- that the Liberals are not helping the middle so much as they say they are.

Neither of those articles suggests that the people are holding Trudeau or the Liberals responsible for their situation. Nor does it mean they believe a different party would do better.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said, the small business policies are likely popular among the left. It is the other tax policies that are ganing resentment-- even if there are no big news stories this is a steady drip as people realize they are not in the middle class as defined by the LPC and that those promises were not for them.

What leads you to believe that is happening or that it will cause people to put their votes elsewhere? Trudeau is down in the polls but isn't that typical? Don't parties usually get a honeymoon boost after electing a new leader? People are pretty cynical. Told that Trudeau lied to them the reaction is likely to be "so what else is new? Politicians always lie or exagerate during campaigns." When the campaigns roll around they will first look to Trudeau to decide if he has done an adequate job of running the country regardless of which promises he kept or didn't keep. What will matter is overall job performance. They will then look at Sheer and Singh to decide if they think either of them would do a better job than Trudeau at running the economy or the country. Single term PMs are rare. To me the circumstances heavily favor Trudeau. I will most likely vote NDP to make a point or points regardless of their chances of winning in my riding.

I do hope that people do recognize the Liberal weaknesses but it will be of no use if the NDP performs as poorly as they did in 2015. I have high hopes for Jagmeet Singh but I don't underestimate Trudeau's strengths. It depends a lot on what kind of campaign the NDP comes up with and how well or how poorly the Trudeau government navigates NAFTA and other big deals. Much is determined by luck and timing.

Pages