PM and Ignatieff 'saved the NDP from itself'

bashing the NDP is easy ink to pour for the globe.

ya, big shock. it's a weird fetish; some people seem to join the NDP with the sole end-game of beating their chest as they leave at some point in the future.

this is honestly the first i've heard of it, aside from michael byers suggesting it at one point before the last election (i think?). i've long been on the record suggesting "social democratic party of canada". is it the biggest thing? to me, no. i get the arguments for keeping it (tradition, established brand), and i get those for change (at a certain point, you aren't new anymore).

i will agree it's a little disonnant considering part of the branding in the last campaign was jack's inflection on "canada's new democrats." that said, it's hard to come across a new democrat who doesn't have some kind of opinion on the issue and, funny as it sounds, it is something that casual political observers seem to be interested in. you have no idea the amount of people who have asked me (knowing my partisan leanings) "when are you gonna get rid of the new, anyways?"

i am sure that factor will get a lot of play in the media, yes.  obama's popularity with canadians is obviously one part of that. on the other hand, is a fourty-eight year old party

(not counting the preceding ccf)  taking out the new really shocking or out of place? the "new" is after less essential to the brand that the "democratic". might finally making up for starting off calling ourselves the "new party". oh, that was just not good.

if this is an actual debate. like i said, first i've heard of this.

I think it needs to get changed to something, since the party's not exactly new anymore, but I don't like just Democratic Party. First I've heard of a name change coming up at the convention.

Gee, from the headline I thought it was a Chantal Hebert column.

Changing the name to the Democratic Party would be the best thing the NDP could do.

The Liberal Party would have much to fear from this.

I'd prefer the Progressive or Social Democratic Party.  One Democratic Party is more than enough.

As for this: 

"No new public policy ideas will be introduced." That pretty much has been the hallmark of the NDP lately. Particularly in its failure to take advantage of the current economic crisis.

Its worth noting that Gerry Caplan has no idea what goes on within the NDP.

When he says "no new ideas will be introduced" at Convention he may well be right. Anyone who spews is going to be right some of the time.

Caplan has been writing the same column about the NDP for the past decade (so has Jim Laxer, another spurned former insider).

Here's the short version: "Wah! The NDP no longer asks me for advice."

When Caplan WAS running the party, it wouldn't have been too much of a stretch to call him a "self-loving communication type" with "nary a piece of substance".

It's hard to take him seriously now.  I don't need advice from Gerry Caplan on how to make the party more democratic or relevant.

"No new public policy ideas will be introduced." That pretty much has been the hallmark of the NDP lately. Particularly in its failure to take advantage of the current economic crisis."

So, I'm curious, if I could wave a magic wand and make anyone reading this the top strategist in the NDP what would be your strategy for how to "take advantage" of the current economic crisis?? I think the problem is that right now governments and parties of all political persuasions are in a quandry because no one has an answer (and maybe there isn't an answer) to the economic crisis. I suppose the NDP can say let's "tax and spend" even more than the current government is - but that doesn't seem like all that compelling a message. The trouble is that on many of the really big issues, the parties are all in agreement - for example the huge bailout of GM etc... was barely discussed in parliament because each of the parties has its own reasons for not being able to be seen to be opposing it etc...

It would be a different story if this was a seen as a "made in Canada" recession and if there were specific policies enacted by the federal government that were clearly linked to it. For example, if Harper had brought in some massive deregulation of the financial sector when he first came to power and all of sudden we had some of the chartered banks faling etc... harper would be in deep shit - but there is no smoking gun of that kind. It also would have been different if Harper and Fleherty had not brought in that ridiculous fall economic statement and had just let sleeping dogs lie and had then brought in a spring budget that was almost devoid of any stimuls spending at all - then the NDP (and the Liberals for that matter) could have screamed bloody murder at how Canada was doing NOTHING about the economic crisis. But instead, Harper has essentially co-opted the Liberals and its a challenge for the NDP to come up with a "big bang" economic policy that really stands out from what everyone else is saying.

If anyone has any ideas, let's hear them.

Back to Mr. Caplan's article:

You know, one of the toughest challenges people seem to face after working in roles like "national campaign director" is finding a way not to be a burden on your successors. It's striking how difficult this seems to be for some folks. It is possible, I think, to be critically constructive (tories and liberals seem capable of this) -- and still do your part to build the party. This seems like a more honourable way to serve out your retirement than dancing as a monkey to organgrinders for the other side.

"I suppose the NDP can say let's "tax and spend" even more than the current government is - but that doesn't seem like all that compelling a message."

That statement pretty much sums up the state social democratic parties, for the most part, are in. It's wrong on so many levels. It accepts the right wing construct that any increase in taxes and any increase in social spending is "tax and spend." Even more amazingly, it assumes that the Harper government is a "tax and spend" government, accepting the perjorative nature of the term. But when you're wedded to a balanced budget theology, I guess that's what happens. Finally, it implies that the NDP should not be in favor of increasing taxes on the well-to-do, either through a hike in the income tax or institution of an inheritance tax, and using the proceeds for needed social spending. If a social democratic party is not for that, I don't see what it's purpose is.

The purpose of a social democratic party is to keep tweeking the system to forestall actual revolution. 

They usually end up doing more for the rich, who certainly don't appreciate them, than they do the exploited, who generally don't appreciate the small tweeks they get from social democratic parties.

Maybe Caplan should be a delegate to the convention and put forth some of his own policy ideas - that is if he actually has any.

Josh, I don't disagree with you about raising taxes on the wealthy and expanding government etc...but these are policies that I would support whether the economy was booming or in a depression - but I still don't see how you can sell inheritance taxes as a way to bring the economy out of recession.

Stockholm, those policies are worth advancing regardless of the economic conditions.  And at minimum, there should be a call for a larger stimulus, a government jobs program, and tighter regulation of, and control over, the financial system.  And there should not be one word about budget deficits.  No repeats of this wonderful statement:

NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the government of creating structural deficits; an opinion that was echoed by economists, who said pulling the country's finances back into the black will be difficult.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090527/deficit_shocker_090527/20090527?hub=CTVNewsAt11

In a recession/depression, you need deficit spending. Even at the risk of "structural" deficits, whatever that means. I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out to the leader of a supposedly social democratic party.

How about the Neo-Liberal Party, lol.

First of all there is nothing wrong with being fiscally responsible and at least trying to balance the budget. It has been pointed out numerous times that Tommy Douglas ran 16 balanced budgets in a row in Saskatchewan.

Layton is right about there being a structural deficit - which is a problem. Of course a large part of the cause of that structural deficit is the fact that Harper (like his Liberal predecessors) cut deeply i nto government revenues with massive corporate tax cuts and then he made things even worse with that utterly useless two percent cut to the GST.

I think its perfectly valid to mock "former insiders" who write a whole column full of trite potshots and don't offer a single solitary piece of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. As Brian Topp pointed out, when you get Liberal and Tory "former insiders" asked to comment, they will typically have plenty of criticism of what their respective parties are now doing - but then they will spend a lot of time describing what they think their party ought to be doing instead. Caplan does none of that - his only suggestion (if you can call it that) is to hire some new strategists.

I'm not impressed

So?  Governments shouldn't be running surpluses.  And there's nothing wrong with the cut in the GST except that it was not coupled with an increase in taxes on the wealthy.

They should run surpluses so they can have a nest egg to use to run deficits during economic downturns. You said "paging John Maynard Keynes". Well you can't "page Keynes" when you want to support running deficits during a recession and then "unpage Keynes" when it comes to his belief in running surpluses during times of economic growth.

Wait a minute.  You complained I wasn't addressing what to do during the recession.  When I did, you complain I'm not addressing what to do during non-recessionary times.  You keep moving the goal posts.

And why can't I pick and choose?  Just because he was right about one thing doesn't mean he was right about everything.  Governments should never run surpluses.  The money should either be spent or taxes on middle and lower income taxpayers cut.

Of course, if you frame it that way.  Rather than framing it as a means to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Who said anything about running deficits forever?  And the U.S. has run deficits for 35 out of the last 40 years without hyperinflation.

If you never, ever run a surplus and never ever pay down any national debt whatsoever - then that implies that government should run deficits every year until the end of time. In general I am in favour of deficit financing, but at some point the chickens will come home to roost and you will start getting compounding interest payments and downgraded credit ratings and if you ignore that then eventually you default on your payments and the IMF starts running the country.

Money has to come from somwhere. If you want to raise taxes to pay for programs then fine. But you can't just print monopoly money to pay for things.

"First, it's debatable whether Keynes was "right" about anything at all. Second, if A requires B in order to function properly, you can't very well "pick and choose" if you want A to work, now can you? Third, how do you propose to get rid of the debt that has been run up through years of deficit financing? (I always find it funny how many NDPers support enriching bankers and foreign currency speculators by paying them more and more interest). Fourth, the US did not have hyperinflation but they certainly suffered through stagflation in the 1970s and 1980s, so it's not like there was no price to pay for endless deficit spending in good economic times."

A doesn't require B in this instance in order for a properly functioning economy.  Balanced budgets doesn't mean surpluses.  Debt is not a problem per se, as long as it is kept in manageable proportions.  Interest on the debt can be a problem depending on the interest rate environment.  Deficits were not responsible for stagflation.  The oil shocks of the early and late 70s were.  The U.S. ran big deficits from the 1983 to the late 90s with one, relatively mild, recession, and little or no inflation.

And again, Stockholm raises the strawman of perpetual deficits. 

The inflation was mild compared to double-digit inflation that followed the oil shocks.

Might I suggest Brad Lavigne for the role? I believe he's the kind of problem insider that Caplan is addressing - and I believe Caplan has a point.

You can't have someone who is a current insider because then all you are going to get are partisan talking points. If you had Brad Lavigne, then you would need the others to be Korey Teneycke and whoever is Iggy's latest mouthpiece.

Scott Reid WAS an insider under Martin, now he works independently can is willing to provide constructive criticism of the Liberals and the same goes for Greg Lyle. If the Globe wanted someone with an NDP background who was involved at the highest levels in the relatively recent past and who is no longer on the party payroll - maybe get someone like Jamey Heath - or someone who was an insider during the MacDonough years.

Maybe the reason the Globe keeps going back to Caplan is because he is the only person they can find who has an NDP pedigree who is willing to do the Globe's bidding by posting a column that is just a bunch of gratuitous cheap shots and nothing of any substance. Brian Topp was dead-on when he conjured up the image of Caplan as a dancing monkey for the rightwing organgrinders who own the Globe.

A couple of random points after joining the conversation late:

 * You can't blame the Globe for going to Gerry Caplan.  There's basically him, Les Campbell, Doug McArthur and Joy MacPhail who have that level of experience and are able to write partisan things they can sign their names to publicly.  It's a big problem for our party that a lot of our best thinkers are not in that same position.  Brian Topp could, but then it's maybe not all that advisable that he publicize his thinking on these matters either, is it?  [ETA: written, obviously, before I was able to read Stock's comments in the meanwhile.]

 * I hope the party IS talking to Gerry Caplan, or if they're not, they ought to be.  He's done a lot of great work in Africa, for example, on the CBC, and probably lots of other stuff I don't know about.  He ran the 1984 "ordinary Canadians" campaign which saved our bacon as a party, at a time when we were in danger of being swept away after Jim Laxer's rather public defection hurt us badly.  Since then, however, and I mean particularly since Ignatieff walked away from the coalition, Laxer has been pretty kind to Layton and what he tried to achieve with that.  We ought to maintain a dialogue with Laxer as well (and in spite of some of my earlier frustrations with him, which may have been similar to what Scott articulated above).

 * On the other hand, I do think it was a cheap shot to write, in response to being asked "WHAT SHOULD THE PARTIES BE DOING?' to say "they ain't doin' nuthin' and I have nuthin' to add about that".  In that sense I do believe Gerry copped out.

 * Meanwhile, though, Gerry wouldn't be the first person to say that policy is an area that still needs work.  I was encouraged to see some of the postings for senior Research and Policy positions that came out of the caucus in the post-election period.  Remember that back when Gerry was Federal Secretary (now National Director), we had a pretty large NDP Research Group, which attracted some pretty bright lights, and who maintained on-going relationships with academics, policy groups, and activists.  ALL that was lost in 1993 when we lost official party status, and we did not have a large enough caucus after either 1997 or 2000 to bring that back up to full strength.

 * The parties also operate in a VERY different environment now from what Gerry remembers in the 1980s ... a 24-hour news cycle, 5 parties rather than 3, tiny news bureaus on the Hill who don't have policy experts to cover stories (and papers who wouldn't carry the stories anyway), and a TON more lobbyists.  A Commons committee that would once meet for 3 hours, with many rounds of questioning from fewer parties' MPs, now runs for an hour or hour and a half tops, with 5 minute rounds of questioning and multiple competing agendas from the 4 parties represented.  The Canadian Press used to have a huge Ottawa bureau, with many specialized beat reporters who each regularly covered their respective committees and beats.  Those days are long gone, and anyways half the news outlets don't even take CP anymore.

I don't have strong feelings either away on the name thing, and I can see the arguments for both sides.  I'm pretty sure Layton is ambitious enough not to have an entire convention built around that one thing though, for goodness sakes.  However, it will be an issue to get some of the national media out east to cover it if we don't drum up some pretty big news, because they simply don't have the budgets anymore.

If Gerry is not participating in the party so much these days, then his main source of information on what we're doing is through his contacts and what he reads in the Toronto papers and sees on the CBC.  Thus, he's getting what we've been able to get through those filters, and perhaps that's the message that's arriving at the other end.  Which, if so, is problematic and we have to work with what exists to do better.

Certainly, as I said elsewhere, my own riding met last week and considered 15++ resolutions on topics ranging from mentorship programs for foreign trained professionals, decriminalizing recreational drug production and use, preservation of fresh water, stopping the bargain basement sale of Crown assets, the Middle East, corporate social responsibility, etc., etc.  The name change was one of them (we approved a process and deadline for changing it, rather than a specific name).  Everyone agreed it was one of the best and wide-ranging policy discussions in a long time.

So, I'm upbeat, but not a Pollyanna.  My glass is half full, in other words.

It's hard to take seriously the criticisms of someone whose claims are demonstrably factually inaccurate, as some of Caplan's are.  Is the NDP in trouble?  Well, its vote share is higher now than it has been at any time since Ed Broadbent was the party's leader, and it's stayed at roughly the level of support that both David Lewis and Tommy Douglas were able to achieve.  So if the party is in trouble now, then the party has always been in trouble. 

As for the idea that "social democrats everywhere" are in trouble, that's plainly not true.  In Sweden they have more seats than any other party, as they do in Norway and Germany.  They're only one seat behind the main party in Denmark, and they're the official opposition in France.  While the political systems in South Africa and India are obviously quite different than the ones in the industrialised West, the parties leading both of those countries also have socialist leanings.  "Social democrats everywhere" are not even close to being in trouble.

Shows how much you know about the workings of the NDP - Jamey Heath hasn't been involved since the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election and Pierre Ducasse's role was heavily downgraded after the arrival of Mulcair two years ago.

I'm not sure what exactly Caplan wrote that you agree with since I don't recall Caplan (for all his faults) ever counselling the NDP to read Quebec the "riot act" and position itself as the party of Trudeauite centralism.

The online editor is Adam Radwanski.  And they don't pay.

You must have read a completely different book than Heath wrote - as I expect he would be rather unpleasently surprised by your incorrect characterization

Actually Heath's book was so badly written that I would have a hard time characterizing it at all.

Presumably then you believe that the NDP has never been taken seriously, since their election results in the past couple of elections have been pretty much where the party has always been electorally.  It's dangerous to start projecting your own feelings about an issue onto the public at large.

The debate was never as one-sided over Quebec as it is now, since there were always formerly those within the party who correctly viewed Quebec nationalism as a regressive force, and in case you didn't know it, the two nations theory of Canada had several permutations, and in its original formulation did not speak of Quebec as one of the two nations, but of French Canadians as one of two nations, which is a whole other matter.  No-one can fairly oppose the existence of a Quebec nation, but saying that Quebec is a nation (which is what Layton agreed with the Bloc Québécois), without the consent of the native populations who live on two thirds of the province's territory, is simply unjust.  More important, playing up the nationalist/decentralist point of view merely contributes to justifying the very policies -- i.e. all the cuts to national social infrastructure -- which have harmed the poor and middle classes.  It says to Canadians in each province: just send MPs to Ottawa to get the "butin", one-off payments such as the faux deal on the supposed fiscal disequilibrium, while turning attention away from more important evils such as "sound finance", poor monetary policy, and the decline in national social programs and approaches.

I think that the NDP is taken less seriously by more of the population, but now benefits from temporary rises in its stature because of the kind of shallow, electoralist politics it engages in.  There is no doubt that these have a certain short-term effectiveness, but only in encouraging short-term protest voting.  That kind of voting is unstable and will never be enough to put the NDP over the top.  And in any case, the party that results is one that no longer speaks to the actual issues or needs of Canadians. In these recessionary times, the national NDP has to show itself to be more radical and less centrist -- it has to be proudly socialist. 

dupe sorry

If you want a party that is rigidly centralist and opposed to any autonomy at all for Quebec, then I suggest you forget about the NDP and give Justin Trudeau a call and see about staging a hostile (or maybe not so hostile) takeover of the Liberal Party.

"The accomplishment (for the Liberals) is avoiding an election until such time that they can defeat the Conservatives - i.e. when party fundraising and poll numbers improve."

I'd like to see your reaction if the NDP announced that its definition of a great accomplishment was to avoid an election until such time that they can make major gains - i.e. when party fundraising and poll numbers improve.

Its not exactly an "accomplishment" for the Liberals to avoid an election - all they have to do is to keep on systematically supporting Harper on every single confidence vote and they can avoid an election until 2013!!

Let's face it. The Liberals would like NOTHING BETTER than for the NDP to start playing footsie with Harper so that they could then switch places with the NDP and start voting non-confidence on everything and accusing the NDP of being in bed with the Tories etc... instead they are stuck with a bad case of penis envy like children pressing their little faces against the glass window of the candy shop watching the NDP do what the Liberal sonly WISH they could do - vote against the Tories. If your so sure that the NDP is afraid of an election then all the Liberals have to do is call the NDP's bluff and say they will vote down the government and sit back and let the NDP save their bacon by not showing up at the vote - but of course the Liberals have never done that because in the final analysis they know that they (the Liberals) are more averse to an election than the NDP is - and so this dance continues.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If some (very few) people think the NDP is making itself "irrelevant" because it keeps voting against Conservative bills - then it begs the question - what would make the NDP "relevant". The obvious answer to these people is that the NDP should start mindlessly voting for all Conservative bills to free up the Liberals to start voting against the government instead of enduring the daily humiliation of propping them up as they do now.

I'm sorry but its not the NDP's responsibility to save the Liberals from being embarrassed.

The vision of confederation you are suggesting would resonate with a few people in Toronto and Ottawa as well as with non-francophones in Quebec and with no one else. It would be a recipe for disaster - even the Liberals (who are traditionally associated with that view) dare not touch it with a ten foot pole now.

While your vision guarantees that the poor will remain poor and that we will do nothing about climate change.

Bizarrely put, but somewhat apt.  It's all a game for both parties - neither is really interested in voting no confidence, but they sure like to look like they are.  The NDP will vote against the government so long as its safe, and the Liberals would too if it were also safe for them to do so.  But I'm no sure how envious the Liberals are of the NDP's position though - the NDP is able to do what it does largely because the party is small enough to be inconsequential.

Like I said above, I think we were starting to see a bit of that a few weeks ago.  The Liberals came the closet they have yet to voting no confidence, and the NDP immediately reacted by dialing-back its rhetoric, if only for a few days.  Complicating everything was the belief that voters didn't want an election, so it was soon pretty obvious that they wouldn't go all of the way with it, and the NDP were quickly back to their old ways ("we're not even going to read the update!").

It is a good question though who is more adverse to an election.  On one hand, the Liberals have more to gain (government) and more to lose (renewed Conservative government and missing a chance to topple them for several years, since the voters aren't going to want another election soon after the next) . . . though if the polling is to be believed, it's quite possible that the NDP could lose as many as half their seats and I don't see them moving up much at the momeny, unless they start polling above their election results, which they're currently two or three points below.

Man, the NDP needs a new branding. I suggest we take the Democratic Party, and add an exlamation point to the end of it so New Democratic Party is now Democratic Party!. This will make it more exciting. Then maybe there should be a mascot. Maybe a donkey done in the style of Camel Joe, but with an orange and green suit and square rimmed stylish glasses. And a moustach.

Oh, and a slogan! Perhaps "We've got the Orange"?Something, short, to the point, and leaves voters feeling zen.

I'll MSPaint up an election poster sooner or later.

I think you may be right that the last election may have been the NDP's best chance to replace the Liberals in Quebec.  The Liberals were badly organized, badly financed and had an unpopular leader.  But the failure of the NDP to make a major breakthrough in Quebec when the Liberals were most vulnerable may mean that it will be a long time before there is a chance to do so again.

I thought Chantal Hebert did the best job of any commentator on election night of summing up the results in Quebec - I can almost remember her words exactly:

"This is not a bad night for the Liberals in Quebec tonight.  What's happened to them is that they have turned the page on the Sponsorship Scandal.  They're up in the popular vote and they're taking seats off the Bloc.  They have also stopped the NDP from emerging in the province as an alternative to them."

The NDP'rs seem to have no shortage of advice to give the left on this board.

Caplan can't possibly say that with any knowledge. The seven resolution panels at the convention will decide what resolutions will get priority.

Quite so.

Well done.  

I still haven't had my original question answered which was for some one to constructively address Caplan's argument without mentioning how old he is.  I still wait.

As for the glorious resolutions at the party convention, what is the point of passing resolutions that will end up getting ignored during the period of governance.  I refer to the 2006 Afghanistan resolutions.

On a general note, I don't see how anyone can have a serious discussion about what the NDP positions on any given issue are, since, at least in provincially in Ontario, we are the only political party that doesn't have our policies online.  Federally, we have some policies online, but the Liberal women's caucus alone seems to have a more comprehensive platform.  If I am mistaken, some one please correct me.

You make some good points, Cueball.

I voted for the NDP as recently as the Paul Martin years.  I disliked what Paul Martin did to the Liberals and the fact that he drove a number of left of centre Liberals such as Sheila Copps and Allan Rock out of the party.  I also worked on Ed Broadbent's comeback campaign around the same time.

I do sometimes vote Liberal when I feel it is the best option or the best way to defeat the Conservatives.  I don't mind some criticism of the Liberals or how they sometimes get too right of centre.  It's important that the Liberals face reality in certain ways in which they are not as progressive as they should be.  I am not that enthusiastic about Michael Ignatieff the way I was about Pierre Trudeau, and Ignatieff also lacks some of the progressive qualities of not just Trudeau, but Pearson and even Chretien.

But right now I do see Ignatieff as possibly the best way to get rid of Stephen Harper, who I feel is the most loathsome PM during my lifetime.  I dislike him even more than Mulroney.  

What I don't like here from certain posters is some of the antipathy and almost hatred towards all things Liberal and some of the snarky and patronising comments I often see.  It just makes me more likely to vote Liberal in the next election which is the way I am leaning these days as the way to get rid of Harper.

I haven't seen anyone mention how old Caplan is. How old is he anyways? i have no idea. Caplan doesn't actually have an argument so there is nothing to address. All his did was right an incoherent stream of consciousness that culminated in saying that the NDP should fire its strategists - with no reason given as to why.

If Caplan actually had an argument in the first place, there might be something to address.

When Layton first became leader, he led the NDP to 19 seats. Now they have 37 - which approach was more effective. Duceppe has seen support for his party steadily drop for several elections in a row - he didn't "destroy" the Tories, they simply destrpyed themselves by adopting policies that were particularly unpopular in Quebec but wildly popular in the rest of the country. Crime may be a strong issue for the Tories in western Canada but it was never a strong issue for them in Quebec in the first place.

I guess Duceppe did effectively take advantage of the opening though, salvaging his party yet one more time.

Also, I apologize if the people I accused of being Liberals on this thread took offence.  It's funny that so many people who easily get mistaken for Liberals suddenly appear when a column such as Gerry's surfaces, but I should realize that this is just a coincidence.  I'm not sure what the appeal of this board is for a Liberal-NDP switcher who sees "Ignatieff as possibly the best way to get rid of Stephen Harper".  It sounds suspicious to me, but what do I know? 

Stockholm is correct - Duceppe and the BQ benefit when the 2 big parties destroy themselves with big scandals in Quebec, otherwise things don't go so well for the BQ.

After the 1993 election in which the BQ swept in with 54 seats, they dropped down to 44 seats in 1997 in Duceppe first election.  In Duceppe's second election in 2000, the BQ dropped further to 38 seats and was beaten by Chretien in the popular vote.  In both of these elections there was no issue threatening Quebec culture and no scandal for Duceppe to use.

However, when the Sponsorship Scandal exploded on the Liberals in 2004, Duceppe was able to move back up to 54 seats, and was able to retain 51 seats in 2006 when the Sponorship Scandal continued.  Had the scandal not happened, the BQ would have lost a huge amount of seats to Martin as polls pre-Sponsorship were predicting.

Then in 2008 when the BQ was at risk of losing a lot of seats to the Conservatives, the BQ was saved by Harper's inflammatory remarks about artists and crime.  This allowed the BQ to retain their seats and end up with 49.  (Their popular vote dropped again though as Stockholm said - they went from 49% in 2004, to 42% in 2006 to 38% in 2008.)

Now the BQ is back to the same situation  again in the next election, this time they risk losing seats to the Liberals as they did in 1997 and 2000 (and to a small extent in 2008).  In order for the BQ to prevent losing seats to the Liberals, they will need the Liberals to destroy themselves with another scandal involving the party or Ignatieff.  If not, Duceppe will probably lose ground again.

You called him a dinosaur in an earlier post.  I assume by that you mean that he is very old.  If you don't, please feel free to clarify. 

Caplan's piece stated that the NDP was bereft of ideas.  If the NDP has new ideas that will dramatically alter Canadian society for the benefit of working people that we will implement when elected, then this should be pretty easy to prove.

As I mentioned earlier, the federal party does have a policy section, but it is a little bit light on details, compared to the Liberal women's caucus page. 

This has been said before, but Caplan doesn't have an argument.

'The NDP is short of ideas' is a statement, and not an illuminating one.

The Liberals are short of ideas too. Big deal.

That's not the stuff of a column/blog that is a running commentary on party strategies... and which you do get from the other 2 commentators.

In keeping with what is expected he could have said something like: why I think the NDPs shortage of ideas is holding it back, and where they could start doing something about it.