What tipped the balance?

I agree with Malcolm that this has been a long time in the making. I also have to take my hat off to Jack Layton's leadership. I confess that I was one of those who was initially skeptical of his leadership. I was of the view that he would not play well outside of major urban centres (ie Toronto and Vancouver) and that we needed a leader and an approach that would focus resources on rebuilding the party's traditional bases in Western Canada and northern and industrial Ontario, as opposed to gambling on (what then seemed) a fleeting dream in Quebec. When Jack said he had a ten-year plan for Quebec, he obviously meant it and although we will have to wait until Monday night to see what kind of dividends it pays, it's hard to argue that the party is not on the verge of a major breakthrough in Quebec that was completely unthinkable when Jack became leader. It is ironic that, despite my misgivings, the NDP has to date had only modest success in Toronto and Vancouver, while under Jack's leadership the NDP did manage to win back northern Ontario in 2008 and a good chunk of industrial Ontario to boot. While the NDP has yet to win back much of its traditional support in the Prairies and parts of the BC interior, the loss of that traditional base has been more than made up for elsewhere.

If the 'orange crush' materializes on Monday, if nothing else it will demonstrated that if you want to be a truly national party you have to run a '50-state strategy' (10-province strategy?) and make yourself a competitive option everywhere, as opposed to merely focusing on the 50 or so seats that were traditionally considered 'winnable'. Andrew Coyne has been harping for a long time that by basically writing off entire regions and segments of the electorate (ie Western Canada and francophone Quebec) and focusing all their efforts on an increasingly shrinking base (ie Ontario), the Liberals were dooming themselves to perpetual opposition. With the Liberals on the verge of an historic defeat, it's increasingly hard to argue with that thesis.

There's no doubt that since Jack took over, the party's campaigns have improved in quality and scope with each election (this is no knock against the people who have run previous campaigns but it's hard to put, for example, 2000 in the same league as 2011).  I agree with Malcolm that this, perhaps more than anything, has led to the situation we currently find ourselves in.

Fair enough. I was just pointing out that 8 years ago we would not have even been talking about possible breakthroughs in Quebec or possibly forming the official opposition, and what such a result might mean (if it happens), but maybe you're right and I should keep it zipped for now.  

If the balance has, in fact been tipped(and we still don't know that for sure...)I would say that the crucial factor was the way the Liberals handled the question of "strategic voting".

In the early stages of the campaign, when they were still somewhat more popular than the NDP, they STILL insisted(they wouldn't come right out and say it, but it was obviously what they meant)that "strategic voting" meant that all anti-Harper voters should feel obligated to vote Liberal.  They never spoke of it in terms of respecting the fact that the combined NDP-Bloc vote, even THEN, was larger than the level of support they themselves registered in the polls. 

To re-purpose an overused maxim on MY side of the border "It's the ARROGANCE, damn it!"

Had they just treated the NDP and the Bloc as equal entities, they might well have been able to use strategic voting to both defeat Harper AND preserve their relative position.  But they couldn't go there.  They just couldn't.

Whatever the outcome on Monday, there is a phenomnon here, this much is certain.

I attribute it mostly to right wing strategy of polarizing people.  The NDP is in no small way a benificiary of that strategy accidental though it might be.  

The attacks on the Liberals have been relentless.  Rebecca West and I talked about that earlier last week.  She pointed out that these attacks may have kicked loose progressive supporters of the Liberals, but alienated right wing supporters of the Liberals, who will stay with the Liberals not being able to stomach supporting a party that has insulted them to such a degree.

A journalist in Ireland had an interesting article just after the Fianna Fail's colapse.  She was interviewing a Fianna Fail party official, and at the end asked about a follow up interview.  The Party official remarked that it depended on what she wrote.   She remarked that Fianna Fail, after their epic colapse at the polls, had not appreciated the power shift and was still acting like they had power.

So it is with the Liberal Party, or "Block Toronto".  They are like that character in a movie who struck it rich, is the life of the party with zillions of friends, then loses his money and wonders where his freinds have gone.  While we can see that the Liberal Party without the Keys to the Treasury, or reasonable chances at obtaining them in the short term leaves them with few friends, they can't see it.   And they will never see it.  They don't even see it now, even after it's too late.

The NDP, for the most part, seems to have stiffled the self defeaters in the party.  Those that allways insisted on bringing a knife to a gun fight, those that allways sought to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.  

It may seem unseemly and to some counter intuitive, but the real adversary for the NDP for almost, what, 70 years has been the Liberal party, the Crypto Tory Liberal Party.   I think-- though I do have some doubts-- that whoever is running the strategy of the party not only recognizes this, but has acted on it.

The goal for the NDP in this election should be to supplant the Liberals as the opposition.  In opposition, the goal should be to drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal party. 

No coalition with the Liberal Party.  While we may rant and stomp our feet over Harper's perogue, it did prevent the dumb asses in the NDP from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  The NDP plan to hand the Keys to the Treasury back to the Liberal party was a disaster narrowly missed.

It would have prevented what will be by any estimation, a long awaited victory for the NDP, a necessary step before the ultimate victory of one day forming a government in Ottawa.

Agreed - there are too many variables to be able to assume that these polling numbers will come through for the NDP

I think that we should not lose sight of one fundamental fact. The Canadian electorate is secure, but they are nervous. The Great Recesssion may not have affected Canada in the way it did the United States and Eurpoe, did it did not go unnoticed either. 

We can talk about party strategies and personalities all day, but the bottom line is that people are worried, and are looking for a government that will provide assurance. Assurance that their pensions will be secure, that their health care will not be eroded, and that their taxes be not wasted on inappropriate excesses. I think all of this fed into the larger sense that a new direction was needed. Canadians wanted somebody that would really care about their concerns, and not just play on them as election issues. Once it became obvious that the NDP had a leader that was popular and had a likelihood of electoral success, they dumped the Liberal party and migrated to the NDP in historic numbers. 

Jack didn't go to the mountain, the mountain went to him.

When I am told by friends that there is little difference between the NDP and Liberal policies on many issues, I suggest that the main difference lies in that the NDP actually plans on enacting the policies.  The Liberal Party only has progressive campaigns. It has few progressive intentions that turn into action once in government.

On the other hand, if Canada someday changes to proportional representation, I believe that there would be NDP/Liberal coalition governments that would accomplish a lot for our country.  I suspect it would be the NDP pushing the Liberals to agree to do what they said they would do during elections that would be the catalyst to a lot of good things.

I agree that taking seats from the BQ does make Canada more secure, and I don't think it necessarily alienates Quebec. In the NDP, Quebec is voting for a federalist option that reflects their values and aspirations, outside of the federalist/separatist identity issue. Quebec is clearly to the left of the Canadian political spectrum, and is far more likely to remain in Canada if Canada does not degenerate into a neoliberal economic disaster like the United States. 

I'm not sure anyone really grasps the social media.  Not at least in terms of using it like the MSM is used.  But that day will come.

I think the people advising all the parties on social media are Public Relations companies that have a vested interest in the old status quo of forming public opinion.  They have their stables of columnists, journalists, and editors.  Recognizing social media means saying goodbye to that power structure, and embracing a media where everyone is thier own Public Relations company. 


The gambit in Harper's attempt to control the image to the nth degree is that somewhere you reach a point of diminishing returns.  You either have to do it perfectly, or not at all, as any blemish, any crack in the fascade becomes glaringly obvious.   No one gives much thought to a fat guy in a greasy t-shirt biting into a hot dog and having a glob of mustard land on his tummy.   A guy in a three piece suit, leaning forward with a napkin biting into a hot dog and getting mustard on his vest-- well, that's funny.

If Layton came to Ontario, saying, "elect us, the dollar will go down" he'd finally get the bubba vote from the factory floor.  :)

First off my thanks and congratulations to all the hard work and dedication of NDP supporters and members on this forum and elsewhere.  An election is not the time for practicality but for the enthusiasm and hopes of party supporters to be as high as possible.  Run to win, accept the results.  When the results are in there is plenty of time to settle in and look at whatever new role the NDP will play in a new political landscape in Canada.  That role, should it be greatly increased, will of course be a cautious one.  Minority governments aren't about what you can dictate, it's about what you can negotiate.  Again there is plenty of time to figure out what will be the intelligent approach to the new government in the fall. 

I see nothing but positive things resulting from an increased role and true balance of power for the NDP should that happen.  This has been coming for a long time and I don't think there is any one issue or event that can explain the shift in Canadian voter thinking over the last decade.  Consider the following;

1) The fatigue with the present system of politics and the atmosphere in Ottawa.  This shift may be an expression of hope that a few significant changes will happen.  Electoral reform in whatever capacity and other government reforms.  Stronger environmental legislation, etc. 

2) It may not show up in opinion polls but the decade long war in Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, the threat of larger regional wars, the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome with the war on terror, and Libya measured against an increased military commitment from Canada to be involved.  A commitment to fight in wars which represent a complete reversal of the role Canadians see the country playing in world. Whether or not that role is largely based in myth, ie; peacekeeping.  A requirement to continually surrender personal democratic freedom in order to submit to the government's version of events.

3) The recent democratic rebellions throughout the middle east.  How much have these events brought about a reflection within many Canadians as to how our own democratic system has been weakened?  The G-20 fiasco helped emphasize this. 

4) I think environmental issues and climate change have entered the conciousness of Canadians as a whole and political parties have been distracted by whether people want one particular solution over another.  Just because there is an argument over carbon taxes vs cap and trade and the rejection of one or the other doesn't mean that people haven't been thinking about the issue itself. 

5) The global financial crisis may have sparked a reflection in many people about what's actually important in their lives and/or weakened their trust in the two ruling parties to be anything other than complicit in perpetuating the system.

6) The weakening of sovereignty as expressed by the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois over the same decade.  A realization that since the majority of people in Quebec don't seek independence the best these parties can ever achieve in Ottawa is a perpetual stalemate.  A more credible image of the NDP and Layton over the last few years, promoted and supported effectively by Thomas Mulcair and his two election victories, along with a perception of continual betrayal by the liberals and conservatives have forced a desire to act rather than contemplate. 

The fact remains that the awareness and reflections may have been happening in isolation over the years but now have converged together in a desire to act on them in the same manner as the rebellions in the middle east which are not the result of recent events but years of discontent.  I may be way off on the above reasons but the fact remains that people don't just wake up one morning and completely change their lives or views.  A lot of things have been simmering underneath and may be ready to break through the surface.  If not in this election then in the next so go ahead and celebrate the shift.  It's deserved. 

I agree with your assessment. If the NDP is successful in forming government tomorrow, the stress and strain on the party will be tremendous as both Jack's pragmatism and the realities of governing will create much antagonism with the party faithful who want overnight change to all the policies they hold in contempt.

The NDP has no experience in federal governance. They have some long-time MPs and some with provincial or municipal experience, but zero bench strength  dealing with an entrenched federal bureaucracy that will be highly resistant to and threatened by radical change of the sort envisualised by the more extreme members of the party.

Can Jack enforce the sort of discipline necessary to govern or will it be herding cats? Talk about taking a knife to a gunfight: taking on the bureaucracy with radical change will be like taking a rubber knife to attack a tank. With the highly indignant Oppositon as willing (and colluding) pallbearers.

Buddy Kat - you're absolutely correct in citing Quebec as a tipping point for interest in this election camgaign. I don't feel qualified to speak on Quebec as I am not geographically close or particularly well informed on La Belle Province, but certainly Quebec was a catalyst.I also think the MSM has dropped the ball on this issue as well as many others of course. Joining of political forces with Quebec under a progressive government or coalition government could represent stability for Canada far more significantly than any majority of Harper's.

I am reflecting on this election a great deal and trying to figure out what the difference is between this effort and previous efforts of 2008, 2006, and 2004. What is in this campaign that wasn't in the others?

Hope? a unified Canada possible, a green environmental programme, renewed social fabric, and possible nation building?

Negative influences would be a Harper that never seemed to accomplish anything positive for Canada while transparently lusting for his majority. I think Canadians are a little turned off by over ambitious selfish power mongers, a little like they don't like presumptuous movie stars. A kind of "who does he think he is" might be in the recent response to Harper.

2 coincidental reasons:

* Quebec grew tired of the Bloc

* English Canada grew tired of the Liberals

Both were looking for an alternative.

shazaam!

If we look at the difference in the proportion of total contributions to the tax revenues by corporate and individual taxes, the rise in personal tax contributions and the drop in corporates piece of the pie in just the last 8 or 9 years is alarming.

One thing is certain - personal taxes have no room to move up and corporate taxes can be raised significantly while still remaining competitive on a world stage.

The rising Canadian dollar is more harmful than any corporate tax increase.

the fascists-cons have no trouble running stuff...lookit rob ford.  Into the ground/ over the cliff? Whichway? Thattaway! And away we all go, regardless of the cost! The biggest issue in modern world is the RIGHTWING bias of the mass media; and the reactionarky's effectiveness in telling the MASSES that their news media is liberal (leftwing) when it obviously is not!  They were doing that when Bismarck was trying to bring in UIC and welfare to Germany (to stop the communists) back in olden days. It worked then, and it's working now. "No one ever went broke underestimating the wit of the common people" someone once said, and Harper really acts like a clown (see 'Pogo'!) successfully...

did anyone see Mansbridge rough Pogo the Clown up? "Why do you need a majority if you say you doing so great for so long viz a minority?' was a perfect question, and Harper danced around  like there was a maxim gun shooting at his feet!

Go brave (NDP)

Spot on,sir!

I am just watching Fareed Zakaria GPS and Canadian Malcolm Gladwell is talking about income inequality in the US.

As Aaron Wildavsky told me in 1976 we have to get the Left out of wealth creation but we have to get the Right out of wealth distribution.

We have largely done the first and now it is time for the other.

The middle classes are being turned into the ghetto. Redistribution of wealth will bring back the middle classes.

I don't know about you but I have always thought that no one should make more than the President or Prime Minister.

There are Canadian executives making amounts of money so obscene they make the average annual wage by 11AM on January 1.

Why not a 75% tax rate (fed + provincial included) over $1,000,000??

What normal human being would be against that?

When Jean Chretien first became Prime Minister corporate taxes were at 29 percent! He reduced them to 19 percent during an economic growth decade, when the dollar was low and our trade was competitive. He should have used the opportunity to eliminate our debt completely, not just our deficit. Instead he gave tax "relief" to the corporations and cut social spending. The argument that was repeated over and over again to justify tax "relief" was that corporations would transfer out of the country if they were overtaxed. Well, that is exactly what they did anyway, even after they got their tax rates adjusted! The problem with government today is that they are unwilling to stand up to corporate power, and to call their bluff(either that, or they are bought and paid for from day one). Peopla are not stupid. they can see what has happened as their jobs were sent overseas and things that were once "made in Canada" are now "made in China", corpoartate tax rates notwithstanding. Harper's claims that taxes are "job killers" rings hollow to so many people in(or formerly in) the manufacturing sector, myself included. We have experienced directly the fact that it is a fraud, plain and simple.  

Angus Reid (page 7) reports 32% of those who say they voted Liberal in 2008 say they will vote NDP this time. But so do 34% of those who say they voted Bloc, and 11% of those who say they voted Conservative.

Never assume vote preferences are simple. Only 84% of those who say they voted NDP in 2008 say they will vote NDP this time, while 9% have switched to the Conservatives. (Really?) And 5% have switched to the Liberals, and 1% to the Bloc (strategic voters?) and 1% to the Greens.  

Right.

Agreed.

Right.

I think Jack's drive to set up the 2008 Coalition showed how far he would go to get results by working together, and this has remained his theme right up to today. We know he meant it!

Everybody's got good reasons here. I think, though, that while all of the conditions were certainly lined up for the NDP to catch fire this time, Quebec is almost certainly the spark that finally ignited it. The NDP being off the radar in Quebec was always one of the single biggest strikes against the party being seen as truly national in scope and able to contend for actual power -- just as the Liberal collapse in Quebec since the sponsorship scandal has been one of their biggest handicaps to reclaiming victory, and the Tory inability to really break through there has been one of their biggest handicaps to actually crossing the majority threshhold.

The truth is that any party that somehow managed to break out of the pack and advance in Quebec was always going to make other Canadians sit up and take notice. I also don't buy that there's really a fundamental disconnect between Quebec and English Canadian values -- I think we've been stuck in an extremely antagonistic deadlock since Meech, but when you get right down to it, I think almost everybody (I said almost!) in this country wants to live in a compassionate, progressive society. We just can't always agree on how to get there, certainly -- but any political realignment in Quebec, regardless of which direction it went in, was always going to set off an earthquake nationwide.

Sorry to interrupt the flow but 'the balance' has NOt been 'tipped' yet.  Not enough to ensure Layton gets in and Harper stays out.  Please let's stop chatting among ourselves and get out and do whatever we can to (A) get other progs/lefties/believers in democracy to the polls and ask em to pass it along to others.  This is the most important one in our generation.   (B) get online wherever mainstream sources are open (open a new account if you have to) and take on the tidal wave of last minute media sleaze being pumped out by all of them.  Starting with the "liberal" CBC.    Lodging a few complaints about their shoddy and grotesquely pro-Harper biased coverage can't hurt, particularly at the supposedly taxpayer owned mother corp.  Onemore day and then maybe (knock on wood) we can celebrate.   Least for a night or two.    

We do NOT want to get caught up in the silly ass game the Rae government did, assuming that the public service is going to resist change.  Yes, there will be some mandarins who will need to go, but the vast majority of public servants actually believe in public service, and that government is a force for good.  And, most importantly, they understand that their role and responsibility is to offer sound advice and then to enact what the government decides.

Leave the paranoia to the Cons.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/05/01/cv-elec...

Apparently Duceppe only attracted 60 people to an event in his own riding!

I can't say WHEN this happened, but what happened is that people finally came around to my wish for Canada - I wanted a vision for the future that told us what our leader and our party believed. I wanted a visionary, I wanted something to believe in, a direction to move that took all Canadians into account. I've been waiting for other people to come around to that viewpoint for a long time. And it appears that they are ready to believe in something again, to hope rather than living in fear.

For me, as an Anglo, the French language debate was probably the turning point for public opinion, but the foundations were laid long before. Jack Layton played very well in that debate.

So, what tipped the balance? Maybe we finally, as a country, caught up to the ideas and the hopes and aspirations of each other and decided to leave behind the fear. I can hope??

I think the key foundation was laid on April 21, 2005. This was when AdScam was beginning to sink in and threaten the newly-elected minority Liberal Parliament. That was the date that Paul Martin made his televised appearance to the nation. Duceppe and Harper jumped on this issue as well. Layton, on the other hand, spoke about why people were elected, that there were national issues that needed to be addressed, and he lamented that this was not the case. Already an NDPer at that point, my respect and admiration for him flew through the roof, and I think his desire to work together to get results resonnated with people. He has a track record of doing this on city council in Toronto. I think people recalled this about him during the campaign. Also note that Harper and Ignatieff asked for Canadians to give either of them a majority, arrogance in the case of Harper or not realistically going to happen for Ignatieff. Layton, when asking Canadians to vote for him, acknowledged that he was not going to win a majority and was perfectly fine with that (he spoke about working with the mandate the Canadian public gave him) and would still work with other players to accomplish things. Since people have to work together in all sorts of contexts in their daily lives, I think they took this message seriously.

It really starts at the Founding Convention in 1961, when the draft constitution and all the other draft documents from the National Committee for the New Party referred, as the CCF constitution did, to the National Executive, National President, National Council, etc. The small but vocal and prescient Quebec delegation proposed an amendment from the floor, to change "National " to "Federal" throughout. This was long before any other party or group had noticed the problem. Indeed, the Legislative Assembly of Quebec did not change its name to the National Assembly until 1968.

Some people thought this amendment was weird.  It had already been rejected by the party establishment. Eugene Forsey, whom I revere on most constitutional matters, thought it was so outrageous that he tore up his membership card.

But the majority of the 2,000 delegates were well aware that the CCF had never sunk roots in Quebec, and if the new party was to be different, this seemed like a reasonable place to start. These were the same 2,000 delegates who thought the name "New Party" was too plastic. We were a remarkably thoughtful group, glued to our tables and resolution books, learning to use our simultaneous translation earphones. We are entitled to a bit of the credit.

I think the big thing is that Jack always tried to work with the government. I think people expect that of the NDP leader. Jack followed in the foot steps of all the great NDP Leaders before him. I think people like that and it impresses the hell out of them.

I think people think he is serious, and they are ready to give him a chance. I don't know if everything else would have played out as it had if Jack hadnt' shown himself to be the leader he was, and willing to put the interests of Canadians ahead of everything else.

That to me is the big point.

ETA: I was looking at something Ari wrote and it just made sense. He is right about 2005. It kind of ties into what I think about leadership. You work with people to get things done; it isn't my way or the highway. I think Ari nailed it. This aspect of Jack's character is a really big deal!

@mike 1791:

I don't know how old you are. Maybe you are the same age as me, 53. I don't ever recall the Libs being as far to the left as this version of the NDP. The libs would never have done some of the things Jack wants to do. Never in a million years. They were too deep in the pockets of the back and the old Family Compact.

The things Jack wants to do would never have seen the light of day under Trudeau, or anyone else form that Lib party about which you seem to be waxing nostigically. That party never existed except in people's "this is what I wish they had been like memories".

You are kidding yourself.

I agree.

And now, this eeevil, greedy, capitalist polluter....splutter,splutter......devious warmonger.....Reeeeefoooormist Conservative danger to decent socialist society is off to vote.....for Lois Boone, former BC NDP cabinet minister and NDP federal candidate in my riding.

After much pondering of the moral hazard involved, I will trust that Jack has a professional team and will not be forced to herd ideological cats. While the loony left is still visible in the party, Jack will have no choice but to govern from the center.

My babble alter ego - aka The Devil is anxiously anticipating the need for thermal undergarments after this hopefully historic day.

Sorry, Roscoe.  But

I think Jack Layton has two hazards; one is being like Brian Mulroney, and the other is being like Bob Rae. In both cases, he has the potential to bomb the NDP back into the stone age. If he is not able to control the Quebec Nationalists in his caucus, and if he attempts to reopen the constitution, the Liberals will ultimately benefit. If he is not able to control the looney left, some Tory grim reaper of votes like Mike Harris will show up..

If Jack steers a middle course politically, he will be able to do a lot of moderate and progressive stuff the country needs. There are a lot of policy options.

I think that's misapplying the lesson of Rae's Ontario. Lack of courage to seize the moment, and lack of conviction from the Liberal-in-waiting, created dismay and apathy out of the election's great promise.

Certainly some of that - plus an entirely unjustified arrogance that led Rae et al to assume that they had nothing to learn from experienced NDP politicians who weren't from Ontario.  Rae himself has conceded that he made a mistake in ignoring advice from Allan Blakeney for one.

Jack is no Bob Rae.  I have no doubt that an assortment of experienced NDP hands will be regularly consulted for advice.

Of the 18 men (all men as it happens) who have been CCF or NDP premiers, 15 are still alive.  Of those 15, two have rendered themselves irrelevant, and one (probably unfairly) carries a degree of political toxicity.  Expect to see some or all of the remaining 12 with Jack at a series of photo ops in the coming days.

• Tommy Douglas (deceased)
• Woodrow Lloyd (deceased)
• Allan Blakeney (deceased)
• Roy Romanow
• Lorne Calvert
• Ed Schreyer
• Howard Pawley
• Gary Doer
• Greg Selinger
• Dave Barrett
• Mike Harcourt
• Glen Clark
• Dan Miller
• Ujjal Dosanjh (now irrelevant)
• Tony Penikett
• Piers McDonald
• Bob Rae (now irrelevant)
• Darrel Dexter

Over heard on my way to vote...

5 young people coming back from the polls talking about who they voted for---the NDP.

And the fact that I saw quite a few 20 somethings is very different from the last few elections.

Could it be that they have woken from their apathetic coma?

I guess we'll see.

I'm from Montreal...My blackout was to end at 10 P.M. ...It's now 10:25.

Please delete this post if I'm too early..do not ban me.

Early numbers have the Tories with a minimum minority...It's still too early to tell if they'll make a majority..They have to win 20 more seats.

The NDP has reportedly won 84 seats as the Libs and Bloc got their asses handed to them.

So it's good news and bad news and at the moment we don't yet know just how bad the news is going to be.

It is hard to think about what comes next for the NDP after such a great victory in Quebec, and faced with the prospect of a Conservative majority after early returns. Who is going to start the next thread, and what will be the theme?