Why did "The Singh surge" turn out to be...nothing at all?

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

quizzical wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If the NDP changes its leader before the next election it will lose half its seats on Vancouver Island. The people in my riding turned out at almost 72% and the combined NDP Green vote was 55%. Across the great divide the people of Alberta gave Conservatives 60% to 70% majority in ridings on the basis that they wanted a government to stick it to the Coast. Fuck Canada

yup. and would lose a few more off the Island too.

how is he supposed to respond to losing seats to the Bloc? he can't. 

there is also 1 new MP and 1 reclaimed seat. 

if Ontarians want to blame Jagmeet for their voting Liberal they can go right a head. but imv it's bs.

BC elected fewer NDP MPs last night than it did in 2015, with some former NDP seats also going Liberal there too. Saskatchewan also failed to elect any non-Conservative MP. Western Canada is just as complicit in NDP misfortunes as anyone else.

Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

BC elected fewer NDP MPs last night than it did in 2015, with some former NDP seats also going Liberal there too.

I don't think the Liberals took any NDP seats in British Columbia.

That happened in Ontario (eg. Windsor-Tecumseh) & Quebec. (Laurier - Sainte Marie, Hochelaga & Sherbrooke).

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

Jagmeet saved us from that and we should acknowledge that. 

He put the party in that position.  That's like giving an arsonist credit for putting out the fire after half the house burned down.

It is fantasy to suggest taht the NDP's house was not on fire when he took it over - even if it had not burned completely before he got the job.

Yes, there are good reasons to criticize but he is not the "arsonist" in that the fire was lit before he got there.

The money problems, the wave of retirements, the Weir affair, the late filing of candidates, failing to even visit some areas until after the campaign had begun, and taking time to hit the policy message stride, were all after he took over. Weir’s seat ended up being lost by over 12,000 votes, and all three seats in the province were lost.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

Jagmeet saved us from that and we should acknowledge that. 

He put the party in that position.  That's like giving an arsonist credit for putting out the fire after half the house burned down.

It is fantasy to suggest taht the NDP's house was not on fire when he took it over - even if it had not burned completely before he got the job.

Yes, there are good reasons to criticize but he is not the "arsonist" in that the fire was lit before he got there.

The money problems, the wave of retirements, the Weir affair, the late filing of candidates, failing to even visit some areas until after the campaign had begun, and taking time to hit the policy message stride, were all after he took over. Weir’s seat ended up being lost by over 12,000 votes, and all three seats in the province were lost.

Not debating the list becuase all you have to do is look at posts on this site to see how "great" things were in NDPland before he took over.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

BC elected fewer NDP MPs last night than it did in 2015, with some former NDP seats also going Liberal there too.

I don't think the Liberals took any NDP seats in British Columbia.

That happened in Ontario (eg. Windsor-Tecumseh) & Quebec. (Laurier - Sainte Marie, Hochelaga & Sherbrooke).

You're right on that one. My main point that BC is just as responsible for NDP misfortunes remains.

robbie_dee

I would argue that the house was already on fire when Jagmeet showed up wearing a fire hat, but he then spent the next 18 months mostly dithering if not actively pouring fuel on it. During the election it finally occured to him to try the fire hose. Now the fire is mostly out but the next question is whether to let Jagmeet stick around to help rebuild or take one's chances with another contractor.

Sean in Ottawa

robbie_dee wrote:

I would argue that the house was already on fire when Jagmeet showed up wearing a fire hat, but he then spent the next 18 months mostly dithering if not actively pouring fuel on it. During the election it finally occured to him to try the fire hose. Now the fire is mostly out but the next question is whether to let Jagmeet stick around to help rebuild or take one's chances with another contractor.

Especially when the price of recruitment is beyond the means of the party.

If the party is going to invest in anything it ought to be a fundraising strategy rather than a change in leadership.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

It would be idiotic at this point to have a change in leadership. Singh did a great job on the election trail and won lots of respect. I think he has to prove himself effective in the House of Commons and make the most of the minority government situation. I also hope he keeps to his message about not cooperating with the Conservatives.

The losses in Quebec to the Bloc would probably happened even if Mulcair was still leader. I hated his smug attitude towards the NDP during election night. He acted like he was pleased with Singh's failures.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

Jagmeet saved us from that and we should acknowledge that. 

He put the party in that position.  That's like giving an arsonist credit for putting out the fire after half the house burned down.

Sorry but it was Mulcair who destroyed the party. His insistence that Quebec MP's could not bang pots in the streets because it was a provincial issue seems to me, from the other side of the continent, to be way more significant than any other brand destroying event. Then of course there was his Glen Clark replay of emphasizing, during the campaign, that he would balance the budget no matter what marginalized group had to pay. Did I mention that when he lost Quebec, the province he was elected leader to keep, he didn't resign but held on until it was so embarrassing for the party that the pundits started predicting the NDP would lose party status. Finally did I mention one of those pundits who wrote off Jagmeet was the arson himself who barefacedly wanted to get paid for his commentary on the house fire he set.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:

josh wrote:

Jagmeet saved us from that and we should acknowledge that. 

He put the party in that position.  That's like giving an arsonist credit for putting out the fire after half the house burned down.

Sorry but it was Mulcair who destroyed the party. His insistence that Quebec MP's could not bang pots in the streets because it was a provincial issue seems to me, from the other side of the continent, to be way more significant than any other brand destroying event. Then of course there was his Glen Clark replay of emphasizing, during the campaign, that he would balance the budget no matter what marginalized group had to pay. Did I mention that when he lost Quebec, the province he was elected leader to keep, he didn't resign but held on until it was so embarrassing for the party that the pundits started predicting the NDP would lose party status. Finally did I mention one of those pundits who wrote off Jagmeet was the arson himself who barefacedly wanted to get paid for his commentary on the house fire he set.

What does that have to do with Singh ignoring other parts of the country, and not showing up in places like New Brunswick and Saskacthewan before the federal campaign begin? Did Mulcair somehow tie him up and force him to be MIA during this entire period?

I like the analogy upthread of Singh being handed a house on fire, but only pulling out the fire hose during the start of the campaign. The relevant question is, will he actually turn to rebuilding the house?

Aristotleded24

R.E.Wood wrote:
In my opinion the election results are a huge disappointment for the NDP, and yet in his speech last night Singh didn't seem aware of it. His speech was completely tone-deaf to the reality of the results. Popular vote share down 3.8% nationally. 20 seats lost. Only one seat remaining in Quebec. Zero seats in Saskatchewan. Etc... Anne McGrath also seems to think it was a victory: she said the party had “totally exceeded expectations.” “And we have come out of this campaign with a leader whose approval ratings shot sky-high, who ran a very effective campaign that really connected with people.”

By that standard, does McGrath believe she was successful in her run to be an NDP MLA in Calgary earlier this year?

Tone deaf is an understaement. That is downright problematic that the upper reaches of the NDP still don't get it.

Pondering

jatt_1947 wrote:

Pondering why do you expect mocking? 

Because I am accustomed to it.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Pondering wrote:

jatt_1947 wrote:

Pondering why do you expect mocking? 

Because I am accustomed to it.

We get our name Singh from the Vehicle of the Goddess..

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

bekayne wrote:

josh wrote:

bekayne wrote:

To steer this back on topic. What happened? Turnout.

Meaning NDP voters didn't tour out?  Other party voters turned out higher than expected?

Abacus nailed the NDP number of 16.  The others averaged 18.  Where the part fell short of expectations the most was in Ontario.  They failed to pick up any seats in Toronto and lost a couple in SW Ontario.  

NDP support in all the polls was skewed towards younger voters, who didn't turn up in numbers like the older voters.

Some of the polling companies use online poliing from among self-selected individuals who agree to answer polls on various topics. This skews the polling sample to younger voters, which in turn results in the NDP and Greens polling higher than their actual support, and the Liberals and Conservatives polling lower than their actual support.

Also, I have this theory that many voters treat their actual vote as a "performance review" of their incumbent MP, and will be reluctant to "fire" their MP without good cause. However, most of these voters will still give their preferred party when polled by a polling firms that list only party names and not local candidates (which is most polling firms). Then when they cast their vote, they decide to vote for the incumbent (even if not from their preferred party) if they think they deserve to keep their job and not be "fired".

josh

That certainly possible.  As to the polling, the firms adjust for that overreprentation.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

Singh says he's 'not at all' worried about a leadership challenge after NDP's election disappointment

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-day-after-leadership-1.5330592

He should have acknowledged the losses. 

The purpose of the election night speech is to rally the troups. You take note of all the positive things that happened and market them. It's about cognitive dissonance. You need to let Canadians across the country feel that they made the right decision by voting for the NDP and that we are the vision for the future.

Unless you were reduced to 2 seats, on the election night speech you act like you won. You pump up your base with fire and conviction. You stand in front of your crowd and rally out to all Canadians what you stand for and what your vision is for the future that you are going to fight for in the House of Commons.

You could tell just by looking at him and with his subdued speech that he was  totally deflated. And you certainly don't mention the 3.5% drop in the polls during your election night speech. The media does that. His job is to deflect from that and change the tone to something positive.

To all the gripers about the house being on fire and him not pulling out the hose until the election started. Well, the NDP is broke. I think that we discussed during the New Brunswick saga that the NDP did not have the office staff to coordinate the candidate selection process in a timely manner. It was discussed that the NDP didn't have the money for Jagmeet to travel. We knew that this was going to be a very lean campaign. The At Issue panel discussed this very issue in joyous detail.

At Issue Panel - Gaming the Writ Sept 5, 2019

The drop in the polls. Could this have been due to racism? We don't know. Yes he was popular at the polls but perhaps come voting time, people got scared of something they think is different. There was also a fear of the Conservatives. Then there is the yes I like the NDP but we cannot afford the NDP brainwashed BS. 

You certainly do not air your dirty laundry on election night. 

R.E.Wood

Misfit wrote:

You could tell just by looking at him and with his subdued speech that he was  totally deflated. And you certainly don't mention the 3.5% drop in the polls during your election night speech. The media does that. His job is to deflect from that and change the tone to something positive.

He definitely seemed during the election night speech to have been knocked off his game. His enunciation was poor. He was rambling and easily distracted (repeatedly by an annoying person in the crowd in front of him, whom he should have ignored). The speech was far too long.

Going forward he needs to deliver the top performance he brought to the campaign, instead of the lazy innefective invisible (ETA: and at times downright divisive!) performance he had brought to the job up until the campaign started. Hopefully he will deliver, now that we know he can if he chooses to.

R.E.Wood

In post-election polling about which leaders should resign or stay in their jobs, Singh received quite strong support (while the knives are coming out for Scheer):

As for Singh, whose NDP took far fewer seats than it had when Parliament was dissolved, he was the most favoured to stay on as party leader despite not winning the most seats, with 66 per cent.

About 34 per cent said the opposite — that he should resign.

Simpson said that’s reflective of pre-election polling, which saw Singh trending ahead of his own party in terms of popularity.

“They like him even if they’re not prepared to vote for him. I think many Canadians said: ‘I hope other people vote for him, even if I can’t,’” Simpson said on Tuesday.

“He has this vote of confidence from Canadians to continue in the role, despite the very disappointing performance from the NDP last night.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/6066971/canada-election-seats-scheer-resign-p...

pietro_bcc

Misfit wrote:

The Liberals need to get Quebec seats back to get majority status. The BQ will hold the balance of power.

The Bloc is by all accounts disappointed with the results because they don't hold the balance of power. Why would the Liberals work with the Bloc to win back Quebec? All working with the Bloc will do is back up the Bloc's assertion that Quebec needs the Bloc to take care of their issues in Ottawa. Marginalizing the Bloc on the otherhand will send the message that a vote for the Bloc is a vote for a lack of representation (which is what led to its collapse in 2011.)

Singh ran a good campaign, but a terrible pre-campaign. All the good campaign performance did is get the NDP back to even with where they were before Singh won the leadership, that's not good enough. The campaign isn't the only thing that matters. I don't put the losses in Quebec on him, it was mostly a Bill 21 issue, but he also lost in the rest of the country and that's 100% on him. He should be replaced with an interim leader as soon as possible, a strong personality like Charlie Angus who could push for NDP priorities in the minority situation effectively and have another leadership race.

josh

R.E.Wood wrote:

In post-election polling about which leaders should resign or stay in their jobs, Singh received quite strong support (while the knives are coming out for Scheer):

As for Singh, whose NDP took far fewer seats than it had when Parliament was dissolved, he was the most favoured to stay on as party leader despite not winning the most seats, with 66 per cent.

About 34 per cent said the opposite — that he should resign.

Simpson said that’s reflective of pre-election polling, which saw Singh trending ahead of his own party in terms of popularity.

“They like him even if they’re not prepared to vote for him. I think many Canadians said: ‘I hope other people vote for him, even if I can’t,’” Simpson said on Tuesday.

“He has this vote of confidence from Canadians to continue in the role, despite the very disappointing performance from the NDP last night.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/6066971/canada-election-seats-scheer-resign-p...

How can that last sentence be true when the results of the election were not known until after the poll was conducted.

 

Pondering

Wood, I appreciate your fairness to Singh. 

I recall someone saying that the NDP is not in the habit of changing leaders every time an election is lost. I think the problem with Mulcair is that he wanted a party just slightly left of the Liberals whereas NDPers were just tolerating the move right but never supported it. 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

josh wrote:

Jagmeet saved us from that and we should acknowledge that. 

He put the party in that position.  That's like giving an arsonist credit for putting out the fire after half the house burned down.

Sorry but it was Mulcair who destroyed the party. His insistence that Quebec MP's could not bang pots in the streets because it was a provincial issue seems to me, from the other side of the continent, to be way more significant than any other brand destroying event. Then of course there was his Glen Clark replay of emphasizing, during the campaign, that he would balance the budget no matter what marginalized group had to pay. Did I mention that when he lost Quebec, the province he was elected leader to keep, he didn't resign but held on until it was so embarrassing for the party that the pundits started predicting the NDP would lose party status. Finally did I mention one of those pundits who wrote off Jagmeet was the arson himself who barefacedly wanted to get paid for his commentary on the house fire he set.

I have to agree with all of this.

I also want to make the point that changing leaders for the NDP would be suicidal given the financial position of the party. Singh may not be who you want but he is not the problem now and the party needs to focus on its problems as an emergency.

Singh is not the solution to the problems either but the leader does not have to be. singh is not great at the fundraising side - he needs to bring someone in who can do that.

Singh is lousy between elections on the communications side and he needs help.

Leadership change will only get another leader with some but not all the answers. Take the one you have and add the missing parts.

Singh is not a problem he is just not a complete solution. He does not need to go to add the parts the party needs.

The party has no room for error.

the only case I can see of him going would be a full merger with the Greens for a social and environmental sustainability party with a new leader. This would bring support for the NDP to probably the 25-28% range instantly. I would expect NDP support to stay; 2/3 of Green support to come to it; and another 5% from the Liberals where potential supporters are fed up with the party not being viable but prefer it to the Liberals. this would put the Liberals and NDP close to dead even.

Until that change is possible Singh should stay and the party should have a between election campaign director to focus on being present without cash; a communications director to discipline the party into saying things that matter only to avoid having the odd bone the media will throw the media being on something not productive; and a social media campaign at a full throated level (this is not that expesive) plus a credible fundrasing plan and people to execute it.

You cannot do this in a leadership race. the last one took so long it almost killed the party. Let us not go back for more now.

Sean in Ottawa

BTW the party can hire at least one of the defeated NDP MPs from Quebec to be in charge of the rebuild there and to remain visible. The cost is a drop in the bucket considering what is at stake. There are two great candidates for this job and maybe the party should take them both because if the NDP keeps them visible they will likely get elected in the future.

robbie_dee

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW the party can hire at least one of the defeated NDP MPs from Quebec to be in charge of the rebuild there and to remain visible. The cost is a drop in the bucket considering what is at stake. There are two great candidates for this job and maybe the party should take them both because if the NDP keeps them visible they will likely get elected in the future.

Who are the candidates you have in mind here? Dusseault and Brosseau?

Sean in Ottawa

robbie_dee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW the party can hire at least one of the defeated NDP MPs from Quebec to be in charge of the rebuild there and to remain visible. The cost is a drop in the bucket considering what is at stake. There are two great candidates for this job and maybe the party should take them both because if the NDP keeps them visible they will likely get elected in the future.

Who are the candidates you have in mind here? Dusseault and Brosseau?

Sure but I was thinking of Guy Caron (I heard he lost) and Brosseau. You can add more I am sure. Only Boulerice still with a seat.

robbie_dee

IMO Ruth Ellen Brosseau can do better than elected politics. From this story it sounds like she is going to stay involved in her riding: "Star NDP candidate a casualty of Bloc’s surge in popularity (Montreal Gazette)". But her and her partner also have a growing agricultural business, and I am sure if she wanted to monetize her celebrity status someone in the Quebec and/or national media would pay big bucks to hire her. In any event I'm not sure she needs a paycheck or platform from the Party to stay relevant.

Caron was House Leader and a high profile former leadership candidate but he also lost by over 4000 votes. Dusseault only lost by around 600 votes and he hasn't even turned 30 yet. I'd like to keep both of them around of course but I think Dusseault probably is both the one with the best prospects of a comeback and the one most likely to need a job in the meantime.

pietro_bcc

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW the party can hire at least one of the defeated NDP MPs from Quebec to be in charge of the rebuild there and to remain visible. The cost is a drop in the bucket considering what is at stake. There are two great candidates for this job and maybe the party should take them both because if the NDP keeps them visible they will likely get elected in the future.

Why hire someone outside of parliament to rebuild in Quebec when they already have someone in house who is popular in Quebec and has shown the ability to win even in the face of trends that are unfavorable to the NDP in Quebec. Alexandre Boulerice.

The fact that they held onto that one seat is key because it means they still have a foothold in the province. Its a lot harder to go from 0 to 1 seat than it is to go from 1 to 10-20.

KarlL

robbie_dee wrote:

IMO Ruth Ellen Brosseau can do better than elected politics. From this story it sounds like she is going to stay involved in her riding: "Star NDP candidate a casualty of Bloc’s surge in popularity (Montreal Gazette)". But her and her partner also have a growing agricultural business, and I am sure if she wanted to monetize her celebrity status someone in the Quebec and/or national media would pay big bucks to hire her. In any event I'm not sure she needs a paycheck or platform from the Party to stay relevant.

Caron was House Leader and a high profile former leadership candidate but he also lost by over 4000 votes. Dusseault only lost by around 600 votes and he hasn't even turned 30 yet. I'd like to keep both of them around of course but I think Dusseault probably is both the one with the best prospects of a comeback and the one most likely to need a job in the meantime.

Might want to hire Caron in the House Leader's Office.  There is a lot to be negotiated and navigated.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

jatt_1947 wrote:

Pondering why do you expect mocking? 

Because I am accustomed to it.

We get our name Singh from the Vehicle of the Goddess..

Thanks for that information.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

KarlL wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

IMO Ruth Ellen Brosseau can do better than elected politics. From this story it sounds like she is going to stay involved in her riding: "Star NDP candidate a casualty of Bloc’s surge in popularity (Montreal Gazette)". But her and her partner also have a growing agricultural business, and I am sure if she wanted to monetize her celebrity status someone in the Quebec and/or national media would pay big bucks to hire her. In any event I'm not sure she needs a paycheck or platform from the Party to stay relevant.

Caron was House Leader and a high profile former leadership candidate but he also lost by over 4000 votes. Dusseault only lost by around 600 votes and he hasn't even turned 30 yet. I'd like to keep both of them around of course but I think Dusseault probably is both the one with the best prospects of a comeback and the one most likely to need a job in the meantime.

Might want to hire Caron in the House Leader's Office.  There is a lot to be negotiated and navigated.

As the QNPD still seems largely moribund, I'd suggest QS recruit Brousseau.  She would be an excellent addition and give them a means to connect with a lot of people they could be connecting with yet haven't yet managed to do so.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NDP needs to concentrate on winning in Ontario or fold as a party.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

KarlL wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

IMO Ruth Ellen Brosseau can do better than elected politics. From this story it sounds like she is going to stay involved in her riding: "Star NDP candidate a casualty of Bloc’s surge in popularity (Montreal Gazette)". But her and her partner also have a growing agricultural business, and I am sure if she wanted to monetize her celebrity status someone in the Quebec and/or national media would pay big bucks to hire her. In any event I'm not sure she needs a paycheck or platform from the Party to stay relevant.

Caron was House Leader and a high profile former leadership candidate but he also lost by over 4000 votes. Dusseault only lost by around 600 votes and he hasn't even turned 30 yet. I'd like to keep both of them around of course but I think Dusseault probably is both the one with the best prospects of a comeback and the one most likely to need a job in the meantime.

Might want to hire Caron in the House Leader's Office.  There is a lot to be negotiated and navigated.

As the QNPD still seems largely moribund, I'd suggest QS recruit Brousseau.  She would be an excellent addition and give them a means to connect with a lot of people they could be connecting with yet haven't yet managed to do so.

Assuming she is QS.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Misfit wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

KarlL wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

IMO Ruth Ellen Brosseau can do better than elected politics. From this story it sounds like she is going to stay involved in her riding: "Star NDP candidate a casualty of Bloc’s surge in popularity (Montreal Gazette)". But her and her partner also have a growing agricultural business, and I am sure if she wanted to monetize her celebrity status someone in the Quebec and/or national media would pay big bucks to hire her. In any event I'm not sure she needs a paycheck or platform from the Party to stay relevant.

Caron was House Leader and a high profile former leadership candidate but he also lost by over 4000 votes. Dusseault only lost by around 600 votes and he hasn't even turned 30 yet. I'd like to keep both of them around of course but I think Dusseault probably is both the one with the best prospects of a comeback and the one most likely to need a job in the meantime.

Might want to hire Caron in the House Leader's Office.  There is a lot to be negotiated and navigated.

As the QNPD still seems largely moribund, I'd suggest QS recruit Brousseau.  She would be an excellent addition and give them the means to connect with a lot of people they could be connecting with yet haven't yet managed to do so.

Assuming she is QS.

Fair point-which is why I said they'd need to recruit her.  If she stood in a riding near where she lives, she could get the votes of people who identify as sovereigntists and federalists.  There's a far stronger case for REB joining QS than the QNPD, given that there's no reason to believe that the QNPD will be anything but an electoral dead zone for years to come.  

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP needs to concentrate on winning in Ontario or fold as a party.

The only way they can win Ontario is to give up the pointless strategy of running as significantly less corrupt but only slightly more progressive Liberals, and make a distinctive case for why a real break with the status quo is the only path forward for Ontarians.

They can point out, for example, that Doug Ford mainly won because the voters in Ontario saw the Liberals as elitist and arrogant, and that, as a party of non-arrogant, non-elitist democratic and transformative change, the NDP, both federally and provincially, is the only way to make a clear break with everything that is wrong in Ontario politics and life. 

Pondering

It isn't Caron's fault that he lost his seat and he is a valuable voice in Quebec for the NDP.

Pondering

Some interesting numbers. They are the opinion of all voters not just those who voted for the party in question. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6066971/canada-election-seats-scheer-resign-poll/

This was an exit poll

63% of voters think Scheer should resign if he doesn't win a majority, that includes 4 in 10 Conservatives. 

Had he not won the most seats 56% thought that Trudeau should resign. 

Only 34% thought Singh should resign. 

To me the Conservative party is the equivalent of the Bloc only for Alberta. It's time the RoC realizes that. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So it will be interesting to see how the BC caucucs fairs this time in Ottawa. 11 of 24 MP's are from BC. If they get shut out of the decision making like they were under Layton and then Mulcair maybe the lot of them can start a new eco-socialist party .

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Some interesting numbers. They are the opinion of all voters not just those who voted for the party in question. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6066971/canada-election-seats-scheer-resign-poll/

This was an exit poll

63% of voters think Scheer should resign if he doesn't win a majority, that includes 4 in 10 Conservatives. 

Had he not won the most seats 56% thought that Trudeau should resign. 

Only 34% thought Singh should resign. 

To me the Conservative party is the equivalent of the Bloc only for Alberta. It's time the RoC realizes that. 

So by ROC do you mean the Maritimes or the Prairies or BC or maybe the territories. Do you really think that all parts of Canada outside of Quebec are the same. FUCK FUCK FUCK

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Some interesting numbers. They are the opinion of all voters not just those who voted for the party in question. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6066971/canada-election-seats-scheer-resign-poll/

This was an exit poll

63% of voters think Scheer should resign if he doesn't win a majority, that includes 4 in 10 Conservatives. 

Had he not won the most seats 56% thought that Trudeau should resign. 

Only 34% thought Singh should resign. 

To me the Conservative party is the equivalent of the Bloc only for Alberta. It's time the RoC realizes that. 

So by ROC do you mean the Maritimes or the Prairies or BC or maybe the territories. Do you really think that all parts of Canada outside of Quebec are the same. FUCK FUCK FUCK

The Bloc represents Quebec. In my opinion the Conservatives represents the interests of Alberta. 

If you think the Conservatives represents the interests of other provinces I'm willing to hear it. 

Oh, signing off, FUCK FUCK FUCK 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/998

9745/office-workers-hysterics-randy-couple-public-sex-window/

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Conservative party is a national party with representation from coast to coast. It is a NATIONAL party. It is not even a debatable issue here.

Andrew Scheer is the best thing for the Conservatives. He is weak as a leader and if he was stronger we would be facing possibly a Conservative majority right now.

Both Rona Ambrose and Peter McKay are strong and capable leaders. This is not a good thing unless you are a Conservative supporter.

 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP needs to concentrate on winning in Ontario or fold as a party.

True -- and Singh comes from Ontario.

Part of the problem is that the NDP is not present enough between elections and does not always have good judgement about what to take a stand on.

I dislike the cuteness of attack messages often. The NDP does not ahve to attack the Liberals on the issues that the Conservatives will spend their money on attacking. The NDP does have to make big issues of the things that niether the Liberals nor the Conservatives will talk about.

I want the NDP to be consistently there on the life-changing issues.

You say you are in it for us. Then be there for us every step of the way not just during elections.

Singh does have some communications talents that were hidden for a couple years. Don't hide them now.

Plain speaking on these issues and engagement on social media is critical.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Some interesting numbers. They are the opinion of all voters not just those who voted for the party in question. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6066971/canada-election-seats-scheer-resign-poll/

This was an exit poll

63% of voters think Scheer should resign if he doesn't win a majority, that includes 4 in 10 Conservatives. 

Had he not won the most seats 56% thought that Trudeau should resign. 

Only 34% thought Singh should resign. 

To me the Conservative party is the equivalent of the Bloc only for Alberta. It's time the RoC realizes that. 

So by ROC do you mean the Maritimes or the Prairies or BC or maybe the territories. Do you really think that all parts of Canada outside of Quebec are the same. FUCK FUCK FUCK

The Bloc represents Quebec. In my opinion the Conservatives represents the interests of Alberta. 

If you think the Conservatives represents the interests of other provinces I'm willing to hear it. 

Oh, signing off, FUCK FUCK FUCK 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/998

9745/office-workers-hysterics-randy-couple-public-sex-window/

The Conservatives represent the interests of the rich and capital. They have managed to convince millions that they have their interests at heart but they have no heart and they are lying.

The NDP's job is to convince people to stop voting against our individual and collective interests.

The Conservative party is a national coalition between the greedy and the ignorant.

Debater

Misfit wrote:

The Conservative party is a national party with representation from coast to coast. It is a NATIONAL party. It is not even a debatable issue here.

Andrew Scheer is the best thing for the Conservatives. He is weak as a leader and if he was stronger we would be facing possibly a Conservative majority right now.

Both Rona Ambrose and Peter McKay are strong and capable leaders. This is not a good thing unless you are a Conservative supporter.

 

I'm not sure I'd describe Peter MacKay as a "strong and capable leader".

He also has regressive views on women.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I don't like Peter McKay and I hope he doesn't ever run. I remember him calling in the national guard or whoever it was to helicopter him off an island.
 

Here is reference

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Misfit wrote:

I don't like Peter McKay and I hope he doesn't ever run. I remember him calling in the national guard or whoever it was to helicopter him off an island.
 

Here is reference

Here is the misogny that Debater referred to.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/stronach-demands-mackay-apologize-for-all...

Policywonk

Left Turn wrote:

bekayne wrote:

josh wrote:

bekayne wrote:

To steer this back on topic. What happened? Turnout.

Meaning NDP voters didn't tour out?  Other party voters turned out higher than expected?

Abacus nailed the NDP number of 16.  The others averaged 18.  Where the part fell short of expectations the most was in Ontario.  They failed to pick up any seats in Toronto and lost a couple in SW Ontario.  

NDP support in all the polls was skewed towards younger voters, who didn't turn up in numbers like the older voters.

Some of the polling companies use online poliing from among self-selected individuals who agree to answer polls on various topics. This skews the polling sample to younger voters, which in turn results in the NDP and Greens polling higher than their actual support, and the Liberals and Conservatives polling lower than their actual support.

Also, I have this theory that many voters treat their actual vote as a "performance review" of their incumbent MP, and will be reluctant to "fire" their MP without good cause. However, most of these voters will still give their preferred party when polled by a polling firms that list only party names and not local candidates (which is most polling firms). Then when they cast their vote, they decide to vote for the incumbent (even if not from their preferred party) if they think they deserve to keep their job and not be "fired".

You don't think some of the NDP vote went Liberal over the weekend because they were afraid of the Conservatives? 

 

josh
Pondering

Misfit wrote:

The Conservative party is a national party with representation from coast to coast. It is a NATIONAL party. It is not even a debatable issue here.

Andrew Scheer is the best thing for the Conservatives. He is weak as a leader and if he was stronger we would be facing possibly a Conservative majority right now.

Both Rona Ambrose and Peter McKay are strong and capable leaders. This is not a good thing unless you are a Conservative supporter.

 

There is a Progressive Conservative Party and there is a Reform party both of whom are hiding under the Conservative name. They can appeal to both bases, the PC base and the Reform base, but they can't do it while attracting enough of the centrist vote. 

During Harper's ten year reign there was no concern for what the high dollar was doing to manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec. We were told to suck it up and move where the jobs are. Scheer promised to push an "energy corridor" through Quebec. 

The Conservative party is Alberta centric. That doesn't mean they don't support any other businesses or capitalism in general but Alberta comes first. Obviously that is just my perception. I don't have proof. Logically, think of how much they depend on Alberta for support. 

If Peter MacKay were to become leader, or Rona Ambrose, that might change things but I don't think that is going to happen. Even if it did I still think that long term they cannot keep their base and attract centrist voters. The issues that split them into two parties still exist as major fault lines. When reformers dominate the party can't attract enough centrist voters. When moderates dominate the reformers can't be held. I'm not saying they can never win another election but I don't see a path clear in large part due to climate change. 

The Liberals have pandered to the oil industry but they can lose Alberta and still win a majority. Their support of industry is more about money than votes. The Conservatives can't afford to lose Alberta. 

A lot of votes they get across Canada come from the Conservative name. If they had adopted the Reform name they would not be doing so well but the name can only take them so far. 

Sean in Ottawa

I have to agree with Misfit. I do not think Pondering that you are disagreeing either on anything fundamental. I do not trust any conservative leader and like them best weak and losing.

Pages