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

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

I think what really hurt the Conservatives chances of forming a government could be summarized in two words - Doug Ford. If Kathleen Wynne had still been Ontario premier the Conservatives would very likely have another phoney FPTP majority government. I think once the PC's  lose power in Ontario, the Conservatives will be in very good shape to form another government in Ottawa but they will still have tough competition from the federal Liberals. And as long as the NDP and Greens are fighting over who can win the most seats on Vancouver Island, I see the NDP and Greens still stuck in 3rd, 4th, or 5th place depending on how the Bloc is doing.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

I think what really hurt the Conservatives chances of forming a government could be summarized in two words - Doug Ford. If Kathleen Wynne had still been Ontario premier the Conservatives would very likely have another phoney FPTP majority government. I think once the PC's  lose power in Ontario, the Conservatives will be in very good shape to form another government in Ottawa but they will still have tough competition from the federal Liberals. And as long as the NDP and Greens are fighting over who can win the most seats on Vancouver Island, I see the NDP and Greens still stuck in 3rd, 4th, or 5th place depending on how the Bloc is doing.

Perhaps. On the other hand if a regional right wing offering comes from Alberta instead of Quebec like Bernier, the Conservatives will have no place else to get seats to make up for it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:

I think what really hurt the Conservatives chances of forming a government could be summarized in two words - Doug Ford. If Kathleen Wynne had still been Ontario premier the Conservatives would very likely have another phoney FPTP majority government. I think once the PC's  lose power in Ontario, the Conservatives will be in very good shape to form another government in Ottawa but they will still have tough competition from the federal Liberals. And as long as the NDP and Greens are fighting over who can win the most seats on Vancouver Island, I see the NDP and Greens still stuck in 3rd, 4th, or 5th place depending on how the Bloc is doing.

It is time the NDP did something in Ontario. That was what Jack Layton was elected to do and he did pretty good in his fourth election but still ran a distant third in seat count. Jack won bigger in Quebec because everyone loves an underdog and especially one leading a stellar cast of leftists compared to the then stale Bloc. Mulcair was the worst mistake the party has made since I have been voting in elections. So the question is what do the NDP members in Ontario need to do to convince their neighbours to vote for their party.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think what really hurt the Conservatives chances of forming a government could be summarized in two words - Doug Ford. If Kathleen Wynne had still been Ontario premier the Conservatives would very likely have another phoney FPTP majority government. I think once the PC's  lose power in Ontario, the Conservatives will be in very good shape to form another government in Ottawa but they will still have tough competition from the federal Liberals. And as long as the NDP and Greens are fighting over who can win the most seats on Vancouver Island, I see the NDP and Greens still stuck in 3rd, 4th, or 5th place depending on how the Bloc is doing.

It is time the NDP did something in Ontario. That was what Jack Layton was elected to do and he did pretty good in his fourth election but still ran a distant third in seat count. Jack won bigger in Quebec because everyone loves an underdog and especially one leading a stellar cast of leftists compared to the then stale Bloc. Mulcair was the worst mistake the party has made since I have been voting in elections. So the question is what do the NDP members in Ontario need to do to convince their neighbours to vote for their party.

 

One thing is clear- they need to give up on being "moderate" or "centrist".  People who want that will never vote for any party other than the Liberals.  

Debater

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It is time the NDP did something in Ontario. That was what Jack Layton was elected to do and he did pretty good in his fourth election but still ran a distant third in seat count. Jack won bigger in Quebec because everyone loves an underdog and especially one leading a stellar cast of leftists compared to the then stale Bloc. Mulcair was the worst mistake the party has made since I have been voting in elections. So the question is what do the NDP members in Ontario need to do to convince their neighbours to vote for their party.

The Layton NDP actually finished ahead of the Ignatieff Liberals in Ontario in 2011.

NDP - 22 seats

Liberals -- 11 seats

Now of course that was a historically bad election for the Liberals so that's unlikely to happen again in the near future, but the Layton NDP did beat the Libs in Ontario in 2011. (they were tied in the popular vote at 25% each).  (Cons won big with 73 Ontario seats.)

josh

josh wrote:

https://twitter.com/PSidRyan/status/1187761250639532032

Don't hold your breath.

Sorry Sid, people seem satisfied with the state, direction and leadership of the party.

Pondering

josh wrote:

josh wrote:

https://twitter.com/PSidRyan/status/1187761250639532032

Don't hold your breath.

Sorry Sid, people seem satisfied with the state, direction and leadership of the party.

I think he is wrong anyway. I put a lot of emphasis on winning votes but I don't think a far reaching study is needed or produce any new information or insight. The NDP hasn't kept up with the times. Mulcair was a dud but also unlucky to be against Trudeau. He may well have won if Trudeau had not come along but that would have cemented the strategy of moving to the centre so I never saw that as a good thing. 

I think Sid is looking for a conclusion that the party wasn't far left enough but that isn't why the NDP lost previous elections nor why they lost this one although they might have won more seats if Singh had come out swinging sooner as many here wanted him to. 

I think the party has to focus much more on moving forward than examining what went wrong in the past. What works one election doesn't work the next. 

Much more important is the alienation of many members. Their is a feeling that the party has become too corporate and is no longer focused on social justice. I think many members would accept the NDP not speaking up on whatever issue is closest to their hearts if they felt the NDP was simply focusing on a larger target. 

Many people here that were previously condemning of Singh were more than willing to give him credit when he started speaking out on income inequality and wealth tax and climate change and came out clearly against TMX. For that reason I think NDP members are not as demanding as they seem and would accept the NDP not embracing every cause if the NDP were presenting a more progressive vision of the future in general that members could feel inspired by and could defend whole-heartedly.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

josh wrote:

https://twitter.com/PSidRyan/status/1187761250639532032

Don't hold your breath.

Sorry Sid, people seem satisfied with the state, direction and leadership of the party.

I think he is wrong anyway. I put a lot of emphasis on winning votes but I don't think a far reaching study is needed or produce any new information or insight. The NDP hasn't kept up with the times. Mulcair was a dud but also unlucky to be against Trudeau. He may well have won if Trudeau had not come along but that would have cemented the strategy of moving to the centre so I never saw that as a good thing. 

I think Sid is looking for a conclusion that the party wasn't far left enough but that isn't why the NDP lost previous elections nor why they lost this one although they might have won more seats if Singh had come out swinging sooner as many here wanted him to. 

I think the party has to focus much more on moving forward than examining what went wrong in the past. What works one election doesn't work the next. 

Much more important is the alienation of many members. Their is a feeling that the party has become too corporate and is no longer focused on social justice. I think many members would accept the NDP not speaking up on whatever issue is closest to their hearts if they felt the NDP was simply focusing on a larger target. 

Many people here that were previously condemning of Singh were more than willing to give him credit when he started speaking out on income inequality and wealth tax and climate change and came out clearly against TMX. For that reason I think NDP members are not as demanding as they seem and would accept the NDP not embracing every cause if the NDP were presenting a more progressive vision of the future in general that members could feel inspired by and could defend whole-heartedly.

I can agree with all this. I do not think the NDP membership is impatient.

However, I woudl add that the party is far too distant from the grass roots and needs to find a way to bridge that. People got fed up with nothing but money requests.

One way to do this is to really poll membership on a number of key issues and listen to the results. 

Also the party has to communicate more effecitvely with membership in terms of explaining when it is not going to do the popular thing among members.

My guess is the party is less divided than it thinks - if it only had the guts to ask.

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

One way to do this is to really poll membership on a number of key issues and listen to the results. 

Also the party has to communicate more effecitvely with membership in terms of explaining when it is not going to do the popular thing among members.

Why would leadership listen more to a poll than to convention, which actually formally has the power to set policy?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Policywonk wrote:

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? 

 

Undoubtedly some NDP supporters did switch to the  Liberals over the final weekend out of fear of the Conservatives. Though I don't think that alone can account for the Liberals winning an outright majority of the votes in every riding in Toronto.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
josh wrote:

josh wrote:

https://twitter.com/PSidRyan/status/1187761250639532032

Don't hold your breath.

Sorry Sid, people seem satisfied with the state, direction and leadership of the party.

I think he is wrong anyway. I put a lot of emphasis on winning votes but I don't think a far reaching study is needed or produce any new information or insight. The NDP hasn't kept up with the times. Mulcair was a dud but also unlucky to be against Trudeau. He may well have won if Trudeau had not come along but that would have cemented the strategy of moving to the centre so I never saw that as a good thing. 

I think Sid is looking for a conclusion that the party wasn't far left enough but that isn't why the NDP lost previous elections nor why they lost this one although they might have won more seats if Singh had come out swinging sooner as many here wanted him to. 

I think the party has to focus much more on moving forward than examining what went wrong in the past. What works one election doesn't work the next. 

Much more important is the alienation of many members. Their is a feeling that the party has become too corporate and is no longer focused on social justice. I think many members would accept the NDP not speaking up on whatever issue is closest to their hearts if they felt the NDP was simply focusing on a larger target.

Do you remember your super-qualified friend, someone you knew was the absolute best candidate for all the jobs this person applied for, but kept on failing the job interviews? That's the NDP's problem in a nutshell.

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

One way to do this is to really poll membership on a number of key issues and listen to the results. 

Also the party has to communicate more effecitvely with membership in terms of explaining when it is not going to do the popular thing among members.

Why would leadership listen more to a poll than to convention, which actually formally has the power to set policy?

Where did I say that?

I have said that they should and when they do not they need to explain and not just ignore the membership. And they need to invovle the membership in more rather than less. People do not want to be the wallets of a party that does not listen.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

One way to do this is to really poll membership on a number of key issues and listen to the results. 

Also the party has to communicate more effecitvely with membership in terms of explaining when it is not going to do the popular thing among members.

Why would leadership listen more to a poll than to convention, which actually formally has the power to set policy?

I think part of the NDP's problem is structural beginning with the concept that conventions are the governing body but are restricted to people who can physically attend. IMO this is anti-democratic unless all members are allowed "on the floor" electronically to register their views on the policy issues being discussed at convention.

The makeup of the convention is limited to either regular people who can afford to both take time off and to travel or staff and party officials, from both the provincial and federal wings and all the sitting MLA's and MP's and as many of their staffers as are allowed to attend because they all want to.

In this electronic age I think the party needs to open up. I think that if the members all had votes on policy issues the party would naturally shift left. Then there is the federal versus provincial problem. I cannot be a member of the federal NDP unless I agree to join the BC NDP and I will not do that so I could never have a vote in federal matters simply because I belong to a different party provincially. The NDP needs structural change to move forward.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

One way to do this is to really poll membership on a number of key issues and listen to the results. 

Also the party has to communicate more effecitvely with membership in terms of explaining when it is not going to do the popular thing among members.

Why would leadership listen more to a poll than to convention, which actually formally has the power to set policy?

I think part of the NDP's problem is structural beginning with the concept that conventions are the governing body but are restricted to people who can physically attend. IMO this is anti-democratic unless all members are allowed "on the floor" electronically to register their views on the policy issues being discussed at convention.

The makeup of the convention is limited to either regular people who can afford to both take time off and to travel or staff and party officials, from both the provincial and federal wings and all the sitting MLA's and MP's and as many of their staffers as are allowed to attend because they all want to.

In this electronic age I think the party needs to open up. I think that if the members all had votes on policy issues the party would naturally shift left. Then there is the federal versus provincial problem. I cannot be a member of the federal NDP unless I agree to join the BC NDP and I will not do that so I could never have a vote in federal matters simply because I belong to a different party provincially. The NDP needs structural change to move forward.

Indeed.  But that involves forcing out everyone in any position of power within the party who has a personal stake in preventing forward motion and everyone who is still unwilling to let go of that useless, pointless fixation with "moderation" and "respectability".   At this point, there are still far too many people in positions of power within the party who would freak out if any NDP candidate told a modern-day equivalent of Tommy D's "Mouseland" parable.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Then there is the federal versus provincial problem. I cannot be a member of the federal NDP unless I agree to join the BC NDP and I will not do that so I could never have a vote in federal matters simply because I belong to a different party provincially. The NDP needs structural change to move forward.

Yes, the federal NDP needs to break away from it's provincial sections. This would then allow me to join both the Federal NDP and the BC Ecosocialists.

voice of the damned

Ken Burch wrote:

At this point, there are still far too many people in positions of power within the party who would freak out if any NDP candidate told a modern-day equivalent of Tommy D's "Mouseland" parable.

 

Rachel Notley read Mouseland to a group of kids at a school in Edmonton a year or so ago. The UCP got upset about it, but I'm not aware that it led to any freakouts among party brass.

https://tinyurl.com/y4ll6b2k

EDIT: Changed "resignations" to "freakouts" in my reply, to correspond to what was written in the original. As far as I know, there were neither among New Democrats in positions of power. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Left Turn wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Then there is the federal versus provincial problem. I cannot be a member of the federal NDP unless I agree to join the BC NDP and I will not do that so I could never have a vote in federal matters simply because I belong to a different party provincially. The NDP needs structural change to move forward.

Yes, the federal NDP needs to break away from it's provincial sections. This would then allow me to join both the Federal NDP and the BC Ecosocialists.

The federal NDP is purported to believe in asymmetrical federalism however because of historic structures a QS supporter can join the federal NDP but we now can't.  For full disclosure I have not held an NDP membership since Bill Siskay decided not to seek reelection and I never sent the BC NDP any money. Because back then there was no other left party to join provincially in BC  it was a minor irritant but now it is an insult. It creates major problems for any merger talks because some Greens might want to join forces federally but after Site C and fracked gas pipelines they would rather die than join the BC NDP.

robbie_dee

I share Kropotkin's frustration from the other end, in that I would like to support my official opposition provincial NDP and its leader, Andrea Horwath, but I've nonetheless let my membership lapse because of a certain difference I have with the federal Party right now that I don't think is going to get resolved any time soon.

ETA: I forgot we have another thread about this: Separating the federal and provincial NDPs

blairz blairz's picture

I didn't have alot of faith in Jagmeet to begin with, but he does have away of facing down racism that is disarming and genuine. This campaign he won many Canadians admiration, but not their votes. Maybe the real key is how quickly the supposedly Woke Canadian Progressives forgave Trudeau's foibles much as supposedly Woke Americans have forgiven Elizabeth Warren hers. As for a challenge to Singh's leadership by Ashcroft or Angus I don't see them making the necessary commitment to fundraising and organisation that they failed to make in 2016. The party needs to quietly build a war chest starting now, in anticipation of an early election because Minority Governments are usually done before 3 years. At least they don't have to runagainst Rachel Notley anymore.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

blairz wrote:

I didn't have a lot of faith in Jagmeet, to begin with, but he does have a way of facing down racism that is disarming and genuine. This campaign he won many Canadians admiration, but not their votes. Maybe the real key is how quickly the supposedly Woke Canadian Progressives forgave Trudeau's foibles much as supposedly Woke Americans have forgiven Elizabeth Warren hers. As for a challenge to Singh's leadership by Ashcroft or Angus, I don't see them making the necessary commitment to fundraising and organisation that they failed to make in 2016. The party needs to quietly build a war chest starting now, in anticipation of an early election because Minority Governments are usually done before 3 years. At least they don't have to run against Rachel Notley anymore.

 

Nothing Elizabeth Warren did is even remotely comparable to Justin doing blackface.  Warren simply repeated an old family claim that some of her ancestors were Native American-the Warren family is from Oklahoma, and it was a common thing among white Oklahoma families to claim Cherokee ancestry.   Warren never sought any benefits in admission or hiring based on affirmative action criteria.  The most that happened was that Harvard-on it's own volition-listed her as a Native American professor.   Warren was somewhat clumsy in her communications with Native American groups about all of this, but she was guilty of no conscious deception and was not in any way the beneficiary of any unearned advantages based on Native American identity.

Mighty Middle

Anne McGrath on CTV today about Jagmeet Singh "There is a lot that reminds me of Jack Layton"

Pages