NDP denies Andrea Horwath set to resign as leader

341 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So, rather than wait for someone else to answer the question, "What kind of Ontario do you want?" - do you have any tips for the ONDP? Or are you just waiting?

First I say with respect, it is the job of the party (especially one that forces an election) to articulate that and for each voter to listen, question and choose.

 

You won't like this, Sean, but I stopped reading after that first sentence. I promise to read the rest. But when I quit the NDP long ago, it was not just because of its rejection of socialism (Waffle) and of the right of Québec to self-determination - it was primarily because the voice of the membership, via convention or otherwise, was an inconvenient obstacle to getting things done.

So no. It's not the "job of the party". The party, in this case, has proven its ineptitude and betrayal. It's the job of the people. Like every other job in the world. If the party and its Glorious Leader and Sacred Inner Circle can't come up with anything better than Horwath's heresy, then sweep them away and move on.

I will read the rest of your post. I do promise. But let's get things straight right from the outset.

ETA: Oh and Sean - when you have a moment, please explain to me why Horwath dropped the ONDP's Ontario Retirement Plan the instant Wynne adopted it, and why she unilaterally, without explanation of any kind, dropped the corporate tax hike from 2.5 to 1% on May 22 - thus proving that she could easily drop it to 0% without hearing a peep of protest from her mindless cheerleaders (increasingly few in number, thank God).

Any explanation of that? Does Horwath owe anyone an explanation? or does the leadership come with Divine Right to Rule and Infallibility attached??

Rokossovsky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So, rather than wait for someone else to answer the question, "What kind of Ontario do you want?" - do you have any tips for the ONDP? Or are you just waiting?

My comment had some context-- I was criticizing the the slogan they picked. The slogan was not about what she would do or a vision but a self-review of the NDP plan (a plan that "makes sense"). I want to see a plan that makes sense and draw that conclusion myself not be told that it does by Horwath. Much of the details of the plan did the same -- saying the NDP would do better on one issue or another but not articulating how.

Still, I do happen to know what kind of Ontario I want. Frankly I did not hear the NDP speak to it.

The NDP platform suggested some minor tinkering would do-- little more for social assistance, little less tax on hydro (would save the average family what $10 per month? The GST would still apply).

You nailed it here Sean. That was the whole idea. The idea was to distinguish themselves from the Tories and the Liberals by being a "sensible" party that wasn't going to thrown around a lot of "big idea" promises to be disposed of as soon as the election was over, just as Bob Rae threw Public Auto Insurance overboard when the going got hot.

Little fixes to systemic problems, as opposed to massive campaign promises, which are merely campaign promises -- that was the "big idea" that was intended to distinguish the NDP from the other parties.

It was intended to be a highly nuanced "aesthetic" campaign of the kind that the media let the Liberals and the Conservatives get away with all the time.

But, what they steadfastly adhered to was opposition to privatization. Privatization, not Tim Hudak, was what this whole election was about. In fact, privatization is a huge deal. Far bigger than all these odds and ends you are talking about. But if the media isn't going to cover it, then its not an issue.

In fact, selling off crown corporations that are part of the life blood of the government revenue stream is a huge deal for all of the various programs you are talking about because without them, future governments will be hobbled in maintaining them.

Radio silence on that for the entire election.

Not to mention breaking the taboo on raising corporate taxes. Sure, 1% is so "moderate" that it seems like nothing. But in fact it is a reversal of 20 years of neo-liberal financial policy and a repudiation of the mythology of "low tax business culture" and "job creation," and the race to the bottom on taxation.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So, rather than wait for someone else to answer the question, "What kind of Ontario do you want?" - do you have any tips for the ONDP? Or are you just waiting?

First I say with respect, it is the job of the party (especially one that forces an election) to articulate that and for each voter to listen, question and choose.

 

You won't like this, Sean, but I stopped reading after that first sentence. I promise to read the rest. But when I quit the NDP long ago, it was not just because of its rejection of socialism (Waffle) and of the right of Québec to self-determination - it was primarily because the voice of the membership, via convention or otherwise, was an inconvenient obstacle to getting things done.

So no. It's not the "job of the party". The party, in this case, has proven its ineptitude and betrayal. It's the job of the people. Like every other job in the world. If the party and its Glorious Leader and Sacred Inner Circle can't come up with anything better than Horwath's heresy, then sweep them away and move on.

I will read the rest of your post. I do promise. But let's get things straight right from the outset.

 

If you had read the rest of my post you would see how inappropriate your response was to it.

And people are paid to run campaigns. It is big business. The members and supporters are expected to think and propose. And in this party they do that. The NDP is not short of ideas from membership. I myself, share many and have for many years.

But it is the job of the leadership to be open to them, to gather those ideas and sort them. It is their job to pull them into a plan and vision and communiate that.

By the time an election forced by the party is underway it is not the job of a supporter to be responsible for what the party has not done.

And for the record I am a working person. I have another job. I am civic minded and spend time thinking about things but it is not my day job to pull them into a well thought out plan. Paid party workers and the paid leadership do have a job to do.

And I have done mine. And I am doing it here still.

And ultimately it is not the job of supporters to work against a party that is not doing a good job. While that has not been my decision, it is perfectly legitimate for an individual to simply move on and vote for, support or do something else -- as you have.

So there is nothing wrong with looking to the leadership and saying it is their job to articulate -- some damn thing. And mine to contribute, to crtiticize and to choose but not mine to do it and certainly not, upon realizing the party got itself into an election it was totally unprepared to fight.

I have a day job. I am a citizen. I don't get calls returned and am not very optimistic when I share an idea that anyone is listening. But I do it anyway. So no, crafting a complete vision and plan is not my job. Contributing to one, where given an opportunity is. And I do, when I can.

Sean in Ottawa

Rokossovsky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So, rather than wait for someone else to answer the question, "What kind of Ontario do you want?" - do you have any tips for the ONDP? Or are you just waiting?

My comment had some context-- I was criticizing the the slogan they picked. The slogan was not about what she would do or a vision but a self-review of the NDP plan (a plan that "makes sense"). I want to see a plan that makes sense and draw that conclusion myself not be told that it does by Horwath. Much of the details of the plan did the same -- saying the NDP would do better on one issue or another but not articulating how.

Still, I do happen to know what kind of Ontario I want. Frankly I did not hear the NDP speak to it.

The NDP platform suggested some minor tinkering would do-- little more for social assistance, little less tax on hydro (would save the average family what $10 per month? The GST would still apply).

You nailed it here Sean. That was the whole idea. The idea was to distinguish themselves from the Tories and the Liberals by being a "sensible" party that wasn't going to thrown around a lot of "big idea" promises to be disposed of as soon as the election was over, just as Bob Rae threw Public Auto Insurance overboard when the going got hot.

Little fixes to systemic problems, as opposed to massive campaign promises, which are merely campaign promises -- that was the "big idea" that was intended to distinguish the NDP from the other parties.

It was intended to be a highly nuanced "aesthetic" campaign of the kind that the media let the Liberals and the Conservatives get away with all the time.

But, what they steadfastly adhered to was opposition to privatization. Privatization, not Tim Hudak, was what this whole election was about. In fact, privatization is a huge deal. Far bigger than all these odds and ends you are talking about. But if the media isn't going to cover it, then its not an issue.

In fact, selling off crown corporations that are part of the life blood of the government revenue stream is a huge deal for all of the various programs you are talking about because without them, future governments will be hobbled in maintaining them.

Radio silence on that for the entire election.

Not to mention breaking the taboo on raising corporate taxes. Sure, 1% is so "moderate" that it seems like nothing. But in fact it is a reversal of 20 years of neo-liberal financial policy and a repudiation of the mythology of "low tax business culture" and "job creation," and the race to the bottom on taxation.

The NDP plan does not mention privatization. The Liberal one does.

The NDP don't mention protecting public service jobs. In fact they don't even mention the public service. They don't mention unionized workers either.

The Liberal plan does mention the 100,000 people Hudak wanted to fire.

Poverty reduction? Not mentionned in the NDP plan-- in fact the only mention of low income people at all was the offer to provide some dental services to 100,000 low income people. Otherwise it was a budget for middle income problems. The NDP speaks of the "middle class" in the opening message. The Liberal plan offers far more to help people of low incomes with the cost of living-- detailed. Is the NDp saying they could not do this? None of it?

NDP plan does not mention minimum wage. The Liberal plan does.

Not to say I trust the Liberals but why would the NDP let the Liberals be the only ones to talk about what would normally be NDP priorities?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So, rather than wait for someone else to answer the question, "What kind of Ontario do you want?" - do you have any tips for the ONDP? Or are you just waiting?

First I say with respect, it is the job of the party (especially one that forces an election) to articulate that and for each voter to listen, question and choose.

 

You won't like this, Sean, but I stopped reading after that first sentence. I promise to read the rest. But when I quit the NDP long ago, it was not just because of its rejection of socialism (Waffle) and of the right of Québec to self-determination - it was primarily because the voice of the membership, via convention or otherwise, was an inconvenient obstacle to getting things done.

So no. It's not the "job of the party". The party, in this case, has proven its ineptitude and betrayal. It's the job of the people. Like every other job in the world. If the party and its Glorious Leader and Sacred Inner Circle can't come up with anything better than Horwath's heresy, then sweep them away and move on.

I will read the rest of your post. I do promise. But let's get things straight right from the outset.

ETA: Oh and Sean - when you have a moment, please explain to me why Horwath dropped the ONDP's Ontario Retirement Plan the instant Wynne adopted it, and why she unilaterally, without explanation of any kind, dropped the corporate tax hike from 2.5 to 1% on May 22 - thus proving that she could easily drop it to 0% without hearing a peep of protest from her mindless cheerleaders (increasingly few in number, thank God).

Any explanation of that? Does Horwath owe anyone an explanation? or does the leadership come with Divine Right to Rule and Infallibility attached??

BTW there are small elements of the NDP plan that I think I have been part of pushing-- for example the promise to improve property standards. I have called the party and spoken to candidates for the last four elections asking for this. I appreciate that it made the cut but the plan is still too thin, lacking in ambition and ignoring huge issues.

I said nothing through the entire campaign not wanting to hurt the campaign more than it was hurting but now I openly call for a recognition that this was a lousy campaign on a lousy document that appeared late and was barely promoted.

The fact that the Liberal record sucked and Hudak promised to destroy the province probably is all that saved the NDP from losing party status in this election. With stronger opponents Horwath would have been lucky to have seats in the double digits with a campaign this bad and a document so empty of detail and a base with so little to hold on to.

Sean in Ottawa

I believe privatization was discussed under the healthcare tab-- I saw it there tonight. I reread the entire NDP document and the word privatization does not appear.

The Liberal plan was released bit by bit ending with the document itself. I knew what the Liberals were running on well before the NDP plan was released and still did not know what the NDP would do after reading the NDP plan. The NDP is the third party. You can do that as a government perhaps but not as a third party.

I know the NDP plan is pared down. I am saying that was a critical mistake. The kind of people that will take the trouble to go read a plan like that expect more than what the NDP offered. You don't aim your document towards the people who won't read it -- you aim it to the people who will and they missed the mark.

A campaign is marketing if you want to use the term. The distinction is the Liberals ran a reasonably good campaign on a bad record and the NDP did a bad campaign. They misjudged timing, slogans, speeches, amount of detail etc. You can say all distinctions but these are the distintions between a good campaign and a poor one.

I am not conflating a campaign to policy-- I am saying the campaign was terrible and if you want to implement policy some day you have to have a good campaign. If you blow it like this- it won't matter what your policy actually is.

And please don't use extremes to make the point-- nobody expected more from the NDP than the Liberals in the plan but they were taken aback by how much less it had. This is not about the NDP being held to a higher standard. The plans are simply not comparable in volume of substance. Not only are there fewer words in the NDP plan, the NDP plan is wordy in places with notional statements without any detail at all.So it is not just length but density in terms of content.

Rokossovsky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So, rather than wait for someone else to answer the question, "What kind of Ontario do you want?" - do you have any tips for the ONDP? Or are you just waiting?

My comment had some context-- I was criticizing the the slogan they picked. The slogan was not about what she would do or a vision but a self-review of the NDP plan (a plan that "makes sense"). I want to see a plan that makes sense and draw that conclusion myself not be told that it does by Horwath. Much of the details of the plan did the same -- saying the NDP would do better on one issue or another but not articulating how.

Still, I do happen to know what kind of Ontario I want. Frankly I did not hear the NDP speak to it.

The NDP platform suggested some minor tinkering would do-- little more for social assistance, little less tax on hydro (would save the average family what $10 per month? The GST would still apply).

You nailed it here Sean. That was the whole idea. The idea was to distinguish themselves from the Tories and the Liberals by being a "sensible" party that wasn't going to thrown around a lot of "big idea" promises to be disposed of as soon as the election was over, just as Bob Rae threw Public Auto Insurance overboard when the going got hot.

Little fixes to systemic problems, as opposed to massive campaign promises, which are merely campaign promises -- that was the "big idea" that was intended to distinguish the NDP from the other parties.

It was intended to be a highly nuanced "aesthetic" campaign of the kind that the media let the Liberals and the Conservatives get away with all the time.

But, what they steadfastly adhered to was opposition to privatization. Privatization, not Tim Hudak, was what this whole election was about. In fact, privatization is a huge deal. Far bigger than all these odds and ends you are talking about. But if the media isn't going to cover it, then its not an issue.

In fact, selling off crown corporations that are part of the life blood of the government revenue stream is a huge deal for all of the various programs you are talking about because without them, future governments will be hobbled in maintaining them.

Radio silence on that for the entire election.

Not to mention breaking the taboo on raising corporate taxes. Sure, 1% is so "moderate" that it seems like nothing. But in fact it is a reversal of 20 years of neo-liberal financial policy and a repudiation of the mythology of "low tax business culture" and "job creation," and the race to the bottom on taxation.

The NDP plan does not mention privatization. The Liberal one does.

The NDP don't mention protecting public service jobs. In fact they don't even mention the public service. They don't mention unionized workers either.

The Liberal plan does mention the 100,000 people Hudak wanted to fire.

Poverty reduction? Not mentionned in the NDP plan-- in fact the only mention of low income people at all was the offer to provide some dental services to 100,000 low income people. Otherwise it was a budget for middle income problems. The NDP speaks of the "middle class" in the opening message. The Liberal plan offers far more to help people of low incomes with the cost of living-- detailed. Is the NDp saying they could not do this? None of it?

NDP plan does not mention minimum wage. The Liberal plan does.

Not to say I trust the Liberals but why would the NDP let the Liberals be the only ones to talk about what would normally be NDP priorities?

Contrary to your statement, and I could be wrong on this, but I can't find the word "privatization" in the Liberal platform. I find it funny that so many complain about how late the ONDP platform was, when in fact the Liberal platform was released after the ONDP platform.

The Liberals articulated a clear plan to "optimize the value of Ontario assets" through a series of measures including asset sales and P3 privatization and AFPs in the May 1st budget. They also formed a "Premier’s Advisory Council" to put this together immediately prior to the election.

In fact Horwath challenged Wynne on privatization, as soon as the campaign began. It seems that according to Wynne P3 outsourcing of labour is not "privatization" as long as the government is on the hook because it owns service, even if every part of the function of that service is contracted out.

The Liberal platform, which was actually mentions that they will improve "Ontario's Liquor and Electricity Agencies", but neglects to mention the specifics of asset sales and P3 privatization and AFPs, which is glossed over in fuzzy talk:

Liberal Budget page 4 wrote:
We will improve Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario so that they are more responsive to customers and provide more income to support public services. We have created a Premier’s Advisory Council to examine how to get the most out of key government assets to get bet-ter returns and revenues for Ontarians.

That does not mean that "asset sales and P3 privatization and AFPs" have disappeared from program of the Liberal party. What it means is they have pared down the program for public consumption. Likewise, the fact that the ONDP does not specifically mention the $12 an hour minimum wage increase, does not mean that it has disappeared from the program of the ONDP.

You are basically talking about a distinction in marketing style, as if this is tangible in policy terms.

I don't think it is. For example, the ONDP tacking on the Pension Plan is quite clearly explained by Horwath when the ONDP platform was tabled.

CBC wrote:
Horwath said Thursday her party supports the idea in principle but said she wants to see what happens in the 2015 federal election before committing provincial dollars to it.

"We may actually get a federal government that will take pension plans seriously," said Horwath. "We are the party that first began to talk about pension security for Ontarians."

Amazingly, despite this clear and simple explanation, some people continue to put it about that Horwath was against pension reform, or even an Ontario plan, even though quite clearly her objection is "tactical", only.

Here is the thing Sean, the ONDP platform was clearly a very pared down document which was simplified for marketing purposes, and not meant as detailed outline of all of the ONDP program.

No one expects the Liberal party to release a 200 page detailed prospectus of the entire program available for public consumption. They are satisfied with the abridged version. Only the ONDP is required to fully articulate each and every single policy that they intend to put forward as part of their governing plan.

This is the fact of this election, and the Liberal majority: The Liberal Party was looking for a mandate for privatization of major public assets in the last election, and the Liberal majority means that they have that: It is full steam ahead for privatization of Hydro One, OPG and the LCBO.

Rokossovsky

I know what you are saying.

But if we look at this one very major issue, which is privatization, the press did absolutely nothing to highlight the ONDP objection to privatization, which was brought up numerous times by Horwath, and other ONDP candidates, including sitting members, such as Rosario Marchese.

Editorial after editorial quoted Sid Ryan calling the Liberal budget "the most progressive in years", while Warren Thomas simply disappeared from anything but fringe outlets, as did OPSEU's anti-privatization campaign.

You are talking about the presentation of a very minor aspect of the campaign, which is the proposed "program", which not very many people "take the trouble" to look at. Most people are focussed on generalities presented to them in the press. The Liberal campaign, for example, was hardly about policy at all, but mostly about "strategic voting" against Hudak and his "Million Jobs Plan" gaff.

It's important to be critical of the internal qualities of a campaign, but to do so at the expense of looking at external factors acting upon the campaign is a mistake.

I don't think having a more detailed program outline would have helped one bit. The press chose not to forward the privatization issue, even though the ONDP clearly articulated objections over and over again, and has always articulated opposition to it. A piece at Global News even went so far as to concur with the Wynne that "outsourcing" maintenance contracts on TTC infrastructure was not "privatization", when Horwath broached the issue on Day 1 of the campaign.

The Liberals got a free ride. The ONDP did not. And this is and always will be the case.

And that too me is the big mistake in the ONDP campaign. They thought they could run an empty "aesthetics" campaign on being a "sensible" government that "make sense" in the way that the Liberals get to run on being "not Hudak" and being "more progressive than the ONDP", regardless of the content of their platform, and they got trashed for it. Likewise, had they done the opposite, and run on a stronger more "left platform", they would have go trashed for that while the Liberals got to run on being "not Hudak" and being "more reasonable and moderate than the ONDP".

The mistake is the thought that "optics" and "marketing" are going to triumph in a fundamentally hostile media climate.

The only antidote to that is to properly mobilize at the base, and requires better internal communication, respect for constituency associations, and envigorating the grass roots membership, because they will be your "sales people", even if the media wont oblige you, the way the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail will for the Liberals and Conservatives.

terrytowel

Rokossovsky wrote:

Do you have a link to the full speech or a transcript from it?

Good news CP24 have her entire press conference uninterrupted

http://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=385669

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:
The Liberals got a free ride. The ONDP did not. And this is and always will be the case.

What about the free ride the Federal NDP got in 2011?

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils

Ha! Laughing

Debater

Peter Tabuns had a much-reduced margin in Toronto-Danforth this year, so he probably isn't too happy with Andrea Horwath.

terrytowel

Andrea was on Sun News and the network applauded Andrea's breakthrough, saying it was the NDP best showing since 1990.

When the video is up online, I'll come back here with the link.

 

Rokossovsky

DP

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
The Liberals got a free ride. The ONDP did not. And this is and always will be the case.

What about the free ride the Federal NDP got in 2011?

That's a total joke. I have never seen a merciless attack of the kind that was prosecuted in the mainstream Toronto press in this last election. There was plenty of pro-Ignatieff and pro-Liberal coveraged in the Toronto in 2011, even the "endorsement" for Jack Layton and the NDP that the Toronto Star offered at the 11th hour of that campaign, was barely and endorsement at all.

Rokossovsky

TP

takeitslowly

I defended Andrea Horwath but she needs to eat some humble pie.  Thomas Mulcair would not succeed  following her straregy.

terrytowel

takeitslowly wrote:

I defended Andrea Horwath but she needs to eat some humble pie.  Thomas Mulcair would not succeed  following her straregy.

When she was on Sun News today she was not humble, She was empahtic that she did nothing wrong, and her campaign was a success.

Rokossovsky

100,000 few public sector jobs possible under Wynne: Don Drummond

Quote:
“Just take Service Ontario right now. Service Ontario is almost half delivered by the private sector — almost half delivered by the public sector. Would I be shocked by 2017 if that had shifted to two thirds or three quarters? Not at all,” he said.

“That’s a transfer from the public sector to the private sector. And that got missed by a lot of people, I think.”

takeitslowly

Too bad, I really thought she was smarter.  Lets see if Thomas Mulcair will do any better. I am disappointed in his Tony Blair comment.  He isnt Obama, he can't muse about the goodness of Regan and get away with it. He isnt Hillary Clinton either, he can't win with "experience". I dont know why he is following the Horwath game plan because it doesnt work  He needs to distinguish himselff rom the liberals, like TALKING ABOUT PR.

Debater

Mulcair is even less likeable than Horwath.

And I'm getting tired of hearing from Don Drummond.  Kathleen Wynne is not going to follow all of his right-wing recommendations, so he can keep them to himself.

NorthReport

It will be a very long 4 years - and nobody here can say they were not warned this might happen.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

100,000 fewer public sector jobs possible under Wynne: Don Drummond

Quote:
“Just take Service Ontario right now. Service Ontario is almost half delivered by the private sector — almost half delivered by the public sector. Would I be shocked by 2017 if that had shifted to two thirds or three quarters? Not at all,” he said.

“That’s a transfer from the public sector to the private sector. And that got missed by a lot of people, I think.”

Rokossovsky

NorthReport wrote:

It will be a very long 4 years - and nobody here can say they were not warned this might happen.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

100,000 fewer public sector jobs possible under Wynne: Don Drummond

Quote:
“Just take Service Ontario right now. Service Ontario is almost half delivered by the private sector — almost half delivered by the public sector. Would I be shocked by 2017 if that had shifted to two thirds or three quarters? Not at all,” he said.

“That’s a transfer from the public sector to the private sector. And that got missed by a lot of people, I think.”

Let's just be clear about who the liars are.

Skinny Dipper

Rokossovsky wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

It will be a very long 4 years - and nobody here can say they were not warned this might happen.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

100,000 fewer public sector jobs possible under Wynne: Don Drummond

Quote:
“Just take Service Ontario right now. Service Ontario is almost half delivered by the private sector — almost half delivered by the public sector. Would I be shocked by 2017 if that had shifted to two thirds or three quarters? Not at all,” he said.

“That’s a transfer from the public sector to the private sector. And that got missed by a lot of people, I think.”

Let's just be clear about who the liars are.

I do think Kathleen Wynne will go ahead with 100,000 public sector job cuts.  She will just be low-key about them.  These cuts will occur with departments and crown corporations being transferred to the private sector.  For example, the Liquor Store's retail operations could be sold to the private sector.

Skinny Dipper

A few months ago, I got a form letter from Alex Boulerice, NDP MP for Rosemont La Petite-Patrie.  The message was on behalf of the party with suggested solutions by Canadians.  They include the following:

--Offering incentives for smaller businesses that create good-paying jobs;

--Making life more affordable by cracking down on unfair fees and price gouging;

--Promoting sustainable development by investing in green energy and infrastructure;

--Securing public health care by modernizing services for our aging population;

--Protecting services you rely on, from Employment Insurance through Old Age Security.

If I were to view these five points as being part of a proposed campaign platform, I would think that there would be a good mix of middle-of-the-road and progressive points.  However, I think what is mainly missing is an overall mission statement of what kind of Canada the federal NDP wants.

I am an avid supporter of proportional representation.  I do think that the NDP needs to include in its campaign under the improving democracy umbrella its commitment to supporting some kind of proportional representation.  I know that PR is not a hot-button issue with many voters.  I do think that the party should promote it on one day of the campaign in order to get the support of über-democrats like me.  My worry is that Justin Trudeau will present a proposal for the single-member district rank ballot.  If the NDP doesn't actively promote PR, then Justin Trudeau could get the support of some people who want to move away from the current First-Past-the-Post voting system.

Brachina

 Mistakes were made, but if we look historically when the Libs hug the NDP during a minority, the NDPs seat count and pop vote gets slashed. Andrea managed to prevent that even with way less money and a flaw campaign, solely on her personal strength. If we give her a better plan,:more money, and a better context which she should all have by the next Ontario election, she'll be able to win like Rae did (abit hopefully she doesn't govern like him).

terrytowel

terrytowel wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I defended Andrea Horwath but she needs to eat some humble pie.  Thomas Mulcair would not succeed  following her straregy.

When she was on Sun News today she was not humble, She was empahtic that she did nothing wrong, and her campaign was a success.

As promised here is Andrea on Sun News TV yesterday

"New Democrats have not changed. We still have our core values, we still have our beliefs. It is not un-NDP to do things like care about people making ends meet. It is not un-NDP that people get the healthcare they need. It is not against our values to make sure people have good jobs to go to. I'm proud of the work that we have done to connect to the people in Onatrio. The NDP has got some ideas to make your life affordable, keep healthcare strong, and bring jobs to your community. It has resonated with people in this province in the last number of years"

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/post-ontario-election-analysis/364508...

mark_alfred

Thanks for the link to the Sun News interview terrytowel.  Contrary to your opinion that she was not humble and emphatic that nothing wrong was done, I saw that she acknowledged that "there's definitely some learning we can take away from that campaign .. there's no doubt we have some rebuilding to do and some growing to do and some work to do in particular in the ridings that we lost in downtown Toronto -- we're quite concerned about that."  That said, I feel the campaign overall was a success with the gains in popular vote (and in some areas I speculate that voters moving from PC to NDP helped elect a few Liberals).  So, a small breakthrough this time that hopefully will be bigger next time. 

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

Thanks for the link to the Sun News interview terrytowel.  Contrary to your opinion that she was not humble and emphatic that nothing wrong was done, I saw that she acknowledged that "there's definitely some learning we can take away from that campaign .. there's no doubt we have some rebuilding to do and some growing to do and some work to do in particular in the ridings that we lost in downtown Toronto -- we're quite concerned about that."  That said, I feel the campaign overall was a success with the gains in popular vote (and in some areas I speculate that voters moving from PC to NDP helped elect a few Liberals).  So, a small breakthrough this time that hopefully will be bigger next time. 

David Akin from Sun News shares that view, if you noticed off the top.

mark_alfred

Which view?  That it's incorrect to say she was "not humble, She was empahtic [sic] that she did nothing wrong", as you claimed her to be? Is that still your view?

Regardless, as I mentioned, Horwath herself did say there was some work to grow that needed to be done.  So I feel your characterization is wrong and misleading.  And, as I mentioned, the NDP vote share grew, and hopefully will be bigger next time.

Andrea Horwath wrote:
There's definitely some learning we can take away from that campaign .. there's no doubt we have some rebuilding to do and some growing to do and some work to do in particular in the ridings that we lost in downtown Toronto -- we're quite concerned about that.

terrytowel

The view that this was a success for the NDP.

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Skinny Dipper wrote:
I do think Kathleen Wynne will go ahead with 100,000 public sector job cuts.  She will just be low-key about them.  These cuts will occur with departments and crown corporations being transferred to the private sector.  For example, the Liquor Store's retail operations could be sold to the private sector.

IMO Kathleen Wynne is "Harperette" with a smile. I bet she will do all of the above and more, without the public's awareness and without raising much opposition. She will do much that Hudak planned, but in a much more low-key fashion.

fiddling

For what it's worth, having read through the long thread up to this point, I believe Sean's analysis of the situation is most on the mark.  But I'll add where my personal perspective is slightly different.

I too am a habitual NDP voter.  However, I found myself almost too embarrassed by Andrea during this campaign to vote for her.  Key reasons for this:

1) Yes, the differences in depth between the platforms of 2011 and 2014 were significant.  Most notably anything concrete that would portray the NDP as advocating for goals on the left as opposed to the centre seemed to have been removed.  This leaves prospective voters, whether the average person on the street or a longtime party activist, to fill in the blanks.  With the most consistent comment being heard from Andrea during the campaign being "corruption" - and this aimed really at McGuinty's ghost more than Wynne - well, then it seems to me the blanks are filled in with a seeming attempt to replace the Liberals rather that to advocate for anything different.  So much for giving the left a voice.

And the larger side-effect, I think when there are no significant differences between what should be these two different parties, the effect will be a further disenfranchisement of the next generation of voters.

2) Her favourite policy to comment on seems to have been the removal of HST from Hydro bills.  This is something I wrote many times to the NDP about, but never received a response.  You could not pick a more poorly-thought-out policy from a supposedly progressive party, as it both violates the green principle of taxing carbon use (on electricity generation - much of which is fossil-fuel based), as well as the seriously unprogressive distribution that a consumption tax rebate will inevitably have.  This was indeed an obvious and true right-wing policy, and it is no wonder that the Conservatives like this idea so much.  Here, Andrea could have at least attempted a compromise in order to differentiate herself by proposing some kind of enhanced HST rebate for example so as to target low-income earners.  Nothing so intelligent was proposed, probably because it wouldn't have been seen as "targeting the middle class", bad policy or not.

3) Contrast this poor policy with Andrea's about-face on what was perhaps her best policy idea since the last election, one which she could have taken credit for in the way Canada's medicare is properly associated with Tommy Douglas even though obviously the Liberals brought it into being federally.  Andrea on the other hand decided an Ontario Pension Plan stopped being a good idea when the Kathleen Wynne bought into it?  That came across to me as slimy, and it was utterly incredible for her to pretend to be following in Douglas' footsteps later on in the campaign.

4) During the debate, again, Andrea was attacking corruption (and even the pension plan) far more often than trying to show what the NDP actually stood for.  I came away feeling like Wynne was the most reasonable and trustable candidate.

In the end, the deciding factor for my vote in this election, was our local (Kingston) NDP candidate, who is everything Andrea is not - someone with an actual background in policymaking, and a consistent activist presence in the community (in a number of important and public ways).  So I voted for the local candidate.  But the local candidate lost, and Andrea remains the leader.

In my opinion, I don't feel much value in her continued leadership if she has not learned from this mushy campaign, and from the response that's coming through my worry is it doesn't seem like she has.

 

mark_alfred

fiddling, consumption taxes are flat taxes.  Government that raises revenue through imposing user fees and consumption taxes (flat taxes) while simultaneously cutting progressive taxes such as the corporate tax (as the Liberals did), are not being progressive.  These are regressive moves.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Yes I can see that consumption taxes (applied at time of sale) is regressive, but wouldn't that make reducing this tax progressive.  Otherwise I think you post makes a number of great points.

Unionist

I guess no one has yet noticed that the ONDP's promised 2.5% corporate tax hike plummeted to 1.0% on May 22, without justification or explanation.

But thanks, fiddling, for one of the few acknowledgments we've seen yet that Horwath's dropping the Ontario Retirement Plan the instant Wynne bought into it was disgraceful.

 

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

I guess no one has yet noticed that the ONDP's promised 2.5% corporate tax hike plummeted to 1.0% on May 22, without justification or explanation.

But thanks, fiddling, for one of the few acknowledgments we've seen yet that Horwath's dropping the Ontario Retirement Plan the instant Wynne bought into it was disgraceful.

 

You are really running on fumes for Horwath bashing when this is all you can come up with, in the light of the calamitous outcome of the so called "strategic voting" campaign that you have supported along with the OFL, and the stark reality that both the Liberals and the Conservatives were running on the Don Drummond budget, one openly and the other covertly.

Quote:
After Drummond said he “wouldn’t be surprised” to see 100,000 fewer Ontario workers under the Liberals by 2017, Paikin sought clarification.

“Can I make sure I heard you right? You’re saying… or are you saying — that if the Liberals are to achieve the spending targets that they have put in their own budget, which call for pretty dramatic program spending cuts in the years ahead, they may also shed 100,000 jobs in the process?” Paikin asked.

This distraction does nothing to avert the reality that OPSEU called this election correctly, and that the Horwath was 100% correct in calling the Liberals corrupt, as the subterfuge of pretending to be opposed to the mass layoff of public workers prove conclusively.

Yes, the Liberals are corrupt obviously. Why else would they campaign against the Hudak mass layoff campaign, only to implement it themselves? It was an outright lie, as Warren Thomas correctly stated.

Despite the fact that you have repeatedly ridiculed labour leaders who called the liberals out on their shit, going so far as to call ATU113 "reactionary" because they dared opposed the Liberal juggernaught and attack the Liberals for their privatization agenda.

But for you, openly changing the specifics of a tax policy platform by a single percentage point is of monumental significance, when the party you "strategically" supported deliberately obfuscated the true nature of their plans in order to fool people in to voting for them, while you, and other like you such as Sid Ryan and the OFL, and Jerry Diaz at Unifor took pot shots at the only labour leaders who were telling the truth about "the most progressive budget in years", is completely irrelevant.

I really hope that your obsessive attempt to deflect blame on Horwath by rehashing bygone trivia of the last election campaign, is simply the result of your own personal embarassment at your minor role in helping sell one of the largest shipments of snake oil dispatched by the leadership of the labour movement to members and the public, since the Canadian Seaman's Union was dismantled shortly after World War II.

Unionist

I wonder. Will the ONDP now support their own Ontario Retirement Plan proposal? Or have they become so corrupt that they will fuck with retired workers just for the fun of it?

 

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

I wonder. Will the ONDP now support their own Ontario Retirement Plan proposal? Or have they become so corrupt that they will fuck with retired workers just for the fun of it?

 

They never opposed an Ontario Retirement Plan. These Liberal talking points are getting tired. In fact, Horwath endorsed the idea in "principle". Her word. Her only objection was the timing.

I guess with 100,000 less civil servants paying into OMERS and OTPP, there will be even more need for a general plan.

Unionist

Mark_alfred, helloooo, are you there? Anyone else? Why did Andrea Horwath dump her retirement plan the moment she got Wynne's support for it?

And why did she slash her promised corporate tax hike to 1.0% from 2.5%?

The reason I'm asking is that I don't know the answer. Certainly, Horwath never condescended to tell us. In a party which operates by fiat instead of democracy, the Leader can make Any Decision Whatsoever Anytime.

But now that Horwath is close to being History, shouldn't the party maybe level with people? What do they stand for, if anything? If they're clones of the Liberals, fine. Then Ontarians will need to build something new.

Answers, please?

 

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Mark_alfred, helloooo, are you there? Anyone else? Why did Andrea Horwath dump her retirement plan the moment she got Wynne's support for it?

Is that what happened? Interesting. Because what I read was Horwath saying that they (the ONDP) had no objection to the idea in principle, but that she thought it was better to wait for possible reform of CPP before launching an Ontario plan, after the next Federal election.

Can we please see the revised talking points for the OLP, these ones are out of date.

This question has already been asked and ansered.

One notable omission from the NDP platform was a made-in-Ontario pension plan, which the Liberals are promising.

Horwath said Thursday her party supports the idea in principle but said she wants to see what happens in the 2015 federal election before committing provincial dollars to it.

"We may actually get a federal government that will take pension plans seriously," said Horwath. "We are the party that first began to talk about pension security for Ontarians."

But what does "making sense" have to do with anything, when one is only interested in grinding ones personal political axe?

takeitslowly

Yes, can please we confirm that the Liberal's plan to expand CPP doesnt begin until 2017.

Aristotleded24

Rokossovsky wrote:
Unionist wrote:

Mark_alfred, helloooo, are you there? Anyone else? Why did Andrea Horwath dump her retirement plan the moment she got Wynne's support for it?

Is that what happened? Interesting. Because what I read was Horwath saying that they (the ONDP) had no objection to the idea in principle, but that she thought it was better to wait for possible reform of CPP before launching an Ontario plan, after the next Federal election.

Can we please see the revised talking points for the OLP, these ones are out of date.

This question has already been asked and ansered.

One notable omission from the NDP platform was a made-in-Ontario pension plan, which the Liberals are promising.

Horwath said Thursday her party supports the idea in principle but said she wants to see what happens in the 2015 federal election before committing provincial dollars to it.

"We may actually get a federal government that will take pension plans seriously," said Horwath. "We are the party that first began to talk about pension security for Ontarians."

But what does "making sense" have to do with anything, when one is only interested in grinding ones personal political axe?

I also want to know why it's such an important hill to stand on, and why Ontario expanding the CPP would be of direct benefit to me when I don't live there. I agree in principle with the idea of pushing the federal government should there be a change in 2015.

David Young

Since Andrea has said that she is not stepping down as leader, I therefore respectfully request for one of the moderators to close this thread.

 

Unionist

Surely if she can change her mind about improving pensions and corporate tax hikes, she can change her mind about this too?

It's like the weather in Calgary. If you don't like it, wait a minute.

 

Orangutan

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not looking for a change of leader -- at least not yet. But my support for Andrea is conditional.

The condition is she and the NDP not be in denial about the last campaign. It was not okay. The fact the party did not get fewer seats than previously does not take away that it was a huge missed opportunity and the status quo is not acceptable. Next time it will be harder. I expect the PCs to have a better leader (can you do worse?) and there will be no opportunity to campaign against McGuinty. The NDP leader should indicate that she knows what went wrong and will take steps to correct it.

Specific issues that I think ought to be considered may not be the same ones others would identify but no matter what something needs to be looked at.

The failure in communications was significant. The ballot question when the campaign started was the Liberal record as expected. By the end of the campaign the ballot question was Hudak's proposals (and the answer was not what the PC party wanted to hear). At no time did the NDP even get close to influencing the ballot question. Without influence on the question you won't do well.

To use an analogy the NDP called the meeting and could have tried to set an agenda but simply failed to table one.

My top 10 issues are the following:

1) The party was not prepared and looked it. Things were late. The campaign was, as expected, short and she was out of the front-runner race before releasing a platform. The communications were awful.

2) The idea of running against the Liberals based on "corruption" was a bust and needs to be recognized as such. You don't ever go from third to first based only on ethical lapses of the party in power. That is hard to do even from second place. Too much of the communications focussed on this single message. There were opportunites to advance specifics about the NDP proposals given up to repeat allegations about corruption that had already been heard and were repeated in an empty general way.

3) To go from third to first you need to do more than assert platitudes about your plan. You have to have details and a compelling narrative for that plan. Simply saying it makes sense and the others are corrupt is not good enough. (The choice of the word "sense" was silly. Looked like a retread form the Harris campaign. To use a statement so bland that it could have come from Conservatives gives you an idea of a wasted slogan.) A better slogan could have been "What kind of Ontario do you want?" This could have been both an offence on the PC platform, an acknowledgement of Liberal failings and an inspiration for the NDP campaign. It also would have framed a more NDP-friendly ballot question.

4) The party does have to keep a focus on the most vulnerable and should not bury that in an effort to reach the "middle income class." Through poor communication the party left many who did not sign the infamous letter wondering if the NDP was doing enough for people not fortunate enough to claim to be "middle." I don’t agree that you have to stop talking about core values and policies in order to add support for the middle class. The NDP should build coalitions not narrowcast a campaign.

5) The party did have some good planks like the approach to business credits for job creation. Unfortunately the party did not do a good job of prioritizing the communications of platform pieces -- particularly ones that could differentiate the NDP from the others.

6) The NDP did not seem to have any kind of viable campaign strategy. Week one: The party could have stated at the outset that they wanted to talk about why they brought down the Liberals and focused for just one week covering the scandals and being specific about any concerns the party had with the Liberal budget and that it would announce a plan for Ontario in the second week. Instead they lacked specifics about what they opposed and did not explain the reasons for bringing down the government. I think if they had laid out a reasonable explanation for why now and what was wrong with the budget it might have been accepted but they never did.

7) In the second week they should have begun to slow down on commentary about the Liberals and really sell that platform. Instead, the party released a plan late and did not communicate it effectively. Most of the time I saw Andrea I tried to count key messages and found it difficult to sort what I thought she considered was key, what was secondary, what was trivial. The specifics were scattered and the main delivery was empty platitudes or railing on about the perception of corruption. No good case was made for the NDP plan. She did not explain in detail how the plan would help citizens. See above-- she never got out of the first week and spent the rest of the campaign not completing the first week objectives.

8) When Andrea spoke she sounded like either she was not very bright or thought the voters were not very bright. She has done better before. Speeches and focus was awful with too much emptiness. Only 50% vote and those are people who are more informed and don’t want to waste time listening to empty crap. Looks like she spent too much time trying to engage people who are not engaged and forgot to speak to the people who were -- those who expected more from her.

9) What were they thinking after the "common sense" campaign of Mike Harris still ringing in people's ears as reminded by Hudak? "Makes sense" was a vacuous statement that only reminded people of how little was being said and how much it sounded like any political party -- even Harris. Horwath's personal touch looked phony when it was watered down to safe repeats of well-worn meaningless tripe.

10) Don't pretend that you can dismiss criticisms from people who are no longer members like those who signed the infamous letter without a rebuttal. Ignoring the media about that letter was a mistake. It served to leave many concluding that the NDP had lost its way -- or at least its voice. There are some things you can ignore and some things you respond to. They got it wrong on this. There were too many people who read that letter and did not dismiss it as disgruntled cranks. Many outside the bubble felt there was something there and an answer was in order. In fact I think a polite response pointing to what the NDP was offering could have been very effective. Why would you ever give up an opportunity to talk about your platform? "No comment" does not win votes.

Anyway. Rather than just a judgement on Horwath who is at least partly responsible, I'd rather start with a discussion on these things. I am fine with Horwath leading that discussion but if she is unwilling to then she needs to get out of the way.

I agree with all your points, however you are missing the most important factor: The media, particularly the Toronto Star, aggresively shaped the campaign narrative in favour of the Liberals.  Hudak helped set up the election as a referendum against himself and his plan.  The Toronto dominated media instead of sticking with the Liberal corruption narrative they have pushed the last three years, fell in love with Kathleen Wynne and began to dispise Horwath for triggering the election.  That became the narrative.  The Liberal strategists played the ONDP like a fiddle.  When Horwath announced she would not support the budget, Wynne called the election that very afternoon - not what the ONDP strategists thought would happen.  That helped set the election narrative, combined with the favourtism towards Wynne shown by the media, shaped who the undecided would vote for.  If the media had remained critical of all the Liberal scandals, or demonstrated more outrage towards new scandals such as the MaRS bailout, we would have seen a different election.  I suspect the NDP would have been 4-7% higher in the vote, the PCs 1-3% higher, and the Liberals 5-10% lower.  

Debater

Personality, charisma & ability to connect with voters matters for a leader.  This is something Tom Mulcair might want to keep in mind next year.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Debater wrote:

Personality, charisma & ability to connect with voters matters for a leader.  This is something Tom Mulcair might want to keep in mind next year.

This is of course the wrong forum for discussions of federal politics, but this comment deserves a short answer. If you are really such a political expert, Debater, you should have noticed that Mulcair, while not a matinee idol, conveys an aura of competence and moderation in every public appearance. He has the ability to make people feel he is a safe choice for Prime Minister. These are the qualities which Canadians most want to see in their leaders. They will eventually be the cause of an NDP majority after the next election. It is quite gratifying to me as an NDP supporter that the Liberals seem to be missing this point. When the campaign arrives, they won't know what hit them.

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Surely if she can change her mind about improving pensions and corporate tax hikes, she can change her mind about this too?

It's like the weather in Calgary. If you don't like it, wait a minute.

 

So your point is that the dishonest politician is the one that announces policy changes before the election in an open manner, as opposed to floating policy objectives that they don't, or can not support in the hope that voters will vote for them, and then change them up after they are elected? Is that it?

It is strange that Horwath changed the tax policy before the election when could have just as easily went with the previous version, and no one would have noticed, except of course for the axe grinders, who would complain that it was not really a tax increase, but a rollback, so more evidence of "right-wing" drift.

Pages