babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
So now that the registry *and* the board are getting scrapped... will those farmers applaud or decry their Reformatory pals in the next election?
I think the Conservatives will try and come up with some new hot buttons. But I notice that the gun folks are now pushing to eliminate the other registries and the firearms acquisition certificates next. Given that they were the entire underpinning of the Conservatives' argument for why the long-gun registry should go, I wonder if that will be a bridge too far for the government.
I would be willing to bet that is true. I also dont think they will have any problems at all with their base in ignoring those folks.
Those folks are true gun nuts that want to emulate what people in the States have and demand- such as the right in many states to carry anywhere as a concealed weapon or in a holster a weapon you cannot even own in Canada. They dont have ANY of the political and bizarre cultural traction in Canada that the guns nuts in the US have- not even a small fraction of it.
Every farmer may own a rifle but not many of them have semi automatic machine gun pistols. There is no base of support in Canada for the American tea party model of a gun on every citizens hip. Harper is an extremely guileful politician so unless there is a reward in it for him, that we don't see, why would he bother?
The problem is that a lot of Conservative voters have values which are completely opposed to those found on this discussion board and in the NDP.
Here are some things the NDP would have to overcome in order to attract Conservatives:
Conservative Monarchism, Patriotism, and Militarism.
Conservative contempt for unions, especially in the public sector. A popular Conservative meme now is to outlaw all unions completely (Kevin O'Leary on CBC).
Conservative contempt for people on social assistance, panhandlers, homeless people, public sector workers, Occupy demonstrators, etc.
Unconditional Conservative support for Free Enterprise, and general Conservative contempt for taxes, social programs and government in general (except of course police, and the Armed Forces).
Thinly veiled Conservative contempt for immigrants, and increasingly shrill rhetoric against Sharia Law.
I am not sure that the NDP would even want to compromise with this. The Conservative leadership and intelligent people in the Conservative hierarchy will share more progressive views, however most Conservative postings from the unwashed masses of Conservatives seem to come from neanderthals who believe in the above.
Dear god, just shoot me in the face.
But maybe we should ask *why* these are the core values of a key Conservative voting bloc. Were all these voters born with these views? Did they evolve through careful manipulation by well-moneyed interests?
Will their late-teenage children, who grow up in an age of rapid communication, texting and social media, share these core values by the time they reach voting age?
Are these values really based largely on fear, contempt and distrust? If so, why? What would it take for Harper to become the target of their fear, contempt and distrust?
There's a difference between conservatives and Conservative voters, who are not necessarily fans of all of the above.
Do not assume that all Conservative voters never vote NDP, especially in BC. If that were the case the NDP would never have won power in BC and would not be leading the provincial Liberals by 7% in the polls (which is an amalgam of Liberals and Conservatives with many more Conservatives than Liberals. They needed to have a single party in order to have any chance of beating the NDP provincially). While there are socially conservative ridings in the Fraser Valley and the north of the province, there are many other ridings where voters will switch between Conservatives and the NDP depending on how they perceive the parties economic agenda (the provincial Conservative party is called the Liberal party because they replaced the extremely scandal-ridden right-wing Social Credit party in the 1990s and used the Liberal name because the Liberals elected members when hard-core Conservatives were still voting Social Credit. The Conservatives flooded into the Liberal party taking it over in all but name. A reinvigorated provincial Conservative party that focuses on social values is only polling 12% under John Cummins, a former Conservative MP. In other words, there are people who vote Conservative who could be attracted to the NDP under the right (or should I say left) circumstances. To ignore them is to make the same mistake the Democrats made in the US for decades until Obama decided he would compete in every state and not hand any automatic victories to the Republicans. Even if you don't win many of these ridings, you can win some and force your opponent to spend some resources in these ridings rather than use these resources to capture NDP leaning seats.
I agree with the last two points, and would add that most voters are not internally ideologically consistent in the way political junkies or political scientists think they might be. At various times both the NDP and the Reform Party have been the populist choice from the west -- and from many of the same voters.
One note to Jerry M - I believe the BC Conservative Party is lately showing higher than 12%. It's a major reason Christy Clark got seriously cold feet about calling an election and instead launched an attack website against Cummins. I bet the BC Liberals' internal polls showed the BC Conservatives growing substantially, and mostly at their expense seatwise.
Forget about trying to convert the core Conservative voters; they'll keep voting that way until they die.
The NDP needs to work on the swing voters who abandoned the Liberals to give the Harperites their '39% Majority' in 2011.
Tell me how to convince 1500 one-time Liberals that voting Conservative in 2011 was a mistake, and we may finally see the end of Gerald Keddy in South Shore-St. Margaret's (amongst other Con M.P.'s!)
I agree with this 100%. I think it's something we often forget when we're planning our campaign strategies because it seems so counterintuitive to political junkies and ideologues, but there really are an awful lot of voters like that.
The other thing that's at play at least in Alberta is that there are a lot of voters who just want to vote for a winner and don't think about things much beyond that. These people won't consider voting NDP unless we seem like a sure thing, but once we do, they will shift their votes as a matter of rote and see no inconsistency in it. (It would be hard to measure just how many voters there were who voted for Rahim Jaffer in 2008 and Linda Duncan in 2011 because "oh, sure, she's going to win anyway," but we know from the doorstep that we're not just talking about a handful of people.)
The problem with the internet, it is often said, is that we find places to exchange ideas that generally support our world view and not challenge it.
I think that happens here when we view Conservative supporters-- even core supporters-- as one dimensional.
They are not.
Like the rest of Canada, they like government spending on them, but not so much on the other guy. They like "activist" courts when they are "active" in support of one of thier beliefs. They like "big government interfering in thier lives" when that interference is there to protect them against something.
They like socialism if it puts money in their pocket.
I think a contingent of Conservative supporters could be crowbarred away from the Tories if the NDP hits hard on corruption. But not in the usual way.
Hitting on specific examples actually does more harm than good. People just associate the corruption with all politicians and not so often with a specific party.
So, the NDP needs to lay the ground work with a specific and well publicized plank of "cleaning up government" with a specific plan for accomplishing this. I suspect we already have proposed policy in place, but not generally publicized.
With that ground work already in the public mind, individual cases of corruption will already have a defacto alternative placed in people's minds. And this doesn't conflict with any core values of NDP constituencies.
More difficult might be painting Harper as a sell out of Canadians. Take, for example, the Keystone pipeline. I know we all object on environmental grounds, but people-- Conservative voters-- need to be told how this proposal ships jobs to the States. If we are going to do this, then why isn't our crude refined here in Canada? Why is Harper exporting jobs to the Americans? To Texans instead of Albertans? It's not difficult to show Harper as a sell out of Canadians; the difficulty is in the potential message it sends to environmentalists on the left who may interpret that as support for a pipeline carrying gasoline instead of crude. I think it would be a tricky message, but I don't think it is impossible to use.
More a provincial issue, perhaps, but I think Conservative voters might be attracted to something like socialized dental care. Particularly if it started first with just children being covered. It would put money into the pockets of many traditionally Conservative voters.
Which brings me to the last idea I'd express now, and that is attacking the Big Lie that the Conservative Party is the party of "family values".
The economic policies represented by Conservative politics have actually been the biggest attack on the family we have ever seen. We need to convey the connection between Conservative politics and the hardships on Canada's families.
You need to create doubt in the hardest of hard core Conservative supporters if you want to capture the swing voters.
I lied, I have one more idea I'd express now.
Food for thought: Food.
Food is going to be the issue that bridges the rural/urban divide. People in cities want good healthy food these days, and increasingly, people want to have a sense of connection between their food and the people who grow/raise/catch it.
The Conservative Party will represent the supply chain that gives us produce from Mexico and California, produce that on a weekly basis, has some health scare or recall or some problem with it. Grown by people we don't know, and therefore have less of a connection to and less trust in thier standards.
The NDP has to, really really has to, champion the ideas that have been encompased with the catch all "Hundred Mile Diet".
It's good for city folk, and good for farmers.
We could be the party that transcends the urban rural divide.
I'm listening to what you're saying, Tommy, but lately it's occurred to me that running against corruption risks activating the instinct in those conservative-minded voters to want to "punish" those concerned, which activates a law and order mentality, which activates a Conservative vote. I think you're trying to encourage some form of cognitive dissonance to break those traditional associations, but I wonder if that would work.
I think the issue with the Muskoka spending for Conservatives is two-pronged: (1) it's not very Conservative, and (2) it all went to Tony Clement's riding. Presuming this eventually blows up into a big enough issue, Harper has a simple solution that would work for those folks: punish Tony Clement.
Now creating enough doubt in core Conservative voters, as you say, might cause them to stay home, or stop giving money to the party, or to start another party, but I don't see them anywhere near that stage at the moment. This is what makes David's approach (going after loose Liberals, and non-ideological Conservative voters) seem more fruitful at this point.
Hope I'm not banned for this post...I'm a person who has voted both NDP and Conservative provincially...in Manitoba...I never saw an enormous difference between the parties. I'm not a social conservative, but an economic and law and order one, and I voted according to how I viewed issues of competence, corruption, the economy, and the like. I'm in BC now, where the difference between the parties is greater, but I could see myself voting NDP if I think the provincial Liberals are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent (as you can easily argue that they are)....
One poster, above, said this: "But maybe we should ask *why* these are the core values of a key Conservative voting bloc. Were all these voters born with these views? Did they evolve through careful manipulation by well-moneyed interests?"
I find this really off-putting. I don't think my view evolved through "careful manipulation by well-moneyed interests" any more than rabblers' views evolved through careful manipulation by agents of marxist states. I'd like to think that we all arrived at our views through careful assessment of the issues. Perhaps we are both wrong. In any case, such patronizing would not endear me to a party of the Left...
I think you are ultimately correct, BillBC, it does sound patronizing, because a lot of the middle points that arrive at the view are left out. What you see is the conclusion, and not the process that leads to it, which is not, I don't think, patronizing.
The conclusion seems to indicate that those on the left think Conservatives stupid for their views, or some of their views. But I think most of us don't think it is stupidity, just the inevitable result of a media that is rife with corporate ownership, has P.R. companies that regularly salt news media with "advertorials", etc.
It is not the atmosphere that a busy person who isn't "into" politics could derive a carefull assessment of the issues, through no real fault or mental deficit of their own.
You have to admit that there are a lot of partizan type conservative "Big Lies" out there that don't get examined, precisly because the media, for the most part, wants to perpetuate them.
But yes, that issue has to be more carefully phrased.
"You have to admit that there are a lot of partizan type conservative "Big Lies" out there that don't get examined, precisly because the media, for the most part, wants to perpetuate them."
I do admit it. I think there are fantasies on all sides of the political spectrum that need to be examined..
Harper did this by proposing the Federal Accountability Act before he was elected in 2006.
"I'm listening to what you're saying, Tommy, but lately it's occurred to me that running against corruption risks activating the instinct in those conservative-minded voters to want to "punish" those concerned, which activates a law and order mentality, which activates a Conservative vote. I think you're trying to encourage some form of cognitive dissonance to break those traditional associations, but I wonder if that would work."
Oh, I think there is a huge popular appetite for "law and order" for political corruption and white collar crime. And I think it wouldn't work if you were trying to pry loose Conservative voters during a Liberal administration. But now the Conservatives are in power, people would see them not doing anything on that score, so their supporters couldn't look to them as the party that will clean up Ottawa.
In fact it already resonates with people of all walks when you point out that the Tory "tough on crime" bill somehow missed white collar crime and political corruption.
Now, in purist ideology, you run up against those in the party and others on the left who will look at this as validation of the Tory "tough on crime" bill, that we shouldn't be jailing anyone. And, in my own ideology I prefer restitution to punishment, and restrictions on liberty that would prevent a re-ocurrance, which may not allways mean jail. However, I am trying to play the ball where it lies, and not where I would want it to be.
The NDP wouldn't lose votes by saying white collar criminals and crooked politicians should be locked up.
"Harper did this by proposing the Federal Accountability Act before he was elected in 2006."
Good, an idea with a proven track record of success, eh Aristotleded?
"I do admit it. I think there are fantasies on all sides of the political spectrum that need to be examined.."
I agree, BillBC. Ideas become outdated as new information, new facts come to light. I think we do that here, and in general a lot on the left. Or at least more so than on the right part of the spectrum.
It's never an easy process.
You said what I was thinking much better than I could. This is why I do not organize political campaigns!
Another thought: Could soft Conservative voters become alienated by a sense that their MPs are acting entitled/complacent? I know that there were several candidates who didn't even bother showing up for debates and still got elected last time, but maybe the voters won't be so generous next election. I think Jack's jab at Ignatieff - about not expecting to get a promotion if you don't show up for work - was right on the mark. Each Conservative riding's NDP association should be scrutinizing their MP's behaviour (and also absence rate in the HoC) and working on messaging. Hold a debate, and when the MP doesn't show up, make a big story in the local papers about how your boss (the voters) would fire you if you didn't show up for a performance review. Sure you want to run a positive campaign, but tell the truth like it is.
On the topic of BC... this is going to be a tricky course to navigate if we keep our fixed election date of 2013. If polling trends continue and we pick up an NDP majority government, they will have been in power for two years. Let's consider what has happened in BC federally under NDP governments.
The last fed election where the SoCreds were in power: 1988. 19 NDP, 1 Liberal, 12 PC.
NDP took power in 1991. Next fed election, 1993. 24 Reform, 6 Liberal, 2 NDP.
1997: 25 Reform, 6 Liberal, 3 NDP.
2000: 27 Alliance, 5 Liberal, 2 NDP.
Granted there was a whole other context surrounding the NDP at that point in time, with the Reform taking up the banner of protest party after attempts at constitutional reform, but the unpopular NDP government was certainly also a contributing factor. The only other example in BC to compare to is when Dave Barrett was premier - a federal election took place only a month or two after the provincial and the NDP appeared to benefit in that case.
So if we get Premier Dix, it will certainly be a challenge to keep the momentum going. He would really have to make this the squeaky-cleanest NDP government ever, and maintain a solid 2.5 years of voter confidence, to keep the federal NDP afloat in BC.
Sure ... but just remember the saying about glass houses. For example, criticizing a BC member for never being in the riding and/or never being in the House creates a situation in which no-one can win. A lot of those witch hunts imply a perfect situation that is in fact a perfectly impossible situation to achieve.
I also think that general approach winds up putting a pox on everyone's house eventually. The Ignatieff case was an extreme one, which is why it seemed justified. He left the Hill precinct most days at 4 PM or so.
Also, it would be pretty awesome if the next general election debate saw the NDP hearken back to Mulroney's "You had an option, sir." in reference to Conservative misdeeds... or something similar. I hope that whoever wins the leadership will be capable of delivering such show-stoppers. :)
What I am saying is that rather than Harper saying, "those Liberals are corrupt, vote for me" which just causes people to roll their eyes, he said, "here is what I think we can do about the systemic corruption," which puts in place a series of procedures and is something people can sink their teeth into. The NDP co-operated with the Conservatives in the early days of this process to improve it (a wise move, since it would have been a bad idea to let the Conservatives have a monopoly on the ethics question).
just a special mention that more conservative voters will need to be converted because in four years, some of the NDP voters who did vote in may , 2011 may have died already or lost hope in life , in work, in politics altogether and you wont be able to count on our votes.
Sure... but also some of the Conservative voters from May 2011 will be in the same boat, right?
And the 15-18-year-olds of 2011 will be 19-22-year-olds in 2015. We can't count on their votes, but the NDP is the only party that can deploy a large, diverse group of young MPs on an inspirational cross-Canada speaking tour.
"Sure ... but just remember the saying about glass houses. For example, criticizing a BC member for never being in the riding and/or never being in the House creates a situation in which no-one can win. A lot of those witch hunts imply a perfect situation that is in fact a perfectly impossible situation to achieve."
I agree. An M.P. (or MLA for that matter) who takes their job seriously and is involved in committees, etc., may be out of the house or legislature for this vote or that, doing legitimate work. There may be cases where an incumbants work ethic could be questioned, but I wouldn't take any liberties with the truth on that issue, for the exact reasons you point out Ottawaobserver.
However, it does make me wonder if nominating a candidate early in riddings where we are the challengers and having that candidate do house to house canvassing for a couple of years, not campaigning as such, but just listening and "fact finding" displays work ethic. That goes a long way with people. Think back to elections when a government is swept form office, often those M.P.s who weather the storm against their party are seen by thier ridding constituents as a "good constituency person".
The modern model for challengers is to get a community profile through activism, join clubs, etc., do the barbeques, and while this still has to be done, I think it's getting a bit worn out with people.
The other major crow bar we need to pry loose Conservative votes is a coherent military policy, which has been under discussion in another thread.
Not to rehash all those good arguments, but in this thread's context, I think the Conservatives are vulnerable on two points. One, treatment of our veterans. We have to be the party that champions the cause of veterans when they are maltreated by DND and the Tories, as they have been.
Secondly, I think the Conservative policy can be rightfully painted as constructing a military that serves the national interests of other nations rather than Canada's. The F-35, as we know, is just a purchase to enrich the manufacturers of that aircraft. It's a boondogle.
But what is worse is that they do not appear to be able to serve Canada's deffense interests.
We do have to face the inevitable internal arguments in hammering out a policy that contrasts the Conservative policy in a way that chips away Conservative voters, but that does not alienate current NDP members and supporters.
That's going to be difficult, but it has to be done.
And I think you do it by first finding out what Canadian interests we expect our deffense forces to protect, and then assessing what our military needs-- if anything-- to accomplish that mission.
Or on a related note, choosing someone who is already well known on a door-to-door basis. Perhaps go on a recruiting binge for city councillors, local activists, etc, in Conservative ridings. Look for people who command a great deal of respect even from constituents who aren't necessarily left-leaning, who are visible in their communities.