Will the Layton-led NDP now overtake the Ignatieff-led Liberals in the Polls?

76 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2009-11-23 00:36

mtm

This is such a frustrating argument. Vote for the party you believe in.

If you think as supporters that we can't 'win', get up off your butts, you've got work to do. Spread the news...go door to door, join your riding associations. Write letters to the editor. Give up your time, energy and money and make the NDP message get out. Stop hiding behind your 'government job' excuse, or your fear of being 'blackballed' in your community. The other parties have none of these concerns.

Complaints about the mainstream media don't matter either. If we're going to make a difference we have to be pounding the pavement - not just arguing platitudes on a message board.

I don't agree with the Liberals nor the Conservatives. Arguing about which would be worse if in government for me is pointless. I want an NDP government, nothing less.

That means sucking it up, finding the financing to run fully funded campaigns across the country. It means ceasing our reliance of the Fed party to pick us as 'target ridings', and taking it upon ourselves to make this a truly representative party across 308 ridings (or at least a good 250). Things will only change once we purge ourselves of this 'loser party' mentality, and start acting like we are legitimate. In places from Cardigan to Miramichi, from Simcoe-Grey to Wascana - we need to stop the also-ran campaign that highlights our own inconsistency.

If we do this, and we lose - and Harper wins a majority, well, there is no shame in that. We did all we could. This kind of thinking that we have to vote for the 'lesser' of two evils does nothing but further deligitimize our party, and keeps us from reaching that full potential that I know is there - if we had the courage to make it so.

This strategic vote argument has persisted for so long for the simple reason that even we don't believe we can win, and we can't bridge that credibility gap that comes with running 100+ little more than 'name-on-ballot', $5000 or (often much) less campaigns. We have no answer to that reality - even if Jack says he's "running for Prime Minister" - its easily dismissed when that is the case. And since we will never have a major media machine propping us up, and no big business connections to bring in the big movers and shakers - we need to do it from the ground up. Let's not lament these realities - lets just get to work, and get out there at the grass roots.

This isn't really directed at rabble members per se - its more directed at that soft support group that sees itself as NDP but waffles come election time. That group often consists of members, surprisingly, but more often is just those moderately-left-of-centre pragmatists that are ripe for the picking, who just don't see us as a governing alternative for both cynical and practical reasons (above). We need them to open their eyes and see that there is a way - like they did in NS.

Mon, 2009-11-23 00:54

#53

NorthReport

Perhaps we should consider abolishing our armed forces, as we can not afford them.

If we can't even provide enough resources to eliminate poverty in Canada of all places, what's the point. Just so we can become a bigger and bigger puppet of the USA military-industrial complex.

Mon, 2009-11-23 00:56

#54

mtm

I think our major challenge is that those people that see themselves as reasoned pragmatists that would like to vote NDP have for the most part not figured out that they would be the catalyst that could get us over that crest. Whatever message we have it needs to overcome a great deal of cynicism - because lets face it, strategic voting is an inherently cynical concept.

I've seen this change happening incrementally where I am from (NB) federally, but not at a rate where I think it is going to happen soon. We need a message or dialogue that not only sways votes, but gets people involved to set up the infrastructure needed to be seen as even more legitimate, which in turn sways more of that vote, if you get what I mean. So when the writ drops, we're at least as ready as the other guys (Candidate nominated, signs in the ground, leaflets designed, etc). Just something that simple would help a lot, if it could be replicated across the country. And the pre-preparation really only takes 4 or 5 dedicated folks in on the ground level six months or so in advance - it's not a huge ask.

But we've never been able to do that! We always scramble to do these things after the writ is dropped and then sit and wonder why we didn't make the gains we wanted. We need to find, engage, and empower those 5 people in every riding and make them feel like a part of something big.

Mon, 2009-11-23 01:01

#55

Webgear

I agree NorthReport; we should also stop giving aid to other nations until we have your own country sorted out.

Look at the millions/billions given away to other countries each year when we can not cloth, feed and educate your own.

Mon, 2009-11-23 02:23

#56

West Coast Lefty

RedRover wrote:

I did not say there weren't exceptions. In fact I pointed to one - Haiti. There are others too that you have pointed to. They are exceptions to the general rule though - deviant behaviour if you will.

As far as military procurement is concerned - I don't think the Liberals have, or ever will, table a plan that is near the size and scale of the one put forth by Harper in the last three years....$490 billion in procuremen over 20 years.

RR, are you not aware that Iggy and the Liberals voted for the last Harper budget and I believe Dion and co backed the one before that ? It is only because of the Libs that this spending is happening at all. Iggy had a chance to replace Harper's government and he not only betrayed his own signature on the coalition letter to the GG, he voted for Harper's military spending orgy with zero changes along with the entire Liberal caucus. They didn't have to table a plan, they endorsed the plan you are attacking!!!

Kosovo is another prominent example of Liberal military intervention with no UN approval - a vicious and horrific bombing campaign that inflicted major civilian deaths and injuries, and was later found to be based on totally false premises of "mass graves" and other war-mongering propaganda. It was a civil war between the vicious KLA and the Serbs and the CNN media frenzy turned it into yet another comic book "good guys vs bad guys" dichotomy.

On the broader point, it's ultimately policies that matter - you ask what a Harper majority would do and I agree it's a concern, but what would an Iggy majority (which will never happen of course) be like? Iggy has agreed to and voted for the entire Harper economic agenda and has also confirmed that he will not raise taxes and wants to balance the budget on the same timeline Harper does - both would do massive cuts to gov't programs with a majority. That's why the only progressive course is to elect as many NDP MPs as possible to help ensure a minority government after the next election.

Mon, 2009-11-23 03:10

#57

ReeferMadness

I agree with RedRover. Harper will continue to be Mr. Fuzzy-Sweater-I'm-not-so-scary as long as he's playing for his majority. If he ever gets it, I hate to think what's going to happen. Our foreign policy will look like that of George Bush. We're already getting an international black eye for the way the Cons are obstructing the climate change agreements. There'll be a fire sale of assets. CBC will be dead or at best, a shell of its current self. Harper will turn a blind eye to private healthcare and provinces like BC and Alberta will take full advantage. Tax cuts accompanied by large military expenditures will leave the federal government in such a fiscal hole that subsequent governments will be unable to implement programs even if they want to.

In BC, we've watched a bunch of neoconservatives coast through elections on platitudes, then spring their program on an unsuspecting public. That's exactly what we're going to see out of Harper.

I understand the perspective of people wanting to see the rise of the NDP. But unless the NDP get almost all of the Liberal vote losses, it won't be enough to stop a Conservative majority.

Mon, 2009-11-23 09:40

#58

mtm

ReeferMadness wrote:

But unless the NDP get almost all of the Liberal vote losses, it won't be enough to stop a Conservative majority.

That's really a false generalization! The largest core vote of the Liberals is static. In 2008, most Liberals stayed home - not being able to stomach voting any other way. The result: the lowest voter turnout ever.

We have to stop thinking of our soft support as Liberal/NDP. That's NOT the way it works. If we provide a governing alternative that is organized, coherent, and above all LOCAL (not just Tarannah Jack decreeing from on high), we will attract undecided voters who may park with the Conservatives or whomever. In NS, the NDP discovered that many Tory voters would sooner vote them in than Liberals, and I see that happening nationally in many places if we could harness it.

Many people see politics as a game, or at best view it cynically - and they vote for the person who they see as most credible or having the most solid campaign. If we have a virtually unknown candidate with few signs and no community presence, they are going to write us off, just because they know "so-and-so", running for the Tories, as they see him at the kids hockey games, at their board of trade events, he organizes the town Santa Claus Parade, etc.

This is a whole dimension we've neglected to see - that what you get out at election time is a result of what you put in. Credible candidates and full campaigns would go a long way to ending this view.

And the soft, undecided, and 'non-voting' sections are plenty big enough that we could do very well even if the Libs stay where they're at!

Mon, 2009-11-23 09:55

#59

NorthReport

Times are a changin'.

Credit the NDP

Perusing reports of Janine Krieber's anti-Ignatieff missile, er missive, this morning, I notice a discrepancy in the English- and French-language coverage.

In La Presse, we read that Stéphane Dion's wife may be thinking about joining the NDP - a point that Chantal Hébert also makes on her L'actualité blog . In English, there's no mention of what would be a rather startling development should it come to pass.

The translation of Ms. Krieber's Facebook posting has been available on The Globe website since Saturday, and I doubt that Anglophone reporters did not read to the end of it and see these words:

"I am starting a serious reflection. I will not give my voice to a party that will end up in the trashcan of history. I am looking around me, and certain things are attractive. Like a dedicated party that doesn't challenge its leader at every hiccup in the polls. A party where the rule would be the principle of pleasure, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence would be respected and where smiles would be real. Maybe I'm not dreaming."

The more likely explanation for the discrepancy in the coverage is the longstanding tendency of the media to give short shrift to the NDP - a tendency that is less and less evident in Québec.

The same phenomenon is noticeable in coverage of the prisoner transfer issue, which outside Québec has been taking on an increasingly Grit hue. That's surprising, in light of the absence from the debate of Mr. Ignatieff who, to put it tenderly, has some 'issues' on the issue of torture. It's also an undeniable fact that it was the Liberals who got us into the Afghanistan war, it was the Liberals who deployed our troops to Kandahar and it was under the Liberals that General Rick Hillier signed the first (and deficient) prisoner transfer agreement.

Let's be frank: Whether you agree with them or not, the NDP has been consistent in its opposition to the Afghanistan war - even after the 9/11 attacks, when it was not easy to take this position. And it was also noticeable, last week, that the NDP was the first party in Ottawa to call for a public hearing into Mr. Colvin's allegations - a bandwagon that the other opposition parties quickly jumped on to.

One of the NDP spokespersons, Paul Dewar, radiates sincerity on the issue - as opposed to the faux outrage one normally sees on our television screens coming from Ottawa. And, in Jack Harris, the Dippers appear to have an MP who can match Bob Rae in competence.

So let's give credit where credit is due. And, with the NDP riding high in the polls and even outscoring the Liberals in the Hochelaga by-election, isn't it also time for the media to take the party more seriously and give them a bit more coverage?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/credit-the-ndp/artic...

Mon, 2009-11-23 10:04

#60

mtm

It is Norman Spector though...

It's clearly Tories trying to bolster their weakest opposition at the expense of the Liberals. Take it with a bit more than a grain of salt.

Mon, 2009-11-23 11:03

#61

madmax

ReeferMadness wrote:
NDP get almost all of the Liberal vote losses, it won't be enough to stop a Conservative majority.

The LPC right wing is folding into the CPC. There is little the LPC can do to turn back that tide. The horror show in Quebec and its never ending fallout are demonstrating that the LPC are losing total credibility as a Party. The news goes from bad to worse and the LPC are in a by weekly state of damage control. The fact that the NDP finished ahead of them in one riding isn't a wake up call for the LPC, its the first nail in the coffin. The LPC are irrellavent in the west. And only in Ontario, where the LPC has been the default party of choice do they have much hope of holding onto a significant number of seats. However, the seats the LPC lost to the CPC are unlikely to return to the LPC fold and a number of them will remain CPC or the NDP will become the default party of choice to dislodge the CPC MPs. Particularly in the Blue Collar working class ridings. Often disparaging referred to by LPC and CPC supporters as the rust belt.

The Future of the LPC will be some seats in TO.... those that they don't lose to the CPC or NDP, and a handful of hangon seats in the 905.

The North will not come back to the LPC, not now, and the only real battle will be for the Only blue dot in a sea of Orange. And it may well weather the storm, but it will become a two party race.

The New Welland MP is going to scoop up all the loose change LPC voters and it will again be between the CPC and the NDP as the CPC try to eliminate that Orange dot in surronded by the blue.

Quite frankly, if the CPC have a strong campaign, they will receive their majority. Ignatieff is untested and unlikely to handle a full campaign. Harper and Layton are veterans. Both will make gains. The only choice LPC voters will be looking at, is which other party to support if they don't wish to go down with the ship.

I laughed when NDPers were talking about going over 37 seats. It doesn't appear that way anylonger. Harper is going to have to make no mistakes for a Majority and Layton is going to have to present a party that is capable of being a solid opposition. The NDP are proving to be an effective opposition.

Also, by weathering the storm, the NDP are reaping a number of benefits over the LPC. One is the HST. The LPC have nowhere to go. And then the issue of Torture has become front and centre and the LPC unfortuneately have a torture apologist as leader.

Western populism against the HST demonstrated how well the LPC does when sharing an issue with the CPC.

Its a rough ride for the LPC ahead. People voting for the LPC in order to prevent a CPC majority are getting into a boat that has no engine and no oars. Look for those life jackets, there are going to be few red dots and they will be surronded by Blue and by Orange.

Mon, 2009-11-23 11:09

#62

madmax

RedRover wrote:
Try building a political party by gaining popular support instead of waiting for others to fail. It can be very empowering.

IIRC. The Progressive Conservatives were a party that FELL from TWO majority Governments to TWO seats. The beneficiaries of that was a populist party called Reform. They have now received popular support after merging with the Progressive Conservatives that the CPC is in Majority territory. Much of that vote is coming from the LPC voters who are leaving the Liberal Party. The CPC are very close to empowerment. The LPC have moved from equality in the polls to 15 points behind. This is going to be insurmountable for the foreseeable future. If the NDP continue to go up in the polls, they will be building popular support. Something the LPC is currently unable to do.

Mon, 2009-11-23 17:44

#63

V. Jara

Stockholm, I'll concede some of your points. I think Layton is a better leader than many of the potential alternatives (i.e. Cullen). I thought he was definitely the best in the 2003 leadership race. So did over 50% of the party on the first ballot. Broadbent didn't become "charismatic" until the free trade issue made voters take a serious look at him. It's also easy to claim, using one instance or another, that Lewis and Douglas were way more charismatic than Broadbent. That being said, the NDP still has no traction. An outstanding result for the party in the next election would be 20%.

There is a new opportunity now for the NDP to rise in the media spotlight, with the Liberals so low in the polls, but to do it they need a new vision, a new look, and a new message. If the NDP can get the media, and then public, to listen to them on issues of substance then this is possible; but the issues they are currently running with don't do it, except for maybe the HST. One way to achieve this transformation is through a leadership race. Another way is for Layton to reinvent the party from the inside-out. Either way, change is needed.

Mon, 2009-11-23 22:19

#64

autoworker autoworker's picture

flight from kamakura wrote:

autoworker wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

the possibility of a bq official opposition is slim. the liberals would be hard pressed to drop below the 40 seats the bloc would likely score in the event of a harper majority.

to the liberal - i think most of us would be willing to suffer a harper majority if it meant that the liberal party of canada dropped below the ndp in vote share and commons seats. essentially, we'd be winning for losing, especially if that meant official opposition status for the good guys, and a prime minister-in-waiting tryout for jack.

A Harper majority to have Jack and Olivia at Stornoway? What are you smoking? As for the BQ, it will depend on whether the majority French Quebec continues to vote en bloc, and for whom.

hein? yeah, obviously i didn't say that a harper majority would result in an ndp official opposition. in fact, i think it's fairly unlikely. what i said was that if the result of a harper majority were an ndp opposition, then it would be sufferable. learn how to read, dude.

"...especially if that meant official opposition status for the good guys, and a prime minister-in-waiting tryout for jack." Do you actually read your own babble?

Mon, 2009-11-23 23:04

#65

flight from kamakura

give me a break dude: "if that meant" ≠ "will mean".

edit: yeah, actually, i'm not sure why i bothered responding to that.

Mon, 2009-11-23 23:42

#66

ReeferMadness

mtm wrote:

ReeferMadness wrote:

But unless the NDP get almost all of the Liberal vote losses, it won't be enough to stop a Conservative majority.

That's really a false generalization! The largest core vote of the Liberals is static. In 2008, most Liberals stayed home - not being able to stomach voting any other way. The result: the lowest voter turnout ever.

No, it isn't. The Cons came close to a majority last time. If they get a few more percentage points of the popular vote, it could easily push them over the top. And that could happen just by Liberal supporters staying home.

Quote:
We have to stop thinking of our soft support as Liberal/NDP. That's NOT the way it works. If we provide a governing alternative that is organized, coherent, and above all LOCAL (not just Tarannah Jack decreeing from on high), we will attract undecided voters who may park with the Conservatives or whomever. In NS, the NDP discovered that many Tory voters would sooner vote them in than Liberals, and I see that happening nationally in many places if we could harness it.

If you think you can improve the NDP's standing without watering down the policies, great. Do it. But as far as I can tell, what's actually happening is a collapse of the Liberal support. Some of that might go NDP and some might stay home. Some will go to the Conservatives. And the most likely scenario is a Conservative majority.

Quote:
Many people see politics as a game, or at best view it cynically - and they vote for the person who they see as most credible or having the most solid campaign. If we have a virtually unknown candidate with few signs and no community presence, they are going to write us off, just because they know "so-and-so", running for the Tories, as they see him at the kids hockey games, at their board of trade events, he organizes the town Santa Claus Parade, etc.

I agree. But with FPTP, politics is a game - or at least more of a game than it would be with a real voting system.

Quote:
This is a whole dimension we've neglected to see - that what you get out at election time is a result of what you put in. Credible candidates and full campaigns would go a long way to ending this view.

And the soft, undecided, and 'non-voting' sections are plenty big enough that we could do very well even if the Libs stay where they're at!

If you can reach the non-voters or get people to change their world-views, great. But I haven't seen any evidence that's what's going on. What seems to be going on is a Liberal collapse due to the ineptitude of Ignatieff. (You'd think that the Liberals might eventually learn that brilliant university professors make lousy politicians).

Mon, 2009-11-23 23:54

#67

ReeferMadness

madmax wrote:

ReeferMadness wrote:
NDP get almost all of the Liberal vote losses, it won't be enough to stop a Conservative majority.

The LPC right wing is folding into the CPC. There is little the LPC can do to turn back that tide.

You may be right but I think it's too soon to tell.

Regardless, while a Liberal collapse may be good for the NDP, it will be bad for Canada because in all likelihood, it will hand the Conservatives their precious majority. Arguing otherwise is wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that it's up to the NDP or their supporters to somehow prop up the Liberals. I don't believe in strategic voting. It just seems self-serving when people jump for joy when Liberal support collapses because it might put Jack in as the opposition leader.

Tue, 2009-11-24 00:44

#68

mtm

RM:

I didn't once say that any of those things are happening.

I said they HAD to happen - and that INSTEAD of gleefully decrying the end of the LPC, we instead focus on organizing our own house in 'tough-to-win' ridings. Only then will we see the NDP become that governing alternative party, or even 'official opposition in waiting' - whatever happens to the Liberals.

Your misinterpreting me completely in suggesting that I was arguing that any of that was happening now. What I'm saying is we should stop the "Liberal Death Watch" and get on building our own party, regardless of anything Iggy and his band of self-serving back-knifing clowns do.

If we act like the natural opposition, and show strength across the country, and throw off those shackles of lowered expectations, people will take notice. But if we keep doing ourselves a disservice by running subsistence campaigns in places where we've never been taken seriously, we won't be that national alternative.

Don't get me wrong - its not about winning a no-hoper riding like Madawaska-Restigouche or wherever. Its about having that solid team of core support that comes and shows people that we're ready to be that "2nd place" party in all these places where we've never bothered to even try before. That sends a strong message. We have to lose this idea that we should only try in places where we think we can win, because that makes us look like we've stretched our resources too thin, and that we don't have broad appeal.

Don't believe me? Look at the spending numbers in Fundy Royal (NB). The NDP came second, but still spent way less than the LPC who were 3rd, which had a lame duck candidate that was politically "un-savvy" and pro-life (angering many core Liberals). But they still sunk 30G's into his campaign, even knowing they had no hope, because they are the Natural Governing Party and they had to run a full campaign.

It doesn't take long for people to look at us and say "so you want to be the official opposition?" And then say "Er...ok, so you win all 45-50 seats you've targeted as "A" and "B". - and - You're still not there." And I don't think bubba in Upper Rubber Boot running the $5,000 campaign is really going to pull off a miracle, let alone 20|+ miracles across the country to get you to that 65-70 seat marker. So then they just go back to the Liberals as that natural "alternative".

Wed, 2009-11-25 15:55

#69

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

I don't think the NDP will surpass the Liberals, though I'd like to see them do so. I think the influence unions have within the party (e.g. special voting privileges) are an albatross around the NDP's neck. I also find the NDP a little stale (like they are stuck in time), lacking a clear and credible vision and policy focus. Their emphasis on trivial issues, and their focus on political gamesmanship doesn't inspire confidence. The folks involved with the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Politics_Initiative]New Politics Initiative[/URL] had the right idea IMO. Too bad it didn't go anywhere.

Wikipedia wrote:
The NPI believed that the NDP was moving too close to the right, and was dangerously close to becoming another Liberal Party. It believed in uniting Canada's left to combat this. The NPI viewed Canada's left as being more than just the labour unions, but rather as appealing to a staunch left wing who believe in anti-globalization, feminism, gay rights, and environmentalism. The NPI attributed the poor showing of the NDP in recent years to having alienated its left-wing base by moving towards the centre, and wished to bring these activists into the NDP by adopting their views.

Wed, 2009-11-25 16:16

#70

sandstone

polling is done to manipulate public opinion... it is paid for by someone ( they often don't tell who) and they can do as many as they want until they get the results they are looking for to massage the minds of those who pay attention to polls... perhaps not paying attention to polls would be a smart response...

Wed, 2009-11-25 16:28

#71

Stockholm

If there were no polls we would have to use other measures to figure out public opinion on the issues of the day - like who calls into to talk radio or who writes letters to MPs offices. And, since the people who doi those things tend to be cranky old men with reactionary views - we should be grateful that that isn't the only way we know what people think.

Wed, 2009-11-25 23:49

#72

Frmrsldr

RedRover wrote:

It's very different - the military operation in Afghanisatn was sanctioned by the United Nations under the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), is a multinational force, was undertaken after a terrorist attack on a member state of the UN, and targetted at a country that is a known sponsor of the terrorist group that carried out the attack.

The Chretien decision to to participate in the ISAF met all of my "so called Liberal conditions" for military action and is very different than the invasion of Iraq which was illegal under international law, repudiated by the UN, and which Canada would have been a party to if Stephen Harper were in power.

It is completely different Bookish, and the example hilights the difference between Liberal and Conservative military and defence policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

Your argument is all garbled. ISAF is under NATO, not the U.N. It is the NATO Charter that says, "An attack (doesn't specifically define what constitutes an attack, although given the Cold War world at the time would likely be a military attack by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact Allies) against one member is to be considered an attack against all members", not the U.N. Charter.

Afghanistan is a "War of Aggression" according to the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter.

How then, does it appear that the U.N. "sanctions" the Afghan war? It's because of the Permanent Member Security Council. Whatever it decides, the U.N. General Assembly has to go along with. The Permanent members are the U.S.A., U.K., France, Russia and China. The U.S.A. wanted the war and easily convinced its allies the U.K. and France to vote in favor. The U.S.A. bought Russia's and China's vote for or abstention on the issue.

The Afghan war is just as illegal as the Iraq war.

Thu, 2009-11-26 01:11

#73

NorthReport

What special voting privileges does the labour movement have? Or any other group for that matter?

hsfreethinkers wrote:

I don't think the NDP will surpass the Liberals, though I'd like to see them do so. I think the influence unions have within the party (e.g. special voting privileges) are an albatross around the NDP's neck. I also find the NDP a little stale (like they are stuck in time), lacking a clear and credible vision and policy focus. Their emphasis on trivial issues, and their focus on political gamesmanship doesn't inspire confidence. The folks involved with the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Politics_Initiative]New Politics Initiative[/URL] had the right idea IMO. Too bad it didn't go anywhere.

Wikipedia wrote:
The NPI believed that the NDP was moving too close to the right, and was dangerously close to becoming another Liberal Party. It believed in uniting Canada's left to combat this. The NPI viewed Canada's left as being more than just the labour unions, but rather as appealing to a staunch left wing who believe in anti-globalization, feminism, gay rights, and environmentalism. The NPI attributed the poor showing of the NDP in recent years to having alienated its left-wing base by moving towards the centre, and wished to bring these activists into the NDP by adopting their views.

Sat, 2009-11-28 14:02

#74

Doug

The article's talking about the BC NDP, but a lot of this surely applies federally as well. The concept of giving business an air kiss is a little gross - I wouldn't express it that way - but the party does need to recognize that most Canadians work in the private sector and depend on its success. Unlike Conservatives and Liberals, however, the NDP need not promote the idea that this is just going to happen on its own if we reduce taxes enough.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/take-back-your-ndp/article1380922/

Sat, 2009-11-28 15:15

#75

ottawaobserver

As pointed out in Paul Wells' book about the 2006 election, one of the key early groups the Conservatives targetted were folks working for private sector employers (and, by implication, they explicitly decided to ignore people who worked for the public sector).

I think the NDP has a good issue to move into that domain with ... namely pension security for more than simply the folks who already have pensions. It's so important that we move to reinforce and increase the coverage of the Canada Pension Plan, and also increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I'm not an expert, but I seem to recall that there are also some tax fairness aspects to how the OAS and GIS are taxed, which resulted from some sneaky moves by the Liberals.

Back in 2005/2006, it was a decent strategy for Harper to focus on those folks with short-term boutique tax cuts and mindless pro-business boosterism. But since then, with the economic collapse and ensuing insecurity around pension and benefits, quick fixes are not going to cut it, and the 'omniscience' of our business leaders is in open question by their employees.

I'm also really happy about the work our folks are doing with the Nortel retirees and severed employees, and I hope they keep it up. The Conservatives must know their vulnerabilities on that issue with that constituency, and I have no doubt it's one of the issues Layton has identified as susceptible to progress in this parliament.

I hope they string up Gordon O'Connor, for one, who represents a lot of those former Nortel workers, and told them in a meeting that it wasn't the government's responsibility, and that they should have just saved more (this from a guy who's already retired on a general's pension from the armed forces, and is about to qualify for the MP's pension as soon as we kick his ass out). Of course, because those workers were enrolled in a defined benefit pension plan, they couldn't contribute to the same level in their RRSPs as people without pension plans, whatever else you think of RRSPs and how that whole system is constructed.

Anyways, all I'm saying is that there is a real vein of anger (and rightly so) that can be given voice, and those folks need help. Oh, and we should string up those Nortel execs and retroactively tax back their bonuses if we can't retroactively stop them from being paid out. It's unconscientable (sp?) what they've done, and I have no problem whatsoever going over-the-top populist against that kind of arrogance.

Mon, 2009-11-30 22:23

#76

NorthReport

I think Rafe has some good suggestions here.

Layton Needs a BC Strategy

And here it is: campaign hard, with Carole James, on saving our natural environment.

We're a long way past May's election

Why didn't Carole James win all of these seats last May?

Easy. Scarcely anyone who follows such things would deny that the NDP ran the most appalling campaign in living memory. I traveled most of the province speaking on the private power issue and I can confirm that. But that was then. In a few short months Campbell has, with breathtaking arrogance, demonstrated that he means to destroy our sacred salmon and the province's rivers. Whether it's the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the murderous fish farms or ruining rivers for electricity BC Hydro doesn't need and must sell at a huge loss, Campbell’s utter indifference to the environmental wreckage he wreaks is daily becoming obvious to all British Columbians.

For Layton to prosper electorally he must do something apparently impossible hitherto. He must understand our issues not just in terms of one-liners but truly and deeply. He must grasp the deep feelings that British Columbians have as they see their birthright destroyed. This means he must gamble and make the environment his big issue in B.C., something that Carole James didn't do. In May 2009 the NDP acted as if they were afraid of the environmental issues retreating instead to their age old mantras as their security blanket. Because of the NDP's reluctance to fight this province-wide multifaceted issue except in a handful of ridings, the Liberals, naturally, left it alone.

Much has changed since the last vote. Fish farms are now a federal responsibility with a hopelessly ignorant Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in charge, a minister who has obviously told the fish farmers that nothing will change. The federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect our navigable waters which include virtually all rivers to be ruined by private power projects. The federal government also has the constitutional obligation to protect our migrating salmon.

Memo to Jack

Layton must, in the minimum, do these things:

Support an instant moratorium on all new fish licenses or expansion of fish farms.

Support a time table for removing fish farms from our oceans -- whether or not they then move on land is their business.

Remove the obligation to support and shill for aquaculture from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the obvious reason -– to intelligent Canadians anyway -– that you can't protect wild salmon by promoting fish farms.

Lastly, he must strictly enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

To do this and make it stick politically, Layton has to do something most unusual for federal politicians who venture into our western enclave. He must learn about and understand these issues, an undertaking more complicated than just memorizing slogans, something the NDP is very good at as "axe the tax" proved last may.

He must also take this issue very seriously -- not only because our people do, but because it deserves top drawer treatment. Our environment isn't a casual chip to be used in the great game of making money for money's sake. We're dealing here with a moral and ethical issue. Do we sacrifice our waters and our fish not even for our own profit but for others who have no stake in our province?

This is where Carole James comes in. I believe that the NDP campaign management team was either hopelessly incompetent or had a death wish for her. My sense of it is that James knows that and, if she is listened to, will provide the boost for Layton’s campaign that it will need. She's liked and respected, personally is a good campaigner and unlike most of her caucus, understands these issues.

Stop the ravaging

This is where I hear the angry voices. What the hell has got into you, Mair? You supporting the NDP for God's sake!

I can easily answer that question and all others like it. I've belonged to political parties but have never been a "party man". I have but one motive and that's to help save our province from the ravages of clueless, not to say evil, politicians who embrace what to me are the foreign, not to say evil, tenets of the Fraser Institute. Unlike the Fraser Institute I don't believe our rivers and our fish should be privately owned. (It's interesting to note, as I did in an earlier article, that a former fellow of the Fraser Institute who supported private ownership of our rivers and our fish, also believes in consensual slavery! In fact, when he contacted the publisher and later me it was not to say he didn't support consensual slavery but that he wanted to debate it with me!)

The captive media has not raised these issues because, simply, they support Campbell. That's not a surprise since a senior editor of the Vancouver Sun was a fellow of the Fraser Institute before joining that paper which, one might infer, explains a lot. The happy fact is that people have other sources of information including The Tyee.

Layton will learn, if he listens, that the best weapon Kim Il Campbell has going for him is that people are reluctant to believe that any government could be this insensitive and indeed stupid. They are that insensitive and stupid and I offer as proof, as if proof were necessary, Mair's Axiom I, namely that you make a very serious mistake if you assume that those in power know what the hell they're doing.

It's true that Layton's party will not form the government but they might become the balance of power. If they do, British Columbians who care about our rivers, streams and the soul of our province will better represented in the House of Commons than now, though that admittedly, is not saying much.

Layton might find comfort from Mair's Axiom II, namely that you don't need to be a 10 to win in politics, you can be a three if everyone else is a two.

At the worst, Jack Layton is a three in a sea of twos and with a little self-education on the Fraser Institute-inspired ravaging of our bountiful home could turn that into a big plus both for him and for the British Columbia we love. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/11/30/LaytonStrategy/

Will the Layton-led NDP now overtake the Ignatieff-led Liberals in the Polls?

Pages