NDP denies Andrea Horwath set to resign as leader

341 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel
NDP denies Andrea Horwath set to resign as leader

TVO’s Steve Paikin has tweeted that “rumours are rampant” that Andrea Horwath will step down as NDP Leader tomorrow he also speculates that she might plan to join the mayor’s race in Hamilton.

The Ontario NDP has responded by saying the tweet is not true and Horwath is not resigning as party leader.

She will be holding a media availability tomorrow morning.

Read more here

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4596686-ndp-denies-andrea-horwath-set-...

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
robbie_dee

Pity.

Stockholm

I have no idea what will happen - but even if she was planning to resign - people around her would be denying it until she actually said it.

Aristotleded24

What gets me is that the media is making news reports based on gossip and rumours. Despicable! I thought it was supposed to be on facts?

No wonder the media has less and less credibility with people as time goes on.

ctrl190

Is it just me or has Steve Paikin swung and missed on a number of rumours over the past month? He should spend less time gossiping at North Toronto cocktail parties and more time verifying his sources.

Debater

She is scheduled to meet the press at 9:00 am tomorrow.

But I have no idea what she has in mind.  Maybe it will just be a response to the upcoming opening of the Legislature.

onlinediscountanvils

She probably just wants to express her admiration for Tony Blair. I think that's what replaced socialism in the preamble.

NorthReport

Andrea increased both the NDP's popular vote and the number of seats.

How many elections did Layton experience as leader before his big breakthrough in 2011?

Just askin'

Debater

As other commentators have pointed out, we're in a new era now.  NDP leaders today are expected to make bigger breakthroughs and be able to win.  Losing multiple elections is not considered acceptable the way it once was.

takeitslowly

its fitting the news are spreading rumour about Andrea Horwath; they had done the exact same thing throughout the whole campaign by suggesting that she would work with Hudak. The media , especially the Toronto Star, is an Anti NDP propagenda machine.

PrairieDemocrat15

takeitslowly wrote:

its fitting the news are spreading rumour about Andrea Horwath; they had done the exact same thing throughout the whole campaign by suggesting that she would work with Hudak. The media , especially the Toronto Star, is an Anti NDP propagenda machine.

"We must never underestimate our opponents; nor should we forget the closer we come to reaching our objectives, the more vicious and forthright will their opposition become." - T.C. Douglas

NorthReport

Excellent analysis as per her usual standards

Three Strategic Lessons and Seven Kinds of Ridings from the Ontario Election

Three Strategic Lessons

  1. The Conservatives can be beaten. Their strategy of playing to a small but loyal core base vote can be cannot survive forever, especially with an unforgiving hard-right platform. It's possible to win over some Conservative votes to other parties, and to also outnumber them by bringing previous non-voters to the polls. Indeed a hard-right platform can demotivate non-ideological low-information conservative voters and motivate progressive ones.
  2. The assumptions behind the Ontario NDP's strategy – however well or poorly that strategy might have been executed – did prove accurate in the intended parts of the province. We political-science-trained observers may think of politics in a left-right spectrum, but voters don't. Conservatives have spent a lot of time thinking about how to get working class voters to vote against their economic interest, but there is a way to win those voters back with the right message (and ideally a far-better-funded campaign next time!).
  3. The assumptions behind so-called "Strategic Voting" did not prove accurate. "A vote for the NDP is a vote for Hudak" read Liberal leaflets dumped in NDP-Liberal ridings which had no chance of electing a Conservative, but did dump some of the most progressive NDP MPPs in return for a three blue Liberals. But it wasn't NDP-to-Liberal switching that defeated Conservatives, contrary to what some very good pre-election opinion research from Innovative Researchsuggested might be the case. Indeed in every region where the Ontario PCs lost seats, both the Liberal and NDP vote-counts increased. Perhaps the only seat where an explicit strategic voting campaign helped defeat a PC MPP was in Oshawa, where the Elementary Teachers went to bat for one of their members running for the NDP in concert with other groups, to persuade people that the strategic vote in that case was NOT for the Liberals.

 

Debater

takeitslowly wrote:

its fitting the news are spreading rumour about Andrea Horwath; they had done the exact same thing throughout the whole campaign by suggesting that she would work with Hudak. The media , especially the Toronto Star, is an Anti NDP propagenda machine.

This rumour doesn't seem to have anything to do with The Toronto Star.  It was reported by Steve Paikin of TVO.  He should have made sure he verified his sources rather than just reporting gossip.

But as some journalists have said this week, Andrea Horwath hasn't been seen in public since June 12th, so perhaps she should have spoken out before now if she wanted to make her intentions clear.

NorthReport

So let's see how the revisionist history addicts fare against political reality - not very well it appears.

How many federal elections did the NDP experience under Jack Layton's leadership before their magical breakthrough in 2011? 

The very recent history of the federal NDP:

Year / Event / Popular Vote / Seats

1974 Thomas Mulcair joins the federal NDP

2000 / GE / 9% / 13 seats

2003 Jack Layton elected NDP Leader

2004 / GE / 16% / 19 seats

2006 / GE / 18% / 29 seats

2007 Thomas Mulcair announces he will be candidate for federal NDP in the next federal election

2007 Thomas Mulcair wins federal by-election in Outremont

2007 Mulcair also became Layton's Quebec Lieutenant

2007 Thomas Mulcair and Libby Davies appointed co-deputy leaders of the federal NDP 

2008 / GE / 18% / 37 seats

2011 / GE / 31% / 103 seats

2012 Thomas Mulcair elected Leader of the federal NDP, and becomes Leader of Canada's Official Opposition.

What part of this huge upward momentum for the federal NDP is coming from Quebec?

------------------------------------------- 

And let's not forget how Chantal Herbert reponded when asked what do the federal Liberals have to do to win support in Quebec.

Without hesitation Chantal replied: "The Federal Liberals have to be the most effective opposition to the Conservatives in the House of Commons".  Laughing

-------------------

And so far so good for Andrea Horwath as well.

 

terrytowel

Andrea is in the middle of her press conference calling the budget a 'trojan horse'. Horwath said she never considered resigning after the election saying an authomatic leadership review is coming up, and the party members will decide.

Horwath blamed strategic voting and fear as to why her party didn’t resonate with Ontarians in the June 12 provincial election.

“The people in this province made a decision to choose fear, to vote out of fear, rather than to choose positive change,” Horwath told reporters at Queen’s Park Wednesday morning.

“They strategically voted to keep Hudak’s plan off of the books. It’s something we saw happen across the province.”

The Toronto Sun is posting 30 clips live as it happens. Click link and scroll below for the Q&A

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/25/its-a-trojan-horse-budget-horwath

Stockholm

If the Liberal budget was a "Trojan horse" - why didn't Horwath ever use that line during the campaign?? Instead she never criticized one single solitary thing in it but said she would vote against it anyways.

mark_alfred

CBC had an article on her press conference. 

Quote:

She was asked about the leadership question and said party members will have their say, as they always do, at the NDP's annual fall convention. 

"Our party always has that review and I look forward to that," said Horwath. "We always have a vigorous debate."

Horwath said she will now focus on raising questions about the budget the Liberals plan to re-introduce, calling it a Trojan horse budget with "a lot of regressive pieces."

"This is not the progressive budget the Liberals have been spinning," said Horwath. "We can't support an austerity budget when voters rejected austerity."

NorthReport

The only people talking about Andrea stepping down are Liberals.

Andrea is a breath of fresh air.

But the Liberals were successful once again getting people to vote out of fear rather than what is best for them.  Gotta hand them that.

It's either Quebec separation or the right-wing sky is falling approach to politics 

Ontarians voted ‘out of fear,’ Andrea Horwath says

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath insists her party lost the election because the Liberals successful frightened Ontarians into voting against the Progressive Conservatives.

"Look, the people in this province, they made a decision to basically choose fear — or to vote out of fear — as opposed to choose positive change," Horwath said Wednesday.

Thirteen days after the vote she triggered cost her party the balance of power in the Ontario legislature, Horwath finally met with the media to discuss the election.

"I'm proud of the work that we were able to do in this campaign," she told reporters at Queen's Park, adding it was "absolutely not" a bad idea to force the election by reject the May 1 budget.

Her comments came the day after Premier Kathleen Wynne's majority Liberal government was sworn in. That same spending plan will be reintroduced by Finance Minister Charles Sousa on July 14.

Horwath, who had railed over the 41-day campaign against the "corrupt Liberals," said Wynne was able to exploit voters' alarm at Conservative Leader Tim Hudak's plan to cut 100,000 public service positions over four years.

"Out of fear, the people of Ontario voted. They strategically voted to keep Mr. Hudak's plan off of the books . . . That's their decision to make," she said of the PC leader who will step down next week.

"That means we have a lot of work to do around the strategic voting issue."

While she faces a mandatory leadership review at an NDP convention in November, Horwath said she never considered stepping down 

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4597625-ontarians-voted-out-of-fear-an...

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

There is a rumor that Steve Paikin is going to resign.Wink

NorthReport

Steve Palkin is quite the reliable fellow.

Looks like he needs to hang out with some folks who have a clue, eh!  Laughing

Stockholm

When you blame "strategic voting" it sounds like you are blaming the voters for being dumb - bad move. It was the responsibility of the NDP campaign to make the NDP the "strategic choice" in the eyes of voters. They should take a look in the mirror on why they failed to do that. 

Aristotleded24

I agree Stockholm. I was defending Horwath considering the deck she had been handed, but the fact that she's only coming out with her talking points against the Liberal budget now? Perhaps a review of some sort is in order.

Unionist

Quote:
"Look, the people in this province, they made a decision to basically choose fear — or to vote out of fear — as opposed to choose positive change," Horwath said Wednesday.

How distressing it must be, running to be Premier of such weak-willed fearful folk.

How brave and dedicated she must be to carry on in the face of such an undeserving electorate!

 

Sean in Ottawa

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.

Aristotleded24

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.

Sean in Ottawa for Ontario NDP leader? Anyone else with me on this?

Unionist

I am always happy to see Sean back on babble. His posts are thoughtful and thought-provoking.

But this one was odd.

Among his 10 points about how the NDP didn't put forward its ideas for what Ontario should look like, all I noticed was "business credits for job creation" (which, personally, I find theoretically questionable).

Anything else of substance, Sean? Like the Liberal budget. Yes, you're right, Horwath opposed it without debate and helped trigger an election, then never analyzed it. This has been discussed to death on this board.

But now, it's June 25. Kind of urgent to declare, today, yesterday, what's right and wrong with it, right? Something more than "it's a Trojan horse"?

 

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

If the Liberal budget was a "Trojan horse" - why didn't Horwath ever use that line during the campaign?? Instead she never criticized one single solitary thing in it but said she would vote against it anyways.

This is true. The ONDP and Horwath could have more forthrightly attacked the budget, and had a more issues oriented campaign. I am not sure that would have changed the outcome much. They stuck to the "integrity in government" line that proved so effective for Harper in 2006.

I don't think a different focus would have won Schein 2000 votes in Davenport, or 9000 for Marchese in Trinity Spadina. Prue might have retained his seat. On the other hand, the simple "integrity" message may have been decisive in South Western Ontario, which was the target of the campaign.

Not having a flagship policy promise was more deterimental, than not attacking the budget.

It didn't help having the OFL and Unifor running around saying the budget was "progressive" -- those guys are about to eat that.

Skinny Dipper

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.

...

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 really enjoyed your thoughts!

Rokossovsky

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.

Conditional support, as long as she do the last campaign, entirely differently.

People seem to be having problems distinguishing between the ONDP loss of the balance of power, the ONDP, and the Conservative collapse. If Tim Hudak had not been so vulnerable, then the ONDP not only would have increased its seat count from the last general election, but they would still hold the balance of power.

That was the minimal condition for success in this campaign, not winning a majority.

It looks worse than it is because the ONDP lost "influence" in a minority government situation. But in fact the ONDP achieved the primary goal.

It was the Tories that tanked not the ONDP.

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

When you blame "strategic voting" it sounds like you are blaming the voters for being dumb - bad move. It was the responsibility of the NDP campaign to make the NDP the "strategic choice" in the eyes of voters. They should take a look in the mirror on why they failed to do that. 

Yeah. This wasn't a good approach. It sounds defensive. However true it may be. But then again, that might be the reason that the Star chose those specific quotes over others. Still saying the voters are "cowards", essentially, isn't a great message in any speech.

 

Rokossovsky

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.

Really, the only serious commitment that either this, or the new leader of the ONDP should make for the next 4 years is a concerted effort to build the Constituency Associations, including ground rules that govern their independence and respect for local organization, because having a solid foundation of supporters, and activists willing to go out there and combat the kind of media mass attack and smear campaign that the ONDP and its leader came under this time, is the volunteers who make the party politically unique.

You seem very focussed on "communication" strategies outside of the party, but in a media framework that already has its chosen favourites willing to represent the establishment, it is fruitless to try and use the kind of "media messaging" strategies that organizations like the Toronto Star are more than happy to amplify, when you are the Liberals, but not the NDP.

This campaign has proved this once again; being too moderate allowed the right to attack the NDP for "not being left enough", while being "too left" will only be met with the charge that the NDP is "not moderate enough".

The focus for the ONDP should be "communication" within the party.

Debater

Horwath sounds somewhat bitter & angry today, and I can understand that since it's never easy for a leader to lose an election.

But it's important for her not to come across as petty.  I'm already seeing quite a few comments on Twitter from people who don't like the fact that she didn't show up yesterday for the swearing-in of Ontario's first Female Premier.

nicky

You should try not to be so petty yourself Debater

Debater

I didn't think I was, and even so, I would hardly be the only one to do so now here, would I? 

Anyway, the key point is that I am not a public figure running for office, so there's a big difference between being a party leader representing people in the Legislature and an anonymous political hack posting on a message board.

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Horwath sounds somewhat bitter & angry today, and I can understand that since it's never easy for a leader to lose an election.

But it's important for her not to come across as petty.  I'm already seeing quite a few comments on Twitter from people who don't like the fact that she didn't show up yesterday for the swearing-in of Ontario's first Female Premier.

Certainly, the Star article made it sound a little like that. But sadly, my estimation of their journalistic integrity has been substantially diminished over the this campaign, and their tendency toward misrepresentation and pure gutter journalism is becoming more pronounced since 2010, so its kind of hard to tell what the focus of her speech was today.

Certainly no reason to forget their blatant misrepresentation of Rosario Marchese on the election, for example.

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

terrytowel

Rokossovsky wrote:

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

The best you can do is a bunch of 30 second clips from the Toronto Sun

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/25/its-a-trojan-horse-budget-horwath

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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

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....

 

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.

 

Thank you for such a well-reasoned analysis.  You expressed my concerns better than I could have done myself. I  like your framing the quesiton as "What kind of Ontario do you want?"  That is the key point on which the ONDP campaign failed completely. There was no apparent effort to communicate what kind of Ontario they wanted to build, what the overarching vision might be. Canceling the HST on hydro bills is not it (though a possibly useful minor detail in a larger vision). I listened to some of Andrea's speeches and read others (or bits of them) in the media, but never had any sense of where she wanted to take the province.  And I am a regular NDP voter (and sometime member)! If I couldn't see it, how is Joe Public going to infer from the disjointed details what a better future might look like?

And I was most concerned about the lack of any real mention of the commitment to help those who are the collateral damage of our corporate state. I think you summed up perfectly by saying, "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."

Amen to that. I also found your suggestions re campaign stragy to be astute. 

One may hope -- it springs eternal, after all -- that after some initial bristling at the thought that the brain trust of the ONDP s***** up (as they did) there may be some willingness to look at some changes.

 

 

 

 

. I'm especially with you on p[oints 3 and 4 (which I left in the quote for that reason). 

Unionist

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?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

I am always happy to see Sean back on babble. His posts are thoughtful and thought-provoking.

But this one was odd.

Among his 10 points about how the NDP didn't put forward its ideas for what Ontario should look like, all I noticed was "business credits for job creation" (which, personally, I find theoretically questionable).

Anything else of substance, Sean? Like the Liberal budget. Yes, you're right, Horwath opposed it without debate and helped trigger an election, then never analyzed it. This has been discussed to death on this board.

But now, it's June 25. Kind of urgent to declare, today, yesterday, what's right and wrong with it, right? Something more than "it's a Trojan horse"?

 

Actually I find this particular issue a major one. Huge amounts of money in tax reductions are provided to businesses in the name of job creation and most often these become tax gifts to business with no result.

The NDP proposed to stop the gravy train and replace it with a plan to require job creation credits or reductions to be conditional on specific performance. This is something I have been calling for and speaking to candidates and MPs for years. I would increase the tax rates to previous levels and make any tax credit in the name of job creation apply only to verified results. Companies not helping improve employment need to pay the higher previous rates rather than benefit based on the dubious notion of lower taxes for business creates jobs. It does not automatically. The NDP did agree to make this an express condition rather than a presumption as the Conserevatives and Liberals would have us believe. Any money from the higher taxes on those businesses who have not created jobs could be applied towards job creation.

Sorry I did not spell this out more clearly.

Yes I agree. Since the budget is back the NDP has to respond to specific provisions which we went through an election without them doing so.

Sean in Ottawa

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

Conditional support, as long as she do the last campaign, entirely differently.

People seem to be having problems distinguishing between the ONDP loss of the balance of power, the ONDP, and the Conservative collapse. If Tim Hudak had not been so vulnerable, then the ONDP not only would have increased its seat count from the last general election, but they would still hold the balance of power.

That was the minimal condition for success in this campaign, not winning a majority.

It looks worse than it is because the ONDP lost "influence" in a minority government situation. But in fact the ONDP achieved the primary goal.

It was the Tories that tanked not the ONDP.

I disagree. I think the NDP was on track to do much better and blew the campaign. I doubt anyone could convince me that the NDP could not have done much better had the campaign been more effective.

Unionist

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/25/andrea_horwath_shows_h... Horwath shows hubris over humility[/url]

Quote:

Instead of concrete policy, Horwath counted on a scandal-mongering campaign. By banking on her own popularity, she lost credibility. Her central thrust in the homestretch — that Wynne was a lynchpin of Liberal corruption — was repudiated by voters.

In the aftermath, New Democrats are circling the wagons and the leader’s office is hunkering down. But a bunker mentality is a bad media strategy for a party that needs to reintroduce itself to Torontonians — and the grassroots across Ontario.

 

Rokossovsky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

Conditional support, as long as she do the last campaign, entirely differently.

People seem to be having problems distinguishing between the ONDP loss of the balance of power, the ONDP, and the Conservative collapse. If Tim Hudak had not been so vulnerable, then the ONDP not only would have increased its seat count from the last general election, but they would still hold the balance of power.

That was the minimal condition for success in this campaign, not winning a majority.

It looks worse than it is because the ONDP lost "influence" in a minority government situation. But in fact the ONDP achieved the primary goal.

It was the Tories that tanked not the ONDP.

I disagree. I think the NDP was on track to do much better and blew the campaign. I doubt anyone could convince me that the NDP could not have done much better had the campaign been more effective.

So the "minimal condition for success in this campaign was winning government?"

You would not have been satisfied with superior results, where the ONDP still held the balance of power?

Sean in Ottawa

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

Really, the only serious commitment that either this, or the new leader of the ONDP should make for the next 4 years is a concerted effort to build the Constituency Associations, including ground rules that govern their independence and respect for local organization, because having a solid foundation of supporters, and activists willing to go out there and combat the kind of media mass attack and smear campaign that the ONDP and its leader came under this time, is the volunteers who make the party politically unique.

You seem very focussed on "communication" strategies outside of the party, but in a media framework that already has its chosen favourites willing to represent the establishment, it is fruitless to try and use the kind of "media messaging" strategies that organizations like the Toronto Star are more than happy to amplify, when you are the Liberals, but not the NDP.

This campaign has proved this once again; being too moderate allowed the right to attack the NDP for "not being left enough", while being "too left" will only be met with the charge that the NDP is "not moderate enough".

The focus for the ONDP should be "communication" within the party.

I can't agree. I read the platform. I voted NDP I am not a disgruntled supporter and do not rely on Sun or the Star for information. The plan was thin and timid in many respects.

I disagree that the NDP should not be responsible for the effectiveness of its campaign Horwath herself has recieved good reviews in the past and could have this time had the performance been better. The late release of the platform was terrible.

Horwath's speeches were frequently vague even after the release of the platform. The focus on Liberal corruption trumped discussion of the NDP platform planks way too often and was frequently wordy and lacking in specifics. This was a mistake and not due to the big bad media.

I heard many statements come out of the NDP that were simplistic to the point of being cringe-worthy. Even the pamphlet delivered to my door was pretty and shockingly empty, trying to spoon-feed impressions rather than anything specific. Much of the communications were quite forgetable.

I should add that I did not suggest Horwath should run the LAST campaign differently -- that is past. The condition is to commit to running the next one way better with a better plan -- not to blame the voters and repeat.

Unionist

Any suggestions as to substantive matters, Sean? For example - should she have dropped the pension plan the instant Wynne adopted it? Should she have reduced the promised corporate tax hike from 2.5% to 1.0% in mid-campaign? Or just, "don't be cringe-worthy?"

Just curious.

 

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/25/andrea_horwath_shows_h... Horwath shows hubris over humility[/url]

Quote:

Instead of concrete policy, Horwath counted on a scandal-mongering campaign. By banking on her own popularity, she lost credibility. Her central thrust in the homestretch — that Wynne was a lynchpin of Liberal corruption — was repudiated by voters.

Bullshit. in fact, since both Tories and the ONDP pointed to Liberal corruption as a central theme of their campaign, and more than 60% of voters voted against the Liberals, the only conclusion is that the great majority of voters find the Ontario Liberals objectionable precisely because they are corrupt.

Since when did merely counting seats in the legislature count toward judging the mood of the public, Cohn's logic would make it seem as if the Conservatives in Ottawa have mass appeal beyond a very small base of public support.

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/25/andrea_horwath_shows_h... Horwath shows hubris over humility[/url]

Quote:
Reporter: “You said you have no regrets with the campaign, but are there any mistakes that you might have made during this campaign?”

Horwath: “We were able to connect with a whole bunch of people that decided to vote NDP for the first time ever. We’re excited about that.”

Mistakes? She can’t think of any.

[url=http://www.friedgreentomatoes.org/articles/bush_no_mistakes.php]Always the sign of a good leader.[/url]

Sean in Ottawa

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.

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).

Where were the grand ideas on education access? employment? tax fairness? Housing? First Nations in Northern Ontario? What about healthcare? Elder care? Dental eye care? transportation (did not sound very different from the Liberals and talked about some money but no mention of what the priorities were or the kind of projects)? What about income security-- - she does not like Wynne's plan even though the NDP called for exactly that a couple years ago?-- how do we make education accessible without adding more money? Anything to say about culture? artists? What specifically would be done for the environment?

No, I want more than the provincial portion of the HST off Hydro. And I knew the Liberals were corrupt before the election began. I listened to Horwath and the NDP through the campaign and learned almost nothing.

Even the best ideas from the platform you had to read them becuase if you listened to Horwath's speeches they mentionned very little.

Here. Read the plan -- it will take less than five minutes.This is not a plan. It is a pamphlet of highlights. We should be able to see more detail for almost every line item.

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ontariondp/pages/491/attachments/or...

Read the Liberal plan. http://ontarioliberalplan.ca/#plan

I am not endorsing the Liberal plan but I notice there is more detail on almost every point. The Liberal plan does not just articulate an objective as the NDP does in many areas but says how they would do it.

So friends. Isn't the NDP supposed to be more activist than the Liberals?

When you put the two plans together I can see the NDP losing votes to the Liberals just on the depth of the plan (and some elements of the Liberal plan were attractive.

I am not getting into the issue of trust. The NDP plan should not rely on discounting the Liberals based on trust but actually put on the table a plan that is much better on the face of it. On a few issues the NDP were not bad but overall -- vague.

Frankly I think I could have produced a better document by myself on a weekend -- including the graphics. Looked like the NDP were not even trying hard. The policies that were best in that plan -- were not even new.

The NDP plan deserved the poor reviews and the NDP campaign was even worse than the plan. A few good elements but -- amateur hour. Where was the research? How can you say you will spend almost 30 billion on transit and not give a single example of a project you would do except say you will bring public transit to the cities. Like they don't have any now? The Liberals proposed specific things. Why can't we?

 

Rokossovsky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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 opportunities 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.

Really, the only serious commitment that either this, or the new leader of the ONDP should make for the next 4 years is a concerted effort to build the Constituency Associations, including ground rules that govern their independence and respect for local organization, because having a solid foundation of supporters, and activists willing to go out there and combat the kind of media mass attack and smear campaign that the ONDP and its leader came under this time, is the volunteers who make the party politically unique.

You seem very focussed on "communication" strategies outside of the party, but in a media framework that already has its chosen favourites willing to represent the establishment, it is fruitless to try and use the kind of "media messaging" strategies that organizations like the Toronto Star are more than happy to amplify, when you are the Liberals, but not the NDP.

This campaign has proved this once again; being too moderate allowed the right to attack the NDP for "not being left enough", while being "too left" will only be met with the charge that the NDP is "not moderate enough".

The focus for the ONDP should be "communication" within the party.

I can't agree. I read the platform. I voted NDP I am not a disgruntled supporter and do not rely on Sun or the Star for information. The plan was thin and timid in many respects.

I disagree that the NDP should not be responsible for the effectiveness of its campaign Horwath herself has recieved good reviews in the past and could have this time had the performance been better. The late release of the platform was terrible.

Horwath's speeches were frequently vague even after the release of the platform. The focus on Liberal corruption trumped discussion of the NDP platform planks way too often and was frequently wordy and lacking in specifics. This was a mistake and not due to the big bad media.

I heard many statements come out of the NDP that were simplistic to the point of being cringe-worthy. Even the pamphlet delivered to my door was pretty and shockingly empty, trying to spoon-feed impressions rather than anything specific. Much of the communications were quite forgetable.

I should add that I did not suggest Horwath should run the LAST campaign differently -- that is past. The condition is to commit to running the next one way better with a better plan -- not to blame the voters and repeat.

The ferocity of the attack on the ONDP would have been no different had they had more detailed policies. In fact, the campaign to paint the Liberals are the truly progressive force in the Ontario election began with the budget itself, followed by what appeared to be Liberal talking points coming directly out of the OFL and Unifor offices, and then continuing attacks in the mainstream media.

Had the ONDP clearly defined itself on the left, the media would have simply have fallen into default mode and attacked the as "irrelevant" naive leftists, and posed the Liberals as the reasonable "center".

In that context, the letter had very little impact, on the campaign, although it certainly seemed inspired by the Liberal campaign pitch, which was well underway by the time the letter appeared. There is absolutely no reason for Horwath to address it. Members can address issues of policy and leadership at the convention, which is the appropriate place for such discussions.

My point is that this media environment can not simply be undermined by changing pitch or altering policies in order to suit what "we" think will sell to the media.

When Horwath brought up deeper issues, such as privatization, those efforts were simply ignored.

The only antidote to that is not better marketing. Hindsight is 20/20 and one can always propose superior alternatives. I agree that the campaign substance was weak, and the campaign could have used a flagship policy but that is not the root of the problem.

The root of the problem is that a campaign on substance is simply ignored, while the kind of high brow "aesthetic" campaign which is run by the Liberals isn't possible, since the media will simply trash it, for one reason or another.

The attack on Horwath in Toronto was unprecedented and amounted to a massive smear campaign, also without substance, since nary a soul in any of the various op-eds attacking the ONDP, ever bothered to example precisely what policy was substantively more "right-wing" than in 2011 -- it was just a given, apparently emenating from the echo chamber in the Toronto Star, and to some extent in the Globe and Mail, via Caplan that there had been a "lurch to the right".

But what was more right wing? No one was saying. They just kept repeating what Sid Ryan said, over and over again: "The most progressive budget in years", "lurch to the right", etc. etc.

However, unlike Layton or Chow, Horwath did not have the advantage of being a popular Toronto politicians with deep roots in the Toronto NDP and the progressive community, and so her basis of support particularly among "swing" voters was a lot more vulnerable.

The issue is one that relates to how best motivate local organizers who can "keep the faith", and counter-act media distortion face to face with voters.

onlinediscountanvils

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Even the pamphlet delivered to my door was pretty and shockingly empty, trying to spoon-feed impressions rather than anything specific.

Wow, you got a pamphlet? They really went all out to get your vote. Horwath used my neighbourhood as a backdrop for a photo-op (while saying nothing of any relevance to the lives of the poor people who live here), but we didn't receive any campaign lit.

Sean in Ottawa

Oh and to see the NDP plan I had to identify myself and reject several negative option social media appeals. Did not have to go through any hoops to see the Liberal plan. The website is designed to get the most from NDP supporters but offers nothing to someone wanting to kick the tires and see what is offered.

It is no achievement for an NDP leader to get my vote. I have not ever voted for anything else.

I want to see a campaign that can respect and convince the people I know who have and could vote for other parties. That's how you win.

Sean in Ottawa

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Even the pamphlet delivered to my door was pretty and shockingly empty, trying to spoon-feed impressions rather than anything specific.

Wow, you got a pamphlet? They really went all out to get your vote. Horwath used my neighbourhood as a backdrop for a photo-op (while saying nothing of any relevance to the lives of the poor people who live here), but we didn't receive any campaign lit.

Well there you go. But my pamphlet had more thought put in the graphics than the text which bordered on patronizing. I was embarassed to read it. I was hoping for something that would give a reasonably informed person a reason to vote NDP.

Pages