Have issues with Singh as leader? Here are the questions you have to answer:

I think the challenge facing Singh is the same one that faced Mulcair.

People now expect every NDP leader to become the next Jack Layton.  People expect an overnight "Orange Wave".  There is now enormous pressure on every NDP leader to compete with Jack Layton.  Layton has achieved an almost legendary status which makes it challenging for every new NDP leader to escape his shadow.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Singh's turban is a problem.

What are you trying to say here? I hope it's not to pander to racist sentiment and suggest that Singh should not have been selected on that basis. In this part of the country, having dark skin is also a potential liability to running for public office, but we have to be true to our values and be honest about who we are. Running away does nothing to dispel bigotry.

No I am not saying he shouldn't have been selected because of it. It is both a drawback and a bonus. It's just being realistic to examine a leader from every angle that might impact votes. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate.

The negative aspect is that Canada has lots of racists of different degrees for whom the turban means that they don't have shared values. The turban can also be a plus in that it gets attention. Singh presents very well so once he has people's attention I'm confident that he can dispell fears.

That Canadians, NDPers anyway, would elect a Sikh to lead a major party with the potential to become Prime Minister is something that makes me proud to be Canadian. This is a major historic advancement.

brookmere wrote:

I suspect that the candidates in the other 3 ridings might not have been openly supportive of him in the leadership campaign, or maybe he just does't feel like appearing in contests he can't win.

Then why did Thomas Mulcair show up for a federal by-election in Brandon? Why did Justin Trudeau show up for a federal election in Manitoba's Bible Belt? Why did Brian Pallister show up for a provincial by-election in a poor urban Winnipeg riding?

I get that miracles are not going to happen overnight, but showing up is a pretty basic part of the job. Wasn't there a political party that used that line against the Liberals before?

brookmere wrote:

I watched the Dec 13 interview on Power and Politics and was surprised to hear Singh say that he has been traveling across Canada for the last two months. Clearly the money to travel was available, just not the motivation to visit those three ridings. 18 minutes in.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/power-and-politics-december-13-2017-1.4447691

He billed his tour as a "Coming Home" tour where he has visited urban centers and attend NDP fundraisers to get earned media. So the party is getting more bang for their buck. The by-elections wouldn't give him the same exposure, maybe a blurb in local media. But that is it.

I had a look at the numbers, as of 2016 12 31 the NDP was in negative 1.7 million when you look a balance sheet.  That year total in take was 5.4 million.

Interesting factoids

-NDP is carrying a 5.5 million debt instrument.  That is offset by 5.8 million in non depreciated capital assets.

-Doing a personal estimate 2017 balance sheet will show a depreciated charge from min 600,000 to maybe 1 million on the high end.  That means assets 600,000 in assets disappear in the 2017 sheet.  We will not see a balance sheet until the middle of the year 2018 for 2017.  

-As for a party having a 1.7 million more liabilities than assets is not a big deal when collected 15 million plus like lib and con.  When collect 5.4 million its a different story.

I am not an accountant and so you keep that in mind.  Check the Elections Canada Database for your self.  

MM you mentioned the 5.5 million in debt, will you speaking about the debt instrument?

Quote:

At this point, my take is that, either he needs to go

How long would that take?  I'm thinking of:

a) whatever process relieves him of duty

b) whatever process replaces him

Yeah because releasing policy early helped Mulcair so much and Trudeau withholding policy until the election is  responsible for his loss. Wait, he won the last election. Mulcair lost. 

Does that really hold water, though?

The electorate is content if Trudeau wears just the right tie, and will continue to support him, but expects Singh to bring a radical vision for Canada?

If that's how it is, then maybe most of us really are just stupid.  Not me or you, of course.

I don't buy into most of the criticism of Jagmeet Singh. The collapse in support in Quebec sure is a problem. With all due respect to Ken Burch's comments above, though, I don't think that more left wing policies - regardless of their other merits - is the solution to this particular problem. The province is about to elect a CAQ government this fall, for goodness sake.

IMO, I think the NDP's current problems in Quebec started with the fact that, notwithstanding the hard work Jack Layton had put into it for years beforehand, winning 59 seats in 2011 was a total anomaly brought about by unique factors going on in the other parties just as much as in the NDP. Basically the Harper Conservatives and the Ignatieff Liberals were unable to respond to the desires of francophone Quebec voters just as those voters were ready to abandon the Bloc Quebecois en masse and Layton's NDP was poised to pick up the pieces. We tried hard to dig some foundations in those seats after the fact, but in many ridings we were frankly never a great fit and in 2015 the niqab issue completely decimated us because it was a flaming hot button that got pressed in the middle of an election campaign and split our predominantly white francophone support in Quebec outside of Montreal onto the directly opposed side from the voters the NDP required and was depending upon everywhere else in Canada. Mulcair, to his credit, took the principled side on the issue but boy did he pay for it. Now we are faced with trying to meet expectations that are completely outsized to our present capabilities.

Realistically I think the NDP's base in Quebec probably looks a lot like Quebec Solidaire's base (and, for that matter the NDP's base in much of the rest of Canada) - diverse (but not predominantly anglophone) seats in the larger urban centres of Montreal and Quebec City, maybe some blue-collar towns elsewhere that have retained a substantial unionized industrial base, and the far North. We can try to build on this. Maybe a candidate who doesn't wear a prominent visible marker of his (non-Christian, predominantly nonwhite) religious affiliation would be better placed to do this. But frankly I think we were going to have an uphill battle in Quebec with any of the four leadership contenders last time, including Guy Caron who would obviously have been the best situated of the four.

Despite the issues in Quebec, Jagmeet offered a number of significant potential advantages when he ran for leader, advantages that persuaded me to rank him #2 behind Caron when I voted and which, notwithstanding the rocky start, he still has now. He was and is more charismatic than the other candidates. The fact that he is not white and he wears a turban, while a problem in some respects (see above), is also a huge advantage in others not the least of which is that it signals to countless nonwhite voters throughout Canada that there is a place for them in the NDP, too. Along with Quebec, this has also been an historic weakness for the NDP and while I am certainly not suggesting that all or most internal critique of Jagmeet's leadership has been motivated by race I do think that many of those who have been attacking him are discounting the historic nature of his victory and the tremendously bad optics that we would face if we turned around and turfed him without even giving him a chance to lead the Party into a general election first.

On ideology, which I understand to be the actual concern of many of Jagmeet's critics, I just have to disagree both in principle and as a tactical matter. I liked Niki too. I ranked her third (Charlie Angus's french skills were the main thing that pushed him to the bottom of my ballot). But notwithstanding her attempts to frame herself as the local tribune of the Bernie Sanders/Jeremy Corbyn phenomena, I honestly don't think there was that much ideological difference between Niki Ashton and the other three candidates.  Certainly in the eyes of most Canadian voters I don't think there is much appreciable difference. Electing a federal NDP government, pretty much regardless of leader, will require a decision by voters to express political preference significantly to the left of the prevailing consensus that has governed the country up to this point. Maybe this is the historical moment when voters are ready to do that; but if so, they will probably do so only with passing regard to the details of Party's actual platform. It might be better for the party to try to signal bold change rather than cautious incrementalism like Mulcair did in 2015, but whatever it is it that would do the trick will really have to be all about broad brushstrokes and not the minutiae. The public, if and when they decide they will actually vote for us, will choose to do so on the belief that we can build a better society that raises up all of us instead of just serving the selfish needs of particular individuals. What we need is a leader who can communicate that.

I remain cautiously optimistic about Jagmeet's chances in 2019. That being said, I do have one big issue with Jagmeet and this article gives me a chance to bring it up again:

Eric Grenier, "Where the parties are raising the money to fight the 2019 election," CBC News, July 10, 2018

Quote:

The Conservatives have at least 79 ridings with over $100,000 in net assets — just over half of them in western Canada — with the Liberals claiming at least 30 and the New Democrats just two. The most financially sound NDP riding association was the one in Regina–Lewvan — the seat occupied by former NDP MP Erin Weir. After being booted out of caucus following allegations of sexual harassment, Weir has been sitting as an MP for the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, a forerunner party of the NDP that hasn't existed since 1961.

Jagmeet's treatment of Erin Weir was simply inexcusable, and while I think Jagmeet found himself in somewhat of a difficult position because of the broader political climate as well as internal caucus divides, he simply has to find a way to resolve the matter in a way that allows Weir to return. Weir is a big reason why the Regina Lewvan riding association is as well-funded as it is, because the guy simply worked really hard for the Party and for his constituents. It would be especially appalling if the fruits of his years of fundraising efforts got handed off to another candidate because of  backroom machinations and dirty tricks by Weir's rivals in the party (which, it seems increasingly obvious to me based on the facts that have now become publicly available, is what I think the accusations against him fundamentally were all about). I can only speak for myself, but my cheque-book remains closed until the matter is resolved in a manner that appears more fair to Weir.

robbie_dee wrote:

and in 2015 the niqab issue completely decimated us because it was a flaming hot button that got pressed in the middle of an election campaign and split our predominantly white francophone support in Quebec outside of Montreal onto the directly opposed side from the voters the NDP required and was depending upon everywhere else in Canada. Mulcair, to his credit, took the principled side on the issue but boy did he pay for it.

As Ken has pointed out, the lost NDP votes in Quebec went to the Liberals, not the Conservatives or BQ, so you can't simply blame Mulcair's stand for losing votes when the Liberals took the same stand. The difference was that Justin Trudeau had gotten ahead of the issue. He had taken a firm stand on the PQ's "religious symbols" law well before the election so was seen as having nothing to lose on the niqab issue.

By contrast Mulcair tried to sit on the fence and when he was forced to take a stand during the election it was the NDP which was seen as vulnerable, losing its credibility as an alternative to the Conservatives. Of course this is a lot clearer after the election than before, but I think Mulcair's reluctance to alienate the perceived Quebec nationalist vote - which turned out not to be there - was one of his biggest mistakes.

brookmere wrote:

As Ken has pointed out, the lost NDP votes in Quebec went to the Liberals, not the Conservatives or BQ, so you can't simply blame Mulcair's stand for losing votes when the Liberals took the same stand. The difference was that Justin Trudeau had gotten ahead of the issue. He had taken a firm stand on the PQ's "religious symbols" law well before the election so was seen as having nothing to lose on the niqab issue.

By contrast Mulcair tried to sit on the fence and when he was forced to take a stand during the election it was the NDP which was seen as vulnerable, losing its credibility as an alternative to the Conservatives. Of course this is a lot clearer after the election than before, but I think Mulcair's reluctance to alienate the perceived Quebec nationalist vote - which turned out not to be there - was one of his biggest mistakes.

Brookmere, I agree with you that the fact that Trudeau won 40 seats in Quebec with a position in clear opposition to government restrictions on private display of religious symbols seems rather at odds with the thesis that Mulcair's late endorsement of the same position is what killed the NDP in Quebec and ultimately (once the party's perceived strength in Quebec collapsed), the rest of Canada. Perhaps you're right that the party equivocated too long before taking this position. But the counter-argument is that, in Quebec, the NDP and Liberals were largely not fishing in the same pool of voters. What the niqab issue did was to throw the NDP off of its efforts to crush both the Cons and the Bloc and consolidate the soft nationalist vote against the roughly 1/3 of Quebecers who were committed to the Liberals, a project that was looking largely successful until the dreaded issue reared its head midway. through the campaign. Maybe the NDP should have anticipated this and gotten in front of the issue better. My view, though, is that it was probably not possible to square that particular circle and its why the NDP's position post 2011 was ultimately not sustainable. They were trying to meld together a coalition that was fundamentally at odds with itself. In any case, the main point I was making here is that the NDP's current dire straits in Quebec are hardly Jagmeet Singh's fault.

Pondering wrote:

• Weir accused Charlie Angus of participating in a 6 month vendetta against him with Mulcair.
• Weir stated that the one non-sexual complain was part of the vendetta against him. 
•  Weir stated that if solicited all men would have the same complaints against them has he had.

Why did Weir agree to sexual harassment training? He obviously doesn't think he needed it. I can only conclude he did it for optics.

Accusations of harassment were the catalyst to Weir being investigated but had nothing to do with his being ousted from the party. He was ejected for attacking Mulcair, Angus and the women who reported him.

Pondering, the independent harassment trainer has written a report that Weir agreed to make public and which I think speaks for itself. It addresses both the allegations against Weir that were investigated by the NDP, and what he has done to try to change his own behavior going forward as a result of what was brought to his attention. The actual investigator's report remains undisclosed by the NDP, but it appears to have been summarized in all relevant respects by the independent harassment trainer. I see no reason to question*Weir's* motives at this point, and whatever else you may think about him you have to acknowledge he's been pretty transparent throughout this process.

As to others' motives, though, and specifically with respect to the one specific, nonsexual harassment complaint by Former Mulcair Senior Staffer (FMSS) that you note in your first two bullet points, consider that (1) nobody has actually denied that Weir was barred from asking questions in QP for several months while Mulcair was leader and Angus was caucus chair, and (2) FMSS was obviously someone who was involved in SK politics (there is a reason why she is the one who was sent to SKNDP convention to block him from speaking). In her senior position in the leader's office, she may also have been aware of how well resourced Weir's riding association was.

Can you really rule out the possibility that - even if Weir really did speak in a harsh tone to FMSS while being taller than she was, as was apparently the nub of the investigator's findings - FMSS's re-raising her old complaint now and then leaking it to the media had an ulterior motive? E.g. not just to destabilize Jagmeet's leadership as I suspected before, but also to make available his riding and the ample coffers of its riding association to a different candidate? And if so do you think Jagmeet should be going along with this?

Concerning the complaints of harassment, that was settled by taking the anti-harassment training. He was not ejected over that. 

robbie_dee wrote:

  With respect to the one specific, nonsexual harassment complaint by Former Mulcair Senior Staffer (FMSS), though, consider that (1) nobody has actually denied that Weir was barred from asking questions in QP for several months while Mulcair was leader and Angus was caucus chair, and  

Denying would have given it legs. He was ejected from caucus for having given identifying information about her and for suggesting her accusation was politicly motivated. Also, for suggesting the other women would have complained about any man. 

robbie_dee wrote:

   (2) the Former Mulcair Senior Staffer (FMSS) was obviously someone who was involved in SK politics (there is a reason why she is the one who was sent to SKNDP convention to block him from speaking). In her senior position in the leader's office, she may also have been aware of how well resourced Weir's riding association was.  

Let's say he is right and her accusation was politicly motivated. There was a plot to put someone else in his riding and senior leadership in the NDP, Mulcair, Angus, were in on it and even included staffers. Would this help or hinder the NDP's election chances in 2019 if it is revealed?

robbie_dee wrote:

  Can you really rule out the possibility that - even if Weir really did speak in a harsh tone to FMSS while being taller than she was, as was apparently the nub of the investigator's findings - that her re-raising her old complaint now and then leaking it to the media had an ulterior motive? E.g. not just to destabilize Jagmeet's leadership as I suspected before, but also to make available his riding and the ample coffers of its riding association to a different candidate?  

She didn't "raise it again".  When asked she described what happened and how she felt. When the media found out the report was concluded they started asking questions and she answered. Maybe she should have said no comment but she was entitled to speak. Weir was not. 

I cannot rule out your suggestions but I also can't rule out that Weir is a bank-robber in his spare time but lacking any evidence for either it doesn't seem pertinent. 

I think Singh had to choose between keeping Mulcair and Angus or keeping Weir. He could not keep Mulcair and Angus if they plotted against Weir with a staffer and vindictively prevented him from speaking in the house for six months in retaliation for being against the carbon tax. 

I don't care much for either Mulcair or Angus on a political level but I don't believe Weir's accusations. 

Pondering wrote:

I think Singh had to choose between keeping Mulcair and Angus or keeping Weir. He could not keep Mulcair and Angus if they plotted against Weir with a staffer and vindictively prevented him from speaking in the house for six months in retaliation for being against the carbon tax.

Nobody appears to be disputing that Weir was disciplined by Angus, the then caucus chair, for attempting to raise his views about the carbon tax at 2016 SK NDP convention. The form of that discipline was to be temporarily suspended from asking questions during Question Period. Check Hansard if you want to confirm this. Whether or not that discipline was appropriate is a different question, but it is the kind of discipline all caucuses apply to their members from time to time for all sorts of issues. It's not what's at issue now though.

The issue now is that, almost two years after the fact, Weir got caught up in an unrelated allegation of sexual harassment that, upon investigation, really turned out to be a situation where he stood too close to some women and talked to them for longer than they wished to be spoken to, because he is someone who has difficulty reading social cues (which difficulty may or may not be due to a disability, but that's really his private business unless he wants to share it). Contrary to your prior assertion that Weir challenged those women's accounts of their subjective experiences with him, Weir in fact publicly and without qualification accepted the conclusion of the investigator that his behavior was wrong and voluntarily underwent training to try to change his behavior in the future. I will add here that the type of behavior probably is in fact behavior that a lot of men may be guilty of, it is probably relatively minor on the culpability scale compared to other sorts of allegations that have been in the news (and compared to the sorts of things Christine Moore originally alluded to when she said she would not feel safe being alone with Weir), but it is nonetheless also the kind of behavior that men should try to change if it is brought to their attention that they are doing it, and that is what Weir has tried to do here. The trainer he worked with spoke well of Weir's efforts to date.

During this same investigation, however, which turned out to be basically a dragnet raising substantial concerns about procedural fairness, the Former Mulcair Senior Staffer (FMSS) came forward with her own allegation that, as has been reported, was fundamentally about Weir speaking harshly to her, and her feeling intimidated because he was taller than her, while she was engaged in trying to prevent him from speaking at SK NDP convention. Weir, by the way, has according to the trainer apparently acknowledged that here too he needs to be more conscious of how he occupies physical space when engaged in contentious communications like this in the future, because he is tall. But the questions remain (1) whether this was really an appropriate issue to re-litigate as part of an investigation that otherwise dealt with a totally unrelated type of conduct, and (2) what was FMSS's motivation to inject herself into this matter now anyways?

On the second question, maybe FMSS still just really harbored a grudge at the way Weir yelled at her almost two years ago. That would suggest she has kind of a thin skin for someone who is engaged at such a high level in party politics, but it's possible. If rather there was some kind of "plot" though, that substance of that "plot" would have been to muddy the waters of the sexual harassment investigation by raising this other issue and then leaking it to the media when a deal was already in place to resolve the other issues. And the motivation for doing this would have at most only been tangentially related to either Mulcair's prior leadership or Weir's prior position on the carbon tax. Rather, it would obviously be connected to the current political situation in the NDP, including the desire by Jagmeet's opponents to destabilize his leadership, and quite possibly I now believe also their desire to put a different candidate in Weir's riding in the next election. Such an alternative candidate may, among other things, be more inclined to support Charlie Angus in a future leadership challenge. And Jagmeet played right into that.

Maybe a shift in focus from an all-encompassing platform to supporting producers, on the grounds that the social programs are going to come up from the towns and the villages and the provinces.

This support of producers would be evenly spread throughout the economy, so no particular business sector would overinvest on the basis of added infrastructure provided under the production support program.  

National social programs could then be asymmetrically allocated on the basis of efficiency.

Ken Burch wrote:

 We are all in agreement that the party needs to be challenging income inequality and economic injustice-doing so was a centerpiece of Niki Ashton's agenda, for God's sakes.  Challenging income inequality and economic injustice MEANS challenging at least some elements of the existing economic order, challenging "market values" as the only valid criteria by which economic and social questions are decided by in North America. It never has to mean telling FN people to "wait their turn", and it never has to mean validating middle-class resentment of the homeless or of environmentalists or of immigrants. If you make the egalitarian, redistributive component of the program a priority, that's all you have to do to get the support of "ordinary" voters-economic justice as a major part of it is what will get those voters on the NDP's side. 

From what I have seen of the last few elections they are won or lost based on a core message that can be expressed in a few phrases coupled with image building of the leader. 

If the party presents 30 ideas the media will decide which one of those is the "core message". You see it as speaking to to the people, informing voters, but they aren't listening. Only people who are into politics are paying attention. Whatever other people are hearing is filtered and defined by headlines. Once an impression is solidified it is very difficult to change. 

During the weeks leading up to an election a party has an opportunity to brand itself if the leader has a generally positive image. 

You think he would be creating a positive image if he expressed a progressive position on a myriad of issues. I think he would be opening himself up for attacks and labeling he might not be able to shake off for the election. Every word he says is evaluated for clips that can be used against him when it counts.

While I know you want the NDP to take a position farther left I think we are in general agreement. What we disagree on is tactics. 

Ken Burch wrote:

 The approach I'm talking about COULD be expressed as a concise message "economic justice, social justice,  peace".  Five words-none of which are scary.  You wouldn't have to discuss every single proposal in detail on every occasion.  

That works for me but without any known proposals until the election. No matter what the NDP proposes it will be ripped to shreds by the mainstream media. If it happens while people aren't paying attention people will get the vague impression that the proposal will require tax increases or cause businesses to close etc. 

That is much more difficult to do during the election period especially the next one as all platforms will have to be costed and presented to the parliamentary budget officer. Then the NDP can point to the PBO to prove whatever they are proposing is affordable. 

In my opinion the NDP should minimize the specifics on foreign policy. It has more potential to lose votes than win them. 

No matter the race, religion, or sexual orientation everyone wants good jobs and good places to live for themselves. Whichever party seems most likely to provide those things wins. If more than one party seems equal on those scores and one of them is the incumbant the incumbant usually has the edge. If not then secondary issues come into play. It becomes "so what else are you going to give me?" 

On foreign affairs including peace and trade Trudeau wins easily. Partisans and people directly connected to the countries in question are the only people paying close  attention. The general impression is going to be that Trudeau is a fantastic diplomat admired by leaders in the EU and the States with the exception of Trump. No one has any chance of convincing people they would be better on the world stage than Trudeau is. 

I supported us helping in Libya and the Ukraine. I understand now that that was wrong because I took the time to argue with people here and to follow links and to read long articles I wasn't really that interested in. I think I think it was right to help the Kurds but I am not even sure of that because I don't believe I know enough to know either way. Most Canadians won't go that deep because they know it isn't a voting issue for them. As long as a leader is plausible on the world stage it's good enough and they might not even need that much. Even when I was supporting Trudeau I didn't think he would do well on the world stage. He way exceeded my expectations.

I do get that it is frustrating that Singh isn't coughing up anything good or bad for the most part. NDP members see themselves as more involved in policy decision-making therefore have a right to know what the leadership is planning or discussing in the way of policy so members can express an opinion and impact policy if they don't like it. 

Maybe there was a time when the party worked like that but from what I can see that was in pre-Layton days or even earlier. The modern NDP runs like any other political party. Members elect the leader but there is a strong executive that has influence with the leader and appears to be powerful perhaps through the purse strings. Members get an opportunity to express themselves primarily at conventions and even then it is limited to topics the resolution committee approves. 

robbie_dee wrote:

This seems like as good a place as any to post this:

Melanie Green, "How Jagmeet Singh running in Burnaby could rebrand the party," Toronto Star (from StarMetro Vancouver), July 15, 2018

Quote:

VANCOUVER—If federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh announces and wins a seat in the Burnaby South riding, it could be the start of a potential rebrand for the party at one of its most beleaguered times, says the man Singh would replace if he won.

After visiting several spots in Metro Vancouver last Friday, speculation ramped up that Singh might run in Burnaby South — a position previously held by Kennedy Stewart, who is now seeking to be mayor of Vancouver.British Columbia is essential to rebuilding the New Democrats federally, Stewart said in an interview, noting that donors from the province give the most money to the federal party.

Singh does not have a seat in the House of Commons and has never committed to running before the 2019 election. The 39-year-old criminal lawyer was a star Ontario MPP from 2011 until last October, when he resigned his seat after winning the federal NDP leadership.

Observers say Singh may be the best person to capitalize on the backlash surrounding the Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion from Alberta to B.C.

“There’s a real cause for the Liberals to worry with the (Trans Mountain) pipeline,” Stewart said. “If Jagmeet heeds the local call for him to run when a byelection is called, then I think he could win it.”

What a strange article... "Rebrand" the NDP as what exactly?  And Kennedy's last line in the excerpt quoted makes no sense - of course, if Singh runs "he could win it", but so "could" any other candidate who runs. Perhaps he meant to say "I think he will win it"? At least that would have had greater conviction. Frankly, if Singh runs there he won't be given an easy ride by the other parties and he "could" lose, which is probably why he continues to play his endless coy game of avoiding making any decision on the matter, just like he's done with most every other subject he's had to make a decision on during his campaign for leader and since.

I don't know why you think Singh is lacking in personal charisma. Whenever I have seen him I thought he had oodles of it and commentators seem to agree. Do you also think Trudeau is lacking in personal charisma?

The only thing that works is trying to win the argument...nothing else wins people over, nothing else holds the people you already have.

I agree with the above but the timing has to be right and the public has to be receptive. 

Ken Burch wrote:

 Yes, the modern NDP is run like any other party-and that is exactly WHY the modern NDP is collapsing in Quebec and losing ground everywhere else. 

Singh hasn't lost any ground since he was elected. I'm not positive but I think he gained some. 

Ken Burch wrote:

  And even with your "look to 2027" strategy, the party can't make a major breakthrough in 2027 if it loses ground in 2019.  It HAS to make a major effort at least to hold its ground.  Any reduction in the seat count this year probably makes future recovery in any future election impossible. 

If that were true the orange wave would never have happened, but it did. When I say look to 2027 I'm talking about designing policy for what the future will be like. When Trudeau supported cannabis legalization it was against the majority of Canadians. He foresaw that the  industry would grow and that by election time people would be onboard and it would look like progressive foresight. Same with gay marriage. The liberals knew it was coming and got ahead of the parade. That is what the NDP needs to do but in a bigger way. Get ahead of the parade. Think about the next 4 to 8 years. 

Ken Burch wrote:

  They will shred the party no matter what...which is why the party needs to make some active effort to set or at least influence the agenda, because the only thing that can gain or even maintain support for the NDP is ideas...is principles..is being willing to, as the legendary Welsh Labour politician Aneurin Bevan once said "for god's sake stand for SOMETHING!"   

In the run up towards the election people are paying closer attention to politics. They will hear what the NDP has to say. Right now they will not. They will only hear what the media has to say. The NDP will have no chance to defend itself.

By the time the election rolls around it will be common knowledge that the NDP ideas are unrealistic or damaging. If they release ideas closer to election date the NDP will have a chance to defend the ideas. This is why all the parties play their cards close to the chest. 

Ken Burch wrote:

 Oh, and please, once and for all, STOP acting as if I, or the social movements you so deride, have EVER argued that the NDP should backburner bread and butter issues.  

It isn't about backburnering. Tell me in three sentences what the NDP will do better than the Liberals. There isn't a lot of room in three sentences for multiple issues. Just say the word poverty and you've lost people's attention. 

Ken Burch wrote:

 ​The only thing that works is trying to win the argument...nothing else wins people over, nothing else holds the people you already have.  

Winning an argument requires focus and interest on the part of the speaker and listeners in the best of situations. Winning multiple arguments requires even more focus and interest. It seems very obvious to me that voters are not paying  anywhere near enough attention to evaluate and absorb reasoned arguments on multiple topics. It seems to me that people are only vaguely aware of politics between elections which is worse than being unaware. They get the headlines which are often misleading. 

In my opinion it is possible to persuade people to vote in their own best interests. It's very difficult to sell them on an ideology because they aren't interested. You can talk until you are blue in the face and they will be thinking of the chores they need to get done that night. 

I strongly believe in Canada's approach to abortion; leaving it in the hands of the health system instead of the legal system. As a politician I would not bother arguing for that in Ireland. I would not argue for the right for women to go topless in Saudi Arabia. I'm using extremes to make a point. 

To persuade someone to change their opinion you must first know what their opinion is not just what yours is. Depending on the topic it is best if you also know what they most want in their own lives and what their priorities are. You need to understand their values so you know what they might support if it were offered.  

That is what the right has done with their neoliberal think tanks. They figured out where people are and found ways to manipulate them through indoctrination of simple ideas and values. Think "right to work". It's brilliant. Three twisted words win the argument. 

Being right doesn't win the argument. If it did we would have been pouring money into renewables instead of fossil fuels decades ago. It's not like this is a new topic that people haven't had a chance to catch up on. Kids are learning about environmental stewardship from kindergarten. We regularly hear about iceburgs breaking off and extreme weather patterns. we hear about islands that are going to disappear. Countries are beginning to plan and build flood protection for major cities that are exposed to rising sea levels like New York. There is major opposition to Trans Mountain but there is also major support though it may not be as strong. Lots of people fall for the argument that as long as oil is being burned it might as well be Alberta's. It's longer than three words but still concise. 

I have noticed that once anyone wins they keep some of their promises but break others and do things that were not in the platform. The NDP has to pick the winnable battles. Once in power they can do all kinds of progressive things. There is no need to convince everyone of everything before getting elected. 

For example, Notley could have introduced the idea of PR when she was elected. She could have started the debate, used government funds to educate people on it. She could have campaigned for it while in office. Then measured public sentiment. If it was high she could have forced it through with her majority.