Jagmeet Singh has proven to be a wicked-good campaigner

SAIA York

https://twitter.com/SaiaYork/status/1045045880208920582

"...As for Garrison and Murray Rankin, a party such as the NDP that claims to be progressive shouldn't have MPs being 'friends' with pro-Israel lobby groups."

 Apartheid-Zionism is racism. Perhaps they're not progressive.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

This is correctly on the party. They caused both failures with the same long-lame-duck period.

Could some other potential leader have led the NDP to glorious victory?

REB?

Ashton?

I get the feeling sometimes that "honest criticism" of the party leader is just just one more swipe on behalf of those who weren't elected leader.  It's easy to say "they'd have been better/preferable/more popular" when there's no way to reasonably say whether they'd have been better/preferable/more popular.

"We wouldn't be in this mess if only everyone had voted like I did!  We could have a REAL LEADER!!!"

How about "We wouldn't be in this mess if the leader we have was actually willing to get out there and fight for something, to stand for something!  We wouldn't be in a mess if the leader we have started ignoring the party insiders who keep saying 'Stay The Course!  Say Nothing DO Nothing!' "

Can't support QS because they might in some circumsatnces support the right. Strange idea for an NDP supporter to have.

https://www.dailyxtra.com/siksay-spanked-for-position-38635

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-will-support-conservative-...

 

 

Nathan Cullen

September 25 at 8:00 PM

This fall, I will be visiting communities across BC to hear the genuine concerns many British Columbians have regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The Liberals have refused to listen to these concerns in Parliament and instead bought an old, leaky pipeline for $4.5 billion.

It's time to stop the madness and save our coast. I hope you will join me and together we can send a message to the government that British Columbians are united in their opposition to this reckless expansion.

Wow. I'm impressed that you are so up on Singh's calendar.  

There is a fifth estate special on Singh on right now. 

MegB wrote:

You seem to forget that this is a discussion board and you are not the moderator. When you express an opinion you should expect to have it challenged. That is the nature of this space. If you don't want your ideas challenged, don't post here.

I don't need other people to express my opinion on my behalf. I can do it myself. If someone wants  to challenge my ideas they are welcome to. They don't have to speak for me in order to do that. 

I especially don't need a man to express my opinions. 

If I were a moderator I would give orders not make requests. 

When Legatta asked that I not be permitted to respond to her posts you granted it. I did not ask you to to make anything official. I asked Ken directly not to address me.  

I have zero expectation of fair treatment from you.  You look for and use any excuse to go after me. I wouldn't say it if I had any hope of ever being treated fairly by you but I don't so there is no point in diplomacy. 

Requesting that Ken not address me, is not against policy. 

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh loses chief of staff for 'personal reasons'

This is the first time I ever heard of Dr. Willy Blomme. My bad. Oh well, she's gone.

Hopefully, Singh will be gone next.

Webgear wrote:

http://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/willy_blomme

"Willy Blomme is the Broadbent Institute's Program Director. Since 2000, Willy has worked as an organizer, researcher and writer in progressive politics. From 2005 to 2006, she served as Jack Layton’s speechwriter.

Willy completed her PhD in Political Theory and International Relations at Johns Hopkins University in which she examined the challenges to belonging, attachment and identity created by the climate crisis. She also holds a Master’s Degree from the London School of Economics and a Bachelor’s from McGill University, where she participated in a lively seminar taught by Ed Broadbent. She contributed a piece to Love, Hope, Optimism: An informal portrait of Jack Layton by those who knew him and has written for The Contemporary Condition, a critical theory blog reflecting on issues of the day."

Was this his COS?

Yes

MegB wrote:

You know what would be fair? Me not having to waste an inordinate amount of time dealing with complaints about you, arguments with and about you and the general shitshow that inevitably accompanies your posts any time anyone objects to what you're opining. In my nearly 8 years moderating babble never have I had to deal with so much crap from one individual babbler. Seriously. No one has so consistently wasted my limited moderation time as you have.

But no, it's always everyone else who is the problem, never you. 

Your last sentence could apply to you.  Posters who have been here for years should know better than to contact you when another poster is not breaking policy. Why don’t they?

You have been openly hostile towards me for years which you may feel is justified but as moderator it has an impact.

I accept all manner of insult both underhanded and direct without reporting or responding in kind. I don’t break policy. I rarely if ever paraphrase, I don’t speculate on the motives of others. I don’t declare people progressive or not progressive based on their views. I don’t play devil’s advocate or use debating tactics like strawman arguments. I’m sure I make mistakes but not intentionally.

Maybe you are right and I am a particularly annoying poster but if so I am not alone. Moderators have to deal with all kinds of personalities as an inherent aspect of the job.

You can have firm policy so people know where they stand, when to report and what will get them a time-out or ban, or you can decide situationally.

In my opinion the more involved approach leads to more strife and sucks up more time as people turn to you to settle differences and pass judgement on a case by case basis.

You have 100% control over policy, how you apply policy, and manage your time. You set the tone on the board both in how you address people and through your moderating.

Ken Burch wrote:

Not sure they're afraid.  It's more that they lose a lot of advantages if they DO call it-the moment Singh gets into the House, he gains stature and it becomes that much more difficult for the Liberals so pretend that they are the ONLY option for progressive voters.  That's why they would have stalled ANY byelection Singh tried to contest, unless it was in a seat where they felt it was likely they could defeat him-if he said he wanted to stand in Outremont, Justin would have dropped the writ there INSTANTLY.

Or try this scenerio for size. The Liberals want to delay this for as long as possible, because they want Jagmeet Singh to win the by-election and lead the NDP in the 2019 campaign. They see Jagmeet as the easier NDP Leader to campaign against.

If they drop the writ now and Jagmeet loses, then the NDP has time to get a new leader (seeing what happened in Ontario with Doug Ford) and they might have a tougher leader to compete against, like Nathan Cullen.

On the other hand the Conservatives desperately want to beat Jagmeet in this by-election. . That way the NDP can get a better NDP leader to go up against Trudeau in 2019. Thus split the vote on the left and let the Conservative candidates come up the middle in dozens of ridings across Canada. 

So that is why the Liberals seem to be dragging their feet on this.

Mighty Middle wrote:

 

Or try this scenerio for size. The Liberals want to delay this for as long as possible, because they want Jagmeet Singh to win the by-election and lead the NDP in the 2019 campaign. They see Jagmeet as the easier NDP Leader to campaign against.

If they drop the writ now and Jagmeet loses, then the NDP has time to get a new leader (seeing what happened in Ontario with Doug Ford) and they might have a tougher leader to compete against, like Nathan Cullen.

On the other hand the Conservatives desperately want to beat Jagmeet in this by-election. . That way the NDP can get a better NDP leader to go up against Trudeau in 2019. Thus split the vote on the left and let the Conservative candidates come up the middle in dozens of ridings across Canada. 

So that is why the Liberals seem to be dragging their feet on this.

Ken Burch wrote:

Except that, with no Liberal candidate in the Burnaby South race, there's no chance of actually beating Singh there.  There's no way you'd have the people who voted Liberal in 2015 vote Conservative as a bloc (a bloc, not THE Bloc, for anyone rolling any possible bits of geographically nonsensical wordplay around in their minds), so there's no way you'd actually have a Con pickup in the byelection.

There's an element of them wanting to keep Singh in stasis, but they wouldn't pass up the chance to both beat him and further the narrative of NDP collapse in Quebec by forcing an instant byelection in Outremont.  They'd be all over that in a heartbeat and you know it.

Not sure they're afraid.  It's more that they lose a lot of advantages if they DO call it-the moment Singh gets into the House, he gains stature and it becomes that much more difficult for the Liberals so pretend that they are the ONLY option for progressive voters.  That's why they would have stalled ANY byelection Singh tried to contest, unless it was in a seat where they felt it was likely they could defeat him-if he said he wanted to stand in Outremont, Justin would have dropped the writ there INSTANTLY.

 

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Cullen would not have a chance. Megan Leslie would have a chance. 

What if Leslie would decide not to run and Cullen would decide to run?

As far as I know Leslie isn't running. I don't think Cullen would make a good leader. I think Singh is being unfairly judged by people who didn't want him to win and see him as a link in the chain from Layton to Mulcair to him in the sense of the party being too centrist. I understand that Singh signed on a lot of new members and some people think that distorted the vote, but even if it did members did not coalesce around an obvious alternative. Cullen has been around a long time. I don't see him doing any better than Singh. 

I am constantly reminded of all the comments about Trudeau having no policy and being "not ready" during the years leading up to the election because he mainly kept his head down. 

I feel that even if Singh proposes progressive policies nothing will be enough. Everyone is so fixated on how terrible he is he would have to be the second coming of Christ for people to admit he might be more progressive than Mulcair and might have some good ideas. 

Maybe the people criticizing Singh are correct and he is a dud but I think everyone should see his platform and his performance in the debates before making that determination. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/on-the-case-of-erin-weir-jagmeet-singh-h...

Singh has taken a lot of flack for doing what he had to do and did with the full support of the entire caucus which I believe includes Cullen and all the other leadership contenders. 

..change isn't just about who the leader is. look at the processes labour has been/is going through in the uk. the power struggles within the party that results in intensive debate re left vs center, the depth of the leftist leaning platform, the rise of movements to support that platform, the membership involvement in policy making. little if any of this is going on inside the ndp that i can see.

It is highly unlikely that Singh would or will lose in Burnaby therefore no reason for the NDP to dump him.  It is more likely they just don't want to give him air time.

If the NDP want to get rid of Singh they don't need an excuse. They could force him out if he didn't have the support of caucus or the administration. The membership elected him. A few disgruntled members on a messageboard is no reason to dump a leader. 

The NDP switching leaders now would not help them in the next election unless they found someone more popular and appealing than Trudeau. That isn't Cullen nor any other obvious leadership contender. If either of the QS spokespeople were available that would be different. Right now, there is no one new on the horizon. 

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I am constantly reminded of all the comments about Trudeau having no policy and being "not ready" during the years leading up to the election because he mainly kept his head down.

Once he because leader Trudeau significantly improved the showing of the Liberals in every byelection compared to the previous general election, improved fundraising, and improved polling numbers. That's results and that's what counts, not "comments" from those opposed to his party in the first place.

Only when he was first elected. It was pretty much downhill from there after the first year and it was his name that attracted support not his behavior. He entered the political arena when Harper was reaching his best before date to the extent that even the NDP made it to first place, under Mulcair, for awhile. The election was Trudeau's to lose and the same goes for this one even though there is some ammunition now that the Liberals have been in for a few years. 

Even so Trudeau is almost guaranteed another majority because he is still in his first term and Scheer is boring. The NDP has never won a federal election and has only been strong when the Liberals are weak which is probably why they think they have to be Liberal lite to win. 

The bottomline is this:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-not-all-about-their-base-canadas-201...

So they look at each issue in a pragmatic, non-polarized way. They crave a more sensible, down-to-earth, less bombastic pitch.  They don’t want their cost of living to go up, but they worry about climate change and think if you don’t like carbon taxes you should at least have another idea that could work.  They may not be happy about owning a pipeline but worry that the economy will take too big a hit if we try to shift off oil too quickly.

These voters are well within the reach of opposition parties, but base-rallying messages aren’t going to close the deal. While party membership rolls include a lot of people with a left-leaning or right-leaning world view, Canadians are generally suspicious of hardened ideology. Across Canada, 89 per cent of Canadians believe the country works best “by finding middle ground and compromise,” and 92 per cent of Persuadables feel this way.

Along the same lines, 77 cent of Canadians (and 81 per cent, among Persuadables) would prefer the Conservative Party to be more progressive on social issues, and 68 cent (73 per cent among Persuadables) would like it if the NDP was more centrist on economic issues.

I've been saying this for years. Moderates decide the election. Voters want pragmatic parties. The Canadian electorate is socially liberal and economically conservative. That is why the Conservatives try to stay away from social issues like gay marriage and abortion and stick to "tough on crime" type stuff that appeals to the base and is tolerated by the centre. 

I don't think that means the NDP has to move to the centre economically but it has to present solutions pragmatically not ideologically or emotionally and not based on chopping up the electorate into special interest groups. 

This election period is lost to the NDP through no fault of their own because Trudeau is adequate and Canadians are a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush types until they get really sick of it. The incumbant has an advantage.

When addressing voters the NDP has to forget about left right and centre and influencing people ideologically and instead think of pragmatic economic solutions that are easily defended. 

Denouncing social ills will get the NDP nowhere. 

epaulo13 wrote:

..when discussing the politics of economics and ecology the only pragmatic way forward is to end capitalism. people do/can/will understand that because it's easy to explain.

Only if you can fit in on a bumper sticker. Sad but that is what politics has boiled down to. 30 second-bites where policy is whittled down to a slogan. So if you want to discuss the end of capitalism, it needs to be in a slogan that people understand.

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Cullen would not have a chance. Megan Leslie would have a chance. 

What if Leslie would decide not to run and Cullen would decide to run?

As far as I know Leslie isn't running. I don't think Cullen would make a good leader. I think Singh is being unfairly judged by people who didn't want him to win and see him as a link in the chain from Layton to Mulcair to him in the sense of the party being too centrist. I understand that Singh signed on a lot of new members and some people think that distorted the vote, but even if it did members did not coalesce around an obvious alternative. Cullen has been around a long time. I don't see him doing any better than Singh. 

I am constantly reminded of all the comments about Trudeau having no policy and being "not ready" during the years leading up to the election because he mainly kept his head down. 

I feel that even if Singh proposes progressive policies nothing will be enough. Everyone is so fixated on how terrible he is he would have to be the second coming of Christ for people to admit he might be more progressive than Mulcair and might have some good ideas. 

Maybe the people criticizing Singh are correct and he is a dud but I think everyone should see his platform and his performance in the debates before making that determination. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/on-the-case-of-erin-weir-jagmeet-singh-h...

Singh has taken a lot of flack for doing what he had to do and did with the full support of the entire caucus which I believe includes Cullen and all the other leadership contenders. 

He doesn't necessarily need to propose specific policies.  But he does need to get out there and give people a clear, visceral sense, in broadstrokes, of whose side the party is on.  He needs to make a clear and decisive break with the party's traditional obsession with "respectability"-an obsession that has never gained the party anything, really.  

Is it asking too much for the man to display an awareness of the class and identity divides, to give a real sense that, while the Liberals and Conservatives will be the party of the comfortable and dominant, the NDP would be the voice of the voiceless, would truly have a vision of a different world in their minds?

And why NOT be a peace party?  People who still think it's a good idea for Canadian troops to be intervening militarily in the Arab/Muslim world are not going to be big supporters of single-payer, or want the labor movement strengthened, or want an environmentally sustainable future.  People who are still hawks are not going to have a vision of a just, democratic, progressive future in their hearts.  They're lost to us-and fortunately, they're aren't enough of them for the party to bother appeasing.  Most Canadians don't want their kids coming home in boxes covered with the Maple Leaf after dying in what everyone now knows is nothing but a battle for resources.  And if you make the case that getting out of the wars and the fixation with preparing for wars can free up resources for a better future at home, a future that makes the lives of the folks who go to Tim Horton's every morning.  

People who want things to stay as they are are never going to vote for anybody but the Cons or the Libs.  Why not just accept that and focus on making nonvoters into voters, on forming alliances between the low-information voters and the low-hope voters-many of whom are the same people?

It doesn't have to be about policy...but there does need to be a passionate vision.  Without that, what can a party like the NDP achieve at all? 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Cullen would not have a chance. Megan Leslie would have a chance. 

What if Leslie would decide not to run and Cullen would decide to run?

As far as I know Leslie isn't running. I don't think Cullen would make a good leader. I think Singh is being unfairly judged by people who didn't want him to win and see him as a link in the chain from Layton to Mulcair to him in the sense of the party being too centrist. I understand that Singh signed on a lot of new members and some people think that distorted the vote, but even if it did members did not coalesce around an obvious alternative. Cullen has been around a long time. I don't see him doing any better than Singh. 

I am constantly reminded of all the comments about Trudeau having no policy and being "not ready" during the years leading up to the election because he mainly kept his head down. 

I feel that even if Singh proposes progressive policies nothing will be enough. Everyone is so fixated on how terrible he is he would have to be the second coming of Christ for people to admit he might be more progressive than Mulcair and might have some good ideas. 

Maybe the people criticizing Singh are correct and he is a dud but I think everyone should see his platform and his performance in the debates before making that determination. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/on-the-case-of-erin-weir-jagmeet-singh-h...

Singh has taken a lot of flack for doing what he had to do and did with the full support of the entire caucus which I believe includes Cullen and all the other leadership contenders. 

He doesn't necessarily need to propose specific policies.  But he does need to get out there and give people a clear, visceral sense, in broadstrokes, of whose side the party is on.  He needs to make a clear and decisive break with the party's traditional obsession with "respectability"-an obsession that has never gained the party anything, really.  

Is it asking too much for the man to display an awareness of the class and identity divides, to give a real sense that, while the Liberals and Conservatives will be the party of the comfortable and dominant, the NDP would be the voice of the voiceless, would truly have a vision of a different world in their minds?

And why NOT be a peace party?  People who still think it's a good idea for Canadian troops to be intervening militarily in the Arab/Muslim world are not going to be big supporters of single-payer, or want the labor movement strengthened, or want an environmentally sustainable future.  People who are still hawks are not going to have a vision of a just, democratic, progressive future in their hearts.  They're lost to us-and fortunately, they're aren't enough of them for the party to bother appeasing.  Most Canadians don't want their kids coming home in boxes covered with the Maple Leaf after dying in what everyone now knows is nothing but a battle for resources.  And if you make the case that getting out of the wars and the fixation with preparing for wars can free up resources for a better future at home, a future that makes the lives of the folks who go to Tim Horton's every morning.  

People who want things to stay as they are are never going to vote for anybody but the Cons or the Libs.  Why not just accept that and focus on making nonvoters into voters, on forming alliances between the low-information voters and the low-hope voters-many of whom are the same people?

It doesn't have to be about policy...but there does need to be a passionate vision.  Without that, what can a party like the NDP achieve at all?

What about the simple act of showing up and introducing himself? Singh's critics have already tagged him as a Toronto elitist who doesn't understand life outside of that reality, and Singh has done absolutely nothing to convince people otherwise.

That would be a big help.  Show up, in a flannel shirt and jeans at times, and be there to LISTEN.  

None of the troops, from any country, fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East are "peacekeepers".  There is no such thing as "humanitarian intervention"-there, or anyplace else.  Anytime troops are sent in now, it's about nothing but access to another country's resources for corporate profit.  

And I realize the NDP has never operated as the type of party I described above-has never been a "the voice of the voiceless" has seldom had "a vision of a different world in their minds",  although Tommy Douglas' "Mouseland" fable did have a visionary quality, expressed in an accessible "children's story" vocabulary...but so what?  Conventionality hasn't WORKED.  It hasn't taken the party above third place-the Orange Wave was not conventionality, was not safety, it was a call to see life differently, it was a validation of the idea that it was legitimate to dream of a different life, even if the short-term program was moderate; in that election, the program was beside the point-so if it hasn't worked, what's the case for staying with what hasn't worked?  Why stay with safe, defensive politics when that approach clearly no longer connects with anyone?

The way the NDP strategy is going these days, it's as if the party is a CFL team who has the ball, trailing by fourteen points with four minutes to go in the fourth quarter, and rather than trying to throw long passes into the end zone, has decided to run out the clock.  

 

 

When addressing voters the NDP has to forget about left right and centre and influencing people ideologically and instead think of pragmatic economic solutions that are easily defended. 

There is no economic solution that does not have an ideological component.

If given the chose between I go Leslie, Cullen was the mastermind behind the idea of merging NDP with  Liberals.  If that to affect we would no leftist party in Canada.  That leaves the communist on left, even I would be declined to dubble with the communist.  I do not understand how modern country would have no party of the left. Without the NDP somebody would have to start of the left party because there is giant space on the left.

No he wasn't. Cullen proposed running joint nomination meetings with the Greens and Liberals to select one progressive candidate in ridings that Harper won because of vote splitting on the left. He didn't suggest merging the parties.

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Cullen would not have a chance. Megan Leslie would have a chance. 

What if Leslie would decide not to run and Cullen would decide to run?

As far as I know Leslie isn't running. I don't think Cullen would make a good leader. I think Singh is being unfairly judged by people who didn't want him to win and see him as a link in the chain from Layton to Mulcair to him in the sense of the party being too centrist. I understand that Singh signed on a lot of new members and some people think that distorted the vote, but even if it did members did not coalesce around an obvious alternative. Cullen has been around a long time. I don't see him doing any better than Singh. 

I am constantly reminded of all the comments about Trudeau having no policy and being "not ready" during the years leading up to the election because he mainly kept his head down. 

I feel that even if Singh proposes progressive policies nothing will be enough. Everyone is so fixated on how terrible he is he would have to be the second coming of Christ for people to admit he might be more progressive than Mulcair and might have some good ideas. 

Maybe the people criticizing Singh are correct and he is a dud but I think everyone should see his platform and his performance in the debates before making that determination. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/on-the-case-of-erin-weir-jagmeet-singh-h...

Singh has taken a lot of flack for doing what he had to do and did with the full support of the entire caucus which I believe includes Cullen and all the other leadership contenders. 

OK...which of the things that Singh has "taken flak" for were things he absolutely HAD to do? Has the guy made any major choices as leader which have actually, in any measurable way, helped?

Pondering wrote:

 

Only when he was first elected. It was pretty much downhill from there after the first year and it was his name that attracted support not his behavior.

The Liberals held first place in the polls until the spring or 2015 (Alberta election). In every byelection held in 2014 they increased their vote between 13% to 30%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_el...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-elections_to_the_41st_Canadian_Parliament