babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
**
I'm actually insulted by your use of terms and your flippant callousness, Mojoroad1, in dealing with this issue.
Perceived wingnut??? I'm sorry, but I think what candidates such as Mr. McKeever said classifies them as more than just "perceived" "wingnuts" (perceieved, as if there could be any doubt?)
With all due respect, this is not about the "brave new world of the internet" since it is unfair to blame the Internet here just as it is equally as stupid to blame videogames for youth crime.
What these candidates (for example, Mr. McKeever) said should never have been said period, in any forum, anywhere. I'm all for open debate, but such debates should be civil. No one should be subjected to such vicious name calling and subjected to threats of rape and assault (which are illegal, to remind you) from anyone.
The Internet simply recorded what this candidate had said. I don't think the focus should be placed on blaming the Internet, but holding candidate’s responsible. And the respective parties should be held responsible for a failed vetting process (what Mr. McKeever had said was only a few months old)
That said, actually to break from your flippant stance regarding this issue, let me remind you that when other parties had this problem with their candidates, those candidates were removed a lot quicker and the reaction from the party's leader was much quicker/stronger.
Maybe you don’t care, but your statement of “perceived” “wingnut” really sucks. I don’t think you should be using the word “perceived” at all to deflect from what happened or claim the controversy was all made up or concocted by another political party as a unfounded smear tactic.
[ED: spelling challenged today]
[ 16 October 2008: Message edited by: statica ]
I agree! But it means, among other things, the hard work of party building, like signing up new members, getting people involved in riding associations, participating in the political process between elections.
It's tough sometimes to get people who are uninformed and/or uninvolved for a variety of reasons excited about this often slow side of things when the horse race is not on, but of course still necessary for growth.
[ 16 October 2008: Message edited by: SRB ]
The same principle applies to the NDP.
Wow! Look at those 2004 figures compared with 2000 (and I have corrected one 2000 figure). A slice of Halifax West was added to the previous riding, explaining the 3,356 vote increase. But look at what happened to the old Reform vote, which had been fairly constant: 5,302 in 1997, 4,999 in 1993. Despite Keddy winning the seat in 1997, his vote went up only 192 votes in 2000, while 4,697 Reformers still didn't like the Tories.
Where did they go in 2004? It looks like most of them still disliked Keddy and the Tories so much they went NDP.
What motivated the Reformers in Nova Scotia in 1993 and 1997? Must have been something very different from the Western reformers.
Was it populism? Is that why so many switched to the NDP in 2004? Has Jack been striking a chord with populists all along, but did it better this time?
Two practical resources here. One is that the 2004 changes in the election financing laws gave riding associations the same tax receipting powers as the parties themselves: generous tax credits that can be offered to donors at all times, not only during at elections.
This makes direct ask fundraising a far more viable proposition for even the smallest group of activists. While direct ask is easy once you have been shown that it works, that does not come naturally. what comes naturally is hosting spaghetti diiners that make little or nothing for a lot of work put in.
So a little bit of leadership- some of which can even be delivered on-line- would go a long way to giving riding associations the tools to take off on their own.
And this dovetails with the other change that came with the 2004 cahnges: the per vote subsidy. The per vote subsidy means that there is a revenue stream that comes with increased vote share even in ridings where the NDP is not in a position to win in the near future.
And that revenue stream means it does NOT have to be a choice of [long term] deveopmental expenditures on riding association development VERSUS saving the funds to build the central campaign kitty for the next election.
Not to mention that putting some of that riding development work specifically into riding level fundraising, means that the riding associations that take it up need less from the party, and even becaome net contributirs as they build the vote in their riding.
I'm not sure what you are saying. But vote behaviour studies make it pretty clear that in BC hinterlands at least, the Reform vote was highly populist. In fact, many of those voters identified the NDP as their 'party of affinity'. Essentially, they voted Reform for practical reasons. so when Reform was absorbed, those voters did not mostly go Coservative.
Reform in the East was a different animal. I never did figure it out myself. And it seemed to plateau in the low teens.
I would not assume that those former Reform votes ended up with the NDP, even though the shifts across elections in South Shore make it look like that. My personal hunch is that the Reform vote fragmented [including didn't vote], and that was a non-factor in the NDP increase.
Anecdotally, I know some 'populist types' who voted Reform in the early Nineties who switched to the NDP as it surged here in Nova Scotia. But my observation is that there are FAR fewer of those kind of folks than in hinterlands BC.
That said I think the NDP has found the key to appealing to rustbelt Ontario and to Nova Scotians outside Metro with the same kind of general appeal [that we call 'populist'] that used to only work really well only in BC [and to some degree Windsor and Hamilton].
Let alone making that message work across a broader swath of Canada.... for 10 years it looked like the NDP had completely forgotten how to make populist work.
Sure, we "only" elected one MP -- but put yourself in 2006 and imagine saying that; we would have been absolutely beside ourselves with joy to elect (re-elect, in fact) an MP, be (and be seen to be) serious contenders in several ridings, and get our refund back in over 50. Below the iceberg's waterline we made huge gains.
Sure, we "only" elected one MP -- but put yourself in 2006 and imagine saying that; we would have been absolutely beside ourselves with joy to elect (re-elect, in fact) an MP, be (and be seen to be) serious contenders in several ridings, and get our refund back in over 50. (This will provide the funding for major organizing work between now and the next election.)
Below the iceberg's waterline we made huge gains.
- If it was disigenuous for Jack Layton to run for Prime Minister it was disingenuous for Stephane Dion to run for Prime Minister. Layton regularly outpolled Dion as Best PM.
- The NDP didn't run on corporate tax hikes. They ran on a commitment to cancel corporate tax cuts. Which are moronic in the current climate.
- Elizabeth May ran on a commitment to stand up to Stephen Harper and then spent the election praising a leader who did the opposite. She lost for a reason. The abstentions mattered.
To me what Layton did best is to repeat: "I will cancel Harper's $50-billion tax giveaway to corporations." It was a very efficient slogan in the sense that such a cancellation invites the population to put their "dreams" in this leeway.
The NDP has ALWAYS been a leftwing populist party with roots in the labour movement. I don't know what makes you think it was ever a progressive urban party.
1972 - the NDP campaigned against "Corporate Welfare Bums"
1984 - the NDP campaigned against "the bobsey twins of Bay St."
This is nothing new.
And in 1988, Broadbent encouraged Canadians to choose the vision of Main Street over the visions of Bay Street and Wall Street.
And that was a winner. And how I know it was a winner is that during the election and after the election - Layton's running to win has been derided by key writers who sympathized with the decline of the libs as the "natural governing party."
With the marked fluidity of the "liberal vote" moving to the right and also to the NDP and Greens, the shout of "only liberals can beat the cons" is fast losing its appeal. Furthermore, Layton challenged this "only thinking" and thus a strategy for the future election campaigns.
Agree. That was powerful.
Liked his kitchen tables versus boardroom tables - though the first set of ads were better - and actually saw some of his ads on TV for once.
Jack did better during the debates than I've ever seen him - especially the second. I liked it when, after May's speel listing policies she liked from the other platforms, Jack said "... all that and ..."
Liked that Jack stressed that, except for one Liberal turncoat, that all the other NDP Premiers were fiscally prudent.
Considering that Layton was being squeezed by both the Liberals and the Greens, he not only held his own but actually increased his seat count.