This majority is not the NDP's fault

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tyrone
This majority is not the NDP's fault

Typically, Star columnist Thomas Walkom blames the NDP for the Conservative majority: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/984534--walkom-ndp-surge-gave-conservatives-coveted-majority.

 

He cites no data for this.  The data don't support this claim.

Nationally, the Liberals fell 7 points in the popular vote from 2008.  The NDP was up 13 and the Cons 2.

In Ontario, the popular vote deltas  are:

Con +5

Lib -9

NDP +8

Green -4

 

That is, Green votes went NDP, and Liberal votes divided between the Cons and NDP.  If the Liberals had been able to hold their own right flank, they could have denied the Cons a majority.

In 2004, the Liberals had 45 percent of the vote in Ontario and the Cons 32 percent.  In 2011, the Cons got 44 and the Libs just 25.  This is a slow and steady transfer of vote from Liberals to Conservatives.  That is hardly the NDP's fault.

And there are some ridings where you can argue that Liberal votes weakened the NDP enough to hand the riding to the Tories: Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Sault Ste Marie, and Essex in Ontario, Megantic-L'Erable, Lotbiniere-Chutes and Montmagny-Riviere-du-Loup in Quebec, and South Shore-St Margaret's in Nova Scotia.

Ultimately, the Cons got a majority because they got a lot of votes, strange how that sounds.  Consider the English Canadian popular vote:

Con 47.7

NDP 26.4

Lib 20.6

Green 4.5

which is not just a majority, it's a landslide.

Regions: 
Incorrect

I think I will start a website selling "Don't blame me, I voted NDP" t-shirts and bumper stickers.

knownothing knownothing's picture

The Liberals are just pissed and they are lashing out. The people who voted Tory gave them a Majority, no one else!

Northern-54

I look at the Ontario results and see that the NDP won some ridings in downtown Toronto that they might not have won otherwise without the transfer of right wing Liberal votes to the Conservatives.  Unfortunately, the Liberal meltdown also caused the Conservatives to vault from third to first in some instances as well. 

The NDP vote went up in those parts of Ontario that knows the party through its MP's.  Incumbents, by and large, were elected to stronger majorities (the exception being Sault Ste. Marie) and the ridings near where our incumbents went up as well.  In most cases, the Liberals are now in third place in those ridings.  The right wing Liberal vote going behind the Conservatives prevented NDP wins in a few ridings.

The NDP vote going up did not cost the Liberals seats in the 905.  Liberal vote bleeding to the Conservatives put the Conservatives over 50% in many of those ridings.  Our vote did go up a bit and I think that there was no strategic voting on the part of NDP voters in those ridings because of the negative Liberal advertising directed at our platform in the dying days of the campaign.  That dove-tailed nicely with Harper's message for right wing Liberals to vote for him to keep the NDP out.  This worked great in the 905 where the NDP had no chance to win seats.  It caused Liberal vote to go Conservative and the NDP vote which had strategically gone Liberal in past elections not to do so this time. I can't say that I'm unhappy that Liberal negative advertising back-fired on them.  I do wish that it would have benefited us rather than the Conservatives.

The Liberal vote in Western Canada went down to nothing with the exception of a few ridings (Wascana, Winnipeg North, Quadra, Vancouver South, Vancouver Centre).  Here in the Western Arctic, I believe the aboriginal leadership changing their "vote Liberal" rhetoric in the last couple of days of the campaign to what a good guy Layton is made a big difference.  I will look at the results more closely once the poll by poll results become available.

takeitslowly

I am afraid that the propagenda of just visiting Iggy worked so well on Canadians. I guess Canada is the new America.

Life, the unive...

Anyone who thinks the NDP is responsible for the Conservative majority is an idiot, pure and simple, and they can't do basic math.  We have a Conservative government because of the Liberals.  They stood for nothing, did nothing to attract voters.  And in the end it was their supporters who switched to the Conservatives in such a way as you have to think they were strategically voting in many places to stop the NDP.

Goddess I hate Liberals.  They still don't get it.  THEY are the problem.

NDPMajority

The Liberals are the same as the Tories. They care more about power for its own sake and about ensuring their friends have a trough to eat from than they do about the Canadian people. The Liberals had 13 years to implement  electoral reform, including 2 where the NDP would have pretty much written Martin a blank cheque in exchange. It's not our fault they were too stupid and too selfish to stop the Tories. I'd say blaming the NDP for this result should be cause for an insta-ban here.

absentia

It's really the mainstream news media's fault, for never reporting the truth about events, never explaining policies, legislation, budgeting or the consequences of political actions. Even during the campaign, they contributed to the NDP surge by reporting, ad nauseum, on the phenomenon - not on its causes. While privately owned media obviously serves its masters' interest, 'national' media should have been serving the public. I've just decided they deserve to be defunded and consumed.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

As everyone here has stated, the Liberals are responsible for their own demise. Specifically, it began with the undemocratic ouster of Dion, and the even more undemocratic coronation of Ignatieff, who was to support Harper against a democratic coalition Canadians desperately needed (even if some didn't understand it).

Their backroom elites were too clever by half, and in the end, they couldn't even be bothered getting the basics right - like having their handpicked leader show up in Parliament.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Iggy tried to out NDP the NDP and lost his right wing.  Not really all that hard to see in retrospect.  In BC in 2008 when the Liberals dropped from respectability to the walking dead their votes went to Harper almost two to one.  

Canadian voters are not naive they don't buy liberal lies they like them.  The people who voted for Paul Martin were voting for a slightly right of centre party and they knew it.  Iggy gave them a left of centre option and those Martinites fled to Harper.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Iggy started the campaign with an unfair strike against him, due to the damage from the Cons' negative ad campaign.

The next two were all his own:

Being unprepared for the coalition question on the first day of the campaign, and allowing Harper to trap him into rejecting the possibility. I'm rather certain that many Canadians abandoned the Liberals because they once again weren't willing to step up and replace Harper if given the opportunity.

And the coup de grace, of course, was the revelation about Iggy's Parliamentary attendance record.

Slumberjack

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Iggy gave them a left of centre option and those Martinites fled to Harper.

A somewhat curious description of what Iggy had on offer.  We're to believe that in the later stages a leftist presence of mind emerged which compelled him to toss health care atop the smouldering pire of his campaign, and for that he become too much of a salesman for the left that it scared those red on the outside, blue on the inside constituents to flock beneath the Harperite banner?  The Liberals were finished when they followed up after Martin by presenting Iggy and Rae as their most viable leadership contenders.

Unionist

NDPMajority wrote:

I'd say blaming the NDP for this result should be cause for an insta-ban here.

Constructive suggestions like these belong in the "rabble reactions" forum, not here. Just head over there and make a list of all the people and viewpoints you'd like instantly banned. Thanks.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

They have been the walking dead since 2008 they just didn't want to believe it.  

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

 The Liberals were finished when they followed up after Martin by presenting Iggy and Rae as their most viable leadership contenders.

I tend to agree. What sank Ignatieff was not any imaginary "left" policy of his (didn't hear a single one myself - he even boosted the Afghan mission) - but rather, his ugly scheming partisanship. He destroyed the 2008 coalition (probably in a backroom deal with Harper to support the Jan. 2009 budget), and swore off a coalition at the start of the campaign. Canadians are not mindless partisans like some I could name. They sent the U.S.-sounding backslapping bastard packing. Glory to Canada (especially Québec)!

And of course, Ignatieff has now announced his resignation. The Liberals would do well to go apologize to Dion and ask for his help, provided they find some decent video equipment...

 

gyor

Thomas has responsiblity for the Harper Majority then the NDP because durimg the election he tried to undermine the NDP. Thomas should take some of the personal responsablity he has for dampening the Orange wave in Ontario. People like Thomas stopped the antiharper vote from consolidating behind the NDP. Hopefully people will have learned thier lesson from listening to him.

gyor

Unionist wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

 The Liberals were finished when they followed up after Martin by presenting Iggy and Rae as their most viable leadership contenders.

I tend to agree. What sank Ignatieff was not any imaginary "left" policy of his (didn't hear a single one myself - he even boosted the Afghan mission) - but rather, his ugly scheming partisanship. He destroyed the 2008 coalition (probably in a backroom deal with Harper to support the Jan. 2009 budget), and swore off a coalition at the start of the campaign. Canadians are not mindless partisans like some I could name. They sent the U.S.-sounding backslapping bastard packing. Glory to Canada (especially Québec)!

And of course, Ignatieff has now announced his resignation. The Liberals would do well to go apologize to Dion and ask for his help, provided they find some decent video equipment...

 

The liberal party is beyond Dions ability to help, although if he ran again on a platform of merging with the NDP he could win the Leadership. He is a fracophone after all.

josh

Walkom's whole thesis fails because of a faulty premise.  It wasn' t vote splitting in Ontario that was responsible; it was Liberals voting Conservative.

Aristotleded24

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:
Iggy started the campaign with an unfair strike against him, due to the damage from the Cons' negative ad campaign.

Even then, he didn't even fight against the negative advertising when it could have made a difference. I can assure you that Layton will not roll over that easily.

josh

Layton is also a known commodity.  Iggy wasn't.  Not to say they won't try, though.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist wrote:

I tend to agree. What sank Ignatieff was not any imaginary "left" policy of his (didn't hear a single one myself - he even boosted the Afghan mission) - but rather, his ugly scheming partisanship. 

When I refer to the left wing message I mean the attack ads that they ran featuring the jets and prisons.  Their platform was the same old liberal grab bag of recycled NDP policy. I thought the imagery in their attack ads was designed specifically to appeal to the left in Canada without having to discuss any policies. 

knownothing knownothing's picture

I hope the Liberal MPs just split into NDP and Tory Caucuses. It would be neat to see who chooses what.

Life, the unive...

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:
Iggy started the campaign with an unfair strike against him, due to the damage from the Cons' negative ad campaign.

Even then, he didn't even fight against the negative advertising when it could have made a difference. I can assure you that Layton will not roll over that easily.

I don't know about the attack ad stuff.  It was only successful because it fed into some very basic truths about Ignatieff. 

Ignatieff never made the case about why we came back to Canada after publicly declaring himself American.  He clearly even cultivated an American accent he never lost.

Ignatieff never supplied any sense of vison for the Liberals and Canada- it was all back of the envelope calculations of maybe this will work to get us into government.  

Ignatieff never seemed to understand modern Canada and who we have become as a people, and seemed instead to want us to retain a nostalgic love of our inferiority complex and the Liberals. 

Ignatieff never really seemed committed to anything. 

And finally Ignatieff just didn't understand progressive politics.  He had a chance to do something profound with the coalition and maybe even have destroyed the NDP through that process.  Progressive Canadians would have risen up to defend a coalition government that had actually had two years to get things going with a clear agenda.  But Ignatieff was in the end only in it for himself and so scuttled the coalition and sent Canada on the path to a majority Conservative government.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Andrew Coyne gives us a rightwing POV on why the Liberals are responsible for their own failure:

Quote:
The Liberals never gave the public much reason to translate their misgivings about the Conservatives into votes for them: a particular imperative, given their own record in office. It’s not enough just to implore people to “rise up.” You have to give them some hope that things will get better. But instead of the sort of large, concrete, attention-grabbing proposals that would really stamp the issue on the public mind, the democratic reform chapter of the Liberal platform is notably thin: reform of question period, a study of online voting, a vague nod to empowering committees.

Fidel

Evan Solomon was on the tube last night and looking like he'd just attended a funeral for the LPC. He was explaining that the Harper majority was a result of "vote splitting". He pointed to the results in a few ridings where NDP and Liberal votes combined were more than the winning Harper candidates'. 

So there we have it - the very undemocratic results were caused by too many people voting NDP and even "vote splitting" and apparently has nothing to do with our dysfunctional electoral system. Vote splitting. CBC says the problem was vote splitting. And, of course, the Harpers said they view the result as a clear mandate from Canadians. And never mind that the large majority "of Canadians" did not vote for them.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

josh wrote:

Walkom's whole thesis fails because of a faulty premise.  It wasn' t vote splitting in Ontario that was responsible; it was Liberals voting Conservative.

This is true. Liberals seem to believe they are "entitled" to the support of NDP voters in close races with the Cons.

In my riding, Etobicoke Centre, the incumbent Liberal lost to the Conservative by 26 votes (there will be a recount). The Liberal blames the NDP, who ran third. In actual fact, the Conservative vote increased by 2,822 and the Liberal vote decreased by 2,902; those Con votes didn't come from the NDP, but from the Liberals.

Personally, I blame the Marxist-Leninists for the Con win. Their 149 votes exceeds the Conservative margin of victory! [img]http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/img]

Vansterdam Kid

Incorrect wrote:

I think I will start a website selling "Don't blame me, I voted NDP" t-shirts and bumper stickers.

I'd buy them. But hey that reminds me, I think I'll start a "Conservative Fail" blog.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

M. Spector wrote:

In my riding, Etobicoke Centre, the incumbent Liberal lost to the Conservative by 26 votes (there will be a recount). The Liberal blames the NDP, who ran third. In actual fact, the Conservative vote increased by 2,822 and the Liberal vote decreased by 2,902; those Con votes didn't come from the NDP, but from the Liberals.

Personally, I blame the Marxist-Leninists for the Con win. Their 149 votes exceeds the Conservative margin of victory! [img]

">http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/img]

This one goes in the "Hall of Fame".

Sean in Ottawa

There are now several threads basically on the same topic. Please can we try not to create any more?

They all are about --

what to do/why it happened/is or is not NDP's fault

Fidel

Tyrone wrote:

Typically, Star columnist Thomas Walkom blames the NDP for the Conservative 

Ultimately, the Cons got a majority because they got a lot of votes, strange how that sounds.  Consider the English Canadian popular vote:

Con 47.7

NDP 26.4

Lib 20.6

Green 4.5

which is not just a majority, it's a landslide.

 

Cons received 39.6% of the vote. That's not a true majority. And it's only a little more than 23% of the eligible vote.

I heard at least one political commentator on TV last night saying things like a majority of Canadians voted for the Harpers. Technically, grammatically, logically, scientifically, religiously, philosophically and mathematically speaking, it's simply not true.

Uncle John

Think I'll try the Michael Ignatieff Diet... How to lose your seat in 37 days!

Stockholm

Its all Ryan Dolby's fault!

 

Seriously, why don't these jerks say that its the Liberal Party's fault harper won because they had the nerve to exist and run candidates in every riding when they shold have simply recognized that the NDP was a better party and not have contested the election!

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Unionist wrote:

Constructive suggestions like these belong in the "rabble reactions" forum, not here. Just head over there and make a list of all the people and viewpoints you'd like instantly banned. Thanks.

 

Can anyone play this game? I have been keeping a list for some time now...

Anonymouse

The Liberals deserved this. The country didn't.

pogge

Here's a Liberal supporter [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-power... the Liberal campaign:

Quote:
We entered the election with a clear strategy to triangulate the NDP on just about every single issue save Afghanistan. Pick an issue, look at the NDP, look at the Liberals, we consistently got as close to them as possible. The strategy was to push the NDP down, polarize the election as a choice between us and the Conservatives and bob’s your uncle. At least that was the theory.

That makes it clear that the Liberals weren't trying to compete with Conservatives for their voters, nor were they pursuing a strategy designed to stop Harper by working with other parties to attack Conservative incumbents. They were competing for NDP voters and hoping to do to the NDP what the NDP ended up doing to them. They may not have aired attack ads against Jack Layton early in the campaign but they were certainly trying to pose an existential threat to the NDP.

The only way the NDP could have made some of the more vocal Liberals happy would have been to withdraw from the campaign entirely. If they wanted to survive, they had to fight back and to suggest that they could fight back selectively enough to avoid vote-splitting is patently ridiculous.

observer521

That makes sense. The Libs were also trying to go left to crush the NDP.

All that does is split the center votes. I know lots of people who are center-left who have always voted Lib, as it was perceived as socially progressive and moderate.

observer521

That was an interesting article. It shows how each party is consumed with their own party, and their own power. Thus the center vote gets split, and Harper rules.

By the way, as a moderate progressive voter, to me Iggy seemed like a neo-liberal, who was just saying BS to try to appeal to the center-left.

No one knew what was going to happen, but now they know. Will the NDP and Libs work together against Harper now? Sadly, one must predict no.

 

adma

Stockholm wrote:

Its all Ryan Dolby's fault!

And his chosen candidate got 13.5% to the NDP's 24.64%, ha ha

Life, the unive...

Karma in action

Ken Burch

M. Spector wrote:

josh wrote:

Walkom's whole thesis fails because of a faulty premise.  It wasn' t vote splitting in Ontario that was responsible; it was Liberals voting Conservative.

This is true. Liberals seem to believe they are "entitled" to the support of NDP voters in close races with the Cons.

In my riding, Etobicoke Centre, the incumbent Liberal lost to the Conservative by 26 votes (there will be a recount). The Liberal blames the NDP, who ran third. In actual fact, the Conservative vote increased by 2,822 and the Liberal vote decreased by 2,902; those Con votes didn't come from the NDP, but from the Liberals.

Personally, I blame the Marxist-Leninists for the Con win. Their 149 votes exceeds the Conservative margin of victory! [img]http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/img]

Damn straight.  The  Marxist-Leninists always have been a Mickey-Maoist organization.

ghoris

Well, this sure didn't take long:

Quote:

The Conservative Party can finally lay claim to Ontario - and the majority bragging rights that come with it - but it was the NDP that may have made the decisive blow to the former Liberal fortress, according to a riding-by-riding analysis at threehundredeight.com.

 

Several of the ridings that went Conservative last night were very close (all totals rounded to the nearest hundred, as results are not official):

» Bramalea-Gore-Malton was won by the Conservatives with 19,900 votes to 19,400

...

» Etobicoke-Lakeshore, where 5,000 new NDP voters helped defeat Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

...

But in these five ridings, the New Democrats gained anywhere from 2,200 to 13,500 votes only to finish in second or third, behind the defeated Liberal incumbents. Simply put, NDP gains in these ridings handed them over to the Conservatives, who in many cases did not see their raw vote totals increase by more than one or two thousand votes.

This is, quite frankly, horseshit. First, in Bramalea, it was the NDP who finished second to the Tories. How did the NDP 'cost' the Liberals that seat? If anything, it was the reverse.

Second, in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ignatieff got 23,247 votes to 17,575 for the Tory in 2008. This time, the Tory got 21,963 to Iggy's 19,058. In other words, Ignatieff's vote went down by 4,000 and the Conservative vote went up by almost exactly the same amount. 4,000 people who voted for Iggy in 2008 voted Tory this time. It's as simple as that.

But leave it to the Globe to not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Life, the unive...

Only the arrogant Liberals could claim that it was the NDP's job to save the Liberals from themselves.  If the NDP came in second it wasn't the NDP that gave the seat to the Conservatives, it was the Liberals if you follow their logic.  In a great many other situations it was Liberal switchers going Conservative that lost them their seats.  I really dislike that these so-called experts can't seem to even do simple arithmetic.

And where is the outrage over the Liberals causing the loss of Tony Martin's voice in the House by spliting the vote.  Martin was certainly as important a voice in the House as many of the Liberals the media are mourning the loss of.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

josh wrote:

Walkom's whole thesis fails because of a faulty premise.  It wasn' t vote splitting in Ontario that was responsible; it was Liberals voting Conservative.

This is true. Liberals seem to believe they are "entitled" to the support of NDP voters in close races with the Cons.

In my riding, Etobicoke Centre, the incumbent Liberal lost to the Conservative by 26 votes (there will be a recount). The Liberal blames the NDP, who ran third. In actual fact, the Conservative vote increased by 2,822 and the Liberal vote decreased by 2,902; those Con votes didn't come from the NDP, but from the Liberals.

Personally, I blame the Marxist-Leninists for the Con win. Their 149 votes exceeds the Conservative margin of victory! [img]http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/img]

Damn straight.  The  Marxist-Leninists always have been a Mickey-Maoist organization.

Wasn't Lenin a right-wing deviation of Marxism?

Uncle John

Mickey Maoist

Mickey Maoist indeed!

KenS

observer521 wrote:

The Libs were also trying to go left to crush the NDP.

All that does is split the center votes. I know lots of people who are center-left who have always voted Lib, as it was perceived as socially progressive and moderate.

In itself, thats not ideal. Nonetheless, legitimate for the Libs to go after NDP/Lib voters.

The problem was not the so called "vote splitting." The problem was that the chickenshit Liberals REFUSED to make an anywhere near equally dedicated play for Cons/Lib swing voters.

Sweet justice that their cynical strategy choice totally backfired and bit them in the ass big time.

ghoris

KenS hits the nail on the head. It was clear in the first two weeks of the campaign that the Liberal strategy was to polarize the electorate and squeeze the NDP and Greens for votes. To do that, they had to run to the left, at least at first. The problem was, that after Iggy's stance on Afghanistan, corporate tax cuts, etc, left-leaning voters just weren't buying it. The Liberals also tried to fashion 'contempt of Parliament' and people being thrown out of Tory rallies into a "the Tories are undemocratic" narrative.  While true, the Liberals again had no credibility on these issues with the voters after giving Harper a pass time after time.

Keith Davey used to say that if the Liberals moved too far to the right, they would lose: "When faced with the choice between a Tory and a carbon copy of a Tory, the voters will go for the real thing almost all of the time."  (He famously applied this quote to Turner vs. Mulroney in 1984.) In a perverse sense, the opposite happened in this campaign - the Liberals offered a pale-pink imitation of the NDP, thinking the voters would fall for it again, but this time left-leaning voters saw through it and decided to go for the genuine article.

I know Andrew Coyne's not the most popular guy around here, but he made the observation very early in the campaign to the effect that "if the Liberals run to the left, then this election will be all about them trying to 'solidify the base' and set themselves up for next time. If they run to the right and go after Tory voters, it means they actually think they can win."  I think his analysis is correct, the problem for the Liberals is that the voters didn't play along this time.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

ghoris wrote:

,,, the Liberals offered a pale-pink imitation of the NDP, thinking the voters would fall for it again, but this time left-leaning voters saw through it and decided to go for the genuine article.

From my position, it appeared that the NDP out-Liberaled the Liberals. They have been trying for years to replace the Liberal Party; by burying all appearance of being left-wing, and by embracing warm and fuzzy social-liberal issues like pensions, credit-card interest rates, and physician shortages, they finally achieved in this election what they have long wanted to do. The discomfort of the Liberals with their own leader and campaign strategy was the perfect opportunity, and once the surge began in Quebec with the nationalists turning to the NDP, the left wing of the Liberal party slid easily into supporting the NDP in English Canada as well (many of them perennial swing voters and "strategic" voters with a history of migrating back and forth between the NDP and the Liberals). The NDP was, in short, the natural place for left-of-centre Liberals to park their votes.

The rest of the damage to the Liberals was the defection of their right wing to the Conservatives. Two main factors were responsible for this: The Canadian capitalist class has been badly shaken by the economic crisis of the last few years and has decided to pull back from liberal democracy into authoritarianism and austerity, by throwing support to the Harper Conservatives; and secondly, an existential panic caused by the possibility of an NDP-led minority/coalition government hit the conservative wing of the Liberals pretty hard last weekend, and they voted strategically with Harper to curb the NDP surge.

To hold the Liberal votes it has attracted, the NDP will move even further to the right. The federal NDP convention this summer will be carefully managed to ensure that the voice of the left wing of the party is smothered, and the new-look party that emerges will bear an even closer resemblance to the Liberal Party than ever.

SRB

M. Spector wrote:

To hold the Liberal votes it has attracted, the NDP will move even further to the right. The federal NDP convention this summer will be carefully managed to ensure that the voice of the left wing of the party is smothered, and the new-look party that emerges will bear an even closer resemblance to the Liberal Party than ever.

Then those who are truly Left will have to push back hard, put forward all kinds of resolutions on the environment and social policy etc.  Perhaps some of the voices from Quebec will inject some left-wing blood into the party.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

SRB wrote:

Then those who are truly Left will have to push back hard, put forward all kinds of resolutions on the environment and social policy etc.

I agree. Just don't expect to see any of those resolutions come to the floor of the convention.

SRB wrote:
Perhaps some of the voices from Quebec will inject some left-wing blood into the party.

The Quebec support comes mainly from the ex-BQ. The BQ is/was not a particularly left-wing force.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

You're correct about the voters, but in regard to the actual candidates, not so much.

observer521

If the left goes too hard, it will kill the NDP chances of getting elected.

What is better for those truly on the left? To get the party they belong to elected with compromise? Or to have their views front and center, and not get elected?

I can tell you this, mainstream Canada will not elect a gov't that is too left wing. I think Jack was smart to talk about small business, etc.

If the left pushes too hard on the center parties, they won't get elected, except in fringe areas. Quebec is something else right now, it seems to be a protest vote, it may not hold.

Pages

Topic locked