NDP Leadership 25

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
StuartACParker
NDP Leadership 25

The next thread...

StuartACParker

Northern Shoveler wrote:

So are you proposing language based weighted voting?  How would that work?  Would riding demographics be used so that ridings in the Acadian heartland would get more votes than a predominately anglophone Quebec riding?

No. I'm proposing that we copy the other national parties and give equal weight to each riding in our internal voting processes. It's not mathematically tough and will help remind us that we now are a national party, seeking to represent all Canadians.

JeffWells

Quoting Cullen's announcement from the previous thread:

ottawaobserver wrote:

fitzpatrick_m Meagan Fitzpatrick
Cullen says as NDP leader he would seek "joint nomination meetings" with other parties in Tory ridings #hw
29 minutes ago

 

This should mean that Pat Martin's found his candidate.

A terrible idea, IMO. I don't have a problem with a parliamentary coalition after an election, but structurally, this idea is a bridge to merger. Why would a New Democrat want to breathe relevance back into the Liberal party?

FWIW, I've just reshuffled my preferential deck, and Cullen's now at the bottom.

StuartACParker

Nathan just got my vote!

KenS

From the previous thread [tweet links there]:

Quote:

Cullen says as NDP leader he would seek "joint nomination meetings" with other parties in Tory ridings

If its true he said this, which remains to be seen.... Nathan has grabbed on to the third rail. On that alone, there goes Nathan as a consideration for a lot of us.

Might be good enough to get Pat Martin's endorsement though. Smile

Cross posted with Jeff if that isnt already clear.

 

 

ottawaobserver

KenS wrote:

From the previous thread [tweet links there]:

Quote:

Cullen says as NDP leader he would seek "joint nomination meetings" with other parties in Tory ridings

If its true he said this, which remains to be seen.... 

It was from a reporter covering his news conference, and the news release was easily discoverable. Sheesh.

http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/media/nathan-cullen-asks-for-mandate-to-co...

ottawaobserver

So much fuss has been made about people "getting their cards" from federal office. If they're enrolled, they can vote, card or otherwise. Federal Office posted a bunch of jobs in the Membership department focused on Quebec six weeks ago. Do people not research things before they post them on Babble?

KenS

I've said it before- this campaign is full of surprises. For me right now, its Nathan and Stuart both.

Though on reflection, less surprised about Stuart. And ever since I saw Michael Byers make the case, and heard it from a friend, I have realized that it is [somehwhat] more mainstream than I thought. [Mainstream NDP that is.]

But I not only think it sucks, I am pretty sure its a third rail for leadership ambitions. Wouldnt kill you as someone who wnts to build your clout in the party, so it will contribute to the notion this is Nathan's real goal.

He'll be a more effective spokesperson for the position than Pat Martin could ever be.

ottawaobserver

Byers has since repudiated that position, by the way, Ken, if you read his column for CBC.ca at the end of the last election.

StuartACParker

ottawaobserver wrote:

So much fuss has been made about people "getting their cards" from federal office. If they're enrolled, they can vote, card or otherwise. Federal Office posted a bunch of jobs in the Membership department focused on Quebec six weeks ago. Do people not research things before they post them on Babble?

Having dealt with members and donors for many years, whether and how soon you give people cards and thank-you notes matters a whole hell of a lot.

How included people feel has a lot to do with how much they participate. Cards are an expectation that many people have.

ottawaobserver

Any time I've conducted a interaction with the web interface at the Federal Party's site, I've had a prompt email confirmation. Do you know that people aren't getting that?

Aristotleded24

JeffWells wrote:
Quoting Cullen's announcement from the previous thread:

ottawaobserver wrote:

fitzpatrick_m Meagan Fitzpatrick
Cullen says as NDP leader he would seek "joint nomination meetings" with other parties in Tory ridings #hw
29 minutes ago

 

This should mean that Pat Martin's found his candidate.

A terrible idea, IMO. I don't have a problem with a parliamentary coalition after an election, but structurally, this idea is a bridge to merger. Why would a New Democrat want to breathe relevance back into the Liberal party?

It also shows an amazing lack of self-confidence in the party he leads. How effective a leader would he be if he doesn't even believe in his own party?

Too bad, because Cullen had some real potential, especially as a Western New Democrat who could take away Conservative seats in Harper's back yard.

StuartACParker

Aristotleded24 wrote:

It also shows an amazing lack of self-confidence in the party he leads. How effective a leader would he be if he doesn't even believe in his own party?

Sounds more like a perfectly reasonable lck of confidence is Canada's electoral system, something I certainly share.

Believing your party needs to cooperate in order to beat Harper under FPTP isn't lack of confidence in our party. It is simply a recognition of the breadth of the forces that must cooperate to take Stevie down.

 

StuartACParker

ottawaobserver wrote:

Any time I've conducted a interaction with the web interface at the Federal Party's site, I've had a prompt email confirmation. Do you know that people aren't getting that?

I assume they are. I'm just telling you that people want to receive cards and thank-you notes, especially older people. E-receipts are sure not the same.

Aristotleded24

StuartACParker wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

It also shows an amazing lack of self-confidence in the party he leads. How effective a leader would he be if he doesn't even believe in his own party?

Sounds more like a perfectly reasonable lck of confidence is Canada's electoral system, something I certainly share.

Believing your party needs to cooperate in order to beat Harper under FPTP isn't lack of confidence in our party. It is simply a recognition of the breadth of the forces that must cooperate to take Stevie down.

First of all, the Liberals are not interested in this idea, it's not going anywhere.

Second of all, the Liberal brand is in serious decline across the country, as provincial elections in the last year have shown. Even in Toronto, the Liberal fortress, they Liberal machinery lost the 2010 municipal elections and placed last among elected parties federally.

Third of all, even if there is co-operation, I don't see any indication that the Liberals can even hold off a Conservative challenge, much less defeat the Conservatives.

As for "as soon as humanly possible?" We won't have a chance to beat Harper until 2015, and things can change a great deal in between.

No, the NDP must, and can, defeat Stephen Harper on its own.

ottawaobserver

I think this idea will go down as the Cullen clunker. It's not going over very well on Twitter right now, and has already been unfavourably assessed by the NDP blog Accidental Deliberations.

Greg Fingas wrote:

As a matter of strategy, it's fairly easy to Nathan Cullen's announcement as a logical move - both to build his own name recognition at a point when most commentary is setting a Topp vs. Mulcair narrative (with Paul Dewar as the candidate receiving the next most attention), and to tap into one of the main ideas that likely won't find favour among the major candidates.

But it remains to be seen whether Cullen will alienate more support within the NDP than he'll attract in proposing the idea. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if the strategic benefit of any first-choice support (hello, Pat Martin!) which Cullen might win as a result gets counterbalanced by much greater difficulty in winning over second-choice support.

flight from kamakura

tough call.  the thing is that in many places, the lpc brand is so toxic that the ndp would be tarnished by association, moreover, these are ridings in which we may get some new democrats who we don't necessarily want.  bev desjarlais, sure, but she was actually pretty solid on most issues.  we're talking about potentially nominating candidates who'd cross the floor to the conservatives.  the upside in those cases is very low.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Son of a gun. Is Mulcair really saying he supports NAFTA???  If he is, he just lost my support. Frown

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Stuart's clam that weighted voting wuld advance membership sales in Quebec flies in the face of all evidence.  THe more common experience would suggest it leads to "Post Office Republican" style sclerotic organization where the few members in place would prefer the disproportional influence not be diluted by new members.

But what Stuart also fails to understand is that a Quebec membership is ALREADY more attractive for the six plus leadership campaigns than one in Surrey.  Yes, the Quebec member and the Surrey member have equal votes, but (and why is this so hard for someo f you to grasp?) ALL OF THE CAMPAIGNS NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A GROUND GAME IN QUEBEC, AND THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO PRODUCE MEMBERSHIPS.

If Nathan Cullen (just to pick someone) just sells memberships in Surrey, BC New Democrats and Saskatchewan New Democrats and Manitoba New Democrats an Nova Scotia New Democrats will all say to themselves "Cullen can't do squat in Quebec."  Not only does he not get votes in Quebec, HE LOSES VOTES EVERYWHERE ELSE TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This issue is over.  The rules are set and they are not going to be changed - howevermuch marginalized whining we see on babble.  The only thing gained by the tenacious repetition of this meme is the reinforcement o the corporate media meme.

Sorry.  I'm a New Democrat.  Not interested in playing your game.

nicky

Malcolm , go back and look at my post from about August 26 when I first raised the Quebec imbalance and stop calling this concern, shared by so many sincere New Demicrats, "a corporate media meme." I raised it long before it was ever mentioned in the press and doubtless others recognized the problem too. SO STOP ATTRIBUTING  IT TO THE MEDIA!!!!!

 I am copying your bolded and italicized capitals in case you didn't understand the first three times I said it - that I thought this up all on my own without being brainwashed by the media.

And just when I thought it was safe to return to Canada.....

Life, the unive...

ottawaobserver wrote:

 

It was from a reporter covering his news conference, and the news release was easily discoverable. Sheesh.

http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/media/nathan-cullen-asks-for-mandate-to-co...

 

Just saying- but I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding because he was neither a Conservative, OR a Liberal.   I doubt I was alone.

ottawaobserver

Ken was questioning what I posted about Cullen's proposal and whether he had actually made it, which was behind my tone of frustration there LTUE.

I agree with the substance of what you're saying about that proposal for sure. 100%.

Hunky_Monkey

Robert Chisholm on Power & Politics panel. Wonder if Solomon will ask about the leadership.

AnonymousMouse

Boom Boom wrote:

Son of a gun. Is Mulcair really saying he supports NAFTA???  If he is, he just lost my support. Frown

If you click through to the iPolitics story that that Rabble article points to it contains the following quotes:

"Canada has to be able to be able to continue to stand up for its role in the world and in its negotiations with the Americans - whether on softwood lumber where it was a complete and utter sellout by the Conservatives and the Bloc - or whether it is on the current negotiations on perimeter security."
 
"We've just got to stop being such chumps when it comes to dealing with the Americans. We have to understand that it is in their best interest and in ours to keep things moving."
 
"To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema. The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water."
 
"[But] When you look at how Chapter 11 has been enforced, when you are told that a company has a right under the NAFTA to continue to export a substance that our government has considered deleterious, a substance that was an additive in gasoline. When you look at the fact that the Americans are now fighting back on a ban that I helped enforce in Quebec on 2-4-D, which is a pesticide, telling us that we have no right to ban 2-4-D, then I say we have to stand up and fight back and just tell the Americans that they are not going to determine for us that we have to add certain poisons to our environment and that's not what the NAFTA is all about."

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/14/weve-got-to-stop-being-such-chumps-mu...

Stockholm

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Just saying- but I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding because he was neither a Conservative, OR a Liberal.   I doubt I was alone.

Ditto for me...but with Cullen's proposal, you could speak out against any proposal by your riding association to have a joint candidate and hopefully you would win the day and the riding association would not vote to do it. In the end it all comes down to what the NDP members in a given riding want to do.

One benefit of Cullen's proposal (not that i support it) is that it would motivate NDP riding associations to sign up more members in order to make sure that a New democrat won the nomination.

Stockholm

I'm glad that Cullen is putting something controversial on the table - a leadership contest is as good a time as any for this. In reading his proposal its actually not unreasonable. He says that IF (a huge IF), in a given Tory held riding, the NDP riding association meets and votes to have a joint nomination meeting with the Liberals and Greens and the Liberal and Green associations do likewise - then there would be a wide open contest for the nomination (like a US style primary) and if the winner of that contest was someone from the NDP they would run on the NDP banner - not as some "fusion" candidate. If a Liberal won the joint nomination meeting they would run as a Liberal.

Realistically - it will never happen. For a variety of reasons: 1. IF Cullen won the NDP leadership and allowed these arrangements - the liberals would almost certainly reject it anyways. 2. I suspect that NDP riding associations would probably only want a joint nomination meeting in ridings where the NDP is quite strong to begin with and where they are confident that a New Democrat would win the contest - the Liberals would take the opposite view - so it would never happen.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

I am in favour of post-election coalitions, after the voters have had a chance to have their say, but I find official non-compete agreements fundamentally undemocratic, and I can't support them under any circumstances. (I will compromise on many of my preferred positions in choosing a leader, but my views on democracy are sacred.)

On the other hand, what Stockholm says is undoubtedly true--it would be very unlikely to happen even if Cullen were to become leader. So though this development means I certainly can't even consider supporting Cullen with my vote, I won't vilify him about it. And if it gets a few left-leaning Liberal voters to join the party in order to vote for him, I don't see the downside to having it on the table in the race.

Stockholm

Of course someone should ask Cullen - what happens if in NDP held ridings the Liberals and Conservatives decide to have a "joint" nomination to choose a BC Liberal-style anti-NDP candidate so that there is no more "vote splitting" on the right?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Son of a gun. Is Mulcair really saying he supports NAFTA???  If he is, he just lost my support. Frown

If my memory serves me well a Conservative win in Quebec and Alberta is what gave us free trade in the first place. Has the average Quebec voter changed their mind on NAFTA

He supports NAFTA and NATO and it is no surprise to me.  It begs the question given the restrictions those boxes place on the actions of the federal government what can be changed? 

Stockholm

I don't think the NDP has committed to withdrawing from NAFTA since 1993 - so if Mulcair can be called "in favour of NAFTA" the same would have to be said for McDonough and Layton.

Unionist

Jack Layton was calling for the "renegotiation" of NAFTA in 2008 to protect Canadian jobs. No one has called for abrogation of NAFTA, to my recollection, since the Liberals promised to tear up the FTA if elected in the 1988 election.

If any leadership candidate has a different take on NAFTA than Mulcair, perhaps they should state it publicly. Otherwise, I would imagine they all share his slavish attitude, with differences of degree or nuance.

 

dacckon dacckon's picture

I'm sorry Nathan Cullen, but if we did your electoral strategy, we would have never taken so many seats in Quebec.

 

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Personally I'm more opposed to Cullen's election riding strategy than what Mulcair has said about NAFTA, who probably toes the party line on renegotiating NAFTA anyways. The mere prospect of having only a Liberal nominated in my riding, to face a Conservative, makes me ill, and I woudn't bother to vote.  

dacckon wrote:

I'm sorry Nathan Cullen, but if we did your electoral strategy, we would have never taken so many seats in Quebec. 

Exactly. The NDP won 103 seats and broke through in Quebec by running on their own platform, providing a different alternative, and not by cutting deals with the Liberals.

knownothing knownothing's picture

I totally disagree with Cullen's idea. We can win this on our own and if we start working with Libs we may lose that we have gained.

Also, how about this from rabble's own?

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/10/tom-mulcair-plays-terrible-hand-trade

Stockholm

dacckon wrote:

I'm sorry Nathan Cullen, but if we did your electoral strategy, we would have never taken so many seats in Quebec.

Keep in mind that Cullen is proposing only that NDP and Liberal and Green riding associations be allowed to consider having a joint nomination IF THEY CHOOSE and only in ridings with Tory incumbents. The Tories only had 11 seats in QC before the last election and all of them were in seats where the conventional wisdom was that the Liberals were a distant fourth and the NDP a distant third - I doubt if any "deals" would have been made and in any case, if the NDP members in  - say - Jonquiere-Alma decided democratically that they would rather run Clause Patry on their own than have a joint nomination meeting with the Liberals in that riding - that would have been the end of the story.

On the bright side, you could have a joint nomination meeting in Edmonton Centre and if the NDP candidate won the nomination, he or she could have a chance to go mano-a-mano against Laurie Hawn without a Liberal on the ballot potentially siphoning off votes from the NDP.

Again, its all academic because it will never happen - but realistically its the Liberals who would reject this immediately and would have the most to lose since they are by far the weaker party.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I googled and found this letter from Layton to Obama:

Canada's NDP sends letters to Clinton/Obama regarding NAFTA (2008)

excerpt:

On behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, our caucus and our membership, I warmly welcome your commitment to rethink NAFTA. Everyday Canadians, Americans and Mexicans are ready for such leadership. Leadership that is ready to tackle complex problems with forward-looking solutions. Our two countries are trading nations, close neighbours and culturally and historically related in many ways. I look forward to strengthening these ties in a way that respects the sovereignty of each of our countries and ensures that we are each democratically accountable to our own people. Together, we can prudently lay the groundwork to craft trade agreements which will lead to improvements for the vast majority who have been left behind since NAFTA came into effect in 1994.

The Democrats in the U.S. can count New Democrats in Canada as allies in the vital effort to improve upon NAFTA and help build a modern 21st century North American economy that is prosperous, fair and sustainable for today's families and future generations.

Sincerely yours,
Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., Ph.D.

So, yeah, Layton was saying keep NAFTA - but improve it. Son of a gun. I thought the NDP was for scrapping NAFTA.

 

ETA: I just posted this below Duncan's article: the only difference between Mulcair and Layton on NAFTA is that of degree.

theleftyinvestor

Well... if the end result is a situation that is improved for "the vast majority who have been left behind since NAFTA came into effect in 1994", isn't that close enough to replacing NAFTA with what should have been there all along?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Well... if the end result is a situation that is improved for "the vast majority who have been left behind since NAFTA came into effect in 1994", isn't that close enough to replacing NAFTA with what should have been there all along?

If the end result is everyone gets their own unicorn then I am on board. I like unicorns and will vote for the first person who can show me how they will deliver them not just talk about them.  

I'd like to see a roadmap showing how to get from meaningless rhetoric to substantive change to our institutions.

KenS

I am not assured in the least that Cullen's proposal is so gimmicky that it would probably never fly.

Riding by riding non-compete agreements ARE the paved road to merger. Adding a local democractic veto does not change that- it just takes out the draconian element of shoving things down riding associations that is an absolute non-starter in the NDP.

I'll buy that his gimmick puts some added zip into the discussion. The gratitude he gets is, as Jeff put it, that he is now my bottom choice and I cannot imagine what it would take to move him from there.

We'll see if anyone can rival Nathan for Third Rail prize during the race.

Wilf Day

Someone in thread 24 said "How many Francophone members can the executive of the McGill NDP club competently sign up?"

This ignores the fact that the co-President of the McGill Club at the time of the election was Matthew Dubé, a francophone, who ran in his home riding of Chambly-Borduas, and got 29,591 votes compared with 19,147 for the Bloc incumbent. Dubé was also co-President of the Quebec Young New Democrats at the time of his election. He has no doubt signed up many Francophone members.

We all need to know the Quebec MPs better, not get sucked into the idea that they were mostly fence-posts. A few NDP candidates were; they mostly lost. Only a handful were elected.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp%E2%80%99s-new-quebec-caucu...

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/new-ndp-stars-cont

Peter3

This Hill Times piece will be upsetting "the frontrunners", I imagine.

http://hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/18/ndp-leadership-hopeful-dew...

It's become clear that the Dewar campaign has some organizational chops.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Nicky, there are a number of problems with this "sky is falling" meme that you and Stuart are peddling - and Stuart's "solution" is even worse.

Both of you are essentially arguing that there is no way that 59 MPs and (up to) nine leadership campaigns can sell sufficient memberships in Quebec for the Quebec membership numbers to appraoch 25% of the overall membership. (Frankly, even if it's "only" 20%, the disaster peddlars will find few buyers anyway.)  You've written off 59 MPs and nine leadership candidates as either incompetent or myopic.

You have both steadfastly refused to accept that all (up to) nine leadership campaigns have a pressing motivation to expend resources selling memberships in Quebec since the failure to do so successfully would render their candidacies nonviable.

The sort of weighting you are demanding would have required a constitutional amendment.  Are you seriously nproposing that we hold an emergency federal convention in the middle of January to make constitutional amendments that essentially admit that we are incapable of connecting with Quebec voters?

Because if you're NOT proposing an emergency constitutional convention, then your complaint is just noise - and very destructive noise at that.

Sure, perhaps you came up with this pointless and destructive meme before the corporate media.  Woopedy-hoo!  That doesn't change the fact that this is a pointless and destructive meme.

And I will continue to say so as long as people keep peddling it.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

And while I'm at it, Cullen's proposal for pre-election joint nominations is stupid from the get go and assumes that people will follow the direction of party elites.  I don't know how many times I've presented the case against all the various forms of "strategic" voting and electoral "co-operation," but if necessary I'll do it again.

What this shows is that Nathan Cullen is either confused about basic politics or about basic arithmetic.

Unionist

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Well... if the end result is a situation that is improved for "the vast majority who have been left behind since NAFTA came into effect in 1994", isn't that close enough to replacing NAFTA with what should have been there all along?

No. It's mostly unverifiable rhetoric, noble distant future aims. Scrapping NAFTA would be an eminently verifiable stand. That's why I'm curious as to whether any of the NDP candidates would propose that. I doubt it.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
theleftyinvestor wrote:

Well... if the end result is a situation that is improved for "the vast majority who have been left behind since NAFTA came into effect in 1994", isn't that close enough to replacing NAFTA with what should have been there all along?

No. It's mostly unverifiable rhetoric, noble distant future aims. Scrapping NAFTA would be an eminently verifiable stand. That's why I'm curious as to whether any of the NDP candidates would propose that. I doubt it.

I'm of two minds on how to approach NAFTA. My understanding is that it is by definition impossible for Canada to take a stronger stand under a "renegotiated" NAFTA. Having said that, if this issue is handled correctly, then if the re-negotiation fails, then that would make scrapping NAFTA an easier sell politically, becuase the NDP would be in a position to say, "we tried to negotiate better terms, it didn't work, so we need to scrap NAFTA entirely."

Aristotleded24

Malcolm wrote:
And while I'm at it, Cullen's proposal for pre-election joint nominations is stupid from the get go and assumes that people will follow the direction of party elites.  I don't know how many times I've presented the case against all the various forms of "strategic" voting and electoral "co-operation," but if necessary I'll do it again.

What this shows is that Nathan Cullen is either confused about basic politics or about basic arithmetic.

Let's suppose that Cullen's proposal comes to fruition. Let's also say that in a particular constituency the Liberals and NDP are each fielding a candidate for joint consideration. What's to say the candidate who loses won't say, "%@[email protected]#%$ it, I'm running as an Independent anyways?" Would not that risk taking away some of the joint support that would have been required, thereby splitting the vote and handing the riding to the Conservative candidate anyways? How is that any different than what we have now?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Quite apart from that, Ari, the whole idea fails to grasp that Liberal Green and NDP voters are not necessarily prepared to support each other's candidates.  Lots of them, absent a candidate of their preferred party, would stay home.  There is a significant cadre of Liberal voters who, absent a Liberal candidate, would prefer to vote Conservative.  There is a smaller but still significant cadre of New Democrat voters who would chose a Conservative over a Liberal - particularly in the Prairies, the BC interior and parts of Nova Scotia.  At the end of the day, it would take an average NET retention in the order of 70% to make a significant difference in the Tory seat count.  And that's no small accomplishment. 

I don't imagine that I'd ever go so far as to vote Conservative, but if I had a Liberal candidate and no New Democrat (which would be mind-numbingly stupid where I live), I'd most likely spoil my ballot.

(By net retention, I mean that the number of votes retained would need to be greater than the sum of the original margin PLUS the other party supporters who switched to the Conservatives PLUS 1.  For example, assume a margin of 1,000 and a total of 2,000 Liberal and Green voters.  If 25% of those stayed home, that leaves 1,500 "coalition" voters.  If more 250 of those choose to vote Conservative, the Conservatives win.  In this scenario, the NET retention of 50% actually requires a real retention of 62.5%)

Stockholm

We also learned in the recent provincial elections in Manitoba and Ontario that you can have both the Liberals and the NDP running full slates of candidates and the Conservatives can still lose. All it takes is FEWER people voting Conservative - as opposed to all these gimmicky schemes to try to game the system.

Aristotleded24

Malcolm wrote:
There is a significant cadre of Liberal voters who, absent a Liberal candidate, would prefer to vote Conservative.

I'm sure you remember Harper's plea to right Liberals in the GTA to stop the socialist hordes that took place in the spring election? Remind me how effective a tactic that was for Harper?

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
We also learned in the recent provincial elections in Manitoba and Ontario that you can have both the Liberals and the NDP running full slates of candidates and the Conservatives can still lose. All it takes is FEWER people voting Conservative - as opposed to all these gimmicky schemes to try to game the system.

Awww, do we have to do the hard work of listening to people and presenting a platform that resonates with their concerns? Why can't we just take the easy way out and find a way to add up the anti-Tory vote behind a particular winning candidate?

ottawaobserver

Stockholm wrote:

We also learned in the recent provincial elections in Manitoba and Ontario that you can have both the Liberals and the NDP running full slates of candidates and the Conservatives can still lose. All it takes is FEWER people voting Conservative - as opposed to all these gimmicky schemes to try to game the system.

This is actually a very important point that Stockholm has made.

It reminds us that the Conservative block of votes is not fixed - an assumption that is being made in the Cullen proposal and many others.

By the next election, the Conservative government is going to look old, tired, gimmicky and meanspirited, not to mention that a lot of the provinces where we've historically been strong, but are out of government right now, will also be in different stages of their political cycle.

The stars are aligning for the NDP in 2015, with the right federal leader, and so I see no need to get involved with very defensive schemes like Cullen's clunker.

Pages

Topic locked