NDP Leadership 58

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You are right on Brian!

Winston

mark_alfred wrote:

(*mind you, the fact that likely almost half the Ontario NDP membership had at one point or another been fired from Greenpeace's Toronto canvassing team may also have diminished his [Tabuns'] chances). 

LaughingLaughingLaughing

I was fired from Greenpeace Toronto canvassing team at one point or another!!

Hunky_Monkey

Wilf Day wrote:

A Christmas Eve Trivia Question.

On CBC we have the contest between the "At Issue" panel and the "Insiders" panel. One question was, before this year, what was the most seats the NDP ever held? Of course the answer was, correctly, 44.

I bet most of us would assume that was under Ed Broadbent in 1988? Wrong. We got 43 that year.

It was under Audrey McLaughlin that we set that record, when we won the Chambly byelection in 1990. Also under Audrey, we got 33.50% in the York North byelection, up from 13.19% in 1988.

What happened to Audrey? The Reform Party, the GST, the Charlottetown Accord, the implosion of the PC Party, Rae Days, and polarisation between Reform and the Liberals which, especially in Ontario, squeezed the NDP out.

A worthwhile history lesson. The leader is not the most important factor. Unless the federal leader would have been able to intervene in the Ontario NDP -- maybe David Lewis could have, but no one else -- no one could have prevented the NDP collapse in the 1993 election.

To be fair, those 43 seats had nothing to do with Audrey... and it was really an Edmonston win in Chambly :)

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Depends what you mean by sizzle. I think the next leader is going to have be someone voters can say "Yeah, I can see as Prime Minister". Some candidates in this race don't meet that standard :)

Really?  And which candidates might that be?

mark_alfred

mark_alfred wrote:
Also, as Quebec's Minister for the Environment, he [Mulcair] seriously lobbied the feds for the right to undertake bulk export of water (he did drop this when environmentalists protested).

mtm wrote:
I don't know much about this, but the fact that he's relented and has listened to environmentalists on that issue, if true, is surely a positive in his corner.

It's kind of like a doctor who recommends chain smoking to his/her patients, but then relents after being told that such an action may be hazardous to his/her patients' health.  Some things should just be known from day one.

Hunky_Monkey

Brian Glennie wrote:

And here I was thnking Jack was the game-changer for the NDP in 2011. Smile

You certainly raise some valid points, Wilf, but I can't for the life of me see our membership electing someone who is lacking when it comes to charisma. Jack consistantly polled higher than the party all across the country and, while of course we'll probably never see someone like him again, I don't see us getting to the next level unless we have a Leader who is going to bring some sizzle. 

 

 

Depends what you mean by sizzle. I think the next leader is going to have be someone voters can say "Yeah, I can see (insert name) as Prime Minister". Some candidates in this race don't meet that standard :)

Gaian

Even on Christmas Day, no hope of redemption? :)

adma

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Wilf Day wrote:

A Christmas Eve Trivia Question.

On CBC we have the contest between the "At Issue" panel and the "Insiders" panel. One question was, before this year, what was the most seats the NDP ever held? Of course the answer was, correctly, 44.

I bet most of us would assume that was under Ed Broadbent in 1988? Wrong. We got 43 that year.

It was under Audrey McLaughlin that we set that record, when we won the Chambly byelection in 1990. Also under Audrey, we got 33.50% in the York North byelection, up from 13.19% in 1988.

What happened to Audrey? The Reform Party, the GST, the Charlottetown Accord, the implosion of the PC Party, Rae Days, and polarisation between Reform and the Liberals which, especially in Ontario, squeezed the NDP out.

A worthwhile history lesson. The leader is not the most important factor. Unless the federal leader would have been able to intervene in the Ontario NDP -- maybe David Lewis could have, but no one else -- no one could have prevented the NDP collapse in the 1993 election.

To be fair, those 43 seats had nothing to do with Audrey... and it was really an Edmonston win in Chambly :)

And in the case of York North, it happened to be the height of the Bob Rae governmental honeymoon.

All in all, Audrey/Rae/the NDP/whomever/whatever's prime advantage in 1990 was of being not the Mulroney Tories, or the "yesterday's man" Chretien Liberals.  Whatever the politics, it was an entity more akin to the CAQ relative to Quebec today...

NorthReport

Sounds good.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Topp+promises+wholesale+change+leadersh...

Topp promises wholesale change in bid for NDP leadership

Quote:
Make no mistake, with Brian Topp at the helm, a vote for the New Democratic Party in 2015 will be a vote for change.

In an interview with Postmedia News, the so-called front-runner indicated the very first thing he would do is introduce a “Parliament Act” to “curb the power of the prime minister.”

That includes getting to work immediately on some of the biggest constitutionally significant proposals the NDP has in its arsenal: abolishing the Senate, introducing proportionality into Canada’s electoral system and limiting the powers of the prime minister to prorogue Parliament when faced with a confidence vote.

“As recent history shows, if you believe as I do that Parliament has strayed awfully far away from responsible government and needs to be saved from itself to some extent, you have to do that right away before you settle into the comfortable pillow of power and get too used to the status quo,” he said.

Beyond that, addressing climate change and moving away from an economy based on the export of raw resources will top his agenda.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Good, indeed. This is the most progressive stuff I've heard from anyone in the campaign thus far.

jerrym

I have been in favour of abolishing the Senate since I was 14 years old - even before I joined the NDP. However, focusing on issues that are likely to meet major objections from those provinces currently favoured by their % of senators (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Ontario) and those opposed to the current system in the West is only likely to result in the same frustration at accomplishing nothing that accompanied the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Introducing proportionality is also likely to run into to opposition from provincial administrations of opposing parties where the current system favours their winning overwhelming majorities in certain provinces at the provincial and federal level. It will also mean the NDP is very rarely or never likely to win a majority government, federally or provincially. In my opinion, it is better to focus on curbing the power of the PM as this can be done without seeking the unlikely support of the provinces. In addition, a focus on the above issues is likely to lead to the criticism that the NDP is not tackling Canada's number one problem - the economy. That's why focusing on ending the export of raw natural resources and focusing on the building of an environmentally green industrial base makes sense to me both politically and socially. While I support Topp's latter proposals the former, while desirable, are likely to fail leading to a feeling the party is out of touch with the concerns of the public. 

theleftyinvestor

I have never been a Senate abolitionist. Not happy that it's right at the top of his proposals.

Moreover if it's a minority requiring some Liberal support, that would be one of the first things they nix as a condition of support.

NorthReport

Well this is Topp's strength isn't it.

 

We institutionalize our old people. We abandon people in droves and leave them to die alone. And yet our close to dictatorial powered PM does nothing except make the rich richer, and accelerate the dismantling our of health care system. And we can't do anything about it for 4 years. Democracy my ass. Who do they think they are kidding.

The following stats are staggering. Everyone who lives alone might want to explore having a buddy system and have some human contact at least once a day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/25/lonely-death-joyce-v...

How the lonely death of Joyce Vincent fuels our collective denial

When someone dies alone and unmissed, we label it bizarre in order to avoid the fact that is happens more often than we think

 

 

 

 

 

NorthReport

Another NDP supporter who does not support democracy - great!  ;)

I'm sure you're also a big fan of the unelected Metro Vancouver and the unelected Metro Vancouver Public Transit System Management to boot. lol

There are a lot of good candidates but not much seems to have changed from the beginning, at least so far, so it still looks like it will be between Topp and Mulcair, with my hunch Mulcair taking the top prize. 

 

The Liberals may win 5 seats if they are lucky in the next election, and so really who cares what some dying third or fourth place political party wants, says, or does? 

 

bekayne

jerrym wrote:

Introducing proportionality is also likely to run into to opposition from provincial administrations of opposing parties where the current system favours their winning overwhelming majorities in certain provinces at the provincial and federal level. 

Also opposition from two provincial administrations of the same party.

Wilf Day

One of the best Christmas presents I got was the January Readers Digest that came out a couple of days ago. A wonderful interview with Olivia Chow.

All the leadership contenders should re-read it just before the next debate. And some babble posters, me included, should re-read it before hitting "post." "If you expect people to be good, you see the goodness in them and affirm their goodness, and people respond in kind."

NorthReport wrote:

Sounds good.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Topp+promises+wholesale+change+leadersh...

Quote:
Make no mistake, with Brian Topp at the helm, a vote for the New Democratic Party in 2015 will be a vote for change.

In an interview with Postmedia News, the so-called front-runner indicated the very first thing he would do is introduce a “Parliament Act” to “curb the power of the prime minister.”

That includes getting to work immediately on some of the biggest constitutionally significant proposals the NDP has in its arsenal: abolishing the Senate, introducing proportionality into Canada’s electoral system and limiting the powers of the prime minister to prorogue Parliament when faced with a confidence vote.

“As recent history shows, if you believe as I do that Parliament has strayed awfully far away from responsible government and needs to be saved from itself to some extent, you have to do that right away before you settle into the comfortable pillow of power and get too used to the status quo,” he said.

Beyond that, addressing climate change and moving away from an economy based on the export of raw resources will top his agenda.

These things are not all one stage. Introducing proportionality into Canada's electoral system needs only an Act of Parliament. Limiting the powers of the prime minister to prorogue Parliament when faced with a confidence vote can be started by an Act of Parliament but, as Harper's approach to the Wheat Board shows, an Act can be repealed, so the next step would be to entrench that limit in the constitution, which puts it on the long constitutional shopping list that has been languishing since the defeat of the Charlottetown Accord. Jack, if I recall correctly, said an NDP government would tackle the constitution at the right time, not necessarily in a first term. Senate abolition is another item on that same constitutional list.

Gaian

I can certainly see the point in Olivia's saying "If you expect people to be good,you see the goodness in them and affirm their goodness, and people respond in kind."

It's the universal Christmas message.

And I also like the way Jack functioned in aiming for power, as described for babblers by duncan cameron: "The NDP rolled out its brilliant French language television ads featuring Jack. During the campaign, the hip Radio-Canada Sunday night tv talk show Tout le Monde en Parle invited him twice onto its platform, where Jack charmed a viewing audience of a couple of million. In the leaders debate, Jack turned the tables on Gilles Duceppe, who claimed to have stopped Stephen Harper. Jack fixed his gaze on Duceppe: “He is still there, he is still there! ”

But he set the stage with basic campaign literature early on, like the old mailout piece with Jack's likeness on it that I found while mucking out the study today: "Jack Layton and the NDP are on the right track for everyday Canadians." And on the reverse: "200 MANUFACTURING JOBS LOST EVERY DAY. Since 2004, Canada has lost a quarter-million manufacturing jobs. That's 200 every day. Yet Harper's Conservatives dismiss this very real crisis as a 'sgtructural adjusstment.

"As these quality jobs vanish overseas, they're being replaced by lower-paying service work. Stephen Harper's narrow-minded answer is $50-billion in corporate tax cuts favouring profitable banks and oil companies - with zero benefit for manufacturers posting losses.

"Even an emergency aid fund for struggling towns became a political game for this primie minister. He tried to hold that fund hostage for months, until oppositin MPs forced the issue into Parliament to get that air flowing.

"Harper flatly opposed a Parliamentarty motion to tackle this crisis at its roots by reviewing unfair trade and investing in manufacturing upgrades."
------

So that when Jack faced Duceppe during the campaign and said "He is still there," folks knew exactly what he meant...that it was time to get rid of him. But he was not implying a need for constitutional amendment to save voters' jobs, for sure, and I'm equally sure that Reader's Digest will be assiduously beavering away for the next three years to convince Canadians that "good" is the only winning trait. I think winning is also about spending a helluva lot of money to describe the reality of the workers' world.

KenS

Things have turned around for the underdog

Pretty nifty trick for the best known candidate by far to portray himself as the underdog fighting against all obstacles to get out in front.

Must have had help from some kind of whisper campaign.

 

Newfoundlander_...

NorthReport wrote:

Another NDP supporter who does not support democracy - great!  ;)

I'm sure you're also a big fan of the unelected Metro Vancouver and the unelected Metro Vancouver Public Transit System Management to boot. lol

There are a lot of good candidates but not much seems to have changed from the beginning, at least so far, so it still looks like it will be between Topp and Mulcair, with my hunch Mulcair taking the top prize. 

 

The Liberals may win 5 seats if they are lucky in the next election, and so really who cares what some dying third or fourth place political party wants, says, or does? 

 

Couldn't the Liberals have said the same thing at numorous points throughout their governing years when they sought out support from the NDP eventhough they were the third or ourth place party?

Did you learn anything from Jack about working with others?

KenS

Just becaue North Report has a limitless affection for boosterism is no reason to think he does not understand the realities of what has been done and needs to be done.

As in general: discussing the Liberals problems and weaknesses does not mean their potential is not taken seriously. Nor has there been an evident disinclination to discuss the weaknesses of the NDP that would warrant frequent reminders that it is not all a bed of roses or a yellow brick road to being elected to govern the country.

KenS

Here is, um, a little bit different 'take' on- or from- the leadership race.

Those of you who have seen Martin Singh in the debates or elsewhere, what do you think of this?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Wow, Ken, that is fabulous. Thanks for posting it, I think I'm an instant fan of Rap News.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

But I don't think it relates to Martin Singh particularly. Of course, I've never met him. He just seems to be a little too businesslike to engage in jokes about revolution and people power.

writer writer's picture

Whereas:

Quote:

Born in a tent in the village of Waswanipi more than 700 kilometres northeast of Montreal, [Saganash] jokes that he can "relate to the Occupy movement."

[url=http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Saganash+vows+fight+Canadians/591194... won't be defined by his aboriginal heritage, vows to fight for all Canadians[/url]

And a CBC feature includes footage of him running in a t-shirt that reads, "Revolution Day, Fight for your Right".

NorthReport

There are enough people in the NDP who want to work with the Liberals, but don't count me as one of them. My recommended approach is now that the Liberals are severely wounded, and on life support, it's time to pull the plug on them. It other words the lying Liberal Party is down, so it's time to ensure that party stays down, and is put out of its misery once and for all. It it wasn't for those super inflated Liberal egos the Cons wouldn't even be in power. 

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Another NDP supporter who does not support democracy - great!  ;)

I'm sure you're also a big fan of the unelected Metro Vancouver and the unelected Metro Vancouver Public Transit System Management to boot. lol

There are a lot of good candidates but not much seems to have changed from the beginning, at least so far, so it still looks like it will be between Topp and Mulcair, with my hunch Mulcair taking the top prize. 

 

The Liberals may win 5 seats if they are lucky in the next election, and so really who cares what some dying third or fourth place political party wants, says, or does? 

 

Couldn't the Liberals have said the same thing at numorous points throughout their governing years when they sought out support from the NDP eventhough they were the third or ourth place party?

Did you learn anything from Jack about working with others?

NorthReport

Mulcair's campaign appears to be be going quite well, probably bertter than expected.

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mulcair+late+bloomer+race/5910505/st...

 

NDP race: Things have turned around for underdog Thomas Mulcair in NDP leadership race

 

Mulcair has finally hit his stride, halfway through the NDP leadership race

Quote:
Mulcair, on the other hand, has always had politics in his blood. His great-grandfather was Honoré Mercier, premier of Quebec from 1887 to 1891.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

There are enough people in the NDP who want to work with the Liberals, but don't count me as one of them. My recommended approach is now that the Liberals are severely wounded, and on life support, it's time to pull the plug on them. It other words the lying Liberal Party is down, so it's time to ensure that party stays down, and is put out of its misery once and for all.

What's the best way to "pull the plug"? What's the best way the NDP can persuade voters who sway between the NDP and Liberal parties to stick with the NDP? Telling these people that the Liberals must be "put down" doesn't seem like the best way to convince them to prefer the NDP.

There may be a paradox here. The best way that the NDP can "destroy" the Liberals is to reach out respectively to people who contemplate supporting them.

NorthReport

Some NDPers may support that approach but not me.

The only way to ensure a bright NDP future is to totally crush whatever remains of the dying Liberal Party until is is a corpse.

Progressives now know the only way to defeat the Cons is by voting NDP.

KenS

There is no narrative of crushing the Liberals. So other than some lefties who always have wanted kid glove treatment for the Liberals, wanting to do it is not some kind of 'bad publicity' putting off voters.

When has not the NDP respectfully reached out to people who may or may not vote Liberal? When have we not bent over backwards.

And for the millionth time, winning elections is not about wooing switching Liberal-NDP switchers. That is one element- which people are here happen to be more visceraly connected to. Which does not make it an accurate reflection of the big picture.

And you cannot feature the Liberal-NDP switcher element without having negative impacts on other elements.... at least, but not only, on the resource allocation level. But treating those switchers as THE central issue seriously distorts strategic analysis.

[And you can ask the Liberals about what that one does for you.]

 

JKR

KenS wrote:

When has not the NDP respectfully reached out to people who may or may not vote Liberal? When have we not bent over backwards.

Maybe about 14 minutes prior to your post? when NorthReport posted:

NorthReport wrote:

The only way to ensure a bright NDP future is to totally crush whatever remains of the dying Liberal Party until is is a corpse.

Eventhough NorthReport does not represent the NDP, I was responding to his post when I naively advocated showing a modicum of decency toward people who are prone to voting for the political party that he thinks requires a stake be put through its heart before the NDP can save Canada from the (bloodsucking?) Conservatives.

I beginning to see why NorthReport hated The Count so much.

Brian Glennie
algomafalcon

KenS wrote:

Here is, um, a little bit different 'take' on- or from- the leadership race.

Those of you who have seen Martin Singh in the debates or elsewhere, what do you think of this?

 

I love it! But I don't see the Martin Singh as having that style. It might give Paul Dewar or Peggy Nash ideas on how to spice up their presentations though. (just joking)

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

None of us can predict with certainty what the outcome of the next federal election will be. One of the predictions I heard somewhere was that the NDP may not hold Quebec, and who knows where those seats will go. Harper hasn't given up on the province (yet) - I think it was Flaherty who said last week that in 2015 Quebec will be shown a clear alternative to the NDP - in other words, he's probably (likely) planning to bribe us with our own money. And Rae said the Libs have a base of at least two million voters across the country who the party is making an effort to reach out to. So, really, anything could happen in 2015, including the NDP actually doing even better than in 2011. I'd love to see the NDP form at least a minority government, but we'll see. A lot will depend on whoever the new leader is. I think any of Mulcair, Nash, Topp, Saganash, or Ashton will be awesome.

 

ETA: Just remembered that Stockwell Day for the past few weeks on P&P has been hinting of a real Conservative push to win over Quebec in the next federal election - the only way that would be possible is to spend tons of money here. Harper won a majority without Quebec in 2011; maybe he's hungry for a super majority?

adma

KenS wrote:

There is no narrative of crushing the Liberals. So other than some lefties who always have wanted kid glove treatment for the Liberals, wanting to do it is not some kind of 'bad publicity' putting off voters.

When has not the NDP respectfully reached out to people who may or may not vote Liberal? When have we not bent over backwards.

And for the millionth time, winning elections is not about wooing switching Liberal-NDP switchers. That is one element- which people are here happen to be more visceraly connected to. Which does not make it an accurate reflection of the big picture.

And you cannot feature the Liberal-NDP switcher element without having negative impacts on other elements.... at least, but not only, on the resource allocation level. But treating those switchers as THE central issue seriously distorts strategic analysis.

[And you can ask the Liberals about what that one does for you.]

And of course, leaving the Liberals a corpse'll mean, bye-bye to Liberal-Conservative switchers as well.  And a seat like Don Valley West'll be Conservative forever...

Gaian

Afraid you're right. New Democrats still need (weakened...weak-kneed?) Liberals.

Stockholm

I want the Liberals stick around...as a Canadian version of the German FDP (aka: the party of doctors and dentists)- a small boutique party for professional people with very high incomes who want to INCREASE the gap between rich and poor even more but who reject the Tory anti-intellectual stuff.

Stockholm
Gaian

Peter O'Neil :"There are a lot of reasons to question the NDP, starting with economic policy, but lack of MP talent beyond the late leader isn’t one of them."

And someday soon, he won't be able to pass off that historical criticism of "economic policy"with which they have always dismissed New Democrats.

Stockholm

Its par for the course the way the MSM parrots these condescending off-the-cuff comments about the NDP. I still remember during the abortive coalition of 2008 how self-styled neutral media pundits would make sarcastic remarks about how if the coalition went ahead JACK LAYTON (say it with a tone of sarcasm and derision) might get an economic portfolio - horror of horrors!!! Meanwhile in the real world - all the worst economic incompetence and mismanagement in Canada has happened under Conservative rule. Let's face it - the current economic crisis gripping the world was largely produced by rightwing governments following orthodox conservtaive economic politics (are you there George W. Bush?)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I can't help thinking this country is going to be just completely fed up with the likes of Harper, Flaherty,  Baird and especially that turd Tony Clement, and the next federal election could bring huge changes to government - maybe even an NDP minority, but that's going to depend on how the party and the new leader connects with the electorate.

Gaian

Which, in turn, will depend on the leader offering "economic policy" that the electorate can trust...that the MSM cannot dismiss with a flick of their effin' fingers across a keyboard.

theleftyinvestor

NorthReport wrote:

Another NDP supporter who does not support democracy - great!  ;)

I'm sure you're also a big fan of the unelected Metro Vancouver and the unelected Metro Vancouver Public Transit System Management to boot. lol

You're saying that my opposition to Senate abolition means I don't support democracy? That's a bit farfetched. I didn't say I support the current Senate either, but I'd rather have a better Senate than none at all. I would also prefer to bring democratic reform first to the HoC.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Bob Rae just now for half an hour on Power Politics.

The NDP only has ideas for how to distribute the pie, not increase the size of the pie. When Belinda Stronach said it, I thought it sounded stupid, and obviously Rae sounds just as stupid. He also said that it wasn't that the NDP became the opposition, neglecting to mention what happened to the Libs, it was that the Tories won to stop Jack (blessed be his memory). He said NO ONE wanted Jack as PM. That is in response to be asked about Jack Layton and how do you explain the NDP's electoral success.

You keep telling yourself that Bob. All this proves is that this is the NDP's to lose. It has NOTHING to do with the Libs OR Bob Rae. Want an arrogant jerk that guy is. He doesn't have a shred on gentrlemanly behaviour in him. No doubt that the choice of leader is very important, but to imply the NDP doesn't have a single useful idea, gets under my skin. What are you going to do Bob? Cut taxes? Cut the size of government. Give tax breaks that favor the wealthy and the Upper Middle Class. Give even MORE breaks to big business? We tried that. It doesn't work. The issue is about all the trillons of dollars that sit unproductively on the sidelines. The NDP is the only party talking about how we move that money back into the economy. The Libs want to use more fiscal "hocus-pocuse".

What a pompous ass!

Gaian

quote: "The NDP only has ideas for how to distribute the pie, not increase the size of the pie. When Belinda Stronach said it, I thought it sounded stupid, and obviously Rae sounds just as stupid."

But that's what they stop us with, every time. Obviously we have to work to get your plan out there. (And one can't really say Bob or Belinda are stupid, eh? Wouldn't hold up.)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Bob Rae just now for half an hour on Power Politics.

That's a repeat of last week's show. We'll probably see a repeat this week of the show where Jack Layton was voted the most significant game changer of 2011, with the Mike Layton and Olivia Chow interview.

Newfoundlander_...

NorthReport wrote:

Some NDPers may support that approach but not me.

The only way to ensure a bright NDP future is to totally crush whatever remains of the dying Liberal Party until is is a corpse.

Progressives now know the only way to defeat the Cons is by voting NDP.

While the Liberals had their worst election result in their history on May 2, they still did better then what the NDP did in 2008, or at almost any point in the party's history. What reason is their for hard core Liberals to move to the NDP? If the NDP can jump from fourth to second within a matter of weeks in April why should Liberals think the only way to beat the Conservatives is by voting NDP? Unless the NDP decide to reach out to Liberals across Canada why should they all just decide to give up on their party? Would people here have been willing to become Liberals if the NDP had finished in third behind the Liberals? 

CanadaApple

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

While the Liberals had their worst election result in their history on May 2, they still did better then what the NDP did in 2008, or at almost any point in the party's history. What reason is their for hard core Liberals to move to the NDP? If the NDP can jump from fourth to second within a matter of weeks in April why should Liberals think the only way to beat the Conservatives is by voting NDP? Unless the NDP decide to reach out to Liberals across Canada why should they all just decide to give up on their party? Would people here have been willing to become Liberals if the NDP had finished in third behind the Liberals? 

Because events like those in 2011 seem to be rare in politics. Sure, every so often, somthing seems to come out of nowhere and change everything, but most of the time, parties tend to stay roughly in the same area they are.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Once this damned long leadership race is over, the NDP need to hammer away daily at the Conservatives in Question Period and indeed at every opportunity. Get invited on to the politics shows as often as possible, and be upbeat.

Hunky_Monkey

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

While the Liberals had their worst election result in their history on May 2, they still did better then what the NDP did in 2008, or at almost any point in the party's history. What reason is their for hard core Liberals to move to the NDP? If the NDP can jump from fourth to second within a matter of weeks in April why should Liberals think the only way to beat the Conservatives is by voting NDP? Unless the NDP decide to reach out to Liberals across Canada why should they all just decide to give up on their party? Would people here have been willing to become Liberals if the NDP had finished in third behind the Liberals? 

Just to make clear... the NDP got more seats and higher % of the vote in 1988 than the Liberals got in May.

Unionist

CanadaApple wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

While the Liberals had their worst election result in their history on May 2, they still did better then what the NDP did in 2008, or at almost any point in the party's history. What reason is their for hard core Liberals to move to the NDP? If the NDP can jump from fourth to second within a matter of weeks in April why should Liberals think the only way to beat the Conservatives is by voting NDP? Unless the NDP decide to reach out to Liberals across Canada why should they all just decide to give up on their party? Would people here have been willing to become Liberals if the NDP had finished in third behind the Liberals? 

Because events like those in 2011 seem to be rare in politics. Sure, every so often, somthing seems to come out of nowhere and change everything, but most of the time, parties tend to stay roughly in the same area they are.

You're both wrong. 2011 was about Québec, where massive shifts occur frequently. No conclusions can be drawn from that about the rest of Canada. gotta look deeper.

 

Pages

Topic locked