What'll take to move the NDP from its current 20% in the polls to 25% in the next election, Part 3

120 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2010-04-05 22:46

RedRover

Over the top if you are responding to my posting Fidel.

The sad situation you describe is an indictment of the status quo. Change is needed desperately before there is nothing left to salvage. in both the labour movement and the politics.

Unions are from being too powerful, but it because they have not been good at growing their ranks as a percentage of the working population. I would humbly suggest that they focus on breaking into new sectors of the economy as I suggested earlier in the thread - call centres, fast food outlets, gas stations - and reach the disaffected worker who now makes minimum wage and has no benefits. I know the UFCW has been very active in this respect and my hat goes off to them for their efforts.

Unions should focus on increasing their ranks and helping new people who need it through bargaining for fair wages and benefits. If they can increase their numbers by making a breakthrough into non-traditional sectors of the economy, then their membership numbers will again swell, their reputation be enhanced and restored, and their social influence will return - especially among the lower educated, politically inactive, working poor who now vote Conservative because they believe the cure for their ails is less taxes, regulation, and government.

That being said though, it's not unholy for unions to support a political party or vice versa, but it is a mile from democratic if any sub-group is given special voting rights in a population.

Mon, 2010-04-05 22:49

#103

RedRover

Cueball wrote:

RedRover wrote:
Lastly, what right-wing policies have I proposed?

"Removing the most left wing member of parliment the NDP has from a position of authority, because she doesn't want the police force running around spending the taxpayers money chasing teenagers around, and clogging up the courts with ridiculous Marijuana charges, or snooping around to see if cash is exchanged at some point before or after people have sex, and because she occassionaly has the temerity to make statements condemning certain states for commiting acts that are manifestly against international law."

Who said that?

You have no ideas. You just get off on warping the suggestions and comments of others you don't agree with. You need a new hobby.

Read my posts for justifications as to why Libby should be replaced. They aren't right-wing, and they are certainly not based on the logic you propose above.

Mon, 2010-04-05 22:59

#104

Cueball

I did read your posts. You said she should be removed because she whacked out radical whose views are "out of step" with Canadians. You listed where she was out of step, this being issues to do with liberalizing laws regarding loose women, her support for letting drug addicts run wild in the streets, and here tendency to get pissy when the IDF wipes out a bunch of Palestinian kids in the name of fighting "terrarism".

It turned out these views on Libby's position were your own, and not those of most Canadians.

By the way, when did "evironmentalism" become a "special interest"? I am opposed to the extinction of whales because I profit personally from it... is that the idea?

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:04

#105

RedRover

13 posts in this thread from Cueball and not one idea or suggestion as to how to move the NDP from 20-25%.

No wonder we're going nowhere fast.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:07

#106

Stockholm

I think people (esp. Red Rover) are totally barking up the wrong tree with regards to Libby Davies. First of all, in her capacity as House Leader, she actually has quite a low public profile. Most of what house leaders do involves secret behind the scenes negotiations with the other house leaders of the other parties. Davies played a key role in negotiating the NDP's support of Paul Martin's budget in 2005 and she also played a key role in negotiating the coalition deal with the Liberals last year - but this all happened behind closed doors. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if more than 2% of Canadians even know who she is and half of them would be people who live in Vancouver East! I think she gets a bit of publicity on issues around prostitution and drug laws because her riding happens to contgain the downtown east side of Vancouver where these are major issues - but the fact that she has been outspoken about saving the safe injection site or that she has been speaking out about all those women disappearing and being murdered by Robert Pickton are good things and are probably appealing to a lot of people in the NDP universe in Vancouver. There are 37 NDP members of parliament - they can't all be the critic on finance or health - some have portfolios that involve some slightly (to some) esoteric issues - good for them.

As for the Middle East, I don't have any problem with Libby Davies drawing some attention to what's going on in Gaza etc...there is nothing that she has said about the situation in that part of the world that strikes me as being outside the mainstream. So what if she is slightly pro-Palestinian - if Canadians are about 20% pro-Israel, 20% pro-Palestinian and 60% neutral (that is my guess and if anything i'm probably underestimating the neutral segment) - then there should be room in the NDP for a couple of MPs who are pro-Palestinian to counter-balance those who are more pro-Israel. I don't see any balance whatsoever in the other parties. In the Tory Party, you essentially have to be not only pro-Israel, but pro Avigdor Lieberman - or else you can be sure that you would be expelled pronto! Why would be a political liability to have one MP who is somewhat pro-Palestinian, but not a liability at all to have a ton of MPs who are fanatically pro-Israel? In any case, if I didn't read babble and if I didn't read John Ivison's occasional columns in the national Post trying to stir up trouble in the NDP I would have no idea that Libby Davies had ever taken a position on the Middle East in the first place.

As for why the NDP is seemingly stalled below 20% - I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think its almost entirely an issue of winnability. The NDP has the exact same problem that the Liberal Democrats have in the UK. The LibDems are the middle party in Britain. They are in between Labour and the Tories and are the most ideologically inoffensive party imaginable. They are do-gooding classic small "l" liberals - yet they like the NDP are stuck at 20% and are only competitive in certain regions of the country and certain types of seats. Its not that people in the UK think that the LibDems are "scary" or that they are "controlled by unions" (that would be the Labour Party which has just won three straight majority governments!!) or that they have crazy policies. In fact polls show that what most people in the UK want is what the Lib Dems offer - a moderate progressive alternative to the Labour party etc...but they are stalled like the NDP.

The NDP and the LibDems are stalled for the exact same reasons - VIABILITY. In poll after poll in Britain when you ask people who they don't vote LibDem, the answer is always the same "they can't win". Similarly in Canada with the NDP, its always "they are too small", "they can't win" etc...Interestingly, once the NDP gets over that hurdle its does well. Nova Scotia is hardly a hot bed of radical Marxism where everyone is in a union and supports Israel Apartheid Week - and yet in the last three FEDERAL elections, the NDP did better there than in any other provicne with 30% of the vote. Why? because they managed to make a breakthrough and be seen as "viable".

I should add that Red Rover made a comment about how the NDP should give profile to MPs who are an "acceptable" face of the party etc... well quite frankly I wish i knew what planet he (or she) has been living on because I think that the NDP has lately been doing a great job of that. More than ever, I see Tom Mulcair on the news day in and day out (way more than I ever see Libby). I also regularly see Paul Dewar on TV and on panels and particularly lately about the detainees etc... I see Jack Harris more and more. I see Joe Comartin quite ofetn. Nathan Cullen and Chris Charlton appear on panels all the time and there are others that I already regret not mentioning. Quite frankly, I can think of about 6 or 7 NDP MPs who get wayy more press than Libby Davies does. Realistically, the media tends to focus heavily on the leaders, but I actually think that the NDP is doing a very good job of getting other MPs some higher profile these days.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:07

#107

Kloch

Fidel wrote:

Kloch wrote:
For a long time I used to think that the Canadian public had moved to the right. Now, I'm wondering if it is the NDP that has done that...

Well it should be obvious by now with the rightwing NDP gaining support since herr Layton tookover the party while lefty Bay Street type parties continue to lag. Liberals and Tories tried their darndest to sell well funded social programs and competitive modern economies to increasingly rightwing Canadians. This is the real reason why the Harpers were elected to phony-minority power with just 22% of the eligible vote. It's a tough lesson for both old line parties that Canadians won't stand for them transforming bananada's hewer and drawer old world economy into that of a modern Nordic style social democracy. Have Liberals and Tories learnt this lesson? Only time will tell. Meanwhile millions of rightwing Canadians continue to boycott the ballot box in protest of the communist takeover of our otherwise perfectly good Northern Puerto Rico.

This paragraph is an astonishing achievement. It is a good 10 or so sentences of absolutely nothing. There is literally no point to it. What's particularly impressive, is that it's not just random banging away at the keyboard. I'm able to discern that the context is Canadian federal politics, by way of the mention of Layton, Harper, etc. And yet, I have no clue what the author is trying to say. It is truly an accomplishment. I don't think I've ever read anything go on that long and be completely incoherent.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:17

#108

RedRover

Stockholm...Libby is an excellent constituent MP and her positions on the issues in question are exactly what they should be given the riding she represents, but I stand by my comments as they relate to her duties as House Leader on the 10%er program and her 'prioritization' of some issues over others.

As to her profile, it is significantly higher than other MPs. She is up in QP more, even leading off some days, and is a regular with the other House Leaders on various panels on CTV and CBC. If she is out of sync as I believe, then over time it will drive a wedge between the viewers and the party she speaks for.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:24

#109

Kloch

RedRover wrote:

13 posts in this thread from Cueball and not one idea or suggestion as to how to move the NDP from 20-25%.

No wonder we're going nowhere fast.

Maybe he/she feels that it doesn't matter whether or not the NDP gets more than 20-25%.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:37

#110

Stockholm

As many people on babble will testify, I think I'm probably about as moderate a New Democrat as you are likely to find - and I honestly think that the only people who watch panels on CTV and CBC who will have a problem with Libby Davies - are people who would never vote NDP in a million years in the first place. The Tories are in power and don't think twice about putting abrasive twits like Pierre Poilievre and Shelly Glover on these panels day in and day out - and no one seems to care. Libby Davies at least is a good MP who does good work - which is more than anyone can say for those Tea Party loudmouth shnooks the Tories keep choosing to represent them on panels etc... God only knows how many people drop the Liberals like a hot potato every time they see Justin Trudeau going berzerko!

Libby is one of maybe 7 or 8 NDP MPs who gets a reasonable amount of news coverage. I don't have a problem with her being one of those 7 or 8. She appeals to a segment of people and she is important to the party base as well. I think that the notion that support would suddenly surge like a Jack in the Box if the NDP just took this one MP who happens to look (to some people) like a stereotypical lefty gay woman - and shunted her into some backroom out of the public eye - is highly offensive and insulting to her, the party and to Canadian voters. In the NDP we don't put people at the back of the shop and out of view because someone thinks they aren't pretty enough for primetime. Its one of the things I like about the party.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:43

#111

No Yards

Doug wrote:

No Yards wrote:

The NDP first started to lose me way back during Jack's first election campaign (I was a big fan of his to that point) when he decided that his election promises of loans for energy efficient upgrades being paid back out of the savings from the upgrades, and eliminating the inheritance tax, had to be jettisoned not because they were bad ideas, but because people were having a hard time understanding them and it was just too much trouble to debunk the nonsense "big lies" that the Libs and Cons were spreading about those policies.

There's a saying about campaigning. "If you're explaining, you're losing." Sadly, it's true - if something takes a big effort to explain, it's not a policy or thing you should be spending much time on.

Well, I agree that in a campaign if you are explaining you are more than likely losing, but I just don't think that "winning government" is the be all and end all of politics. If the NDP has a good idea and spends 10 years explaining it only to have the Liberals steal the idea as soon as it starts to get popular, then I have no problem with that at all.

Good policy isn't always the easiest thing to explain, but that doesn't mean that it still isn't "good policy", and just because it will take some effort to get the idea across shouldn't mean that the good idea has to be sacrificed in the name of the "inpatient power hungry" more interested in gaining power than they are in promoting good policy.

The sad part is that Redrover is probably right as to what the NDP would have to do to gain enough votes to challenge for forming government, but then if they did make that kind of move they would be no better than the Liberals and Conservatives (which is all ready the case in my opinion, but I suppose some people can put up with more BS than I from their politicians)

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:49

#112

RedRover

Again...it's not about pretty. It's about performance and prioritization of the issues that consume her work as an MP versus the issues that tend to preoccupy the voting public.

I would also be fine with her being part of a 7-8 member strong team, but not part of the top triumvirate. To remedy the issue of gender balance, then Jusy Wasylycia-Leis, Charlton, or Irene Mathyssen could be elevated in my opinion. Crowder is already the Caucus Chair, but she too is quite capable of moving up a level. Fortunately, we have some excellent MPs to choose from.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:52

#113

RedRover

Kloch wrote:

RedRover wrote:

13 posts in this thread from Cueball and not one idea or suggestion as to how to move the NDP from 20-25%.

No wonder we're going nowhere fast.

Maybe he/she feels that it doesn't matter whether or not the NDP gets more than 20-25%.

I don't doubt it, nor do I have a problem with that. But they do seem to be spending a lot of time trying to ensure the party doesn't grow - at least in this thread - and that I do have a problem with.

Mon, 2010-04-05 23:57

#114

Kloch

RedRover wrote:

Kloch wrote:

RedRover wrote:

13 posts in this thread from Cueball and not one idea or suggestion as to how to move the NDP from 20-25%.

No wonder we're going nowhere fast.

Maybe he/she feels that it doesn't matter whether or not the NDP gets more than 20-25%.

I don't doubt it, nor do I have a problem with that. But they do seem to be spending a lot of time trying to ensure the party doesn't grow - at least in this thread - and that I do have a problem with.

Really? And how is cueball doing that? What specific things have they said that are causing the party to stop growing?

Tue, 2010-04-06 00:01

#115

ottawaobserver

RedRover, there is no way a position on 10%ers would have been taken by one MP alone, even if it was the House Leader. It would have been taken by the caucus as a whole.

Given the pressures building up in the media up here, the NDP would have been crucified if it didn't go along with that, which would have been much more costly. (I would have thought with your genius strategic political insights, you would have realized that, because of course you could foresee the problems with E.May and the debate, unlike Brian Topp, right?)

The piece of information you are apparently missing is that giving up 10%ers still leaves franked, addressed mail.

Frankly the NDP made good use of 10%ers to distribute information about an MP's critic area, for example, to other parts of the country, and they weren't overly partisan attack pieces, but admittedly that's usually in the eye of the beholder. Because the Libs and Conservatives used them for those more partisan purposes though, and then the Libs moved to get rid of them, we would have been offside and "explaining" and would have got killed in the short-term story. Not worth it in return for all the fuss.

The Conservatives will probably continue to mail, but will pay for it out of the party coffers. That's life. The stuff they put out is so objectionable, I'm not sure how effective it is anyway.

Tue, 2010-04-06 00:09

#116

Stockholm

I wish someone would do a "content analysis" of news and social media and see how much coverage different NDP personalities get. I honestly think of the 37 NDP MPs, Libby Davies is probably about number 7 or 8 from the top in terms of how much coverage she gets. If you honestly think that more than 2% of Canadians have the slightest idea who she is - I think you're nuts.

I wish she actually was as well known as Red Rover thinks. She is a great MP is someone who would draw MORE people to the party if she were in the news more.

Tue, 2010-04-06 00:20

#117

RedRover

ottawaobserver wrote:

RedRover, there is no way a position on 10%ers would have been taken by one MP alone, even if it was the House Leader. It would have been taken by the caucus as a whole.

Given the pressures building up in the media up here, the NDP would have been crucified if it didn't go along with that, which would have been much more costly. (I would have thought with your genius strategic political insights, you would have realized that, because of course you could foresee the problems with E.May and the debate, unlike Brian Topp, right?)

The piece of information you are apparently missing is that giving up 10%ers still leaves franked, addressed mail.

The Conservatives will probably continue to mail, but will pay for it out of the party coffers. That's life. The stuff they put out is so objectionable, I'm not sure how effective it is anyway.

The NDP is a poor party and it lost one of most valuable resources. "That's life," does not really sum up the problem well. As objectionable as you find the Conservative mailing it works, just like ours did. They have sophisticated database tools and target their message to receptive audiences. It is a huge deal that we don't 10%ers to work with outside of the ridings we hold. Huge.

And frankly, with the economy in the shits, pension funds being destroyed, the emerging housing bubble in Canada, rising inflation, interest rate hikes, pandemics, war crimes, etc., etc., etc....I find it very hard to believe the NDP would be crucified for not curbing some junk mail. The 10%er story started with the Liberal motion because we were beating up on them very effectively using this device, and the anti-NDP story would have lasted about a week, maybe two...horrible knee-jerk overreaction by the party if Libby is not to blame alone then, but I do think she is the only liaision to the Board of Internal Economy the media reports are accurate.

Also, from what I've read, the franked mail cannot be sent in bulk outside of an MPs riding, and each address can only receive three addressed pieces per year.

Communications with constituents won't be hampered much, but outreach to non-incumbents has been devastated.

Tue, 2010-04-06 00:22

#118

RedRover

Kloch wrote:

RedRover wrote:

Kloch wrote:

RedRover wrote:

13 posts in this thread from Cueball and not one idea or suggestion as to how to move the NDP from 20-25%.

No wonder we're going nowhere fast.

Maybe he/she feels that it doesn't matter whether or not the NDP gets more than 20-25%.

I don't doubt it, nor do I have a problem with that. But they do seem to be spending a lot of time trying to ensure the party doesn't grow - at least in this thread - and that I do have a problem with.

Really? And how is cueball doing that? What specific things have they said that are causing the party to stop growing?

By not contributing one idea to a thread about ideas to help the party grow? Not bringing anything substantive to the table? Taking a thread about change and defending the status quo when the party has been stuck between 16.5 and 20% for five years. That's about it really.

Tue, 2010-04-06 00:23

#119

RedRover

Stockholm wrote:

I wish someone would do a "content analysis" of news and social media and see how much coverage different NDP personalities get. I honestly think of the 37 NDP MPs, Libby Davies is probably about number 7 or 8 from the top in terms of how much coverage she gets.

Very interesting idea. Surely there is someone in the party's research department that can do this? If not, then a polling and research firm could do it fairly cheaply.

Tue, 2010-04-06 00:23

#120

oldgoat

Closing for length

Pages

Topic locked