Why isn't the NDP doing better when we have such dullards as the last three LPC leaders?

"Message" if you mean what is also called the 'vison thing'. Or a 'basic message'.

The term message is often applied to the trivial or the 'microissue'.

But since every serious political writer has observed that the ground has shifted for social democracy in the last 30 years - and that there has to be an answer for the declining tax base in light of the shift of employment to foreign parts (particularly in Ontario, lately) - aren't New Democrats going to have to start talking serious economics?   Heck, it might even win them some lineage in those newspapers that are themselves on the verge of bankruptcy.

The economic "downturn" in the fourth decade of the rise of the corporation to political dominance is real.   Bears mention, occasionally, along with all of the purely ideological yearning about forceful leadership "fighting the right", yatatata. 

The notion that we win with, or we would even want more "fightintg the right," is part of the problem.

There is a message that is guaranteed to fail.

What do you want? What do people who would be part of a winning coalition want? Where's the intersections in there?

And the "other people who would be part of a winning coalition" is not just the ones we consider worthy allies. But all the people, in all their diversity, who we would need as part of a winning coalition. The relatively privileged as well as the marginalized. Etc.

NorthReport wrote:

Organized Labour is going to have to step up to the plate with some major coin, so like the Liberals and the Conservatives, the NDP will have some mainstream media backing them as well. Otherwise we're doomed to the opposition benches forever, and I'm getting sick of it.

I think it will be increasingly difficult for the NDP to rely on boilerplate endorsements from labour when prominent NDP politicians such as Joe Mehivc and Pam McConnel openly endorse candidates who take positions that attack the fundamentals of collective bargaining such as George Smitherman.

As well, the Left was built on ideals and principles, not through the media but at the grass roots. During the hey day of left wing organizing the left never depended on the capitalist media to do anything other than act in the interests of those that own it, and you can not expect otherwise today. The left made its own media and supported it through an extensive network of grass roots organizations.

Joe had plenty of message. That message was succefully burried beneath a pile of horse manure about strategic voting, and panic mongering about Ford. Looking for the ultimate soundbyte to project the message into the mainstream is a lost cause.

Our problem was that we failed to find other means to project that message.

What if they want to "send all the immigrants home?" Is that negotiable?

Cueball wrote:

What if they want to "send all the immigrants home?" Is that negotiable?

Not negotiable. More to the point: doesnt need to be.

In the first place, most people that want to send the immigrants home are unrecoverable. But not only not available as part of a winning coalition- dont need them either.

Now some of the people in the potential winning coalition do think immigrants taking jobs are costing too much in social services is a problem. Stuff like that is part of the mix. The hand we are dealt.

And you deal with that by addressing their actual needs and aspirations. Whether you succeed are not is up to everything, but thats what you do.

Maybe I need to be more clear in what I mean by "engage the Right": we need to oppose their solutions to problems and offer our own.

Caissa wrote:

Maybe I need to be more clear in what I mean by "engage the Right": we need to oppose their solutions to problems and offer our own.

But it is clear, at least to me, what the NDP's/Layton's solutions are.  A relatively comprehensive platform is spelled out even on their website and in more depth in Layton's writing.  It's not an especially radical or socialistic platform, if that's what you mean, but it is a clear and seemingly realistic alternative to the Conservative and Liberal agendas.  If anything, the LPC has been less effective at distinguishing their own agenda from the Conservatives'.  Still, people don't seem to be buying in large numbers and so I wonder about this a great deal too.

Some possibly naive thoughts:

- Because Canada has done reasonably well in the recession, people don't want to experiment with change?

- People enjoy the CPC tax cuts and are not thinking about the long-term implications of the resulting deficits?  Conversely, they (at least those who are middle class or richer) don't want to pay the higher taxes that would have to result from a social democratic agenda.

- Some people who might be attracted to a social liberal/social democratic economic agenda are alienated or just bored by the NDP's positions on things like gay rights, green energy, affirmative action, and foreign policy (e.g. when it comes to Israel).  I'm not saying I am alienated by these things but many people may be.

- For whatever reason, the most left-leaning province, which is also the second-most populated province, has never shown much interest in the NDP.  The Bloc seems to own the left-wing vote in Quebec.  Trudeau's ability to get Quebec behind federalism, a strong central government, and a left-leaning economic agenda has not been replicated by anyone and it doesn't look like it wil soon.

No, it's because they don't come from and look like eastern Canada (what westerners would call what we call central Canada).

I've read down this thread and not seen one person address the fact that the "left" glosses over those fundamental differences in economic interests and thus outlook between east, centre, and west, and between city and country.  Then you set yourself up for "I've got principles, they are rubes/urban pinkos".

The Liberals are failing on that point much worse than the NDP, actually, but they have some built-in advantages we don't: longstanding incumbents for one thing, and a built-in media bias that they are the alternative governing party, because their remaining bastion of support is in the national media centre of Toronto.

They arent so loved in SK and MB. They are strong, but only moderately strong, and the vagaries of first past the post distorts that strength.

Evening Star wrote:

Why do MB and SK love the CPC so much federally?  Is it a gun registry issue?

No it is merely plain old gerrymandering.  Most if not all the urban areas on the prairies have ridings that dissect the cities and add bits to rural ridings were they are subsumed in Conservative farm votes. 

Interesting metaphor, Catchfire.

{kind of a cross-posting from an earlier sort-of related thread ... adding because I am interested in any discussion about giving us in Canada a *real* alternative to the Bay St Party(ies), and the other thread was about finished when I added this and got only one comment (from Fidel, who doesn't agree ..)]]

>>

I won't vote for Libs or Cons, as the 'official' tweedledee-dum party(ies) of Bay St - I would vote for NDP as lesser of two evils at times, but as they currently stand, I wouldn't go out of my way - they're not going to win anything, and even if they did, currently all they appear to want to do is replace the Libs as the 'capitalist-light' party, which doesn't interest me - 'lesser of evils' goes so far - but geezus, can't we get something *positive* to vote for here?!?! I suspect a lot of other voters have similar ideas - the last election 40% of Cdns did not vote as I am sure anyone participating in a talk like this would be well aware of - but at least as significantly, for those pissed off with corporate government, they did not see any reason to switch to NDP. Sure they (NDP) talk a good show right now - but so do the other parties, and there's not a lot to choose between them currently, given that about the only thing we can be certain of is that they all lie about what they are going to do (and very carefully do NOT tell us a lot of what they DO plan to do if given that "I'll do as I please for 5 years HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!" faux-majority that our good ol FPTP system hands them most of the time.

An NDP 'platform' that would make me a bit more inclined to increase my level of support would be something like this:

1. We recoginze that the political-economic system known as Capitalism has taken over the western world. We also recognize that unbridled Capitalism, which they strive for and get closer to every passing year, is very good for the wealthy who control the capitalist assets, and very bad for the many workers who rely on these 'owners of production' for work. If elected, we will do our best to fight against this capitalist ascendency, and control the worst excesses of those who want unbridled freedom to run amok in our society under the guise of 'market freedom'. Two of the central ways we will combat this capitalist beast are:

2. We also recognize that in recent years our 'democracy' has become very much less democratic, due to the corruption of politics by 'big money'. If elected, or having enough members to be influential in a supportive role for either major party, we will demand a full and open discussion of a more fair electoral process, in which Canadians will be represented in Parliament according to the percent of voters supporting each party, which will go a long ways to reducing the power of the two mainstream capitalist parties and their continual false majority governments through which they initiate policies opposed by most Canadians. Some will call this self-serving, but it is not so - we speak for the many Liberals in western Canada who are vastly under-represented, and the many Conservatives in Toronto and other parts of the country who are under-represented. We speak for the approximately one million people who voted Green in the last election - and currently have no members in our Parliament.

3. Our third major platform will be to educate Canadians concerning our money supply, and why allowing capitalist bankers to control our money is a very, very bad policy for most Canadians. We will talk about how our money *should* be created and controlled, through the Bank of Canada. We will talk about how un-necessary and destructive it is to allow private banks to create most of our money as interest-bearing debt. We will talk about the national debt in Canada, and the provincial debts, on which we have paid some two trillion dollars in interest over the last 30-40 years - every penny of which need not have been paid if we had used the Bank of Canada for the purpose for which it was created in 1938 - the benefit of all Canadians.

Now that kind of honesty would get me fighting for the NDP. Of course, it would probably get them shut out of the mainstream media, and various visits from MIBs - but confronting power has ever been dangerous. There are many lesser things that could be talked about, but to me these are the two basic issues of our time - democracy and money. Without these, the best intentions in the world have no chance of happening. We can do nothing without democracy, and control of "our" money.

So, siamdave, you insist the NDP adopt a platform to get your vote that would lose it the votes of 80% of the people who currently support it.  That will make you feel good, but you'll be doing so in a country governed by a very right-wing government.

ottawaobserver wrote:

So, siamdave, you insist the NDP adopt a platform to get your vote that would lose it the votes of 80% of the people who currently support it.  That will make you feel good, but you'll be doing so in a country governed by a very right-wing government.

- please expand a bit. The NDP do have PR listed as something they want, even if they don't push it much. And as far as I can figure, almost nobody has a clue as to what is going on with our money system - I really don't think that explaining this would lose votes - why do you think it would? (You do, I presume, have some idea about the money system? Can you explain why you think private banks creating our money as debt is a good idea yourself, to give me some idea of what you think the average NDPer would believe?)

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Lets see my MP's main issues are gay rights, green energy and foreign policy.  We have been sending someone to Ottawa with that message for decades.  Can you explain how changing that message would help in the seats we are winning?

Good for you and your MP and I hope besides supporting social justice he stands for socialist economic policies as well. For me it is not an either or issue , I believe a progressive party should not dilute its principles for electoral success. And why would you change the message if you are winning while standing by your convictions.

this_guy wrote:

I just wanted to comment that I am not too fond of the title of this post referring to the past 3 LPC leaders as dullards.  I am no fan of Ignatieff or Martin, but I very much liked Stephane Dion.  Early in the leadership race when he still appeared to be a longshot, even Jack Layton said that Dion was a genuinely good and pricipled politician, which was why he expected him to have no chance at winning the Liberal leadership.

My biggest criticism of Dion was that he resigned from leadership on election night rather than actively pursuing a coalition with the NDP.  Instead weeks later, the NDP approached the Liberals with the coaltion concept and by that time it seemed just plain weird that the guy claimed to be unfit to lead the Liberals but was going to be the next PM.

I think it is fair to say that Dion was lacking somewhat in political smarts, but he was a very intelligent guy and a person of principle whom I would have been happy to have as the coalition leader and our PM.

I guess my point is that Dion was one of the 'good' Liberals and I prefer a situaiton where the NDP works with the Libs to find common ground and govern since the NDP gaining power federally under any other scenario is pretty unlikely for at least the next couple of elections. There is no problem with speculating about reasons for the NDP not gaining more of the Liberal vote, but frankly I think it doesn't matter too much if the two parties together don't have more seats than the Conservatives.

A better question is "Why are so many people choosing the Cons, who govern against their interests"?

- Dion was indeed one of the good guys - that is why the media en masse turned against him until they got rid of him. Sad to see so many people who consider themselves 'progressives' were so open to such media manipulation - but it is, for those who can think a bit, an object lesson in why 'we' are losing - like everyone else, the 'progressives' play the role narrated for them by the media, and that role is not as a 'winner', but a place to park protest votes where no harm is going to be done.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Siamdave, the object of the electoral game is to send people to Ottawa as MP's who agree with your views on political issues. .....

- I thought that, at least in theory, the objective of the electoral game was to have the country run as a majority of the people wanted it run. As such, it seems to be an abject failure. But maybe I have misunderstood this all along .... it certainly doesn't seem to be the objective of the current rulers anyway, who are very much in the minority with most of what they get up to, and know it .. I got the idea from the title of this thread that maybe we could throw around some ideas to get some of that majority of Canadians who disagree with what the rulers are doing to get behind the NDP, who at least in theory seem a lot closer to the wishes of a majority of Canadians.

siamdave wrote:

An NDP 'platform' that would make me a bit more inclined to increase my level of support would be something like this:

1. We recoginze that the political-economic system known as Capitalism has taken over the western world.....

2. We also recognize that in recent years our 'democracy' has become very much less democratic...

3. Our third major platform will be to educate Canadians concerning our money supply, and why allowing capitalist bankers to control our money is a very, very bad policy for most Canadians....

Case in point of what I was saying upthread. And in your case, someone who has thought things out much more rigorously than the norm.

Still,

its all about whats wrong.

What are we going to do? What are we going to build?

And not so general that people cant touch it.

What is wrong is part of what people have to look at.

But for the Left, the tail wags the dog. Its all tail.

You dont even get to have a conversation with people unless you paint as vivid a picture about what we are trying to do. And boiled down, but not down to mushy generalities.

This still sounds relevant to me almost 80 years later.

We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible. The present order is marked by glaring inequalities of wealth and opportunity, by chaotic waste and instability; and in an age of plenty it condemns the great mass of the people to poverty and insecurity. Power has become more and more concentrated into the hands of a small irresponsible minority of financiers and industrialists and to their predatory interests the majority are habitually sacrificed. When private profit is the main stimulus to economic effort, our society oscillates between periods of feverish prosperity in which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and of catastrophic depression, in which the common man's normal state of insecurity and hardship is accentuated. We believe that these evils can be

removed only in a planned and socialized economy in which our natural resources and principal means of production and distribution are owned, controlled and operated by the people.

Caissa:  So, in terms of specific policies, do you actually advocate the government expropriating and nationalizing banks, land, mines, oil resources, and major manufacturing industries?  I'm not 100% opposed to moving [i]slightly[/i] in that direction - Nationalized oil seems to work for Norway, say, and a public option for finance may work.  However, if the NDP were to actually start advocate a primarily government-owned, centrally planned economy, I'm fairly certain they would lose most of the votes they currently get, probably including mine.  That would be a very different party:  Layton has never advocated those things AFAIK and I'm not sure any other prominent NDP members have either in the past 20 years.

That's true.  I just think that "We'll raise taxes a little, especially for those who can afford it, but you'll be able to afford dental care and prescription drugs and you can send your kids to university without going into debt" might resonate with a wider segment of the population than some of those other issues.  I don't have a solution to this though, esp as I actually agree with the NDP's current policies in all these areas.

gadar wrote:

Evening Star wrote:

- Some people who might be attracted to a social liberal/social democratic economic agenda are alienated or just bored by the NDP's positions on things like gay rights, green energy, affirmative action, and foreign policy (e.g. when it comes to Israel).  I'm not saying I am alienated by these things but many people may be.

And there maybe some people who are interested in things like gay rights, green energy etc. but are alienated by social liberal economic agenda. The question is, can a truly progressive party be built by having both these kinds of people as a part of it or by having only the people who believe in both the social justice as well as social liberal economic agendas. I guess you can have more electoral success by having people with diverse opinions but then how do you implement your agendas when one part of the party is alienated by it.

Caissa wrote:

- Food for all

-Housing for all

- Meaningful employment for all.

-Education for all.

Are these goals getting specific enough, KenS?

Those goals work for me.  

First you need the goals and then the tactics, KenS.