NDP Leadership 58

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 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.

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

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.

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 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.

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.]

 

Interesting article on Nathan Cullen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/race+Free+thinker+Cullen+cookie+cutter...

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?

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

Interesting....

 

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/12/27/is-the-ndps-brian-topp-in-free-...

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?)

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.

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!

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_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.

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.