NDP Leadership 58

Gaian wrote:

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.)

Well, I am sorry, I hate to say it and it is going to sound awful of me, but I thought Stronach sounded frequently ridiculous. When pressed, she couldn't provide substance to her commentary, and when Rae got pushed by Soloman, Rae tried to change the topic and change the frame. I don't know if smart is a good word for Rae; I think devious is better. I stand by my comment, talking about the economy as some kind of mythical pie is absurd. The NDP has got to make an effort at educating people about what the economy is, and how it works. That has always been the NDP's problem. This has got to go with how we make it work for everyone, from lowest to hightest and how we are in this together. All we get from the Libs is polarization is bad but no one asks them how being in the center really would work either.

The issue is about the frame. The NDP simply has to change it, and not let the Libs get mileage again out of the merits of centerism. Look at what we have, what merits? The NDP needs to be smart, we need to challenge the framer, and we need to go after these pundits, explain what the weakness is in their attacks to the populous, and make the media actually start doing their job, or NOTHING will change. Period!

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

I think you're exactly right.

If you look at the opinion polls conducted during the begining of the election the NDP were doomed, the party's numbers throughout most of Canada were horrible. The NDP were at 13% nationally, and only 8% in Ontario, in one Nanos poll conducted in early April. The only place they continued to do better then usual was in Quebec, where they were polling in the mid-teens. Had the massive surge in Quebec, which is not really that unusal when you look at Quebec politics snce the 1980's, not happen in the last few weeks of the election the NDP probably would have lost all the gains they had made since Jack became leader. 

People may not like to hear this but it's true. Obviously none of this happened, but the point I've been trying to make is that you cannot just expect Liberals to ditch their party and join the NDP without reacing out to them. Should we just start saying that there is a blue door and an orange door? Beccause that didn't work out to well for Mcihael Ifnatieff.

The whole idea of a grand strategy of reaching out to voters OF a party is fallacious.

Because most voters are not like that.

The kind of Liberal voters you are talking about:

** are a minority in the first place

** are declining

** have always been hardest to move.

We all know that the number of people who [only] tend to vote Liiberal is far larger.

And you do not reach out to them as Liberal voters. Because they aren't.

In 1957 it was all about sovereignty, the Liberals sellng out to the Americans on the pipeline issue. Lots of movement again in 1958.

Try to imagine the number of ways in which New Democrats could play the sovereignty issue by 2015. Quebec will certainly be onside...used to yearn for their sense for Maitre chez nous. If we can't put forward new ideas for the utilization of Canadians savings to develop our own country, just fall back on fairness of disribution, then we are not going to bring people in from the cold.

Things are far more serious, lifestyles are far more endangered than anything seen since the 30's. The country will be wide open to achievable change in economic direction.

You don't think we'll have to have some proposals on how to grow the economy by then?

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

I think you're exactly right.

If you look at the opinion polls conducted during the begining of the election the NDP were doomed, the party's numbers throughout most of Canada were horrible. The NDP were at 13% nationally, and only 8% in Ontario, in one Nanos poll conducted in early April. The only place they continued to do better then usual was in Quebec, where they were polling in the mid-teens. Had the massive surge in Quebec, which is not really that unusal when you look at Quebec politics snce the 1980's, not happen in the last few weeks of the election the NDP probably would have lost all the gains they had made since Jack became leader. 

People may not like to hear this but it's true. Obviously none of this happened, but the point I've been trying to make is that you cannot just expect Liberals to ditch their party and join the NDP without reacing out to them. Should we just start saying that there is a blue door and an orange door? Beccause that didn't work out to well for Mcihael Ifnatieff.

Actually you are both wrong.  While it is true the most dramatic shift was in Quebec, there was significant shift in voter support across the country.  In most places it was historic, Quebec of course was the most historic because, again, the shift was more dramatic.  In almost all regions of the country the NDP has now become the main alternative to the Conservatives.  Now it might take one or even two more election cycles to settle out, but polling is showing that NDP support gains have pretty much consolidated, or increasing with some minor natural ups and downs one generally sees in polling in a majority situation.   People are much less locked in because they know they won't be making any choices any time soon.  

That the shift seems still to be in place, and a strong lead continuing in Quebec (despite the factless headlines of the MSM) in the face of the recent BQ leadership race means we are looking at a major change in Canadian polticial culture.  These sorts of things have happened before and no doubt will happen agian at some point in the future.  It is vulneralbe, nothing is locked in, but it is going to take a significant screw up, or series of them by the NDP or some kind of major rock star like leader taking over the Liberals, think on the scale of Celine Dion taking over or something currently far outside conventional thinking.   Again we may need to see one or two elections for this to settle out, but the most important factor will be the popularity of the Conservatives.  Most of their gains in the last election came from Blue Liberals leaving the sinking ship - so they are more likely to switch back to the Liberals as a reaction not to their economic policies, (because they like them), but a tiredness with a mean edge on social issues.  Over the long term we will likely start to see the Liberals become a party of fiscally conservative, socially progressive urbanites in a few of our major metropolitan areas.  At some times they will pick up fiscally conservatives tired of the rightward drift of the Conservatives on social issues, but with moderating leadership will drift back to the Conservatives from time to time.

The NDP long strategy will be to solidify the gains made across the country and build on the greater Quebec success and move it across the country to all the ridings the NDP was the 2nd place choice, even if it was a distant 2nd.  Liberal leaning voters from past elections will stay with, or gravitate to the NDP as it becomes clear they have entrenched their place as the Conservative alternative.  There are two other groups that will be key to consolidating the NDP -Liberal place switch in terms of the alternative to the Conservatives.  One is the group that voted Conservative simply to end minority government and cyclical elections.  They existed, but they will not necessarily be willing to vote Conservative in 2015.  The other group is the many non-voters who had given up voting because they were tired of voting for a loser.   Neither of these groups are large, but they are important as many of them will count as "2" votes as one is a vote the Conservatives previously had and the other is a vote no one had.  

By the way, it is hard to take seriously any argument from someone who chooses to use an outlier poll that was not confirmed by any other polling data in the way you did.  It throws into question everything else you say.

theleftyinvestor wrote:

I'd rather have a better Senate than none at all.

I'll go easy on you and simply write you aff as hopelessly naive on this point.

There is no way on God's green earth to build up the necessary political support for any Senate reform apart from abolition - and even abolition will take some doing.

Not to mention that the creation of a second chamber with democratic legitimacy is arecipe for the sort of legislative gridlock that effectively prevents the development of humane social policy in the UNited States.

A reformed Senate is at least even odds to be worse than the present monstrocity.  Fortunately, a better Senate is nigh on impossible.

Abolition will come.

Gaian wrote:

You don't think we'll have to have some proposals on how to grow the economy by then?

Or it will become increasingly clear that continued economic growth is both idiotic and impossible.

Policywonk wrote:

Gaian wrote:

You don't think we'll have to have some proposals on how to grow the economy by then?

Or it will become increasingly clear that continued economic growth is both idiotic and impossible.

Yes, we share environmental concerns. Somehow we have to have an alternative concept for "grow the economy" which would mean "reduce unemployment to zero through innovation in socially and environmentally responsible and productive means of production while not causing a sudden flight of capital in a world teetering on depression,"...or something. Perhaps you can suggest a panacea?

"I know X is not scientific but it makes my candidate look good, and reinforces the narrative of our campaign, so what the heck".

Freep away people.