What lessons should the Federal NDP take from the Nova Scotia experience/coming nightmare?

Dexter's measures weren't just politically stupid (for a social democratic party). They were also terrible for the economy, and based on the kinds of ideas that have been discredited over the past 30 years, starting in Latin America, and now following through in America and Europe.

A key lesson is that the NDP needs to be anti-austerity.

The NDP might still be pressured by the media (and their financial backers) into proving their "fiscal discipline" by stabbing themselves in the stomach. While giving a free pass to the other two parties that have gradually dismantled the middle class and left all but the resource-exporting provinces in a downward spiral. (Let alone created huge debts in the process.)

So a tangential lesson, if the media points to a growing debt and demands the neoliberal solution that makes things worse, the NDP needs to come up with an intelligent alternative. Which, depending on who you ask, is dodging the issue, or (my preferred choice) driving into the heart of the beast and promising that we'll roll back the tax breaks that Liberals and Conservatives used to bankrupt us in the first place.

And the last lesson is to learn from how Dexter got elected in the first place. He did sell people that the NDP would actually be different, and he did it over the course of several campaigns instead of a single race.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

So a tangential lesson, if the media points to a growing debt and demands the neoliberal solution that makes things worse, the NDP needs to come up with an intelligent alternative. Which, depending on who you ask, is dodging the issue, or (my preferred choice) driving into the heart of the beast and promising that we'll roll back the tax breaks that Liberals and Conservatives used to bankrupt us in the first place.

I think the key thing here is to be on top of the books. Point out, as best as the NDP can, that the books are actually in much worse shape. They also have to prepare ahead of time for the books being in much worse shape than everybody thought, as what happened when Rae took office in 1990 and when Eves was thrown from office in 2003. I'm sure that should the NDP win in 2015, that the books will show as having actually been in worse shape than what we think. So the NDP needs to tell people that no, unfortunately we don't have all the information we need and we won't until we've had a chance to examine the books, and there will be nasty surprises, but we will deal with it as it comes and we will protect the vital services and programs that you people depend on.

The strategy of repeating that the NDP won't raise taxes won't work, because you will always have the right-wing talking points about how overtaxed everybody is under the NDP. This is what we see in Manitoba, even though the government has actually cut business and corporate taxes. Far better would be to do what Andrea Horwath did and make the case as to why taxes need to go up. She made herself the most popular politician in Ontario with that move, and it would also give the NDP political captial after the election to say, "things are much worse than we expected, so we have to ask those with means to pay more and help us out."

I'm with Aristotled.

No matter how much people hate taxes, no matter how cautious you might seem by coming out against taxes... The media and the right wing parties are always going to paint the NDP as tax-and-spend socialists.

It would be different if the Conservatives were trying in good faith to balance the budget. Then you can focus on spending, with corporate tax increases to pay for new priorities.

But with massive debts and deficits compounded by global austerity and corporate tax giveaways... people are going to have an eye on the federal debt. And the NDP going to need to have a plan. And the only credible plan for ANY government is going to involve a tax increase, unless you want to shred the social safety net and send the economy in a downward spiral.

Even more credible that it comes from the NDP. Not that they've proposed anything but personal tax freezes for the past 25+ years. But when you're up against two parties that have destroyed the federal budget through tax giveaways, and you're supposed to be the social democratic alternative, there's something to be said for standing tall. And yes, it IS working for Horwath, in Ontario where all the banks are.

.

I have to say, I used to be less concerned with debt until I heard old speeches from Tommy Douglas about how bankers can leverage those debts into power and influence. You only have to look at Bob Rae's NDP government in the 1990s to know how the banks will tie your hands and push you off a cliff.

Its not an either/or black or white thing about debt. And dealing or not dealing with debt is not the lesson.

Assuming that the NDP govt had to take some kind of fiscal action, which the previous government had ducked, tells us nothing either way.

It is both what the Dexter government did, and how they went about it, that is the problem.

Every NDP government or government in waiting MUST take proactive steps to deal with the 'tax and spend' image. And the facile leftie solution of lecturing people that they get net benefits from higher taxes is a pipe dream.

The problem with the Dexter crowd is that 'responsible fiscal mamagement' became an end in itself. They couldnt get enough of it.

To make matters worse, they hid their central agenda. They decided at least two years before they brought it up for 'discussion' that the NDP had to reverse the 2% increase of the HST- even though there was a broad concensus cutting across ideological lines that taxes had to be increased. So while they were talking the talk that the cuts were driven solely by balancing the budget... the pacing of the depth of the cuts was geared to being able to cut the HST before the then years off election.

That is unequivocally bad faith with the NDP's base. The depth of cuts was being sold to us as a necessity for balancing the budget, while all along the planning was about balancing the budget AND cutting taxes.

And it bit the NDP bad even though most people dont know about this scam. Even without them seeing all the movements of the puppeteer, the Dexter governments actions showed the NDP as not really any different. All people had to do is look at what was coming out of the pipe. We tied ourselves up in knots.

We put all of our eggs in the 'better managers' basket. The bulk of the media commentators even agreed. And what did it get the NDP?

Stephen MacNeill and the Liberals- who very likely will be LESS competent as fiscal managers- get named overwhelmingly as the best managers of the economy.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Now Dexter hasn't been doing austerity screeching but realized that to be able to afford social democratic type services and supports, one had get the "structural deficit" under control which was created by previous Conservative and Liberal govts.

And I have been following the Dextor govt these past 4 years, where they tried to get rid of the deficit and structural problems by reining spending and by trying to put money towards increasing tax revenues - investing in businesses which would create jobs for people who in turn could pay taxes and thus pay for social spending for "human betterment".

Back away from that Kool Aid people. It is laced.

This is 100% bogus.

The structural deficit was caused under the watch of the previous government. They leat spending rise rapidly with revenue increases that were very ephemeral. And did nothing when that became obvious.

But if it was all about the structural deficit the Dexter government would never have talked tax cuts- that no one was expecting from us!

Dexter in the end got hoisted on his petard. Because the tax cuts were not possible even with their deep spending cuts. [The Liberals have already said they will recind the NDP tax cuts. A returned NDP government would also have had to.]

The education cuts would not have been anywhere near so severe had they been spread out over 3 years instead of two.

And the alternative of manipulating and lying has worked so well.

Besides blaming the teacher cuts on school board 'priorities' [like survival], the other constant spin point is that "there are no layoffs of teachers".

Because of the huge number of boomer retirements, that is true. But classroom teacher positions are cut.

Besides what that does to the quality of education, it means that there is virtually no hope of jobs for new graduates, unless you tach Frenc and Math.

So we spend huge sums of money to buy jobs at the Irving Shipyards, that might several years from now keep a few people in jobs that cost more than teachers, while we send young teachers down the road to Alberta or Texas.

Did someone say something about increasing tax revenues by "creating" good jobs?

"Investing in businesses" may be defensible. It may even be necessary. But thats pure hogwash that it will make a difference in budget cycles we are woking in. IF it ever increases tax revenues, it is not during the relevant budget cycles.

Ditto for the hogwash Finance Minister Maureen MacDonald has been ladling lately: that the HST tax cuts will be compensated for by growth increasing tax revenues. IF there is any revenue tax increases from growth, that remains to be seen, and is not in the budget projections by the way. The tax revenues we get two or three years from now- if they come- MIGHT [eventually] fill the $160 million then $320 million per year hole from the legislated tax HST tax cuts.

But those new revenue holes from the tax cuts definitely, not maybe, start in 6 months. So guess how the shortfall would be covered? The only way it can be covered: new additional spending cuts to essential services on top of the pain we already went through. [But we took a one year break since this is an election year.]

This is not only "wrong headed". The cynicism is grotesque.

Balancing the budget was essential for the NDP after decades of Conservative and Liberal deficits.  Elected in 2009 in the depths of a recession, the Dexter NDP finally managed to present a balanced budget for 2013.  However, many Nova Scotians don't believe the numbers will come in as balanced by the end of next March, so there remains a credibility problem for the NDP with this balanced budget -- they should have balanced it a year earlier to have had the numbers come in and have proved something.

Also, Dexter's idea of cutting the HST from 15% to 13% pissed off the NDP base, because that money is not about to otherwise appear from income tax growth or resource royalties, transfers etc. -- it implies austerity and service cuts.  The base was willing to prioritize a balanced budget, but then the HST cut demonstrated just how far back their priorities really were with the Dexter government.  Even the Liberals are smart enough to campaign this election on NOT cutting the HST.

Another problem is that Dexter and his advisors maintained tight control over NDP policies to the point that it inhibited ministerial creativity and the development of bench strength -- this election it's Dexter vs the other two parties and given Dexter's low approval numbers for a considerable time now, it's a losing battle.  An example of an area the NDP could have benefitted from a stronger policy presence is arts policy and this would have been popular, and is something the Liberals are now campaigning on to their benefit.

The one thing Dexter can say with his tight policy control and narrow focus is "I did it my way".  For the base of the NDP I think it will be a relief that this phase is over and that a chance to possibly reclaim the party will soon arise.

The ndp needs to be the ndp not liberal

When offered the choice between liberal or quasi liberal voters will choose the real liberals almost all of the time

Yes, much is obscured by that limited graph including the previous 10-20 years, the province's capital budgets and the privatization of Nova Scotia power ($5 billion asset sold off in 1992).  Deficit spending has been going on for a long time in Nova Scotia, leading to the province's $14 billion debt (about ~$14,000 per capita).

It is true that the John Hamm Progressive Conservative years in early 00s years featured balanced budgets, often possible due to of-the-time resource rent windfalls.

Canadian income data 'is garbage' without census, experts say

And it has the most dramatic effect with low income households.

And you should not need that reality check. If you and the NDP inner sanctum were not so desperate, you would know off the top of your head that low income households just dont drop 10% in a year.

Canada’s voluntary census is worthless. Here’s why

I think the NDP should have done something dramatic to polarize the electorate, like hire Cuban doctors to address the doctor shortage in small-town health clinics.  Supposedly this could be done but is said to be 'not politically viable'.  This would give a lot of people something to take a position on, instead of the 'meh' response the NDP got by zig-zagging left and right. 

A lot of people were looking for an alternative to the Liberal and Conservative governments, maybe voters were disappointed that the NDP were not so different from previous Blue and Red team governments.

Or Public Auto Insurance (even an election promise) would have done the trick to polarize the electorate and possibly win the election.

Again. I`m stumped. The Manitoba NDP eliminated the corporate capital tax and reduced corporate tax rates to the same level as other right-wing provincial governments. The Manitoba NDP also increased corporate tax credits to boot.

I am sure that the Manitoba NDP has infuriated a considerable portion of its base as a result of these and other measures, yet the Manitoba NDP has won 4 straight provincial elections, which is unheard of!

Even federal Conservative voters in Winnipeg vote for the provincial NDP - the Manitoba NDP is considered moderate and has increased its political tent as a result, so to speak. That`s why the MB NDP wins provincial seats where the federal Cons win the same over-lapping federal seats in Winnipeg.

I was under the impression that the Dexter NDP has followed suit in NS and was also on the same trajectory and template as the Manitoba NDP. So what has really happened? I am at a loss for words frankly!

Centrist wrote:

Again. I`m stumped. The Manitoba NDP eliminated the corporate capital tax and reduced corporate tax rates to the same level as other right-wing provincial governments. The Manitoba NDP also increased corporate tax credits to boot. I am sure that the Manitoba NDP has infuriated a considerable portion of its base as a result of these and other measures, yet the Manitoba NDP has won 4 straight provincial elections, which is unheard of! Even federal Conservative voters in Winnipeg vote for the provincial NDP - the Manitoba NDP is considered moderate and has increased its political tent as a result, so to speak. That`s why the MB NDP wins provincial seats where the federal Cons win the same over-lapping federal seats in Winnipeg. I was under the impression that the Dexter NDP has followed suit in NS and was also on the same trajectory and template as the Manitoba NDP. So what has really happened? I am at a loss for words frankly!

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/atlantic-provinces/nova-scotia-election-drumbeat... here:[/url]

Quote:

For one, the NDP came to power in 1999 when the Third Way was really gaining momentum among social democratic parties. The other key factor is that the NDP in Manitoba has never faced a competent opposition party, and the Manitoba PCs are very adept at losing elections that are theirs to win. The NDP in Manitoba for about a year before the 2011 election been consistently polling behind the PCs, but the PCs ran a very poor campaign and lost an election they should have won.

Of course, Manitoba was presented as a template for how to the NDP should win elections, and the Nova Scotia NDP went down that path. While the Nova Scotia NDP was on this path, the 2008 financial meltdown completely discredited the notion of the Third Way, but the Nova Scotia section of the NDP was already too far along this path to seriously turn away by the time 2009 came around. The real unsung story of the 2009 election was the unpopularity of the PC government of Rodney McDonald, who led his party from government to third place, and of course, the NDP as the Official Opposition was naturally able to capitalize on that.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

As much as I think it was a mistake, he lowered the HST. After he raised it. After he promised he wouldn't raise it. That tells a bigger story.

He pissed off the people who hate taxes by raising them.

Maybe it's as simple as that. He really tried to have it both ways and ended up pissing off everyone.

Its actually simpler than that. 

Before and during the election the NDP promised no tax increases. We know the fisal situation is not good, but no tax increases. Period. They handled very adroitly going back on that promise. There was a broad consensus that a substantial tax increase really was necessary. The media saw it as a good move, and things stayed that way. Well done. [The media has still not turned on Dexter.]

But way back at the beginning Cockpit Control [which was and is 3-4 people] decided that removing the tax increase by the next election was a political necessity. Let alone not consulting about that, they appear to have paid attention to the stability of the assumed consensus that tax increase was here to stay.

Hopefully, I am not repeating myself.  I do think that Tom Mulcair will run a different campaign than the previous NDP leaders had run.  I do think that he will campaign greatly on the economy and jobs.  He will also downplay health care and the environment--the usual NDP priorities.  It doesn't mean that he won't talk about those two issues.  However, he will have them framed within an economic platform.

I think, currently, Tom Mulcair is touring Canada in order to maintain his base support.  He is going around the country to talk about abolishing the Senate, electoral reform, the Tar (Oil) Sands, and pipelines.  I do expect him to change his sails so that he will run a federal campaign on the economy once the election period has officially started.

I don't think Mr. Mulcair is worried that the NDP is currently behind the Liberals in the polls.  I do think that he is holding his cards tightly against his chest.  He'll play is best cards when the time is right.

Even if the NDP loses, it seems that the perception is that they helped fix some things that had previously been broken in the province, even if they hadn't fully lived up to expectations and/or annoyed some in the process.  That's different from the (somewhat unfair) perception of the Rae NDP in Ontario, where the perception was that they had broken things.  So, I think the NDP will remain a contender for the future in Nova Scotia even if they aren't re-elected this time.  Hopefully the polls are wrong and they will be re-elected.

Have voters been "fair" with the NDP? Maybe not.

Do they hold us to a higher standard? Well, yes.

[And thats a problem??] We definitely benefit from that, on the ride up. So whats the whining- which there has been a LOT of- when we get the other side of the coin?

Ultimately, if the voters have not been fair, whose problem is that?

And personaly, I think people have essentially been fair, a goodly dose of crankiness thrown in notwithstanding.

Maybe Nova Scotians are people who take the overall promise the NDP holds out more at face value. With the letdwon being more serious.

We polled for years on the road to winning government with very high numbers on integrity. And the image of Darrel Dexter was built on and around that. I think it more accurate to say not that was the "expectation" of is- it was so solid that it was assumed about us.

And it was wantonly squandered.

I think that after the NDP strength in integrity- who do you trust- the most important issue may well be jobs and the economy, no matter how much people say they prefer the NDP around health care.

But if you piss people off when you torch your strength in their trust in you, turning on you is rather predicatble.

[Predicted as well as predictable.]

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I personally believe the economy IS the number one issue, with all that encapsulates -- not just growth, but also jobs, wages, and valued services. And because of that, I think the "growth + trickle down" attitude of the Liberals and Conservatives makes them poor economic managers, not to mention their history of huge debts. I don't think we choose between a fairer society and economic growth -- I think they're now one and the same.

That's not how other people see it. We can fight it to an extent. But the NDP needs to press its real advantage on the moral high ground, and win on a more holistic message. Yes, the NDP will be a good government that cares about jobs, but a fairer society is a necessary part of that.

I will agree with your points highlighted above.  I do think that the NDP can campaign on a theme of "a better economy and fairer society."

One of the things that former prime minister Jean Chrétien was able to do was campaign on his weaknesses.  His opposition tried to frame him as a weak leader when he first ran as the Liberal leader.  He played up his leadership skills.  His face appeared on Liberal posters.

The NDP is very strong on the environment and health care.  This is just my own feeling, but the party is likely perceive by Canadians as being weaker on the economy than the other parties.  This may not actually be true as we have had provincial NDP governments run budget surpluses (or at least reduced the deficit from previous governments).  However, perceptions still exist.  I do think that Tom Mulcair will campaign the NDP's perceived weakness on economic issues and make the weakness into a strength.  I do think that the environment and health care will still be mentioned by Tom Mulcair.  However, these will likely become issues 2 and 3 (or 3 and 2).

I would love for Mr. Mulcair to mention voting reform in the next campaign.  I am realistic enough to know that it won't be issue number 1.  I would be happy if it becomes issue number 5 or 7 under the heading of democratic renewal.  If we like the system of one-man government, if we like how Harper operates--one man against the Canadian people--then we can stick with the current voting system.  If we want a democratic voting system that includes all Canadians, then support the NDP.   That is a framing example.

KenS wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The thing that started to pull people towards the NDP over the past few years was actually health care. Not to say that it's everything, but it was the beachhead.

I dont think that is actually true.

From all of our internal polling for years before getting government, integrity was overwhelmingly our biggest 'asset' here. And I think That may be more true than is realized elsewhere, including federaly.

The BC NDP crashed and burned on integrity. Dix's frozen in the headlights response to the questions about his memo backdating was the end of the campaign for the party. Saying I was only 35 when I screwed up is not good enough. When you couple that with Moe Sihota as the Pres, with his lack of integrity, the NDP got hammered.

Of course we all know that the government was far more corrupt than anything the NDP ever did but that is not what was played over and over ever day on the most popular radio stations.

Good advice.