Pretty much sums up the whole campaign really when viewed through the lens of Toronto Star reportage. TorStar summarizing what the ONDP is really saying, or should be saying, or would be saying, if it were not for the dastardly Horwath, and not reporting what the ONDP was actually saying on things like transit, which Tabuns observes didn't get "coverage".
NDP denies Andrea Horwath set to resign as leader
Fri, 2014-07-11 23:33
#252
Sat, 2014-07-12 01:58
#253
Saying that it isn't the media's fault that the ONDP didn't win, is not the same as saying that the media fairly represented the ONDP. Most of the coverage of the NDP, at least as far as the Toronto Star was concerned is as you see it here: heavily editorialized.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath is finally acknowledging the shortcomings of her recent campaign after the New Democrats’ two surviving Toronto MPPs publicly criticized the party’s strategy.After weeks of downplaying the defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals on June 12, which saw the New Democrats lose the balance of power in a minority legislature, Horwath on Tuesday conceded “the result of this election campaign was bittersweet.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and all you need to do to see the functioning of the Toronto Star sycophants locker room in action is to follow the link under "downplaying" in the above quote. Where does it lead? An editorial by Reg Cohn.
And so, an editorial by Reg Cohn becomes the basis of the "fact" that establishes that Horwath has been "downplaying defeat"... for weeks, no less.
Here is what it might look like when written as "reportage", which means to report:
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath spoke to reporters at Queens Park, after the New Democrats’ two surviving Toronto MPPs publicly criticized the party’s strategy, in the wake of defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals on June 12, which saw the New Democrats lose the balance of power in a minority legislature, Horwath on Tuesday said “the result of this election campaign was bittersweet.”
Why this? Because she didn't "acknowledge" any shortcomings of the campaign. She said the results were "bittersweet". She said that the results in Toronto were "troubling".
Maybe she should "acknowledge the shortcomings of the campaign", but she didn't. She talked about the "shortcomings of the result of the campaign", which was "bittersweet".
But the job a reporter is to report on what was said, not on what he wanted to be said, or thinks should have been said, or what it meant, but on what was said.
Sat, 2014-07-12 06:34
#254
Two points before I fully wake up this morning:
1. Let's recall the 2011 election. The NDP was polling into the mid to high 20s, up from about 16% the previous election. Andrea was judged to have won the debate and her personal numbers were high. McGuinty looked like he was in trouble and in fact lost his majority.
So the Toronto Star went into high gear to protect the Liberals. I remember commenting on Babble that I had never seen the Star attack the NDP so vigourously. But the attack was that the NDP was too economically dangerous, too irresponsible, too left-wing.
This time the Star again perceived the NDP as a threat to Liberal power but shifted gears and attacked the NDP as too RIGHT-WING and Andrea as lacking in principles! And the ferocity of the attacks exceeded even 2011. Someone commented, perhaps on Babble, that there were something like 22 op ed attacks on the NDP in the Star during the election and only about two others that were even neutral.
I'm sure we can all see the irony in this. But why should we just accept the Toronto Star line when it has shown such blatant inconsistency and bias? The Star has become even more biased in favour of the Liberals than the Sun has been in favour of the Conservatives.
2. Which leads to the Group of 34 (I stress again only FIVE of whom were actually NDP members). Their message played perfectly into the Star meme that the NDP had lost its soul and that the Liberals (cough, cough) are the true progressives.
There is a spirited debate here about who leaked the letter. I have a recollection that one of the signatories (and I forget whom) was quoted in the press as saying in effect that "we wrote the letter becaue we wanted those thousands of disillusioned New Democrats out there to know that someone shares thier concerns."
So think about that. Is that not an admission that someone behind the letter wanted it to be publicized?
Sat, 2014-07-12 07:51
#255
I have a recollection that one of the signatories (and I forget whom) was quoted in the press as saying in effect that "we wrote the letter becaue we wanted those thousands of disillusioned New Democrats out there to know that someone shares thier concerns."So think about that. Is that not an admission that someone behind the letter wanted it to be publicized?
Not really. At least not without a name and an actual quote. You know... something like this:
"The letter was leaked one hour after it was sent to Andrea. At that time only four of the signers had the full list if signatories and none of them leaked it." - Judy Rebick via Facebook
Sat, 2014-07-12 10:19
#256
Whether it was the bias media, or the group of 34 of the strategic voting angle. At the end of the day the bucks stops with the leader.
Andrea needs to take responsibility for any outcome that has taken place in this election. As she is leader of the party
It is that simple.
Sat, 2014-07-12 11:12
#257
Not really. At least not without a name and an actual quote. You know... something like this:
"The letter was leaked one hour after it was sent to Andrea. At that time only four of the signers had the full list if signatories and none of them leaked it." - Judy Rebick via Facebook
Do you have a link? I don't see anything about that here - https://www.facebook.com/judy.rebick
Sat, 2014-07-12 13:47
#258
"The letter was leaked one hour after it was sent to Andrea. At that time only four of the signers had the full list if signatories and none of them leaked it." - Judy Rebick via Facebook
How can she be so sure one of her four co-conspirators didn't leak it? I repeat - NO ONE had any incentive to leak that letter excecpt Judy Rebick and her Liberal party allies.
I think Judy Rebick's attitude towards the NDP is essentially "If i can't control and manipulate the party as i wish then i will destroy it". I think Rebick's biggest disappointment is that despite her efforts the NDP still gained votes and held its own in seats. i think she was hoping for a much worse results so she could say "I told you so".
What are the odds that Rebick and her 33 friends start writing nasty letters to Olivia Chow so they can claim credit for making her lose to John Tory? IMHO, its just a matter of time.
Sat, 2014-07-12 14:33
#259
"The letter was leaked one hour after it was sent to Andrea. At that time only four of the signers had the full list if signatories and none of them leaked it." - Judy Rebick via Facebook
How can she be so sure one of her four co-conspirators didn't leak it? I repeat - NO ONE had any incentive to leak that letter excecpt Judy Rebick and her Liberal party allies.
I think Judy Rebick's attitude towards the NDP is essentially "If i can't control and manipulate the party as i wish then i will destroy it". I think Rebick's biggest disappointment is that despite her efforts the NDP still gained votes and held its own in seats. i think she was hoping for a much worse results so she could say "I told you so".
What are the odds that Rebick and her 33 friends start writing nasty letters to Olivia Chow so they can claim credit for making her lose to John Tory? IMHO, its just a matter of time.
It's a little more petty than that. They won't come after Chow because Chow is a sacrosanct icon of the Toronto progressive left, so despite the fact that Horwath's centrist "pitch" was ripped line for line from Chow's mayor campaign, Chow is insulated from an attack from the "progressive" intelligentsia because on the one hand she is a compromise candidate acceptable in Toronto as the Ford nemisis, and on the other because a campaign against her supposed compromising her "principles" would never gain traction: no one would by the idea that Chow is "right-wing", she is too deeply rooted in the community for anyone to do anything but laugh.
Horwath doesn't have those connections, or legacy, so it was possible to frame her that way.
In a larger sense the attack on Horwath has taken on the shape of urban chauvinism, simply because Horwath doesn't have Toronto "connections" with the urban intelligentsia that Chow or Wynne share.
Sat, 2014-07-12 14:40
#260
So if I understand the Horwath conspiracy theory it runs like this;
- The Group of 34 send her their letter intending it to be private and only constructive criticism.
- Within ONE HOUR Andrea and her evil braintrust leak it to the press in order to show they are independent of the left wing in the party and thereby attract right wing populist voters.
- None of these brilliant braintrusters even consider that the letter might do the party harm, even in the face of the narrative already being spun that the NDP has lost its soul.
- None of the Group of 34 nor the other hundered recipients of the letter release it or send it to anyone who does.
Now really?
Several of you uncritically take Judy R at her word while readily attributing the worst of motives to Andrea.
I wouldn't be so fast. I vividly remember the interview with Judy on As It Happens the night before the federal NDP leadership vote. She stridently attacked Tom Mulcair for wanting to lead the party to the right and for practicing a "macho style of politics." Her tone was quite frantic and over the top, utterly devoid of reasoned analysis.She clearly wanted to do Tom harm.
On that occasion she had no qualms about publicly denouncing the party going in a direction she did not like, regardless of any damge she might do to the likely next leader. I suspect strongly that she did she did it again with Andrea.
As Alice Funcke said on Pundits Guide, "Judy Rebick buys an NDP membership just before every election so that she can rip it up during the campaign."
Sat, 2014-07-12 15:09
#261
I have a recollection that one of the signatories (and I forget whom) was quoted in the press as saying in effect that "we wrote the letter becaue we wanted those thousands of disillusioned New Democrats out there to know that someone shares thier concerns."So think about that. Is that not an admission that someone behind the letter wanted it to be publicized?
Not really. At least not without a name and an actual quote. You know... something like this:
"The letter was leaked one hour after it was sent to Andrea. At that time only four of the signers had the full list if signatories and none of them leaked it." - Judy Rebick via Facebook
Wasn't her initital comment something like "that was fast"?
So that is four suspects. Moreover, you don't know how many "signatories" were on the list of the letter that was originally leaked "one hour after it was sent". The letter might have been leaked first, without the full list, and then someone else later leaked the full list of names, thinking that the whole list "might as well" go out, after the initial leak.
You don't know. No one knows. It is all speculation.
A letter with 34 signatories is a sieve.
My speculation is that even in the dark dungeon where Horwath and her satanic cabal perform ritual sacrifices on the altar of their patron god Margaret Thatcher, a decision to leak the letter as part of a hair-brained plot to "distance themselves" from the past would not have been taken on an hours notice.
Let's get real here, it would take longer than an hour for Giselle to locate a baby for a virgin sacrifice, and then read the omens in the entrails.
Sorry. They are not so stupid to make a decision like that on a whim.
Sat, 2014-07-12 15:09
#262
So if I understand the Horwath conspiracy theory it runs like this;
- The Group of 34 send her their letter intending it to be private and only constructive criticism.
- Within ONE HOUR Andrea and her evil braintrust leak it to the press in order to show they are independent of the left wing in the party and thereby attract right wing populist voters.
- None of these brilliant braintrusters even consider that the letter might do the party harm, even in the face of the narrative already being spun that the NDP has lost its soul.
- None of the Group of 34 nor the other hundered recipients of the letter release it or send it to anyone who does.
Now really?
Several of you uncritically take Judy R at her word while readily attributing the worst of motives to Andrea.
Rule number one in political communications: Don't ever say anything in a digital communication today that you are not prepared to defend should it appear on the front page of the Globe and Mail tomorrow. Even if it's not outright malicious, it reflects a stunning ignorance of how political campaigns work in the digital age.
Sat, 2014-07-12 15:24
#263
I vividly remember the interview with Judy on As It Happens the night before the federal NDP leadership vote. She stridently attacked Tom Mulcair for wanting to lead the party to the right and for practicing a "macho style of politics." Her tone was quite frantic and over the top, utterly devoid of reasoned analysis.She clearly wanted to do Tom harm.On that occasion she had no qualms about publicly denouncing the party going in a direction she did not like, regardless of any damge she might do to the likely next leader. I suspect strongly that she did she did it again with Andrea.
As Alice Funcke said on Pundits Guide, "Judy Rebick buys an NDP membership just before every election so that she can rip it up during the campaign."
And such behaviour on the part of people like Rebick only enables the NDP brass to ignore legitimate questions that are raised about NDP tactics or the NDP acting in an unprincipled fashion.
Sat, 2014-07-12 15:39
#264
That is true too.
Sat, 2014-07-12 22:18
#265
Sorry. They are not so stupid to make a decision like that on a whim.
Politicians who are so stupid that they would publicly announce that they are going to bring down the government in the budget vote when they have no campaign prepared, either in terms of platform or in terms of organization, are stupid enough to do pretty much anything on a whim.
Sat, 2014-07-12 22:36
#266
Yes, well your preposition leads you to your conclusion, much like the rest of the circular chain of mutually supporting arguments based on apriori assumptions, without fatual basis, sustained on the premise of a theoretical motive without evidence.
A conspiracy theory, in short. As I said, "my speculation is...". since I know nothing, which I offered since people are basing their entire premise on speculation that assumes both a highly tenuous hypothesis, and a great deal of actual malice, without the slightest bit of evidence, other than the conlusion that Horwath is "stupid", which is clearly not true, and basically evil.
Once we get to the point where people are being charachterized as essentially malevolent, and where their"evil intent" is used as the sole proof needed to sustain an theory, it usually means we have stepped off the pier of reasonable discussion and into the murky waters of paranoid dellusions.
Sat, 2014-07-12 22:56
#267
I repeat - NO ONE had any incentive to leak that letter excecpt Judy Rebick and her Liberal party allies.
That would be more persuasive if this discussion was limited to explaining the behaviour of thoughtful, competent people. If you examine their record, it's pretty easy to make the case that the people running the ONDP are neither. Is there anybody here who would argue that the Guildwood disaster was evidence of anything other than the people in charge acting without consideration of anything other than what they want? Is there any evidence of impulse control in their behaviour? I have no trouble picturing an angry Andrea or a massively pissed off Giselle doing things that a more thoughtful person would be inclined to think about more carefully. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face did not became a cliche because this kind of behaviour is uncommon.
I don't know the truth of what happened. I don't deny the possibility that Rebick's cabal released the letter. Rebick is as much a piece of work as any of the other players in this melodrama, and there are a few others just as full of themselves on the signature list. However, I have no faith whatsoever in the judgement or scruples of Andrea's crew and would not put anything past them. Their capacity for malice AND idiocy is pretty much boundless.
Just for the sake of discussion, if there was a deliberate plan to create a perception of the ONDP as different from past incarnations, what would be the downside of releasing the letter, from the perspective of the people who were responsible for the plan?
Sat, 2014-07-12 23:18
#268
I evidenced what I wrote about the bias in the Toronto Star using their own copy. I did so above. I just have to read it. It is available to all.
Sat, 2014-07-12 23:20
#269
Yes, well your preposition leads you to your conclusion, much like the rest of the circular chain of mutually supporting arguments based on apriori assumptions, without fatual basis, sustained on the premise of a theoretical motive without evidence.
A conspiracy theory, in short. As I said, "my speculation is...". since I know nothing, which I offered since people are basing their entire premise on speculation that assumes both a highly tenuous hypothesis, and a great deal of actual malice, without the slightest bit of evidence, other than the conlusion that Horwath is "stupid", which is clearly not true, and basically evil.
Once we get to the point where people are being charachterized as essentially malevolent, and where their"evil intent" is used as the sole proof needed to sustain an theory, it usually means we have stepped off the pier of reasonable discussion and into the murky waters of paranoid dellusions.
Sticks and stones. You should go back and read what you write about the news media before you get too deeply into insulting other people's argumentation.
Regardless, my premise is that the available evidence, from the recent election and from a series of incidents dating back to Horwath's assuming the leadership, is that the leader is incompetent and nasty. The recent election campaign was an inept mess, and only a willfully blind partisan would fail to see the evidence for that.
Andrea Horwath is not a nice person, whatever her carefully crafted public persona might lead people to believe. If you can offer an explanation other than plain stupidity for her yapping about her budget vote plans without being ready for the consequences, I'm waiting to hear it. Most of what I'm getting from you is that there was nothing wrong with the campaign and whatever went wrong was Judy Rebick and the Star's fault. I'm not sure this rises to the level of delusion, but it is good evidence that da Nile ain't just a river in Egypt, to borrow a phrase.
Edited for spelling.
Sat, 2014-07-12 23:33
#270
I evidenced what I wrote about the bias in the Toronto Star using their own copy. I did so above. I just have to read it. It is available to all.
The fact that the Star has an association with the Liberal Party has been common knowledge since the 19th Century. Although Joseph Atkinson was pretty picky about maintaining independence of editorial control when he became publisher, it was largely the Liberal establishment of the day that recruited him to the position. He laid down the principles that have governed editorial policy to this day. So your discovery of this particular scandal is rather old news. It's your vivid extrapolations from the single point of this unsurprising fact of Canadian political life to pithy conclusions about personal motivation and consequences in the larger political realm that make me wince.
Sat, 2014-07-12 23:53
#271
I don't have to evidence the connections of the Star to the Liberal party in order to show precisely how they engage in editorialization under the guise of "news" and not as editorials.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath is finally acknowledging the shortcomings of her recent campaign after the New Democrats’ two surviving Toronto MPPs publicly criticized the party’s strategy.After weeks of downplaying the defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals on June 12, which saw the New Democrats lose the balance of power in a minority legislature, Horwath on Tuesday conceded “the result of this election campaign was bittersweet.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and all you need to do to see the functioning of the Toronto Star sycophants locker room in action is to follow the link under "downplaying" in the above quote. Where does it lead? An editorial by Reg Cohn.
And so, an editorial by Reg Cohn becomes the basis of the "fact" that establishes that Horwath has been "downplaying defeat"... for weeks, and is "finally acknowledging the shortcomings of her recent campaign".
Here is what it might look like when written as "reportage", which means to report:
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath spoke to reporters at Queens Park, after the New Democrats’ two surviving Toronto MPPs publicly criticized the party’s strategy, in the wake of defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals on June 12, which saw the New Democrats lose the balance of power in a minority legislature, Horwath on Tuesday said “the result of this election campaign was bittersweet.”
Why this? Because she didn't "acknowledge" any shortcomings of the campaign. She said the results were "bittersweet". She said that the results in Toronto were "troubling".
Maybe she should "acknowledge the shortcomings of the campaign", but she didn't. She talked about the "shortcomings of the result of the campaign", which was "bittersweet".
But the job a reporter is to report on what was said, not on what he wanted to be said, or thinks should have been said, or what it meant, but on what was said.
Sun, 2014-07-13 00:31
#272
I don't have to evidence the connections of the Star to the Liberal party in order to show precisely how they engage in editorialization under the guise of "news" and not as editorials.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath is finally acknowledging the shortcomings of her recent campaign after the New Democrats’ two surviving Toronto MPPs publicly criticized the party’s strategy.After weeks of downplaying the defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals on June 12, which saw the New Democrats lose the balance of power in a minority legislature, Horwath on Tuesday conceded “the result of this election campaign was bittersweet.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and all you need to do to see the functioning of the Toronto Star sycophants locker room in action is to follow the link under "downplaying" in the above quote. Where does it lead? An editorial by Reg Cohn.
And so, an editorial by Reg Cohn becomes the basis of the "fact" that establishes that Horwath has been "downplaying defeat"... for weeks, and is "finally acknowledging the shortcomings of her recent campaign".
Here is what it might look like when written as "reportage", which means to report:
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath spoke to reporters at Queens Park, after the New Democrats’ two surviving Toronto MPPs publicly criticized the party’s strategy, in the wake of defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals on June 12, which saw the New Democrats lose the balance of power in a minority legislature, Horwath on Tuesday said “the result of this election campaign was bittersweet.”Why this? Because she didn't "acknowledge" any shortcomings of the campaign. She said the results were "bittersweet". She said that the results in Toronto were "troubling".
Maybe she should "acknowledge the shortcomings of the campaign", but she didn't. She talked about the "shortcomings of the result of the campaign", which was "bittersweet".
But the job a reporter is to report on what was said, not on what he wanted to be said, or thinks should have been said, or what it meant, but on what was said.
The first point that has to be made is that this is a column, and therefore opinion, not a news article. Writing opinion is his job as the provincial affairs columnist. It's also not terribly surprising that the article includes hyperlinks to other pieces by the same author on subjects which appear in the article.
Making a meal out of the ambiguous use of the word campaign is questionable. It gets used in a bunch of different ways. Organizers tend to use it in the sense of an overall plan for the campaign period, but it can also be shorthand for the campaign period itself and a bunch of other related stuff. Writers on politics do the same sort of thing,using the word in various ways, so barring some clear definition of the term, it's not much to get worked up about.
I happen to agree with you that Horwath has been entirely mealy-mouthed about the aftermath of the election, although I doubt that you would express it that way. Adopting a pensive demeanour and tossing out words like bittersweet are no substitute for an honest appraisal of the campaign, in all of the contexts in which the word get used, and some frank discussion with the party about the future. Even assuming that he meant the campaign planning and execution of the ONDP, Cohn can be excused, I think, for interpreting her words and tone as evidence that Horwath had shifted gears and started a time of genuine reflection. That's what you would expect from a reasonable person. Why he would expect anything but smoke and mirrors from Andrea I really can't say.
Sun, 2014-07-13 00:48
#273
No it isn't a column. It is published as "News" in the Queens Park section of the Newspaper. And Robert Benzie's is not listed as a "Columnist" for the Toronto Star, he is the Queens Park "Bureah Chief". Regg Cohn is described as writing an "Ontario politics column for the Toronto Star."
Sun, 2014-07-13 01:05
#274
"Working with Ian Urquhart, the Star’s former Queen’s Park columnist, McGuinty is writing a political memoir to be published next year by Dundurn."
Good god. It's like an Appellation hill tribe.
Sun, 2014-07-13 01:09
#275
Your buddy's latest is a nice piece about how the "maligned" (defame, slander, libel, blacken someone's name/character, smear.) is now rehabilitated.
Dalton McGuinty returns to the spotlight — relaxed, renewed, redeemed
The maligned former premier, having returned from exile at Harvard, is pleased to discover, post-Liberal majority, that he is back in the political fold and no longer radioactive to Bay St. He’s also working on his political memoirs, to be published next year.
These people wear there political preferences emblazoned on their forehead and publish their opinions as "news".
Dalton McGuinty was "malinged"? Seriously! No legitimate criticism of his tenure at all? Just smears?
They have already started dusting off the skeletons in the Liberal closet, and are buffing them up for resale.
He is "redeemed" no less.
They couldn't dig up a single critic for some counter-comment?
Sun, 2014-07-13 02:17
#276
No it isn't a column. It is published as "News" in the Queens Park section of the Newspaper. And Robert Benzie's is not listed as a "Columnist" for the Toronto Star, he is the Queens Park "Bureah Chief". Regg Cohn is described as writing an "Ontario politics column for the Toronto Star."
OK, fair enough. I should have read more closely.
I know that the Star will almost always plump for the Liberals at every level of politics. They did it for Barbara Hall over David Miller. When he won, they ran a scandalous campaign of destruction against Miller in favour of the absurd George Smitherman that is a principle reason for Toronto being saddled with Rob Ford. I get that.
But David Miller did manage to win election in spite of the Star. He did it by running a smart, extremely well organized campaign that spoke to people in a way they could relate to, not just a way they could understand.
News media bias is a fact of life. Everywhere. There are ways to beat it; they all begin with not helping them undermine you by acting like fools. I agree with Peter Tabuns. The news media did not cause the ONDP to finish in third against an extreme right-wing fringe platform offered by Tim Hudak and the corrupt legacy of McGuinty. Raging against their transgressions is pointless. In fact, it is worse than pointless in that it provides cover for people who should be held to account. Understanding what was done, what was done right, what was done wrong, what was not done and who was responsible for all of that is where the effort needs to go. That is only going to happen if it is demanded by people whose memberships underwrite the existence of the party, forcefully and persistently.
I am baffled that anybody who paid attention to the first three weeks of that campaign could conclude that it was run by competent people. It was embarrassing. It was also entirely predictable if you had any prior experience in election planning and were familiar with the ONDP's senior people. I was one of many people communicating with MPPs, staff and executive as the writ date approached. I was blunt about my belief that the party was entirely unprepared to go to the polls and incapable of preparing in a timely fashion without major changes in staffing and a serious platform development exercise. I got one response that can be charitably described as predictable. That was more response than a lot of folks got. It was excruciating to watch a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to seize the intiative from struggling opponents frittered away by a team of lightweights that couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, and who would not listen to anything from anybody outside the circle of the annointed. What happened was contemptible. Dissecting the predictable biases of news media coverage of the circus will do nothing to change that, excuse that or diminish the hurt it has done to the party's future prospects.
Sun, 2014-07-13 03:00
#277
Pointing out bias in the media is pointless? Why?
Misinformation should be challenged, in favour of the truth.
The truth is that Andrea Horwath has not, and probably never will "acknowlege the shortcoming's of the campaign". That isn't the way of professional politicians. Sorry. It just isn't. Discussion of policy, errors and criticism should always be handled under wraps until a clear understanding and a clear message can be established.
That is political professionalism. Tabuns, is a good example of that, DiNovo not.
It's ridiculous to expect a no holds barred war in the media. That is political suicide. That is what Benzie is trying to foment.
Sun, 2014-07-13 04:31
#278
I know that the Star will almost always plump for the Liberals at every level of politics. They did it for Barbara Hall over David Miller. When he won, they ran a scandalous campaign of destruction against Miller in favour of the absurd George Smitherman that is a principle reason for Toronto being saddled with Rob Ford. I get that.
That is actually incorrect. The Star editorially endorsed Miller in 2003 and supposedly it was a very close internal vote for Miller over Tory. By the time the Star put out an endorsement a week before election day, Hall had already plummeted to single digits and was no longer a factor. You are right though that the Star later turned against Miller and went on a vicious vendetta against him 2007-2010 for reasons that have never been clear to me.
Sun, 2014-07-13 05:04
#279
That was because the Liberals wanted to sort out city hall in the wake of the decision to "delay" (as then Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne put it) 4b in funding for Transit City. Shortfalls in the provincial budget caused by the corporate tax cut program and the failure of the economy to perk up changed the financial picture for the province and they were unable to fulfill their commitment.
Instead, McGuinty wanted to implement a partially privatized model for transit expansion, and Miller attacked McGuinty for reneging on his promise, and refused the P3 plan. No longer the "good soldier" the Star went on the rampage as part of the prelude to bringing in Smitherman who was tapped to be the Liberal man in Toronto.
That is perhaps a little too "instrumentalist" but the negative vibe was transmitted loud and clear through the official organ of the Liberal party in Toronto.
Mon, 2014-07-14 11:10
#280
Andrea needs to find a new base of support. With the election of Kathleen Wynne as Liberal leader, she made inroads by stealing both the women's vote and the LGBT vote from the NDP. Now she has scooped up the labor vote. the immigrant vote and middle class voters with her majority.
With Wynne staking out so much of the left plank and building that coalition of women, LGBT, labor, immigrants and middle-class voters, where does that leave Andrea and the NDP?
As Christina Blizzard of the Toronto Sun says
Eventually, hard-core socialist parties have to face the cold hard facts that they’re unlikely to come to power on their 19th-century view of the world.
Britain’s Tony Blair faced the same dilemma when he adopted his “Third Way” and modernized the party. He abandoned traditional socialist values of state control, high taxes and a slavish devotion to unions in favour of a more populist and pragmatic political agenda.
The past campaign may have been poorly executed. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right track for the party to take.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/09/andrea-horwath-under-fire-from-with...
Mon, 2014-07-14 12:09
#281
The TorStar is one thing...but the real issue is communication AND message.
What Horwath needs to do now is to challenge the narrative that says that you either have to be pro-Toronto or pro-everywhere else in Ontario. That narrative is designed(by the Liberals and their allies, and to a lesser degree by the PC's)to eternally pit Toronto against other parts of the province, mainly to make life harder for the ONDP.
Horwath should work, starting now(since she's got four whole years to prep for the next campaign)to craft a message of change that puts Toronto and the rest of the province on the same side...that points out that all of urban Ontario has common needs(on transit, for example, she might propose full restoration of provincial passenger rail service and extension of that service from the Northern route to all major urban areas, with stops at as many rural towns as possible).
And she needs to revive the "Tax the Rich" proposal and say it loudly. That idea has legs, and is populist in the same way as Horwath's proposals for middle-class tax cuts. Saying both with equal force would do a lot to dispel the notion that Horwath has swallowed the neoliberal koolaid. This needs to be repeated by her over and over again...and through as many means as possible, including social media.
The only way the ONDP can get more votes is to make it clear that it is always going to be different than the old parties. Blurring the differences at all is the path to long-term third-place status, followed by extinction.
Mon, 2014-07-14 14:41
#282
Terry T would have us believe that the Liberals made massive advances in key demographics:
"Wynne made inroads by stealing both the women's vote and the LGBT vote from the NDP. Now she has scooped up the labor vote. the immigrant vote and middle class voters with her majority.
With Wynne staking out so much of the left plank and building that coalition of women, LGBT, labor, immigrants and middle-class voters, where does that leave Andrea and the NDP?"
In fact the Liberal gains were minimal at best, precisely 1% of the popiular vote over 2011, actually slightly less than the increase in the NDP vote.
The Liberlas were fotunate in concentrating their gains in central Toronto where they gained 3 NDP seats and the outer GTA where they gained several from the Cons. In other regions, especially the south-west the Liberals were in retreat.
Mon, 2014-07-14 17:11
#283
Not really. At least not without a name and an actual quote. You know... something like this:
"The letter was leaked one hour after it was sent to Andrea. At that time only four of the signers had the full list if signatories and none of them leaked it." - Judy Rebick via Facebook
Do you have a link? I don't see anything about that here - https://www.facebook.com/judy.rebick[/quote]
Yeah... that's the link. It's right there in the comments under a post from May 24.
Mon, 2014-07-14 17:16
#284
How can she be so sure one of her four co-conspirators didn't leak it? I repeat - NO ONE had any incentive to leak that letter excecpt Judy Rebick and her Liberal party allies.
That's easy to say now, but before the polls closed there were people who thought it might help the NDP.
Mon, 2014-07-14 17:34
#285
Pogo
So the argument is that they put together this letter and fully anticipated that even though it would be widely distributed that it would never find its way outside inside channels. Don't you agree that this stretches crediibility?
Mon, 2014-07-14 17:50
#286
Terry T would have us believe that the Liberals made massive advances in key demographics:
"Wynne made inroads by stealing both the women's vote and the LGBT vote from the NDP. Now she has scooped up the labor vote. the immigrant vote and middle class voters with her majority.
With Wynne staking out so much of the left plank and building that coalition of women, LGBT, labor, immigrants and middle-class voters, where does that leave Andrea and the NDP?"
In fact the Liberal gains were minimal at best, precisely 1% of the popiular vote over 2011, actually slightly less than the increase in the NDP vote.
The Liberlas were fotunate in concentrating their gains in central Toronto where they gained 3 NDP seats and the outer GTA where they gained several from the Cons. In other regions, especially the south-west the Liberals were in retreat.
What matters is seats, and she got a majority.
Svend Robinson long advocated to build a 'rainbow' coalition as an electorate. With young activists and environmentals, along with the LGBT community, labor & unions and immigrants.
Instead of taking that tack, Andrea focused on Rob Ford voters. The Tim Hortons/Toronto Sun electorate. Taking her urban voters for granted, hence the letter from the NDP 34.
In the meantime Wynne put together her own coalition that Svend advocated.
Andrea is in a pickle right now, because she and the PC are going after the same voters. The working class in rural Ontario.
While Wynne is scoring high in the urban areas, where she cultivated that coalition of support.
So where is Andrea suppose to go now that Wynne had the left & center plank all sewn up?
Mon, 2014-07-14 18:06
#287
The election is over and nothing is "sewn up"
The last election included a great deal of strategic voting against the PCPO.
The third party will always do poorly in strategic voting if that party does not provide enough of a reason to have people vote for it; show enough of a difference from the other choices; inspire people. The NDP in the last campaign failed all of those.
The Rebick letter was not the big problem. The fact that many people could not see a strongly articulated different direction from the NDP was devastating. A weak platform, weakly defended, coupled with absolute fear of what a PCPO government could do, led to the NDP being abandonned by most of those who were not part of the NDP core voters. This, in the context of such poor alternatives.
Interestingly I would also say that the NDP did not project an overly positive campaign. I think the tone of the Liberal campaign was mostly positive, the PC campaign was profoundly negative and the NDP campaign did not have a great deal of focus but was as negative as it was positive. In part this is related to their psoitions-- it is harder for a third place party to remain positive.
Mon, 2014-07-14 19:50
#288
The election is over and nothing is "sewn up"
So how will Andrea win back the LGBT and women's vote?
That is Wynne's territory, and she is not going let go of that coalition she has worked to get.
Especially when Andrea is still running on a Rob Ford type platform by appealing to the Toronto Sun/Tim Horton's voter?
Mon, 2014-07-14 22:48
#289
So how will Andrea win back the LGBT and women's vote?
Since when is there a "women's vote" or a "LGBT vote"? Women are over half the population and they vote for all parties. I suspect that the only time the NDP has EVER won a plurality of the so-called "women's vote" in Ontario was in 1990 - when they may well have won a plurality of the men's vote too! To speak of Andrea "winning back" the so-called LGBT and women's vote" (sic.) implies that those votes ever belonged to her in the first place. In 2011 the NDP under Horwath too 23% of the vote. In 2014 they took 24% - are you suggesting that somehow in going from 23% to 24% - ther NDP went from "owning" the votes of women and LGBT people to having none of them??? explain how that math works? Is this "new math"??
If anything most polling suggests that the NDP did at least as well with women in 2014 against a Wynne-led OLP as it did in 2011 when the OLP was led by Dalton McGuinty. Horwath is very appealing in particular to women outside the GTA and those with lower incomes (but I guess THOSE women don't count to you - they might be those yucky people who read the Toronto Sun and wear polyester).
The one riding in Ontario that is thought to have a large enough LGBT community to swing an election is Toronto Centre - and the Ontario NDP has NEVER EVER won that riding in the first place - LGBT people vote for all different parties for all kinds of reasons and cannot be pigeonholed. Toronto-Danforth has a very large LGBT community as well and it re-elected Peter Tabuns by a comfortable margin. so go figure.
Let's not be a bunch of generals trying to refight the last war. In 2018 after Wynne has broken every single promise she made in the election campaign and has gone on a privatization binge and fired vast numbers of public servants in order to keep her promise to balance the budget - she may have to struggle very hard to hold on to what ever support she supposedly gained this year from woman and LGBT people and she will likely be Public Enemy Number 1 to the labour movment as well.
Mon, 2014-07-14 23:00
#290
The TorStar is one thing...but the real issue is communication AND message.
That concept is precisely the problem. As Tabuns observed the ONDP "put out a message on transit" but it got no coverage. The Star had its own message that it wanted to relay.
Regardless of the message, the establishment media will formulate their own.
The real lesson of this campaign, which is true both of the Horwath camp, and her detractors is that you "can't win for losing" with the establishment media, and the NDP needs to learn how to operate beyond the media, where they are trapped in politics beyond their control.
Mon, 2014-07-14 23:15
#291
As Tabuns observed the ONDP "put out a message on transit" but it got no coverage. The Star had its own message that it wanted to relay.
Yes they had a message on transit - but it was too little too late. The NDP under Horwath spent the last two years avoiding saying ANYTHING about transit except to say that they were against almost any mechanisms to pay for it...then finally during the election campaign they came out with a reasonably good transit policy - but it didn't make up for years of taking no position at all - they weren't able to regain all the ground they lost by being dead silent on transit issues for years.
Mon, 2014-07-14 23:41
#292
As Tabuns observed the ONDP "put out a message on transit" but it got no coverage. The Star had its own message that it wanted to relay.
Yes they had a message on transit - but it was too little too late. The NDP under Horwath spent the last two years avoiding saying ANYTHING about transit except to say that they were against almost any mechanisms to pay for it...then finally during the election campaign they came out with a reasonably good transit policy - but it didn't make up for years of taking no position at all - they weren't able to regain all the ground they lost by being dead silent on transit issues for years.
The problem is that any concrete plan proposed before an election campaign will find its way into the Liberal policy book, even if it is a pale simalacrum, such as the Liberal RRSP pension plan posing as a CPP like pension plan, which it is not.
Tue, 2014-07-15 02:39
#293
The election is over and nothing is "sewn up"
So how will Andrea win back the LGBT and women's vote?
That is Wynne's territory, and she is not going let go of that coalition she has worked to get.
Especially when Andrea is still running on a Rob Ford type platform by appealing to the Toronto Sun/Tim Horton's voter?
Wow, you think everyone should concede the next election to be held 4 years from now? If other Liberals think this you will all be doomed. Who knows what will happen? Lots of risks for Liberals and by then how long will they have been in power?
And no-- a voter is not territory and we don't even know who will be leader of any of the parties in the next election. Not a month from the last. This is the start of a long road to the next contest.
Tue, 2014-07-15 02:54
#294
So the argument is that they put together this letter and fully anticipated that even though it would be widely distributed that it would never find its way outside inside channels. Don't you agree that this stretches crediibility?
What I find credible is that two close friends who signed the letter have personally assured me that none of the signatories had anything to do with the leak. That's also what Rebick has stated.
Tue, 2014-07-15 03:57
#295
I doubt the letter was of much consequence outside of marking some "positional" territory for some on the left.
My personal opinion of Rebick has declined substantially because of it, if only because the letter parrots Sid Ryan's positive commentary on the Liberal budget without analysis, and is short on detail as to what precisely was "progressive" about the budget, other than the fact a number of people were repeating this assessment, as if by "rote".
It was basically a re-hash of the accusations made mostly by Liberal commentators, and with little to recommend it. Saying that the NDP "seems to be campaigning from the right", might be dramatic, but doesn't serve as analysis.
It mentions "new" ideas about dealing with social justice issues, and signals the disappointment that the writers felt at Horwath's failure to take them up, but doesn't bother to outline what those "new" ideas are.
There was really nothing at all helpful in it, nor did it offer any serious analysis.
Today, we can look back on the affair in the light of the reality of the "most progressive budget in years" and see that it was clearly not so, as even the Globe and Mail attests to now, in the fresh light of the post-election rumble.
Ontario’s budget: On second thought, this might hurt
The actual budget, the Liberal government’s multi-year spending plan, is an austerity budget. Or at least that’s what’s promised. The budget calls for no new spending for three years. Yes, there are new programs, led by a 10-year, $29-billion fund for roads and public transit, but any new spending initiatives – and there aren’t many – are supposed to take place within that budget envelope. The promise is that program spending will be essentially flat – rising by just one-third of 1 per cent per year – until 2016-17. Given inflation and a growing population, that’s a plan for spending to fall, in real terms, by 3 per cent a year. Government spending is supposed to shrink as a share of the economy, with the goal of eliminating the $12.5-billion deficit and balancing the budget in three years.
Those who clambered onto this band wagon and signed their names to it showed extreme lack of political acumen, or understanding of politics or governance, and allowed themselves to be tricked by a slick PR campaign conducted by the Liberal party in the name of a few pretty baubles on pet issues.
Perhaps Rebick will read the thing the next time it is produced, rather than relying on off-the-cuff commentary, written in haste, by the (hopefully) outgoing president of the OFL, for guidance on the intricacies of government finance, and not allow herself to become a Liberal party talking point.
Tue, 2014-07-15 09:12
#296
In 2011 the NDP under Horwath too 23% of the vote. In 2014 they took 24% - are you suggesting that somehow in going from 23% to 24% - ther NDP went from "owning" the votes of women and LGBT people to having none of them??? explain how that math works? Is this "new math"??
Because at the end of the day it is about seats won, not the popular vote. In Parkdale-High Park and Torotno Danforth the NDP incumbents won their seats by much narrow of margins. And they were both up against no-name candidates, not star candidates.
Remember I told you guys that Cehri Di Novo would be in the political fight of her life, and you all poo-pooed that. And I was right, she only won by less than 600 votes.
Wynne built up a coalition of voters to get that majority. Horwath went after the working class Toronto Sun/Tim Horton's voter.
Horwath might of appealed to women in 2011, but not anymore. Wynne has stolen her female base of support after Horwath took on a populist message that Rob Ford preaches.
It is not helping matters that Horwath is not contrite after the election, but remaining defiant. Even insulting the voters saying they voted out of fear. That is not the way you try to cultivate an electorate.
Tue, 2014-07-15 09:53
#297
Glen Murray announces he won't run in 2018
"Today it sunk in the last election was my last. Promised that if I couldn't make a difference in 8 or 10 yrs I couldn't make a difference."
Tue, 2014-07-15 10:06
#298
Remember I told you guys that Cehri Di Novo would be in the political fight of her life, and you all poo-pooed that. And I was right, she only won by less than 600 votes.
I don't remember anyone "poo pooing" you. It was common knowledge she was in a close race. You also claimed that she would lose the LGBT vote (such that it exists) to the openly gay (and likely self-hating) PC candidate - well that guy got thje same derisory 12% of the vote that the PCs got in that seat in 2011...
Tue, 2014-07-15 10:09
#299
Horwath might of appealed to women in 2011, but not anymore.
I still don't understand your "new math". The NDP took 23% in 2011 and 24% in 2014 - are you suggesting that women dropped the NDP like a hot potate in 2014 but that the NDP more than made up for it by getting more votes from men? Or are you implying that women who are working class and go to Tim Hortons and read the Toronto Sun might not be "real women"?
Tue, 2014-07-15 11:03
#300
Dueling straw men here.
Terrytowel - You are trying to suggest the result of a bad campaign that left the NDP almost where it started after squandering a huge opportunity is somehow a loss of an entire constituency. Hardly. The political opportunity was significant but the NDP is not wiped out here. It will have to do much better over the next few years and in the next campaign. It cannot replace the lost opportunity but is has not lost the vote of women- it just did poorly in that campaign. The next campaign is not predictable at this point. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we are talking about small swings of votes. A swing of 2-3% of eligible voters would have been a major difference-- it would have been a minority and a substantial increase in seats. So the size of the "lost vote" is not all that great. Further, it is not clear when you look at voter participation, whether this vote actually did anything other than stay home.
Stockholm - let's not ignore the significance of the recent electoral loss. The NDP may be up slightly but it ought to have been up a lot more with a lot more seats given the track it had been on. The loss in Toronto is regionally problematic as well. The campaign was unimpressive against damaged opponents. The first step to winning the next election is to admit there is a problem and fix what went wrong. While that does not mean having to accept the propaganda of Liberals, we can at least refrain from claiming success, even relative success, in that campaign.
Put differently:
1) We have a major problem we should not ignore and the campaign was awful
2) The sky is not falling and if the right action is taken recovery is possible in the next election
I'll add:
Recovery in the next campaign is fairly critical as the Liberals are likely to lose substantial votes then as they will be a very old government. If the NDP loses that opportunity it could be the last for a generation. So urgency but not absolute calamity.
Also politically popular or not the NDP has a responsibility to represent disadvantaged people. I don't think we adequately met that responsibility in the last election and we need to do better.
Tue, 2014-07-15 11:37
#301
I am the first to agree that the 2014 Ontario election was a big missed opportunity for the NDP and the fact that they managed to gain ground despite a bad campaign is proof of that. But I am just reacting against these "ex cathedra" and mathematically incorrect sweeping statements like "the ONDP lost the women's vote that it used to own" (sic.).
There is lots of contsructive criticism to make about the NDP campaign - but it accomplishes nothing to just spout a bunch of lies and inaccuracies and if anything it just creates a backlash in favour of the status quo.