If Andrea Horwath found a way to get people to vote NDP instead of voting for Tim Hudak - then the word owes her a debt of gratitude and i hope she keeps up the good work!!!
Wasn't it Kathleen Wynne who did that?
I could have sworn that it was she who defeated Hudak and prevented him from becoming Premier of Ontario.
vast numbers of people wanted to see the Liberals destroyed for all their corruption. Andrea Horwath diverted a lot of those people away from Hudak and indirectly helped the Liberals win. She ran a strong enough campaign to split the anti- corruption vote that might otherwise all have gone PC
You are really spinning now, Stockholm. That's just simply not the case. Horwath may have picked up some votes, but she also lost votes. The bottom line is she wasn't in a position to stop Hudak. Only Wynne was. She was the only one who took substantial support (and almost 10 seats) away from the Conservatives.
The reason is simple. About 95% of the population does not know the difference between right and left and does not vote based on meaningless labels. They vote based on vague notions of who they feel will represent them. You can be sure that a lot of people who voted Liberal in June are voting for Ford as well - just because they see him (erroneously) as a man of the people or as someone who "stands up for the little guy". We have seen this pattern before, some former NDP voters out west started supporting the Reform party in the early 90s. In France the racist Front national doesn't only get support from disaffected traditional rightwing voters - they also get support from people who to vote Communist or Socialist. In the latre 60s and early 70s there were blue collar Democrats in the US who would oscillate between supporting people like Bobby Kennedy or George McGovern or support a populist racist like George Wallace.
If 25% of people who voted NDP in the last election are potentially voting for Rob Ford, then clearly Olivia Chow needs to figure out how to win those people over. I want Ford to get LESS votes not more.
Maybe someone can explain to my how that is that if the Liberals are a supposedly "progressive" party - why are half of Liberal voters in Toronto backing a rightwing plutocrat like John Tory? WHY????
Maybe someone can explain to my how that is that if the Liberals are a supposedly "progressive" party - why are half of Liberal voters in Toronto backing a rightwing plutocrat like John Tory? WHY????
Because the Tory camp has said "If you want to stop Rob Ford you cannot vote for Olivia Chow"
It is that simple.
Rob Ford attacks unions, trashes social programs, cuts transit and library services, wants to privatize everything in sight, is homophobic, hates women, makes racial slurs, beats people up and is a drug addict. Can you explain what any of that has to do with Andrea Horwath who campaigned on major expansions of child care, massive increases in funding for the TTC, increasing the minimum wage and opposing privatization of government services and has been a lifelong crusader for women's rights and gay rights and labour rights?
Stockholm asks "Can you explain what any of that has to do with Andrea Horwath?"
She ran on a Rob Ford type platform and went after his elctorate by spouting populist messaging. In addition she refused to criticize him and his behaviour. Instead she defending him saying he shouldn't be thrown out of office and Wynne shouldn't have snubbed him.
This is a person in your own words "homophobic, hates women, makes racial slurs, beats people up and is a drug addict." and Andrea criticizes Wynne for refusing to meet with a homophobic mayor?
Right now in the current 2014 mayoral race 25% of Toronto NDP voters are supporting Rob Ford. I have no explanation for that. Do you have an explanation for the amount of NDP support Rob Ford currently has Stockholm? Ford is getting almost 25% NDP support, right now TODAY. Explain it Stockholm? Because I can't understand why NDP supporters are supporting Ford. And not supporting NDP icon Olivia Chow.
In 2010 Ford got 48% of the vote in Toronto, polls now shjow him in the mid 20s -
The last forum poll had him at 31% AHEAD of Olivia Chow. The last Nanos poll had him at 28% AHEAD of Olivia Chow. He is getting almost 25% of NDP support. Why Stockholm? Why are NDP supporters going to Ford instead of Chow?
Now today we have learned that a hard core partisan Liberal can't tell the difference between Rob Ford and social democracy.
I can tell the difference, but I don't understand why 25% of NDP voters in Toronto cannot, and thus supporting Rob Ford. And NOT Olivia Chow.
If you can explain it Stockholm please tell us.
If you are the expert here please tell everyone WHY Rob Ford is currently getting support from almost 25% of NDP supporters. And not supporting Olivia Chow
Why Stockholm, WHY!
No one answer this please. I want to hear Stockholm answer and his spin as to WHY almost a quarter of NDP voters are flocking to Rob Ford instead of Olivia Chow. Others can weigh in after Stock answers.
But as recently as late June Chow wa sin 1st place and Tory was running third - yet Liberals refused to back the only progressive candidate for mayor and instead raced over to support a rightwing conservative.
It all goes to show that when the chips are down 100% of the time Liberals will cooperate with rightwing Conservatives before they will cooperate with anyone tied to the NDP. We saw the same thing in January 2006 when Ignatieff decided to prop up Harper rather than form a coalition government with the NDP. Liberal/Tory same old story.
I still don't get how a rightwing union-bashing nutbar like Laurel Broten could ever have been put in a position of power in a supposedly Liberal government? But we know that the main factor that distinguishes Liberals from New Democrats is that Liberals hate unions.
But as recently as late June Chow wa sin 1st place and Tory was running third - yet Liberals refused to back the only progressive candidate for mayor and instead raced over to support a rightwing conservative.
She thought the split on the right would work to her benefit, as she had the entire left plank to herself. She took for granted the goodwill the city has for her and the Layton name.
But Chow is very poor public speaker and couldn't get her messaging across. She couldn't master the art of the 30 second soundbite. She couldn't connect with voters. That is her downfall, if people don't understand the message, they are going to look elsewhere.
I'm part of the 'Anybody but Ford' voters. I just want Ford out and I don't care if it is Chow or Tory. Whoever can beat him will get my vote, as long as it is not Ford.
You still haven't answered how a rightwing populist union basher who hates teachers like Laurel Broten could have been put in such a position of power by the Liberals?
Oh and what do Wynne, Ford and Tory have in common? They all are pandering to rightwing populism in Scarborough by promising to WASTE $1 BILLION on a ridiculous Scarborough subway that 100% of experts agree is a stupid idea and a total waste of money
You still haven't answered how a rightwing populist union basher who hates teachers like Laurel Broten could have been put in such a position of power by the Liberals?
I have no clue
Oh and what do Wynne, Ford and Tory have in common? They all are pandering to rightwing populism in Scarborough by promising to WASTE $1 BILLION on a ridiculous Scarborough subway that 100% of experts agree is a stupid idea and a total waste of money
Like I said Chow/Tory I don't care who it is. I'll vote for either one. As long as it is not Ford.
You don't seem to mind Wynne and Tory doing their cheap populist pandering to "Ford Nation" over the Scarborough subway - but somehow its a big issue when you imagine thatHorwath does it?
You don't seem to mind Wynne and Tory doing their cheap populist pandering to "Ford Nation" over the Scarborough subway - but somehow its a big issue when you imagine that Horwath does it?
I just want Ford out and I'll vote for anyone to get him out. Chow/Tory I don't care which one, as long as it is not Ford.
But there are some differences between Chow & Tory, you have to admit, TT.
Tory is a conservative (although a moderate one), whereas Chow comes from a more socially & economic progressive background.
It all goes to show that when the chips are down 100% of the time Liberals will cooperate with rightwing Conservatives before they will cooperate with anyone tied to the NDP. We saw the same thing in January 2006 when Ignatieff decided to prop up Harper rather than form a coalition government with the NDP. Liberal/Tory same old story.
I think you mean January 2009.
And that was Ignatieff. Dion was open to working with the NDP. He's the one who did the arrangement with Layton. So don't generalize about all Liberals.
Apparently the only person willing to publicly call for Andrea Horwath's resignation is Barry Weisleder - a buffoon with no following and who hold no position in the party. She is so going to get a ringing vote of confidence!
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/09/12/horwath-urged-to-resign-as-o...
Empty words, empty head, empty heart - nothing but personal ambition. The cynicism is overwhelming. If she represents the best this party has to offer, I wish them failure.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/09/12/andrea_horwath_what... Horwath: What the NDP learned from the recent Ontario campaign[/url]
... our core values of compassion and justice remain the bedrock of our party and remain my heart and soul.
Bedrock, indeed. Hard and cold.
Did you actually read the column or did you just assume that if Barry Weisleder doesn't like her, that's all you need to know
Did you actually read the column or did you just assume that if Barry Weisleder doesn't like her, that's all you need to know
Barry Weisleder - he's the dude who wanted to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/vote-ndp-may-2-no-coalition-libera... the Libyan rebels[/url]? I questioned him, frequently on babble and elsewhere, on that interventionist craziness. You didn't.
Yeah, I read Horwath's nonsense. I posted it here. Remember? It's all crap. Example:
We believe in a living minimum wage.
Believe, maybe - put it in the platform, no.
We believe in a strong public pension system.
Yeah, sure. Propose an Ontario Retirement Plan in 2011, then drop it the instant Kathleen Wynne adopts the proposal. That's stretching the word "believe" beyond where Webster dared to go. Empty words at best, cynical lie at worst.
We believe in restoring corporate taxes to where they were before the Liberals started slashing them.
Whoops, the word "tax" doesn't appear in her article, because she broke that promise so badly that she can't even recall having made it.
Horwath has lost all sense of shame in her amibition to hang on to the leadership at all costs:
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/09/13/horwath_takes_left_tur... takes left turn to get NDP back on track[/url]
Campaigning from the left, so that she can lead again from the right. Hopefully, party activists will not be fooled by this desperate manoeuvre.
ETA: Here's another take (G&M):
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/andrea-horwath-admits-she-h... Horwath takes sharp left turn to defend embattled leadership[/url]
“Love is better than anger, as a good friend reminded us a few years ago. We are the party of hope. We are the party of optimism,” she said. “In a time when the very, very few continue to amass so much for themselves while everyone else is falling behind, we have never been more relevant.”
By turns impassioned, folksy and humorous, her address went over well with the crowd, which frequently leapt to its feet to applaud amid cries of “yeah!” and “that’s what I want to hear!”
Forget what I said about hoping people won't be fooled. They need to open doors and windows and breathe some fresh air.
Andrea is in the political fight of her life to hang on to her leadership
The party wants to punish her for letting the election slip of the NDP hands.
The fact that Liberals are frantically trying to build up the fiction that Andrea Horwath is in trouble makes me think that they know she will be a formidable opponent in 2018. She will probably get a huge vote of confidence in November and then the media will have to writing "Andrea Horwath redemption" stories.
Yeah, the Liberals are terrified that she'll hand them another majority in 2018.
The problem with Horwath is not whether she can survive or not. It is that she betrayed the natural constituency of her party. And she obviously didn't do that alone. She must go, but that won't solve the problem.
The fact that Liberals are frantically trying to build up the fiction that Andrea Horwath is in trouble makes me think that they know she will be a formidable opponent in 2018.
C'mon, Stockholm. I agree with Unionist - the Ontario Liberals are not worried about Andrea Horwath. She finished a distant 3rd and is not a serious threat at this point. Christine Elliot is more likely to be a threat to Kathleen Wynne if she wins the PC Leadership. Elliot is a much more articulate spokesperson for conservative policies than Tim Hudak, and could convice Ontarians to move back to the PC tradition in the province.
A week is a long time in politics, never mind four years. I'm more interested in what the party is going to do, starting today, to restore its base of support and create a vison for the province that Wynne and company couldn't contemplate. How to distinguish the NDP from the Liberals is critical to the survival of the party.
In the meantime, one must hope the damage done in the June election doesn't take to great a toll on the federal party in next year's election. I'm not sure the party could recover, if the NDP were to get walloped in the federal campaign. Right now the Ontario numbers, federally, are the second lowest in the country, next to Alberta. Therefore, Tom has his work cut out for him, and Andrea has to hope he's up to the job. (I know this is a provincial thread, but the fate of both levels of the party are clearly intertwined.)
Horwath has lost all sense of shame in her amibition to hang on to the leadership at all costs:[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/09/13/horwath_takes_left_tur... takes left turn to get NDP back on track[/url]
Campaigning from the left, so that she can lead again from the right. Hopefully, party activists will not be fooled by this desperate manoeuvre.
ETA: Here's another take (G&M):
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/andrea-horwath-admits-she-h... Horwath takes sharp left turn to defend embattled leadership[/url]
“Love is better than anger, as a good friend reminded us a few years ago. We are the party of hope. We are the party of optimism,” she said. “In a time when the very, very few continue to amass so much for themselves while everyone else is falling behind, we have never been more relevant.”
By turns impassioned, folksy and humorous, her address went over well with the crowd, which frequently leapt to its feet to applaud amid cries of “yeah!” and “that’s what I want to hear!”
Forget what I said about hoping people won't be fooled. They need to open doors and windows and breathe some fresh air.
You don't believe leaders can learn from their mistakes and become better leaders in spite of them?
New leadership can do wonders to re-boot a party. Just look at the Liberals with the switch from McGinty to Wynne. From Campbell to Clark in BC. To Charet to Couillard in Quebec.
Why is Andrea still around anyways? I thought a party leader only gets two kicks at the can before they either step down or is turfed.
NDP needs a new leader, new vision, new focus and a new policies.
Her mistake is the same mistake Olivia Chow is making for the mayor's race. Going after Ford Nation while taking your base for granted.
25% of Ford Nation identify themselves as NDP voters.
But here is the BIG lesson. They only politican that can capture Ford nation votes, are only politicians named FORD.
Why is Andrea still around anyways? I thought a party leader only gets two kicks at the can before they either step down or is turfed.
You seem to be making up rules that don't exist. Just looking at CCF/NDP history in Ontario EB Joliffe led the party 4 times in 1943, 1945, 1948 and 1951. Donald C. McDonald led the party 4 times in 1955, 1959, 1963 and 1967. Stephen Lewis led the party in three elections 1971, 1975 and 1977. Bob Rae lost in 1985 and 1987 before winning in 1990. Howard Hampton led the NDP in 1999, 2003 and 2007. The only leader who didn't lead the Ontario NDP through at least 3 elections was Michael Cassidy who resigned after a catastrophic election in 1981 where the party lost 12 seats. BTW, the Ontario Liberal were led by Bob Nixon in 1967, 1971 and 1975 before he quit. Its worth noting that Gary Doer and Darrel Dexter won on their third tries as well.
The thing about Horwath is that when all is said and done the party has actually done quite well under her leadership. Under Hampton the party lost official party status twice (and yet he stayed on). Under Horwath the party went from 10 seats and 17% in 2007 to 17 seats and 23% in 2011 and then to 21 seats and 24% in 2014 - and outside of a handful ridings in inner city Toronto and Ottawa where apparently here working class background upset the radical chic crowd she is a net asset. In most of Ontario she is still very popular and she has four long years to make amends with the academics in the Annex who find her a bit "gauche" (pardon the pun)
25% of Ford Nation identify themselves as NDP voters.
But here is the BIG lesson. They only politican that can capture Ford nation votes, are only politicians named FORD.
Except that you just quoted a statistic that 25% of people who vote for Ford for mayor DO vote NDP at the provincial and federal level - so clearly you don't have to be named Ford to get their votes.
You don't believe leaders can learn from their mistakes and become better leaders in spite of them?
Absolutely, yes, I do believe that. But Horwath doesn't fall into that category.
She never once said "I made a mistake". It was always "we". She never said, "I shouldn't have listened to my cynical pragmatist handlers". She never said, "whoops, I forgot the promise to raise corporate tax to where it was pre-McGuinty cuts". She never said, "whoops, I'm happy that Wynne at least pretends to adopt the ONDP plan for an Ontario Retirement Plan, and I was wrong to drop that program". She never said, "um, I forgot to push the minimum wage issue during the campaign, fearing that business would kick my ass to kingdom come".
She learned nothing whatsoever - except that she should now make a phony show of turning "left", because no one will ever vote for a caricature of the Liberal party.
In short, she is pretending to feint to the left, just like the Liberals. It won't work. She should simply disappear from the scene, with or without an apology for her betrayal, and let's hope that someone with integrity comes forward. The ONDP seems to be cursed with the Bob Raes and Hamptons and Horwaths. There must be something better there.
In the meantime, one must hope the damage done in the June election doesn't take to great a toll on the federal party in next year's election. I'm not sure the party could recover, if the NDP were to get walloped in the federal campaign. Right now the Ontario numbers, federally, are the second lowest in the country, next to Alberta. Therefore, Tom has his work cut out for him, and Andrea has to hope he's up to the job. (I know this is a provincial thread, but the fate of both levels of the party are clearly intertwined.)
Several political writers, including Chantal Hébert and Bob Hepburn, have written about the NDP's challenges in Ontario, and how the provincial and municipal trends don't look good for Tom Mulcair. But I think that was apparent even in 2011. The fact that Layton, despite being an Ontario MP, finished so far behind Harper showed that the NDP is unlikely to be able to win Ontario. More than 3 years later and the NDP under Mulcair is having the same problems growing. Andrew Coyne was probably correct when he said on At Issue last week that the odds are against the NDP winning the next election.
The thing about Horwath is that when all is said and done the party has actually done quite well under her leadership. Under Hampton the party lost official party status twice (and yet he stayed on). Under Horwath the party went from 10 seats and 17% in 2007 to 17 seats and 23% in 2011 and then to 21 seats and 24% in 2014 - and outside of a handful ridings in inner city Toronto and Ottawa where apparently here working class background upset the radical chic crowd she is a net asset. In most of Ontario she is still very popular and she has four long years to make amends with the academics in the Annex who find her a bit "gauche" (pardon the pun)
Horwath has done 'quite well' relatively speaking. She has done well compared to Hampton, yes. But she hasn't done well compared to Rae who won an election. And she may have missed a valuable opportunity that won't come again. She was competing against an incumbent government that people were fed up with and a PC leader who people disliked. Elliot is likely to be a stronger leader than Hudak.
And in today's age, I don't think you can lose as many elections as in the past. Those were different times. The NDP is expected to be a contender now, particularly since Rae became Premier of Ontario, and after Layton's breakthrough at the Federal level.
Finishing 3rd doesn't necessarily satisfy people the way it once did.
Rae won after losing TWICE. Usually parties dump leaders who LOSE seats and vote share, are widely seen as unpopular liabilities and especially when there is an obvious successor who everyone wants. None of those conditions apply here..
The only people squawking about how the NDP should get rid of Horwath seem to be a few high partisan Liberal trolls who have a vested interest in the NDP having the worst possible leader plus a few Trotskyist nut bars from the Socialist Caucus
25% of Ford Nation identify themselves as NDP voters.
But here is the BIG lesson. They only politican that can capture Ford nation votes, are only politicians named FORD.
Except that you just quoted a statistic that 25% of people who vote for Ford for mayor DO vote NDP at the provincial and federal level - so clearly you don't have to be named Ford to get their votes.
My point was she was trying to capture MORE Ford Nation voters. She already had 25% and was trying to expand that base by appealing to lower income and lower socioeconomic voters.
That was a msitake because everyone here has said you cannot ignore your base, while going after a new base.
She needed policies that would appeal to her traditonal base (which incldues that chunk of Ford Nation) and a new base of middle class voters, that tend to vote Liberal.
But she ditched her traditional base and went straight to Ford Nation voters. She only has 25% and wanted to expand the net, at the expense of her traditional base.
That was the mistake, and the NDP base are still mad at her for that.
Actually the NDP "traditional base" is low income people in northern Ontario and in manufacturing and rust-belt small cities like Hamilton, Windsor etc... among those people Andrea Horwath is extremely popular. She even won back Oshawa for the first time in a generation.
A handful of academics and activists who live in the Annex or Cabbagetown are important in that they get a lot of publicity and are sometimes "opinion leaders" but they are not the "traditional base" - if they were the NDP would be a party that ONLY won Trinity-Spadina and Toronto-Danforth and nothing else.
I agree that Horwath needs to reconnect with those people - though it should be easy now that Wynne is doing unpopular things like massive amounts of privatization and pulling strings to get an anti-labour rightwing conservative like John Tory elected as mayor so he can do her dirty work.
Rae won after losing TWICE.
Let's look at that a little more closely there, Stockholm.
I think you're forgetting that long before Rae became Premier, he had been a major player in negotiating a coalition arrangement with David Peterson when the PC's got a minority in the 1980's after Bill Davis retired. Unlike Horwath, Rae was able to emerge as a long-term credible leader before he became Premier because of his joint-arrangement with Peterson. Rae was also Official Opposition leader, something Horwath has not yet achieved.
In 1985 he made the NDP relevant when they held the balance of power in Peterson's minority government, and then Rae took the NDP to 2nd place in 1987.
So when you say Rae "lost" two elections, you're not describing the major gains he made in 1985 & 1987, before his win in 1990. Horwath did not achieve the influence & positioning for the Ontario NDP that Rae did.
I'm not sure what you mean by Rae's "major gains" in 1985 and 1987. When he took over the Ontario NDP in 1982 the party had 22 seats. In 1985 he gained three seats to 25 seats and that was considered a disappointment since he went into the campaign expecting to become leader of the opposition. The 1987 election was a fiasco - the NDP was reduced to just 19 seats (the leg was bigger then and had 125 seats) and he almost lost his own seat and the only reason the NDP became official opposition was that the PCs did even worse being reduced to 16 seats. The 1987 election was seen as such a disaster for Rae that he almost quit politics altogether.
After two election Horwath has taken the Ontario NDP from 10 seats to 21 seats. After two elections Bob Rae took the Ontario NDP from 22 seats to 19 seats. You tell me who has a better record.
Stockholm, I guess you missed the point of the history lesson of those different elections. Success is not just measured by seat count. It's measured by influence and power.
In 1985 Rae negotiated a deal that made the NDP the balance of power in the Peterson Minority.
In 1987 Rae became Official Opposition leader. It may not have been with many seats, but in what was a landslide for the Liberals and a disaster for the PC's, he kept the NDP holding on and in position for the next election.
And then in 1990 he of course made history.
He had been a power broker in a minority government and an Official Opposition leader. Horwath is still not Official Opposition Leader, and she threw away her bargaining power with Kathleen Wynne when the Liberals won a Majority.
Those are the differences between Rae & Horwath.
Yes, there are differences - Horwath is a likeable politician with a common touch and Rae is a humourless patrician...
There are parallels between Horwath and Rae in that both of them spent the first two years after their first election propping up a Liberal minority government and both of them then saw the liberals win a majority in the context of a PC collapse...we shall see if 2018 works out as well for Andrea Horwath as 1990 did for Rae.
BTW: Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton each led the federal NDP, not two, not three but FOUR times before quitting/passing away
Yes, there are differences - Horwath is a likeable politician with a common touch and Rae is a humourless patrician...There are parallels between Horwath and Rae in that both of them spent the first two years after their first election propping up a Liberal minority government and both of them then saw the liberals win a majority in the context of a PC collapse...we shall see if 2018 works out as well for Andrea Horwath as 1990 did for Rae.
BTW: Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton each led the federal NDP, not two, not three but FOUR times before quitting/passing away
Indeed, and I can certainly remember discissuions in these parts at the time regarding how Layton was ineffective, that the NDP needed to look at a new leader, and so on.
Indeed, and I can certainly remember discissuions in these parts at the time regarding how Layton was ineffective, that the NDP needed to look at a new leader, and so on.
Layton was capable of learning from mistakes. He proved that over and over - on Afghanistan, on anti-Harper accords and coalitions, on changing his tune in the 2011 campaign to a less tough-on-crime narrative (both of which were instrumental in winning Québec votes).
Horwath, in response to your question earlier, hasn't learned a thing. She (or rather her handlers) steered the party to the right on corporate taxation, public pensions, minimum wage, and the fight against poverty - just to take those examples. Her mea culpa shows no clear recognition of those "mistakes" nor any intent to correct them.
Actually the NDP "traditional base" is low income people in northern Ontario and in manufacturing and rust-belt small cities like Hamilton, Windsor etc... among those people Andrea Horwath is extremely popular.
Well, I'm one of those people (low-income, regular NDP member/voter, Hamilton resident), and she has lost me. I don't however think that replacing her will solve anything. However, to answer the person who thought politicians learn from their mistakes -- yes, some do, but there is no evidence she is one of them. I was worried about her commitment to the basic ideals of the party BEFORE the election campaign, but now she has shown her colours only too clearly and no way will I believe any "turn to the left" she may feign.
But I'm not an insider like you guys here, I am just one of those plebes who votes NDP and does the legwork. I won't be doing it again any time soon. And my "traditional base" NDP friends and neighbours either sat out this last election or voted Liberal because why vote for a fake liberal, might as vote for the real thing (and the liberal incumbent is fairly popular here).
Well, I'm one of those people (low-income, regular NDP member/voter, Hamilton resident), and she has lost me.
If we can ask you infracaninophile does Rob Ford policies appeal to you? If so why, and how can the NDP adopt an Ford Nation type platform without ailenating the base?
Okay, the NDP blew it. Apparently, it has no base to speak of, judging from the election results. How do we build a base? Do we go after Liberal voters or do we go after the folks who don't vote? I'm for reaching out to non-voters, which would require a completely differnet kind of election platform.
Getting 24% is not "having no base to speak of" - it was the best result in any Ontario election since 1977 - with the exception of Bob Rae's fluke win in 1990. It could have been much better with a good campaign - but a quarter of the electorate clearly is a "base".
Getting 24% is not "having no base to speak of" - it was the best result in any Ontario election since 1977 - with the exception of Bob Rae's fluke win in 1990. It could have been much better with a good campaign - but a quarter of the electorate clearly is a "base".
Okay, the party has a 'base' that, in this election, was good enough to elect the same number of MPPs as we had going into the election. This base also gave us third place without the balance of power. However, now that the election is history, how do we build a base that will see us improve our standing?
One option is to continue our shift to the right, trolling for Liberal votes. The other might be to go after the large proportion of the electorate that doesn't vote. My preference is the latter option, but admittedly, it's a tall order for any political party.
If there is one thing that has proven to be a complete weaste of time again and again and again - its trying to get non-voters to vote. and this idea that people who don't vote are all closet New Democrats is totally delusional.
A week is a long time in politics, never mind four years. I'm more interested in what the party is going to do, starting today, to restore its base of support and create a vison for the province that Wynne and company couldn't contemplate. How to distinguish the NDP from the Liberals is critical to the survival of the party.
In the meantime, one must hope the damage done in the June election doesn't take to great a toll on the federal party in next year's election. I'm not sure the party could recover, if the NDP were to get walloped in the federal campaign. Right now the Ontario numbers, federally, are the second lowest in the country, next to Alberta. Therefore, Tom has his work cut out for him, and Andrea has to hope he's up to the job. (I know this is a provincial thread, but the fate of both levels of the party are clearly intertwined.)
I do think that Tom Mulcair understands that he needs the support of the NDP base if he wants to eventually attract support from other Canadians. There are postings on the internet and discussions in the media about the NDP's support for a federal minimum wage of $15, environmental protections, and opposition to going to war in Iraq.
If there is one thing that has proven to be a complete weaste of time again and again and again - its trying to get non-voters to vote. and this idea that people who don't vote are all closet New Democrats is totally delusional.
I don't believe for a moment that all non-voters are "closet New Democrats", and I realize engaging them is an uphill battle to put it mildly. However, that doesn't mean we should write them off altogether, for all time.
I'm just frustrated with seeing the NDP bend over backwards to attract Liberal voters and bevcome more and more Liberal, themselves, in the process. If that's the only strategy we have to grow the party, then why not simply join the Liberals and be done with it? Whoever is "left" might then start to build something new. (Or we could infiltrate the Greens and start the Red-Green Party.) 
Well actually in the recent Ontario election the Liberal won using "rhetoric" sounded much more leftwing than the NDP (and also about 100 times more leftwing than the Liberal policies will ever be). I don't think the ONDP needs to move further to the centre to attract Liberal voters - i think that if anything they should move to the left to win back progressives who were fooled into voting for the "progressive imposter" Kathleen Wynne.
If we can ask you infracaninophile does Rob Ford policies appeal to you? If so why, and how can the NDP adopt an Ford Nation type platform without ailenating the base?
H*** no. I find Ford not only loathesome on a number of counts (politically and otherwise) but an affront to the "ordinary people" he professes to represent. Here's an entitled rich do-nothing, with the IQ of an artichoke, a racist/sexist ignoramus, a compulsive liar and malignant narcissist. Not to mention, a long-term substance abuser and addict, who has persuaded everybody from Peter Mansbridge on down to enable him, cover for him, and cut him endless slack.
What does this dysfunctional parasite know about the "ordinary worker?" Nada.
How can the NDP adopt a Ford Nation type platform? It would be the kiss of death even to try. What is a "Ford Nation Platform"? Well, it has the following characteristics:
(1) Regularly lie to the public, lie about the lies, and lie about the lying about the lies. Somewhere in the effluvia will be a few nanograms of truth.
(2) Use public employees to do elected officials' personal household chores and support their volunteer activities, at taxpayer expense.
(3) Persuade the public that turning down transportation options that are fully funded by the other levels of government, in favour of an option that will serve very few people and cost a few billion dollars of local taxpayer money is "respecting the taxpayer."
(4) Promote the solving of political disagreements in the legislature (or city council) by hand-to-hand combat. Who needs democracy?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
If the NDP takes that route, shades of Animal Farm, where the liberators eventually became indistinguishable from the oppressors -- they will have become the people we need to be saved from.
Even Horwath (and more importantly her avisors) can't be THAT stupid.... I hope.
