2015 Federal Election = 2014 Ontario Provincial Election

terrytowel wrote:

2015 Justin Trudeau moves the Liberals to the political left

terrytowel, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "2015 Justin Trudeau moves the Liberals to the political left". 

• Last election the Liberals under Ignatieff proposed to raise corporate taxes.  This election Trudeau has parroted Harper stating that raising corporate taxes kills jobs.  Instead, he preaches to keep them the same.  Instead of raising corporate taxes, he's relying upon deficit spending for both infrastructure and "social infrastructure" (IE, like possibly child care).  Terrible and indefensible decision.  It makes it a temporary and unusual fix (making it easier to cut in the case of "social infrastructure"), rather than acknowledging these as essential fixed costs to be covered by revenue such as the corporate tax and/or the gas tax --> the gas tax being used for the NDP's commitment to long term increased infrastructure spending.
• the increase in personal taxes to those earning over $200,000 is to fund a tax cut to Trudeau's 3rd tax bracket (benefitting primarily those at the top of this bracket and those in the fourth bracket ($89,000 to $200,000 -- this group gets $670 back).  The first and second bracket get squat, and those in the lower end of the third bracket get very little.  The tax thing is revenue neutral.  It's not for programming.  The idea is that tax cuts help the economy. 
• Trudeau has openly spoken against universal programs, which previous Liberal campaigns did not do.  Rather than acknowledging child care support as a right of Canadian citizenship (as was done with health care), he's been using right wing language of tiers and division.  Terrible!  Divisive!  More likely to be temporary!!  This is as right wing as you get, and no previous Liberal campaign ever went this right wing.
• Trudeau has no plan for a national carbon pricing scheme.  Past Liberal campaigns (notably Dion's) did.  This also is a move to the right from where they previously were.
• Bill C-51:  Trudeau's father must be rolling in his grave.  Trust me, PET would not approve.  Justin Trudeau has moved the Liberals to the right of where they used to be.

Even with the (admittedly impressive) promise to legalize marijuana, Trudeau has moved the Liberals to the right of where they once were. 

ctrl190 wrote:

Four key differences:

 

1. Harper is not as threatening as Hudak. Harper is the devil that we know, Hudak the devil that we didn't know. Hudak's call for 100,000 civil servants on the chopping block struck a nerve among the electorate that has not been seen (yet) with Harper's actions.

2. The federal NDP are polling better in cities than the ONDP and Horwath. Horwath was a folksy populist with a bread and butter platform that didn't appeal to the Annex and Beach chattering classes. Mulcair and the federal NDP speak to urban sensibilities much more effectively.

3. The Federal NDP are projected to win more seats in Ontario than their provincial counterparts, and any talk about the NDP's "tepid" polling in Ontario does not account for their strong polling in Quebec, BC and the prairies. 

4. There's another month to go, which in provincial politics, is a whole campaign.

Difference number 5: The Liberals in Ontario were the incumbent government and as such had the power of the public purse to influence votes. Trudeau does not have said advantage.

terrytowel wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Difference number 5: The Liberals in Ontario were the incumbent government and as such had the power of the public purse to influence votes. Trudeau does not have said advantage.

How so?

Is this seriously going over your head? As Premier, Kathleen Wynne is able to spend money on things like roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, and so on, and people think that the Liberals are wonderful. Trudeau can't announce any public funding because Trudeau is not Prime Minister.

The Liberals were set for a huge defeat before Hudak got all wacky and scared the bejeezus out of everyone. Obviously this won't happen with Harper. everyone who has been scared away from him has already abandoned him. As ctrl said, he is very much a known entity, moreso than Justin or Tom, whereas Hudak was a risky unknown who ended up freaking people out.

So if you're right that there's some parallel between the two elections then one would have to conclude that the Liberals are in big trouble. They aren't the incumbent, and they can't count on the voters being scared of Harper. Both of these changes would have spelled disaster in the Ontario election for the LIbs, who were poised for a big fall.

And obviously the NDP is totally different as well. The ONDP never topped the polls, nor did they run neck-and neck with the other two parties throughout the election. Another change that have destroyed the Libs in the Ontario election. So you'd better hope you're wrong, because if the Ontario election is any sort of indication, the Liberals are finished.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

josh wrote:

Pretty much agree with everyone who have pointed out the differences.  In any case, no two elections are alike, and I'm always amused by efforts to shoehorn one election into another.

They are not exactly the same, but the similarites are striking. Given Wynne success it is no surprise that Trudeau is taking a page from her. But how Horwath tried to position herself, you would think the NDP would take a different approach.

In fact the NDP did do that.

This campaign the NDP has not put a pile of small policies on the table as Horwath did. This time the NDP did propose several significant life altering policies that would make a real difference for a large number of people.

This was a step away from the trend form all parties to offer target boutique policies that would help only a few only a little.

My problem with this campaign has been that the communications has not matched the plan appropriately. At some point the party needed to say -- vote NDP becuase these things will change your life for the better. The NDP is proposiong improving lives from childhood to old age: restoring age 65 retirement, childcare, pharmacare, improving wages. this is a decided contrast form simply cutting credit card interet or taking the tax off this or that. The small policies exist but the bigger ones are there this time.

Now would the NDP please communicate these things in a proportionate way.

The battle with the Liberals has largely obscured the NDP agenda and the Liebrals may well have been beaten by a strong promotion of that agenda and a lot fewer well-placed negative comments. This idea of chipping at the Liberals bit by bit ia a waste of communications opportunities and a failed strategy.

I agree.  That said, I'm not sure I blame the NDP for a failure to communicate.  Rather, I feel it's been a difficult road fighting all the forces that oppose progressive change (big business, corporate media, etc.) 

However, I feel they've done pretty well, and deserve all progressive people's support.  And like you said, "the NDP did propose several significant life altering policies that would make a real difference for a large number of people." 

Perhaps, regarding communication, if they could somehow tie their policies into people's concerns about jobs and well being, then that might help.  I believe the Liberals have managed to convince some of getting better job prospects with their plea of "we'll spend like drunken sailors to give you jobs and this will cure everything" (paraphrased).  The NDP's pledges of child care, cap and trade, bring the troops home, and being committed to improve services over the long term just doesn't have the same sort of quick appeal.  The Libs are offering an immediate burger and fries while the NDP are offering slow cooked beans with kale.

terrytowel wrote:

josh wrote:

Pretty much agree with everyone who have pointed out the differences.  In any case, no two elections are alike, and I'm always amused by efforts to shoehorn one election into another.

They are not exactly the same, but the similarites are striking. Given Wynne success it is no surprise that Trudeau is taking a page from her. But how Horwath tried to position herself, you would think the NDP would take a different approach.

In fact the NDP did do that.

This campaign the NDP has not put a pile of small policies on the table as Horwath did. This time the NDP did propose several significant life altering policies that would make a real difference for a large number of people.

This was a step away from the trend form all parties to offer target boutique policies that would help only a few only a little.

My problem with this campaign has been that the communications has not matched the plan appropriately. At some point the party needed to say -- vote NDP becuase these things will change your life for the better. The NDP is proposiong improving lives from childhood to old age: restoring age 65 retirement, childcare, pharmacare, improving wages. this is a decided contrast from simply cutting credit card interest or taking the tax off this or that. The small policies exist but the bigger ones are there this time.

Now would the NDP please communicate these things in a proportionate way?

The battle with the Liberals has largely obscured the NDP agenda and the Liberals may well have been beaten by a strong promotion of that agenda and a lot fewer well-placed negative comments. This idea of chipping at the Liberals bit by bit is a waste of communications opportunities and a failed strategy.

ETA

The NDP could have run even harsher specific ads on the Liberals (like the bait and switch one I proposed) and had the leader speak to the platform much more. Some of these policies I don't even rememebr seeing a mention other than the day of the announcement.

The NDP must look at the remaining weeks and prioritize its messages -- both those promoting the NDP policy and the ones attacking the others. Lower value messages must be discarded to make room for the more important.

There will be one big story from each party each day. The NDP has to decide what it wants in that story and do what it needs to get it there. This will require a combination of hooks, locations, leader statements, connections to individuals and personalization (attaching the message to real people). That's what communications strategies look like. The NDP has looked all over the road from the start in spite of having an excellent policy and platform foundation.

I have been critical of the NDP at times in previous campaigns -- often for the thin gruel of the platform. Once the campaign is underway there is little there you can change. This time the stuff that was done before the campaign is solid work. What has to happen now is a focussed communications effort and this could change on a dime.  This is what they have to do.

There are reasons the NDP has lost the lead and may are confused becuase it is not actually the platform. It is not the balanced budget issue either -- Mulcair stated that the NDP brought in medicare in Saskatchewan while balancing the budget, That is the right answer.

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My problem with this campaign has been that the communications has not matched the plan appropriately. At some point the party needed to say -- vote NDP becuase these things will change your life for the better. The NDP is proposiong improving lives from childhood to old age: restoring age 65 retirement, childcare, pharmacare, improving wages. this is a decided contrast form simply cutting credit card interet or taking the tax off this or that. The small policies exist but the bigger ones are there this time.

Now would the NDP please communicate these things in a proportionate way.

The battle with the Liberals has largely obscured the NDP agenda and the Liebrals may well have been beaten by a strong promotion of that agenda and a lot fewer well-placed negative comments. This idea of chipping at the Liberals bit by bit ia a waste of communications opportunities and a failed strategy.

And that is where anaylitcs have come in. Many posters here were lambasting me when I said the Liberals were relying heavily on anayltics to get out there message. The NDP is NOT doing that. Even though they knew the Cons and the Libs were going that direction. People here laughing at me when I said the clipboard method of just identifying the vote was NOT enough. People chuckling saying using clipboard is just fine. Well obviously it is not, because the Liberals communications strategy using anaylitics is far more superior than what the NDP is doing.

In ALL 338 ridings across the country canvassers are equipting themselves with iPads. When they go door to door not only do they tout their candidate, but they are data-mining as well, Asking households what they like, dislike, what they want more of, the issues that concern them, etc. The information gets fed instantly to Liberal HQ, where there is a team working 12 hour shifts to crunch the numbers hourly. And they are able to craft a message that very night,

Sadly, perhaps this is where money comes in. The NDP is doing better than usual. In this campaign the NDP might be able to spend half as much as the third place Liberals.

"But more crucially, the Tories electoral district associations ended the year with net assets of more than $19 million –more than the riding associations of the Liberals, New Democrats, Greens and Bloc combined, The Canadian Press found. Liberal riding associations reported a total of about $8 million in net assets, NDP associations more than $4.4 million, the Greens almost $1.2 million and the Bloc about $410,000."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-election-2015-how-a-long-campaig...

But this is why the NDP has to show PERFECT judgement in communications becuase it cannot make up comms deficits by spending more money.