I don't think of BC as "the west". That is the prairies. B.C. has a completely different identity in my mind. "The West" is cowboy country. I don't think of the ocean.
B.C. doesn't get as much attention because there is little to no conflict with B.C.
This article is another example of the Central Canadian narrative that pisses me off. Here is the full paragraph explaining "Western Canada". Of the 5,537,00 voters in BC, Alta, Sask and Man the largest province has 2,343,00 or 42% of voters. Guess which one isn't even mentioned in this piece?Another BCer here who is equally pissed off that the National media uses the term "The West" to refer to the prairie provinces. Part of the reason is likely that the national media would rather ignore the more left leaning tendencies that are more of a thing in the coastal areas of BC.
Although to be fair, this use of the term "The West" is not strictly an eastern Canada thing. When I was a student at UBC their was a course on prairie history called "History of the Canadian West".
And on the prairies, Ontario and Quebec are referred to as "the east". It's like it Atlantic Canada doesn't exist. Maybe it's because our anger does not include the Maritimes and Newfoundland Labrador. We perceive them as being fellow victims.
And just to emphasize, it's not the people of Ontario and Quebec, it's the political system and the regional biases.
This article is another example of the Central Canadian narrative that pisses me off. Here is the full paragraph explaining "Western Canada". Of the 5,537,00 voters in BC, Alta, Sask and Man the largest province has 2,343,00 or 42% of voters. Guess which one isn't even mentioned in this piece?Another BCer here who is equally pissed off that the National media uses the term "The West" to refer to the prairie provinces. Part of the reason is likely that the national media would rather ignore the more left leaning tendencies that are more of a thing in the coastal areas of BC.
Although to be fair, this use of the term "The West" is not strictly an eastern Canada thing. When I was a student at UBC their was a course on prairie history called "History of the Canadian West".
And on the prairies, Ontario and Quebec are referred to as "the east". It's like it Atlantic Canada doesn't exist. Maybe it's because our anger does not include the Maritimes and Newfoundland Labrador. We perceive them as being fellow victims.
And just to emphasize, it's not the people of Ontario and Quebec, it's the political system and the regional biases.
Thank you -- and a good many of us who live here agree with you -- even if we are not concentrated enough to win seats.
Central Canadians who delude themselves that voting for Liberals is progressive.I hate to burst your bubble Krop, but it's not just central Canadians who think that voting Liberal is progressive. When I was out canvassing for Yvonne Hanson in Vancouer-Granville, I encountered several voters who clearly thought that voting Liberal is progressive. While this does seem to be less of a problem in much of the west -- including on Vancouver island -- it's clearly a problem in Vancouver as well as back east.
I live in paradise and can't figure out why other people are not woke to reality. The Liberals got 11.9% in my riding to the Greens 13.5% and Gord Johns 41%. The Conservatives got 33%, So I look at the vote as 55% progressive voters and 45% right wingers. Strangely those numbers add up to about what the BC Liberals our neo-con party gets provincially.
I rail about it because it is the big lie that prevents real alternatives from winning seats.
Central Canadians who delude themselves that voting for Liberals is progressive.I hate to burst your bubble Krop, but it's not just central Canadians who think that voting Liberal is progressive. When I was out canvassing for Yvonne Hanson in Vancouer-Granville, I encountered several voters who clearly thought that voting Liberal is progressive. While this does seem to be less of a problem in much of the west -- including on Vancouver island -- it's clearly a problem in Vancouver as well as back east.
I live in paradise and can't figure out why other people are not woke to reality. The Liberals got 11.9% in my riding to the Greens 13.5% and Gord Johns 41%. The Conservatives got 33%, So I look at the vote as 55% progressive voters and 45% right wingers. Strangely those numbers add up to about what the BC Liberals our neo-con party gets provincially.
I rail about it because it is the big lie that prevents real alternatives from winning seats.
I am sorry to push back but there is a distinction that I think you need to make:
The NDP was sitting at the start of this campaign in BC where the party is now in many places. The party was planning for a wake everywhere but BC. It started the campaign as relevant there and irrelevant almost everywhere else. In fairness the party only entered with viability in BC. The party was expected to fight for party status and only achieve that in BC.
You are upset but you are missing the reality about where the party was and what was achieved. Singh hung on to the NDP being a national party, although barely. At the start the NDP was not a naitonal party and not expected to be able to end with at least one member in: Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, the North, and BC. You are angry but you are not admitting that this is a significant success given the road the party was on a few weeks ago. The NDP was headed for a loss of party status and being shut out of most regions of the country.
There was a real risk that the Greens would be represented with seats in more parts of the country than the NDP.
The party has been given another chance when that was in serious doubt.
Your anger with the poeple of central Canada is in part a denial of what the NDP presented for itself at the start of the Campaign: no money to campaign, a leader not epxected to do well on his feet (given what we saw), no relevance in most areas of the country sitting in single digits, fighting for third to fifth place and even talking about rescuing party status. I am sorry but this matters. The NDP must fightthe next campaign from here not where it started that one.
Someone on this board said that Singh would have ended up much better than Mulcair did if he had what Mulcair had when he started. True. singh has some responsibility for the ongoing deterioration of the party but it was truly screwed when he got it and he took a long time finding his feet. You can argue he has found them and now has serious work to do in this minority.
The party has great responsibility here as well as the voters. It is in a better position now than it was in August despite having more seats then. It ended with a loss becuase it took the entire election just to get into contention. Now that it is there it has to build on that so that at the next election call voting NDP does not need to be a conversation that starts with a discussion about a wasted vote. The NDP has to provide viability not just a statmeent not to vote out of fear. People do fear.
The NDP has to not spend its time talking about the other parties's scandals. They can be counted on to do that to each other. If you want to win make your noise be about what you propose. The fact is the official opposition can win government by tearing down the government. a third or fourth party can only win by proposing soemthing. It is rough. It is harder but it is also true.
The NDP has to find a way to be visible and different on the issues that matter to the lives of Canadians -- in life-changing ways. They must do this all the time and not just at election time.
They should do the radical thing and stop acting like the official opposition that they are not. they should stop wasting time talking about what a better funded party will do anyway.
The NDP has to use its smaller voice to talk about what the other parties are not talking about -- otherwise we are in service to one of them.
This is the strategy to win Ontario, Quebec and other places where the party is third or fourth.
The strategy for BC is different becuase the party is first, second or a very close third there.
This is why Singh needs regional leaders and regional strategies. The strategy to run from a very viable third or second is not the same as the one from distant hinterland.
I disagree with you on the fact that the NDP did not make headway in Ontario, Kropotkin. The NDP did in this campaign but was so far behind that it did not get the seats. The party has to struggle to be relevant here. It does not have to in BC as it already has earned that. Here the party has to speak to people about what it will do Canada and not expect to win through criticism alone.
There is your formula.
I think Singh saved the party but I am extremely disappointing that he didn't excite people in the dense diverse urban ridings. I was really hoping that he might resonate with the millennial and GenX'ers in the city but once again I was disappointed. Jagmeet's personal campaigning on Vancouver Island saved a couple of seats that might have gone Conservative if the Green's had managed to make major in roads into the NDP vote.
Ken was right. The NDP should have presented their ideas sooner. There is a limit to what you can do in 6 weeks. It might not have made any difference because the media doesn't pay much attention to the NDP.
The Tik Tok Meme was perfect. Social media is free. Sean has been saying since at least 2014 that the NDP wasn't using social media effectively.
I think Singh saved the party but I am extremely disappointing that he didn't excite people in the dense diverse urban ridings. I was really hoping that he might resonate with the millennial and GenX'ers in the city but once again I was disappointed. Jagmeet's personal campaigning on Vancouver Island saved a couple of seats that might have gone Conservative if the Green's had managed to make major in roads into the NDP vote.
He did all of this but was too far back to take the seats. He is in a good position compared to Layton after Layton's first. Please do not get so discouraged by the result of FPTP. The excitement was there and still is so long as this is not allowed to dissipate.
Sean I took my Granddaughter, who voted in her first election, to see him and she was really impressed with his campaign event and that she got to shake his hand. If the war mongers Singh and Freeland had personally lost their seats I would have been way happier with the results, even if it was only two more seats. After seeing Jagmeet campaign I was really hoping for a few seats in TO and more seats in Surrey.
I have done my bit for NDP MP's over the years, I was really hoping that a new generation would take up the torch and elect a lot more of our great candidates who ran in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor, where all governments are formed.
For many elections I found comfort in these words and the fact we elected great MP's to go to Ottawa. It is now up to a younger generation to find this kind of resolve.
Fight on my men, said Sir Arthur Barton,
I am hurt, but I am not slain.
I will lay me down and bleed awhile,
And then I’ll rise and fight again
Sean I took my Granddaughter, who voted in her first election, to see him and she was really impressed with his campaign event and that she got to shake his hand. If the war mongers Singh and Freeland had personally lost their seats I would have been way happier with the results, even if it was only two more seats. After seeing Jagmeet campaign I was really hoping for a few seats in TO and more seats in Surrey.
I have done my bit for NDP MP's over the years, I was really hoping that a new generation would take up the torch and elect a lot more of our great candidates who ran in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor, where all governments are formed.
For many elections I found comfort in these words and the fact we elected great MP's to go to Ottawa. It is now up to a younger generation to find this kind of resolve.
Fight on my men, said Sir Arthur Barton,
I am hurt, but I am not slain.
I will lay me down and bleed awhile,
And then I’ll rise and fight again
I can assure you that there is a young generation there and they want to.
I also can tell you about people in my own family who were torn as they live in Newmarket where Lois Brown was trying to come back for the Conservatives. Some of them voted NDP and some Liberal despite them all being NDP supporters. What let them vote Liberal this time was the knowledge that stopping a Conservative might give power to an NDP caucus elected in other places that a Conservative plurality could deny. I heard this from others.
You may not agree with the logic but they really felt that the NDP would be better off with a Liberal over a Conservative there in a minority than by electing a Conservative.
Strategic voting is very bogus in the propaganda becuase the strategy must be personal based on real knowledge of the riding. These are all people who have never voted Liberal before and very much wanted to do the best they could to allow the NDP to have as much power in the Parliament as possible. In their riding, they succeeded. their riding went Liberal and due to others like them ridings like their went Liberal allowing the NDP to have the balance of power it has. Do not imagine these people to be Liberal supporters. They hate the Liberals and are disgusted by trudeau. However, many people who are firm NDP supporters did whatever they could to get a minority the NDP could work with over one that would not even talk to the NDP. I realize you disagree but when it comes to support and the base to work with. The NDP has much more support than it looks here. People are extremely angry that they ahd to vote strategically after the promises of 2015 and many are hoping that the NDP can make the Liberals keep that promise.
Even if you disagree with them -- please understand where they were coming from.
I voted NDP personally. However, if I had been in Newmarket I would have voted Liberal following their logic - desperately hoping for the Liberals to beat the Conservatives and hoping that the Liebrals just might work with the NDP and knowing that both were a gamble. I am as NDP as they come having never voted anything but NDP in my entire life. It is easy for me as I have also never lived in a swing riding where I could consider my vote could make a difference. I have never had a vote really count in my life either. I have never voted for a candidate who won. I live in Ottawa South and had the luxury of knowing that my orange sign would not be part of helping elect a Conservative here.
The motivations and thoughts of many in Ontario is not simple. There are many NDP supporters hereand we vote against the majority but once in a while some of us do consider the dynamics of parliament when we are in swing seats. The NDP vote fell in Ontario in the last days probably becuase of this. Many are furious at the choice and delighted by the last NDP campaign. The NDP has to try hard and give them a campaign to vote for next time.
We know that the Liberals and the Conservatives are both regressive capitalist parties but we also know that the Conservatives cause vulnerable people more pain than the Liberals do right now. We live around people who do not have the ability to take one for the team. With Ford provincially, federal Conservatives was an unaffordable risk and the idea of a possible minority with NDP balance of power was more attractive than anything else we could contemplate as realistic in this election where the NDP started in the single digits in many polls.
I hope you can understand where I am coming from at least - even if you disagree with all the chocies I could have made (like I say I voted NDP).
In BC our politics changed long ago because the NDP became strong enough to win three party races under FPTP. So the right wing parties coalesced under one banner to stop the socialist hordes (real Socred language). When that right wing party imploded they all migrated on mass to one party, the BC Liberals. So after decades of right wing governments called Liberal the progressive people in BC just don't buy the bullshit as easy. So the trick is for the provincial NDP to start winning three way elections in Ontario.
If the war mongers Singh and Freeland had personally lost their seats I would have been way happier with the results, even if it was only two more seats. After seeing Jagmeet campaign I was really hoping for a few seats in TO and more seats in Surrey.
I would have been happy if the NDP had elected Svend, and took one seat each in Saskatchewan and Toronto. Although I can pretty much guarantee that the Toronto seat would not have been Freeland's.
And of those, the most important was Svend. Had Svend been elected, I think he would have already held a press conference to call on Parliament to stop the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion and to pass a Green New Deal (even the NDP's climate plan was too weak to qualify as a true Green New Deal). This almost certainly would have been reported on by the national media, and would have helped to shift the political discourse in this country.
How the Jewish Vote Will Shape Canada's 43rd Parliament
https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/how-the-jewish-vote-will-shape-canada...
"...Every riding but one where Jews live in large numbers went Liberal."
No, Thornhill voted for Peter Kent, Conservative, by a wide margin.
How the Jewish Vote Will Shape Canada's 43rd Parliament
https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/how-the-jewish-vote-will-shape-canada...
"...Every riding but one where Jews live in large numbers went Liberal."
I thought The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a hoax?!?!?!?!?
"...Every riding but one where Jews live in large numbers went Liberal."
Pretty sure you could say the same thing about Muslims. It's simply because the Liberals swept the GTA and the ethnically diverse parts of Montreal.
The Conservatives still have a lock on Thornhill, but it was interesting to see that the Scheer Cons did less well in the Jewish community ridings than they did under Harper.
The Libs won by larger margins in York Centre, Eglinton-Lawrence, & Mount Royal than they did in 2015.
(The Lib vote in Outremont was also higher on Oct 21 than it was in the by-election in February).
For the statistically-minded, here's a breakdown by party of the average majority & average vote share of winners this time:
Liberal
Average Margin (%): 18.0% (lowest for a winning party since 1962)
Average Margin (votes): 9315 (lowest for a winning party since 2004)
Largest Margin (%): 49.4% in Saint-Léonard – Saint-Michel (lowest for a winning party since 1957)
Largest Margin (votes): 25539 in Lac-Saint-Louis (lowest for a winning party since 1962)
Average Vote: 46.6% (lowest for a winning party since 1962)
Largest Vote (%): 62.2% in Scarborough – Rouge Park (lowest ever for a winning party)
Candidates with >50% of the Vote: 54 (34% of MPs)
Conservative
Average Margin (%): 31.1% (highest for Conservatives since at least 1917, and highest for anyone since 1980)
Average Margin (votes): 17518 (highest ever)
Largest Margin (%): 80.4% in Battle River – Crowfoot (highest for Conservatives since 1917, highest for a losing party since 1917 & highest for anyone since 1968)
Largest Margin (votes): 52544 in Edmonton – Wetaskiwin (highest ever)
Average Vote: 54.8% (highest for small-c conservatives since Alliance in 2000, & capital-c Conservatives since 1958; highest for anyone since 2004)
Largest Vote: 85.5% in Battle River – Crowfoot (highest for Conservatives since 1917, highest for a losing party since 1957 & highest for anyone since 1968)
Candidates with >50% of the Vote: 57 (47% of MPs)
New Democratic
Average Margin (%): 12.7% (better than 2015, but less than 2006-2011)
Average Margin (votes): 6079 (see above remarks)
Largest Margin (%): 34.4% in Vancouver East (see above remarks again)
Largest Margin (votes): 19151 in Vancouver East (better than 2015, but less than 2008-2011)
Average Vote: 41.1% (better than 2015, but less than 2000-2011)
Largest Vote: 52.6% in Vancouver East (see above remarks)
Candidates with >50% of the Vote: 1 (4% of MPs)
Bloc
Average Margin (%): 16.9% (much better than 2011-2015, but less than 2004-2008)
Average Margin (votes): 9443 (see above remarks)
Largest Margin (%): 38.8% in Bécanour – Nicolet – Saurel (much better than 2011-2015, but less than 1993-2008)
Largest Margin (votes): 20595 in Joliette (better than 2011-2015, but less than 2004-2008)
Average Vote: 45.1% (better than 2011-2015, but less than 1993-2008)
Largest Vote: 58.2% in Joliette (better than 2008-2015, but less than 1993-2006)
Candidates with >50% of the Vote: 11 (34% of MPs)
Overall
Average Margin (%): 22.1% (highest since 2008)
Average Margin (votes): 12015 (highest since 1993)
Largest Margin (%): 80.4% in Battle River – Crowfoot (highest since 1968)
Largest Margin (votes): 52544 in Edmonton – Wetaskiwin (highest ever)
Average Vote: 48.9% (higher than 2015, but lower than 2011)
Largest Vote: 85.5% in Battle River – Crowfoot (highest since 1968)
Candidates with >50% of the Vote: 123 (36% of MPs) (lowest as a percentage of the House since 1997; 2000 was the last time a majority of MPs were elected with a majority of the vote)
The false logic in speaking about the idea that a riding with a large Jewish population would be expected to go Conservative is truly ridiculous.
Yes, large in terms of Jewish numbers but in terms of the overall demographic not that large. 33,000 out of 112,000 or so.
Also there is no monolithic Jewish vote. How many here know at least three Jewish voters north of Toronto supporting each of the three biggest parties?
Perhaps this is a culture that tends to be politically interested (one person told me it is becuase it is part of the religion to ask questions that leads people to multiple different answers and everyone wanting to get a chance to ask their own question and speculate on an answer).
Still, it is unusual for a political party to be able to get the solid support of the Jewish community -- even when one wraps itself in the flag of Israel and gets a large number of Jewish leaders to endorse them. The voters think for themselves and are used to disagreements between them.
I think some cultures are less prone within families to accept political division and still get along on other things.
I know these are generalizations but I have both seen them and heard them from Jewish people throughout my llife.
Some defeated Quebec NDP MPs (and candidates) are upset with Jagmeet Singh for dancing and jumping up and down on election night. They lost, yet it seemed Singh was dancing on the grave of the 2011 Orange Wave
Go 3:30 into the video below
Some defeated Quebec NDP MPs (and candidates) are upset with Jagmeet Singh for dancing and jumping up and down on election night. They lost, yet it seemed Singh was dancing on the grave of the 2011 Orange Wave
Go 3:30 into the video below
Given the party was all but written off everywhere except BC and expected to lose party status with a dud leader, I think Singh can be forgiven for jumping up and down.
Dissapointed many for sure and exploited by Liberals for sure.
Given the party was all but written off everywhere except BC and expected to lose party status with a dud leader, I think Singh can be forgiven for jumping up and down.
Dissapointed many for sure and exploited by Liberals for sure.
The person who made these remarks is Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair former Communications director - and he was speaking on behalf of those defeated NDP MPs from Quebec.
Karl Belanger?
Yeah, that's a valid point. It's not usual for any leader to jump up & down on election night. I think it reflects Singh's inexperience.
My point remains the same -- on election night many were disapointed and the comments come from that place.
I think on reflection actual NDP supporters know where the relief came from and if they are being fair they will understand.
I also think that this is being exploited by Liberals.
My point remains the same -- on election night many were disapointed and the comments come from that place.
I think on reflection actual NDP supporters know where the relief came from and if they are being fair they will understand.
I also think that this is being exploited by Liberals.
Actually the comments by defeated Quebec NDP MPs were from today - almost a week after the election.
Yeah, and Karl Belanger is a committed NDPer -- he's no Liberal shill.
Some defeated Quebec NDP MPs (and candidates) are upset with Jagmeet Singh for dancing and jumping up and down on election night. They lost, yet it seemed Singh was dancing on the grave of the 2011 Orange Wave
Go 3:30 into the video below
I think Quebecers should be embarassed to complain. I know it was to be expected but I am still disappointed and ashamed of my province. Whether you win an election or not some candidates usually lose. I don't think that means the party can't celebrate what they won.
Whether you win an election or not some candidates usually lose.
We're not talking about "some candidates", the party's largest provincial caucus was reduced to one seat. I'm pretty sure if Singh had been the only BC MP reelected he wouldn't have been doing any dancing.
Whether you win an election or not some candidates usually lose.We're not talking about "some candidates", the party's largest provincial caucus was reduced to one seat. I'm pretty sure if Singh had been the only BC MP relected he wouldn't have been doing any dancing.
He went into the election expected, by pundits and people like you, to lose all his seats in Quebec and possibly lose party status and be overtaken by the Greens. Its hard to walk onto a stage in Vancouver, surrounded by the enthusiastic volunteers who helped you keep the party afloat and remember to be somber and mope about the loses.
[quote=JKR]
[quote=NDPP]
How the Jewish Vote Will Shape Canada's 43rd Parliament
https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/how-the-jewish-vote-will-shape-canada...
"...Every riding but one where Jews live in large numbers went Liberal."
I thought The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a hoax?!?!?!?!?
[quote=NDPP]
Perhaps you might wish to take that up with The Canadian Jewish News...
How the Jewish Vote Will Shape Canada's 43rd Parliament
https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/how-the-jewish-vote-will-shape-canada...
"...Every riding but one where Jews live in large numbers went Liberal."
I thought The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a hoax?!?!?!?!?
I find it strange to focus on the religion of MP's but apparently its a thing in faith communities.
https://muslimlink.ca/news/muslim-canadians-who-won-in-the-2019-federal-...
https://www.sikh24.com/2019/10/22/18-sikh-mps-elected-in-the-canadian-ge...
And perhaps some 'faith communities' more than others.
And perhaps some 'faith communities' more than others.
"Some 'faith communities' seem to get a lot of paranoid attention.
Perhaps you might wish to take that up with The Canadian Jewish News...
NDPP, for the love of whatever...please don't go there. There is no place for anything remotely similar to what you're insinuating there.
Election has left Conservatives in a bad place
By Chantal Hébert
In the cold light of morning and with the dust settling on the federal election results, it is becoming clearer that the vote has landed Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in a much better place than it did their Conservative rivals.
Short of winning the majority he coveted, the Liberal leader has been handed as workable a hung Parliament as he could ever have hoped for.
At the same time, his party’s electoral hand — notwithstanding a double-digit loss in seats and an equivalent gain for Andrew Scheer’s party — has been reinforced at the expense of the Conservatives.
It may seem counterintuitive, but it is the Conservatives who are most at risk over the longer term of paying the bill for the resurrection of the Bloc Québécois and the frustrations of their Prairie supporters.
A Bloc resurgence was not in the pre-election cards of any of the federalist parties, and it killed Liberal hopes for gains in the province.
But by winning 35 seats in Quebec, Trudeau not only beat the Bloc for first place, he also reinforced his party’s advantage. The Liberals beat the Conservatives by a margin of two to one. The New Democrats were reduced to a single seat.
In his home province, Trudeau now towers over his federalist rivals, with the Bloc poised to block the latter from securing enough support to contend for federal power.
And as if that were not enough, that Liberal edge on the Conservatives in Quebec is compounded by a similar advantage in Ontario.
[Full article for subscribers at link]:
Conservatives are out to get Scheer but he is not their problem. Almost very one of their policies is aimed to get the support of a declining minority as demographics move to new generations. Their position on climate change is only one of them.
The next election will only be harder. If they cannot win in 2019 it is hard to imagine 4 years from now would be any better.
Conservatives are out to get Scheer but he is not their problem. Almost very one of their policies is aimed to get the support of a declining minority as demographics move to new generations. Their position on climate change is only one of them.
The next election will only be harder. If they cannot win in 2019 it is hard to imagine 4 years from now would be any better.
Yes. That is exactly what I am seeing. We cannot be the only ones.
Conservatives are out to get Scheer but he is not their problem. Almost very one of their policies is aimed to get the support of a declining minority as demographics move to new generations. Their position on climate change is only one of them.The next election will only be harder. If they cannot win in 2019 it is hard to imagine 4 years from now would be any better.
Which is why, given that the Conservative demographic generally skews older and the memory of the Harper years is still fresh in people's minds, that they still managed to increase their seat count?
Conservatives are out to get Scheer but he is not their problem. Almost very one of their policies is aimed to get the support of a declining minority as demographics move to new generations. Their position on climate change is only one of them.The next election will only be harder. If they cannot win in 2019 it is hard to imagine 4 years from now would be any better.
Which is why, given that the Conservative demographic generally skews older and the memory of the Harper years is still fresh in people's minds, that they still managed to increase their seat count?
Most of their gains came in the West (and in a few traditionally conservative ridings in NB).
They didn't expand their appeal in Ontario or Quebec.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-strategic-voting-1.5339692
Fully 50 per cent of respondents who voted for the Tories said they made their choice before the campaign started. By contrast, just 30 per cent of Liberals, 22 per cent of New Democrats, 31 per cent of Bloc Québécois supporters, 35 per cent of Greens and 31 per cent of supporters of the People's Party of Canada said the same.....
Bourque said the Conservatives seemed unable to grow their support from the outset of the campaign.
"The Conservatives simply just delivered their base on election day and not anything else."
They can't win with just their base. Their strongest base is in Alberta but their Energy Corridor idea is a deal breaker in Quebec. No way would they vote for that. They make their money in Alberta and with social conservatives and free marketers. They can't afford to ditch the social conservatives who seem to have quite a lot of power within the party. Conservative pary has no where to grow to, unlike the NDP.
Of the respondents who ultimately voted Liberal, 46 per cent said they had considered voting for the NDP at some point during the campaign.
The math would hurt my head too much. What would it mean if the NDP had won 46% of the Liberal vote?
The math would hurt my head too much. What would it mean if the NDP had won 46% of the Liberal vote?
The Libs got 33.07%, the NDP 15.93%. 46% of the Lib vote would be 15.21%. If you add this to the NDP, they would have gotten 31.14%, and the Libs 17.86%. Not that this calculation has any application to real life.
Conservatives are out to get Scheer but he is not their problem. Almost very one of their policies is aimed to get the support of a declining minority as demographics move to new generations. Their position on climate change is only one of them.The next election will only be harder. If they cannot win in 2019 it is hard to imagine 4 years from now would be any better.
Which is why, given that the Conservative demographic generally skews older and the memory of the Harper years is still fresh in people's minds, that they still managed to increase their seat count?
Fighting against a badly wounded government in the midst of scandal and they could still not get a plurality of seats.
The math would hurt my head too much. What would it mean if the NDP had won 46% of the Liberal vote?
The Libs got 33.07%, the NDP 15.93%. 46% of the Lib vote would be 15.21%. If you add this to the NDP, they would have gotten 31.14%, and the Libs 17.86%. Not that this calculation has any application to real life.
Exactly - consideration does not mean much.
The Libs got 33.07%, the NDP 15.93%. 46% of the Lib vote would be 15.21%. If you add this to the NDP, they would have gotten 31.14%, and the Libs 17.86%. Not that this calculation has any application to real life.
Thise numbers look very similar to the results of the 2011 election when the NDP got 31%, the Liberals got 19% and the Conservatives won a phoney FPTP majority government with 39% of the vote.
Consideration means accessible votes.
I didn't expect Trudeau to be progressive. He was talking P3s before he was elected. I did not expect him to be as far right as he has been. As Conservative fortunes slide red Tories will move to the Liberals bringing them even farther right but without the climate denial or free market ideology. The Liberals are not seriously tackling climate change. It is only Conservative criticism that makes it look like they are.
That 46% is where a large part of future NDP support will come from as the Liberals continue to fail to deliver.
Consideration means accessible votes.
Yes - it does mean that and that is good. But that is a bit different than first choice being given up for strategic voting. It would have been nice to know the metrics of that.
True but we can't have everything. The Conservatives had every reason to believe Scheer could win against Trudeau given all the knocks against Trudeau. Scheer is appropriately bland and non-threatening. The Harper formula. Be boring.
They are losing the red Tories because the Conservative Party has become the Reform party. The Reformers won a pyrrhic victory. Times are changing rapidly. To minimize the threat of climate change is now a mark of ignorance that gets you shunned from polite society. Same goes for homophobia.
It doesn't matter if Scheer doesn't plan on acting on his personal beliefs. His personal beliefs are ignorant and reflect on his judgement and character in general. The Conservatives want to blame Scheer for this loss but it is their need for support from social conservatives and the oil fields that dooms them.
Here is a consideration: voter turnout in this election was 65.95%-down over 2 percentage points from the last election. It means over 34% of those who could have voted didn't vote. There will be an enormous political advantage that accrues to whatever party finds the way to get all, most, or even a significant chunk of the nonvoters to become voters. In the last campaign, nobody really seems to even have tried-the NDP may have wanted to try, but it was still so focused on looking "safe", and it wanted so desperately long-even on social media, which is FREE, people-to try and get any sort of a message out, let alone a message that said to the nonvoters "we recognize you're there, we know you need to hear that we're going to offer ideas that would make a real difference in your life or, better still, that we're willing to LISTEN to your own ideas about what would make such a difference, so let's get the conversation going", that even the modest gains in popular vote share the party thought it would achieve were lost.
Therefore, the conversation with those voters needs to start today-via whatever means necessary-via social media and teleconferencing if nothing else is affordable-but for god's sakes, get SOME kind of a conversation going.
Another fact-according to a poll posted on this very site right before the election, the NDP lost the votes of the poor-a demographic the party would probably be able to count on carrying if it had a program that took the need to fight poverty and unemployment at all seriously-to the Conservatives, a party which is actively committed to making like worse for the poor. This is inexcusable. And it's a situation that exists largely because the party has been so obsessed, under various leaders, with looking "moderate", with looking "safe" and nonthreatening, with not doing anything to discomfit the privileged or comfortable-even though the privileged and comfortable are never going to vote for anyone but the Libs or Cons-that it essentially offers the poor nothing and makes no real effort either to stand up for them when they are under attack from the rich OR to propose anything that would change their condition.
Clearly, the polls which showed the poor voting Con-probably because while the Cons offer them nothing material, they offer them distraction from their condition by encouraging the poor to blame all their problems on "the Other"-are proof that this has to change.
And "the poor" I'm speaking of are, in many cases, the people who have coffee and a cheap donut at Tim's-they are not in an alien realm from those people-so addressing, addressing not only giving lip service to economic inequality but taking structural inequality seriously-are going to make a lot of difference.
Next time, the wealth tax should be 5% or 10%, not a trivial 1%. Next time, there need to be targets for major green public housing construction. Next time, there needs to be active support for some means to restructure governance so that the poor get a real say in the economic decisions that affect them and are given a chance to play an active role in reshaping life so that poverty is actually ended in Canada. For a start.
To hell with looking safe. To hell with "respectability". For the NDP, respectability is not only electoral defeat-it may be electoral death in a few years.
I'm currently reading "The New NDP - Moderation, Modernization and Political Marketing" by David McGrane
McGrane writes about Strategic Voting
"As long as Canada has a first-past-the-post electoral system, strategic voting will be the bane of the Federal NDP, especially since Liberals appear to be masters of the strategic voting game"
If people listened to the pundits many a political party would never have been started. The essence of change is that history is not repeating itself.Both you and Sean are right that they need to learn marketing. They didn't make enough of the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer gave the platform the seal of approval. I think the NDP messaging was fine this time around. You were right that they needed to get it out sooner. You, and I think Sean as well have pointed out the need to present a vision of Canada's future and I agree with that. I don't think the answer is to be radical or not to be radical. I think it is simply to focus on the first steps towards dealing with inequality and climate change. Moderation is not a dirty word. The NDP has to be bold enough to present smart ideas that differenciate it from the Liberals and Conservatives without being so different that it frightens people into staying with the known.
