Who should lead the BCNDP now? And what should it stand for next time?

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
Who should lead the BCNDP now? And what should it stand for next time?

Obviouslyl this leader and this strategy were total, unqualified failures.  Something else and someone else are needed.

The conversation needs to start now, methinks.

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

typing at a library computer with very small font...sorry for the typo.  Obviously, the BCNDP should take a stronger stand on spelling than I just did.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Obviously, the BCNDP should take a stronger stand on spelling than I just did.

Lol!

Fixed.

Northern-54

I would suggest someone who does not have a connection to past NDP governments.  I would pick someone around 30-50 years of age.  He or she should be well spoken and knowledgeable about the issues, able to think on their feet well.   They should have shown that they know that a leader has to travel to all areas of a province and know that it is part of their job to help to attract good candidates.  They should be able to fight it out in a scrappy election when all will know that the main stream media is firmly against the party.

Northern-54

I would also suggest that platform and policy be developed close to an election call.  There should be control over what is written and distributed, even within the party.  Those in charge of election planning should be careful (almost paranoid) about security. 

I have learned in the past that there are advantages to electing leaders who are not in the legislature so do not think that should disqualify any potential leadership candidate.

While I do not think that Dix should take long in making his intention to step down from leadership, I do not think there is a hurry to elect a new leader.  Two years from now would give time necessary for serious campaigns to start.  The leadership race should encourage as many "votes" as possible - the party should develop a list of supporters (and election workers) through that process.

socialdemocrati...

The leadership =/= the strategy. Same strategy with a different leader will definitely lose. A smart strategy with the same leader will probably win.

I'm tired of people looking for a magic bullet. Sounds a lot like the Federal Liberals who screwed up over and over, and expected a new leader to fix everything.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Well, that's why I made this a thread about the question of the leader AND the program.  Obviously, if you discuss one, you have to discuss the other.  You can't just put a leader in and let her or him say "leave it all to me".  That's kind of how things went off the rails THIS time, and how an election that was apparently unloseable was lost.

Having said, as you did, that there's no magic bullet(which is, of course, true)what kinds of things DO you believe need to change?  Obviously, there is no case for "staying the course", since this result proves that the current leader, and the current strategy can never win an election no matter what.

My own recommendations would involve, generally

1)Actually making a positive case FOR change, rather than simply assuming that the party can win by default simply because people would want to "turf this $%&! government out".   Voters won't change the government unless they are actually persuaded that the opposition has better ideas...and this means being willing to say "ok, this may sound radical to you, but here's why radical change is actually a GOOD thing".  Voters don't trust a party that acts like its beliefs are something to be watered-down and hidden-that approach makes voters think that that party has a "hidden agenda".  Once voters think THAT of you, you are known in the Biblical sense.

2)Responding to attack ads IMMEDIATELY.  It never works to ignore smears and try to look like "the better(insert gender here)".

3)Keeping the base in the game by actually appealing to their ideals, rather than expecting them to settle for "getting the bastards out".  The Right ALWAYS rewards and respects its base, while the center-left mostly treats theirs like the enemy(or, worse yet, denies that it HAS a base and insists that it must appeal solely to those who disdain the center-left's core values and its most loyal supporters).  No party can prosper by sending the message "don't worry, WE look down on the people who usually vote for us, too."  And if you get in that way(as Blair did)you seldom, if ever, end up doing anything that actually benefits your loyalists, so, in the end, so you lose the ability to command loyalty from those loyalists and you end up atomizing your party down to nothing but a word on election posters.  

In short, campaign like you CAN win the argument.  That's the only way anyone wins elections.

Geoff

What should the BCNDP stand for?  Anything but "Change, one practical step at a time".   I've never heard a more pathetic campaign slogan from any party, anywhere, at anytime.  Good grief!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

-10$ a day child care
-PSE Tuition Freeze
-Co-ordinated regional public transit for lower mainland
-renationalize BC Ferries, reinstate missing routes and lower fares
-Provincial Rent and tenancy protection agency like the Régie du logement in Quebec 
-nationalize lumber and gas industries
-Restore funding to K-12 education
-Raise Corporate Taxes
-Raise taxes on wealthy
-Promise to fight Harper on all his bullshit policies

And so on. 

mersh

So I nominate Catchfire!

jas

Geoff wrote:

What should the BCNDP stand for?  Anything but "Change, one practical step at a time".   I've never heard a more pathetic campaign slogan from any party, anywhere, at anytime.  Good grief!

Yes, I'm sure Adrian Dix came up with that all on his own - and probably meanly quashed other, much better suggestions that were being offered - expecially by Babblers - for the months and months and months of pre-election discussion and strategizing. I'm sure there are entire Babble threads discussing exactly what's wrong with the campaign slogan and platform and why Adrian Dix's NDP will likely lose if they don't change their strategy quickly. Right? Those discussions must be all over Babble, right?

Off with his head!

JKR

Catchfire wrote:

-10$ a day child care
-PSE Tuition Freeze
-Co-ordinated regional public transit for lower mainland
-renationalize BC Ferries, reinstate missing routes and lower fares
-Provincial Rent and tenancy protection agency like the Régie du logement in Quebec 
-nationalize lumber and gas industries
-Restore funding to K-12 education
-Raise Corporate Taxes
-Raise taxes on wealthy
-Promise to fight Harper on all his bullshit policies

And so on. 

The NDP should continue to show why we need to better share the pie but it also has to come up with a strong vision of how to enlarge and sustain the pie. The NDP cannot be just about social fairness, sustainability, and equality of opportunity, it has to also be the party of prosperity and economic success. The party has to establish an integrated balanced vision of prosperity, sustainability, and equality.

 

jas

I would like to see the NDP maintain a fiscally conservative approach, but one that aggressively incorporates sustainable development, a green-based bottom line and recognized social responsibilities. I would like to see balanced budgets and radical initiatives.

And Adrian Dix not only should have a second chance, but should remain as leader for the near future, while the party does some soul searching. To change right now would be premature, not to mention asinine.

PrairieDemocrat15

Geoff wrote:

What should the BCNDP stand for?  Anything but "Change, one practical step at a time".   I've never heard a more pathetic campaign slogan from any party, anywhere, at anytime.  Good grief!

No kidding. I could nto believe it when I first heard it. A) Its too long and B)its too wimpy. I wonder what Dave Barrett thought about this slogan!

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

The NDP need to ditch the notion that the only way to win in more economically conservative ridings is to run more business friendly candidates. They need to ditch Trassolini-ism.

The NDP needs to pick candidates with an eye to attracting strong teams of volunteers to get them elected. The portion of the electorate that the NDP needs to win over by and large doesn't take time to research the local candidates in their riding; and those who won't vote for labour or environmental or other activist type candidates arn't going to vote NDP anyways.

Candidates like David Eby and George Heyman inspired people to get out and volunteer on their campaigns, and they won. Candidates like Joe Trassolini and Gabriel Yiu lost in ridings the NDP needed to win because they didn't inspire poeple to volunteer on their campaigns or get out and vote.

Candidates like Gabriel Yiu, Joe Trassolini, and George Chow turn off left of centre voters who feel quite rightly that many of the NDP's candidates are "impostors" from the business side of politics.

Also, as I said last night in the BC Election Day Reactions thread, the NDP needs to ditch the notion that they can convince business community that they are "safe" enough to get the other side to not engage in personal attacks and outright lies. It doesn't work, and it just makes the NDP look weak, as if they need the permission of the business community to do anything.

Dealing with these issues won't automatically get the NDP elected the next time round, but they do need to be addressed.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Geoff wrote:
What should the BCNDP stand for?  Anything but "Change, one practical step at a time".   I've never heard a more pathetic campaign slogan from any party, anywhere, at anytime.  Good grief!

It was a boneheaded slogan. It was designed to convince voters who rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly) see their interests as more closely alligned with business than with workers that the change on offer wouldn't affect them much. It didn't work. What it did do is convince many left of centre voters that there was not enough in the NDP platform that would make any difference to them as to make it worth their while to get out and vote.

Unionist

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Geoff wrote:

What should the BCNDP stand for?  Anything but "Change, one practical step at a time".   I've never heard a more pathetic campaign slogan from any party, anywhere, at anytime.  Good grief!

No kidding. I could nto believe it when I first heard it. A) Its too long and B)its too wimpy. I wonder what Dave Barrett thought about this slogan!

Oh come on, folks. I didn't hear anyone attacking this wimpy slogan before the NDP's defeat. Nor did I hear them attack it when Jack Layton (or, more likely, Brian Topp) coined it for the [url=http://nycoleturmel.ndp.ca/platform]May 2011 federal campaign[/url]:

Jack Layton wrote:
Today I’m releasing my affordable plan to get Ottawa working for your family - one practical step at a time.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Jack Layton wrote:
Today I’m releasing my affordable plan to get Ottawa working for your family - one practical step at a time.

I'm not one who normally jumps to the defense of Layton and the NDP, but in all fairness, that was just a line in the preface to their platform - not a campaign slogan.

Their slogans for that campaign were:

"Working For Families / Travaillons ensemble"

"You have a choice"

"That's Canadian Leadership"

Not great, but better than the BCNDP's turd.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I can't seem to find saying anything about it on babble, but I remember the first time I saw "One Practical Step at a Time." I was handed a placard at the BC CUPE convention and told to wave it when Dix came in. Me and my whole local looked at each other and said, you've got to be kidding me. I've certainly written my thoughts about it elsewhere. My favourite comment cae from Sean Antrim, president of COPE Vancouver: "Making Tea, one practical steep at a time."

At any rate, it embodies the "manage expectations" nonsense we've been critiquing all along.

Heh. Thanks but no thanks, Mersh. And good to see you!

Aristotleded24

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Jack Layton wrote:
Today I’m releasing my affordable plan to get Ottawa working for your family - one practical step at a time.

I'm not one who normally jumps to the defense of Layton and the NDP, but in all fairness, that was just a line in the preface to their platform - not a campaign slogan.

Their slogans for that campaign were:

"Working For Families / Travaillons ensemble"

"You have a choice"

"That's Canadian Leadership"

Not great, but better than the BCNDP's turd.

Also remember that Jack embodied the idea that Canadians care for one another and that could be reflected in public policy. The specific slogans and ads and platforms all pointed back to that central theme. It sounds as if the BC NDP's promises and platforms and slogan had no such common thread to stitch them back together.

Unionist

Hey ODA, I wasn't attacking Layton there. In fact, that "one practical step" thing goes back to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-news-features/ndp-convention-revisited?pa... least 2006[/url], if not much earlier.

I was merely marvelling at the observation that I didn't see anyone here criticize the BC NDP's slogan before the election. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying I didn't see it.

Did you?

How did a campaign slogan that no one here critiqued suddenly become a key element in a surprise defeat? And how did everyone suddenly come to that conclusion overnight?

I think a wee bit more analysis is needed after the fact. Or, perhaps, a wee bit less partisan enthusiasm before the fact. Or both.

 

 

jas

Maybe if we discuss at length the dumb slogan now, after the election, it will have the effect of reaching back in time until right before the election - when we of course had NO time to discuss the dumb slogan - and change events enough that, fast forwarding back to now, we find we have an NDP majority!

Yes, for this reason, I think we should keep discussing how dumb the slogan was.

Brachina

Left Turn wrote:

The NDP need to ditch the notion that the only way to win in more economically conservative ridings is to run more business friendly candidates. They need to ditch Trassolini-ism.

The NDP needs to pick candidates with an eye to attracting strong teams of volunteers to get them elected. The portion of the electorate that the NDP needs to win over by and large doesn't take time to research the local candidates in their riding; and those who won't vote for labour or environmental or other activist type candidates arn't going to vote NDP anyways.

Candidates like David Eby and George Heyman inspired people to get out and volunteer on their campaigns, and they won. Candidates like Joe Trassolini and Gabriel Yiu lost in ridings the NDP needed to win because they didn't inspire poeple to volunteer on their campaigns or get out and vote.

Candidates like Gabriel Yiu, Joe Trassolini, and George Chow turn off left of centre voters who feel quite rightly that many of the NDP's candidates are "impostors" from the business side of politics.

Also, as I said last night in the BC Election Day Reactions thread, the NDP needs to ditch the notion that they can convince business community that they are "safe" enough to get the other side to not engage in personal attacks and outright lies. It doesn't work, and it just makes the NDP look weak, as if they need the permission of the business community to do anything.

Dealing with these issues won't automatically get the NDP elected the next time round, but they do need to be addressed.

 

 Interesting point.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

To be fair, it's not just the slogan -- it's that the slogan represented the whole approach: manage expectations, assuage fears of economically irresponsible dippers, appeal to some fantasy of "practicality" in the face of neoliberal predation. It's been a running joke with most political folk I know (see tea gag above).

I asked David Eby, who I canvassed for, why, in a climate most amenable to a progressive government in 12 years, the NDP were asking for one practical step at a time when Gordon Capbell never took any small steps when he was elected. I asked what this would mean in four years, after the Sun and Province hammer the party every day -- would we still be looking for one "practical step at a time"? He said he would fight the moderate wing of the party, which is why I tried (successfully) to get the vote out for him.

And Unionist, please don't mention 2006 to me. As you know, I was eight years old. You might as well reference the Martin administration.

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:
I was merely marvelling at the observation that I didn't see anyone here criticize the BC NDP's slogan before the election. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying I didn't see it.

Did you?

No, I didn't. Although I love B.C. and have family there, I live in Ontario, so I paid little attention to the actual campaign (since the NDP had been declared the ineluctable winners more than a year ago).

Unionist wrote:
I think a wee bit more analysis is needed after the fact. Or, perhaps, a wee bit less partisan enthusiasm before the fact. Or both.

No disagreement there.

Unionist

What do you have against Martin van Buren??

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Is he Carly Rae Jepsen's drummer?

Brachina

Catchfire wrote:

To be fair, it's not just the slogan -- it's that the slogan represented the whole approach: manage expectations, assuage fears of economically irresponsible dippers, appeal to some fantasy of "practicality" in the face of neoliberal predation. It's been a running joke with most political folk I know (see tea gag above).

I asked David Eby, who I canvassed for, why, in a climate most amenable to a progressive government in 12 years, the NDP were asking for one practical step at a time when Gordon Capbell never took any small steps when he was elected. I asked what this would mean in four years, after the Sun and Province hammer the party every day -- would we still be looking for one "practical step at a time"? He said he would fight the moderate wing of the party, which is why I tried (successfully) to get the vote out for him.

And Unionist, please don't mention 2006 to me. As you know, I was eight years old. You might as well reference the Martin administration.

Very interesting. Eby is in a very unique and advantagous position if he decided to run. He beat Christy Clark in an otherwise disaster for the NDP, and it sounds like his approach would be very different from Dix's.

I have also heard Jenny Kwen mentioned and so I looked her up. Impressive resume, survives during the worst of times and doesn't seem to tainted by the 90s.

Extra benifit the best provincial leaders we have right now Lorne Micheals and Andrea Horwath are both women.

I'd love to see Eby and Mulcair get together and exchange ideas on what went wrong and what went right.

inkameep

Ken Burch wrote:

this leader and this strategy were total, unqualified failures.

Well, for two years the strategy seemed be working. It didn't fail until election day.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Brachina wrote:
Very interesting. Eby is in a very unique and advantagous position if he decided to run. He beat Christy Clark in an otherwise disaster for the NDP, and it sounds like his approach would be very different from Dix's. I have also heard Jenny Kwen mentioned and so I looked her up. Impressive resume, survives during the worst of times and doesn't seem to tainted by the 90s.

David Eby would be my pick for next leader of the BC NDP. He's done amazing work with the Pivot Legal society and the BC Civil Liberties Association. That said, the current powers that be in the party would try hard to keep him from becoming leader, as he's not moderate enough for them.

I really like Jenny Kwan, and it pains me to say this, but I still think there's too much anti-asian racism in this province for a Jenny Kwan-led NDP to win government. That racism I think is part of the reason the NDP got reduced to 2 seats in the 2001 rout when Ujjal Dosanjh was the leader, and sad to say that much of it is still with us.

socialdemocrati...

I'm agnostic on the whether to replace the leader, but glad to see people focusing on other areas of improvement. The slogan is an interesting discusison, because I agree it's symbolic of a timid, technocratic strategy. It's one thing to mention "practical steps" for change. It's another thing to encapsulate your entire approach to government with something so timid and vague.

I think we have to demolish a few bad assumptions.

Political hacks assume that appealing to your base is exclusionary and narrow. But Conservatives do this all the time. And when it works, it doesn't just fire up the base. It also demonstrates "courage" and "conviction" and "leadership". Funny enough, trying to mush your way to the middle can turn people off, by appearing insincere, weak, or not even appearing at all.

Political hacks also assume that criticizing the other party is negative and a turnoff. But a guy like Jack Layton showed us how it's done. He knew how to talk about an opponent's record while showing personal respect. He knew how to humiliate his opponent without bullying, by relying on his sense of humor. Not that I'm trying to find a magic bullet like "charisma". It can be as simple as the tone of the advertising.

The last dangerous idea that I worry is slipping into SOME New Democrats is that you can just wait for the government to lose an election. But you can't just wait around. You have to try to win. Even when the current government looks like they've blown it and voters would put ANYONE else in office. It doesn't really work that way. You have to turn the resentment and fatigue from the current government into genuine excitement for an NDP government. That's especially true in provinces with more than two viable parties (which is most of the country).

I've said it once and I'll say it again: more than being left or right, one of the best things about the NDP brand is its reputation for being passionate reformers. I believe that the appetite for reform is so huge that the NDP would be idiots to not remind people of that.

KenS

Catchfire wrote:

To be fair, it's not just the slogan -- it's that the slogan represented the whole approach: manage expectations, assuage fears of economically irresponsible dippers, appeal to some fantasy of "practicality" in the face of neoliberal predation. It's been a running joke with most political folk I know (see tea gag above).

That is and has been the NSNDP on the long road to power.

The NDP does have to do those things. Absolutely. The problem is when as we see, it becomes the sum total of the long term campaigning message.

A lot of practically minded people withing the NSNDP, like myself, said that it's not going to work... it will bite us at the finish line. Time proved us wrong.

On the other hand, it doesn't always work. And what a massive failure.

But that wont kill the appeal for a lot of folks who do not know any other way to go.

Let's try a little realpolitik calculation here.

1.] If you "manage expectations"- make no promises- you also get nothing when you govern. [See Nova Scotia.]

2.] But. you'll see it will be different. Let's get the brass ring, and we'll see when we get there. [I'm supposed to just forget Nova Scotia?]

3.] And the strategy does not even necessarily get the brass ring anyway. [See BC.]

Brilliant.

 

inkameep wrote:

Well, for two years the strategy seemed be working. It didn't fail until election day.

Department of ringing endorsements.

Brachina

Left Turn wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Very interesting. Eby is in a very unique and advantagous position if he decided to run. He beat Christy Clark in an otherwise disaster for the NDP, and it sounds like his approach would be very different from Dix's. I have also heard Jenny Kwen mentioned and so I looked her up. Impressive resume, survives during the worst of times and doesn't seem to tainted by the 90s.

David Eby would be my pick for next leader of the BC NDP. He's done amazing work with the Pivot Legal society and the BC Civil Liberties Association. That said, the current powers that be in the party would try hard to keep him from becoming leader, as he's not moderate enough for them.

I really like Jenny Kwan, and it pains me to say this, but I still think there's too much anti-asian racism in this province for a Jenny Kwan-led NDP to win government. That racism I think is part of the reason the NDP got reduced to 2 seats in the 2001 rout when Ujjal Dosanjh was the leader, and sad to say that much of it is still with us.

People said the same about a black President. Obama won twice. And that some people are racist is absolutely not a reason to exclude anyone, I will not give ground to racists or punishment someone for being Asian. Anyone who refuses to vote for her because she's Asian can shove thier ballot up where the sun don't shine.

The day we start disqualifying people to appease racists is the day I quit the NDP.

socialdemocrati...

KenS wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

To be fair, it's not just the slogan -- it's that the slogan represented the whole approach: manage expectations, assuage fears of economically irresponsible dippers, appeal to some fantasy of "practicality" in the face of neoliberal predation. It's been a running joke with most political folk I know (see tea gag above).

That is and has been the NSNDP on the long road to power.

The NDP does have to do those things. Absolutely. The problem is when as we see, it becomes the sum total of the long term campaigning message.

A lot of practically minded people withing the NSNDP, like myself, said that it's not going to work... it will bite us at the finish line. Time proved us wrong.

On the other hand, it doesn't always work. And what a massive failure.

But that wont kill the appeal for a lot of folks who do not know any other way to go.

Let's try a little realpolitik calculation here.

1.] If you "manage expectations"- make no promises- you also get nothing when you govern. [See Nova Scotia.]

2.] But. you'll see it will be different. Let's get the brass ring, and we'll see when we get there. [I'm supposed to just forget Nova Scotia?]

3.] And the strategy does not even necessarily get the brass ring anyway. [See BC.]

Brilliant.

Agree 100%.

So if a watered down mild generic improvement is a bad message, but assuading fears is still important, then how do you do it?

I think it starts with honesty. You may have the best of intentions when you say "hey, we're not going to do anything huge when we're in power". But not only are you severely limiting your mandate to accomplish anything. You're also coming across as full of shit. The NDP has multiple generations of history as the party that wants to shake things up, and believes the political system is fundamentally broken. You'd be amazed how much trust you can earn when you say "yeah, we're going to do some big things, and here is EXACTLY what they are." (As long as you pick the right big things.)

I also think that trust is a game of contrast, not "me too". I don't have a strong enough knowledge of the Liberal record in BC, but it can't be that different from the federal Liberals/Conservatives (or Ontario, which I do know). You want people to trust you? Point out the number of shit budgets passed by the other parties. (Let alone the occasional "very serious budget" that is "balanced" on the backs of working people to pay for corporate welfare.) Point out the number of gaping ethical shitstorms pulling the province down the toilet. Then, to bring it all home, don't just make trust a matter of personality. Make it a matter of policy. How will an NDP government be different?

People shouldn't worry about whether the NDP can manage an economy like the other parties. If you've been paying attention, you should be far more afraid that they will mange an economy TOO MUCH like the other parties. Run against their record, and promise things will be different. I'm not even talking left-right here. I'm talking basic strategy.

Caissa

Catchfire wrote:

And Unionist, please don't mention 2006 to me. As you know, I was eight years old. You might as well reference the Martin administration.

The math can't be correct or am I missing some inside joke?

 

Vansterdam Kid

Left Turn wrote:

The NDP need to ditch the notion that the only way to win in more economically conservative ridings is to run more business friendly candidates. They need to ditch Trassolini-ism.

The NDP needs to pick candidates with an eye to attracting strong teams of volunteers to get them elected. The portion of the electorate that the NDP needs to win over by and large doesn't take time to research the local candidates in their riding; and those who won't vote for labour or environmental or other activist type candidates arn't going to vote NDP anyways.

Candidates like David Eby and George Heyman inspired people to get out and volunteer on their campaigns, and they won. Candidates like Joe Trassolini and Gabriel Yiu lost in ridings the NDP needed to win because they didn't inspire poeple to volunteer on their campaigns or get out and vote.

Candidates like Gabriel Yiu, Joe Trassolini, and George Chow turn off left of centre voters who feel quite rightly that many of the NDP's candidates are "impostors" from the business side of politics.

Also, as I said last night in the BC Election Day Reactions thread, the NDP needs to ditch the notion that they can convince business community that they are "safe" enough to get the other side to not engage in personal attacks and outright lies. It doesn't work, and it just makes the NDP look weak, as if they need the permission of the business community to do anything.

Dealing with these issues won't automatically get the NDP elected the next time round, but they do need to be addressed.

True in general, although I'm not sure that's why Trasolini lost. I think he lost because he was in a pretty conservative riding on an election day that wasn't very NDP friendly. If he wasn't appealing, he wouldn't have constantly been re-elected mayor of Port Moody.

That is a minor point though, because had the NDP had been able to keep more of the voters who've abandoned them since 2005, let alone volunteers and donating supporters, it would be a much stronger organization. To be perfectly blunt, I can't try to convince people to vote NDP by talking about how great they are because I don't believe it myself. I have the formula of why the Liberals are terrible, and I'll try to taylor it to whomever I'm talking to, but all I can really say about the NDP is that they won't do the same and will administer what changes have been made in a more competent and friendly way.

Most people are very busy and don't have the time, or the desire, to spend their precious time on committing to something that doesn't energize or excite them. "More competent and friendly" isn't overly appealing.

As for potential leaders, I like Kwan in some ways and couldn't care less about whether or not people would vote for her because they're racist. I just don't get the impression that she'd be a particularly effective leader, because I've rarely gotten the impression that she's an exceptional communicator. I've always seen her as more of a foot soldier than the general. Then again, an impressive leadership campaign could convince me otherwise because I can't point to any one person at this point and say, "You're the next Premier!"

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

And Unionist, please don't mention 2006 to me. As you know, I was eight years old. You might as well reference the Martin administration.

The math can't be correct or am I missing some inside joke?

 

The latter. Hence my rejoinder about Martin Van Buren.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

The find that Jack used the phrase in 2006 is interesting though. It can't be an accident. Can we call it a tried and false Topp-ism?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Trasolini in the late '90's was seen as an ally of Christy Clark.  I suspect that some NDP supporters did not trust his conversion and merely saw a political opportunist. I personally almost puked when I first heard him touted as a STAR candidate for the NDP. 

Vansterdam Kid

He did better than the previous NDP candidates in that riding because he probably had his own cadre of supporters who weren't necessarilly NDP supporters. This doesn't fit the "mealy mouthed centrist looses votes" theory, which I would usually buy into, but not in every instance.

jerrym

Maybe we could learn a few lessons from the Liberals and to some extent the Greens on campaigning, as well as from the ridings where the NDP took Liberal seats. These tactics seemed to have worked. Afterall, the Liberals sent someone to our convention to hear how the Manitoba NDP came from behind to win. The least we could do is return the favour. 

Quote:

At least part of the explanation for Premier Christy Clark's stunning upset win Tuesday night could be as simple as this: The B.C. Liberals were most effective at getting their voters to the polls.

An analysis of voter turnout figures by The Vancouver Sun reveals that the 23 ridings with the biggest increase or smallest decrease in voter turnout since 2009 all voted Liberal on Tuesday. ...

In Chilliwack-Hope, preliminary figures show that 3.2 per cent more voters cast a ballot in the riding that saw Liberal candidate Laurie Thron-ess beat NDP incumbent Gwen O'Mahony by almost 3,000 votes (14 per cent). Throness said his was a "textbook" campaign of knocking on doors and engaging supporters, many of whom were first identified in last year's byelection.

The voter-turnout gap may go some way to explaining how pre-election polls predicting a comfortable NDP majority could be so far off.

In the leadup to election day, much was made of the NDP's "legendary" organizing power, but in the end it appears people were more motivated by the issues, Throness said. Many NDP supporters, confident their party would win easily, may simply not have bothered voting.

Former federal NDP candidate Michael Byers said Adrian Dix's candidates had very uneven campaigns throughout the province.

"I was close enough to see the get-out-the-vote machine in Vancouver-Fairview and also in Saanich North and the Islands, and in those two ridings New Democrats took Liberal ridings by very narrow margins," the University of B.C. political science professor said.

"That was on the basis of extremely hard work including two candidates who spent the last two years working on those campaigns.

Byers also praised David Eby for connecting with youth and winning against Clark in Vancouver-Point Grey, but said that level of commitment wasn't matched by other NDP candidates across the province.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Liberal+ground+game+fuelled+unexpected+...

 The Green victory in Oak Bay-Gordon Head can be attributed in part to " a strategy that has focused on getting well-known candidates into ridings the party thought would be receptive to its message." (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/greens-make-a-beach...)

It also involved thinking outside the box in using techniques such as Weaver car flags, similar to those of the Canucks, to gain attention and to generate free media attention with quick (but glib) answers. When Ethical Oil tried said that the car flags promote driving--and that's not very Green, Weaver requested an interview and replied  "Saying that car flags promote driving is like saying that eating sandwiches promotes obesity. It's simply absurd." In fact, many of our "car flags" have been commandeered by cyclists and people with strollers--just think about it! Surely this is the real story: "Green Party thinks outside of the oil drum, employs car flags for more creative means". (http://www.andrewjweaver.ca/blog)

 

 

quizzical

i wasn't really into this election but did vote under mom's duress. all i gotta say is not everyone in BC watches the knowlege network. it's a pretty small audience. translation = whinning about attack ads in order to play to some judgemental higher ground so doesn't work here in BC. it smacks of a superiority complex. the majority of people watch and pay attention to  high energy adrenaline tv. they'd rather see a fk up and an apology rather than some phoney quietly moral higher ground.

younger voting people needed to be engaged and engaged  meant tell the truth loud and out there and attack back. the BC liberal gov deserved it. the 20's & 30's  i know and socialize with put whiney Dix and the KN campaign on ignore.

David Eby for next BCNDP leader. Dix shoulda never been there playing all moral and judgemental. not with his baggage. he shoulda been attacking back. whoever was in charge blew it it big time.

where was the door to door  people? if candidates aren't going to go door to door and engage they should be chucked out. shirley bond was everywhere in this riding and when i was in Sooke last election Horgan and  team were out and about.

i'm pretty steamed the NDP has to do better if they ever want me to vote for them again. they made me want to never vote again.

NorthReport

This NDP purity test mentality is dooming the NDP.

Trasolini lost because their was no Conservative candidate. Period!

 

 

JKR

if he's interested, Nathan Cullen would make for a great BC NDP leader. He's got a winning personality and an impecable reputation and his ability to speak French would not be a factor here in BC.

quizzical

ya i can agree with nathan and whata a way to get the north involved again!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

This NDP purity test mentality is dooming the NDP.

Trasolini lost because their was no Conservative candidate. Period!

 

 

Nobody's doing a "purity test" here...just arguing that the BCNDP has to appeal to ITS base as much as the BCLibs appeal to theirs.  And this election was, if anything, a repudiation of the "screw principles...all that matters is electing something that CALLS itself 'an NDP government'"  mindset that the party hacks are still stuck in despite the fact that all it ever produces(OTHER than Nova Scotia once and Manitoba a few times)is defeat.  And in Novia Scotia and Manitoba, the "wins: achieved by that strategy produced nothing but government on Liberal or even PC terms(you could make a good case that Dexter is actually to the right, in some respects, of the previous Nova Scotia PC government).

The party ran on its most right-wing manifesto ever in B.C., and had many candidates(such as Trasolini and that racist whackjob that originally gog nominated in Hamloops before they deumped her)who were from anti-center left, let alone anti-left political traditions.  Dix's entire strategy was based on the idea that the core voters and the core values at best didn't matter, and at worst were the roadblocks.

What the heck would YOU argue for?  Moving the BCNDP even FURTHER right? Going totally Blairite?  Letting Dix keep on keepin' on?  If so, why?
If not, what's your plan?  Clearly, everything that was done this year failed.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Nathan is also not part of the BC NDP old guard so that makes him very appealing.

The only way that the NDP can reach out to the groups they need to is to become more open to new ideas.  I've seen young people get engaged with the party and then get disillusioned really quickly when they realized their role was to fund raise but not to have any real say in making policy.

The NDP needs to begin a conversation with its youth wing about making the party more relevant and have youth round tables and things like that to develop a platform that speaks to the needs of that group.  The same goes for other groups that are disillusioned with the political process. Unless the NDP learns to be a grassroots party it will fail to get the voters out who should be its base but who are now staying at home.

The message has to come from the bottom up and then be incorporated in the platform.

NorthReport

Just read some of the previous posts about purity tests.

I don't think the NDP has a political future here in BC.

Yes they will remain as Official Opposition for another election or two, but basically they are done.

How can you expect the labour movement, at least in the construction sector, to continue to support a political party that does not focus on jobs and prosperity as their front and centre number one issue?

How do you spell GREEN?

 

Clark's New Team: Rowing in the Same Direction

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/16/Christy-Clark-New-Team/

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It is true that the IUOE and Teamsters always supported the Socreds because the work being done was always union work.  The unions are not in the same position anymore because the work mostly goes to firms that are not union friendly and prefer to employ temporary workers. Building pipelines is not a way to produce jobs over the long term it will destroy the economy not build it.  We need infrastructure and mass transit not pipelines to ship tar sands gunk to Asian markets.

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Just read some of the previous posts about purity tests.

I don't think the NDP has a political future here in BC.

Yes they will remain as Official Opposition for another election or two, but basically they are done.

How can you expect the labour movement, at least in the construction sector, to continue to support a political party that does not focus on jobs and prosperity as their front and centre number one issue?

How do you spell GREEN?

 

Clark's New Team: Rowing in the Same Direction

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/16/Christy-Clark-New-Team/

 That's hyperbole, there are challenges, but they are not unsurmountable.

 And its not about purity tests, at least not for me, its about understanding what happened and that moving to the "Centre" maybe not be the mircle solution that the media makes it out to be.

 Jobs do have to be important, but that does not mean you shouldn't deal with that in an enviromentally sustainable way.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Brachina wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Just read some of the previous posts about purity tests.

I don't think the NDP has a political future here in BC.

Yes they will remain as Official Opposition for another election or two, but basically they are done.

How can you expect the labour movement, at least in the construction sector, to continue to support a political party that does not focus on jobs and prosperity as their front and centre number one issue?

How do you spell GREEN?

 

Clark's New Team: Rowing in the Same Direction

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/16/Christy-Clark-New-Team/

 That's hyperbole, there are challenges, but they are not unsurmountable.

 And its not about purity tests, at least not for me, its about understanding what happened and that moving to the "Centre" maybe not be the mircle solution that the media makes it out to be.

 Jobs do have to be important, but that does not mean you shouldn't deal with that in an enviromentally sustainable way.

In fact, the BCNDP could make lemonaid out of this lemon(the greenies vs. jobs issue)by calling for a Grassroots Sustainable Economy Convention, where labour, small-g green groups, anti-poverty activists, FN groups and others could come together and advance a new economic agenda for BC, from below, that would create a strategy for a full or near-full employment economy that isn't based on unregulated pillage of resources, that recognizes that workers are among the biggest victims of pollution, and that environmental types want people to have jobs and a decent life too).

That would be something clearly different than the past.  It wouldn't have to call for something statist and bureaucratic(co-operatives and some types of private public partnerships could be the base of it).  And it could create a NEW bottom line, one that made British Columbia, as the entire world needs to become, a place that doesn't have to destroy itself to survive.

Pages