2018 Polls

645 posts / 0 new
Last post
SocialJustice101

You're projecting again, NR.   I came here for a stimulating conversation.  You keep complaining about voter manipulation and trolling, yet that's all you ever do here.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The only way the non-Conservative vote will be united is if the Liberal Party is destroyed.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

I came here for a stimulating conversation.

Good luck with that, but I for one generally enjoy your comments, despite often disagreeing with them.

JKR

progressive17 wrote:

The only way the non-Conservative vote will be united is if the Liberal Party is destroyed.

Why not unite and move the federal Liberal Party leftward? To an extent I think that's already happening because of FPTP. People have even mused that Rachel Notley could join the federal Liberals.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

I hope you Liberals enjoy talking to each other.

How did you become omniscient?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Liberal supporters are quite happy to vote Conservative, as they are now in Ontario. The remaining Liberal vote is insignificant, and the NDP vote is down to bedrock support. These swing voters could go back to the Liberal Party, were it to still exist. If the Liberal Party were destroyed, they would have to decide between Conservative and NDP. While the Liberal Party still exists, the Conservatives will always have the advantage of a higher bedrock base.

As the Liberal Party has no principles except its own power, and has never had any, and has never been able to explain them after repeated attempts to question various prominent Liberals, it is the one which has to go. They campaign from the left and govern from the right. They deliberately make promises to get votes, and they deliberately break them to please their friends in the private sector. Everyone with any kind of political principles on both sides of the political spectrum knows this.

Whatever anyone says the Liberal Party might do in the future is probably false. The corruption scandals are to do with the Liberal Party in Quebec, Ontario, and federally. Even the Conservatives are pretty clean in this respect, although they have policies we generally don't like.

The Liberal Party stands in the way of political progress in Canada. Because of the Liberal Party, people on both the left and the right are becoming more toxic and more intolerant. The Liberal Party must be destroyed. Absolutely annhiliated. Without the Liberal Party, there is a much better chance of a majority government against the Conservatives. Whatever it is which opposes the Conservative Party will likely have a similiar bedrock base of support, once the Liberal Party has been destroyed.

As it is now, the benefit of the destruction of the Liberal Party is more than the cost of enduring the Conservative Party for a while.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

The only way the non-Conservative vote will be united is if the Liberal Party is destroyed.

That would lead to massive Conservative wins not an NDP win. If the NDP ever did win they would be Liberals wearing orange. The Orange Crush was a result of the NDP going centrist not the population moving left. The way to win is to stop thinking about left and right and political theory and start offering Canadians a cohesive vision that would improve the lives of the 99% instead of dividing them into interest groups to be served individually. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

With two main parties you would restore the pendulum effect. The Conservatives would not stay in power forever. If they did what they generally want to do, more and more people would get angry with them, and want to turf them out.

The other effect that we do not tend to consider is that the Liberals act as a political buffer, allowing the Conservatives to be more extreme. If the Liberals were not there, the Conservatives would have to move more to the middle, and reject policies from the more misogynist and misanthropic quarters in their party. By the same token, the party on the Left would have to move more to the centre (as you mention) without having their lunch always eaten by the Liberal Party in the middle.

I can point to the UK as a place where the Liberal Party has more or less been destroyed for quite a long time. The last time they popped their ugly heads up was when they did a coalition with the Conservatives, leading to the most atrocious austerity programs seen in the UK for a very long time. As a result, it is bye bye Liberals, and probably for a very long time. Just as in Canada, the Liberals campaigned on a reasonably progressive platform, and were then happy to jump into bed with the Tories on the Right.

R.E.Wood

progressive17 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Good old fashioned Canadian racism. Pure and simple.

What is? Did you put this in the wrong thread?

No. It is why Singh is down to 11%. He is not white.

It couldn't possibly be his incompetence? The fact he has to drag Guy Caron around to press conferences to tell him the answers to questions just goes to show what a better leader Caron would have been (or anyone else with the experience to do the job). Or maybe it's his poor public-speaking skills, or his arrogance, or his ungenuine bespoke-suite-wearing BMW-driving socialism? Or maybe it's his utter lack of experience to be PM? Or maybe it's because he doesn't have a seat in Parliament and the party seems to have no cohesive voice? Or maybe it's because his MP's have to continually correct him or contradict him publicly (most recently Boulerice and Singh taking different positions on whether the NDP would support a court decision on Kinder Morgan regardless of what that decision turned out to be)? Or maybe it's the policy direction the party is taking under his leadership that isn't resonating with the public at large? That's probably the biggest reason right there!

You see, jumping to "racism!" as the excuse for the NDP's upcoming electoral failure under Singh isn't truthful and doesn't address his many drawbacks and failings as leader. Sure, racism is one reason some people (Conservative voters mainly) may not want Singh to be PM, but it's certainly miles away from being the only one.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

SocialJustice101

progressive17 wrote:

The only way the non-Conservative vote will be united is if the Liberal Party is destroyed.

The Liberal Party was almost destroyed in 2011.  How much was the NDP Official Opposition able to accomplish for Canada, during those 4 years?  In 2015, Mulcair campaigned to the right of the Liberals, insisting on balanced budgets.   So if the Liberals got replaced with a more centrist NDP, what's the difference?  Was it worth giving the Cons easy victories in the process, just to switch party names?  That's exactly what the Cons want.

Also, the Alberta Liberal Party is practically dead and they even have an NDP government.   Is that NDP government everything you hoped it would be?   It's easy to demagogue on the opposition benches, but not so easy to govern.

As you yourself suggested, what matters is actions not ideologies.   Instead of dreaming of a pie in the sky, the NDP should be working with the Liberals on common policy goals.   In the past, such co-operation produces tangible results, such as Medicare.  Also the most recent Liberal convention was very similar to the NDP convention.   So be the proposition party, as Layton once suggested.

 

bekayne

progressive17 wrote:

With two main parties you would restore the pendulum effect. 

Like in BC since 1945?

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:
It couldn't possibly be his incompetence? The fact he has to drag Guy Caron around to press conferences to tell him the answers to questions just goes to show what a better leader Caron would have been (or anyone else with the experience to do the job). 

I supported Caron for the leadership too. That is why I think it shows excellent judgement on Singh's part that he keeps Caron close. Caron doesn't have the charisma to lead the NDP to greater popularity. There is no superhero that has every quality needed to lead a party single-handed. You may hate Trudeau but he has been an excellent leader for the Liberals. No one else that tried for the leadership could have done half as well. One of the reasons is the people he chose to surround himself with. Experts in every field. Behind the scenes too. I think keeping Caron, an economist, close is a sign of the direction Singh intends to go in. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
Or maybe it's his poor public-speaking skills, or his arrogance, or his ungenuine bespoke-suite-wearing BMW-driving socialism? 

His speaking skills are excellent in English and French. He will do extremely well against Trudeau and Scheer in the debates. Judging someone by the clothes they wear or the car they drive illustrates prejudice. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
Or maybe it's his utter lack of experience to be PM? Or maybe it's because he doesn't have a seat in Parliament and the party seems to have no cohesive voice? 

If lack of experience was a problem the party should have prevented him from running for the leadership. Instead he was elected leader. That is his qualification for leadership. That is how it is determined not through a resume although his provincial record is progressive. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
Or maybe it's because his MP's have to continually correct him or contradict him publicly (most recently Boulerice and Singh taking different positions on whether the NDP would support a court decision on Kinder Morgan regardless of what that decision turned out to be)? 

Boulerice said they need to do a better job of briefing Singh when he returns to Ottawa from traveling to ridings. I suppose you think that's fun, like a sight seeing tour. As someone who has traveled on business it isn't fun. It's hard work and living out of a suitcase when you aren't on vacation isn't fun either. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
 Or maybe it's the policy direction the party is taking under his leadership that isn't resonating with the public at large? That's probably the biggest reason right there! 

You can't be serious. The public supported Singh on voting against the Conservatives on the summer jobs thing. Reporters asked about Ashton and Cullen's views. It is obvious there is a faction within caucus that doesn't support Singh and actively wants to undermine him. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
You see, jumping to "racism!" as the excuse for the NDP's upcoming electoral failure under Singh isn't truthful and doesn't address his many drawbacks and failings as leader. Sure, racism is one reason some people (Conservative voters mainly) may not want Singh to be PM, but it's certainly miles away from being the only one. 

I agree with you there. I think your reference to lack of experience betrays your driving motivation. Singh didn't pay his dues in the federal NDP. You wanted an old-school NDP stalwart to win. Someone humble who would wear 200$ suits. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

This is an interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it, or did you just make it up?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

This is an interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it, or did you just make it up?

It is based on my experience of about 40 years working and drinking with Canadians. You go into a company and all the workers are not white, and all the management are white, for example. It really is not too far under the surface.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Oh, and this is a colonial society formed out of British Imperalism, based on the notion that the white man was superior. It is one of the foundations of Canadian society.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

This is an interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it, or did you just make it up?

It is based on my experience of about 40 years working and drinking with Canadians. You go into a company and all the workers are not white, and all the management are white, for example. It really is not too far under the surface.

So, are you a member of the racist majority? If not, what is so special about you that makes you morally superior to most others?

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

It is based on my experience of about 40 years working and drinking with Canadians. You go into a company and all the workers are not white, and all the management are white, for example. It really is not too far under the surface.

People with a lot of money open companies. Most people in Canada with a lot of money are white males. They hire people who don't have money and will work cheap. That usually means immigrants. That is true of every generation of immigrants. At one time it was the white Irish. Most immigrants to Canada now are not white.

I'm sure there is plenty of racism in Canada that just isn't an example of it. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

This is an interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it, or did you just make it up?

It is based on my experience of about 40 years working and drinking with Canadians. You go into a company and all the workers are not white, and all the management are white, for example. It really is not too far under the surface.

So, are you a member of the racist majority? If not, what is so special about you that makes you morally superior to most others?

I have never been part of the majority of anything. Whoever I vote for generally loses, and by a wide margin at that. Maybe one day the majority might wake up, but I severely doubt they will do so in my lifetime. They never have, so why should I expect they ever will?

All people in the world are like this. They do not want to be with strangers and foreigners, unless they are too poor to live anywhere else. Because they are too poor to live in a homogeneous neighborhood, they are the ones who are at the vanguard of racist activity.

I have always been the "alien", the "outsider" and the "other" all my life. Even here, few understand me, and are quick to condemn one word, when it is surrounded by explanations that I have tried very hard to make sense in the context of what this site is all about.

If what I say makes you feel uncomfortable, maybe you should look at yourself.

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:
It couldn't possibly be his incompetence? The fact he has to drag Guy Caron around to press conferences to tell him the answers to questions just goes to show what a better leader Caron would have been (or anyone else with the experience to do the job). 

I supported Caron for the leadership too. That is why I think it shows excellent judgement on Singh's part that he keeps Caron close. Caron doesn't have the charisma to lead the NDP to greater popularity. There is no superhero that has every quality needed to lead a party single-handed. You may hate Trudeau but he has been an excellent leader for the Liberals. No one else that tried for the leadership could have done half as well. One of the reasons is the people he chose to surround himself with. Experts in every field. Behind the scenes too. I think keeping Caron, an economist, close is a sign of the direction Singh intends to go in. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
Or maybe it's his poor public-speaking skills, or his arrogance, or his ungenuine bespoke-suite-wearing BMW-driving socialism? 

His speaking skills are excellent in English and French. He will do extremely well against Trudeau and Scheer in the debates. Judging someone by the clothes they wear or the car they drive illustrates prejudice. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
Or maybe it's his utter lack of experience to be PM? Or maybe it's because he doesn't have a seat in Parliament and the party seems to have no cohesive voice? 

If lack of experience was a problem the party should have prevented him from running for the leadership. Instead he was elected leader. That is his qualification for leadership. That is how it is determined not through a resume although his provincial record is progressive. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
Or maybe it's because his MP's have to continually correct him or contradict him publicly (most recently Boulerice and Singh taking different positions on whether the NDP would support a court decision on Kinder Morgan regardless of what that decision turned out to be)? 

Boulerice said they need to do a better job of briefing Singh when he returns to Ottawa from traveling to ridings. I suppose you think that's fun, like a sight seeing tour. As someone who has traveled on business it isn't fun. It's hard work and living out of a suitcase when you aren't on vacation isn't fun either. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
 Or maybe it's the policy direction the party is taking under his leadership that isn't resonating with the public at large? That's probably the biggest reason right there! 

You can't be serious. The public supported Singh on voting against the Conservatives on the summer jobs thing. Reporters asked about Ashton and Cullen's views. It is obvious there is a faction within caucus that doesn't support Singh and actively wants to undermine him. 

R.E.Wood wrote:
You see, jumping to "racism!" as the excuse for the NDP's upcoming electoral failure under Singh isn't truthful and doesn't address his many drawbacks and failings as leader. Sure, racism is one reason some people (Conservative voters mainly) may not want Singh to be PM, but it's certainly miles away from being the only one. 

I agree with you there. I think your reference to lack of experience betrays your driving motivation. Singh didn't pay his dues in the federal NDP. You wanted an old-school NDP stalwart to win. Someone humble who would wear 200$ suits. 

I agree keeping Caron close is a good idea on Singh's part - he can't get through a press conference without him!

As to the rest of it - you're welcome to your perceptions about Singh, and I'm welcome to mine, but I would bet you he will come across to most people as he comes across to me, and I dislike his arrogance most of all. We do not agree. But yes, I absolutely would have preferred a leader who at least had a seat in Parliament and knew their way around the party's policies (dude's not exactly racing up that learning curve is he?). Caron, Angus and Ashton all fit the bill. I think Singh is utterly unrelateable for vast swaths of the demographics that could potentially vote NDP - who among us drives a BMW? Who among us spends thousands of dollars on one suit (that we also design and have custom made)? Etc, etc, etc...

I'll go a step further and say, quite frankly, I think he stole the leadership through a flawed voting system, and I do not accept him as a legitimate leader. But Canadians won't think about that - they'll dismiss him for all kinds of other reasons, and the NDP will have one of its worst election results of all time, and someone else will be left to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild. I just hope there are some decent MP's left standing.

One more thing: it's blissful having unsubscribed from the party's endless barrage of fundraising emails. They don't need me - they have Brampton. 

Cody87

progressive17 wrote:

No. It is why Singh is down to 11%. He is not white.

First of all, it's not Singh that's down to 11%, it's the NDP. Second of all, haven't you ever heard of an outlier poll? Third, if Canadians were so racist don't you think we'd have seen a drop sooner? Courtesy of wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_feder...

Nanos-Sept 29th, 2017- NDP 15.2%

EKOS-Oct 1st, 2017- NDP 14.5%

Angus Reid-Oct 4th, 2017- NDP 14%

(Singh elected leader Oct 1st) Other polls just before Singh's election showed a similar ~15-17% for NDP

Campaign Research- Oct 11th, 2017 - NDP 19%

Angus Reid - Oct 12th, 2017- NDP 18%

Nanos- Oct 13th, 2017- NDP 16.3%

Environics- Oct 16th, 2017- NDP 20%

Skip ahead a few months of generally 17-20% polls all the way to the end of March...

Now in April we have 15.8%, 11.9%, 17.9%, 14%!

 

Clearly, this is indisputable proof that up to 88.1% of Canadians are racist (and blind for just now noticing Singh is not white). There is no other explanation (and you're subconsciously racist if you deny the drop is due to racism).

/s

 

NorthReport

Dp

NorthReport

Of course Canada has major racism Just look at what has happened to our First Nations people Yes we are working on it but to suggest there isn’t racism in our political parties, just like suggesting there isn’t sexism in our political parties, is absurd

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Canada's "Founding Two Nations" concept is based on white supremacy, taught in every school, and part of government policy until "multiculturalism" came in, which the whites reject. The "Indian Act" is based on white supremacy. Canada's police forces enforce white supremacy, both in indigenous areas, and where recent immigrants are found. People who are not white can be treated any way the white supremacist cops want, with no impunity. 

When this is pointed out, people just turn the other way. Canada is a fundamentally racist society.

Cody87

progressive17 wrote:

Canada's "Founding Two Nations" concept is based on white supremacy, taught in every school, and part of government policy until "multiculturalism" came in, which the whites reject.

Do all of "the whites" reject multiculturalism? 

Would you say multiculturalism was a relevant issue in the last federal election campaign? What stance on multiculturalism did the current (white) prime minister promote during his campaign?  Did the PM talk about enforcing traditionally Western dress codes for citizenship ceremonies, or want to set up phone lines where you could snitch on your (multicultural) neighbours? Did the PM want to increase or decrease the number of refugees Canada accepts, and was he in favour of or against stripping immigrants convicted of (certain) crimes of their Canadian citizenship?

Now, keeping in mind the above, roughly how many votes did he get? How many of those votes were from "the whites", do you figure?

Unionist

Being descended from Polish immigrants, I'm so happy to see this incoherent debate about racism in the 2018 Poles thread. I agree with everyone, plus or minus 3%, 19 times out of 20.

SocialJustice101

There is a great deal of hate towards anyone different throughout the world.   Whether it's based on ethnicity, race, religion or sexual orientation.   I'd say we have it pretty good in Canada compared to the rest of the world, especially considering the recent rise of Trump-inspired far right nationalism.  There's still a lot of racism in Canada, but it's not as open nor as socially acceptable as in other countries. 

As for racism affecting Jagmeet Singh's electoral chances, of course it does, but not as much as his religiousity.

SocialJustice101

Cody87 made a good point about Trudeau being a multiculturalist.    An unlikely admission, to say the least.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Well, if we are just to focus on polls, I have to confess it was my post which derailed this thread. So, to get back to polls, do you think it is better to knock on doors, phone them on the telephone, or have them come onto a website?

How much do you think it would cost be to knock on doors, have people dial telephones and bother people during their dinner (but which they are legally allowed to do, AFAIK) or to have them go on websites?

Do you think that the less you pay for the poll, the more inaccurate it would be? Do you think if you gave a person with a felaffel sandwich or a cheeseburger they would feel obliged to fill out a polling questionaire?

Do you remember when newspapers and media organizations sponsored polls? Do you think that Craigslist killing all of their classified advertising has rendered them financially unable to do so? Should we make Craigslist pay for these important morsels of political delicacy which people hang on the edge of their seats for every day?

Should the government subsidize polls on a rep-by-pop or a province-by-province basis? Should we have a Department of Political Polling, like the the tax department?

There are many important questions we should consider about polling which have nothing to do with the results.

Unionist

progressive17 wrote:

So, to get back to polls, do you think it is better to knock on doors, phone them on the telephone, or have them come onto a website?

Knock on doors.

Quote:
How much do you think it would cost be to knock on doors, have people dial telephones and bother people during their dinner (but which they are legally allowed to do, AFAIK) or to have them go on websites?

Don't really understand the question about "cost". Please clarify.

Quote:
Do you think that the less you pay for the poll, the more inaccurate it would be? Do you think if you gave a person with a felaffel sandwich or a cheeseburger they would feel obliged to fill out a polling questionaire?

I would do a poll in exchange for a decent meal.

Quote:
Do you remember when newspapers and media organizations sponsored polls? Do you think that Craigslist killing all of their classified advertising has rendered them financially unable to do so? Should we make Craigslist pay for these important morsels of political delicacy which people hang on the edge of their seats for every day?

No.

Quote:
Should the government subsidize polls on a rep-by-pop or a province-by-province basis? Should we have a Department of Political Polling, like the the tax department?

No.

Quote:
There are many important questions we should consider about polling which have nothing to do with the results.

Agreed. Such as: Is the main purpose of polls to find out what people think, or to tell them what to think?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Unionist wrote:

Agreed. Such as: Is the main purpose of polls to find out what people think, or to tell them what to think?

The crux of the matter.

If you only want to find out what people think, you don't need to publish the poll. I believe the political parties do what are called "internal polls" which they use to form policy and determine other things. I expect they spend quite a lot of money on these, as if you want an accurate poll, the methodology is quite tedious.

I remember in the old days there were jobs available in Toronto in the polling business, and they were very low-paid. Even so you would be lucky to get a small number of completed forms per shift, and I was once told that it cost about $25 to get each person in a sample (even at the low minimum wages of about $8/hr at the time), so for a statistically significant sample you would be looking at $25,000 or so. 

So you do not need to publish a poll in order for it to be useful to your organization. 

Publicly published polls used to be paid for by media organizations which had lots of money. It seems logical that these media would publish these polls, as it would be part of "information" that the consumers of that media could digest.

If the poll were conducted honestly, statistics should dictate that the results of the poll would be somewhat near the true state of the body politic at the time. Also, the media did not (at least during those times) want to get a reputation for producing false information.

So even now, if we get a media-sponsored poll, I would guess that the medium concerned wanted to make sure that the poll was as accurate as possible. The question we must ask is who is paying for the poll. 

Now we have polls issued seemingly randomly and increasingly frequently by political and corporate consulting companies. We used to know who was paying for the poll. Now we do not.

I suspect that as these companies are politically connected, it is an excellent backdoor way to sell influence in the political area. "Pay for this poll, and we will get you in to see Minister X."

Now if you want to influence people, you have to word the poll in a certain way, which is not too hard to do. "Everybody thinks that Minister X is doing a great job. Press 1 if you agree and 2 if you disagree." As part of the backdoor deal between the business person and the political consulting company, the poll can be designed to cast Minister X in the most positive light, making Minister X even more keen to spend time with the client.

The poll is then summarily issued to the public, using the quite possibly biased wording in the questionaire. This then has the effect of influencing people, who nowadays do not question who commission the poll.

I don't know if this answers the question, but it is my stab at it.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I suppose then we have to consider if people are actually influenced by reading a poll. If the poll says my Party is going to win in a landslide, I may be less bothered to vote, as I will expect everyone else to do my voting job for me. If the poll says my Party is going to be obliterated, I may not bothered to vote as I might think there would be nothing I could do to rescue them.

However I have no evidence that people would behave in that way or the other. All the polls seem to come within range of each other to a certain extent, and the movement seems to be gradual. Even these murky political consulting companies may not want to gain a reputation of producing inaccurate information.

SocialJustice101

A poll might make some people re-evaluate their choices, and take a closer look at the party with the momentum.   The so-called "band wagon" effect.   Some people may also vote strategically based on the polls. 

But most importantly, polls drive the media narrative, and allow the media to "objectively" state whether a party is succeeding or failing at campaigning/governing.   The media narrative and headlines directly affect a certain section of voters. 

So do polls affect voters?   Yes, they most certainly do.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I only think they affect people in the bubble (us "political elites" - a tiny fraction), which is why the change is generally so glacial. I am sure most people are the raw material of those polls, and think nothing more of it after they are questioned.

That being said, those of us in the bubble are often asked by our non-political friends what is going on, and what they should consider. Some studies on this have been done, and it has been shown that a "community leader" (or person in the political bubble) can influence 25 votes or so. 

JKR

SocialJustice101 wrote:

So do polls affect voters?   Yes, they most certainly do.

It seems to me that outside of the period between 1992 - 2005 the federal NDP has usually hovered between 16 - 21% in the opinion polls for the last fifty years. I think the 1992 - 2005 period was exceptional because of the inception of the outsider Reform and BQ parties and for the very unpopular provincial NDP governments in Ontario and BC. The period between 2011-2013 when the NDP surged consistently into the high 20's for a couple of years seems anomalous now.

JKR

progressive17 wrote:

The Liberal Party stands in the way of political progress in Canada. Because of the Liberal Party, people on both the left and the right are becoming more toxic and more intolerant. The Liberal Party must be destroyed. Absolutely annhiliated. Without the Liberal Party, there is a much better chance of a majority government against the Conservatives. Whatever it is which opposes the Conservative Party will likely have a similiar bedrock base of support, once the Liberal Party has been destroyed.

As it is now, the benefit of the destruction of the Liberal Party is more than the cost of enduring the Conservative Party for a while.

For almost the entire history of Canada, the federal Liberals have been a top-two party in popularity and they have governed for 2/3rds of the time. I think it doesn't make much sense for the left in Canada to count on the Liberals demise.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Well, if you accept the Liberals as inevitable, you are accepting that there will never be any real social, environmental, and economic progress in Canada.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, the environment will continue to be destroyed, and there will always be delays in real economic progress, which the Liberals are so good at doing. 

SocialJustice101

Take a look at the provincial NDP governments and see how they measure up.  It's easy to dream and complain while you're in opposition, but it's not as easy to govern. 

NorthReport

Considering the big moneyed interests and the right-wing mainstream press have always been against them, it's truly amazin' the NDP has ever won any elections. Presently controling 2 of the 4 governments in Western Canada, and particularly in Alberta, is truly amazin'. 

And having Tommy Douglas recognized as Canada's Greatest Canadian to boot is a nice feather in the NDP cap as well, although it would have been more appropriate to recognize his achievements while he was still around.

 

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Take a look at the provincial NDP governments and see how they measure up.  It's easy to dream and complain while you're in opposition, but it's not as easy to govern. 

SocialJustice101

Is the NDP government in Alberta amazing?  You should tell that to the majority of posters on this forum.   As for the BC NDP, they are still in honeymoon phase.   In a couple of years, I bet there will be a plenty of reasons to attack them on this forum, in addition to the Site C approval.

The right-wing media constantly attacks the Liberals as well, not just the NDP.  Almost all newspapers endorsed Harper in 2015.

NorthReport

You mean the media like the CBC and the Toronto Star. Don't make me laugh. The reality is rarely is the NDP ever supported by Canada's mainstream media, and of course the political party connected polling companies. 

And what matters for Notley is what Albertans think, and there has been a major shift in support for her in that province.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Is the NDP government in Alberta amazing?  You should tell that to the majority of posters on this forum.   As for the BC NDP, they are still in honey moon phase.

The right-wing media constantly attacks the Liberals as well, not just the NDP.  Almost all newspapers endorsed Harper in 2015.

SocialJustice101

The Toronto Star is the only major newspaper to endorse the Liberals in 2015.   They also endorsed the NDP in 2011.

The CBC is biased, but not as much as the other networks, and not in favor of the Liberals, since all executives were replaced by Harper during his 10 years in power.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

Well, if you accept the Liberals as inevitable, you are accepting that there will never be any real social, environmental, and economic progress in Canada.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, the environment will continue to be destroyed, and there will always be delays in real economic progress, which the Liberals are so good at doing. 

That isn't true. You are looking in the wrong direction for salvation. Parties and government are swayed by all kinds of lobbiests but if the public comes out in the 10s or 100s of thousands they fold. 

It seems to me people expect the NDP to be a group of movements not a political party. As a political party its number 1 purpose is to win elections not deliver social justice. The NDP only has a social justice edge because that is where they traditionally look for votes. Where the NDPs base is more conservative, so is the NDP. The NDP follows the base it doesn't lead it. In rare instances a political party will champion something the public didn't champion first or will lead in the direction it thinks people are going in anyway. Medicare being an example of the first, cannabis legalization the second. 

Social justice groups have to focus on getting support from the public. Then with the support of the public they can pressure government to address the issue, and if the government doesn't other political parties will see the opportunity.

That is why I supported Guy Caron. His focus is on the economy and he talked about the need to restructure. Singh's focus is inequality. I strongly believe that the NDP is going to come out with a progressive budget in 2019 that will be much better than whatever the Liberals are planning. By 2023 there will still be growing inequality. If the NDP has been talking about it for five or six years it might sink in. 

It would help the NDP a lot if activists not connected to the NDP did more on the issue of inequality disconnected from other issues. Anything coming from a political party is considered partisan. So, trying to convince people of the problem and of the party's ability to solve that problem. The person feels they are being sold something so they are wary and disbelieving. 

Unfortunately there is no social movement focused on inequality.

NorthReport

What a lot of nonsensical cherrypicking. 

Do a google search on any political leader in Canada whenever, and 99.9% of the time the headline is negative towards the NDP, and substantially more positive towards Canada's 2 right-wing parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives.  And people wonder why it is a challenge for the NDP to win. It is not a mystery.

And why in the world is the CBC News Department getting involved in politics in the first place? They need to butt out and focus on what they do best like producing programs like the Nature of Things, etc. I find it ironic that Liberals were big supporters of the CBC as long as they supported the Liberals, and I am no fan of Harpers, but good on him, to try and at least redress the lops-sided CBC always support the Liberals approach.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

The Toronto Star is the only major newspaper to endorse the Liberals in 2015.   They also endorsed the NDP in 2011.

The CBC is biased, but not as much as the other networks, and not in favor of the Liberals, since all executives were replaced by Harper during his 10 years in power.

SocialJustice101

No, 99.9% the NDP is ignored, while the headline is negative towards the Liberals, who are not right-wing enough for media.

NorthReport

This BS is tiresome.

For example, go back and look at the way the NDP was treated by the CBC, the Toronto Star, etc when the NDP was the Official Opposition.

Mulroney's approach was if you throw enough mud against a wall some of it will stick. Liberals have now perfected that approach.

Nuff said.

Quote:

No, 99.9% the NDP is ignored, while the headline is negative towards the Liberals, who are not right-wing enough for media.

SocialJustice101

The Toronto Star ENDORSED the NDP in the previous election, while the CBC was controlled by Harper appointees.    You aren't making much sense, to say the least.

And there is no "etc."   The Toronto Star is the only major newspaper not controlled by the Cons.  But even the Star has a skeptical tone towards the Liberals.  

NorthReport

Conservative Majority if an Election Held Now

 

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2841/federal-horserace-april-2018/

SocialJustice101

That's the first time I see you post the word Conservative, NR.     Enjoy your IVR Forum poll.  They've been showing a Con majority since last fall, the only pollster to do so.   If you wanted a Canadian equivalent of Rasmussen, you have it in Forum Research.

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:
That's the first time I see you post the word Conservative, NR.     Enjoy your IVR Forum poll.  They've been showing a Con majority since last fall, the only pollster to do so.   If you wanted a Canadian equivalent of Rasmussen, you have it in Forum Research.

I don't believe NR is Conservative. He is just an extreme example of many if not most NDP supporters. They believe that the Liberals and NDP share the same potential voter base therefore what's bad for the Liberals is good for the NDP. That it is also good for the Conservatives doesn't matter because they want to exchange places with the Liberals. Then the NDP would be the alternative to the Conservatives so would eventually win. That in that case the NDP would be the Liberal party in all but name doesn't seem to sink in. 

Pages

Topic locked