And so a new era begins in Canadian politics.......

446 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

Quote:

This mandate was always the New Democratic Party’s to seize or abandon. They had risen to the top of polls by boldly opposing a draconian Conservative spying bill that the Liberals jointly supported. They crashed to third place by deserting that sort of vision.

. . . .

The NDP’s slide in the polls started the exact moment they promised to balance the budget – a right-wing austerity fixation that economists the world over reject as reckless . . . .

Canada’s electoral politics have been captured by an ideological consensus that has lowered our political expectations and diminished our ability to dream. Major governmental policy has been ceded to the market. But a vision to build a better economy through climate action – launched during the election by a coalition of artists and social movements in the Leap Manifesto – can unleash our imagination once again. A new leader of the New Democrats – whom party members must demand, if Mulcair refuses to step aside – should bring this sort of vision into the party.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2015/oct/22/trudeaus-b...

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Such an absurd comment but unfortunately very representative of the NDP political loser mentality who can't see the forest for the trees. Regardless mark_alfred, best wishes to you.

mark_alfred wrote:

So you've moved over to the Liberals now, eh NR?  Oh well.  To each their own.

Sorry.  I was reading too much into a couple of posts.  Thanks for this thread.  It's got a lot of interesting and varied links, some that I've shared in other threads.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Lots of reasons for NDP election loss, but don't blame Mulcair

I think Mulcair should share some of the blame because he supported the virtue of surplus budgeting even while interest rates are at historic lows. Paul Krugman in the New York Times just wrote a good article explaining the significance of what happened in the Canadian election.

Cody87

NorthReport wrote:

One of the biggest political losers in the LPC has advice for the NDP.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-the-ndp-has-to-put-mulc...

He may be a loser, but that doesn't mean his points are incorrect. The only thing I disagreed with in that entire article was this:

"Most fundamental of all is this brutal but simple test: Will Tom Mulcair give the NDP the best chance of winning more seats in the next election?"

In fact, the test should be: "Will Tom Mulcair give the NDP the best chance of advancing the priorities that the NDP believes are important and beneficial to Canadians?"

But other than his suggestion that the NDP should strive for power for sake of power (assming more seats = more power, which isn't always true), his piece was spot on.

NorthReport

Scott Reid is a washed up Liberal has been whose track record includes those disasterous "beer and popcorm" comments as well as forcasting 250 seats for Paul Martin, our offshore tax avoiding Canadian Liberal PM. 

Cody87

NorthReport wrote:

Scott Reid is a washed up Liberal has been whose track record includes those disasterous "beer and popcorm" comments as well as forcasting 250 seats for Paul Martin, our offshore tax avoiding Canadian Liberal PM. 

Which, once again, doesn't mean his points are invalid. I am so sick of the Canadian politics of "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." It was a big part of why I voted Liberal this time.

Here, let's look at what he said and see if it sounds at all unreasonable:

 

Quote:
The federal New Democrats, in a rush to project an image of even-handed maturity, are plunging headlong into a monumental decision that will dictate their political future. But they’re doing it at the wrong time for the wrong reasons with insufficient consideration and debate.

This is his thesis.

Quote:
Tom Mulcair will stay on as leader say senior New Democrats. Tom Mulcair should stay on as leader say senior New Democrats. Really? Has that been thought through? Is that a reflection or a reflex? And is the popular explanation offered so far – that he performed well during the campaign (demonstrably untrue) and that it’s a mark of modern panic for parties to ditch their leaders after only one turn (arguable, at best) – accurate and well-reasoned?

These are valid questions.

Quote:
It seems the NDP learned exactly nothing from the ill-advised campaign pledge to deliver balanced budgets. That commitment also appeared to be guided by the sake of appearances – to project a certain image, an imagined idea of what people would see as the “responsible thing” instead of being shaped by the sensible, resonant and, yes, winning thing. During the campaign, NDP leadership told their partisans to show patience and aim for the political centre. But they soon discovered that the centre had shifted, Canadians were open to a more activist economic approach and the Liberals had already seized that territory with their deficit-spending program. It was a misjudgment that spelled the NDP’s ruin, the first real indication that the campaign’s core strategy was built on flawed assumptions and an inadequate reading of the political landscape.

From a Forum poll released today on vote drivers this campaign:

Quote:
While more than half of those who changed their vote mention something other than the listed items (54%) as being the reason, among those tested, the most commonly mentioned is the Liberal promise on infrastructure spending (19%), followed by the NDP promise to balance the budget (9%) and Conservative stance on the niqab (9%). Other issues, such as the Syrian refugee crisis (3%), the Duffy trial (2%), the Rob and Doug Ford rally (2%) and Liberal co-chair Dan Gagnier’s resignation (2%) are not seen to be game changers.

Read more at: http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2417/big-vote-movers-niqab-balanced-budget-infrastructure-investment/
Copyright ©Forum Research Inc.

Oh, well would you look at that. The number one vote mover this election was the Liberal infrastructure plan vs. the NDP promise to balance budgets.

Quote:
Now, even before the dust has settled on Monday’s results, NDP stalwarts are moving precipitously again, declaring that there should be no question as to Mulcair’s future. He will continue in place and that’s that. Like running on budget balance, NDP rank and file are being told that it’s a matter of acting responsibly – of showing Canadians that the party won’t be rattled, that now’s the time to stay steady and to carry on.

The truth is that asking uncomfortable questions at this time is not the irresponsible thing to do. Failing to ask them is.

This seems reasonable to me, wouldn't you agree? It is possible that the NDP's future could be decided in the next election, just like the LPC's future was decided by this one. It is imperitave that the NDP has the right leader. It could be Mulcair, but that assertion needs to be tested.

Quote:
And so the first issue that should be debated openly and directly by New Democrats is this: Why keep Mulcair?

Was the NDP leader an asset or a hindrance during the 2015 election? How much responsibility should he bear for the campaign’s failures and the disastrous slide back to third party status? Is he well-positioned to rehabilitate the NDP in the eyes of voters? Or is he likely to repeat key mistakes and take the party further backward?

All great questions.

Quote:
That’s just to start. There are other huge factors that weigh in the opposite direction. Is there a reasonable candidate for replacement? What would the costs and discomfort be of changing leaders at this time? What about their finances?

These are also great questions, and the question about if there is a reasonable replacement or not is already being actively debated right here on Babble and elsewhere - but apparently the NDP head office has already decided Mulcair is staying. What do they know that we don't?

Quote:
Most fundamental of all is this brutal but simple test: Will Tom Mulcair give the NDP the best chance of winning more seats in the next election?

I have already said my piece on this - it should not be about "power for the sake of power."

Quote:
Reflecting on these questions should not be seen as sedition when they’re actually common sense. It is true that Mulcair has handed the NDP their second highest number of seats in history. It is even truer that he has led them to their most disappointing result of all time, losing more seats than any other leader working atop the NDP. A considered judgment of self-interest is surely owed the NDP caucus and membership before they’re told what will happen next.

This is factual, except the last sentence which I certainly hope you'd agree with.

Quote:
What makes this issue particularly vital is that it can so enthusiastically be argued either way. The case for Mulcair is that he’s been tested by fire and has presumably emerged the tougher and wider for it. The party’s base, although shrunk, remains in Quebec where he continues to be their surest option, and BC, where his environmentalist credentials should continue to help.

Good points.

Quote:
The case against Mulcair is that Canadians had a long look at him standing next to Trudeau and thought better. To retrench, the party is going to have to redefine its place on the political spectrum and his faux-Liberal positioning looks unlikely to succeed. Most importantly, huge strategic errors were made during the campaign. Did he author them personally – in which case there should be cause for ongoing concern. Or did he simply err in accepting poor recommendations from his team – in which case he is responsible but not beyond recoverable.

There can be no question about accuracy of the most important part of this piece, which I have bolded.

Quote:
In determining the way forward, the NDP could do worse than consider the example of the party that just sprang past them. Four years ago the Liberals were pounded like a nail. In response, they considered all options, everything from merging with the NDP (how foolish do those advocates look now) to pursuing a two-election strategy (never play to lose) to following the lure of a new but untested leader (we have a bingo). The Liberals were in worse condition than the NDP are now but they managed to recover. They debated openly for two years and in the end, they chose well. One choice they did not make was to curtail discussion or eliminate alternatives in deference to how things might look.

Again, I see no flaws in this argument.

Quote:
Like it or not, Mulcair should begin the process of rebuilding by explaining to his party why he is still their best bet to lead the NDP into the future. After October 19th, it is unclear why anyone would assume or accept that should be taken for granted.

So please tell me what, exactly, this loser has gotten wrong? Stephen Harper himself could have written this piece, it wouldn't change the arguments which as I said before, are on point.

His advice is: Ask the tough questions. Explore your options. Don't make a quick decision to keep Mulcair just to impress an electorate that isn't paying attention anymore anyway, because the NDP's future could depend on making the right choices between now and 2019, and it is by no means clear that keeping (or turfing) Mulcair is the right choice - both sides can be argued, and should be.

quizzical

the Liberal Party's future is no more set long term than any other party's or person at any given planned moment. life is what's hapening while you're busy making plans.

i keep thinking i hear Liberals wanting Mulcair gone. then i realize i do hear them saying they want him gone.

of coure they do. they don't want Justin getting the hard questions.

the bad form it would be to have Justin mia to avoid Mulcair when the economy is bad and we're bombing other countries could really hurt when they start breaking promises.

the biggest deal though is having both their opposition parties finding leaders. it's a wet dream for them if they could con the NDP into such a stupid action.

 

NorthReport

Cody, the NDP doesn't need any advice from Liberals. They can figure things out all by themselves. Imagine that.

NorthReport

Cody,

Mulcair is staying as Party Leader and Julien is staying on as House Leader. Time for you to find another hobby.

 

NorthReport

Cody,

Tom is staying as Party Leader and Peter is staying on as House Leader. Time for you to find another hobby.

 

NorthReport

Unfortunately I tend to agree with this observer's point of view expressed in the CBC article about Peter staying on as House Leader.

 

Quote:
Ndp house leader is slightly less relevant than mulcair. Not even a news story. 
go sit with lizzy and be quiet, Canada has spoken.

quizzical

funny Justin had less seats and the CBC never once commented along those lines about the Liberals.

smack talk

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Cody,

Tom is staying as Party Leader and Peter is staying on as House Leader. Time for you to find another hobby.

 

In other words Cody, sit down, shut up and don't point out that that the emperor has no clothes.

NorthReport

As the Blue Jays are now done for this year, I suppose these bible-thumpers are correct, eh!  Laughing

Westboro Baptist Church to Blue Jays: 'God hates Canada'

Gay-bashing church group to protest 'depraved Canadians' at Game 6

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/23/westboro-baptist-church-to-blue-jay...

NorthReport

After a decade in power, Stephen Harper remains an enigma: 

Stephen Harper’s campaign always came across more like a farewell tour for die-hard fans than like a performance orchestrated to earn an encore. His re-election strategy mystified those who covered it. It will take some time for the Conservatives themselves to make sense of it all.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/24/after-a-decade-in-power-st...

pookie

quizzical wrote:

the Liberal Party's future is no more set long term than any other party's or person at any given planned moment. life is what's hapening while you're busy making plans.

i keep thinking i hear Liberals wanting Mulcair gone. then i realize i do hear them saying they want him gone.

of coure they do. they don't want Justin getting the hard questions.

the bad form it would be to have Justin mia to avoid Mulcair when the economy is bad and we're bombing other countries could really hurt when they start breaking promises.

the biggest deal though is having both their opposition parties finding leaders. it's a wet dream for them if they could con the NDP into such a stupid action.

 

Except that Mulcair's ability to hold Trudeau to account is now drastically diminished.  

They have won a strong majority, and they will easily portray their main challengers as the Official Opposition.  Because, um, they are.  The OLO is not going to be in a great position to challenge anything for a while.

Cody87

josh wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Cody,

Tom is staying as Party Leader and Peter is staying on as House Leader. Time for you to find another hobby.

 

In other words Cody, sit down, shut up and don't point out that that the emperor has no clothes.

Indeed. 

@NorthReport: Can I point out that the Liberals learned a lot from Jack Layton's campaign in 2011? There is nothing wrong with learning from an opponent. I must reiterate, Scott's advice wasn't "turf Mulcair". It was "don't decide yet...rebuild what remains of your party, and take stock once the lay of the land is clear: then decide"

Cody87

pookie wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the Liberal Party's future is no more set long term than any other party's or person at any given planned moment. life is what's hapening while you're busy making plans.

i keep thinking i hear Liberals wanting Mulcair gone. then i realize i do hear them saying they want him gone.

of coure they do. they don't want Justin getting the hard questions.

the bad form it would be to have Justin mia to avoid Mulcair when the economy is bad and we're bombing other countries could really hurt when they start breaking promises.

the biggest deal though is having both their opposition parties finding leaders. it's a wet dream for them if they could con the NDP into such a stupid action.

 

Except that Mulcair's ability to hold Trudeau to account is now drastically diminished.  

They have won a strong majority, and they will easily portray their main challengers as the Official Opposition.  Because, um, they are.  The OLO is not going to be in a great position to challenge anything for a while.

Will Mulcair get multiple consecutive questions in QP with only 44 seats?

quizzical

pookie wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the Liberal Party's future is no more set long term than any other party's or person at any given planned moment. life is what's hapening while you're busy making plans.

i keep thinking i hear Liberals wanting Mulcair gone. then i realize i do hear them saying they want him gone.

of coure they do. they don't want Justin getting the hard questions.

the bad form it would be to have Justin mia to avoid Mulcair when the economy is bad and we're bombing other countries could really hurt when they start breaking promises.

the biggest deal though is having both their opposition parties finding leaders. it's a wet dream for them if they could con the NDP into such a stupid action.

Except that Mulcair's ability to hold Trudeau to account is now drastically diminished.  

They have won a strong majority, and they will easily portray their main challengers as the Official Opposition.  Because, um, they are.  The OLO is not going to be in a great position to challenge anything for a while.

so what you're saying is the msm will treat the NDP differently than when the Liberals had less than 44 seats and will not broadcast anything they say in opposition.

 

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

pookie wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the Liberal Party's future is no more set long term than any other party's or person at any given planned moment. life is what's hapening while you're busy making plans.

i keep thinking i hear Liberals wanting Mulcair gone. then i realize i do hear them saying they want him gone.

of coure they do. they don't want Justin getting the hard questions.

the bad form it would be to have Justin mia to avoid Mulcair when the economy is bad and we're bombing other countries could really hurt when they start breaking promises.

the biggest deal though is having both their opposition parties finding leaders. it's a wet dream for them if they could con the NDP into such a stupid action.

Except that Mulcair's ability to hold Trudeau to account is now drastically diminished.  

They have won a strong majority, and they will easily portray their main challengers as the Official Opposition.  Because, um, they are.  The OLO is not going to be in a great position to challenge anything for a while.

so what you're saying is the msm will treat the NDP differently than when the Liberals had less than 44 seats and will not broadcast anything they say in opposition.

 

The only narrative the Liberals got from the MSM in the house from 2013 (Trudeau leadership) to 2015 writ drop was "Trudeau sucks in question period, and Mulcair is a boss." For months all you'd hear was how Mulcair was exposing all the lies surroubding the Mike Duffy scandal. If the LPC or Trudeau were mentioned at all, it was to point out how comparatively useless they were.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Cody87 wrote:

The only narrative the Liberals got from the MSM in the house from 2013 (Trudeau leadership) to 2015 writ drop was "Trudeau sucks in question period, and Mulcair is a boss." For months all you'd hear was how Mulcair was exposing all the lies surroubding the Mike Duffy scandal. If the LPC or Trudeau were mentioned at all, it was to point out how comparatively useless they were.

You live in an alternate universe because that is not what I got from the CBC's coverage.

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

pookie wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the Liberal Party's future is no more set long term than any other party's or person at any given planned moment. life is what's hapening while you're busy making plans.

i keep thinking i hear Liberals wanting Mulcair gone. then i realize i do hear them saying they want him gone.

of coure they do. they don't want Justin getting the hard questions.

the bad form it would be to have Justin mia to avoid Mulcair when the economy is bad and we're bombing other countries could really hurt when they start breaking promises.

the biggest deal though is having both their opposition parties finding leaders. it's a wet dream for them if they could con the NDP into such a stupid action.

Except that Mulcair's ability to hold Trudeau to account is now drastically diminished.  

They have won a strong majority, and they will easily portray their main challengers as the Official Opposition.  Because, um, they are.  The OLO is not going to be in a great position to challenge anything for a while.

so what you're saying is the msm will treat the NDP differently than when the Liberals had less than 44 seats and will not broadcast anything they say in opposition.

 

The only narrative the Liberals got from the MSM in the house from 2013 (Trudeau leadership) to 2015 writ drop was "Trudeau sucks in question period, and Mulcair is a boss." For months all you'd hear was how Mulcair was exposing all the lies surroubding the Mike Duffy scandal. If the LPC or Trudeau were mentioned at all, it was to point out how comparatively useless they were.

Once Trudeau became Liberal leader and the Liberal's polling numbers shot up to 40%, the media understandably gave Trudeau and the Liberals a lot of exposure.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

We are back to the future, once more. The CBC and all the other MSM will now have its favourite story line.  Are the centrist neo-con Liberal's too left wing as the Official Oppostion claims or are they just right like the sweet and cuddly baby bear that they are. The NDP has no part in this narrative and will be given no part in the coverage except as a fringe party. May's grandstanding makes for good press so she will receive more MSM coverage than the NDP.

The NDP refused to speak truth to power and campaigned on a platform that basically said, "if elected we will not radically reform much of anything." The Liberals ran on a platform that claimed, "we will fundamentally change everything."  I've watched central campaigns crash and burn on more than one occasion but I could at least say that I was part of the team that sent Svend Robinson and then Bill Siksay to Ottawa to talk about socialism and peace. In the end I guess electing an MP to speak truth to power is the best a left wing person can hope for.  I hope that the talented socialists and social democrats MP's take back the party from its liberal leader and start talking like Libby and Svend or Bill used to. There is no room in the mushy middle for a New Liberal Party.

 

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

After a decade in power, Stephen Harper remains an enigma: 

Stephen Harper’s campaign always came across more like a farewell tour for die-hard fans than like a performance orchestrated to earn an encore. His re-election strategy mystified those who covered it. It will take some time for the Conservatives themselves to make sense of it all.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/24/after-a-decade-in-power-st...

Why didn't Harper resign to give his party a better chance at holding on to power? Maybe he is just psychologically incapable of relinquishing power?

NorthReport
NorthReport

NDP must recommit itself to becoming the government

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/24/ndp-must-recommit-itself-to-becomin...

NorthReport

Not being talked about much recently but how much damage did the Duffster/Wright fiasco do to Harper's re-election chances?

Cody87

NorthReport wrote:

Why the NDP lost the election

http://theindependent.ca/2015/10/25/why-the-ndp-lost-the-election/

The more articles I read like this, the more I worry that the NDP will continue to scapegoat the Niqab and stupid voters for their loss. It took the LPC a couple of elections to wake up, and I don't want it to take that long for the NDP to recover.

NorthReport

Of course Tom is safe. But Tom is safe in an inconsequential party. Too bad. 

Pursuit of democratic renewal could be strong course for NDP

The comparative strength of the NDP’s Quebec results probably means that, at least for the foreseeable future, Thomas Mulcair is safe in the leader’s job. But four years is a long time to in the Commons just to get a chance to throw the same loaded election dice again.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/27/pursuit-of-democratic-rene...

NorthReport

Agreed! Frown

Liberal changes to electoral system 'set up to fail,' says defeated NDP MP Craig Scott'I honestly do not believe that there is a commitment to proportional representation,' outgoing MP says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/craig-scott-electoral-reform-1.3293329

NorthReport

This is indeed quite sad, but don't say you weren't forewarned about Liberals campaigning on Left and governing on Right

Why Justin Trudeau's Big Victory Matters For The U.S.

The Liberal leader moves to the right on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

 

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

This is indeed quite sad, but don't say you weren't forewarned about Liberals campaigning on Left and governing on Right

Why Justin Trudeau's Big Victory Matters For The U.S.

The Liberal leader moves to the right on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

He didn't move to the right. He has openly supported Keystone XL for years.

 

NorthReport
  1. Norman Spector ‏@nspector4 7h7 hours ago

    Norman Spector Retweeted Mark

    Good way for a newspaper to destroy credibility...

    Norman Spector added,

    Mark @Only1MarkM@nspector4 The @calgaryherald HATES the NDP and they make no qualms about their sensationalist shit reporting.

    • RETWEETS2
    • FAVORITES2
    • Dustin Manleytonynickssharlow

    1:00 PM - 31 Oct 2015 · Details    Reply  Retweet   Favorite   More

  2. poli_nerd ‏@poli_nerd 7h7 hours ago

    @nspector4 ? Looking over their page, there's pro-NDP,anti-NDP,anti-CPC articles. We learned most editors/owners are pro-CPC but journos not

     0 retweets0 favorites Reply  Retweet   Favorite  More

  3. Norman Spector ‏@nspector4 7h7 hours ago

    @poli_nerd Front page above the fold a key spot.

    0 retweets0 favoritesReply Retweet  Favorite  More

 

  1. poli_nerd ‏@poli_nerd  7h7 hours ago

    @nspector4 sorry didn't see pic, just looked at diversity of their internet front page. Still most govts will get -ve front headlines, no?

     0 retweets0 favorites Reply  Retweet    Favorite    More

  2. poli_nerd ‏@poli_nerd  7h7 hours ago

    @nspector4 Notley's in tough spot unless oil prices go up a lot, revenues too low, spending too high, province not sufficiently diversified

     0 retweets0 favorites Reply  Retweet    Favorite   More

  3. Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  7h7 hours ago

    @poli_nerd Wednesday even worse--basically a lie

    Embedded image permalink0 retweets1 favoriteReply Retweet  Favorite 1 More

 

 

Aristotleded24

With Trudeau being sworn in as our Prime Minister right, now it's official: Harper is gone. Let's send him a [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKR0l7odlVI]very simple message.[/url]

Debater

The 15 Female Cabinet Members Appointed By Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/04/female-cabinet-justin-trudeau_n_...

--

Trudeau's Cabinet Filled With Fresh Faces And Achieves Gender Balance

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/04/justin-trudeau-cabinet_n_8471274...

 

 

NorthReport

Tragedy of errors: The NDP seeks answers, asks the wrong question

The federal NDP lost its 18th straight election in October, and leader Tom Mulcair is trying to find the black box in the wreckage of the campaign.

The federal party’s campaign was a tragedy of errors. In late May EKOS Research declared, "…The prospect of a previously unthinkable NDP victory has squarely entered the realm of plausibility for voters."

In a July 23-27 poll, 62 per cent told Ipsos the NDP represented "the best alternative to the current Harper Conservative government," while just 38 per cent said the Liberals.

When the campaign opened, with the party at 40 per cent in his August 23-24 poll, Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff gushed, "This is a historic day for the NDP, when the poll puts them in reach, not only of their first national government, but of a majority."

How did the NDP campaign take the party from 34 per cent early in the campaign -- in a September 4-8 Ipsos poll -- to under 20 per cent on E-day?

When the Alberta NDP ended the 44-year reign of the Conservatives on May 5, the federal party soared to first place in the national polls. Anti-Harper voters saw the Alberta NDP victory as evidence the federal NDP could topple Stephen Harper. The federal party's new support, however, only proved that voters were kicking the party’s tires and taking it for a test drive.

Yet federal NDP strategists took away the wrong message from Alberta and ran a play-it-safe, front-runner’s campaign. Albertans, however, were not embracing the NDP. They had used the NDP as exterminators to get rid of pests. In May the Alberta NDP won 41 per cent of the vote. In Alberta on October 19th the federal NDP got 12 per cent.

A big reason for the NDP’s loss was the failure to rebrand the party as an economic authority. Credibility on the economy would have vaccinated the NDP against attacks on other planks of its platform. Yet the party put up no plausible finance critic or finance minister-in-waiting during the NDP’s four years as official opposition.

Branding the NDP for economic competence requires more than a pledge to run balanced budgets. In an Innovative Research post-election poll (conducted October 20-23), only 24 per cent said that the NDP promise to balance the budget every year made them at least somewhat more likely to vote NDP. That gain was erased by the 23 percent who said a balanced NDP budget made them less likely to vote for the party.

In contrast, 54 per cent said the Liberal plan to cut the income tax rate for the middle class and increase taxes on those making over $200,000 a year made them a lot or somewhat more likely to vote Liberal.

NDP strategists took another misstep when they embraced the change theme. Chanting "change" was also a reason to vote Liberal. What Mulcair missed was a compelling reason to vote NDP.

The bearded, grey-haired grandfather who gladly reminded voters he had been in politics forever, Mulcair was miscast in the role of change. In an Abacus Data poll conducted October 15-17, 40 per cent said they found Justin Trudeau "inspiring." Just 20 per cent said the same about Mulcair, who barely ranked ahead of Harper (15 per cent).

Under Harper the Conservatives had made a fetish of balancing the federal budget. When Mulcair stunned the NDP rank and file by promoting a no-deficit government, he sabotaged his claim to be the champion of change.

Worse, recycling Harper’s balanced-budget vows offended the NDP’s biggest potential voting bloc: the country’s 3.6 million public sector workers. To them "balanced budget" is a dog whistle for zero pay increases, hiring freezes and layoffs.

Mulcair is asking the wrong question if he’s wondering what went wrong with the campaign. The right question is what’s gone wrong with the party.

Post-election, Toronto Star columnist Tom Walkom asked, "What is the point of being in politics if you never have a chance of forming government? ...If a left-wing party’s only chance at power is to move rightward, why bother?"

With Mulcair’s breathtaking embrace of balanced budgets and dearth of innovative policies, voters hardly know what the NDP stands for. To resuscitate the party, where should the NDP apply the defibrillation paddles?

1. Re-name the party.

Nothing says "we’re new" better than a name change. With a nod to the world of social media, the new NDP could call itself the Social Democracy Party, or simply Social Democracy (Démocratie sociale in Québec).

In the digital age MPs should engage voters in social network discussions, online petitions, surveys and deliberations to draft legislation and solve problems in their ridings. The former NDP can become the champion of "social government" (gouvernement social).

2. Forget having a base.

Of the three main federal parties, the NDP has the smallest loyal following. Barely 13 per cent of eligible voters self-identified as NDPers at the end of the campaign (it was 16 per cent before the campaign). According to an October 20-23 Innovative Research poll, 34 per cent say they generally "think of yourself" as Liberals in federal politics, 27 per cent as Conservatives, 8 per cent as Green.

In other words, no party has a base big enough to win elections. Elections now are about assembling temporary coalitions of voter clusters. Lacking a base requires parties to have authentic leadership, innovative policies and a social media strategy to engage supporters long before the incumbents call the election.

3. Reposition.

A third-place party can’t afford to be bland. There is a towering list of problems requiring political solutions. But you can reduce them to three: peace, poverty and the environment.

An attractive platform for a resuscitated NDP (with a new name) would call voters to wage peace abroad, equalize economic opportunity in Canada, and save the earth from self-destruction.

Trudeau captivated voters with his optimism because the alternative scenario scares Canadians. Global warming will devastate agriculture, turning impoverished populations into refugees -- and some into terrorists. Political and economic upheaval will disperse tens of millions of workers across the developed world, into brutal competition with apprehensive populations.

Voters want to know how Canadians can create wealth to spread. Policies to help the middle class do help the middle class. But they don’t uplift the class below. Instead, ask how the government can end poverty as we know it. A new politics would imagine ways to get assets to kids so they’ll grow richer as they grow older. Think of guaranteed annual investment accounts.

Why did the NDP lose its best opportunity ever to govern the country? Conservative Party attack ads throbbed that Justin Trudeau was "just not ready." Actually, "not ready" was the NDP.

Marc Zwelling is the founder of the Vector Poll™ (www.vectorresearch.com) and author of Public Opinion and Polling For Dummies (Wiley, 2012)


http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/11/tragedy-errors-ndp-seeks-answers-ask...

NorthReport

Trudeau's cabinet has gender equality and lacks certain white males

BY KARL NERENBERG | NOVEMBER 4, 2015 

 flickr/canada

Like Karl Nerenberg's work? Want to expand rabble's Parliamentary Bureau?Support us on Patreon today! 

Keep Karl on Parl 

 

Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and expert on mass arrests, kettling and carding, is not in Justin Trudeau’s new cabinet.

Phew!

More surprising, Trudeau also left star, newly elected Liberal MP Andrew Leslie standing at the altar.

The speculators had pretty much anointed the former general as the new defence minister -- or something else equally big.

He got nothing.

It must mean something when the new Prime Minister excludes the two white males about whom there was such a hullabaloo when they agreed to run for the Liberals.

At the same time, Trudeau named the first Indigenous Justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould from British Columbia, and the first northern Indigenous person to run Fisheries and Oceans, Hunter Tootoo.

As a first order of business, the new Fisheries Minister might want to take a hard look at the radical changes to the Fisheries Act the Harper government foisted on Canadians, stealthily, hidden in budget implementation omnibus legislation.

Virtually every living former fisheries minister, including a number of Conservatives, opposed those changes, which famously included removing most fish species from the protected list.

As for Wilson-Raybould, she will have many Aboriginal issues on her plate.

Those include a long list of stalled land claims negotiations, the response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the promised inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Wilson-Raybould will share those tasks with Carolyn Bennett, a Toronto doctor, veteran MP and the new Indigenous Affairs Minister.

Revisit Jason Kenney's refugee reforms

Bennett is one of two Liberal MPs who were assigned the portfolios for which they were the critics in opposition.

The other is John McCallum, who was the Liberal immigration critic, and is now Immigration Minister.

Both Bennett and McCallum have pressing files to deal with on day one.

In McCallum’s case there is the matter of those 25,000 Syrian refugees the new government wants to bring to Canada in less than two months.

One hopes the new Immigration Minister will also take a serious look at some of the unfair, nasty measures Harper’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney enacted through his so-called refugee reform bill, C-31.

Chief among those is the creation of a two-tier refugee system via a list of “safe” countries of origin.

That list is completely arbitrary, and at the entire discretion of the minister.

When the Conservatives had only a minority, they brought in an earlier compromise refugee reform bill, with Liberal and New Democrat input.

That bill gave the authority to determine the safe country list to an independent panel of human rights experts, outside of partisan politics.

McCallum might now want to take that 2010 compromise legislation out of the bottom drawer.

Gender equity and a new emphasis on social policy

The new cabinet, as promised, has an equal number of women and men.

On the face of it, the new Prime Minister has not had to make compromises on competence to achieve that gender balance.

International lawyer Catherine McKenna at Environment and Climate Change, humanitarian doctor Jane Philpott at Health, former Manitoba NDP minister MaryAnn Mihychuk at the newly named ministry of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, and medical geographer Kirsty Duncan at the ministry of Science hardly look like folks who got their jobs through affirmative action.

Based on their CVs, they are all a far sight more qualified than the (mostly) men Stephen Harper put into those jobs.

The new Trudeau cabinet is smaller than Harper’s, who had allowed it to balloon to near-record size.

But it is not as small as was Kim Campbell’s, back in 1993.

It was Campbell who championed a reform that would mean a leaner and meaner government, bringing various security agencies together in one Public Security ministry and putting all the social programs, save health, into a single Human Resources and Social Development ministry.

With his emphasis on re-defining the Canadian social union -- as part of a radical budget cutting exercise that would see deep cuts in federal transfers to the provinces -- Jean Chrétien expanded the social development role, creating parallel policy and service delivery ministries, and re-created a separate labour ministry.

Not surprisingly, Harper gave extremely short shrift to social development and human resources.

On his watch, they were all bundled into a single Employment ministry.

While naming a smaller cabinet than Harper’s, Trudeau has notably added ministers in the social services and social policy area.

Now, instead of one Employment ministry we have both Mihychuk’s, which is a re-invention of the former Employment ministry, and the job Trudeau gave to Quebec economist Jean-Yves Duclos, the new role of Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

The task of bringing in Trudeau’s priority number one, the so-called middle class tax cut, will primarily be Bill Morneau’s. He’s the media darling new Finance Minister, with the much touted solid Bay Street credentials.

Morneau might, however, want to consult his economist colleague at the new Families ministry on the middle class tax cut business.

That tax cut is supposed to help those with taxable incomes between $45,000 and $90,000, while raising the rate for those whose taxable incomes are greater than $200,000.

But here’s how it will really work.

All those with taxable income between $90,000 and $200,000 will also get a cut -- on the portion of their income up to $90,000.

In dollar terms, that means those with taxable incomes of $90,000 and higher will benefit more than those with lower incomes.

That seems like an unintended consequence. And it could be corrected if the government were to use the device of a tax credit rather than rate cut. The credit would only go to those with taxable incomes between $45,000 and $90,000.

Helping that middle class group is what the newly elected Prime Minister promised to do.

He did not promise to lower the taxes for six figure earners, which is what will happen -- however unintentional that may be -- if the new government carries out its current plan.

Dion at Foreign Affairs makes sense

As for the other veterans in the new cabinet, nobody will be surprised to see Ralph Goodale in Public Security, where he will have to quickly introduce major amendments to C-51, Harper’s so-called anti-terror law.

Few predicted Stéphane Dion would get Foreign Affairs, however.

In fact, many were lobbying for Dion to be named Environment Minister, a post he held in the previous Liberal government.

There may be method in Trudeau’s madness, however.

In naming Catherine McKenna to the environment job he gets a new face, not associated with past Liberal failures, to meet climate change targets. Dion, as Foreign Minister will still have a big role to play in the coming meeting in Paris, and in ongoing international climate change discussions. Dion also chairs the cabinet committee on environment, energy and climate change.

It was Jean Chrétien who brought Stéphane Dion into government, directly from academe, as Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs. Chrétien had been impressed with Dion’s rhetorical acumen in fearlessly taking on all separatist comers during the 1995 referendum.

Dion got deeply involved in international affairs during his time at Intergovernmental Affairs, in part through the Canadian-based international organization he more or less created, theForum of Federations.

The Forum bills itself as an international network on federalism and decentralization. (Full disclosure: this writer worked for that organization during its early days, and continues to do occasional projects for it.)

The Harper government was mightily suspicious of the Forum when it took power, not only because the organization had been Dion’s baby, but, even worse, because Bob Rae had been its first Board Chair.

Not surprisingly, Harper cut the Forum’s core funding. It was one among his many petulant, partisan and ideologically motivated cuts.

But the Forum, under new, young and entrepreneurial leadership, has kept itself going, in part by broadening its international base of support.

In his new role, Dion may want to catch up with the Forum and see what it has been up to -- as he, and other members of the new cabinet renew the government’s connections to civil society more generally.

Is it too much to hope that the dark days of partisan and narrow ideological decision-making are finally behind us?

Like Karl Nerenberg's work? Want to expand rabble's Parliamentary Bureau? Support us on Patreon today! 

Keep Karl on Parl 

 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/11/trudeaus-cabinet-...

disenchanted

Some take issue with this view of the diversity of the Cabinet - one minority over-represented and several omitted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rachel-decoste/trudeau-cabinet_b_3415615.ht...

I found this odd too and checked but they do have both East Asian and African-Canadian MPs with strong resumes. Ans possibly Hindi or Muslim South Asians too? Not necessarily defendng quotas or tokenism but I did find those omissions surprising and the Sikh numbers unexpected.

 

disenchanted

Some take issue with this view of the diversity of the Cabinet - one minority over-represented and several omitted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rachel-decoste/trudeau-cabinet_b_3415615.ht...

I found this odd too and checked but they do have both East Asian and African-Canadian MPs with strong resumes. And possibly Hindi or Muslim South Asians too? Not necessarily defendng quotas or tokenism but I did find those omissions surprising and the Sikh numbers unexpected.

Others have taken up this argument as well: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-blacks-still-waiting...

 

Pondering

This is the best response that I have read so far:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-blacks-still-waiting...

The author conveniently forgets that the last Liberal PM of Canada, Paul Martin, recommended a Haitian-Canadian as our Governor General (which in fact has more power than the PM from a constitutional perspective). And what about Lincoln Alexander? He was not only a Cabinet Minister but was also a Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario in the late 1980s. Jean Augustine was an MP and federal Cabinet Minister. Just look around, there are prominent and powerful Black Canadians all over the country: Mark Saunders (Chief of Toronto Police), Michael Lee-Chin (businessman, philanthropist), Donald Oliver and Ann Cools (Senators), Lawrence Hill (writer), and many more scholars, administrators, executives than I could ever list here. You do a disservice to the accomplishments of Black Canadians with this type of statement.-Dean Snowden

 

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Not being talked about much recently but how much damage did the Duffster/Wright fiasco do to Harper's re-election chances?

Interesting question.  I think it helped set the stage for the feeling that Harper was kinda corrupt and just into power.  Without this, people may have thought, "hey, he's not likeable, but he did help steer us through some very rough patches."  Instead, people thought, "Hey, he's not likeable, and he's kinda corrupt."  It led people to be more open to pursuing a change.  It helped make this an election about change, rather than an election about maintaining stability.

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  5h5 hours ago

Over to you Mr. Trudeau...

Embedded image permalink

 

NorthReport

Will this be Weaver's fate as well!

Greens' Breakthrough Dreams Withered on the Vine

'Stampede' voting, not strategic voting, ran them over this election.

"In riding after riding across Canada, Greens have proven that if you vote (in large numbers) for what you want, you actually get it." -- Green Party leader Elizabeth May, June 2015

The Greens didn't get it, in riding after riding -- not votes, not seats.

So the Green party's support withered on the vine in the Oct. 19 federal election, and its hoped for "breakthrough" was actually a breakdown that left it with just one seat.

Green leader Elizabeth May presided again as her party's vote percentage dropped, from 6.8 per cent in 2008 to 3.45 per cent in 2015.

The Greens won only May's seat in Saanich-Gulf Islands; lost deputy leader Bruce Hyer, a turncoat Ontario New Democrat MP who switched to the Green party last session; saw even its high profile candidates finish in third and fourth place; and managed just one runner up in the whole country.

Quite a depressing turn of events for any analytical Green -- much worse than even the NDP's bad election campaign that squandered its chance of winning government or even staying as official opposition, but still took 44 seats.

And the now Stephen Harper-less Conservatives with 99 seats are well placed for the next election under a new leader.

May is packing her bags -- not to leave the Green leadership, but to attend the United Nations climate change summit in Paris -- and rationalizing her latest big loss.

"I'm happy with the result... More important than Green seats is that we saw the end of the Harper era," May said, adding that: "The fear factor slaughtered us."

Those grim results shouldn't make any party leader "happy." But on the fear issue, May knew for four years this ballot would be about stopping Harper -- and the Green strategy failed miserably.

Targeting the wrong party

In fact, May didn't follow her own approach outlined earlier in 2015 when the Greens were accused of splitting the vote with the NDP in a way that would let Conservatives win seats.

 

 

 

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/11/03/Green-Party-Breakthrough-Withered/

 

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  Nov 8

Norman Spector Retweeted NP Politics

+1

Norman Spector added,

NP Politics @nppoliticsMichael Den Tandt: Mulcair ran a principled campaign, and lost. Here’s why the NDP may want a new leader  http://natpo.st/1ND8zej   0 retweets0 likes

 

 

NorthReport

Bingo!

How naive can NDPers be?

I lot of people supported the NDP over the past few years only because they thought they had a chance of winning.

Obviously it's over for Mulcair, as the NDP needs to get serious about winning, and if they don't, they can kiss a large portion of their support goodbye. Some of it has already fled, and many more will continue to leave if the NDP keeps on with its braindead approaches to leadership and policy, both of which have been shown to be dismal failures.

Tom Mulcair shows his sunny ways at NDP convention in Vancouver

http://www.straight.com/news/574026/tom-mulcair-shows-his-sunny-ways-ndp...

NorthReport

It's painfully obvious that not only is the Harper-Bush mentality wrong in the Middle East, but that their Attila the Hun approach has completely failed us, what are we going to do now to at least begin to ensure that all citizens on our planet begin to have equal opportunites, eh, as it is only when people have hope will the violence begin to subside.

NorthReport

So remind me, when are the subsidies for solar/renewable power going to equal those for fossil fuels?

What are the causes for global warming again?

Report: Global temperature hike already halfway to 'two degree warming' limit

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/us/october-temperatures-two-degrees/index....

NorthReport

Intelligence agencies pounce on Paris attacks to pursue spy agendaTrevor TimmTrevor Timm

CIA director John Brennan thinks privacy advocates undermine counter-terrorism work. But snooping on everyone won’t protect us

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/intelligence-agenci...

NorthReport
NorthReport

Pages