NDP #16

438 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

 It matters, but most people make the decision based either on the leader or deep set party loyalties. It matters inso  far as its a reflection of the leader. Occasionally a MP can boost the Party in a whole region but that's rare. 

 My point is if Nathan goes and becomes the leader of the BC NDP it won't cripple the NDP to be without him. We have tons of bench strength, Romeo Saganash, Francine Bovine, Alexander Boltrice, Megan Leslie, Libby Davies, Charlie Angus, Murray Rankin, Peggy Nash, Peter Stouffer, Mulcair himself, and many others.

socialdemocrati...

What I do know is that the Trinity-Spadina riding in Toronto was hard faught. And without Olivia Chow, it would be a tough hold. I'm not confident there's an MP waiting in the wings with all the ties to various communities. That's not just one MP. It's also an important beachhead for the NDP's Toronto presence, and the reason why Toronto has become increasingly orange.

Brachina

 Its pretty clear that Olvia has decided to be Mayor of Toronto. Its her choice and you need to respect that. Its an important Job. And we will keep Trinady and Spadina, I have no doubt about it.

nicky

I'm afraid that Stockholm is right. TS may be hard to hold without Olivia.

1. May 2011 was something of a perfect storm for the party. Before then Olivia's margins were always modest and she in fact lost to Tony Ianno once.

2. Marchese almost lost the seat in the provincial election a few months later.

3. The federal Liberals are ascendant in Toronto for the moment at least.

4. There is a continuing demographic change in the riding with numerous new condos.

I think Olivia should stay put.

Brachina

 Its up to Olivia, not us, the people of Toronto are begging for Salvation from Ford and only Olivia can deliver it. Its not like the riding won't attract major local stars.

 And either way its up to Olivia, this is her life and it has to be her choice, one has to respect that. You can't force her to stay. Have some faith.

socialdemocrati...

But the mayor race will attract an alternative to Ford pretty easily. He's likely to be beaten. Ford is even more likely to be beaten if someone else divides the right, like John Tory or Karen Stintz. But he could still win if he runs against someone completely incompetent, OR the vote is divided between two progressive candidates. No where in that calculus do we need Olivia Chow. Of course it's her decision, but we also live in a democracy.

Adam Vaughn or Shelley Carroll can easily beat Ford and would both be great mayors.

I'm have far less confidence that anyone can hold Trinity-Spadina for the NDP, except Olivia.

socialdemocrati...

I think this article represents a VERY balanced and open-eyed look at how to replace Ford as Mayor.

http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/omg-he-could-win-again/

 

... To actually beat him, his opponents need to defeat his politics at the ballot box—his corrosive anti-urban, anti-government, anti–city building ideas.

So how do you do that? Well, you could start by looking at the past two closely contested Toronto mayoral elections, in 2003 and 2010. Both those campaigns were won by candidates (Miller and Ford) with relatively low name recognition who polled weakly at the start of the race. This could be a sign that the current obsession with tracking how Olivia Chow and John Tory stack up before the race has even begun is misguided. There’s a prevailing belief that the anyone-but-Ford camp needs to unite behind a single candidate (whoever polls highest at the starting line, it may be assumed) before the race officially kicks off. But Miller and Ford won in crowded fields, and neither of them did it by watching their ideological opponents split the vote.

Instead, they did it by offering the best-defined visions for the city in their respective races. Miller, with his broom, his talk of a “magnificent city,” and his proposals to clean up the environment, City Hall ethics, and the streets, set the tone of the race and had everyone else debating his ideas. In a different way, Ford outlined a vision of City Hall as similarly out of touch and wasteful, and offered a small-government vision based around the theme of stopping waste and respecting taxpayer dollars (especially those of car drivers).

Olivia would be a great mayor, but we don't NEED her to run against Ford to get him out of there.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
Its pretty clear that Olvia has decided to be Mayor of Toronto. Its her choice and you need to respect that. Its an important Job. And we will keep Trinady and Spadina, I have no doubt about it.

If Olivia does become Toronto Mayor (and is also successful in taking a large number of like-minded councillors with her) that will overall boost the capacity of the NDP in the Toronto area, which will over time have positive impacts for the NDP.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I think this article represents a VERY balanced and open-eyed look at how to replace Ford as Mayor.

http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/omg-he-could-win-again/

 

... To actually beat him, his opponents need to defeat his politics at the ballot box—his corrosive anti-urban, anti-government, anti–city building ideas.

So how do you do that? Well, you could start by looking at the past two closely contested Toronto mayoral elections, in 2003 and 2010. Both those campaigns were won by candidates (Miller and Ford) with relatively low name recognition who polled weakly at the start of the race. This could be a sign that the current obsession with tracking how Olivia Chow and John Tory stack up before the race has even begun is misguided. There’s a prevailing belief that the anyone-but-Ford camp needs to unite behind a single candidate (whoever polls highest at the starting line, it may be assumed) before the race officially kicks off. But Miller and Ford won in crowded fields, and neither of them did it by watching their ideological opponents split the vote.

Instead, they did it by offering the best-defined visions for the city in their respective races. Miller, with his broom, his talk of a “magnificent city,” and his proposals to clean up the environment, City Hall ethics, and the streets, set the tone of the race and had everyone else debating his ideas. In a different way, Ford outlined a vision of City Hall as similarly out of touch and wasteful, and offered a small-government vision based around the theme of stopping waste and respecting taxpayer dollars (especially those of car drivers).

Olivia would be a great mayor, but we don't NEED her to run against Ford to get him out of there.

The key difference the article overlooks is that in 2003 and 2010, Miller and Ford were running in open fields where name recognition doesn't matter. Should Ford run again in 2014, he will have that to his advantage, and in municipal politics, it's nearly impossible to defeat a sitting incumbent mayor. Any advantage a candidate can use would be helpful, and Olivia Chow can capitalize on name recognition, knowledge of the issues, and a broad activist base throughout the city to help her.

mark_alfred

Vaughan or Carroll would lose.  Chow is the only one who polls competitively with Ford even in the boroughs.  Without Chow, it would be a repeat of the last election where the city votes largely against Ford, and the boroughs largely for Ford (and he wins).  With Chow, that would be less likely. 

felixr

I think the NDP's ascendancy in Toronto was helped by Miller's first mayoral victory. It signalled the NDP's ability to win and advance progressive, practical politics. If Chow wins in Etobicoke and other places currently not held by the NDP, what could that mean for the party?

socialdemocrati...

It's not something I considered. I have to admit, a high profile NDP MP becoming the mayor of the biggest city in the country and actually doing a good job could transform the political conversation. There's even a lot of self-hating progressives who buy into conservative ideas about economic management.

janfromthebruce

This is what many NDP MPs have been up to or rather not up to Quebec NDP MPs say no to Diamond Jubilee medals

A quarter of the NDP’s Quebec caucus declined to accept medals intended to commemorate Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee.

All MPs and senators automatically received the medals last year, but data released by the Governor General’s office show that 16 NDP MPs are missing from the list of those who accepted them.

Though 14 of these MPs were from Quebec, anti-monarchist sentiment didn’t seem to factor into decisions to refuse the baubles.

Some thought they shouldn't receive medal for "just doing the job" they were elected to do. Some regifted their medals to deserving constitutuents in their ridings.

The NDP stayed classy here!

Aristotleded24

We're talking about the possibility of losing Nathan Cullen and Olivia Chow to more local and regional causes, but the potential for more caucus departures does not end there. There's a good chance that Megan Leslie will be called in to pick up the pieces after Dexter's impending electoral defeat in just over a week.

felixr

Aristotleded24 wrote:

We're talking about the possibility of losing Nathan Cullen and Olivia Chow to more local and regional causes, but the potential for more caucus departures does not end there. There's a good chance that Megan Leslie will be called in to pick up the pieces after Dexter's impending electoral defeat in just over a week.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Tongue out

janfromthebruce

Yes, because if they don't perform throw the bums out. It's all the leaders fault and my gosh we need a smooth talking airhead who promises the moon and stars right up until election day. And personally why would Leslie go provincial?

Walking down memory lane one may ponder how well a federal MP does going provincial.

Aristotleded24

janfromthebruce wrote:
Walking down memory lane one may ponder how well a federal MP does going provincial.

You mean someone like Ed Schreyer?

mark_alfred

The federal gov't has the most resources.  So, it's the most important.  I'd be surprised if any of the federal members of the NDP left for either municipal or provincial politics.  The one exception may be Chow, since polling shows she'd have a real good shot at becoming mayor, but even her leaving her MP job would surprise me.  For Leslie or Cullen, I think they'd be less willing to enter into what would be a bigger gamble (provincial politics), especially since both of them are likely candidates for the job of leader of the federal NDP should Mulcair ever step down.

Aristotleded24

Here's the NDP proposal to do with youth unemployment: [url=http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-puts-forward-measures-to-tackle-youth-unemplo... credits for hiring.[/url] Where did this idea come from? If this is the best idea the party can come up with, then that's pretty sad. The answer may be complex, but no business EVER makes a decision whether or not to hire someone based on whether a tax credit will be offered.

North Star

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Here's the NDP proposal to do with youth unemployment: [url=http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-puts-forward-measures-to-tackle-youth-unemplo... credits for hiring.[/url] Where did this idea come from? If this is the best idea the party can come up with, then that's pretty sad. The answer may be complex, but no business EVER makes a decision whether or not to hire someone based on whether a tax credit will be offered.

It's using neoliberal approaches to try to deliver progressive policy solutions. We don't even know how long these supposed jobs would last or if they would really pay a living wage. The NDP would be better off taking the revenue this will cost and putting it towards direct hiring to fix our infrastructure and green retrofit things, but the press would attack them for that.

Brachina

The NDP has aleeady promised support for inforstructure, green investment, 800 million to help with university debt, and a bunch of bunch of other stuff. Heck even lowering the age for retirement back to 65 will help youth unemployment by creating job vacanies.

 

 The hiring tax credit will create jobs, especially for small and medium businesses that want to expand, but find hiring more people something they can't afford. Still its not the main thrust of the NDP's youth employment plan, but it makes the NDP appear more moderate 

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

... it makes the NDP appear more moderate.

To you? Not sure what you mean.

 

Aristotleded24

North Star wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Here's the NDP proposal to do with youth unemployment: [url=http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-puts-forward-measures-to-tackle-youth-unemplo... credits for hiring.[/url] Where did this idea come from? If this is the best idea the party can come up with, then that's pretty sad. The answer may be complex, but no business EVER makes a decision whether or not to hire someone based on whether a tax credit will be offered.

It's using neoliberal approaches to try to deliver progressive policy solutions. We don't even know how long these supposed jobs would last or if they would really pay a living wage.

Or if the person's 26th birthday present on behalf of this company comes in the form of a pink slip as the tax credit expires.

Brachina wrote:
The hiring tax credit will create jobs, especially for small and medium businesses that want to expand, but find hiring more people something they can't afford.

It would seem to me that a business in a realistic position to expand would already have the resources to hire more staff. If it's a real issue, then a better approach would be to look at existing assistance programs for businesses and seeing what can be done there.

The other problem with this approach is that it grants "small businesses" social and political capital they don't deserve. The voice of small businesses, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, is a very right-wing organization that fights very hard against improvements to workplace standards, and they are effecitve particularly because of the worship of "small businesses." Nobody would listen to Wal-Mart or McDonalds campaigning against increasing the minimum wage, but small business owners are always up in arms about the increased costs, and people believe these business owners. (Not to mention that many such business owners live in fancy houses and drive nice vehicles, but that's another point.) If we're looking at support for businesses, we need to look at other business models that have objectives other than how much money these businesses can make for their owners, but that is an entirely different discussion.

I've been in a position to decide staffing levels, and can assure you that businesses do everything they can to get the job done with as little staff as possible, regardless of the actual resources they have available. Bringing on more staff is done when there is no other option, and individual tax credits will have no bearing on this whatsoever.

Brachina

Aristotleded24 wrote:

North Star wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Here's the NDP proposal to do with youth unemployment: [url=http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-puts-forward-measures-to-tackle-youth-unemplo... credits for hiring.[/url] Where did this idea come from? If this is the best idea the party can come up with, then that's pretty sad. The answer may be complex, but no business EVER makes a decision whether or not to hire someone based on whether a tax credit will be offered.

It's using neoliberal approaches to try to deliver progressive policy solutions. We don't even know how long these supposed jobs would last or if they would really pay a living wage.

Or if the person's 26th birthday present on behalf of this company comes in the form of a pink slip as the tax credit expires.

Brachina wrote:
The hiring tax credit will create jobs, especially for small and medium businesses that want to expand, but find hiring more people something they can't afford.

It would seem to me that a business in a realistic position to expand would already have the resources to hire more staff. If it's a real issue, then a better approach would be to look at existing assistance programs for businesses and seeing what can be done there.

The other problem with this approach is that it grants "small businesses" social and political capital they don't deserve. The voice of small businesses, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, is a very right-wing organization that fights very hard against improvements to workplace standards, and they are effecitve particularly because of the worship of "small businesses." Nobody would listen to Wal-Mart or McDonalds campaigning against increasing the minimum wage, but small business owners are always up in arms about the increased costs, and people believe these business owners. (Not to mention that many such business owners live in fancy houses and drive nice vehicles, but that's another point.) If we're looking at support for businesses, we need to look at other business models that have objectives other than how much money these businesses can make for their owners, but that is an entirely different discussion.

I've been in a position to decide staffing levels, and can assure you that businesses do everything they can to get the job done with as little staff as possible, regardless of the actual resources they have available. Bringing on more staff is done when there is no other option, and individual tax credits will have no bearing on this whatsoever.

 

 I can't go into details  to protect privacy but that isn't always true.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

We're talking about the possibility of losing Nathan Cullen and Olivia Chow to more local and regional causes, but the potential for more caucus departures does not end there. There's a good chance that Megan Leslie will be called in to pick up the pieces after Dexter's impending electoral defeat in just over a week.

And with that post, you raise a question that will be crucial to both the NDP's electoral prospects AND it's chances of governing competently and getting re-elected if if DOES win the next federal election:

What lessons should the federal Dippers take from the humiliating defeat Dexter is about to lead his party to in Nova Scotia, and the Harperite economic and budget policies he carried out that are going to be the cause of that defeat?

Is "cleaning up the mess" worth essentially wasting the first four years of a federal NDP government?  Is it going to be worth breaking the hearts and crushing the dreams of almost everyone who will vote NDP in 2015?  This is a vital question, because virtually no one who will vote NDP next time will do so in the actual HOPE that a federal NDP government will mean four years of brutal austerity.

I'm going to start a separate thread on that...if the mods fold it into this one, so be it.

socialdemocrati...

A $1000 tax credit doesn't do much at all.

That's reassurance for both people who call it some kind of neoliberal sellout (it isn't -- particularly when they're promising to raise corporate taxes, before replacing it with this smaller conditional tax break) and those who treat it as some kind of moderate solution (it isn't -- particularly when a $32000 salary is needed to live above the poverty line, and a business isn't going to start hiring because the feds offer to pay 3% of that salary).

It's not reassurance for people who need jobs.

mark_alfred

It's a proposal for the current government to put some sort of focus on youth unemployment, rather than the sole employment policy position for a future NDP government.  In the NDP policy book under "Industrial policy:  Supporting Strategic sectors" there are plenty of ideas for creating jobs.

socialdemocrati...

Truthfully, there aren't a lot of great ideas out there for job creation. There's the Conservative approach (blank slate for corporations) which is actually part of how we ended up in this crisis in the first place. And the Liberal approach (lipservice to more education, and a blank slate for corporations) which also doesn't work and is insulting to the most educated generation in the history of the world. And no, this isn't a cue for more discredited ideas from planned economies in the past.

The Great Depression taught us that the government spending money on jobs will get the economy going. Back then, it meant huge projects like hydro-electric dams, railroads, and other infratructure. Now, it might mean high speed railroads, urban public transit, green power plants, and internet cable. Some kind of big project that would give us tangible benefits, while employing a lot of people in its construction. Speaking for myself, I also find the scale and the technology of that project to be inspiring in of itself.

More forward thinking... Anything that could nudge private companies towards worker-owned co-operatives would be helpful. Not that government can (or should) rip the ownership of said companies out of the hands of the financial class. But giving tax breaks to democratically run co-operatives, or incentives to private companies that democratize ownership and control... You wouldn't hear of a bunch of workers in Windsor voting to send their own jobs to China. At least, not without a ton of transparent information showing that they had no other choice.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Truthfully, there aren't a lot of great ideas out there for job creation. There's the Conservative approach (blank slate for corporations) which is actually part of how we ended up in this crisis in the first place. And the Liberal approach (lipservice to more education, and a blank slate for corporations) which also doesn't work and is insulting to the most educated generation in the history of the world. And no, this isn't a cue for more discredited ideas from planned economies in the past.

It plays into the mythology of businessmen as "job creators," when the truth is that businesses are in it to make money for their owners with the least amount of staff possible.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
The Great Depression taught us that the government spending money on jobs will get the economy going. Back then, it meant huge projects like hydro-electric dams, railroads, and other infratructure. Now, it might mean high speed railroads, urban public transit, green power plants, and internet cable. Some kind of big project that would give us tangible benefits, while employing a lot of people in its construction. Speaking for myself, I also find the scale and the technology of that project to be inspiring in of itself.

I believe it was actually Sweden that was the first government out of the Depression, because of its public spending. Germany was the second, due to build-up of the war. The US fell behind on its recovery because after moderate success lowering the unemployment rate, Roosevelt then introduced austerity which caused unemployment to rise, and thus the US couldn't completely recover from the Depression until entry into WWII.

Some facts about The Great Depression that are not common knowledge.

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The Great Depression taught us that the government spending money on jobs will get the economy going. Back then, it meant huge projects like hydro-electric dams, railroads, and other infratructure. Now, it might mean high speed railroads, urban public transit, green power plants, and internet cable. Some kind of big project that would give us tangible benefits, while employing a lot of people in its construction.

The talk now centres on the oil sands and pipelines.  1 2 3

Brachina

 Personally I'd love to see that union formally known as the CAW get a loan from the government to buy the big three automakers and turn it into a cooperstive.

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Olivia would be a great mayor, but we don't NEED her to run against Ford to get him out of there.

I had previously argued against your point above, stating that we do need Chow to run to get Ford out, since I worried that she was the only one who could beat him.  But, given the recent escapades, I've changed my mind.  He'll lose, and one of the contenders running against him will win (assuming he's not tossed beforehand.)

socialdemocrati...

Definitely only saying that in light of recent scandals. Ford has his loyalists, but there are enough people annoyed and disappointed that they'll support anyone who comes across as competent and confident.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Definitely only saying that in light of recent scandals. Ford has his loyalists, but there are enough people annoyed and disappointed that they'll support anyone who comes across as competent and confident.

Don't count on that. It's one thing for people to be disgusted and upset with Ford, it's another thing for these people to be motivated enough to go out and vote for a different politician who will probably screw them over anyways. Defeting an incumbent mayor takes work, it takes dedication, and even though it's negative, Ford has name recognition and that matters big time.

I say this after what we went through in Winnipeg. Sam Katz has been, by all accounts, a horrible mayor. He is unpopular. People don't trust him. In the 2010 municipal elections, people thought he would lose, except he was re-elected because Judy Wasylicia-Leis failed to capitalize on his mistakes and offer a credible platform. This was in the face of polling by the Winnipeg Free Press showing that Winnipeggers agreed with Judy's approach to every issue in that election, with the exception of crime.

Ford will not lose on his own. You need to go out and work hard to beat him, and you need every advantage available to you. Olivia Chow has name recognition, street cred, and support from a large activist network throughout the city.

PrairieDemocrat15

Brachina wrote:

The NDP has aleeady promised support for inforstructure, green investment, 800 million to help with university debt, and a bunch of bunch of other stuff. Heck even lowering the age for retirement back to 65 will help youth unemployment by creating job vacanies.

 

 The hiring tax credit will create jobs, especially for small and medium businesses that want to expand, but find hiring more people something they can't afford. Still its not the main thrust of the NDP's youth employment plan, but it makes the NDP appear more moderate 

Boutique tax credits are inefficent job-creation mechanisms and a poor use of government reveune.

Tom Mulcair was speaking at the University of Alberta Wednesday (2nd). He said the trickle-down economics started by Reagan and Thatcher has been a monumental failure. Direct quote: "people are tired of being trickled on." He criticized the economic ideology that holds that wealth and jobs can only be created when investors and corporations are given extra cash.

If the NDP is serious about turning back supply-side economics, they need to come up with something better than a tax credit.

socialdemocrati...

Aristotleded24 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Definitely only saying that in light of recent scandals. Ford has his loyalists, but there are enough people annoyed and disappointed that they'll support anyone who comes across as competent and confident.

Don't count on that. It's one thing for people to be disgusted and upset with Ford, it's another thing for these people to be motivated enough to go out and vote for a different politician who will probably screw them over anyways. Defeting an incumbent mayor takes work, it takes dedication, and even though it's negative, Ford has name recognition and that matters big time.

I say this after what we went through in Winnipeg. Sam Katz has been, by all accounts, a horrible mayor. He is unpopular. People don't trust him. In the 2010 municipal elections, people thought he would lose, except he was re-elected because Judy Wasylicia-Leis failed to capitalize on his mistakes and offer a credible platform. This was in the face of polling by the Winnipeg Free Press showing that Winnipeggers agreed with Judy's approach to every issue in that election, with the exception of crime.

Ford will not lose on his own. You need to go out and work hard to beat him, and you need every advantage available to you. Olivia Chow has name recognition, street cred, and support from a large activist network throughout the city.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I think Ford is now very beatable. That doesn't mean that he'll be easy to beat, if that makes sense. We only have to look at how inept the BC NDP were against an unpopular Liberal government, or even the Ontario PCs against an unpopular Liberal government. You actually have to deliver the death blow, and that requires a hard campaign with the right combination of tough accountability for the current government, and hopeful propositions for the next government.

NorthReport

Harper and Clark are winners, and winners promote jobs.

I hope that the federal NDP has learned from the recent BC election that saying "NO" to jobs is a surefire way to lose elections.

 

mark_alfred

I agree.  People want work and stability in their lives.  The party that can best promote they'll deliver on this will get the most votes.

NorthReport

Christy Clark is beating the drum for jobs - LNG, the new Massey Bridge which will start just before the 2017 election in BC, and if even one or two of these proposed LNG projects go ahead the BC Liberals will be in power for the next 20 years in BC.

And federally Harper is pushing for lots of jobs in relation to the oil patch such as the Enbridge pipeline, and even the Keystone project in the USA.

What exciting job-creating big vote-getting projects are the NDP promoting because it is pocket-book issues which decide elections whether people like it or not.

 

Brachina

 Big projects include billions more for inforstructure, Pharmacare, cap and trade will lead to billions being spent on greening the economy,and I'm sure there will be more to come.

janfromthebruce

NorthReport wrote:

Christy Clark is beating the drum for jobs - LNG, the new Massey Bridge which will start just before the 2017 election in BC, and if even one or two of these proposed LNG projects go ahead the BC Liberals will be in power for the next 20 years in BC.

And federally Harper is pushing for lots of jobs in relation to the oil patch such as the Enbridge pipeline, and even the Keystone project in the USA.

What exciting job-creating big vote-getting projects are the NDP promoting because it is pocket-book issues which decide elections whether people like it or not.

 

is the suggestion here that the NDP go with promoting Enbridge pipeline and Keystone project.

mark_alfred

There was an interesting link I got from Brachina in the Mulcair thread that shows that the NDP will be addressing NR's question:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-and-ndp-plan-new-approach-to-pip...

The NDP clearly oppose the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, and have been critical of Keystone as well.  However, from the link above, I do expect to hear more of a vision of what the NDP will do for creating jobs (rather than merely what they oppose).  They have been speaking of better regulation of the environment as a means to create jobs for a while (see link).  It seems more details will come.  So, I'm optimistic that the public will begin to notice and support the NDP in greater numbers.

socialdemocrati...

I'm starting to take a more holistic view than "jobs jobs jobs". I think the NDP can lose an election if it fails to talk about jobs. But it doesn't mean that focusing on jobs will allow them to win the election. They have to be a party of the moral high ground, with bigger vision. There has to be a broader feeling of reform, not just a promise to move the needles on job growth.

mark_alfred

sdm, I do agree.  They won't win without a broader feeling of reform (from a left perspective), but also won't win if people feel an NDP gov't will jeopardize what little crumbs they may currently have.

janfromthebruce

Conservatives, NDP only true choices, Liberals ‘stand for nothing,’ says Lavigne

Building the Orange Wave: The Inside Story Behind the Historic Rise of Jack Layton and the NDP, by Brad Lavigne, Douglas & McIntyre, pp. 286, $34.95

“What this book does is actually proof positive. It is evidence that anybody who suggests that polls two years out from an election campaign are any predictor of its outcome is meaningless. The story that the book tells is that hard work, focusing on what really matters, building the party, building its infrastructure talking to voters on the issues that they care about, those are the things that have been the most successful,” Mr. Lavigne said.

Wise words and thoughts

In an interview last week with The Hill Times, Mr. Lavigne, now vice-president of Hill & Knowlton, said that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.), who won his party leadership in April, is enjoying an extended honeymoon period support. He said that what’s important to watch is whether Mr. Trudeau will be able to maintain this support up until the election day in 2015. 

Mr. Lavigne pointed out that former Liberal leaders Michael Ignatieff, Stéphane Dion (Saint Laurent-Cartierville, Que.), and Paul Martin enjoyed similar support in the public opinion polls after they became party leaders but by election time in May 2011, October 2008 and January 2006, respectively, their support collapsed.

“If history has taught us anything, it is that Liberal leaders who enjoy honeymoons are not a predictor for how voters will respond in the next election. If that were the case, Paul Martin would still be the Prime Minister. If that were the case, Stéphane Dion would be Prime Minister, if that were the case, Michael Ignatieff would be Prime Minister. Unfortunately, that thinking ignores everything about what has happened in the past,” said Mr. Lavigne pointing out that Mr. Martin won only 103 seats in 2006 losing the election to Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and after that Mr. Dion won only 77 seats in 2008 and under Mr. Ignatieff, the party was reduced to only 34 seats in the May 2011 general election.

Thought Lavigne's response was a good come back

And asked about the criticism of Mr. Mulcair’s strategy and NDP strategists in last week’s issue of The Hill Times, Mr. Lavigne said he didn’t need to take lessons from “Liberal operatives who have so recently failed so spectacularly on strategies on how to defeat the Conservatives.”

snip

Said Mr. Lavigne: “The New Democratic Party is a party that sees the long game, that recognizes the importance of constant building. We’ve never succeeded when we bought into the Liberal leaders’ honeymoons of which there’ve been many.

“Mr. Martin had a very long honeymoon and we were told he was to wipe us out. Mr. Dion had a nice honeymoon at which he reached support in the 40 per cent in public domain polls. Mr. Ignatieff also enjoyed tremendous honeymoon support only to take his party to its greatest loss since confederation. What the lessons in the book are about, what the story of building the Orange Wave tells us is that learning from one’s mistakes, building on the lessons of the past, focusing on what’s important to the voters at home has enabled us to take a party from fourth place to official opposition to a serious contender for government and that’s what this story is about.”

socialdemocrati...

This headline is from MacLeans's interesting in of itself:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/12/are-we-under-estimating-the-ndp-again/

But I've always thought that 2015 was gonna be a 3-way race. When the NDP was on top, when the NDP was losing steam. I stand by that. Once the writ drops, there will come a moment where all the parties are within a few percentage points of each other, regardless of where the polls were before that. And everything else will come down to the quality of the campaign that each party runs. Especially the volunteers on the ground.

NorthReport

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, many people will say, and I say hogwash to that. At least on the federal scene the NDP has a Leader who knows how to win elections, and has a Leader who wants to win elections, and most importantly has a Leader who knows you can do a lot more to further your agenda by being in power than sitting on the sidelines in the opposition benches.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/15/tom-mulcair-expected-to-move-ndp...

janfromthebruce

Although that is the headline of the national post, Mulcair was quite clear about moving the centre towards the progressive side. And glad to see the agenda moving towards the consumer, although talking about TV channel perscriptions is well, on first blush comes about as a distraction.

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, once again, the headline has nothing to do with any of the proposals. I find the "center / left / right" stuff to be obnoxiously devoid of substance, no matter who says it, especially the media. But if there's any consolation, people can look at things the NDP has been saying for 10 years and know that the National Post considers that the new political center.

Geoff

Rather than looking at what the NDP has been saying, perhaps we should look at the track record of NDP governments in Manitoba and Nova Scotia (okay, former government, in the latter case) to get a sense of what the NDP considers progressive, and whether or not "left" and "centre" have substance.   

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Yeah, once again, the headline has nothing to do with any of the proposals. I find the "center / left / right" stuff to be obnoxiously devoid of substance, no matter who says it, especially the media. But if there's any consolation, people can look at things the NDP has been saying for 10 years and know that the National Post considers that the new political center.

Pages

Topic locked