The NDP needs to change what before the next election? part IV

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
The NDP needs to change what before the next election? part IV

 

KenS

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008060]Co... from here.[/url]

Nothing to add. Just can't load such a long thread as the old one has become.

Though I agree that the thing about what happened around Dana Larsen and Kirk's resignations has gone on long enough for a general discussion.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

enemy_of_capital

How dare you question the undying devotion of Jack Layton to all things good and pure? the NDP is beyond questiong! NO CHANGES! OFF WITH YOUR HEAD INFIDEL! where is fidel when we need him?!? SEIZE HIM, SEIZE HIM!

Fidel

said Jack Layton's sworn enemy.

Jacob Two-Two

You mean...? Jack Layton...? Is capital?!?

Once again hoodwinked by the oppressor with a thousand faces! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

David Young

One thing Jack Layton needs to do is not to go to safe seats like Halifax (twice) during the election, but go to winnable seats like SOUTH SHORE-ST. MARGARET'S to be seen with the local candidate.

I hope Jack will find time to come here to S.S.S.M. over the next while, as this must be the NDP's #1 targeted riding in Canada!

Mojoroad1

I will add one thing mentioned in many a thread before but not necessarily this one:

Take off the gloves when it comes to the Greens. Even though Emay probably screwed them (and the environmental agenda while she was at it)....I am of the opinion that pretending they aren't there was and will remain an unwise strategy. Where the whole "Green" platform(s) fall down is not just in economic neo-liberalism, but also in social justice. I am of the firm belief that they do not see the forest through the trees so to speak...yes they (like the Liberals) talk a good game, but when it comes to actual policy it's easy to call em on it.

In my riding, for instance, the Green candidate was well spoken, charismatic and engaging....He was a teacher and also a nice guy. HOWEVER, he hoisted the Green Platform Book and waved it around every ACM like it was the bible and all answers to the mysteries of the universe could be found in it.... The problem was what he was saying VS what actual GPC policy was were often -let's say- in conflict.

The other problem of course, was that the platform was rather thin gruel to begin with, and the gospel of Emay during the campaign became defacto GPC policy (even when she contradicted herself). The NDP needs to break into the "endless feedback loop" (as other have called it) of the GPC and remind many of their "grass roots" that this is a party run by former conservatives, promotes right wing ideology (inc. libertarian flat taxes) and generally doesn't make the (real) connection between environment and social justice.

I'll bet my cat that many "grass roots" GPC voters, when the wool is taken away from their eyes will realize they've been hornswaggled. This, I believe is also true (as mentioned in the why progressives vote liberal thread) applies to the LPC as well.

It's Me D

quote:


One thing Jack Layton needs to do is not to go to safe seats like Halifax (twice) during the election, but go to winnable seats like SOUTH SHORE-ST. MARGARET'S to be seen with the local candidate.

I hope Jack will find time to come here to S.S.S.M. over the next while, as this must be the NDP's #1 targeted riding in Canada!


David did Jack never stop by SSSM this election? He's certainly been there before... in fact my favorite Jack memory (lol) is of him participating in a community theater production in Mahone Bay as a fundraiser for the local riding, along with Darrel Dexter [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

1948

quote:


Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
[b]I will add one thing mentioned in many a thread before but not necessarily this one:

Take off the gloves when it comes to the Greens. Even though Emay probably screwed them (and the environmental agenda while she was at it)....I am of the opinion that pretending they aren't there was and will remain an unwise strategy. Where the whole "Green" platform(s) fall down is not just in economic neo-liberalism, but also in social justice. I am of the firm belief that they do not see the forest through the trees so to speak...yes they (like the Liberals) talk a good game, but when it comes to actual policy it's easy to call em on it. [/b]


When Layton fought May directly she seemed to do better then when he simply ignored her and let the Liberals fight her. Maybe that was the terrain of their fight (over her inclusion in the debate) but still... I think engaging Elizabeth May dignifies her in a way she doesn't deserve. We don't attack the Chritsian Heritage Party or the Neo-Rhinos, why should we attack May?

Mojoroad1

...and that's the standard argument and I understand it. HOWEVER, in my riding for example the greens finished 4th by less than a couple of hundred votes. They did well elsewhere of course too. Ignoring that is not good strategy. Consider that the NDP (is or was the second choice of most Green voters). I say we take em back by telling it like it is.

Last election at least, they were not the rhinos, (the Liberals give them legitimacy they really didn't deserve)...that said I admit it remains to be seen whither they implode or not, but if they don't...I say throw down the gauntlet.

V. Jara

The NDP needs to be strategic about taking on the Greens. For one, simply attacking the Greens can have two negative consequences: it can win them sympathy outside the Green party and it can harden antipathy within the Greens towards the New Democratic Party. The NDP needs to learn how to undermine the Greens without attacking the choices/beliefs of their membership. This should be the litmus test for any attack.

Second, the NDP needs to learn how to court Greens. Personally, I think this will require a Nelson Mandela style approach (e.g. a great deal of magnanimity combined with consultation and strategic dissension).

Third, the NDP will need to know when and where to twist the knife. The anti-democratic nature of the EMay Greens was a flashing red light last campaign. The strategic voting ploy was also rife with confusion.

Fourth, the NDP must remain at least plausibly competitive with the Greens on the quality of their environmental platform and environmental brand. This will be tough.

Mojoroad1

quote:


Originally posted by V. Jara:
[b]The NDP needs to be strategic about taking on the Greens. For one, simply attacking the Greens can have two negative consequences: it can win them sympathy outside the Green party and it can harden antipathy within the Greens towards the New Democratic Party. The NDP needs to learn how to undermine the Greens without attacking the choices/beliefs of their membership. This should be the litmus test for any attack.

Second, the NDP needs to learn how to court Greens. Personally, I think this will require a Nelson Mandela style approach (e.g. a great deal of magnanimity combined with consultation and strategic dissension).

Third, the NDP will need to know when and where to twist the knife. The anti-democratic nature of the EMay Greens was a flashing red light last campaign. The strategic voting ploy was also rife with confusion.

Fourth, the NDP must remain at least plausibly competitive with the Greens on the quality of their environmental platform and environmental brand. This will be tough.[/b]


The thing is the Greens are already full out attacking the NDP, in a fight for perceived "progressive" voters. There will always be a "core" of Greenies that won't budge - the PC's with composters wing. They've already drank the kool-aid. While I agree with you it must be somewhat nuanced, I stand by my assertion that many "hornswaggled" Green supporters are attracted more by the implication of their name (and what that represents in a simplistic form)than any real policy they actually have. That's where I suppose we disagree. The belief that they are somehow superior environmentally is a myth based on nothing more than an (international) brand name. The NDP can point to years of environmental activism and more recently Layton's climate change accountability act. For that matter Layton should have just as much Green Street Cred as May, if not more. In so far as you point out that the "enviro" platform must be "competitive", that depends on your assessment on my earlier point that the Greens are willing to sacrifice social justice in the name of the "environment". The NDP will not - rather the party does the proper thing and marry the two. It's that simple, and that's argument that must be made. As I said, I believe that many "idealist" Green voters don't realize they are voting for a neo-liberal right wing platform as dictated by former conservatives.

Brian White

Instead of throwing down the gauntlet, you could adopt their policys on the environment.
Or you could support pro rep provincially and then go into coalition with the greens when the need arises.
Part of the reason you have the greens as a vote catching rival is because you fight them so much and disagree with them and misrepresent them
so much. The old stinker "the greens are just composting conservatives" is not the way to win their votes.

quote:

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
[b]...and that's the standard argument and I understand it. HOWEVER, in my riding for example the greens finished 4th by less than a couple of hundred votes. They did well elsewhere of course too. Ignoring that is not good strategy. Consider that the NDP (is or was the second choice of most Green voters). I say we take em back by telling it like it is.

Last election at least, they were not the rhinos, (the Liberals give them legitimacy they really didn't deserve)...that said I admit it remains to be seen whither they implode or not, but if they don't...I say throw down the gauntlet.[/b]


Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]so much. The old stinker "the greens are just composting conservatives" is not the way to win their votes.
[/b]

This from the guy who says that people who voted NDP are "fuckwits."

Mojoroad1

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Instead of throwing down the gauntlet, you could adopt their policys on the environment.

[/b]


umm that was my whole point...why the hell would the NDP want to adopt a right wing regressive flat tax policy? I know the Liberals did.......

Aristotleded24

http://enmasse.ca/?p=117 Here are some considerations

janfromthebruce

Thanks Aristotleded24 for linking to enmasse. My most recent fantasy is that "somebodies" who have spare money and have very progressive bents would buy the National Post and change its content to one of progressive. There would be a way for the New Democrats to get some positive election coverage, as well as some concrete critism.

Although I also recognize that print media is taking a beating these days, I'm thinking of the paper's infrastructure setup that is important and could be used for a relaunch pad.

I haven't thought this out well, so don't beat me up ok all?Undecided

Dippergirl

As far as the nomination of candidates goes, the NDP needs to be ready with someone to run in each riding long before the election is called. Up until last month, I had lived all my life in the Ontario riding of Durham -- best known for producing the weirdo candidate Andrew McKeever in the last election. (I live in Barrie now.) I was in the middle of moving at the time, and was unable to be present at the nomination meeting (apparently attended by the sad total of something like 11 people). I don't know how that ass got approved, but I do know that the organisation of the riding association was terrible. Because of this hasty last-minute nomination, it was too late to find another candidate by the time McKeever's disgusting comments (from his Facebook page, if I recall correctly) were exposed.

I was also dismayed with the lack of any response whatsoever from the party. I contacted McKeever himself, the federal party HQ (by more than one method of communication), and heard NOTHING back. For the first time in my life, I did NOT vote on election day; my loyalties lie with the Dippers and I couldn't fathom voting for anyone else. Because the nomination process in Durham was so disorganised, I was left feeling disenfranchised on October 14th.

Excuse the rant, but something needs to be done about having candidates in place long before an election, wherever possible. We don't need more nutcases like McKeever crawling out of the woodwork.

Aristotleded24

Dippergirl wrote:
As far as the nomination of candidates goes, the NDP needs to be ready with someone to run in each riding long before the election is called. Up until last month, I had lived all my life in the Ontario riding of Durham -- best known for producing the weirdo candidate Andrew McKeever in the last election. (I live in Barrie now.) I was in the middle of moving at the time, and was unable to be present at the nomination meeting (apparently attended by the sad total of something like 11 people). I don't know how that ass got approved, but I do know that the organisation of the riding association was terrible. Because of this hasty last-minute nomination, it was too late to find another candidate by the time McKeever's disgusting comments (from his Facebook page, if I recall correctly) were exposed.
I was also dismayed with the lack of any response whatsoever from the party. I contacted McKeever himself, the federal party HQ (by more than one method of communication), and heard NOTHING back. For the first time in my life, I did NOT vote on election day; my loyalties lie with the Dippers and I couldn't fathom voting for anyone else. Because the nomination process in Durham was so disorganised, I was left feeling disenfranchised on October 14th.
Excuse the rant, but something needs to be done about having candidates in place long before an election, wherever possible. We don't need more nutcases like McKeever crawling out of the woodwork.

Certainly you don't want to be scrambling to put things together at the last minute, but there's a flip side. It's hard to get people, especially when they have to worry about jobs, family, social commitments, and losing a whole month's pay without compensation, to commit to an election that's either far in advance or that's coming at an unknown time. In Regina, for example, Maurice Kovatch pulled out of the race just before the election after having been nominated.

 I'm not saying I disagree with what you wrote, but we need to see this issue from all sides.

Dippergirl

All very true; I can certainly agree with the points you made.

But how do we safeguard against the nomination of idiots? I guess that's the problem that I have -- this guy clearly wasn't checked out too well before the riding association made the decision to nominate him. The candidates who stepped down in BC should not have done so, in my opinion; their "transgressions" were minor. McKeever made degrading and disgusting comments, as well as threats. Why was no one aware of that?

West Coast Greeny

Dippergirl wrote:
All very true; I can certainly agree with the points you made. But how do we safeguard against the nomination of idiots? I guess that's the problem that I have -- this guy clearly wasn't checked out too well before the riding association made the decision to nominate him. The candidates who stepped down in BC should not have done so, in my opinion; their "transgressions" were minor. McKeever made degrading and disgusting comments, as well as threats. Why was no one aware of that?

At the local level, you protect your party from un-credible by building up your Electoral District Association (or EDA). Typically, the larger your EDA, the less of a chance there is that an un-credible candidate and 10 of his buddies can waltz in to a nomination meeting and take your party's candidacy.

At the national level, its all about vetting. Candidates are interviewed and researched, and asked whether they have done anything that would sully the party's image. For a local candidate in a national election, the bar tends to be very, very low. Just don't come off like a loony, and adhere (at least loosely) to the principles of the party. In short, don't embarass the party.

Vetting is still a controversial process though. Many say its anti-democratic and anti-grassroots. It means that ultimately the national leadership will have the final say over whether you may stand as a candidate or not.

Dippergirl

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Vetting is still a controversial process though. Many say its anti-democratic and anti-grassroots. It means that ultimately the national leadership will have the final say over whether you may stand as a candidate or not.

Yeah, I can certainly see where that could be contentious. I'm not too big on poking into people's private lives, but if someone running for public office is making disgusting comments about women and threatening physical harm to those who disagree with him, I think that ought to be public knowledge.

But yes, finding that balance is a tricky task. I really do not like the low standards set for local candidates. I know there was no chance of the NDP winning in Durham anyway, but that's no excuse to accept just anyone who puts their name forward. When I wrote to McKeever, I expressed the opinion that I would have made a better candidate myself, and I'm not quite angelic, either...
At any rate, I don't spout the kind of nonsense that he did.

This topic just really bothers me, because I did NOT like abstaining from voting. I've voted in every election since I turned 18.

KenS

Ultimately the national party does have the final say anyway. Whether or not there is a vetting process, the Leader has the discretion to simply not sign the nomination papers. Period.

The vetting itself is not likely to strike people as anti-democtratic. If something turns up about the candidate, its just as likely to be a problem with the riding association. For that matter, when the candidate hears that something about them could be an embarrasment when it goes public, they are likely to at least have second thoughts about whether they want to run.

Its pretty clear there is going to be work on seeing how to make the vetting process more substantial to the degree that is feasible. When that happens we may indeed find that there are new issues and internal tensions- such as central campaign and the riding association / candidate disagreeing about what is problematic. But I don't think we are there yet.

bush is gone ha...

Everything!......giggles....*runs out and slams door*.

 

 

(I give up on  NDP) 

Dippergirl

^^ That's a pretty broad statement. Who do you suggest supporting instead?

bush is gone ha...

 

I propose the Regina Manifesto

or one of the tiny commies, or one of the more left leaning greens,

or an independent, or neo-rhino, or become an anarchist.  All have the same odds of improving things as the huge monolith of an NDP. Maybe, just maybe I'd vote for a progressive NDPer but I've seen the good ones shoved to the back benches or out of caucus.

---------------------------------------------------------

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

Dippergirl

bush is gone happy happy happy wrote:
or one of the more left leaning greens

Is there such a thing? From my experience, Greens are just Tories who like to recycle and buy organic, fair-trade, locally-grown heirloom tomatoes. Overall, their fiscal policies seem to fit in well with those of the CPC.

And the commies, well, they don't have a realistic hope in hell of ever making any inroads with the Canadian public. Not so long as the free-market-loving capitalists keep shoving their ideals down our throats.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
http://enmasse.ca/?p=117 Here are some considerations

Very good article, A24 (aka DSquared). Wish I had written it.

West Coast Greeny

The time for the NDP to have changed something has come and gone. Last election was their time to move ahead of the Liberals... or at least the Bloc Quebecois. The economy went into its worst tailspin in 70 years, the Liberal Party was at its weakest - from the leadership down to the grassroots since confederation. The NDP outfundraised them by a margin of 2:1.

 They should have gained votes this election. They didn't.

They should have moved ahead of the Liberal Party - or at least the Bloc - in the seat count. They didn't.

They should have made inroads in Quebec. They barely held on to Outremont.

This was the NDPs last, best chance to establish themselves as the true alternative to government. If they couldn't make significant inroads in this election, then when can they? The party can't seem to ever manage to pull more than 20% of the vote... or to use Fidel's "math" more than a 13% fringe of the electorate.

I don't think there is much the NDP can do to increase thier share of power next election. The Liberals are going to come back, with a stronger leader in either Ignatieff or Rae, and with increased fundraising capacity. With either leader, they will be far more effective at targeting the left.

It's Me D

Quote:
The Liberals are going to come back, with a stronger leader in either
Ignatieff or Rae, and with increased fundraising capacity. With either
leader, they will be far more effective at targeting the left.

Say what? Iggy will win the leadership and he won't be targeting the left (and if he tries he won't be effective). The NDP are still the only voice of the left in Canada, their problem isn't being outcompeted on the left; I'm not saying the NDP don't have a problem (the results of this election make it clear that they do) but you are looking in the wrong place. 

remind remind's picture

West Coast Greeny wrote:
The time for the NDP to have changed something has come and gone.
Nonsense.

Quote:

Last election was their time to move ahead of the Liberals... or at least the Bloc Quebecois.
This is a relative term, given that the NDP was the vast majority's 2nd choice amongst most, across all political parties. That there are other political parties in the mix who voters currently vote for is not the NDP's issue, it is a choice of the people.

 

Quote:

They should have gained votes this election. They didn't.
Gaining seats is just as good!

Quote:

They should have moved ahead of the Liberal Party - or at least the Bloc - in the seat count. They didn't.
You have repeated this twice now, saying it more does make it anymore valid, nor correct.

Quote:

They should have made inroads in Quebec. They barely held on to Outremont.
Though I should ask you to site proof of this assertation, I won't, because you won't as itwould prove you non-factual. The NDP actually went up 4.7% points from 2006 to 2008 in PQ, and frankly I would call that inroads considering our vote share went up higher tan anyone else did, 2006 GE 7.5% 2008 GE 12.2%. In fact, the NDP and the Liberals were the only 2 parties to go up in PQ from the 2006 election. The Green Party, The Bloc and CPC all went down. Moreover, the NDP have gone from .04 in 2000 to 12.2% in 2008 in 3 election cycles, that is more growth than the GP has ever had in  7 election cycles.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/regions_e.php

Quote:
This was the NDPs last, best chance to establish themselves as the true alternative to government.
Again more nonsense and you have been watching too much Babylon 5.

Quote:
If they couldn't make significant inroads in this election, then when can they?
The facts don't back up this claim.

Quote:
I don't think there is much the NDP can do to increase thier share of power next election. The Liberals are going to come back, with a stronger leader in either Ignatieff or Rae, and with increased fundraising capacity. With either leader, they will be far more effective at targeting the left.

Good thing you labelled this as your opinion, as we can see your opinion is not founded on facts,  and upon what you want to believe.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

It's Me D

remind I love your occasional sci-fi references but I'm afraid I totally don't get this one

Dippergirl

It's Me D wrote:

Say what? Iggy will win the leadership and he won't be targeting the left (and if he tries he won't be effective).

So you think Iggy will win? I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just haven't decided what my own opinion is. I'm sure it will be either Iggy or Rae, as I doubt anyone else who may decide to put their name forward will actually be able to mount an effective opposition -- and I doubt that the Libs will let another Dion-type capture the leadership again.

If it is Iggy or Rae, who, in anyone's opinion, would the NDP rather face? (I think maybe there's another thread on this somewhere...) My personal opinion is that a Liberal Party under Ignatieff would be better organised and stronger -- but that's just me. So maybe we'd rather face Rae...? I'm just thinking as I write here...

Caissa

Rae would lose to Harper; he wouldn't be able to hold Ontario. Iggy could probably beat Harper.  Two clear choices on the centre right; interesting to see how this effects the NDP vote.

It's Me D

I think Iggy will win but I am no Liberal insider with anything to back up my opinion here. I've just been tarred with Rae for my whole political life for supporting the NDP and I cannot imagine how the Liberals would want to go through that too. Plus I like to make a choice, I'm not undecided about much.

As for who the NDP would rather face I'd say you are right that Iggy might help whip them into shape but the shape he'd have them take would be decidedly to the right of Dion's effort this last election and thus, I think, quite harmless to the NDP...

Benoit

The NDP needs to change its discourse about the cars produced in the south of Ontario. It is not enough to say that this sector is providing good paying jobs to Canadian families. The car culture is also the main culprit when it comes to the degradation of our social and natural environments.

Dippergirl

I'm a little worried that, despite his somewhat bad reputation in Ontario, Rae (if he were to become leader) will be able to convince some of the more left-leaning voters to stick with the Libs, and therefore draw support from the NDP. People will think "Oh, well, he used to be a Dipper, so he has to be pretty left-wing, right?"

I think Iggy has a better chance of winning against Harper, but if Rae is the leader, he'll be better at drawing votes from the left.

Dippergirl

Benoit wrote:

The NDP needs to change its discourse about the cars produced in the south of Ontario. It is not enough to say that this sector is providing good paying jobs to Canadian families. The car culture is also the main culprit when it comes to the degradation of our social and natural environments.

Wasn't Layton going on about the "green" sector or something during the last election? As if the goal is to begin manufacturing environmentally-friendly vehicles at places such as the Oshawa GM plant?

Benoit

Any political party that is promising to subsidize the creation of jobs will attract voters belonging to the Old Left. I hope one day we will be able to join a political movement that is not satisfied to replicate ad nauseam this environmentally-disastrous policy.

KenS
janfromthebruce

 Absolutely crucial.

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Tommy_Paine

How the technically Canadian Iggy Thumscrews or Benedict Rae are precieved by the electorate will be decided by the Conservative's branding machine just after the leadership convention.  

 We in the NDP won't have to say much. 

  With the Liberals now being refered to by some as the "Block Toronto",  Layton announcing a strategy in thier own strongholds-- while not by any means the Liberals biggest worries-- certainly adds to that list.

With people like Kennedy being treated so badly by the Liberals, deffections seem not an unlikely outcome.

Dippergirl

janfromthebruce wrote:

 Absolutely crucial.

I'm hoping this "plan" truly DOES incorporate the entire GTA. I know that the NDP is a far easier sell in metro Toronto, but I'd like to see them make some inroads in the surrounding regions of Durham, Peel, Halton and York as well. In my former riding of Durham (Bowmanville area), voting NDP practically made me a social outcast. I'm not sure what these suburban and rural voters are so scared of with the Dippers, but I certainly think the party needs to step up its efforts when attempting to connect with voters in these regions. For god's sake, Oshawa used to be Ed Broadbent's riding, and now it's Tory-blue.

KenS

Safe to say they don't mean the entire GTA.

It would be more emphasis on the usuals. That would include Oshawa. But not Durham or Barrie, or even Ajax and what else lies between Toronto and Oshawa.

Stockholm

Looking at the GTA as a whole, there are obviously some areas where the NDP has more potential than others. I don't think they should waste too much time trying to go after the horsey, bridge playing, blue-rinse crowd in Newmarket-Aurora or Halton or Oakville or Mississauga South. The way i see it, the NDP needs to develop a stratgey to win ridings in the GTA that have demographic makeups that would make them natural NDP territory if they were in Vancouver or Winnipeg or Hamilton etc...

 Setting aside the usual four targeted seats in the old city of Toronto, I think that the ridings where the NDP ought to be much stronger as as follows:

York South-Weston

York West

Etobicoke North

all the Scarboroughs

and also those ridings in Brampton and northern Mississauga that are heavily ethnic and quite poor.

Dippergirl

^^ I agree. I think Etobicoke-Lakeshore could hold potential too -- unfortunately, it happens to be Iggy's riding, which pisses me off because it's not his own neighbourhood. I have a very politically active cousin who lives in Etobicoke North and I know she is an NDP supporter, but always feels as though she has to vote Liberal to keep the Tories at bay.

Btw, Barrie is not even part of the GTA, as it's in Simcoe County. But I'm really hoping the NDP steps it up a notch in Oshawa, particularly with the recent GM fiasco. They can really take advantage of that if they go about it the right way. I'm afraid that Colin Carrie (the current Tory MP) will prey on people's fear of taxes and the like during a recession. Even though I don't live in Durham Region myself anymore, all my family is in Oshawa, Whitby and Bowmanville, so I'm quite interested in the events of that area.

One issue that I think is definitely contributing to the difficulties the NDP is having in Oshawa is the influx of new people to the rapidly-expanding cookie-cutter subdivisions -- mainly young professionals and young families who are typical Liberal or Conservative voters. They have no connection to Oshawa's labour history, and are rapidly changing the demographics there.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Caissa wrote:
Rae would lose to Harper; he wouldn't be able to hold Ontario. Iggy could probably beat Harper.  Two clear choices on the centre right; interesting to see how this effects the NDP vote.
I don't know where this comes from, but it's just wrong. Bob Rae is liked, not loathed, in Ontario with the exception of a majority of the hard right and a plurality of the hard left - none of whom would ever vote Liberal anyway.

Benoit

What I find very depressing about much of the strategic analysis we have here is the assumption that the Canadian voters are a fix entity or a constant that doesn’t change.

adma

I think the most interesting, novel, even bold test of potential NDP strength could be Brampton/Mississauga--particularly as this wasn't winning (as opposed to "seriously contending") territory for them provincially in 1990, but if today's demos held then, well...

Stockholm

"Bob Rae is liked, not loathed, in Ontario"

 Oh really? I guess that explains why he suffered the most humiliating defeat by an incumbent Prmeier in the history of Ontario and why to this day anyone running for public office for the NDP in Ontario constantly gets doors slammed in their face from people saying that after the the Bob Rae fiasco - the NDP and Rae are persona non grata.

 With Bob Rae there is something to hate for almost everyone. If you are a New Democrat you hate him for having jettisoned the entire party program when he took power and then joining the Liberals. If you are a core Tory - nothing needs to be said about why you hate him. If you are the kind fo middle of the road Liberal-Tory swing voter that are the key to the Liberals ever regaining power - he is the antithesis of the competent Paul Martin-style economic manager that might attract you to the Liberals.

The only people who like Rae are a few upper class twits who like to sip gin and tonics at the Rosedale tennis club and yak about what to do about "the poor".

aka Mycroft

I don't think Rae is as personally unpopular as Harris though I think he's respected more than he's actually liked.

Rae's problem is that the people who hate him the most are NDPers (making him the least likely candidate to be able to "unite the left) and a sizeable share of Ontario Liberals. 

Pages

Topic locked