What will it take to move the NDP from 20% to 25% in the polls?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
johnpauljones

we know the polling mouths for the libs and the cons. so who is the polling mouth for the ndp?

remind remind's picture

There isn't one, as we all know too......

johnpauljones

remind i was hoping i missed a press release :-)  so if we want to get over the 25%mark we also need our own person to spin our numbers for us.

 

All parties have polsters of record. I have never asked but I wonder who does national numbers for ndp

NorthReport

There are political internal polling firms for all the major political parties, and the NDP has one as well. What the NDP doesn't have is mainstream media outlets, that promote favourable polling results for the NDP to the public.

EKOS, Harris/Decima, etc. if you check into their background have ties to the Liberals. 

Rocker Rocker's picture

George Victor wrote:

The two actions would go together nicely, Rocker, but a question:  whose ass? 

Their own, to start with and then 1) media 2) Cons 3) Libs

ottawaobserver

"it is just not good enough to say Harper is bad and then vote for harpers policies when push comes to shove"

JPJ, except for one or two items like the home renovation tax credit, the NDP has *not* voted for Harper's policies as you say. The Liberals have voted with the government far more often. The NDP abstained on the last confidence motion, as I recall.

We all have to be careful not to repeat lies and liberal spin that gets reported as fact in the national media, without verifying the facts first.

ottawaobserver

Most pollsters make their money working for corporate clients; and then enter partnerships with a media outlet giving them free political polling from a question or two which get added to the other surveys, in return for uncritical coverage of their political polls.

This means several things

(1) We will rarely hear about the other subjects that were being polled on, which could have severely influenced who chose to answer the survey, and hence who they support politically. We do know, for example, that the Environics survey the other week was being done for the income trust investors advocacy group CAITI, not exactly a hotbed of NDP support (I'm frankly shocked we scored as high as 13%!), and not exactly friends of the Conservative government either, after it (sensibly) reversed itself on its campaign promise. No wonder the Liberals scored higher on that one.

(2) We will never get any critical analysis from the media about polling methodologies anymore, as they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. I remember 20 years ago a humdinger of a debate about Angus Reid's then-methodology of running a poll as a trial run of a campaign to see if certain arguments swayed people's responses to the topline voting intention question. They held an entire segment on the CBC nightly news with Angus Reid defending his technique in a panel discussion with Allan Gregg, and the NDP's late wunderkind pollster David Gotthilf from Viewpoints Research.

Our pollster/pollsters tend to work out of the public eye, and for a very different group of clients. There are also some very solid NDPers who have worked or are working in other polling firms over the years. Sean in Ottawa has written extensively here of his experience supervising phoning in such a firm, just as one example. But they don't own the firms.

Things sure have changed over the years ... and not for the better. I for one can't abide the obsessive mitpicking over every little meaningless number twitch as though it reflected some deeper meaning behind the triviata in Ottawa the previous week. The whole thing plays out like an instance of Plato's allegory of the cave: with all the talking heads chained together facing the cave wall, and trying to discern the meaning of the shadows being thrown by the fire behind them. What a useless, pointless exercise.

Rocker Rocker's picture

Fidel wrote:

Rocker wrote:

Who's talking about a campaign to scrap NAFTA? I'm talking about a campaign to blame the Libs/Cons for 40 years of less-money-in-our-pockets.

I hear you Rocker. I don't know whether you mean that we should wage a US-style negative ad campaign, but apparently even that can back-fire unless done properly.

 

Fidel, you're right that a US-style, negative campaign would likely backfire. My version of the campaign would be negative in that it would be focused on the general theme of failure of the 'governing' parties over the last 40 years.

 

Fidel wrote:

I tend to like what the NDP is doing now with putting out a balanced platform and not too heavy on any one dish or side order. I think very many voters look for simple reasons to vote for a party. And I think that very many Canadians are not political science gurus like most babblers are. The people who post here I think have higher than average interest in Canadian politics and economy. How many people have we met whose only comment on politics is to say something like, Oh they're all the same, or I don't vote because the same parties win all the time. And i've even heard some ask me, Why bother? Nothing ever changes anyway? I think we could spend some time explaining why nothing ever changes, or why nothing changes when they vote for the same two parties that have been in power and sharing power in Ottawa non-stop since 1867. I think Canadians are beginning to realize that politicians who come to expect political power have been taking voters for granted for a long time.

 

To be sure, much of what you say is true, Fidel. IMNSHO, I think most Canadians vote based who they think will do a better job on the economy - whatever they think that means. I know they're afraid of layoffs and high interest rates on their credit cards and that's about it. Yeah, they git all riled up about an issue here and there but they - not us - vote according to paycheck-based self-interest. If things are going well they vote for the same candidate, if not then they contemplate a change. Fortunately, the Cons are such unsympathetic scum that only 22% of elegible voters chose them. Libs would be in power if they weren't so corrupt and smug.

The trick for the NDP is to convince Canadians they neither the Libs nor the Cons have done a good job with the economy and put them on the defensive:

* Under the Libs and the Cons the national debt - aka Canada's credit card debt - has skyrocketed from $27 billion in 1975 to $515 billion today requiring $40 billion in taxpayer's money each year to pay off interest alone.

* Under the Libs and the Cons pay equity for women has barely improved since Mary Tyler Moore debuted.

* Child Poverty - Shame!

* Foreign ownership - your wages leaving the country

* Loss of good jobs in every industrial/technical sector

* Stagnant wages for the bottom 80% of Canadians for 25 years

and so on

Four, five, six truthful, simple messages, linked to every question asked in the House of Commons from now until the next election. Start slow, evaluate, modify, repeat ad victoria. Every demographic has a story or two that demonstrate repeated failure on the part of the 2 governing parties.

Need a media-friendly campaign stump story? Here's one:

After I finished high school I got work by going to the Teamster's hall every morning at 5:30 am, rain or shine, winter and summer, in the hopes of getting work for the day. In 1979 I made $8.25/hour unloading boxcars - no degree required. According to the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator, $8.25/hr in 1979 is equal to $24.92/hr today. Where the hell are *those* jobs? I recently saw a job posting for a bank teller, part time, at $12.00/hr., uni degree required. How is anyone supposed to live on that let alone pay off student loans?

Liberal and Conservative policies don't create jobs, they create poverty.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Quality candidates and then more quality candidates and then let those candidates take the message to the local press and streets.  Sure do the pro-forma Ottawa scrums and interviews with national talking heads but down grade that to priority two. (without telling the MSM)  Not ignore them of course but merely understand that they are irrelevant to the NDP's election success and treat them as a necessary sideshow.

What quality candidates bring is energy, not only their own but the energy of the many people who know them and will work on their behalf even if they don't normally go anywhere near a campaign office during an election. 

David Young

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quality candidates and then more quality candidates and then let those candidates take the message to the local press and streets.  Sure do the pro-forma Ottawa scrums and interviews with national talking heads but down grade that to priority two. (without telling the MSM)  Not ignore them of course but merely understand that they are irrelevant to the NDP's election success and treat them as a necessary sideshow.

What quality candidates bring is energy, not only their own but the energy of the many people who know them and will work on their behalf even if they don't normally go anywhere near a campaign office during an election. 

Exactly my point!

Look at the exciting candidates that Jack recruited in Montreal in the 2006 and/or 2008 elections:

Jean-Claude Rocheleau, Alexandre Boulerice, Daniel Breton, Anne Lagace-Dowson, Francois Gregoire, and most importantly, Thomas Mulcair.

Is there any suprise that the NDP went from 25,651 votes in the Montreal area in the 2000 election to 139,867 votes in 2008? (My thanks to the Pundit's Guide!)

Once the voters see quality candidates, they show their support.

 

Gunner188

Remind the Canadian public what the NDP have done for them in the past i.e. Medicare, Tommy Douglas was voted the greatest Canadian in history for it wasn't he?

Since they don't have the same access to the media that the Liberal/Tory party have just ignore the other parties when election ad tiime comes around and stay on message with th NDP policies.

Use alternative media like blogs and <gag> social networking sites, seemed to have worked for Obama.(Shame though how he seems to have gone a complete 180 on most of the er... change we can believe in.)

Use old fashioned legwork, have volunteers and candidates pound the pavement.

 

Well that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

 

adma

Of course, and still surprisingly unaddressed in this thread, is one efficient way for the NDP to hit 25%: usurp the Green share...

TheEtobian

There is another route and it is through Quebec. Go after some of the soft BQ vote like crazy , after all aside from the  sovereignty issue the BQ is by and large a social democratic party, a party of the centre left. It can happen, the Outremont byelection is a perfect example.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

adma wrote:

Of course, and still surprisingly unaddressed in this thread, is one efficient way for the NDP to hit 25%: usurp the Green share...

 

OK...and the way to do that is...?

 

David Young

Ken Burch wrote:

adma wrote:

Of course, and still surprisingly unaddressed in this thread, is one efficient way for the NDP to hit 25%: usurp the Green share...

 

OK...and the way to do that is...?

 

Yes...please, enlighten us!

It was the 2000+ Green votes here in South Shore-St. Margaret's that allowed Conservative Gerald (I-never-met-an-oversized- cheque-I-didn't-like) Keddy to win by 932 votes over the NDP's Gordon Earle.

 

KenS

"Usurping the Green vote" is a complete non-starter. "Strategies" like this are fatally abstracted from the complex dynamics of voter bahaviour, and of the predictable negative consequences that bite on any attempt to put them into play.

In a single riding, or among a number of ridings, you can have specific strategies to coopt some votes that would probably otherwise go to another party, and which do not lose you some other voters. But there is no such thing as a net succesful generalized strategy for a holus bolus colonizing of the votes of another party.

adma

Though I *am* deliberately speaking in terms of abstraction, i.e. usurp the share, as opposed to the vote.  But you must realize: whether Babblers like it or not, in many people's eyes, NDP and Green represents a "divided left"--and with that in mind, the Layton + May shares add up to, whaddaya know, just about precisely 25%.  Which when it comes to that perceived "united left", is actually a record high.

And a good bit of that Green vote *is* one that might have or has voted NDP in the past.  It doesn't mean the NDP ought to usurp the Green vote holus bolus; but it can compensate through added share from the Liberal and even CPC realms. 

So when it comes to the magical 25%, keep that whole barometer thing in mind.  NDP + Green = 25%, which is higher than NDP + Green has *ever* been, federally...

KenS

More nuanced in expression. Still not rooted in actual voter choice dynamics.

Quite another thing if you are saying 'make some inroads' on the Green vote. But you did say usurp the Green share of the vote- which I think is rightfully interpreted as there being a plausible strategy for going after the bulk of it.

Sure, if the NDP culd attract say 4% of the total vote that the GPC gets, that would be a huge advance [on top of everything else]. Even 3% would be huge.

But all the evidence we have of what is in play and how indicates that is highly unlikely. And to be likely on paper would take an effort so big that it would detract from strategies where there is more to be gained, not to mention inevitable alienating some other types of voters. There is no such thing for any party as a big push in any direction that does not have substantial negative effects with another type of voter.

Fotheringay-Phipps

Bah, you whimpering defeatists! Seize your manhood in both palsied hands, my friends! Let us aspire not to 25% but a full 27.2%!

Caissa

That fits into the margin of error 19 times out of 20.

DaveW

TheEtobian wrote:

There is another route and it is through Quebec. Go after some of the soft BQ vote like crazy , after all aside from the  sovereignty issue the BQ is by and large a social democratic party, a party of the centre left. It can happen, the Outremont byelection is a perfect example.

yes and no; I have not posted on this thread, because I posted my view on similar threads in the post and got no support, so I gave up

One more time:I think the die were cast in the late 1940s, when labour and social democratic parties came to power in first Britain and several other Commonwealth/western countries squeezing out the Liberals ;

this did not happen in Canada. Why?

reason No. 1, Quebec, closer to 30 per cent of the national electorate at the time, and solidly "bleu" provincially and "rouge" federally, was united by ethnic/national and social issues different from English Canada

for all the talk of early CCF/NDPers like David Lewis who insisted that the problem of, say, unemployment was the same problem everywhere whatever your culture, Quebec workers acted/voted as if that were not their view

There HAVE been NDP breakthrough moments, notably the early to mid 1960s, when half a dozen federal ridings had serious high profile francophone candidates like Robert Cliche, and stars like Eric Kierans and Charles Taylor , but no luck against Trudeaumania '68, which wiped that all out

 so today might look like the mid-1960s again, but even in the mid 1970s, when there were 3 NDP provincial govts, a minority with NDP opposition in Ontario and the PQ in power in Quebec, it did not lead to any kind of breakthrough

  the NDP has to have a breakthrough in Quebec to jump to 25 per cent nationally; I just don't see it coming.....

NorthReport

You are right about the NDP having to do much better in Quebec. Where we differ is that following the polls in Quebec I see it is starting to happen. The Liberals are dying a slow and painful death exemplified by their support of the Conservative budget. When given the choice most right-wing Canadians will vote for the real Conservatives.

DaveW

 

I grew up Trudeau era with the Liberals as the natural dominant party, so it seems unimaginable, but the Dion-era swoon gave a glimpse of  party steadily slipping to third place -- big parties DO lose altitude and disappear sometimes, like the Union Nationale in Quebec, a very big deal right through to 1970....

ottawaobserver

Dave W, I do think there's a lot of merit to your general approach, and I'm sorry if you haven't felt validated on that point.

I believe the party's current plan is to build up generally in Quebec, and specifically try to target a few more beachheads with very fine candidates who run a few times in a row to build up their profile ... all with the purpose of being as ready as possible to seize on any opportunity that may present itself in the near future with the Bloc's succession issues.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I wish the NDP could sweep this riding (Manicouagan) - the BQ guy (and MP) basically ignores us.

Life, the unive...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quality candidates and then more quality candidates and then let those candidates take the message to the local press and streets.  Sure do the pro-forma Ottawa scrums and interviews with national talking heads but down grade that to priority two. (without telling the MSM)  Not ignore them of course but merely understand that they are irrelevant to the NDP's election success and treat them as a necessary sideshow.

What quality candidates bring is energy, not only their own but the energy of the many people who know them and will work on their behalf even if they don't normally go anywhere near a campaign office during an election. 

 

I think the NDP does not do enough to try and get, retain and support quality candidates in ridings where the NDP needs to pull up its collective vote socks.  If for example the NDP is running at say 12 per cent in southwestern Ontario, but at 22 per cent in the rest of it, that low number brings down the prospects of everyone.  Do work to increase that number through quality, financially supported and visible candidates and it not only increases prospects in those ridings, but makes the strong, or low hanging fruit ridings even stronger.  Of course you need to put resources into those strong ridings, but no House can stand without a strong foundation right around the entire thing.

I think of my own riding of Huron-Bruce where the NDP had an incredible candidate there, who more importantly perhaps, had built this amazing team around him.  His last federal campaign was reported and treated as a three way race until the last week of the campaign in the local media even, something I have never seen.  Without resources to get to that next plateau from the party he went off to do other things.  I sure wish to goodness someone in the NDP would offer up resources to him to come back in and help pull up NDP visibility throughout the region.  Although he might have decided he has had enough of the whole thing.

KenS

One thing that exacerbates that problem of not fostering the continuation of good development work is that the federal party works through the provincial organizations. There aren't any or more than a token federal organizers in th field until the next election gets close.

Mind you, the NS NDP and probably other provincial organizations, chronically leaves good provincial riding organizations unsupported... with the same result the people give up if they don't make it over the top.

500_Apples

IMO, it would be a great success of the NDP got 20% in a minority government context.

It's been at the same 16 or 17 % on election day as long as I can remember.

Sean in Ottawa

500_Apples the NDP vote has increased in each of the last few elections doubling from the lows it got in 1993 so don't know waht you mean.

 

ottawaobserver

The federal party is running the Local Victories Challenge now, where it will match any local fundraising within a defined window (I think it runs out at the end of this quarter) with transfers from the federal party to the riding.

I agree about weak areas (although not about southwestern Ontario as one of them going forward, as it's getting a LOT of attention these days). Strong candidates have been nominated very early throughout the region, and Layton has gone in to do quite a few local fundraising events with them.

We've talked about Taras Natyshak in Essex before and Ryan Dolby in Elgin-Middlesex (the riding with Stm Thomas in it), but there are some other really interesting candidates, notably Crissy Sinipole in Sarnia Lambton, and Marc Laferriere in Brant, who seems by all accounts on Facebook to be an organizing machine (and quite a nice guy as well, of course). I'm very impressed at how much preelection effort is going on out there, in fact. We actually held Brant in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Also, a lot of these ridings are ones where the Liberals dropped into third place last time, and where the party bought preelection radio ads on the HST before christmas.

Life, the unive...

Not Huron-Bruce though and it is one heck of a bellweather riding for rural southwestern/midwestern Ontario and yet a few years ago the NDP had someone who might have taken the riding in this election or the next with the right support and now he has gone on to other things and the last campaign was a near flop.  Pretty long history of that from my experience in the region.

If you can't win Huron-Bruce you don't have much of a chance in a lot of other ridings in the region either. 

NorthReport

NDP election results since Layton became Leader - not too shabby!

2008 election - 18.2%

2006 election - 17.5%

2004 election - 15.7%

2003 - Layton elected NDP Leader

2000 election - 8.5%

500_Apples

And 11% in 1997.

I guess the trend is better than it seemed.

DaveW

ottawaobserver wrote:
Dave W, I do think there's a lot of merit to your general approach, and I'm sorry if you haven't felt validated on that point. I believe the party's current plan is to build up generally in Quebec, and specifically try to target a few more beachheads with very fine candidates who run a few times in a row to build up their profile ... all with the purpose of being as ready as possible to seize on any opportunity that may present itself in the near future with the Bloc's succession issues.

thanks for the support;

one problem with the beachheads approach in a first-past-the-post parliamentary system is that there is never a critical mass of votes for a real block of MPs,  and the beachhead ridings are often either isolated (Outremont today), temporary  and issue/regional/personality-related (Phil Edmunston), or so close you can taste it but no wins (N.D.G., from Giff Gifford to  other promising candidates), and hence voters drift away ...

a hard road up

 

ottawaobserver

Yes, but it does produce seats, DaveW.  St. John's East was isolated when we first won it in 1987, and provincially the year earlier.  Now it's a core NDP seat provincially and was easily won by a strong candidate again federally last time, plus it's been joined by a bunch of seats in Nova Scotia.  And we nearly took the seat next door in St. John's this time.

One thing's for sure, though, this is no business for folks who need instant gratification!

adma

KenS wrote:

More nuanced in expression. Still not rooted in actual voter choice dynamics.

Broadly speaking--if that isn't, what is?

Quote:
Quite another thing if you are saying 'make some inroads' on the Green vote. But you did say usurp the Green share of the vote- which I think is rightfully interpreted as there being a plausible strategy for going after the bulk of it.

Sure, if the NDP culd attract say 4% of the total vote that the GPC gets, that would be a huge advance [on top of everything else]. Even 3% would be huge.

But all the evidence we have of what is in play and how indicates that is highly unlikely. And to be likely on paper would take an effort so big that it would detract from strategies where there is more to be gained, not to mention inevitable alienating some other types of voters. There is no such thing for any party as a big push in any direction that does not have substantial negative effects with another type of voter.

But maybe the fundamental problem here is the paranoia about "alienating some other types of voters".  Because we're talking about assembling here--not alienating.  And quite honestly, when it comes to optimum assemblage, you'd have to swallow your alienation reflex a little--and of course, have incentive to do so.

Look--what's so "highly unlikely"?  And what's the problem with Green voters (as opposed to the party they're voting for) in the first place?  There seems to be this Babble attitude that they're a ticking toxic time bomb and like the Rae/Dosanjh Democrats, good riddance--yeah, sure, stick with that attitude and the "substantial negative effects" with voters will be elevated, I'll presume...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The NDP has a STRONG environmental platform.  What possible reason would progressive voters who prioritize the environment have for refusing to back the NDP?  Jack Layton isn't exactly the federal version of Glenn Clark.

You appear to be insinuating that the NDP needs to make amends for something.  What, exactly, did they do, in your view, that was so terrible?

 

 

RockyRacoon

The people want the conservatives out of power at least a significant number of them do.  I think it is the parties that are afraid of an election and not the people.  After all of the crap Harper has pulled and we need to remind people of this-1.5 million unemployed and the recession is over?  Campaign in the real world tell people the truth, tell them you are going to raise corporate taxes for the things that we need and want-just so that they pay their fair share for the things they use-infrastructure, an educated healthy workforce, clean environment and tell the truth about the deficit-and tell them that we won't borrow money from private sources and pay high interest on our debt, that would help clear up the deficit rather quickly...that is a winner right there and people will vote for you.  Honesty is the best policy and the NDP has the potential to be the most honest party out there as they are to represent the interests of the underdog, which is everyone who works for a living.

RR

mechtech

1) Spin on information, 

ie the avg Canadian lost x amount of dollars due to the Conservatives this year

It's like if you are told you have a 70% chance of losing/dieing or a 30% chancing of winning/surviving... one sounds better but both are the same.

 

2) Ride that Olympic Patriotism!! GO CANADA GO ... I'm still pumped!!

 

3) Get the young out to vote... Send NDP MP's and Candidate's to places where young voters are and enlighten them. Try to make being a politician cool!!

 

4) Get every Voter to explain to a child the various parties policies and history, then ask the child who they should vote for, you should only get one answer...NDP

 

5) Be Unconventional... Pull a stunt, propose something awesome, or have some blitz out of no where!

Talk to Canadians where they least expect it, to their face and not a camera. 

 

6) look at it mathmatically... you need some kind of target

 

33,311,389 Canadians 

365 days per year 

91265 Canadians per day

/ 308 candidates

=297 meet and greets/ day / candidate

 

DaveW

back to Quebec:

if anywhere CAN produce a huge electoral swing, wiping out a party and its history, it is Quebec, as we have seen it 2-3 times in my life, the first time with the dynamic Rene Levesque who helped found and shape a young party and took -- from its founding to taking power -- eight (8) years total; not bad

but granted, the 1970s PQ had 2 elements the NDP and/or NDP-Quebec does not have today: a giant-sized issue generating lots of enthusiasm, and a charismatic leader who everybody could identify with, to some  degree

the second  model, and no doubt this is the first and only time Mulroney ever gets any praise on this board, is of course the federal Tories in 1984+ , who transformed a super-solid Liberal red bastion into a blue sea; I lived in Outremont riding in 1988 and it swung Tory for the first time .... since Confederation(!), so that is a BIG swing;

how did they do it?

a weak leader for Liberals, electorate finally tired of them after Trudeau, a social-economic opening (nationalism, free trade) that Liberals could not match, add a glad-handing happy-warrior Conservative leader and, shazzam!

some elements match today's Quebec, but I don't see the NDP making headway without that kind of once-a-generation alignment of political events  -- but you never know, eh?

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'd love to see Mulclair make a speaking tour throughout Quebec - with or without Layton - because he's the most charismatic politican I've seen in quite a while. He's the best asset the NDP have in Quebec in my opinion.

Kilgore_Trout

Need to target not minimum wage earners but those who are in the strata just above. Note how jobs that used to pay easily double minimum wage 20 years ago now pay only a couple of dollars an hour more. The reality is that Canada has some of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world (this needs to be clearly emphasized) and they need to go up along with the marginal rate for top earners.Unfortunately, public sector unions in particular seem like 'over-paid fat cats' and in comparison to the equivalent in the private sector, they are. A clerk at the LCBO head office for instance, will make 2-3x what their counter part will make in the private sector.

The NDP needs to emphasize that public sector wages have simply kept up with the ACTUAL increased cost of living over the past decades - it's the private sector earners who've been getting screwed so that management can take a larger share for itself.

BTW - the top marginal rate should not be for the upper quintile - since in places with a high cost of living like Toronto or Vancouver, someone earning $250K is NOT rich. This is where the Democrats south of the border screwed up.Cast too wide a net as to what qualifies as 'rich' and you'll capture much too large a segment of the population and bring out media-friendly Joe the Plumber types.

In the 1930s - and this worked very well - there was an additional income category, along with a higher tax rate for those in the top 1%. The other option would be to tax all income the same regardless of source - particularly short-term capital gains. Keep the focus only on what can be termed 'the super-rich' and you'll get wider popular support.

There's been myriad studies done to show that corporate taxes & marginal rates increase re-investment - find those and flog them at every opportunity!

 

The second point: Seriously ditch global warming. This might seem a 'dangerous' move but please hear me out. ELITES have used environmentalism and particularly global warming as a trojan horse to take over the Left and move them and other progressives away from class issues such as income disparity and the global race to the bottom for workers.  They've succeeded to a huge extent. Heck, go to any university - it's all about bottled water and CFLs, not about how private sector wages have failed to keep up with inflation while CEOs make out like bandits.

The actual science behind global warming is amazingly shoddy and politicized and it's a myth that 'skeptics' have been bought be big Oil, etc. Climate-gate emails showed meetings with Shell Oil - it's actually the Alarmist side they promote since it keeps costs for consumers high - think of it as back-door price fixing. See:climate-resistance.org, Jan 11, 2008 Well-funded "well-funded denial machine" denial machine. Many Canadian scientists (who are NOT right-wing) have done excellent work in this regard.

- Separate out pollution from carbon - it's a sleight-of-hand that has been foisted upon us by big business that wish to avoid genuine environmental controls while at the same time promote lucrative (for them) carbon exchanges, etc. Emphasize the importance of clean rivers and clean air - but here the problem is actual pollutants - not something that greenhouses regularly pump in. This is why tar sands are still important - they create a lot of water pollution - but the 'carbon' is a side-issue and let's face it, if there were just carbon taxes applied the water would still be just as dirty. - ALSO - watch out for the giveaway Harper is trying to do with uranium.

- Ditch the costly with lousy-ROI corporate giveaways that are going on across the country to dodgy 'wind energy' firms, etc. that are a) foreign owned and b) a lot of the time barely shell companies and c) provide only minimal jobs anyway, or this whole CFL nonsense - in a winter climate, incandescents lower heating costs and therefore AREN'T a waste at all.

Global warming alarmism feeds an Elitist agenda. It's about restricting the lifestyle of the middle class so that Billionaires can keep jetting around and keep up their own grossly excessive lifestyles. If global warming alarmists REALLY thought there was a crisis, they wouldn't be jetting to junkets in Bali, they'd be webcasting and teleconferencing. Note how none of them are willing to make any changes to their lifestyle - they see themselves as too important - they're informing the Little People - who are the ones who need to be 'less greedy'. The super-rich support environentalist policies NOT because they care about the planet, but because it will exaggerate wealth disparity even more. Please don't be fooled by them.

I took this up with a friend of mine who has a long history working for the NDP and he actually agreed with me on this, but didn't think that NDP insiders would listen. 

If the NDP took this brave stance and turned the issue on its head I think they'd get a lot more popular support than they ever imagined.

DaveW

I live overseas and do not see Mulclair much;

 I had understood he was very acerbic in parliament, esp. when on the attack, and not that great a draw; you say the opposite ... good to hear.

Kilgore_Trout

David Young wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

adma wrote:

Of course, and still surprisingly unaddressed in this thread, is one efficient way for the NDP to hit 25%: usurp the Green share...

 

OK...and the way to do that is...?

 

Yes...please, enlighten us!

It was the 2000+ Green votes here in South Shore-St. Margaret's that allowed Conservative Gerald (I-never-met-an-oversized- cheque-I-didn't-like) Keddy to win by 932 votes over the NDP's Gordon Earle.

 

Chase the Green vote too much and you could fail to attract those who don't vote at all - who make up a much larger segment. Don't forget the Liberals are chasing it too.

The Green party are too much of a single-issue party and when they try to branch out they seem to be trying to capture the right-wing Libertarian vote more.  Except of course, when it comes to controlling consumer behaviour but even then they advocate 'free market' ideology. 

MUCH BETTER would be to try to target the Blue Collar conservative. I mean, WTF is Niagara Falls doing voting in a Tory year after year?  Or rural areas? 

The NDP needs to stay focussed on jobs, income disparity, equal opportunity and working class issues or they'll lose.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

DaveW wrote:

I live overseas and do not see Mulclair much;

 I had understood he was very acerbic in parliament, esp. when on the attack, and not that great a draw; you say the opposite ... good to hear.

Don't take my word as gospel - I only see Mulclair occasionally in Question Period, and on CBC's political panels. Yeah, he can be acerbic, but he also has a good sense of humour. Maybe others here can give their experience of Mulclair from personal encounters?

ottawaobserver

I think Mulcair is a complex and interesting politician. He has flashes of anger in the House, but also flashes of passion. He's also a very accomplished performer on those TV panels.

Remember that the Liberals detest and fear him though. They have every single resource targetted on him, and would consider it a victory if they gained no other seat in Quebec but his.

I think we can learn a lot about him by the calibre of candidate he has been able to recruit for the NDP in Quebec, which has been very impressive. He also has some very ambitious goals for the party in Quebec, not all of which were realized last time, but there's nothing wrong with reaching high.

While it would be great to see him tour outside the province a bit more, like he did in Saskatoon the other week, I think we need him to be in Quebec a bit more at the moment.

Stockholm

A lot of time we tend to make the mistake of evaluating party leaders and politicians in general on the basis of their oratory. Making a good speech is important - but what really makes a good leader are al the things you don't see that involve behind the scenes strategizing, organization, tactics, hiring the right people, policy development having good political instincts, being good at team building etc...

When the day comes for the NDP to choose a new leader - its all that stuff that will be my main concern. I've never met Mulcair. I hear very good things about him in terms of abilities etc...I think my only concern would be just how well understands the political culture of Canada outside Quebec. I'm nt saying that he doesn't - I just would want to be reassured that he does.

NorthReport

Good point Stock.

Mulcair does seem to have good political instincts though which is essential to success.

ottawaobserver

Yes, I agree too.  He will have the freedom to travel a bit more once he is reelected one more time in Outremont.

However, I do understand from people who work in the environmental field that he was very well known and very well regarded as a principled but canny and pragmatic Quebec Environment Minister.  The folks in particular I'm thinking of are not particularly partisan, but have a very high regard for his abilities in that domain (which in federal-provincial policy making does require a lot of strategic sense).

NorthReport

A bit of perspective concerning House of Commons Seat Count

2008 election - NDP - 37 seats, up 24 seats or up 285% since Layton elected NDP Leader 

2006 election - NDP - 29 seats, up 16 seats or up 123% since Layton elected NDP Leader 

2004 election - NDP - 19 seats, up 6 seats or up 46% since Layton elected NDP Leader

2003 Layton elected NDP Leader

2000 election - NDP - 13 seats

Pages

Topic locked