Why isn't the NDP doing better when we have such dullards as the last three LPC leaders?

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

KenS wrote:

'Sirs' comments were directed at JKR. And I'll bet you an awful lot, he didnt read her reply the way you did.

I didn't.

I took it as a correct comment that being negative about the NDP is not productive. Which I agree with.

The NDP can better then it is today even if it has been the best political party on the federal scene.

It's important to keep things as constructive as possible.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

My apologies OO I thought your comment was an uncalled for slag against unknown NDP members and supporters.  KenS seems to have proven that you might have a point.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So JKR is the us against them attitude implied in slagging some members but implicitly not you the direction you would like to see the party heading in.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I'd be more sympathetic if NDP members and supporters didn't demonstrate that they'd rather shoot first and ask questions later.

Agreed.

I think everyone would agrees with that.

It's kind of amusing how left-wing people often argue about being too argumentative.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So JKR is the us against them attitude implied in slagging some members but implicitly not you the direction you would like to see the party heading in.

All slagging is unhelpful.

Even slagging Conservatives, Liberals, George W, Bush, Sarah Palin, etc... is not helpful.

Cueball Cueball's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

Brian Topp has addressed the general point in a blogpost today at the Globe Online:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/why-progressives-need-guns-in-populist-knife-fight/article1784064/

Brian Topp at the Globe online wrote:

They say government is too big. We should say poverty, unemployment, and injustice are too big.

They say taxes are too high. We should say there are more important things to tackle right now than reducing taxes for rich people.

They say they'll give everyone some of their money back. We should say paying for tax cuts by running deficits is theft from our children.

They say it's time to sell off and privatize schools, hospitals and public services. We should say there are some important things best done together - like good public education for our kids and good health care no matter how big your wallet is.

They say it's "time to stop the gravy train." We should say good idea! Let's stop the gravy train - starting with the insiders, rich tax cheats, speculators, and all the other geniuses who wrecked the world economy and put millions out of work, while pocketing the bailout money.

Progressive people sometimes seem bored by their basic values, and take them for granted as givens. But the bad guys run on simple messages about their very different view of what the "givens" are.

There's more.  It's good.  He's obviously been thinking about it for awhile.

I think he's just been reading Babble. Turning the "Stop the Gravy Train" line on its head, came up here several times before Topp came up with it. Tis ok, but pretty obvious, really. Topp seems to have a basic understanding of pitch, in a marketing sense, but doesn't understand ideological hegemony.

For example, a simple line in an ad for a dieting system depends on an underlying hegemonic construct: women should be skinny. Without this underlying construct the simple sales pitch would have no meaning. So, in our example: "Stop the Gravy Train", the public interprets this idea in the context of the existing ideological hegemony, and applys the intended meaning to it. The Pantalone campaign was filled with such simple pitch lines, but they were burried by the media, or lost in translation.

People are not as stupid as Topp likes to believe, and dumbing down our message is unlikely to have the intended impact. Why, just today I was having a conversation with the handy-man carpenter who is doing some piece work next door, and he informed me that people may not know it, but that "Toronto has the lowest residential property taxes in the region."  Now this guy didn't vote "for any of those bums", but its clear to me that on some level our messaging was getting through, since this point was notable in much of the Pantalone campaign.

Our problem was that we did not have the organization to close the sale. Case in point Ward 20, which the NDP lost to Liberals in the last civic election, had one of the lowest voter turn-outs of any ward in the city -- less than 50% by far. even though Trinity Spadina has tradtionally been an NDP stronghold on all levels of electoral politics.

thorin_bane

Cueball wrote:

 

 

I think he's just been reading Babble. Turning the "Stop the Gravy Train" line on its head, came up here several times before Topp came up with it. Tis ok, but pretty obvious, really. Topp seems to have a basic understanding of pitch, in a marketing sense, but doesn't understand ideological hegemony.

For example, a simple line in an ad for a dieting system depends on an underlying hegemonic construct: women should be skinny. Without this underlying construct the simple sales pitch would have no meaning. So, in our example: "Stop the Gravy Train", the public interprets this idea in the context of the existing ideological hegemony, and applys the intended meaning to it. The Pantalone campaign was filled with such simple pitch lines, but they were burried by the media, or lost in translation.

People are not as stupid as Topp likes to believe, and dumbing down our message is unlikely to have the intended impact. Why, just today I was having a conversation with the handy-man carpenter who is doing some piece work next door, and he informed me that people may not know it, but that "Toronto has the lowest residential property taxes in the region."  Now this guy didn't vote "for any of those bums", but its clear to me that on some level our messaging was getting through, since this point was notable in much of the Pantalone campaign.

Our problem was that we did not have the organization to close the sale. Case in point Ward 20, which the NDP lost to Liberals in the last civic election, had one of the lowest voter turn-outs of any ward in the city -- less than 50% by far. even though Trinity Spadina has tradtionally been an NDP stronghold on all levels of electoral politics.

I think that's it. When I got time to explain politics to people, most will come around to a better understanding(unless they accuse me of propaganda, but thats a whole other ball of wax) Taxes have uses, but when they see how the cons waste dollars and the POV is they are the ones that are fiscally responsible, it = the other parties would be worse. Even if contrary to statistical data-so long stats can, nice knowing you. The construct is wrong to start with as you pointed out. And it isn't all up to a few ads and the odd interview(because most people largely ignore politics, unlike those here).

If we want things to change we need to talk to who we can and get them to some around to underastanding why a corporate tax cut A:doesnt benefit all businesses, B: doesn't always lead to jobs(see banks for both) in fact in many instances a tax cuts is used to shrink the current job market and only benefits a few corporations because many are swimming in debt at present.

KenS

thorin_bane wrote:

When I got time to explain politics to people, most will come around to a better understanding

Yes and No.

For one thing, people you are talking to are not necessarily agreeing with you. Even right then, let alone later.

And thats with you having all the benefits of face to face communication, and some degree of personal familiarity even if it is only an acquaintance or just someone you meet on the street.

That said, even if they in fact even partially agree with you less than is apparent when you are present, it is true that their understanding is broadened. Essentially, progress in message is cumulative and it has to start somewhere.

That was with the model of a personal contact discussion. Making progress is far more mediated, and more difficult, in the anonymous public communication where we need the most work. So being sanguine about how matter of fact the proccess is, leads to errors and serious lack of application to political work capable of sustaining some results.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked