Why the Liberals won a majority

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug Woodard
Why the Liberals won a majority

*****

Doug Woodard

I'd say it's because somebody had to:

Green vote percentage...............3.4

Liberal vote percentage............39.5

NDP vote percentage................19.7

............................................._____

Total......................................62.6

............................................._____

Divide by 2..............................31.3

 

Conservative vote percentage....31.9

 

So the anti-Conservative voters had to plump for one party to remove the Conservatives from the position of largest vote-getter.

They were forced to move an anti-Conservative party into the position of benefitting from the distortions of our first-past-the-post electoral system (in the event the Liberals got a bonus of 50 seats, moving them from a proportional 134 to an actual 184).

Both the Liberals and the NDP explicitly said they would not form a coalition, and the Liberals were especially vehement about this. From experience of previous Harper minority governments, the public knew they could not count on the Opposition parties to co-operate to ditch Harper. So they played it safe, and picked one.

Why the Liberals? That's not so important, but remember that the farther we got from Parliament being in session and Mulcair being his effective self (as on Bill C-51), the better the Liberals did.

I don't know who was to blame for the ineffective NDP campaign, but I'd say that in order for the public and the NDP members to have confidence in the party, somebody has to go. I surmise that Mulcair will be effective and useful in the coming Parliament. I reckon the campaign team can be dispensed with.

Sean in Ottawa

Doug Woodard wrote:

 

Both the Liberals and the NDP explicitly said they would not form a coalition, and the Liberals were especially vehement about this. From experience of previous Harper minority governments, the public knew they could not count on the Opposition parties to co-operate to ditch Harper. So they played it safe, and picked one.

 

??????????????????????

It was in part the NDP's repeated calls to form a post election coalition that kept this in the news.

It is true that in 2012 the NDP then leadership Candidate Mulcair was against a coalition. He said this irresponsibly in the context of a large number of people calling for a merger including people within the NDP. It was not NDP policy.

Perhaps you need to update your news subscriptions to read some news from the last year. FWIW this is 2015.

2012 was a while ago.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Doug Woodard wrote:

 

Both the Liberals and the NDP explicitly said they would not form a coalition, and the Liberals were especially vehement about this. From experience of previous Harper minority governments, the public knew they could not count on the Opposition parties to co-operate to ditch Harper. So they played it safe, and picked one.

 

??????????????????????

It was in part the NDP's repeated calls to form a post election coalition that kept this in the news.

It is true that in 2012 the NDP then leadership Candidate Mulcair was against a coalition. He said this irresponsibly in the context of a large number of people calling for a merger including people within the NDP. It was not NDP policy.

Perhaps you need to update your news subscriptions to read some news from the last year. FWIW this is 2015.

2012 was a while ago.

What you say is true, but I remind you that the last news voters got about Mulcair's position on this (around the end of September) was that "he had lost a great deal of respect for his opponents [on the campaign trail]" and "wouldn't comment on any areas the Liberals and NDP could co-operate." I made a big deal about it as being a dangerous position for Mulcair to take, and acknowledged that while was potentially spin, the NDP needed to denounce it or risk pushing voters to the Liberals to get a stable government and just about everybody on this board shrugged.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Doug Woodard wrote:

 

Both the Liberals and the NDP explicitly said they would not form a coalition, and the Liberals were especially vehement about this. From experience of previous Harper minority governments, the public knew they could not count on the Opposition parties to co-operate to ditch Harper. So they played it safe, and picked one.

 

??????????????????????

It was in part the NDP's repeated calls to form a post election coalition that kept this in the news.

It is true that in 2012 the NDP then leadership Candidate Mulcair was against a coalition. He said this irresponsibly in the context of a large number of people calling for a merger including people within the NDP. It was not NDP policy.

Perhaps you need to update your news subscriptions to read some news from the last year. FWIW this is 2015.

2012 was a while ago.

What you say is true, but I remind you that the last news voters got about Mulcair's position on this (around the end of September) was that "he had lost a great deal of respect for his opponents [on the campaign trail]" and "wouldn't comment on any areas the Liberals and NDP could co-operate." I made a big deal about it as being a dangerous position for Mulcair to take, and acknowledged that while was potentially spin, the NDP needed to denounce it or risk pushing voters to the Liberals to get a stable government and just about everybody on this board shrugged.

This argument does not wash. The NDP's position did not change and silence is not a change of an existing position. Your statement was completely false.

Not wanting to comment on cooperation is an understandable statement when there is this much ill-will. But Mulcair did not for a second walk back the NDP's desire for a coalition if the parties needed one to stop the Conservatives.

Trudeau was firmly against. Please don't try to rewrite history within the same year -- it is insulting.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This argument does not wash. The NDP's position did not change and silence is not a change of an existing position. Your statement was completely false.

Not wanting to comment on cooperation is an understandable statement when there is this much ill-will. But Mulcair did not for a second walk back the NDP's desire for a coalition if the parties needed one to stop the Conservatives.

Trudeau was firmly against. Please don't try to rewrite history within the same year -- it is insulting.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-lashes-out-against-...

With recent polls suggesting the Liberals may be solidifying their support under Trudeau, but not quite enough to win a majority, Mulcair gave no assurances that his New Democrats would work with a minority Liberal government in the House of Commons.

In fact, Mulcair appeared to push his party further away from his opponents, saying he has become less inclined since the campaign began Aug. 2 to be collegial.

“I’ve had a chance to know both of my adversaries, Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau, in the House and I can tell you that I try always to have respect for my adversaries,” Mulcair said.

“That respect, frankly, is under a great deal of strain these days,” he added, accusing Trudeau of being too afraid to oppose the Conservatives on major policies and saying he was “appalled” at how Harper has run his campaign by “playing the politics of race.”

http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/mulcair-may-not-support-trudeau-mi...

There are two possibilities. Either the G&M and other newspapers who reported this same story were misrepresenting Mulcair's position, or they weren't. Now, if Mulcair's position was being misrepresented, he should have said something about it. He was too busy playing politics and taking shots at Trudeau to set the record straight. In the last two weeks of the election, he sent a message that he could not be counted on to work with Trudeau if we ended up with a minority government (which was what looked likely at the time).

Doug Woodward is absolutely correct that the public had reason to believe the Liberals and NDP might not work together to bring down Harper.

mark_alfred

If it was to be a Con minority, then yeah, the NDP were willing to join forces with the Libs to bring down the Cons and be rid of Harper.  The Libs were less clear, but Trudeau did say that he wouldn't allow Harper to govern, which suggests he too was open to cooperation.  In the case of a Lib minority, as mentioned above in the Globe article, it wasn't about keeping Harper out.  But it was a Lib majority, which made the question mute anyway.

Pondering

The notion that voters just chose the party most likely to defeat Harper distracts the party from addressing the problems which go deeper than running a good campaign. 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeaus-liberals-more-in-line-wi...

The survey found that Canadians prefer a vision of Canada that supports an “active” federal government, puts the emphasis on humanitarianism and development over defence, and gives the nod to “reason and evidence” instead of “moral certainty.”...

“It was pretty clear that the values vision that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals were offering up, backed up with an accounting framework that says we actually are going to find the money to do this, is what won this election for them,” said Graves.....

His conclusion is supported by another poll EKOS conducted Oct. 8-12. Canadians were asked to identify the “most important factor” that would determine their vote.

Forty-seven per cent said it would be the choice that best reflects their values; 33 per cent said it would be a party platform or ideas; 10 per cent said it would be the party leader; and eight per cent said it would be the local candidate.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

If it was to be a Con minority, then yeah, the NDP were willing to join forces with the Libs to bring down the Cons and be rid of Harper.  The Libs were less clear, but Trudeau did say that he wouldn't allow Harper to govern, which suggests he too was open to cooperation.  In the case of a Lib minority, as mentioned above in the Globe article, it wasn't about keeping Harper out.  But it was a Lib majority, which made the question mute anyway.

Many people were also saying that if the Conservatives were in a minority position, Harper would just wait six months or so to recall Parliament and at that point he would be able to hang onto power by threatening to call another election if his government lost a vote of non-confidence. This scenerio made a Conservative minority more unappealing to people whose top priority was getting rid of Harper and provided more incentive for these people to coalesce around the party that was highest in the polls versus the Conservatives.

nicky

The main reason the Liberals won a majority is because of our skewed electoral system, one they might well slant even further in their favour by introducing ranked voting. When Harper got his majority with 39.6% there was lots of comment about how the system was broken etc. But I don't hear the same level of complaint now that only 39.5% has given Trudeau his majority.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This argument does not wash. The NDP's position did not change and silence is not a change of an existing position. Your statement was completely false.

Not wanting to comment on cooperation is an understandable statement when there is this much ill-will. But Mulcair did not for a second walk back the NDP's desire for a coalition if the parties needed one to stop the Conservatives.

Trudeau was firmly against. Please don't try to rewrite history within the same year -- it is insulting.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-lashes-out-against-...

With recent polls suggesting the Liberals may be solidifying their support under Trudeau, but not quite enough to win a majority, Mulcair gave no assurances that his New Democrats would work with a minority Liberal government in the House of Commons.

In fact, Mulcair appeared to push his party further away from his opponents, saying he has become less inclined since the campaign began Aug. 2 to be collegial.

“I’ve had a chance to know both of my adversaries, Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau, in the House and I can tell you that I try always to have respect for my adversaries,” Mulcair said.

“That respect, frankly, is under a great deal of strain these days,” he added, accusing Trudeau of being too afraid to oppose the Conservatives on major policies and saying he was “appalled” at how Harper has run his campaign by “playing the politics of race.”

http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/mulcair-may-not-support-trudeau-mi...

There are two possibilities. Either the G&M and other newspapers who reported this same story were misrepresenting Mulcair's position, or they weren't. Now, if Mulcair's position was being misrepresented, he should have said something about it. He was too busy playing politics and taking shots at Trudeau to set the record straight. In the last two weeks of the election, he sent a message that he could not be counted on to work with Trudeau if we ended up with a minority government (which was what looked likely at the time).

Doug Woodward is absolutely correct that the public had reason to believe the Liberals and NDP might not work together to bring down Harper.

Did you read the word choice? Clearly, the G&M were careful not to say something untrue while they suggested something different. This is a fairly common trick in political reporting by Canadas National Conservative Cheerleader.

So Mulcair did not say something. Hmmmm.

Would I be able to report that you did not say that people should not punch strangers in the face today? Would that mean that you had a position in favour of punching people in the face?

Again please try to employ critical thinking and some logic. You are not using any and your argument is suffering badly for it.

Declining to say something does not mean either agreement or disagreement.It might mean that you are angry at the question, do not think you should dignify it or you are irritated by the subject in general and feel you have already been clear enough on it or you might be angry at the person posing the question.

Then when a paper like Canada's National Conservative Cheerleader prints a clearly biased article that is just shy of lying, what do you do? Is it worth comment each time? Or perhaps you recognize that those who want to hear this comment are not likely to vote NDP and everyone else can see it for what it really is.

When someone says something slippery but does not lie how would it look to comment? Mulcair would have been called too sensitive. Funny enough, I noticed this exact article and commented about it myself here. I recognized then that the NDP could not respond. It would be left up to those with logic and critical thinking skills to understand. You clearly are having trouble seeing the difference between a statement and a reported nonstatement which is a well used reporting manipulation.

So shall I assume that you must support people punching strangers in the face becuase you did not comment? Now what if I asked you that directly in conversation. You might say no, no, no I don't support punching strangers or if you might say screw off -- I am not answering that kind of question. Then of course G&M style I could report that you refused to be clear about not punching people in the face.

This is a very common tactic of the CNCC. I find it strange that Liberals fail to see this, since this tactic is used against the Liberal party as well by the CNCC. But Liberals are only sensitive and only employ logic when they feel agrieved.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again please try to employ critical thinking and some logic. You are not using any and your argument is suffering badly for it.

As usual, when your argument is weak, you revert to insulting opponents. 

 

mark_alfred

I dunno.  The NDP puts out statements supporting stuff like the bringing in of 25,000 refugees or the bringing back of the long term census and Liberal supporters attack the NDP over how or who delivered the message.  Petty.  Makes sense to me right now for Mulcair to lie low.

JKR

nicky wrote:
The main reason the Liberals won a majority is because of our skewed electoral system, one they might well slant even further in their favour by introducing ranked voting. When Harper got his majority with 39.6% there was lots of comment about how the system was broken etc. But I don't hear the same level of complaint now that only 39.5% has given Trudeau his majority.

One big difference is that a clear majority of the people who voted NDP, Green, and BQ are very happy that the Liberals have replaced the Conservatives while in 2011 a clear majority of the people who voted NDP, Liberal, BQ, and Green were unhappy with the Conservative's winning. This shows how a ranked system is superior to a plurality system. That being said, a proportional system is superior to a ranked system, which is still superior to a plurality system.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

I dunno.  The NDP puts out statements supporting stuff like the bringing in of 25,000 refugees or the bringing back of the long term census and Liberal supporters attack the NDP over how or who delivered the message.  Petty.  Makes sense to me right now for Mulcair to lie low.

The NDP is making a tactical error and if it continues it will lead to another failure in 2019 and maybe an even larger majority for Trudeau. 

As far as I know I am the only person who has commented on the weakness of the NDP's latest tactics.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Did you read the word choice? Clearly, the G&M were careful not to say something untrue while they suggested something different. This is a fairly common trick in political reporting by Canadas National Conservative Cheerleader.

So Mulcair did not say something. Hmmmm.

Would I be able to report that you did not say that people should not punch strangers in the face today? Would that mean that you had a position in favour of punching people in the face?

This is a false comparison.

If I was asked if I thought that people should punch strangers in the face, and I demurred like Mulcair did above, and then you reported that I didn't rule out punching strangers in the face, then people would be reasonable to conclude that I might support punching people in the face.

Moreover, nobody said Mulcair wouldn't work with Trudeau in a minority. They reported that, contrary to his previous position, he was no longer giving assurances that he would and seemed to be actively fostering speculation.

If I went around telling people not to punch strangers in the face for three months, and then a few weeks later my poll numbers are much lower (now in third) and I am asked about if I still am against punching strangers in the face, if I demur as Mulcair did above, then people are correct to doubt if I am still committed to the principle of not punching people in the face.

Quote:
Again please try to employ critical thinking and some logic. You are not using any and your argument is suffering badly for it.

Stop appealing to ridicule.

Quote:
Declining to say something does not mean either agreement or disagreement. It might mean that you are angry at the question, do not think you should dignify it or you are irritated by the subject in general and feel you have already been clear enough on it or you might be angry at the person posing the question.

This is not how I expect a potential world leader to respond to somewhat difficult questions.

Quote:
Then when a paper like Canada's National Conservative Cheerleader prints a clearly biased article that is just shy of lying, what do you do?
 

Discredit the source. Also they do not appear to have been lying.

Quote:
Is it worth comment each time? Or perhaps you recognize that those who want to hear this comment are not likely to vote NDP and everyone else can see it for what it really is.

It's at least worth a comment the first time.

Quote:
When someone says something slippery but does not lie how would it look to comment? Mulcair would have been called too sensitive.

Mulcair? Too sensitive? He's not half as sensitive as Justin "should we really be using the words barbaric cultural practices in our legislation?" Trudeau. If anything, Mulcair's image suffered from a lack of sensitivity.

Quote:
Funny enough, I noticed this exact article and commented about it myself here. I recognized then that the NDP could not respond. It would be left up to those with logic and critical thinking skills to understand.

Trudeau responded to a similar question in an interview on the 29th or 30th that I clearly remember finding the first time we had this discussion. Why couldn't Mulcair? The only explanation is because Trudeau was winning and he was losing, so anyone with "logic and critical thinking skills" could only conclude that Mulcair was losing and Trudeau was the better bet to get rid of Harper.

Quote:
You clearly are having trouble seeing the difference between a statement and a reported nonstatement which is a well used reporting manipulation.

You are clearly having trouble understanding what the public sees when a politician dodges a question. The G&M didn't say "Mulcair didn't mention X today." The G&M said "he was asked if he would work with Trudeau to keep Harper out of power and dodged. He was asked again and not only dodged but suggested he might not due to his lack of respect for his opponents." This is especially damning because Mulcair absolutely suffers from an ego and respect problem which was fully on display by that point.

Quote:
So shall I assume that you must support people punching strangers in the face becuase you did not comment? Now what if I asked you that directly in conversation. You might say no, no, no I don't support punching strangers or if you might say screw off -- I am not answering that kind of question. Then of course G&M style I could report that you refused to be clear about not punching people in the face.

Unfortunately for your comparison, asking if I support punching strangers in the face is a pretty silly (I would say stupid normally) question because 99% of people would have the same position, and the other 1% don't talk about Fight Club. Asking if Mulcair would work with Trudeau to keep Harper out is not a stupid question - it is far from clear, even now, what Mulcair would have done if the seats fell the way they were projected to on Oct 8th, which was I believe roughly around 85NDP, 125 LPC and 125 CPC and it looked like the CPC might win a small plurality.

Quote:
This is a very common tactic of the CNCC. I find it strange that Liberals fail to see this, since this tactic is used against the Liberal party as well by the CNCC. But Liberals are only sensitive and only employ logic when they feel agrieved.

Once again, anyone who is not a supporter of the current NDP is obviously a Liberal, right?

Mulcair ran an unethical, petty campaign built on a weak platform with shaky fiscal projections and let his hubris and ego run unchecked. He failed to inspire and was consistently outmaneuvered by the Liberals. It would be so easy to draw a comparison between Mulcair and Harper based on the above, but all I will say is that if Trudeau had somehow lost my vote in the last week, I still would not have voted NDP. I would have voted Green or not at all - that is how bad the NDP campaign was.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I dunno.  The NDP puts out statements supporting stuff like the bringing in of 25,000 refugees or the bringing back of the long term census and Liberal supporters attack the NDP over how or who delivered the message.  Petty.  Makes sense to me right now for Mulcair to lie low.

The NDP is making a tactical error and if it continues it will lead to another failure in 2019 and maybe an even larger majority for Trudeau. 

As far as I know I am the only person who has commented on the weakness of the NDP's latest tactics.

The only person?  On twitter I see a plethora of Liberal supporters spewing the same attack lines that you're using here.

thorin_bane

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I dunno.  The NDP puts out statements supporting stuff like the bringing in of 25,000 refugees or the bringing back of the long term census and Liberal supporters attack the NDP over how or who delivered the message.  Petty.  Makes sense to me right now for Mulcair to lie low.

The NDP is making a tactical error and if it continues it will lead to another failure in 2019 and maybe an even larger majority for Trudeau. 

As far as I know I am the only person who has commented on the weakness of the NDP's latest tactics.

The only person?  On twitter I see a plethora of Liberal supporters spewing the same attack lines that you're using here.

some are sock puppets. Noticed this on the CBC.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again please try to employ critical thinking and some logic. You are not using any and your argument is suffering badly for it.

As usual, when your argument is weak, you revert to insulting opponents. 

 

No, when your argument is long and convuluted full of irrelevant stuff, it is not worth following.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I dunno.  The NDP puts out statements supporting stuff like the bringing in of 25,000 refugees or the bringing back of the long term census and Liberal supporters attack the NDP over how or who delivered the message.  Petty.  Makes sense to me right now for Mulcair to lie low.

The NDP is making a tactical error and if it continues it will lead to another failure in 2019 and maybe an even larger majority for Trudeau. 

As far as I know I am the only person who has commented on the weakness of the NDP's latest tactics.

Probably becuase you are in permanent attack mode on the NDP. Most LPC propagandists are taking a rest after a long campaign knowing the next campaign will be a while from now.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Did you read the word choice? Clearly, the G&M were careful not to say something untrue while they suggested something different. This is a fairly common trick in political reporting by Canadas National Conservative Cheerleader.

So Mulcair did not say something. Hmmmm.

Would I be able to report that you did not say that people should not punch strangers in the face today? Would that mean that you had a position in favour of punching people in the face?

This is a false comparison.

If I was asked if I thought that people should punch strangers in the face, and I demurred like Mulcair did above, and then you reported that I didn't rule out punching strangers in the face, then people would be reasonable to conclude that I might support punching people in the face.

Moreover, nobody said Mulcair wouldn't work with Trudeau in a minority. They reported that, contrary to his previous position, he was no longer giving assurances that he would and seemed to be actively fostering speculation.

If I went around telling people not to punch strangers in the face for three months, and then a few weeks later my poll numbers are much lower (now in third) and I am asked about if I still am against punching strangers in the face, if I demur as Mulcair did above, then people are correct to doubt if I am still committed to the principle of not punching people in the face.

Quote:
Again please try to employ critical thinking and some logic. You are not using any and your argument is suffering badly for it.

Stop appealing to ridicule.

Quote:
Declining to say something does not mean either agreement or disagreement. It might mean that you are angry at the question, do not think you should dignify it or you are irritated by the subject in general and feel you have already been clear enough on it or you might be angry at the person posing the question.

This is not how I expect a potential world leader to respond to somewhat difficult questions.

Quote:
Then when a paper like Canada's National Conservative Cheerleader prints a clearly biased article that is just shy of lying, what do you do?
 

Discredit the source. Also they do not appear to have been lying.

Quote:
Is it worth comment each time? Or perhaps you recognize that those who want to hear this comment are not likely to vote NDP and everyone else can see it for what it really is.

It's at least worth a comment the first time.

Quote:
When someone says something slippery but does not lie how would it look to comment? Mulcair would have been called too sensitive.

Mulcair? Too sensitive? He's not half as sensitive as Justin "should we really be using the words barbaric cultural practices in our legislation?" Trudeau. If anything, Mulcair's image suffered from a lack of sensitivity.

Quote:
Funny enough, I noticed this exact article and commented about it myself here. I recognized then that the NDP could not respond. It would be left up to those with logic and critical thinking skills to understand.

Trudeau responded to a similar question in an interview on the 29th or 30th that I clearly remember finding the first time we had this discussion. Why couldn't Mulcair? The only explanation is because Trudeau was winning and he was losing, so anyone with "logic and critical thinking skills" could only conclude that Mulcair was losing and Trudeau was the better bet to get rid of Harper.

Quote:
You clearly are having trouble seeing the difference between a statement and a reported nonstatement which is a well used reporting manipulation.

You are clearly having trouble understanding what the public sees when a politician dodges a question. The G&M didn't say "Mulcair didn't mention X today." The G&M said "he was asked if he would work with Trudeau to keep Harper out of power and dodged. He was asked again and not only dodged but suggested he might not due to his lack of respect for his opponents." This is especially damning because Mulcair absolutely suffers from an ego and respect problem which was fully on display by that point.

Quote:
So shall I assume that you must support people punching strangers in the face becuase you did not comment? Now what if I asked you that directly in conversation. You might say no, no, no I don't support punching strangers or if you might say screw off -- I am not answering that kind of question. Then of course G&M style I could report that you refused to be clear about not punching people in the face.

Unfortunately for your comparison, asking if I support punching strangers in the face is a pretty silly (I would say stupid normally) question because 99% of people would have the same position, and the other 1% don't talk about Fight Club. Asking if Mulcair would work with Trudeau to keep Harper out is not a stupid question - it is far from clear, even now, what Mulcair would have done if the seats fell the way they were projected to on Oct 8th, which was I believe roughly around 85NDP, 125 LPC and 125 CPC and it looked like the CPC might win a small plurality.

Quote:
This is a very common tactic of the CNCC. I find it strange that Liberals fail to see this, since this tactic is used against the Liberal party as well by the CNCC. But Liberals are only sensitive and only employ logic when they feel agrieved.

Once again, anyone who is not a supporter of the current NDP is obviously a Liberal, right?

Mulcair ran an unethical, petty campaign built on a weak platform with shaky fiscal projections and let his hubris and ego run unchecked. He failed to inspire and was consistently outmaneuvered by the Liberals. It would be so easy to draw a comparison between Mulcair and Harper based on the above, but all I will say is that if Trudeau had somehow lost my vote in the last week, I still would not have voted NDP. I would have voted Green or not at all - that is how bad the NDP campaign was.

You are missing the point. A non answer is just a non answer. When it is to an already asked question and answered question it often means irritation with the question or questioner.

You might ciritcize Mulcair for showing irritiation but that is all you get from this. You tried to extend the meaning into something else and are scrambling to hold on to your portrayal. It never worked and is not improving.

It is fairly shitty reporting to reporting to doi waht that article did but it was biased from a biased source. But the Liebrals like to whine when a reporter does this to them even though they try to milk any report like this on the NDP for the greatest effect. The word for that startswith an H and ends with a y.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I dunno.  The NDP puts out statements supporting stuff like the bringing in of 25,000 refugees or the bringing back of the long term census and Liberal supporters attack the NDP over how or who delivered the message.  Petty.  Makes sense to me right now for Mulcair to lie low.

The NDP is making a tactical error and if it continues it will lead to another failure in 2019 and maybe an even larger majority for Trudeau. 

As far as I know I am the only person who has commented on the weakness of the NDP's latest tactics.

The only person?  On twitter I see a plethora of Liberal supporters spewing the same attack lines that you're using here.

I'm not on twitter. I don't really understand it. Which "attack lines" are you referring to?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The NDP lost because they allowed the Liberals to get to the left of them. People are fairly well up on national accounts, and the Liberal spending program was reasonable. 1% of the economy is about a $19 billion deficit, and it is manageable especially under terms of severe economic contraction in USD terms.

The NDP have an inner leadership cabal which are completely tone-deaf to the desires of progressive Canadians. They blew a perfectly good lead which could have very easily made them the government. The Liberals learned from decades ago that if you outflank your opponent on the left, you can beat them. Diefenbaker did it against St. Laurent. Bill Davis did it against Stuart Smith. 

Being left way out on the right wing, there is no way the modern Conservative Party can use this tactic. It would chase away the supporters they have in their deep pocket areas. The NDP were caught like the hapless Liberals St. Laurent. The Liberals did a traditional PC victory.

Tom Mulcair disappointed on the campaign trail. Both he and Harper lost stamina about a month before the vote and Trudeau kept rolling right along. Tom did not sound sincere at times and I think that cost the NDP more than they would be willing to admit. Leadership should not be a big deal but it is in this society.

I think the members of the NDP should stage a revolt and sieze their party from this ridiculous and ineffective cabal of insiders who have done nothing but harm to the NDP. 

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

The NDP lost because they allowed the Liberals to get to the left of them. People are fairly well up on national accounts, and the Liberal spending program was reasonable. 1% of the economy is about a $19 billion deficit, and it is manageable especially under terms of severe economic contraction in USD terms.

The NDP have an inner leadership cabal which are completely tone-deaf to the desires of progressive Canadians. They blew a perfectly good lead which could have very easily made them the government. The Liberals learned from decades ago that if you outflank your opponent on the left, you can beat them. Diefenbaker did it against St. Laurent. Bill Davis did it against Stuart Smith. 

Being left way out on the right wing, there is no way the modern Conservative Party can use this tactic. It would chase away the supporters they have in their deep pocket areas. The NDP were caught like the hapless Liberals St. Laurent. The Liberals did a traditional PC victory.

Tom Mulcair disappointed on the campaign trail. Both he and Harper lost stamina about a month before the vote and Trudeau kept rolling right along. Tom did not sound sincere at times and I think that cost the NDP more than they would be willing to admit. Leadership should not be a big deal but it is in this society.

I think the members of the NDP should stage a revolt and sieze their party from this ridiculous and ineffective cabal of insiders who have done nothing but harm to the NDP. 

 I generally agree with you including the last statement. I do think the loss was much more than a move to the right. I think it also had to do with the negative tone of the campaign, the lack of promotion of the platform, the focus on the Liberals rather than the government, the lack of enough ambition in any direction, Mulcairs poor performances when it comes to moving people to the NDP (his best performances were recognized but did not move people to the NDP).

In any case I think the leadership question is extremely central. The problem is not the leader alone but the leadership -- and by this I mean a lot more people.

I think you are right that it is a cabal -- it is not just about changing the leader but a struggle for the kind of control that could make anything else possible

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You are missing the point. A non answer is just a non answer. When it is to an already asked question and answered question it often means irritation with the question or questioner.

You might ciritcize Mulcair for showing irritiation but that is all you get from this. You tried to extend the meaning into something else and are scrambling to hold on to your portrayal. It never worked and is not improving.

It is fairly shitty reporting to reporting to doi waht that article did but it was biased from a biased source. But the Liebrals like to whine when a reporter does this to them even though they try to milk any report like this on the NDP for the greatest effect. The word for that startswith an H and ends with a y.

Long story short, Mulcair evaded a question. It is always reported when notable politicians evade, refuse to answer, or use weasel words because it's a clear sign they want to leave themself room to go either way. He could have given the same general sort of answer Trudeau gave which was "I look forward to working with whoever Canadians send to our next Parliament..." and he could even add on "to advance our shared progressive values" for bonus points. I can see we're not going to agree on this and it's a moot point anyway because what's done is done, but I really don't think it's hard to see how the voters who only pay attention in the last two weeks of a campaign might have had reasons to doubt Mulcair would work with Trudeau.

thorin_bane

montrealer58 wrote:

The NDP lost because they allowed the Liberals to get to the left of them. People are fairly well up on national accounts, and the Liberal spending program was reasonable. 1% of the economy is about a $19 billion deficit, and it is manageable especially under terms of severe economic contraction in USD terms.

The NDP have an inner leadership cabal which are completely tone-deaf to the desires of progressive Canadians. They blew a perfectly good lead which could have very easily made them the government. The Liberals learned from decades ago that if you outflank your opponent on the left, you can beat them. Diefenbaker did it against St. Laurent. Bill Davis did it against Stuart Smith. 

Being left way out on the right wing, there is no way the modern Conservative Party can use this tactic. It would chase away the supporters they have in their deep pocket areas. The NDP were caught like the hapless Liberals St. Laurent. The Liberals did a traditional PC victory.

Tom Mulcair disappointed on the campaign trail. Both he and Harper lost stamina about a month before the vote and Trudeau kept rolling right along. Tom did not sound sincere at times and I think that cost the NDP more than they would be willing to admit. Leadership should not be a big deal but it is in this society.

I think the members of the NDP should stage a revolt and sieze their party from this ridiculous and ineffective cabal of insiders who have done nothing but harm to the NDP. 

NO they didn't blow a perfectly good lead. When the libs got down low and Harper pulled the trigger, it meant any and all movement from the one poll of 40% for the ndp would be seen as momentum for the liberals. Eric Grenier was on CBC each day and weighing certain polls more than others. So while I would guess most progressives watch CBC the narrative was struck that the libs had momentum because the NDP couldn't hold that mid to high 30's.

THEN you can couple in the horrid messaging from brad and anne. so fucking worried about 'angry tom' they didn't realize a beer ad stlye commercial would convince canadians that is how you stop harper. Seriously everytime I saw that commercial it blew my mind anyone would vote for the Liberals. It wasn't a powerful speech, it was a staged commercial with a chicken in every middle class pot bullshit.And people ate it up.

Cody87

thorin_bane wrote:

Seriously everytime I saw that commercial it blew my mind anyone would vote for the Liberals.

Which commercial? If you're talking about the one from the Liberal rally at the beginning of October which started airing around Thanksgiving, the NDP was already dead in the water at that point.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The NDP has to be a party that the Canadian Left can trust to be as left as possible at any given time. In the big picture of history, I have strongly felt for the longest while that the progressive view is going to be the most popular as it is based on the most democratic principles.

I was extremely disappointed when the NDP leadership cabal decided to compete for unattainable Notley-hating Tory votes to the west of Canada. With the huge contraction of the Canadian economy it was clear we would need quite a lot of spending. 

The NDP were in the lead as being the leading opposition party in an environment characterised by a great desire for change, and they had plenty of polls during the campaign where they were over 30% and in range of winning the government.  

If the Liberals are trying to go left you have to freak out on them - how they cannot be trusted etc. And that was not done. The balanced budget promise killed the economic argument for the NDP.

Debater

nicky wrote:
The main reason the Liberals won a majority is because of our skewed electoral system, one they might well slant even further in their favour by introducing ranked voting. When Harper got his majority with 39.6% there was lots of comment about how the system was broken etc. But I don't hear the same level of complaint now that only 39.5% has given Trudeau his majority.

1.  The Liberals received over a million more votes in 2015 when they won their Majority than Harper did in 2011 when he won his. (5 million, 800 thousand for CPC in 2011 vs. 6 million, 900 thousand for LPC in 2015).

2.  As Chantal Hébert said on CBC Election Night, it's not just how much popular vote you get, but how much of the other vote at least agrees with you on some of your policies.

Eg. many people who voted NDP or Green (or even BQ) would rather have a Liberal government in power than a Conservative one when it comes to certain issues where they can find common ground.  The vast majority of non-CPC voters were totally opposed to Harper Conservatism, whereas many NDP voters (even on Babble) agree with the Liberals on some issues and can't help but acknowledge the things they agree with (eg. Trudeau's cabinet diversity, commitment to fighting climate change, inviting other leaders to Paris, pulling out the fighter jets from the bombing campaign, etc.)

Debater

I just noticed that JKR made basically the same point I did in his post above at #13:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/why-liberals-won-majority#comm...

Excellent point, JKR. Smile

Chantal Hébert made this point on CBC Election Night, and the recent EKOS poll backed it up -- NDP voters are actually happier in 2015 than they were in 2011, because in 2011 the thrill of the 'Orange Wave' was taken away by the Conservatives getting a Majority.