Why the NDP will lose the next election

[Exegesisme]

Based on his stated policies Muclair would have made a good leader of the Liberals. The trouble is he is leading the NDP and people can't trust a leader that makes promises that are at odds with the party base.

NDP should delete socialism from their constitution.

[Evening Star]

NDP should delete socialism from their constitution.

They did this two years ago.

[Exegesisme]

They did this two years ago.

Their policies should be modified in the whole eyes of all Canadians from future.

[Evening Star]

Their policies should be modified in the whole eyes of all Canadians from future.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but it was a fairly big news story when the NDP modified their constitution to drop the word "socialism". A quick Google search shows the same story was covered in most major news outlets.

[Edited to add links]

Edited October 18, 2015 by Evening Star

[Exegesisme]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but it was a fairly big news story when the NDP modified their constitution to drop the word "socialism". A quick Google search shows the same story was covered in most major news outlets.

I have a memory about four years ago they first failed to delete it in the meeting just after they gained the official opposition party. I did not know the second time.

[ReeferMadness]

Their policies should be modified in the whole eyes of all Canadians from future.

You think all parties should only represent the centre? Who should socialists vote for? Not that the NDP have really represented anything socialist in a long time...

Edited October 18, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[Exegesisme]

You think all parties should only represent the centre? Who should socialists vote for? Not that the NDP have really represented anything socialist in a long time...

All parties should understand the core view of Canadian people in eye of future, and then specially consider how to achieve the goal through a special way of a party. Socialism is an evil idea from the beginning, and made historical tragedies worldwide.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Evening Star]

As I said, I was involved with the party as a member and volunteer in 2011 and followed their campaign this time. In terms of the bulk of the platform's content, I really don't think that much has changed. Layton-era platforms were all built around balanced budgets too. They may have even been more left this time when it comes to pharma care and the TPP. I do think the messaging was different and they were really trying to emphasize more moderate 'responsible' policies from the platform. However, if the problem really is that the NDP was not left-wing enough, why are voters supporting parties that are to the right of them? If people were flocking to the Greens and Communists instead, I could believe that this was the problem. It might just be the case that, in the end, Canadians' ideological leanings have not changed that much and it was a fluke that the NDP did as well as they did in 2011?

I did have to recognise the number of areas where I disagree with NDP policy, ultimately: the Senate, MMP, opting out with full compensation, gender-based quotas for corporate boards.

Edit: One way in which they are definitely terrible is in endlessly harrassing their supporters for money and support. I was getting multiple emails a day at times during the campaign.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Evening Star

[Exegesisme]

As I said, I was involved with the party as a member and volunteer in 2011 and followed their campaign this time. In terms of the bulk of the platform's content, I really don't think that much has changed. Layton-era platforms were all built around balanced budgets too. They may have even been more left this time when it comes to pharma care and the TPP. I do think the messaging was different and they were really trying to emphasize more moderate 'responsible' policies from the platform. However, if the problem really is that the NDP was not left-wing enough, why are voters supporting parties that are to the right of them? If people were flocking to the Greens and Communists instead, I could believe that this was the problem. It might just be the case that, in the end, Canadians' ideological leanings have not changed that much and it was a fluke that the NDP did as well as they did in 2011?

I did have to recognise the number of areas where I disagree with NDP policy, ultimately: the Senate, MMP, opting out with full compensation, gender-based quotas for corporate boards.

Edit: One way in which they are definitely terrible is in endlessly harrassing their supporters for money and support. I was getting multiple emails a day at times during the campaign.

You are right, but the leadership of NDP is wrong. They lack of the whole sensation of Canadian people, and only have the eyes of their own party and this election. I criticized their policy in my this thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24948-that-wrong-harper-vs-that-wrong-system/

[Evening Star]

There are a lot of other areas where I do agree with them, to be clear.

[ReeferMadness]

All parties should understand the core view of Canadian people in eye of future, and then specially consider how to achieve the goal through a special way of a party.

If you have all parties representing the "core view", then you leave large parts of the population with no meaningful representation. This is undemocratic.

Socialism is an evil idea from the beginning, and made historical tragedies worldwide.

This is a completely ideological viewpoint. Unions, minimum wage, crown corporations and environmental law - all of these things and more come from a social democratic view of the world. They are not inherently evil and neither is the foundation ideology.

[Exegesisme]

There are a lot of other areas where I do agree with them, to be clear.

All goodness should be organized as a whole to achieve, their leadership lacks the organic ability.

[ReeferMadness]

As I said, I was involved with the party as a member and volunteer in 2011 and followed their campaign this time. In terms of the bulk of the platform's content, I really don't think that much has changed. Layton-era platforms were all built around balanced budgets too. They may have even been more left this time when it comes to pharma care and the TPP. I do think the messaging was different and they were really trying to emphasize more moderate 'responsible' policies from the platform. However, if the problem really is that the NDP was not left-wing enough, why are voters supporting parties that are to the right of them? If people were flocking to the Greens and Communists instead, I could believe that this was the problem. It might just be the case that, in the end, Canadians' ideological leanings have not changed that much and it was a fluke that the NDP did as well as they did in 2011?

Balanced budgets (at least over the long term) are a good idea but the NDP became defined by it.

The problem I see with the NDP is that they're crowding the middle and have abandoned their traditional principles. I don't recall them (or anyone except the Greens) having anything for the poor. They didn't talk about health care much.

Canadians ideological leanings have changed over the last several decades as have most in the western world. We are still suffering with the fallout of Reagan and Thatcher and Friedman and the fall of communism. There's an accepted dogma that governments can't do anything well and the only right way is lower taxes, fewer regulations and lower trade barriers. It's a huge failure of imagination in my view.

[ReeferMadness]

I did have to recognise the number of areas where I disagree with NDP policy, ultimately: the Senate, MMP, opting out with full compensation, gender-based quotas for corporate boards.

their policy on the senate is ridiculous, their stand on provincial relationships is unfortunate (will lead to further decentralization, which will eventually lead to failure of the country).

[Exegesisme]

If you have all parties representing the "core view", then you leave large parts of the population with no meaningful representation. This is undemocratic.

This is a completely ideological viewpoint. Unions, minimum wage, crown corporations and environmental law - all of these things and more come from a social democratic view of the world. They are not inherently evil and neither is the foundation ideology.

First, all party should not injury the basic rights of any people, and then one party can represent some people to achieve their goal.

When you say socialism, you can not only pay attention to what you mean, but what the real history of the whole world is.

[Exegesisme]

Balanced budgets (at least over the long term) are a good idea but the NDP became defined by it.

The problem I see with the NDP is that they're crowding the middle and have abandoned their traditional principles. I don't recall them (or anyone except the Greens) having anything for the poor. They didn't talk about health care much.

Canadians ideological leanings have changed over the last several decades as have most in the western world. We are still suffering with the fallout of Reagan and Thatcher and Friedman and the fall of communism. There's an accepted dogma that governments can't do anything well and the only right way is lower taxes, fewer regulations and lower trade barriers. It's a huge failure of imagination in my view.

Communism is only half fall, the work is far from finish.

[Evening Star]

Balanced budgets (at least over the long term) are a good idea but the NDP became defined by it.

The problem I see with the NDP is that they're crowding the middle and have abandoned their traditional principles. I don't recall them (or anyone except the Greens) having anything for the poor. They didn't talk about health care much.

The very first section of their actual printed election platform is all about health care. It includes: developing a national universal public drug coverage plan, hiring over 7000 doctors and nurses, building 200 clinics, expanding home care to over 40,000 seniors. None of this got talked about nearly as much as balanced budgets, abolishing the Senate, and a federal minimum wage (that affects a tiny number of workers).

Also: zero-interest student loans, a programme for paid internships and apprenticeships for youth. They didn't even really talk about the TPP until the end of the campaign.

[Evening Star]

their policy on the senate is ridiculous, their stand on provincial relationships is unfortunate (will lead to further decentralization, which will eventually lead to failure of the country).

Yes. My vote for Paul Dewar was largely for him as an MP.

I have significant beefs with the Liberals on C-51 and their willingness to work with Bill Blair, and I don't like their tax or trade policies as much, but their policies on democratic reform are great and much better than the NDP's imo.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Evening Star

[ReeferMadness]

The very first section of their actual printed election platform is all about health care. It includes: developing a national universal public drug coverage plan, hiring over 7000 doctors and nurses, building 200 clinics, expanding home care to over 40,000 seniors. None of this got talked about nearly as much as balanced budgets, abolishing the Senate, and a federal minimum wage (that affects a tiny number of workers).

Also: zero-interest student loans, a programme for paid internships and apprenticeships for youth. They didn't even really talk about the TPP until the end of the campaign.

I would never claim to be an expert on the NDP platform - I'm just going based on my perceptions of the campaign. It's a shame that it became about niqabs and that hurt the NDP so badly.

Looking forward, the NDP needs to be strong in negotiating with a Liberal minority government, first and foremost around electoral reform. I hope they stand for PR generally, not just MMP. If there's a big fight between the MMP crowd and the STV crowd, we all lose. If we get PR, it will change the political landscape and we can all vote for what we want.

[Evening Star]

Balanced budgets (at least over the long term) are a good idea but the NDP became defined by it.

There is nothing terribly inspiring about having a balanced account sheet in and of itself, unless you are actually in crippling debt. It's a good thing, in general, but it is not much of an ideological goal on its own. My suspicion is that the NDP believed, or at least are terrified of, their critics who said that the problem with Bob Rae's provincial government (20 YEARS AGO) was that it was irresponsible and ran up too much of a deficit. (A defi Since then, they seem to be somewhat obsessed with proving that they are not really like that.

[Evening Star]

I hope they stand for PR generally, not just MMP. If there's a big fight between the MMP crowd and the STV crowd, we all lose. If we get PR, it will change the political landscape and we can all vote for what we want.

The NDP seem committed to MMP; I'm not entirely sure why. This is one area where I prefer the Greens and Liberals.

[ReeferMadness]

The NDP seem committed to MMP; I'm not entirely sure why. This is one area where I prefer the Greens and Liberals.

Just my humble opinion but I think that the NDP has a higher proportion of supporters who are fanatically devoted to the party (go spend time at rabble.ca or the tyee to see what I mean) MMP gives more power to the party and STV gives more to the individual candidates.