Why the NDP will lose the next election

Vancouver King · October 7, 2015

Yes.

Do you accept that it was the right thing to do? And that good leaders do the right thing even if it's unpopular?

No, it was the wrong thing to do. His stance has prevented the first truly progressive gov't in Canada. More years of Tory or Liberal policies designed to enrich the well-off while working class Canadians fall further behind.

We are witnessing the usual Liberal dance of campaigning from the left only to rule from the right. Tory or Liberal? what damn difference does it make other than to remove one gang of corrupt pigs for another ready to assume it's historical spot at the trough?

BC_chick · October 7, 2015

Well said, VK.

ReeferMadness · October 7, 2015

I'm actually a huge admirer of Dion, and frankly I think the success of federalist parties in Quebec of late owes more to him than to Harper. He's a bright man and a considerable legal scholar, but he was not a leader.

He's not a politician - that doesn't mean he's not a leader. I don't think we were given a chance to fairly evaluate him as a leader.

People who have intelligence, integrity and courage to take the type of stand he did are rare. People who endless complain that all politicians are corrupt/liars/incompetent but fail to get behind the exceptions can look in the mirror if they want to know why politics is such a cesspool.

ToadBrother · October 7, 2015

He's not a politician - that doesn't mean he's not a leader. I don't think we were given a chance to fairly evaluate him as a leader.

People who have intelligence, integrity and courage to take the type of stand he did are rare. People who endless complain that all politicians are corrupt/liars/incompetent but fail to get behind the exceptions can look in the mirror if they want to know why politics is such a cesspool.

A leader is someone people will follow. Some people are natural leaders, some people can learn how to be leaders, and some people are not. Maybe if the Liberals hadn't been such a huge mess, Dion's deficiencies might have been overlooked, but as it was, he was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Liberals' immediately failure after the coalition broke down was to pick another man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

ToadBrother · October 7, 2015

No, it was the wrong thing to do. His stance has prevented the first truly progressive gov't in Canada. More years of Tory or Liberal policies designed to enrich the well-off while working class Canadians fall further behind.

We are witnessing the usual Liberal dance of campaigning from the left only to rule from the right. Tory or Liberal? what damn difference does it make other than to remove one gang of corrupt pigs for another ready to assume it's historical spot at the trough?

And you don't think an NDP government wouldn't end up being the same. Democracy isn't really about producing better governments, it's about getting rid of them once they become intolerable.

ReeferMadness · October 7, 2015

No, it was the wrong thing to do. His stance has prevented the first truly progressive gov't in Canada. More years of Tory or Liberal policies designed to enrich the well-off while working class Canadians fall further behind.

So, you prefer a government without integrity that governs from the left to a government without integrity that governs from the right? Progressive? I don't even know what that means anymore. The economic policies of today's NDP are overall probably to the right of the Conservatives in the 70s'. If you want to do good, work to stop the right-ward drift of the population, instead of shoehorning your party into power.

Personally, I'd love to see the Green Party come to power - but not if it meant electing someone who would pander to racists and trample on minority rights.

If you abandon your principles, you don't deserve power.

We are witnessing the usual Liberal dance of campaigning from the left only to rule from the right. Tory or Liberal? what damn difference does it make other than to remove one gang of corrupt pigs for another ready to assume it's historical spot at the trough?

Yup. The NDP supporters tell me that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same while the Conservative supporters tell me there's no real difference between the Liberals and NDP. Both can't be right and in fact neither are.

In a way, all the big parties are the same. They all favor endless economic growth in a system dominated by a relative handful of wealthy people. The disagreements are really around the edges.

ReeferMadness · October 7, 2015

Democracy isn't really about producing better governments, it's about getting rid of them once they become intolerable.

That's a very cynical view of the world and it's really not supposed to be that way. With views like yours, it's not surprising that democracy is slowly dying.

Democracy means rule by the people and representative democracy means rule by a government that is supposed to be representative of the people. The problem is that wealthy individuals and corporations have become so powerful, national governments can't properly stand up to them anymore. Globalization has undermined the power of governments as corporations that don't like the rules can take their ball and go somewhere else to play.

So governments don't really represent the people, they mainly represent people with money.

Including the NDP.

ReeferMadness · October 7, 2015

A leader is someone people will follow.

And somehow, the Liberals elected Dion in convention so clearly he was someone they could follow. You insist he isn't a leader. I think that a guy who reached across parties to form a coalition is exactly the type of leader we need.

ToadBrother · October 7, 2015

That's a very cynical view of the world and it's really not supposed to be that way. With views like yours, it's not surprising that democracy is slowly dying.

Of course democracy is about judging governments. It replaces the other systems of replacing governments, most of which were pretty nasty and usually involved rebellions, revolutions, and someone swinging from a tree, with a system whereby voters regularly decide whether the incumbent stays in or leaves.

It's elegant, but imperfect, and still a lot better than the alternatives.

Democracy means rule by the people and representative democracy means rule by a government that is supposed to be representative of the people. The problem is that wealthy individuals and corporations have become so powerful, national governments can't properly stand up to them anymore. Globalization has undermined the power of governments as corporations that don't like the rules can take their ball and go somewhere else to play.

So governments don't really represent the people, they mainly represent people with money.

Including the NDP.

No one is forcing you to vote for anyone. No corporation or rich person can make you vote any way you don't want. In the voting booth with the ballot before you, you are a completely free agent.

But governments exist in the real world as well, and whatever democracy is, it isn't about you getting your way.

ToadBrother · October 7, 2015

And somehow, the Liberals elected Dion in convention so clearly he was someone they could follow. You insist he isn't a leader. I think that a guy who reached across parties to form a coalition is exactly the type of leader we need.

He was the compromise candidate, and compromise candidates are like the rebound girlfriend or boyfriend, not really there for the long haul.

Vancouver King · October 7, 2015

And you don't think an NDP government wouldn't end up being the same. Democracy isn't really about producing better governments, it's about getting rid of them once they become intolerable.

You are too cynical - a gov't acting for everyone, not just the well-off, has the potential to avoid traditional pitfalls including corruption.

Evening Star · October 7, 2015

No, it was the wrong thing to do. His stance has prevented the first truly progressive gov't in Canada. More years of Tory or Liberal policies designed to enrich the well-off while working class Canadians fall further behind.

We are witnessing the usual Liberal dance of campaigning from the left only to rule from the right. Tory or Liberal? what damn difference does it make other than to remove one gang of corrupt pigs for another ready to assume it's historical spot at the trough?

You know that the NDP was never guaranteed to win this election, right? At most, if they took an anti-niqab stance, they might have held on to more Quebec seats. They couldn't have gained any (since they already hold most of them) and they would have likely lost some seats in English Canada. They wouldn't have gained many votes in English Canada, where anti-niqab people are comfortable voting Conservative.

ToadBrother · October 7, 2015

You are too cynical - a gov't acting for everyone, not just the well-off, has the potential to avoid traditional pitfalls including corruption.

I'm reasonably certain all governments start out, or at least think they are starting out, working for everyone. In the end, they end up inevitably confusing their own success with the interests of the polity.

And then we kick them out, and the cycle begins again.

Evening Star · October 7, 2015

You are too cynical - a gov't acting for everyone, not just the well-off, has the potential to avoid traditional pitfalls including corruption.

Not if that government had to take a stance against minority rights in order to get there. I mean, if you agree with the Tory position on the niqab issue, you can just say that. I don't see why someone who disagrees with that position would advocate for the NDP adopting it.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Evening Star

ToadBrother · October 7, 2015

Not if that government had to take a stance against minority rights in order to get there. I mean, if you agree with the Tory position on the niqab issue, you can just say that. I don't see why someone who disagrees with that position would advocate for the NDP adopting it.

The whole point of the niqab issue is to screw over the opposition. The bullet hit the NDP square in the head, and the Liberals were able to duck it entirely, and then pop up after the NDP's support bled away and say "Now now, Mr. Harper..."

The best part about this is that Harper won't even promise to get rid of niqabs in the civil service. He'll think about it!

I have to believe the NDP were the intended target here, as they have the most to lose from a Quebec meltdown. The irony is that it might end up being the Liberals, whose position is identical to the NDP's, who pick up much of the support.

But who said anything in politics had to be fair, or even make sense?

Vancouver King · October 7, 2015

You know that the NDP was never guaranteed to win this election, right? At most, if they took an anti-niqab stance, they might have held on to more Quebec seats. They couldn't have gained any (since they already hold most of them) and they would have likely lost some seats in English Canada. They wouldn't have gained many votes in English Canada, where anti-niqab people are comfortable voting Conservative.

At the niqab pronouncement by Mulcair, the NDP was at an astonishing 51% in Quebec, within 5 points of it's rivals in Ontario and 40+% in BC. It was a successful campaign until the niqab reared it's dark silhouette.

Evening Star · October 7, 2015

The whole point of the niqab issue is to screw over the opposition. The bullet hit the NDP square in the head, and the Liberals were able to duck it entirely, and then pop up after the NDP's support bled away and say "Now now, Mr. Harper..."

The best part about this is that Harper won't even promise to get rid of niqabs in the civil service. He'll think about it!

I have to believe the NDP were the intended target here, as they have the most to lose from a Quebec meltdown. The irony is that it might end up being the Liberals, whose position is identical to the NDP's, who pick up much of the support.

But who said anything in politics had to be fair, or even make sense?

See my earlier comment about resenting the Liberals.

Hydraboss · October 7, 2015

At the niqab pronouncement by Mulcair, the NDP was at an astonishing 51% in Quebec, within 5 points of it's rivals in Ontario and 40+% in BC. It was a successful campaign until the niqab reared it's dark silhouette.

Sounds like a rather well placed bullet then.

waldo · October 7, 2015

Sounds like a rather well placed bullet then.

so you're ok with the politics of fear and division?

ReeferMadness · October 7, 2015

Of course democracy is about judging governments.

No. It's not. Elections aren't democracy. They are a democratic means of choosing representation. And when the government doesn't really represent the views of the country, it's hard to call it democratic.

No one is forcing you to vote for anyone. No corporation or rich person can make you vote any way you don't want. In the voting booth with the ballot before you, you are a completely free agent.

The ability of people to act and think in their own best interest is limited by their ability to understand what that interest is. When you have a system (including the media) that is controlled by a relatively small group of wealthy individuals, you should expect that most people understand their interest in a way that corresponds with the interests of the people that control the system. And that's exactly what we have.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are a plethora of factors (the voting system, centralization of power in the PMO, preferential access to parliamentarians by the wealthy/corporations/lobbyists, money required to be elected, and so on) that mean that most of the peoples representatives have very little ability to actually effect change anyway.

But governments exist in the real world as well, and whatever democracy is, it isn't about you getting your way.

And where did I say this is about me getting my way? When you need to invent my position in order to debate it, it's proof that you have no good argument to make. Don't bother responding to my posts if you need to make stuff up.

Hydraboss · October 7, 2015

so you're ok with the politics of fear and division?

Yup. The same way I was the first time I heard that Harper had a "hidden agenda" and was going to put "soldiers in the streets". If it works, go for it. Do I like it? Not particularly but my ONLY concern is for my financial well being in this country because that translates into financial well being for my kids. Full stop.

Some people are scared of toy clowns too. If it works....use it. You utilize what you have to when you're running a political campaign.

edit->sp

Edited October 7, 2015 by Hydraboss

ReeferMadness · October 7, 2015

my ONLY concern is for my financial well being

You should put that on a bumper sticker. I suspect most wealthy Conservative supporters would agree with you.

Vancouver King · October 7, 2015

The whole point of the niqab issue is to screw over the opposition. The bullet hit the NDP square in the head, and the Liberals were able to duck it entirely, and then pop up after the NDP's support bled away and say "Now now, Mr. Harper..."

The best part about this is that Harper won't even promise to get rid of niqabs in the civil service. He'll think about it!

I have to believe the NDP were the intended target here, as they have the most to lose from a Quebec meltdown. The irony is that it might end up being the Liberals, whose position is identical to the NDP's, who pick up much of the support.

But who said anything in politics had to be fair, or even make sense?

That is is an accurate reflection of what happened.

In fact, the first post-niqab polls showed huge gains for the Bloc and significant gains for the CPC but far less improvement for Liberals. Hindsight suggests this initial miniscule Liberal gain probably reflected the unpopularity of Trudeau's agreement with the NDP on the niqab issue.

Only a week later, after the bottom truly fell out of the NDP's support did Liberals begin to receive it's share of disaffected New Democrats.

The Quebec polling tells a story of a campaign gone awry due to the NDP leader's failure to appreciate the niqab's impact on his province's primary constituency. As such it will be an important part of this election's post mortem.

Hydraboss · October 7, 2015

I suspect most wealthy Conservative supporters would agree with you.

I think there's far more than just wealthy conservatives that would. Over the years I've given up believing in any of the "greater good" promises that get made on the campaign trail because most just get kicked to the curb after election day. The one thing they tend not to backtrack on (but not always) is taxation/financial ones. Which is why I sincerely hope the NDP don't win. Their policies would hurt me financially. The Liberals not so much, but there is no way in hell I would ever vote for a Trudeau. Ever. Even if I were to be the receipient of mega bucks because of it.

When the dust settles on all this election hype, I doubt the government will change much. Maybe the party in power will, but not the "government". And so...I vote to protect the one thing that matters - money. My money.

Evening Star · October 7, 2015

I have no respect for the Liberals when they use the 'politics of fear and division' either but tbf the 'soldiers in the streets' ad is usually regarded as a huge failure, isn't it?