Mulcair's Failure: Wedge Politics

August1991 · December 10, 2015

It seems obvious to me now that Butts (and the federal Liberals) played wedge politics better than either Harper or Mulcair.

I suspect that Harper is surprised about how badly the NDP played their hand.

=====

When given the chance to portray a federal election as Harper/BadGuys vs the GoodGuys, the NDP (under Mulcair) missed the chance.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

I bet Harper is even more surprised at how bad he played his hand

Edited December 10, 2015 by Charles Anthony
excessive quoting; deleted [OP]

Smallc · December 10, 2015

I bet Harper is even more surprised at how bad he played his hand

It's funny, isn't it? Harper lost the election through completely no fault of his own.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

It's funny, isn't it? Harper lost the election through completely no fault of his own.

That's what I've been hearing. I bet he wouldn't launch such an early election if he had it to do over. It was like opening up a huge whole, and then diving straight into it.

Smallc · December 10, 2015

That's what I've been hearing. I bet he wouldn't launch such an early election if he had it to do over. It was like opening up a huge whole, and then diving straight into it.

You'd think that if you were going to have a long campaign, you might have a platform to match. I'm sure you remember I was quite the Harper defender. Half way through the campaign, I realized there was no way I could vote for the Conservatives. They brought nothing to the table other than their familiar, polarizing leader.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

You'd think that if you were going to have a long campaign, you might have a platform to match. I'm sure you remember I was quite the Harper defender. Half way through the campaign, I realized there was no way I could vote for the Conservatives. They brought nothing to the table other than their familiar, polarizing leader.

Full disclosure, I have voted both right and left in my time, however it wasn't hard to step away from Harper. Let's see how well JT does, but I do feel a sort of breath of fresh air since his election win. For instance just today he wnet into the national gallery, gave a bit of a speech, and then took questions from whoever in the press. When do you recall Harper ever doing that?

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2015

Gee, if Harper and the Conservatives were so bad, how did they end up as the official opposition ?

Mulcair couldn't even salvage that much.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

Gee, if Harper and the Conservatives were so bad, how did they end up as the official opposition ?

Mulcair couldn't even salvage that much.

Everybody focused on one idea, anybody but Harper. It cost Mulcair, but you boys have a 2 party syste so it may confuse you to have more than that.

August1991 · December 10, 2015

The posts above suggest that I am right.

Mulcair's mistake was not to frame the 2015 federal election as a choice between Harper vs the NDP.

====

Trudeau Jnr let his advisors frame the 2015 election this way, while Trudeau Jnr went off to search for new voters.

As they say, the opposition doesn't win an election; the government loses. In this case, the NDP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Edited December 10, 2015 by August1991

Scott Mayers · December 10, 2015

Everybody focused on one idea, anybody but Harper. It cost Mulcair, but you boys have a 2 party syste so it may confuse you to have more than that.

The American politicians have actual representatives at least. This means they have to represent their constituency. They also 'sell' their individual role as a representative, not the party to which they associate with. Our Canadian elections are only 'representative' in appearance. In fact, logically, there is no need to actually mention our local 'representative' as most often we know nothing of them and are sold directly on the ideals of the party they represent, not the constituents. We are merely 'commoners' (a pejorative description of the general population) as our house indicates. So they may as well not mention local representatives until the votes are in and then have the party simply assign them.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

The American politicians have actual representatives at least. This means they have to represent their constituency. They also 'sell' their individual role as a representative, not the party to which they associate with. Our Canadian elections are only 'representative' in appearance. In fact, logically, there is no need to actually mention our local 'representative' as most often we know nothing of them and are sold directly on the ideals of the party they represent, not the constituents. We are merely 'commoners' (a pejorative description of the general population) as our house indicates. So they may as well not mention local representatives until the votes are in and then have the party simply assign them.

The American president is actually put in place by the electoral college. not only that, the term gerrymandering was created in the US. Here you can vote party, or you can vote local rep. and possibly get the best of both worlds. And now our current PM is looking at putting in place some type of more representative process for voting than the current FPTP system. In the US, they could actually face having an a**hole like Trump enter into, or even, (heaven forbid) win a presidential race.

-1=e^ipi · December 10, 2015

It's funny, isn't it? Harper lost the election through completely no fault of his own.

Well he did alienate a lot of people with dumb policies (such as the long form census).

When do you recall Harper ever doing that?

To be fair, Trudeau has run from the media before (Sun News). It's just that the vast majority of the media is highly pro Trudeau and ask him lowball questions such as what is his favourite avenger.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

Well he did alienate a lot of people with dumb policies (such as the long form census).

To be fair, Trudeau has run from the media before (Sun News). It's just that the vast majority of the media is highly pro Trudeau and ask him lowball questions such as what is his favourite avenger.

Apparently you have't tuned into QP since the house got back to business, or the briefing Trudeau gave today were he actually took questions from the press in the gallery. When was the last tie you saw Harper have the balls for that? I'll give you a hint, it's a number of years.

Scott Mayers · December 10, 2015

The American president is actually put in place by the electoral college. not only that, the term gerrymandering was created in the US. Here you can vote party, or you can vote local rep. and possibly get the best of both worlds. And now our current PM is looking at putting in place some type of more representative process for voting than the current FPTP system. In the US, they could actually face having an a**hole like Trump enter into, or even, (heaven forbid) win a presidential race.

I was talking of the House of Representatives, not the Presidents election. What does Gerrymandering have to do with anything? This is just altering constituency boundaries (we did this here the last election but don't call it that) often with intent to bias favor for or against ones' party.

The point I was making was that the 'Representatives', regardless of party affiliation, have the power to be voted and represent the interests of their local elect, not required to favor the party of which they are associated with. I believe that it was at least a better step forward towards better democracy than our system inherited by the British.

If you go to a Representative for help, while their own political preferences influence their acts, they know that their constituents will come to them from indeterminately mixed backgrounds such that they cannot determine their voting preferences based on independent interests, even if it is one that contrasts with their party ideal. Here, it is enough that should you go to our MP/MLA, your ability to get the help you need is dependent upon whether they can determine your party interests based on the particular question you ask. And when or where this is difficult for them to establish, they get suspicious and reluctant to help in sincerity.

Our 'representatives' only appear to be relevant for election when we are never significantly informed of their personal political views until they are in office. They are merely faces or names on our ballots but we vote for the party as it is the leader of these parties that get 'sold' along with their platform or ideals as a whole.

The separation of the President from its House of Representatives also allows the representing members to differ significantly from the selected leader. A Democrat can be the President while the representatives could be of a majority in opposition to Democrats. The president also represents the temporary "sovereign" that we think of with regards the Queen. And so dictatorships are hard to come by there, even if their country as a whole may be like this with respect to foreign affairs.

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2015

..... And so dictatorships are hard to come by there, even if their country as a whole may be like this with respect to foreign affairs.

And yet, trying to get back on topic from the usual American tangent(s), PM Harper was roundly accused of this very thing, so powerful is a Canadian prime minister with a ruling majority. Unchecked power that Canada refused to give Mulcair and his party's ideology.

Fortunately, the new guy is more interested in selfies.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

I was talking of the House of Representatives, not the Presidents election. What does Gerrymandering have to do with anything? This is just altering constituency boundaries (we did this here the last election but don't call it that) often with intent to bias favor for or against ones' party.

The point I was making was that the 'Representatives', regardless of party affiliation, have the power to be voted and represent the interests of their local elect, not required to favor the party of which they are associated with. I believe that it was at least a better step forward towards better democracy than our system inherited by the British.

If you go to a Representative for help, while their own political preferences influence their acts, they know that their constituents will come to them from indeterminately mixed backgrounds such that they cannot determine their voting preferences based on independent interests, even if it is one that contrasts with their party ideal. Here, it is enough that should you go to our MP/MLA, your ability to get the help you need is dependent upon whether they can determine your party interests based on the particular question you ask. And when or where this is difficult for them to establish, they get suspicious and reluctant to help in sincerity.

Our 'representatives' only appear to be relevant for election when we are never significantly informed of their personal political views until they are in office. They are merely faces or names on our ballots but we vote for the party as it is the leader of these parties that get 'sold' along with their platform or ideals as a whole.

The separation of the President from its House of Representatives also allows the representing members to differ significantly from the selected leader. A Democrat can be the President while the representatives could be of a majority in opposition to Democrats. The president also represents the temporary "sovereign" that we think of with regards the Queen. And so dictatorships are hard to come by there, even if their country as a whole may be like this with respect to foreign affairs.

Basically if you like and trust your riding rep. the vote for them. If you don't, or more prefer a different party than they represent, then vote party. We have a choice. And btw, changing boundaries based on census is a lot different than gerrymandering.

-1=e^ipi · December 10, 2015

Apparently you have't tuned into QP since the house got back to business, or the briefing Trudeau gave today were he actually took questions from the press in the gallery. When was the last tie you saw Harper have the balls for that? I'll give you a hint, it's a number of years.

I'm not defending Harper. But media bias does make things different, and Trudeau has run away from media he doesn't like in the past.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

I'm not defending Harper. But media bias does make things different, and Trudeau has run away from media he doesn't like in the past.

He's not shying away now it seems.

-1=e^ipi · December 10, 2015

He's not shying away now it seems.

There is a difference between 'some' and 'all'.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

There is a difference between 'some' and 'all'.

And what's that supposed to be about?

Topaz · December 10, 2015

IIF there was a media bias against Harper, don't u think he help create it? The media will go after Trudeau when needed because they are the watch dog for Canadians and it sells news.

Bryan · December 10, 2015

IIF there was a media bias against Harper, don't u think he help create it?

Absolutely not. Their vitriol against him started before he was even chosen as party leader.

segnosaur · December 10, 2015

That's what I've been hearing. I bet he wouldn't launch such an early election if he had it to do over. It was like opening up a huge whole, and then diving straight into it.

There was a valid reason for launching an early election call.

Recall that prior to the election call, 3rd party organizations were allowed to spend relatively large amounts of money (outside of the limits placed on political parties.) One such organization was a Union-backed organization run by Liberals and NDPers. Once the election was called, the ability of 3rd parties to spend money got significantly cut back.

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/engage-canada-s-anti-conservative-tv-ad-all-about-timing-1.3122069

One ad that made its debut this month comes from Engage Canada, a group whose stated intent is to make the Conservative party "unelectable." Engage calls itself a non-partisan, grassroots organization, though is headed by former Liberal and NDP strategists and it counts unions among its donors.

Ironic, isn't it... the conservatives get slammed (quite rightly in some cases) for some shady advertising, and yet here we have the left-wing engaging in the type of questionable practices that would be more at home in the U.S. (with its super PACS.)

Edited December 10, 2015 by segnosaur