NDP strategy for the next federal election, whenever that may be. (Thread 2)
All the NDP needs to do in the next election is hold onto its 37 seats, and to take 20 seats from the Libs, and the NDP will form the Official Opposition.
Looking at the stats, it seems that the NDP, apart from HOLDING the 37 seats it currently holds, needs to start organizing in the following 10 seats, and the number one Liberal seat to target is Gatineau. Does anyone know what is presently going on organizationwise in this Quebec riding.
Another good strategy is the "buddy" system, whereby each sitting NDP MP is responsible for two ridings, their own, and the closest one to them designated by the NDP's chief organizer.
1 SK Sastatoon-Rosetown-Biggar 2nd, 1%, 262 votes C
2 NS South Shore-St Margaret's 2nd, 2%, 932 votes C
3 NL St John's South-Mount Pearl 2nd, 3%, 949 votes C
4 BC Surrey North 2nd, 3%, 1,106 votes C
5 QC Gatineau , 2nd, 3%, 1,577 L-1
6 BC Vancouver Island North 2nd, 4%, 2,497 votes C
7 ON Oshawa 2nd, 7%, 3,201 votes C
8 ON Parkdale-High Park 2nd, 7%, 3,373 votes L-2
9 NU Nunavut 3rd, 7%, C
10 NS Dartmouth-Coal Harbour 2nd, 8%, 3,223 votes L-3
11 ON Beaches-East York 2nd, 9%, 4,092 votes L-4
12 BC Newton-Nrth Delta 3rd, 10%, L-5
13 SK Regina-Qu'Appelle 2nd, 10%, 2,809 votes C
14 SK Palliser 2nd, 10%, 3,294 votes C
15 BC Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo 2nd, 10%, 5,608 votes C
16 BC Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 3rd, 11%, L-6
17 NS Halifax West 2nd, 12%, 4,928 votes L-7
18 ON Essex 3rd, 13%, C
19 ON Davenport 2nd, 15%, 5,057 votes L-8
20 BC Nanaimo-Alberni, 2rd, 9,250 votes C
21 ON Kenora 3rd, 17% L-9
22 ON Hull-Aylmer 3rd, 17%, L-10
Comments
One wonders why they would be targeting the lone NDP, when there is the Bloc and the CPC to consider?
Well as I think you know, the Liberals aren't just targeting one seat - they are targeting a couple dozen seats in Quebec. It's just that Outremont is considered of symbolic importance to the Liberals and is one they desperately want back.
Why is it symbolic?
And desperately is an interesting choice of word usage, that indicates the Liberals are full of dispair and have lost hope, and as such are full of anxiety and neediness, as they await more disaster to befall them.
Outremont is a long-term Liberal seat - that's why it's symbolic. It's loss was a blow to the Liberals and getting it back would represent a comeback in Quebec.
It's just like the NDP really wants Oshawa back because it is of symbolic value as the former riding of Ed Broadbent and the home of the autoworkers.
Btw, you are reading way too much into the word "desperately" - I used the word to emphasize that all parties have certain seats that they salivate for and intensely desire to win. You realize your comments above mentioning "lost hope", "anxiety and neediness" and "disaster" are a little silly, yes?
Why is it symbolic?
And desperately is an interesting choice of word usage, that indicates the Liberals are full of dispair and have lost hope, and as such are full of anxiety and neediness, as they await more disaster to befall them.
No fear no prisoners!
So the Liberals are going to crush the NDP are they.
Let's have a look at the popular vote over the past 4 general elections.
This trend looks very, very bad for the Liberals, and surprisingly Dion is just a minor blip on the radar screne.
Who knew!
Somebody somewhere has spotted a weakness.
I guess this tells the NDP which party to target, eh
Getting close, will the next election be the one?
2008 election - difference 8.1%
Libs - 26.3%
NDP - 18.2%
2006 election - difference 12.7%
Libs - 30.2%
NDP - 17.5%
2004 election - difference 21%
Libs - 36.7%
NDP - 15.7%
2000 election - difference 32.5%
Libs - 40.8%
NDP - 8.5%
No sorry, debator, you can't shift those goal posts, you used the word desperately, perhaps it was a sub consciously truthful error, if you are now trying to retract your use of it, but the fact remains you still used it, and it still indicates exactly what it means, the Liberals are desperate, and you were speaking in the singular, about the Liberal Party, not plural parties.
Having said that, it is not as if we all did not know that the Liberals were desperate anyway, so I am not sure why you are trying to shift that truth away out of sight. I thought it was refreshing honesty on your part.
BTW, good try on the focus shift by trying to frame me as "silly", and please do refrain from such a personal attack again. And I have asked you to stop the personal attack of using "silly" in respect to myself directly, before, and should not have had to ask again.
Yes, the continual trending down is obvious NR, so it is no wonder Liberal insiders are calling themselves desperate.
The Liberals need only lose 4% more and the NDP to gain that 4% for a tie to occur, and again I say no wonder the Liberals are desperate.
But you are using last year's election numbers when you talk about the Liberals going down 4% and the NDP going up 4% in order to come up with this tie in the popular vote. The current poll numbers show about a 12-15 point gap between the Liberals and the NDP and that could end up being the gap in the next election. Your analysis depends on last year's numbers rather than the current trends.
And as I said above, you have misinterpreted the use of the word desperately, but I'm not going to even bother on that one except to say that "The Liberals desperately want to win in Outremont" is no different than a man saying "I desperately want to have sex with that beautiful woman." It expresses a strong, lustful desire for something - it does not mean something is falling apart and collapsing.
Debator
Beginning of Sept last year the Liberals were polling 12% above the NDP, and it meant nothing at the end of the day. The NDP closed the gap by 6% on election day.
Indeed on Sept 19, of last year, a poll for ON had the Liberals at 37% and look where they ended at election time 33.8%, and indeed the same poll had the Liberals at 28% in BC, and the NDP at 18%, final score at election time was Liberals at 19.3% and the NDP at 26.1%. A almost complete reversal of the poll predictions, in less than a month before the election.
http://www.punditsguide.ca/index.php
Moreover, the NDP had 2 missing candidates, and several cases of nasty politics by the Liberals that actually deflated the NDP's votes, say nothing of EMay telling the Green Pary voters to vote Liberal, all of which over inflated the Liberal numbers and the phoney strategic voting whine did too. Had that stuff not occured, one wonders just how far the Liberals would have been down from what they actually got at election time.
IMV, they could have easily been down 4% lower than what they actually achieved. And as such, it is easily doable for the NDP to overtake the LIberals. No NDP candidate problems and no shilling for the Liberals, by another political party's leader, would make that 4% deficit up easily.
And indeed, around this time last year, NDP poll numbers were at about 14-15% and now they are steady at 18%. And given they finished at 18.2% 3-4% above poll projections from this time last year, the future looks pretty bright for continued NDP increases at actual election time. Especially given the trend over the last 9 years is for the NDP increasing and the Liberal Party decreasing, at election time, and that cannot be denied, nor discounted.
This gives even more weight to the premise that an increase of 4% by the NDP, at the Liberals expense is easily doable. And indeed even more is possible, all things given. Iggy is falling flat and their numbers are just not good enough. They are only 2% above where the polls were last year around this time, and are only polling 3.7% above their election totals.
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/poll-index/national/
Also, good example to support my interpretation of your use of desperate, only now I can also add delusional thinking to the desperation descriptor for the Liberal Party.
As any man who looks across the street and thinks; "I desperately want to have sex with that beautiful woman", is needy, anxious, and desperate to delude himself. He would be in a state of dispair with himself over his lack of having his own beautiful, and known to him, woman to have sex with, and thus is relegated to imaginings, over actuality.
Will refrain from making any commentary about how sexist and disparaging to women, that analogy you used is too.
I know what nobody knows
Where it comes and where it goes
I know its everybodys sin
You got to lose to know how to win - Aerosmith, Dream on
Another way the NDP could shave some dollars off the deficit would be to cancel massive subsidies to the oil and gas sector. They could also cancel agricultural subsidies and put in place "tariff-based" equivalents against equivalent imported agricultural goods. This would have a net zero economic effect, and a net positive fiscal effect (e.g. you would not change Canadian agriculture's competitive position and tax payers would a) no longer have to foot billions of dollars/year in subsidies and b) would have revenues from tariffs). Of course, for the tariff-based equivalents scheme to work, you would have to make sure that it could stand up legally before international trade panels, etc. I think it makes sense to "tarrifise" the subsidies anyways, because that makes it easy to build them these things as a (concrete and) new bargaining chip in free trade negotiations. It is also more honest than reducing tariffs through trade negotiations all the while boosting subsidies, and avoids the disingenuous and wasteful haggling over what constitutes a "subsidy" and in light of that, the value of protectionist "concessions." The subsidies are also arbitrary. They favour scale in agriculture, which screws over the small producer without the proper political connections or abilities to chase after cash. A tariff system would be more equitable to the Canadian farmer.
There are surely billions and billions of other dollars that could be shaved off the deficit if other subsidy programs were slashed or turned into tariffs. There are also some bizarre Crown Corps and service providers in government that were created back in the dark ages of the Canadian economy (e.g. pre-WWII) that could (and should) be privatised because of the big savings that privatising them could generate for the government and in some cases consumers- not to mention the taxpayers that underwrite these corps. A strategic review of government service providers and Crown Corps with an eye to privatising say the 5% that have the least business being in government, would not be the worst thing for government or the Canadian people. The Liberals would probably fight these move tooth and nail, as these government fossils are often their preferred place for packing patronage appointments and the like.
It's time for the NDP to get down to brass tacks and knuckles and show Canadians that they can a) manage the public finances tightly and in the public interest and b) fund the big social programs that Canadians really care about like child care, a pharmacy benefit, post-secondary education, and a robust social safety net.
Good example to support my interpretation of your use of desperate, only now I can also add delusional thinking to the desperation descriptor.
Any man who looks across the street and thinks; "I desperately want to have sex with that beautiful woman", is needy, anxious, and desperate to delude himself, and as such is in a state of dispair with himself and of his lack in having his own beautiful known to him woman to have sex with.
Will refrain from making any commentary about how sexist and disparaging to women, that analogy is too.
The comment is not disparaging or sexist in any way - it's a normal human reaction people of all sexes and orientations have. You need to get with the real world.
The point of the comparison was to show you that certain parties lust for certain ridings in an almost sexual way, and that is why I used a sexual analogy.
Any man who looks across the street and thinks; "I desperately want to have sex with that beautiful woman", is needy, anxious, and desperate to delude himself, and as such is in a state of dispair with himself and of his lack in having his own beautiful known to him woman to have sex with.
Will refrain from making any commentary about how sexist and disparaging to women, that analogy is too.
The comment is not disparaging or sexist in any way - it's a normal human reaction people of all sexes and orientations have. You need to get with the real world.
The point of the comparison was to show you that certain parties lust for certain ridings in an almost sexual way, and that is why I used a sexual analogy.
It is disparaging to women, it is a sexually objectifying commentary, as if any "beautiful" stranger across the street is up for grabs because a male is lusting for her. Do not try and normalize it as a "normal reation".
But of course you just used this format to try and again marginalize my voice by stating I am not in the real world. Not much different than the personal attack of "silly", eh?!
Moreover, if this disparaging and objectification and feeling free to be so sexist, is the "real world" for Liberal men, then they need to get the hell out of it. They are no friend to women's equality rights, and it is not the real world for well over 50% of the population. That you believe it is a prevailing societal one, when it isn't, indcates just how deep the Liberal's belief in their privilege is, and how ugly it is too.
It is no wonder the Liberal Party has been trending down down down over the last 9 years, and with no hope in sight for an increase given the numbers I detailed above.
There are polls and there are polls.
And it is quite easy to manipulate a poll, and that is what some polls are used for. There are so many different ways to do it.
Here's one way:
All the pollster has to do is poll in an area where one knows there is strong, say Liberal Party support, and voila, the Liberals are going to win, because the polls say so.
Here's another way:
The pollster polls every day, until the political party, say the Liberals, who the pollster supports, starts to go up, The day the polling uptick for the Liberals ends, the pollster releases the results, just prior to when the Liberals start to drop in the polls.
A reason the connections between some of the polling firms and some of the political parties are so strong, is because there are so many ways the polls can be manipulated.
It's quite simple really.
Not saying every pollster does it, but it is done much more often than what the public, and even some of the people who work for polling firms, realize.
Now we can expect the usual polls are accurate, and polls are not biased, and polls are honest, and some of the rest of the usual BS response, by the poll defenders.
And I say to them, give us a break, as federal elections are knock-down, drag-em in the mud, dirty tactic politics, and some folks will use any means at their disposal to try and win, including polls.
These are some of the reasons there is so much hulabaloo about polls, and why it is usually much better to look at election result-to-election result trends.
"3 NL St John's South-Mount Pearl 2nd, 3%, 949 votes C"
Another correction for you - the above riding is Liberal-held NOT Conservative.
Thanks Stock, the correction has been made.
Let's go for broke here.
Does anyone know what the next 3 Liberals ridings are to make it an even 20?
1 SK Sastatoon-Rosetown-Biggar 2nd, 1%, 262 votes C
2 NS South Shore-St Margaret's 2nd, 2%, 932 votes C
3 NL St John's South-Mount Pearl 2nd, 3%, 949 votes L-1
4 BC Surrey North 2nd, 3%, 1,106 votes C
5 QC Gatineau , 2nd, 3%, 1,577 votes B
6 BC Vancouver Island North 2nd, 4%, 2,497 votes C
7 ON Oshawa 2nd, 7%, 3,201 votes C
8 ON Parkdale-High Park 2nd, 7%, 3,373 votes L-2
9 NU Nunavut 3rd, 7%, C
10 NS Dartmouth-Coal Harbour 2nd, 8%, 3,223 votes L-3
11 ON Beaches-East York 2nd, 9%, 4,092 votes L-4
12 BC Newton-Nrth Delta 3rd, 10%, L-5
13 SK Regina-Qu'Appelle 2nd, 10%, 2,809 votes C
14 SK Palliser 2nd, 10%, 3,294 votes C
15 BC Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo 2nd, 10%, 5,608 votes C
16 BC Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 3rd, 11%, L-6
17 NS Halifax West 2nd, 12%, 4,928 votes L-7
18 ON Essex 3rd, 13%, C
19 BC Vancouver-Centre 3rd, 14% L-8
20 ON Davenport 2nd, 15%, 5,057 votes L-9
21 BC Nanaimo-Alberni, 2rd, 15%, 9,250 votes C
22 ON Guelph 4th, 16%, L-10
23 ON Kenora 3rd, 17%, C
24 ON Hull-Aylmer 3rd, 17%, L-11
25 BC Vancouver South 3rd, 18%, L-12
26 NB Fundy-Royal 2nd, 18%, 9,304 votes C
27 ON York South-Weston 2nd, 19%, 6,430 votes L-13
28 BC Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission 2nd, 19%, 9,618 votes C
29 ON Kitchener Centre 3rd, 19%, C
30 Brossard-La Prairie 4th, 20%, L-14
31 AB Edmonton East 2nd, 20%, 8,169 votes C
32 MB Kildonan-St Paul 2nd, 21%, 7,658 votes C
33 ON Kingston & the Islands 3rd, 22%, L-15
34 NS King-Hants 3rd, 22%, L-16
35 ON London North Centre 3rd, 22%, L-17
36 BC Fleetwood-Port Kells, 3rd, 22%, C
37 ON Scarborough Southwest 3rd, 23%, L-18
38 SK Regina-Lumdsen-Lake Centre 2nd, 23%, 7,090 votes C
39 QC Westmount 2nd, 24%, 9,137 votes L-19
NS Cape Breton 3rd, 27%, L-20
Y Yukon 4th, 37%, L-21
Not to rain on your parade North Report, but in addition to a 20 ridings the NDP might hypothetically steal from the CPC, you must realise that the Liberals are more competitive than the NDP in many more Conservative ridings (the Liberals have more second place finishes than the NDP and make rebate in more ridings). This means that all things equal, even the NDP stealing 20 seats from the Liberals wouldn't guarantee official opposition status because there is the greater number of seats the Liberals could put the CPC under fire in that you have to consider. As such, your idea is a good one, but I favour an approach that looks at each riding on its merits as opposed to some conceit about 20 seats switching from Liberal to NDP...Just a matter of personal preference.
As for the remaining 3 seats. How about Brossard-La-Prairie, Guelph, Yukon (small # of voters = big swings), or some place where voter turnout sharply dropped (indicative of alienated voters)?
V. Jara I agree with you, Thanks for the riding suggestions, and some changes above have been made.
Nothing is cast in stone here.
Just wanted to have, from the list of ridings that the NDP did not win in the last election, a list of the ridings in order of closeness to winning for the NDP.
Now, as you suggest, it's time to dissect each riding.
But in the end, so did the Liberals (Kildonan St Paul and, of course, Central Nova)
But in the end, so did the Liberals (Kildonan St Paul and, of course, Central Nova)
No the NDP had to have paper candidates slotted into Dana's and Brad's ridings after their forced resignations. So in actual fact they were down 4, 2 below the Liberals. But it was good to see the Liberal's dirty tricks coming back to bite them in the ass anyway.
This was posted at the same time that Maysie closed the thread... however it is relevant to this thread ... sorry for any confusion...from the polling thread now closed..
NorthReport wrote:I supported it, and it was brilliant NDP strategy, and the NDP has been reaping the benefits of it. What Layton did by coming first out of the gate, was to box Ignatieff in, who is no shape to run against a seasoned pro like Harper, and forced the Liberals once again to support the Cons, destroying what little credibility the Libs had left, of contrasting themselves to the Cons.
1) Boxing yourself in.. is a strategy..it is not brilliant. What works in Parliment, doesn't always work with the electorate. Few people think it was brilliant to say the NDP are voting against the bill without seeing it. This makes no sense to the general public. If you have to explain it to them... its too late.
2) Ignatieff is only boxed in until the next election cycle. This is the same box that Dion was in. Harper pulled the plug last time, this time, Ignatieff will be able to choose when to get out of the box. The NDP will have no control when this occurrs.
3) The Liberals don't need credibility, the NDP do. The LPC will get cut alot of slack. People do not like Harper, and his antics on the worldstage continue to hold him back. People are looking for the alternative and Ignatieff is not Dion. Layton is tied to the failed Dion because of the Coalition. Ignatieff has freely disassociated himself from the coalition and Layton.
One problem that the NDP has, is an inability to allow issues to form in the public and this rush to judgement and action has hurt potential growth for the NDP. The Dion Fiasco, the Voting against it before seeing it, are not winning over the hearts and minds of the voter.
These "Strategic" parlimentary tactics may work in parliment, but they are not accepted by the public as reasons to vote NDP.
The NDP risks getting labelled with the same "Gamesmanship" that Harper uses.
One good thing about the LPC choice of Ignatieff is that it allows the opportunity to demonstrate that the Liberal Leader is the tweedle dum of the CPC leader.
The NDP needs to reassert why there has to be NDP members in parliment.
The NDP has strength in Quebec that it didn't have. Part of the reason is Layton, and part of the reason is Muclair.
Why don't they set up Mulclair as the Quebec Leader of the NDP, and run the NDP as a Nationalist-Federalist alternative kind of like the Quebec Liberals? Layton would remain the Federal Leader, but operations in Quebec would be more or less decentralized to a Quebec NDP organization.
Perhaps they are already to a good extent, but I guess what I am saying is that they should be seen to be so.
There are a good number of Bloc seats which could be ripe for the picking. Both the Liberals and the Tories know this, however ideologically the NDP seem to be the best party to compete head-to-head with the Bloc.
If the NDP were serious about Quebec and were willing to recognize Quebec as a nation within a Canadian federation, and they set up a Quebec organization, they have the potential to be a permanent and endearing part of the Quebec political landscape, even more so than they are now.
I think the provincial victory in Nova Scotia could bode well for this.
The NDP is already highly decentralized and there already is a Quebec NDP with its own organization etc... - the NDP is willing to "recognize Quebec as a nation within a Canadian federation" that was proven when the party voted for the H of C resolution to that effect in 2006.
"2) Ignatieff is only boxed in until the next election cycle. This is the same box that Dion was in. Harper pulled the plug last time, this time, Ignatieff will be able to choose when to get out of the box. The NDP will have no control when this occurrs."
The NDP actually has just as much control over when the plug gets pulled as does Ignatieff. It happens that the NDP has it clear that their answer to any vote that involves non-confidence in Harper is "bring it on!" - but that was a decision the party made. There is nothing (apart from riots by party members) to stop Layton from announcing tomorrow that the NDP will start propping up Harper and saying "the Liberals propped him up 79 times. Now its our turn".
3) The Liberals don't need credibility, the NDP do. The LPC will get cut alot of slack. People do not like Harper, and his antics on the worldstage continue to hold him back. People are looking for the alternative and Ignatieff is not Dion. Layton is tied to the failed Dion because of the Coalition. Ignatieff has freely disassociated himself from the coalition and Layton.
Dion is ancient history. The public has long forgotten who he was. He's irrelevant. Ignatieff knows that he can only go so far in "dissociating" himself from a coalition or from Layton because he has to know that there is virtually ZERO chance of a Liberal majority after the next election and that means that Iggy will be FORCED to deal with the NDP - or else he will never be PM - its as simple as that. I predict that no one will be able to pin Iggy down to the point where he will categtorically rule out any coalition. He will never want to tie his hands that way.
And besides, Canada's banksters commanded Iggy not to push an election at this time. Iggy and Liberals will do as instructed by our not democratically elected banksters and Bay Street running the show in this Northern Puerto Rico. Liberals would never dream of biting the hand that feeds that party of opportunists' political fortunes.
Hull-Aylmer isn't going to happen.
I think that's correct. Liberal MP Marcel Proulx increased his margin of victory in the last election and ended up winning by 15 percentage points whereas in the previous election it had been close between him and the BQ. This time the BQ dropped in support.
The NDP, although it had a somewhat high-profile candidate like Pierre Ducasse, finished 3rd and this year he is apparently going to be running in Montreal municipally instead. I assume that the main riding in the Outaouais that the NDP will continue to target will be Gatineau.
Truth is Proulx recovered a bit of what he formerly lost in the 2004 election, debator, and he is far from the 51% the Liberals had in 2000, with his 37.5% and there was a new Bloc candidate last year. The votes are fluid in that riding, and if Iggy continues his flop, it could be up for grabs.
Why anyone would vote for a reptile like Marcel Proulx is beyond me. take one look at him and he seems like some retread from the Duplessis era who is probably active in the Knights of Columbus!
Hull-Aylmer isn't going to happen.
Why?
Because their crystal ball says so. And besides, they dont want to have to put any more time and effort into it than necessary if they can guess the NDP's strategy. And they'd sooner take a hit on votes to seats proportionality than backup the NDP's motion on electoral reform. Their crystal ball mumbo-jumbo is more fun this way.
The NDP has strength in Quebec that it didn't have. Part of the reason is Layton, and part of the reason is Muclair.
Why don't they set up Mulclair as the Quebec Leader of the NDP, and run the NDP as a Nationalist-Federalist alternative kind of like the Quebec Liberals? Layton would remain the Federal Leader, but operations in Quebec would be more or less decentralized to a Quebec NDP organization.
Perhaps they are already to a good extent, but I guess what I am saying is that they should be seen to be so.
There are a good number of Bloc seats which could be ripe for the picking. Both the Liberals and the Tories know this, however ideologically the NDP seem to be the best party to compete head-to-head with the Bloc.
If the NDP were serious about Quebec and were willing to recognize Quebec as a nation within a Canadian federation, and they set up a Quebec organization, they have the potential to be a permanent and endearing part of the Quebec political landscape, even more so than they are now.
I think the provincial victory in Nova Scotia could bode well for this.
Uncle John,
I think you are onto something here. Maybe the NDP could have spokespeople such as:
Quebecois - Mulcair
First Nations - ?
Indo-Canadian - ?
Oriental - Olivia Chow
Etc.
Anyway, something to think about, and might help the NDP work on its diversity issues as well.
A lot of that already happens. When Chinese media want to interview someone from the NDP in Chinese - who do you think they call???
Okay, re Ontario, using the "incumbent/target/no hope" formula delineated in another thread (and bearing in mind "no hopers" are still to be taken seriously in a 308-seat strategy)...here's something quick + haphazard
AJAX-PIC: no hope unless the 905 votes in more of a Greater Vancouver fashion; then someone like Kevin Modeste could be competitive
ALG-MAN: incumbent; maybe safer than it looks
ADFW: possible target, depending on how much Liberal/Green and "Reform populist" vote can be tacked onto the Dundas/Westdale base
BARRIE: no hope--but second place possibility
BEACHES-EY: still a supertarget, even if Minna's remained invincible
BRAM-GORE-MAL: no hope
BRAMP-SPR: probably no hope, though NDP overachieved in '04 due to the Dhalla appointment schism
BRAMP W: no hope
BRANT: medium target--20%+ in '04 + '06; Derek Blackburn past
BRUCE-GREY-OS: any hope's been snuffed by the Greens
BURLINGTON: no hope
CAMBRIDGE: close 3rd means there's still hope in this baby yet
CARLETON-MM: no hope even in Doogie Munterland
C-K-ESSEX: targetable, thanks to 20%+ in '06 + economic factors
DAVENPORT: target
DVE: no hope
DVW: no hope, though David Sparrow proved you can make the most of a no-hoper
DUFF-CAL: no hope, except maybe for second
DURHAM: maybe targetable if on a roll--proximity to Oshawa helps, and McKeever did well for a withdrawn candidate; second place within reach
EG-LAW: no hope
ELGIN-MID-LON: possible hope, at least for second place; close third in '08 + geography and economic factors help
ESSEX: target, esp. w/o Susan Whelan
ETOB C: no hope
ETOB-LS: probably no hope given representation; but riding history justifies making the most of it
ETOB N: hitherto underrated; '08 proves worth targeting
GLEN P+R: no hope
GUELPH: still target against the Green grain; Green + NDP outpolled either Lib or Con in '08
HALD-NOR: no hope
HALIB-KL-BR: hope for 2nd
HALTON: no hope
HAM C: incumbent; safe
HAM E-SC: incumbent; vulnerable to repatriated Liberal vote
HAM MTN: incumbent; maybe similarly vulnerable, unless Liberal + Tory cancel each other out
HUR-BRU: no hope on paper; but they work hard against the stigma
KENORA: target
KINGSTON + I: targetable, esp. if Milliken retires
KITCH CEN: urban core = targetable
KITCH CON: likely no hope, though a surprising base in S Kitchener and '08's last-minute candidate overachieved
KITCH WAT: less targetable than Cen; more targetable than Con
LAMBTON-K-M: no hope, but Wallaceburg a NDP pocket flailing to get out
LAN-FRON-L+A: no hope, except maybe for 2nd
LEEDS-GREN: no hope but for 2nd
LON-FAN: incumbent, survived surprisingly well but still threatened at both ends
LON-NC: targetable, but Glen Pearson's incumbency and left-compatibility may cancel things out
LON W: judging from 20%+ in '06, even this is targetable
MARKHAM--no hope, but 10%+ in '08 a shocker
MISSISSAUGA x 5--no hope for any of them unless an NDP "ethnic strategy" is in place
NEPEAN-C: no hope
NEWM-AUR: no hope
NIAGARA FALLS: plausible target, esp. w/an NDP MP now next door
NIAGARA W-GB: no hope, through ripples from Hamilton felt
NICKEL BELT: incumbent
NIPISSING: underrated but targetable
NORTHUMBERLAND: historically no hope, but lately tried hard to be viable
OAK R-MAR: no hope
OAKVILLE: no hope
OSHAWA: supertarget
OTTAWA CEN: incumbent; *maybe* watch those Liberals
OTTAWA-ORL: no hope
OTTAWA S: no hope, Mazigh in '04 notwithstanding
OTTAWA-VAN: slight hope--well, if any other seat besides OC jumps...
OTTAWA W-NEP: no hope
OXFORD: probably no hope, but surprisingly close 3rd in '08
PARKDALE-HP: GK probably knocks it down the target list, but there's no harm in still trying
PS-MUSKOKA: no hope--but maybe second; who knows
PERTH-WEL: targetable if Stratford had more clout
PETERBORO: targetable according to '06 (*not* '08) results
PICK-SCAR E: no hope
PE-HASTINGS: likely no hope, unless a Jodie Jenkins runs
RENFREW-N-P: no hope as long as C Gallant's there
RICHM HILL: no hope
ST CAT: targetable a la NF; even "strategic voting" couldn't bring NDP % significantly down
ST P: targetable w/a "Paul Summerville" strategy *ahem*
SARNIA-L: surprisingly targetable; rare case of NDP ahead of Lib for 2nd
SSM: incumbent, but never one with a strong lead
SCARB-AG: weakest NDP in Scarberia; but ethnicity = "potential"
SCARB CEN: surprisingly good '08 result (15%+) means, should be targetable according to "Scarborough strategy"
SCARB-GW: targetable through parameters set provincially in '07
SCARB-RR: another '08 surprise; worth pursuing a la Etob N
SCARB-SW: strongest NDP history in Scarb; therefore targetable
SIMC-GREY: no hope; maybe second
SIMC N: no hope; maybe second if Penetang makes a big shift
SDG: no hope
SUDBURY: incumbent; most vulnerable
THORNHILL: no hope
TBA/TBN: incumbents
TJB: incumbent
TOR CEN: took step from targetability back to no-hopedom last time--unnecessarily so
TOR-DAN: incumbent; but even Jack should warch his back
TRIN-SPA: incumbent; but vulnerable w/changing demos
VAUGHAN: no hope
WELLAND: vulnerable incumbent
WEL-HH: no hope
WHITBY-OSH: who knows; hope for 2nd
WILLOWD: no hope
WIND-TEC: incumbent
WIND W: incumbent
YORK CEN: no hope
YORK-SIMC: most hope of any Simcoe-York Region seats--but that's on the grade
YORK S-W: target
YORK W: a targetable sleeper
I think you've nailed it there, adma. Can't disagree with any of your assessments amongst the ridings I know.
Nice work adma. It'd be fun to explore your targets and "vulnerable" seats further.
ETA: It's fun to mention, that with the NDP at a highish watermark of 17 ON seats, it's interesting to be thinking of so many other seats as potentially in contention. At least at some point in the future.
I do not see Sudbury as vulnerable, why do you OO?
Because Sudbury isn't Nickel Belt--it's the pickup nobody expected. Even Algoma, with its LBP history, was more "expectable" than Sudbury, which had an aura of Liberal permanence even through the Diane Marleau years.
If Sudbury isn't now vulnerable, I don't know what existing NDP seat in Ontario *is*.
Truth is Proulx recovered a bit of what he formerly lost in the 2004 election, debator, and he is far from the 51% the Liberals had in 2000, with his 37.5% and there was a new Bloc candidate last year. The votes are fluid in that riding, and if Iggy continues his flop, it could be up for grabs.
Well naturally the Liberal support in that riding (and in many others) isn't back up at 2000 levels because the Liberals were far below the 2000 levels in 2008! Doesn't that go without saying? The Liberals won a majority government in 2000 and won the popular vote in Quebec and their best performance in Quebec since 1980. 2008 was far below that result. 2000 and 2008 are not comparable elections.
The point is that a number of ridings in Quebec, including Hull-Aylmer, showed modest Liberal recovery in 2008 and showed the Liberals on the upswing in Quebec rather than going down as in 2004 and 2006.
Therefore, since the Liberals didn't lose Hull-Aylmer even when they were at rock bottom levels in Quebec during the sponsorship scandal, they are unlikely to lose it anytime soon now that they are going up again.
I think that's an excellent analysis, adma. I think it is fair game to say the NDP to has to be careful in Sudbury and Welland as they were very close calls.
You have done some good analysis there adma, much appreciated.
The potential for the NDP to be competitive in a riding also comes down to how familiar a particular candidate is in that riding.
To run for the NDP, candidates should automatically be prepared to have their names stand two (or three) times.
Look at all the northern Ontario New Democrat M.P.'s who ran 2 or 3 times before they were elected.
Here in South Shore-St. Margaret's, Gordon Earle was a comfortable third the first time he ran in 2004, came second in 2006, and was just 932 votes short of winning in 2008. Hopefully, he will agree to run once more, and given the provincial results of June 9th, stands an exceptional chance at winning S.S.S.M. next time.
I will predict that Ignatieff will completely and fully rule out ANY coalition. That will score more points then lose.
I predict that Jack Layton will say the NDP are ready for a coalition and that should just about put a nail in the coffin for many NDP candidates looking to win a new NDP seat.
Coalition has become a dirty word. It will reappear in the next election because the Conservatives already see the political merit in pointing it out. They will use it to try to pin both Ignatieff and Layton down.
Jack is still defending his coalition maneuver and the fact that he has to defend it would suggest that this is an issue that puts the NDP on their heels not stepping forward.
The better NDP route would be to maintain working with the parliment that Canadians Form, which by all accounts will be another minority government.
WHile a coalition is a far superior tool then the current Bullshit we see today in parliment, IE a written agreement not to bring down the government is far better then the threat of election every third day, the fact is, people don't understand the value of a coalition and its far to late to explain that after the fact. Its not campaign material.
Therefore I fully and completely expect Ignatieff to say in no uncertain terms... NO COALITION and then after the seat count and the election is over.... a coalition if necessary. :)
I expect the NDP has a strong base, but will spend alot of the next campaign on their heels.
Its hard to promote a party that is viewed in the general public as a party that has been against everything, and exactly what did the NDP accomplish in the last parliment?
Directly contradicting what madmax just said
I agree with Stockholm that this will be what Iggy and the Liberal brain trust will decide. But it will only work if Iggy improves hugely and real fast on not letting panic and loose tongue get away with him. One slip on this one and he'll end up painting himself into a corner: no coalition.
Bottom line- whatever they decide, whatever he does, whether he slips or not, there is going to be a whole lot of squirming and pressure in the good ship LPC around this one. Whatever the particular eventual outcome, such pressure causes people to get thrown off.... and the LPC are under a LOT of such pressure points. Iggy obviously does not handle that well, and maynot have time to learn [if he can]... but even though the brain trust rarely speaks directly to the public, I certainly don't get the impression that they handle this pressure well either. Seem too prone to be effected by drinking all that bath water.
Despit having said I am contradicting madmax, I think this is plausible:
But it sounds plausible now before we hear all the framing the Conservatives will be doing. When we see how that works, the Libs changing tack will look hugely more expensive, even if they do get to be government that won't solve all credibility problems.
I saw that Jack Layton is going to the Kenora nomination meeting next week. Also there is a joint nomination meeting coming up in Edmonton. You've got Kenora, but not Edmonton East, I notice.
ETA:
...the number one Liberal seat to target is Gatineau. Does anyone know what is presently going on organizationwise in this Quebec riding.
Not a lot of detail, but apparently Françoise Boivin is running again. She is currently the co-president of the Quebec section of the federal party, or something like that. I'm pretty sure that seat is amongst the top non-incumbent priorities, or at least I would certainly be shocked if it weren't.
Thanks OO.
Well if my calculations are correct, although the NDP came 3rd in Kenora, the NDP was only 17% behind the winner, whereas in Edmonton East, although the NDP came 2nd, the NDP was 20% behind the winner there.
I'm continuing to add to the list and will do a little revision as I previously omitted Vancouver Centre.
All the NDP needs to do in the next election is HOLD onto its current 37 seats, and WIN 20 seats from the Libs, and the NDP will form the Official Opposition.
Looking at the stats, it seems that the NDP, apart from HOLDING the 37 seats it currently holds, needs to start organizing to WIN in the following seats, and the number one Liberal seat to target is Gatineau.
Another good strategy is the "buddy" system, whereby each sitting NDP MP is responsible for two ridings, their own, and the closest one to them designated by the NDP's chief organizer.
1 SK Sastatoon-Rosetown-Biggar 2nd, 1%, 262 votes C
2 NS South Shore-St Margaret's 2nd, 2%, 932 votes C
3 NL St John's South-Mount Pearl 2nd, 3%, 949 votes C
4 BC Surrey North 2nd, 3%, 1,106 votes C
5 QC Gatineau , 2nd, 3%, 1,577 votes B
6 BC Vancouver Island North 2nd, 4%, 2,497 votes C
7 ON Oshawa 2nd, 7%, 3,201 votes C
8 ON Parkdale-High Park 2nd, 7%, 3,373 votes L-1
9 NU Nunavut 3rd, 7%, C
10 NS Dartmouth-Coal Harbour 2nd, 8%, 3,223 votes L-2
11 ON Beaches-East York 2nd, 9%, 4,092 votes L-3
12 BC Newton-Nrth Delta 3rd, 10%, L-4
13 SK Regina-Qu'Appelle 2nd, 10%, 2,809 votes C
14 SK Palliser 2nd, 10%, 3,294 votes C
15 BC Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo 2nd, 10%, 5,608 votes C
16 BC Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 3rd, 11%, L-5
17 NS Halifax West 2nd, 12%, 4,928 votes L-6
18 ON Essex 3rd, 13%, C
19 BC Vancouver-Centre 3rd, 14% L-7
20 ON Davenport 2nd, 15%, 5,057 votes L-8
21 BC Nanaimo-Alberni, 2rd, 9,250 votes C
22 ON Kenora 3rd, 17%, L-9
23 ON Hull-Aylmer 3rd, 17%, L-10
24 BC Vancouver South 3rd, 18%, L-11
25 NB Fundy-Royal 2nd, 18%, 9,304 votes C
26 ON York South-Weston 2nd, 19%, 6,430 votes L-12
27 BC Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission 2nd, 19%, 9,618 votes C
28 ON Kitchener Centre 3rd, 19%, C
29 AB Edmonton East 2nd, 20%, 8,169 votes C
30 MB Kildonan-St Paul 2nd, 21%, 7,658 votes C
31 ON Kingston & the Islands 3rd, 22%, L-13
32 NS King-Hants 3rd, 22%, L-14
33 ON London North Centre 3rd, 22%, L-15
34 BC Fleetwood-Port Kells, 3rd, 22%, C
35 ON Scarborough Southwest 3rd, 23%, L-16
36 SK Regina-Lumdsen-Lake Centre 2nd, 23%, 7,090 votes C
37 QC Westmount 2nd, 24%, 9,137 votes L-17
You forgot: Gatineau's not Liberal, it's Bloc.
I wonder if it might not be time to take another look at Cambridge, Ontario given the business dealings of the current MP/cabinet minister !
Hmmm that was insightful OO.
I don't know much about the area, to be honest with you, but my impression is that it's another medium-sized Ontario city with an industrial base that's probably feeling the effects of the recession like Kitchener and Guelph.
You forgot: Gatineau's not Liberal, it's Bloc.
Thanks adma, your feedback is appreciated, and the adjustments have been made.
Cambridge, eh!
The NDP support was 29% behind the winner in 2008, but neck & neck with the 2nd place Libs (less than 4% difference).
OO, had a look at the numbers at the Pundit's Guide, and the NDP have been trending up overall since 2000, but are still a long way back.
The "Christian" support of Goodyear, is a major thing I suppose, but how his ties to the whole adoption thing, will impact others who supported him could make it a tighter 3 way race.
The "Christian" support of Goodyear, is a major thing I suppose, but how his ties to the whole adoption thing, will impact others who supported him could make it a tighter 3 way race.
What do you mean by "Christian" support
remind, when there is an issue with incumbency, and given good candidate recruitment, all bets are off. Better to look at the demographics. I don't know about the religious attitudes and church-going behaviours in that part of the province, but I have heard that christian radio is one of the fastest growing segments of the outside-core-urban media market.
On a separate but apparently related topic, the new Babble really should do a MUCH better job with tables, shouldn't it (grrr) !!
From Star article
Then look at the demographics of Cambridge NR
It was 6th in the country for percent of the labour force being in manufacturing jobs in 2006, for example. I'm just saying, don't get so tied up in how we did last time ... if we thought that way, we'd never have Outremont or St. John's East now, would we ?
I agree. Yes, use the previous results as a base, but much fine tuning is required.
Working the riding is essential. If you want to win a riding, the best time to start organizing is the day after the last election. Ideally all ridings now have people knocking on doors, and get many of those candidates nominated now.
Don't think either of those 2 ridings have the same evangelical demographics that will not be voting NDP until they realize:
1. There is no such thing as the rapture
2. It is not those who believe in social justice who are out to rule the world.
3. Humans rights are for all
;)
There are a lot of Christians who vote NDP
Even evangelical Christians
Source?
I think the NDP should look at trying to make gains in the Atlantic provinces and the West. As great as it would be to grab a second
QC seat, and Gatineau is still a possibility, Mulcair is going to have a VERY tough fight on his hands to keep Outremont with Liberal
numbers in the province returning to a more normal historical level.
Similarly, the Liberals will doubtlessly do better in Ontario next
election, but most of the seats the Libs would gain in Ontario would come from the Tories. The only NDP seats at risk from Lib take
over in Ontario are some of the Northern Ontario seats that flipped Lib-NDP in 08 like Algoma, Sudbury, and Thunder Bay - Rainy River
while while other NDP seats which have been NDP for a couple election cycles now like Ottawa Centre and the Windsor/Hamilton seats.
If generally speaking, Lib numbers in Ontario go up, Tory numbers go down, and NDP numbers stay the same/go up a bit, this could
open three-way seats up like Kenora, Cambridge, Essex, Brant, etc. On the whole, the NDP should be looking to stay the course in Ontario
perhaps trying to pick up some Southern Ontario Tory seats to balance out potential losses to the Libs in Northern Ontario.
If Ontario and Quebec have a "hold the line" strategy, the Atlantic provinces have some room for NDP growth, particularly Nova Scotia on
the back of the provincial NDP win there. At best, however, this means a handful more seats, Cumberland - Colchester - Musquodoboit Valley,
South Shore - St. Margaret's, and St. John's South - Mount Pearl.
It is in the Praries however, that a "Tory down, Lib up" scenario is for the best. In most ridings in the Praries, the NDP is ahead of the Liberals,
so if the Liberals rise a bit in the Praries, in probably won't be able to net them many seats (and more importantly, not many NDP seats,
Churchill is the only NDP seat in the Praries the Liberals could have a shot at). However, Liberal gains at the expense of the Tories
could translate into NDP victories in ridings like Palliser, Regina - Qu'Appelle, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Selkirk-Interlake, Edmonton East,
Kamloops - Thompson - Cariboo, ridings like that.
In the long run, looking primarily West could be usefully for several reasons. Let's assume the Liberals win the next election, based
largely on gains from the BQ in Quebec, and the Conservatives in Ontario, leaving NDP support levels in Eastern/Central Canada
reletively untouched or at most, gaining a couple seats off the Dippers (which as I mentioned could be countered by gaining off the Tories
in Southern Ontario). The Libs might gain back some traditonally Lib western seats like Saint Boniface, but by and large, will be weak
west of Ontario. With the Tories out of power, Harper will be turfed almost immediately, leaving the Tories in disarry. The NDP, assuming
it has made gains in Western Canada, will now be able to speak to a Western-weak narrow Lib minority and speak as the voice of the West, either
in opposition, putting the heat on the leadership Tories or the directionless Bloc to prop up the minority, or wrangle some very big consessions out
of Iggy (which in turn would weaken his hold on the party and the minority, as his right-leaning crew of plotters chaffes at being pushed to the left)
Anyway just my thoughts and a potential post-election scenario.
When it comes to Cambridge, remember that it was Max Saltsman turf back in the 60s and 70s, and the NDP nipped the Liberals for 2nd in 1988--and provincially, it was Mike Farnan country during the Rae years, and Farnan even managed a very Alexa-era-credible 20% federal run in 1997. (And when it comes to the "religious vote", remember that Farnan, a devout Roman Catholic, was part of the NDP's anti-Bill 167 "conservative caucus"--though that didn't stop him from supporting Gary Gibson provincially in 1999. I'm sure there are a lot of "Farnan conservatives" among Goodyear's supporters, FWIW.)
So on balance, the NDP in Cambridge has actually been historically stronger than the Liberals--though that's shown signs of dissipating in recent years as Cambridge has grown more GTA-like in its new developments. Indeed, it's a little wonky to claim that "the NDP have been trending up overall since 2000" in Cambridge, in part because the NDP's tended to trend up overall all over Ontario since 2000, in part because 2000 actually marked a significant comedown from 1997 sans Farnan, and in part because a weaker candidate led to a significant 2004-06 drop in share in Cambridge. So, until Max Lombardi's most recent surprisingly close 3rd place finish, there might have been a valid claim that Cambridge was trending away from the NDP, by and large--and had Janko Peric run again, Lombardi might well have been held back to a 2006-style result. And Lombardi's share, at 19.6%, remained lower than that of Gary Price in 2004 and Mike Farnan in 1997.
Still, even after all that I've said, I agree that it's a race worth pursuing.
Starsuburb your cut and paste formatting is difficult to read, perhaps an edit?
You know, if I may judge from the scale of victory in a seat like Algoma, I suspect that it may be less at raw Liberal risk than it may appear--in part because it was "latently NDP" all along; it's just that it had to escape the shadow of the Mike Pearson/Moe Foster years, together with the black hole the NDP fell into in the 1990s.
Moving further west, the curious thing about Saskatchewan I find is that while it was the only place remaining where the NDP had some semblance of a "good name" in 1993 (a provincial spillover from Romanow), it might be the only place now where (thanks to Lingenfeltergate) the NDP brand might be tarred by a 1993-style pratfallishness--though emphasis upon "might", because it's yet hard to judge. (A much more comparable federal outlier might be Manitoba in 1988, where the NDP lost ground thanks to the provincial Pawley implosion and the Carstairs phenomenon.)
Um, has anyone given any thought to what policies the NDP might offer?
Or does that not count as strategy?
There are a lot of Christians who vote NDP
That's absurd!! Jesus was obviously a supply side conservative hawk for Christ's sake.
There's no rule saying you can't tell us what you think they should be, Stephen.
How about a Guaranteed Annual Income?
That's an interesting proposal.
Looking at the latest polling stats from the ARS website, the NDP needs to be offering policies that appeal to the middle-aged and seniors, as that is where the NDP comes up short.
How about a Guaranteed Annual Income?
Umm, no thanks. We want to eliminate poverty, not "guarantee" it.
So giving money to poor people is obviously not the place to start, right?
So giving money to poor people is obviously not the place to start, right?
Yeah, that should keep them happy for a while. Never thought of that.
So giving money to poor people is obviously not the place to start, right?
Is this what social democrats have done in creating a top five competitive economy in Sweden? Or do they tend to compare with Canada's social democrats on things like generous EI benefits - access to job training and re-training - makng PSE accessible to all - and well-funded public services, like daycare, a national housing strategy, and top notch public health services?
In Sweden, labour market inequality is comparable to that in the US, and their taxation system is roughly neutral as far as redistribution policy goes.
Sweden's success in reducing inequality in disposable income is entirely due to its system of transfers to those with low incomes.
Okay, and since youre bigger than me as far as economics goes, I cant argue. But I have a sneaking suspicion that Sweden's draws some economic strength from having good macroeconomic policies. And if corporate taxes are low in Sweden, then their overall federal tax revenues must be high in order to pay for the socialism? I think they have relatively high VAT taxes, their consumption taxes equivalent to our GST. So why can't we simply raise taxes on consumption here in Canada and pay for social democracy that way instead of relying on markets for financing of new infrastructure and social programs, and poverty reduction?
And before you remind me that the NDP is against raising GST on text books and basic necessities, does Canada have other options for raising overall tax revs which Sweden does not?
Not really. Sweden's VAT rate is something like 25-28%, if memory serves. I'd support adding another surtax on people in the top 1% of the income distribution (roughly 500k or more), but that's not going to bring in all that much in the way of extra money.
A Guaranteed Annual Income would eliminate income poverty. If we can't afford it now, the least the NDP could do would be to bring in a negative income tax for those on social assistance as the NDP has started to phase in in Manitoba. That would cost almost nothing and help a lot of low income Canadians get off assistance and hopefully out of poverty.
A negative income tax and a GAI are pretty much based on the same idea, and (depending on how they're structured) are generally considered to be equivalent.
Not really. Sweden's VAT rate is something like 25-28%, if memory serves. I'd support adding another surtax on people in the top 1% of the income distribution (roughly 500k or more), but that's not going to bring in all that much in the way of extra money.
I was thinking of aggregate tax burdens According to that, Sweden has the highest tax burden as a percentage of GDP. And I think Canada is somewhere below the OECD average.
Sweden is not a significant exporter of fossil fuels and hydroelectric power as Canada is. Perhaps taxing those items should be considered as vital to our standard of living and tied to socio-environmental responsibility etc
And we have three tiers of government in Canada but with competition between provinces wrt the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates as that relates to jobs and investment. But surely the feds have room to manouver as far as overal tax revenues are concerned
I think we need to consider a futuristic economy not one as reliant on natural resource exports. Easier said than done I suppose.
Is this what social democrats have done in creating a top five competitive economy in Sweden? Or do they tend to compare with Canada's social democrats on things like generous EI benefits - access to job training and re-training - makng PSE accessible to all - and well-funded public services, like daycare, a national housing strategy, and top notch public health services?
Right on, Fidel. The best road to the elimination of poverty is the universal, public, and free/affordable access to all the necessities of life which now cost money, a few of which you have listed - along with jobs - combined with the social ownership of the levers of wealth production, but you can make huge inroads before going that far. Then you won't have to dole out "income transfers" to the poor, with the exception of the aged and disabled.
A negative income tax and a GAI are pretty much based on the same idea, and (depending on how they're structured) are generally considered to be equivalent.
It's true that they can be structured to achieve the same end. The negative income tax element is important if you want to avoid creating an economic disincentive to work- as Western Europe has discovered.
On the subject of government revenues, why not legalise, regulate, and tax marijuana so that you can actually afford to fight it like the public (and social) health problem that it is? Federal government could reschedule it, the provinces could tax, regulate it and finance health care, policing, poverty reduction, etc etc. The NDP wants to get "tough on crime," but they will never be able to "out-tough" the Conservatives, as the Conservative base will stomach any barbarity in the name of fighting crime. Why not stop fighting the sympton (crime) and go after the disease (illegal drugs) in the same way that civilised societies have gone after other social ills?
More ways to save money + promote public health: taxes on junk food
Is this what social democrats have done in creating a top five competitive economy in Sweden? Or do they tend to compare with Canada's social democrats on things like generous EI benefits - access to job training and re-training - makng PSE accessible to all - and well-funded public services, like daycare, a national housing strategy, and top notch public health services?
Right on, Fidel. The best road to the elimination of poverty is the universal, public, and free/affordable access to all the necessities of life which now cost money, a few of which you have listed - along with jobs - combined with the social ownership of the levers of wealth production, but you can make huge inroads before going that far. Then you won't have to dole out "income transfers" to the poor, with the exception of the aged and disabled.
Right and thanks. And there are some economists and politicians on the political left, centre and right backing the GAI or basic income. Economists, I believe, realize that the economy itself does not care where people get money from to spend. The economy itself knows no Puritan ethics or morals. There is no mathematical or law of logic that says we need to punish people with guaranteed low incomes, or incomes that are less than 45% or so of the national median.
I think some environmental economists have even suggested paying people to stay home in order to reduce overall stresses on the environment, and until we can figure out what sustainable economies of the future should look like. Everyone should have a chance to participate in the economy and do meaningful work. People were designed to be in motion, and at the same time I think it's great that fewer workers today are physically worn out by the time they are 45 and 50 years young. And at the same time, technology should be used to make work and life easier and not just to lay workers off in order to reduce costs. The pace of technological change will increase, and workers will need access to education and training like never before.
On the Alberta front, the provincial Tories have kicked out of caucus an MLA who dared to protest about broken health care promises. Sounds like grist for the NDP if they could get a star candidate to run there.
The day the writ is dropped, I want Jack to go on national media telling the story of Mouseland. Then I want us to fo for power, running on tthat platoform/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseland
The Story of Mouseland was a story told first by Clarence Gillis, and later and most famously by Tommy Douglas, leader of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and, later, the New Democratic Party of Canada, both social democratic parties. It was a political fable expressing the CCF's view that the Canadian political system was flawed in offering voters a false dilemma: the choice of two parties, neither of which represented their interests.
The mice voted in black cats, which represented the Progressive Conservative Party, and then they found out how hard life was. Then they voted in the white cats, which symbolized the Liberal Party. The story goes on, and a mouse gets an idea that mice should run their government, not the cats. This mouse was accused of being a Bolshevik, and imprisoned. However, the speech concludes by saying you can lock up a mouse or a person, but you can't lock up an idea.
Mouseland is a cute fable - but it is not in any way shape or form a "platform"
Was the mouse actually a Bolshevik?
Wrongful conviction.
How about putting taxes on sources of pollution (fossil fuels) coupled with cutting thousands of low-income Canadians from the income tax rolls? Or cutting income taxes for all Canadians?
Oh wait, that's called the Green shift and the NDP "opposes" that.
Wiht respect, talking about winnable ridings is not a strategy- it's talking bout winnable ridings. Nor its takling about one single issue or even a set of s issues a sstrategy. Positioning the NDP as a clear atlernative to the old line parties, "Liberal, Tory same old story" putting forth the NDP as the party of the people, ordinary Candians workring people, the poor, peace activsts.gays, women, native peopld, people of coiour- rather than the patiges of the vested interestsa ,talking about forming a new kind of govrenment is a stragegy It lends itself ot a clear left and populist message and plartorm in the midst of the worrst economc cris the world ahs seen since the depression at a time when Canada is caughtr up in a war most oppsoe. I doubt here is a single voter in the NDP universe (those who at least consider voting NDP-w ho woudl not reat positivbley to the Mouseland stiy. Combine a clear differantion of the NDP with some sort of 308 seat strategy and we are going for governemnt.
Cutting taxes for all Canadians is called the Libertarian shit (up the Greens' alley).
Not taxing the working poor - a growing part of the population - will be a part of NDP policy come fall.
A tax on fossil fuels would not come anywhere near the driving disincentive of $150 a barrel oil again by next year, and climbing every year after that. We'll have to subsidize heating oil for the country folks who can't afford to go over to ground source heat pumps (about 9 out of 10). And make meaningful additions to public transit for workers no longer able to drive.
Harris Decima really plugs for the Liberals - that's so obvious.
The key now is to get the ridings organized.
Next election to be hard fought riding-by-riding battle Even if more Canadians say they want a majority government, it's unlikely to happen, says pollster.And NDP Leader Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.) named his former chief of staff, Bob Gallagher, to lead a GTA strategy for the party, indicating the NDP is thinking growth rather than defence in terms of its campaign planning, Ms. Funke said.
http://www.hilltimes.com/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2...
As great as it would be to grab a second QC seat, and Gatineau is still a possibility, Mulcair is going to have a VERY tough fight on his hands to keep Outremont with Liberal numbers in the province returning to a more normal historical level.
Yes, Outremont sounds like it may be a brutal competition between the parties. I hear talk that the Montreal Liberals plan to "smash" Mulcair. They really plan to come at him with everything they have.
What a surprise.
As if the NDP is not aware of that.
Being aware of it and being able to prevent it, are two different things.
I prefer the NDP record, and since Mulair entered the arena, it's been 2 for 2 for the NDP.
But what the heck, what's a little batting practice.
But more importantly, the voters of Outremont probably still do not think the Liberals are entitled to their entitlements.
Always assuming they have anything, of course!
Talk is cheap after all, especially the Liberal kind.
One wonders why they would be targeting the lone NDP, when there is the Bloc and the CPC to consider?
22 ON Kenora 3rd, 17%, L-9
Kenora is a Conservative seat (Greg Rickford)
Thanks bekayne, and I have made the correction.
1 SK Sastatoon-Rosetown-Biggar 2nd, 1%, 262 votes C
2 NS South Shore-St Margaret's 2nd, 2%, 932 votes C
3 NL St John's South-Mount Pearl 2nd, 3%, 949 votes C
4 BC Surrey North 2nd, 3%, 1,106 votes C
5 QC Gatineau , 2nd, 3%, 1,577 votes B
6 BC Vancouver Island North 2nd, 4%, 2,497 votes C
7 ON Oshawa 2nd, 7%, 3,201 votes C
8 ON Parkdale-High Park 2nd, 7%, 3,373 votes L-1
9 NU Nunavut 3rd, 7%, C
10 NS Dartmouth-Coal Harbour 2nd, 8%, 3,223 votes L-2
11 ON Beaches-East York 2nd, 9%, 4,092 votes L-3
12 BC Newton-Nrth Delta 3rd, 10%, L-4
13 SK Regina-Qu'Appelle 2nd, 10%, 2,809 votes C
14 SK Palliser 2nd, 10%, 3,294 votes C
15 BC Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo 2nd, 10%, 5,608 votes C
16 BC Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 3rd, 11%, L-5
17 NS Halifax West 2nd, 12%, 4,928 votes L-6
18 ON Essex 3rd, 13%, C
19 BC Vancouver-Centre 3rd, 14% L-7
20 ON Davenport 2nd, 15%, 5,057 votes L-8
21 BC Nanaimo-Alberni, 2rd, 9,250 votes C
22 ON Kenora 3rd, 17%, C
23 ON Hull-Aylmer 3rd, 17%, L-09
24 BC Vancouver South 3rd, 18%, L-10
25 NB Fundy-Royal 2nd, 18%, 9,304 votes C
26 ON York South-Weston 2nd, 19%, 6,430 votes L-11
27 BC Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission 2nd, 19%, 9,618 votes C
28 ON Kitchener Centre 3rd, 19%, C
29 AB Edmonton East 2nd, 20%, 8,169 votes C
30 MB Kildonan-St Paul 2nd, 21%, 7,658 votes C
31 ON Kingston & the Islands 3rd, 22%, L-12
32 NS King-Hants 3rd, 22%, L-13
33 ON London North Centre 3rd, 22%, L-14
34 BC Fleetwood-Port Kells, 3rd, 22%, C
35 ON Scarborough Southwest 3rd, 23%, L-15
36 SK Regina-Lumdsen-Lake Centre 2nd, 23%, 7,090 votes C
37 QC Westmount 2nd, 24%, 9,137 votes L-16