I am surprised no one started a more general thread yet so here it is.
Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader
Thu, 2017-10-05 14:04
#1
Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader
Thu, 2017-10-05 14:04
#2
I have heard comments both here and in the media that Jagmeet Singh will do poorly in Quebec. It's quite possible that he will do poorly here but I wouldn't bet on it. Quebecers are not single issue voters and we are notoriously unpredictable.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-quebec-separatists-watch-canada...
Jagmeet Singh, the freshly-elected New Democrat leader, said in Ottawa Monday he thinks Spain’s denial of Catalan self-determination rights is completely unacceptable. In comments made in French, Singh also criticized Trudeau’s government for not speaking up more about what happened.
This may not be meaningful across the Canada but it is meaningful in Quebec.
The leader of the federal Bloc Québécois, Martine Ouellet, is in Barcelona and has offered a steady stream of video updates on her Facebook page describing updates to the situation.....
Provincial Parti Québécois leader Jean-François Lisée called Sunday a black day for Europe and for democracy. On social media, he said Spain’s government should be denounced and noted German Chancellor Angela Merkel had called the Spanish leader upon reports of violence. “Et Trudeau?” he tweeted.
Quebec premier Philippe Couillard was quick to react Sunday. Quebec condemns all forms of violence, he said in a tweet.
It didn't hurt Trudeau in Quebec that he is anti-nationalist and a staunch federalist. Jagmeet Singh's position on this won't result in a basketful of votes dropping in his lap, but it will get attention and respect. I don't know whether or not he will be a good leader or if I will agree with all of his policies. I already know I don't agree with him on PR but I do agree with him on decriminalizing all use of prohibited drugs. My opinion could change but I think he has excellent political instincts. He knows when to speak up quickly and emphatically.
I think he made a great choice in Guy Caron as parliamentary leader. I think it is smart to focus on rebuilding the party rather than running for a seat and hanging out in parliament. The importance of appearing in person to NDP members and supporters cannot be overestimated. He will meet with and hear from local NDP leadership. Social media and data management are critical but a strong ground game is at least as important in preparing for 2019. I think again of the 2015 election and what voters paid attention to. They didn't evaluate the previous 4 years. They were ready to elect Harper again, then Mulcair, then Trudeau. So, the wisest think for Jagmeet to do is to build up a strong team and platform with which to fight the election in 2019. That fact that Trudeau also took that approach shouldn't prevent Singh from doing the same if it is the best strategy for increasing support.
Mon, 2017-11-20 23:19
#3
http://rabble.ca/news/2017/11/was-quick-—-medias-brief-love-affair-jagmeet-singh
Tue, 2017-11-21 19:06
#4
It's a flawed article, but it's worth chucking in as part of this thread on Singh's leadership (which I am not impressed by so far):
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-and-the-shunning-of...
Tue, 2017-12-12 16:19
#5
As David Doel recently pointed out, Singh's dropping the ball on the Paradise Papers issue allowed the Conservatives to take the lead.
Wed, 2017-12-13 00:15
#6
What on Earth does this quote from Singh have to do with the election losses?
On the morning after his party endured a quadruple byelection beating, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh had this to offer on Twitter: “Each and every one of us has an inherent self worth. Nurture and grow it. Give it time and love. Build a courageous belief in your own self worth and you will have the strength to overcome any challenge you face.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/12/liberals-byelection-wins-...
I think Hebert is correct in her analysis, and unless something changes drastically the NDP is going to be facing major losses in the next election.
The only saving grace for the NDP on Monday was that Singh took a pass on trying to enter the House of Commons via one of the ridings in play, thus avoiding an even more personal defeat.
The downside is that if he wanted to reverse his initial decision to stay out of the House until the 2019 election — possibly because his absence from the parliamentary stage has made him virtually invisible on the national radar — he could be hard-pressed to find a reasonably safe place to run.
It is increasingly fair to ask just how many safe New-Democrats seats there are left in the country.
None of the federal ridings in contention this fall was a promising one for the NDP. But Scarborough-Agincourt should have been within the sphere of influence of its rookie leader.
Scarborough is Singh’s birthplace, and his former provincial seat was in the GTA. As recently as 2011 the NDP won a riding whose territory is now part of Scarborough-Agincourt with 40 per cent of the vote.
Six years and two leaders later there is barely a trace left of the party’s former strength.
On Monday, the New Democrats barely took 5 per cent of the vote in Scarborough-Agincourt, Newfoundland and Labrador’s Bonavista-Burin-Trinity and B.C.’s South Surrey–White Rock.
In Saskatchewan’s Battlefords-Lloydminster, the party finished second, with 13 per cent of the vote. In all cases, the NDP’s share of the vote went down from 2015.
Stacked against the party’s performance in the same ridings at the time of Jack Layton’s last election campaign, the picture is even more dismal. Indeed, the end-of-year polls show the federal NDP deep in third-party territory across the board.
As the Singh-led New Democrats fail to register, the Conservatives under Andrew Scheer are losing long-held seats to the Liberals. The two are not unrelated. ...
In the end the only seeds of buyer’s remorse that may have been planted in the mid-mandate byelections would pertain to the opposition’s leadership choices.
Wed, 2017-12-13 00:26
#7
I think Hebert is correct in her analysis, and unless something changes drastically the NDP is going to be facing major losses in the next election.
Something else that hasn't got attention is that by resigning is seat as an MPP in Ontario he has put in danger the work that the Ontario NDP has done towards making a breakthrough in the 905 area. That risk was inherent no matter what, however there doesn't even seem to be a pay-off for it federally. Of course the provincial Liberals will be looking to retake the area. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts or anyone else's on this matter.
In terms of what Hebert said regarding buyers remorse among the Opposition party leaders, remember that at this point last year neither the Conservatives nor the NDP knew who would lead them into the next federal election, so the Liberals have had a huge organizational advantage. If these trends continue, then it will be time to be worried. Having said that, we have seen numerous cases where the media annoints one particular candidate as a star only for that star to burn out once in public office. Yet, why to party members keep falling for this trick again and again and let the media lead them around rather than thinking independently and making up their own minds? You want to win? Figure out what your party believes in and elect someone who, under pressure and constant badgering, will snap and say, "you've asked what I believe, I've answered your question and given reasons, how people respond to that is up to them."
Wed, 2017-12-13 03:31
#8
One of the things you'd want in a leader is someone who would campaign for the party's candidates, even in byelections.
Wed, 2017-12-13 08:00
#9
I think Hebert is correct in her analysis, and unless something changes drastically the NDP is going to be facing major losses in the next election.
Could be back in the teens in terms of seats.
Wed, 2017-12-13 09:00
#10
Pundits have to write something. Singh became leader just a couple of months ago. I think it is way too soon to be holding him personally responsible for the party's position. The NDP seems to be doing what the Liberals were criticized for when they elected Trudeau. Expecting a new leader to solve the party's political fortunes overnight. In the case of the Liberals it worked at first because of Trudeau's name but even against Harper and Mulcair Trudeau's popularity had taken a dive until the actual election period. Look where he is now.
The NDP is down for a multitude of reasons and Singh may not be able to pull the NDP out of it's slump in time for the next election but he isn't the main problem. It's that the NDP spent years trying to convince the public they are Liberal Lite so could be trusted to run the country. Now that the Liberals are back there is no reason to vote NDP so the NDP is back to its core base. Attacking the Liberals hoping to bring them down again won't work because the reason they were down had nothing to do with the NDP or even the Conservatives. The reason the NDP was up had nothing to do with the NDP. People were voting for the NDP Liberals not the NDP. It had nothing to do with ideology.
If I ask people here why vote NDP the answer will be all about how awful the Liberals and Conservatives are and how the NDP won't be corrupt or pander to business. More specifically last election it was that the NDP would bring in national daycare while delivering a balanced budget every year even though the Conservatives didn't deliver a balanced budget for 10 years. In other words the NDP were either lying or incompetent because those two "promises" could not be delivered and people knew it.
I don't know if Jagmeet Singh can rescue the NDP but it isn't his fault that the NDP needs rescuing. Of the leadership contenders I don't think any of them would be more successful than Singh. The NDP doesn't necessarily need to present the Leap but it does need to present a different moderate and realistic vision of Canada's future to advance.
Wed, 2017-12-13 09:59
#11
Singh launched NDP byelection campaign in wrong Scarborough riding
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-scarborough-agincourt-byelection-l...
Wed, 2017-12-13 12:21
#12
Re: Wrong Scarborough riding.
I commented on this in the Jagmeet Singh thread, so I won't go to much into it here, but...
Doesn't anyone in the party know where the riding boundaries are? One is tempted to say this is maybe good because they've finally struck bottom, but this level of stupid indicates there may be depths they haven't yet plumbed.
And they're complaining they got outspent! Perhaps it's just as well he isn't in parliament, because if he was he'd have to show up to a caucus meeting and explain to the assembled MP's why he doesn't know what the riding boundaries are in an area in which he was born and raised.
Wed, 2017-12-13 13:13
#13
And they're complaining they got outspent! Perhaps it's just as well he isn't in parliament, because if he was he'd have to show up to a caucus meeting and explain to the assembled MP's why he doesn't know what the riding boundaries are in an area in which he was born and raised.
He wasn't raised in Scarborough, he was born in Scarborough. He was raised in Newfoundland and Windsor.
Wed, 2017-12-13 19:26
#14
From Mighty Middle:
He wasn't raised in Scarborough, he was born in Scarborough. He was raised in Newfoundland and Windsor.
You are correct, and I'm wrong. Singh did say that his visit to Scarborough was 'coming home', I suppose to try and endear himself to local voters.
Thu, 2017-12-14 00:27
#15
Oh, the spin...
Jagmeet Singh Says He Didn't Launch NDP's Scarborough-Agincourt Byelection Campaign In Wrong Riding
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/13/jagmeet-singh-kicked-off-ndps-sc...
Fri, 2017-12-15 18:45
#16
Chang wound up with just 5.1 per cent, down almost three percentage points from the NDP's already poor showing in the riding during the 2015 general election. He scraped together fewer than 1,000 votes.
Well. So I guess he placed third. And if he could only have increased that 8% to, say, 10% then he would have placed such a better third. Champagne all 'round!
Fri, 2017-12-15 21:50
#17
What is clear is that Jagmeet needs to come up with some sort of dramatic new "thing" to create the conditions for any sort of improvement by the next elections. I'd suggest that he he stand up to the party establishment types who argued for him on "it's enough that he's charismatic, dammit!" grounds by engaging with the social movements, in PARTICULAR those challenging privatization and austerity and arguing for a less "market values" approach, by laying out which areas of life currently governed by "the market" that he would remove from the need to "show a profit", which values he would place above short-term gain for the few, and how he would recognize the intersectionality of social and economic justice, since neither can be achieved without addressing the other.
Fri, 2017-12-15 22:06
#18
He has the personal magnetism, but this is the moment where he needs to show what else he AND THE NDP have to offer, to put as much clear blue water between him and Justin as possible. He needs to listen to all of those voices that his supporters here dismissed during the leadership campaign-for it is already clear that flash is not enough and that instant mass increase in support simply choosing Jagmeet as leader has not only not materialized, but the party's support in BC has now collapsed(there's no excuse for the NDP ever running behind the Greens in B.C., for goddesses sakes).
Sat, 2017-12-16 22:29
#19
He has the personal magnetism, but this is the moment where he needs to show what else he AND THE NDP have to offer, to put as much clear blue water between him and Justin as possible.
I'd say this is the moment he needs to keep his head low most of the time to avoid giving the opposition attack material. They already expect the NDP to turn left. If he started to speak out for every downtrodden group he will be painted as a bleeding heart that will impoverish the middle class.
He needs to listen to all of those voices that his supporters here dismissed during the leadership campaign-for it is already clear that flash is not enough and that instant mass increase in support simply choosing Jagmeet as leader has not only not materialized, but the party's support in BC has now collapsed(there's no excuse for the NDP ever running behind the Greens in B.C., for goddesses sakes).
He does seem to be listening and keeping Guy Caron close which is a great sign to me.
I think you were being unrealistic to expect an instant mass increase in support.
I don't know the original thread but this article was used to diss Singh.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/05/migrant-workers-group-slams-...
What wasn't quoted was this:
In an email statement to the Star, Singh said he spoke with migrant workers during his weekend greenhouse visit, and “highlighted the need to increase pathways to citizenship.”
“I have never shied away from advocating for the rights of migrant workers regardless of where I am and this was no exception,” he wrote. “Mistreatment and abuse of migrant workers is clearly unacceptable and occurs far too often under our current system.”
Singh’s press secretary James Smith said the leader will put out a comprehensive policy plan that deals with migrant workers’ rights ahead of the 2019 election.
Expect to hear little other than platitudes until we are much closer to the election. It may be frustrating but he will need a costed platform and the fresher the better.
Mon, 2017-12-18 16:10
#20
He's engaged! (sort of)
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh might soon be married as social media posts show him adorned in traditional Punjabi dress at a ceremony usually held in advance of a wedding.A spokesperson for Singh said Monday the event should not be labelled an engagement but rather simply a "celebration of families meeting for the first time," where gifts are exchanged and a dinner is held. Despite some other reports, the two have not yet been married.
Singh is pictured alongside Gurkiran Kaur Sidhu, a co-founder of Jangiiro, a firm that specializes in "new-age" Punjabi clothing. A Toronto-based wedding photographer, Gagandeep Singh, posted a shot of the two posing together with the caption "Congrats to the future Prime Minister of Canada @jagmeetsingh & the future First Lady @ginu_sidhu on their Rokha!!"
Mon, 2017-12-18 16:26
#21
I'd say this is the moment he needs to keep his head low most of the time to avoid giving the opposition attack material. They already expect the NDP to turn left. If he started to speak out for every downtrodden group he will be painted as a bleeding heart that will impoverish the middle class.
Being afraid of what the other parties might say is what got the NDP down to their current support levels, Mulcair was afraid of being called "Angry Tom" so he became the unbearably fake "Smiling Tom", look where that got him. The posture the NDP should take isn't one of cowering, it should be one of "you're not coming after us, we're coming after you" don't nice and agreeable, be strong and most importantly be real. The NDP has the opportunity as the underdog to upturn the tea table and challenge the accepted orthodoxy of the media and political class, so do it.
Mon, 2017-12-18 17:41
#22
progressive17
No one ever wins by being nice.
Mon, 2017-12-18 19:01
#23
People who hate "bleeding hearts" would never vote NDP, no matter who its leader was. People want a party leader to convey strength, not dismissive heartlessness-strength can be conveyed by standing up for people no other party will stand up for. It's not conveyed by looking just as contemptuous towards the non-wealthy and the non "mainstream" as the Libs and Cons are. He won't be ABLE to give the party a new face before the election if he waits much longer-a vision of change must be conveyed as soon as possible, or any chance of communicating it will be lost.He has the personal magnetism, but this is the moment where he needs to show what else he AND THE NDP have to offer, to put as much clear blue water between him and Justin as possible.
I'd say this is the moment he needs to keep his head low most of the time to avoid giving the opposition attack material. They already expect the NDP to turn left. If he started to speak out for every downtrodden group he will be painted as a bleeding heart that will impoverish the middle class.
He needs to listen to all of those voices that his supporters here dismissed during the leadership campaign-for it is already clear that flash is not enough and that instant mass increase in support simply choosing Jagmeet as leader has not only not materialized, but the party's support in BC has now collapsed(there's no excuse for the NDP ever running behind the Greens in B.C., for goddesses sakes).
He does seem to be listening and keeping Guy Caron close which is a great sign to me.
I think you were being unrealistic to expect an instant mass increase in support.
I don't know the original thread but this article was used to diss Singh.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/05/migrant-workers-group-slams-...
What wasn't quoted was this:
In an email statement to the Star, Singh said he spoke with migrant workers during his weekend greenhouse visit, and “highlighted the need to increase pathways to citizenship.”
“I have never shied away from advocating for the rights of migrant workers regardless of where I am and this was no exception,” he wrote. “Mistreatment and abuse of migrant workers is clearly unacceptable and occurs far too often under our current system.”
Singh’s press secretary James Smith said the leader will put out a comprehensive policy plan that deals with migrant workers’ rights ahead of the 2019 election.
Expect to hear little other than platitudes until we are much closer to the election. It may be frustrating but he will need a costed platform and the fresher the better.
It's not possible to establish a new face for a party if you wait until there's less than a year before an election. And there will never be a time when the Libs and Cons DON'T attack the NDP as too far Left. What's needed is a positive case for why a leftward change in policy serves the greater good. It can't be done by flying under the radar and keeping quiet.
Mon, 2017-12-18 23:34
#24
I'd say this is the moment he needs to keep his head low most of the time to avoid giving the opposition attack material. They already expect the NDP to turn left. If he started to speak out for every downtrodden group he will be painted as a bleeding heart that will impoverish the middle class.
Being afraid of what the other parties might say is what got the NDP down to their current support levels, Mulcair was afraid of being called "Angry Tom" so he became the unbearably fake "Smiling Tom", look where that got him. The posture the NDP should take isn't one of cowering, it should be one of "you're not coming after us, we're coming after you" don't nice and agreeable, be strong and most importantly be real. The NDP has the opportunity as the underdog to upturn the tea table and challenge the accepted orthodoxy of the media and political class, so do it.
It isn't a matter of being afraid it's a matter of being smart and Mulcair wasn't. He should have been angry Tom because people want authenticity. Mulcair didn't keep his head down he was touring the US proclaiming the wonders of Energy East as a replacement for Keystone XL, in Canada mocking Trudeau, in Quebec pushing the Sherbrooke Declaration etc. He put out his 5 important platform items a year ahead saying he wanted people to have a chance to discuss them but they were all lame and none needed discussion. Then he promised the impossible.
Trudeau kept his head down while everyone mocked him then he won a majority.
Tue, 2017-12-19 00:01
#25
1) Keeping your head down only works for leaders of the old parties;
2) Justin didnt actually keep his head down, he was all OVER the place;
3) Mulcair lost because he made the pointless and essentially right wing decision to center an annual balanced budget-something only billionaires cared about-as his major policy proposal in the only televised debate he chose to participate in, rather than to center the worthwhile, progressive items in the NDP program, and also because he chose to build a 30 meter-high wall between the NDP and the social movements at a time when the social movements were the only part of the Left where any energy and vitality existed.
Tue, 2017-12-19 00:47
#26
People who hate "bleeding hearts" would never vote NDP, no matter who its leader was.
People love bleeding hearts but they don't choose them to handle the budget. They donate money to them that they don't expect to get back.
People want a party leader to convey strength, not dismissive heartlessness-strength can be conveyed by standing up for people no other party will stand up for.
If that were true the Conservatives and Liberals wouldn't have spent the last century trading power back and forth. People want politicians to stand up for them. They want charities to stand up for the people no one else will.
It's not conveyed by looking just as contemptuous towards the non-wealthy and the non "mainstream" as the Libs and Cons are.
I don't think that's how the public percieves the Liberals at all.
And there will never be a time when the Libs and Cons DON'T attack the NDP as too far Left.
That's my point. That is why the NDP need a costed platform to defend their position against charges of fiscal irresponsibility.
It's not possible to establish a new face for a party if you wait until there's less than a year before an election. What's needed is a positive case for why a leftward change in policy serves the greater good. It can't be done by flying under the radar and keeping quiet.
No he can't but timing is everything. "a leftward change in policy" is way too vague. People aren't voting based on ideology. They are voting based on management ability, more specifically economic management.
He won't be ABLE to give the party a new face before the election if he waits much longer-a vision of change must be conveyed as soon as possible, or any chance of communicating it will be lost.
Change to what? In this moment the only people paying attention to politics are political junkies and pundits and activists. They are people who have already made up their minds and/or people who already know the parties.
Trudeau sold himself as a person first. People liked him and wanted him to succeed. As soon as he was the man with a plan they were ready to support him. Harper sold himself as a solid boring nerdy accountant type. Because of the sponsorship scandal and the age of the Liberal government it sold well.
Obviously the NDP wants gains in 2019 and definitely not losses the truth is the NDP likely has to take the long view. It's only been 2 and a half months. If he started making declarations he would be accused of being autocratic. In some other thread he was criticized for having made a mistake which Caron warned him of in an aside.
Trudeau took two years in which he focused on rebuilding the Liberals and attracting strong candidates to run and working on his speaking and debating skills while his team developed his platform. Singh has different issues to deal with than Trudeau did but the same general overall task. He needs to rebuild the party. Recruit new candidates. Develop a platform. Last but not least, develop a rapport with Canadians.
He isn't being silent. He has stated his concern for income inequality and other issues.
Maybe he is a dud. Maybe he will fail where others would have succeeded. I think it's way too soon to make that kind of assessment and I don't think the evidence points to it. Let's say he does fail. Will it be his failure alone or the failure of the NDP?
Tue, 2017-12-19 10:45
#27
1) Keeping your head down only works for leaders of the old parties;
2) Justin didnt actually keep his head down, he was all OVER the place;
3) Mulcair lost because he made the pointless and essentially right wing decision to center an annual balanced budget-something only billionaires cared about-as his major policy proposal in the only televised debate he chose to participate in, rather than to center the worthwhile, progressive items in the NDP program, and also because he chose to build a 30 meter-high wall between the NDP and the social movements at a time when the social movements were the only part of the Left where any energy and vitality existed.
1) It's not about the age of the parties. While I agree that can be factor the NDP is an old party too. Ignatieff failed miserably as the leader of an old party.
2) By keeping his head down I mean he made few policy statements. That kept the attacks shallow and easily defeated.
3) As everyone should already know I don't know much about history but I think it is very rare for collecting social movements to lead to an electoral win.
I don't care about "the left wing" politically. I care about specific practical changes that improves life for the 99% not converting people.
Tue, 2017-12-19 11:13
#28
Hopelessly naive to even speculate about the mere possibility of considering working with Scheer's Conservatives over Trudeau's Liberals if it came down to a minority government. As I recall Audrey McLaughlin commenting when asked about partnering with the Reform Party in a similar hypothetical situation back in the day (and I'm paraphrasing), "That would be like making a deal with the Devil."
If no party wins a majority of districts in 2019, Singh wouldn’t rule out supporting the Conservatives to topple a Trudeau government. “I’d be willing to work with anyone to help achieve our values,” he said. “The future’s looking more and more bleak, and I want to get at: how do we build an economy where we all benefit?”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-19/trudeau-versus-singh-...
Tue, 2017-12-19 12:55
#29
The last time it might have been plausible to have an NDP-Con arrangement would have been in the post-1972 election situation, when there were few real differences between the Liberals and the PC's(at that point, the major difference in practical terms was about whether Canada should still focus on being a country of British heritage-as the PC's argued-or recognize that those days were past, if they'd ever really existed).
The choices Singh would face in a similar parliamentary situation are between a replication of the PET-David Lewis agreement or deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to vote for whatever legislation Justin submits. It's obvious that either choice would likely lead to lost seats and votes at the NEXT election(and the liklihood that, in the second situation, Justin might simply say "Mendez merde! I'm calling another election right now and I don't care if it gets ME knocked out of office!"
But he has to maintain some mystery. If he simply says "we'll back a Liberal minority and that's all there is to say about it", he leaves himself with no leverage in post-election negotiations.
Tue, 2017-12-19 13:20
#30
1) Keeping your head down only works for leaders of the old parties;
2) Justin didnt actually keep his head down, he was all OVER the place;
3) Mulcair lost because he made the pointless and essentially right wing decision to center an annual balanced budget-something only billionaires cared about-as his major policy proposal in the only televised debate he chose to participate in, rather than to center the worthwhile, progressive items in the NDP program, and also because he chose to build a 30 meter-high wall between the NDP and the social movements at a time when the social movements were the only part of the Left where any energy and vitality existed.
1) It's not about the age of the parties. While I agree that can be factor the NDP is an old party too. Ignatieff failed miserably as the leader of an old party.
2) By keeping his head down I mean he made few policy statements. That kept the attacks shallow and easily defeated.
3) As everyone should already know I don't know much about history but I think it is very rare for collecting social movements to lead to an electoral win.
I don't care about "the left wing" politically. I care about specific practical changes that improves life for the 99% not converting people.
Nobody in Canada has TRIED to win an election by openly aligning her or his party with the social movements, so there's no basis in the assertion that the idea has failed. Mulcair lost more than half the NDP's seats after spending his entire leadership treating the social movements as the enemy.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn led the Labour Party to massive gaines in the popular vote share and sizeable gains in their seat count precisely BECAUSE he made activists and campaigners welcome within Labour for the first time since Blair took it over in the Nineties.
Why are YOU so seemingly contemptous of those movements? Most of the left-federalsts in Quebec are allophones, with a tiny handful of anglophones and francophones, and virtually all of them are involved in social movement work, so I have no idea why you are so hostile/dismissive towards or afraid of the idea of connecting with the only people in Canada who are both on the left side of the spectrum and working politically with any enthusiasm and passion. What exactly do you blame the social movements FOR? They agree with you on the need to fight neoliberalism; it's just that they reject the idea that there can be a generic, one-size-fits all progressive politics focused on neoliberalism and NOTHING ELSE.
Tue, 2017-12-19 17:43
#31
Nobody in Canada has TRIED to win an election by openly aligning her or his party with the social movements, so there's no basis in the assertion that the idea has failed. Mulcair lost more than half the NDP's seats after spending his entire leadership treating the social movements as the enemy.
It was Jack Layton that made the major shift away from the social movements and towards priorizing electoral success by being more centrist and using "kitchen table" language. QS is provincial but they are focused on social justice.
I didn't say the NDP shouldn't welcome social movements. I said:
I think it is very rare for collecting social movements to lead to an electoral win.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn led the Labour Party to massive gaines in the popular vote share and sizeable gains in their seat count precisely BECAUSE he made activists and campaigners welcome within Labour for the first time since Blair took it over in the Nineties.
So what impact has he had on legislation? Has there been any concrete advancement of causes?
Why are YOU so seemingly contemptous of those movements? Most of the left-federalsts in Quebec are allophones, with a tiny handful of anglophones and francophones, and virtually all of them are involved in social movement work, so I have no idea why you are so hostile/dismissive towards or afraid of the idea of connecting with the only people in Canada who are both on the left side of the spectrum and working politically with any enthusiasm and passion.
I think social justice movements are needed for the advancement of humankind. Enlightenment leads to peace, harmony and wealth generation. Their function is to constantly push for justice where there is injustice not to be popular. Getting elected takes a different focus especially from the underdog position and from the left. Social justice movements can lay the groundwork that allows elected governments to pass progressive legislation.
What exactly do you blame the social movements FOR? They agree with you on the need to fight neoliberalism; it's just that they reject the idea that there can be a generic, one-size-fits all progressive politics focused on neoliberalism and NOTHING ELSE.
I'm not blaming them for anything. I'm not saying they should change.
The single biggest threat facing all of humanity is climate change. Devastation is already upon many parts of the world. Far worse than what California is facing. Economically it makes perfect sense to accelerate the move away from burning fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. Neoliberalism stands in the way. It stands in the way of progress for all social movements. So even though climate change is the greatest threat, it is neoliberalism that must be defeated to address it. People are convinced that climate change is a threat and do want change. Neoliberalism has them convinced that they will suffer dire economic consequences if the transition is too abrupt and that other resources can't yet meet our needs for energy. Defeat neoliberalism and billions upon billions of dollars are freed up for social programs and transition to renewables and all kinds of advancements. A new Golden Age despite the challenges we face. The world is wealthy in resources and Canada holds a lot of it. There is no reason at all for indigenous peoples to be lacking in services anywhere on Canadian soil.
One country alone can't defeat neoliberalism, only start the ball rolling. Social movements are important to spread the demand.
The purpose of a political party is to get elected. Social justice issues need to be part of the election platform for the NDP. It wouldn't be the NDP without them. Having said that the primary image of the NDP can't be "social justice warrior".
I think it would help a lot if people would prepare the ground for an assault on neoliberalism through spreading pertinent facts. I'm just not sure I'm up to it.
Tue, 2017-12-19 18:12
#32
Oh god, I'm having flashbacks to 2013 when everyone was sure Trudeau would lose unless he released his platform yesterday.
Give Singh some credit, he knows what he's doing.
Tue, 2017-12-19 21:20
#33
Hopelessly naive to even speculate about the mere possibility of considering working with Scheer's Conservatives over Trudeau's Liberals if it came down to a minority government. As I recall Audrey McLaughlin commenting when asked about partnering with the Reform Party in a similar hypothetical situation back in the day (and I'm paraphrasing), "That would be like making a deal with the Devil."
If no party wins a majority of districts in 2019, Singh wouldn’t rule out supporting the Conservatives to topple a Trudeau government. “I’d be willing to work with anyone to help achieve our values,” he said. “The future’s looking more and more bleak, and I want to get at: how do we build an economy where we all benefit?”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-19/trudeau-versus-singh-...
The article has been amended after the NDP said Jagmeet was "misquoted" Originally it read
"If no party wins a majority of districts in 2019, Singh wouldn’t rule out supporting the Conservatives to topple a Trudeau government. “I’d be willing to work with anyone to help achieve our values,” he said. “The future’s looking more and more bleak, and I want to get at: how do we build an economy where we all benefit?”
Now has been changed to
"Singh wouldn’t rule out working with the Conservatives to topple a Trudeau government if the NDP held the most seats in a minority parliament. “I’d be willing to work with anyone to help achieve our values,” he said. “The future’s looking more and more bleak, and I want to get at: how do we build an economy where we all benefit?”"
Wed, 2017-12-20 06:29
#34
Singh wouldn’t rule out working with the Conservatives to topple a Trudeau government if the NDP held the most seats in a minority parliament.This doesn't make any sense. If the NDP won the most seats in the next election, it would become the new government as a matter of course, unless the Liberals and Consevatives formed an agreement to oppose this. This isn't a direct quote so I don't know what Singh actually said, but talk of the NDP forming any kind of alliance with the Conservatives is just stupid. It plays into the Liberal theme that they are the only choice for keeping the Conservatives out of power.
Wed, 2017-12-20 07:32
#35
Singh wouldn’t rule out working with the Conservatives to topple a Trudeau government if the NDP held the most seats in a minority parliament.This doesn't make any sense. If the NDP won the most seats in the next election, it would become the new government as a matter of course, unless the Liberals and Consevatives formed an agreement to oppose this. This isn't a direct quote so I don't know what Singh actually said, but talk of the NDP forming any kind of alliance with the Conservatives is just stupid. It plays into the Liberal theme that they are the only choice for keeping the Conservatives out of power.
I agree it is just confusing.
Wed, 2017-12-20 11:36
#36
progressive17
Talk of an NDP-Conservative alliance will drive people into the arms of the Liberals.
Wed, 2017-12-20 11:48
#37
It will drive some people away for sure but there is a surprising overlap between conservative voters and NDP voters on some issues, and disgust at Liberal hyprocisy is a big one. My read is Singh is just trying to show he can be pragmatic.
Wed, 2017-12-20 17:54
#38
Talk of an NDP-Conservative alliance will drive people into the arms of the Liberals.
Two birds with one stone.
Thu, 2017-12-21 13:02
#39
It will drive some people away for sure but there is a surprising overlap between conservative voters and NDP voters on some issues, and disgust at Liberal hyprocisy is a big one. My read is Singh is just trying to show he can be pragmatic.
I think it's actually very smart of Jagmeet to make such comments. One of the big problems with some in the NDP is the belief of a two party system, and the way to the winners circle is to replace the liberals as the opposite choice against the conservatives. (Mulcair's approach)In fact Canada has only one major party on the left and two major parties on the right! The liberals and conservatives are both right of center political camps. Using this two party philosophy to achieve a majority government in Canada will never work for the NDP. Not only not work, it's like watching someone intentionally self inflict a severe wound on themself, cut off their own hand or shoot themself in the foot. Clearly the NDP is going to have to seperate itself from the liberals and label them as just another conservative party in Canada. However the NDP MUST draw voters from the conservative camp in Canada to win a majority!!!!! Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely mathematically illiterate.
Jagmeet I believe now recognizes this. Or actually what I should write is that I believe that Jagmeet not only understands this, but understands that the previously up to now approach of moving the NDP unilaterally to the right to draw from the conservative camp is a doomed approach that works only for the liberals because the liberals own the patent on it. Drawing from the conservative and liberal camps has to be done in a much more surgically strategic manner!
Looking forward to seeing how Jagmeet and the NDP is going to expand into this new approach (which should have been the freekin approach 20 years ago!)
Thu, 2017-12-21 17:06
#40
Meanwhile Jagmeet is on CPAC and just said he will not ask any MP to step down, so he can run for a seat.
Thu, 2017-12-21 17:16
#41
If Jack didn't have to get a seat 'til the 2004 election, Jagmeet doesn't have to get one before '19.
Thu, 2017-12-21 22:20
#42
How's that Liberal "Singh needs to get a seat in the H of C" schtick working out now?
By the way Trudeau had a bad day today so expect the CBC Liberal attack dogs to get going soon with their usual silliness
Thu, 2017-12-21 22:23
#43
By the way Trudeau had a bad day today so expect the CBC Liberal attack dogs to get going soon with their usual silliness
LOCK HIM UP!
Thu, 2017-12-21 23:44
#44
[Double post deleted]
Thu, 2017-12-21 23:42
#45
Meanwhile Jagmeet is on CPAC and just said he will not ask any MP to step down, so he can run for a seat.
He doesn't need to ask. Mulcair has already announced his resignation. Will Singh dare to run in Outremount?
Fri, 2017-12-22 00:27
#46
That was a reporter manufacturing news. It would be stupid to say that no, he wouldn't work with the Conservatives in parliament. Once elected all of our MPs are supposed to work together to serve us. Theoretically at least. If the leader of a party said that he would not work with Conservatives in government I would not be impressed. He gave the correct answer. He will work with anyone who will help NDP supported legislation get passed or something to that effect. I believe Layton said he was willing to work with the Conservatives.
Fri, 2017-12-22 07:57
#47
Meanwhile Jagmeet is on CPAC and just said he will not ask any MP to step down, so he can run for a seat.
He doesn't need to ask. Mulcair has already announced his resignation. Will Singh dare to run in Outremount?
Probably two chances of that, slim and none.
Fri, 2017-12-22 16:28
#48
It would be stupid to say that no, he wouldn't work with the Conservatives in parliament.The question wasn't whether he would work with the Conservatives in parliament. The question was whether he would make a deal with the Conservatives to bring down a Liberal government. Saying that you're willing to make deals with a party that opposes pretty much everything you stand for just to get into power doesn't sound like a winner to me.
Fri, 2017-12-22 16:31
#49
It would be stupid to say that no, he wouldn't work with the Conservatives in parliament.The question wasn't whether he would work with the Conservatives in parliament. The question was whether he would make a deal with the Conservatives to bring down a Liberal government. Saying that you're willing to make deals with a party that opposes pretty much everything you stand for just to get into power doesn't sound like a winner to me.
Jagmeet said his words were taken OUT of context. What he meant was that he would work with any party to further his agenda, if he was PM in a minority situation. That the Conservatives were never specifically brought up.
Of course that is what said after he claims he was misquoted.
Fri, 2017-12-22 16:51
#50
BTW...it's not geometrically possible to be "mighty middle" AND "left of centre". Just sayin'.
Fri, 2017-12-22 17:16
#51
BTW...it's not geometrically possible to be "mighty middle" AND "left of centre". Just sayin'.
Center means "place in the middle"