Helene Laverdiere won't seek re-election

Hope Caron and Boulerice can hang on.  I guess those two plus Saganash and Brosseau have the best chance of withstanding a collapse?

I guess they'll likely be left with 3 or 4 in Quebec.

If the NDP is wiped out in Quebec, they're probably doomed to lose massive ground in the rest of the country.  It won't be possible to make a case to vote NDP in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the Prairies or B.C. if the party can't be anything but a third(or possibly fourth)place party.  This settles it-Singh has to go.  All that can come of him staying on as leader is a 1993-type result.  No gains are possible anywhere.  Holding the existing ground can't be possible.   Why even chance it?

I know they'd never been strong in Quebec before that, but they can't really survive as a major party if they go back to having no seats in Quebec.  You can't fight on after losing every part of a major breakthrough-the party is now in real danger, if Quebec collapses, of collapsing everywhere else. 

Without Quebec, the NDP can never form government, and it can't really ever do anything that matters again in third place, given that there's probably not going to be many more minority governments, if any more at all.

And it can't be anything but a tragedy for the Bloc, the party of Islamophobia, to make a comeback, which is the most likely result of an NDP collapse in Quebec.

Something big has to happen.  Staying the course, staying with the brainless strategy of saying nothing until the election is called, guarantees disaster, especially since we now know that Singh can never be personally popular(he's had the job for months now and made no positive difference).

It's not the beard or the turban.  It's that he's stood for nothing and made sure the party stands for nothing.  It's that he doesn't seem to care about leading the party to a strong showing, or even about holding its current ground.  The NDP can ONLY be strong in Quebec by having a clearly radical, passionate vision that speaks to people's actual needs(as radical visions usually do, contrary to the delusions of some on this board).  Quebec doesn't WANT another party of the status quo, another party of support for Western militarism, another party of austerity.  They've already got les rouges et les bleus for that.

robbie_dee wrote:

Apparently Romeo Saganash is not running either.

What about Amir Khadir in either Outremont or Laurier-Ste. Marie?

I voted for Amir Khadir in Outremont! He was running for the Bloc at the time, before QS was founded. I'd vote for him anywhere no matter which party banner he carried. But will he run for an avowedly federalist party? Especially one on the decline, and which no longer has Mulcair's winning line of 2011 (which so few give him credit for): "Yes, we will enter into a coalition again if that's what it takes to defeat the Harper Conservatives" (that's a paraphrase), while political tyro Ignatieff rashly ruled that out before even being asked. 

Given all that, it's hard to see Amir going that way. But does anyone know what he's up to these days?

The next leader needs to be either from Quebec or Quebec-friendly, AND be clearly left-wing.  fifty-seven years of NDP history has proven that being just barely left of center and slipping a little further towards the center with nearly every election is never going to work.  People who want a "centre" government, and who put "the centre". 

So Ken, for the sake of argument, if Angus won the leadership, and delivered the same results you to attribute to Singh, does that mean you would want Angus out? What about Ashton? 

How has Singh moved the party towards the centre? 

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/07/09/montreal-area-mp-who-beat-e...

Laverdiere said she was helped in 2011 by the so-called "Orange Wave" which saw the Jack Layton-led party win nearly 60 of the 75 seats in Quebec.

"To some extent, I'm an accidental MP," she said. "It's been a very happy accident for me because I've really enjoyed being an MP."

The Quebec MP praised embattled NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, saying "his values, the causes he wants to defend are close to mine."

"I've always had confidence in him and no one has suggested to me that it's time to change the leader," Laverdiere said.

Laverdiere added that the more people get to know Singh, the more they will appreciate him.

Not his fault she quit.

He hasn't moved the party to the middle.  But he hasn't move it to the left from where Mulcair left it.

I will begin at the end of your comments

Ken Burch wrote:

 Pondering, I have to ask, since you backed Justin last time and to this day defend him more than anybody else on this board...do you actually WANT the NDP to even hold its ground in 2019?   

Buying the Trans mountain pipeline is monumentally stupid to the point of being a breathtaking betrayal of Canadians. It is difficult for me to believe there is no corruption involved. It doesn't mean he groped a woman 2 decades ago. It doesn't change the fact that his numbers are still very good. It doesn't change the fact that he will roll out a plethora of goodies for the election.  That's not defending Trudeau. It is acknowledging the lay of the land. 

Ken Burch wrote:

It's really beginning to look, based on the circumstantial evidence and the progression of events, as if you supported Singh for the leadership because you were hoping he'd run the party into the ground  

I didn't support him. I supported Guy Caron. I only became a Singh supporter after he won. Before that I thought his turban would be too much of an impediment. I still do think it is one. 

Ken Burch wrote:

  1) I'd have major concerns, to say the least, if it was happening under any NDP leader-I'll grant you that it's possible it could've happened under Angus, but it most likely wouldn't be happening under Ashton, because she wouldn't be keeping the party bland and silent on the issues;

I think either one would be doing the same or worse, Ashton in particular. She would be standing up to get shot down every time. The Liberals have deep pockets right now and they have the national stage because they are in power. The media is not NDP friendly. Policy comes with platform. 

Ken Burch wrote:

 2) If Singh has done nothing but drive Quebec support down so far-and the only thing mass retirements of Quebec NDP mps can indicate is that the party is collapsing there-what chance is there at any point under his leadership that Quebec federal NDP support can ever increase?  What can he possibly do there to recover?  It's not possible that the NDP can be considered to have had a respectable showing if the party goes back to only winning seats in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. .  

Yes absolutely but not this cycle. Trudeau is going for his second term. It is rare for an PM not to get a second term in Canada. Trudeau will likely get another majority unless the pipeline issue gets him but I don't think it will. Realistically the NDP has to aim for 2023. 

Ken Burch wrote:

3) Singh hasn't moved the party further "to the center"...he hasn't moved it anywhere and he hasn't done anything but "introduce himself to the voters".  Since we already know that he can't win widespread public support solely on personal magnetism-if he's displayed none yet as leader, it's not going to suddenly appear later-it's been a waste of time just introducing himself. 

Actually he did very well on Tout le Monde en Parle and on other talk shows as well. That doesn't translate into votes at this point in time but it primes the pump. It's a first step. He does reasonably well on the leadership ability polls. 

Ken Burch wrote:

​A) It can ONLY lead to federal gains for the Bloc(there would be no reason for Quebec voters who voted NDP in '11 or '15 to vote "rouge ou bleu" in 19, and they're not going to vote for "les vertes"- the Bloc would be the only even vaguely progressive option for those voters;  

So I should bury my head in the sand? I don't believe any of the other contenders for leadership would be doing any better. I think Guy Caron will play a central role in Quebec. He is often at Singh's elbow. 

Ken Burch wrote:

B) If it looks likely that there will be a federal NDP wipeout in Quebec in '19, that fact will guarantee no one would vote NPD-Quebec in the next National Assembly elections.  

Why do you say that? Quebecers don't vote for matching parties. NDP-Quebec will rise or fall on its own merits and against the backdrop of Quebec politics not federal politics. 

Ken Burch wrote:

Singh might be able to save some Quebec seats if he starts making some actual proposals, talks at least a little about what he might actually do as prime minister-we already know that putting ideas out can't possible be a worse strategy than his "say nothing and dress well strategy"-but it doesn't look like he's going to do anything but keep "introducing himself".   "Introducing" Singh to the voters has been an utter failure as strategy so far, so why STAY with what you know doesn't work?  

I'm sure the ideas will be out there before the next election. The strategy isn't failing. He is becoming better known.

Ken Burch wrote:

 Yes, the Liberals and the Conservatives will attack any policies the NDP proposals...but so what?  Why does that matter?  And why assume that the NDP couldn't possibly win the argument on anything?  It has won the argument many, many times in its history...and history is not over.   

Just the opposite. The NDP must win a major economic argument. To do that they have to be almost single-minded. Five issues is too many. When the election is called they have to be prepared with a fresh bold budget that will get people to sit up and notice. This is the first election in which party platforms will be examined by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Buying the Trans mountain pipeline is monumentally stupid to the point of being a breathtaking betrayal of Canadians.

What if he'd just "appropriated" it?

Claimed it, lock, stock and barrel, and declared it the property of "the people"?

Would it still be stupid?  Or is the stupid part where he forgot to make the senior executives walk on their knees to beg for their comeuppance?

Yes it would still be stupid and Canadians don't want it. It's an aging end of life pipeline. The courts have not finished ruling. The world is transitioning. The money would be much better spent elsewhere. .

Quote:

Please don't drag Venezuela into THIS thread, Magoo

I didn't drag anyone into this thread, Ken.

Quote:

besides which, Chavez had to nationalize the oil industry.

Please don't drag Venezuela into THIS thread, Ken.

Ken Burch wrote:

   Then they need to MAKE a major economic argument...which they can't do without proposing something.

Remember all those attacks on Trudeau for not having policy? Remember the policy Mulcair announced a year in advance?  I am almost 100% sure that the NDP will announce a platform before the next election and that it will contain an economic argument. 

Ken Burch wrote:

  And despite what you seem to think, the social movements you're so nervous about the NDP establishing a real connection with make a LOT of economic arguments on a lot of issues that directly connect with the needs of ordinary people.  

So you are saying what? That the NDP isn't aware of what social movements are proposing? That if the NDP adopts some of their ideas people in those movements will still turn their backs because the NDP isn't "close" to them? What do you mean by "real connection"?

Ken Burch wrote:

 I've NEVER argued that the NDP need to endorse every single cause every activist anywhere in Canada might support...what I've said and what a lot of people have said is that it not only serves no practical good to keep the movements and the activists at a distance, it sometimes does major damage, such as it did in the Nineties, when the party treated the Left like vermin, even when the party was down to nine seats and had no energy or passion in its leadership in an era where the social movements were massive and surging in support.   

That was then, this is now. What do you mean treated them like vermin? Even if they had embraced the left that doesn't mean it would have gotten them votes. I think Occupy was more important than any movements of the 90s. 

Ken Burch wrote:

  That said, it remains terrifying that Singh doesn't seem to care that his Quebec caucus is slowly vanishing.

So you expect him to wring his hands in public crying woe is me? None of the losses are attributable to him. 

Ken Burch wrote:

  If they go back down to 15 or 20 seats again, or lose party status again as they did in '93, what possible chance will there be of persuading any new voters to support them in future elections?  

How did the Orange Wave happen when the NDP had never been even close to that level of support?  I think I know. The Liberals were weak and in disarray with an unpopular leader and Harper hate was rampant and Layton hewed to the centre to be a plausible replacement to the Liberals. Had he lived I think he might have been PM in the next election. 

Ken Burch wrote:

  Singh's current strategy is comparable to an NHL team, down by two goals with four minutes left in the third period, deciding to run down the clock by just passing the puck around without even trying to shoot on goal.   

The game hasn't even been scheduled yet and you want the NDP to publish their game plan with a list of the plays they plan on using. 

The NDP is doomed for 2019. It will be a Liberal/Conservative fight. It is a shame because it could be a long time before the Liberals are as weak as they were pre-Trudeau. In my opinion 2019 will be a rebranding exercise for the NDP. I think it is a generational change. I see it as an opportunity to position themselves for 2023 and they should avoid being characterized as "leftist". Economic credibility is essential. 

The rise of provincial NDPs will help indirectly if they are viewed as having governed their respective provinces well. 

I understand your frustration. The NDP swung right at exactly the wrong time. That is why I think Layton could have won. Even though he moved the party right he had great political instincts. He would have seen Occupy and the rise of Corbyn and Sanders as game changers. It was the wrong time for Mulcair. 

Singh may not have the potential to be PM but I do believe he has good political instincts, is authentic and sincere, and will move the party gently to the left with the help of Guy Caron in designing the economic platform. The next eight years gives time for the rise of new leadership. I don't rule out Niki Ashton as future leader. She is only 35 years old. It is astounding how much she has accomplished. I could definitely see her as our first female PM but not before 2027.

I really believe that out of the field of contenders Singh was the best choice for right now even if he doesn't garner votes and seats. Trudeau was able to go from 3rd to 1st during the election campaign based on his image and the reputation of the Liberal party. Had he been Ignatieff he wouldn't have stood a chance with an identical platform. 

Singh is no Trudeau but he isn't an Ignatieff either. He does have strengths. Your "no policy" complaint will vanish as soon as he starts releasing his platform although you may not like the platform. What will be in it is anybody's guess. The NDP is playing their cards close to the chest. I think it is the right strategy. There is no way to know for sure.