Now that Trudeau's won three elections in a row (one majority and two minorities), maybe it isn't too early to contemplate Trudeau's effect on the Conservatives and NDP. After the Harperite position (small government and low taxes, no action on climate) was rejected by voters in Ontario in 2015 and again in 2019, O'Toole made a sudden lunge for the centre, surprising the Liberals in the first weeks of the campaign. In the end he did raise the Conservative vote share in Ontario and Quebec, although not enough to win more seats. The Conservatives will have to decide whether to keep O'Toole and stick to his "Liberal lite" strategy, or revert to Harper's hard-right stance. http://induecourse.ca/lessons-for-the-left-from-olivia-chows-faltering-campaign/
What about the NDP? Comparing the 2015 campaign to the 2021 campaign, or provincial NDP governments to the federal NDP, there's always been a direct relationship between the NDP's proximity to power and the realism of its policies. On top of that, under Trudeau, the Liberals have moved towards the progressive side (Canada Child Benefit, higher taxes on the top 1%, CPP expansion, nationwide carbon pricing, legalizing marijuana, funding and attention for Indigenous issues, generous income supports during Covid, national $10/day childcare), and the federal NDP has had to take even more progressive (and arguably unrealistic) positions to differentiate themselves: a wealth tax on billionaires, universal basic income, shutting down oil and gas production (Avi Lewis and Anjali Appadurai).
I think the NDP's strongest pitch to progressive voters is that the Liberals aren't ideologically committed, the way that the NDP is. At the provincial level, with a two-party system, it's clear that the NDP can win elections in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, BC (sometimes), and Alberta (at least once). At the national level, though, holding the country together against strong regional tensions is a major part of governing, and I would argue that the Liberal Party's ideological flexibility and willingness to compromise (carbon pricing *and* pipelines!) is an advantage compared to the NDP's ideological commitment.
More than 100 years ago, the French scholar Andre Siegfried commented on the shapelessness of Canada's national political parties: because of Canada's fragility, Canadian politicians sought to avoid emphasizing social divisions. Ken Carty:
"Political parties had emerged in the nineteenth century with the development of representative democracies. ... in order for parties to be effective they had to stand for something - distinctive ideas, recognizable interests - so that electoral competition between them would offer voters meaningful choices. Thus, in most democratic societies, parties usually appeared to reflect the prevailing lines of social and economic division: labour parties, Catholic parties, bourgeois parties, farmers' parties, linguistic parties, regional parties all ordered political debate and structured electoral competition. To Siegfried's surprise, Canadian parties rejected any such 'natural form'....
"... He argued that they had developed their unnatural form because the country's politicians recognized that, as a country, Canada was so inherently fragile that its continuing political existence was at stake. The 'violent oppositions' that existed between French and English, Protestant and Catholic, centre and periphery all threatened to pull the country apart, and so national party politicians actively worked to prevent the formation of parties that would represent their individual and distinctive claims. For Canadian politicians there could be no appeal to natural constituencies for fear such parties would threaten the stability and very existence of the country (as the emergence of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois seventy years later would prove). Instead, Canadian parties were induced to reject appeals to definitive principles, or specific interests, and were reduced to seeking electoral support wherever, and from whomever, it might be found. The result was an unnatural form of electoral competition in which parties were forced to exist as 'big tents' - shapeless, heterogeneous coalitions based on continual and shifting compromise."
How old is this writer? He sounds like one of those cantankerous old men griping about "kids and their technology" these days. Yes Mr. Hind, the leader does in fact need to be likeable - and somewhat relatable - and Mr. Singh is the only leader who is both. The other two were (and are) like stale relics that smell musty. Their ideas are old, at least one of them is smarmy and arrogant and the other tries to fake it til he makes it. They are not at all likeable and it does actually matter. I would also have to wonder what the objection is to making it all about Mr. Singh? Perhaps - just maybe - some of the NDP candidates didn't come off so well. Edmonton elected a new NDP candidate - in a previous conservative hardcore stronghold held by Diotte (who has a long history in the city FYI). The Candidate busted his chops, had great social media engagement, worked really hard to get himself out there and succeeded.
In addition, did it ever occur to the writer that the way things are done has *insert gasp* changed? The old ways of campaigning might appeal to the over 50 crowd but some of the rest of us like to see campaigns and party platform reveals or interaction with the leader of the party that uses new ways and new technology because it indicates a willingness to innovate and pivot and do what is necessary to reach a cohort. It isn't about social media, it is about using whatever is available to reach the largest cohort possible and meet them on THEIR playing field. The other two parties were deeply negligent in this.
The Liberals didn't have a single fresh idea in their platform and as much as they like to think that everyone loves Trudeau, some of us only voted Liberal because we can't stomach the Conservatives (particularly who fits in their "big blue tent"). The Conservatives had some nice ideas but their platform engagement was absolutely terrible and they still have a number of highly highly problematic MPs that make O'Toole's words about being a more welcoming inclusive party a bald faced lie (looking at Michael Cooper directly) Whomever was running their social media comms should be fired and banished from any comms ever again. The twitter ads in particular were absolutely ridiculous. They looked mean and petty. Both parties should be ridiculed for their social media campaigns actually.
This article sounds like one long gripe that the younger generation got more attention but is cloaked in ideas to help the party. It also sounds like sour grapes.
The NDP spent $24M on celebrity marketing. And it worked! Mr. Singh is now a very popular celebrity. If he chose to endorse products, as celebrities are wont to do, he could probably have a wide range of products from which to choose.
Unfortunately, for the NDP, they are clearly not one of those products that Mr. Singh's celebrity is able to sell (to voters). Their percent of the popular vote is barely above Singh's $10M showing in 2019 of 16%, below Mulcair's in 2015 of 19% and not in the same league as Layton in 2011 at 30%. So what did the NDP purchase for $24M other than a politically ineffectual cult of personality?
You clearly made the excellent point that during the election campaign we should have gotten more of a sense that the NDP was actually poised to govern.
Now that Trudeau's won three elections in a row (one majority and two minorities), maybe it isn't too early to contemplate Trudeau's effect on the Conservatives and NDP. After the Harperite position (small government and low taxes, no action on climate) was rejected by voters in Ontario in 2015 and again in 2019, O'Toole made a sudden lunge for the centre, surprising the Liberals in the first weeks of the campaign. In the end he did raise the Conservative vote share in Ontario and Quebec, although not enough to win more seats. The Conservatives will have to decide whether to keep O'Toole and stick to his "Liberal lite" strategy, or revert to Harper's hard-right stance. http://induecourse.ca/lessons-for-the-left-from-olivia-chows-faltering-campaign/
What about the NDP? Comparing the 2015 campaign to the 2021 campaign, or provincial NDP governments to the federal NDP, there's always been a direct relationship between the NDP's proximity to power and the realism of its policies. On top of that, under Trudeau, the Liberals have moved towards the progressive side (Canada Child Benefit, higher taxes on the top 1%, CPP expansion, nationwide carbon pricing, legalizing marijuana, funding and attention for Indigenous issues, generous income supports during Covid, national $10/day childcare), and the federal NDP has had to take even more progressive (and arguably unrealistic) positions to differentiate themselves: a wealth tax on billionaires, universal basic income, shutting down oil and gas production (Avi Lewis and Anjali Appadurai).
I think the NDP's strongest pitch to progressive voters is that the Liberals aren't ideologically committed, the way that the NDP is. At the provincial level, with a two-party system, it's clear that the NDP can win elections in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, BC (sometimes), and Alberta (at least once). At the national level, though, holding the country together against strong regional tensions is a major part of governing, and I would argue that the Liberal Party's ideological flexibility and willingness to compromise (carbon pricing *and* pipelines!) is an advantage compared to the NDP's ideological commitment.
More than 100 years ago, the French scholar Andre Siegfried commented on the shapelessness of Canada's national political parties: because of Canada's fragility, Canadian politicians sought to avoid emphasizing social divisions. Ken Carty:
"Political parties had emerged in the nineteenth century with the development of representative democracies. ... in order for parties to be effective they had to stand for something - distinctive ideas, recognizable interests - so that electoral competition between them would offer voters meaningful choices. Thus, in most democratic societies, parties usually appeared to reflect the prevailing lines of social and economic division: labour parties, Catholic parties, bourgeois parties, farmers' parties, linguistic parties, regional parties all ordered political debate and structured electoral competition. To Siegfried's surprise, Canadian parties rejected any such 'natural form'....
"... He argued that they had developed their unnatural form because the country's politicians recognized that, as a country, Canada was so inherently fragile that its continuing political existence was at stake. The 'violent oppositions' that existed between French and English, Protestant and Catholic, centre and periphery all threatened to pull the country apart, and so national party politicians actively worked to prevent the formation of parties that would represent their individual and distinctive claims. For Canadian politicians there could be no appeal to natural constituencies for fear such parties would threaten the stability and very existence of the country (as the emergence of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois seventy years later would prove). Instead, Canadian parties were induced to reject appeals to definitive principles, or specific interests, and were reduced to seeking electoral support wherever, and from whomever, it might be found. The result was an unnatural form of electoral competition in which parties were forced to exist as 'big tents' - shapeless, heterogeneous coalitions based on continual and shifting compromise."
How old is this writer? He sounds like one of those cantankerous old men griping about "kids and their technology" these days. Yes Mr. Hind, the leader does in fact need to be likeable - and somewhat relatable - and Mr. Singh is the only leader who is both. The other two were (and are) like stale relics that smell musty. Their ideas are old, at least one of them is smarmy and arrogant and the other tries to fake it til he makes it. They are not at all likeable and it does actually matter. I would also have to wonder what the objection is to making it all about Mr. Singh? Perhaps - just maybe - some of the NDP candidates didn't come off so well. Edmonton elected a new NDP candidate - in a previous conservative hardcore stronghold held by Diotte (who has a long history in the city FYI). The Candidate busted his chops, had great social media engagement, worked really hard to get himself out there and succeeded.
In addition, did it ever occur to the writer that the way things are done has *insert gasp* changed? The old ways of campaigning might appeal to the over 50 crowd but some of the rest of us like to see campaigns and party platform reveals or interaction with the leader of the party that uses new ways and new technology because it indicates a willingness to innovate and pivot and do what is necessary to reach a cohort. It isn't about social media, it is about using whatever is available to reach the largest cohort possible and meet them on THEIR playing field. The other two parties were deeply negligent in this.
The Liberals didn't have a single fresh idea in their platform and as much as they like to think that everyone loves Trudeau, some of us only voted Liberal because we can't stomach the Conservatives (particularly who fits in their "big blue tent"). The Conservatives had some nice ideas but their platform engagement was absolutely terrible and they still have a number of highly highly problematic MPs that make O'Toole's words about being a more welcoming inclusive party a bald faced lie (looking at Michael Cooper directly) Whomever was running their social media comms should be fired and banished from any comms ever again. The twitter ads in particular were absolutely ridiculous. They looked mean and petty. Both parties should be ridiculed for their social media campaigns actually.
This article sounds like one long gripe that the younger generation got more attention but is cloaked in ideas to help the party. It also sounds like sour grapes.
The NDP spent $24M on celebrity marketing. And it worked! Mr. Singh is now a very popular celebrity. If he chose to endorse products, as celebrities are wont to do, he could probably have a wide range of products from which to choose.
Unfortunately, for the NDP, they are clearly not one of those products that Mr. Singh's celebrity is able to sell (to voters). Their percent of the popular vote is barely above Singh's $10M showing in 2019 of 16%, below Mulcair's in 2015 of 19% and not in the same league as Layton in 2011 at 30%. So what did the NDP purchase for $24M other than a politically ineffectual cult of personality?
You clearly made the excellent point that during the election campaign we should have gotten more of a sense that the NDP was actually poised to govern.