Die NDP hat aus dem Jahr 2011 die falsche Lektion gelernt

Yeah. It’s the NDP’s increased focus on eco/social justice issues in recent years that has really hurt them. I said this before but I feel like Lewis will be a continuation of this path based on the things he has done in the past and the type of people that have popped up to endorse him. He could change though if he becomes the next NDP leader and he starts examining the playing field.

This article is really picking and choosing what moments it wants to remember IMO.

The 2015 NDP tried running Mulcair to the centre, to appear pragmatic to liberal swing voters, and got destroyed by the Trudeau liberals who out flanked them on the left.

They did try and win over working Canadians, and it didn’t work.

Hard disagree. The assumption the NDP must move to the right/moderate positions is fundamentally flawed. It not only discounts the ability to convince non-voters to become first time voters with their ideological positions, it ignores the recognition the left is far larger and more active/organized then in 2011. 

Electoral victories mean nothing if they can’t be leveraged into a lasting political movement. The NDP went from being seen as the official opposition in 2011, to being the less progressive choice in 2015. All Trudeau had to do was run to the the left of Mulcair, and the Liberals bounced from 3rd place to 1st. 

And when the NDP held the balance of power when reduced to 25 seats, they tried to work with the Liberals, while pushing the more progressive option as an alternative. But voters didn’t envision the NDP’s promises as a different future. They just saw Orange Liberal. 

If the NDP are actually going to build a coalition of working people, marginalized people, from everywhere in the country, they are going to need to be an authentic left-wing party. Something fundamentally different between the Liberals and the Conservatives. 

Disagree with this article, Jack Layton cared about social justice and working class issues. He also supported Kyoto Accord.

I remember Layton was criticized for whipping his NDP caucus to oppose the motion on restoring the traditional definition of marriage introduced by the Conservatives shortly after Stephen Harper became Prime Minister.

The NDP as a whole have a very different view of how to fix the problems we have today, Its the whole reason they exist as a party.

People saying they need to abandon X fundamentally misunderstand them as a party or why we have representative democracy,

The NDP that courts conservatives back into the fold by abandoning social justice isn’t going to be the NDP that fixes the healthcare system, its fundamentally incompatible for them to do that, Their whole view on fixing that healthcare system is intertwined with their social justice positions, you can’t have one or another,

To ask that is to ask the Conservative party to implement a 90% tax on the rich and corporations, its fundamentally at odds with *how* their party views and works with the world.

…um, no? This article gets several points wrong:

1. The NDP success in 2011 was largely a result of Jack Layton successfully wooing almost the *entirety* of Quebec, not because of Liberals „temporarily“ switching parties. The NDP captured 59/75 QC seats (nearly 80% of QC seats!), reducing not just the Liberals‘ presence, but also the BQ’s. This largely happened because of the „bon Jack d’Hudson“ narrative, where Jack Layton seemed like the most credible national candidate to champion Quebecers and Quebec identity.

So, I’m sorry Liberal Party, but don’t give yourself too much credit on this one. In 2011, when you look outside of QC, you will see that the NDP had only made modest gains in the ROC. I think Jack Layton had barely exceeded or just met Ed Broadbent’s record for most NDP seats outside of QC… at 44. Hardly a number to suggest that the Liberals abandoning their party was what suddenly drove NDP success.

2. The article asserts that after Jack Layton, the party allowed its QC infrastructure to collapse and that it didn’t make a more sensible turn to the centre. Again, on both of these counts, this is just flat-out wrong. The NDP choosing Thomas Mulcair, who once was considered a blue(!!!) liberal from the QLP, as their leader was supposed to be a double whammy of prioritizing QC *and* making a move to the centre.

3. And, ironically, the common consensus among not just NDPers but political scientists studying the downfall of the NDP between 2011 and 2015 isn’t that the NDP failed to campaign or suggest it might govern „moderately“ – Thomas Mulcair preached a politics of austerity during the campaign – rather that the NDP failed to, well, campaign like the NDP. Ironically, by trying to campaign as moderates and seem more „credible“, the NDP not only lost credibility on that front, but got outflanked on the left by the Trudeau Liberals.

Hell, I’m an NDP partisan, but I remember taking several of those political compass quizzes in 2015 and always consistently being told I should vote for the Trudeau Libs based on my policy preferences. The Trudeau Liberals were that much more „left“/“progressive“ than the party that was supposed to be left/progressive!

4. Therefore, while I agree that the NDP learned the wrong lesson from the 2011 election, I disagree as to what that lesson was: it wasn’t, „oh they should have campaigned more moderately“ – they did, and that’s why they lost. It was, „they should have just campaigned as the NDP.“ I mean, the lesson also was understanding that the Orange Wave in QC really was an outlier or fluke, and was not going to last.

And, let us all be honest here, the biggest lesson was that there was no replacing Jack Layton. As far as politicians go, he was one of our best, and, while I am definitely biased, he will forever remain our best „what-if“ Prime Minister.

>Instead of recognizing that 2011 was largely a coalition of borrowed voters and Layton’s personal popularity, the party convinced itself that the country had moved dramatically toward its ideology.

Wouldn’t the lesson be that popularity from borrowed liberal voters is a mirage with no firm foundation?

>The federal party increasingly revolves around ideological performance. Activists compete to prove who is the most righteous, who is the most uncompromising, who can demonstrate the most moral clarity about issues that often have little to do with the everyday concerns of Canadian voters.

Issues that apparently have little to do with everyday concerns of Canadians: labour rights, climate change, dental care, genocide…

Issues that CPC believe Canadians are concerned about: stand your ground laws, trans athletes..

I’m also sick of how „pragmatism“ has just become a meaningless buzzword meaning „Whatever the LPC/CPC believes in at the moment.“

>A remarkable portion of the conversation has been dominated by debates about Palestine. Now, international issues matter. Canada should care about the world. But it’s worth asking a simple political question: how many voters in Edmonton, Sudbury, or the Fraser Valley are walking into the ballot box primarily thinking about Gaza?

Whether or not it’s at the top of my mind, I don’t know how I can ever trust or vote for someone ambivalent about the worst conceivable crime there is. You’re going to trust someone with no regard for the sanctity of human life to care about youre prosperity?

All the people who spent the past two years defending genocide have now made a tactical retreat to „No one cares about Gaza“.

>Most Canadians are worried about housing, groceries, childcare, and whether their kids will ever be able to afford a home.

And the NDP focuses on addressing these issues more than any other party at the moment. People like the author just don’t like the solutions.

>But that opportunity required expanding the tent, speaking to workers who didn’t necessarily agree with every progressive cause, and focusing relentlessly on economic issues that united voters rather than cultural issues that divided them.

The NDP is always labelled as the one focusing on „cultural issues“ because they’re the only party that bothers defending them. It’s always the same, CPC antagonizes a minority, LPC waffles „pragmatically“ in the middle, the NDP is left to stick up for peoples basic human rights, and they’re the ones attacked for it.

>2011 was lightning in a bottle, and until the NDP understands why it happened and why it disappeared just as quickly, it will keep chasing ideological purity while the voters it once briefly attracted quietly move on.

Does the author understand that the phrase „lightning in a bottle“ means that you can’t recapture it???

I agree with the premise – the 2011 election was a lot about circumstance and Layton personally than any idealogical shift. I disagree with the notion that the NDP should try to repeat 2011, because it’s ultimately something that’s just going to get you a relatively high seat count (almost certainly against a Conservative majority) and not a lot else. The NDP doesn’t accomplish anything by aspiring to be seat warmers for the Liberals when they get too unpopular, and we’re a long way away from the federal Liberal party becoming permanently minimized like they have in the West – the switch from Trudeau to Carney should demonstrate that the Liberals are incredibly skilled at reinventing themselves, more so than any other party.

I do agree with the focus on labour issues and the working class – but I think this has been happening in many respects and people are very selective with both what they mean and what they’re willing to listen to on this front.