babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » 9% support NDP plan for environment

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 9% support NDP plan for environment
Marg Bedore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9838

posted 26 January 2007 03:02 AM      Profile for Marg Bedore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems the NDP does not own this issue. Green's 27% Libs 16% Cons 12%
From: Kingston | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 January 2007 05:40 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Link?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 January 2007 05:57 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder what the result would be if we asked a question like "Which party has the best plan to deal with health care, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP or the "Health Party"? Wanna bet the fictitious "Health Party" would sweep the boards??
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 26 January 2007 06:22 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yet

the NDP don't own the issue YET

Dion's "substainable economy" is bullshit. The Liberal party will NEVER aggressively challenge the captains of industry. They're selected by that criteria. The Greens have done nothing to prove they're any better.

climate change denial isn't just about substaining oil, its about substaining an entire gestalt.

Canada has a garden path to go down before they really get the hang of this whole "we're killing the planet and have to do something about it" thing.

[ 26 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 26 January 2007 07:21 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only adds up to 64%. There's something slightly off here.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 January 2007 07:22 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this a recent poll? Still no link given.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2007 07:26 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://tinyurl.com/yuorn7
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 January 2007 07:33 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Josh. I wish folks would post their links when they start a thread on a new poll, if that link is available. Or, at least say where they saw the poll, neither of which was given in the first post on this thread.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 January 2007 07:48 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the link Josh provided:

quote:
What is the most important issue facing Canada?

Environmental issues 26%
Health care 18%
Government leadership / foreign policy 6%
Terrorism 6%
Economic issues 6%
Unemployment / employment 4%
Taxes 3%
Education 3%
Government spending 3%
Crime / violence 3%
Sponsorship scandal / corruption 1%
Gas prices -1%



Errr, so where is Afghanistan on this list? Though, it's not surprising to see how high the environment is on everyones list (it rained here last night... Rain in January? I used to be on a crazy carpet 24/7 through January as a kid )

[ 26 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 28 January 2007 03:43 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Only adds up to 64%. There's something slightly off here.

I don't know and won't say. Still means the NDP has some work to do communicating our plan even if we believe it to be equal or superior to the Green Party's (how much of their numbers sumply come from their name?). It would be a more useful poll if people were asked to rank all of the party's environmental policies, but it would still be based on ignorance and assumptions, as most people would not have read any of the party's plans and would be basing their opinion on media perception or other dubious bases.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 28 January 2007 04:08 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no way in hell that Canadians feel that the Conservative plan is better than the NDP plan, since they still don't have a clue. That just shows how stupid the question is. I suspect if people ranked them we would likely be number 2 or perhaps number 3.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 January 2007 04:20 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More proof that we need the electoral reform that was promised us by the Liberal Party about a decade ago.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 04:27 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
More proof that we need the electoral reform that was promised us by the Liberal Party about a decade ago.

What was that - being able to vote for first, second and third choice? Would that be instead of PR or in addition? Or are you talking about something else?

Anyway, I thought the best thing about this poll (and maybe less open to interpretation than some other pieces) is that 63% supported Kyoto over the view that Kyoto was unachievable and we need instead a "made-in-Canada" plan (30%).

Do you think any of the parties will pay heed to that clear statement?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 04:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 January 2007 04:41 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With the environment so high on the minds of the electorate, the Green Party gets a free ride simply because they're The Green Party.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 28 January 2007 05:16 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyway, I thought the best thing about this poll (and maybe less open to interpretation than some other pieces) is that 63% supported Kyoto over the view that Kyoto was unachievable and we need instead a "made-in-Canada" plan (30%).

Actually a rather stupid question because one can believe that the Kyoto targets are probably unachievable (regardless of whether they are still worth trying for) and think a "made-in-Canada" plan is ridiculous.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 28 January 2007 05:41 PM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Only adds up to 64%. There's something slightly off here.

Maybe 36% support the Bloc plan to reduce emissions. If Quebec separates, we will cut emissions by about 25%. Mission accomplished!


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 05:46 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Policywonk:

Actually a rather stupid question because one can believe that the Kyoto targets are probably unachievable (regardless of whether they are still worth trying for) and think a "made-in-Canada" plan is ridiculous.


Yes, Policywonk, we are well aware that there are some people and even party leaders out there who "believe that the Kyoto targets are probably unachievable", but I just wanted to caution them that Kyoto still means something to lots of people out there, so they should wisely keep their feelings about Kyoto to themselves.

Harper figured that out, and he shuffled Ambrose - now when was the last time you heard any Conservative spokesperson say "Forget about Kyoto, it's unachievable?"

The next politician that says "Kyoto is unachievable" will pay a political price. I wonder who it will be?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 28 January 2007 05:48 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This poll represents, in my mind, the usual media manipulation and dumbing of important issues. The NDPs position on green houses gases, the only really decent platform, is all but ignored while the green washing of Harper dominates the news and Dion is given a green pass without any real examination.

The media is failing Canadians yet again.

Under the Libs/Cons/May-Greens, Canadians will be treated to tax breaks and credits that are designed, in reality, to do nothing but drive Canadians, in their gas guzzlers, to the big boxes to buy shit.

We will be digging the hole deeper and feeling all fucking warm and cozy about it believing we can shop like pigs and save the planet too! But we can't. The problem is consumption, stupid!!!

The greenest, most energy efficient product is the one you didn't buy. Consumerism is planetary death and the media, which is the biggest pusher of the drug of consumerism, will happly lead us down that road.

Last person alive, please remember to turn off the compact flurescent imported from China and sold at a Wal-Mart on the edge of some city.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 28 January 2007 06:18 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This poll doesn't make a whole lot of sense, is Alan Gregg trying to say that the Greens are at 20%? Also, Marg Bedore, you're such a troll - that's just one factoid, and yet unsurprisingly you pick that up to start a thread off with. Hardy har har.

In any case, here's the weirdness of their question, after asking all these questions about the environment, and basically telling people CHOOSE THE GREENS, he then asks: "How likely are you to vote for your local Green Party candidate?"

With the responses being:

  • Somewhat likely: 16%
  • Somewhat unlikely: 21%
  • Very likely: 4%
  • Very unlikely: 46%
  • Don't know/No answer/Refused: 13%

Did he ask any other questions about party preference, other then which party has the best environmental platform? Why would he not share this information with us? And did he ask them after, or before he did all this pro-Green prompting? In any case, all you bordie Greenies should celebrate! According to Alan Greg, all you need to do is pull the "somewhat unlikely" to the Green Camp (recyclable, biodegradable and made out of Hemp ), and voila - say hello to Prime Minister Elizabeth May! And with momentum like that, up from 4.5% last election, it's gonna happen.

I'm tempted to say that Greg is predicting that the parties are getting results around these levels: Cons are at 14.4%, the Libs at 20.8%, the NDP at 11.7% (oh, closing in on the Cons), and the Bloc at a pathetic 2.72% (based on the little non-Green partisan info he gives us). With of course the Greens at 20%, almost ready to surpass the Libs! But that would be a little strange, wouldn't it be?


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 28 January 2007 08:16 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, Policywonk, we are well aware that there are some people and even party leaders out there who "believe that the Kyoto targets are probably unachievable", but I just wanted to caution them that Kyoto still means something to lots of people out there, so they should wisely keep their feelings about Kyoto to themselves.

Kyoto is inadequate, regardless of whether the targets are met or not (although it would be far preferable to meet them, as the starting point for much deeper emission cuts would be that much lower). It means something because it is the only international agreement with specific targets. That hardly makes it sacred, but it is a binding international agreement.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 08:33 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Policywonk:

Kyoto is inadequate, regardless of whether the targets are met or not (although it would be far preferable to meet them, as the starting point for much deeper emission cuts would be that much lower). It means something because it is the only international agreement with specific targets. That hardly makes it sacred, but it is a binding international agreement.


So did you say "achievable" or "unachievable"?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 January 2007 08:56 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I think I can explain all these numbers.

First of all, since the GPC leadership convention, the media has been looking at the Greens, rather than the NDP, as the 2nd opposition viewpoint on the environment. Say it's because of the name brand, say it's because the Greens have better communications, say it's because of some corporate media conspiracy to destroy the NDP. I don't know. But many voters who would have looked at the NDP as the environmental conscience are now looking at the Greens.

At the same time, Stephane Dion has managed to cast the Liberals as "the new Green Liberals". Many people who wouldn't have given the Martin Liberals a vote based on the environment (and would have looked at the NDP) have moved back to the liberals.

Basically, the only people who now think the New
Democrats have the best plan regarding the environment are New Democrats. Same thing with the Conservatives, but they have a larger base, thus the NDP lie fourth. This could turn around depending on the type of Clean Air act finally passed through parliment, but for now the NDP is totally squeezed.

And no, I don't think that 20% number means much for the Greens, except possibly as a gauge of potential support. Its bad reporting to place that number side by side with the 4.5% election result of 2006.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 29 January 2007 11:46 AM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So did you say "achievable" or "unachievable"?

I said what I said. What I believe though, is that while the Kyoto targets may be unachievable, we should try as hard as possible not just to meet them, but to exceed them through methods that will allow for much greater reductions as soon as possible.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 January 2007 11:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Policywonk:

I said what I said. What I believe though, is that while the Kyoto targets may be unachievable, we should try as hard as possible not just to meet them, but to exceed them through methods that will allow for much greater reductions as soon as possible.


2050.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 January 2007 06:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually the title of this thread is a misnomer.

The poll did not ask "Do you support or oppose the NDP's policies on the environment?" It asked which party do you think has the "best" environmental policy.

It stands to reason that a lot of people will automatically assume that a single issue party like the so-called Green Party will have the "best" policy. Just like most people would probably think that a fictitious "peace party" would have the "best" policy on war and peace!

I suspect that if you asked people which of the three "real" parties (ie: ones that ever have or ever will win any seats) has the better environmental policies, the NDP will come out on top.

In the election, the NDP's task will be to educate people on the fact that the NDP's policies on the environment are as stronger or stronger than the so-called Green Party and that the only difference is that the NDP can win seats while the so-called Green party is a wasted vote for a single issue party.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 January 2007 06:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Just like most people would probably think that a fictitious "peace party" would have the "best" policy on war and peace!

Great! I'm voting for the FPP!

Mind you, there seem to be several Fictitious Peace Parties around these days...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
nicky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10066

posted 30 January 2007 04:09 AM      Profile for nicky     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quote from West Coast Greenery;

"Basically, the only people who now think the New Democrats have the best plan regarding the environment are New Democrats."

Not so. Elizabeth May herslf said during the 2005 election that the NDP environment platform was superior to the Greens.

And I've never heard her explain how that doesn't remain the case.If so, what justification does the Green Party have?

She seems to have a virulent hatred of the NDP for reasons I don't understand. She castigates them for defeating the martin government before it could pass certain environmental measures. On the other hand her party may well split the vote sufficiently to give Harper the majority with which he will truly gut Kyoto.

Perhaps the answer lies in her long-standing Tory connections and her lauding of the Mulroney environmental record.

It is a cruel irony that the NDP score only 9% in this poll. To my mind they have been the most steadfast proponents of the envirnment for as long as my political memory goes back. Now that the environment looms as a decisive issue, they stand to be outflanked by a party that looks to me like it is Harper's best friend.


From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 30 January 2007 07:06 AM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
2050

Is that what you're advocating? No targets until 2050??


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 30 January 2007 07:39 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:Say it's because of the name brand, say it's because the Greens have better communications, say it's because of some corporate media conspiracy to destroy the NDP. I don't know. But many voters who would have looked at the NDP as the environmental conscience are now looking at the Greens.

This is funny, and true.

I do believe it is more the brand name that accounts for the Greens' success in this poll, but the only thing hurting the NDP's recognition as strong environmentalists is the NDP. The NDP has been invisibile for a long time, and this poll proves it. We're still harping on the 2002 election when Sierra said we had a better platform than the Greens. Well guess, what--no one cares or remembers that. I haven't heard anything but "hard-working families" or whatever out of Layton's mouth for a long time.

The GPC is in the middle of an unprecedented surge, and the LPC just voted in their greenest (looking) leader of all time. Maybe it's time to think about changing your tack, Jack.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 30 January 2007 07:50 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But that's utter bullshit. First, the NDP has the best and most comprehensive policy on climate change and has been talking about the future not 2002.

Second, the Tories are being painted green, as is Dion, by the corporate media. Third, the Green Party, a non-environmental party that has conservatives leading young, unsophisticated idealists by the nose, seems poised to help ensure no meaningful legislation to preserve the environment or prevent climate change ever comes forward,

Most disturbing, to me, is the way people buy into the mainstream media hype and allow the debate to be shaped by the very same forces that are opposed to any real environmental progress.

Your kids will thank you in between killing each other for water.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 January 2007 08:06 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I haven't heard anything but "hard-working families" or whatever out of Layton's mouth for a long time.

God forbid that we should be talking about trivial fringe issues like families having a hard time making ends meet!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 30 January 2007 08:13 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My point was that he's talking in meaningless platitudes rather than advocating meaningful change.

And FM, Who is "buying in" to the hype here? Me, posters, or the people in the poll? I certainly don't think the Liberals are serious about climate change, and I credit the NDP with helping moving this issue to the forefront of the Canadian imagination. But the problem is, they aren't adequately communicating an ability to actually do something about it. Blame it on some MSM conspiracy if it makes you feel better, but the fact is they need to do better.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 January 2007 08:57 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are some of the "meaningless platitudes" (sic.) you are referring to (they are wayyy more substantive than any of the platudinous pap that we see from the Liberals or the so-called Greens):

quote:
The NDP’s Proposed Amendments

Legislate through the new Act, rather than regulations, short-, medium- and long-term targets for absolute greenhouse gas reductions by requiring Canada to meet:

its Kyoto Protocol 2008-2012 target;
a science-based 2050 target of 80% below 1990 levels; and
interim targets at five year intervals between 2015 and 2050.
Legislate in the Act, rather than in the Notice of Intent, an earlier deadline for regulating the industrial sector. These regulations to be in place by 2008.
Legislate in the Act, rather than through regulations, a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector of at-least 45 megatonnes per year.
Legislate in the Act a requirement to develop mandatory standards for “criteria air contaminants” within one year of the new Act’s passage, along with a plan to meet these standards that include mandatory emission standards for large industrial facilities.
Legislate in the Act, a requirement for a vehicle fuel efficiency standard, in line with leading North American jurisdictions, to be published by 2008, to be in place for the 2011 model year in order that vehicle manufacturers have due notice in advance of the expiry of the voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. This would be accompanied by a new authority for the government to establish a just-transition fund for the automobile sector.
Legislate in the Act, a requirement for the government to establish a cap and trade carbon market system in Canada.
Eliminate key tax incentives to the oil and gas sector, in particular the accelerated capital cost allowance provided to oil sands development.
Protect the government’s authority to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases to ensure that it is not vulnerable to court challenges by industry.
Maintain effective provincial equivalency rule in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Add new authority for the Environment Minister to designate “significant areas” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, thereby being able to designate “hot zones” such as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin.
Legislate in the Act, a requirement that programs for implementing the legislative targets be reviewed for their adequacy annually.
Due to these fundamental changes, the new Act would be re-named the Healthy Air and Climate Act.
Additional Measures

The NDP will seek to have the government exercise its authority under the Energy Efficiency Act to establish a national advanced energy efficiency program for home retrofits.
To complement the improved motor vehicle measures, the NDP will seek timely implementation of measures contained in the NDP’s Green Car Industrial Strategy.
The NDP will seek to have the federal government immediately initiate incentives to foster non-polluting, green industry growth in Canada including green manufacturing, green energy and green technologies.



From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 30 January 2007 10:27 AM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:

The NDP has been invisible for a long time, and this poll proves it.


I touched on something like this in another thread on the media board. And, although I wouldn't put things as strongly as Catchfire did above, there is some truth to the idea that the NDP is getting squeezed out of the debate on many issues, including the environment.

It brings up a couple questions:

1) Why is it happening;
and 2) What can the party do about it.

The answer to question #1 is multi-faceted, with both internal and external factors at play. My observation is that, at least based on the grassroots opinions I read on here, the typical NDP member is really good at pointing out the external factors (the corporate media, the inability of people to "understand" how the NDP is best for them, etc), but not so good at looking in the mirror.

I'll acknowledge that the NDP faces some obstacles beyond its control. I'll also acknowledge that in some cases--Sun Media comes to mind--the MSM can be hostile to NDP positions (mostly in its op-ed coverage). When it comes to the Green Party, the NDP suffers in comparison, largely because it is an established party that has long been a target of critique. The Greens, as a new flavour, are getting a pass (which, as an aside, is why the NDP should be fighting to have the Green Party included in the next leadership debate--then the free pass would be over when it comes to media analysis).

But the NDP isn't innocent in all this. The party is not great at communicating. It may think it has a vision and developed, potentially effective policy, but the typical person doesn't agree. I suspect that if you ask 10 people on the street to tell you what the NDP stands for they would list off a bunch of things it is against, rather than things it is for.

The NDP is against military involvement in Afghanistan. But how does it propose that the region be stabilized?

The NDP is against any form of two-tier health care. But, how does it propose that the real problems that face the current system be fixed?

The NDP is against tax cuts to stimulate the economy. But, how does it propose to make the double income family of four's life better.

When it comes to the environment, the NDP could argue that it is for something--Kyoto--but, to most, it isn't clear what that means and how it's going to make things better for them. The average non-political person who is concerned about the environment also sees the NDP as an established party that was around while the mess was created.

"Maybe we need a new voice," they may think. The Greens are a new voice.

So what can be done?

The answer to that question is simply difficult. The NDP needs to do a better job of defining what it is that it stands for (as opposed to what it is against) and then do a much better job of communicating that vision. As stated above, platitudes like "helping working families" mean nothing, say nothing. Once you are established--like the CPC and the LPC--then, maybe, you can get away with that type of say nothing crap. Until then the NDP needs to sell people the meat and potatoes it offers rather than the gravy.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 January 2007 10:37 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
can you tell us what, if anything, the Liberals stand for?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 30 January 2007 11:22 AM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
can you tell us what, if anything, the Liberals stand for?

Getting elected. And they are, historically, damn good at it.

The NDP, as the third party, doesn't have the same luxury as the Libs in this matter. Actually, the Libs are unique in Canada for being able to stand for nothing and everything all at once. The Tories get this, which is why Conservatives embrace easy to understand policy like trickle down tax policy ("We're going to create jobs by putting more money in your pocket!"), longer jail terms for criminals ("we're going to make the streets safer by putting the hooligans in jail), etc.

Those ideas may not be popular here, but here isn't out there, is it? Until the NDP is able to define itself in a similar way, it will always be a third party.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 30 January 2007 11:48 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But the problem is, they aren't adequately communicating an ability to actually do something about it. Blame it on some MSM conspiracy if it makes you feel better, but the fact is they need to do better.

Again, you will have to forgive me if I say bullshit, but that is so easy to say. What would you do about it? If the MSM refuses to report adequately and fairly, what is the alternative? The fact of the matter is most Canadians still get their news from television and television ignores the NDP.

quote:
I'll acknowledge that the NDP faces some obstacles beyond its control. I'll also acknowledge that in some cases--Sun Media comes to mind--the MSM can be hostile to NDP positions

How freakin' generous. But it is wrong. If the MSM is hostile, that at least can be managed. But the MSM all but ignores the NDP and that can't be managed. A hostile column or report can be answered with a letter to the editor. Ignoring something can't be so easily addressed.

In fact, it is incredibly instructive how the media has managed to completely ignore the NDPs proposal for climate change while tripping over themselves to report how Harper has suddenly gone "green" without any honest critiquing.

But sure, if you feel better buying into the lie of balanced reporting, feel free.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 January 2007 12:01 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP is saying the following in a nutshell (to name a few):

Canada out of Afghanistan
Cut ATM fees
Universal child care
Pharmacare
A more independent foreign policy
more income supports for the poor
Electoral reform
Action on climate change


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 30 January 2007 12:17 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The NDP is saying the following in a nutshell (to name a few):

Canada out of Afghanistan
Cut ATM fees
Universal child care
Pharmacare
A more independent foreign policy
more income supports for the poor
Electoral reform
Action on climate change


Stockholm,

Your job isn't to tell me these things on babble (I’m, like almost everyone else on here, a tad bit more politically informed than the typical Canadian). It's to make sure that Canadians understand that these are the things that the NDP stands for.

And I'll give credit where it's due. The ATM issue was very good politics on the NDP's part.

It's the party's GST cut, really. Something simple and tangible that people easily understand. In the big picture it, like the Tories GST cut, means little but it speaks to the everyday life of Canadians--Hell, Bob McCown mentioned it on Prime Time Sports ("this is the first time I've ever agreed with Jack Layton") last week so it must have resonated.

Cynically speaking, the party probably should have held the photo-op on day one of Election '06, but...


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 January 2007 12:36 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your job isn't to tell me these things on babble (I’m, like almost everyone else on here, a tad bit more politically informed than the typical Canadian). It's to make sure that Canadians understand that these are the things that the NDP stands for.


That's why we have election campaigns


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 30 January 2007 12:49 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

That's why we have election campaigns


Which brings me back to my original point--that the NDP needs to do a better job of communicating what it is that it stands for. I don't think it has done a good job historically and, although there are external forces at play, the party isn't without blame for its own position.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 January 2007 12:55 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
can you tell us what, if anything, the Liberals stand for?

Looking at their website I see the following, among others:

- reverse the Conservative government’s undermining of the previous Liberal government initiatives including early learning and child care agreements, the Kelowna Accord and a plan to fulfill our Kyoto commitments.

- stop the Conservative government from dismantling initiatives such as the gun registry, and restore the funding cut to Status of Women Canada.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 January 2007 01:33 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My point is that every party has a varioety of specific policies that can be easily accessed on the website etc...but it is usually in the context of an election campaign that the nitty-gritty gets fleshed out.

Keep in mind that mantra "THE AVERAGE PERSON PAYS ATTENTION TO POLITRICS FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES PER WEEK".

If you have a core message of set of policies that fills more tha n the back of a cocktail napkin, its probably too much for people to absorb.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 30 January 2007 11:24 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Looking at {the Liberal] website I see the following, among others:

- reverse the Conservative government’s undermining of the previous Liberal government initiatives including early learning and child care agreements, the Kelowna Accord and a plan to fulfill our Kyoto commitments.

- stop the Conservative government from dismantling initiatives such as the gun registry, and restore the funding cut to Status of Women Canada.


Of course, the Liberals SAY a lot of really good, progressive things.

But they never DO anything about it.

Just three examples:

- On protecting universal health care, the Chretien - Martin ministry in the 1990s launched a full scale attack on universal health care, slashing federal transfers farther than Brian Mulroney had ever dared and farther than Preston Manning had ever believed possible.

- On establishing a national child care strategy / plan, the Chretien - Martin ministry did exactly nothing - until it it faced a serious electoral setback. Then they ran around the country writing cheques with no coherent strategy, plan or clue.

- On the environment, the Chretien - Martin ministry did exactly nothing. 13 long years of exactly nothing. Then Stephane Dion bought a dog and wore a green scarf.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 30 January 2007 11:29 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Again, you will have to forgive me if I say bullshit, but that is so easy to say. What would you do about it? If the MSM refuses to report adequately and fairly, what is the alternative? The fact of the matter is most Canadians still get their news from television and television ignores the NDP.



I don't recall Douglas or Lloyd ever facing anything but a hostile media establishment. As a matter of fact, the media monopoly in Saskatchewan in 1962 (one family owned the two private TV stations, the two main provincial dailies and the two largets private radio stations) was so extreme in their coverage that even rightwing media like the Globe and Mail and the Times of London were condemning them for their bias.

Media hostility (and / or neglect) is certainly real and certainly frustrating. But at some point New Democrats have to choose between a paralyzed self-pity or developing a strategy to go around the media.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca