I gave up on the NDP after years of mismanagement. I voted for the party of Jack and was alright with Mulcair. But under Jagmeet the party has been run into the ground.
That year where Jagmeet and the NDP propped up the obviously dead Trudeau government was the final straw. Willfully choosing to support a wildly unpopular prime minister to avoid the election was gross and made a mockery of their name. If you want to be taken seriously as a party and a leader, you have to be in it to win. There could have been an opportunity to become the opposition again and maybe replace the Liberals in time. Instead they chose to sacrifice their own party. If they don’t even want to be a serious party, why the hell should I vote for them?
Why vote NDP? Because even if we concede that all your criticisms of the party are exactly right and unchanged under its new leadership, that still makes them the best of the main parties available to vote for.
Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.
For some reason you can’t say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way
Well there are numerous examples of right wing parties or the NDP completely devastating or wiping out their parties in the face of corruption.
Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there’s no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny’s. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.
Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we’re reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.
There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well
But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will
The party loss after Mulroney was, IMO, primarily due to the during reform party - a division of the conservative party. If you look at voting percentages, the conservatives still claimed 30% of the vote, just divided differently.
The bigger difference I see is that Mulroney had managed to win nonconservative votes, which then left during the 93 election.
That means those liberal voters you claim never bote anything else voted VERY strongly against the liberal party and for the conservatives to give Mulroney his wins.
From my knowledge, the NDP has never been wiped out. They’ve been reduced down to a few seats, much like any other party, but they’re still the NDP. Liberals in Ontario were gutted entirely, not dissimilar to any of your conservative examples above, and lost official party status after nearly 15 years in power. Despite how awful Ford has been, they STILL haven’t clawed back to even a shadow of a party. If that isn’t an example of them being destroyed in public opinion I don’t know what is.
The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.
I mean if we’re being 100% honest Mulroney was actually doing a fairly decent job. And no conservative wanted to see chretien get in.
But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption
And no it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the liberal voters punish the liberal party by voting from over only. That absolutely did not happen. The liberal party continued on just fine it was not destroyed or wiped out in any way shape or form. People just like Mulroney better than they like John Turner
When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there
The liberals lost and they lost badly in Ontario. I mean they had gone through four elections was a major thing with the liberals and they survived just fine. As it is what they say they lost the election badly but the party was not wiped out. They still have more seats then than the NDP has federally now
The liberal party Had corruption scandal after corruption scandal for over a decade and the liberal voters kept it in power and now they’ve been returned to a majority. And we’re already seeing corruption scandals with Carney but liberal voters just don’t care
Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.
The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.
That’s the first I’ve heard of the corruption being a cause. The reform party was created because western Canada, particularly Alberta, was pissed that Mulroney was working so closely with Quebec during his attempts at constitution reform, and that he was raising taxes.
But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption
Just double checked, and the PC party still got 16% of the vote when the reform party appeared, who got 18%. Reform did better because they won more seats because they were primarily western canada, but popular vote, which is the more realistic measure of how well a party is doing, was nearly identical.
When you look at election results through the years, percentages voting for Liberal and Conservative have been pretty much constant at a baseline 30%. Reform split that vote between themselves and PC. The remaining 30% is split among NDP and Bloq, then swing voters.
This doesn’t really change much, despite what you’re arguing. There are a few exceptions but I’d argue that’s less to do with corruption and more to do with the finances and perceived gains by the party in power.
When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there
Dude, I literally just pointed out a case where the liberal party WAS reduced below official party status, and remained there, and that case happened in the last decade. By your own argument, this means they were wiped out politically. They have as many seats as the PC party did post-mulroney, when you’re saying the conservative voters kicked them out.
Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.
You had me in the first half - but I’d argue that core 20-30% that libs and cons have are both so entrenched they refuse to vote anyone else are the ones who are willing to overlook corruption. If cons were as willing to kick out for corruption, they’d have kicked Doug Ford out after his greenbelt scandal. Instead he got another majority.
I’d argue that cons are more willing to kick people out for violating the conservatives political alignment than the liberals are. I’ve seen many arguing that Carney is actually super liberal and these conservative actions he’s taking are actually good and in line with the party.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. So you’re saying you think that the liberals know how to apply to their people better? I mean that doesn’t really make sense to me. I think most people understand what corruption is and can identify it when they see it, I just don’t think that the liberal supporters actually care and that gives the liberal party a lot more freedom to do things that would get the other two parties in trouble
I’m saying that the LPC can opportunistically change their tune because they occupy the middle space. The Cons and NDP have fairly fixed places on the ideological and political right and left which bind them.
But it has nothing to do with that. Policy is one thing but what we’re talking about here is corruption. Conservative and NDP voters are less tolerant of their party being corrupt then liberals are. Liberals will accept a high level of corruption in their party
Case in point. Everybody lost their mind and screamed about how unfair it was including the liberals when Bev Oda bought a $14 glass of orange juice. But the liberals are insisting that it’s perfectly fine at Carney spent a million dollars on airline food last year because he works hard and deserves to eat well. Just on airline food for himself he spent more money than a family of four would spend on groceries in 50 years while telling Canadians they’re going to have to sacrifice.
And that’s just fine with the liberals. But an expensive orange juice when it’s not a liberal? She had to resign.
I gave up on the NDP after years of mismanagement. I voted for the party of Jack and was alright with Mulcair. But under Jagmeet the party has been run into the ground.
That year where Jagmeet and the NDP propped up the obviously dead Trudeau government was the final straw. Willfully choosing to support a wildly unpopular prime minister to avoid the election was gross and made a mockery of their name. If you want to be taken seriously as a party and a leader, you have to be in it to win. There could have been an opportunity to become the opposition again and maybe replace the Liberals in time. Instead they chose to sacrifice their own party. If they don’t even want to be a serious party, why the hell should I vote for them?
Why vote NDP? Because even if we concede that all your criticisms of the party are exactly right and unchanged under its new leadership, that still makes them the best of the main parties available to vote for.
Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.
For some reason you can’t say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way
I’d be curious what historical data you’re referencing?
Well there are numerous examples of right wing parties or the NDP completely devastating or wiping out their parties in the face of corruption.
Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there’s no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny’s. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.
Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we’re reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.
There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well
But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will
The party loss after Mulroney was, IMO, primarily due to the during reform party - a division of the conservative party. If you look at voting percentages, the conservatives still claimed 30% of the vote, just divided differently.
The bigger difference I see is that Mulroney had managed to win nonconservative votes, which then left during the 93 election.
That means those liberal voters you claim never bote anything else voted VERY strongly against the liberal party and for the conservatives to give Mulroney his wins.
From my knowledge, the NDP has never been wiped out. They’ve been reduced down to a few seats, much like any other party, but they’re still the NDP. Liberals in Ontario were gutted entirely, not dissimilar to any of your conservative examples above, and lost official party status after nearly 15 years in power. Despite how awful Ford has been, they STILL haven’t clawed back to even a shadow of a party. If that isn’t an example of them being destroyed in public opinion I don’t know what is.
The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.
I mean if we’re being 100% honest Mulroney was actually doing a fairly decent job. And no conservative wanted to see chretien get in.
But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption
And no it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the liberal voters punish the liberal party by voting from over only. That absolutely did not happen. The liberal party continued on just fine it was not destroyed or wiped out in any way shape or form. People just like Mulroney better than they like John Turner
When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there
The liberals lost and they lost badly in Ontario. I mean they had gone through four elections was a major thing with the liberals and they survived just fine. As it is what they say they lost the election badly but the party was not wiped out. They still have more seats then than the NDP has federally now
The liberal party Had corruption scandal after corruption scandal for over a decade and the liberal voters kept it in power and now they’ve been returned to a majority. And we’re already seeing corruption scandals with Carney but liberal voters just don’t care
Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.
That’s the first I’ve heard of the corruption being a cause. The reform party was created because western Canada, particularly Alberta, was pissed that Mulroney was working so closely with Quebec during his attempts at constitution reform, and that he was raising taxes.
Just double checked, and the PC party still got 16% of the vote when the reform party appeared, who got 18%. Reform did better because they won more seats because they were primarily western canada, but popular vote, which is the more realistic measure of how well a party is doing, was nearly identical.
When you look at election results through the years, percentages voting for Liberal and Conservative have been pretty much constant at a baseline 30%. Reform split that vote between themselves and PC. The remaining 30% is split among NDP and Bloq, then swing voters.
This doesn’t really change much, despite what you’re arguing. There are a few exceptions but I’d argue that’s less to do with corruption and more to do with the finances and perceived gains by the party in power.
Dude, I literally just pointed out a case where the liberal party WAS reduced below official party status, and remained there, and that case happened in the last decade. By your own argument, this means they were wiped out politically. They have as many seats as the PC party did post-mulroney, when you’re saying the conservative voters kicked them out.
You had me in the first half - but I’d argue that core 20-30% that libs and cons have are both so entrenched they refuse to vote anyone else are the ones who are willing to overlook corruption. If cons were as willing to kick out for corruption, they’d have kicked Doug Ford out after his greenbelt scandal. Instead he got another majority.
I’d argue that cons are more willing to kick people out for violating the conservatives political alignment than the liberals are. I’ve seen many arguing that Carney is actually super liberal and these conservative actions he’s taking are actually good and in line with the party.
I’d chalk this up to the LPC being flexible enough to position itself wherever it needs to be, while the Cons and NDP sit on the poles.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. So you’re saying you think that the liberals know how to apply to their people better? I mean that doesn’t really make sense to me. I think most people understand what corruption is and can identify it when they see it, I just don’t think that the liberal supporters actually care and that gives the liberal party a lot more freedom to do things that would get the other two parties in trouble
I’m saying that the LPC can opportunistically change their tune because they occupy the middle space. The Cons and NDP have fairly fixed places on the ideological and political right and left which bind them.
But it has nothing to do with that. Policy is one thing but what we’re talking about here is corruption. Conservative and NDP voters are less tolerant of their party being corrupt then liberals are. Liberals will accept a high level of corruption in their party
Case in point. Everybody lost their mind and screamed about how unfair it was including the liberals when Bev Oda bought a $14 glass of orange juice. But the liberals are insisting that it’s perfectly fine at Carney spent a million dollars on airline food last year because he works hard and deserves to eat well. Just on airline food for himself he spent more money than a family of four would spend on groceries in 50 years while telling Canadians they’re going to have to sacrifice.
And that’s just fine with the liberals. But an expensive orange juice when it’s not a liberal? She had to resign.
I seem to recall more controversy than 14 dollar orange juice. 3 day account, spamming BS.