The blind spots of the NDP are gonna hurt them.
Let's talk about the debate, and some serious flaws that I remarked upon. This is an op ed/analysis.
Tl;dr
Yesterday a brutal poll came out. The poll showed something that should be causing the NDP to panic. 70 per cent of NDP voters are happy with the Carney Liberals, and the NDP are potentially as low as 5 per cent in the polls. Whoever inherits the NDP is potentially leading the party into its final election. This isn’t doomsaying— Leger is almost always within 2 per cent of the final election results. They are the best pollster in the country. Under these numbers, the only MP who would stay in parliament is Heather McPherson. There would be no seats won in BC or Ontario. Since Avi Lewis is most likely to be the next leader of the NDP, it would be quite something to see Heather McPherson be the only MP elected after losing the leadership race to Lewis. I’m fairly certain that would set a historical precedent. I’m going to push this piece— I’m so sure of there being an election this year. Insiders are saying that Carney doesn’t want one, but the entire staff do. There will never be another time that the Liberals will be this popular again. They will never have a better chance, and even if Carney doesn’t want it, the Liberals know it.
The debate happened two weeks ago now, and I wanted to highlight some big blind spots I perceived at the debate, and perhaps in the NDP overall. The “English debate” (as though the first one wasn’t an English debate) was a long shot better than the previous debate (which I shredded.)
This one was tolerable. But it wasn’t “good.” These debates are more or less red meat for the base, stuff that makes members excited, and bores everyone else.
The way I’m going to approach this critical analysis is by assuming that they’re going to try and translate these ideas to a federal stage. The debate is for NDP partisans. However, taking that next step is much harder. This entire article will revolve around the idea that one of these people will win, and have to speak to Canada, not just the left.
No one watches leadership elections. No one knew who Poilievre was until after he was elected leader. Leadership debates are about internal party stuff, and the only people outside partisans who care are going to be media people.
Every legacy media commentator is like “well, none of these leadership candidates are moving the dial for the NDP.” How out of touch are media pundits? With the exception of the Liberal leadership race last year, which decided who would be our next Prime Minister, no one cares about leadership elections.
So, here’s a primer for those who didn’t watch.
TL;DR: It was a boring hour and a half, where the candidates mostly agreed on everything. This was a conversation for the NDP loyalists, and no one else. The only one who faced any heat was Avi Lewis, who is most likely going to win the race. The party is poised, regardless of who wins, to move significantly to the left on most issues. Despite that, they seem to have massive blind spots, specifically about Canadian sentiments on the military, that will lose them future elections. The two front runners, Lewis and McPherson, struggle to talk like human beings, and insert ‘political sloganism’ into every sentence. This will probably be perceived by most Canadians as something akin to how Poilievre speaks, but on the left. In my opinion, none of these candidates have yet to prove themselves as serious contenders in the future, but they have time to work on their skills. Their French continues to be a serious concern.
I wouldn’t even talk about this if I didn’t know that NDP staffers and leaders read my reports. So here is a (potentially scathing) criticism of the NDP debate.
Some extra thoughts before we put up the paywall:
Tanille Johnston was fantastic, if she learns French she’s a real contender in the future. Right now, she isn’t.
Heather McPherson, in my opinion, won the debate. She’s the most practical of the bunch, and her experience in Parliament shows. She’s much further left wing than people are giving her credit for. Also, she’s on track (based on current numbers, which can change rapidly) to be the only NDP MP left in the event of an election.
Avi Lewis is going to win the race. Everyone on the stage knew. He was the only target on a stage with five people. Lewis is the only candidate who seems like he’s serious about learning French.
All these people are going to struggle to stand out against Carney in the short term. Long term, the Liberal’s support will fade. How much time do these candidates have? How much time does Canada have?
Lewis is in danger of becoming the Pierre Poilievre of the left. Every sentence is a slogan. Too many shots at Carney. Also, saying Canada is going to become a petrol state arms dealer is a fast way to lose an election. He will be dismissed by most Canadians with that type of language, except for those on the far left. That being said, this is a leadership debate within the NDP, I don’t think someone running nationally would say that. We don’t have a robust enough electoral system to support people with opinions.
Ashton still has a vibe that the others don’t. Could be the manly, beer bellied union leader thing. I think he would be appealing to a lot of people across the spectrum.
Tony McQuail has disqualified himself as a legitimate candidate in my eyes. We will talk about why in a moment.
First, I’m writing this with the assumption that Lewis or McPherson are winning. Honestly, it’s probably going to be Lewis. Money doesn’t lie. He’s winning the fundraising. That usually means that this person will win.
Heather is the only other candidate in the running. McQuail is toast, and Johnston hasn’t found momentum. Ashton had some momentum, but has fallen behind in the conversation. Take one peek at the NDP subreddit. It’s a good gauge of where the NDP base is at.
The choice is down to one question: Does the NDP want to have the candidate of continuation (left/center left, big tent, Heather McPherson) or become a different party (socialist, left wing, Avi Lewis)?
I don’t think there’s a wrong choice, and both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Socialism is mainstream in Canada now. People are open to it. I still think the NDP has a tough road ahead. Also, Canada is a nation of 65-75 per cent centrists as far as I can tell, so there’s a real argument to be made for center left politics. The NDP base seems to like Lewis, and it might be simply because they want a change– fair enough. It’s their party.
Both approaches can win nationally. It’s unserious to believe that a socialist candidate couldn’t win in future elections. Either winner will have to rebuild the party. Both McPherson and Lewis clearly know how to fundraise. Under current circumstances, being the leader of the NDP sounds like one of the least desirable jobs in the country.
Mainstream media keeps saying nonsense about socialism not being able to win people over. It makes me roll my eyes every time I see that. Thomas Mulcair is on CTV all the time saying that Avi Lewis can’t win because he’s too far left, but the man is also a zionist (this link is just the most recent time I’ve heard him be a zionist.)
Bro, you were so centrist that Justin Trudeau outflanked you on the left. You literally pulled a Poilievre. You were ahead in the polls, and lost to the Libs.
But it’s not just Mulcair, it’s the Toronto Star, it’s the CBC commentators, it’s the French media, etc. For some reason, the mainstream media struggles to realize that socialism is now normal, or at least acceptable. Still, our hyper wealthy, consumerist country might never accept socialism— we’re not Europe, we’re the love child of the US and Britain, and we don’t have a good electoral system.
That being said, legacy media is in denial about social media, the influence of indie journalism, and continues to lose traction in how much people trust them. So, I dunno, they are potentially just out of touch about the complexities of modern politics.
Alright, let’s start breaking this down piece by piece. I don’t get angry much, but I was livid when these words were spoken:
“That’s what translators are for.”
Jesus Christ.
