Bridging the gap between Jack Layton’s personal popularity and the voting plans of Canadians remains the $64,000 question in the second half of the election campaign, according to an NDP insider. Party strategists plan to sharpen the attack on Paul Martin in the new year, hammering away on the themes of Liberal corruption and Martin’s credibility.
As for the Conservatives, the NDP will take surgical runs at Stephen Harper where the party is chasing Tory seats, particularly in British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
Recent polls have suggested Layton rose the most in esteem among voters from the first round of debates. Canadians have said Layton is the leader with whom they would most want to have a beer.
Another survey indicated Layton is considered the most decent, charismatic, ethical, caring and practical of the main party leaders.
Many Canadians have even forgotten their traditional fear of the NDP’s financial management skills.
Most of those same polls showed only 15 to 19 per cent of those admiring Canadians would vote for Layton.
Call it the curse of Ed Broadbent. The former NDP leader was among Canada’s most popular politicians during his long career as party leader, but his support usually hovered in a similar range.
In 1988, the party cracked just above 20 per cent in popular vote and captured 43 seats, an NDP record. How did Broadbent do it?
“I haven’t the foggiest idea,” Broadbent said in an interview.
“I tried to do what I think Jack is doing, which is to speak in a straightforward manner to ordinary people and not try to be all things to all people. I think Jack’s doing that, and it’s showing.”
The party languished through the 1990s following Broadbent’s departure, dipping into single digits in seats and support.
Layton made progress reversing those fortunes, doubling the party’s share of the popular vote to 15.7 per cent and making a disappointingly modest gain in seats to 19 from 14.
Strategists and supporters point out Layton has rebuilt the party’s traditional level of support and is now searching to steal voters from other parties.
“The party was in the doldrums, let’s face it, for over a decade,” said Paul Moist, the president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
“It’s a building process and Canadians do appear to be becoming more comfortable.”
Moist and NDP strategists say voting intention may just be lagging behind Layton’s otherwise strong polling results.
“If we can establish that 20 per cent base, it should translate into seats, and in a minority Parliament those seats become valuable,” said Moist, who is helping local candidates in Manitoba and Ontario.
“There seems to be a comfort level with Jack Layton that should translate into seats.
“I don’t think you’ll see Jack Layton slip on a banana peel or make a comment about beer and popcorn. He’s a pretty shrewd politician.”
[article]
10 comments on “Know Jack?”
My big disappointment with Jack is how, during the last campaign, he talked and talked about proportional representation, but then barely mentioned it during the last Parliament. And it’s continuing: I’ve hardly heard him mention it during this campaign.
Why do you think he’s laid off on that issue?
I’d say because it’s one of the least important and pressing matters to talk about. What matters is what is being done in Ottawa, not so much how people get there.
But the people who get there decide what gets done.
I’m of the opinion that everything else trickles down from this issue. Until my vote matters – until thousands of votes from potential NDP supporters in non-competitive ridings matter – people will continue to vote Liberal in order to fend off the Conservative menace or not vote at all.
If there was PR, we’d have elected 45-50 MPs last time, and frankly, you can get a lot more done with that number than you can with 19 Members.
Maybe it’s because I live in a place with an entirely different political culture than the rest of the country, but this is an issue that’s really important to me. Some of us are tired of throwing our votes away, essentially. Where I’m at, two parties (well, three, if you count the PQ provincially and the BQ federally) dominate the political discourse and turn it into an extremely polarizing environment. It’s similar to the United States, here, where there are two big players, and it’s almost impossible for anyone else to break through.
The NDP isn’t going to make gains in Quebec without first electing one or two MPs from the province who can speak about Quebec’s issues. With PR, there’d be one or two NDP MPs from Quebec immediately. Without it, it will certainly take generations.
I don’t mean to seem as though I’m taking this out on you… I know you’re not the only one who holds that view!
I do agree that PR would help the NDP and Canada in general, but I think most people are more concerned with what can be done during the next decade to help Canadians. Lets face it, there is very little change on the horizon as far as implementing PR goes, even if the NDP pushed it more strongly.
Quebec certainly is a unique instance, though I’m sure places like Alberta are equally frustrating for progressives. I am in favour of PR, provided we implement protections for the seats of places like PEI and the territories. I just don’t see it as something we can reasonably expect to place as a priority when we have so many vital issues already on the agenda.
I do agree that PR would help the NDP and Canada in general, but I think most people are more concerned with what can be done during the next decade to help Canadians. Lets face it, there is very little change on the horizon as far as implementing PR goes, even if the NDP pushed it more strongly.
I disagree with a couple of things here. If the NDP holds the absolute balance of power in Parliament, they can put it on the agenda. They can make it a condition for their support. It seemed that that was where the party was going during the 2004 election, and I was disappointed that they didn’t.
Other thing is that there are always going to be problems in this country – in every country – that affect people more directly than the system by which we elect our representatives. That’s without question. And if people always take the attitude that you’ve taken, the system (which many people are quite willing to admit is broken) will never, ever change. This year it’s day care that’s more pressing. In another election cycle it’ll be pharmacare. In another one after that it’ll be something else.
When do we say that there have been enough wasted votes, and something needs to be done?
See, I’m not saying it’s not wise to do it, there’s just little public support or interest in it, and that is an important factor to consider in the game of politics. Why make that a focal point of a campaign? Sure, lets push for it in parlament, but lets not allow it to take attention away from the direct ways social democracy benefits people, because that is how we will gain votes and influence.
The system is not optimal, but we have no choice but to work within it if we wish change. Part of that is persuasion of voters through the proper choices of focuses. PR just doesn’t have much voter sway.
Okay, that’s all fair. I can accept that.
(I hope you don’t mind friendly political debate in your journal. Some people do. You never know…)
No, I’m always open to discussion about anything, really.
It’s all about the beer.
I love being Canadian. Seriously.
I think it’s an important consideration, regardless of whether alcohol is involved, because we deserve a leader who can represent us well and have the disposition that would allow him or her to interact well with those from other nations.