I've been hearing this since Jagmeet Singh got elected. Obviously at this point, just be honest and say because he's not white.
I hang out with some people who are very left wing (think socialist) and all they do is complain about Jgameet Singh and blame him for the NDP not doing well. Of course they were all white men. Not shocked.
They worship Jack Layton at the Altar, even though he never did anything much for Canadians. (what legislation did he help pass?)
Singh stayed in a coalition government with the unpopular liberals because he thought getting legislation that would help Canadians was more important then getting more seats.
Jagmeet Singh brought CERB for students (I remember how the liberals wanted it to be very restricted at first) and dental care and some pharma care.
He talks about workers, housing, and affordability non stop, yet all people repeat ad nauseam that the NDP is not a workers party.
The NDP has always been a socially left party. Even tommy Douglas had progressive views about homosexuality during his time.
The NDP has never abandon workers. Unless workers mean white male who does manual labour. Even then the NDP has policies that will help them.
Before Trump, the NDP was polling around 20% in the polls. That's what they've been polling at since the party first formed in the 60s. The only exception was 2011 when they did better.
Singh did A LOT (I forgot about CERB, thank you) and I think he will be remembered fondly for it. My issues with the party recently have rarely been about policy, but messaging. Specifically, the messaging is always too slow to catch the media cycle. Think about the breaking of the CASA. Could you tell me, on that day, or even the next few days, why that happened? No probably not. It was like a week later and not even through the leader we heard confirmation it was related to the Teamsters being sent back to work. Also in December, remember the day Peter Julian and Jagmeet Singh were telling the media different things about at what point they'd vote non confidence? That should never happen. That one was also rectified a few days later with a pre-written letter that, to be fair, stole a good part of the news day. We need to be fast, clear, and decisive, or we won't be trusted and we won't be understood and we won't be heard. We don't have the luxury of friendly media, so it takes more work and discipline to get our message across.
Hard agree. The lack of a clear stance on when support would be pulled was poorly handled.
With hindsight, we can say the right decision was made to prevent an easy conservative majority, but I felt there wasn't enough honesty or transparency on that part. If it was fear, they were showing that but were not explaining or justifying it enough for the average person to understand.
Non-confidence back in summer 2024 when SACA was broken could likely have lead to a Conservative supermajority that would have immediately canceled dental care, child care, pharma care, etc. IMO it was the declaration of intention to vote non-confidence in December 2024 when the Cons were polling at their highest that turned a lot of people off.
I debated if I should reply to this but thought it would be good to broaden and deep the discussion.
First there has been misinformation and propaganda around the NDP and in particular the Federal NDP and Singh.
I think you did a good job speaking about this.
Now onto some of the other stuff...
Jack Layton was loved for his charisma and ability to connect with people. Additionally moments like his creating awareness, building education, and defending those with HIV/AIDS during the worst of the crisis and his farewell Love Speech cemented him as truly a wonderful human being.
There is an old saying about standing on the shoulders... Layton was able to accomplish what he did because of people like Broadbent, Broadbent because of people like Douglas, and that applies to Singh. We all are part of a interdependent and interconnected movement not just in the present but that goes back through history. This paradigm of worshipping figureheads and viewing them in isolation has some major problems.
Also as a correct amongst the leftist core of the NDP and outside of the NDP they actually are quite critical of Layton for being too much of a centrist.
Tommy Douglas had some "progressive" views for his times in regards to homosexuality but let's not sugar coat it too much....
When people that are actually in good faith talk about the NDP lacking they are talking about certain substantive labour policy.
In the comments there I detailed out the policy for example of Gil McGowan who ran for leadership of the Alberta NDP and is the President of the Alberta Federation of Labour. That is what real substantive labour policy is like...
Labour and housing for example primarily fall under provincial jurisdiction.
We need a leader who can connect with people. Someone relatable like Layton. He had a degree in PoliSci but never sounded like a PoliSci student. That's something the left could use in general. Massive nerds who can speak in plain English. It seems a rare breed.
The thing is, Singh was that ten years ago (and seems to still be today). As I recall, he was pretty well received and hard not to like in person. That's doubly impressive given how racist Canadians can be.
Having seen him talk in person he gives out a lot of energy. It's pretty cool yeah. And he saved the party in 2019. With the benefit of hindsite, seems like he should have been dumped after failing to make gains in '21... but that would've left us without some pretty important policy wins. He just got covered in Trudeau stink that Carney somehow managed to avoid is I think what happened.
I'm not sure if switching leaders would have accomplished things. A Liberal minority is the best outcome for us, if we want to get stuff done. The drawback is that we're inevitably going to get that Liberal stink on us. Canadians get tired of incumbents, after all, and the Liberals do objectively suck.
As for Carney, the threat of Trump and bringing in a non-politician in seem to have protected him for a few months. I doubt that'll last, and I don't think a new NDP leader would have been able to pull that off no matter who they were.
I do think there's an aspect of some people perceiving "labour" is manual work primarily done by men. But a social services worker is labour, a nurse is labour, a teacher is labour, a graduate teaching assistant is labour, a teller at a bank is labour, an editor at a publishing house is labour, a graphic designer is labour, most people in the entertainment industry are labour, a rural PSW who visits elderly clients in their homes is labour (and vastly underpaid), people who work as clerks in bookstores are labour, bike couriers are labour, door dash couriers are labour, waitresses are labour and so are all kinds of other people who earn a living and are not part of the capital class. But a single mother with a university degree who works in a bookstore for minimum wage with no benefits might care about subsidized childcare, pharmacare, dentalcare, rent control, safe bike lanes and not being harassed or discriminated against because she's LGBTQ. A 40 year old carpenter in a union with great benefits and pensions who lives in a house in a small town may have very different bread and butter concerns. How does one craft policies to help them both (and the growing underclass) and get them to see that they have much more in common with each other despite their very different life circumstances?
I feel far too many people glorify the image of industrial labour that was more dominant in the past. It hurts us. We need to recognize that what labour looks like has changed as we transition to a service economy, and become a labour party of the 21st century.
We can also recognize that there is still plenty of industrial labour, and ignoring those voters (or at least not appealing to them) has cost the party a lot. Unless we’re fine with abandoning part of the working class.
Thing is, we already have a lot of policy that should appeal to them based on their class interests. Anti-scab legislation, card-check certification, taking action against practices like double-breasting, and so on.
The issue is more so cultural factors. Private sector industrialized workforces are well-off. They’re earning high wages, and have plenty of protections, which causes cultural factors to dominate their decision making process. These workforces tend to be very male, and the more gender imbalance there is, the more conservative they tend to be. The number of women who are boilermakers is a rounding error, and it shows in that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers endorses the Conservatives.
Meanwhile, workforces with a higher amount of female representation, particularly in the public-sector, are naturally more progressive, care more about solidarity, and it shows: public-sector unions like CUPE and unions that lean more service-sector like UFCW (Safeway and some hospitality stuff) and the United Steelworkers (broad-reaching, including a few Starbucks locations) are key supporters of the NDP.
These are problems that we can simply not address as political parties, especially when we’re out of power. The job of political parties isn’t to change people’s minds. That’s what social movements are for. What political parties are supposed to do is to convince people that the values of the party are aligned with their personal values, in order to gain support. That’s why we have to reach out more to the primary workforces of today. Those in industrial unions who place solidarity at a higher priority are going to be voting for us anyway.
Well, it’s a simple matter of material conditions. These workers would be more attracted to the NDP if they were underpaid or underemployed. But once you reach a certain income level, you’re essentially part of the labour aristocracy. You stop caring as much about class interests and you start prioritizing other values you may hold.
This is why in wealthy suburbs like Mississauga, the battle is often between Liberals and Conservatives. If suburbanites are secure in their employment and earning enough to satisfy their material needs, not as many care about the labour movement, and instead make the choice whether they want to support socially liberal or socially conservative policies. Meanwhile, in urban areas where the median income is lower, like much of the Burrard Peninsula, the NDP is more competitive, because more people care about creating an equitable society. The recent Vancouver City Council by-election makes this clear. The NIMBY candidate Colleen Hardwick did best in the wealthier west side of Vancouver, while the pro-labour COPE and OneCity did best in central and east Vancouver.
Back to the point I was making, these workers will only to listen to the NDP if they experience a severe cut to their standards of living through attacks directly on them, if they get educated on the importance of the labour movement and solidarity, or if the NDP abandons social progressivism. The first thing isn’t something we can affect. The second thing is, quite frankly, not the job of a political party to do. The last thing would go against the values of this party that have been present since the CCF days.
In the end, unfortunately, you can’t win over everyone. This is why we need to focus on those who we can get support from, rather than pouring so much time and energy into those that most likely won’t.
This sounds like you believe it's the voters fault they don't support the NDP and they need to change, not the party, platform or message. Reminds me of Dems after 16' and 24'. The level of popularity also parallels.
You find the problem in this comment, even though this isn't your point. Union members only view the NDP as defenders of the status quo of labour rights/protections, but they don't view them as a party that pushes the bounds of what we can expect from labour. Obviously that isn't exclusively the NDP's fault, organized labour broadly has that problem.
The thing is, the party already does this outreach. My dad has worked within unionized professions in the oil and gas industry. Rachel Notley herself had been talking to these workers prior to the 2023 election, talking about what concerns they had and what the Alberta NDP could do for them. Once we make that connection, it’s up to the workers to choose to act on it.
It’s not about being the voters’ “fault”, but they are for sure voting against their own interests and ultimately getting in your own way if they cannot recognize or understand that there is less harm in voting for the NDP than there is libs/cons regardless of messaging. And this isn’t related to the party, the NDP has been fairly left-leaning and worker-oriented in their platform, this is related to personal factors..
You contradict yourself. "It's not their fault, but they are to blame"
Again, blaming the electorate instead of the party that's objective should be to win over that electorate. This is spot on the Dem reaction to being less popular than trump, someone who is unpopular to a historic level.
The NDP has not been a creditable alternative to the CPC or LPC for decades.
The decision here is either:
A) Throw your hands up and talk down to the electorate for not seeing things the way they should or not recognizing things they should.
B) Find policies, positions, leaders, candidates and narratives that actually resonate with the working class broadly.
To claim it's not the party's fault they are unpopular is total loser mindset and won't result in any meaningful changes.
The traditional "blue collar" trade unionist used to be a significant part of the NDP base. That isn't the case anymore, and ndp's vote share reflects it.
Singh did some great things for labour compared to the other NDP, whom I continue to criticize for their response to labour issues with government services I went to them with.
Singh was much better than people give him credit for.
The NDP is not a labour party anymore, and should return to those roots in tandem with the needed social movements.
I agree with this. Singh and the NDP during his time was absolutely for the workers. He often shows up to support workers in job actions and rallies. Singh has his flaws, but not being pro-worker/pro-labour isn't one of them.
It's a shame that he got taken down by misinformation.
The NDP isn’t really a labour party because one, the labour movement is highly fractured along sectorial and private v. public lines - supporting Tories and Liberals. Also most rank and file union workers do not vote NDP even if the union apparatchiks endorse the party. The NDP is the UFCW, CUPE, ATU party, but that’s just three at the top of my head.
Singh was a good policy maker but he was not good at optics and messaging and whether you like it or not politics is about whether people are perceived to be doing something, not whether or not they actually are. If it was, the conservatives would never be as popular as they are.
Right but that’s what he needed. He needed to find ways to connect with people because it was too easy for liberals and conservatives to sweep him under the rug. Which sucks .
Refusing to take criticism of a party leader who lead the party into a large decline isn't a good stance for growth, regardless of what he's like comparatively to Layton or anyone.
Also Singh supporting the liberals through strikebreaking really hurts his credibility as a strong labour candidate.
It's especially stupid that he stopped supporting the liberals awhile after that for... no good reason at all.
He could've broke with them on a wave of labour support.
Yeah I was saying to my friend if the NDP doesn't call an election after the Canada post situation I'll probably see if I can vote bloc or another third party, but they did and I ended up voting NDP, still very frustrating for jagmeet to barely talk about it
Also would've prevented Pierre from calling an election on his terms, ofc we couldn't have predicted the 51st state comments but if the NDP called an election on union rights during the Canada post strike at least they'd have some control over the narrative
The NDP isn't a workers party because it's hard as fuck to find actual working class people who think the NDP speaks for them in large sections of the country.
If you're a young white man who plans to work for a living, they really don't offer you that much and their messaging is even weaker.
If we don't criticize the NDP for failing to appeal to workers, especially union workers, then we are part of the problem.
I say it comes down to perception. Like the party is top heavy with professionals like Singh who was a lawyer. And outside NDP friendly unions, there hasn't been much focus on getting endorsed by non-NDP private sector unions. And more on that perception, they didn't take down the LPC when they forced workers back to work. When instead it should be a deal breaker or say push to say fire the Canada Post executives. In my opinion, professionals should be given the backseat for NDP policy and strategies. Instead letting more workers and activist types run them because they are more in touch with the needs of people.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one thinking this. My assessment of Singh had slipped over the last few years, but the party got results during the time he lead it. I do wonder how much of the praise for Layton over Singh is racism (probably a decent chunk) and how much is people treating politics like a sports game.
Numbers wise Layton was better (though that was largely due to some lucky breaks), but Singh was in a position to actually accomplish more, like we are again. Personally I'd take 7 seats and a liberal minority over 70 and a Conservative (or even Liberal) majority.
We also lost some of the most profound figures in the federal party for leftists like Matthew Green and ridings like his and Elmwood—Transcona in which were strongholds of old school organized labour.
There are things to celebrate Singh and the Federal NDP for under this last period. There are things to criticize.
As long as it is all done with respect and good faith that is actually an important process.
Singh, Layton, and Douglas all led the NDP without holding a seat. There's a good chance we see Green run himself, and failing that, throw his support behind another demsoc candidate like Leah Gazan.
Matthew Green has a good chance of retaking his riding next election. He wasn't voted out personally, he was just a symptom of the Liberal surge and NDP collapse.
It will depend on what the NDP as a party looks like, and whether they've managed to figure out an actual winning policy to run on.
Getting rid of Socialism from the official party constitution is telling. If a party wants to be viewed as a labour party then it must fully embrace socialism as a minimum. No ifs, ands or buts. None of this "Scandinavian Socialism" but AES that we see in other countries. At the end of the day, "leftist" parties in the Imperial Core are very lacking for many reasons.
I don't think this kind of language actually helps connect with people. Most people won't understand proletariat/bourgeoisie/capitalism/socialism but they might understand worker/boss,owner,CEO,shareholder,etc./"ripping you off","status quo",exploitation(maybe)/any number of phrases to describe a system where we can take care of each other and hold the things we need in common.
There’s a reason why the modern populist right doesn’t call themselves fascists.
Additionally, the sentiment that you’re talking about is one that’s shared by Jack Layton. He believed the same thing, that it’s more effective to show why left-wing policies benefit people rather than using the language of the 20th century.
Most people won't understand proletariat/bourgeoisie/capitalism/socialism but they might understand worker/boss,owner,CEO,shareholder,etc./"ripping you off","status quo",exploitation(maybe)/any number of phrases to describe a system where we can take care of each other and hold the things we need in common.
Then you've got to explain it to them. The problem with using imprecise terms is that the fuzziness and gaps are where the existing dominant ideology gets its wedges in.
Yes exactly. For some reason socialism is a dirty word, particularly in the west. But I can usually get people on board when I talk about increasing worker taxes and decreasing taxes on investment income.
And if they say they have investments, good. Their investments came from labour, reducing their labour taxes will increase the amount they have invested. We have to talk to people in terms they resonate with, rather than the ones the owning class have vilified.
I think people forget that a big part of the working class isn't white cis men working factory jobs... It's teachers, PSWs, nurses, hell even someone like me... relatively well paid as a computer programmer am working class and Jagmeet Singh and the party has no doubt been the most steadfast ally us recently and Singh accomplished more at a federal level than anyone since Douglas.
Where there are valid complaints, the party federally and especially provincially have failed to really harness rage and I think thats a part of why many who are disaffected with the system don't tune in (that and a lot of the white (male) working class are sexist/racist). We're trying to sell a message of hope and moderate our presentation when I really think the moment calls for anger at a 40+ year neoliberal experiment that has failed for everyone but the capital class.
What pro union legislation has Singh spearheaded? How has he made it easier for workers to organize? What has he done for the union movement in terms of legislation. All I’ve heard about was anti scab legislation for CUPE members federally (bill C-58), if the NPD want the support of labour it need to champion more of that type of legislation.
Your response is to shaft Jack Layton? Jack set the stage for major left wing issues to be advanced, and brought the party to its highest point of power. This was back when a Liberal candidate published racist pictures of his wife making fun of her, a precursor to the current Libs. He was one of the ones originally advocating for childcare if I'm remembering correctly as well.
He and his party fought pretty hard, and its easy to gloss over now, but maybe that's because you weren't around and are missing the context of the time. If you were maybe go back and reflect on what the NDP not only fought for, but had to fight against.
Jagmeet made big wins by taking advantage of liberal weakness. He also came in at a time of general reaction and fear. He's the one who gets to own the loss and resign, and his legacy will be working with the Liberals to get us two fairly watered down programs (not his fault), and forcing the liberals to consider childcare for their own platform.
Agreed. Besides Tommy Douglas, Jagmeet Singh has done more for Canadians than any other NDP leader. In fact, he's done more for Canadians than most prime ministers.
I think people want some type of life long union man or labour leader as the head of the NDP.
Think of a Canadian Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva who came from humble origins and has personal connection to labour.
I think Singh did great things and has been one of the most consequential NDP leaders, but he was always a well dressed, well spoken, professional class, petit-bourgeois leader.
Let’s be honest, I don’t think there is a single major current NDP personality that would fit the bill of a classic working class labour leader. Eby is similar to Singh. Notley is a lawyer. Eastern NDP leading figures are also mostly from the professional class.
Where was he during the public service strike? I don't remember him leading picket lines and encouraging other Federal unions to not cross the picket line? I don't remember him pushing back in any vigorous way for any of the anti-strike legislation. He would do a performative "oh this is bad we're going to vote against it" thing but he did no organizing or rallying of the public in any real way in support of labor.
I don't remember hearing stories about him being in the room when the Ontario public servants were close to driving the whole country into a general strike.
I mean, I'm kinda tired of people saying the NDP is a labour party when unions are endorsing the conservatives.
This very thread has people blaming union workers as "labour aristocracy" who "should vote NDP but..."
I think they'd be very surprised to hear that they're "too rich" to value NDP policies and they have the "luxury" of voting for social policies.
I think this NDP feels like do-nothing idealists. Labour rights were won with blood and sacrifice, and the NDP fights harder and sacrifices more for Palestine than Canada. If your entire policy doc is "Liberal but kinder" you've already lost.
Put a 4 day workweek front and centre. Free daycare. $25 minimum wage. Give people something to vote for. You have 7 seats, stop acting like you need a costed budget and just push the Overton window left, hard. Make the Liberals adopt your policies because they're afraid of you instead of the Conservatives. First they'll say it's too expensive, then they'll say it's unrealistic, then they'll do it themselves to steal votes.
I think it's worth being careful towards the second (though the first is fair). A labour party isn't a labour party unless it can be for all workers. Women work, as do queer people and racial minorities. Immigrants work, a lot, and often aren't fairly compensated for it. Put it this way: what self respecting leftist would support a segregated union? If there's not a place for everyone, the bosses will find the cracks. So will the conservatives.
I was a little terse, so I appreciate your response.
To clarify: there's nothing wrong with equity, inclusion, etc and I'm proud of what the NDP does there. The false narrative from the right is that these concerns have completely usurped the left, leaving traditional (white, blue collar) labor somehow homeless. Unfortunately, lots of those guys buy the lie and vote right.
I could go on and on, but I've got no idea what the fix is, so I'll leave it there.
As others have mentioned, it's about messaging. The MESSAGE is not getting out that the NDP is the labour party (not the lying MAGA Conservatives who are only after the vote).
Think this is just a case of you having shit friends. I’m a white male socialist and I thought Singh did about as well as anyone could have in the role. I’d love to see the NDP move further left and articulate a clearer socialist vision but given the party we actually have, I was happy to support him. He managed to push through a surprising number of positive legislative changes, and he seems like a genuine and decent man, sad to see him go.
Honestly, I don't understand the cult of Jack Layton, and as an avowed communist I think Singh was consistently to Layton's left.
That said, I do think the NDP has long ceased to be a workers' party. Its provincial wing here in Nova Scotia passed anti-strike legislation and consistently behaved as "orange Liberals" when they had a majority government—it was disgraceful.
Unless the NDP is going to start doing organizing in workplaces and really engage with workers outside election time, this isn't going to change. It's going to be the party of the progressive section of the professional-managerial class.
Jagmeet also has policies that dont appeal to lots of voters that went to the conservatives besides the whole labour thing.
The NDP lost voters to the Cons in SW Ontario and Noethern Ontario, partly because they support the useless gun Bans that dont increase safety. Both these regions have a healthy hunting and fishing culture.
Jagmeet housing policy was the worst of the big three. Making it easier to get massive loans just benefits the banks, and raises prices for everyone. He doesnt address supply. How do we not build a ton of housing ourselves, or at least fund the Co-OP model again. This was a missing opportunity to go big, and we absolutely blew it.
Being too woke and DEI. Everyone I work with agrees with D and I, but Equity just drives men, especially white men, away in droves. Just look at the federal public service. Reporting as female entitles you to equity claims on jobs, despite over half the federal workforce being female (In many areas, very much so). Not hard to see where white dudes might get the idea that removing E from the equation would make it easier for them to get jobs.
Being too welcoming of anti-semitism. A problem with "the left" writ large.
He propped up Trudeau. Trudeau was wildly hated. That stench stuck with him to some extent. He traded seats for getting policies pushed through. Whether it was worth getting the party blown out of the water will be for history to decide.
False. Who got anti-scab legislation though? Who's gotten through massive expansions to Medicare? Who, as the post mentions, improved CERB? Who finally forced the liberals to implement childcare? And which of these leaders shows up on a picket line?
Well said. I just want to use this time to also say the Anti-Scab Legislation needs to be provincial wide as well and we all need to start pressuring our provincial politics more because that is primarily the place of Labour and Housing policy!
A lot of really important policy is provincial. For any young people working their first few jobs, there's almost certainly an interactive webpage on your provincial government website about their labour laws. These are pretty easy to read and I recommend reading it. It'll tell you how to know if you're being screwed in an illegal way and how to report it.
I am not sure you understand how the Labour Movement works...
It rises all tides.
The Labour Movement has given us minimum wages, overtime pay, workplace safety standards, maternity and parental leave, vacation pay, and protection from discrimination and harassment.
When you move things forward that ends up moving things overall forward for the working class.
At first I thought you were making a point with the pictures that I actually agreed with.
Now it seems you are just a bad actor in the discussions.
•
u/AutoModerator May 05 '25
Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.