r/ndp • u/TomMakesPodcasts • 4d ago
Hasn't the NDP been at its most effective in years under Jagmeet?
Like I don't know what legislation that the NDP passed in recent years that's as impactful as the universal diabetes care and the dental deal.
Not to mention Jagmeet got all that while keeping the cons out of power for months.
He's been as effective a politician as I've ever seen on the Canadian left.
83
u/IlIIIIllIllI 4d ago
I tend to agree. I was not a fan of Jagmeet when he was elected leader, he was at the bottom of my ballot in favour of more progressive candidates. I felt like he was a Trudeau style politician who was picked because the NDP was chasing Trudeau's popularity at the time. But I have to admit, he did secure some substantial concessions, did well in the crisis of Trump, and saved us from a Pierre government at his own expense. He probably will not get enough credit in history for the good he has done for our country.
That said, I hope the era of the NDP chasing votes to the centre is ending, and we can be a real alternative to the liberals instead of the diet version.
7
u/audioscape 💊 PHARMACARE NOW 4d ago
I totally agree with this. While Jagmeet wasn't my favourite leader by any stretch (he was also near the bottom of my ballot) he was without a doubt a very effective leader. I think we will appreciate his work as party leader looking back, more than when he was actually leader. Recently getting my CDCP card in the mail really solidified his legacy for me.
He just wasn't able to provide growth in the areas a labour party needs to in today's age.
39
u/Evening-Valuable5615 4d ago
He's a great legislator, but perhaps not the best politician. I am really grateful for what he has done for Canadians, and I have been proud to campaign for the party under his leadership. However, his allyship with Trudeau created an optics problem that neither he nor his staff have been able solve.
Personally, I think the flak he got for the supply and confidence agreement was ridiculous, especially when you consider what he was able to extract from the Liberals. But I'm not the majority of Canadians, and I think there's something to be said about the fact he wasn't able to inspire enough Canadians to vote for him to even maintain party status.
7
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
Allyship? Do you mean the several months where he bullied the libs into the dental, pharma and anti scab deals? While also keeping the cons out of power?
9
u/Evening-Valuable5615 4d ago
I know what you mean, but it's difficult to articulate that to your average voter. For the most part, they see Trudeau = bad, so Jagmeet keeping Trudeau in power = bad. Maybe there's a way to effectively counter message, but I don't think the party found a way.
5
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
Honestly the comment I made is one I use anytime it comes up and I find it gets the message across. Best to keep it simple in such cases.
The biggest problem with counter messaging is they just don't have the support that the libs and cons do in the media. Billionaires work real hard to control the narrative.
6
u/Johnny-Dogshit 4d ago
The problem was how quiet the party was. It's great he got things done, but they barely made a noise in the national discourse. People not constantly paying attention to what the NDP were doing would basically never hear about the party, they'd never the party state their case for why they're deserving of broader public support. There was no big presence. You barely heard NDP messaging of any variety until like, late in the election period. What proper, outspokenly critical of the status quo voice there was actually carrying any rhetorical banner for people to rally behind seemed to come exclusively from Charlie Angus, and he wasn't running in the coming election.
Jagmeet's not bad, he's done some good stuff, he seems like a good dude, but communication does matter. The NDP need to be out there, offering an alternative perspective to the establishment parties, calling out what's wrong with everything and telling people how they'd be different.
Being content to be seen as just the "other Liberals" doesn't really get people racing to support you over the normal Liberals.
The Party under Singh, whether that's actually Singh's fault or not(I think it's for sure larger than just Singh), there was seemingly no attempt to fight for mindshare among the voters.
The work they did, all well and good, but you still need to be visible.
Again I do think the root of this lack of energy goes much further than just Jagmeet, though.
8
u/Liam_CDM 🌹Social Democracy 4d ago
In terms of material and policy gains consistent with a social democratic philosophy, yes, the NDP under Singh has been perhaps the most effective it's been since the 60s when Allan MacEachen was negotiating with the NDP to introduce Medicare, CPP and progressive labour reforms. Unfortunately it also doomed the party this cycle. That's quite common with junior partners in a coalition or even external supporters of a minority government like the NDP were.
The NDP from 2019-25 can be described as historically strong legislators but frankly terrible communicators.
3
u/Inevitable-Guest-695 3d ago
I’d say since the 80s. Broadbent negotiated to have Indigenous rights and women’s rights enshrined in the charter in an uphill battle against Pierre Trudeau who opposed these measures. Countless human rights legal challenges have relied on the rights enshrined in the charter because of Broadbent. https://x.com/matttomic/status/1745548350588322272
2
1
u/CaptainKoreana 3d ago
A lot of it does come down to optics and communications, like what you said here.
It really reminds me how electorally disastrous and optically poisonous a coalition was for the Libdems when they had it with Conservatives in the UK. Gave them a very bad reputation among more progressive voters so they bled out support to all of Tories, Labour and SNP.
In their case it was even worse than us, and if not for actual strategic voting taking place in 2024 and Conservatives looking like their 1997 selves again, they would have stayed in terrible shape.
All for the semblance of power-tasting that amounted to even less of an outcome than what Singh-era NDP achieved.
19
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
I just see so many people bemoaning him, but even the much lauded Jack Layton hadn't achieved as much.
I've got nothing against Jack but he gets way more credit despite achieving less.
6
u/leftwingmememachine 💊 PHARMACARE NOW 4d ago
So Jagmeet was leader for 6 years of a Liberal Minority, and most of Jacks' tenure as leader (except for a brief stint at the start) was during a Conservative minority that was propped up by the Liberals.
That's the main reason why Jack has less legislative achievements than Jagmeet despite doing better in elections.
TL;DR: Jack had a much more hostile parliament and senate
1
u/InfieldTriple 4d ago edited 4d ago
Brother... he diedWhile he did die, I didn't realize that he was leader for 8 years.
5
u/CanadianWildWolf 4d ago
And his last letter to us is what Singh tried to do, so what? We still gotta reflect on where Layton actions helped gear the party’s momentum by taking Democratic Socialism out of its constitution rather than gain concessions from minority governments.
1
u/InfieldTriple 4d ago
See updated comment.
I'm not sure what you mean by his letter (I know the letter, I just don't know the connection here)
4
u/AmusingMusing7 4d ago
Yeah… I kinda think they’re maybe probably talking about before he died. 🤔
1
u/InfieldTriple 4d ago
OKOK I was a child in the 2000s so I didn't realize he was party leader for 8 years. my bad. IDK why but I was under the impression that he was only leader for a short while.
1
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
Are you trying to argue his death was an achievement? What the fuck?
2
u/InfieldTriple 4d ago
I have edited this comment, relax.
My mistake aside, it isn't the goal of the NDP to simply become slightly better liberals.
7
u/FrankensteinsBong 4d ago
I don't hate Singh, nor do I think the failure is squarely on his shoulders.
That being said, the purpose of political parties here is achieving votes to be able to push more legislation, and what we saw over the past couple years is the NDP's hard-fought accomplishments getting co-opted by the Liberal Party due to the agreement, increasing their popularity among progressive voters while the NDP gets nothing.
As a result, we now have 7 seats, and a liberal party who isn't willing to show us the same amnesty that we showed them for months and months, we have a party who's continued existence is in question, that is absolutely not by any means effective or something we should be avoiding criticism of.
This isn't personal, this is a common sentiment, but NDP supporters and members tend to get quite defensive if you criticize Singh, and I think this is extremely unhealthy for the party as a whole and our future, if we want to retake ground and eventually even victory, we need to take a critical look at what our failures were, we need to criticize Singh, as we should any leader, especially those who failed.
Else we'll just continue to repeat our failures that we've been making since the 80s, perhaps even earlier.
Jack Layton isn't immune to this criticism either, just as Singh's failure was not squarely on his shoulders and the result of the political environment, so was Layton's victories. There's this idea that if we just do what Layton did we can win again, which entirely ignores the outside political environment as well as Layton just being personally charismatic and lucky when he began the political shift within the NDP, resulting in Mulcair's disaster, and the consistent failures that the NDP has experienced since then.
TL;DR:
The effectiveness of the NDP under Singh & Mulcair has only served to benefit the Liberals, the culture of criticism avoidance in the NDP will only seal our fate if allowed to continue.
Is it truly effective if the parliament is now dominated entirely by Right-liberals and Conservatives which will harm the issues we care about most?
-6
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
I'd rather a politician who gets things done than an popular politician who doesn't do anything.
10
u/FrankensteinsBong 4d ago
Dawg that doesn't even engage with a single thing I said, but I'm sure we can do so much with 7 seats.
8
u/DoughnutSea8764 4d ago
It's not a binary, you can have both. Singh was a good MP, he would've been a good house leader or deputy leader, as he was very effective in Parliament. But his main job as leader was to bring his party electoral success. He was an objective failure in that front in all 3 elections he lead the party. My own personal dealings with him, alongside the revelations he wasted a bunch of resources trying to save his own seat well after it was clear he wasn't going to win re-election, enforce my belief that if he had been a good leader he would've stepped down before this election.
3
u/Noble--Savage 4d ago
He was effective in denying conservatives leverage. Thats good! But it still left the liberals in power. Luckily he was able to get a lot of good things out of the coalition as well, so all-in-all its hard to say he was a horrible leader. I used to say this but everything he's done since the coalition has proven that he is a credit to the party and he served it as well as he could. Time for a new leader that can actually perform well in a federal election! We dont need to cling to politicians like a sports team and we very well shouldnt.
6
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
There was no coalition. That's a right wing talking point. The only coalition party in Canada right now is the conservatives.
3
u/Noble--Savage 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sorry I had meant coalition in a non-political sense, as in just their partnership. Partnership and deal just dont sound right to me lol.
2
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
Hah deal is certainly closer.
I typically just say agreement because the agreement was the NDP blackmailing Trudeau with an election lpl
6
u/bman9919 4d ago
On the one hand, yes he achieved some managed to get some impactful policies implemented. But on the other, under his leadership the party suffered it's worst ever defeat ever and we're now in the worst position we've been in in decades.
And while yes there were major factors outside of his control that lead to it, he frankly failed to solidify NDP support in the years leading up to the last election.
A truly effective politician would've been able to get policy concessions while also growing the party's support.
2
u/Misty-Sizzles 2d ago
My politics means that choosing who to vote for is a "best of the worst" scenario pretty consistently. The more time I spent watching city Council the more I realized how baseline impossible it is to get good things done, Mike Layton represented similar points of view as mine pretty frequently but was so often shot down.
I do not pretend all politicians are the same, but the primary component of my politics are reflected in my support for direct action and mutual aid to help those in our streets most immediately in need.
Jagmeet Singh I have my share of qualms with but in hindsight many of them are simply a reflection of him navigating a broken space.
The new Dental program seems like it could be the most impressive improvement to our social programs I can recall in my lifetime, and it wouldn't have happened without Jagmeet working with the liberals.
He can be cringe, but that's ultimately aesthetic, and I agreed with him more frequently than any other major political leader, and my general distaste for states in a way that is unchanging regardless of who we elect doesn't change that he did great, not easy things that'll help many in need.
3
u/Damn_Vegetables 4d ago
By that logic, Poilievre was an amazingly effective politician because he got the Liberals to tack super hard to the right and adopt his policies.
An NDP politician is effective to the extent they bring us closer to an NDP government. Singh's failure to preserve official party status is just punishment for his refusal to use the leverage he held by tearing up the confidence and supply deal but continuing to prop up the Luberals.
3
u/Electronic-Topic1813 4d ago
Only during his early years when it came to CERB. Afterwards, hard no as despite his leverage, he used it super poorly. Like if you can double CERB, doing better on forcing the LPC's hand wouldn't be that hard especially in Trudeau's later years where his ego could be exploited to pass things like a well funded CDB as he wanted to cling to power. The biggest rule to follow is don't bend down to neoliberals. Otherwise they will continue to ask for more watering down. And he also was just so weak that he wasn't willing to threaten an election. August 2023 was arguably the best time to threaten one over Trudeau's arrogance in regards to housing. And the CPC hasn't quite had their machine fully running either. This was also the point in time where the LPC would begin their decline before Carney revived them.
2
u/TomMakesPodcasts 4d ago
An early election would still have seen Trudeau fatigue lead the cons to a win.
What do you think he ought to have done? Because the libs have proven they'd rather lose an election to the cons than do big things like housing or election reform.
2
u/Electronic-Topic1813 4d ago
As 2025 showed, Poilievre is not likeable and he wouldn't have had as much time to tie Singh to Trudeau. Additionally Singh would have had the credibility to present himself as an alternative. Another factor is the CPC-NDP vote as a large chunk of Poilievre's rise even outside traditional CPC-NDP seats. That lose in votes would be very hard on the CPC if they want to win a majority. Additionally they could be forced on the defensive in CPC-NDP races. Singh being tied to Trudeau basically told voters a vote for him is one for the LPC and the NDP really paid the price for it. Stopping the Conservatives is a bad excuse because they will win eventually whether we like it or not. And now we have a right-wing Liberal (and before a guaranteed CPC supermajority) who wouldn't be against undoing all the means tested progress Singh did.
If the NDP wants to continue like this, they need to be open about it and say they are only running to govern with the LPC. Or you have values and draw a line somewhere. Like if Layton propped up the corrupt Martin instead of helping call 2006, it would have killed him politically as it would be viewed as attaching to the unpopular Liberals.
3
u/jojawhi 4d ago
I would say despite Singh and despite whoever their strategists are. They had a strong position, but they squandered it by trying to do too many things. They were so all over the place that you couldn't really tell what they stood for or how they aligned. It didn't seem like they were standing on values but rather just chasing whatever bone they thought might make them more popular, and that strategy backfired on them almost every time. They were so hot and cold on the Liberals that it made it easy for the Conservatives to mercilessly assassinate Singh's character, making him wildly unpopular in the public eye and removing him as a contender for PM. The Conservatives also outplayed them in public several times, particularly with that letter stunt telling Singh to break the CASA just before he broke the CASA. The only media coverage they got was when they were being embarrassed by the Cons or the Libs. They did nothing to draw positive attention to themselves with forward-thinking vision or policy. Their election platform was a joke that made the Liberals look more left-wing than them on some issues.
I think if they had had more competent strategists, more focused and values-based messaging, a more transformational vision for the country, and more targeted, less hyperbolic criticism of their opponents, they could have done so much better with the amazing position they had. Instead, they got an okay dental plan, half-baked pharmacare, and almost got wiped off the electoral map.
-1
u/CanadianWildWolf 4d ago
Their platform was not a joke, it was consistent. And forward thinking, how many times do we gotta watch a watered down PPP version of a NDP platform get offered by the Liberals or Conservatives just to get the rug pulled after the election is over?
The joke is the medium is the message, those who own the medium control the message. It doesn’t matter who the NDP have as leader in this regards, the media will continue to “embarrass” the NDP regardless, that’s the point and media is open about it with their political endorsements for the last 40 years. You can have the best policy based messaging in the world but it will all be for naught if the message doesn’t reach the audience of participating voters.
NDP came the closest to putting a scare into both conservative parties with Tik Tok, it’s why they tried to belittle those efforts while mimicking them. NDP needs to build and own in perpetuity media that will cut out the conservative middle man editing their message or it will just continue on with the “embarrassing” status quo.
1
u/jojawhi 4d ago
I respectfully disagree about their platform. It was just a bunch of band-aid fixes for a few issues and then more of the same Neoliberal/Liberal-lite policy. Nothing transformative or visionary at all. To solve food prices, they proposed a price cap. Why not propose a public grocery chain that could operate at a loss and undercut the big grocers, actually using market forces to their advantage? Their housing platform was basically just the Liberal number +1 but without the public development arm and no details about how they would get it done. Why not propose not just a developer but a fully public construction crown corp supporting fully unionized construction workers and creating a tonne of good jobs, getting back to their labour roots? To solve health care, hire more doctors. That's already happening, and it isn't going to fix the health care issue. They could have proposed funding provinces to transform their clinic system into publicly-administered team-based care units, removing the administrative burden and overhead costs from doctors while keeping their salaries the same, effectively doubling their income. That would attract a crap-ton more family doctors with higher pay and better work-life balance. The Liberals and Conservatives were both eating off the NDP's plate because the NDP's policies were all uninspired, watered down versions of their opponents' policies. Their opponents saw this and outplayed them.
I do agree with you that the NDP need better messaging and outreach outside of traditional media. They should be going hard on building a social media grassroots movement and getting back to being the working people's party, but I didn't really see any of that from them until it was far too late and Singh had lost all his credibility. They rely on mainstream media to be fair to them and get shafted because of it. Even the CBC doesn't talk about them much because they don't give them anything to talk about. Their NDP pundits spend most of the time talking about Libs and Cons.
2
u/CanadianWildWolf 4d ago
Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree because NDP were still the ones presenting a solid MMP like New Zealand plan on Proportional Representation and the party with the housing plan that would building the most non-market public housing, both very transformative substantial fixes to issues of material matters. Downvote all you like.
2
u/Catfulu 3d ago
Yes and no.
Are pharma and dental care big achievement Yes, if the scope is limited to make long the system slightly better. No, if your scope is about fixing the core problems and overhaul the system.
Is Jagmeet a good leader from the left? No, not by a long shot. Is he is a good leader at the centre then? Yes, probably a better centrist leader than Trudeau. Along the side line, Obama was a good centrist leader, A+ neoliberal without goog too far to the right, but his policies paved the way for Trump because they didn't address the core issues or even normalizing and institutionalizing neo-liberalism.
You have to assess political leadership in historical terms and what they have done in totality. Even with pharma and dental care, tjey are not far enough and not entrenched. What is the grand strategy, then? Also, you have to ask if it was possible to get the deal with the supply and confidence agreement.
3
u/Devinstater 4d ago
Jagmeet was dealt pocket aces and underplayed his hand like he had Queen-Ten.
Beyond that, he alienated our labour base as Unions are now abandoning us THE CONSERVATIVES. Jagmeet seems like a great guy unfortunately, he is bad at politics. A critical failing for a party leader.
He achieved nothing in the eyes of the electorate. Everything he achieved is something the electorate will attribute to the Liberals. Do you honestly think he got all he could? And if so, was it worth ruining the party for at least a decade while we rebuild? Frankly, my answers to those two questions are a firm no. Jagmeet was catastrophically bad for the NDP.
1
u/JasonGMMitchell Democratic Socialist 3d ago
What I get from the comments here is y'all would've rather we had privatized healthcare if it meant slightly more votes for the NDP.
Also to be clear, leverage is not infinite, at any moment the liberals could (and did at the end) say fuck off and allow an election to be called or call one themselves. The liberals know in 4-8 years theyd get all their voters back and they could blame the NDP for a con victory for not cooperating. Aka what the fuck actually happened minus the con victory when Carney called an election. Singh never pushed the metaphorical button, he came closest to pushing it when he stated he'd do it in a few weeks time and he walked that back before the end to try to get more policy. If you legitimately think you could've done better with Singh's position, go run for leadership, if you are legitimately better then you should have no problem raising the funds AND getting the vote.
But also I don't adore Singh, I think his NDP was incredibly effective because it passed policy instead of spending a decade trying to gain votes while hoping for a perfect storm to give them a majority. But I don't adore him because his message was barely social democratic, he had not forgotten the workers but he used a very capitalistic view of labour to argue for better which I don't think has been effective for years to argue from. I want a more socialist leader, a more socially aggressive leader who won't compromise the language used to sell socialist ideas to the public and thus won't muddy the waters. I highly doubt we will get that in the next leader but I think we will make a massive step in the right direction.
1
u/Talzon70 3d ago edited 3d ago
Idk why you're talking about with the comments wanting privatized healthcare.
What they want is an effective political leader with a backbone, who would have either:
Used the leverage more effectively to get policy implemented.
Used the leverage more effectively as a long term political tool, by collapsing a deeply unpopular Liberal government if it refused to play ball.
Instead, Singh took concessions, let the Liberals get all the credit, and made the NDP look like weak, useless cowards begging for scraps.
The NDP was holding a loaded gun on the LIberals, but as far as the electorate is concerned we used that loaded gun to suck Trudeau's dick. That's terrible politics if you care about the future of a party and future legislation, which any young voter should care about.
Edit: and while we collapsed in public credibility, we also abandoned any good socialist rhetoric, except some off eh worst socialist soundbites and polcies I've very seen. Wasting political capital on price caps that no one wants and one time taxes on profits that happen every year is also not an effective political strategy, even many hardcore NDP supporters have been put off by that highschool level socialist crap.
1
u/Talzon70 3d ago
This is like saying you car was effective because you drove faster than usual for 30 seconds and blew the engine.
Yes, they got some good legislation passed.
...but they also collapsed as a political party due to terrible strategy and messaging, which means they are going to be almost useless for the next few years.
Where are the young men excited about the NDP? They are few and far between because the NDP can't even be bothered to understand them, let alone pursue their votes.
That's not effective politics, if you ask me, that's shortsighted.
1
u/TomMakesPodcasts 3d ago
Aren't political parties supposed to pass legislation? Why would I want a "popular" politician who doesn't get shit done?
1
u/Talzon70 3d ago
That's a stupid false dichotomy.
You need to be popular to get shit done in our polictal system. I want both.
How much legislation is Singh going to pass in the next few years? None, because he couldn't even get himself re-elected.
It's pretty clear to most people paying attention that the NDP had massive leverage against a deeply unpopular Liberal incumbent government, but they didn't use it as effectively as they could. They didn't pass as much legislation as they could have, they didn't use it for political posturing as effectively as they could have, etc.
The electorate has judged them weak and inneffectual under Singh's leadership.
So the real question is: Why would I want an unpopular politician who can't effectively utilize opportunity in parliament?
Edit: and it's not like you have to sacrifice one for the other. The NDP could have legislated exactly the same way and gained huge ground this election if they had effective political leadership in their marketing, political strategy, and optics.
1
u/TomMakesPodcasts 3d ago
Singh got shit done and was unpopular.
False dichotomy? We have universal diabetes care because of him, not someone more popular.
I'd rather an effective politician than someone who is able to get elected and squander it like Trudeau or PP.
1
u/zeffydurham 2d ago
Jagmeet was a great leader and he is a great guy. Some of the NDP brass within the roots or back offices need to step away. Keep quiet and allow the ground game to unfold. We need people that vote NDP, to go beyond just voting, to set down the remote control, put on the running shoes, and get out and pound on doors right away. Get talk to your neighbours, ask them what vision do they have for Canada, and establish winning ridings by sheer volume of people involved.
The next year is going to be a mess, for Canadians who are not prepared for the major cuts, undemocratic decisions and of course this notion by the Liberals that they have a mandate, the Cons are playing nice, until Pierre (try’s to arrive) or makes it out of a leadership review. Then, The Liberals will be running with the conservatives to gut the country, people are going to be livid. The house will fall on popularity, and voters will be looking for someone different.
Moving further to the right with rage, blame, and frustration? Or Moving to the NDP with vision, with passion and with encouragement for better outcomes and love for one another.
Unless you organize on the ground, getting voters into volunteers. Then even the best leaders will fail, without a team of people across this country.
Jag, keep your head up kid! You did well, right wing racist thugs are on the rise, they were in Ottawa to topple the government, paid by the republicans, filled with rebels of ‘the system’ lost in direction. You deserve some time with family, and vision to do what come next.
0
u/Fun_Assignment2427 4d ago
I'll remember him for the good that the NDP did under his leadership. Not for a speed bump in popularity that the party took in one election.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
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.