babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
What lessons can Andrea Horwath learn from Rachel Notley?
May 3, 2015 - 7:08pm
====
What does Rachel have that Andrea doesn't?
What lessons can Andrea learn from Rachel for the 2018 campaign?
That campaigning on the same kind of platform that Horwath ran on in Ontario, works in Alberta?
Alberta does not have Ontario's Liberal problem.
The economy and a scandal plauged government, with an elctorate wanting change?
That was the ballot box issue in BOTH Alberta and Ontario
Rachel is real Andrea is not?
That's interesting, because as I recall, you thought "TIM HUDAK" was the ballot box question during the last Ontario election.
You are confusing elections.
I said ROB FORD was the ballot question (Yes or No) in the Toronto mayor race.
I never said that about Hudak.
My issue with the Ontario election was Andrea's attempt to win over the Ford Nation/Toronto Sun/Tim Horton's voters. With a populist playbook.
It's fine if she wants to expand her base, but you need to bring your existing base with you. Andrea didn't do that. Exhibit A - NDP 18 who signed that open letter.
Which gave Kathleen Wynne an opening, And allowed her to poach disinfranchised NDP supporters. Which gave her a majority.
So I'm just wondering what Rachel Notley is doing, that Andrea can try and use for 2018.
What open letter from 18? As far as I remember there was a letter signed by 34 people, of which only 5 were members of the NDP. The letter was meant to be secret or so they say.
But, I defy you to show how the ANDP campaign is any less "right-wing populist" than that of the ONDP in 2013. The only difference seems to be that there are not a lot of so called "social activist" progressive's coming after Notely, posing as disenfranchised ONDP "stalwarts", and banging the Wynne Liberal drum at the same time.
NDP losses in Toronto did not give Wynne her majority. Even if the ONDP had held on to all three of those seats, two of which were questionable anyway, the Liberals would still have a majority.
Your statement is almost entirely fact free.
The real lesson for 2018 is for voters, and the message is don't listen to contrived "fact free" bullshit.
OK, so that is the difference. Horwath had the NDP 34 coming after her (sorry for the mistake. I thought it was 18, but it was actually 34)
So while Horwath had the old guard going after her for 'betraying' the party roots, Notley isn't having that problem.
So are you saying that both Horwath and Notley are presenting pretty much the same campaign platform?
Is Rachel a better campaigner than Andrea? Better at communicating her message?
BTW Rachel Notley has a similiar campaign slogan Kathleen Wynne used
Kathleen Wynne - What Leadership Is
Rachel Notley - Leadership For What Matters
The key distinction is that the establishment is not running a campaign claiming to be "progressive", so Notely basically has that all to herself. There is no where for the establishment to hang its misinformation and smear campaign. Nor is there a troop of useful idiots like Sid Ryan, Judy Rebbick, Rick Salutin and Gerry Caplan distorting Notely's "message".
One, might ask, where are Rachel Notely's "big vision" policy pronoucements? A few claimed that Horwath's failure to promote a central big ticket "social democratic" flag ship policy, such as the ORPP or a "daycare" plan, demostrated Horwath's lack of "commitment' to "social justice"? No where! Indeed Notely's campaign is filled with a laundry list of minor fixes to existing issues, and a few boutique populist tax roll backs on consumer items, and a pledge to rais corporate taxes.
What lessons can terrytowel learn from Rachel Notley?
Actually, Ontario's real "Liberal problem" was Kathleen Wynne being far cleverer and attractive on the stump than the faltering Jim Prentice in Alberta...
Agree 100%
Though I think Andrea could have avoided the criticism from the 'socialist caucus' and 'liberal-ndp urban yuppie' types by providing some strong announcements on one or two key issues that progressives care about, such as poverty relief or the environment (e.g. funding affordable housing)
Good point.
A lot of politics is luck & timing, and who your opponents are.
Even if you are a talented person, you benefit from circumstances.
Eg. Stephen Harper is no doubt a very smart & strategic man, very manipulative, Machiavellian, etc. But he also happened to take over as CPC leader in 2003 at the right time, just when the Sponsorship Scandal hit. He's only gone up against the Liberals at their weakest. If he had gone up against the Liberals at an earlier time in history, against Pierre Trudeau, Wilfrid Laurier, etc. he never would have become PM.
Likewise, Jéan Chrétien was also a very smart politician, with some good, down to earth populist appeal as the Little Guy From Shawingan, etc. But he probably wouldn't have won 3 majorities had the right not been split up into 2 parties, and the NDP demolished in 1993. It meant that he had very little opposition that could beat him during his years in power.
And the same goes for some of these provincial elections. Rachel Notley obviously is a good campaigner and did a solid job in the debates and so forth, but she also benefitted from a desire for change and was in the right place after the PC's having been in power for almost 45 years and with people being fed up with Jim Prentice's Wild Rose shenanigans and opportunism in calling an early election.
Kathleen Wynne is a smarter & more formidable opponent than Jim Prentice, and won't be brought down as easily.
Well. like Ms. Horwath, Rachel spent little time campaigning in Toronto...
Prentice wasn't "on" the stump, he was the stump...
As Michael Taube wrote in the Toronto Sun
"Alberta’s equivalent to Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, she mixed populist charm and leftist rhetoric into a political message that clearly resonated with people."
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/07/this-isnt-your-fathers-alberta
As Debater says
A lot of politics is luck & timing, and who your opponents are.
Even if you are a talented person, you benefit from circumstances.
She might have. But the demand for ever greater disbursements of money, without questioning where it comes from belies a failure of analysis that doesn't go beyond mere charity, nor enters the realm of structural reform.
On this front Horwath's "social activist" detractors failed badly both in interpreting the Liberal platform and that of the NDP.
In the latter case, they were dazzled by the impressive numbers touted by the Liberals for "transit and infrastructure", failing to realize that in order to produce these numbers, and cut the deficit as the same time, the Liberal intended to sell revenue generating capacity for short term gain, while ultimately increasing the cost of living to those who were supposed to benefit, by increasing energy costs, which will be an inevitable result of the Hydro One sell-off.
In the case of the NDP, many seemed fixated on the concept that "tax cuts" are petty and bad because the Rob Ford thinks they are good, failing to realize that structurally, removing the burden of government cost from a consumption tax and moving it to a corporate taxe, reverses the trend of the last 30 years, and is a change that not only reduces the cost of living, but also amounts to a direct transfer of wealth downward.
To my mind the "modesty" of the NDP platform was its charm, since they were not promising a big blow out with big numbers, but incremental reform structural reform -- structural reform that creates a more humane society that obviates the need for charity is far nobler than simple gifts of money.
That said, I never understood why Horwath didn't just stick with her 2010 pledge for complete rollback of the corporate tax cuts, since the electorate is hardly going to be swayed one way or the other by the difference between 1% and 2.5%, and are merely going to hear about "corporate tax increases -- the math is easy.
The Liberal problem is none of the above. It is the existence of Liberals. While Liberals exist, you have a Liberal problem. Alberta did not have a Liberal problem.