I agree with you in part, The NDP platform was more to the left in a strict academic sense, true. But in terms of the actual, material impacts it offered voters it really wasn't any different.

Take the childcare file, for example. The difference between a universal, government provided service and a targeted subsidy is massive if you're in the center of that policy debate, but most parents aren't. They see two parties basically offering the same thing : affordable childcare. And if you have two parties offering basically the same thing, but one of them seems to have a plan that makes a lot more sense, they'll pick that one.

The problem with the NDP platform is that it was too ideological, it's that it was ideologically compromised and inconsistent. They were pro-universal programs, but against raising revenues in any meaningful way. Voters noticed these inconsistencies and also saw that the NDP wasn't really offering anything significantly different to the Liberals. That's what's meant by "outflanking the NDP" - not so much offering more leftish policy, but offering pretty much the same thing while making it seem much more real.

It grates me when people describe the Liberal platform as "non-ideological" and "pragmatic". Targeted subsidies, which is what Liberal social programs mostly consisted of, are a feature of the Liberal's ideology. Call it third-way, welfare capitalism, whatever, it's an ideology.

If the NDP offered a platform that fit their ideology, with meaningful universal programs and matching increases in revenue, and made a real effort to win people over to their ideology, they would have done better in this election.