His confidence deal with Trudeau’s Liberals delivered progressive policies. But no NDP political payoff.
No one should be surprised by what Singh has done and how he chose to do it. NDP labour critic Mathew Green telegraphed publicly that his party had to have “tough conversations” about the deal with the Liberals — including the possibility of opting out of it.
Towards the end of a dull summer of barbecue politics, Singh’s decision to scuttle the agreement to support the Liberals caught many people off guard. But the reality is that this decision was inevitable, and, from a political point of view, well-advised.
. . .
But the deal was a flop at the political box office for the NDP. Instead of getting credit for pushing the Trudeau government on key, progressive issues, the party saw its popularity decline.
“commit today to voting for a carbon tax election”
The other guy’s line deserves a mention as well. I hope the other parties join him in calling for a carbon tax election. Let it be a referendum on whether or not to do anything about climate change. Only Poilievre can lose this next election for the Conservatives, and this just might be one way to do it.
Unfortunatey, it’s very difficult to actually decide what an election will be based on. You usually try and figure that out by polling the electorate and framing your election campaign in its terms, in a form of political judo.
This is going to be a cost-of-living election. Milhouse is just trying to turn that into an anti-tax thing.
As much as both you and Poilievre would welcome a carbon tax election (for opposite reasons), neither of you are gonna actually get it until people can house and feed themselves reasonably.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
The other guy’s line deserves a mention as well. I hope the other parties join him in calling for a carbon tax election. Let it be a referendum on whether or not to do anything about climate change. Only Poilievre can lose this next election for the Conservatives, and this just might be one way to do it.
Unfortunatey, it’s very difficult to actually decide what an election will be based on. You usually try and figure that out by polling the electorate and framing your election campaign in its terms, in a form of political judo.
This is going to be a cost-of-living election. Milhouse is just trying to turn that into an anti-tax thing.
As much as both you and Poilievre would welcome a carbon tax election (for opposite reasons), neither of you are gonna actually get it until people can house and feed themselves reasonably.