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.
Trudeau’s moment, really, was when he didn’t seem to think it was his job to do anything about housing or inflation.
I don’t think you can pin the LPC’s fall on that, but just coincidentally that’s when the bottom fell out of their numbers and they scrambled off to a retreat to try and figure out how to get people to like them. Unfortunately, all of the solutions would require them to abandon neoliberalism.
I think they’re really hoping for the kind of moment that got Keir Starmer in, or that saved Macron’s bacon. Centrist and centre-left parties really, really want it to be the late 90s again, when you could lower taxes, be entertained by billionaires, play the sax on stage, fingerbang an intern and still be thought of as cool and progressive because you inhaled pot smoke one time.
Such a dismissive attitude towards politics — that it is only about waging election campaigns, irrelevant to the more substantial matters of government which can proceed once the election is won without the impediments of what are normally thought of as political concerns such as balancing competing interests, weighing public perceptions, and making delicate compromises — is what I object to, yes.
The unspoken subtext in Trudeau’s comment is of course “they’re playing silly games while I’m running the country”. Trudeau’s only available response to the end of the supply and confidence agreement is to downplay its significance, while avoiding looking like a bitter jackass. Ironically, his comment is itself exactly the kind of ‘politics’ he’s accusing the other party leaders of practicing. It’s image management, that’s it.
“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.
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.
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.
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 liberals are acting arrogant with their behaviour and I don’t blame people for questioning their value as a government.
Trudeau’s moment, really, was when he didn’t seem to think it was his job to do anything about housing or inflation.
I don’t think you can pin the LPC’s fall on that, but just coincidentally that’s when the bottom fell out of their numbers and they scrambled off to a retreat to try and figure out how to get people to like them. Unfortunately, all of the solutions would require them to abandon neoliberalism.
I think they’re really hoping for the kind of moment that got Keir Starmer in, or that saved Macron’s bacon. Centrist and centre-left parties really, really want it to be the late 90s again, when you could lower taxes, be entertained by billionaires, play the sax on stage, fingerbang an intern and still be thought of as cool and progressive because you inhaled pot smoke one time.
At this rate, it won’t be long before Poilievre is speaking in full limerick. What an idiot.
What kind of bizarro world does Ottawa exist in when the country’s top politician does not understand that politics is his job?
His job is to govern, not run for election. Politics usually refers more the latter than the former.
I agree that the government should govern not politick, but isn’t it a bit naive to think you can make lasting change without politicking?
I wonder if it’s useful to look at “governing”, and “politicking” as either end of a spectrum with “leading” as the sweet spot.
Just my two cents though.
Such a dismissive attitude towards politics — that it is only about waging election campaigns, irrelevant to the more substantial matters of government which can proceed once the election is won without the impediments of what are normally thought of as political concerns such as balancing competing interests, weighing public perceptions, and making delicate compromises — is what I object to, yes.
The unspoken subtext in Trudeau’s comment is of course “they’re playing silly games while I’m running the country”. Trudeau’s only available response to the end of the supply and confidence agreement is to downplay its significance, while avoiding looking like a bitter jackass. Ironically, his comment is itself exactly the kind of ‘politics’ he’s accusing the other party leaders of practicing. It’s image management, that’s it.
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.
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.
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.
Because the most popular bully has been replaced and the toady has to distance himself from the old leader.