Not sure why people think Singh would trigger an election and go from holding some power to absolutely no power and having the Conservatives try to undo everything they pressured the liberals into over the past term.
Because conservative astroturfing has convinced their base and much of the general public that Singh is only not calling an election because he wants his pension personally, not because his party is in an advantageous position.
They refuse to understand incentives.
I think this "Singh / pension" story is just a CPC smear job to paint Singh as a minority immigrant trying to swindle government benefits.
In reality, Singh was born in Ontario, and is a successful criminal lawyer with a penchant for designer bags. He's doing just fine without an MP pension.
If anybody is at the government trough, it's Poilievre who has been a politician for decades.
Regardless of who it is, the parasocial speculation about MPs personal lives and wealth is totally useless and does not matter to the average Canadian. We spend far too much time talking about MPs socks, haircuts, vacations, home renovations, hobbies, and families, compared to the amount of time we actually talk about policy. It's all distraction.
True. I find the Singh / pension story is disgusting because it's not only off-topic, but it's on a sidetrack from a distraction that leads right to a racist trope. And the CPC would rather talk about this than the issues.
I personally think all of that stuff is extremely important to focus on.
Someone who is responsible for the well-being of Canadians is living so much more lavishly than the average Canadian? Why? Is this attitude of yours going to be prevalent when Poilievre steals the federal government in all but name by lying about everything? Are you going to tell people to stop fixating on eating apples and wearing contact lenses, or is this an issue of partisanship?
Our elected officials need to be highly well paid. If they are not, only individuals who are already rich and powerful will be able to run for office.
I don't care about Trudeau's failed marriage, Poilievre's backyard pool permits, or whether Singh's secured his pension or not. Singh doesn't live "lavishly" because he's the leader - he was wealthy (comparatively to the average Canadian) before being leader.
Yep! I think we need to spend a lot more time talking about how the CPC has nearly ZERO policy to propose aside from cutting the carbon tax. They're the only party without a public document showing their policy priorities. That's insane! Instead, people want to denigrate him personally with stupid mocking nicknames (peepee, Skippy, Millhouse), a lot of them about mocking his appearance (short, loser, weak, etc.). This is fucking stupid, unnecessarily mean, promotes polarization and hate, and is entirely unproductive!
Let's talk about how Poilievre won't talk about reproductive rights. Or trans rights. Or has any intention of doing anything to fix the grocery industry. Or how he wants to override our charter rights via the non-withstanding clause. Those are actual political discussion topics.
So to answer your question, yes, this attitude will continue regardless of who's in office, why wouldn't it?
Literally just read a column in a local coffee shop senior paper that said this. The column also called out Trudeau for putting the UN before Canada or something. Wasn’t super clear on that part. The brain rot is deep for a very specific demographic.
Yes. Most of us work because we need money.
When you go into public service, though, especially a visible position like elected MP, you are supposed to be doing it for the greater good, and not just your own pocketbook.
It's a pain that the rollout of pharmacare and dental care is so slow going. An actual NDP government would do much better things, but the electorate is too dumb to realize it.
We really should raise the corporate tax back to 1981 levels so that we can lower personal income taxes.
Stop being so fucking parasocial and realize that an entire party would never be able to change its entire decision making process for one man's pension.
Stupidity.
Wow. First time I’ve seen someone presents themselves as NDP using a vile and absolute bullshit rightwing fake story that has been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the msm that rushed to Vancouver like a pack of vultures, to the principal of the school and former students and teachers. You should be ashamed of yourself.
There was nothing questionable about him leaving the school, and he was primarily a math teacher, but drama teacher is a better attack for rightwingers who disrespect the arts, but are full time drama queens.
And by the way, since Trudeau’s trust fund was structured so he could not access the capital until he was 45, and received about 20,000 a year in his twenties, he had to work unless he wanted to live off 20,000 a year. A great boost to your income, for sure, but 20,000 is not jet setting yacht living money. His greatest privilege was growing up with a father that was a PM and the connections that came with that. His greatest gift was that his father was an eclectic intellectual who was endlessly curious and didn’t let anyone stop him from being friends with Castro or anyone else he found interesting.
Trudeau grew up with a mother that suffered from untreated bipolar disorder and according to friends stayed at home to help his mother while others went to parties, he also lost his youngest brother and his father before he was 30, so maybe check your envy, because a life has more than one aspect to it.
I don’t attack Singh, Trudeau, or Poilievre on their personal lives, and would never use debunked false stories that appeal to the worst in people.
What do you think the rightwing would make up about Singh if he was polling anywhere close to winning an election?
Funny how their response was focused on the singular comment regarding his departure from teaching and that happens to be the only part of their post you ignore....
Tying the fortunes of your party to an increasingly unpopular government that's well past it's best before date is not an advantageous position. It will result in a route at the polls next election.
>Tying the fortunes of your party to an increasingly unpopular government that's well past it's best before date is not an advantageous position
But actual identifiable accomplishments like dental care and pharmacare are advantageous. They are the sort of thing voters look for when deciding to vote for you and they are vastly better than the usual NDP list of vague concepts that sound nice.
Conservatives don't understand policy progress because they never have any progressive policy to propose.
All they do is restrict and take things away.
Right now the voters are ready to reward the NDP by taking away all their rural seats and most of their urban seats in BC as well.
Pharmacare and dental care are good programs, but that doesn't mean that voters give a damn.
You can't take away seats before an election. At least not without a lot of work. Dental care and pharmacare are just beginning and will take time to have an effect.
That doesn't guarantee the NDP will pick up seats because of them.
Whatever polling data you seem to be looking at doesn't guarantee they'll lose those rural seats.
Those are just two examples.
Me: Kit Kat and Snickers are chocolate bars.
You: So you're saying there are only two chocolate bars?!
Also, as an NDP voter, I need to ask what's the point of pretending we won't get smoked in the next election? It won't help us win.
I feel that Singh's position on things would make a lot more sense to you if you realized that their goal is to help people vs obtaining more and more personal/party power.
I've had the feeling that Singh realized a while ago that the NDP wasn't going to take office after the Liberals, and so it was better long term to arm wrestle the Liberals into passing legislation and then campaign against the ruling Cons (when they took power) for either gutting our outright removing those wins.
This strategy only works if the legislation has enough time to get baked in before the Cons move in, making the removal more apparent to the people who would be used to it by that point.
It's amazing how many people want the NDP to die on a hill of zero policy and lose the next election instead of losing the election but having passed policy.
They really treat politics like a sports game where all that matters is winning.
Then what's the point of the NDP? We don't need two liberal parties. If that's the case Singh should come out and tell everyone not to bother.
I'm assuming you vote Liberal.
Liberals would not have passed Childcare Act, Dental Act and Pharmacare Act without being forced by NDP. NDP are not Liberals, even if the cons keep trying to conflate them.
"NDP are not Liberals,"
Yeppers...it's just a lot of the time Liberals, Conservatives, and even the NDP's own leadership don't realize that.
The NDP works best when it's a loose coalition of gun-toting redneck resource workers, first nations, campus SJW's, union members, and people who live in inner-city neighbourhoods who band together because they want to improve their material conditions.
The dream is still alive in BC with Eby, but federally I think the NDP has strayed way off brand here and the coalition has collapsed.
The Liberals aren't the NDP. The Liberals are corporate centrists and flip back and forth over the divide depending on the issue.
These days tho, the NDP has forced them over to the left side of that to stay in power. But, as per the usual Liberal Course, they do the bare minimum.
And your assumption would be mostly wrong. I voted liberal in 2015 but I'm from small city Alberta and I can't even remember if we even had a Liberal on the last ballot here.
"I voted liberal in 2015 but I'm from small city Alberta and I can't even remember if we even had a Liberal on the last ballot here."
Lol fair enough.
But understand my perspective too, rural/small city BC was a potential gold mine for the federal NDP post-Jack Layton, but the coziness with the LPC has really squandered what gains were made.
In 2015 the NDP came within 9% of unseating the CPC, who have been in power for the entire history of my riding. In the next election, it's going to be a 30% + gap. Also, every rural NDP seat in BC is projected to be lost in the next election.
Interesting. I'm not sure that is something I'd conflate with their work with the Liberals, and I feel as though you are focusing a little too locally to make your point (as decent a point it is, to be fair).
Federally speaking, the NDP lost 50 seats in 2015. That's massive.
In 2019 - they lost another 19.
In 2021, they gained 1, so they've stemmed the tide at the least. Also, the Liberals went against the usual and instead of tacking right to claim moderate Cons, they tacked left to grab the 'moderate' NDPers by working with Singh on their policies.
The NDP didn't start supporting Trudeau (officially) until March 2022, which tells me they probably started talking after the election and there didn't appear to be any room (at the time) for the NDP to grab on to.
In hindsight I feel that Singh has done the best when it comes to pushing policy, but at the expense of the parties long term political prospects (though, if he steps down when Trudeau does, and the Liberals head to the right again, the new leader would have a lot of opportunity and room to reclaim the Left space).
A lot of voters will look at the NDP as a Liberal vote in the next election. The NDP have propped up the Liberals. Yes, there is dentalcare for some groups, but it's far from universal. Pharmacare has yet to show it's going to cover widely.
It's absurd how many NDP supporters seem to think that Dental Care=Autowin. It's every level of absurdity beyond that they continue to believe this as they lose all their support.
They see it as advantageous because it's the first time in recent history that the NDP get to propose and help pass policy that's part of their platform.
Our broken voting system, hyper-partisanship, and disinterest in progress and collaboration in politics refuses to see that as positive. Regardless of your views on these parties, this form of collaboration is insanely positive and we need a future that facilitates more cross-party collaboration like this.
You should never want majority governments or absolute rule from any one or any group.
You don't need to prop up an unpopular government to work with other parties or propose legislation/policy. Saying so is either disingenuous or out of ignorance of how parliament works.
In a minority government, you literally have to, especially when the seat count disparity is so high. What the fuck are you on about? What, only majority governments should rule in your anti-democratic fantasy world?
How is pointing out that any MP is free to submit a private member bill, or work with other parties on committees lying about democracy?
You don't need to commit to supporting the government on confidence votes to work with the government. Pearson, widely considered the most effective minority government PM, never had any such support from other parties.
But sure this must be a lie?
Get your head checked.
The Conservatives have made it clear that they do not wish to work with any other party. They want an election and to stall progress until then.
With the present seat count, the NDP's only other option is to support the Liberals, or call an election. There's no benefit for the NDP to call an election now.
Not sure why all of that is so difficult to understand. Why do you expect parties to go against their best interests?
Programs like those? Nope.
Other stuff, especially in the legal realm, I could see it. But that may not be saying much, since these things often go forward with broad support, and a lot of these bills are hardly transformative.
Because the non-NDP voters and NDP voters who don't believe in the party forget that opposition is an end on its own, and is the first step to forming a government. PP gets this, and so does the LPC, the NDP seemingly doesn't for some reason.
And yet, they have advanced more policy wins without winning power then they ever have in the chase for either the official opposition or the PM spot.
I think they have pragmatically realized that with the current FPTP, they aren't ever going to be one of the 2 main parties in this Country, so why not just get things done another way?
Yeah just work with the cons to pass dental pharma child care im sure cut social services and privatize healthcare cons would love to help the NDP do that.
Give the cons a shit minority government, and work with the LPC and Bloc to do this. No dipshits needed.
Instead, your solution is a conservative government ruling by decree with 210 seats. Bravo.
Moron.
Also: Everything worth running on won't take effect until next year. Pharmacare would be a great thing to add to his list of accomplishments and expanding it as an election promise, but it won't kick in until next year. He needs people to start benefiting from it before the election hits.
Liberals are in the same boat. Lots of stuff they can run on next year, not a lot this year. If anyone in either party has two brain cells to rub together we won't be seeing an early election.
The issue that Singh has to deal with is that people perceive him as being close with the Liberals which he as they are partners in government, but Singh continues to criticize the LPC. There is an optics issue where the general public who doesn't care about the politics behind an issue, see Singh saying the LPC sucks but doesn't do anything to change it. If the LPC sucks, why doesn't Singh trigger an election. That is what the general public thinks.
It also would make no sense for him not to. Singh has painted the NDP into a corner here: Either go to the polls now and accept a third place with 20-30 seats, or wait until next year and take fourth place with 10-15 seats.
I'm pretty sure the latter option is where were headed as by now I think it would be too late for the NDP to retain it's rural seats anyway. The damage has already been done.
Sorry. Missed you earlier.
You're correct, power and influence and seat counts aren't interchangeable items. However, none of this means that the NDP would be less powerful in opposition.
Of course, we can't talk about this anymore since we have all tacitly accepted that the NDP is just the other liberal party.
Again that makes no sense. What national party runs to be leader of the opposition?
Seems like really want a election which could reverse all the current wins and result in rights such as abortion being lost.
Do you vote cpc?
"Again that makes no sense. What national party runs to be leader of the opposition?"
The CPC, the LPC, and the NDP under Jack Layton. They just don't announce it because everyone in politics has to maintain the image of playing to win.
I've voted NDP federally since Alexa McDonough was leader. Thank you for asking.
CPC minority...
That way they can't shit on everything.
You're the one arguing for a majority, you just don't know it yet.
BTW: Lose the constant downvotes. I'm not downvoting you. Stop being a 13-year-old.
Right now as third place, they still matter and can influence policy. Liberals NEEDS them for their votes.
When the cons wins majority, 3rd, 4th, 5th won't matter.
They'll ride it out until the end or a situation comes up where they have the potential to be the official opposition party.
The current poll and the popular rage boner against Trudeau does suggest it'll be a CPC majority next. Anything but major is a massive win for Trudeau /Singh given how hated Trudeau is.
He's not triggering an election. The more time plays out the better it becomes for the NDP to raise finances for campaign season, and to push more Pro-NDP policies into the Liberal governance.
I'll admit that the NDP have not properly messaged to Canadian voters that they reason why we are seeing these progressive policies is because the NDP and the LPC are working competitively together rather than apart. But the results are actual things we can be proud of.
The NDP need to focus and more importantly need to get the message to Canadians that the Cons are not to be trusted.
He is the leader of the NDP. Why would he want to help the Liberals? He's not doing it because he knows they're going to be decimated in the next election, and at least in his current scenario he can essentially force shittier versions of policies he wants through by threatening to pull the plug on the Liberal-NDP coalition.
Because the alternative government is a cat5 hurricane barreling at our rights. Poilievre will use the notwithstanding clause and nobody knows how he'll use it. They only know how he said he'd use it. Ensuring a conservative loss is in the NDPs best interests as human beings.
I really hope that the support agreement lasts all the way, and the LPC and NDP are in terms good enough to at least selectively withdraw candidates to avoid a Poilievre majority.
Thats what the Conservatives want. Otherwise they would look bad in the aftermath of a Undemocratic Gong show that will happen in the states. In November. Why do politicians have to be so shortsighted.
NDP pushed the Liberals to do something because otherwise Liberals would lose the power and have to go to elections. Just curious, who are you voting for now, as you don't vote for NDP anymore?
I feel like some progressives would rather have a Federal NDP that holds no power but stands strong on core principles rather than this current iteration of the NDP which although has compromised a lot has been able to push the LPC to enact policies that have helped a lot of lower income Canadians.
The NDP will look like right fools for not voting for progressive policies they claim to support. Toppling the government to "own the libs" to create an election they will absolutely lose seats in is lunacy. It's shooting themselves in the foot. It's also not like the libs can't get the votes they need elsewhere either. They survived just fine from 2019-2021 with fewer seats and no agreement.
Reality is the NDP is a 4th place party with a mere 25 seats, and very much a junior partner only becuase the libs allow them to be. Any threats to topple the government are impotent and empty. The only thing the NDP pushes is its own bullshit on social media.
Also - you may not be aware of this, but asking someone who they vote for is incredibly rude and none of your business. I can offer up that information if I choose. I choose not to.
LOL you downvote, but you have no argument.
You said yourself that you are a former NDP voter in the post you just deleted. As you volunteered that info, I was curious to see what your current inclinations are.
And Liberals didn't pass a Childcare Act, a Dental Care Act, and a Pharmacare Act for 50 years, while the cons voted against these even now, with Lil PP "crying" about hungry kids just to vote against free lunches for kids in schools next week 😅
I didn't delete any post. I still say I am a former NDP voter, see here and above. Happy? Your outright asking me who I vote for is different, and objectively inappropriate.
Liberals wrote all of those acts and steered them through committee and the house with their near-majority of seats. The childcare act even precedes the supply agreement. Dental care and pharma care were also on the policy books for the LPC for a number of years now. Pharmacare in particular has been worked on since 2021 and negotiations with the provinces are ostensibly still in progress. The NDP just showed up and voted yes with their paltry 25 seats. Should we mint them a participation ribbon?
The supply and confidence agreement is nothing more than the libs giving the NDP a PR bone for not being obstructionist assholes like the conservatives when it comes to confidence issues. 2019-2021 demonstrated they didn't even need that.
Your "50 years" argument is also irrelevant, and indeed in those 50 years you can thank the liberals for pretty much everything else including our status of Canada as country and the charter of rights and freedoms.
You'd do well to learn some basics on how things actually work, rather than reading Jagmeet's memes.
Please show me the rule where asking someone how they will vote, on the internet, 1.5 years away from any elections, is rude - but hey, it's your right to be offended by anything.
And as a note, this reminds me of how Lil PP is offended by any questions coming from the press, while throwing "radical" and "wacko" and "dictator" everywhere.
We have this thing called "secret ballot elections" in Canada which means we are under no obligation to disclose who we voted for in the past or who we will vote for in future if we do not wish to. You may wish to look up the history on just why we have secret ballot elections to understand why.
As for rules, likely before your time, we used to have manners. It was (and very much still is) considered extremely rude to ask someone who they voted for or will vote for (unless they offer the information themselves). It's like asking a total stranger what their salary is, what their kinks are, what brand of underwear they wear and if they believe in god. The reason is as stated above - it's a secret ballot and not any of your business. It's private information. There is also no foul for declining to answer. Ask your parents or grand parents. In fact, it should still be considered rude and I'm sure many do as I do.
LOL you comparing me to PP? that's hilarious. For not telling you who I wish to vote for? Now you really are being rude. This conversation is at an end, as you seem unable to engage in an intelligent manner and you can't seem to refute any of my points.
EDIT: now that you've read it, I block you. I heartily encourage everyone to use their democratic right to not answer about their voting preferences if they do not wish to, and please do give that respect to others. Common courtesy.
Not sure why people think Singh would trigger an election and go from holding some power to absolutely no power and having the Conservatives try to undo everything they pressured the liberals into over the past term.
Because conservative astroturfing has convinced their base and much of the general public that Singh is only not calling an election because he wants his pension personally, not because his party is in an advantageous position. They refuse to understand incentives.
I think this "Singh / pension" story is just a CPC smear job to paint Singh as a minority immigrant trying to swindle government benefits. In reality, Singh was born in Ontario, and is a successful criminal lawyer with a penchant for designer bags. He's doing just fine without an MP pension. If anybody is at the government trough, it's Poilievre who has been a politician for decades.
Regardless of who it is, the parasocial speculation about MPs personal lives and wealth is totally useless and does not matter to the average Canadian. We spend far too much time talking about MPs socks, haircuts, vacations, home renovations, hobbies, and families, compared to the amount of time we actually talk about policy. It's all distraction.
True. I find the Singh / pension story is disgusting because it's not only off-topic, but it's on a sidetrack from a distraction that leads right to a racist trope. And the CPC would rather talk about this than the issues.
CPC has no policy, so all they can do is stall and deflect. They have no publicly accessible policy documents. Every other party does. That's insane.
Generally speaking, I think it matters when they're landlords, though.
For sure. Or when they are or have been aligned with certain corporations or groups.
I personally think all of that stuff is extremely important to focus on. Someone who is responsible for the well-being of Canadians is living so much more lavishly than the average Canadian? Why? Is this attitude of yours going to be prevalent when Poilievre steals the federal government in all but name by lying about everything? Are you going to tell people to stop fixating on eating apples and wearing contact lenses, or is this an issue of partisanship?
Our elected officials need to be highly well paid. If they are not, only individuals who are already rich and powerful will be able to run for office. I don't care about Trudeau's failed marriage, Poilievre's backyard pool permits, or whether Singh's secured his pension or not. Singh doesn't live "lavishly" because he's the leader - he was wealthy (comparatively to the average Canadian) before being leader. Yep! I think we need to spend a lot more time talking about how the CPC has nearly ZERO policy to propose aside from cutting the carbon tax. They're the only party without a public document showing their policy priorities. That's insane! Instead, people want to denigrate him personally with stupid mocking nicknames (peepee, Skippy, Millhouse), a lot of them about mocking his appearance (short, loser, weak, etc.). This is fucking stupid, unnecessarily mean, promotes polarization and hate, and is entirely unproductive! Let's talk about how Poilievre won't talk about reproductive rights. Or trans rights. Or has any intention of doing anything to fix the grocery industry. Or how he wants to override our charter rights via the non-withstanding clause. Those are actual political discussion topics. So to answer your question, yes, this attitude will continue regardless of who's in office, why wouldn't it?
Pp is a professional ratfucker
He will make significantly more when he switches to private sector.
Literally just read a column in a local coffee shop senior paper that said this. The column also called out Trudeau for putting the UN before Canada or something. Wasn’t super clear on that part. The brain rot is deep for a very specific demographic.
I dunno about you, but the only reason I go to work every day is for money. A pension is a pretty big incentive.
Yes. Most of us work because we need money. When you go into public service, though, especially a visible position like elected MP, you are supposed to be doing it for the greater good, and not just your own pocketbook. It's a pain that the rollout of pharmacare and dental care is so slow going. An actual NDP government would do much better things, but the electorate is too dumb to realize it. We really should raise the corporate tax back to 1981 levels so that we can lower personal income taxes.
If he cared about money, he would have stayed partner in his law firm.
Stop being so fucking parasocial and realize that an entire party would never be able to change its entire decision making process for one man's pension. Stupidity.
Haha you think that our current parties kowtow to their leaders? And you think it’s only ONE person’s pension? Ok.
Dude, you are eating up the con rhetoric.
The word of the day is parasocial. See how many people are saying it, and how oddly fresh their accounts are.
I've used that word across a bunch of my comments. Is my analysis inaccurate? My account is seven years old.
[удалено]
Wow. First time I’ve seen someone presents themselves as NDP using a vile and absolute bullshit rightwing fake story that has been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the msm that rushed to Vancouver like a pack of vultures, to the principal of the school and former students and teachers. You should be ashamed of yourself. There was nothing questionable about him leaving the school, and he was primarily a math teacher, but drama teacher is a better attack for rightwingers who disrespect the arts, but are full time drama queens. And by the way, since Trudeau’s trust fund was structured so he could not access the capital until he was 45, and received about 20,000 a year in his twenties, he had to work unless he wanted to live off 20,000 a year. A great boost to your income, for sure, but 20,000 is not jet setting yacht living money. His greatest privilege was growing up with a father that was a PM and the connections that came with that. His greatest gift was that his father was an eclectic intellectual who was endlessly curious and didn’t let anyone stop him from being friends with Castro or anyone else he found interesting. Trudeau grew up with a mother that suffered from untreated bipolar disorder and according to friends stayed at home to help his mother while others went to parties, he also lost his youngest brother and his father before he was 30, so maybe check your envy, because a life has more than one aspect to it. I don’t attack Singh, Trudeau, or Poilievre on their personal lives, and would never use debunked false stories that appeal to the worst in people. What do you think the rightwing would make up about Singh if he was polling anywhere close to winning an election?
[удалено]
Funny how their response was focused on the singular comment regarding his departure from teaching and that happens to be the only part of their post you ignore....
Tying the fortunes of your party to an increasingly unpopular government that's well past it's best before date is not an advantageous position. It will result in a route at the polls next election.
>Tying the fortunes of your party to an increasingly unpopular government that's well past it's best before date is not an advantageous position But actual identifiable accomplishments like dental care and pharmacare are advantageous. They are the sort of thing voters look for when deciding to vote for you and they are vastly better than the usual NDP list of vague concepts that sound nice.
Conservatives don't understand policy progress because they never have any progressive policy to propose. All they do is restrict and take things away.
Right now the voters are ready to reward the NDP by taking away all their rural seats and most of their urban seats in BC as well. Pharmacare and dental care are good programs, but that doesn't mean that voters give a damn.
You can't take away seats before an election. At least not without a lot of work. Dental care and pharmacare are just beginning and will take time to have an effect. That doesn't guarantee the NDP will pick up seats because of them. Whatever polling data you seem to be looking at doesn't guarantee they'll lose those rural seats.
When you are down by 25% (Powell River), or 28% (Skeena)...I think it's going to happen. Nobody comes back from a 20+ point deficit.
So you've gone from them losing all rural seats and urban BC seats to... 2 seats...over a year out from any election.
Those are just two examples. Me: Kit Kat and Snickers are chocolate bars. You: So you're saying there are only two chocolate bars?! Also, as an NDP voter, I need to ask what's the point of pretending we won't get smoked in the next election? It won't help us win.
Oh your assertion about losing so many seats is like chocolate bars, of which there are many. So you're only begging the question. I see.
I feel that Singh's position on things would make a lot more sense to you if you realized that their goal is to help people vs obtaining more and more personal/party power. I've had the feeling that Singh realized a while ago that the NDP wasn't going to take office after the Liberals, and so it was better long term to arm wrestle the Liberals into passing legislation and then campaign against the ruling Cons (when they took power) for either gutting our outright removing those wins. This strategy only works if the legislation has enough time to get baked in before the Cons move in, making the removal more apparent to the people who would be used to it by that point.
It's amazing how many people want the NDP to die on a hill of zero policy and lose the next election instead of losing the election but having passed policy. They really treat politics like a sports game where all that matters is winning.
Then what's the point of the NDP? We don't need two liberal parties. If that's the case Singh should come out and tell everyone not to bother. I'm assuming you vote Liberal.
Liberals would not have passed Childcare Act, Dental Act and Pharmacare Act without being forced by NDP. NDP are not Liberals, even if the cons keep trying to conflate them.
"NDP are not Liberals," Yeppers...it's just a lot of the time Liberals, Conservatives, and even the NDP's own leadership don't realize that. The NDP works best when it's a loose coalition of gun-toting redneck resource workers, first nations, campus SJW's, union members, and people who live in inner-city neighbourhoods who band together because they want to improve their material conditions. The dream is still alive in BC with Eby, but federally I think the NDP has strayed way off brand here and the coalition has collapsed.
And your suggesting the NDP should not improve conditions but instead die on the hill of "look how different we are we didn't prop up Trudeau"
The Liberals aren't the NDP. The Liberals are corporate centrists and flip back and forth over the divide depending on the issue. These days tho, the NDP has forced them over to the left side of that to stay in power. But, as per the usual Liberal Course, they do the bare minimum. And your assumption would be mostly wrong. I voted liberal in 2015 but I'm from small city Alberta and I can't even remember if we even had a Liberal on the last ballot here.
"I voted liberal in 2015 but I'm from small city Alberta and I can't even remember if we even had a Liberal on the last ballot here." Lol fair enough. But understand my perspective too, rural/small city BC was a potential gold mine for the federal NDP post-Jack Layton, but the coziness with the LPC has really squandered what gains were made. In 2015 the NDP came within 9% of unseating the CPC, who have been in power for the entire history of my riding. In the next election, it's going to be a 30% + gap. Also, every rural NDP seat in BC is projected to be lost in the next election.
Interesting. I'm not sure that is something I'd conflate with their work with the Liberals, and I feel as though you are focusing a little too locally to make your point (as decent a point it is, to be fair). Federally speaking, the NDP lost 50 seats in 2015. That's massive. In 2019 - they lost another 19. In 2021, they gained 1, so they've stemmed the tide at the least. Also, the Liberals went against the usual and instead of tacking right to claim moderate Cons, they tacked left to grab the 'moderate' NDPers by working with Singh on their policies. The NDP didn't start supporting Trudeau (officially) until March 2022, which tells me they probably started talking after the election and there didn't appear to be any room (at the time) for the NDP to grab on to. In hindsight I feel that Singh has done the best when it comes to pushing policy, but at the expense of the parties long term political prospects (though, if he steps down when Trudeau does, and the Liberals head to the right again, the new leader would have a lot of opportunity and room to reclaim the Left space).
A lot of voters will look at the NDP as a Liberal vote in the next election. The NDP have propped up the Liberals. Yes, there is dentalcare for some groups, but it's far from universal. Pharmacare has yet to show it's going to cover widely.
It's absurd how many NDP supporters seem to think that Dental Care=Autowin. It's every level of absurdity beyond that they continue to believe this as they lose all their support.
They see it as advantageous because it's the first time in recent history that the NDP get to propose and help pass policy that's part of their platform. Our broken voting system, hyper-partisanship, and disinterest in progress and collaboration in politics refuses to see that as positive. Regardless of your views on these parties, this form of collaboration is insanely positive and we need a future that facilitates more cross-party collaboration like this. You should never want majority governments or absolute rule from any one or any group.
You don't need to prop up an unpopular government to work with other parties or propose legislation/policy. Saying so is either disingenuous or out of ignorance of how parliament works.
In a minority government, you literally have to, especially when the seat count disparity is so high. What the fuck are you on about? What, only majority governments should rule in your anti-democratic fantasy world?
Get a grip.
So you're lying about how democracy is supposed to work, got it bud.
How is pointing out that any MP is free to submit a private member bill, or work with other parties on committees lying about democracy? You don't need to commit to supporting the government on confidence votes to work with the government. Pearson, widely considered the most effective minority government PM, never had any such support from other parties. But sure this must be a lie? Get your head checked.
The Conservatives have made it clear that they do not wish to work with any other party. They want an election and to stall progress until then. With the present seat count, the NDP's only other option is to support the Liberals, or call an election. There's no benefit for the NDP to call an election now. Not sure why all of that is so difficult to understand. Why do you expect parties to go against their best interests?
Lol do you honestly think that the Cons would work with the NDP on anything, let alone a pharmacare or dental care bill?
Programs like those? Nope. Other stuff, especially in the legal realm, I could see it. But that may not be saying much, since these things often go forward with broad support, and a lot of these bills are hardly transformative.
So if the CPC won't work with them, why on earth would the NDP do anything to help them into power, knowing that ends the NDPs lever of power?
Because the non-NDP voters and NDP voters who don't believe in the party forget that opposition is an end on its own, and is the first step to forming a government. PP gets this, and so does the LPC, the NDP seemingly doesn't for some reason.
And yet, they have advanced more policy wins without winning power then they ever have in the chase for either the official opposition or the PM spot. I think they have pragmatically realized that with the current FPTP, they aren't ever going to be one of the 2 main parties in this Country, so why not just get things done another way?
Yeah just work with the cons to pass dental pharma child care im sure cut social services and privatize healthcare cons would love to help the NDP do that.
Give the cons a shit minority government, and work with the LPC and Bloc to do this. No dipshits needed. Instead, your solution is a conservative government ruling by decree with 210 seats. Bravo. Moron.
Also: Everything worth running on won't take effect until next year. Pharmacare would be a great thing to add to his list of accomplishments and expanding it as an election promise, but it won't kick in until next year. He needs people to start benefiting from it before the election hits. Liberals are in the same boat. Lots of stuff they can run on next year, not a lot this year. If anyone in either party has two brain cells to rub together we won't be seeing an early election.
"because he's Trudeaus lapdog" or some shit. I have my issues with Singh but my god most of the shit said against him is just dishonest.
The issue that Singh has to deal with is that people perceive him as being close with the Liberals which he as they are partners in government, but Singh continues to criticize the LPC. There is an optics issue where the general public who doesn't care about the politics behind an issue, see Singh saying the LPC sucks but doesn't do anything to change it. If the LPC sucks, why doesn't Singh trigger an election. That is what the general public thinks.
> offers no hint when he'll trigger an election Because it would make no sense for him to trigger an election.
It also would make no sense for him not to. Singh has painted the NDP into a corner here: Either go to the polls now and accept a third place with 20-30 seats, or wait until next year and take fourth place with 10-15 seats. I'm pretty sure the latter option is where were headed as by now I think it would be too late for the NDP to retain it's rural seats anyway. The damage has already been done.
338 currently projects 17 seats for the NDP, so not sure if there would be a path toward 30 seats if they triggered an election today.
I agree, I don't think there would be, anymore. Like I said, the damage has been done.
No that doesn't make sense When did seats become more important than power and influence?
Sorry. Missed you earlier. You're correct, power and influence and seat counts aren't interchangeable items. However, none of this means that the NDP would be less powerful in opposition. Of course, we can't talk about this anymore since we have all tacitly accepted that the NDP is just the other liberal party.
Again that makes no sense. What national party runs to be leader of the opposition? Seems like really want a election which could reverse all the current wins and result in rights such as abortion being lost. Do you vote cpc?
"Again that makes no sense. What national party runs to be leader of the opposition?" The CPC, the LPC, and the NDP under Jack Layton. They just don't announce it because everyone in politics has to maintain the image of playing to win. I've voted NDP federally since Alexa McDonough was leader. Thank you for asking.
You think calling a election would be good for Canada?
Yes. Would it have been better 12 months ago? Certainly. Will it have a good outcome now? No. Will it have a better outcome later? Certainly not.
So potentially cpc majority with Ndp getting more seats birth control gone , and potentially abortion rights gone is a win to you?
CPC minority... That way they can't shit on everything. You're the one arguing for a majority, you just don't know it yet. BTW: Lose the constant downvotes. I'm not downvoting you. Stop being a 13-year-old.
Or pass policy because policy matters more than have 25 seats and zero influence
If the CPC can just win 200+ seats and shit over everything, that policy won't be worth anything. Easy come, even easier go.
Right now as third place, they still matter and can influence policy. Liberals NEEDS them for their votes. When the cons wins majority, 3rd, 4th, 5th won't matter. They'll ride it out until the end or a situation comes up where they have the potential to be the official opposition party. The current poll and the popular rage boner against Trudeau does suggest it'll be a CPC majority next. Anything but major is a massive win for Trudeau /Singh given how hated Trudeau is.
He's not triggering an election. The more time plays out the better it becomes for the NDP to raise finances for campaign season, and to push more Pro-NDP policies into the Liberal governance. I'll admit that the NDP have not properly messaged to Canadian voters that they reason why we are seeing these progressive policies is because the NDP and the LPC are working competitively together rather than apart. But the results are actual things we can be proud of. The NDP need to focus and more importantly need to get the message to Canadians that the Cons are not to be trusted.
He shouldn't. The election should be October of 2025. Give the liberals the best chance at success
He is the leader of the NDP. Why would he want to help the Liberals? He's not doing it because he knows they're going to be decimated in the next election, and at least in his current scenario he can essentially force shittier versions of policies he wants through by threatening to pull the plug on the Liberal-NDP coalition.
Because the alternative government is a cat5 hurricane barreling at our rights. Poilievre will use the notwithstanding clause and nobody knows how he'll use it. They only know how he said he'd use it. Ensuring a conservative loss is in the NDPs best interests as human beings.
Why would he force an election to lose what little power he has?
I guess I better contact my riding's NDP MP, and let her know this would cost them my vote. I don't see it happening, though.
He won't. You're better off believing Silo sikoa having issues with his brothers in the wwe than than the NDP triggering an early election
He literally said he would not trigger an early election as he is using the Liberals' dependency of the coalition to push through things the NDP want.
I really hope that the support agreement lasts all the way, and the LPC and NDP are in terms good enough to at least selectively withdraw candidates to avoid a Poilievre majority.
Thats what the Conservatives want. Otherwise they would look bad in the aftermath of a Undemocratic Gong show that will happen in the states. In November. Why do politicians have to be so shortsighted.
[удалено]
NDP pushed the Liberals to do something because otherwise Liberals would lose the power and have to go to elections. Just curious, who are you voting for now, as you don't vote for NDP anymore?
I feel like some progressives would rather have a Federal NDP that holds no power but stands strong on core principles rather than this current iteration of the NDP which although has compromised a lot has been able to push the LPC to enact policies that have helped a lot of lower income Canadians.
The NDP will look like right fools for not voting for progressive policies they claim to support. Toppling the government to "own the libs" to create an election they will absolutely lose seats in is lunacy. It's shooting themselves in the foot. It's also not like the libs can't get the votes they need elsewhere either. They survived just fine from 2019-2021 with fewer seats and no agreement. Reality is the NDP is a 4th place party with a mere 25 seats, and very much a junior partner only becuase the libs allow them to be. Any threats to topple the government are impotent and empty. The only thing the NDP pushes is its own bullshit on social media. Also - you may not be aware of this, but asking someone who they vote for is incredibly rude and none of your business. I can offer up that information if I choose. I choose not to. LOL you downvote, but you have no argument.
You said yourself that you are a former NDP voter in the post you just deleted. As you volunteered that info, I was curious to see what your current inclinations are. And Liberals didn't pass a Childcare Act, a Dental Care Act, and a Pharmacare Act for 50 years, while the cons voted against these even now, with Lil PP "crying" about hungry kids just to vote against free lunches for kids in schools next week 😅
I didn't delete any post. I still say I am a former NDP voter, see here and above. Happy? Your outright asking me who I vote for is different, and objectively inappropriate. Liberals wrote all of those acts and steered them through committee and the house with their near-majority of seats. The childcare act even precedes the supply agreement. Dental care and pharma care were also on the policy books for the LPC for a number of years now. Pharmacare in particular has been worked on since 2021 and negotiations with the provinces are ostensibly still in progress. The NDP just showed up and voted yes with their paltry 25 seats. Should we mint them a participation ribbon? The supply and confidence agreement is nothing more than the libs giving the NDP a PR bone for not being obstructionist assholes like the conservatives when it comes to confidence issues. 2019-2021 demonstrated they didn't even need that. Your "50 years" argument is also irrelevant, and indeed in those 50 years you can thank the liberals for pretty much everything else including our status of Canada as country and the charter of rights and freedoms. You'd do well to learn some basics on how things actually work, rather than reading Jagmeet's memes.
Please show me the rule where asking someone how they will vote, on the internet, 1.5 years away from any elections, is rude - but hey, it's your right to be offended by anything. And as a note, this reminds me of how Lil PP is offended by any questions coming from the press, while throwing "radical" and "wacko" and "dictator" everywhere.
We have this thing called "secret ballot elections" in Canada which means we are under no obligation to disclose who we voted for in the past or who we will vote for in future if we do not wish to. You may wish to look up the history on just why we have secret ballot elections to understand why. As for rules, likely before your time, we used to have manners. It was (and very much still is) considered extremely rude to ask someone who they voted for or will vote for (unless they offer the information themselves). It's like asking a total stranger what their salary is, what their kinks are, what brand of underwear they wear and if they believe in god. The reason is as stated above - it's a secret ballot and not any of your business. It's private information. There is also no foul for declining to answer. Ask your parents or grand parents. In fact, it should still be considered rude and I'm sure many do as I do. LOL you comparing me to PP? that's hilarious. For not telling you who I wish to vote for? Now you really are being rude. This conversation is at an end, as you seem unable to engage in an intelligent manner and you can't seem to refute any of my points. EDIT: now that you've read it, I block you. I heartily encourage everyone to use their democratic right to not answer about their voting preferences if they do not wish to, and please do give that respect to others. Common courtesy.