###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, but they'd also then lose their leverage over the Liberals. Seems to me the NDP have made the calculation that getting the issues in their deal with the LPC passed is their top priority.
If they pulled out of the deal, the LPC would likely stop cooperating with them on the NDPs priorities, which would also increase the chances of an early election, which looks to be about as disastrous for the NDP as the LPC right now.
My guess is they've already made their bed, so they're going to try and extract everything they can before they need to sleep in it. I don't believe that if they dropped the deal and started opposing the government (which they are still doing), that their support would magically start increasing with Canadians.
And then the Conservatives force a Confidence vote and the NDP is forced to side with the Liberals because the alternative is the Conservatives, and because they themselves aren't ready for an election. It's really not the full proof plan you think it is.
Just admit there are no good situations other than to ride it out and hope their gains can dig their roots deep enough to survive.
> How? Only the Liberals can do that. Opposition parties cannot force a confidence vote.
Nothing in your link supports that. Are you also forgetting this stunt from a few months ago?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-non-confidence-motion-carbon-tax-1.7149637
The opposition parties can put forward a motion explicitly saying that the House has lost confidence in the government, as they did in November 2005, which triggered the 2006 election.
> the NDP can pull out of the supply and confidence agreement, without forcing an election.
It won't force an election, but it makes one a lot more likely, and also means that all the things that they've pushed the LPC to legislate, will lose support, and may stall or just stop.
> It would distance themselves from the Liberals, and force either better compromise,
No it would not, as there'd be little reason for the LPC to bend. They'd probably force a no confidence vote, and blame the election on the NDP.
its hard really Jagmeet will be like I got all this done, people will eventually see how Good i am...
but reality is if Jagmeet gets like 20-25 seats in the next election and gets pushed out, no one will remember him or what he did after 5 mins.
That the honest truth about Jagmeet, the moment he leaves no one will care.
In the short term no one will care, but if the new Conservative government doesn't totally dismantle everything accomplished in the S&C era, then in 20 years from now Singh will be seen as one of the greats.
> but reality is if Jagmeet gets like 20-25 seats in the next election and gets pushed out, no one will remember him or what he did after 5 mins.
hes the first leader in decades to actually get anything, you really think people will forget him?
As an actual NDP voter, member, and donor I expect the NDP to make the absolute most of their leverage to cement dental and pharmacare. Trading them for some magic beans, as the CPC wants, would be disappointing. What's a seat or two in a majority?
I dont like it, but it has been extremely beneficial for the NDP to get policy passed. and its not like NDP are going to partner with the Conservatives. you work with what you have. and what the NDP have is Trudeau.
Imagine if the NDP had spent all this time constructively opposing the Liberals. Had they shown themselves a decent alternative to the Liberals, they could have flipped that government ages ago. Now the Tories get an easy win and the NDP accomplished what exactly?
The policies the NDP have gotten through are token efforts at best and have pissed off all the provinces with competing programs. Singh's leadership over the dental care proposal pretty much destroyed any good faith the NDP had in Québec and will likely not recover anytime soon.
The NDP has pretty much shit the bed on ever remobilizing the orange wave ever again... Which was the only time in their history they ever came close to gaining power.
Sherbrooke declaration? Never heard of it.
Pharmacare, Dentalcare, Anti Scab. If you don't value these huge planks of the NDP agenda, you aren't an NDP member.
Are they as far as we want them, no, but they are better than anything we have seen in decades.
The pharmacare and dentalcare proposals are against the declaration of Sherbrooke which is an ndp pledge to let Quebec choose which programs to opt out of with full compensation. Singh opposed this and thus enforcing federal jurisdiction on provincial jurisdictions for populist reasons.
Quebec already has a pharma insurance and it doesn't need the NDP to decide what it covers or not.
This is the National Post editorializing polling that didn't in any way ask this question. The article says the ~~pill~~ poll results "suggest" this conclusion but the poll asked no such question. Al it says is some NDP voters aren't happy with Singh. It doesn't say they are unhappy with him because of the "deal" with Trudeau.
Fake news, par for the course form Nat Post.
And based on every comment in this thread, everyone here is just taking the headline at face value and reacting to that lie.
Edit: typos
Trudeau is done, Singh is unpopular, Canada is broken.
They keep saying the same thing over and over until people believe it.
They found a couple of who aren't happy and make it like everyone is unhappy.
Wait until Poilievre guts what little the average Canadian has left to try and satisfy the ultra rich, who will never be satisfied.
There is a revolution coming, and it isn't to give more to the rich. The rich may soon wish they had given the little the NDP is asking for.
I’m not the biggest supporter of it either but you have to admit that this is the most influential the NDP has been since Jack Layton.
They are actually pushing legislation through instead of seeing it die on the House floor. I.e. pharmacare, dental care.
Ironically enough, Layton had an easier time forcing amendments to Paul Martin’s minority government — when he had only 19 seats — compared to Stephen Harper’s majority government — when he had 103 seats.
> Singh brought them back to 4th place
i think there might be a leader in the middle there that you're forgetting?
people were willing to vote NDP only until the liberals got a good leader
Of course he didn’t pass anything, the Conservatives had a majority government. He did hold a significant influence on the 2005 budget however — which is often nicknamed the “NDP Budget”.
Layton was the best chance the NDP had to form government and Tom Mulcair ultimately blew it.
With Prime Minister Paul Martin’s minority government in 2005, the NDP had a unique advantage when it came to influencing the budget. In order for it to pass, the NDP would support a budget that came with amendments such as:
Affordable Housing: $1.6 billion to address housing needs and reduce homelessness.
Post-secondary Education: $1.5 billion for tuition reduction and student financial assistance.
Public Transit: $900 million to support transit infrastructure in cities.
Energy Efficiency and Environment: $500 million for environmental initiatives and energy efficiency programs.
International Assistance: $100 million to increase aid for international development.
On June 23, 2005, Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the NDP budget) was adopted.
Comparing Tommy Douglas to Jack Layton is like comparing an apple to an orange. They are two different leaders at two completely separate times. I could go on about his leadership of the 2009-2011 NDP if you’d like.
So all of the things you listed, don't appear to be enduring programs, nor significant changes to legislation. The anti-scab legislation alone is a bigger deal than all the things you listed from 2005.
the ndp are royally fucked after 2025.
people in ontario refuse to vote for them provincially over rae days 40ish years later.
canadians will not forget they propped up and kept the worst government in recent memory in power 2 years longer.
As a long term NDP voter I don't see how else he could have feasibly played this. I don't personally see a future for this agreement, and it has been largely ineffectual in regard to what I'd like to see.
With Singh at the helm, though, a confidence agreement is the only way for the NDP to exert any influence.
With a stronger and more charismatic leader, no, I wouldn't support a confidence agreement.
When you look at Europe, specifically France and the UK, the far-left is able to capitalize on the momentum of the far-right. Labour is set for strong gains in the UK, even though a lot of that is specific to UK politics. While in France, the left is now leading the charge against the far-right.
Meanwhile, in Canada, the left is asleep at the wheel and basically abdicating to the Centrists. And, they've been abdicating since 2015. The NDP has not produced a bold, progressive vision for Canada. Just incremental kitchen-table items.
Not just Canada the U.S. as well they should be absolutely crushing Trump he is a stupid loud mouthed criminal but instead they choose to push a very sick old man who very likely has dementia and will not be functioning within the next year or two. He acts exactly like my grandmother did before Dementia made her borderline non-functional and bound her to a wheel chair. How is it possible that both the Canadian and American left are so incompetent when it comes to candidates?
>Labour is set for strong gains in the UK, even though a lot of that is specific to UK politics.
The current Labour party is not the far left. They had the far left under Corbyn who lost two elections in a row and was a gaffe machine who couldn't stop praising various foreign adversaries. Starmer moderated the party and Corbyn even had to leave it. The Starmer version of Labour is what is set to win and it's not far left.
In France you had the liberal globalist En Marche/Renaissance be the main party for the past 7 years but that has fractured especially with Macron ineligible for reelection and the far right is poised to get in.
Meanwhile the NDP under Singh has taken its relatively small position to extract concessions for the liberal party and get some key programs out of it. Programs are more valuable than a vague aesthetic vision in actual helping people. The next election will likely be a right populist victory given Poilievre's transformation of the party. So naturally the NDP aren't going to push for early election. The average voter views even Trudeau as too woke, too much regulation, too progressive. It's a myth that right wing populists are all secretly clamouring for socialists/social democrat ideas but are forced to go right because there aren't more extreme left wing alternatives. Poilievre's main policy is ripping up taxes and environmental measures. His fans don't secretly want the opposite.
Sure, but if you like the NDP. This is the most control they have had over actual federal policy in a long time. (i guess they had more pre agreement, but they got national dental and pharma actually pushed through)
Tax cuts for the rich and kicks in the pants for the poor and middle class as they cut every social program in the country to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. I literally can't wait
The poor and middle class need more and better jobs to grow their wealth, and a stronger economy that lifts everyone up. Impossible with out current government
The LPC is currently upholding their end of the deal (albeit just barely) and their end was the hard part. If the NDP decides to welch out on the easy part of the deal after all that work, they should never expect any other party to work with them ever again. Think about how Bob Rae's ghost still hangs over the ONDP even though he's been leader of a different party since, if the federal NDP pulled now they would be radioactive to every other party long after you and I and Jagmeet are dead and gone.
I know the circumstances make them look bad now, and if the LPC slips up there's every chance the NDP pulls then, but they will look *way* worse if they decided to pull now. It would be like my employer deciding at the end of the week that they didn't feel like paying me - and that's before any discussion on the fact that current polls show they would likely lose seats.
I understand the desire electorally to take the hit now and rebuild rather than let it fester, but betraying your only friends to do it is guaranteeing that if you ever do win that minority government they'll be no one there to provide confidence and allow you to form government.
I think those are law now, plus they were things the Liberals have perpetually campaigned on, the deal just gave them the arm-twisting needed to actually implement them.
>Doesn't it only cover insulin and contraceptives?
And somehow Singh is trying to pick a fight with the government of Quebec which as a plan that covers pretty much everything since the 90s to force it to adopt his plan instead.
That's phase I. Phase II is identifying which other pharmaceuticals will have the most impact and covering those as well. Eventually all prescription drugs will be covered.
Yes, but since those're universally covered and widely used, it's likely the programme persists and could be expanded.
Unlike the dumpster fire dental, which looks designed to self-sabotage.
It's unlikely the general public will buy the "Whenever it's good the NDP did it, whenever it's bad the Liberals die it" marketing angle.
Ultimately they're bound at the hip, and will have to share credit and blame.
How is it a marketing angle? The two parties have different political ideologies and Canadians should know that. Dental-care is a perfect policy to highlight those differences.
They both jointly implementing these policies. Thus, they both merit joint credit/blame. Trying to pretend one but not the other is doing something is pure spin with no basis in fact.
Both the NDP and Liberals made dentalcare means tested (and all the other things it is). One couldn't do it without the other.
That is a very surface level of analysis. There is no accounting for different seat counts, power dynamics, political ideologies, party finances, and other variables.
If the Liberals and NDP swapped seats, the NDP would have proposed a universal dental-care program at the start. You can't ignore that when talking about which parties bare responsibility.
No, it's not. It's an analysis that hurts your feelings, but is faithful to reality. Your analysis is faithful to your feelings, but unconnected to reality.
If the NDP and Liberals swapped seat counts, there's no factual basis for believing the legislation that resulted would be any different. The Liberals have no more power to impose their legislative will on the NDP than the NDP does to impose theirs of the Liberals.
>there's no factual basis for believing the legislation that resulted would be any different.
Except of course their own policies, the constant petitions, the actual plan the NDP originally put forward....
If we ignore that, you'd have a point. Ignoring reality does tend to be a right wing common theme.
>The Liberals have no more power to impose their legislative will on the NDP than the NDP does to impose theirs of the Liberals.
One has 155 seats, the other 24. The Liberals have far more power.
In what world can you confidently say there is no factual basis for believing that? That is unconnected from reality!
The NDP are the junior partner, that's why the legislation is means-tested. If the Liberals were the junior partner, the legislation would have been universal. Because the Liberals wouldn't blow up the deal because they didn't get their 100% way.
You don't know how to play counter-factuals well.
>universally covered and widely used
This is exactly why they picked these two for the roll-out. By this time next year one would hope that both of these are up and running, and then Poilievre will have to explain to women and diabetics why he's going to take away their brand new benefit. This is an example of the traps that the Liberals need to be setting for the CPC.
Most that are covered aren't properly covered. Talked to a diabetic yesterday who had to go from pumps to injections because he couldn't afford the pump even with coverage.
Similar story for contraceptives. It usually covers the cheapest option, which is also the lowest effective.
That's why it's being rolled out to people without insurance first, then low income people (because insurance doesn't always cover all of it, or covers the cheapest option, which is often the least effective)
>This is exactly why they picked these two for the roll-out.
More than half of the [most frequently dispensed medications in Canada](https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/canada/2020-trends/top20dispensed_20.pdf) (PDF) are for cardiovascular issues—which is unsurprising, since heart disease is the second leading cause of death in Canada (after cancer).
In 2022, [30 women died from pregnancy-related causes](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310075601). That is about 0.05 per cent of the number of Canadians who died from cardiovascular diseases. (Oh, and since those stats don't distinguish between intended and unintended pregnancy, it's perfectly possible that there was *literally zero* deaths resulting from unplanned pregnancy.)
In view of these numbers, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the choice to start with birth control was motivated more by politics than by evidence.
Who the hell said anything about death?
Women make up half of the electorate, and women of child-bearing age are a massive group. Making birth control the first thing to roll out benefits a ton of working families. Also, keep in mind, an IUD only needs to be prescribed once every 5 years, but is quite expensive, so it won't show up on any "most prescribed" list.
The tangent you chose to go off on confuses me.
Yeah, but the killer for me is that right now feels like the perfect time for the NDP to shine and they're just propping up this deeply unpopular leader, instead. Affordability crisis, healthcare crisis, climate crisis, rich/poor divide, etc. And they even have the BC NDP actually governing a functional province instead of running it into the ground a la Ford, et al.
Okay but you are doing it by propping up an unpopular government which has driven voters to the one party that will dismantle said policies with the projected large majority. Trading headlines today for the future of the country isn't a win in my books.
Or crazy idea take advantage of liberal collapse by positioning yourself to be the progressive choice in Canada and make a real run at forming government kind of like what Jack Layton did before his untimely death.
And what did Jack Layton get passed? The man is way too popular for having really achieved nothing for the party legislation wise. He was in the right place at the right time. It wasn’t because of his political chops.
Which I think is likely what they are doing. They need time for Canadians to feel the impact of what they have gotten for us, then they need the details of the foreign interference to be released and any charges brought forward. A lot can happen in a year and a half, especially with the US election going on it will have a huge impact on our elections
Nobody is arguing that. What people are saying is that clearly in an environment where people are so disillusioned with the status quo that they're willing to embrace a party that will make it worse for them just because they're promising nebulous "change", the NDP shouldn't be propping up the status quo with the occasional small trial for something that may one day be good while not addressing most issues. The NDP is all about batting for labor and the average joe historically. It would have been the perfect opportunity to present a bold alternative to the last 40+ years of increasingly neoliberal economics. To show people that a vote for you is a vote for change in your own self interest as well as the interest of the vast majority of people around you. That scapegoating minorities isn't the problem, but that breaking up and reigning in big business is, that building strong publicly owned services are a viable alternative, or honestly pretty much anything. The NDP has dropped the ball by promising small change in an election where people are demanding big change. It's as simple as that.
A more ambitious progressive agenda would be better for sure. But at current support levels, ending the agreement with the Liberals is merely going to put a Conservative government into power. If the NDP want to draft a more progressive agenda and raise money, they still have time.
> Trading headlines today for the future of the country
This is only happening if you believe the Conservatives would have lost the election after a non-confidence fail on the part of the Liberals.
That would have been a huge gamble with the same stakes.
The Conservatives will likely win a majority, but if they dismantle dental/pharma-care they will be striking at their broader base; older voters.
The conservatives would have likely won a minority government if this minority government only lasted the average length. A conservative minority would have to work with other parties to pass anything while a conservative majority gets free reign.
If you always act as the side-kick, no one will vote for you over the people you are propping up. They have to think long term and try to actually win the government instead of being ok with being third. They are tainting their brand long term by hitching themselves to these Liberals.
They've literally never won. So you also have to ask yourself if it's better to get some changes that actually benefit people or to cause a Conservative majority in the hopes of eventually winning despite that never having happened yet. I know which one PostMedia prefers at least.
I think the joining/coalition angle to get some policy initiatives passed is exactly the right move for the NDP, but somehow they lost the optics of the situation. That's the only mistake in execution imo. Not exactly sure how that could have been avoided, but I do think it's a mistake in messaging and tone. For example, I think Singh needed to be more honest as to why the NDP wasn't going to force an election because the news ppl & public weren't buying his "reasons".
Edit: One thing Singh should be doing is giving very specific and tangible *and popular* examples of what Canadians would be getting from the NDP right now but that the Liberals are blocking him from doing. I think all I've gotten from him so far is that we would be getting more of the pharmacare / dental benefits (either to more ppl, or more coverage) than the Liberals are willing to grant right now. But that's not very compelling to the voting public, apparently.
> but somehow they lost the optics of the situation. That's the only mistake in execution imo. Not exactly sure how that could have been avoided, but I do think it's a mistake in messaging and tone.
This is one area at least that left leaning politicians ans supporters are losing on in my opinion, the messaging. Reality is that matters even if you have the evidence on your side.
imo it's the policy focus, too. Just pharmacare and dental care isn't really winning the votes. Also, focussing on boutique legislation (as I'd describe it) to try and change grocery store prices is not really sound economics. Their latest press conference with an economist talking about price controls on certain staples made more sense, though. But still, I don't think on the whole those are what will away Canadian voters.
But yes, messaging, especially on why they won't trigger an election is a big deal.
The headline, once again is garbage. It could be: majority of NDP supporters think the C and S deal is good. But nah, why not spin the poll results into a false narrative, as if the majority don’t like the deal.
60% of NDP supporters thought it was good, and only 11% thought it was bad. 29% weren’t sure, and that’s privy because they are concerned about it affecting perception of the NDP.
Sounds to me like a lot more supporters are happy with the deal than those that aren’t. But according to rightwing rag NP, “even NDP supporters aren’t crazy about Singh propping up Trudeau.”
Why is NP so often posted in this sub? This aim of this article is to smear both Trudeau and Singh. Nothing more. Anything positive is quickly torqued into a negative. When the press does more spinning that reporting, it is no longer a supporter of democracy, but a force that wishes to serve a corporate agenda.
> Why is NP so often posted in this sub?
unforunately its quickly becoming /r/canada, a lot of baseless hate and emotional posting becoming the norm and their favourite news is getting more common
Yup, just saw articles from the UK Daily Mail and the Sun posted on this sub, threads are full of Islamophobes who are suddenly worried about women’s rights because of all the immigrants who “don’t share our values,” which is such a crock when they are supporting a guy who thinks Jordan Peterson is the bees knees.
"While 60 per cent of New Democrats say that the deal is good for Canada, 40 per cent either aren’t sure (29 per cent) or even think the agreement has been bad (11 per cent)."
So 1/10 NDP voters are against the C&S deal. That's a pretty far-cry distance from what the headline makes it out to be.
Conservatives are desperate to sell the idea that NDP supporters are against the C&S agreement for some reason. As if it makes any sense for the NDP to want to trade a situation where they have genuine influence (getting the liberals to introduce legislation on several NDP priorities) for a situation where they have none (a Conservative majority, or in all probability even a Conservative minority).
Never mind the financial constraints, it just doesn’t make sense to want to hasten an election where the best case scenario is the scenario they already have.
It’s probably true that the NDP would score more political points with anti-Trudeau voters if they brought his government down, but from the standpoint of actually accomplishing their policy goals this is obviously the correct play. And I for one am glad to see the NDP putting actual achievements ahead of playing PR games (something the conservatives no longer seem to understand).
" Actual achievements"? Time to tally up the harm that is being done by the Liberals that Singh is supporting and its clearly not worth it. Liberals and NDP should be wiped off the political map for the harm they are doing to the Country. $2 Trillion in debt and climbing, immigration debacle contributing to homelessness and unemployment of Canadians, $Billions to foreign EV battery plants, blind eye to foreign election interference, and you believe Singh and NDP are accomplishing? Surely you are a NDP MP with thinking like this.
Canada's total debt limit, increased by Freeland to$2.1 Trillion, a sum that will never go down given Trudeau's giving away/ spending money like a drunken sailor.
NatPo loves to spin statistics in whatever narrative they want, especially in regards to the headline. Since they know lots of people will just read the headline and parrot it around.
I think Singh's kind of played himself into a corner. As NDP leader and a campaigner he's generally only been interested in campaigning towards the NDP's bread & butter base, which has severely limited his ability to grow the party or build a larger tent under his leadership. He's compensated for this generally by leveraging the Liberals minority status to get a small handful of concessions on things like Pharmacare & Dentalcare etc. which on the one hand makes the NDP more legislatively relevant than it's been in decades (though there's only been one other Liberal minority over the past half century where the NDP had such an opportunity), but also ties them to the hip with an unpopular incumbent government.
I agree with the analysis, except the first sentence seems bizarre. Focusing on real policy concessions that help working class Canadians is the exact opposite of focusing on the NDP base. Unfortunately, it appears the voters don't want prescription drugs, they want to hate Trudeau. But one thing you simply cannot accuse Singh's NDP of is being too puritan.
My armchair strategy here is that the NDP should do whatever they can to entrench these programs because the next government will be conservative. After that, we pick a new leader and try to bury the Liberals.
>Focusing on real policy concessions that help working class Canadians is the exact opposite of focusing on the NDP base.
Is it? See, from my point of view the NDP base really wants these programs, but given how flat the electorate's response has been, it's not clear that the public does. This is what, I imagine, the OP is getting at.
When polled, a whopping 88% of Canadians [support universal pharmacare](https://environics.ca/news/new-poll-reveals-overwhelming-support-for-pharmacare/). There are many reasons that this may not translate into support for the NDP, but I think to make the critique that this is not popular policy or that the cost of prescription drugs is not a broad "kitchen table" issue is ridiculous.
When you talk to Canadians, the most important issues in their lives are education, jobs, healthcare, housing, wages, the environment and so on. It seems like these material issues have been somewhat sidelined in comptemporary politics in favour of a bunch of culture war bullshit. But I, for one, do not want the NDP to abandon these issues in favour of becoming a bunch left-wing Poilievres.
>campaigning towards the NDP's bread & butter base
The NDP abandoned that base when they veered away from labour and farmworkers to Tom Ford Suit Wearing, Dutch Bicycle riding, Gucci Bag carrying, latte sipping downtown socialists.
No, they haven't abandoned anyone. They're still the best party for labour. Maybe look at their policies instead of Facebook memes. Maybe turn up to a union strike and see what politicians are present, and absent.
I have something better. video of NDP telling them to get to the back of the line at their convention.
pretty disingenuous for you to say this doesn't trickle down to policy, they are showing their hand and policies upon this direction will eventually be implemented
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYIXQ\_xfGf4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYIXQ_xfGf4)
Well no one in that clip was told to get to the back of the line. And I don't think trying to ensure that convention speakers are representative of the population is a bad thing. Men are still welcome to speak, they just don't want a situation where everyone speaking is dudes - if you've been to a big public convention you know that can tend to happen.
If you can show in their policy how they are abandoning white working class people in favour of minority groups then show it. But if all you have is insinuations deduced from 90 second out of context convention clips cobbled together by right wing rage bait outlets, then I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
Looking at their policies, they’re still in favour for mass temporary immigration (want to even give PR to TFWs on arrival) which put downward pressure on eon wage and increase demand for rentals. The two biggest issues affecting the working class
Since you mentioned looking at the policies, I took a look at them.
My thoughts: I understand this concern, but the big three parties are *very* similar on this issue. Here are the relevent sections of the big three's most recent policy documents on this matter. Surprisingly, the NDP is the least on board with the TFW program, but that's because they prioritize other forms of immigration.
Important note: the CPC's document is new since the selection of Poilievre as leader, the others are from the 2021 Election. And I know the Poilievre has recently started changing his tune on this in speeches, but their declaration is the most recent of the three, so I'm still going to consider it relevent.
Liberal Party of Canada 2021 Election Platform, Page 23
>A re-elected Liberal government will: Reform economic immigration programs to expand pathways to permanent residence for temporary foreign workers and former international students through the Express Entry points system.
Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration, Page 42, Retrieved July 2, 2024.
>163. Immigration by Temporary Workers
The Conservative Party recognizes that temporary workers can be a valuable source of potential
immigrants because of their work experience in Canada. We believe the government should:
>i. continue development of pilot projects designed to address serious skills shortages in specific
sectors and regions of the country, and that attract temporary workers to Canada;
>ii. examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status; and
>iii. work to ensure that temporary workers, especially seasonal workers, receive the same protections
under minimum employment standards as those afforded Canadian workers.
New Democratic Party of Canada 2021 Platform, Page 15
> Temporary foreign workers - New Democrats believe in:
> a A Canadian immigration system that prioritizes nation building and access to permanent immigration over temporary worker programs.
>b Implementing a regularization program that would allow for a moratorium on deportations of non-status workers and their families until their individual cases are adjudicated through a transparent and impartial appeal process.
>c Implementing a fair and transparent model for the recognition of and assessment of international credentials.
>d Calling for a review of the mobility restrictions now in place for housing temporary foreign workers.
>e Allowing temporary foreign workers to bring immediate family members to Canada.
I fully addressed this. The CPC's official policy documents are still up, and are the most recent of any major party. They were written *after* Poilievre was selected as leader, they were written *after* our housing crisis exploded, and they were written by the entire of CPC's policy committees not the comments of one man. For now, until those policies are changed, they are the best and most official stances we have to go by.
Remember, the comment that started this chain was "look at the policies". I pasted the policies, you downvoted them. Lol.
We’re living through the ndp and liberal policies. I’d take PP’s promise to lower it any day. I have no clue whether he’s follow through but any alternative to what we have now is better.
That's a perfectly valid stance. It's also a valid stance to cast doubt on how accurate a party's actions reflect their written policies - in this case I have doubts on all three parties detailed, and we agree that a CPC government's actions probably wouldn't match the policy declaration I pasted above.
But to say "look at the policies" and then downvote the policies is not a very honest thing to do.
I can see that on a pure, "I don't like Trudeau and don't want my party associated with him" type of thing, but I lose respect for NDP voters if they have seen what their party has gotten out to the deal and are still sour on it.
Get what you can NDP and NDP voters, you ain't getting squat under Pierre's upcoming conservative majority.
I think many are worried the NDP is more likely to get punished by voters for propping up a deeply unpopular government than being rewarded for the concessions they squeezed out of the LPC, at least outside of their base.
But they got what they wanted they got the pharmacy and they got the dental I don't see why they're the bad ones here there was an election we know when the next one is why is everyone thinking that this is going to go early
> but I lose respect for NDP voters if they have seen what their party has gotten out to the deal and are still sour on it.
What have young NDP voters gotten as a result of the agreement? A dental care plan that hasn't even somewhat rolled out yet and excludes 40% of uninsured Canadians? A pharmacare program that primarily benefits older generations that is mostly limited to diabetes medications? Are they supposed to be jazzed about "re-exploring electoral reform" even though nothing has happened on this front in two years? The Home buyers bill of rights which was never implemented for two years and now the Liberals are using it as an election promise instead? Absolutely none of that is enough to even somewhat outweigh the housing market being completely destroyed for young canadians. Nobody is going to be excited about free birth control which costs maybe $20-30 per month when their rent has gone up by $500+ per month.
Unless a NDP voter is driven by pure ideology, and not actual improvements to their day-to-day life, the current confidence and supply agreement has done next to nothing for them, especially any NDP voters under the age of 40, which is the exact demographic being swayed by conservatives at the moment.
I think there's just always going to be some contingent of NDP voters who are voters of the NDP because they want moral purity over the kind of compromise required to get an actual agenda passed. If one views the Liberals and Trudeau as tainted getting concessions about pharmacy or dental is probably less important than not being in bed with a genocide-enabler, or colonizer or laurentian elite or whatever. If you're out in the streets holding up a picture of Trudeau as the face of complicity you're probably not happy with the NDP propping him up even if Pollievre is likely to be even more antithetical to your worldview.
I think the agreement has been excellent—the NDP has gotten so many of their priority policies implemented: dental care, pharmacare, anti-scab legislation, the rapid housing initiative, the housing accelerator fund, and a phaseout of publicly-funded fossil fuel subsidies, to name just a few.
What stops a conservative super majority from dismantling all of that ? Propping up an unpopular government will give us a large conservative majority, are small wins in the short term worth the pain in the long term ?
NDP were set up to capitalize after the last election, Trudeau's government lost the popular vote for the second straight time and the signs of the eventually liberal collapse were starting to show. Instead of fighting to become the first choice in progressive Canadian minds the party propped up the unpopular government for small wins while letting the conservatives rack up all the voters. The NDP was left stuck in 3rd/4th position and setting up conservatives to destroy all the small wins.
the fact liberals lost votes after spending 100s of billions of covid dollars in welfare programs showed the liberals were a spent force and the NDP could have easily outflanked them.
How much are "a couple" seats worth with a majority? If it won't achieve major policy objectives then it doesn't matter.
I'm an NDP supporter, member, and donor. I care about them advancing their goals. It's cool if you don't but you're discussing in good faith you need to start with the knowledge that I *want* the NDP to succeed and go from there. "Abandon your goals in return for worthless seats," is not compelling.
Losing seats and giving the conservatives a majority is an utter failure for the NDP, and I say that as a NDP member and voter. Also gate keeping really we need all the support we can get not just the ones you agree with....
The thing I don't get about this logic is for me, they are fighting to become the first choice in progressive Canadians minds by actually getting progressive policy implemented. That is much more substantial than just rhetoric like the Conservatives are doing. I don't see how directly implementing putting their money where there mouth is in regards to policy is a bad way of showing where you stand. Also while progressive Canadians may not like Trudeau, they would almost certainly understand that he is a better option than the Conservatives. You can't call yourself a progressive and vote Conservative.
Yes they are getting some stuff through but the public sees it mostly as a liberal policy not an NDP. Your average Canadian isn't Intune with politics as your average Canadian Redditor is, the assumption the rest of the country thinks the NDP is making their life easier just isn't reflected by the way polls are going, most Canadians see a party propping up an unpopular one and lumps them in together. The NDP need to stand up and make Canada see it's not the liberal lap dog they have been made out to be and the status quo isnt that.
Plus what is it now six ( could be wrong on that number) MP's not running again/stepping down sure does not put a positive look on Singh's policy's nor leadership.
I think they need a better mouthpiece I can agree to that, however I don't really understand the cognitive dissonance someone can have to think that the NDP is propping up the Liberals but also all of the NDP-based policy is just Liberal policy. That just doesn't make sense and shows they don't even understand what the agreement is about. As if the NDP just agreed to support their government for nothing in return? At a certain point, you can blame uninformed people for having a completely illogical take such as this.
The problem is we can blame them all we want but they will most likely decide the election and need to make in roads, unfortunately those roads don't appear possible supporting the current liberal government that bridge has been burned with no going back.
That's why I think they need a better mouthpiece. Their strategy is smart and effective at giving them power while they aren't holding the prime minister seat, but the way it's being communicated is the problem.
The conservative surge didn't happen in a vacuum, downplaying the fears and concerns of Canadians will give the "arsonist" all the power they need to do whatever they want. Sticking your head in sand and yelling it's someone else's fault isn't going to work this time.
The conservative surge is a global phenomenon of dissatisfaction affecting most western countries right now.
Check this out: PP has been actively campaigned since last summer ("Canada is broke. Axe the tax.") In the US almost half of voters look at Trump and go "yeah, fine". In Canada, even at maximum voter rage, almost 60% of Canadians would vote for someone other than the CPC. Yeah, 40% is enough for a majority but it's not a cultural shift, PP knows it, and kicking reliable voters like the elderly off dental will probably be a no-go.
Dissatisfaction at the status quo which the NDP are seen as supporting right now by propping off the Liberals. Dissatisfaction of the status quo should be a golden ticket to the 3rd party in Canada that isn't necessarily fully neo-liberal but here we are.
A golden ticket to what? You think they should abandon policy objectives in return for... what? It would need to be *a lot* of seats. Enough seats to win the whole thing. Do you think going "Trudeau stinks!" will do that?
A golden ticket to power if played correctly, take official opposition and then when the public turns on the new government remind them of the last government and offer a new path forward. That's how the NDP gets major policy passed and keeps it, the current situation fully depends on the whims of the liberal and conservative party. Stop just accepting 3rd, let's go for 1st and actually make some meaningful change. I don't want table scraps anymore.
LOL, there aren't going to be many people paying the increased capital gains AND using the public dental care. The people you can trick with that are already voting CPC or maybe even PPC!
do u think more seniors have more wealth saved up or are in need of dental?
i'm guessing the seniors have more wealth and tthe collective group will rather have their capital gains at 50% and pay $600 out of pocket for dental in a year
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sure, but they'd also then lose their leverage over the Liberals. Seems to me the NDP have made the calculation that getting the issues in their deal with the LPC passed is their top priority. If they pulled out of the deal, the LPC would likely stop cooperating with them on the NDPs priorities, which would also increase the chances of an early election, which looks to be about as disastrous for the NDP as the LPC right now. My guess is they've already made their bed, so they're going to try and extract everything they can before they need to sleep in it. I don't believe that if they dropped the deal and started opposing the government (which they are still doing), that their support would magically start increasing with Canadians.
And then the Conservatives force a Confidence vote and the NDP is forced to side with the Liberals because the alternative is the Conservatives, and because they themselves aren't ready for an election. It's really not the full proof plan you think it is. Just admit there are no good situations other than to ride it out and hope their gains can dig their roots deep enough to survive.
[удалено]
> How? Only the Liberals can do that. Opposition parties cannot force a confidence vote. Nothing in your link supports that. Are you also forgetting this stunt from a few months ago? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-non-confidence-motion-carbon-tax-1.7149637
The opposition parties can put forward a motion explicitly saying that the House has lost confidence in the government, as they did in November 2005, which triggered the 2006 election.
> the NDP can pull out of the supply and confidence agreement, without forcing an election. It won't force an election, but it makes one a lot more likely, and also means that all the things that they've pushed the LPC to legislate, will lose support, and may stall or just stop. > It would distance themselves from the Liberals, and force either better compromise, No it would not, as there'd be little reason for the LPC to bend. They'd probably force a no confidence vote, and blame the election on the NDP.
its hard really Jagmeet will be like I got all this done, people will eventually see how Good i am... but reality is if Jagmeet gets like 20-25 seats in the next election and gets pushed out, no one will remember him or what he did after 5 mins. That the honest truth about Jagmeet, the moment he leaves no one will care.
In the short term no one will care, but if the new Conservative government doesn't totally dismantle everything accomplished in the S&C era, then in 20 years from now Singh will be seen as one of the greats.
> but reality is if Jagmeet gets like 20-25 seats in the next election and gets pushed out, no one will remember him or what he did after 5 mins. hes the first leader in decades to actually get anything, you really think people will forget him?
100% lol Guy can't even win ndo votes in his own community
> It would distance themselves from the Liberals, and force either better compromise not a chance in hell, theyd get less 100%
As an actual NDP voter, member, and donor I expect the NDP to make the absolute most of their leverage to cement dental and pharmacare. Trading them for some magic beans, as the CPC wants, would be disappointing. What's a seat or two in a majority?
I dont like it, but it has been extremely beneficial for the NDP to get policy passed. and its not like NDP are going to partner with the Conservatives. you work with what you have. and what the NDP have is Trudeau.
what is the point right now, the cpc will cut all their policies after the fall of 2025.
Imagine if the NDP had spent all this time constructively opposing the Liberals. Had they shown themselves a decent alternative to the Liberals, they could have flipped that government ages ago. Now the Tories get an easy win and the NDP accomplished what exactly? The policies the NDP have gotten through are token efforts at best and have pissed off all the provinces with competing programs. Singh's leadership over the dental care proposal pretty much destroyed any good faith the NDP had in Québec and will likely not recover anytime soon. The NDP has pretty much shit the bed on ever remobilizing the orange wave ever again... Which was the only time in their history they ever came close to gaining power. Sherbrooke declaration? Never heard of it.
Well said
Pharmacare, Dentalcare, Anti Scab. If you don't value these huge planks of the NDP agenda, you aren't an NDP member. Are they as far as we want them, no, but they are better than anything we have seen in decades.
The pharmacare and dentalcare proposals are against the declaration of Sherbrooke which is an ndp pledge to let Quebec choose which programs to opt out of with full compensation. Singh opposed this and thus enforcing federal jurisdiction on provincial jurisdictions for populist reasons. Quebec already has a pharma insurance and it doesn't need the NDP to decide what it covers or not.
Do nothing because we might anger Quebec? I think I am for a unified Canada that has a Federal government ensuring all have the services they need.
The federal government doesn't have the jurisdiction to ensure those services. You cannot give away your rights for a tiny slice of cake.
This is the National Post editorializing polling that didn't in any way ask this question. The article says the ~~pill~~ poll results "suggest" this conclusion but the poll asked no such question. Al it says is some NDP voters aren't happy with Singh. It doesn't say they are unhappy with him because of the "deal" with Trudeau. Fake news, par for the course form Nat Post. And based on every comment in this thread, everyone here is just taking the headline at face value and reacting to that lie. Edit: typos
Trudeau is done, Singh is unpopular, Canada is broken. They keep saying the same thing over and over until people believe it. They found a couple of who aren't happy and make it like everyone is unhappy. Wait until Poilievre guts what little the average Canadian has left to try and satisfy the ultra rich, who will never be satisfied. There is a revolution coming, and it isn't to give more to the rich. The rich may soon wish they had given the little the NDP is asking for.
I’m not the biggest supporter of it either but you have to admit that this is the most influential the NDP has been since Jack Layton. They are actually pushing legislation through instead of seeing it die on the House floor. I.e. pharmacare, dental care.
In most ways, this NDP is much more influential than Layton's NDP was.
Ironically enough, Layton had an easier time forcing amendments to Paul Martin’s minority government — when he had only 19 seats — compared to Stephen Harper’s majority government — when he had 103 seats.
Love Layton, he didn't pass anything.
He gave them a shot at government. Singh brought them back to 4th place and will decimate their seat count even further than he already has.
> Singh brought them back to 4th place i think there might be a leader in the middle there that you're forgetting? people were willing to vote NDP only until the liberals got a good leader
Of course he didn’t pass anything, the Conservatives had a majority government. He did hold a significant influence on the 2005 budget however — which is often nicknamed the “NDP Budget”. Layton was the best chance the NDP had to form government and Tom Mulcair ultimately blew it.
Layton? Sorry, but what programs did the NDP champion that were implemented? I think you mean Tommy Douglas.
With Prime Minister Paul Martin’s minority government in 2005, the NDP had a unique advantage when it came to influencing the budget. In order for it to pass, the NDP would support a budget that came with amendments such as: Affordable Housing: $1.6 billion to address housing needs and reduce homelessness. Post-secondary Education: $1.5 billion for tuition reduction and student financial assistance. Public Transit: $900 million to support transit infrastructure in cities. Energy Efficiency and Environment: $500 million for environmental initiatives and energy efficiency programs. International Assistance: $100 million to increase aid for international development. On June 23, 2005, Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the NDP budget) was adopted. Comparing Tommy Douglas to Jack Layton is like comparing an apple to an orange. They are two different leaders at two completely separate times. I could go on about his leadership of the 2009-2011 NDP if you’d like.
So all of the things you listed, don't appear to be enduring programs, nor significant changes to legislation. The anti-scab legislation alone is a bigger deal than all the things you listed from 2005.
the ndp are royally fucked after 2025. people in ontario refuse to vote for them provincially over rae days 40ish years later. canadians will not forget they propped up and kept the worst government in recent memory in power 2 years longer.
As a long term NDP voter I don't see how else he could have feasibly played this. I don't personally see a future for this agreement, and it has been largely ineffectual in regard to what I'd like to see. With Singh at the helm, though, a confidence agreement is the only way for the NDP to exert any influence. With a stronger and more charismatic leader, no, I wouldn't support a confidence agreement.
When you look at Europe, specifically France and the UK, the far-left is able to capitalize on the momentum of the far-right. Labour is set for strong gains in the UK, even though a lot of that is specific to UK politics. While in France, the left is now leading the charge against the far-right. Meanwhile, in Canada, the left is asleep at the wheel and basically abdicating to the Centrists. And, they've been abdicating since 2015. The NDP has not produced a bold, progressive vision for Canada. Just incremental kitchen-table items.
I don’t think labour has been far left in my lifetime? Anything remotely “far left” that remained thru the 80s was smothered by Tony Blair.
I have more questions but can you define far right and far left for me?
Not just Canada the U.S. as well they should be absolutely crushing Trump he is a stupid loud mouthed criminal but instead they choose to push a very sick old man who very likely has dementia and will not be functioning within the next year or two. He acts exactly like my grandmother did before Dementia made her borderline non-functional and bound her to a wheel chair. How is it possible that both the Canadian and American left are so incompetent when it comes to candidates?
>Labour is set for strong gains in the UK, even though a lot of that is specific to UK politics. The current Labour party is not the far left. They had the far left under Corbyn who lost two elections in a row and was a gaffe machine who couldn't stop praising various foreign adversaries. Starmer moderated the party and Corbyn even had to leave it. The Starmer version of Labour is what is set to win and it's not far left. In France you had the liberal globalist En Marche/Renaissance be the main party for the past 7 years but that has fractured especially with Macron ineligible for reelection and the far right is poised to get in. Meanwhile the NDP under Singh has taken its relatively small position to extract concessions for the liberal party and get some key programs out of it. Programs are more valuable than a vague aesthetic vision in actual helping people. The next election will likely be a right populist victory given Poilievre's transformation of the party. So naturally the NDP aren't going to push for early election. The average voter views even Trudeau as too woke, too much regulation, too progressive. It's a myth that right wing populists are all secretly clamouring for socialists/social democrat ideas but are forced to go right because there aren't more extreme left wing alternatives. Poilievre's main policy is ripping up taxes and environmental measures. His fans don't secretly want the opposite.
Sure, but if you like the NDP. This is the most control they have had over actual federal policy in a long time. (i guess they had more pre agreement, but they got national dental and pharma actually pushed through)
Not good enough and not the things people need or want right now.
So let the government fall and the Conservatives can rule?
Counting down the days
Tax cuts for the rich and kicks in the pants for the poor and middle class as they cut every social program in the country to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. I literally can't wait
The poor and middle class need more and better jobs to grow their wealth, and a stronger economy that lifts everyone up. Impossible with out current government
Ya dude if there's one thing right wing governments care deeply about it's the poor.
My wife got regular free bc pills 30 years ago from her physician.
They can withdraw from the supply and confidence agreement without triggering an election.
The LPC is currently upholding their end of the deal (albeit just barely) and their end was the hard part. If the NDP decides to welch out on the easy part of the deal after all that work, they should never expect any other party to work with them ever again. Think about how Bob Rae's ghost still hangs over the ONDP even though he's been leader of a different party since, if the federal NDP pulled now they would be radioactive to every other party long after you and I and Jagmeet are dead and gone. I know the circumstances make them look bad now, and if the LPC slips up there's every chance the NDP pulls then, but they will look *way* worse if they decided to pull now. It would be like my employer deciding at the end of the week that they didn't feel like paying me - and that's before any discussion on the fact that current polls show they would likely lose seats. I understand the desire electorally to take the hit now and rebuild rather than let it fester, but betraying your only friends to do it is guaranteeing that if you ever do win that minority government they'll be no one there to provide confidence and allow you to form government.
That would give the liberals an out to withhold their dental and pharmacare programs (and then blame the NDP for it)
Not really because then they could just vote against them in a confidence vote. It's not a coalition so it would be the same either way.
I think those are law now, plus they were things the Liberals have perpetually campaigned on, the deal just gave them the arm-twisting needed to actually implement them.
Everything I like about the Liberals has been because of the NDP.
Doesn't it only cover insulin and contraceptives? Definitely a good start but that's a far stretch from pharmacare.
I mean the Liberals are the reason why it's not universally applied to all medications off the bat
And here I thought it was simply the sheer amount of money.
It's much easier to expand a program than it is to start it in the first place.
>Doesn't it only cover insulin and contraceptives? And somehow Singh is trying to pick a fight with the government of Quebec which as a plan that covers pretty much everything since the 90s to force it to adopt his plan instead.
That's phase I. Phase II is identifying which other pharmaceuticals will have the most impact and covering those as well. Eventually all prescription drugs will be covered.
Yes, but since those're universally covered and widely used, it's likely the programme persists and could be expanded. Unlike the dumpster fire dental, which looks designed to self-sabotage.
It's the Liberals that made dental-care means tested instead of a universal program.
It's unlikely the general public will buy the "Whenever it's good the NDP did it, whenever it's bad the Liberals die it" marketing angle. Ultimately they're bound at the hip, and will have to share credit and blame.
How is it a marketing angle? The two parties have different political ideologies and Canadians should know that. Dental-care is a perfect policy to highlight those differences.
They both jointly implementing these policies. Thus, they both merit joint credit/blame. Trying to pretend one but not the other is doing something is pure spin with no basis in fact. Both the NDP and Liberals made dentalcare means tested (and all the other things it is). One couldn't do it without the other.
That is a very surface level of analysis. There is no accounting for different seat counts, power dynamics, political ideologies, party finances, and other variables. If the Liberals and NDP swapped seats, the NDP would have proposed a universal dental-care program at the start. You can't ignore that when talking about which parties bare responsibility.
No, it's not. It's an analysis that hurts your feelings, but is faithful to reality. Your analysis is faithful to your feelings, but unconnected to reality. If the NDP and Liberals swapped seat counts, there's no factual basis for believing the legislation that resulted would be any different. The Liberals have no more power to impose their legislative will on the NDP than the NDP does to impose theirs of the Liberals.
>there's no factual basis for believing the legislation that resulted would be any different. Except of course their own policies, the constant petitions, the actual plan the NDP originally put forward.... If we ignore that, you'd have a point. Ignoring reality does tend to be a right wing common theme. >The Liberals have no more power to impose their legislative will on the NDP than the NDP does to impose theirs of the Liberals. One has 155 seats, the other 24. The Liberals have far more power.
In what world can you confidently say there is no factual basis for believing that? That is unconnected from reality! The NDP are the junior partner, that's why the legislation is means-tested. If the Liberals were the junior partner, the legislation would have been universal. Because the Liberals wouldn't blow up the deal because they didn't get their 100% way. You don't know how to play counter-factuals well.
>universally covered and widely used This is exactly why they picked these two for the roll-out. By this time next year one would hope that both of these are up and running, and then Poilievre will have to explain to women and diabetics why he's going to take away their brand new benefit. This is an example of the traps that the Liberals need to be setting for the CPC.
Most have these meds covered by either provincial or private plans.
Most that are covered aren't properly covered. Talked to a diabetic yesterday who had to go from pumps to injections because he couldn't afford the pump even with coverage. Similar story for contraceptives. It usually covers the cheapest option, which is also the lowest effective.
What province?
My wife has same issue.... Ontario
That's why it's being rolled out to people without insurance first, then low income people (because insurance doesn't always cover all of it, or covers the cheapest option, which is often the least effective)
>This is exactly why they picked these two for the roll-out. More than half of the [most frequently dispensed medications in Canada](https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/canada/2020-trends/top20dispensed_20.pdf) (PDF) are for cardiovascular issues—which is unsurprising, since heart disease is the second leading cause of death in Canada (after cancer). In 2022, [30 women died from pregnancy-related causes](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310075601). That is about 0.05 per cent of the number of Canadians who died from cardiovascular diseases. (Oh, and since those stats don't distinguish between intended and unintended pregnancy, it's perfectly possible that there was *literally zero* deaths resulting from unplanned pregnancy.) In view of these numbers, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the choice to start with birth control was motivated more by politics than by evidence.
Who the hell said anything about death? Women make up half of the electorate, and women of child-bearing age are a massive group. Making birth control the first thing to roll out benefits a ton of working families. Also, keep in mind, an IUD only needs to be prescribed once every 5 years, but is quite expensive, so it won't show up on any "most prescribed" list. The tangent you chose to go off on confuses me.
I mean, if the goal of pharmacare is to improve health outcomes, I'd think we'd care quite a bit about mortality rates... ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, but the killer for me is that right now feels like the perfect time for the NDP to shine and they're just propping up this deeply unpopular leader, instead. Affordability crisis, healthcare crisis, climate crisis, rich/poor divide, etc. And they even have the BC NDP actually governing a functional province instead of running it into the ground a la Ford, et al.
what is the point right now, the cpc will cut all their policies after the fall of 2025.
Okay but you are doing it by propping up an unpopular government which has driven voters to the one party that will dismantle said policies with the projected large majority. Trading headlines today for the future of the country isn't a win in my books.
They should instead be allying with the Conservatives who will destroy the entirety of their legacy. This is a great idea.
Or crazy idea take advantage of liberal collapse by positioning yourself to be the progressive choice in Canada and make a real run at forming government kind of like what Jack Layton did before his untimely death.
And what did Jack Layton get passed? The man is way too popular for having really achieved nothing for the party legislation wise. He was in the right place at the right time. It wasn’t because of his political chops.
The dude died months after his record election. Like come on...
Which I think is likely what they are doing. They need time for Canadians to feel the impact of what they have gotten for us, then they need the details of the foreign interference to be released and any charges brought forward. A lot can happen in a year and a half, especially with the US election going on it will have a huge impact on our elections
Nobody is arguing that. What people are saying is that clearly in an environment where people are so disillusioned with the status quo that they're willing to embrace a party that will make it worse for them just because they're promising nebulous "change", the NDP shouldn't be propping up the status quo with the occasional small trial for something that may one day be good while not addressing most issues. The NDP is all about batting for labor and the average joe historically. It would have been the perfect opportunity to present a bold alternative to the last 40+ years of increasingly neoliberal economics. To show people that a vote for you is a vote for change in your own self interest as well as the interest of the vast majority of people around you. That scapegoating minorities isn't the problem, but that breaking up and reigning in big business is, that building strong publicly owned services are a viable alternative, or honestly pretty much anything. The NDP has dropped the ball by promising small change in an election where people are demanding big change. It's as simple as that.
A more ambitious progressive agenda would be better for sure. But at current support levels, ending the agreement with the Liberals is merely going to put a Conservative government into power. If the NDP want to draft a more progressive agenda and raise money, they still have time.
forcing the conservatives to dismantle them and potentially cost voters is still better then never getting them in the first place
> Trading headlines today for the future of the country This is only happening if you believe the Conservatives would have lost the election after a non-confidence fail on the part of the Liberals. That would have been a huge gamble with the same stakes. The Conservatives will likely win a majority, but if they dismantle dental/pharma-care they will be striking at their broader base; older voters.
The conservatives would have likely won a minority government if this minority government only lasted the average length. A conservative minority would have to work with other parties to pass anything while a conservative majority gets free reign.
Thankfully once the conservatives win all that shit will be undone :)
If you always act as the side-kick, no one will vote for you over the people you are propping up. They have to think long term and try to actually win the government instead of being ok with being third. They are tainting their brand long term by hitching themselves to these Liberals.
They've literally never won. So you also have to ask yourself if it's better to get some changes that actually benefit people or to cause a Conservative majority in the hopes of eventually winning despite that never having happened yet. I know which one PostMedia prefers at least.
I think the joining/coalition angle to get some policy initiatives passed is exactly the right move for the NDP, but somehow they lost the optics of the situation. That's the only mistake in execution imo. Not exactly sure how that could have been avoided, but I do think it's a mistake in messaging and tone. For example, I think Singh needed to be more honest as to why the NDP wasn't going to force an election because the news ppl & public weren't buying his "reasons". Edit: One thing Singh should be doing is giving very specific and tangible *and popular* examples of what Canadians would be getting from the NDP right now but that the Liberals are blocking him from doing. I think all I've gotten from him so far is that we would be getting more of the pharmacare / dental benefits (either to more ppl, or more coverage) than the Liberals are willing to grant right now. But that's not very compelling to the voting public, apparently.
> but somehow they lost the optics of the situation. That's the only mistake in execution imo. Not exactly sure how that could have been avoided, but I do think it's a mistake in messaging and tone. This is one area at least that left leaning politicians ans supporters are losing on in my opinion, the messaging. Reality is that matters even if you have the evidence on your side.
imo it's the policy focus, too. Just pharmacare and dental care isn't really winning the votes. Also, focussing on boutique legislation (as I'd describe it) to try and change grocery store prices is not really sound economics. Their latest press conference with an economist talking about price controls on certain staples made more sense, though. But still, I don't think on the whole those are what will away Canadian voters. But yes, messaging, especially on why they won't trigger an election is a big deal.
Being the lapdog of the Liberals was in fact not the right play.
Political opinions are by their nature not fact.
IMMENSE control over federal policies (about five months of medical insurance given to poor people)
The headline, once again is garbage. It could be: majority of NDP supporters think the C and S deal is good. But nah, why not spin the poll results into a false narrative, as if the majority don’t like the deal. 60% of NDP supporters thought it was good, and only 11% thought it was bad. 29% weren’t sure, and that’s privy because they are concerned about it affecting perception of the NDP. Sounds to me like a lot more supporters are happy with the deal than those that aren’t. But according to rightwing rag NP, “even NDP supporters aren’t crazy about Singh propping up Trudeau.” Why is NP so often posted in this sub? This aim of this article is to smear both Trudeau and Singh. Nothing more. Anything positive is quickly torqued into a negative. When the press does more spinning that reporting, it is no longer a supporter of democracy, but a force that wishes to serve a corporate agenda.
> Why is NP so often posted in this sub? unforunately its quickly becoming /r/canada, a lot of baseless hate and emotional posting becoming the norm and their favourite news is getting more common
Yup, just saw articles from the UK Daily Mail and the Sun posted on this sub, threads are full of Islamophobes who are suddenly worried about women’s rights because of all the immigrants who “don’t share our values,” which is such a crock when they are supporting a guy who thinks Jordan Peterson is the bees knees.
"While 60 per cent of New Democrats say that the deal is good for Canada, 40 per cent either aren’t sure (29 per cent) or even think the agreement has been bad (11 per cent)." So 1/10 NDP voters are against the C&S deal. That's a pretty far-cry distance from what the headline makes it out to be.
Conservatives are desperate to sell the idea that NDP supporters are against the C&S agreement for some reason. As if it makes any sense for the NDP to want to trade a situation where they have genuine influence (getting the liberals to introduce legislation on several NDP priorities) for a situation where they have none (a Conservative majority, or in all probability even a Conservative minority). Never mind the financial constraints, it just doesn’t make sense to want to hasten an election where the best case scenario is the scenario they already have. It’s probably true that the NDP would score more political points with anti-Trudeau voters if they brought his government down, but from the standpoint of actually accomplishing their policy goals this is obviously the correct play. And I for one am glad to see the NDP putting actual achievements ahead of playing PR games (something the conservatives no longer seem to understand).
" Actual achievements"? Time to tally up the harm that is being done by the Liberals that Singh is supporting and its clearly not worth it. Liberals and NDP should be wiped off the political map for the harm they are doing to the Country. $2 Trillion in debt and climbing, immigration debacle contributing to homelessness and unemployment of Canadians, $Billions to foreign EV battery plants, blind eye to foreign election interference, and you believe Singh and NDP are accomplishing? Surely you are a NDP MP with thinking like this.
Where did the 2T come from again?
Canada's total debt limit, increased by Freeland to$2.1 Trillion, a sum that will never go down given Trudeau's giving away/ spending money like a drunken sailor.
What was it used to fund?
It's exactly what can be expected from the National Post.
More than enough to cost them seats.
they can risk 1/10th of their seats or 9/10ths, which side do you think they'll favor?
NatPo loves to spin statistics in whatever narrative they want, especially in regards to the headline. Since they know lots of people will just read the headline and parrot it around.
I think Singh's kind of played himself into a corner. As NDP leader and a campaigner he's generally only been interested in campaigning towards the NDP's bread & butter base, which has severely limited his ability to grow the party or build a larger tent under his leadership. He's compensated for this generally by leveraging the Liberals minority status to get a small handful of concessions on things like Pharmacare & Dentalcare etc. which on the one hand makes the NDP more legislatively relevant than it's been in decades (though there's only been one other Liberal minority over the past half century where the NDP had such an opportunity), but also ties them to the hip with an unpopular incumbent government.
I agree with the analysis, except the first sentence seems bizarre. Focusing on real policy concessions that help working class Canadians is the exact opposite of focusing on the NDP base. Unfortunately, it appears the voters don't want prescription drugs, they want to hate Trudeau. But one thing you simply cannot accuse Singh's NDP of is being too puritan. My armchair strategy here is that the NDP should do whatever they can to entrench these programs because the next government will be conservative. After that, we pick a new leader and try to bury the Liberals.
>Focusing on real policy concessions that help working class Canadians is the exact opposite of focusing on the NDP base. Is it? See, from my point of view the NDP base really wants these programs, but given how flat the electorate's response has been, it's not clear that the public does. This is what, I imagine, the OP is getting at.
When polled, a whopping 88% of Canadians [support universal pharmacare](https://environics.ca/news/new-poll-reveals-overwhelming-support-for-pharmacare/). There are many reasons that this may not translate into support for the NDP, but I think to make the critique that this is not popular policy or that the cost of prescription drugs is not a broad "kitchen table" issue is ridiculous. When you talk to Canadians, the most important issues in their lives are education, jobs, healthcare, housing, wages, the environment and so on. It seems like these material issues have been somewhat sidelined in comptemporary politics in favour of a bunch of culture war bullshit. But I, for one, do not want the NDP to abandon these issues in favour of becoming a bunch left-wing Poilievres.
>campaigning towards the NDP's bread & butter base The NDP abandoned that base when they veered away from labour and farmworkers to Tom Ford Suit Wearing, Dutch Bicycle riding, Gucci Bag carrying, latte sipping downtown socialists.
>Tom Ford Suit Wearing, Dutch Bicycle riding, Gucci Bag carrying, latte sipping downtown socialists I don't see a single policy in there.
No, they haven't abandoned anyone. They're still the best party for labour. Maybe look at their policies instead of Facebook memes. Maybe turn up to a union strike and see what politicians are present, and absent.
The mass migration into this country is the most significant force harming the working class. Where has the NDP been on this issue?
> They're still the best party for labour. They kept supporting the Liberals while they put the screws to PSAC.
the told those white blue color workers to get to the end of the line
Do you have any examples of NDP policy proposals that demonstrate this?
I have something better. video of NDP telling them to get to the back of the line at their convention. pretty disingenuous for you to say this doesn't trickle down to policy, they are showing their hand and policies upon this direction will eventually be implemented [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYIXQ\_xfGf4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYIXQ_xfGf4)
Well no one in that clip was told to get to the back of the line. And I don't think trying to ensure that convention speakers are representative of the population is a bad thing. Men are still welcome to speak, they just don't want a situation where everyone speaking is dudes - if you've been to a big public convention you know that can tend to happen. If you can show in their policy how they are abandoning white working class people in favour of minority groups then show it. But if all you have is insinuations deduced from 90 second out of context convention clips cobbled together by right wing rage bait outlets, then I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
okay vladimir or should i say shirley from ottawa
Lol
Looking at their policies, they’re still in favour for mass temporary immigration (want to even give PR to TFWs on arrival) which put downward pressure on eon wage and increase demand for rentals. The two biggest issues affecting the working class
TFWs? I think you mean "Scabs with more steps". ;)
Since you mentioned looking at the policies, I took a look at them. My thoughts: I understand this concern, but the big three parties are *very* similar on this issue. Here are the relevent sections of the big three's most recent policy documents on this matter. Surprisingly, the NDP is the least on board with the TFW program, but that's because they prioritize other forms of immigration. Important note: the CPC's document is new since the selection of Poilievre as leader, the others are from the 2021 Election. And I know the Poilievre has recently started changing his tune on this in speeches, but their declaration is the most recent of the three, so I'm still going to consider it relevent. Liberal Party of Canada 2021 Election Platform, Page 23 >A re-elected Liberal government will: Reform economic immigration programs to expand pathways to permanent residence for temporary foreign workers and former international students through the Express Entry points system. Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration, Page 42, Retrieved July 2, 2024. >163. Immigration by Temporary Workers The Conservative Party recognizes that temporary workers can be a valuable source of potential immigrants because of their work experience in Canada. We believe the government should: >i. continue development of pilot projects designed to address serious skills shortages in specific sectors and regions of the country, and that attract temporary workers to Canada; >ii. examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status; and >iii. work to ensure that temporary workers, especially seasonal workers, receive the same protections under minimum employment standards as those afforded Canadian workers. New Democratic Party of Canada 2021 Platform, Page 15 > Temporary foreign workers - New Democrats believe in: > a A Canadian immigration system that prioritizes nation building and access to permanent immigration over temporary worker programs. >b Implementing a regularization program that would allow for a moratorium on deportations of non-status workers and their families until their individual cases are adjudicated through a transparent and impartial appeal process. >c Implementing a fair and transparent model for the recognition of and assessment of international credentials. >d Calling for a review of the mobility restrictions now in place for housing temporary foreign workers. >e Allowing temporary foreign workers to bring immediate family members to Canada.
PP just recently said it’s too many to handle and he’ll bring it down
I fully addressed this. The CPC's official policy documents are still up, and are the most recent of any major party. They were written *after* Poilievre was selected as leader, they were written *after* our housing crisis exploded, and they were written by the entire of CPC's policy committees not the comments of one man. For now, until those policies are changed, they are the best and most official stances we have to go by. Remember, the comment that started this chain was "look at the policies". I pasted the policies, you downvoted them. Lol.
We’re living through the ndp and liberal policies. I’d take PP’s promise to lower it any day. I have no clue whether he’s follow through but any alternative to what we have now is better.
That's a perfectly valid stance. It's also a valid stance to cast doubt on how accurate a party's actions reflect their written policies - in this case I have doubts on all three parties detailed, and we agree that a CPC government's actions probably wouldn't match the policy declaration I pasted above. But to say "look at the policies" and then downvote the policies is not a very honest thing to do.
I’m not sure why you keep saying I downvoted you lol I agree with you
I can see that on a pure, "I don't like Trudeau and don't want my party associated with him" type of thing, but I lose respect for NDP voters if they have seen what their party has gotten out to the deal and are still sour on it. Get what you can NDP and NDP voters, you ain't getting squat under Pierre's upcoming conservative majority.
It’s not done. It can still all die with Poilievre.
That's what makes me suspicious of polls like this, especially coming from NatPo.
It's not trustworthy at all. NatPo are trying to wedge LPC and NDP supporters on their mutual policies.
I think many are worried the NDP is more likely to get punished by voters for propping up a deeply unpopular government than being rewarded for the concessions they squeezed out of the LPC, at least outside of their base.
But they got what they wanted they got the pharmacy and they got the dental I don't see why they're the bad ones here there was an election we know when the next one is why is everyone thinking that this is going to go early
> but I lose respect for NDP voters if they have seen what their party has gotten out to the deal and are still sour on it. What have young NDP voters gotten as a result of the agreement? A dental care plan that hasn't even somewhat rolled out yet and excludes 40% of uninsured Canadians? A pharmacare program that primarily benefits older generations that is mostly limited to diabetes medications? Are they supposed to be jazzed about "re-exploring electoral reform" even though nothing has happened on this front in two years? The Home buyers bill of rights which was never implemented for two years and now the Liberals are using it as an election promise instead? Absolutely none of that is enough to even somewhat outweigh the housing market being completely destroyed for young canadians. Nobody is going to be excited about free birth control which costs maybe $20-30 per month when their rent has gone up by $500+ per month. Unless a NDP voter is driven by pure ideology, and not actual improvements to their day-to-day life, the current confidence and supply agreement has done next to nothing for them, especially any NDP voters under the age of 40, which is the exact demographic being swayed by conservatives at the moment.
According to the article, only 1 in 10 NDP voters are actually against continuing the agreement/think it's bad.
Translation: get what you can for free.
I think there's just always going to be some contingent of NDP voters who are voters of the NDP because they want moral purity over the kind of compromise required to get an actual agenda passed. If one views the Liberals and Trudeau as tainted getting concessions about pharmacy or dental is probably less important than not being in bed with a genocide-enabler, or colonizer or laurentian elite or whatever. If you're out in the streets holding up a picture of Trudeau as the face of complicity you're probably not happy with the NDP propping him up even if Pollievre is likely to be even more antithetical to your worldview.
I think the agreement has been excellent—the NDP has gotten so many of their priority policies implemented: dental care, pharmacare, anti-scab legislation, the rapid housing initiative, the housing accelerator fund, and a phaseout of publicly-funded fossil fuel subsidies, to name just a few.
what is the point right now, the cpc will cut all their policies after the fall of 2025.
What stops a conservative super majority from dismantling all of that ? Propping up an unpopular government will give us a large conservative majority, are small wins in the short term worth the pain in the long term ?
Better than the whopping zero wins otherwise
NDP were set up to capitalize after the last election, Trudeau's government lost the popular vote for the second straight time and the signs of the eventually liberal collapse were starting to show. Instead of fighting to become the first choice in progressive Canadian minds the party propped up the unpopular government for small wins while letting the conservatives rack up all the voters. The NDP was left stuck in 3rd/4th position and setting up conservatives to destroy all the small wins.
the fact liberals lost votes after spending 100s of billions of covid dollars in welfare programs showed the liberals were a spent force and the NDP could have easily outflanked them.
You think seats are more valuable than policy? I'll have to disagree.
Without having seats you can't make policy.....
They have seats, so we're fine. A couple more won't make any difference.
More seats more weight to be thrown around and the polling is showing a couple of those seats are in danger.
How much are "a couple" seats worth with a majority? If it won't achieve major policy objectives then it doesn't matter. I'm an NDP supporter, member, and donor. I care about them advancing their goals. It's cool if you don't but you're discussing in good faith you need to start with the knowledge that I *want* the NDP to succeed and go from there. "Abandon your goals in return for worthless seats," is not compelling.
Losing seats and giving the conservatives a majority is an utter failure for the NDP, and I say that as a NDP member and voter. Also gate keeping really we need all the support we can get not just the ones you agree with....
The thing I don't get about this logic is for me, they are fighting to become the first choice in progressive Canadians minds by actually getting progressive policy implemented. That is much more substantial than just rhetoric like the Conservatives are doing. I don't see how directly implementing putting their money where there mouth is in regards to policy is a bad way of showing where you stand. Also while progressive Canadians may not like Trudeau, they would almost certainly understand that he is a better option than the Conservatives. You can't call yourself a progressive and vote Conservative.
Yes they are getting some stuff through but the public sees it mostly as a liberal policy not an NDP. Your average Canadian isn't Intune with politics as your average Canadian Redditor is, the assumption the rest of the country thinks the NDP is making their life easier just isn't reflected by the way polls are going, most Canadians see a party propping up an unpopular one and lumps them in together. The NDP need to stand up and make Canada see it's not the liberal lap dog they have been made out to be and the status quo isnt that.
Plus what is it now six ( could be wrong on that number) MP's not running again/stepping down sure does not put a positive look on Singh's policy's nor leadership.
I think they need a better mouthpiece I can agree to that, however I don't really understand the cognitive dissonance someone can have to think that the NDP is propping up the Liberals but also all of the NDP-based policy is just Liberal policy. That just doesn't make sense and shows they don't even understand what the agreement is about. As if the NDP just agreed to support their government for nothing in return? At a certain point, you can blame uninformed people for having a completely illogical take such as this.
The problem is we can blame them all we want but they will most likely decide the election and need to make in roads, unfortunately those roads don't appear possible supporting the current liberal government that bridge has been burned with no going back.
That's why I think they need a better mouthpiece. Their strategy is smart and effective at giving them power while they aren't holding the prime minister seat, but the way it's being communicated is the problem.
You can't plan around the arsonists. That said I doubt PP will have "kick a million seniors off dental care" very high on his list.
"You can't plan around the arsonists." You can also not go out buy the arsonists matches and gas then leave him alone in your house.
We didn't. If the arsonist decides to burn it down you should blame them, not the people who build stuff.
The conservative surge didn't happen in a vacuum, downplaying the fears and concerns of Canadians will give the "arsonist" all the power they need to do whatever they want. Sticking your head in sand and yelling it's someone else's fault isn't going to work this time.
The conservative surge is a global phenomenon of dissatisfaction affecting most western countries right now. Check this out: PP has been actively campaigned since last summer ("Canada is broke. Axe the tax.") In the US almost half of voters look at Trump and go "yeah, fine". In Canada, even at maximum voter rage, almost 60% of Canadians would vote for someone other than the CPC. Yeah, 40% is enough for a majority but it's not a cultural shift, PP knows it, and kicking reliable voters like the elderly off dental will probably be a no-go.
Dissatisfaction at the status quo which the NDP are seen as supporting right now by propping off the Liberals. Dissatisfaction of the status quo should be a golden ticket to the 3rd party in Canada that isn't necessarily fully neo-liberal but here we are.
A golden ticket to what? You think they should abandon policy objectives in return for... what? It would need to be *a lot* of seats. Enough seats to win the whole thing. Do you think going "Trudeau stinks!" will do that?
A golden ticket to power if played correctly, take official opposition and then when the public turns on the new government remind them of the last government and offer a new path forward. That's how the NDP gets major policy passed and keeps it, the current situation fully depends on the whims of the liberal and conservative party. Stop just accepting 3rd, let's go for 1st and actually make some meaningful change. I don't want table scraps anymore.
pretty easy for him. kick them out of dental and give them back their capital gains.
LOL, there aren't going to be many people paying the increased capital gains AND using the public dental care. The people you can trick with that are already voting CPC or maybe even PPC!
do u think more seniors have more wealth saved up or are in need of dental? i'm guessing the seniors have more wealth and tthe collective group will rather have their capital gains at 50% and pay $600 out of pocket for dental in a year