I am getting more and more convinced that eventually the CPC and now the NDP will have to propose a real alternative and more effective carbon reduction approach than the federal back stop. I don’t believe that in today’s world the “let the planet burn” will be acceptable to voters.
We will have two summers before the next election (likely). Or perhaps I should say forest fire seasons. Last year had 10x the average forest fires. Will we have the same this year? More? And next year?
If large parts of Ontario and Quebec (including the major cities) are covered in smoke for weeks, would voters accept a carbon reduction plan that has no meaning whatsoever?
Mr. Singh's problem is that there is no discernible difference between his party and the LPC right now. So why support a party in 3rd place when you can vote for a party that actually holds office? The CPC has a much better chance of getting the blue collar vote.
Scrimshaw is right about Singh. He’s a flake, who thinks his base are dimwits that need to be constantly lied to. This is beyond a failure of leadership, which extends across the political spectrum. It is a betrayal of representative democracy, where informed consent is a bedrock principle. When politicians (and parties, including the Liberals and Cons) decide winning by deceit and/or misinformation is paramount, we aren’t in a democracy, we are in an ersatz autocracy.
Second, the NDP aren’t an environmental party (ex. BC and AB provincial parties). They are a protest party that barely understands labour or how to talk to the public intelligently about poverty, declining social/economic mobility, the cost-of-living crisis, monopolies, monopsony, or how trade deals (i.e., corporate globalization) have harmed them. Again, they think we are all too daft to understand basic macroeconomics and how 40-years of neoliberalism have been detrimental to overall growth, collective prosperity, and democracy.
It is a party that should be at 40% in the polls, but is run by gimmick mongers that would rather play footsie with the Conservatives on matters of existential survival (i.e., climate crisis) than explain why environmentalism is a prerequisite for future survival.
Regardless of whether or not Singh is up to the politics-as-a-game-above-all-else horseshit that probably alienates the majority of people enough that they don't even bother voting (which, on balance, might be preferable to the horde of "low-information voters") he's still saving all our asses as long as he's signed on with the Liberals, bottom line, which is consummate leadership and WHY stuff, i.e. actual governance is able to happen.
Except that if those alienated people are responsible enough NOT to vote because they don't feel they KNOW enough, many would probably vote AGAINST THE CONS, which is truly the ONLY rational thing to do.
If the media and all the pundits and opinion writers would just outline how voting has never been simpler or more straightforward since CPC denies climate change with a slogan like, "voting is easy as ABC" and did it as often as the braying idiot with his rhyme, we might GET somewhere.
The most sane thing of all under these tedious circumstances would be if formal talks would start on uniting the left, taking a page out of the idiot's on the right book. We are supposed to be the smart ones here after all, but don't seem to have mastered basic math.
The challenges facing the NDP are far from new. In the 1993 election, their 45 MP caucus was cut in half, mostly because B.C. seats flipped to Reform, a protest vote against Ottawa elitism. Other than the Layton blip (personal popularity rather than ideas), they have struggled ever since. Their two-party essence originates in 1961 when the NDP formed by joining organized urban labour with CCF farmers. It's always been a delicate balance, and the tensions have now evolved into a clear urban-rural divide that is affecting all our parties and politics. It's disheartening, although unsurprising, to now watch Singh succumb to possible short-term gains from anti carbon pricing rhetoric, when the NDP should be helping to explain and promote this minimalist climate policy measure. "$2 a month to help the planet" is all they need to say. Simple comms to counter Poilievre's slogans. But I presume the NDP is desperately trying to save the furniture. Lack of leadership, of ideas, of courage -- yes, all true, but not new, sadly.
I am getting more and more convinced that eventually the CPC and now the NDP will have to propose a real alternative and more effective carbon reduction approach than the federal back stop. I don’t believe that in today’s world the “let the planet burn” will be acceptable to voters.
We will have two summers before the next election (likely). Or perhaps I should say forest fire seasons. Last year had 10x the average forest fires. Will we have the same this year? More? And next year?
If large parts of Ontario and Quebec (including the major cities) are covered in smoke for weeks, would voters accept a carbon reduction plan that has no meaning whatsoever?
Mr. Singh's problem is that there is no discernible difference between his party and the LPC right now. So why support a party in 3rd place when you can vote for a party that actually holds office? The CPC has a much better chance of getting the blue collar vote.
Scrimshaw is right about Singh. He’s a flake, who thinks his base are dimwits that need to be constantly lied to. This is beyond a failure of leadership, which extends across the political spectrum. It is a betrayal of representative democracy, where informed consent is a bedrock principle. When politicians (and parties, including the Liberals and Cons) decide winning by deceit and/or misinformation is paramount, we aren’t in a democracy, we are in an ersatz autocracy.
Second, the NDP aren’t an environmental party (ex. BC and AB provincial parties). They are a protest party that barely understands labour or how to talk to the public intelligently about poverty, declining social/economic mobility, the cost-of-living crisis, monopolies, monopsony, or how trade deals (i.e., corporate globalization) have harmed them. Again, they think we are all too daft to understand basic macroeconomics and how 40-years of neoliberalism have been detrimental to overall growth, collective prosperity, and democracy.
It is a party that should be at 40% in the polls, but is run by gimmick mongers that would rather play footsie with the Conservatives on matters of existential survival (i.e., climate crisis) than explain why environmentalism is a prerequisite for future survival.
Regardless of whether or not Singh is up to the politics-as-a-game-above-all-else horseshit that probably alienates the majority of people enough that they don't even bother voting (which, on balance, might be preferable to the horde of "low-information voters") he's still saving all our asses as long as he's signed on with the Liberals, bottom line, which is consummate leadership and WHY stuff, i.e. actual governance is able to happen.
Except that if those alienated people are responsible enough NOT to vote because they don't feel they KNOW enough, many would probably vote AGAINST THE CONS, which is truly the ONLY rational thing to do.
If the media and all the pundits and opinion writers would just outline how voting has never been simpler or more straightforward since CPC denies climate change with a slogan like, "voting is easy as ABC" and did it as often as the braying idiot with his rhyme, we might GET somewhere.
The most sane thing of all under these tedious circumstances would be if formal talks would start on uniting the left, taking a page out of the idiot's on the right book. We are supposed to be the smart ones here after all, but don't seem to have mastered basic math.
The challenges facing the NDP are far from new. In the 1993 election, their 45 MP caucus was cut in half, mostly because B.C. seats flipped to Reform, a protest vote against Ottawa elitism. Other than the Layton blip (personal popularity rather than ideas), they have struggled ever since. Their two-party essence originates in 1961 when the NDP formed by joining organized urban labour with CCF farmers. It's always been a delicate balance, and the tensions have now evolved into a clear urban-rural divide that is affecting all our parties and politics. It's disheartening, although unsurprising, to now watch Singh succumb to possible short-term gains from anti carbon pricing rhetoric, when the NDP should be helping to explain and promote this minimalist climate policy measure. "$2 a month to help the planet" is all they need to say. Simple comms to counter Poilievre's slogans. But I presume the NDP is desperately trying to save the furniture. Lack of leadership, of ideas, of courage -- yes, all true, but not new, sadly.