How many times do we have to say for Singh to go? The NDP are spending their time to much on the non voters. We need to see the NDP work with workers who are the voters
CPC - everything is a crisis and it is Trudeau’s personal fault
NDP - everything is a crisis and it is the system’s fault and the Liberals are part of the system, but we are happy to support it?
Greens - the climate is in crisis and here are some practical ideas to make it better, will somebody listen to us?
Bloc - everything may be in a crisis, but we don’t really care, what is in it for Quebec?
PPC - we are angry and you should be too
Liberals - Canada is actually doing quite well compared to the rest of the world, but there are number of issues that we need to work on (and if that does not work we will talk about guns and abortion all day)
In today’s world, all parties are looking for ways to get an emotional reaction from voters. Good government and sensible policies are boring and are certainly not going to result in any donations. The NDP has put itself in an impossible position, but it will all be resolved once Singh reaches the pension threshold.
Greens - the climate is in crisis and here are some practical ideas to make it better… oh shit, we’re actually getting attention and need to come up with policies outside of our narrow environmental focus. Oh shit again, it turns out none of us agree with each other on any issues except a small slice of environmental policy, and we’re now going to implode (again) because it turns out we don’t actually like each other very much
This article basically trashes the NDP for making statements you consider to be extreme about policy issues, but having nothing constructive to say about solutions. Meanwhile Pierre Poilievre makes the claim that the whole of Canada is broken while having nothing meaningful to say about how he would fix anything. In fact Poilievre and the CPC repeatedly maintain that their job is ONLY to provide opposition and they will speak about solutions ONLY during an election campaign. Some political analysts suggest this is an unserious position for Poilievre and the CPC. I will be happy to read an article from you that is just as critical of Poilievre's unserious behaviour.
I am new to sub stack and this is the first time I have ever read an article by this journalist. Please direct me to an article he has written that trashes Poilievre in the way this one trashed Singh.
While I agree with the point of this post, doesn't this contradict what you recently said? I am referring to a recent argument you made that the NDP will keep propping up the Liberals because it's the closest they will come to power anytime soon. At the time, you made that point to criticise people who were attacking the NDP for supporting the Liberals. Unless I am missing something, it appears to me that you are now putting forward a case that you were putting down not so long ago.
Fully agree. The NDP are faux populists, and I say this as someone who normally votes Dipper. As for the Liberals, they come across as a communications firm that likes to pretend being a government.
BTW: In case you didn't see it, Gerry Nicholls recently published a piece in the Hill Times that echoes your argument. Gerry points out how the NDP (and Conservatives) like to act as radicals, when in reality they are closer to being squishy centrists.
But how would it be morally preferable to risk the prospect of a government led by Pierre Poilievre whose principles, if he has any, are completely contrary to your own, when you know full well a Liberal / NDP arrangement will get you much more of what is in line with your own principles.
Because Singh is saying that there is no difference between the LPC and CPC!
I know that Poilievre is worse and you know it and so does Jagmeet when he stops fucking pandering, but he doesn’t get the benefit of what we all know when he actively undermines that argument
The NDP will NEVER forget that Jack Layton brought down the Liberal government of Paul Martin and we ended up with roughly ten years of Stephen Harper as a result. I think it is unrealistic to think that the NDP might go anywhere near to repeating that mistake again. That doesn't mean they will not criticize Trudeau and the Liberals when they get the chance, in the hope that they might force him to do more that they would like. But it is unrealistic to expect them to voluntarily give Poilievre the chance they gave Harper.
How many times do we have to say for Singh to go? The NDP are spending their time to much on the non voters. We need to see the NDP work with workers who are the voters
dunno if I’m among the first to admit..
that I really don’t know what NDP stand for..
aside from being generally if not all, very nice people ..
So, let’s see. We have:
CPC - everything is a crisis and it is Trudeau’s personal fault
NDP - everything is a crisis and it is the system’s fault and the Liberals are part of the system, but we are happy to support it?
Greens - the climate is in crisis and here are some practical ideas to make it better, will somebody listen to us?
Bloc - everything may be in a crisis, but we don’t really care, what is in it for Quebec?
PPC - we are angry and you should be too
Liberals - Canada is actually doing quite well compared to the rest of the world, but there are number of issues that we need to work on (and if that does not work we will talk about guns and abortion all day)
In today’s world, all parties are looking for ways to get an emotional reaction from voters. Good government and sensible policies are boring and are certainly not going to result in any donations. The NDP has put itself in an impossible position, but it will all be resolved once Singh reaches the pension threshold.
Greens - the climate is in crisis and here are some practical ideas to make it better… oh shit, we’re actually getting attention and need to come up with policies outside of our narrow environmental focus. Oh shit again, it turns out none of us agree with each other on any issues except a small slice of environmental policy, and we’re now going to implode (again) because it turns out we don’t actually like each other very much
This article basically trashes the NDP for making statements you consider to be extreme about policy issues, but having nothing constructive to say about solutions. Meanwhile Pierre Poilievre makes the claim that the whole of Canada is broken while having nothing meaningful to say about how he would fix anything. In fact Poilievre and the CPC repeatedly maintain that their job is ONLY to provide opposition and they will speak about solutions ONLY during an election campaign. Some political analysts suggest this is an unserious position for Poilievre and the CPC. I will be happy to read an article from you that is just as critical of Poilievre's unserious behaviour.
Then you should read basically anything else that Scrimshaw has posted. Any suggestion he’s uncritical of the CPC is ridiculous
I am new to sub stack and this is the first time I have ever read an article by this journalist. Please direct me to an article he has written that trashes Poilievre in the way this one trashed Singh.
https://scrimshawunscripted.substack.com/p/poilievres-straight-pride-problem
And there’s no lack of ther ones. Just go through his recent posts.
Thanks, you were right. He criticizes Poilievre too.
Another good letter. Great writing style. No one compares.
Bang on! I left the NDP after 22 years for essentially every reason laid out in this article.
I wonder how many NDP MP's are landlords?
Four, according to an older article. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-many-canadian-politicians-belong-to-the-landlord-class-we-should-question-their-motivations
While I agree with the point of this post, doesn't this contradict what you recently said? I am referring to a recent argument you made that the NDP will keep propping up the Liberals because it's the closest they will come to power anytime soon. At the time, you made that point to criticise people who were attacking the NDP for supporting the Liberals. Unless I am missing something, it appears to me that you are now putting forward a case that you were putting down not so long ago.
The NDP will not in reality vote down this government - they have no money for a campaign and they won’t risk the balance of power
That doesn’t change that if they genuinely believe what they say that the logical and moral stance from it is to vote the government down
Fully agree. The NDP are faux populists, and I say this as someone who normally votes Dipper. As for the Liberals, they come across as a communications firm that likes to pretend being a government.
BTW: In case you didn't see it, Gerry Nicholls recently published a piece in the Hill Times that echoes your argument. Gerry points out how the NDP (and Conservatives) like to act as radicals, when in reality they are closer to being squishy centrists.
https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/08/03/could-socialists-and-populists-unite/394148/
But how would it be morally preferable to risk the prospect of a government led by Pierre Poilievre whose principles, if he has any, are completely contrary to your own, when you know full well a Liberal / NDP arrangement will get you much more of what is in line with your own principles.
Because Singh is saying that there is no difference between the LPC and CPC!
I know that Poilievre is worse and you know it and so does Jagmeet when he stops fucking pandering, but he doesn’t get the benefit of what we all know when he actively undermines that argument
The NDP will NEVER forget that Jack Layton brought down the Liberal government of Paul Martin and we ended up with roughly ten years of Stephen Harper as a result. I think it is unrealistic to think that the NDP might go anywhere near to repeating that mistake again. That doesn't mean they will not criticize Trudeau and the Liberals when they get the chance, in the hope that they might force him to do more that they would like. But it is unrealistic to expect them to voluntarily give Poilievre the chance they gave Harper.