Canada just got a little more interesting
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Canada is a big country with a small imagination – politically speaking.
A lot of Canadian politicians and pundits prefer it that way since predictability is often considered a synonym for stability. And stability is often considered a virtue in a cautious country with little affinity or enthusiasm for imaginative thinking – politically speaking.
So, when the governing Liberal Party, led by a chastised and vulnerable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, agreed last week to strike an entente with Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the pretend socialists – the New Democratic Party (NDP) – Canada became a little more interesting – politically speaking.
Distilled to its core, the Liberal-NDP pact calls for Singh to prop up Trudeau’s minority government until 2025. In exchange, Trudeau will try to find the money in post-pandemic budgets to relieve struggling Canadians of the pricey costs to take care of their teeth and to buy prescription drugs.
Trudeau gets what he wants: to remain prime minister for longer than most observers – including yours truly – thought possible. Singh gets what he wants: credit for helping people who need help that could, over time, pay dividends.
To be clear: this is not a coalition – where Singh and company would be obliged to sit, knee-to-knee, in a room full of apostate Liberal cabinet ministers. Instead, Singh has leveraged the NDP’s hold on the balance of power in parliament into what amounts to a “coalition-light”.
Much more importantly, he has won, on paper, commitments – not promises – from Trudeau to do what the prime minister has, until now, been reluctant to do.
On a stubborn, practical note, Singh knows that it will take years for the NDP to replenish its running-on-empty coffers before it can even contemplate bankrolling a costly federal election campaign. As such, Singh’s decision to act as Robin to Trudeau’s Batman until 2025 is a necessary by-product of the party’s halting balance sheet, as well as a genuine bid to aid Canadians in need.
Alas, the Trudeau-Singh axis – negotiated in secret by a nestful of aides – had the requisite dose of backroom dealing and intrigue to trigger a hysterical reaction among outraged conservative politicians and commentators who were so appalled that they pleaded with God on Twitter to save Canada from being disfigured beyond recognition or, worse, destroyed by a pair of Fidel Castro-loving revolutionaries.
As a general rule, I find that if excitable conservative politicians and columnists turn to the heavens as part of an apoplectic tantrum that Canada is about to be transformed into a slightly more agreeable version of North Korea, then someone, somewhere, has earned a hearty round of applause for having done something right.
While I have some misgivings with how the Trudeau-Singh pact came about and the unelected apparatchiks who pieced it together, anytime a government makes what appears to be a binding pledge to help people who require help, that is, by any measure, a good thing.
Still, the confirmed cynic in me wonders not only if Trudeau will be around long enough to keep his word, but if Singh could also have pried more from a government eager to avoid a non-confidence vote and another federal election.
Having worked on Parliament Hill decades ago, I can assure you the distrust and enmity between Liberals and the NDP were once as deep as any Himalayan crevasse.
A healthy dose of that distrust and enmity persists. It was born, in large part, by the Liberal Party’s historic habit of tacking to the left when the prevailing winds blow.
This has translated into Canada’s we’ll-do-and-say-anything-to-win-an-election party stealing, outright, programmes that the NDP championed when it was a real and not pretend socialist party. (These days – true to milk-toast form – the pretend socialists have banned the word “socialist” from their party’s constitution.)
Understood in this context, Trudeau’s apparent appetite to play let’s make a deal with Singh confirms, once more, a defining Liberal trait and a wounded prime minister’s parochial calculus to stay in the job rather than any abiding need to serve the public interest.
Given the NDP’s traditional scepticism and distrust – I am being charitable – of the LiberaI Party’s intentions and motivations, Singh may have thought it prudent to fashion, reportedly over months, an agreement with Trudeau privately and only consult with his paltry 25-member caucus after the fact to prevent potentially fatal leaks.
For a party that professes a near-religious devotion – hand on pretend socialist heart – to transparency and “grass-roots” democracy, Singh’s behind-closed-doors accord with Trudeau is antithetical to those supposed solemn conventions.
In any event, the Trudeau-Singh pact makes plain the laser-thin daylight between the Liberals and Canada’s pretend socialists on domestic and foreign policy. Indeed, Singh was elected NDP leader as an effervescent rebuttal to an effervescent prime minister.
This may go some way towards explaining Singh’s and his tenured-for-life advisers’ sorry failure to wrestle, for example, fairer and just amendments to a number of adamant and inhumane Liberal foreign policies as tangible reciprocity for the NDP’s marriage of convenience and somewhat conviction.
Chief among them is Trudeau’s evangelical support for Israel. This, despite a library of reports by human rights groups that Canada’s can-never-do-any-wrong ally in the Middle East is guilty of apartheid as it continues to methodically evict, jail, traumatise, maim and kill Palestinian children, women and men whenever it wants to, for whatever reasons it wants to, for as long as it wants to.
I am sure that Conservatives and their hyperbolic apologists take considerable solace in that.
But their frantic appeals to God for salvation from the Trudeau-Singh axis may reflect a sober admission that if, one day in perhaps the not-so-distant-future, the NDP and Liberals move, conceivably, from an entente to a merger, then the prospects of Conservatives forming a future government may dwindle to nil.
The numbers on this score are absolute.
In the 2021 election, more than 8.5 million Canadians voted for Liberal and NDP candidates combined, or the equivalent of nearly 50 percent of the popular vote. The 2019 election results were almost identical to the percentage point.
Canadians vote centre-left. If even a slice of soft or disenchanted Liberal voters drifted their way, Conservatives would face a herculean task – given the country’s immovable loyalty to electing government via first-past-the-post – to defeat a Liberal-NDP union.
The Conservative Party has veered back to the hard right, joining its rabid ideological brethren down south in embracing a litany of imaginary grievances disguised as “freedoms” as the dominant governing principle and flirting with crazed conspiracy theories.
While it devotes time and energy to what looks destined to be a divisive and draining leadership contest between the lunatic right and not-so-lunatic right, the Liberal-NDP entente may prove agreeable to voters already inclined to vote centre-left.
By 2025, that could mean, in the wise words of that immortal sage, Bugs Bunny, “that’s all, folks” for the Conservative Party
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
Phew, Canada has escaped becoming a lot more interesting although the images of conservatives circling giant methane sinkholes in the Beaufort Sea in some mass hysteria of self-immolation religious redux are an early Spring pleasantry.
Perhaps another Defend Bad Teeth Trucker Parade is in order ... ?
I wonder if this had anything to do with the Canadian government ordering 88 F-35s with Moose seats from the US?
The lunatic right didn't want the Moose seat, instead, they opted for the maple syrup dispenser
The F-35 seems to be a done deal although the Minister of Defense claimed yesterday that Sweden could still post a counter offer.
The Swedish fighter is a good fighter but it isn't stealth like the F35.
A complete lie, since Justin Trudeau was the first Canadian PM that for DECADES abstained from and did not vote against a typical everyday United Nations demonization of Israel. But after all...Al Jazeera.
Well, Hallux, I'm surprised that you posted that without posting a caveat as to how you feel about such an antisemitic canard, posting but ignoring a lie followed by a slice of rampant antisemitism (the latter expected from Al-Jazeera, an Arabic news site which I thought Canada had banned years ago). In fact I'm somewhat disappointed that I'm the first NT member posting on this article to take umbrage with such a vicious comment. Not only is that statement not true, but anyone who has been following the news during the last week would be aware of the THREE incidents of Palestinian terrorists murdering innocent Jews in Israel.
Israel: With Every Murder, Palestinians Destroy Their ...
.
.
Were I to post caveats on the above opinion piece they would be longer than the article. I do not seed articles because I believe them to be the bee's knees but because they may elicit a thought or two and not the kneejerk reactions of condemnation you are familiar with when you seed articles on China. Capiche?
Okay, got it. At least I pointed out the filth that was in the article you posted.