Thank you Paul. So great to read a measured and respectful piece of analysis that goes to the trouble of putting todays political scene into historical context.
Two of my favourite people in conversation! Thanks ! Two thoughts. As weird as this sounds making a gain or two for the trouble of going to parliament in a ‘third party position ‘ keeps an outfit like the ndp going long term. I had a list of wins after the 72-74 minority govt to draw satisfaction on although defeated ;like the Election expenses act that has stood the test of time. Others were responses to immediate plight - Chileans refugees, helped immensely by a Harney(ndp-Mp) - Pelletier (liberal minister) persuading a reluctant Trudeau to open the Canadian door! Secondly I smile when ottawa players fall back on the reason for ndp to do this is their broke, they are always broke has no real affect!😊
Thanks Paul, super interview. Anna is an indispensable asset to her party, but through this initiative is poised to make an impact on all Canadians for some time to come.
Another solid read Paul, well done. Anne McGrath is as pragmatic and strategic as they come in my limited experience dealing with NDP stalwarts and party staff leaders. Once they figure out that the Budget 2022 dentalcare numbers are way way too low and that the proposed Pharmacare legislation by late 2022 is nothing but a shell with unworkable provincial intrusion regulations -- just as the government tried and mostly failed with PMPRB -- Jagmeet Singh will have no choice but to pull the plug on the "agreement". My money is on Budget 2024 bringing down the government and #ELXN45 thereafter in mid-Spring.
Paul, perhaps clarification is necessary to put Brad Lavigne's propaganda into more accurate historical context? I'm referring to this sentence: "Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare, worked with Lester B. Pearson to get the Medical Care Act passed in 1966."
Is it not true that John Diefenbaker's "Royal Commission on Health Services" designed the system and then Pearson signed it into law within the first few months of his term?
Shall we entirely erase the Conservative party's role in the design of Canada's single-payer health care system and believe Pearson's government forged the Medical Care Act from thin air?
Fief the chief worked closely with Emmit Hall and Douglas bringing federal funding to hospitalization a big deal. These were the days when they were Tories not the Pierre P brand.
Thank you. You've reiterated my point: that the Conservative Party were instrumental in the design and passing of federal single-payer healthcare policy.
As for your comment about "Pierre P brand", that's a topic for another day.
Hope everyone enjoys our totalitarian culture as young trudeau works towards a regime that keeps him in power much like Xi. All dissent - that opposed to his government's mission -will be censored and there will be a willingness to betray those nearest to you or better yet keep enabling a divisive society - something that is certainly evident in main stream media... in my opinion.
Good to read a longer context and analysis of current governing agreement. But the emphasis on “supply” and spending, which is the ostensible focus and gain of the agreement, does not help me to understand how the NDP will position itself on issues of principle and ethics, such as the review of the use of the Emergencies Act, or other matters such as the issue of taking the Speaker of the House of
Commons over the Chinese researchers at the NRC. There are other areas on which to hold the government to account, and one wonders what price the NDP have paid for that?
Thanks for this, Paul. Some important history here. Unfortunately, in these days of 240 characters, there is no time or space to remember the stories of how politics functioned in the past and how that usefully informs the future.
soft ball interview - The progressive policies have pushed Canada to a brink of a serious depression. Any questions to the leaders of this movement should be taken in the light of the consequences of their actions to date.
Interesting piece. It suggests that "in power" and "in government" don't always need to be the same thing.
The history of NDP-supported Liberal governments -- and the policy advances that they produced -- demonstrates that although the NDP have never formed the government federally, nonetheless they've been in power. If the promise of a political party is to deliver outcomes that its supporters want, and if the NDP can do that by providing "adversarial support" from the opposition benches, then I think that's a clear win for them.
It comes down to knowing the real purpose of your party. If what you really care about is power, you'll do whatever it takes to get it, and you'll accept anyone's assistance (and their conditions) in order to keep it. But if what you really care about is getting results for your supporters, maybe the trick is to help the party that craves power keep it, on your conditions. Maybe in those circumstances, "in government" is the last place you need or even want to be.
Thank you for ending with some lovely classical music as it helped to ease the feeling of nausea after reading of the anti-democratic Liberal-NDP coalition, whereby after the Liberal vote total was reduced, they failed again to win even a plurality of the vote, and they formed a government with the lowest percentage of the vote in Canadian history, somehow Singh interpreted this to mean that Canadians wanted him to give Trudeau an absolute de facto majority free of any checks and balances. Singh will be remembered as someone who usurped the will of the Canadian electorate and set the stage for the potential disintegration of the country.
Thanks, but also I'm going to work harder than I have before at welcoming all types. There are plenty of places to get shouted at online; I'm going to encourage everyone, starting with myself, to do less of that here. That means, yes, I'm going to try to reserve my snark for my posts, not for the comment board.
Thank you Paul. So great to read a measured and respectful piece of analysis that goes to the trouble of putting todays political scene into historical context.
Two of my favourite people in conversation! Thanks ! Two thoughts. As weird as this sounds making a gain or two for the trouble of going to parliament in a ‘third party position ‘ keeps an outfit like the ndp going long term. I had a list of wins after the 72-74 minority govt to draw satisfaction on although defeated ;like the Election expenses act that has stood the test of time. Others were responses to immediate plight - Chileans refugees, helped immensely by a Harney(ndp-Mp) - Pelletier (liberal minister) persuading a reluctant Trudeau to open the Canadian door! Secondly I smile when ottawa players fall back on the reason for ndp to do this is their broke, they are always broke has no real affect!😊
Thanks Paul, super interview. Anna is an indispensable asset to her party, but through this initiative is poised to make an impact on all Canadians for some time to come.
Another solid read Paul, well done. Anne McGrath is as pragmatic and strategic as they come in my limited experience dealing with NDP stalwarts and party staff leaders. Once they figure out that the Budget 2022 dentalcare numbers are way way too low and that the proposed Pharmacare legislation by late 2022 is nothing but a shell with unworkable provincial intrusion regulations -- just as the government tried and mostly failed with PMPRB -- Jagmeet Singh will have no choice but to pull the plug on the "agreement". My money is on Budget 2024 bringing down the government and #ELXN45 thereafter in mid-Spring.
Paul, perhaps clarification is necessary to put Brad Lavigne's propaganda into more accurate historical context? I'm referring to this sentence: "Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare, worked with Lester B. Pearson to get the Medical Care Act passed in 1966."
Is it not true that John Diefenbaker's "Royal Commission on Health Services" designed the system and then Pearson signed it into law within the first few months of his term?
https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic-5h12e.html
Shall we entirely erase the Conservative party's role in the design of Canada's single-payer health care system and believe Pearson's government forged the Medical Care Act from thin air?
This is interesting but it tends to confirm my view that Dief was a bit of a moron.
Fief the chief worked closely with Emmit Hall and Douglas bringing federal funding to hospitalization a big deal. These were the days when they were Tories not the Pierre P brand.
Thank you. You've reiterated my point: that the Conservative Party were instrumental in the design and passing of federal single-payer healthcare policy.
As for your comment about "Pierre P brand", that's a topic for another day.
Hope everyone enjoys our totalitarian culture as young trudeau works towards a regime that keeps him in power much like Xi. All dissent - that opposed to his government's mission -will be censored and there will be a willingness to betray those nearest to you or better yet keep enabling a divisive society - something that is certainly evident in main stream media... in my opinion.
Look forward to each article. Thank you
Good to read a longer context and analysis of current governing agreement. But the emphasis on “supply” and spending, which is the ostensible focus and gain of the agreement, does not help me to understand how the NDP will position itself on issues of principle and ethics, such as the review of the use of the Emergencies Act, or other matters such as the issue of taking the Speaker of the House of
Commons over the Chinese researchers at the NRC. There are other areas on which to hold the government to account, and one wonders what price the NDP have paid for that?
Thanks for this, Paul. Some important history here. Unfortunately, in these days of 240 characters, there is no time or space to remember the stories of how politics functioned in the past and how that usefully informs the future.
soft ball interview - The progressive policies have pushed Canada to a brink of a serious depression. Any questions to the leaders of this movement should be taken in the light of the consequences of their actions to date.
Interesting piece. It suggests that "in power" and "in government" don't always need to be the same thing.
The history of NDP-supported Liberal governments -- and the policy advances that they produced -- demonstrates that although the NDP have never formed the government federally, nonetheless they've been in power. If the promise of a political party is to deliver outcomes that its supporters want, and if the NDP can do that by providing "adversarial support" from the opposition benches, then I think that's a clear win for them.
It comes down to knowing the real purpose of your party. If what you really care about is power, you'll do whatever it takes to get it, and you'll accept anyone's assistance (and their conditions) in order to keep it. But if what you really care about is getting results for your supporters, maybe the trick is to help the party that craves power keep it, on your conditions. Maybe in those circumstances, "in government" is the last place you need or even want to be.
Working to do politics differently in Canada. Bravo NDP! Thank you, Paul Wells.
Thank you for ending with some lovely classical music as it helped to ease the feeling of nausea after reading of the anti-democratic Liberal-NDP coalition, whereby after the Liberal vote total was reduced, they failed again to win even a plurality of the vote, and they formed a government with the lowest percentage of the vote in Canadian history, somehow Singh interpreted this to mean that Canadians wanted him to give Trudeau an absolute de facto majority free of any checks and balances. Singh will be remembered as someone who usurped the will of the Canadian electorate and set the stage for the potential disintegration of the country.
Co-operating with another party is not the same as selling your soul for 20 (not 30) pieces of silver.
Thank you for the frank discussion on how the other third lives.
Settle in. I can tell you're gonna love it here.
Thanks, but also I'm going to work harder than I have before at welcoming all types. There are plenty of places to get shouted at online; I'm going to encourage everyone, starting with myself, to do less of that here. That means, yes, I'm going to try to reserve my snark for my posts, not for the comment board.