As Canada’s worst election ever staggers toward the finish line, a theme has finally emerged. Despite the best efforts of the party leaders to say nothing coherent or true at any point, we know what it’s about. Everyone is running against the Tories. Including the Tories. Makes you wonder what they’re so afraid of.
Jagmeet Singh let the cat out of the bag about the theme when he confessed that yes, should his party unaccountably fail to win a majority of seats for the 18th straight time since its 1961 founding, he would consider a coalition with … Oh come off it. We all know the answer. Another of the three social democratic parties in this election, trading ferocious rhetorical barbs over trivial differences.
The NDP, Greens and Liberals are basically similar people ideologically and even sociologically, especially since the NDP’s old CCF religious Prairie populist wing flapped off to join the Tories. Truth be told, the Bloc are similar, too. The separatist thing is a bit awkward but not fatal, as Stéphane Dion’s hapless Blunderall coalition proved. Besides, who among us wouldn’t pander to Quebec?
The main thing, for all four, is that big government is the answer to everything. As recently as Chrétien the Liberals saw themselves as the party with a heart and a brain. Unlike the Tin Man Tories and Scarecrow NDP, the Grits would bring in compassionate solutions while keeping the private economy humming along too so there’d be enough money to spread about among likely voters, I mean worthy recipients. (Chrétien also despised separatists.) But since about 2004 they’ve been reckless enthusiasts for every PC social justice meme going.
[…]
See Also:
(1) Maxime Bernier testing voters’ loyalties in Quebec’s conservative Beauce
(2) A coalition government isn’t the Canadian way
(3) The best days of Andrew Scheer’s campaign
(5) Thoughtful debate has been smothered by bilious rage in this election campaign
I recall John Robson & his wife Brigitte Pellerin writing articles about Stephen Harper not being conservative enough for their liking. Both seem to have forgotten the truism that “politics is the art of the possible”.
As I advised a family member who is still undecided about whom to vote for: “vote for the one who will do the least damage”. Robson, on the other hand, would have voters choose what, exactly?