The NDP's new dilemma.

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
It would seem that the NDP will find itself in a tight spot in this mandate. Mulcair had run to the right of Trudeau, promising a balanced budget, probably resulting in many on the left voting for Trudeau and those on the Centre voting for Mulcair.

If Mulcair now applaud's Trudeau's borrow-and-spend policy, he might win those left voters back but will inevitably anger those who'd actually voted for him as a is call conservative progressive.

If he sides with the Conservatives in his criticism of Trudeau's policy, he may satisfy those fiscally conservative progressives but at the cost of the traditional socialist vote, which could potentially entrench the ideological spectrum switch between the Liberal and New Democratic Parties for the long haul.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Who cares. The sooner the Dippers fold the better it is for Canada. They haven't had an idea worth celebrating in my lifetime
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
It's back to normal for the NDP and another half century on the margins. I guess that we need them around for their doe-eyed, kumbaya innocence.
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
It's a common misconception that running deficits is leftist.

This election proved that Canadians only care about the economy when there is a significant crisis.

Which is the right way to go because the environment and social issues are more important anyway.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
It's back to normal for the NDP and another half century on the margins. I guess that we need them around for their doe-eyed, kumbaya innocence.

That's the sensible answer- Jack Layton was an aberration that benefitted the Dippers greatly, he died and now the N.D.P. will settle back to their historical role..........distant third for years to come. :) :)

It's a common misconception that running deficits is leftist.

This election proved that Canadians only care about the economy when there is a significant crisis.

Which is the right way to go because the environment and social issues are more important anyway.

Explain how the environment and social issues are important when you can't afford to eat! :)
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
It's a common misconception that running deficits is leftist.
Down in the States, George W. Bush and Co. Ran up a massive, historic tab. A lot of what has been attributed to Obama's watch was inherited from the previous tennant.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
It's a common misconception that running deficits is leftist.

This election proved that Canadians only care about the economy when there is a significant crisis.

Which is the right way to go because the environment and social issues are more important anyway.

The reality is that regular Canadians don't give two craps about the economy unless it benefits them directly. If they have a job, getting paid decently, can afford the things they need and get the occasional thing they want, the status quo is what they will vote for.

If they lost their job or stuck in a crap job because no other good jobs are available, if they have low chances of getting a raise, if they are continually scraping by every week, then the status quo will not be tolerated and people will vote for anything other than what is going on now.

The government can talk about a great economy, balancing budgets, the creation of jobs and a thriving market all they want, but if regular people are not experiencing any of it and continually feel they're stuck in a hole, then all of the rainbows and lollipops the government prances on about amount to sh*t.

The government lowering taxes while only creating low income / part time jobs and not investing infrastructure etc. Doesn't help anybody in reality.

The government investing in infrastructure creates decent paying jobs. Raising tax by 1-2% isn't a big deal if you can get a good job that pays more than minimum wage. Lowering taxes 1-2% while stuck in a low pay is an insult to intelligence and keeps you stuck in one spot.

If I get paid an extra $5-10 an hour more in my job and it's an available job I enjoy doing, an extra buck or more on my groceries is perfectly fine.

Government spending on roads, bridges, building, etc. Is work for construction workers. Those construction workers need tools and building resources. They need signs. Those businesses supplying them with resources and signage get profit. They can advertise more to get more business. Advertising firms get money from them. Investors focus on the businesses supplying the companies working on the infrastructure issued by the government..... These construction workers need food during lunch time. The food industry benefits.

.... And so on.

It's a chain reaction. It can pay off or it can also flop, but there's a better chance of it paying off than sticking with Harper's plans he held for the last 9 years which did very little.

Again, it's not so much the economy people care about. It's more direct than that. People care about what benefits them, not what it benefits others.

Overly simplistic? Selfish Mentality?

Perhaps, but that's pretty much how the election unfolded. People were tired of Harper and they were tired of being stuck in the same routine going nowhere.