On distinction

I've noted before that we shouldn't be too quick to assume that general electoral trends will overcome the strength of NDP incumbents in particular. But it certainly doesn't bode well that the party's plan seemed to have been based on the hope that the main issue on voters' minds could be entirely ignored:

When Singh’s campaign arrived in Hamilton — a city which prides itself on being known as Canada’s Steeltown — the NDP leader faced questions about whether he “missed the moment” by not making tariff-specific policy proposals or visiting a factory floor.

Party staff told journalists they expected media coverage to focus on Singh’s economic policies and did not think tariffs would dominate so much of the discussion.

In effect, the NDP's plan for a long-anticipated election seems to have mirrored the strategy from the much-lamented 1988 campaign in looking to wave away the primary issue on the public's mind - with the added problem that this time, the party couldn't plausibly have thought it had an advantage in leadership favourability to justify that choice of focus. 

Now, it might be fair to say that there's room to push the focus beyond tariffs alone. And I'd argue that the NDP's best chance to differentiate itself from the Libs remains the ability to call attention to the fact that the Trump regime poses additional threats beyond its impact on bankers' profits. 

Since Mark Carney was elected the Libs' leader, U.S. states have been taking steps to declare existence as a trans person to be illegal.

The Trump regime has gone out of its way to disappear people for exercising free speech. And we've learned that Canada has been involved in at least one instance of immigration detention, as the application of Canadian immigration policy as usual led to Rebecca Burke's being seized.

And the Trump regime's attacks on education and science have continued apace, with weather and climate science ranking among the areas where the U.S.' denialism will have international implications.

The Libs have done little to address those and other developments that bear more on human rights and public interests as opposed to corporate profits. And there's still some time to highlight the fact that we're far outside the realm of what's normal in those areas too - and need strong NDP representation to protect interests going beyond trade. 

Unfortunately, it sounds like the NDP has wasted far too much time sticking to a predetermined domestic platform, rather than what's right in principle or likely to resonate in a Trump-dominated news environment. And the result may be significant losses both in terms of seats, and in terms of Canada's overall response to Trump.

On open lanes

Mark Carney's ascent to the Liberal leadership has locked in a change in Canadian politics as compared to the period before Justin Trudeau's resignation announcement. But as the inevitable response to any glimmer of hope for the Libs is to turn it into a "this is bad news for the NDP!" story, let's take a look at how there's still room for the NDP to find its footing in advance of an election campaign. 

First, recognizing that the Trump regime will continue to make it difficult for parties to centre a campaign on anything else, there remains plenty of space for a distinct voice as to the appropriate response.

On that front, the most telling part of Carney's inaugural speech dealing with Trump was this:

“The Canadian government is rightly retaliating with our own tariffs,” Carney said during his victory speech Sunday. “My government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect — and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade.”

Now, that message makes plenty of sense from the Libs' perspective. It plays to both a simplistic patriotism and Carney's international profile in making a demand for "respect", while also allowing corporate Libs the hint of an easy return to business as usual based on entirely subjective criteria.  

But there are limitations on that position in terms of both principle and credibility. 

As a matter of principle, the concept of "respect" looks profoundly tepid compared to what's playing out in real time. As stories and pictures emerge about the real human costs of Trump's authoritarianism, there's a desperate need for somebody in the campaign to highlight the fact there's more at stake than national pride.

And I'd also expect plenty of voters to recognize the folly in crediting Trump as being able to offer credible, reliable commitments on anything. (Insert "if you'd been around for Trump's first term, maybe you'd understand!" as appropriate - and Carney's credulousness in the face of nakedly self-serving actors is a point with broader application as his green banking alliance has crumbled.)

To be clear, I don't think there's likely a path to a 2015-style three-way race at this stage. But there are multiple potential responses to the Trump regime - and one focused on how it threatens human rights and workers' interests on both sides of the border should offer a distinct and important message which will appeal to both longtime supporters and new potential activists. 

Which brings us to the question of how popular support levels will translate into seats - and there, it's worth noting some of the limitations in assuming a uniform swing in votes which doesn't reflect local and party factors. 

On that front, there's a well-established NDP practice of "beachhead" organizing - with an intensive focus on winning a single seat to provide a local presence, then a plan to leverage incumbency advantages and spillover awareness of one established MP into neighbouring seats. 

As Allan Gregg acknowledged after Ontario's provincial election this year, that model allowed Marit Stiles and the Ontario NDP to hold nearly all of their seats (contrary to what pollsters presumed) and remain the Official Opposition despite losing ground in the popular vote. Trevor Corkum notes that there's precedent for a localized focus to bring Atlantic seats into the fold even in the face of a Liberal turn elsewhere, with strong challengers in place to challenge for seats the NDP has held in the recent past. And I'd point out the additional example of the Vancouver Island stronghold which has stayed primarily with the NDP since 2015 even as provincial and national numbers have fluctuated. 

If I have any general concern about that model, it's that it tends to result in dedicating the resources of a national campaign to a relatively small number of seats - which may limit the NDP's ability to expand the electoral map. But the flip side is that it provides reason to think the NDP can hold hold strong on the ground regardless of where the Lib-Con air war ends up.

The choice of fights

Needless to say, Canada's federal polling has taken a substantial turn over the past couple of months. And it shouldn't come as much surprise that the Lib griping that Jagmeet Singh should sacrifice his own party to save Justin Trudeau has given way to demands that he step down as the NDP's leader now that Trudeau's departure has given the Libs an adrenaline boost. 

So let's take a look at what the NDP's path forward looks to be in advance of what could be an imminent election - and where the Libs have left some room to maneuver.

To start with, it's well and good to brand Singh as a "fighter" at a moment when public sentiment is strongly in favour of standing up for Canada against foreign threats:

And I'll echo Tom Parkin's view that there's an opening to engage in that fight from the left in comparison to Mark Carney. But it's worth noting what opportunities there are to do that - particularly when it comes to U.S. relations which stand to be a dominant component of our political scene for the foreseeable future.

So far, Singh has distinguished himself from the Libs on at least one point worth making, pointing out that we don't need to be willing hosts to a president bent on attacking our sovereignty (while Trudeau claims that pretending Trump is a good-faith actor is somehow the "responsible" course of action). But that's just one of numerous examples where the Libs have defaulted to a position heavy on normalcy bias which is ripe for a challenge. 

No, Canada shouldn't be pushing plans for tariffs against other countries in the hope that selling out the rest of the world will get us on the inside of a U.S. tariff wall. 

No, we shouldn't be playing along with the idea of still more fossil fuel pipelines which only exacerbate the system of petropolitics that helped build the right-wing political machine on both sides of the border.

And no, we shouldn't let ourselves be bullied into throwing money at U.S. military contractors to meet arbitrary targets within a defence structure which doesn't appear to be protecting us anymore in any event. 

These are just a few of the areas where the Libs have been entirely willing to play along with some of Trump's most dangerous plans (and where the Cons will only demand even worse). And the only sure thing under Trump's rule is that there will be a never-ending supply of similar headlines and provocations.

That in turn means that a party committed to opposing U.S. overreach and anti-social action will have no lack of opportunities to present that theme to the public. But what's been missing so far is a concerted plan to take up the fight - and the greatest risk for the NDP at this point is the wrongful sense that Carney's minimal resistance is enough.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Greg Sargent writes about the utter villainy of Elon Musk's using the largest concentration of wealth on the planet as a tool to condemn children to starvation, while Margaret Sullivan highlights how Jeff Bezos is trashing the Washington Post by turning it into a corporate propagand mill. Gabriel Zucman discusses how the Trump regime's capture by oligarchs makes it vulnerable to a response which emphasizes requiring the richest few to pay their fair share. Jen St. Denis reports on the tech lobbyists seeking to impose DOGE-style chaos in Canada. And Jagmeet Singh talks to Bernie Sanders about the cross-border cooperation which can ensure a better standard of living on both sides of the border:

- Jenna Benchetrit reports on a new study showing that consumer debt and delinquency have been soaring in Canada even before Trump started throwing the economy into chaos. And Muneeb Javaid writes that there's no excuse for Canada not to apply a wealth tax - even as Christo Aivalis notes that Mark Carney is only looking to make matters worse by treating capital as more important than labour and people's well-being. 

- The Requital examines how increased reliance on food banks signals a worsening hunger crisis in Canada. And Vandna Sinha et al. warn of the exacerbated food crisis facing many in Nunavut as a food couver program is due to expire at the end of March. 

- Lloyd Alter notes that any plan to build independence from the U.S. should include a shift to clean energy and transportation - including the bike lanes and walkable areas which petropoliticans are determined to destroy. And Andrew MacLeod reports on David Eby's proposal to target coal shipments as both an effective challenge to any tariffs and a boost to a clean energy transition.

- Finally, Chandelis Duster reports on the grassroots movement for an "economic blackout" today as a first step to challenge the abuses of Amazon and other exploitative retailers and brands. 

On humanitarian concerns

Jagmeet Singh has taken comfortably to the task to dealing with the economic aspects of the new Trump administration - both in pressing other leaders on their determination to respond in kind to any Trump tariffs, and in highlighting the potential to focus on critical minerals as a form of pressure. (That latter prospect appears particularly important for a couple of reasons: it signals that Canada won't willingly feed crucial resources into a manufacturing supply chain which is being manipulated to otherwise cut us out, and helps to ensure that resources which may be critical to clean energy development aren't diverted to an administration determined to squelch anything of the sort.)

But it's worth a reminder that the issues arising out of Trump's presidency go well beyond bilateral economic policy. And there may be even more important work to be done in the areas which are thus far being neglected in favour of the economy.

Even before Trump takes office, there are protests developing in the U.S. to oppose the prospect of mass deportations - even as one of his most appalling cabinet nominees leaves open the option of ordering American troops to shoot peaceful protesters in the streets. 

Whether or not Pete Hegseth is ultimately confirmed, there can't be much doubt that Trump's plans include atrocities against vulnerable groups and anybody who would seek to protect them. And it's doubtful that the consensus on responding to tariffs will hold up when the damage caused by his administration is measured in human rights rather than corporate profits. 

With that in mind, a defence of Canada and its values will ultimately need to extend beyond the pocketbook issues which are generally given a place of prominence in political messaging. And in the absence of reason to think any other party is interested in doing that work, there will be both an opportunity and a moral imperative for Singh to lead the cause. 

On immediacy

It didn't take long for the opportunities I'd mused about to emerge in Canadian politics. But while the Libs haven't yet decided on a structure for their leadership campaign, we can see what the NDP is doing to ensure voters have an option to resist a Trump takeover.

And that now includes Jagmeet Singh taking on a lead role in fostering both resistance and hope (if only after Charlie Angus had shown how readily a leader can win support just by standing up to Trump):

But I would note there's room for further work in indicating not only a willingness to fight against Trump and his Con allies, but also the determination to build the alternate structures needed to support people caught in the violence in time to help them. And that's where I'd argue there's still room for a change in mindset.

Over the past few years, the main indicator for the federal NDP's success has been one of incremental progress. The achievements most valued by the party have involved negotiating the partial implementation of much larger ideas including dental care and pharmacare. And with the Libs holding power, the manner and pace of implementation has been almost entirely out of the NDP's hands - resulting in the habit of treating any step forward as a win, full stop.

But the reality is that there's still ample work to be done in developing what those programs can and should be. Plenty of people will have reason to ask why their needs haven't yet been addressed - and what an NDP government plans to do differently. 

And that question will become all the more important when the humanitarian crisis blows up later this month, creating imminent and severe risks to all kinds of people facing a hateful and emboldened Trump administration. I've already noted what the policy response might look like - but it's worth also pairing the "what" with attention to the "when" and "how".

Fortunately, there's a compelling example to point out thanks to Wab Kinew. His Manitoba NDP government is combining clear timelines for larger goals with a commitment to dealing with urgent circumstances as soon as possible - addressing immediate homelessness through proactive outreach in a matter of weeks, while working on a longer-term plan to ensure everybody has housing. 

Similarly, it's worth emphasizing the NDP's determination to identify the most significant needs where they exist, and commit the resources needed to deal with the full scope of a problem on a defined schedule.

That should make for a particularly compelling message on the housing front when compared to a Con position based on nothing more than meddling in municipal decision-making while actually reducing the federal government's resources applied to home construction. 

Among the other glaring problems with treating deregulation as a panacea, it involves precisely zero attention and focus toward people's immediate needs where they don't offer the largest opportunity for immediate profit. And that leaves an opening for the NDP to advance direct action to ensure the right to housing is met, rather than asking people to settle for the bare hope someone else (or a mythical invisible hand) will fix the problem at some point in the future.  

On windows of opportunity

Following up on yesterday's post, the NDP's decision to advance a non-confidence vote obviously reflects a different path than the one which seemed promising to me. And there's at least one explanation as to why there may be an interest in an election sooner rather than later:

Speaking with sources within the NDP. There is a noticeable shift in the parties attitude towards and election. They WANT an election against Trudeau. I have been told there is data coming showing them in a steady 2nd place against Poilievre with a shorter than expected ground to reclaim.

— JB (@jb.polaris.tube) December 20, 2024 at 12:43 PM

From the standpoint of merely managing party interests in Parliament, that type of data would create a strong incentive for an early election - particularly if the main alternative is trying to negotiate with a leader whose ability to give effect to any agreement is in doubt. 

But I'm still not convinced there isn't a better third option which could pair a relatively strong party position with a concerted effort to tap into public resistance to an American oligarchy which seems likely to overwhelm domestic discussions in any election campaign. 

Meanwhile, it's also worth noting the timing involved. Just as now isn't a time when there's a realistic prospect of negotiating legislation, it's also too late for any non-confidence vote to take place for at least a period of months. And there's risk in assuming that both of the conditions seen as favouring an election now (the assumption of polling momentum and Justin Trudeau's continued leadership of the Libs) will still be in place by the time there's any chance to act on today's declaration. 

On disruption

There's little doubt that Chrystia Freeland's resignation from the federal cabinet (with associated spillover effects) has managed to earn the notice of even those largely disconnected from politics. And while the most common reaction seems to have been to wait for something more to happen internally among the Libs, a few commentators including Karl Nerenberg, Steve Burgess, and Aaron Wherry have offered some view as to what might come next.

But it's worth discussing the reality that both the stakes involved and the range of potential outcomes extend far beyond the realm of Liberal personality politics.  

Keep in mind that the last two Canadian federal elections have involved a consistent state of stalemate. The Libs lost their majority in 2019, but maintained enough seats to stay in power with other parties' support; the Cons perceived possibilities of taking power, but instead plateaued in terms of both vote share and seats. And a two-year stint of minority government led only to a virtually identical result in 2021, as Libs focused on holding power, Cons determined to seize it through reflexive criticism, and an NDP looking to secure benefits through legislative concessions in a minority Parliament all ended up stuck roughly where they started. 

After three more years of the same dynamic in Parliament, however, the positioning of the national parties has stabilized at a rather different level - with the NDP nearly catching up to a sinking Lib vote share. And Trudeau's past ability to hold the line in close two-party races in the past offers no reason to think he can suddenly overcome the weight of baked-in public disapproval and massive support deficits - particularly without some plan to do anything differently other than cribbing from Doug Ford's Book of Temporary Giveaways. (On that front, the familiar calls for every other party to sacrifice their own interests to rally behind a Prime Minister who's hemorrhaging support in his own caucus are particularly laughable.)

But there are opportunities to shift the foundations of the parties' current positions. And while Trudeau may be able to influence which ones are able to proceed, there's potential for a shift to happen without his acquiescence. 

From the Libs' standpoint, a leadership race would shift the party from being focused on defending (or seeking to topple) a single insular leader, to having multiple leadership candidates pursuing a broad-based outreach program with an obvious incentive to bring in new members and supporters. And if it's true that Trudeau lacks a path to build support at this stage, a leadership race would quickly sort out who's capable of offering greater growth potential. 

Of course, the downside for the Libs is that the leadership voters' assessment might not match that of the general public. But the fact that's the worst possible outcome of electing a new leader only serves to demonstrate how little there is to gain sticking with the status quo: the worst-case scenario in trying someone new is the same electoral wipeout that looks unavoidable under Trudeau. 

Meanwhile, the NDP has an opportunity to take on a new role which might lead to much greater heights than its current position holding the balance of power in Parliament. 

If Trudeau does announce his departure, a caretaker Lib government wouldn't likely be in any position to meet any demands for improved legislation. Which means that the NDP would need to treat its legislative accomplishments as having been locked in for the next campaign, and turn toward another primary focus of activity and engagement while the Libs are focused on their leadership election. 

On that front, Charlie Angus has already received plenty of well-deserved attention for his challenges to the impending Trump regime (and its bootlickers among the Poilievre Cons). 

But when Trump actually takes power and begins his campaign of state repression against both political opponents and members of out-groups, many people will have reason to look for a resistance party in Canada. And the NDP should generally have a clear path to establish itself as both the Parliamentary voice and the organizing hub for people on both sides of the border who have reason to fear the worst of Trump and his government. 

Importantly, that opening will arise no matter what Trudeau decides to do. If he stays in place, his choice to bend the knee at Mar-a-Lago - together with Freeland's declaration that he's failing to react to the Trump threat - will make it difficult for him to try to claim the title for himself. And while leadership contestants may look to take anti-Trump rhetorical positions, the fact that they'll be focused primarily on their own vote counts would limit their effectiveness in achieving substantive results. 

In the end, there can't be any serious doubt among Canadian progressives that something needs to change before a federal election in 2025. And the best-case scenario would see two reinvigorated and viable challengers to Poilievre's assumed ascension to power. 

Update: So much for that idea.  

On barriers to cooperation

It's for the best that the NDP and Libs have been able to come to terms on a supply and confidence agreement which should at least provide for substantial material gains for people who need them, and may go further in setting up core elements of a universal health care system which have long been lacking. And it's particularly gratifying to see at least some recognition of the leadership that requires. 

But while it's well worth celebrating what looks like a turn for the better, it's also worth a reminder as to what - and who - has prevented that type of cooperation from happening in the past.

Remember that Jagmeet Singh's message after the 2019 election was one of willingness to work with the Liberals on shared priorities. And Justin Trudeau's response was...to reject any systematic cooperation with a single party, as he preferred piecemeal politics and perpetual Parliamentary chicken to acceding to any NDP priorities in exchange for ongoing confidence.

After last year's election, Singh again floated the possibility of closer cooperation, while apparently seeing it as futile to even suggest a formal confidence agreement. But even with that lesser possibility on the table, the Libs expressed at most "not a closure" in response, with nothing coming of it until talks between the leaders this year. 

And lest there be any doubt, that disparity in interest in working together is all too familiar for anybody who has hoped that Libs would treat minority Parliaments as opportunities to achieve progressive outcomes. From Paul Martin sneering that Jack Layton was "two votes short" of being worth talking to, to Pierre Trudeau torpedoing a functional confidence arrangement to manufacture a majority for himself, the history of the two parties is rife with theoretical possibilities which fell victim to the Libs' hubris and/or self-interest. 

Needless to say, that leaves reason for concern that the same factors will affect both the length of time the current agreement figures to hold up, and the expectations as to what will be achieved while it does. And while the points of agreement may make some major achievements seem like real possibilities, there's a lot of work to be done to keep pushing toward actually bringing them to life before the Libs decide to go it alone.

On priorities

While I've pointed out the absurdity of yet another round of anti-coalition scaremongering, it does seem clear that any discussion between the NDP and the Libs will instead involve a confidence and supply arrangement. And that may well be for the best, as it maximizes the policy outcomes the NDP can expect to generate from an agreement. 

That said, in determining which priorities should be given precedence, it's worth keeping in mind what can realistically be achieved in that type of arrangement - particularly in light of the dynamics it would create between the parties involved. So let's look at a few of the criteria by which we can evaluate possible points of agreement - and which options might best fit within a deal.

• Public Benefit - Needless to say, the core consideration for anything the NDP requests needs to be a tangible benefit for people. While this might seem obvious, remember that the Libs once considered it a good idea to keep the Harper Cons in power in exchange for partisan progress reports on stimulus spending. The NDP hopefully knows better than to pursue process points over substance - but in case there's any doubt, it needs to view the contents of a policy deal as embodying the belief that political choices can improve people's welfare. 
• Immediacy - Any supply agreement will necessarily be for a limited period of time, with a risk that Justin Trudeau will see an opportunity to call an election early no matter what time period is agreed on. And that means whatever concessions the NDP can win will need to be capable of implementation within a period of a year-plus. That likely rules out anything which would require starting any major program design or public consultation from scratch without a fairly well-understood end goal. And so while a basic income or electoral reform would make for worthwhile demands on the merits, they may not be practical as core components of a supply agreement. 
• Durability - That said, there's also reason for concern if any agreement fails to have a lasting impact. For example, while improved pandemic benefits are rightly an important consideration for now, there's surely little value in committing to support a government past the point when they may cease to be necessary. This may be where the NDP's past success in pushing for Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and Petro-Canada serves as a precedent as to what's possible. And while there may be limits on the structural change the Libs are willing to accept, the NDP should be keeping an eye on ensuring that the effects of any agreement last beyond the Parliament in which it's reached. 
• Acceptability - Of course, any demand made by the NDP is futile if it's beyond what the Libs can be pushed to accept. And while the Libs aren't setting up any particularly strict lines at the moment, there's a real risk that they'll see options to stay in power by other means (particularly by daring the Cons to bring them down) if the price for a supply agreement is seen as too high.
• Differentiation - By the same token, however, the NDP surely wants to be able to claim justified credit for the results of any agreement, rather than facing any plausible argument that the Libs would have done the same if they'd had a majority. And there may be particular value for the NDP in being able to claim to have pushed the Libs to action in an area where they'd otherwise proven reluctant to live up to their promises or stated principles. 
• Progressivity - Finally, different isn't necessarily better - so it matters which types are chosen for emphasis. While platform development always includes some effort to be everything to everyone, the terms of a supply deal will be taken as the ultimate declaration of the NDP's priorities. And it would be a waste of the balance of power to use it to pursue policies which tend toward political gimmickry rather than the expression of supporters' values.  

Not surprisingly, the main goals mentioned by Jagmeet Singh since the election (action on housing, dropping litigation against Indigenous children/providing compensation, and climate action) can meet each of the above criteria depending on the steps chosen. But even on those topics, the nature of any agreement may make a world of difference: indeed, a housing plan oriented toward subsidies for purchasers could easily fail the public benefit, differentiation and progressivity tests. 

Conversely, the best option may be one which isn't at the forefront of Singh's current messaging. The Libs have already put some effort into determining what a national pharmacare program could look like, meaning that it's as "shovel-ready" as any national benefit program is likely to be. But they've abandoned any commitment to following through or funding it, presumably due largely to industry pressure. 

That means the NDP can be the driving force behind a crucial national program which would carry both individual and systemic benefits, and which the Libs would have little reason to oppose directly (even if they haven't been willing to spend their own political capital implementing it). 

With pharmacare (ideally coupled with public-sector pharmaceutical capacity) along with a substantial contribution to a climate change plan (say, redirecting the value of fossil fuel subsidies to the NDP's proposal for a Civilian Climate Corps and green infrastructure investments?) as the centrepieces, there would then be room to add further elements which are either more limited in duration, or more distant in implementation. 

It remains to be seen exactly how willing the Libs are to pursue a more formal arrangement. But there's room for both the NDP and the country to benefit immensely if they can be pushed to do so - and after an election campaign where an immense amount of energy was spent to accomplish very little, it would be for the best if some well-selected pressure now can remind people what effective cooperation can achieve. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Sarath Peiris rightly calls out Scott Moe and his government for making it a goal to punish the poor within Saskatchewan. 

- Marco Ranaldi and Branko Milanovic study the connection between inequality of income sources and of income totals. And Ricardo Tranjan writes that we can't expect the pandemic (or any other event) to produce the end of neoliberalism, but instead need to fight for it against forces who remain determined to extract value from both the general population today, and the future of generations to come. 

- On that front, PressProgress exposes how private long-term care homes in Ontario profiteered off the pandemic by charging extra to move residents out of the risk of four-to-a-room overcrowding. Guy Quenneville reports on the prospect that it may take over a year and a major resource boost to make up the backlog in Saskatchewan's health care system - which is particularly problematic given the Sask Party's desire to hand health services over to the corporate sector.

- Michael King and Morgan Black report on the escalating death count from opioid poisoning in Alberta even as the UCP tries to ignore the options which would most obviously save lives. And in contrast, Michelle Ghoussoub reports on British Columbia's move toward decriminalization to ensure people don't fall victim to toxic drug supplies.   

- Environmental Defence examines how the oil industry's attempt at greenwashing with "net zero" spin falls far short of anything resembling a viable climate plan. And Megan Gibson and Phil Clarke Hill interview Jagmeet Singh about the work needed to push Justin Trudeau to fund a just transition to a clean economy, rather than decades of fossil fuel infrastructure.  

- Chen Zhou writes about the need for wealthier countries to pull our weight in funding global climate action. And Brian Kahn's survey of climate scientists show that the people best informed about our climate breakdown are begging our leaders to avert an imminent catastrophe.

- Finally, for those interested in a deeper look at climate change issues, a couple of new sites worth visiting have recently gone live: the David Suzuki Foundation's Climate Emergency Unit as a road map for action, and Amy Westervelt's Rigged as a source on corporate disinformation. 

On echoes

Plenty of commentators have pointed out the symmetry between this year's election and that of 2008 in terms of low voter turnout and general dissatisfaction with the outcome on the part of all parties. But it's worth noting the similarities between the two campaigns and their aftermath on the part of the NDP in particular.

2008 was treated as a golden opportunity for Jack Layton and the NDP to improve their standing. But even with the most popular leader among the national parties, a well-run campaign, and seemingly uninspiring or downright self-destructive competitors, the NDP ended up with...a small increase in the percentage of the popular vote due to declining overall turnout; a slightly improved seat count which fell far short of the party's number of targeted ridings and left it in fourth place in the Parliamentary standings; and punditry which questioned Layton's strategy of running for the position of Prime Minister, and asked whether he might have hit his ceiling as the party's leader. 

Sound familiar?

Needless to say, it was for the best that Layton was able to continue applying his experience and popularity to the cause of building the NDP for another election cycle. And any attempt to treat the replacement of a generally popular and able leader as a cure-all is as misguided now as it would have been in 2008. 

Indeed, the next election cycle may well match 2011 as one in which a leader with strong recognition and approval is a particularly potent force. 

The Cons look to be deciding whether or not to push Erin O'Toole out the door for making even token efforts toward moderation. And any review process and leadership campaign on their end raises a real possibility of schisms within the party, an extreme shift to the right which could disqualify them as a perceived alternative government, or the Cons' version of Michael Ignatieff's saviour complex and lack of self-awareness. 

Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau's negative impressions figure to be thoroughly baked in at this point, meaning that voters may be primed for change by the next (hopefully non-pandemic) election. Yet unlike some commentators, I'd have to see it as unlikely that he'd be pushed without wanting to leave - or that he'll choose to leave government without pursing another shot at a majority as long as there's any hope of winning one. 

To be clear, there's plenty the NDP needs to reckon with as a result of the campaign. Among others, those include the need for clearer and more ambitious policy (an area where I'll again point out COVID response as an obvious lost opportunity), as well as concerns being raised about a centralized campaign which spent plenty in the pursuit of a relatively small number of ridings, yet had difficulty converting those into seats. 

But the fact that there's room to learn lessons doesn't mean it's time to throw out the work the NDP has already done. And it shouldn't come as any surprise if the path of slow progress leading to a breakthrough is one the NDP can navigate again. 

[Edit: fixed typo.]

#Elxn44 Roundup

Assorted reactions to a federal election which changed so little.

- The Canadian Labour Congress points out that we can't afford to be stuck with the status quo when there's an opportunity for parties to chart a more equitable and sustainable course for Canada. And Aaron Wherry wonders how the federal parties will adapt to another apparent run of minority Parliaments by working on systemic cooperation rather than turning every confidence vote into a game of chicken, while Alex Marland points out the range of outcomes in historical minority governments from generational change to complete gridlock. 

- Seth Klein writes that the new Parliament will hold Canada's climate future in its hands. And Morgan Sharp argues that young voters will be looking for the parties to work together on that front, while Vijay Tupper makes the case that Jagmeet Singh needs to serve to counterbalance the influence of the fossil fuel sector. 

- Justin Ling writes that the main factors driving the outcome proved to be fatigue and resignation. Cameron Holmstrom writes that there were ultimately no winners among Canada's political parties.  

- Meanwhile, PressProgress reports on the problems with ballot box access in a pandemic election, including unconscionably long lines in some areas and a complete lack of polls in others. 

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan offers a reminder that the pandemic's disproportionate impact on women is far from over - and that countering its effects needs to be another top priority in the next Parliament.

#Elxn44 E-Day Links

News and notes as Canada's federal election draws to a close.

- David Moscrop discusses how a campaign nobody wanted is leaning toward grudging continuation of the status quo which the Libs tried to discard. And Ryan Maloney reports on the technical problems arising largely out of a snap pandemic election. 

- The Star offers its endorsement - which predictably supports the Libs, but recognizes both the contribution the NDP has made in responding to the pandemic so far and the need for it to be strengthened in pushing for progressive policy going forward. And Alex Ballingall reports on Jagmeet Singh's pursuit of tax fairness as the key to NDP support once voters have had our say. 

- PressProgress reports on the choice of multiple Con MPs to use a petition service which sends signatories' data to be used by far-right groups in Europe. And Caroline Orr writes about the connection between anti-vaxxers and the far-right PPC - and how the election doesn't figure to be the end of the story. 

- Meanwhile, Dave Cournoyer discusses Alberta's impact on the election - which now figures to be based primarily on the motivation of voters across Canada to avoid a Kenney-style catastrophe. 

- Finally, Olamide Olaniyan writes that systemic racism should be a major election issue - though it's worth noting that at least one party does actually take it seriously from a policy standpoint. 

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Victoria Nicolau reports on the Native Women's Association of Canada's campaign scorecard, showing the NDP well ahead of other parties in addressing the issues facing Indigenous women. And Omayra Issa and Theresa Kliem talk to young Indigenous people in Saskatchewan about what they want to see - and how the establishment parties are falling short.

- Katrina Miller and Jamie Kirkpatrick discuss how the Cons' refusal to even countenance a necessary transition to a clean economy stands to endanger the future of young Canadians both in polluting their planet and denying them a place in the global economy as it develops. 

- Toby Sanger writes that the Cons' economic plans predictably involve taking services away from people who need them in order to hand money to those who already have more than enough. And Patrick Brethour notes that the Libs' tenure in office has fallen short of Justin Trudeau's promises of economic growth.

- Catharine Tunney discusses why it may take several days to learn conclusive results from tomorrow's election. And John Brewin explores what we might expect in the Parliamentary session to follow.

- Finally, Nancy MacDonald examines what's new in the NDP's campaign. And Christian Paas-Lang wonders whether the 10th anniversary of the first Orange Wave in Quebec might see a resurgence - in part due to some familiar faces who have returned to the political fray.

#Elxn44 Roundup

News and notes from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Cam Fenton discusses how "strategic" votes for the Libs in the name of climate change figure to be anything but, while David Gray-Donald bluntly describes the Libs' offering as "denialist trash". Maya Menezes examines what we should be looking for in a climate platform, while Simon Donner discusses the need for any climate policy to fit with long-term goals. And Ben Simoni and Melissa Lavery discuss how Canada (and indeed the world) would benefit from a youth climate corps.

- Robert Hiltz writes that Erin O'Toole's mask has come off in the course of the election campaign, while Paul Willcocks discusses how O'Toole has campaigned as a trickster for lack of any ability to appeal to both his party's base and any expanded voter universe. Marieke Walsh reports on the refusal of the vast majority of Con candidates to say whether they've been vaccinated in the midst of a pandemic. And PressProgress exposes Con candidate Les Jickling's support for making health care about profit rather than patient needs. 

- Morna Ballantyne highlights how the Cons' tax baubles can't be equated with a plan to actually make child care available. And Paul Dechene similarly notes that the Cons plan to starve municipalities of desperately-needed infrastructure funding.

- On that front, Natasha Bulowski reports on the priority placed on housing by Canada's municipalities. And Erica Ifill discusses how the Libs' housing schemes have been gimmicky political diversions rather than effective plans to ensure people have the homes they need.

- Finally, Charlie Smith writes about the Robin Hood themes being presented by Jagmeet Singh in contrasting the NDP against the protectors of the wealthy.

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Christo Aivalis discusses Jagmeet Singh's much-needed willingness to take on the power of the rich to fight for a country that works for everybody. And Shelly Hagan writes about the resulting possibility of greater social contributions being required of those who can most afford to make them.  

- In contrast, Luke Savage highlights how Justin Trudeau's promises - particularly those aimed at progressive voters - are made to be broken. And the Centre for Canadian Progress offers (PDF) takes a look at the options for left-oriented voters on the key priorities of housing, climate change and pharmacare. 

- Richard Saillant reviews the parties' housing policies and finds the NDP's to be the one best suited to meeting the needs of people in precarious situations. And Richard Cuthbertson and Alaina Luck report that the Libs' idea of an "affordable housing" plan is to provide private developers with preferential terms to build units which cost up to double double the average rent within a community. 

- Meanwhile, Jackie Brown, Amit Arya and Andrew Longhurst discuss how to reach the NDP's goal of ensuring that long-term care homes are focused on care rather than profit. 

- Finally, David Akin examines the state of the race and concludes that we're likely headed for another minority Parliament. 

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Khalden Dhatsenpa and Gavin Armitage-Ackerman write about the need to treat housing as a human right rather than a commodity. 

- PressProgress reports on an internal Health Canada report showing how the NDP's plan for dental coverage would remove crucial barriers to access to dental care while also reducing health costs.  

- Andrea Perrella and Brian Tanguay make the case to follow through on ending the first-past-the-post electoral system in favour of a proportional system. 

- Markham Hislop highlights the parties' positions on a just transition to a clean economy - with particular attention paid to the failure of either the Libs or the Cons to make anything of the sort a priority at what may be the best possible time to plan the transition. And David Climenhaga reports on the Alberta Oil War Room's apparent breaches of election financing requirements in demanding indefinite fossil fuel production and data mining for Conservative-connected groups. 

- The Care Economy offers a fact sheet on care issues in the election, as well as questions worth raising with candidates. 

- Finally, Leyland Cecco writes about Jagmeet Singh's growing appeal - along with the NDP's ability to influence policy in another likely minority Parliament. And Nick Taylor-Vaisey examines where the parties stand after last week's debate - with Singh emerging as the victor in public perceptions. 

On narrow targets

At this stage of the federal election campaign, the seemingly wide range of outcomes is entirely an artifice of a first-part-the-post system with multiple parties contending for seats. Barring a drastic change in the last week of the campaign (which will likely need to overcome votes already locked in as well as significant inertia), we figure to see the Libs and Cons relatively close to each other in the popular vote, with the NDP a relatively strong third in what would be a minority Parliament in all but the most extreme possible outcomes.

The most significant point of uncertainty looks to be the Bloc - which seemed to have fallen from its earlier support levels earlier in the campaign, only to have ticked upward more recently. And as the campaign has played out it's worth wondering whether the NDP may have limited its ability to capitalize on opportunities - in Quebec in particular, and to some extent across the country.

On the Quebec front, the NDP has been explicit about limiting its focus to 6-10 ridings. And while it might be understandable not to launch a high-resource offensive into all of the terrain included in the 2011 Orange Wave, it has to be a disappointment to treat even seats which the party held in 2015 as secondary considerations.

After all, the result is that voters who have supported the party under multiple past leaders will perceive the lack of attention even after party finances have stabilized. And even in the ridings which are specifically targeted, the sense of limited aspirations from a strategic standpoint is particularly dangerous for a campaign based on asking voters to dare to imagine more than the status quo. 

Moreover, there's reason for concern about the same phenomenon playing out across the country and setting a ceiling on party support which caps the plausible seat count in double digits (again lower than levels the NDP has already reached), and limits the prospects of pushing aside either of the Libs or the Cons.

There is reason for optimism that the NDP is back on its 2000s trajectory of building from one election cycle to the next, including by being able to close its campaign strongly in close seats. But if the NDP wants to be able to put its ambitious platform into effect, it needs to be no less daring in the seats it contests - and it will be a severe disappointment if an opportunity to make far larger gains is lost to an overly cautious campaign plan. 

[Edit: fixed typo, wording.]

#Elxn44 Roundup

Assorted content from Canada's federal election campaign. 

- Seth Klein examines the considerations to take into account in casting a ballot for real climate action. And Michelle Gamage compares the parties' positions on fossil fuel subsidies. 

- Andre Picard asks whether voters will actually be motivated by health care - a key question given the NDP's commitment to head-to-toe health care while the other parties try to keep their plans as vague as possible. And Ken Dryden theorizes that the key issue for voters should be child care. 

- Linda McQuaig calls out Erin O'Toole's blatant bullshitting as a means of smuggling anti-social policy into the halls of power. And the Canadian Labour Congress points out his dishonesty on pensions in particular. 

- Meanwhile, PressProgress fact-checks Justin Trudeau's indignant refusal to accept he's engaged in litigation against Indigenous children against his track record. And Kristy Kirkup reports on the increased risk of fire-related deaths on reserve as one more area in which Indigenous people are facing unnecessary dangers due to a lack of policy action. 

- Samantha Reusch writes about the importance of engaging young voters - even as Elections Canada has made their participation more difficult by eliminating its campus voting program. And Menaka Raman-Wilms reports on Jagmeet Singh's work in meeting younger voters on their platforms of choice. 

- Finally, Alex Marland laments the tendency of voters to cast ballots based on party affiliations rather than local candidates.