this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7218 readers
424 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The federal New Democrats plan to make pharmacare a central issue in the next election if the Liberals do not meet the bar the opposition party has set for legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alabasterhotdog@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That NDP party leadership isn't already planning a campaign with cost of living issues as the focus unfortunately sums up today's NDP: looking for headlines instead of votes.

[–] sik0fewl@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hm? They are threatening nonconfidence if Liberals don't agree to terms on pharmacare. They are not campaigning.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, the NDP is actually governing. It like, sometimes, people completely lose sight that that's the point and just want their guys to win.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also if they pull a non-confidence vote and pass it, we'll nearly certainly get a CPC government. I for one would be terribly mad at such an event and will assign it straight on Jagmeet. He can and should press the libs on pharmacare but even a compromise would be better than no pharmacare for at least another 4 years. Along with all the other damage pipsqueak is gonna do.

[–] sik0fewl@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He can and should press the libs on pharmacare but even a compromise would be better than no pharmacare for at least another 4 years.

I disagree. There's no point in the "coalition" if they can't get their one goal.

[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have several goals and anything is better than giving power to Conservatives who are actively sabotaging Canadians.

[–] tartra@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe that would wake people up enough to do something.

I'm sick of making shitty incremental process all the time when people need actual change put in place, all because "it's better than nothing".

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I doubt they're looking to break from the deal. This is more them taking a more assertive stance now that they know the Liberals have a ton to lose, since that gives them more leverage. I fully expect the Liberals will propose a new version that meets the NDPs criteria.

If they don't, that's basically Trudeau's fuckup, because they have the votes, everyone savvy knows this has very few policy downsides, and the NDP is open to whatever gradual rollout they need to make it practical.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also if they pull a non-confidence vote and pass it, we’ll nearly certainly get a CPC government

This is why I never really liked Jack Layton. I was not a Paul Martin fan, but I'd have preferred a Martin minority to the Harper years.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did he torpedo Martin? I didn't have a stake in Canadian politics at the time.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup.

I really don't know what Layton was thinking. No matter how bad Martin was--and the policies he put through, especially as Finance minister, are a part of why we're in the trouble we're in now--if he (Layton) really believed in what was best for Canada, letting Harper anywhere near the levers of power was asking for trouble.

Singh is in a similar position: support a non-confidence vote and we end up with Poillievre, which, as bad as Trudeau might be, would be so much worse.

Maybe Layton was thinking Harper would be constrained to a minority in perpetuity because the Conservatives pretty odious? I think he underestimated the control Harper had over his caucus and his (Harper's) ability to sell the CPC brand.