Of course, the Conservatives are angry about it, but what else is new. It is a day ending with y. They think this does not represent the will of the people, but I beg to differ. This represents a significant portion of the popular vote. Coalition governments just are not that unusual in parliamentary-style governments. The real reason they are angry is they will struggle to ever get a majority gov’t (without you know actually appealing to voters outside the west in greater numbers than they do currently) and so this could be a sign of things to come.
Personally, I’m for it. It seems a smart move for the NDP since they are not destined to form gov’t and this lets them get some big political wins by moving their agenda forward. And I think the agenda points they want, like dental care, are good ones, and are ones that I think many Liberal voters would support. So to me, this seems exactly how a democracy should work. Parties working together to make broadly desired and effective legislation for the good of the country.
It will be interesting to see if in the next election the Liberals and NDP maybe not outright promise but wink wink nudge nudge indicate that they will continue to work together.
I agree they won’t form a government, but if this works out, and some of their policies get implemented and do what they’re supposed to do, this will probably let them pick up some new seats, and extra votes even in ridings they don’t win. “See how much we can accomplish when we have some power to influence the Liberal party?” is going to be a strong argument come the next election.
And yeah, gnashing of teeth by people who don’t understand how our country actually works is both annoying and hilarious. I plan to enjoy their impotent rage as they scream “You can’t to that on television in Parliament!” while Singh and Trudeau just go ahead and do it.
Reposting this point about free Dental coverage for under $70,000 earners in here.
If it goes through it will be quite an amazing gift for Canadians. The NDP did a great turn here. I think its well worth giving their support to the Libs, even at the cost of an electoral weakening that comes with being the junior partner of a minority government.
NDP seems to have lived up to be a worthy extension of the legacy of Tommy Douglas
This isn’t technically a coalition. In a coalition, the NDP would actually be a part of government, not just supporting the government. They’d be given cabinet posts.
I am not super clear why the NDP did this to this extent, because they got very little out of it. They surely could have pressured the Liberals into dental and pharma care on a case by case basis - things the Liberals have said they’d do anyway, and the commitment to pharmacare is VERY weak - without committing to support through 2025. They could have gotten more, including maybe cabinet posts, though that’d have been breaking a promise. Oh well, it’s their party, if they wanna make a bad deal they can. I’m not sure what they’ll do if the Liberals don’t live up to the spirit or word of the deal.
This is bad news for our military though. I was already dubious anything would change, but Singh had made it clear he isn’t on board with a properly funded CAF.
It’s weird to effectively promise support and get nothing out of it.
There’s this progressively increasing space between the Liberals and Conservatives that is begging for representation. Previously the PC/Conservatives would be filling it up as the Liberals tack left - but not this collection of chuckleheads. You could so easily hammer the Liberals on defense, China, Russia, inflation worries, industry/productivity, unequal enforcement of laws, and so long as you’re not an ass collect all of those squishy center votes. The Liberals take them for granted and the Conservatives think they’re infatuated with Trudeau.
Innnnteresting. I’m not Canadian but I like Trudeau, all in all, so I guess I support this. Is the federal budget in relatively good shape? Is all the new spending on healthcare affordable?
This move is slightly confusing, certainly legal, somewhat concerning.
I think Singh wanted policies passed that the NDP feels are just and needed. Things like dental and child care. Singh is affable but elections may not be his strength, given realities and party coffers. So he gets to influence policy. But at such a low benefit - not even getting cabinet representation?
Trudeau is probably pinching himself. A chance to spend a lot more money and deliver more programs. Know who does not care anything about budgets? Trudeau! And after expensive years and the real problems of rising interest rates, some economic planning would be welcome. Expect vague details. You would expect dentists to be happy too, but much depends on if they are paid bargain basement prices (like physicians sometimes are).
Still, I think every Canadian deserves basic dental care. I’m more concerned by the cavalier attitude towards debt. The Conservatives are in disarray. They will grumble, but this might have a few hidden advantages for them too. It is probably bad for oil and gas industries, and could be bad for the country in the long run. But it might help elect the PCs in 2025, and an election now would be unlikely to do that.
Our illustrious premier has described this as “an affront to democracy” and decried the NDP for giving Trudeau what the voters didn’t, a majority government.
Fun fact: the Sask Party came into existence as a coalition of the provincial PC and Liberal parties.
Oh, the joys of having live-action Hank Hill as our provincial leader.
People do not vote for the PM. They vote for a representative on their riding. Trudeau could pass policies amenable to the NDP without a formal agreement. In fact, the two parties are not very different at the moment.
I’d like dental care. And vision too. I see my dentist and my optometrist more than I ever see my family physician, and now that Alberta is experiencing a shortage of family physicians, I may never see a family physician again; they are that rare here.
But my teeth need work (hundreds of dollars) and I need a new eyeglass prescription (hundreds of dollars), and I can’t afford to do both at the same time. Why were dental and vision not included when all provinces went to provincial healthcare in the 1960s? Dental and vision should be included in basic healthcare.
Yeah, in BC (in my hometown, anyway) that’s becoming a thing too. My doctor’s receptionist said a while back that I’ll hopefully get a call by summer (just before doc’s about to retire) to set up an overdue physical.
The Hall Commission recommended that they be included. Pearson’s Cabinet was divided over it, between the social benefits wing and the fiscal prudence wing. Mitchell Sharp led the fight not to go with Medicare at all, becuase of the cost. Alan McEachern led the fight in Cabinet for Medicare, even threatening to leave the Cabinet, which during a minority government, would have been a bad thing for Pearson.
They cut the difference and vision and dental were not included in the federal funding for medicare.
Yesterday, a few Conservative MPs called Trudeau a dictator like Putin. Racheal Thomas read the definition from the dictionary " a ruler who has complete power over a country, especially one who has gained it using military force" and said, “There are some Canadians who would agree with that statement.”
There is something deeply wrong with the CPC if they want to compare a democratically elected to a legitimate dictator. We won’t be having an election until 2025, and I can already safely say I will not be voting Conservative. This is really disgusting. It is wrong, and it is dangerous. Do we want a Jan 6th up here? Because this is the kind of BS rhetoric that gets people to resort to political violence. They need to stop.
I read somewhere (but cannot vouch) that seventy percent of Canucks use corrective eyewear. Dental problems can be severe - you may not need to look like a film star but it is reasonable that you can eat most things and have little pain regardless of your income.
Doctors are paid reasonably well but it is mainly through high volume and hard work, but often surprisingly little per patient - I am not complaining about this; it has improved somewhat. It’s not a fair or easy comparison, but if you go to, say, a veterinarian the difference in costs can seem high. This might reflect costs, however. For this reason, not all dentists and optometrists are thrilled by the idea - much depends on the details. Don’t expect them soon.