Indefinite electioneering in Canada
Arrival and continued presence
Whereas in Canada better is always possible, the sentiment of the population does not reflect that sentiment voiced by Justin Trudeau in 2015. The tagline "real change" and (excessively) bold promises duped a sufficient proportion of the electorate to elevate the Liberal Party from third place to a large parliamentary majority. The prime minister himself attributed that win to an upbeat campaign and an optimistic message. Such marketing encouraged tactical voting away from the previous opinion poll front-runners, the NDP.
Infrastructure spending was one promise, for which he promised to run three consecutive deficits in order to fund it. Deficit spending has been the only promise that has been kept, and it has even been exceeded, to the extent that the national debt has doubled since 2015. Just the interest charges on the national debt cost taxpayers more than one billion ($1,000,000,000) every week (please feel free to gasp).
Concurrently, the general themes have long been and still are those of income redistribution by expanding the middle class, improved equality, less prejudice, and a cleaner environment through emissions reduction. His tried and trusted method for attempting to achieve this remains a large dose of sloganeering. Everyone having "a real and fair chance to succeed" in a country that is "fighting climate change" which is enabled by a "price on pollution", also known as the Carbon tax, which is more than made up for by the phantom carbon rebate.
Reality overwhelms such slogans by a long distance. Higher taxes accompanied by significant spending have caused mass inflation. One course of action taken reminds me of a concept I learned in Business Studies at high school: "When there is a national shortage of liquidity, the government will print the money." Bringing some of the electorate into line is done by obscure forms of bribery. Increasing capital gains tax by 30% is a means of implying that equality was being improved by some "paying their fair share."
Strict policies have been excused by implied accusations, such as the truckers protesting against the Covid-19 vaccine mandate in 2022 having their trucks festooned "with swastikas." While there has been a marked increase in homelessness, there are numerous no-name consultants on the (unofficial) state payroll. Thereby, the Canadian state has been transmogrified into a form of kleptocracy. When reminded of such shortcomings, the reaction during parliamentary debates has descended into the current prime minister descending into ranting accusatory slogans at anyone who has the temerity to ask a question about the consequences of government policies; whether it is about the cost of living, increased rate of crime, or misgovernance in general. Tacitly admitting that things are difficult and challenging are usually accompanied by reminding anyone still listening of the consequences of having the opposition, the Conservative Party, fix it.
(Unofficial) Politburo
Once upon a time, there was a 'supply and confidence agreement' between the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the governing Liberal Party. This was a means by which there wouldn't be an unscheduled election, thereby preserving a minority government remaining in office. It is a political version of the ancient proverb 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'
After it had been effective for just over 2 years, it finally dawned on NDP leader Jagmeet Singh that being associated with highly unpopular Justin Trudeau would have bad consequences on both his party and him personally. The NDP has potential to replace the liberal party in dealing with the perceived common enemy. His statement: "The fact is, the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people. They cannot stop the Conservatives, but we can. They cannot be change, they cannot restore hope." Aside from plagiarizing the Trudeau of yesteryear, Singh emphasized that the Liberal government has been insufficient in applying loony-left policies, such as the delusional accusation of provincial Conservative governments privatizing healthcare, which is aided and abetted by the current government through failure to stop them. Therefore, Justin Trudeau is a quasi-traitor to the cause.
Once upon a time, there was a 'supply and confidence agreement' between the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the governing Liberal Party. This was a means by which there wouldn't be an unscheduled election, thereby preserving a minority government remaining in office. It is a political version of the ancient proverb 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'
After it had been effective for just over 2 years, it finally dawned on NDP leader Jagmeet Singh that being associated with highly unpopular Justin Trudeau would have bad consequences on both his party and him personally. The NDP has potential to replace the liberal party in dealing with the perceived common enemy. His statement: "The fact is, the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people. They cannot stop the Conservatives, but we can. They cannot be change, they cannot restore hope." Aside from plagiarizing the Trudeau of yesteryear, Singh emphasized that the Liberal government has been insufficient in applying loony-left policies, such as the delusional accusation of provincial Conservative governments privatizing healthcare, which is aided and abetted by the current government through failure to stop them. Therefore, Justin Trudeau is a quasi-traitor to the cause.
The Bloc Québécois could end up causing some similar discoloration by being in a position to exploit Trudeau's regional favouritism and procure him some valuable time. When the NDP and Liberals signed up in 2022, Yves-François Blanchet (Bloc Québécois leader) claimed that the interests of Quebec were not being served. Now that the NDP-Liberal love-in has been cancelled, according to Blanchet, the pendulum has swung back even harder in Quebec's favour. He is delighted in being able to be something of a puppeteer: "We have deposed a law which is now at the very centre of the survival of this government. This is what we call power." Changes to pensions and new protections to Canada's supply management system are areas in which he's driving a hard bargain, just because he can: "We could have serious wins about those issues in the coming weeks. If not, then the Liberals might fall." However, there is a measure of reassurance for the prime minister, so there's little for the prime minister to panic about, yet. "First, I will let this vote instigated by the Conservatives go through. They will lose it, and by the way lose face, and this is what they deserve presently because they are not doing politics in a clean way." However, there is part of a procedure about which Blanchet is wary. After a 3rd parliamentary reading of a bill that involves an increase in government spending, it would need what's known as a royal recommendation - a cabinet minister has to approve it.
Without this, a bill is inadmissible. Blanchet is well aware of this, and came prepared. The francophone Boy Scout let forth: "The government could very well vote in favour of our law but then not implement it using this. We see the trick, of course. We expect the trap. We are preparing for the trap and our demands will be more precise about it very rapidly." He even gave a deadline of October 29 for both bills to pass. If not, "we’re going to talk to the other opposition parties with a view to bringing down the government. This is the demand in its entirety, it is irrevocable and non-negotiable.”
/
At the very least, the NDP and the Bloc are factions who prod/poke/squeeze the prime minister into giving into them. The members of this (unofficial?) loony-left politburo have the common interest of excluding the Conservative Party from government. Both publicly lash out at their tool as well as at the Conservatives, with the hope of enabling a sizeable chunk of the electorate to defect to them. Thus, the timing was insufficient for any sneaky plans to come to fruition, so both voted against the non-confidence motion.
Aimless, circular rage
Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau's rage, and that of his MPs/tribe confine their rage to the Conservative Party. Opinion polls showing the Liberal Party at approximately half of its peak have given them a severe case of the willies. Symptomatic of this are frequent displays of emotional diarrhea. Disorientated lashing out is prevalent in continuing to fruitlessly service the last gun of a government which has the future of a metaphorical Bismarck after a torpedo dropped by an obsolete biplane jammed its rudder.
Evidence of this prevalent during parliamentary debates, when responses to well considered questions from the Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre are met with non-answers which amount to labelling, as if he were preaching to the electorate through fear-mongering. It is from a menu of political nouveau cuisine, consisting of unconsciously talking about oneself combined with empty stereotypical slogans. "The leader of the opposition continues to focus on ideology, while we roll up our sleeves, work with partners on delivering solutions for Canadians. We need to lead with compassion and science and that is what we will always do." The broken record has become knackered, subjected to blather such as "benefitting the middle class and those hoping to join it", "the wealthiest paying their fair share", along with reclassifying the economically stultifying carbon tax as a "price on pollution." Almost without exception, Liberal MPs as well as unofficial politburo members visibly agree by nodding like recently lubricated bobbleheads. A common reply is a form of labelling as an implied warning about the Conservatives. If elected and forming the next government, they would apparently cut spending and therefore services. More often than not, 'cut' is mentioned more than once in a sentence, to the extreme that it appears as if many/most/all Liberal MPs suffer from Tourette's syndrome. As some point, it would be advisable for the men in white coats to be called in, to cart away a few of them even though many of them are likely to loose their seats at the next election, whenever that happens to take place.
Electioneering is not the exclusive oligopoly of the Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and the NDP. The Conservative Party engages in it too, despite the oligopoly's objections thereto. Unlike the triumvirate having little else of any substance, the Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has extensively explained what catchphrases like "bring it home", "axe the tax", "fix the budget", and "jail, not bail" actually consist of. Continuing this should be beneficial, while refraining from scoring any kind of PR own goal.
Time will tell whether or not the electorate will be able to objectively differentiate the current prime minister from the potential future prime minister, in terms of realizing that only one of them has been insulting their intelligence for a decade.
Liberals: self-liberation?
Liberal MPs are stuck with him to such an extent that they are given to blathering highly defensive identikit slogans about the official opposition. It frequently descends into pantomime behaviour.
Shortly before the non-confidence motion vote took place, the Liberal Party leader for the past 21 years was in New York. This was for the UN General Assembly to begin with. When he was contacted to appear on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, that was irresistible.
Apart from the blatant smugness and narcissism, there was one brief moment of honesty: "People are hurting. People are having trouble paying for groceries, paying for rent, filling up the tank." The interview also contained a few quips, such as references to universal healthcare and the long running Canada-US softwood lumbar trade dispute. This could have been his swan song, and even he could have perceived it thus.
2015; 2019; 2021; Unknown / October 20, 2025.
"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."
Lester B. Pearson (Liberal prime minister, 1963-1968)
Prolonging his term in office as long as possible while his ratings are at rock-bottom is the only means for Justin Trudeau to once more engender the previous appalling gullibility among the electorate. They could "choose forward" out of fear that the Conservative Party is stingy and "cuts" everything. "I'm going to keep fighting," he proclaimed. This will continue to be a rearguard action, unenthusiastically supported by Les Séparatistes and the NDP whose support/withholding/support demonstrate that Jagmeet Singh is afflicted with a form of political schizophrenia.
Given the support for the Liberal government evident in defeating the non-confidence motion, it will become feasible for the Conservative Party to tar the NDP and Bloc with the same brush. This should be ideally combined with ensuring that the electorate is fully informed regarding their policies, while remaining vigilant of avoiding missteps which the triumvirate would exploit as much as possible. Thereby, the electorate could choose to view the selective and opportunistic castigation by the NDP and Bloc of the probably/hopefully outgoing government as clearly irrelevant.
The snowball effect of the Carbon tax has had widespread inflationary side effects. The utterings of many ministers in the government of "fighting climate change" and the ludicrous hyperbole of an "existential threat to the planet and humanity" means that the economy could end up being severely emaciated.
The appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert could be a factor in convincing Justin Trudeau that it was his swan song, despite surviving the non-confidence motion the following day. Once winter has dawned, he could end up replicating his father, who after a 'walk in the snow' surmised that it was time for him to resign as Liberal Party leader.
The Bloc and the NDP will be figuratively screaming for attention, vainly portraying the Liberals and the Conservatives as being as bad as each other.
From the soon to be ex-incumbent prime minister, predictable slogans blathered about the usual will be combined with attempted character assassination of Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party in general. This could either remind the electorate of what they already know, or enable them to realize that they have long been duped into living in a state of denial.
