No one should be surprised by what Singh has done and how he chose to do it. NDP labour critic Mathew Green telegraphed publicly that his party had to have “tough conversations” about the deal with the Liberals — including the possibility of opting out of it.
Towards the end of a dull summer of barbecue politics, Singh’s decision to scuttle the agreement to support the Liberals caught many people off guard. But the reality is that this decision was inevitable, and, from a political point of view, well-advised.
. . .
But the deal was a flop at the political box office for the NDP. Instead of getting credit for pushing the Trudeau government on key, progressive issues, the party saw its popularity decline.
His job is to govern, not run for election. Politics usually refers more the latter than the former.
Such a dismissive attitude towards politics — that it is only about waging election campaigns, irrelevant to the more substantial matters of government which can proceed once the election is won without the impediments of what are normally thought of as political concerns such as balancing competing interests, weighing public perceptions, and making delicate compromises — is what I object to, yes.
The unspoken subtext in Trudeau’s comment is of course “they’re playing silly games while I’m running the country”. Trudeau’s only available response to the end of the supply and confidence agreement is to downplay its significance, while avoiding looking like a bitter jackass. Ironically, his comment is itself exactly the kind of ‘politics’ he’s accusing the other party leaders of practicing. It’s image management, that’s it.
I agree that the government should govern not politick, but isn’t it a bit naive to think you can make lasting change without politicking?
I wonder if it’s useful to look at “governing”, and “politicking” as either end of a spectrum with “leading” as the sweet spot.
Just my two cents though.