And so, when a narrative emerged from corporate media and analysts that Trudeau had to go because he had moved too far to the left, I did a spit take: What in the universe are they talking about?
The members of Parliament (MPs) who made this claim mostly spoke under a cloak of anonymity. Global News’ David Akin reported, “Almost all of the MPs Global News spoke to believe Trudeau has moved the party too far to the left and that shift has played a key role in the decline of the Liberals.” Akin didn’t say who or explain how these MPs were defining “the left.”
How can it be that a prime minister whose tenure saw record-breaking corporate performance paired with widening social inequality is also “too far to the left”? What kind of left-wing doctrine supports extreme income inequality and a tax structure that has failed to redistribute profits?
No one could reasonably believe that Trudeau’s economic policy was too far to the left. What they’re really saying is that Trudeau’s vibes were too far to the left.
Yooooo for real. What the fuck.
He was all “sunny ways”, and “It’s 2015” and was all about social justice and equality and tolerance, etc. He was virtue signalling like nobody’s business, but the boots didn’t follow the lips as they say in French. It was all a front. It was extremely disappointing because I really had hopes with this guy. He was young and appeared much more progressive than previous candidates. We were duped.
What the fuck.
He’s a Liberal. It’s what the Liberals have done since at least the late 80s. It’s their whole thing.
Funny how it’s an all out war on progressive politicians, and the likely winners of it are the right wing. Makes ya wonder if this is all a plan.
The left went too far with identity pol tics, this is the natural result.
What are identity politics?
Name the identity politics that any “left” political party has actually engaged in.
Meanwhile, the right has been slinging IDPol for decades now, and people lap it up. White Christian Nationalism is all IDPol. The rural/urban conflict is all IDPol. Men’s Rights is IDPol.
“Let’s treat people who are not white Christian men as if they’re people” is a) not a core campaign plank for any party, and b) not IDPol.
I think you’re insane if you think it’s just the liberals (calling them “left” is a joke) playing identity politics. The only platform the CPC has had for the last 9 years has been identity politics fed by easily verifiable lies. The entire “fuck Trudeau” movement has been sold to Canadians like a sports team.
Not to say the Liberals have been better in that regard, but it’s some real classic hypocrisy at best, and genuine idiocy at worst, to support the CPC based on that stance.
This is just mindless bitching from an apparent idiot.
How could you be possibly be benefiting corporations, but perceived by voters as too far left? I don’t know!!! What possible mechanism could ever lead to that outcome!!!? I’m flabbergasted!!. /s
Like Jesus Christ, if that’s your question then the obvious answer is that policy and messaging can be divorced, on top of the fact that social policy and economic policy have very little to do with each other.
Beyond that it’s just bitching and blaming the entirety of our corporate wealth issues on Trudeau like Canada is different or unique compared to literally any other western nation.
