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.

  • alabasterhotdog
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

      • Avid Amoeba
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • tartra
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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”.

        • psvrh
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Avid Amoeba
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • psvrh
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          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.

  • sik0fewl@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably won’t win, but Liberals probably won’t either. Hopefully Liberals agree to the terms.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can all hope for continued minority governments. Canada loses whenever a single party wins a majority.

      • sik0fewl@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couldn’t agree more.

        One of the reasons I’d like to see election reform is so that we never have a majority again. Would be nice to see some cooperation instead of unilateral decision making because someone got 51% support.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Man if only we had a proportional system…

        Yeah, as much as I support the current government, I’m still butthurt about that whole u-turn. Like, highly proportional places have issues too, but we’d have a blank slate to try and address those issues, and it’s unlikely we’re going to become the Netherlands until a decade or two has passed to get there.