The Carney bounce is real. After polls by EKOS and Mainstreet showed a surprising surge in Liberal fortunes, the Angus Reid Institute — long viewed as a more Conservative-friendly pollster — reported a similar uptick in its latest soundings. After bottoming out at 16 per cent support in late December with Trudeau still at the helm, they now have the Liberals under Mark Carney’s theoretical leadership at 29 per cent.
The Conservative Party of Canada and its various proxies seem awfully nervous about this, and as well they should. But it’s the federal NDP that should be downright terrified. They’re the ones, after all, who are now at risk of being completely wiped out in the next election. In the same pair of Angus Reid polls, NDP support dropped from 21 per cent to 13 per cent. In our multi-party first-past-the-post system, that’s a very dangerous place to be. Indeed, when those results are mapped out, they produce an NDP caucus with just 11 seats.
Remember: in the 1993 federal election, the Progressive Conservative Party won 16 per cent of the vote, and ended up with all of two seats. It’s not hard to see how a similarly catastrophic outcome could play out for Jagmeet Singh’s NDP. Strategic voting is the bane of the NDP’s existence at the best of times, but with Donald Trump openly threatening Canada’s sovereignty and Pierre Poilievre doing as little as possible to push back against it, the lane for the Liberals to run as defenders of the national interest is as wide as it’s been this century. No, the next election will not be about the carbon tax, but it also won’t be about NDP mainstays like social justice or economic inequality. It will be about Canada’s survival and safety, and who is best equipped to fight for them.
This is not a political equation that the NDP (as it’s currently constituted) is designed to solve. Opposition to military spending and national economic infrastructure like pipelines are articles of faith among their supporters, and their interest in things like trade policy and economic growth are fleeting, at best. And if Liberals have been excessively harsh in their judgment of our shared past, as Conservatives like to argue, then the NDP has been all the more so. And while 72 per cent of Liberal supporters said they have a “deep emotional attachment to Canada” and “love the country and what it stands for” in a recent Angus Reid survey, only 49 per cent of New Democrats felt that way.
There’s also an intellectual rudderlessness to the NDP all across Canada right now that’s all the more dangerous in light of our suddenly turbulent political waters. Look at the Ontario NDP, which decided to meet Doug Ford’s opportunistic snap election call with a campaign launch announcement about….removing tolls on Highway 407. “That’s change,” Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles said in a video.
Is it, though? As housing advocate and economist Mike Moffatt said on social media, “the NDP are going to spend tens of billions of dollars to lower prices for drivers but maintain punitive taxes on desperately needed housing construction. Prioritizing cars over homes. Please make it make sense.” Alas, I cannot.
Progressive pundit Evan Scrimshaw was even more withering in his criticism. “The other problem, as a chorus of a million urbanists will tell you, is this won’t actually solve congestion,” he wrote on his Substack. “Induced demand is real, pricing congestion reduces it, and we literally have evidence of this in New York City. The idea that the correct move for serious progressives is a Dipper version of ‘Just One More Lane, Bro’ road politics is so offensive to actual serious progressives as to be disqualifying.”
In the process, it may help disqualify the federal NDP in Ontario as well. Jagmeet Singh’s brand of Dom Perignon socialism was already a bad fit for the moment, given the intense cost of living pressures people have been facing. Angus Reid’s tracking has his favourability rating at a record low of -25, with 58 per cent of people viewing him negatively and just 33 per cent viewing him positively. Now, with the self-described “tariff man” back in the White House and a fight for our economic lives on our hands, he’s an even bigger albatross for the NDP given his longstanding indifference to economic policy that extends beyond blaming billionaires.
If Singh had pulled the plug on parliament before the United States election, and before Justin Trudeau decided to walk out the door, things would look much different. Sure, the Conservatives would have won their majority, and probably a pretty big one too given their massive lead in both popularity and fundraising. But the NDP might have been able to outflank the Liberals and position themselves as the de-facto progressive option in the next election. They might have even wiped them out in the process.
Instead, they’re now the ones staring down electoral oblivion. They’re not dead yet, of course, and any number of events could theoretically revive their fortunes. Maybe Mark Carney really is the second coming of Michael Ignatieff. And maybe Pierre Poilievre’s political makeover melts away in the face of an election campaign. But for federal New Democrats, those are bets with increasingly long odds. At some point, they’ll have to look a little harder at the people who keep wasting their chips.
Comments
As a leader, Singh is uninspiring and seems to lack a solid grasp of many issues important to Canada in these difficult times. He is no Ed Broadbent, Jack Layton or Tom Mulcair. The NDP should have changed leaders after the last Federal election when it was apparent they were going no where as a party. It is perhaps time for the NDP and the Liberals to consider merging into a single more centrist, but progressive political party. Certainly, a vote for the NDP, except in traditional strongholds, is a wasted vote.
Singh is no Charlie Angus either.
Comparing Carney to Ignatieff, or even bringing up Ignatieff is a smuggish slag. Why aren't you comparing pp to his creator, Harper? And giving such great credit to these pollsters is a mistake. MainStreet has made some big mistakes, as have they all. To me they are manipulators that try to steer the public and by quoting them all the time makes them feel and act more important than they are. In my opinion they should be banned from use when an election is called period.
https://thopinioncollection.blogspot.com/2015/10/stephen-harper-master-…
Smith in Alberta has insured that Harper is back. Time for everyone to sit up and take notice.
You said : Comparing Carney to Ignatieff, or even bringing up Ignatieff is a smuggish slag.
That's what really got me in Max's article too ! Seriously Max ?!
The other is referring to petroleum pipelines as legitimate pieces of our economic infrastructure. Watch any of Carney's recent lengthy interviews and he constantly refers to the enormous amount of global money lining up behind renewables, and how investments in fossil fuels has plateaued (trillions vs billions, steep incline vs flatline, order of magnitude gap with solar and wind on top). He states repeatedly that the transition to clean energy is inevitable, and that it's bigger than Trump and other demagogues who would only delay it. Carney may be a finance guy but his primary goal is to focus on catalyzing the transition in Canada overall, while also fighting Trump's economically illiterate tariffs and to actively enhance trade with our many non-US democratic allies and strike up new relationships.
Carney is 1,000 km ahead of any other political leader on economics, experience and the transition. He is a self-admitted progressive centrist who belives in both a strong, clean energy econony and strong social programs. If he becomes leader of the Liberal Party I think he will change the party more than the Party could ever influence him to follow their internal partisans.
GAME ON !
#carney4canada
Good heavens Cynthia....its not a game. Especially not now, with the ultimate gamester in power down in Amerika.
Time for Jagmeet to step aside or be pushed and the NDP to refind their centre with Charlie Angus. Maybe if he gets to lead he ll change his mind about leaving, and Canada will be so well served by both him and Carney. I m pretty sure a Charlie Angus NDP would find pride in being Canadian again.
No yellow streak down Charlie's back. I hope he does change his mind because we need voices like his to speak up so the rest of us know there are politicians that think like some of us. Would be great to seem him as NDP leader for sure.
When will we figure out that the NDP is not anything like the Conservatives......or even the Liberals. Yes...we'd like to have more influence in Canadian politics.....that would help the economy AND the ordinary Canadians often left behind by mainstream fiscal policies. Yes, we worked with the government, instead of slandering our country about 'everything being broken', and likely won't get the credit for child care, dentistry or pharmacare programs that wouldn't have passed without us....
But my prediction is that Jagmeet will support the government when it returns after the leadership race......and allow parliament to pass what it needs to pass to deal with the tariffs......before we go into the partisan negativity of a national election. The NDP will put the strength of the country above partisan politics.
Whether the party gets any credit for that, depends on the deep 'fiscal thinking' of our average Canadian armchair pundit! I'll not be holding my breath, but I do intend to speak out when the bad mouthing begins.
I can see the NDP MPs that are left standing after the next election supporting a climate fighting Carney Liberal government. I would even hope that Carney can see fit to invite quality NDPers into a coalition cabinet. Heather McPherson, Don Davies and Laurel Collins have a lot to offer in the big social and healthcare ministries, let alone as staunch defenders of the environment. They are also Westerners that will help balance with central Canada's gravitational pull.
That would mean the party hacks in both organizations will need to come to some kind of accommodation, perhaps a best before date when the coalition is automatically put under review (three years?). Whatever that would be, my guess is that a centre-left coalition led by Carney's vast credibility in financial management and the NDP's well known environmental and social strengths would appeal to the majority of Canadians. This combo would help ride out a Trumpian crisis initially, but also have the long term goal of maintaining financial stability while building the clean energy economy Carney espouses in almost every interview.
Liberal fortunes may be shifting as Trump and Danielle Smith display their media-savvy brand of political extremism and gross incompetence. These white privilege warriors are not without their fans, but boldly rolling out damaging policies and inappropriate political appointees have former conservatives shaking their heads and organizing resistance. It remains to be seen if Canadians will be attracted to Poillievre's skillful marketing of false grievances. Just because Americans bought Trump's "enemy within ruining everything" shtick doesn't mean we are quite so gullible. And his tariffs and 51st state comments reveal something about the kind of person that uses lies and character assassination as their favourite political tools.
"national economic infrastructure like pipelines"
Notice how fossil-fuel industry cheerleaders like Max Fawcett and his fellow corporatist Liberals brand pipelines as "national economic infrastructure", "nation-building", or "in the national interest". Wrapping our largely foreign-owned O&G industry in the Canadian flag. Petro-nationalism.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson
The Observer's main mission seems to vary with the election cycle. In between elections, the issue is climate change. Leading up to elections, The Observer becomes a vehicle for the federal Liberal Party. Leading the charge is Max Fawcett, who tries to sink the NDP, as here, in a desperate attempt to raise the Liberals' sinking fortunes.
The former editor of Alberta Oil Magazine and Liberal Party booster has used his Observer platform to argue for the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline project and taxpayer-funded carbon capture — anathema to environmentalists and climate activists.
Fawcett casually drops lines like "national economic infrastructure like pipelines" into his anti-NDP narrative, but its propaganda purpose is unmistakable.
Patriotic and progressive Canadians concerned about climate and their children's future should reject the Liberals' and Max Fawcett's petro-progressive vision.
For the federal and provincial NDP to abandon carbon pricing, push the O&G industry's agenda, promote pipelines, and chase the petro-parties to the right is a fool's errand.
Voters who support the O&G industry will vote for the real thing. Pandering to the O&G industry simply alienates the NDP's base.
Not all Canadians agree with the Liberals and Max Fawcett that new export pipelines and oilsands expansion are in the national interest.
Not all Canadians agree that our consequent failure to meet Canada's climate targets, national/global failure on climate action, mounting climate change costs, and failure to protect endangered species and ecosystems are in the national interest.
Not all Canadians agree that degrading our life-support systems day after day is in our national interest.
Since when is the corporate interest identical to the national interest?
In the best-case scenario, rich men get to fill their pockets for a few more years while overpaid high school dropouts continue to slash and burn what remains of our backyard. Extirpating caribou, poisoning wolves, shooting bears, and endangering the health of indigenous communities. How is that in our "national interest"?
Oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines cannot be reconciled with Canada's inadequate climate targets. How is failure to meet our targets for decades in our national interest?
The science dictates a swift reduction in emissions. Large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure will operate for decades.
How is ignoring science in the national interest?
How is failing to take action on climate change in the national interest?
How is doubling down on fossil fuels when the world must move away in the national interest?
How is risking viable industries with many more jobs (BC tourism, fisheries) in the national interest?
How is risking wildlife and water supplies in the national interest?
How is ignoring First Nations' concerns in the national interest?
These concerns are not on the fringe, but mainstream science.
Climate leaders do not build pipelines. Climate activists should not support them. Climate media should not promote or defend them.
But The Observer gives us Max Fawcett peddling the new brand of climate change denial.
"The New Climate Denialism: Time for an Intervention" (The Narwhal, 2016)
The petro-nationalists' idea of energy and economic diversification is to build more pipelines to overseas markets, double down on fossil fuels, put more fossil fuel eggs in our basket, and perpetuate Canada's O&G industry. Building out renewables, smart cities, and public transit fall by the wayside.
The Liberals can find $34 billion for a single pipeline, and tens of billions of dollars for carbon capture and other white elephants, but mere crumbs for public transit.
There is no energy transition as long as we keep expanding our fossil fuel industry. Wake up!
When PM Trudeau insisted that Trans Mountain is "in the national interest", as PM Harper did before him, and that "No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there", he was engaging in a less overt but more insidious form of climate change denial than Conrad Black's — but the conclusion is the same.
When then-Premier Notley insists that social programs depend on Alberta's oil industry and that she is fighting for Canadian workers, she promotes a more subtle form of denialism — but the conclusion is the same.
Some protestors actively oppose the national interest. Which brings their patriotism into question. Enemies of the state? Why else do the RCMP and CSIS keep a watchful eye on climate and indigenous activists?
"...Trudeau insists that the pipeline is in the 'national interest.' However, in service to the interest of one nation, Trudeau seems content to violate the rights of Indigenous nations."
D.T. Cochrane, "Cochrane: Trans Mountain is a warning that investors can no longer ignore Indigenous rights" (Vancouver Sun, 2018)
"Climate leadership" that boosts emissions. Politicians awarding themselves "social license" without community consultation. "National interest" defined and dictated by corporate interests.
On climate change — the issue of our time — the federal Liberals and Alberta NDP are as reactionary, anti-science, and fossilized as the regimes they replaced. Paying lip service to science is just a new, more insidious form of denialism.
Geoffrey, you have delivered my thoughts. I hope others ready your comments.
Thanks 👍
Geoffrey, you have delivered my thoughts. I hope others ready your comments.
Thanks 👍
Deepening Canada's fossil-fuel dependence leaves Canada more vulnerable, less diversified, more at risk, and unprepared for the future.
If the world takes real action on climate change, Canada's low-quality heavy sour barrels far from global markets will be among the first to be sidelined. Stranding billions of dollars in fossil fuel infrastructure. The ultimate oil crash will make the last one seem tiny.
Does the national interest not lie instead in preparing for the inevitable — by building tomorrow's sustainable economy, on which our grandchildren's prosperity, health, and welfare depend?
Oilsands expansion only makes sense if the world fails to take real action on climate change. Trudeau and other petro-progressives are betting that the world will fail. Are you on their side or your grandchildren's?
To avert more severe climate impacts, the IPCC gives us until 2030 to halve GHG emissions and 2050 to eliminate them. We ignore the best available science at our peril.
Transitions start by moving in the direction you wish to travel. Doubling down on fossil fuels takes us in the wrong direction.
Naomi Oreskes (CBC Radio, Sep 14, 2017): "It's such an idiotic argument, it's really hard to give a rational answer to it. If you are building pipelines, you're committing yourself to another 30, 50, 75, 100 years of fossil fuel infrastructure. If we're really serious about decarbonizing our economy, it means we have to stop building fossil fuel infrastructure."
Oilsands emissions do nothing but climb year after year. Production gains far outpace technological improvements. Alberta's emissions show no sign of falling.
Rising oilsands emissions cannot be reconciled with Canada's inadequate climate targets. Oilsands expansion will prevent Canada from meeting its inadequate targets for decades.
The UN, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the federal Environment Commissioner warn that Canada is NOT on track to meet its targets.
The main obstacle? Rising oilsands emissions.
It goes without saying (or does it?) that climate activists should oppose Big Oil's and Corporate Canada's anti-democratic agenda.
New pipelines are not in the national interest because perpetuating the petro-state is not in the public interest.
New pipelines make us rich only if we are willing to raffle off our future and sell our grandchildren down the river. (And not even then.)
Petro-politics is the disease that ails us.
Pipelines for a stronger Canada? Pipelines for Canada's future?
Don't buy it.
We need a strong, enthusiastic, vociferous, energetic, courageous NDP to define a better, wiser, truly sustainable vision for Canada.
If Jagmeet Singh is not up to the task, the NDP needs to find a leader who is.
The NDP does Canada no service by turning itself into Liberal- or PC-lite.
"The NDP does Canada no service by turning itself into Liberal or PC lite?"
Oh but under the circumstances it very much DOES Geoffrey because, as you know, we have already run out of time, and since we're truly down to it now, making MATH the primary consideration has never made more sense.
Progressives simply need to join forces.
In this capitalist system we're all stuck in where we're all forced to bank on the market, the Liberals are the only ones running a world-class bank guy for leader.
@TP: At its best, the NDP has exerted a progressive influence on minority Liberal governments. Canadians can thank the NDP for a long list of progressive measures under minority Liberal governments.
At its worst, the NDP diminishes its electoral appeal by chasing Liberal and Conservative parties to the right. Promoting the fossil fuel industry is not a winning ticket for the NDP, in Alberta or federally. The BC NDP barely eked out a marginal victory over absurdly reactionary and intellectually incompetent forces.
The Liberals' prime constituency is corporate Canada. The corporate and the public interest are not identical and often not aligned. The Liberals' fossil-fuel expansion agenda is not remotely progressive — but in fact antithetical to climate action and sustainability. On fossil fuel expansion, the Liberals and Conservatives agree.
The NDP need to define and defend a different vision.
Which is exactly why Carney is needed. His talks for years have been consrantly reiterating that the clean energy transition is inevitable and unstoppable, and he has the numbers to prove it. He is an outsider who wants to harness some of the trillions lining up behind solar, wind, geothermal etc, to reshore a lot of our own industrial production and electrify it, to focus on high value knowledge and education and coding, to diversify trade with the EU which has much higher impetus to decarbonize (he sees tariffs on the carbon content of our exports as a serious issue Canada has to contend with), and to build cleaner infrastructure.
Like I saId in another comment above, I see electing Carney as Liberal leader is a signal the LPC will change, and given his decades if expertise, that change will be for the better. If he isn't elected, then the old party hacks will lead themselves into a decade of oblivion while the demagogues --and Canada's lite demagogues -- ruin everything.
The bottom line is that the NDP can't win.
They've had decades and several different leaders with the same result.
@TP: The NDP do not have to win to exert a positive, progressive influence on government.
As decades of progressive measures under minority Liberal governments prove.
We do not need a third petro-party in Ottawa. We need a strong alternative and truly progressive voice that speaks for the public interest, not the corporate interest.
That's what the NDP can provide.
Dru Oja Jay: "Wielding the Balance of Power" (The Breach, Aug 20 2021)
"Liberal minorities with a strong NDP presence have, historically, created some of the biggest openings for social movements to make major gains.
"This type of minority historically sets a unique dynamic into play, with Liberals clamoring to regain popularity, and the NDP forced to maintain a principled stance.
"The minority is a key leverage point for progressive movements. While those movements don’t have the power to push the NDP into a majority, the difference between a Liberal majority and a minority is often just a few thousand votes in key ridings – most of them in urban centres."
https://breachmedia.ca/wielding-the-balance-of-power/
See article for list of NDP achievements.
The NDP have always staked out higher moral ground above the two main parties, dismissing them as being interchangeable with each other, even when the conservatives not only openly devolved into the science-denying Convoy Party of Canada after the pandemic, but also fell into lockstep with Trumpism.
And the fact that the NDP (and parliament) actually WORKED during the supply and confidence agreement they signed with the Liberals should have changed their attitude toward them, but all Singh did was continue to slag the Liberals as if THEY hadn't been party to and probably originators OF that agreement. He and they also ignored the fact that bringing in universal child care was a longstanding Liberal goal, a massive accomplishment for women and the economy that Chrystia Freeland rightly leads with. In other words, they are ALSO progressive, just not purist.
So in this time of dangerous everything where climate change is the backdrop for terrifyingly algorithmed populism on the right, the NDP's consistent inability to "read the room" ironically puts THEM on a par with the evil conservatives rather than the Liberals.
Well said and so true. The NDP were never more powerful or effective when helping the Liberals put these social programs in for all Canadians. But when Singh would turn around and dismiss the Liberals and compare them to today's Conservatives was very disingenuous and disappointing to say the least.
Layton made mistakes during his tenure as a federal politician and came to regret it. He helped put Harper in for nine (9) dark, dark years that will never be forgotten. He is presently working for Smith in Alberta, has come out supporting her as well as pp so they are a trio if there ever was one.
https://thopinioncollection.blogspot.com/2015/10/stephen-harper-master-…
I know; these psycho creeps stick together around the world.
I remember how when he was PM, Harper used to allow his MP's to float private member bills against women's right to choose, but Leslyn Lewis, who ran for the CPC leadership as openly religious and openly against that basic right for those of her own sex, still sits on the front bench next to Poilievre, waiting like the party is for the opportunity to focus on abortion.
Because the central plank of religion AND the religious right seems to be to control women.
Hence the U.S. Supreme Court in the States' first action once they were fully captured by Catholicism was to toss Roe v. Wade.
And extreme though it is, Project 2025 is now fully embedded in Trump's government, the culmination of decades of work by the same deluded, devout, but very politically aggressive people now called Christian Nationalists.
Because so many Americans are believers, theocracy wasn't actually on the ballot even when it should have been. Canada's not quite as bad, but a disproportionate number of conservatives here are evangelicals both provincially and federally....
I'm very thankful for Pounder's constant vigilance in identifying words and phrases that frame what we can think.
As for Carney, I expect we could expect more Liberal incremental change under his leadership, while the Liberals continue to largely do corporate bidding and the wildfires continue to worsen. There's no evidence that this would not be the case.
As well as trying to push the NDP to actually be progressive on climate, it's time we gave up the idea that the leaders will save us. We should do everything we can to save some of what we love - since it's completely obvious that the current system is incapable of doing so.
Ok. Is Max being deliberate provocative? 'Champagne socialist' Max? Not exactly a sharp analysis. We all have our off days Max.