Six months ago, this blog focused on my concern about the growing incivility that has overtaken our political discourse.
Since then, things have gotten worse.
Last week, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh won accolades online for his decision to stand-up to a couple of ignorant bullies who were following him through a parking lot on Parliament Hill.
Not much later, after Pierre Poilievre went after Singh personally in the House – calling him a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a sell-out – he appeared ready to use his martial arts training to silence the Conservative leader.
I’m glad he didn’t, but I’m also confused by what he did instead.
When Singh went to Twitter (X) to capitalize on the positive response to the parking lot incident, he seemed to offer a plausible narrative to justify his party’s denial of support to a pending Conservative motion of non-confidence in the House of Commons:
“By now you've probably seen the video. For days now, bullies in Ottawa have been spewing hate and harassing Canadians who don't agree with them. An Indigenous woman being called a Nazi. Staff being harassed. Journalists being yelled at. That’s the country Pierre Poilievre wants. Me? I believe everyone should feel safe walking our streets. I believe we need to stand up to bullies and shut down hate. Canadians believe in lifting each other up. Not tearing each other down. Stand with us.”
For reasons I don’t understand, the official announcement of the NDP’s refusal to back the Conservatives was framed less in terms of bullying than in terms of the programs that the Tories would cut if they formed a government, making me wonder why Singh “ripped up” his supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals in the first place.
Singh could have said that the NDP would not support any motion of non-confidence coming from the Conservative leader until the Official Opposition had ended its boorish behaviour inside and outside the House of Commons.
He could have built on his personal history of standing up to bullies to appeal to a Canadian public that has become disaffected with federal politicians writ large and, apart from Conservative partisans, is not desperately seeking an election.
Cutting off the Conservatives would not tie Singh’s hands in Parliament. The NDP will soon get its own opposition day, during which it can introduce its own motion of non-confidence if it’s unsatisfied with the government’s performance.
Nor would Singh be prevented from supporting a non-confidence motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP can also still vote against the next supply bill.
Although this focus on bullying might fluxom the Conservatives – they would be left with the choice of either demonstrably changing their tone and risk handing Singh a win and the political momentum that comes with it, or maintaining their bully tactics and giving up their ability to pressure the Liberals into an election – it could ultimately serve their interests as well.
Current polling projections suggest that even if Singh were to unite the left behind an anti-bullying platform, it is unlikely that anything can stop Pierre Poilievre from becoming our next prime minister.
The Liberals have done significant damage to our immigration system, have run up overwhelming deficits funding programs outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction while underspending on those within it, and have undermined their own message about the importance of addressing climate change.
Part of the problem might well be the messenger, but it is rare that any political party can maintain a focus on good governance for more than eight years.
And when Canadians believe that government is the source of what ails them, they tend to turn to the party that favours a smaller state apparatus.
Meanwhile, the challenges we face domestically and on the world stage are not getting any easier.
After the next election, we will need a government that understands that Canada fares best when its people are united and confident in the capacity of their public institutions.
Empty braggadocio that undermines faith our system of governance and the officials that serve within it will not resolve the very real problems we face.
If the Poilievre Conservatives acquire some humility now (rather than when it is inevitably thrust upon them by world events), Canadians will be better served over the next four years.
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.
You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
Since then, things have gotten worse.
Last week, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh won accolades online for his decision to stand-up to a couple of ignorant bullies who were following him through a parking lot on Parliament Hill.
Not much later, after Pierre Poilievre went after Singh personally in the House – calling him a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a sell-out – he appeared ready to use his martial arts training to silence the Conservative leader.
I’m glad he didn’t, but I’m also confused by what he did instead.
When Singh went to Twitter (X) to capitalize on the positive response to the parking lot incident, he seemed to offer a plausible narrative to justify his party’s denial of support to a pending Conservative motion of non-confidence in the House of Commons:
“By now you've probably seen the video. For days now, bullies in Ottawa have been spewing hate and harassing Canadians who don't agree with them. An Indigenous woman being called a Nazi. Staff being harassed. Journalists being yelled at. That’s the country Pierre Poilievre wants. Me? I believe everyone should feel safe walking our streets. I believe we need to stand up to bullies and shut down hate. Canadians believe in lifting each other up. Not tearing each other down. Stand with us.”
For reasons I don’t understand, the official announcement of the NDP’s refusal to back the Conservatives was framed less in terms of bullying than in terms of the programs that the Tories would cut if they formed a government, making me wonder why Singh “ripped up” his supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals in the first place.
Singh could have said that the NDP would not support any motion of non-confidence coming from the Conservative leader until the Official Opposition had ended its boorish behaviour inside and outside the House of Commons.
He could have built on his personal history of standing up to bullies to appeal to a Canadian public that has become disaffected with federal politicians writ large and, apart from Conservative partisans, is not desperately seeking an election.
Cutting off the Conservatives would not tie Singh’s hands in Parliament. The NDP will soon get its own opposition day, during which it can introduce its own motion of non-confidence if it’s unsatisfied with the government’s performance.
Nor would Singh be prevented from supporting a non-confidence motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP can also still vote against the next supply bill.
Although this focus on bullying might fluxom the Conservatives – they would be left with the choice of either demonstrably changing their tone and risk handing Singh a win and the political momentum that comes with it, or maintaining their bully tactics and giving up their ability to pressure the Liberals into an election – it could ultimately serve their interests as well.
Current polling projections suggest that even if Singh were to unite the left behind an anti-bullying platform, it is unlikely that anything can stop Pierre Poilievre from becoming our next prime minister.
The Liberals have done significant damage to our immigration system, have run up overwhelming deficits funding programs outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction while underspending on those within it, and have undermined their own message about the importance of addressing climate change.
Part of the problem might well be the messenger, but it is rare that any political party can maintain a focus on good governance for more than eight years.
And when Canadians believe that government is the source of what ails them, they tend to turn to the party that favours a smaller state apparatus.
Meanwhile, the challenges we face domestically and on the world stage are not getting any easier.
After the next election, we will need a government that understands that Canada fares best when its people are united and confident in the capacity of their public institutions.
Empty braggadocio that undermines faith our system of governance and the officials that serve within it will not resolve the very real problems we face.
If the Poilievre Conservatives acquire some humility now (rather than when it is inevitably thrust upon them by world events), Canadians will be better served over the next four years.
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.
You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
RSS Feed
