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.
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.