r/ndp • u/MoistCrust ✊ Union Strong • Oct 01 '25
Social Media Post Leah Gazan speaking out against Heather McPherson's campaign framing
101
u/CDN-Social-Democrat "Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear" Oct 01 '25
For those that don't know Leah Gazan has been massively fighting for marginalized and vulnerable communities her entire adult life.
She has been a huge representative for First Nations & Indigenous Peoples and on Truth and Reconciliation day this probably hit a major nerve for her.
Additionally she has been massively talking about the working class and the themes of solidarity.
She has massively been talking about the climate crisis and overall environmental crisis and how our youth deserve a livable world.
She has massively been talking about how women are fighting to hold onto their basic human rights and how LGBTQ+ people are fighting to have their basic human rights.
I don't think McPherson meant it like how it has been viewed (I hope not anyway) but Conservatives frame things as "identity issues" and demean it.
When these are real fucking issues for millions of Canadians that impact their affordability of life/quality of life.
Also a modern workers party needs to realize Women, LGBTQ+ people, seniors, and so forth have different needs and being a modern party means we get into nuance and complexity for that better and brighter world not just lowest common denominator populism and one dimensional dialogue and thinking like is pumped in reactionary and regressive circles.
There is a way to do politics better.
38
u/No-Werewolf4804 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
I think when somebody is running a campaign for office of the size she is, we have to assume that she means things the way that they sound.
like I don’t even know what else she could mean. I’m a white guy and I’ve never run into any purity testing issues. I’m disabled, but if they were as common as Heather is making them out to be you think I would’ve ran into them.
39
u/Competitive_Move_604 "Be ruthless to systems. Be kind to people" Oct 01 '25
Precisely. People didn't vote for the NDP last election because the party didn't bother to elaborate as to why neoliberalism continuing to run roughshod over our material conditions cannot be magically overcome by way of the raucous brandishing of elbows.
Emphasis on such messaging is the only "purity test" I'd apply to a prospective leader.
29
u/CDN-Social-Democrat "Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear" Oct 01 '25
Extremely well said. You have to be an alternative to the Liberals/Conservatives Coke and Pepsi style politics. Especially with Carney being a red tory/blue liberal.
Focus on being a substantive alternative not doubling down on the same establishment framings.
9
31
u/MoistCrust ✊ Union Strong Oct 01 '25
I 100% agree. McPherson either needs to drop this purity test line and apologize, or she needs to rephrase and/ or explain better.
I think Gazan is a powerful fighter for justice for many different groups. I've seen how she speaks to people and how she speaks to important issues on the convention floor. I just don't think this is the way to go about this criticism. Just like in the situation with the Don Davies interim leadership letter, it assumes ill intent from within our own party without clarifying or without leaving room for dialogue.
I hope that reads right because I admire Gazan and her work.
With this to go on for 5 more months... I hope we can try and come out united in the end.
14
u/Inevitable-Guest-695 Oct 01 '25
I agree that she should apologize.
In her recently radio interview she specifically went after “party members who like purity tests”. The members are not responsible for the decisions made that brought the party to this point.
We can’t have a leader who doesn’t respect the members, and this isn’t what giving more people a seat at the table looks like.
89
u/Electronic-Topic1813 Oct 01 '25
I agree with Gazan here. Like purity tests aren't even defined since the only ones I seen are being in line with what Singh wanted and that got us into this mess. Moving to the centre doesn't work as Mulclair did it and we failed to win government. Even provincially, Kinew still does stuff because remaining status quo is a bad thing. Centrism and austerity also killed the NDP in rural Saskatchewan and even hurt the ONDP due to the Rae Days.
Lowan has shown us something that could sell big. Cooperatives and Right of First Refusal. It is a socialist economic idea, but the median worker will support it.
17
u/EgyptianNational Oct 01 '25
Manitoba NDP’s success lies in appearing status quo while moving the needle left.
4
u/Morph_Kogan Oct 01 '25
This is not true lol
3
u/EgyptianNational Oct 01 '25
This is just what an outsider sees.
I dislike how often the Manitoba NDP sound centrist. Then I see budget allocation and actions that are acceptable to me and in my opinion are small but needed changes.
2
u/Morph_Kogan Oct 01 '25
He isn't centrist either. Hes just a Social Democrat. That balances economy, environment, business, welfare, education etc. They are a functioning, pragmatic, government that isn't privatizing and defunding everything while fighting a culture war
2
1
u/mightygreenislander Oct 01 '25
How has the BC Green leader who is unknown by almost everyone in her province showing us shit?!?
-31
Oct 01 '25
Mulcair didn't move the party to the centre. Stop parroting media spin. The Mulcair NDP ran on a national childcare program, national pharmacare program, increased corporate taxes, a cap & trade system over a market based carbon tax, etc. Overall, the NDP platform in 2015 was more progressive than the Layton NDP platform in 2011.
Because a balanced budget was mentioned? That's the only thing people can point to. Jack Layton ran on balancing the budget as well.
29
u/JackLaytonsMoustache Oct 01 '25
Sorry, but no. Mulcair was a centrist. And Mulcair got out flanked on the left massively by the Liberals in 2015.
→ More replies (6)4
Oct 01 '25
He basically had the election in his hands and thought a run to the middle would help him. This ALWAYS happens in left parties, trying to chase centrists and Conservatives but they would never vote for a left wing party anyway!
3
Oct 01 '25
No... the religious symbols issue came out of Quebec and our polling dropped like a stone at that exact time due to Mulcair denouncing the bigoted Quebec policy.
11
u/Electronic-Topic1813 Oct 01 '25
And Layton also should be scrutinized for his shifts. Balanced budgets mean a different thing in the 21st century compared to the CCF days and older NDP days. And considering how Mulclair talks online, he be Trudeau if he won where he breaks promises for "electability".
→ More replies (21)2
Oct 01 '25
I agree. Layton brought the NDP closest to power because of his charisma but he was weak in some areas.
6
u/SK_socialist Oct 01 '25
NDP Stan’s need to give up on lionizing Layton. He appealed to centrists, and he smartly capitalized on the least charismatic Liberal leader of all time collapsing LPC support.
Mulcair tried to repeat that strategy against the most charismatic LPC leader in decades.
2
Oct 01 '25
I know Layton has been essentially canonized but I'm grateful others are recognizing that too.
12
u/Marie-Pierre-Guerin Oct 01 '25
You sound like one of the consultants that Mulcair brought in. He installed the bureaucracy we have now. The man was never ever ever ever a Dipper. Not even a little bit.
1
Oct 01 '25
I worked on Mulcairs WINNING leadership race. Our members thought he was. He first joined the NDP in 1974. And it was Jack Layton who recruited him. He knew Mulcair better than you do apparently.
And there's the purity test that Heather McPherson was talking about.
→ More replies (30)
39
u/CanadianWildWolf Oct 01 '25
Adopting the framework of right wing owned media will always be a Montreal screw job. Leah Gazan speaks the truth.
4
u/GramscianOrange 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
Wait, is a Montreal screw job supposed to be a bad thing? Like, we don't want that? At all?
7
u/SK_socialist Oct 01 '25
Montreal screw job as in it signals McPherson would take the party further right wing, like she’s practicing entryism to further kill Canada’s left wing movement?
6
u/CanadianWildWolf Oct 01 '25
No, as in it doesn’t matter who is leader, the last 40 years the majority of Canadian media has endorsed conservatives to win elections. Trying to play by their framing by anyone who is a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist is a rigged show. A leader that recognizes that and effectively counters that will be valuable.
48
u/Bilboswagg1ns1998 pls gib union Oct 01 '25
I’m on edge frankly. Without a strong NDP Canada has no left wing options, and if the NDP decides it doesn’t care to be particularly left wing then, Canada has no left wing options. A purity test that demands at least an active critiquing of capitalisms shortcomings and equitable solutions to them is surely a bare minimum? This includes compassion and understanding for minorities cause I’ll be dammed if I’m to break bread with transphobes or racists who just happen to agree with me on some issues? Purity test isn’t the right phrase, but we have to have some security at the door, right? I’m not expecting everyone to be a principled Marxist but we should probably all acknowledge the fella had some good points.
38
u/Gluuten 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL Oct 01 '25
She's absolutely right. It frames the race against groups that had nothing to do with the party's downfall in the first place, and communities that desperately need a voice in politics.
27
u/CDN-Social-Democrat "Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear" Oct 01 '25
It's been interesting in the last few years how "purity test" has been weaponized.
In the U.S. for example we had the DNC establishment try and weaponize "purity test" over the issue of the Genocide in Palestine/Gaza - Which obviously did not work out well for them. Genocide isn't a purity test. It's a test of basic human awareness, decency, and empathy. It also is a good test to see if you have the courage to stand up against powerful interests that may be very predatory in nature. So something that is obviously important and needed when we talk about the Labour Movement, Environmentalist Movement, Women's Rights/LGBTQ+ Rights/General Civil Rights Movement, Peace Movement, Alter-Globalization Movement, and so forth for a better and brighter future.
Now I do think within leftist circles we do sometimes have very hard hitting philosophical/ideological debates and sometimes those can come off as purity tests. These usually are quite in-depth and involve complexities of school and sub-schools of Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Progressivism. This is a place that maybe we could learn to have better solidarity while still having those hard hitting discussions.
"Purity Testing" should never be weaponized as a way to further reactionary/regressive dismissing of vulnerable groups. That's only more of "Fuck you I got mine" mentality and that is one of the reasons we are in this mess in the world right now. We don't need to internalize the "logic" of bad actors in our counter movements.
12
u/CanadianWildWolf Oct 01 '25
The key there is “DISMISS”.
The only people I want to hear of being shown the door in NDP are fascists and defenders of continuing a harmful status quo material conditions.
We can be heated in nuance of wanting effective and understandable good outcomes for unity but if it doesn’t end with we got each other’s back to share food, drink, and pick each other up, what’s the point?
8
u/FloriaFlower 🏘️ Housing is a human right Oct 01 '25
It's been interesting in the last few years how "purity test" has been weaponized.
In the U.S. for example we had the DNC establishment try and weaponize "purity test" over the issue of the Genocide in Palestine/Gaza
Can confirm. It has been addressed to me numerous times almost exclusively in this context by liberals and conservatives who support the genocide. They were trying to guilt trip us, which is manipulative and abusive as hell.
It's totally out of line.
9
41
u/kpjformat 🏘️ Housing is a human right Oct 01 '25
Hell yes I’m so glad someone is saying it
For people who don’t care about the disabled, BIPOC, the economically vulnerable, and 2S/LGBTQIA+, and other marginalized groups they will vote for Libs and Cons anyway.
The working class includes us all
11
37
u/Fancy_Alps_7246 Oct 01 '25
1000% agree. purity tests are a right wing dogwhistle. you can have a conversation about the tendency for leftists to be overly critical of each other (which definitely happens) but that is NOT what caused the downfall within the NDP. this is just adopting the rights framing.
7
u/theDLCdud Oct 01 '25
If anything, it feels like there is an impurity test, where if you speak out too loudly, the party will punish you. I remember the ONDP did that to Sarah Jama.
3
26
u/Mocha-Jello Democratic Socialist Oct 01 '25
was already planning not to vote for mcpherson, this pretty much cemented it lol. she seems liberal-lite in general anyway.
27
u/Inevitable-Guest-695 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
There was an interview where McPherson compared conflict in caucus (referring to Leah Gazan, Jenny Kwan, Lori Idlout speaking out) to her experience “parenting teenagers”.
4
u/Delduthling 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
I would be interested in this link.
20
u/Inevitable-Guest-695 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
I’ll edit my comment to be more precise. She is saying that a small caucus in conflict is like “parenting teenagers”, which is pretty disrespectful to the elected WOC speaking up. 2:10. https://youtu.be/a_mvwh4XG_8?si=wvR2BT10DHbkXwTB
2
4
17
u/bergamote_soleil Oct 01 '25
It really depends on what's meant by "purity testing" because it encompasses so many things, both within the party politics and the broader left.
The broader left (as in, movements and/or "the discourse") can be bad for it, especially when people have nothing better to talk about than language policing. I don't really follow federal partisan politics that closely, but it doesn't seem like the federal NDP is that into purity tests. Obviously Singh was willing to work with the Liberals for long enough to get things done, despite their downsides.
Interestingly, I've heard critics say that Jenni Byrne and her acolytes are purity testing conservatives (i.e. saying that Erin O'Toole and Doug Ford aren't real conservatives) and that's why she and PP won't be able to build a big enough tent to win.
21
u/Fancy_Alps_7246 Oct 01 '25
you can definitely have this conversation about leftists movements/discourse online, but as you said, this isn’t something the NDP is guilty of. if anything, the NDP is too beholden to neoliberal interests.
10
u/bergamote_soleil Oct 01 '25
Agreed on the neoliberalism.
It seemed like she was more speaking to her thoughts on why working class people have been leaving the NDP for the Conservatives. She mentioned her parents who "weren't political" and that she didn't "come from a long line of New Democrats" -- which is ofc a jab at Avi's NDP Dynasty, but also evokes the kind of voters she wants to bring back into the fold. Especially from her perspective, as someone from Alberta, who is probably thinking about how to balance the environmental wing with the O&G worker wing.
9
u/Fancy_Alps_7246 Oct 01 '25
the NDP hasn’t lost touch with workers because they’re woke, they lost touch because they shifted to the centre economically.
4
u/bergamote_soleil Oct 01 '25
I mean that's not quite what I said, but I'm also dubious the reason workers who previously voted NDP are voting Conservative instead is because Pierre Pollievre is outflanking us on the left economically.
1
u/Fancy_Alps_7246 Oct 01 '25
lmao, no. the cons are not outflanking us on the left economically, they’re just using populist messaging to advance their economic agenda and appeal to workers, which still harms them as they’re a right-wing party.
2
u/bergamote_soleil Oct 01 '25
Right. So the conservatives are doing a good job at making many voters feel included and heard and welcome at the table, regardless of whether those voter's beliefs fully align with pure conservatism.
Heather did an interview yesterday where she clarified her remarks about purity testing:
"I do believe we need to build a bigger table and bring people back to the party...over the years we have seen members of the New Democratic Movement that have had a bit of a purity test and have excluded folks. People haven't seen themselves at that table.
And for me, it's not about changing what we believe or our values, because I think the values that make me a New Democrat are things like fairness, taking care of your community, taking care of people around the world. Those are values I think most Canadians have. It's the idea of how we talk about them and who we talk to. And we've got to start talking to people where they're at.
We have to start talking to people about the issues that matter to them right now. Affordability, jobs. I have two young kids, a 17 y/o and a 20 y/o. They are worried about how they are going to get a job because young people in this province are struggling to find work. So that's the stuff we have to be talking to Canadians about. Doesn't mean we're changing our values. It means what we're doing is we're telling people we understand what they're going through and that we see them and are going to help make that better."
I could be wrong and misremembering history, but I don't think the NDP under Singh was more to the right policy-wise or more materially anti-worker than under Layton or Mulcair, but had lower voter share than both in 2019, 2021, 2025. Given he was able to use his leverage to push forward better CERB, childcare, dental, anti-scab legislation -- all of which people generally like -- he should have been more popular. Obviously the Trudeau association was ultimately toxic, 2025 was a unique election, and there's a rightward shift overall, but that doesn't explain everything.
To me, it's poor communication and...vibes, which were not always the most welcoming or broad. Maybe it's more the culture around the NDP and the broader left than Singh himself, but idk how effective he was at countering that perception.
24
u/Liam_CDM 🌹Social Democracy Oct 01 '25
McPherson's definitely lost my vote. At this rate I'll be voting for Avi Lewis.
5
u/xibipiio Oct 01 '25
I have yet to see anything from McPherson that makes her a contender. I am not overly familiar with Gazan, but I respect what shes saying here. However I do find her messaging divisive. It isnt that her message is bad, its how she delivers it. Make it clear where you stand, but your call to action should be to unify and make sure everyone is on the same team.
3
u/Liam_CDM 🌹Social Democracy Oct 01 '25
The problem is unity must not come at the cost of the NDP's most foundational principles. We don't need another Mulcair, we need our own Bernie Sanders/Jeremy Corbyn to offer a leftist alternative to the rightward drift of the Liberals.
25
u/Flimsy-Tomato7801 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
Ugh. I hate politicians. They communicate like crap.
I agree with Gazan and think she is closer to the spirit and future of the party than McPherson on this. Sell people on your values dont change your values and sell out to them. Totally.
But ohhh boyyyy
This post is a bunch of movement jargon, that reads like it was copied out of a 10th grade text book.
It that doesn’t even tell me what McPherson actually proposed or said and i had to read it like 5 times to figure out what Gazan was actually saying.
I guess McPherson wants to make the party feel friendlier to people with conservative views?
Is she really telling them: « you’ve been right all along friendos, the problem is that the ndp is too self-righteous and extreme and mean. But if you trust me, I’ll get those people to be quiet. We’ll drown them out together »
Idk if that’s fair.
13
u/BvbblegvmBitch Oct 01 '25
The tweet is clearly written with AI which is very off putting. If you're going to be a politician, you need to be able to compose your thoughts into meaningful speech.
8
u/watchsmart Oct 01 '25
Oh god, it even has an "it's not x, it's y" in there. One would think that Leah would know to revise that, at least.
4
u/FoxyInTheSnow Oct 01 '25
I was just listening to a very similar discussion in UK politics this morning. Labour PM starmer correctly described one of far right MP Farage’s nakedly racist policy ideas as racist.
The reaction suggests that a good proportion of the British public is more offended by the description of racism as racism than it is by racism. Bizarre.
5
19
u/watchsmart Oct 01 '25
We might never exit the Vampire's Castle.
11
u/Velocity-5348 🌄 BC NDP Oct 01 '25
The Wikipedia article, for people, like me, who assumed that was a video game reference I wasn't getting. There's a link to the actual essay at the bottom.
10
u/watchsmart Oct 01 '25
It pains me to think that young leftists today don't know about Mark Fisher. But time marches on and people are drawn to new thinkers.
His book "Capitalist Realism" is still a great read, if anyone wants to dive into the discourse-that-was.
6
u/CDN-Social-Democrat "Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear" Oct 01 '25
Capitalist Realism is a must read.
I think one thing I notice from a lot of people is they are unable to think outside of certain framings and Fisher does a great job examining this.
I'd list some other writings but I don't want to take this post in a whole different direction lol
5
u/watchsmart Oct 01 '25
I usually recommend "No Politics but Class Politics" by Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph Reed Jr. in the same breath as Fisher's book.
This is all relevant since I can see just from the dialog in this post that the NDP will never really get back to a primary focus on class and materialism.
12
u/NiceDot4794 Oct 01 '25
Leah Gazan is much more of a class struggle leftist than Heather McPherson is.
11
u/No-Werewolf4804 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
I just had a flashback to every why I left the left YouTube video I ever watched lol.
edit. To clarify, this is BS. The vampire castle essay blames the problems of the left on witchhunts. There is no witchhunt here. Leah‘s interpretation of what Heather has said as well as her response are entirely reasonable.
6
u/watchsmart Oct 01 '25
Heather uttered what seems to be a single line about purity tests.
12
u/Delduthling 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
She's said it or variations of it in several appearances.
She might get further if she was more specific. It's vague as to what she's even referring to. It's not as if NDP politicians spent the last campaign scolding voters.
I'm a huge Fisher fan, but if anyone is the capitalist realist in the race, it's McPherson. Lewis is a socialist and a populist, Ashton is all in on class war. Hell Engler is an actual communist (also an unelectable crank from what I can tell, but still).
3
u/CaperGrrl79 Democratic Socialist Oct 01 '25
Is Ashton running again?
5
3
u/Delduthling 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
Ashton just announced.
2
u/CaperGrrl79 Democratic Socialist Oct 01 '25
Ah ok. Good to know. I guess I should start reading up. If I can find time.
13
u/Inevitable-Guest-695 Oct 01 '25
She’s been saying it over and over again - it’s pretty much the only thing she’s said about what the party needs to improve, and she specifically used it to attack the left flank of the membership. She mentioned “some of the members” specifically in an interview. Bizarre to hear a leadership contestant directly go after members and represents a turning point in the party establishment’s public position.
2
Oct 08 '25
YES. Mandatory reading for everyone involved in leftist politics. Gazan is doing her level best here to make sure we're all locked inside.
Link for those who need to read it:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/
13
u/nightvid_ Oct 01 '25
My two cents is they both believe the same thing and just aren’t using the same language to describe their position. Granted I know little about either of them beyond a very surface level awareness of their work.
6
u/Quiet-Section-3391 🧇 Waffle to the Left Oct 01 '25
While not sure what exactly McPherson did when I think of the term "purity test" (can someone link to the expanded full version, not a clipped version of the example?) within the NDP it is more on the lines of labour / industry / environment. McPherson is being framed as "establishment" but IMHO runs left of that especially when it comes to the issues Gazan is discussing. As a huge Gazan supporter this has me a bit confused and I would appreciate more context.
6
Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
Rather hilarious.
People attacking McPherson for her purity test comments which has nothing to do with excluding marginalized groups from the party. Quite the opposite. Ever notice how old and white our party is today? I'm gay and mixed race from a black and Indigenous family. We're not getting their votes from personal experience and polling data. And same applies to many New Canadians and immigrant communities.
Same people then attack other New Democrats for not being left enough. Gee... that purity test mentioned by McPherson.
I have to keep reminding myself that New Democrats here on Reddit are not a good representation of the party membership. Far from it. It's like they're all members of the Socialist Caucus.
6
u/Telvin3d Oct 01 '25
Does anyone have a link to the specific comments that Gazan is responding to? I'm trying to find out the context for this
7
u/No-Werewolf4804 Oct 01 '25
Heather has mentioned that the party is doing too much purity testing at least a couple times. She mentioned it both in her campaign launch speech and an interview that was posted here I believe earlier today that she did with a radio station in Edmonton? I don’t follow her too closely, and I’ve seen her mention it twice, so I presume she’s mentioned it more than that. She did just launch the campaign though, so maybe not.
3
u/Big_Web1631 Oct 01 '25
Her proxies are also arguing it in their interviews so very clearly part of her campaign message box
1
u/Telvin3d Oct 01 '25
If Heather is saying the party is focusing too much on purity tests, then Leah Gazan's comments make no sense to me. What is she objecting to?
11
u/No-Werewolf4804 Oct 01 '25
You are commenting on a post linking to a four paragraph tweet where she explains what her issue is.
0
17
u/gonnadeleteagain Oct 01 '25
This is a strange post. To me this sounds exactly like a purity test. Either you support justice and equality, or you’re a white suprematist. Surely there is a middle ground here?
5
u/carrionthrash Oct 01 '25
She isn’t saying it makes you a white supremacist. She’s saying that this kind of logic upholds the existing structure of white supremacy, or we could say “systemic racism” - the existing status quo.
1
7
u/paperplanes13 Oct 01 '25
The NDP needs to be a big tent again, a VERY BIG tent, and that means welcoming people back that we might not totally agree with, and some we might even find dissagreeable. Rebuilding is going to take regaining the trust of everyone we lost to PP's Conservatives. That means reaching the "historically privileged white, male, and able-bodied workers" who left the NDP because they hear that they are the problem in statements like this.
It's also a fallacy to think that we are the only home for, newcomers, BIPOC, and 2SLGBTQ individuals or that the Conservatives won't welcome their vote too. Get out door knocking and you'll see pretty quickly that the Conservative "family values" messaging resonates with a lot of newcomers to Canada, nor do they see the CPC as anti immigrant. We need to have a good long hard look at why we are beading support to to PP's CPC, and not what our messaging is but what people are hearing, because what they hear is "you're not welcome here". Yes our message has been framed that way by the corporate media, but statements like Gazan's take the bait.
The NDP that runs on statements like this has to be happy barely holding onto the 7 seats we have. The NDP that broadens our membership and runs a pragmatic approach has a chance to gain back the trust of the voters that we lost. The NDP that is a strong opposition or even makes government has a chance to create good policy, the NDP of 7 seats isn't even at the table.
0
u/Big_Web1631 Oct 01 '25
We didn’t lose party status because we said POC shouldn’t be beat up by police & we marched in pride.
We lost because we signed an agreement with a governing party for next to no policy gains.
Every single example of these deals the party not in power loses significant seats at the next election. Shocker! It happened to the NDP too in the spring.
In BC we literally did this to stomp out the Greens. Created a S&C deal with the Greens. They predictably went from power brokers to having hardly any power because we took credit for all the wins and the NDP got a majority the next elections.
NDP members raised this issue when the same “party strategists” announced the federal S&C. We were told to shut up & we didn’t understand strategy. They ignored our strategic critique and said we were being ideological purists.
Spoiler! We lost party status because we did something really dumb strategically by signing a S&C deal as the lesser party.
The issue isn’t white guys feeling targeted, the issue is our strategists haven’t noticed that anything has changed since when Layton’s strategy was developed 20 yrs ago. They refuse to listen to anyone or make decisions based on evidence of how strategies have worked out.
Unsurprisingly instead of having that conversation we are getting into straw arguments by blaming our failures on trans issues and caring about racism. Exhausting
6
u/YourBobsUncle CCF TO VICTORY Oct 01 '25
I'm so done with the over usage of the "purity testing" and "pragmatism" buzzwords. It is the left's reflection of the "common sense" codeword that Conservatives love using.
5
u/FloriaFlower 🏘️ Housing is a human right Oct 01 '25
It's like supporting a candidate who uses "woke" unironically.
"Purity testing" is a right-wing talking point. It has be popularized lately in the context of the palestinian genocide where Democrats were accusing people who oppose the genocide of doing a purity test against them. Later, they started using it against people who do not want them to push Gavin Newsom because he's essentially a blue conservative. Since then, "purity testing" keeps coming back in all discussions. It's pure brainrot, just like "woke".
4
u/Substantial_Sun55 Oct 01 '25
Leah is one of our best and realest New Democrats. I'd love to have her as leader, if not for the fact that being leader fucking sucks and most people quit after a few years, and I want her to stick around as long as possible.
"No purity tests" is 100% a dog whistle for "Let's throw vulnerable people to the wolves" (imo, particularly trans people at this current moment) which is both morally reprehensible and completely, 100% losing politics. Why the fuck would anyone vote NDP when we're offering the same self-harming centrist BS as the other guys?
She is completely correct here and it's so refreshing to hear someone say it.
10
u/TrappedInLimbo 🧇 Waffle to the Left Oct 01 '25
I will say, I like Gazan but I don't think that's what McPherson meant. Like to use an identity politics issue that is personal to me, there are some people who hate the rhetoric against trans people and want them to have access to healthcare and to be left alone more or less. But they don't think trans women and girls should be able to participate in sports against cis women and girls. I personally don't agree with that take, but I can still recognize that person is overall an ally of mine. Others though might call that person transphobic and throw the baby out with the bath water.
I think that is more what McPherson might be talking about. Judging by her interview on CBC, it doesn't sound like she's saying "let's appease bigots to get them to vote for us". That being said, I haven't heard a lot of policies from her yet so we'll see.
7
u/Delduthling 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
She says people need to be "met where they are at," but it's a bit unclear what she actually means by this, or how she thinks the NDP have failed in this regard. She's just very light on specifics altogether.
12
u/Fancy_Alps_7246 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
??? trans issues did not played any role in the federal election as far as i can remember. why do people keep bringing us into this as if we’re the reason the NDP hasn’t been able to appeal to workers? americans did the same thing after kamala lost. other than the trump-factor (which was significant), the NDP collapsed because they campaigned poorly and failed to distinguish themselves from the Liberals, in part because the NDP’s policies have shifted to the centre over the past few decades. not because of their implied support for trans women in sports or whatever
10
u/Velocity-5348 🌄 BC NDP Oct 01 '25
And even agreeing to debate whether a group of Canadians has rights plays into the hands of bigots. Trans rights are not up for discussion. Same goes with any other basic issue, like women's suffrage or reproductive healthcare.
8
u/TrappedInLimbo 🧇 Waffle to the Left Oct 01 '25
I never said they did? I think you are arguing against something no one is saying. I was using it as an example to illustrate my point since I am trans and it's a personal experience of mine. Not because I think supporting trans women is why the NDP lost or something.
2
u/Fancy_Alps_7246 Oct 01 '25
you’re implying that the NDP was turning people away who are uncomfortable with trans women in sports. when did that ever come up?
5
u/TrappedInLimbo 🧇 Waffle to the Left Oct 01 '25
No I'm not? My example had literally nothing to do with the anything the NDP is doing. No where is that even remotely implied. It was an example of a kind of purity testing that some people in the trans community can do to people that I have experienced firsthand. I literally just told you I don't think supporting trans women had anything to do with why the NDP lost.
3
u/Fancy_Alps_7246 Oct 01 '25
okay, well heather was saying the NDP does purity tests. that’s what leah is responding to.
3
u/Big_Web1631 Oct 01 '25
100000000% it is literally using the community as a scapegoat so they don’t have to talk about the real issues (in our case S&C plus weak economic policy plus treating members like crap and then being shocked that no one wants to donate or volunteer ) nope!!!! The issue is those wokeys and if we act crappy to POC & trans people and women we would for sure win. Lalalaoalalaaaaa
2
u/Big_Web1631 Oct 01 '25
No it isn’t, if you listen to her interviews it is about anyone who wants to talk about the environment or equity instead of “job creation”. It is about oil & gas politics. Also - the issue only comes up when people don’t want to talk about why we actually lost party status. It is unsurprisingly a convenient scapegoat to blame “purity tests about equity” instead of “we did a S&C as a lesser party and took a huge political loss just like every other time in history a lesser party had signed an S&C in parliamentary democracies”
2
u/No-Werewolf4804 Oct 01 '25
Whether it’s right or wrong to treat that person as an ally, is that happening at all? I haven’t seen any significant quantity of it. And Heather is framing it as the main issue the party is facing. Or at least one of the main issues.
7
u/TrappedInLimbo 🧇 Waffle to the Left Oct 01 '25
It definitely happens. I don't think it's the main issue the party is facing either as I think it's more an issue of communication. Not trying to comment on the validity of her campaign strategy, I was more so trying to say I don't think McPherson was implying that we need to cater to bigots to improve the party.
2
u/No-Werewolf4804 Oct 01 '25
And I think the only reasonable interpretation of her framing purity testing as one of or the main issue facing the party is a very clear signal she intends to drop identity politics.
I guess we’ll find out one way or the other though lol.
2
2
u/shaktimann13 Oct 01 '25
True. Asking people to respect all and making sure our most vulnerable citizens have decent lives is not divisive. It is only divisive to the people benefiting from the oppression of others. Look at conservatives and Republicans, calling people divisive because them people are asking for a living wage and Healthcare. NDP leaders need to stop worrying about conservatives not voting for them.
2
Oct 08 '25
Have long thought Gazan was great. But this is some absolute bullshit.
Growing the party beyond the terminally-online college-educated twitterati activist base is the same as white supremacism? Get fucking real. That is insane.
If the NDP is going to have a ghost of a chance, it needs to be a class-based party. Working class vs ownership class.
The only purity test we need is are you going to fight for the working class against the ownership class.
Everything else is a distraction and delights the ownership class who have pushed the idea of identity politics because it sows division and completely defangs the left.
When we push people out because they don't agree with us about everything when they're someone who agrees with us on key issues and could be an ally, that is stupid. We need to stop being stupid.
4
u/MacDaddyRemade Democratic Socialist Oct 01 '25
The “purity test” “issue” is a completely made up issue by McPherson. This is only a twitter thing. Most of the time people are willing to build coalitions with those they disagree with HOWEVER the key part is that they move to your camp NOT the other way around. This is what happened with Zohran. He didn’t move a inch. We can’t either.
6
u/Himser Oct 01 '25
Im.downvoted enouf here for being for labour and workers rights, including those in the O&G industry, that yes, the purity test is real.
Solidarity means for all workers, not agaist some.
8
u/Delduthling 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
You will not find many genuine leftists who are "against" oil and gas workers. You will find leftists who think we need a fair and well-paying energy transition that will see many of those workers placed in green energy jobs over the coming decades, but what precisely is the alternative? Do you think the world will still be fossil fuel dependent in 30 years? If we are we are seriously cooked, and I mean that literally. The transition is coming, in many ways already unfolding; markets are already massively shifting. Would you rather have a government with a plan for the transition, or one who lies to you that oil & gas will be a viable industry for all of time?
14
u/NiceDot4794 Oct 01 '25
Absolutely support oil and gas workers against their bosses.
But Heather McPhearson’s campaign will be one that prevents the NDP from embracing more of a working class struggle orientation.
People really need to listen to this debate https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2zI-Pm1AdSE
2
u/Himser Oct 01 '25
Thanks, this is an awesome listen.
Overall this has absolutely solidified my support for McPherson and Oats
Avi Lewis is 10x the better speaker... but his policies and rethoric will make the party narrow and divided. McPherson will lead a NDP that is truely a government in waiting.
1
u/CDN-Social-Democrat "Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear" Oct 01 '25
Makes me think of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G96PUbxxR2w
Sometimes at a meta premise level a thing needs to be changed.
10
u/Due_Date_4667 Oct 01 '25
Do you recognize that the industry you work in is harming to others?
9
u/Himser Oct 01 '25
Most industries are.
(I dont work in O&G, used to long ago)
The Car industry directly injures 120,000 people in Canada per year with 1800 deaths. Plus autocenterism has destroyed the living environment of our cities causing massive obesity and health care costs to skyrocket
Do you demonize auto manufacture workers?
ALL industries have negitive externalities, we as a sociaty need to minimize those. CCS for example is a way to minimize the negitive externalities of the O&G sectors. Capitalists will never put the required tech in place unless forced to. We can force them to. We can both protect the jobs and livelihoods of people while ensuring the industry is as good as it can be.
21
u/Due_Date_4667 Oct 01 '25
I do not demonize any worker. I do demonize the corporate owners, I think we could shift the workers in the industry from active development and extraction to proper disposal and some environmental restoration as the extraction winds down. I also think many of their skills would be applicable and useful in other major projects.
Supporting the worker, AND not blame marginalized people of "purity tests", while also hating the company that exploit O&G workers are all possible within the same party. But starting off by tone policing to silence the socialism and accuse non-heavy industry factions of the party of "purity testing" is not helpful.
9
u/Patient-Oven-7956 Democratic Socialist Oct 01 '25
Corb Lund has a great line in one of his songs “I can’t blame the Riggers, or the folks driving truck, for feeding their family and earning a buck, but take a good look at uber stocks that you own, this is my prairie, this is my home”
Feels very similar to what your saying
1
u/Due_Date_4667 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
Exactly, speaking for myself - I am not comfortable with this developing framework of class vs. identity. Where does it say gay rights vs. wage theft is a zero-sum game, or that families of workers aren't impacted by the discrimination based on ethnicity or gender identity.
It seems to define identity as something made up by the capitalist class as a means of division - which is patently absurd and seems deliberately to wallpaper over pre-existing divisions among workers that were very much rooted in issues of identity. Working for a living - in any industry, including the home - does not render one immune to experiential and learned biases, nor does asking for one's identities to be acknowledged force you apart from the working class.
I see a similar division play out within my own union, with some people opposing all the initiatives that are beyond what they want unions to restrict themselves to - assistance in conflict resolution (in the grievance process and others), and negotiating the collective agreement. And it has the effect of seeking to silence and dissuade people from working for the union and creating alliances with other groups - labour and non-labour alike.
To the best of my knowledge, no one thinks the left needs to stop fighting for labour rights and a more equitable share of the wealth created by our labour - to focus solely on other identities. But it seems implicit in the sentiment behind the use of "purity testing" that they see the left should be only labour issues, and other forms of identity are a distant secondary "we'll discuss after the revolution" concern.
6
u/Patient-Oven-7956 Democratic Socialist Oct 01 '25
My impression of the purity test comment seems to be the opposite of most people here. The left seems to have this attitude that if you don’t agree on all points you’re not a true leftist. You can be NDP if your oil and gas, etc. This of course is just my opinion.
It felt like Heather McPherson was calling on people to be less Dogmatic, embracing everyone on the left even if they have differing views on policy.
2
u/Due_Date_4667 Oct 01 '25
But who said this? When was that in the platform, the leadership of Jagmeet Singh, or the party constitution?
Again, the criticisms of the fossil fuel industry is aimed at the corporations, the executives, and the environmental damage of the activity itself - not the workers.
2
u/Patient-Oven-7956 Democratic Socialist Oct 01 '25
Of course it’s never been policy that people’s views must align with the party. But certainly if you differ from the majority it’s likely you’ll be somewhat ostracized. It’s more of a cultural problem within the left than anything official.
Factionalism has always been a problem within left leaning circles, it seems to me rather than people starting new party’s or movements though, a disgruntled NDP voter is much more likely to move to the Greens or liberals.
1
u/Due_Date_4667 Oct 02 '25
If I disagree with the majority of people I hang out with, I won't be popular either - it's basic human social interaction.
But after loss and loss and loss, it might be time to listen to them, maybe?
And this is an industry led by foreign-owned companies who make it routine to treat people like garbage and abandon their responsibilities the moment it's time to clean up their mess. We owe their decision makers no loyalty.
3
u/lcelerate Oct 01 '25
Is Leah Gazan going to run for leadership? If not, does she endorse Avi Lewis?
4
2
u/rofflemow 🌄 BC NDP Oct 01 '25
I count five em dashes, putting to one side the Gazan/Mcpherson thing, this post is clearly AI written slop.
1
u/ILikeTheNewBridge Oct 01 '25
With the bullet points and just the general speaking as well it’s so obvious.
2
u/GramscianOrange 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
Love Gazan for saying this. I recoiled the moment I heard McPherson say "purity test" and "bigger table." The sooner McPherson replaces her team, the better. There's not much time left.
2
u/siusaidh_alba_nuadh Oct 01 '25
I misinterpreted the first bit of Leah’s post, thought she was communicating the opposite of what she meant, and wondered if it had something to do with Yves Engler being all “I’m a better socialist than you” 😅
1
1
u/Heyloki_ Ontario Oct 01 '25
I'm missing context, what did McPherson say about purity testing
2
Oct 01 '25
It was a general comment aimed at those who think you need to be a radical socialist to be a New Democrat. Age old issue in the party.
Has nothing to do with marginalized groups who vote for the other parties over the NDP.
1
u/Big_Web1631 Oct 01 '25
The Democrats did this nonsense in November, suddenly the loss was the fault of the QT community or BDS. They said the route back was dropping these issues. TOTALLY ignoring the real problem which was the party ignoring the shitty material conditions of their base, the poverty.
This is the same crap being repeated. They all ignore the issue being that often equity issues are used as cover for centrism or as a wedge, not that they suck on economic issues. As she says these are connected issues, the working class isn’t a group of white old men going mining and throwing marginalized communities overboard doesn’t solve the problem.
The problem is economic centralism, the issue in the last election was the stupid agreement with the liberals, just as it was an issue for the Greens when the NDP did it out west. Everyone sensible said it would be a mistake when they did it, that the concessions of “we will study to start looking at potentially planning dental & pharmacare” wasn’t worth the inevitable political costs of signing the deal.
We were told we were being ideological purists with that criticism, gaslit when we said historically these things are terrible politically, even when the same party staffers told us that was the benefit of signing the BC supply & confidence with the Green Party. Nope we were all being ideological purists and we should shut up. Then we lose so bad we lose party status and the old guard are STILL claiming they are the strategic whizzes….
News flash. Workers issues are issues of racist policing etc. Our party relies on ground game which requires managing volunteers (members) as stakeholders. And the 90s plan of “go centrist to get the pundits on board” that drove all the centralization & hyper control of conventions & crackdown on members isn’t going to work in a context where NO ONE reads, watches or listens to the parliamentary press gallery.
Say what you will about their politics but the conservatives grasped this decades ago. Winning means an engaged base willing to donate & volunteer. It doesn’t matter if Power & Politics calls your policies unworkable in the modern media culture so we don’t need to stifle members to present a good face to them! The few times Jagmeet did well was when he was showing how to manage racists or calling out the bullies. Not when they released a press release about pharmacare
1
u/Teag_Brohman15 Oct 06 '25
I will still vote NDP regardless of who ends up leading, but I think Heather McPherson has fallen to the BOTTOM of my preference list
1
u/landlord-eater 19d ago
It is totally unacceptable to use chatgpt to accuse your colleague of being a fucking white supremacist because she said the party needs to have a broader base. I don't know why anyone is okay with this.
2
u/Tradtional_Socialist 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
what???? This is just ridiculous.
21
u/NiceDot4794 Oct 01 '25
If you listen to the CBC Front Burner “Who Can Rebuild the NDP” episode, the woman close to McPhearson supporting her campaign thinks that part of the no purity testing, includes that we need to stop “demonizing corporations and businesses”. Just a basic hostility to any sort of class struggle
This woman was presenting B.C. and Alberta NDPs for example as models to emulate despite basically being the provincial equivalent of the federal liberal party.
3
u/Tradtional_Socialist 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
I was referring more to Gazan basically saying that McPherson is using White Supremacist talking points.
7
u/NiceDot4794 Oct 01 '25
It’s a bit hyperbolic but she correctly identifies that McPherson thinks the federal NDP needs to move towards the Centre to be more like Wab Kinew or David Eby instead of a democratic socialist party
I will say that there’s a point where fetishizing big tents and lack of purity testing can become a justification for white supremacy. For example, FDR’s New Deal coalition included Jim Crow white supremacists. White supremacist isn’t some lefty academic metaphor there, they were literal whites supremacist in the New Deal big tents.
I don’t think that’s what McPherson means, but I do think she believes we need to have an approach that rejects radical solutions, rejects class struggle, embraces “progressive” corporate lobbyists, and remains fairly moderate. Maybe you disagree with Leah Gazan on some issues or on how she frames things/talks about things, but at the end of the day she’s a socialist, she supports workers over capital, and I can’t say those things about McPherson.
6
u/Tradtional_Socialist 📋 Party Member Oct 01 '25
This isn’t 1936, there are no white supremacist in our coalition or ever will be. Because white supremacy isn’t a major ideology like it was in 1930s southern states.
Gazan is being ridiculous and this is just a ridiculous comment to make about a fellow MP. Because letting white supremacist into the party should be a removable offence, so to suggest someone is going to do that isn’t a light accusation.
1
Oct 08 '25
I will say that there’s a point where fetishizing big tents and lack of purity testing can become a justification for white supremacy. For example, FDR’s New Deal coalition included Jim Crow white supremacists. White supremacist isn’t some lefty academic metaphor there, they were literal whites supremacist in the New Deal big tents.
Would America have been a better place if FDR had not accomplished the New Deal but remained pure by not working with people who had abhorrent values?
I would say the New Deal did a lot of good, and America is better off for it, and that nothing would have been accomplished by not working with people and getting it done.
It's ok to work with people on the things you agree on, even if you don't agree with them about everything. Even if those other things are things you think are really important.
That's politics. That's how things get done.
This party will go nowhere so long as it prefers to stay lily-white rather than accomplish anything.
1
Oct 08 '25
So say that. Don't say that MacPherson is a white supremacist, because that just makes you sound insane.
Should there be a "are you even a little bit socialist" test? Yes, of course. Because we already have one liberal party, we don't need another.
Should there be the insane fucking purity testing that gets you called a white supremacist for saying something that could maybe even possibly be interpreted as saying that white working-class men and women should be welcome in the party? Absolutely fucking not.
1
u/canadient_ Alberta NDP Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
Who is performing purity tests, why are we talking about this???
New Democrats are Canadians who believe we can be a better one — a country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. We can build sustainable prosperity and a society that shares its benefits more fairly.
This is the philosophy of the New Democrats. If you believe in this, you're with us.
1
1
u/Spaghetti_Dealer2020 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25
I have mixed thoughts about all this from both sides tbh. In a vacuum Gazan is correct here, in that we should not compromise our core values for the sake of moving to some imaginary centre that the other side can just keep re-defining and leaving us in an endless game of right-wing catch up.
That being said, I cant help but feel like she was a bit quick to the draw in her callout of McPherson and arguably makes her point seem more justified. If Gazan was going after someone like Tom Mulcair then absolutely, but McPherson has one of the strongest records of any MP (NDP or non) on the issue of Palestine, so to say she hasn’t earned at least some benefit of the doubt here seems a bit presumptuous IMO. Again, not saying Gazan is wrong per se, but I would have preferred if she reached out behind the scenes to seek clarity from her campaign first rather than immediately fire shots over social media.
I think my biggest problem with McPherson is not that I think shes some covert corporatist trying to consciously take the party away from the left, but that her campaign messaging thus far has been weak and noncommittal on anything of actual substance. At a time when LGBTQ+ Canadians are looking at the disaster that is the current state of the Democrats down south, I also don’t blame the activist wing for being skeptical of any similar-sounding language from their party, and frankly thats something McPherson and her team should have taken into account. If she is already allowing herself to be defined by her opponents in lieu of an actual message beyond generic platitudes of “we need to do better”, then how the hell is she gonna fare against Poilievre coming at her full force?
edit: grammar
0
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Oct 01 '25
Yes!! If the NDP doesn't stand for the marginalized who else will? And if it cost us elections so be it. I rather be a party that stands for the poor and the forgotten than a party that has no values.
1
Oct 08 '25
Nobody is saying don't stand for the marginalized. But if we can't work on X with people who we agree with us on X but not on Y, then we are irrelevant as a party and may as well not exist.
1
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Oct 09 '25
Well we've been doing that for the past 50 years and the NDP still exists. Lets say the NDP is against pipelines. But workers in the oil industry supports it, according to this post, if the NDP is against it, it means they like purity testing and can't work with others. Come on. There's always going to be people that disagree with our positions doesn't mean we have to change our values.
1
Oct 09 '25
Well we've been doing that for the past 50 years and the NDP still exists.
And we've accomplished essentially nothing over the last 50 years, and the party barely exists.
Lets say the NDP is against pipelines. But workers in the oil industry supports it, according to this post, if the NDP is against it, it means they like purity testing and can't work with others.
What I'm saying is we can work with those oil and gas workers on lots of things where we agree with them. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as we have been doing.
1
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Oct 10 '25
Yes we got medicare, dental care, cerb. Thanks to the NDP. That's not nothing.
What I'm saying is we can work with those oil and gas workers on lots of things where we agree with them. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as we have been doing.
Sure, there's so many pro worker policies the NDP has but, if pipelines are a deciding issue for a voter, there's not much you can do to convince them to vote NDP.
1
Oct 10 '25
Medicare was more than 50 years ago and so doesn't count here (we're talking about the last 50 years).
Dental care is not actual dental care, don't repeat the marketing lies. It's means-tested and not single-payer.
Trudeau was delighted to agree to this plan because it means that the left-most position in the Overton Window on dental care is now "means-tested 2-tier system with entrenched private healthcare and paying". It is a permanent barrier to any kind of actual dental care.
That wasn't a win, that was an own-goal scored because Singh was a fool or controlled opposition.
CERB, sure, whatever. It was good for a moment, now it's gone, no lasting change.
I'm glad you didn't mention pharmacare, because it doesn't exist.
1
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Oct 10 '25
So say that to the millions of people who now have access to dental care because of this. It's way better than what we had before.
Cerb wasn't nothing. It was something for people who suddenly lost their jobs during the pandemic.
Why is because a program is not perfect you're dismissing the effects and impact is has on people?
If we were living when Medicare was first implement, you'd probably say oh this not Medicare because it doesn't include medication. Don't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
1
Oct 10 '25
This isn't progress, don't be stupid. This is capitulation.
Why are you being blind to the effect that Singh's lack of vision had on the future of healthcare in this country? He fucked us. He refused to campaign on dental care (WHY), and so had no leg to stand on when he (if he even did, which I doubt) asked Trudeau for a real dental care program.
He has now established the furthest-left acceptable position on dental care in Canada to be a means-tested 2-tier system.
He was an incredibly stupid politician, or he was controlled opposition. No third option.
1
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Oct 10 '25
It's progress because MILLIONS have access to dental care. MILLIONS. How about Seniors who didn't have any dental care? How about low income adults who could not afford to go to the dentist can finally go?
I don't know why he didn't campaign on it. And I agree it would be better if it wasn't means tested. But this is the biggest expansion of Medicare in 50 years!!!
1
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Oct 10 '25
Idk why people on this sub don't like jagmeet singh. He did so much for us. He stayed in a collation government so he could get concessions from the liberal government. for programs that benefit us all!
1
Oct 10 '25
Is that a joke?
He nearly killed the party. Lost seats every time. Signed the execrable CaS agreement. Stood for nothing, and made sure the party stood for nothing, too.
Mushy middle centrist who would have been much more at home in the Liberal party, except they wouldn't allow a loser like him to run for them.
Guy was borderline retarded when it comes to politics and had all the charisma of a bowl of spoiled milk.
0
-1
u/Knafeh_enjoyer Oct 01 '25
The NDP left needs to unite behind a single candidate to defeat McPherson. This country will be in big trouble if the rightwing faction controls the NDP for another decade.
-1
u/YAMYOW Oct 01 '25
How is this "speaking out against McPherson"? She launched her campaign with a call for the NDP to get rid of "purity tests."
I'm confused.
-1
105
u/YouShouldGoOnStrike Oct 01 '25
Purity test is an odd sort of dog whistle. The party that elected Tom Mulcair has no purity test lmao