I think the issue with the late 90s is that we were at a tipping point in the West, where, regardless of what people did, because we were still riding the wave of post-cold war economic success, no matter who was governing or what they were doing we wouldn't really feel repercussions for much of anything till another decade at least.
On Martin, the big issue was that the liberal party was being accussed of widespread corruption, there was confirmed corruption in Quebec (something that it still hasn't fully recovered from), and this ended effective liberal hegemony. If you want to look up the "
Sponsorship Scandal" it ironically has similarities to Trudeau's past scandal with
WE.
Corruption doesn't necessarily trickle down to the average person immediately or inevitably, but it does reveal a political rot of those within power, and when faced with crisis, you really want people with steeled nerves and some integrity. In an age with increasing financial interests, money influencing politics from overseas, global interests vs regional or national ones, etc- I really wouldn't want people in power who's central claim to governance is already on shakey ground with financial corruption being revealed.
I didn't like Harper when he was in government, as was vogue at the time, but if you actually look at how he governed, Canada was one of the few nations to come out of the 2008 financial crisis relatively intact, something that was the result of Harper's governing policies. In other nations, you still see the massive collapse of entire industries like construction, banks having gone under, etc. That never happened in Canada, and while I say
relatively intact, I'm mostly referring to the notion that regardless of what we did, we are still tied to the US market. Still, Harper
actually regulated the banks in Canada, and its something that I think his prime ministership is really going to be remembered by historically in a good way, in addition to keeping Canada out of Iraq (regardless of all the rest).
What I'd say of Harper is that he
did not change anything systemically, and within the financial system, we have been in a downturn since perhaps the .com bubble crash, or perhaps since the early 80s with the start of the neoliberal period. Its one that we wouldn't all really feel the major effects of till the end of the 2010s, but one that you can see evidence of in retrospect. Still, independent of not changing the course of the ship, he did manage to steer
the current course for his time relatively well, when faced with one major crisis. What he really did was create progressive taxes, and govern to support larger businesses in growth even with that.
I don't know if the liberal party of today is more or less corrupt than it was in 2005, but I think that this isn't the real question to ask. I think the real way to frame the question is that the liberal party
did not have to face a major financial crisis in the early 2000s. This liberal party of today does. Regardless of who is more corrupt, or who is less corrupt, you do not want a party that is corrupt at the head of the reigns of leadership during a crisis. What would make the current liberals more complicit would be "did they cause this crisis?"
I think that you wouldn't be right to say that they caused it, that financial trends over the past 30 years with globalism have caused us to reach the point where we are at today are what brought us here; but they shouldn't get off scot free either, because they have the duty and responsibility to govern, people have been concerned about this since the 2010s, and they have done nothing. When your party comes in on a wave of populism and cries for social justice, including economic justice, to do nothing is an extra slap in the face
