Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Isn't that a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card for Trudeau? Still embarrassing for him, but now he's compelled to have a nation wide exception without having to justify it to the green wing.

That’s a politely unique way of looking at it I guess, I think it goes way beyond embarrassment.

The carbon tax, a term he no longer uses, is the staple of this liberal government. Set aside the fact that Trudeaus climate targets are the same as Harpers and that he’s nowhere near reaching them, the tax has been the one consistent policy they’ve had and in one fell swoop he murdered any credibility they had.
On top of that a cabinet member of his decided to tell Vassy Kapelos that if the west wants deals maybe they should vote more liberals in effectively confirming this whole thing is a sham.

There’s mistakes and then there’s this, a self inflicted blunder of epic proportions.

[Fuzz]

Sure it is, but it seems the opposition might be better to let him deal with cancelling it himself, or trying to defend it. By forcing the issue, he kinda gets out out from that difficult situation. He still looks like a putz, but I'm not sure that bothers him.

[Calgary '89]

Again, that’s pretty polite. You must be a nice person and likely not suited for politics

By forcing the issue, opposition doesn’t allow the PM to change the subject or ignore the issue which is what most politicians would do when they’re in a pickle.
The added effect is that it also forces the NDP to act on what their voters surely think is unfair.
The third benefit is that it forces a bumbling Trudeau to make another mistake which is all he’s been doing lately.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure it is, but it seems the opposition might be better to let him deal with cancelling it himself, or trying to defend it. By forcing the issue, he kinda gets out out from that difficult situation. He still looks like a putz, but I'm not sure that bothers him.

I think the optics will more of thr NDP & CPC helping Canadians where Trudeau screwed them.
I don't see it doing anything positive for Trudeau; good for the NDP though.

And that Liberal add you posted is pretty clever. They played that well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, name me one federal government in the last 4 decades that hasn't faced a corruption scandal.

Again, if corruption is really your highest priority, then there's only one party that hasn't demonstrated corruption, and it ain't the CPC.

The longer a party is in power, the higher the chance of corruption.

So one thing is for certain, the NDP and their agreement to prop up the Liberal Party is helping create the corruption.

And the NDP and their supporters, like yourself, are happy to turn a blind eye.

Must be nice living in this delusional reality.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It should be used at the right then when the NDP are no longer needed to support the government to point out during an election that the NDP is willing to work with the Cons to dismantle the climate change policies.

Is that better or worse than Trudeau dismantling the climate change policy for electoral gain?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1720904807546843496

https://twitter.com/user/status/1721544480136781842

“ The Liberals’ 158 seats are enough to defeat the combined 142 seats of the Conservatives and the NDP, who announced they would support the motion on Thursday.

This means the Bloc Québécois could hold the balance in this vote with 32 seats — or abstain entirely.

Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Thursday his party has not made a decision on how it will vote but said a federal carbon price freeze would not benefit Quebec as that province has its own program.”

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

The longer a party is in power, the higher the chance of corruption.

You didn't answer my question.

PP was part of the CPC government that also had corruption issues, correct? Isn't it a bit delusional to believe someone who was and is still a member of a party with past corruption issues wouldn't still have corruption issues were he to be given power? Has PP ever criticized the corruption associated with the Harper years?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You didn't answer my question.

PP was part of the CPC government that also had corruption issues, correct? If you're so concerned about corruption, why would you want someone who was associated with a past corrupt regime to be in a position of power again?

The idea is that all governments become corrupt the longer they’re in power. By the time they’ve been in power for 5+ years, they grow entitled, unresponsive, and have sunk the roots of patronage deep. So even just flipping between the same two parties every 4 years or so will give you better government that the enduring rule by one party.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The idea is that all governments become corrupt the longer they’re in power. By the time they’ve been in power for 5+ years, they grow entitled, unresponsive, and have sunk the roots of patronage deep. So even just flipping between the same two parties every 4 years or so will give you better government that the enduring rule by one party.

I don't disagree. However, when you're only flipping between two parties, does that ever really incentivize either of them to root out the corruption, nepotism, backroom deals, etc.?

EDIT: It's also just transparently disingenuous grandstanding by some of these posters who would have been completely fine with 30 years of Harper.

[rubecube]

Not to mention the "it's time for a change for the sake of change" arguments coming from a bloc of voters who have voted for the same or a derivative of the same provincial party for over four decades, with multiple competency and corruption issues, is a bit rich (to put it mildly).

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1721604551407444114

[Johnny Makarov]

how many pouts will poor PP have today?

[Ironhorse]

BQ & Blanchet just want to see the world burn.

[Fuzz]

LOL. They have their own systems, and mostly use hydro for power. I'm not at all surprised they'd vote against. So that leaves the NDP in an awkward spot, as the vote is only symbolic now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

LOL. They have their own systems, and mostly use hydro for power. I'm not at all surprised they'd vote against. So that leaves the NDP in an awkward spot, as the vote is only symbolic now.

Its a non binding motion, so yeah its entirely symbolic. Nothing is going to change there will be no more carve outs we know that.

The only thing that is going to happen is that both sides will find more ammo for the eventual election campaign.

Liberals - "The Conservatives have voted against our awesome climate plan. PP hates nature"


Cons - "These Liberals and NDP'ers voted against affordability for their own constituents."


NDP - "We agree with Justin"

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1721544480136781842

That photo, he has one of the most punchable faces in Ottawa

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

BQ & Blanchet just want to see the world burn.

Well no... they don't want it to burn... hence their desire to not cut the tax burning things.

Like, it's the exact opposite of that.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Well no... they don't want it to burn... hence their desire to not cut the tax burning things.

Like, it's the exact opposite of that.

They don't want to see the world burn but they also didn't give a #### about the rest of Canada and voting in support of things that Canadians if it doesn't include some benefit for the Quebecois. If there is no cake for Quebec it is a no vote every time.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Well no... they don't want it to burn... hence their desire to not cut the tax burning things.

Like, it's the exact opposite of that.

You think climate change actually has anything to do with this?