Are you talking about the provincial NDP or the federal party? The provincial NDP are basically in the same position as they were going into the last provincial election.
The BC Conservatives are proving to be an absolute dumpster-fire in opposition, so they're unlikely to make gains in the areas of the province they would need to take control of government.
Provincial, and while the neoSocreds are a dumpster fire the NDP knows full well they would have been turfed out and will be turfed out by a credible opposition, at some point the right will get their #### together and it behooves Eby not to give them a stick to beat him to death with
Provincial, and while the neoSocreds are a dumpster fire the NDP knows full well they would have been turfed out and will be turfed out by a credible opposition, at some point the right will get their #### together and it behooves Eby not to give them a stick to beat him to death with
Where are you getting your info from? A quick google search shows the BC NDP have a significant fundraising advantage over the BCCP.
The most recent polling also shows that if an election were held today, that the most likely outcome would be a BC NDP majority.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Aren't you the same poster who has been bashing the NDP for the last several years for not distancing themselves from Trudeau Liberals?
Fixed.
Why yes the very same! Quite observant!
And what's your point exactly? I was clearly right that it was a horrendous move for the NDP and propping up a deeply unpopular Trudeau was an epic strategic disaster that sunk the party. Instead of making itself a viable left alternative, they choose to straddle on with Trudeau. You still can't stomach any remote criticism thrown at the NDP because they are still the closest party to your own political beliefs?
And looks like Canadians significantly distanced themselves from the NDP.
Quote:
He says 1.2 million Canadians sent New Democrats to Parliament to advocate for working families and those priorities aren’t reflected in the speech.
Quite the unique way to say that 27.3 million Canadians told the NDP to pound sand that they are out of touch and chose someone else.
Going against what Canada chose on the throne speech isn't going to win the NDP any favours with anyone outside of their partisan base. At the moment, Carney is extremely popular and the NDP deeply unpopular. Going against the throne speech on behalf the working family angle is rich, considering the party completely alienated the working class in recent years in lieu of champagne socialism and virtue signaling and had their worst election showing in history as a result.
Today's Liberals are clearly not the same party with a new leader at least at this point. Distancing itself from a party / leader that is now very popular is certainly a choice.
If they want to court the working class, they need to remember what that even means and that Canadians don't want their livelihoods jeopardized. At the moment, this means being strong against US, promote unity, and harnessing Canada into an energy superpower. Poilievre lost what was a gimmy election because he couldn't do it and too stubborn / dumb / unlikeable to figure it out.
The NDP today still is just as completely out of touch with Canadians as it was yesterday. The NDP as a party has not changed it's direction at all (the Liberals clearly have with Carney).
Why don't we counter this. Do you think this is a good move by the NDP? It seems you think it is based on your comment so let's see you elaborate.
Last edited by Firebot; 06-04-2025 at 02:23 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
You still can't stomach any remote criticism thrown at the NDP because they are still the closest party to your own political beliefs?
I have been very critical on this board. It's a shame the paragon of objective analysis around here seems to have skipped over those posts. Maybe he's not as objective as he claims to be?
Quote:
Why don't we counter this. Do you think this is a good move by the NDP? It seems you think it is based on your comment so let's see you elaborate.
If they truly think that the Throne Speech doesn't support the working class, then yes they should vote against it. If they're just playing games, then they're being dummies. Do you think a party should vote in favour of it if they think it's bad for Canadians?
Regardless, Davies needs to be a bit more specific as to why he's voting against it, and I agree that he needs to phrase it better as being against the interests of Canadians as opposed to just being against the interests of NDP voters.
It's a largely inconsequential, symbolic gesture that non one is going to remember six months from now, which is why I think it's a silly move unless they're going to get serious in terms of explaining why they voted against it.
Where are you getting your info from? A quick google search shows the BC NDP have a significant fundraising advantage over the BCCP.
The most recent polling also shows that if an election were held today, that the most likely outcome would be a BC NDP majority.
The NDP are basically coasting on a complete lack of opposition but it is a sign of BC lack of enthusiasm about Eby that he almost lost to a party of complete wack doodles with the political smarts of a dead hamster, there is a full ruling apparatus in BC that went from Socred to Liberal and at some point they will retake the right and become a credible opposition, BC is not historically a left leaning province
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 06-04-2025 at 06:42 PM.
I have been very critical on this board. It's a shame the paragon of objective analysis around here seems to have skipped over those posts. Maybe he's not as objective as he claims to be?
I am well aware that you see the NDP and Singh as right of center by your own standards and not progressive or far left enough to your liking. I am not the one who jumped here to try to call out someone just for pointing out a bad strategy by an inept political party because you couldn't stand that they would be attacked. For someone supposedly vocally critical of the NDP you sure as heck don't balance it out.
Quote:
If they truly think that the Throne Speech doesn't support the working class, then yes they should vote against it. If they're just playing games, then they're being dummies. Do you think a party should vote in favour of it if they think it's bad for Canadians?
Regardless, Davies needs to be a bit more specific as to why he's voting against it, and I agree that he needs to phrase it better as being against the interests of Canadians as opposed to just being against the interests of NDP voters.
It's a largely inconsequential, symbolic gesture that non one is going to remember six months from now, which is why I think it's a silly move unless they're going to get serious in terms of explaining why they voted against it.
Well, you will be happy to know the vote didn't occur as no one stood up to want a recorded vote when the question was asked. So all this accomplished is the NDP looking dumb as nails...once again.
The NDP isn't a recognized party per house rules so they couldn't initiate the vote even if they wanted. CPC wasn't going to (zero reason to force a vote of non confidence here) and the Bloc either. Pure parliamentary shenanigans from a party that is out of touch and chooses to remain out of touch. But hey, they secured Singh's legacy so they have that going for them which is nice.
I am well aware that you see the NDP and Singh as right of center by your own standards and not progressive or far left enough to your liking. I am not the one who jumped here to try to call out someone just for pointing out a bad strategy by an inept political party because you couldn't stand that they would be attacked. For someone supposedly vocally critical of the NDP you sure as heck don't balance it out.
Nah, I just think your "objective" analysis is a full-blown hate-boner and it comes across as tremendously disingenuous.
Quote:
But hey, they secured Singh's legacy so they have that going for them which is nice.
Case in point. Singh and the party could have cured cancer and the only relevant metric to you would have been how many seats they lost in parliament.
This is pretty gross and draconian, especially the part about allowing Canada Post to go through people's mail without a warrant.
Hopefully the SCC slaps this down as a s.8 violation.
Hate quoting myself, but I'm honestly shocked that more people aren't up in arms over this. It's a blatant assault on civil liberties and honestly something I'd expect to come from the CPC.
Not a fan of all the warrantless search stuff. Especially the voluntary information sharing and lawsuit protection. That’s ripe for abuse.
I don’t mind the asylum changes of having 14 days from the safe third country or 1 year from entering Canada. Those seem reasonable and they have left an opportunity to appeal if you are at immediate risk
Hate quoting myself, but I'm honestly shocked that more people aren't up in arms over this. It's a blatant assault on civil liberties and honestly something I'd expect to come from the CPC.
Not a fan of all the warrantless search stuff. Especially the voluntary information sharing and lawsuit protection. That’s ripe for abuse.
I don’t mind the asylum changes of having 14 days from the safe third country or 1 year from entering Canada. Those seem reasonable and they have left an opportunity to appeal if you are at immediate risk
Same. I also don't like granting additional powers to agencies with no civilian oversight, It's the Coast Guard and Border Services thou... so I could rescind any objection based on what the specific powers are. This seems like legislation that ought to go through a significantly large committee study and amendment process.
I also might want it put to the Speaker for division since "border security" seems too broad of a policy to keep it as unitary legislation (although really I just want to avoid MP's digging in and rejecting good parts to prevent the bad or accepting the bad to get the good). We'll see.
Don’t know all of the details but based on what I’ve read I have a hard time understanding how these measures are going to help with reducing the kinds of street level crime that people seem to be most concerned about.
Hate quoting myself, but I'm honestly shocked that more people aren't up in arms over this. It's a blatant assault on civil liberties and honestly something I'd expect to come from the CPC.
I don't like what I've seen of the bill either, but I don't think that tweet is quite accurate. My understanding is that the bill doesn't require that companies disclose IP addresses without a warrant, as the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy online and IP addresses are central to that. Nor does it allow the government to compel companies to hand over personal data without a warrant.
What it does do is allow the government/police to see if a person they're investigating is a client with an online service and if so, does that service have any records/data regarding the user's activity. If so, authorities could request the following without a warrant:
the province and municipality where that service was provided
the date range that the service was provided
So not particularly sensitive info, but it does open the door to fishing expeditions.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Is there a link to the bill? I hate how media/posters always give their opinion or interpretation but don't show any of the actual wording. I try not to let people tell me how I should feel about that kind of stuff, rather read it for myself.
Nah, I just think your "objective" analysis is a full-blown hate-boner and it comes across as tremendously disingenuous.
Oh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
It's a blatant assault on civil liberties and honestly something I'd expect to come from the CPC.
You can't help yourself.
CPC aren't even involved and your full-blown hate-boner on them can't even wait a post to bash them and associate them on something they have nothing to do with.. Do we need to bring up the hundreds of times you bring up the ever eternal Harper boogeyman?
Did you somehow forget the online harms bill which stomped on civil liberties? This is absolutely very Liberal-esque (and by association very NDP-esque for supporting it). This is not out of the norm but hey glad you are paying attention for this one, as it's cause for concern.
Quote:
Case in point. Singh and the party could have cured cancer and the only relevant metric to you would have been how many seats they lost in parliament.
They didn't cure cancer
It's a political party for crying out loud, not the messiah. Not sure why you hold them to such a high pedestal for campaigning for free services (dental plan / pharma care) which were possible because Liberals needed a pawn to push their own nefarious bills and agendas. They deserve the criticism their way for poor leadership and strategy (and accolades which I have also stated about the dental plan being beneficial and positive). That you get so butt hurt over someone questioning their tactics is quite telling.
CPC aren't even involved and your full-blown hate-boner on them can't even wait a post to bash them and associate them on something they have nothing to do with.. Do we need to bring up the hundreds of times you bring up the ever eternal Harper boogeyman?
I hate to defend him, but the omnibus crime bill (Bill C-10) passed by the Harper Conservatives back in 2012 is a pretty good parallel if you're looking for examples of overreaching legislation like this.
I hate to defend him, but the omnibus crime bill (Bill C-10) passed by the Harper Conservatives back in 2012 is a pretty good parallel if you're looking for examples of overreaching legislation like this.
There's plenty of bills to look towards as controversial in the past (Michael Geist mentions another CPC bill in his latest article).
I have no issues with putting criticism where it's due, but this new bill isn't a CPC bill. It's also omitting some of the stuff Liberals themselves have tabled in recent years, and to say "i would expect this from the CPC" is passing as if the Liberals / NDP are above this or have some type of higher virtuous presence.
CPC aren't even involved and your full-blown hate-boner on them can't even wait a post to bash them and associate them on something they have nothing to do with.. Do we need to bring up the hundreds of times you bring up the ever eternal Harper boogeyman?
Did you somehow forget the online harms bill which stomped on civil liberties? This is absolutely very Liberal-esque (and by association very NDP-esque for supporting it). This is not out of the norm but hey glad you are paying attention for this one, as it's cause for concern.
They didn't cure cancer
It's a political party for crying out loud, not the messiah. Not sure why you hold them to such a high pedestal for campaigning for free services (dental plan / pharma care) which were possible because Liberals needed a pawn to push their own nefarious bills and agendas. They deserve the criticism their way for poor leadership and strategy (and accolades which I have also stated about the dental plan being beneficial and positive). That you get so butt hurt over someone questioning their tactics is quite telling.
Jesus Christ. This entire post is an exhausting exercise in terrible reading comprehension.
I think I'm over wasting my time replying to someone who needs multiple posts to still interpret basic points incorrectly.
Last edited by rubecube; 06-05-2025 at 01:48 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
. Do we need to bring up the hundreds of times you bring up the ever eternal Harper boogeyman?
