Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Yes things did happen and change did in fact occur, and I even changed with it (think I've said it for several months that things have changed). So here: Clap clap.

To which I give you full credit. What was the point? Mostly entertainment, I was actually surprised at how closely what I said played out. But also, as noted, to gently remind not to count chickens before they hatch, and that politics is a funny thing where things can change in a week, let alone a few months or a year.

I threw your quote in there because it was so brash and insulting, which makes it even funnier in retrospect. But there’s no hard feelings, full respect to you for being open to changing your mind as the winds changed, even if you were mocking me for saying they could

It’s always more fun when we’re on the same side of a discussion anyway!

[Reggie Dunlop]

Poilievre won't survive a leadership review, whenever that happens. Too many ruthless ambitious people will be after his job.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Poilievre won't survive a leadership review, whenever that happens. Too many ruthless ambitious people will be after his job.

He should have stepped down last night.

I might have actually respected him if he acknowledges his riding no longer wanted him to represent him.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Pepsi also had some pretty bad takes about how the NDP / LPC support deal was going to work out great for the NDP, IIRC.

How does one find the previous iteration of this thread? I want to go back and see what I said about PP at the beginning and find out if I was wildly wrong.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As a socialist, I'd be very excited to hear which socialist views are part of Carney's agenda.

Do you mind elaborating?

oooo I know this one!

Carney is very much against the way society currently interacts with the market. He sees the values of the market as overriding the values of people, and how we have become too beholden to monetary prices over actual values. This to me is in direct opposition to the Neoliberal movement of the last 40 years. Many of todays problems, he sees as a result of this over acceptance and overreliance on "the market" as a solution to our woes.

He sees climate change as being the biggest threat to humanity. He feels that we are treading on dangerous ground of today's generation leaving not just the costs of debt, but the costs of our planet. Our consumption of fossil fuels have a cost higher than a carbon tax, but since we are not the ones to bear that cost (our grandchildren will), we are disincentivized to do anything about it.

To combat a threat like this, Carney sees government intervention as a necessity to the market. The government should make up the values of the people, and using those values, guide the market to do our bidding, not do the bidding of the market to increase it's value. The private market has flexibility and agility that governments do not, but they work purely for the profit and value of capital.

He is very much for the way Covid was handled. How people's values of life were tantamount to the pure mathematical reasoning that the market would have placed on it. We, in that moment, sacrificed the economic values for the moral ones to keep people safe.

Neoliberal thought basically said, we can speed up this car if we remove the brakes and the steering wheel.. and the faster the car goes the better. Without thinking of the passengers. Carney's focus is on the passengers and how can we design the car to best suit them. Driving a car is faster than walking (the free market is better than a centralized economy), but it must be tethered and designed to suit out needs.. not just strap us in for the ride.

I probably rambled too much there. But I don't think he is your standard "elitist banker", and the Libertarians on the right should be worried, because he may want to balance the (operational) budget, but he not the man to step aside and let the market reign. At least that's what I've gathered from reading his book and listening to his lectures long before he was part of the government.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Pepsi also had some pretty bad takes about how the NDP / LPC support deal was going to work out great for the NDP, IIRC.

How does one find the previous iteration of this thread? I want to go back and see what I said about PP at the beginning and find out if I was wildly wrong.

If anything this election showed that the NDP LPC support deal was indeed the will of the people. Not some anti Democratic authoritarianism as the CPC tried to spin.

[MacDaddy77]

Actually he said EXTREME socialist. So yes, I'm also curious.[/QUOTE]

I never said they make up Carneys agenda, I said they make up a part of the liberal party agenda, There are extreme views on each of the CPC and LPC, I'm not stating there isn't for each party.

What I hope is that Carney can be a more centered representative

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I never said they make up Carneys agenda, I said they make up a part of the liberal party agenda, There are extreme views on each of the CPC and LPC, I'm not stating there isn't for each party.

What I hope is that Carney can be a more centered representative

Which part(s)?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Which part(s)?

The pro-woke agenda parts............

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Pepsi also had some pretty bad takes about how the NDP / LPC support deal was going to work out great for the NDP, IIRC.

How does one find the previous iteration of this thread? I want to go back and see what I said about PP at the beginning and find out if I was wildly wrong.

Funny enough, my worst takes were praising Poilievre and his potential as a leader early on. As I said earlier, I think I might have the kiss of death for Conservative leaders. If I think they’ll be good at some point, they’ll lose.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I probably rambled too much there. But I don't think he is your standard "elitist banker", and the Libertarians on the right should be worried, because he may want to balance the (operational) budget, but he not the man to step aside and let the market reign. At least that's what I've gathered from reading his book and listening to his lectures long before he was part of the government.

I understand all that. None of that is really "socialism" though. Government intervention /= socialism (I know you know this). Conservatives also intervene in the market, just usually on the side of big business.

[rubecube]

In case you actually believed that PP and the CPC were trying to distance themselves from the truckers, this ####ing loser went to PP HQ last night to stream.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1916981180542685676

[Paulie Walnuts]

The crying from Smith and Alberta is hilarious always. If you want a better relationship, and better government stop voting in these human scum like Smith so we have a leader who can be an adult, and not do shady dealings, looking like an absolute ass clown every time she opens her mouth, or isn't in the US at Trumps feet.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I never said they make up Carneys agenda, I said they make up a part of the liberal party agenda, There are extreme views on each of the CPC and LPC, I'm not stating there isn't for each party.

What I hope is that Carney can be a more centered representative

Where?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by belsarius

oooo I know this one!

Carney is very much against the way society currently interacts with the market. He sees the values of the market as overriding the values of people, and how we have become too beholden to monetary prices over actual values. This to me is in direct opposition to the Neoliberal movement of the last 40 years. Many of todays problems, he sees as a result of this over acceptance and overreliance on "the market" as a solution to our woes.

He sees climate change as being the biggest threat to humanity. He feels that we are treading on dangerous ground of today's generation leaving not just the costs of debt, but the costs of our planet. Our consumption of fossil fuels have a cost higher than a carbon tax, but since we are not the ones to bear that cost (our grandchildren will), we are disincentivized to do anything about it.

To combat a threat like this, Carney sees government intervention as a necessity to the market. The government should make up the values of the people, and using those values, guide the market to do our bidding, not do the bidding of the market to increase it's value. The private market has flexibility and agility that governments do not, but they work purely for the profit and value of capital.

He is very much for the way Covid was handled. How people's values of life were tantamount to the pure mathematical reasoning that the market would have placed on it. We, in that moment, sacrificed the economic values for the moral ones to keep people safe.

Neoliberal thought basically said, we can speed up this car if we remove the brakes and the steering wheel.. and the faster the car goes the better. Without thinking of the passengers. Carney's focus is on the passengers and how can we design the car to best suit them. Driving a car is faster than walking (the free market is better than a centralized economy), but it must be tethered and designed to suit out needs.. not just strap us in for the ride.

I probably rambled too much there. But I don't think he is your standard "elitist banker", and the Libertarians on the right should be worried, because he may want to balance the (operational) budget, but he not the man to step aside and let the market reign. At least that's what I've gathered from reading his book and listening to his lectures long before he was part of the government.

Absolutely nailed it. I really wish people would read his book. If all you think of him as is "elite banker" you miss so much of how this guy thinks. He's a pretty devout catholic, and obviously Pope Francis made a big impact on him, and I'm cool with that. Jesuits are like pragmatic catholics.

Part 2 is kind of boring, but I noticed some things he said about 'overwhelming force' when it comes to responding to a crisis and ensuring you have a plan. This is where Marlania needs to understand that she needs to be a participant in the plan. But I'm sure he's got something in mind for when she inevitably tries to make herself into the main character.

It's also clear to me that he's read Team of Teams by Gen. Stanley McChrystal which made a huge impact on my own leadership style. He also preaches servant leadership, which resonates with me as well. I really hope for the guy who wrote that book to be the guy who leads us, because I really like the way that guy thinks. I'm guessing that there's a lot of pragmatic things he's done/said to help get elected.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I never said they make up Carneys agenda, I said they make up a part of the liberal party agenda, There are extreme views on each of the CPC and LPC, I'm not stating there isn't for each party.

What I hope is that Carney can be a more centered representative

The Liberal party is not like the Democratic Party in the US. There are a few progressive Liberals like Gould but any real progressives are likely not in the Liberals as they can be in the NDP.

And if the NDP is not socialist enough for them, they can join the Green party, or even the Communist party.

This is the problem with the Conservative party trying to "both sides" conversations like the Republicans do. When there are many parties the "both sides" argument doesn't really work because there are more than 2 sides to the political landscape.

[MissTeeks]

That didn’t take long.

https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2025/04...ration-canada/

A day after Canada’s Liberals won a fourth consecutive mandate, Alberta’s government has introduced a bill that would make it easier to start a referendum – including one on separating from Canada.

“We were going to introduce it regardless of what the outcome was,” said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. “It just so happens that this is the timing now that we’re back from a week of constituency break.”

Bill 54 proposes many changes to Alberta’s election rules. Among them is lowering the threshold for a citizen-led referendum to 10 per cent of people who voted in the last election. It would currently take 20 per cent of eligible voters.

The bill would also allow 120 days to gather those signatures – a boost from 90 days.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

There will be a lot of people thinking that this result proves the CPC should move center etc. I would counter that, they got over 41% of the popular vote. That's more than any party has received since Brian Mulroney's 1988 win. Unless the NDP is essentially wiped out forever, the electoral math for the Tories will still be to keep the right unified, inclusive of that ~5-10% group that would otherwise vote PPC to prevent any cleaving of the right vote. This means you're going to continue to see the same kind of politics from them to keep that flank engaged.

I get what you’re saying. The CPC definitely won’t want to lose the far right by shifting to the centre - the PPC got almost 6 per cent of the vote share in the last election and this time around they were reduced to less than 1 per cent. Pretty clear where those votes went, and why Poilievre worked so hard to lock down his flank.

However, last night exposed a problem the federal Conservatives have faced for decades: since the formation of the Bloc, they’ve been locked out of Quebec and its 78 seats. Meanwhile, the Liberals can tap into that pool when the Conservatives look scary to Quebecers.

The means the CPC needs big stonking gains in Ontario to pull out a win. But under Poilievre’s brand of belligerent leadership, they can’t even make nice with Ontario’s Conservatives.

So I guess the strategy is to just wait it out until the Canadian electorate is so sick of term after term after term of the Liberals that they’ll vote for any viable alternative. Which seems like more of a hope than a plan.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Poilievre won't survive a leadership review, whenever that happens. Too many ruthless ambitious people will be after his job.

Andrew Coyne remarked last night that even if the CPC caucus revolts against Poilievre, the base might stick with him. He has very strong support among the hardcore populists. Party strategists, insiders, and donors no longer run the Conservative Party.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Andrew Coyne remarked last night that even if the CPC caucus revolts against Poilievre, the base might stick with him. He has very strong support among the hardcore populists. Party strategists, insiders, and donors no longer run the Conservative Party.

I forsee a Reform Party time split.