Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Which policy was the toxic one? And which was the destructive? I keep hearing about these toxic and destructive policies but no one knows what they are. One person said the "carbon tax" which is hilarious because that is neither toxic nor destructive (and it was a Harper policy anyway).

Really, this is the game plan? Fingers in ears, lalala and all that?

You can obviously say any policy is or isn't destructive based on what you value and what is being destroyed.

Example: If you value environmentalism over economic development, then the tanker ban is not destructive. If you value economic development more, than it is.

There is a reason the Liberals ejected Trudeau. He bet on policies that he thought we not destructive to Canadians, and in turn he very nearly caused them to lose the election.

It's why Carney is here, why he is changing Liberal policy, because it's has been widely recognized that the Trudeau Liberals made seriously bad bets on policy.

I didn't even think this was debatable but here we are I guess.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Really, this is the game plan? Fingers in ears, lalala and all that?

You can obviously say any policy is or isn't destructive based on what you value and what is being destroyed.

Example: If you value environmentalism over economic development, then the tanker ban is not destructive. If you value economic development more, than it is.

There is a reason the Liberals ejected Trudeau. He bet on policies that he thought we not destructive to Canadians, and in turn he very nearly caused them to lose the election.

It's why Carney is here, why he is changing Liberal policy, because it's has been widely recognized that the Trudeau Liberals made seriously bad bets on policy.

Which policy is destructive or toxic? At worst the tanker "ban" is inconvenient. "Oh no, tankers can carry 12,500 or less tons of crude but not 12,501 or more tons. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" (not an actual ban on tankers)

The Trudeau haters come out with these absurd sweeping statements, generalizations, and no solid examples or facts. Personally, I have a pile of reasons that I was not a fan of Trudeau and a pile of reasons that I am glad he was PM for the last 10 years (especially when you look at the alternatives the CPC put forth) but my position is backed with facts instead of feelings. Unfortunately, I think the best policies that Trudeau put forth were actually NDP policies as they used their leverage to get things done for the people but do not get credit for the outcomes.

As a Carney supporter, I am glad to have an adult in charge of the country instead of a childish fearmongering slogan machine. I find it hilarious that Trudeau was the one to bring Carney in and many conservatives are celebrating Carney but trying to forget that Trudeau is why Carney is here. The Liberals knew that incumbent governments were getting wrecked in elections around the world because of inflation and cost of living and it became obvious that the only way they were going to survive their election was with a significant leadership change.

As for policy, I think Carney's policies so far have all been double edged swords where the first half of the policy looks great and the second half looks terrible. For example, the border security bill was solid and reasonable in the first half. Beef up the border, more people, drones, or whatever. The second half of the bill basically said that we no longer have privacy on the internet and all of our data was going to be served up to Trump. uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

But really, if you guys cannot list some policies that the Trudeau Liberals put forth or why they were "toxic and destructive" then maybe you need to reflect on why you are saying that? Is it because you do not know any better and are just parroting what the conservative propaganda machine has been yelling into your facebook/instagram/postmedia feeds?

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I didn't even think this was debatable but here we are I guess.

Start thinking for yourself.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I didn't even think this was debatable but here we are I guess.

Anyone who debated your political positions over the last year about Trudeau, Carney, Trump, etc are looking pretty astute in comparison so you should probably be open and eager to hearing and truly considering what virtually anyone else has to say.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Really, this is the game plan? Fingers in ears, lalala and all that?

You can obviously say any policy is or isn't destructive based on what you value and what is being destroyed.

Example: If you value environmentalism over economic development, then the tanker ban is not destructive. If you value economic development more, than it is.

There is a reason the Liberals ejected Trudeau. He bet on policies that he thought we not destructive to Canadians, and in turn he very nearly caused them to lose the election.

It's why Carney is here, why he is changing Liberal policy, because it's has been widely recognized that the Trudeau Liberals made seriously bad bets on policy.

I didn't even think this was debatable but here we are I guess.

This post is funny. So lacking in self awareness. Asked to named policies which were bad, and proceeds not to name one, but instead accusing people of not listening. Then assuming the concept that Liberals had bad policies was beyond debate.

BTW, the ban didn't even really change things because there was a longstanding informal voluntary tanker exclusion zone since 1985 which all the companies honoured. So there was no destructiveness.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Which policy was the toxic one? And which was the destructive? I keep hearing about these toxic and destructive policies but no one knows what they are. One person said the "carbon tax" which is hilarious because that is neither toxic nor destructive (and it was a Harper policy anyway).

What is a radical centrist? I mean, it doesn't mean anything so I cannot fathom how it could possibly be traditional. Is a radical centrist just a new way of saying radical corporatist? (someone who doesn't care about big or small government and is only there to steal public money for corporations)

Also, which direction is the "right" direction? Is it the one where your life gets deprioritized for corporate profits?

You said a lot of interesting things in one post but none of it really meant anything... I think you were trying to take a conservative victory lap?

Someone clearly has been sleeping on what Carney and others have been saying since the changing of the guard. Maybe you should ask Liberal and former PM Jean Chretien what radical centrist is? It's also a lengthy page in wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/arti...adical-centre/

"It is a fundamental condition for the party to come back to be the radical centre, as I used to say, because it is what has been the Liberal party all along," Chretien said in an exclusive interview with CTV Question Period airing Sunday.

But since Trudeau's resignation announcement, some Liberal MPs have publicly expressed a desire to see the party move more to the political centre.

"It's critically important that we choose somebody that's middle of the road, understands the needs of Canadians and will put Canadians first," Ontario MP Judy Sgro said to reporters on Wednesday ahead of a caucus meeting.

"As we go forward, I think Canadians want us to continue to look at ways to support their priorities while also being fiscally responsible," Ontario MP Charles Sousa said Wednesday. "I am very keen on ensuring that we concentrate on the economy as we move ahead."

Asked by host Vassy Kapelos about those views, Chretien said, "I think the party is coming back there, I'm sure."

Simply put, many in the Liberal camp detested just how far left the Liberal party shifted under Trudeau, especially in recent years with their alliance with the NDP that led them into an ideological black hole. Carney utilizes time and time again the term "previous government" to be able to criticize Trudeau policies, especially on economics.

Liberals clearly aren't the same as under Trudeau and are significantly further right than said folks want to admit. Some of the fringe left posters love to pretend that 'centrist' or 'radical centrist' is meaningless, yet this is exactly what Canadians chose this election, something that I have continuously stressed we haven't had for over a decade (and it could be argued two).

[PepsiFree]

I agree. The fringe left are attacking the existence of traditional radical centrists! They’re denying our existence! We are Liberals! We are proud!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Liberals clearly aren't the same as under Trudeau and are significantly further right than said folks want to admit. Some of the fringe left posters love to pretend that 'centrist' or 'radical centrist' is meaningless, yet this is exactly what Canadians chose this election, something that I have continuously stressed we haven't had for over a decade (and it could be argued two).

Those tems are meaningless. Politicians keep you pre-occupied with divisive buzzwords because if you call it what you really want it to mean, that is people who take an unbiased pragmatic approach to policy decisions, most politicans will almost certainly alienate that group at some point.

Being a member of a political party where you’re expected to tow the party line essentially disqualifies any of them by default.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Simply put, many in the Liberal camp detested just how far left the Liberal party shifted under Trudeau, especially in recent years with their alliance with the NDP that led them into an ideological black hole. Carney utilizes time and time again the term "previous government" to be able to criticize Trudeau policies, especially on economics.

Liberals clearly aren't the same as under Trudeau and are significantly further right than said folks want to admit. Some of the fringe left posters love to pretend that 'centrist' or 'radical centrist' is meaningless, yet this is exactly what Canadians chose this election, something that I have continuously stressed we haven't had for over a decade (and it could be argued two).

lol. To be a "radical" you need to be on the extreme, far-reaching, or driving thorough or complete political or social change. Radical centrist doesn't mean anything. The only thing radical about the Liberals is how Corporatist they can be.

The biggest deviations from the normal Liberal playbook that happened under Trudeau was that they implemented more policies that helped people instead of corporations than they usually do. To a group of corporatists that would be an ideological black hole I suppose... but to parents who have more affordable childcare, people benefiting from dental care, and potheads, the NDP influence on the Liberals was pretty great. (The pothead thing might be 100% Trudeau and not the NDP, I don't know)

The problem is, unless you are one of the billionaires, supporting corporatists (either Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat) is a dangerous game where you are really just hoping that they will give you a small percentage of the improvements that they promise to the people while they vacuum up all of the money into the interests of the richest few. Look at the tax cuts planned by the different parties. You are probably going to see a $1000 tax break while the richest people are going to see a $500,000+ tax break. Fair, right?

I am saying all of this while I firmly believe that this last election was good because in every way possible Carney's Liberals are superior to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives.

However, there is room to be concerned about how things are going to go under this government. The second half of the border security bill is a great example of where you should be concerned. On top of that, we are putting a LOT of money into military and economy and unless the Liberals start taxing the rich and the corporations more (which they won't do) they won't have the revenue to pay for all of this, which means services are going to suffer (or the debt will skyrocket).

[CliffFletcher]

While the Liberals have undoubtedly shifted towards the centre under Carney, I don’t think the departure of several high profile Liberal MPs has anything to do with ideology. Freeland, Wilkinson, etc. could have stayed on as MPs if they wanted to - nobody pushed them out.

But they were Trudeau loyalists, and when a new leader takes over a party it’s normal to see this kind of voluntary changing of the guard. When you’ve been in a PM’s inner circle, it’s hard to go back to being a rank-and-file MP.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While the Liberals have undoubtedly shifted towards the centre under Carney, I don’t think the departure of several high profile Liberal MPs has anything to do with ideology. Freeland, Wilkinson, etc. could have stayed on as MPs if they wanted to - nobody pushed them out.

But they were Trudeau loyalists, and when a new leader takes over a party it’s normal to see this kind of voluntary changing of the guard. When you’ve been in a PM’s inner circle, it’s hard to go back to being a rank-and-file MP.

I can't think of any federal example but here in Nova Scotia when Tim Houston became leader of the PC party two VERY popular MLAs stepped down. They both campaigned for their successors during the by-elections and had remained active in the party (both ran federally afterwards) but it seems a changing of the guard with regard to new leader and after lengthy time in the house it was time for the old dogs to move on rather than learn new tricks. (I call them old dogs and new tricks for the analogy of change and not comment on the MLAs or policies themselves).

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While the Liberals have undoubtedly shifted towards the centre under Carney, I don’t think the departure of several high profile Liberal MPs has anything to do with ideology. Freeland, Wilkinson, etc. could have stayed on as MPs if they wanted to - nobody pushed them out.

But they were Trudeau loyalists, and when a new leader takes over a party it’s normal to see this kind of voluntary changing of the guard. When you’ve been in a PM’s inner circle, it’s hard to go back to being a rank-and-file MP.

lol what? Loyalists?

Freeland was literally the person who brought Trudeau down. Were none of you paying attention to how that came about?

Freeland is being offered a job to lead the Ukraine Envoy. She is being given an important job to do (by Carney).

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While the Liberals have undoubtedly shifted towards the centre under Carney, I don’t think the departure of several high profile Liberal MPs has anything to do with ideology. Freeland, Wilkinson, etc. could have stayed on as MPs if they wanted to - nobody pushed them out.

But they were Trudeau loyalists, and when a new leader takes over a party it’s normal to see this kind of voluntary changing of the guard. When you’ve been in a PM’s inner circle, it’s hard to go back to being a rank-and-file MP.

You know she quit his government after he removed her as the Finance Minister, right? I wouldn't call Freeland a Trudeau loyalist.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that nobody pushed them out and this was just a natural changing of the guard situation? You could be right, but what's it based on?

[Johnny Makarov]

Freeland gets such a bad rap. Carney as PM is great but I would have had zero problems with her being PM.

[calgarygeologist]

Big changes coming to Canada Post:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liv...ival-9.6916329

The Latest
-The federal government is allowing Canada Post to end home delivery and close some rural post offices in a bid to help the corporation's failing financial picture.
-Ottawa says the carrier is “effectively insolvent” and it’s unsustainable to depend on government bailouts for help.
-The minister of government transformation, public works and procurement is addressing new measures to advance the “transformation.”
-The mail carrier has been struggling with dire financial challenges, having lost $1 billion in 2024 alone and is on track to lose more.
-Letter volume has dropped considerably over the last decade, though the number of Canadian addresses has increased.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Big changes coming to Canada Post:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liv...ival-9.6916329

They should go on strike for more money.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Big changes coming to Canada Post:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liv...ival-9.6916329

good

[Party Elephant]

How is rural canadians being cut off from yet another public service good?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

How is rural canadians being cut off from yet another public service good?

ending home delivery is good, though. It's no longer needed and has been a waste of money for many years now.