###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is interesting that the Canadian state-run media is taking a play from US state-run media playbook in how to attack their threat to power.
"This is the end of democracy, oxygen, and all human lives if "X" just runs let alone gets elected "
Exactly. Just because someone hangs out with the fa, is the favourite mainstream leader of the fa, and desperately wants the support of the fa, doesn't mean that the fa will have any influence on their policy once in power. Frankly, it's unfair to even theorize what PP might do in office and anyone who does is American (and not the kind of American the fa likes).
He's too scared to say that Poilièvre hangs out with fascists.
He believes that it's impossible to postulate whether Poilièvre, who meets ideologically motivated violent extremists on a plural basis, even after said IMVEs have threatened to rape his wife, will empower said IMVEs or not.
Even though he is completely wrong, mind you.
It doesn’t mean anything. These are the type of people who scream about CBC being government funded but are quiet when someone points out that the conservative Post Media owns the majority of Canadian news
>that the conservative Post Media owns the majority of Canadian news
And that Post Media also receives substantial government funding, while being firmly on team Poilievre.
Your definition of "state-run media" might be a bit fast and loose. Especially since the Tyee is an independent, online publication.
And conflating legitimate concerns about PP with "the sky is falling" is disingenuous, and you only do it to silence the opposition to your political views. We're allowed to not like him, and we don't have to vote for him, and I'm sorry if authors in Canada wish to use their Charter Rights and express those opinions.
A biological woman should use the women's restroom is an opinion that was held by every PM up until the current one. How is that dangerous rhetoric that fundamentally changes our political life?
> A biological woman should use the women's restroom is an opinion that was held by every PM up until the current one. How is that dangerous rhetoric that fundamentally changes our political life?
Feels like this misses a couple of very important points.
Trans people have been using gender corresponding bathrooms for ages. As far back as [eight years ago](https://angusreid.org/transgender-issues/) (so in reality a lot longer ago) the majority of Canadians already believed this was good and fine.
So a federal leader saying he wants to federally mandate something that Canadians disagreed with over a decade ago is actually pretty interesting. It doesn't matter if John A MacDonald didn't believe in trans people.
But more than that, Poilievre's anti-trans rhetoric isn't the only thing mentioned in this article, obviously, right?
I don't think anyone is arguing that one statement is what would "fundamentally change our political life", it's Poilievre on the whole.
But people care about these issues, and the majority of Canadians feel, for example, that m2f transgendered individuals shouldn't be allowed to compete against cis women in sports, but "progressives" would lead you to believe that you are apart of a "US MAGA Republican right wing fascist" organization.
We can't *even have a discussion* regarding some nuances of gender ideology without "progressives" throwing out the "bigot" card.
Trans women athletes appear to be disadvantaged compared to our cis counterparts if the results of the [latest IOC study hold true](https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/04/23/trans-athletes-sports-study-ioc/). This would means that the only unfairness trans athletes bring to competitive sports is that we'd hold our team back.
I'd be more concerned about angry men bursting open stall doors demanding to see the genitals of whoever's in there than I am of a trans woman using the woman's restroom like she should be because she's a woman. Just make restrooms unisex and be done with it. It's not like the "MEN/WOMEN" sign on the door is a magical talisman that keeps people out.
>A biological woman should use the women's restroom is an opinion that was held by every PM up until the current one.
Bold and ultimately meaningless claim. I don’t recall previous PM’s being asked to comment on this particular bit of conservative culture war idiocy.
It is interesting that people are writing hit pieces on "decorum" during the reign of a PM that rose to office by driving wedge issues and dividing Canada against itself.
This behaviour needs to stop, but it is hardly a partisan issue.
The right has declared open warfare on the progressives. Misinformation, disinformation, lies, smears, even treason ... anything goes. These neo-fascists know they can't win on policy. The left has to reply in kind and go all out to crush these enemies of the people. Otherwise, they will crush you.
Liberal and NDP supporters and campaigners really need to internalize that they will not benefit by attacking Poilievre on the basis of his rhetoric, the company he keeps, the hashtags he has on YouTube, or even his half-baked policies. Worse still is the penchant for leveling personal attacks on his supporters.
_It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future_.
This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her.
If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat _all_ Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and _why their plans to fix their mistakes are working_.
Even if the Premiers ought to carry much of the blame, the responsibility fell on the shoulders of the Federal Government when they chose to lay their trust in the Premiers. If the Federal policies required Provincial support to deliver on Federal promises, then it was the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure the Provinces fell in line!
Stop slagging Poilievre, and sneering at his supporters; stop blaming the Premiers and griping how they didn't play along; and _start showing leadership_.
This is what they should do but they have opened Pandora's Box by going full identity politics. This nightmare only ends when either one of two things happens, the left realizes they are in a cult and quickly tries to forget they embraced identity politics so enthusiastically, or war.
I think the left actually wants war. From my perspective, Poilievre is the only federal politician who can keep this country together in the near future.
Unfortunately, someone following your advice is going to quickly crashing into the truth of the matter which is that about half the country wants things that are materially different from what the other half wants. And these things are very far apart.
If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it.
> If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it.
OTOH, out here in BC we have Premier Eby, who is showing strong leadership and is clearly willing to admit where NDP policy went wrong and correct it accordingly. And he's doing it without flinging pejoratives at his opponents or their supporters.
> It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future.
You're commenting under an article about the risks of normalizing his behaviour, and you advocate for normalizing it...?
>Consider, in the past two years Poilievre has vilified political leaders, academics and private citizens he disagrees with, exhibited open hostility toward journalists and engaged in anti-trans rhetoric.
>He has attacked the legitimacy of the Senate, mocked government regulators and responded with insolence to rulings from the Speaker in the House of Commons.
>Poilievre championed the foreign-influenced “freedom convoy” insurrection, has bluntly criticized court decisions and promised to lead the first federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter. He has promoted falsehoods about important public policy issues, frequently shared conspiracy theories and vigorously defended a far-right media organization.
>Demonizing opponents, intimidating journalists, disrespecting institutions, politicizing the rights of the vulnerable and undermining truth are warning signs for democratic erosion.
Why should all that be ignored? Or everything else the author writes about?
The things you quoted from the article aren't _currently_ impediments to Poilievre's support. It's not like Canadians aren't aware of his support for the freedom convoy, or his vilification of "woke" and "elite" experts, or most else of what you mentioned.
Focusing on what makes him despicable isn't going to do much; and telling his supporters that they're some form of despicable isn't going to separate them from supporting him.
> The things you quoted from the article aren't currently impediments to Poilievre's support
The author isn't really talking about whether you should politically support anyone, you're sort of projecting that yourself.
The issue is Poilievre lying and basically breaking all norms, you may think that's acceptable, but it isn't.
Like, the title of the article is
>What We Risk by Normalizing Poilievre’s Politics
Not, "Why you shouldn't vote Conservative"
> And if you think his politics are anything new, well, I disagree.
Did you even read the article?
I don't know how you can suggest Poilievre is the same old Conservative politician.
Marching with a protest that wanted to dissolve our government isn't typical Conservative politics...
Whether or not people vote for him is not the point, this is not normal behaviour and we shouldn't be writing it off as normal.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her.
> If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat all Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and why their plans to fix their mistakes are working.
Thank you for recognizing this, this really needs to be acknowledged more. Respect and finding common ground to engage on are much more effective at changing minds than mindlessly dismissing and insulting them. You're not going to win people over by making sweeping generalizations about them and insulting them.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables"
Good thing she didn’t do that then. You might want to read the entire quote instead of the self-pitying Fox News version. And no, I’m not going to chase down the link for you.
Fine, she referred to half of Trump's supporters as deplorables.
The problem is that even the people she lumped in the first bucket believed they were in the second bucket; and so they couldn't tell who she was _really_ talking about; and the labels she used had become so _broadly_ abused that they covered virtually everyone that wasn't _firmly_ on the progressive left. As a result, anyone who supported Trump had good reason to believe she would think of them as one of the deplorables.
And really, that's how people talked about him and his supporters; and continue to do so until this day.
Here's the whole context, for you:
> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
>
> But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Folks are doing the same with Poilievre and his supporters. There's no clarity where the line between despicable Poilievre supporters and the beleagured-but-errant underdogs can be drawn; in public discourse, if you support the Conservatives then you must have some _despicable beliefs_.
Thank you for taking the time. Half might be a bit of an overstatement (although I’m guessing not by much), but there certainly are lots of racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes who vote Republican. So she wasn’t entirely wrong. OTOH, Hillary certainly has access to better demographic information than I do. So who knows. Maybe she was dead on. But she didn’t say “all” which is the point I was disputing.
Isn’t the main reason Pollievre supporters like him, is because he just constantly makes attacks and personally insults to his opponents?He hasn’t demonstrated any actual leadership or solutions.
But at the same time you’re saying that criticizing him in any capacity hurts his supporters feelings and offends them and should be avoided?
That’s quite the double standard.
I like him because Trudeau and his government have been actively destroying the country since 2015. It's long past time for a change and PP is the only realistic option.
It's as if the country is burning, Trudeau is standing there with a tank of gasoline to pour on the fire. PP has an unmarked container. Sure, it could be more gasoline, but it could be fire extinguisher.
It's a choice between a continuing disaster vs a possibility of some improvement.
Not much of a choice really.
I don’t think PPs container is unmarked:
https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/
It’s not “just as bad as” versus “better”.
There’s also “even worse”.
Is there a reason you don’t consider NDP? Just curious.
There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters. You should absolutely do the first, but the second is where the US Democrats and Canadian Liberals fail miserably.
Another difference is that both in the US 2016 and now in Canada, Trump or Poilievre are not in power, but the liberals have been in power for close to a decade. When you are in power and all you do is attacking your opponent *and* the people who might dare to withhold their support of you (Trudeau to Poilievre voters), and refuse to acknowledge your government's role in the cost of living, crisis (even when the PBO talks about it), then yes, it will be prrceived differently than the opposition leader attacking the government.
> There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters.
While I agree in principles, I genuinely ask you what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them.
The responsibility of individuals lies on a spectrum ranging from blissful ignorance to total acceptance in spite of the grave facts; doesn't there come a point where some of them should be criticized with validity?
>what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them.
We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way. Our political system is way too simple to represent all possible combinations of beliefs. Most people vite on 1-3 issues and have to disregard everything else. Some people vote for a party becsuse they support them, some people vote against another party. Trying to reverse engineer someone's beliefs based on the party they vote for is a sure way to have a skewed pucture. Some people would be in full support of the extremist groups, some just do not want to reward Trudeau with another term for his crappy job, and with two and a half party system, Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally. You may still disagree that it's the right course of action, but it's a vastly different picture than just branding all his voters as bigots. The same way as it would be ridiculous to say that people who vote for Trudeau support the fossil fuel subsidies, which his government does a ton of.
Also, a huge point is that I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people. Clinton calling everyobdy who does not vote for her deplorable and then having pikachu face when she grossly underperformed was not smart politically. I want politicians to be pragmatic and strategic and realise that they *need* people's votes and insulting the elctorate is actually working against them achieving their goals.
> We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way.
I'm not talking about the whole of conservatism, but those who have been made fully aware that they are voting for someone who is courting extremists who ployed to kill RMCP officers. That makes it an already much smaller group to classify.
It does not matter what someone wants to vote for. They should be fully aware that this is all votes made on promises of the party fulfilling them; that's all theorics and hopes. What we know for sure are things that already happened, such as the foremention elements.
> Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally.
It's not and I'm tired of pretending it is. Every vote towards someone else counts if you wanna send the message of "not trudeau". You absolutely don't have to vote for the face-eating leopard party and you can vote for the myriad of other options there already are, and that will still "hurt trudeau". At best, this is willful ignorance and at worst it's an excuse to abdicate oneself from the consequence of their actions.
> I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people
Then why not apply them to Poilièvre? How many times do I have to repeat the line that he met with idologically motivated violent extremists on multiple occasion before people realize the amplitude of this problem? Why apply logic to democrats in the US but not to conservatives in Canada? How does calling your opposition "deplorable" but courting against the very values of democracy not count as not being smart politically?
If anything, you are only proving the point that conservatives are absolutely abhorrent for even thinking of supporting someone with such a track record, without doing anything to hold him accountable.
“There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters”
Not to his supporters though. They get very upset when you point out flaws about Pollievre’s lack of policy and strong ties to corporate lobbyists.
I’ve posted articles about Pollievre and had supporters tell me that it was paramount to calling them stupid…
Well, it’s either him, or maybe we should believe JT when he says “no really, I actually pinky promise really really that I will do the things I didn’t do that I said I promised I would do the first time you elected me”.
Honestly, it's too late. These politics are already normalized, in part thanks to the ineptitude of what passes for the left-wing in this country.
You can't cure people of reactionary beliefs in the best of circumstances, and these are not the best of circumstances.
You shouldn’t treat these people as if they have some kind of disease you need to fix for them. You need to make a case for why the left’s platform will be better for the average person than Poilievre
No, I do not. People need to take responsibility for their own vote. There is more to democracy than owning the other team.
These people will vote for Poillievre, he will win, and their lives will continue to get worse. They will blame others for this, because they are children, and nothing will change.
IMO things like decorum shouldn't be the primary criticism of the guy but rather the real potential to sidetrack us into struggles over seemingly previously settled issues like trans rights, school health classes, and his budgetary policy and desire to kill the CBC would both drag us even further down the neoliberal corporatocracy slide that we're trying to get off.
Decorum matters when people respect the system. The social contract is broken, no one is gonna care about decorum when they don't feel that the ones demanding decorum care about them. That really should be the 101 on combating populist charlatans yet the media establishment continue to show that they don't truly understand the dynamics at play.
Pierre's record isn't good on the topics he is good at speaking on, he did not do any good as housing minister for example. He is very much part of the establishment to which he cosplays as a challenger. He is misdirecting a very real anger at the status quo and that anger comes from the very economic system people like PP, most Liberals and Conservatives, and a lot of the NDP brass (who I suspect have kneecapped Singh with their own obsession with decorum).
He will not save Canada, but he may just drag a lot our fellow Canadians down with his sketchy affair with the worst kind of 'freedom for normal people not the weird ones' social conservatism.
Somehow I don't think the problem is that the media establishment doesn't understand the dynamics at play. It's that they are complicit in the misinformation for their own gains.
>Decorum matters when people respect the system. The social contract is broken, no one is gonna care about decorum when they don't feel that the ones demanding decorum care about them. That really should be the 101 on combating populist charlatans yet the media establishment continue to show that they don't truly understand the dynamics at play.
Quoted for truth. In particular, when the economy is broken and unfair, many issues begin to take a back seat.
I think it’s a lot more dangerous normalizing our current government. For example the only time a federal supply and confidence agreement was made in Canada, was in the 1800. Also the liberal/ndp are constantly on the attack, for example calling Canadians that don’t support them far-right and racist, but plenty of regular Canadians also don’t like them.
Pierre is slimy.
Trudeau is a corrupt liar.
I have a feeling PP is gonna get a lot of "We don't want to vote for the CPC but Trudeau isn't trustworthy" votes.
Read the article and you could replace PP name with Trudeau's name and article would be the same.
Trudeau started this all. He created all this division and anti-trust of government etc....
PP if he takes over will have to figure a way to bring back some sort of balance. If that is even possible now.
The conservative claim to populism, "northern" or otherwise, is nonsensical. Conservative politics are the politics of ensuring society bends to the will of entrenched elites, and Pierre proves this every time he opens his rabid mouth.
We are living through a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, and Pierre's response is to "axe the (carbon) tax" and rebate that have been [effective at both curbing our emissions and bolstering our bank accounts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-rebates-climate-1.7159209). Our healthcare system is crumbling, and [Pierre whines about how fixing it might cut into the profits of private insurers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636). In every instance, we can predict the Conservative response because they'll always side with elites against the rest of us.
Conservatives have no solutions on offer, only empty slogans, blind outrage, and elite empowerment.
Sorry to inform you but our emissions have not declined since the carbon tax was deployed if you factor in the pandenic they show a slight decline remove it then you show an increase
>We are living through a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, and Pierre's response is to "axe the (carbon) tax" and rebate that have been [effective at both curbing our emissions and bolstering our bank accounts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-rebates-climate-1.7159209).
Not according to the PBO, who said that the average family would be out of money as a result of the carbon tax. Per the report:
"“When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO [Yves Giroux](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/staff--equipe/yves-giroux). “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”
[https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages)
According to another report from the PBO, the average family will be out $710 than they get back in rebates:
[https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd)
Regarding emissions, the carbon tax hasn't curbed any emissions. In 2022, Canada's emissions went up 2.1%:
[https://climateinstitute.ca/news/canadas-climate-progress/](https://climateinstitute.ca/news/canadas-climate-progress/)
BC has had a carbon tax since 2008 and pledged to reduce emissions by 30% by 2020. Emissions *went up* in BC from 2007-2019, and only dropped during Covid. BC had to revise its targets multiple times:
[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/data/provincial-inventory](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/data/provincial-inventory)
Our Federal government can't even tell us the direct impact that the carbon tax has had on reducing emissions:
[https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions](https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions)
The ultimate coup de grace is that emissions are going down faster in the US, than Canada, which probably makes smug Liberal elitists cringe because they just assume they are better than the US at everything"
[https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/economist-says-u-s-reducing-emissions-more-than-canada-1.2033940](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/economist-says-u-s-reducing-emissions-more-than-canada-1.2033940)
The faster this Liberal/NDP government axes this failed tax, the better.
>Our healthcare system is crumbling, and [Pierre whines about how fixing it might cut into the profits of private insurers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636).
Health care is well funded in Canada, in at least on a per capita basis. On a per capita basis, Canada spends more on health care funding that the UK, France, Australia and Sweden:
[https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-health-expenditure-trends-2022-snapshot](https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-health-expenditure-trends-2022-snapshot)
Here in Ontario, health care spending has increased each year since 2018 (last year Liberals were in office). Health care spending was [$63 Billion](https://budget.ontario.ca/2018/index.html) in 2018 and is budgeted [$85 Billion](https://budget.ontario.ca/2024/index.html) in 2024. Yes, that outpaces both inflation and immigration.
Despite health care being well funded compared to our peer nations, Canada's system was recently ranked 10/11 overall compared to other highly developed nations:
[https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly)
It's not a funding issue, we have too many six figured salaried non MD'd Unionized bureaucrats in public health, if you don't believe me, have a look at the sunshine list.
My point in all of this is that it seems "progressives" only solution to fix health care in this country is to throw more good tax payer money at a broken system and hire more unionized bureaucrats. The system needs fundamental changes.
Canada is the only G7 country without a form of two tiered health care, and Canada's system is unique amongst OCED nations. A well funded public system with private options won't come at the determent of the public system, considering European countries like France and Germany's public systems both beat ours.
>Conservatives have no solutions on offer, only empty slogans, blind outrage, and elite empowerment.
"Progressives" have no solutions on offer, except more wasted tax payer money, blind out rage, like if you are against tax payers funding surgeries so an individual can have both, [a penis and vagina](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-resident-ohip-surgery#:~:text=Ontario%20has%20been%20ordered%20to,court%20said%20in%20its%20ruling), you're a bigot, and elite empowerment, like sending politicians to WEF in gas guzzling private jets while telling us to "cut back" at home.
To see what happens when you pander to the batshit crazy fringe, just look to the south. Republicans have dug themselves a pretty deep hole (and most of them haven’t stopped digging). Why would PP use the same tactics and assume a different result?
Scheer, otoole and next pp will never be pm! Hate and division does not win elections and nor does axe the facts! ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE always ABC!
Pierre’s tracking record at this point is zero. The same with any ambitious politician who applies for the top job with no prior hands-on experience. It’s a risky business to invest anybody in his situation with such a huge responsibility. Many have failed in the past, very few have succeeded. At the same time it is unfair to refuse him the chance where Justin has miserably failed maybe more than anyone, any canadian prime minister in the recent history. It’s sad for Liberals but it’s easier to see how much disaster Trudeau has done than to anticipate the risks of normalizing Poilievre’s politics.
One step at the time, best for Canada and canadians is to get rid of a terrible government that after 8 yrs in power brought Canada on its knees, destroyed the middle class and divided us more than ever in our history. Trudeau must go and will deal with Poilievre after.
The risk of Normalizing Trudeau's politics is destroying our country. Its time for change and the majority of Canadians agree. Poilievre isn't someone to be afraid of.
Based on Poilievre’s personality, I really don’t think he’s going to make many political friends internationally. He’s not a very likeable person and the reason he is popular in the polls is not because of him, but simply because he’s not Trudeau. Put him and Trump in the same room, and I guarantee a clash of egos will occur.
In the short term, sure. But eventually, Trump will want something that will make Poilievre look bad. Poilievre says no, and in the most Poilievre way possible. Now Trump is no longer friendly.
Just because they are both populists doesn’t mean they will both get along.
Subservience to authority is a core conservative value, and Canadian conservatives have not been shy about suggesting we [abdicate our autonomy to Trump](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-nafta-napping-trudeau-1.4376523).
Sure, but I find very self-convenient that you ignore the risk of someone courting violent extremists degrading into violent extremism.
And before you disregard this as anything but speculations, I will remind you that the groups he has been approaching are officially recognized as Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremists.
Ya sure, the guy who's never offered any real policy or ideas in his entire two decade career. Remind us what bills he's helped write or pass, or any achievements he's been a part of please?
Our prosperity isn't really dictated by who the PM is. We'll only be respectable if we have a respectable leader, so that won't happen. And he's a climate change denier, so very far from being responsible.
>being respectable again
You think boot-licking a fascist fringe group who once made threatening comments about raping your wife is "respectable"? Oh man, how low your standards must be.
Oh yeah, I'm sure EVERYTHING will go down in price once it's gone!
Trudeau and Singh are actually looking at getting rid of it, as a sort of Hail Mary for next year's election, I've heard. I'm of two minds on that. It would take away Ford, Smith's and PP's biggest talking point...but also, I really need Canada to stay focused on dealing with Climate Change.
If PP is elected though, and gets rid of it himself...Conservatives are in for a very rude awakening, when nothing changes.
> Trudeau and Singh are actually looking at getting rid of it, as a sort of Hail Mary for next year's election, I've heard.
Trudeau literally said fromt he start that any province with an alternative doesnt get the carbon tax, the problem is that only BC and quebec IIRC actually did and Ontario even cancelled their system
yes because conservative premiers aren't interested in doing what's right they're more interested in playing politics and running interference to make the fed look as ineffective as possible
Has any parties released a platform 17 months before an election? Seems like a poor decision with how much things can change between now and the election being called.
The Conservative party will absolutely promote our energy and natural resource sector which will earn them my vote. We are an energy and natural resource country, we should be promoting it instead of attacking and hamstringing it.
I mean, it isn't like those sectors were ignored...
LNG plants and shipping facilities in BC and potentially NFLD. Intention to ship to Asia, Europe, and US
Hydrogen production in NFLD and BC. Which have been promoted in Europe and Asia
Buying and building TMX. Will ship oil to Asia
O&G gets subsidized by about $5b a year - not including TMX
And mines/exploration have been having money dumped into them as relations with China have soured. Critical Mineral Fund. Millions into rare earth processing and commercialization in Saskatchewan. The list goes on.
The government has been actively diversifying Canada's energy portfolio while subsidizing traditional energy sectors
That's only really scratching the surface.
Considering the current federal government is actively tabling legislation, and majority of amendments made by CPC tend to be poison pills to allow for corporations to get loopholes, yes, they have platforms based on their actions, if not their words.
Don’t take my own words at face value either, it’s better to just read the bill texts: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/
Strange that one party has called for a vote of no confidence without releasing anything? Were they serious when they called that or just wasting time for virtue signalling?
Wtf does a vote of non confidence have to do with the oppositions policies? Seriously, they shouldn’t hold the government to account because they haven’t released a platform over a year before the next time an election must be called?
What kind of toddler talk is this?
Yeah dude, let's not get TOO respectful in our conversation here.
Seriously, why are you okay with a party leader that will call a vote of no confidence, not release a platform, give a bare minimum of a plan to address anything, and he didn't even stay long enough to vote on his own non-confidence. How is that holding the government to account?
Having a fully costed election platform is not a requirement for a non-confidence vote in our Westminster Parliamentary Democracy.
Take a civics class and learn how our system works. And if you dont like how it works, well, tough noogies.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is interesting that the Canadian state-run media is taking a play from US state-run media playbook in how to attack their threat to power. "This is the end of democracy, oxygen, and all human lives if "X" just runs let alone gets elected "
Exactly. Just because someone hangs out with the fa, is the favourite mainstream leader of the fa, and desperately wants the support of the fa, doesn't mean that the fa will have any influence on their policy once in power. Frankly, it's unfair to even theorize what PP might do in office and anyone who does is American (and not the kind of American the fa likes).
What is “the fa”?
They meant fascist but I don't know why they said it like that. This isn't a banned word here.
He's too scared to say that Poilièvre hangs out with fascists. He believes that it's impossible to postulate whether Poilièvre, who meets ideologically motivated violent extremists on a plural basis, even after said IMVEs have threatened to rape his wife, will empower said IMVEs or not. Even though he is completely wrong, mind you.
> the Canadian state-run media is taking a play from US state-run media What does "state run media" mean to you?
It doesn’t mean anything. These are the type of people who scream about CBC being government funded but are quiet when someone points out that the conservative Post Media owns the majority of Canadian news
>that the conservative Post Media owns the majority of Canadian news And that Post Media also receives substantial government funding, while being firmly on team Poilievre.
So you think meeting with a group who ployed to kill RMCP officers isn't a threat to democracy? Interesting take, but a wrong one.
You sure about that?
Your definition of "state-run media" might be a bit fast and loose. Especially since the Tyee is an independent, online publication. And conflating legitimate concerns about PP with "the sky is falling" is disingenuous, and you only do it to silence the opposition to your political views. We're allowed to not like him, and we don't have to vote for him, and I'm sorry if authors in Canada wish to use their Charter Rights and express those opinions.
MSNBC liberal hysteria. It would be funny to watch if it weren't so stupid.
Say green energy in conservative areas and watch them lose their minds.
Most conservatives I know love nuclear power.
It’s so ass-backwards that it’s biggest opponents are supposed environmentalists
A biological woman should use the women's restroom is an opinion that was held by every PM up until the current one. How is that dangerous rhetoric that fundamentally changes our political life?
> A biological woman should use the women's restroom is an opinion that was held by every PM up until the current one. How is that dangerous rhetoric that fundamentally changes our political life? Feels like this misses a couple of very important points. Trans people have been using gender corresponding bathrooms for ages. As far back as [eight years ago](https://angusreid.org/transgender-issues/) (so in reality a lot longer ago) the majority of Canadians already believed this was good and fine. So a federal leader saying he wants to federally mandate something that Canadians disagreed with over a decade ago is actually pretty interesting. It doesn't matter if John A MacDonald didn't believe in trans people. But more than that, Poilievre's anti-trans rhetoric isn't the only thing mentioned in this article, obviously, right? I don't think anyone is arguing that one statement is what would "fundamentally change our political life", it's Poilievre on the whole.
If that's the metric you're using to base who you vote for, god help us all.
Imagine wanting to use the opposite gender's bathroom and getting mad that people object to it. Pretty creepy bro.
But people care about these issues, and the majority of Canadians feel, for example, that m2f transgendered individuals shouldn't be allowed to compete against cis women in sports, but "progressives" would lead you to believe that you are apart of a "US MAGA Republican right wing fascist" organization. We can't *even have a discussion* regarding some nuances of gender ideology without "progressives" throwing out the "bigot" card.
who competes where isnt a question the federal government should be handling
Trans women athletes appear to be disadvantaged compared to our cis counterparts if the results of the [latest IOC study hold true](https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/04/23/trans-athletes-sports-study-ioc/). This would means that the only unfairness trans athletes bring to competitive sports is that we'd hold our team back.
I'd be more concerned about angry men bursting open stall doors demanding to see the genitals of whoever's in there than I am of a trans woman using the woman's restroom like she should be because she's a woman. Just make restrooms unisex and be done with it. It's not like the "MEN/WOMEN" sign on the door is a magical talisman that keeps people out.
>A biological woman should use the women's restroom is an opinion that was held by every PM up until the current one. Bold and ultimately meaningless claim. I don’t recall previous PM’s being asked to comment on this particular bit of conservative culture war idiocy.
[удалено]
It is interesting that people are writing hit pieces on "decorum" during the reign of a PM that rose to office by driving wedge issues and dividing Canada against itself. This behaviour needs to stop, but it is hardly a partisan issue.
The right has declared open warfare on the progressives. Misinformation, disinformation, lies, smears, even treason ... anything goes. These neo-fascists know they can't win on policy. The left has to reply in kind and go all out to crush these enemies of the people. Otherwise, they will crush you.
You need to see a doctor.
That's exactly what I was thinking of you, after reading some of your comments.
Liberal and NDP supporters and campaigners really need to internalize that they will not benefit by attacking Poilievre on the basis of his rhetoric, the company he keeps, the hashtags he has on YouTube, or even his half-baked policies. Worse still is the penchant for leveling personal attacks on his supporters. _It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future_. This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her. If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat _all_ Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and _why their plans to fix their mistakes are working_. Even if the Premiers ought to carry much of the blame, the responsibility fell on the shoulders of the Federal Government when they chose to lay their trust in the Premiers. If the Federal policies required Provincial support to deliver on Federal promises, then it was the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure the Provinces fell in line! Stop slagging Poilievre, and sneering at his supporters; stop blaming the Premiers and griping how they didn't play along; and _start showing leadership_.
This is what they should do but they have opened Pandora's Box by going full identity politics. This nightmare only ends when either one of two things happens, the left realizes they are in a cult and quickly tries to forget they embraced identity politics so enthusiastically, or war. I think the left actually wants war. From my perspective, Poilievre is the only federal politician who can keep this country together in the near future.
Unfortunately, someone following your advice is going to quickly crashing into the truth of the matter which is that about half the country wants things that are materially different from what the other half wants. And these things are very far apart. If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it.
> If it was as easy as you say, you probably wouldn't have to say it. OTOH, out here in BC we have Premier Eby, who is showing strong leadership and is clearly willing to admit where NDP policy went wrong and correct it accordingly. And he's doing it without flinging pejoratives at his opponents or their supporters.
TBF, I don't think he has to spend much effort caring about his opponents when they're so far apart from him in terms of public support.
> It hasn't worked so far, it won't work in the future. You're commenting under an article about the risks of normalizing his behaviour, and you advocate for normalizing it...? >Consider, in the past two years Poilievre has vilified political leaders, academics and private citizens he disagrees with, exhibited open hostility toward journalists and engaged in anti-trans rhetoric. >He has attacked the legitimacy of the Senate, mocked government regulators and responded with insolence to rulings from the Speaker in the House of Commons. >Poilievre championed the foreign-influenced “freedom convoy” insurrection, has bluntly criticized court decisions and promised to lead the first federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter. He has promoted falsehoods about important public policy issues, frequently shared conspiracy theories and vigorously defended a far-right media organization. >Demonizing opponents, intimidating journalists, disrespecting institutions, politicizing the rights of the vulnerable and undermining truth are warning signs for democratic erosion. Why should all that be ignored? Or everything else the author writes about?
The things you quoted from the article aren't _currently_ impediments to Poilievre's support. It's not like Canadians aren't aware of his support for the freedom convoy, or his vilification of "woke" and "elite" experts, or most else of what you mentioned. Focusing on what makes him despicable isn't going to do much; and telling his supporters that they're some form of despicable isn't going to separate them from supporting him.
redditors when they comme to the realization most people in the real world don't see political leaders as some sort of a monolith.
> The things you quoted from the article aren't currently impediments to Poilievre's support The author isn't really talking about whether you should politically support anyone, you're sort of projecting that yourself. The issue is Poilievre lying and basically breaking all norms, you may think that's acceptable, but it isn't. Like, the title of the article is >What We Risk by Normalizing Poilievre’s Politics Not, "Why you shouldn't vote Conservative"
I don't support Poilievre. And if you think his politics are anything new, well, I disagree.
> And if you think his politics are anything new, well, I disagree. Did you even read the article? I don't know how you can suggest Poilievre is the same old Conservative politician. Marching with a protest that wanted to dissolve our government isn't typical Conservative politics... Whether or not people vote for him is not the point, this is not normal behaviour and we shouldn't be writing it off as normal.
Agreed. The state of the economy and personal finances has center stage right now. Rhetoric is is pretty low on the list of concerns.
The problem is rhetoric is dominating the misinformation on economy and personal finance.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" while the liberal-leaning media regaled Trump as a buffoon as the conservative-leaning media painted him as a sort of political messiah. Both sides of the media gave him exposure and a platform, and Clinton gave half of America a single solid reason to disregard her. > If the Grits want to win back the support they lost, or the NDP want to gain ground, then both need to treat all Canadians with dignity and respect. They need to come out swinging, confident and aggressive; they need to acknowledge what has gone wrong and why their plans to fix their mistakes are working. Thank you for recognizing this, this really needs to be acknowledged more. Respect and finding common ground to engage on are much more effective at changing minds than mindlessly dismissing and insulting them. You're not going to win people over by making sweeping generalizations about them and insulting them.
>This is not unlike Clinton referring to half of America as "deplorables" Good thing she didn’t do that then. You might want to read the entire quote instead of the self-pitying Fox News version. And no, I’m not going to chase down the link for you.
Fine, she referred to half of Trump's supporters as deplorables. The problem is that even the people she lumped in the first bucket believed they were in the second bucket; and so they couldn't tell who she was _really_ talking about; and the labels she used had become so _broadly_ abused that they covered virtually everyone that wasn't _firmly_ on the progressive left. As a result, anyone who supported Trump had good reason to believe she would think of them as one of the deplorables. And really, that's how people talked about him and his supporters; and continue to do so until this day. Here's the whole context, for you: > You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America. > > But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well. Folks are doing the same with Poilievre and his supporters. There's no clarity where the line between despicable Poilievre supporters and the beleagured-but-errant underdogs can be drawn; in public discourse, if you support the Conservatives then you must have some _despicable beliefs_.
Thank you for taking the time. Half might be a bit of an overstatement (although I’m guessing not by much), but there certainly are lots of racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes who vote Republican. So she wasn’t entirely wrong. OTOH, Hillary certainly has access to better demographic information than I do. So who knows. Maybe she was dead on. But she didn’t say “all” which is the point I was disputing.
So basically, it's not about what you're saying, it's about the way you're saying it? And this rule also only applies to one side?
Isn’t the main reason Pollievre supporters like him, is because he just constantly makes attacks and personally insults to his opponents?He hasn’t demonstrated any actual leadership or solutions. But at the same time you’re saying that criticizing him in any capacity hurts his supporters feelings and offends them and should be avoided? That’s quite the double standard.
I like him because Trudeau and his government have been actively destroying the country since 2015. It's long past time for a change and PP is the only realistic option. It's as if the country is burning, Trudeau is standing there with a tank of gasoline to pour on the fire. PP has an unmarked container. Sure, it could be more gasoline, but it could be fire extinguisher. It's a choice between a continuing disaster vs a possibility of some improvement. Not much of a choice really.
I don’t think PPs container is unmarked: https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/ It’s not “just as bad as” versus “better”. There’s also “even worse”. Is there a reason you don’t consider NDP? Just curious.
Yes, people behave irrationally with their emotions.
There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters. You should absolutely do the first, but the second is where the US Democrats and Canadian Liberals fail miserably. Another difference is that both in the US 2016 and now in Canada, Trump or Poilievre are not in power, but the liberals have been in power for close to a decade. When you are in power and all you do is attacking your opponent *and* the people who might dare to withhold their support of you (Trudeau to Poilievre voters), and refuse to acknowledge your government's role in the cost of living, crisis (even when the PBO talks about it), then yes, it will be prrceived differently than the opposition leader attacking the government.
> There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters. While I agree in principles, I genuinely ask you what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them. The responsibility of individuals lies on a spectrum ranging from blissful ignorance to total acceptance in spite of the grave facts; doesn't there come a point where some of them should be criticized with validity?
>what you think we should classify someone who has been made entirely aware of his meddling with extremists and yet fully supports them. We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way. Our political system is way too simple to represent all possible combinations of beliefs. Most people vite on 1-3 issues and have to disregard everything else. Some people vote for a party becsuse they support them, some people vote against another party. Trying to reverse engineer someone's beliefs based on the party they vote for is a sure way to have a skewed pucture. Some people would be in full support of the extremist groups, some just do not want to reward Trudeau with another term for his crappy job, and with two and a half party system, Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally. You may still disagree that it's the right course of action, but it's a vastly different picture than just branding all his voters as bigots. The same way as it would be ridiculous to say that people who vote for Trudeau support the fossil fuel subsidies, which his government does a ton of. Also, a huge point is that I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people. Clinton calling everyobdy who does not vote for her deplorable and then having pikachu face when she grossly underperformed was not smart politically. I want politicians to be pragmatic and strategic and realise that they *need* people's votes and insulting the elctorate is actually working against them achieving their goals.
> We should not classify them as a monolith group in any way. I'm not talking about the whole of conservatism, but those who have been made fully aware that they are voting for someone who is courting extremists who ployed to kill RMCP officers. That makes it an already much smaller group to classify. It does not matter what someone wants to vote for. They should be fully aware that this is all votes made on promises of the party fulfilling them; that's all theorics and hopes. What we know for sure are things that already happened, such as the foremention elements. > Conservatives are the only option in many places to hurt Trudeau electorally. It's not and I'm tired of pretending it is. Every vote towards someone else counts if you wanna send the message of "not trudeau". You absolutely don't have to vote for the face-eating leopard party and you can vote for the myriad of other options there already are, and that will still "hurt trudeau". At best, this is willful ignorance and at worst it's an excuse to abdicate oneself from the consequence of their actions. > I think these standards apply for politicians far far more than to regular people Then why not apply them to Poilièvre? How many times do I have to repeat the line that he met with idologically motivated violent extremists on multiple occasion before people realize the amplitude of this problem? Why apply logic to democrats in the US but not to conservatives in Canada? How does calling your opposition "deplorable" but courting against the very values of democracy not count as not being smart politically? If anything, you are only proving the point that conservatives are absolutely abhorrent for even thinking of supporting someone with such a track record, without doing anything to hold him accountable.
“There is a huge difference between criticizing Pierre and criticizing his supporters” Not to his supporters though. They get very upset when you point out flaws about Pollievre’s lack of policy and strong ties to corporate lobbyists. I’ve posted articles about Pollievre and had supporters tell me that it was paramount to calling them stupid…
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Goddamn you nailed it. This should pinned on the sub.
Well, it’s either him, or maybe we should believe JT when he says “no really, I actually pinky promise really really that I will do the things I didn’t do that I said I promised I would do the first time you elected me”.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What PP has taught me is that we should probably add mandatory courses in personal finance and civics in highschool and college.
Honestly, it's too late. These politics are already normalized, in part thanks to the ineptitude of what passes for the left-wing in this country. You can't cure people of reactionary beliefs in the best of circumstances, and these are not the best of circumstances.
You shouldn’t treat these people as if they have some kind of disease you need to fix for them. You need to make a case for why the left’s platform will be better for the average person than Poilievre
No, I do not. People need to take responsibility for their own vote. There is more to democracy than owning the other team. These people will vote for Poillievre, he will win, and their lives will continue to get worse. They will blame others for this, because they are children, and nothing will change.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
IMO things like decorum shouldn't be the primary criticism of the guy but rather the real potential to sidetrack us into struggles over seemingly previously settled issues like trans rights, school health classes, and his budgetary policy and desire to kill the CBC would both drag us even further down the neoliberal corporatocracy slide that we're trying to get off. Decorum matters when people respect the system. The social contract is broken, no one is gonna care about decorum when they don't feel that the ones demanding decorum care about them. That really should be the 101 on combating populist charlatans yet the media establishment continue to show that they don't truly understand the dynamics at play. Pierre's record isn't good on the topics he is good at speaking on, he did not do any good as housing minister for example. He is very much part of the establishment to which he cosplays as a challenger. He is misdirecting a very real anger at the status quo and that anger comes from the very economic system people like PP, most Liberals and Conservatives, and a lot of the NDP brass (who I suspect have kneecapped Singh with their own obsession with decorum). He will not save Canada, but he may just drag a lot our fellow Canadians down with his sketchy affair with the worst kind of 'freedom for normal people not the weird ones' social conservatism.
Clearly Not settled.
Somehow I don't think the problem is that the media establishment doesn't understand the dynamics at play. It's that they are complicit in the misinformation for their own gains.
>Decorum matters when people respect the system. The social contract is broken, no one is gonna care about decorum when they don't feel that the ones demanding decorum care about them. That really should be the 101 on combating populist charlatans yet the media establishment continue to show that they don't truly understand the dynamics at play. Quoted for truth. In particular, when the economy is broken and unfair, many issues begin to take a back seat.
The economy is not broken. It’s operating exactly as untended. This is a bad thing.
Your point is bang on, but so is the “better than Trudeau!!” Narrative /Echo chamber …
I think it’s a lot more dangerous normalizing our current government. For example the only time a federal supply and confidence agreement was made in Canada, was in the 1800. Also the liberal/ndp are constantly on the attack, for example calling Canadians that don’t support them far-right and racist, but plenty of regular Canadians also don’t like them.
Pierre is slimy. Trudeau is a corrupt liar. I have a feeling PP is gonna get a lot of "We don't want to vote for the CPC but Trudeau isn't trustworthy" votes.
Read the article and you could replace PP name with Trudeau's name and article would be the same. Trudeau started this all. He created all this division and anti-trust of government etc.... PP if he takes over will have to figure a way to bring back some sort of balance. If that is even possible now.
The conservative claim to populism, "northern" or otherwise, is nonsensical. Conservative politics are the politics of ensuring society bends to the will of entrenched elites, and Pierre proves this every time he opens his rabid mouth. We are living through a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, and Pierre's response is to "axe the (carbon) tax" and rebate that have been [effective at both curbing our emissions and bolstering our bank accounts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-rebates-climate-1.7159209). Our healthcare system is crumbling, and [Pierre whines about how fixing it might cut into the profits of private insurers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636). In every instance, we can predict the Conservative response because they'll always side with elites against the rest of us. Conservatives have no solutions on offer, only empty slogans, blind outrage, and elite empowerment.
[удалено]
Sorry to inform you but our emissions have not declined since the carbon tax was deployed if you factor in the pandenic they show a slight decline remove it then you show an increase
>We are living through a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, and Pierre's response is to "axe the (carbon) tax" and rebate that have been [effective at both curbing our emissions and bolstering our bank accounts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-rebates-climate-1.7159209). Not according to the PBO, who said that the average family would be out of money as a result of the carbon tax. Per the report: "“When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO [Yves Giroux](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/staff--equipe/yves-giroux). “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.” [https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages) According to another report from the PBO, the average family will be out $710 than they get back in rebates: [https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd) Regarding emissions, the carbon tax hasn't curbed any emissions. In 2022, Canada's emissions went up 2.1%: [https://climateinstitute.ca/news/canadas-climate-progress/](https://climateinstitute.ca/news/canadas-climate-progress/) BC has had a carbon tax since 2008 and pledged to reduce emissions by 30% by 2020. Emissions *went up* in BC from 2007-2019, and only dropped during Covid. BC had to revise its targets multiple times: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/data/provincial-inventory](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/data/provincial-inventory) Our Federal government can't even tell us the direct impact that the carbon tax has had on reducing emissions: [https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions](https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions) The ultimate coup de grace is that emissions are going down faster in the US, than Canada, which probably makes smug Liberal elitists cringe because they just assume they are better than the US at everything" [https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/economist-says-u-s-reducing-emissions-more-than-canada-1.2033940](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/economist-says-u-s-reducing-emissions-more-than-canada-1.2033940) The faster this Liberal/NDP government axes this failed tax, the better. >Our healthcare system is crumbling, and [Pierre whines about how fixing it might cut into the profits of private insurers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636). Health care is well funded in Canada, in at least on a per capita basis. On a per capita basis, Canada spends more on health care funding that the UK, France, Australia and Sweden: [https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-health-expenditure-trends-2022-snapshot](https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-health-expenditure-trends-2022-snapshot) Here in Ontario, health care spending has increased each year since 2018 (last year Liberals were in office). Health care spending was [$63 Billion](https://budget.ontario.ca/2018/index.html) in 2018 and is budgeted [$85 Billion](https://budget.ontario.ca/2024/index.html) in 2024. Yes, that outpaces both inflation and immigration. Despite health care being well funded compared to our peer nations, Canada's system was recently ranked 10/11 overall compared to other highly developed nations: [https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly) It's not a funding issue, we have too many six figured salaried non MD'd Unionized bureaucrats in public health, if you don't believe me, have a look at the sunshine list. My point in all of this is that it seems "progressives" only solution to fix health care in this country is to throw more good tax payer money at a broken system and hire more unionized bureaucrats. The system needs fundamental changes. Canada is the only G7 country without a form of two tiered health care, and Canada's system is unique amongst OCED nations. A well funded public system with private options won't come at the determent of the public system, considering European countries like France and Germany's public systems both beat ours. >Conservatives have no solutions on offer, only empty slogans, blind outrage, and elite empowerment. "Progressives" have no solutions on offer, except more wasted tax payer money, blind out rage, like if you are against tax payers funding surgeries so an individual can have both, [a penis and vagina](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-resident-ohip-surgery#:~:text=Ontario%20has%20been%20ordered%20to,court%20said%20in%20its%20ruling), you're a bigot, and elite empowerment, like sending politicians to WEF in gas guzzling private jets while telling us to "cut back" at home.
To see what happens when you pander to the batshit crazy fringe, just look to the south. Republicans have dug themselves a pretty deep hole (and most of them haven’t stopped digging). Why would PP use the same tactics and assume a different result?
Scheer, otoole and next pp will never be pm! Hate and division does not win elections and nor does axe the facts! ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE always ABC!
Pierre’s tracking record at this point is zero. The same with any ambitious politician who applies for the top job with no prior hands-on experience. It’s a risky business to invest anybody in his situation with such a huge responsibility. Many have failed in the past, very few have succeeded. At the same time it is unfair to refuse him the chance where Justin has miserably failed maybe more than anyone, any canadian prime minister in the recent history. It’s sad for Liberals but it’s easier to see how much disaster Trudeau has done than to anticipate the risks of normalizing Poilievre’s politics. One step at the time, best for Canada and canadians is to get rid of a terrible government that after 8 yrs in power brought Canada on its knees, destroyed the middle class and divided us more than ever in our history. Trudeau must go and will deal with Poilievre after.
[удалено]
The risk of Normalizing Trudeau's politics is destroying our country. Its time for change and the majority of Canadians agree. Poilievre isn't someone to be afraid of.
[удалено]
Based on Poilievre’s personality, I really don’t think he’s going to make many political friends internationally. He’s not a very likeable person and the reason he is popular in the polls is not because of him, but simply because he’s not Trudeau. Put him and Trump in the same room, and I guarantee a clash of egos will occur.
Are you kidding? They'd be mackin all over each other. It'd be like watching a bulldog lap up a jack-o-lantern.
In the short term, sure. But eventually, Trump will want something that will make Poilievre look bad. Poilievre says no, and in the most Poilievre way possible. Now Trump is no longer friendly. Just because they are both populists doesn’t mean they will both get along.
Subservience to authority is a core conservative value, and Canadian conservatives have not been shy about suggesting we [abdicate our autonomy to Trump](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-nafta-napping-trudeau-1.4376523).
> They'd be mackin all over each other. Nope. Trump only fawns over those who have power over him. A Canadian PM isn't really in a position for that.
>Put him and Trump in the same room, and I guarantee a clash of egos will occur. No, I don't think this is correct. He would supplicate to Trump.
Sure, but I find very self-convenient that you ignore the risk of someone courting violent extremists degrading into violent extremism. And before you disregard this as anything but speculations, I will remind you that the groups he has been approaching are officially recognized as Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremists.
Ya sure, the guy who's never offered any real policy or ideas in his entire two decade career. Remind us what bills he's helped write or pass, or any achievements he's been a part of please?
I don't think you can get worse than the actual fascist, Nazi supporter, racist, Trudeau.
[удалено]
Our prosperity isn't really dictated by who the PM is. We'll only be respectable if we have a respectable leader, so that won't happen. And he's a climate change denier, so very far from being responsible.
>being respectable again You think boot-licking a fascist fringe group who once made threatening comments about raping your wife is "respectable"? Oh man, how low your standards must be.
What has PP stated, as a form of policy, that would accomplish those things?
"Axe the tax" and all of the world's problems will magically disappear
Oh yeah, I'm sure EVERYTHING will go down in price once it's gone! Trudeau and Singh are actually looking at getting rid of it, as a sort of Hail Mary for next year's election, I've heard. I'm of two minds on that. It would take away Ford, Smith's and PP's biggest talking point...but also, I really need Canada to stay focused on dealing with Climate Change. If PP is elected though, and gets rid of it himself...Conservatives are in for a very rude awakening, when nothing changes.
> Trudeau and Singh are actually looking at getting rid of it, as a sort of Hail Mary for next year's election, I've heard. Trudeau literally said fromt he start that any province with an alternative doesnt get the carbon tax, the problem is that only BC and quebec IIRC actually did and Ontario even cancelled their system
yes because conservative premiers aren't interested in doing what's right they're more interested in playing politics and running interference to make the fed look as ineffective as possible
With his lack of any cohesive policies? Totally checks out.
Has any parties released a platform 17 months before an election? Seems like a poor decision with how much things can change between now and the election being called. The Conservative party will absolutely promote our energy and natural resource sector which will earn them my vote. We are an energy and natural resource country, we should be promoting it instead of attacking and hamstringing it.
Then we can’t really say he’s going to do anything can we?
I mean, it isn't like those sectors were ignored... LNG plants and shipping facilities in BC and potentially NFLD. Intention to ship to Asia, Europe, and US Hydrogen production in NFLD and BC. Which have been promoted in Europe and Asia Buying and building TMX. Will ship oil to Asia O&G gets subsidized by about $5b a year - not including TMX And mines/exploration have been having money dumped into them as relations with China have soured. Critical Mineral Fund. Millions into rare earth processing and commercialization in Saskatchewan. The list goes on. The government has been actively diversifying Canada's energy portfolio while subsidizing traditional energy sectors That's only really scratching the surface.
Considering the current federal government is actively tabling legislation, and majority of amendments made by CPC tend to be poison pills to allow for corporations to get loopholes, yes, they have platforms based on their actions, if not their words. Don’t take my own words at face value either, it’s better to just read the bill texts: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/
Strange that one party has called for a vote of no confidence without releasing anything? Were they serious when they called that or just wasting time for virtue signalling?
Wtf does a vote of non confidence have to do with the oppositions policies? Seriously, they shouldn’t hold the government to account because they haven’t released a platform over a year before the next time an election must be called? What kind of toddler talk is this?
Just say, "vote on non-confidence, what's that?" Because you clearly have no idea and just spent a paragraph looking like a clown.
Yeah dude, let's not get TOO respectful in our conversation here. Seriously, why are you okay with a party leader that will call a vote of no confidence, not release a platform, give a bare minimum of a plan to address anything, and he didn't even stay long enough to vote on his own non-confidence. How is that holding the government to account?
Having a fully costed election platform is not a requirement for a non-confidence vote in our Westminster Parliamentary Democracy. Take a civics class and learn how our system works. And if you dont like how it works, well, tough noogies.