this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
15 points (85.7% liked)

Canada

7187 readers
442 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
15
Danielle Smith’s Big Pierre Poilievre Problem (thetyee.ca)
submitted 6 months ago by TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Abacus Data’s latest polling has the federal Conservatives out to their biggest lead in over a decade. Unless there is a drastic change over the summer, Canadians ought to prepare for a Conservative majority at some point in the next year or so.

At the Museum of Vancouver, ‘True Tribal’ explores the visual language of mark making from around the world. Reclaiming Wet’suwet’en Storytelling in ‘Yintah’ Reclaiming Wet’suwet’en Storytelling in ‘Yintah’

At this year’s DOXA, catch a new wave of Indigenous-led docs. A Q&A with Freda Huson and director-journalist Michael Toledano.

No one should be paying closer attention than Danielle Smith and the United Conservative Party.

A change of government in Ottawa would have a major impact on provincial politics in Alberta. With no whipping boy or scapegoat in Ottawa, the provincial UCP would need to shift focus and even rebrand.

At the same time, the Fair Deal strategy launched by the Jason Kenney government and accelerated by Smith has created a set of demands and expectations upon the next prime minister that may be difficult to walk back.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is, again, a bad take. The Liberal electoral method was party policy for years and years by 2015. They didn't go out of their way to find it, Liberals from a cross Canada went to local policy workshops, voted, and raised their choice of electoral reform method at plenary / policy convention. They had also rejected a referendum, given they had just won a majority mandate with ER on their platform. But the reforms the LPC wanted were killed by an NDP/CPC coalition in committee.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I don't care if they asked a ouija board. They came up with the wrong answer that didn't serve Canadians in a fair and equitable manner, it served themselves. That's the bottom line.

If you really think the Liberals are truly interested in electoral reform, look no further than the vote results of Motion M-86. Only 25% of Liberal and 3% of Conservative MPs voted in support of the motion.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Ouija board? Fellow, listen, you don't like STV, fine, whatever, but that policy was arrived at through the democratic process and the party was right not to abandon the grassroots on it.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Nobody except the LPC wanted STV. That's not grassroots. STV didn't even fall within the committee's stated purview.

I'd recommend you go read the LPCs Supplemental Report to the Special Committee: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-435

It's basically a bunch of FUD saying Canadians are too dumb to understand any sort of PR, and we should just put it off because there was disagreement. But the fact is that there is consensus that FPTP is not providing fair elections. The liberals just wanted to manufacture any excuse to not change the status quo. The recent vote on motion M-86 with only 25% of Liberal MPs supports that.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You don't know what your talking about, not even what the term grassroots means. I'll take no lessons thanks.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sure bud, enjoy your willful ignorance.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yea, no, I'm not ignorant I'm just not falling in for meme thought. Liberals support STV because party members got together during policy convention time, which is semi annual, usually in hyper local groups of 40-50, across the country in small halls and hotel convention rooms, to debate and vote on policy to send to provincial and then national policy convention until all Liberal party members had a free vote on it, choosing STV. The fact you don't recognize Liberal support for STV as grassroots tells me you aren't serious in the least in your understanding of what happened.

You bought the hive-mind hot take and took it as gospel, like many others, and find it easier to close your ears and repeat that take than to actually consider what happened. You're in popular company I guess, but still wrong.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I don't recognize a single party's unilateral decision as a grassroots movement of the whole. I have no idea regarding the precise mechanism by which the Liberals choose the voting system best suited to their own needs, and frankly, I'm not sure how it's relevant to our conversation.

Other systems are better suited to a majority of Canadians and have support that crosses party boundaries. It's a minority, but a good number of Liberal voters support MMP, for example.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You aren't sure why it's relevant for a party to respect their grass roots supporters and the policy they decided on? You aren't sure why that would be relevant in a discussion that I evolves the precise mechanism by which party policy becomes the law of a nation? Come on.

Why would the LPC adopt the policy position (MMP) of the smallest party in the House of Commons over the known, official, grass roots, twice democratically affirmed over ten years position of their own membership? It doesn't make sense, never did, wasn't going to happen.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Way to just put words in my mouth which I haven't even come close to suggesting. Such good faith behavior. If you don't understand what I've written, or I haven't communicated well, you can simply ask for clarification.

I'm saying it's irrelevant if the effective decision to torpedo their party's own promise was decided upon by collectively, by a conference of their MPs, or dictated by Trudeau himself.

Why would the LPC adopt the policy position (MMP)

They wouldn't, because it hurts them at the polls. They don't care about doing the right thing for Canadians, just that they don't lose seats to the NDP, even if that comes at the cost of losing an election to the conservatives. The main thing keeping them in power isn't good policy, it's scare tactics of a Conservative majority combined with FPTP.

Once again, read their comments on the ER report if you want to know what they truly think of their own voters. They spent pages whining about methodology which wasn't thoroughly explained because its already widely accepted. Pure FUD.

Edit: It just occurred to me that perhaps were not seeing eye to eye because of how this conversation started: "Trudeau lied."

I just wanted to clarify that you understand that when most people say that, they're aware that the policy platform that a party head runs on isn't solely their own personal discretion. Is your argument that Trudeau didn't lie because it was a collective decision? Because that would clarify why you care so much about this whole grassroots distinction.