Canadian Politics Redux

DarthMaeglin

So Poilievre gets 11 paragraphs when he doesn’t answer a specific question, so essentially we have a story that nothing happened but a possible spectre lurks in the shadows of the future. Where are all the similar articles dealing with Trudeau’s non-answers? And why are no other outlets running with this important story (it currently sits at the top of CBCs Politics section)?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-conservative-party-transgender-1.6964618

I’m going to take a different tack here. I’m constantly told here that Trudeau is the lesser of two evils when held against anyone the CPC puts forward, but no one has made a clear case as to why this is so. Please show why the CPC is less deserving of a mandate. I’m not looking for a comparison with the current government (which leaves the current administration lacking based on their established record) but just a straight analysis of the CPC’s statements and policies. Convince me, please.

HughFreakingDillon

https://x.com/eatsfood2/status/1701756606415884690?s=46

😂 freedom!! 

HughFreakingDillon

culture wars. they've stated part of their mandate is to "protect women", which means banning trans women from "women's spaces". there is NO evidence that this poses any danger to anyone. further attacking the most vulnerable among us. I thought the party was about freedom and bodily autonomy? also against gender affirming care. 

supports the freedom convoy (people waving Russian flags, no less). strong majority oppose the convoy, and approved of the emergencies act being used. 

"jail not bail" approach to crime. sure, cuz just locking everyone up without due process is what "freedom" is all about. 

frames Trudeau's social media bills as "censorship bills". this is laughable, and cons keep falling for this. It's Trudeau trying to save Canadian journalists and content, with social media companies not being held to account to pay for content they didn't produce. 

plans to scrap most of the current climate policies, since they have "done nothing" for the environment. nice approach. 

keeps blathering on about inflation as if this is a Canadian issue. vows to cut the "inflation tax" (hint: that doesn't exist). vows to axe the carbon tax. 

this is all I could find at the moment. 

as was mentioned in one of the articles I read, PP is going to have to come up with more than just "we're not the Liberals" to win. He's riding high now, but the election is still two years away. Unless JT calls it earlier. Which he might be wise to do if he wants to stay in power. I can't imagine that the Liberals, barring any miracles over the next two years, will retain government. 

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

So Poilievre gets 11 paragraphs when he doesn’t answer a specific question, so essentially we have a story that nothing happened but a possible spectre lurks in the shadows of the future. Where are all the similar articles dealing with Trudeau’s non-answers? And why are no other outlets running with this important story (it currently sits at the top of CBCs Politics section)?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-conservative-party-transgender-1.6964618

I’m going to take a different tack here. I’m constantly told here that Trudeau is the lesser of two evils when held against anyone the CPC puts forward, but no one has made a clear case as to why this is so. Please show why the CPC is less deserving of a mandate. I’m not looking for a comparison with the current government (which leaves the current administration lacking based on their established record) but just a straight analysis of the CPC’s statements and policies. Convince me, please.

There are a handful of ways to go about this. 

Trudeau is bad, yes. If you're asking why I don't want Pierre as PM... here are some reasons:

His political record against homosexuality.
His political record against unions/labour.  He was against pro labour policies in Harper's government and tried to pass legislation that would make it mandatory for unions to make public their financial records, but not corporations. (Interesting.) 
His political record against social programs. 
His political record against legalized weed.
His political record against abortion. 

His personal / political stance on the Freedom Convoy.

His coziness with the likes Jordan Peterson including his dog whistling to white nationalists. (See interview with Jordan Peterson where Pierre said he wanted Canada to go back to a country of common Anglo-Saxon language.)   <-  good luck in Quebec when that interview resurfaces. 
His political desire to "de-fund" or remove altogether the CBC.
His constant battle against 'woke.'  <- good luck winning an election in Canada with that stance. 
His language when it comes to dividing Canada. ("Canada is broken.") 
HIs constant blaming Trudeau for everything... even when things are not even 10% his fault.
His constant pandering to the lower/middle class when he does not and will not give two shits about them. (His political record suggests this, not his small town "bring it home" rallies.)
His constant attacking Liberals for creating a housing crisis, and a cost of living crisis... when his political record has constantly benefited corporations.  
His constant attacks against the "gatekeepers" which is his playful political rhetoric against regulations.  But wait, which regulations sir?  The last politician that railed against regulation and touted it like a bragging right, was Trump. 

This guy... who changes his look and tone on a whim like a greasy politician is going to sit up there and tell the middle to lower class how he is their champion even though he hasn't worked a day in his life outside of government where he enjoys publicly paid benefits and a nice salary? 

He is a populist. Or at least he rose through the ranks as a populist.  And forgive me for saying...  after seeing the dumpster fire that Trump caused and continues to cause... I'm not a fan of populist politics and constant fear mongering. 

The only policy I can see him making any sense on is his stance on removing the carbon tax. But in the absence of that, what is his plan for lowering emissions? 

What is his plan for anything and how is he planning on accomplishing any of it? 

So that's my case against him.  Not to sound overly childish here but this matters to me at the very least... I just don't like him.  I don't like the way he acts, I don't like the way he sounds. I don't like his stance on social issues. I don't like his pandering to the right. Nothing about him screams that he has any leadership qualities. Nothing about him says he could govern a G7 nation whose citizens statistically and historically lean left.  And look.... it's not like I'm cherry picking things off the internet.  I've put in the time. I watch this man. I watch his rallies, I watch his speeches, I watch his pathetic commercials. I watch his interviews. There is nothing about this guy that has made me even remotely close to voting conservative. Some of this speeches and rallies are downright cringeworthy to the point where I feel bad for the folks who were duped into thinking he has anything relevant to say.  The only thing that makes me remotely close to voting conservative is how bad Trudeau is. We have two years to see if anything changes in that regard. 

Parksy

Now... before we get into the tit for tat and  'but look at how awful Trudeau is'   trust me... I'm well aware.  The point here I think is.... no good options. 

In the absence of a decent leader, I'm stuck basically choosing a side in said culture war. 

If I was American....  and I didn't like anything about Biden.... would I still vote for him to prevent Trump?  Hellllllllllllllllll yes. 

HughFreakingDillon

I'm with Parksy. I'm not willing to just "give him a chance" like the US did with Trump. 

HughFreakingDillon

the MB provincial conservatives are even using these anti-LGBTQ+ dog whistles in their desperate attempt to cling to power this fall. all their new ads preach "parental rights in the classroom". fuck them. 

HughFreakingDillon

cringe is right:

While warning of a "dystopian future" under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's continued leadership, Poilievre painted an idyllic picture of how the country would look with him in charge.

"As the daylight fades to night, kids are heard pleading for 10 more minutes of street hockey before bed. And then, quiet. And a young couple sits on their front porch soaking in the summer warmth, a Canadian flag hanging gently but proudly from the front of their house… they look into each other's eyes in a way that can only say the hard work paid off… because finally, we're home," he said while closing out his speech.

Parksy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBKBOdjR1As

Exhibit A: 

Attacks Trudeau because .. of course he does. 

Asks for a 'violin'  because of Justin's whining. <-  which by the way, I'd be interested in seeing the context to which Trudeau was saying it's difficult to be a politician right now. In the event he was referring to the treatment Freeland got in Alberta... he would be correct. 

I digress.

Then he pivots to his glorious point of the whole clip....  and cue to violins and music (lol)  he talks about a trucker in Bowmanville who can't afford his rent because the landlord jacked up the cost. 

Ahem ....  you sir are a landlord who rents for profit. You are a capitalist.  But obviously you're not going to say that at your 'common sense' rally. 

And then he gets angry at the state of our country.  And he shows the group of people cheering him on...  YAY!!! 

Oh wait.  I must have missed the part where he spoke about the policies that would be enacted to make housing affordable for all of these people Trudeau ruined. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

Now... before we get into the tit for tat and  'but look at how awful Trudeau is'   trust me... I'm well aware.  The point here I think is.... no good options. 

In the absence of a decent leader, I'm stuck basically choosing a side in said culture war. 

If I was American....  and I didn't like anything about Biden.... would I still vote for him to prevent Trump?  Hellllllllllllllllll yes. 

Thank you both for your responses, unfortunately I remain unswayed. I had meant the party, not the leader but fair enough, thanks.

 I’m curious though, PPs abortion stance is cited. He has stated numerous times (as have past leaders) that the matter is settled. On this point I feel it’s necessary to point out that this is largely due to DISinformation by the so-called “progressives”.  We’ll see how often PP’s asked the question during the next election, Conservatives are asked daily about this issue but Blackface is gone in two days.

The same could be said on the lgbt issues where gross misrepresentations are occurring (yesterday a CBC article drew a direct line between anti-vax and anti-lgbt groups without actually showing a link between the two).

HughFreakingDillon

well you can't really separate the leader from the party, can you, when discussing federal policies?

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

well you can't really separate the leader from the party, can you, when discussing federal policies?

I do. The Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau is NOT the Liberal Party of Canada and (I’ve said this several times) I yearn for the day when the grownups take back control of the party and they become a viable vote for me.

Trudeau dictates to his caucus instead of building consensus so in that sense you are correct.

HughFreakingDillon

Well I wasn't really suggesting JT "is the liberal party", but the party adopts the policy of the leader, as decided by those within. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

Well I wasn't really suggesting JT "is the liberal party", but the party adopts the policy of the leader, as decided by those within. 

The point I was clumsily trying to make is that there’s different leadership styles and unfortunately the current PM (by all accounts within and without the party) subscribes to the top-down approach with him imposing his will upon the caucus (for example, anyone that wasn’t onside with carte blanche abortion was kicked out when he became leader, as far as I know there was no vote on the issue).

We actually have yet to see how PP treats the party membership and caucus, as shown by the CBC article I posted last night.

However, I didn’t really acknowledge that you’re correct that it’s difficult to separate the policies from the leaders, though I do believe it can be done.

DarthMaeglin

Another tempest in a teapot, it was essentially a chartered flight. Jann Arden is all over this though, organizing a boycott of Westjet.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/westjet-poilievre-union-1.6965374

HughFreakingDillon

i'd have to agree. it was a plane full of delegates. essentially a chartered plane that wasn't chartered. I don't give one single shit about this. I like Jann. I often agree with her on issues, but she does have a tendency to "outrage first, ask questions later". 

HughFreakingDillon

pathetic that westjet is blaming the onboard crew, and the onboard crew is saying they had no say nor notice. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/westjet-poilievre-union-1.6965374

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

pathetic that westjet is blaming the onboard crew, and the onboard crew is saying they had no say nor notice. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/westjet-poilievre-union-1.6965374

And the article mentioned that this isn’t an unusual practice, as I said, tempest in a teapot and doesn’t deserve the traction it’s being given (and yet it was me that brought it up, lol, though moreso as an example of how the CPC is treated by the press).

Both articles that I posted show shoddy reporting by the CBC unfortunately. For instance, why was PP in Victoria to not answer the question in the first article? The second article had me scratching my head as to why PP was even on the flight until I remembered the previous article, lol (he was on the flight making his way west obviously).

1ThoughtKnown

I was on a WestJet flight 4 years ago where the CEO for the company talked to everyone. There was a time when the safety demonstration was filled with jokes on WestJet flights. I think everyone is being a slight bit sanctimonious here when the flight was not a regularly scheduled flight. 

People just have to bitch and moan about everything. Social media is a wasteland, who pays attention to this shit anyways lol. You are going to boycott WestJet and what, fly Air Canada? Let me know how that works out for you. 

I fly a lot for work. The airlines are all the same. It’s all turned into a Greyhound bus ride, except for TransAtlantic flights. 

Parksy

Just watching another Pierre speech...   And with the purpose in mind of giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I'm hoping some good people on here who might be knowledgeable can help me out. 

His hammer has been pounding on housing from the day he was made leader of the opposition.  Trudeau announces a plan to generate housing in London and immediately following, Pierre has his speech rebutting that announcement. 

In his speech he lays out his plan (Hey! Awesome!) to generate affordable housing. He claims that the liberal government have been ballooning bureaucracies and making it difficult to build houses with regulation (gatekeepers).  Same ole story.  So as part of his plan he says that he will penalize those municipalities who do not speed up the process of building and he will reward those municipalities that do.  

In particular with regards to the CHMC he said and I quote:

'But do you know who won't be getting bonuses? CMHC bureaucracies that delay approval for housing financing. The Trudeau government has ballooned the bureaucracy at the CMHC paying out millions of dollars in bonuses for the very bureaucrats who have doubled the cost of housing. I will be slashing their bonuses and they will be getting pay cuts unless they meet the target of approving financing for affordable housing in under 60 days." 

Now in complete fairness to Pierre, he's not wrong in my opinion about the CMHC bonuses.  That's remarkable.  All CMHC bonuses should have been frozen in the past 4 years for sure.  

The kicker to me though in all this rhetoric .. quite possibly from Trudeau as well.... but in this instance with Pierre in his fight for affordable housing.  When he says he will reward those in the CMHC who hit their targets for approving financing for affordable housing....   how exactly do they determine if housing is affordable? 

For example... I believe he's talking about developers who submit applications to CMHC for financing and approval to build housing (correct me if I'm wrong).   If that's the case, what metric is used in determining if housing is affordable or not?  This question has been on my mind for months now with regards to the housing 'crisis'.  

It also makes me ponder the dynamic between public and private sector. The 'gatekeepers' (public) set out where units can be built and I'm assuming set taxes, and safety regulations.  But at what point is 'affordability' even a consideration with this?  Is there some sort of process by which a developer must indicate before they build how much they will charge for a house or a unit?  My understanding is that it fluctuates with the market?   

Any input is appreciated.