Poilievre’s stunt was planned. The fundraising emails were ready to go. The T-shirts had been printed. Caucus knew that they would leave en masse. All part of trying to play victim and changing the channel from the Diagolon story, but more importantly, not to talk about any of the measures that the government is taking to address the various issues. Every minute we are talking about decorum in the house is a minute that we are talking about housing plans. Or pharmacare. Or anything else that actually matters in people’s lives.
The Liberals need to be disciplined. Keep talking on what they are doing for housing and the other issues. Don’t get sucked into debates about the notwithstanding clause. Just pass a law that prohibits the government from using the clause preemptively. That will put Poilievre on the spot.
The only law that can prevent use of the Notwithstanding Clause would be a constitutional amendment signed on by at least 7 provinces. I offer no discouragement against trying such an amendment, but unfortunately Trudeau seems too unambitious to even try changing anything with the Constitution of Canada.
Disagree Pierre Poilievre is and will always be a monster. For you to say this makes me think you should be a women under these Reformed conservatives, to experience the abuses by these cons. What Pierre does daily is terrifying. Lose your life under these rcons then rethink what you wrote. There is nothing good about Pierre or the regime except pump up the male club. Male chauvinism is not fun, yet most men side with greed and hate. I’m ashamed to read this after being destroyed by this con mob. I’d choose an alligator for PM over Pierre Poilievre. Children should not be around these conservatives if anyone has morals. Rcons are sucking the lives out of us. Conservatives rip you apart, they have robbed us and many election fraud yet here’s people still supporting these snakes.
1- PP’s position is not to make minority rights guaranteed by the Charter subject to the whims of the majority under his potential government. Majority governments in Canada are usually elected with roughly 40% of the vote. So, minority rights will be subject to the whims of the 40-45% of potential conservative voters not the majority of Canadians.
2- I don’t see how Trudeau leaving at this point could put liberals in a better position. We are looking at a race with multiple candidates that will debate weeks/months liberal controversial policies (aka the carbon tax) and candidates trying to distance themselves at a maximum from the current government with the current polls and anger. I don’t see how they could rebuild unity and be ready in time. Furthermore, I expect the party to move back more at the centre after Trudeau so the deal with the NPD will probably go pretty fast. So, Trudeau’s leaving could have worked last year but I don’t see how it could work now.
Where it leaves us? Even if it’s the task of becoming extremely hard, I think PP still have weaknesses that could be used, which are not falling for his pre-planed stunts. More importantly, liberals/npd may get a boost by showing real progress in some recent policy initiatives. I would also try to put Fraser/champagne/Annand almost everywhere.
P.S : Freeland as Minister of Finance was a mistake from the start and I also believe she actually never wanted or liked the job from the start. Her interest/passion is clearly international relations
Much of this discussion assumes that people vote on the basis of preferred policies based on what parties put in the shop window. That really only seems to be marginally true even though we all are convinced that we are decidedly rational about our voting choices. If some of the polling is correct about a very strong desire for change based on anger or disappointment with current conditions (or even just perceptions thereof), then putting new or shinier policies in the shop window only stand the chance of winning support over a long time period. And the stunts and wedges on both sides aim to undercut the desire for change by making the alternative to the government scary or much less appealing or to bolster the desire for change by stoking anger to support a unflattering view of the government and its leader.
Poilievre’s stunt was planned. The fundraising emails were ready to go. The T-shirts had been printed. Caucus knew that they would leave en masse. All part of trying to play victim and changing the channel from the Diagolon story, but more importantly, not to talk about any of the measures that the government is taking to address the various issues. Every minute we are talking about decorum in the house is a minute that we are talking about housing plans. Or pharmacare. Or anything else that actually matters in people’s lives.
The Liberals need to be disciplined. Keep talking on what they are doing for housing and the other issues. Don’t get sucked into debates about the notwithstanding clause. Just pass a law that prohibits the government from using the clause preemptively. That will put Poilievre on the spot.
The only law that can prevent use of the Notwithstanding Clause would be a constitutional amendment signed on by at least 7 provinces. I offer no discouragement against trying such an amendment, but unfortunately Trudeau seems too unambitious to even try changing anything with the Constitution of Canada.
Disagree Pierre Poilievre is and will always be a monster. For you to say this makes me think you should be a women under these Reformed conservatives, to experience the abuses by these cons. What Pierre does daily is terrifying. Lose your life under these rcons then rethink what you wrote. There is nothing good about Pierre or the regime except pump up the male club. Male chauvinism is not fun, yet most men side with greed and hate. I’m ashamed to read this after being destroyed by this con mob. I’d choose an alligator for PM over Pierre Poilievre. Children should not be around these conservatives if anyone has morals. Rcons are sucking the lives out of us. Conservatives rip you apart, they have robbed us and many election fraud yet here’s people still supporting these snakes.
Two thoughts :
1- PP’s position is not to make minority rights guaranteed by the Charter subject to the whims of the majority under his potential government. Majority governments in Canada are usually elected with roughly 40% of the vote. So, minority rights will be subject to the whims of the 40-45% of potential conservative voters not the majority of Canadians.
2- I don’t see how Trudeau leaving at this point could put liberals in a better position. We are looking at a race with multiple candidates that will debate weeks/months liberal controversial policies (aka the carbon tax) and candidates trying to distance themselves at a maximum from the current government with the current polls and anger. I don’t see how they could rebuild unity and be ready in time. Furthermore, I expect the party to move back more at the centre after Trudeau so the deal with the NPD will probably go pretty fast. So, Trudeau’s leaving could have worked last year but I don’t see how it could work now.
Where it leaves us? Even if it’s the task of becoming extremely hard, I think PP still have weaknesses that could be used, which are not falling for his pre-planed stunts. More importantly, liberals/npd may get a boost by showing real progress in some recent policy initiatives. I would also try to put Fraser/champagne/Annand almost everywhere.
P.S : Freeland as Minister of Finance was a mistake from the start and I also believe she actually never wanted or liked the job from the start. Her interest/passion is clearly international relations
Much of this discussion assumes that people vote on the basis of preferred policies based on what parties put in the shop window. That really only seems to be marginally true even though we all are convinced that we are decidedly rational about our voting choices. If some of the polling is correct about a very strong desire for change based on anger or disappointment with current conditions (or even just perceptions thereof), then putting new or shinier policies in the shop window only stand the chance of winning support over a long time period. And the stunts and wedges on both sides aim to undercut the desire for change by making the alternative to the government scary or much less appealing or to bolster the desire for change by stoking anger to support a unflattering view of the government and its leader.