Yeah, for a lot of us that’s a feature, not a bug.Looks like the Greens’ other leader is carrying on Liz’s tradition of carrying water for the Liberals.
Either that or he doesn’t realize calling Carney a “Progressive Conservative” is not the flex he thinks it is.
Either way, why does the press insist on making these guys relevant?
Green Party co-leader says Carney acting like a Progressive Conservative in campaign
Jonathan Pedneault is hoping his party can present a progressive alternative to voters during the federal election campaign that kicked off Sundaywww.theglobeandmail.com
2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25
- Thread starter Fishbone Jones
- Start date
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,915
- Points
- 1,210
So this is partly disinformation, originally there was two French debates. Team Carney backed out of the second one. Reportly because they were asking for $75k per candidate. He will still be at the first debate.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 36,553
- Points
- 1,160
Scheer is starting to remind me of this guy, except that this guy is actually genuine in wanting to warn people about a real threat
Angus Reid, who typically skew a couple points against LPC compared to the average, have just put the LPC at 46%, a new high water mark that they’ve not seen in years. This doesn’t seem to come at the expense of the CPC, but rather by nibbling at all of NDP, GPC, and BQ. ‘Big tent’ effect?
Likely a couple % of this are statistical outlier- but also a larger sample than most. Probably it at a minimum supports LPC actually having the level of support that an aggregate of the other polling firms currently suggests. It gives LPC another four points on Angus Reid’s own previous poll eight days ago, and that difference exceeds the margin of error. So, on initial glance, no evident reversal in the trend as of yet.
Likely a couple % of this are statistical outlier- but also a larger sample than most. Probably it at a minimum supports LPC actually having the level of support that an aggregate of the other polling firms currently suggests. It gives LPC another four points on Angus Reid’s own previous poll eight days ago, and that difference exceeds the margin of error. So, on initial glance, no evident reversal in the trend as of yet.
- Reaction score
- 5,618
- Points
- 1,160
Remember though, that despite JWR, Philpott, Caeser-Chavannes and Freeland, Trudeau was totally willing to keep advisors around who did not agree with him. Partisans will say almost anything to wish away the fact that Carney thinks like Trudeau, supported Trudeau and will govern very similarly since he advised 5 years of policies for the Trudeau government.
- Reaction score
- 7,485
- Points
- 1,160
It would appear that Carney expected Canadians to buy a pig in a poke. I never realized all the other ramifications of his simple move to zero. Probably why I don’t work in finance.
From the Financial Post
financialpost.com
It was curious that in the heat of Friday’s furor over the Trump tariffs, Liberal leadership contender Mark Carney issued his plan for change on the consumer carbon tax. Typically, a Friday release, especially on a busy news weekend, is designed to avoid notice.
I doubt that was Carney’s intention. His document is an important policy announcement that has significant appeal to leftish Liberal party environmentalists. For the broader public, the headline that Carney promises to “axe the consumer carbon tax” was important to get out.
But Carney isn’t axing the consumer carbon tax. He is replacing one tax with another. The fuel charge — erroneously labelled the consumer tax even though low-emitting businesses pay it, too — will be replaced by a more complex scheme. Big emitters will pay consumers to lower their carbon footprint in a new consumer carbon credit market. It is an administrative nightmare compared to the existing fuel charge, even with the current system’s rebates to consumers and small businesses.
As Carney points out, the carbon credit market is already over-supplied. In Alberta, for example, the carbon credit price was $47/tonne in November, much less than the official $80/tonne carbon price. Adding a consumer credit market will increase supply to an already saturated market. To deal with this problem, Carney promises much stricter emission standards than are currently in place. With more emissions subject to tax, carbon credits get soaked up, eventually raising fuel prices. Though it is not officially a tax, the scheme will have the same effect on consumers and businesses as the fuel charge, a.k.a., “the carbon tax.”
Carney’s scheme will require a bigger bureaucracy — beyond the 9,000 employees already at Environment and Climate Change Canada — to make sure credits are paying for real reductions in carbon footprints (such as buying heat pumps or electric cars). It will also line the pockets of financial traders like Goldman Sachs, where Carney once worked, who will charge high fees for credit transactions.
It is such an awful idea compared with the current “consumer tax” that I suspect Carney will drop it should he win the election.
Carney will also introduce a “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” a tariff or quota on the carbon content of imports. The aim is to protect Canadian emitters from competitors in countries with inadequate carbon pricing, though it won’t help Canadian companies compete in export markets. For the next four years at least, the U.S. certainly won’t be going in this direction so a new “Canada carbon tariff” could easily provoke U.S. retaliation. After last week’s fiasco, do we really want to juice the trade war even more?
Carney promises to speed up regulatory approvals — but only for clean energy projects. Oilsand plants, refineries and pipelines and LNG plants won’t qualify. He’ll also add an efficiency mandate for low-temperature industrial heat. He’ll strengthen regulations for oil and methane gas and he will introduce new climate-risk disclosure regulations and investment guidelines for financial institutions — ideas that come from his Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is currently bleeding members. If he tries to apply it to the Canada Pension Plan, too, not a millisecond will pass before Alberta Premier Danielle Smith declares: “Alberta Pension Plan"
Carney will also introduce a “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” a tariff or quota on the carbon content of imports. The aim is to protect Canadian emitters from competitors in countries with inadequate carbon pricing, though it won’t help Canadian companies compete in export markets. For the next four years at least, the U.S. certainly won’t be going in this direction so a new “Canada carbon tariff” could easily provoke U.S. retaliation. After last week’s fiasco, do we really want to juice the trade war even more?
Of course, no Liberal plan would miss out on budget-busting subsidies. Carney will provide new incentives for: home retrofits, heat pumps for low-income families, investment tax credits and slush funds for green energy, and reinstated $5,000 grants for electric cars.
No price tag is provided for the mushrooming spending and bureaucracy, and there’s no cull of the 149 separate federal programs listed in Environment and Climate Change Canada’s 2023 progress report. To name just a few, the oil and gas cap, low-carbon fuel regulation, the EV mandate and the plethora of tax credits all remain in place.
Carney’s commitment to dealing with climate change is undoubtedly heartfelt. His backgrounder claims climate policy “brings Canadians together, makes our economy more competitive and grows jobs today and in the future.” But does it?
The challenge is that oil and gas provide enormous wealth, not only to the producing provinces and nearby First Nations, but to the federal government and other provinces. Extracting non-conventional oil is Canada’s most productive industry. Value-added per hour worked is 13 times what it is in manufacturing. And most analysts agree that oil and natural gas will be required for decades yet, even as consumers shift to alternative energy sources. Yet Carney wants to shut it down.
Whatever energy transition does or doesn’t take place over the next few decades should be based on simple, non-distortionary policies that don’t prevent Canadians and their firms from being economically competitive. The Trudeau government has undermined Canada’s growth by zealously blocking oil and gas development, with the result that we are wholly dependent on U.S. demand. While Canada has been serving as the world’s climate boy scout, China has used its cheap, reliable coal-powered electricity to fuel a dominant position in the world markets for EVs and renewable energy.
As for climate policy bringing Canadians together, there is little evidence of that. A plan that kills off Canadian oil and gas while other countries continue to produce it will never win over westerners — or Newfoundlanders. Anyone who doesn’t understand that probably is “just like Justin.”
From the Financial Post
Jack Mintz: Consumers will pay for Carney's carbon plan
Jack Mintz: He's axing the 'consumer carbon tax' but is replacing it with something less efficient and more complicated. Read here for more
financialpost.com
It was curious that in the heat of Friday’s furor over the Trump tariffs, Liberal leadership contender Mark Carney issued his plan for change on the consumer carbon tax. Typically, a Friday release, especially on a busy news weekend, is designed to avoid notice.
I doubt that was Carney’s intention. His document is an important policy announcement that has significant appeal to leftish Liberal party environmentalists. For the broader public, the headline that Carney promises to “axe the consumer carbon tax” was important to get out.
But Carney isn’t axing the consumer carbon tax. He is replacing one tax with another. The fuel charge — erroneously labelled the consumer tax even though low-emitting businesses pay it, too — will be replaced by a more complex scheme. Big emitters will pay consumers to lower their carbon footprint in a new consumer carbon credit market. It is an administrative nightmare compared to the existing fuel charge, even with the current system’s rebates to consumers and small businesses.
As Carney points out, the carbon credit market is already over-supplied. In Alberta, for example, the carbon credit price was $47/tonne in November, much less than the official $80/tonne carbon price. Adding a consumer credit market will increase supply to an already saturated market. To deal with this problem, Carney promises much stricter emission standards than are currently in place. With more emissions subject to tax, carbon credits get soaked up, eventually raising fuel prices. Though it is not officially a tax, the scheme will have the same effect on consumers and businesses as the fuel charge, a.k.a., “the carbon tax.”
Carney’s scheme will require a bigger bureaucracy — beyond the 9,000 employees already at Environment and Climate Change Canada — to make sure credits are paying for real reductions in carbon footprints (such as buying heat pumps or electric cars). It will also line the pockets of financial traders like Goldman Sachs, where Carney once worked, who will charge high fees for credit transactions.
It is such an awful idea compared with the current “consumer tax” that I suspect Carney will drop it should he win the election.
Carney will also introduce a “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” a tariff or quota on the carbon content of imports. The aim is to protect Canadian emitters from competitors in countries with inadequate carbon pricing, though it won’t help Canadian companies compete in export markets. For the next four years at least, the U.S. certainly won’t be going in this direction so a new “Canada carbon tariff” could easily provoke U.S. retaliation. After last week’s fiasco, do we really want to juice the trade war even more?
Carney promises to speed up regulatory approvals — but only for clean energy projects. Oilsand plants, refineries and pipelines and LNG plants won’t qualify. He’ll also add an efficiency mandate for low-temperature industrial heat. He’ll strengthen regulations for oil and methane gas and he will introduce new climate-risk disclosure regulations and investment guidelines for financial institutions — ideas that come from his Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is currently bleeding members. If he tries to apply it to the Canada Pension Plan, too, not a millisecond will pass before Alberta Premier Danielle Smith declares: “Alberta Pension Plan"
Carney will also introduce a “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” a tariff or quota on the carbon content of imports. The aim is to protect Canadian emitters from competitors in countries with inadequate carbon pricing, though it won’t help Canadian companies compete in export markets. For the next four years at least, the U.S. certainly won’t be going in this direction so a new “Canada carbon tariff” could easily provoke U.S. retaliation. After last week’s fiasco, do we really want to juice the trade war even more?
Of course, no Liberal plan would miss out on budget-busting subsidies. Carney will provide new incentives for: home retrofits, heat pumps for low-income families, investment tax credits and slush funds for green energy, and reinstated $5,000 grants for electric cars.
No price tag is provided for the mushrooming spending and bureaucracy, and there’s no cull of the 149 separate federal programs listed in Environment and Climate Change Canada’s 2023 progress report. To name just a few, the oil and gas cap, low-carbon fuel regulation, the EV mandate and the plethora of tax credits all remain in place.
Carney’s commitment to dealing with climate change is undoubtedly heartfelt. His backgrounder claims climate policy “brings Canadians together, makes our economy more competitive and grows jobs today and in the future.” But does it?
The challenge is that oil and gas provide enormous wealth, not only to the producing provinces and nearby First Nations, but to the federal government and other provinces. Extracting non-conventional oil is Canada’s most productive industry. Value-added per hour worked is 13 times what it is in manufacturing. And most analysts agree that oil and natural gas will be required for decades yet, even as consumers shift to alternative energy sources. Yet Carney wants to shut it down.
Whatever energy transition does or doesn’t take place over the next few decades should be based on simple, non-distortionary policies that don’t prevent Canadians and their firms from being economically competitive. The Trudeau government has undermined Canada’s growth by zealously blocking oil and gas development, with the result that we are wholly dependent on U.S. demand. While Canada has been serving as the world’s climate boy scout, China has used its cheap, reliable coal-powered electricity to fuel a dominant position in the world markets for EVs and renewable energy.
As for climate policy bringing Canadians together, there is little evidence of that. A plan that kills off Canadian oil and gas while other countries continue to produce it will never win over westerners — or Newfoundlanders. Anyone who doesn’t understand that probably is “just like Justin.”
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 7,485
- Points
- 1,160
Carney said he will not do the TVA French language debate. The TVA debate has been a staple of Quebec election coverage and the people of that province look forward to it. Even though TVA asked for $75,000 from each party, the Bloc and the Conservatives agreed. It shouldn’t matter the price, the liberal war chest is supposedly flush with cash. I imagine this could be quite damaging to the liberals in Quebec, because without Carney, the debate likely won’t happen. No matter his reason for not participating, the optics are not good for him and I assume a lot of Quebecers will be pissed at the liberals.
nationalpost.com
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Mark Carney lost the first French-language debate before it even started.
The Liberal Party of Canada announced its leader will not participate in the all-important French language TVA debate, raising yet another question about his ability to speak to francophones across the country and especially in Quebec.
The most-watched French-language network in Quebec organizes a parallel event to the French and English-language debates organized by the Leaders’ Debates Commission, both of which Carney will still attend.
Carney says 'non merci' to a Quebec debate, revealing French anxieties
Mark Carney lost the first French-language debate before it even started.
nationalpost.com
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Mark Carney lost the first French-language debate before it even started.
The Liberal Party of Canada announced its leader will not participate in the all-important French language TVA debate, raising yet another question about his ability to speak to francophones across the country and especially in Quebec.
The most-watched French-language network in Quebec organizes a parallel event to the French and English-language debates organized by the Leaders’ Debates Commission, both of which Carney will still attend.
They accepted the $350k entry fees from both Chandra Arya & Ruby Dhalla, right before they decided to disqualify them both.Carney said he will not do the TVA French language debate. The TVA debate has been a staple of Quebec election coverage and the people of that province look forward to it. Even though TVA asked for $75,000 from each party, the Bloc and the Conservatives agreed. It shouldn’t matter the price, the liberal war chest is supposedly flush with cash. I imagine this could be quite damaging to the liberals in Quebec, because without Carney, the debate likely won’t happen. No matter his reason for not participating, the optics are not good for him and I assume a lot of Quebecers will be pissed at the liberals.
Carney says 'non merci' to a Quebec debate, revealing French anxieties
Mark Carney lost the first French-language debate before it even started.
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Mark Carney lost the first French-language debate before it even started.
The Liberal Party of Canada announced its leader will not participate in the all-important French language TVA debate, raising yet another question about his ability to speak to francophones across the country and especially in Quebec.
The most-watched French-language network in Quebec organizes a parallel event to the French and English-language debates organized by the Leaders’ Debates Commission, both of which Carney will still attend.
As far as I know, neither person was refunded their entry fee upon the LPC deciding they weren't qualified to be candidates. So you bet their war chest is flush with cash just from ripping off those 2 alone, not to mention whatever donations they've received.
(Which, quite frankly, is a decision the LPC membership should have been allowed to decide by casting their votes rather than an unelected gatekeeper...but I'll stop myself now before I go on another rant on how blatantly f**king corrupt the LPC has become.)
(It isn't the same LPC that existed when Jean Chretien or Paul Martin led the party, not by a long shot.)
...
If I remember correctly, the reason why Chandra was disqualified was because he wasn't bilingual & couldn't communicate in French.
And yet here we have Carney not participating in a French debate because he doesn't want to or can't...
I'm sure Chandra has taken notice of this news by now, and his legal council acts accordingly.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,742
- Points
- 1,260
700K isn't much to run a campaign on. In fact it would impossible to run the LPC campaign on 700K I would imagine.
Maybe the Greens or PPC could.
- Reaction score
- 5,469
- Points
- 1,260
The bit in yellow was clear going in, therefore ...
... it only makes sense. They can, for sure, litigate all they want, but they knew going in the terms of the fees.
- Reaction score
- 5,618
- Points
- 1,160
Ask the NDP. They are using a campaign bus because they can't afford a plane charter.
I’m overjoyed to see so many people who in the past have stated that debates don’t matter and are a waste that nobody watches etc etc now suddenly re energized with the Holy Spirit of democracy at how important they are so much so that they are worried about a second but non official pay to play debate in a language they can hardly speak.
The recent come to Jesus moments here by some is a sight to behold.
The recent come to Jesus moments here by some is a sight to behold.
I think they had the same issue last time. No one wonder they didn’t want to defeat the government lol.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,742
- Points
- 1,260
Who said debates don't matter ? Can you provide references for that ?
Oh in the past. Several times.
It’s all good now though that everyone agrees that they are.
Sounds like a massive scam, with built in layers of beaurucracy specifically intended to line the pockets of key players in the financial services industry while making life as complicated and expensive as possible for the oil & gas industry.It would appear that Carney expected Canadians to buy a pig in a poke. I never realized all the other ramifications of his simple move to zero. Probably why I don’t work in finance.
From the Financial Post
Jack Mintz: Consumers will pay for Carney's carbon plan
Jack Mintz: He's axing the 'consumer carbon tax' but is replacing it with something less efficient and more complicated. Read here for more
It was curious that in the heat of Friday’s furor over the Trump tariffs, Liberal leadership contender Mark Carney issued his plan for change on the consumer carbon tax. Typically, a Friday release, especially on a busy news weekend, is designed to avoid notice.
I doubt that was Carney’s intention. His document is an important policy announcement that has significant appeal to leftish Liberal party environmentalists. For the broader public, the headline that Carney promises to “axe the consumer carbon tax” was important to get out.
But Carney isn’t axing the consumer carbon tax. He is replacing one tax with another. The fuel charge — erroneously labelled the consumer tax even though low-emitting businesses pay it, too — will be replaced by a more complex scheme. Big emitters will pay consumers to lower their carbon footprint in a new consumer carbon credit market. It is an administrative nightmare compared to the existing fuel charge, even with the current system’s rebates to consumers and small businesses.
As Carney points out, the carbon credit market is already over-supplied. In Alberta, for example, the carbon credit price was $47/tonne in November, much less than the official $80/tonne carbon price. Adding a consumer credit market will increase supply to an already saturated market. To deal with this problem, Carney promises much stricter emission standards than are currently in place. With more emissions subject to tax, carbon credits get soaked up, eventually raising fuel prices. Though it is not officially a tax, the scheme will have the same effect on consumers and businesses as the fuel charge, a.k.a., “the carbon tax.”
Carney’s scheme will require a bigger bureaucracy — beyond the 9,000 employees already at Environment and Climate Change Canada — to make sure credits are paying for real reductions in carbon footprints (such as buying heat pumps or electric cars). It will also line the pockets of financial traders like Goldman Sachs, where Carney once worked, who will charge high fees for credit transactions.
It is such an awful idea compared with the current “consumer tax” that I suspect Carney will drop it should he win the election.
Carney will also introduce a “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” a tariff or quota on the carbon content of imports. The aim is to protect Canadian emitters from competitors in countries with inadequate carbon pricing, though it won’t help Canadian companies compete in export markets. For the next four years at least, the U.S. certainly won’t be going in this direction so a new “Canada carbon tariff” could easily provoke U.S. retaliation. After last week’s fiasco, do we really want to juice the trade war even more?
Carney promises to speed up regulatory approvals — but only for clean energy projects. Oilsand plants, refineries and pipelines and LNG plants won’t qualify. He’ll also add an efficiency mandate for low-temperature industrial heat. He’ll strengthen regulations for oil and methane gas and he will introduce new climate-risk disclosure regulations and investment guidelines for financial institutions — ideas that come from his Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is currently bleeding members. If he tries to apply it to the Canada Pension Plan, too, not a millisecond will pass before Alberta Premier Danielle Smith declares: “Alberta Pension Plan"
Carney will also introduce a “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” a tariff or quota on the carbon content of imports. The aim is to protect Canadian emitters from competitors in countries with inadequate carbon pricing, though it won’t help Canadian companies compete in export markets. For the next four years at least, the U.S. certainly won’t be going in this direction so a new “Canada carbon tariff” could easily provoke U.S. retaliation. After last week’s fiasco, do we really want to juice the trade war even more?
Of course, no Liberal plan would miss out on budget-busting subsidies. Carney will provide new incentives for: home retrofits, heat pumps for low-income families, investment tax credits and slush funds for green energy, and reinstated $5,000 grants for electric cars.
No price tag is provided for the mushrooming spending and bureaucracy, and there’s no cull of the 149 separate federal programs listed in Environment and Climate Change Canada’s 2023 progress report. To name just a few, the oil and gas cap, low-carbon fuel regulation, the EV mandate and the plethora of tax credits all remain in place.
Carney’s commitment to dealing with climate change is undoubtedly heartfelt. His backgrounder claims climate policy “brings Canadians together, makes our economy more competitive and grows jobs today and in the future.” But does it?
The challenge is that oil and gas provide enormous wealth, not only to the producing provinces and nearby First Nations, but to the federal government and other provinces. Extracting non-conventional oil is Canada’s most productive industry. Value-added per hour worked is 13 times what it is in manufacturing. And most analysts agree that oil and natural gas will be required for decades yet, even as consumers shift to alternative energy sources. Yet Carney wants to shut it down.
Whatever energy transition does or doesn’t take place over the next few decades should be based on simple, non-distortionary policies that don’t prevent Canadians and their firms from being economically competitive. The Trudeau government has undermined Canada’s growth by zealously blocking oil and gas development, with the result that we are wholly dependent on U.S. demand. While Canada has been serving as the world’s climate boy scout, China has used its cheap, reliable coal-powered electricity to fuel a dominant position in the world markets for EVs and renewable energy.
As for climate policy bringing Canadians together, there is little evidence of that. A plan that kills off Canadian oil and gas while other countries continue to produce it will never win over westerners — or Newfoundlanders. Anyone who doesn’t understand that probably is “just like Justin.”
It also sounds like the polar opposite of what he's been saying to the public about Canada becoming a "natural resources superpower" and streamlining the federal workforce.
With this plan, he's essentially telling Canadians he's going to follow through on his stated plans, re net zero policies, production/emissions caps for oil & gas, etc
Alberta basically pays for everybody else's shit via equalization payments. Alberta pays for this because of the revenue they generate from oil & gas (predominantly)
How does he propose to pay provinces their health transfers, or pay for national defence, or fund the CBC, or pay for the expansion of an already severely bloated federal workforce if he kills the only industries keeping the country afloat?
How does he plan on becoming the "energy superpower" he talks about if he kills off the energy industry?
Like for f**k sake, the man is a walking incarnation of the phrase "Wish in one hand & shit in the other, and see which one fills up first..."
We can't be an energy superpower if the energy sector gets killed off. We can't be a rare minerals/metals superpower if we don't approve any development projects for minerals/metals...
We can't shrink & streamline a bloated federal workforce if his proposed scheme requires that workforce to expand even further to pull it off.
So which is it?
...
People can be skepticle of how PP will perform as a Prime Minister. I guess the only way to find out is by giving him the opportunity to finally prove himself.
But PP's policies are pretty straightforward & uncomplicated.
And his intentions are to tax people less, tax businesses less, create more jobs, build more housing, streamline inter-provincial affairs, and inject some life back into our awesome country that's been bled out over the last 10 years...
His heart is in the right place. (I think, anyway)
Carney has offered a 1% tax decrease for those in the lowest income tax bracket. PP has offered a 15% tax decrease for that same bracket.
Which offer will help those people more?
...
The above carbon pricing scheme from Carney is exactly what I think a lot of people expect from him.
The only important part of that whole scheme is basically that key players in the financial sector (especially those he has connections to) will benefit immensely, while the rest of us can basically go f**k ourselves...
And the affect on Canada as a country? Meh. He comes from an organization that doesn't believe nation states should continue to exist anyway... (re post nation states)
It's like Canadians have mass Stockholm Syndrome, and are afraid to part ways with what they've come to know because the other guy happens to be different.
I want my country back. The complicated nonsense above doesn't inspire faith (in me anyway...) that we'll move in that direction...
(Weekly rant is now done & out of the way!)
True. And fair point.
I feel like the LPC should have made the qualification requirements crystal clear to anybody who was interested in running for party leadership, and reviewed their applications to ensure they passed those requirements, before accepting the $350k application fee...
Asking for the $350k application fee upfront, then informing them that they actually don't qualify to run & subsequently disqualify them but don't refund them that fee shows a total lack of good will.
...
Now I'll be the first to admit this is just my own, fairly uninformed opinion. I'm probably ignorant of a few things regarding this, and if that's the case I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.
But I just feel like if someone wants to run for party leader, and they submit their application & their application meets the requirements - and they then pay the $350k fee to proceed as a candidate - that at that point the 'gatekeeper' of sorts have done their job.
It is now up to the party membership to vote on who they think will be the best person to lead the party.
...
Telling the candidates they actually don't qualify to run, after they've submitted their application, but keeping the $350k fee seems like a bad faith money grab to me...
And telling 2/3 of the party's membership that their votes actually dont count is the same thing as telling 2/3 of the party's membership that their opinions don't count...
Those people paid money to become a member of the party, and they paid to become members so their opinions would count. Otherwise, what's the point of paying money to become a member of the party?
If they don't respect their own party's membership enough to value their opinions/votes, why would the leader of the party value the opinions of people who aren't members?
I know I rag on the LPC a lot these days, but believe it or not I actually dont have a problem at all with Liberals. I DO, however, have a problem with the current leadership & senior managers of the Liberal Party of Canada these days...
And that's why I say it isn't the same party as it was under Chretien or Martin. I don't have a problem at all with the traditional Liberal party that existed when I was growing up. I just feel like the party, as it is being run today, isn't that same party...
...
My reply ended up going a totally different direction than the point you made. My apologies.
(I must've had sugar before I went to bed last night, or however that saying goes)
HavokFour
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 155
- Points
- 580
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,742
- Points
- 1,260
Noted. Thank you.
Similar threads
