Probably not. I did last time though. I wasn’t voting LPC either but that equation is changing.
LPC leadership race - 2025
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,979
- Points
- 1,310
I don't feel like getting a warning, but you do you.
I am entirely with you on this. We need farmers, and those farms are tied to a healthy economy that has every aspect of growth enabled in a sustainable manner.
Again, I fully agree with you. The Trudeau government absolutely dropped the ball for the last 9 years on our economic development in favour of boutique, eco-pandering. It was stupid and they're rightfully getting taken to the cleaners on it.
I have 4 kids and a wife who is disabled and can't work. I have made paycheques stretch a country mile because I have had to. The TB gives ZERO fucks if my CoL changes because of reasons. Additionally, if I am filling 4 positions because we're short, I don't see another dime; only less time with my kids.
Not everything is sunshine and roses public sector, nor is it all doom and gloom in the private sector. Circumstances are all personal, and we somehow make it work. Its when EVERYTHING across the board sucks that we need to change who is at the top setting those conditions.
Who is at the top is all a matter of personal preference and is a protected right under the Charter. So if someone wants the LPC to be their choice on their piece of paper, so be it.
I have said this many times before: this is a by-product of Trudeau wanting to cling to power. Had he left in the summer, (or 2021, or 2019) you would find more and better candidates vying for the LPC leadership.
Instead, we have a rushed leadership race in a hurricane of trade wars, war wars, and a depressed economy.
All of this creates the shit show we now see before us.
In conclusion, all of these things can be discussed without resulting in personal attacks. You have your experiences, I have mine. Your opinion is yours, mine is mine. At the end of the day, we can either exchange these opinions as gentlemen and learn something; or, we can become the nasty troglidites we see polluting the rest of the internet and feel good about ourselves in our ecochambers.
- Reaction score
- 23,428
- Points
- 1,360
This I just found
Liberal House Leader Karina Gould says she’s running for Liberal leadership
Government House leader Karina Gould says she’s entering the race to replace Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader.www.ctvnews.ca
Gould was the Parliamentarian who sponsored the $10/day Child Care vote (Bill C-35), that 100% of the CPC voted unanimously (yes, even Pierre Poilievre, who Liberal ads lie and say he voted No) Aye for, while the Liberals were NOT unanimous, 98.7% of them voted Aye…
Vote Detail - 385 - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada
Vote Detail - 385 - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada
- Reaction score
- 23,428
- Points
- 1,360
Do you not consider a party’s official policy declaration to be substantive, or are only *moistly-spoken words considered substance?
Last edited:
Depends on if the leader declares that he’s not bound by that.
- Reaction score
- 23,428
- Points
- 1,360
Are we going to apply that to all leaders/candidates, or just Poilievre?
All. I’ve said before. Campaigns matter. PP said he isn’t bound by his party policy platform. So it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 12,425
- Points
- 1,260
Ok so what I am getting from you is you don't like his, Poilievre's, tone of voice; and you don't like him in glasses.
But what exactly do you want the opposition party to do ? Is it basically support the sitting Gov ?
I think you have to go back an look how the sitting Gov has talked to and about its people. The tone of parliament is led from the siting Gov not the opposition parties. If you want cooperation and function it begins with the leadership. The opposition cant change that.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 12,425
- Points
- 1,260
Friend, and I mean that sincerely, I think you are looking for monsters where there are none.
Are there people in opposition to trans and abortion rights, absolutely. Are they ever going to get their way through legislation, never. And I am not a guy who is 100% pro choice. As long as we remain Canadian anyways.
- Reaction score
- 5,006
- Points
- 1,260
The adjectives I'd use would be indicative & suggestive, but not binding. It's direction from the party re: what they want a Team Blue government to do - and parties have mechanisms of some sort to deal with coaches who don't follow the policy resolutions on a consistent basis. In this case, Team Blue's coach has also said he doesn't have to follow what's in that particular play book.
I can only speak for myself, but I'd use the same yardsticks for any party's policy resolutions/documents. Always happy to be corrected, but I haven't heard the other leaders, so far, say publicly "don't need to follow the official policy playbook in whole or in part."
The winning team does set the tone, and this one hasn't been setting a (to be polite) fully-welcoming face. On the other hand, the opposition can also choose to reach out with ideas and, if having their hand bitten, offer that up as proof of "they don't want to play together." It has been done in both the U.S. and Canada in the distant past when the earth was cooling, but nowhere near as likely now.
Right this second, I'd say the odds of either side sincerely reaching out to the other are about the same: how thin a hair above zero can one measure?
- Reaction score
- 23,428
- Points
- 1,360
I missed him saying that - would there be a link/reference for that?
When does whatever it is become a campaign then? Do statements before a campaign count? eg. should we take Freeland at her word that she’ll cut the carbon tax?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 12,425
- Points
- 1,260
I'm sorry, I refuse to agree to your two way straight narrative.
This sitting government has called its own citizens misogynists and racists, all the while entertaining a black face leader, who fires every strong female he has around him; and invites SS members into parliament.
This Gov needs to lead by example, and I won't entertain criticism of the opposition for something the sitting Gov won't do.
You can criticize PP on his policies ideas, or lack there of, all you want. But his tone and actions are a direct reflection of what is on the other side of the house and in power. If you have a problem with that the LPC needs to make the first move.
- Reaction score
- 23,428
- Points
- 1,360
To be at least somewhat respectful of the context of those words, Poilievre was referring to not being bound by grass routes members’ bill/ideas. I have yet to see Poilievre say he is not bound by the CPC’s official policy directive.
So are we to take anything any leader/candidate says as truth, or just wait until the election is called and then see what official policies are endorsed/published?
- Reaction score
- 5,006
- Points
- 1,260
Just sayin' that both sides waiting for the other to make the first move, saying it's the other side's fault, doesn't usually lead to any doors opening even a crack. Something about being the bigger man - and we've seen how likely that is from Team Red, right? So the solution is either 1) give it a go, get shit on and say "hey, we tried," or 2) not even try, saying "he did it first." We'll have to wait and see how open PP becomes to potential solutions outside his team's approach when (if current polling holds) he becomes PM and gets to set the tone.
Given where the policy document resolutions come from, then you and I'll have to agree to disagree on what this quote from PP means: "Leaders are never bound by convention resolutions, but we do take them into consideration."
Great question. Hope you don't regret the rant
Executive Summary: Like media stories, one can't take any political statement, either before an election or during a campaign (including platform planks) as the whole truth. Who one believes & how much will usually depend on who one tends to believe & how much.
Boring pendant bit ...
I can't remember where I read/heard this, but it's been said that media statements are not given under oath. Outside of court proceedings or parliamentary testimony under oath, same with political statements of any kind, before, during or after an election.
Truth? When it comes to political statements, it's usually in the eye of the beholder. Do you take Liberal politicians' statements as truth? How about those of the NDP? BQ? I'll bet a lot of folks think in terms of "I believe some more than others." To borrow another cliche, where you stand usually depends on where you sit.
Sometimes, it's not binary. Like the Team Blue child care voting record, the "truth" is in the eye of the beholder (they voted bigly against the idea during the budget vote, but they voted bigly for the enabling legislation), with sometimes contradictory facts both being correct at the same time. Like I've said before, grey zones don't make for good memes, zingers or bumper stickers.
Firm platform or policy planks can sometimes get sidetracked or contradicted based on situations nobody guessed would happen when the plank was hammered into place. Boosters'll say "hey, that was then, this is now, and they need to do x to respond to new circumstances", while haters'll say, "a flip flop - what about what they said in their policy documents/on the campaign/in the House/in that interview?"
If enough voters buy into the reasons for the course correction/flip flop, the team gets to play another electoral inning next ballot season. If the electorate as a whole doesn't buy the reasons, the team gets benched next election.
Just like reading media stories, I'm taking more of a "yeah, but what else is there I don't know?" approach to more and more political speech I'm hearing/reading from whatever side.
Thanks for your patience - now back to our regularly scheduled, less pedantic discussion
- Reaction score
- 20,487
- Points
- 1,280
Oh, I moderated my original comment to you. Don’t worry about that - you got through alright.
But not in the way you would like.
- Reaction score
- 20,487
- Points
- 1,280
The opposition totally can change that.
If, say, the CPC went “if they go low, we go high” and the LPC didn’t match them, there would be a super-easy win on the part of the CPC. Canadians, by and large, do not respond well to bully tactics - if the opposition responded diplomatically and the LPC didn’t, the polling numbers would be even more in favour of the CPC. Hell, Poilievre’s numbers might be higher too.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,733
- Points
- 1,160
Okay, sure. But Poilievre is still totally worse. He's a monster.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 16,433
- Points
- 1,260
And here I thought we were talking about the LPC......
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,517
- Points
- 1,010
I think the perspective is objective. The example is the past nine years. Extending this train wreck only worsens the situation.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,732
- Points
- 1,010
Good point, RSM. Lets redirect.
The candidates so far
-Mark Carney
-Chrystia Freeland
-Karina Gould
-Frank Bayliss
-Some obscure dude who has zero chance (chandra something). Can't speak french.
I see a lot of back peddling by Carney and Freeland on carbon tax (for those not in the know, Carney was promoting Carbon tax around the world)
Frank Bayliss is probably really the guy who can distance himself from Trudeau (he has been out of politics since 2019), however some questions about his medical supply company booming during COVID. Lets see
Carney is all kinds of unrelatable and full of crap. He has been advising and helping the LPC not just for a few months but years. Voting for him is like voting Trudeau's policies on steroids.
Freeland we know what we are getting. I don't think she has a chance. Its too bad, I think she is more genuine than her child's godfather, Mr Carney.
Gould would make an ok leader of the opposition but she has to really be clear about what she stands for (and not parrot Trudeau's talking points)
Chandra, Ok dude. Tell Modi you can't penetrate the PM position.
The candidates so far
-Mark Carney
-Chrystia Freeland
-Karina Gould
-Frank Bayliss
-Some obscure dude who has zero chance (chandra something). Can't speak french.
I see a lot of back peddling by Carney and Freeland on carbon tax (for those not in the know, Carney was promoting Carbon tax around the world)
Frank Bayliss is probably really the guy who can distance himself from Trudeau (he has been out of politics since 2019), however some questions about his medical supply company booming during COVID. Lets see
Carney is all kinds of unrelatable and full of crap. He has been advising and helping the LPC not just for a few months but years. Voting for him is like voting Trudeau's policies on steroids.
Freeland we know what we are getting. I don't think she has a chance. Its too bad, I think she is more genuine than her child's godfather, Mr Carney.
Gould would make an ok leader of the opposition but she has to really be clear about what she stands for (and not parrot Trudeau's talking points)
Chandra, Ok dude. Tell Modi you can't penetrate the PM position.
