That’s the thing right there. In Canada, we know we can end up in an election at almost any time. One good scandal, or just a big mistake, and Carney could lose the confidence of the House, and off we go!
And we’d be stuck with PP as leader of the Conservatives when that happens, and facing the prospect that he might actually win. Hell, he should have won last time with the huge lead he had in polling just before the election, and that could happen again. Any current party leader could be PM within a matter of months, and so we should always be concerned about who these people are.
And it’s that typical delusion that drove me away from the Conservative Party. You say I “would never vote for them”, but I did vote for them for most of my life, until Harper finally drove me away. Hell, post-Harper, I actually bought a party membership so I could vote for a party leader I thought might fix some of the worst stuff they were doing, but it was all for nought. They’ve lost my vote because they just keep on doubling down on the worst aspects of the party, and abandoning everything of theirs I ever supported. I maintain some small hope that someday they may get their heads out of their asses enough to come back to reality, but it’s people like you that will never fix it.
Fix what? If Harper was to much for you, then what? It’s not up to me to fix anything if you have the issue. Why don’t you fix it if you have a membership. I certainly don’t.
Had a membership, they don’t last forever, and the reason “I” didn’t “fix it” is because a couple of hundred thousand other people decided they didn’t want to elect a better leader, so they elected a worse one. And they’ve kept on doing that ever since.
Correct, I don’t like PP. The issue for Pierre is that he has a solidly net negative approval rating. In the only poll that counts, he lost at the ballot box. When more than 50% of voters don’t like you, even in a multi-party system, you aren’t getting elected.
Because he came dangerously close to actually having to suggest solutions.
Everyone is “talking” about housing prices. Everyone knows we have to do something to make housing more affordable. The problem is, the people in charge have to do more than talk, they have to actually come up with a plan to do something about it, and then deal with it if their plan fails.
Key findings from the website (which PP has said many times and continues to say).
Reward cities that permit over 15% more homebuilding each year with additional federal funding, while reducing infrastructure funding proportionally for cities that miss their targets.
Require cities to permit high-density housing around federally funded transit stations as a condition of receiving federal funding.
Require cities to pre-permithousing as a part of getting federal funds for related roads, bridges & transit.
The Opposition’s job is to represent their constituents, even if the other fellow won. They still deserve someone attempting to tamper legislation wherever possible. By working together. But instead he’s duped his following into believing being eternally aggrieved, is somehow a political platform.
I too, find him unbearably smug, but thinking back, maybe conservatives fancy that, think Andrew Sheer. They have a type, Stephen Harper fits as well, I think. Maybe it’s from having to force a smile a lot?
Well, it’s good that Trump is handling the recent wildfires from our Northern neighbor with maturity and grace. Basically he wants to put tariffs on Canada because of the smoke.
So Trump vowed to call PM Mark Carney. I hope Carney lets him know that only 4% of the forests in Canada are owned by the federal government, mostly in the form of National Parks and Department of National Defense lands. Then hangs up on him.
Government legislation supported by the conservatives.
Bill C-5 – One Canadian Economy Act (2025)
Supply Management Bill (Bill C-202)
Perhaps you can compare how the Liberals supported the Conservative government when the Cons had the majority rather than just positing unsupported claims.
If the standard is “work together whenever possible,” then show where Conservatives refused to support good legislation. They supported Bill C-5 because they agreed with much of its purpose. Equally, when the Conservatives governed, Liberals opposed many of Harper’s signature bills. That’s not proof of grievance politics; it’s the normal role of an opposition in a parliamentary democracy.
Maybe if you want cooperation, you’d have the Liberals propose removing a number of legislations that are demonstratably anti-business. I’d think you’d see quite a bit of support along with a lot of ‘why did it take so long?!’
Trump is clear. He wants to break Canada economically. He really, really, really, wants to destroy the country. He needs to destroy everything he cannot control and consume. It’s like Hitler/Stalin/Japan gobbling up land in WW2.
Trump sees all deals as NEEDING to be predatory. If you are not parasitically damaging to the other party, you have left money on the table and a healthy rival.
Under this mentally of attack, control, consume there is no value in having a political or economic relationship with any other country. Canada is to be eaten, not traded with.
Because there are no trump defenders in this thread?
Now all this could have been avoided if Canada had elected a real leader who could make a deal, someone other than ‘let’s give the bridge away Carney’, let’s say. A trained chimp, perhaps?
If he wasn’t Trump’s bitch before he definitely is now, imo.
There is exactly one deal that Trump will accept: he gets everything and anyone else gets nothing. Is that the deal you want? Because that is the deal Canada can have as long as Trump is alive. The wildfire smoke just reminded him that he hasn’t done his 51st state bit for a while and he’s back at it again, trying to destroy Canada the same way he has destroyed the US. Trump is not a skilled negotiator. He’s a shit-flinging monkey with dementia. There are no good deals to be had.
Carney agreed to share the profits on a bridge that isn’t going to be making any money anytime soon. He gave Trump half of nothing. After Trump dies (God willing, soon) Carney will be able to negotiate with someone else who might actually be rational.
How do you not grasp the actual problem when it’s been explained again and again? Do you want the existing free trade deal to be replaced by a free trade deal? Should we then replace that with a free trade deal? What on earth are you talking about?