this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
15 points (85.7% liked)

Canada

7193 readers
410 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
15
Danielle Smith’s Big Pierre Poilievre Problem (thetyee.ca)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Abacus Data’s latest polling has the federal Conservatives out to their biggest lead in over a decade. Unless there is a drastic change over the summer, Canadians ought to prepare for a Conservative majority at some point in the next year or so.

At the Museum of Vancouver, ‘True Tribal’ explores the visual language of mark making from around the world. Reclaiming Wet’suwet’en Storytelling in ‘Yintah’ Reclaiming Wet’suwet’en Storytelling in ‘Yintah’

At this year’s DOXA, catch a new wave of Indigenous-led docs. A Q&A with Freda Huson and director-journalist Michael Toledano.

No one should be paying closer attention than Danielle Smith and the United Conservative Party.

A change of government in Ottawa would have a major impact on provincial politics in Alberta. With no whipping boy or scapegoat in Ottawa, the provincial UCP would need to shift focus and even rebrand.

At the same time, the Fair Deal strategy launched by the Jason Kenney government and accelerated by Smith has created a set of demands and expectations upon the next prime minister that may be difficult to walk back.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

So the Liberals —who had a majority government and declared that we would never have another election using FPTP— chose to put a bunch of people in a room together who they knew wouldn't agree on anything, and then those people came back and said "yeah sorry we couldn't agree on anything", and the Liberals were just like "yeah no worries. We didn't expect you to agree on it... Wow, electoral reform is really hard! We give up!"

And you don't view that as the Liberals killing electoral reform? You are a sucker falling for their incredibly transparent attempt to pawn off the blame. It was absolutely their responsibility and their fault.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 months ago

I'm sorry you're wrong about this. There was no conspiracy to kill ER from the onset, no lie, just a failed attempt to build a cooperative process that varying interests killed for their own, largely self serving, political reasons.

That you can't tell a lie from something that didn't quite work out is, I think, a common failure in the electorate, so at least you aren't alone in this frankly poor understanding of what happened.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Anyone with experience in politics knows why the Liberals did what they did.

IF the Liberals had pushed through the legislation, the CPC and Bloc were both going to portray it a Liberal power grab, and that message would definitely get traction. The CPC had already said they'd revert back to FPTP, and the Bloc was making noises that they'd back them up.

That's why the Liberals went out of their way to do what they did. What they didn't expect was the NDP going all or nothing on MMP, a system that laypeople find difficult to understand, and certainly not one to be explained easily in a sound bite.

Internal Liberal polling, not the dog and pony online poll, found that most people didn't care, but could easily be convinced it was a power grab. They were putting a lot of effort in something that had no upside, but a pile of potential downside.

They cut their losses, and aside from online forums, paid little price for it.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I do think that the NDP going all or nothing on MMP is what ultimately killed the whole thing for the LPC, what was the final nail anyway. Reading that committee report broke my heart, to be honest, because I wanted ER to succeed, but I knew it was dead when the CPC/NDP/Bloc wrote the majority committee report and didn't put anything the LPC could vote for in it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

MMP is the best system though, I don't see why the NDP pushing for it is considered bad. You really only get one shot at electoral reform, why put in a system like STV that's barely any better? Pleanty of other countries use MMP without issue.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Well on the flip side the LPC grassroots supported STV, and had twice in the previous ten years voted to make it party policy. I see no reason the LPC, majority in the house and elected to a mandate, should have been the ones to abandon their party policy for the policy of the smallest party in the house. But even then, in committee the NDP didn't recommend a specific form of MMP, they more or less provided vague instructions for choosing a new system, not a new system. The NDP also sided with the CPC, and reccoemended a referendum that could not be held before the next election. It was a bad spot, with no good way through.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

MMP is difficult to explain to anyone uninterested in electoral reform, ie the majority of voters. Include things like party lists and members at large, and you can get some pretty significant drawbacks. There was also the more likely possibility of constitutional issues than with STV or ranked ballot, given the seat allocations outlined in the constitution.

Ranked or STV are easy to explain, ranked especially. Ridings and the ballots don't even need to change. Instead of an X, put numbers in the circle. Easy-peasy to explain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

It might be easy to explain, but it is less effective at proportionally distributing power and more likely to keep the two party system going. That's why the LPC supported it, because they hoped it wouldn't really change anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Congrats on having "experience in politics" (whatever that means), but it seems like you just used a lot of words to agree with me:

Trudeau lied about electoral reform.

Trying to justify it with Machiavellian politics doesn't change that simple fact.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

No. That's a completely reductivist take. They gave it a shot, the NDP were MMP or bust, the CPC got the others to agree to a referendum that they knew would fail. At that point the project was dead.