The problem is that, should they implement electoral reform, it would mean no more Liberal majorities ever.
They’re okay with swapping seats with the Conservatives every few years, but having to cooperate with the NDP every day forever, and dragging Canadian politics leftward to meet the actual needs of the electorate, is a non-starter for the Calgary and Laurentian cheque-writers that underpin both the LPC and CPC.
They’re not very left-wing by objective standards, or compared to their roots, but by modern, Overton-window-has-shifted-to-the-right standards they’re left-wing.
But there’s a grain of truth in what the parent is saying: if you cost out the platforms of Jagmeet Singh or Andrea Horwath from the last elections, you’ll find they’re less economically liberal than Brian Mulroney or Mike Harris.
No, the Liberal Party is fiscally liberal, not fiscally conservative. While both philosophies think a market economy is the best economic system, a fiscal liberal is more inclined to use fiscal policy to intervene in that market economy to rectify social or economic inequalities. This would be entirely counter to fiscal conservatism.
For example, a fiscal liberal will support a public health system, a public broadcaster, $10 a day childcare, and EV / electrification/greening grants.
A fiscal conservative will be more laissez faire, and not want any of those things.
I bring this up because by not recognizing the difference we set ourselves up to put conservatives back into power, after all , “both sides same”.
Now social democrats (of which many in the NDP are) tend towards mixed-economy, social-liberalism. This philosophy contains the main body of New Democrats and a contingent of LPC (the left-liberals, social liberals). It’s why we can see progress on nationalized programs under LPC-NDP governments. The NDP has a true democratic socialist rump too, but they have much fewer areas of true overlap with Liberal philosophy.
No, I’m not confused. You seem married to some fairly unsophisticated ideas about political philosophy, and I’m no divorce lawyer. Sorry to waste your time.
They want to talk about abolishing the CBC, but if they did they’d lose their whipping boy. If they really cared, they’d also be talking about defunding RCI, but they’re too chickenshit to take that on because Quebecois conservatives like it, while their Alberta base hates the CBC because…reasons.
Bingo. The LPC and the CPC are two sides of the same neoliberal coin.
For all the people arguing for a third party option in the US, this is why it won’t work. The two main parties will be happy to trade roles every few years and maintain the overall status quo.
I suspect it would result in permanent minorities, and the growth of smaller, more local parties. I’m no political scientist, but as far as I can tell, formalized political parties are just magnets for corruption and consolidation of power that’s for sale to anyone with a fistfull of disposable cash.
There’s a difference between “formed with a minority” and “no chance at a majority ever again”.
The LPC (and CPC) are quite happy with the current system. The LPC would accept AFV or ranked-ballot, but only because they’re everyone’s second choice, where the Conservatives are the first choice of ~35% of the population, but almost no one’s second.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
The problem is that, should they implement electoral reform, it would mean no more Liberal majorities ever.
They’re okay with swapping seats with the Conservatives every few years, but having to cooperate with the NDP every day forever, and dragging Canadian politics leftward to meet the actual needs of the electorate, is a non-starter for the Calgary and Laurentian cheque-writers that underpin both the LPC and CPC.
The NDP aren’t left wing anymore under silver-spoon Jagmeet. Dude’s just another trust fund baby like Trudeau.
You don’t pay attention
The NDP are certainly not bold enough or left enough for my liking but to say they’re not left wing at all is disingenuous
They’re not very left-wing by objective standards, or compared to their roots, but by modern, Overton-window-has-shifted-to-the-right standards they’re left-wing.
But there’s a grain of truth in what the parent is saying: if you cost out the platforms of Jagmeet Singh or Andrea Horwath from the last elections, you’ll find they’re less economically liberal than Brian Mulroney or Mike Harris.
Libs are closer to the Cons than they are the NDP
This isn’t true at all. Liberals are much closer to social democrats than they are to fiscal and social conservatism.
They are fiscally conservative not just close
No, the Liberal Party is fiscally liberal, not fiscally conservative. While both philosophies think a market economy is the best economic system, a fiscal liberal is more inclined to use fiscal policy to intervene in that market economy to rectify social or economic inequalities. This would be entirely counter to fiscal conservatism.
For example, a fiscal liberal will support a public health system, a public broadcaster, $10 a day childcare, and EV / electrification/greening grants.
A fiscal conservative will be more laissez faire, and not want any of those things.
I bring this up because by not recognizing the difference we set ourselves up to put conservatives back into power, after all , “both sides same”.
Now social democrats (of which many in the NDP are) tend towards mixed-economy, social-liberalism. This philosophy contains the main body of New Democrats and a contingent of LPC (the left-liberals, social liberals). It’s why we can see progress on nationalized programs under LPC-NDP governments. The NDP has a true democratic socialist rump too, but they have much fewer areas of true overlap with Liberal philosophy.
NDP
Cons want this as well, but they want it to favour them
Cons give grants to oil/gas, you’re confusing energy grants (economic) with climate change (social)
No, I’m not confused. You seem married to some fairly unsophisticated ideas about political philosophy, and I’m no divorce lawyer. Sorry to waste your time.
Your argument of giving grants to energy sure
But then the Cons also give grants to energy
So if you want to say they are both fiscally liberal then youve made a point but I think it is meaningless
I thought the cons wanted to abolish the CBC?
Only for being non-biased
They want to talk about abolishing the CBC, but if they did they’d lose their whipping boy. If they really cared, they’d also be talking about defunding RCI, but they’re too chickenshit to take that on because Quebecois conservatives like it, while their Alberta base hates the CBC because…reasons.
Good thing that the Conservatives and Liberals are both…neoliberals, then.
Bingo. The LPC and the CPC are two sides of the same neoliberal coin.
For all the people arguing for a third party option in the US, this is why it won’t work. The two main parties will be happy to trade roles every few years and maintain the overall status quo.
I suspect it would result in permanent minorities, and the growth of smaller, more local parties. I’m no political scientist, but as far as I can tell, formalized political parties are just magnets for corruption and consolidation of power that’s for sale to anyone with a fistfull of disposable cash.
Most governments have formed with a minority for the past couple of decades. It’s already the reality.
But you’re right that they wouldn’t want to formalize it.
There’s a difference between “formed with a minority” and “no chance at a majority ever again”.
The LPC (and CPC) are quite happy with the current system. The LPC would accept AFV or ranked-ballot, but only because they’re everyone’s second choice, where the Conservatives are the first choice of ~35% of the population, but almost no one’s second.