A Conservative federal government would create political headaches for the UCP.
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.
Yea, no, I’m not ignorant I’m just not falling in for meme thought.
Liberals support STV because party members got together during policy convention time, which is semi annual, usually in hyper local groups of 40-50, across the country in small halls and hotel convention rooms, to debate and vote on policy to send to provincial and then national policy convention until all Liberal party members had a free vote on it, choosing STV. The fact you don’t recognize Liberal support for STV as grassroots tells me you aren’t serious in the least in your understanding of what happened.
You bought the hive-mind hot take and took it as gospel, like many others, and find it easier to close your ears and repeat that take than to actually consider what happened. You’re in popular company I guess, but still wrong.
I don’t recognize a single party’s unilateral decision as a grassroots movement of the whole. I have no idea regarding the precise mechanism by which the Liberals choose the voting system best suited to their own needs, and frankly, I’m not sure how it’s relevant to our conversation.
Other systems are better suited to a majority of Canadians and have support that crosses party boundaries. It’s a minority, but a good number of Liberal voters support MMP, for example.
You aren’t sure why it’s relevant for a party to respect their grass roots supporters and the policy they decided on? You aren’t sure why that would be relevant in a discussion that I evolves the precise mechanism by which party policy becomes the law of a nation? Come on.
Why would the LPC adopt the policy position (MMP) of the smallest party in the House of Commons over the known, official, grass roots, twice democratically affirmed over ten years position of their own membership? It doesn’t make sense, never did, wasn’t going to happen.
Way to just put words in my mouth which I haven’t even come close to suggesting. Such good faith behavior. If you don’t understand what I’ve written, or I haven’t communicated well, you can simply ask for clarification.
I’m saying it’s irrelevant if the effective decision to torpedo their party’s own promise was decided upon by collectively, by a conference of their MPs, or dictated by Trudeau himself.
Why would the LPC adopt the policy position (MMP)
They wouldn’t, because it hurts them at the polls. They don’t care about doing the right thing for Canadians, just that they don’t lose seats to the NDP, even if that comes at the cost of losing an election to the conservatives. The main thing keeping them in power isn’t good policy, it’s scare tactics of a Conservative majority combined with FPTP.
Once again, read their comments on the ER report if you want to know what they truly think of their own voters. They spent pages whining about methodology which wasn’t thoroughly explained because its already widely accepted. Pure FUD.
Edit: It just occurred to me that perhaps were not seeing eye to eye because of how this conversation started: “Trudeau lied.”
I just wanted to clarify that you understand that when most people say that, they’re aware that the policy platform that a party head runs on isn’t solely their own personal discretion. Is your argument that Trudeau didn’t lie because it was a collective decision? Because that would clarify why you care so much about this whole grassroots distinction.
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
Yea, no, I’m not ignorant I’m just not falling in for meme thought. Liberals support STV because party members got together during policy convention time, which is semi annual, usually in hyper local groups of 40-50, across the country in small halls and hotel convention rooms, to debate and vote on policy to send to provincial and then national policy convention until all Liberal party members had a free vote on it, choosing STV. The fact you don’t recognize Liberal support for STV as grassroots tells me you aren’t serious in the least in your understanding of what happened.
You bought the hive-mind hot take and took it as gospel, like many others, and find it easier to close your ears and repeat that take than to actually consider what happened. You’re in popular company I guess, but still wrong.
I don’t recognize a single party’s unilateral decision as a grassroots movement of the whole. I have no idea regarding the precise mechanism by which the Liberals choose the voting system best suited to their own needs, and frankly, I’m not sure how it’s relevant to our conversation.
Other systems are better suited to a majority of Canadians and have support that crosses party boundaries. It’s a minority, but a good number of Liberal voters support MMP, for example.
You aren’t sure why it’s relevant for a party to respect their grass roots supporters and the policy they decided on? You aren’t sure why that would be relevant in a discussion that I evolves the precise mechanism by which party policy becomes the law of a nation? Come on.
Why would the LPC adopt the policy position (MMP) of the smallest party in the House of Commons over the known, official, grass roots, twice democratically affirmed over ten years position of their own membership? It doesn’t make sense, never did, wasn’t going to happen.
Way to just put words in my mouth which I haven’t even come close to suggesting. Such good faith behavior. If you don’t understand what I’ve written, or I haven’t communicated well, you can simply ask for clarification.
I’m saying it’s irrelevant if the effective decision to torpedo their party’s own promise was decided upon by collectively, by a conference of their MPs, or dictated by Trudeau himself.
They wouldn’t, because it hurts them at the polls. They don’t care about doing the right thing for Canadians, just that they don’t lose seats to the NDP, even if that comes at the cost of losing an election to the conservatives. The main thing keeping them in power isn’t good policy, it’s scare tactics of a Conservative majority combined with FPTP.
Once again, read their comments on the ER report if you want to know what they truly think of their own voters. They spent pages whining about methodology which wasn’t thoroughly explained because its already widely accepted. Pure FUD.
Edit: It just occurred to me that perhaps were not seeing eye to eye because of how this conversation started: “Trudeau lied.”
I just wanted to clarify that you understand that when most people say that, they’re aware that the policy platform that a party head runs on isn’t solely their own personal discretion. Is your argument that Trudeau didn’t lie because it was a collective decision? Because that would clarify why you care so much about this whole grassroots distinction.