The corporate liberals are gutting taxes on private jets, yachts and unused housing while Mark Carney is telling struggling canadians to make sacrifices.

[–] GrindingGears@lemmy.ca 36 points 4 months ago

It's a very conservative-ish budget. The liberals are now the conservatives, and the conservatives are now the anti-christ.

[–] rozodru@pie.andmc.ca 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

oh and don't forget they also want to give $1billion to AI development over the next 5 years.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 8 points 4 months ago

I kept reading on here how Carney was such a smart choice, because of his work with the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. Not like that job scream "fucking over the poor" or anything... /s

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (14 children)

It's absolutely horrible. How disconnected are these fucking people???

I told everyone on here that voting in Mark Carney was going to be a big mistake. I was right. Yet, there are still people on here saying "give him a chance, he's the best option we have". No. actually. He's not, and I see what happens when we "give him a chance"?? He fucks average Canadians over for the benefit of the rich.

They're stuck in this 80's Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney era of neo-liberalism trickle down bullshit and they can't see outside that fucking box.

[–] Amuletta@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 months ago (5 children)

What was the alternative? I would have loved to vote NDP, and usually do in local elections, but they stood no chance. I wasn't so much voting for Carney as against Poilievre.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Withhold your volunteering and donating to the liberals since they already get so much money from the rich consistently. They will always put their interests before everyday canadians.

Strategically vote if you have to and redirect your efforts to the independents, fairvote and smaller parties.

[–] Amuletta@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

Who says I donate and volunteer??? I have never done that for any political party.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Okay, and Pollievre would be better?

Singh was completely cooked since the 2021 election, running him again and with such poor messaging was entirely the NDP’s fault. It was not fear-mongering.

Singh’s numbers had been publicly decreasing for years, he lost seats in past elections, and the NDP decided to run a ton of single issue candidates run whose whole platform was Palestine.

Meanwhile the party quietly did have a decent pro middle class platform, but didn’t really message that and got too caught up on how tax cuts also affect the rich (up to a very small amount of their income).

I’m sorry but there was only one choice this election. I would have loved a real NDP choice, they chose not to.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Maybe canada should stop preaching about human right values if they still support the longest standing occupation in the world. NPD platform was not about palestine only. Outside of the debate npd never talked about Palestine in the compaign

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago (12 children)

Voting for the Conservatives was going to be an even bigger mistake.

No idea why you think the Liberals were the worst of the two options available.

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] rozodru@pie.andmc.ca 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean what choice did we have? we didn't. It was either a conservative in a liberal furry suit, A wanna-be apple munching trump, or a guy that has never had an original thought pass through his head.

We were fucked. we realized we were fucked. And we decided the fake liberal was the way to go. Canadian politics are so fucked our choices are conservative, ultra conservative, or a weak wannabe democrat party.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There's a third, even fourth option. A strong NDP in a minority government would've gone a long way.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago

In a minority Liberal government, perhaps. I don't see a Conservative minority government being particularly interested in working with the NDP.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Only two parties were realistically capable of forming a government in that election. One was led by Carney, the other by Pollievre.

You're saying going with the Carney option was a "big mistake?"

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Carney being a fiscal conservative / pro-free market / pro-private sector business person isn't a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to his career. That the liberals are a centrist party who's values skew left / right based on the perceived 'majority' that exists in the centre, which is the demographic they attempt to target to get elected, isn't a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to the history of the liberal party. That Canada's general sentiment is/had shifted towards the right, in part due to the perception of unequal treatment under the guise of initiatives such as DEI and equity programs, isn't a surprise to anyone who's followed social trends (at least, those who try to get a fairly 'outside of an echo chamber' feel for them).

This isn't to say I support the tax breaks being given to the rich of course. If I had my way, we'd go in a much different direction. All I'm trying to get at is that this isn't all that surprising to many, and it's likely still an outcome they viewed as preferable to PP's conservatives, and to the NDP. Hell, the NDP basically said vote liberal if it helped to stop the Cons.

I'm sure part of the hope is that the liberals will shift right far enough, that the cons won't have a viable path to full control of the government. In theory that'll open up more room for the NDP on the left. Where people who are for some reason 'shocked' by Carney's moves, will find solace.

What's more shocking to me in a way is how far to the left the Liberals had drifted, as a centrist party. That's what opened up opportunities for the cons to make such large gains, and what caused the NDP to be so thoroughly routed. Seeing cons cross the isle because the Liberals are once again more 'centrist' in their values, isn't a bad thing.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago

It's definitely something I expected to happen and still prefer over PP and the conservatives being in charge, but even though I didn't vote NDP doesn't mean I prefer this outcome over NDP being in power.

I voted liberal because my riding is largely conservative and it would be lucky to turn red and a miracle to go orange

If we had a different electoral system I would have gone 1 NDP 2 Green 3 Liberal and 4 Conservative in ranked choice.

Unfortunately we are currently stuck with first past the post leading to my riding voting blue with a narrow lead over red and hardly any voters for orange and green.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

How much farther right does the centrist party needs to go before the far-right option drops of the table and the “leftist” option becomes viable as the new center? The southern neighbour has shown us: too much

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Gotta admit, I'm not too clear on what you're positing here. Yes, there's the possibility that the liberals could go too far to the right -- similar to how they'd gone too far to the left recently -- and as a result essentially eliminate support for far right parties. I personally don't think it's too likely that either 'extreme' would get fully squashed, as there will always be a small segment that thinks things haven't gone far enough.

Our southern neighbour is just, in absolute chaos at the moment. I don't really see how anything from their current situation or their historic style of government translates to Canada's electoral stuff in this case. In addition to having multiple parties, the structure of the legislature is also quite different. Realistically, having more parties that represent better wedges of the Canadian landscape is a net win for how well the government's actions likely align to the people's will.

I mean, the cons going in for that hard-right bullshit, was basically a political choice based on them figuring they wouldn't lose the fiscally conservative/socially progressive support from the party. PP embraced US/Trump style bullshit, because he was confident his supporters who hated that, had no where to go.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Your comment was long so I guess it’s on me for not highlighting which part I was commenting on:

I’m sure part of the hope is that the liberals will shift right far enough, that the cons won’t have a viable path to full control of the government.

I’m saying this hope is misguided. The cons are solidifying as Canada’s far right and the Liberals will never be right of center enough to make the Cons not viable.

similar to how they’d gone too far to the left recently

lol I’ll read this as “too far for their own good” instead of “too far for the common good”, then I could see how that could be a thing

I don’t really see how anything from their current situation or their historic style of government translates to Canada’s electoral stuff

And yet, PP is copying the homework

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Conservative floor crossers are a clear data point that refutes your proposition. I mean, it's pretty much literal proof to the contrary.

Similarly, the liberals right leaning bias, having gained increased support from moderate right wingers, is making more far left supporters reconsider their support of the libs -- making it fair to reason that the NDP will see a bit of a bump next time.

If memory serves, the harder-right social sorts were basically annihilated in the late 90s. In 1993, the conservatives had just 2 seats. The reform party from western Canada was originally a more socially neutral / fiscally progressive movement -- it didn't focus at all on women's rights, though it did propose some modest reforms to things like immigration and the approach to quebec. It only really became more stupid, when it morphed into the Alliance, and then absorbed the Eastern conservatives to try and gain national support -- and with those eastern cons came the social bullshit. But long and short, a fiscally conservative but socially progressive or neutral party likely still has the potential to undercut the far right conservatives.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Conservative floor crossers are a clear data point that refutes your proposition.

As much as a record snow storm refutes global warming. What would really refute me would be an election cycle where conservatives stop gaining seats while flirting with far right ideology. I yearn to see it, I just won’t bet on it.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is f-tier toxic social media rage bait.

She's says literally nothing of substance, just makes sweeping generalizations to try and get outraged for clicks.

Go read actual written journalism.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

I can only listen to this presenter for a short time anyway. The vocal fry gets to me pretty quickly.

[–] reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Still probably much better than the alternative.

Although, as long as the populace allows corporations to financially incentivize politics, corruption is going to be the default mode.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is legitimately not even as simple as Canadians wanting to do something given that corporations have shown that they are very very willing to flee countries to others if they don't like the policy there.

Redditors and Lemmings are quite frankly, naiive children in their approach to politics. Just picking the most "altruistic" path and ignoring the realities of the way the world works is not going to bring about the outcome you want.

[–] reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So, you think we should cater to corporations in fear of them leaving?

I say good riddance. The companies in question cry all the time about open market and healthy competition when it suits them, all the while doing every shady thing they can in the background to monopolize, dominate and capitalize.

I’m not sure what altruism you are referring to, though posting on a lemmy forum, saying that all “Lemmings” are a specific way, while clearly demonstrating that you exemplify it, is interesting to me.

Edit. Ask != all

load more comments