this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
46 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

7268 readers
630 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
46
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigns from Trudeau's cabinet (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I've never really thought about her, but my support for Freeland is at an all-time high. With Trudeau ignoring calls from within his party to step down, the tax holiday and $250 cheque gimmicks, and thinking that working Canadians give a crap about Mark Carney - he has shown he is sooo out of touch, and Freeland's backing off feels like the most principled move available. It's nice to see someone left-ish in politics signaling "the status quo is not good enough - I expect better. Canadians expect better"

Freeland also took a jab at Trudeau's handling of the country's economy, denouncing what she called the government's "costly political gimmicks"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

thinking that working Canadians give a crap about Mark Carney - he has shown he is sooo out of touch

I think this is a serious problem with all the Carney sycophancy. I've tried to tease out what he'd be like at the helm from some interviews I've seen with him. What I've figured is that he's very much into finding solutions using markets but I don't think he's a free market fundamentalist. That puts him right where the current LPC thought is, which is in the words of Comr. Dyatlov - not great, not terrible. Unfortunately we need better than that because our current trend isn't a positive one for the working class.

With all that said I don't know where Freeland sits. I wouldn't be surprised for her to ideologically close to Carney given they're close.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting insights, thanks for sharing! I'm not as savvy as you are in this area but I thought about this more today. I believe Freeland to be pretty similar to Trudeau policy-wise, and Freeland is perhaps seizing an opportunity to lay the groundwork to distinguish herself as fiscally prudent for later leadership bids. All that's to say, I'm not excited about the idea of Freeland taking over for Trudeau. I hope she just stirs things and motivates the LPC to consider more attractive candidates

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

I don't know if I'm savvy, I'm just trying to read the tea leaves just like you. 😅

I hope she just stirs things and motivates the LPC to consider more attractive candidates

This is where I am too.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, I'm gonna go and suggest the GST vacation is probably a "costly political gimmick". Honestly, I'm with her on not signing off on that.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The GST vacation offloaded all the work to the local businesses, many who weren't ready to apply the exemption in time. Kind of a dick move to them.

It would have made more sense to give that back in the form of a tax rebate during income season, or through bonus child benefit / pension payments, etc who are usually those that needs it the most if they wanted to put it back in people's pocket faster.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The thing that bothers me most about it is that it's making the tax less progressive.

The people who will benefit the most are people who spend the most on: toys, games, eating out, etc.

I get that the whole point is to allow some luxuries for Christmas, but this is going to do jack shit for people who are really struggling.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Yeah, if someone can't afford a toy at $56, they're not going to be able to afford it at $53.50 even one of the most expensive exempt items I can think of, a PS5 Pro ($1075.20 after tax, not including electronic eco waste fees or whatever), only goes down by $48. Not nothing, but hardly a meaningful impact. Someone on fulltime minimum wage who spent 100% of there income on newly tax exempt stuff would save about $200 over the 2 months, but that's not even including the necessities that don't get any cheaper like rent and other bills.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

Yeah it's gotta be that and the $250 cheques.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago

non-amp link: https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.7411380

[–] sbv 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"On Friday, you told me you no longer want me to serve as your Finance Minister and offered me another position in the cabinet," Freeland wrote, addressing Trudeau. "Upon reflection, I have concluded that the only honest and viable path is for me to resign from the cabinet."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Scenario: Freeland foments party revolt against Trudeau, figuring it's her chance to be PM. Leadership contest ensues. Carney steps in and wins it.

[–] HellsBelle 1 points 3 hours ago

Freeland won't run for party leader, if for no other reason than she knows she'll just be a sacrificial lamb.

And the old boy's network hasn't yet been able to get Carney to sign on the dotted line, so he's a ways off from being a sure thing.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

Well, that's a bombshell.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Jesus fucking Christ. So he told her he'll shuffle her to another ministerial spot and she resigned instead, before issuing the FES. 💣💥

Can this trigger an LPC leadership election?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would love that frankly.

Trudeau should have been dropped in 2021, he only won because the COC imploded. At this point the entire cabinet and party is burned, and the CPC would rally behind a Labrador retriever if it got them power rather than repeat their mistakes.

Internationally every incumbent party is getting wiped out, it’ll be no different here. Letting Trudeau fall on the sword is going to obliterate the party, but switching all the leadership roles based on party member input will at least tell Canadians the party knows we want change and badly.

They’ll probably get destroyed anyways, but this might be a unique opportunity to clean house and capitalize on the unpopularity of Pollievre and Singh.

It might also be political suicide, which means the deadweight lifers won’t take it. I would admire a leader taking that all or nothing gamble though.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If we (the collective ABC vote) can keep Poilievre from getting a majority, that's worth whatever shit is gonna go down.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

On one hand, I really do agree PP as PM would/will be a calamity. On the other, this whole "anything but" voting strategy is a fucking travesty of the democratic process that's exactly why we've been stuck on an endless cycle of Liberal/Conservative governments for the last handful of decades.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

It is a travesty, but no party who gains enough power to lead a government in Canada has any incentive to change the system. The party currently in power always has the most to lose from it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

that’s exactly why we’ve been stuck on an endless cycle of Liberal/Conservative governments for the last handful of decades

Genuinely I can't see how this follows and I've tried.

Keep in mind when I say ABC, I don't mean anything like campaigning for the LPC instead of the NDP "to defeat" the CPC. ABC in my world is just about strategy of voting on election day (or early voting), not about doing what you should do to get more people to vote for the candidates you want to win. If I prefer the NDP (I do), I'd donate and talk to friends and family about voting NDP, especially in the ridings where NDP candidates can win. For example in Parkdale—High Park, but not in Fort Mac.

By voting ABC I mean specifically looking at the numbers for the local riding on the day I vote, checking which one of these cases they resemble:

  • CPC: 34, NDP: 33, LPC: 33
  • CPC: 44, NDP: 44, LPC: 12
  • CPC: 44, LPC: 44, NDP: 12
  • CPC: 12, LPC: 44, NDP: 44
  • CPC: 12, LPC: 48, NDP: 40

Then vote like this respectively:

  • CPC: 34, NDP: 33, LPC: 33
    • Vote NDP since either has a chance of beating CPC and I prefer NDP
  • CPC: 44, NDP: 44, LPC: 12
    • Vote NDP since they're the only ones that have a chance of beating CPC. Voting LPC likely won't get the LPC to win this riding but is depriving the NDP from a vote that can tip it over the CPC, therefore increasing the chance of the CPC winning
  • CPC: 44, LPC: 44, NDP: 12
    • Vote LPC since they're the only ones that have a reasonable chance of beating CPC. Voting NDP likely won't get the NDP to win this riding but is depriving the LPC from a vote that can tip it over the CPC, therefore increasing the chance of the CPC winning
  • CPC: 12, LPC: 44, NDP: 44
    • Vote NDP since the CPC has no chance of winning this riding and I prefer NDP
  • CPC: 12, LPC: 48, NDP: 40
    • Vote NDP since the CPC has no chance of winning this riding and I prefer NDP and hopefully we can close the gap and defeat the LPC candidate

There are other cases, but these are good enough to illustrate my reasoning. I just can't see how this strategy can lead to more wins for CPC and LPC and fewer for NDP. ABC as described here should lead to fewer CPC MPs and more other MPs proportional to their vote share. Under these conditions, how much that vote share is depends on who people prefer more.

I think the reason why we've had CPC/LPC swings for decades has more to do with Canadian society as a whole eating up the neolib propaganda fed to the world since the 80s.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I think the reason why we've had CPC/LPC swings for decades has more to do with Canadian society as a whole eating up the neolib propaganda fed to the world since the 80s.

That part we can mostly agree on

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think it's a workaround that increases the democratic representation within FPTP. I prefer an LPC MP than a CPC MP because the LPC MP represents me more closely than the CPC MP, even if I'd ultimately prefer an NDP MP. As I've mentioned in another comment - ABC doesn't mean vote LPC if you don't want CPC. It means vote for whoever not CPC can win in you riding, NDP, LPC, Green, etc. It sucks but I think that is in fact more democratic within the not-so-democratic system we have than producing vote splits which elect people who represent us even less.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I see where you're coming from, but that's kind of a lazy excuse (on a wider scale, not you personally). If candidate 2 is the crappy incumbent ABC people will vote for them to keep out candidate 3 because they think they have a shot, even if they all would've preferred candidate 1. And then the cycle repeats and gets more entrenched.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes but you're telling me about problems of FPTP we're already familiar with. FPTP is a bad system.

Guess what happens the next time after the vote is split between the shit incumbent and the better choice, electing a con - people go back voting for the shit incumbent that previously lost in the hope to not elect a con again.

Strategic voting (not campaigning) doesn't come from thin air. It comes from people's lived experiences with vote-split events that led to bad governments (for them) and trying to avoid that in the future.

Not running candidates in ridings where they'd split the vote is the only practical workaround I can think of that obviates the need for strategic voting. None of our parties are doing that except perhaps BQ.

Treating the FPTP as something that it's not is the worst option in my opinion. It's a shit system and the more people understand how it works and what outcomes their votes produce the better. Even better, the more people understand that, the more they'll demand a change to something else.

I don't know, that's my thought process and I don't think it's devoid of logic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I’m all aboard the ABC train this election but I’ve never not wanted to vote for any party before. I’ll have to see which way the wind is blowing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Check your riding polling close to election day, or during early voting. There's usually info coming out per-riding that shows who has an edge.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

I’ve never not wanted to vote for any party before.

BTW I get this feeling too.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

ABC voters are the worst to be.

The Liberals are just as bad as the Conservatives, and are just as responsible for the state of the country today. There has only ever been Liberals and Conservatives on a Federal level. The only exception is the one time we had an NDP opposition.

This is a direct result of "Anything but" politics.

Vote for what you believe in. Otherwise you are just a partisan tool used to maintain the status quo, and just as bad as who ever you choose to include with your "Anything but" rhetoric.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Hey buddy, we don't live in a PR country. Voting ABC means getting whoever can win in our local riding win. In my riding, over the last few elections the NDP has finished with abysmal numbers compared to LPC and CPC. A voter going NDP instead of LPC in this riding is a boost to the CPC candidate. Conversely in ridings where NDP has better chance of winning, a voter going LPC gives a boost to the CPC candidate. If all voters were informed ABC voters we'd have more LPC and NDP MPs and fewer CPC ones, likely resulting in more supply-and-confidence governments. I'll go a step further. If Jagmeet had his head out of his ass, he'd have began being strategic about this and explicitly run candidates only where he's got a reasonable chance to win and where he's got a chance to flip a lib, and not run candidates where he doesn't. The latter giving more seats to the CPC. If the LPC falls behind or is just as diminished as the NDP, I'd say the same thing about them. They should only run where they can win, and not run where the NDP has good chances to win against the CPC. We saw this play out in the recent French election where the NFP and Macron's party withdrew candidates in order to win more seats altogether than NR.

I think you might be confusing what ABC means. ABC doesn't mean vote LPC if you don't want CPC to win.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results"

How effective has your "ABC" strategy been? What positive results can you point to?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Keeping Scheer and O'Toole from the PM office. Electing the current minority government that did some useful stuff. Keeping the CBC funded throughout this time. Having some climate policy.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How effective has your “ABC” strategy been?

How has keeping Sheer and O'Toole out of office helped Canada and Canadians?

What "useful stuff" has passed through the house since 2021 that can be solely attributed to the current Minority Government?

What has the current Government done to ensure the CBC survives without it?

What climate policy specifically?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

There are obvious answers to all of these questions. The fact you're asking makes me feel like this isn't a good faith discussion.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are obvious answers to all of these questions. The fact you’re asking tells me this isn’t a good faith discussion.

The fact you cannot answer these "obvious questions" demonstrates you are not here in good faith.

If you believe in your strategy back it up. Tell me specifically what your strategy has accomplished and why it would benefit me to use it.

Otherwise take your nonsense "ABC" rhetoric that I have heard ad nauseam every election cycle for 30 years elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wow

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago

Wow

Exhibit B.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

”That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war," Freeland wrote. "That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment."

Really felt like she was dropping what we’ve all been thinking about gimmicks and politicians more interested in themselves than the country.

Honestly if she felt this way then she failed at her job by not pushing that perspective.

Why did she push forward the cheques and tax holiday if they’re gimmicks. She could have said she’d resign before the gimmicks, but now that they’re out and have backfired I think that ends her political career in any future cabinet.

Honestly going ride or die on your beliefs is needed. Now she’s burned herself, yet she’s still throwing shade like it’s the parties fault, which just hurts everyone. Funny how she has this perspective now.

ETA: I might be too hard on Freeland here, I had mistakenly thought she announced these programs.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What makes you think she DIDN'T say she would resign if he did it??

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Maybe you’re right, I had thought she announced it herself, but reading back Trudeau did.

I was definitely wrong there.

Totally possible she said she’d leave after the update, but I’m still confused on Trudeau asking her to resign on Friday.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It looks like Trudeau wasn't asking her to resign - he was looking to shuffle her out of the role and into a different cabinet post. Which isn't exactly a vote of confidence.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Again thank you for correcting me, I misread that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

If she wanted it to look like a principled choice, she should have done it before it was officially announced (and a done deal in private) or just after it was announced. Waiting until it's in place and public opinion is clear gives the appearance of yet another politician checking which way the political wind is blowing before making a move.

I could see her using this as pressure and a lead up to Trudeau stepping down so she can throw her hat in the ring with a little extra political capital and distance from the ruling cabinet.