Firstly it gives Poilievre an honest opportunity to contribute. People want to see everyone working together, so by letting Poilievre in right away he’s giving him a chance to temper the rhetoric and get work done. And if he doesn’t temper the rhetoric, it’s likely to work in Carney’s favour. If he’s seen as obstructing, it will not look good for him. It seems like a win-win-win… It looks like fair dealing, if Poilievre comes to the table honestly it works for Carney, if he doesn’t it works for Carney as well. It’s good politics that is both strategic in the way it encourages good cooperation and has good optics around fairness.
Secondly, the elephant in the room is the separation nonsense. Poilievre is running for a seat in the heart of separatist country, and with the separation rhetoric ramping up, better to have Poilievre - who is ideologically tied to Smith and will be representing Alberta - in the public eye as soon as possible, so he can wear this garbage. After all, Smith seems to be adept at causing no end of hassle for Poilievre. Best to put him front and centre as soon as possible so he is forced to respond to it.
Carney has consistently looked like the adult in the room.
Especially when he called out Justin Trudeau for imposing for his own preferred electoral system while ignoring the wishes of Canadians.
No, quite frankly not remotely.
That was him pandering because he knows that the two things people on the left complain about Trudeau for is housing and ER.
It wasn’t him actually addressing a serious topic or making a serious decision in a meaningful way.
Manufacturing perceived disagreement is politics 101. However, in this case there’s no reason to believe that Carney isn’t being sincere. I haven’t met anyone that doesn’t believe Trudeau fucked that up. Even if he knew it was domed to failure he should have gone ahead. Unless you’re predisposed to dislike Carney, there’s no reason to assume he isn’t holding the same opinion on this as everyone else. Do you know something we don’t?
Agreed. If the liberals put forth a bill for electoral reform, then I’ll believe it.
Alternatively, they could let one of the NDP members create the bill and still vote in favour. That would be a great show of cooperation and good faith between parties, while also showing how minority governments could continue to work well.
I think this is nearly impossible. I believe it’s the most conservative-safe riding in the country.
Usually when someone is parachuted into a seat where they don’t live, the locals are usually not pleased.
I believe that candidates should have to be permanent residents of their riding. In this case, they picked a riding where the locals will probably be happy to have Poilievre.
Carney and his party are engaging in “fair dealing” and expecting the same in return.
Democrats in the U.S. have been making that same mistake for decades. The person and party Poilievre adores and emulates, (Trump, Republicans and their appointed judges) do exactly as they please and screw the opposition for fun – damn the constitution, voters, laws and any possible sense of fairness. The U.S. is experiencing the result of the Democrat’s assumption of “fair dealing” and it has resulted in a fascist regime, citizens being kidnapped and deported, disastrous tariffs, laws ignored, and the Constitution undermined.
IMO Carney’s brought a chess set to a gun fight and is playing into Poiliere’s hands.
The difference here is that the Liberals are not the Democrats. They will stand up and push back. If Poilievre makes it about needless opposition, they will just work with the other parties and keep going. They don’t need him.
But yes, I can appreciate what you say. It seems clear that the Republicans and those like them have only ever paid lip service to good faith and respectful dialogue, and they’ve never done anything but take advantage of anyone who offers them goodwill. I can see this starting in western Canada, and I do believe Poilievre is cut from the same cloth. But I think Carney has a strategic advantage here and it doesn’t disadvantage him to at least try to create a better environment. Hard liners won’t change, but Canada seems to have softer support in the centre and they generally prefer civil politics.
I hope you’re right about the Liberals pushing back, but I have no doubt in my mind that if the situation were reversed, Poilievre would delay the byelection for as long as possible and attempt to force the Opposition leader out of Stornoway, just to be as disruptive and difficult as possible.
I don’t think this is Carney’s intent at all. I think this is done fully expecting PP to be just as petulant as he’s been all this time. It’s to show that he’s just as terrible as everybody who voted against him knows him to be, and to make his supporters start to really think about who they voted for. Not to mention that PP will accomplish absolutely nothing as the official opposition leader, since Carney only needs three seats to vote for anything, and he can get that from the NDP that’s most closely aligned to the Liberals, or even the Bloc that have openly stated to form a ceasefire as long as Trump continues to attack Canada.
It’s far better than risking the Conservatives getting an actually competent leader that can rally their constituency when they’re already looking like they’re breaking at the seams. By allowing PP to have a seat and be official opposition leader, it makes it harder for the Conservatives to remove PP and put someone else in, which puts further strain on their cohesion.
I feel like Carney’s move is an attempt to make the Conservatives break apart with the realization that this election was the best chance they had at gaining power in a long time, and things will look worse because it’s almost impossible for Carney to screw up in ways that’ll make his support weaker the next election as long as he continues to play hardball against Trump.
At the very worst, he can treat the guy like a mild annoyance, since no matter how loudly he yells, it’s easy to ignore him when the Conservative vote means nothing in this virtual majority government.
I’m mostly annoyed by the cost. We just had an election and pp is instantly costing us more by doing this. The party should have to pay for a by-election so close to the election.
Why is the cost a concern? It mostly goes to low income temp workers. Even a general election is a microscopic component of govt spending. Democracy and elections should be among the highest spending priorities.
If you want to complain about spending, complain about something wasteful, like $60B in annual subsidies for the US-owned oil industry that produces 70% of AB oil. Shave that by 1% and you’d pay for every by-election since 1867
Yeah, the cost is so incredibly tiny. To take the full general election as an example, it cost each of us about $20. Is a fair and democratic election not worth $20 to you? It sure as heck is to me.
It didn’t cost “us” anything. Citizens aren’t respsible for the Fed govt’s spending, deficit, or debt. Private individuals and companies don’t pay it. Taxes never need to be raised to run surpluses to “pay off the debt”.
The money spent on elections or anything else is received by private individuals and firms, and they go on to spend it on other things. Some of it is returned in taxes.
If the govt were to run austere spending and high taxes, producing enough surpluses to pay off the debt…how much money would remain in private hands? ZERO!
Something to keep in mind any time someone complains about how expensive elections or other useful govt spending is.
My main concern is that we just paid that $20 each, and now that pp’s feelings got hurt we get to pay that amount again. For an MP to retire right away like that, the by-election cost should be shouldered by the party responsible for putting a candidate in who had no good reason to back out and resign.
I do also complain about oil subsidies, but that’s a completely different topic.
