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.
maybe there’s something about procedure that i’m unaware of, but what do you mean “let” him run? i’m not sure the PM has the power to prevent an MP from stepping down and letting the party leader run in the by election. i’ve never heard of the PM blocking this move before
The key word is “immediately”. It is within his power to delay the byelection for months.
The PM doesn’t have to call an MP election immediately, they can wait up to 6 months before calling an election. And I believe they also get to set how long the campaign period is to an extent which would delay things further. If Carney wanted to play politics, he could prevent the Conservatives from having their leader in the house of commons until sometime in 2026. It’s a classy move that Carney stated he would call an election immediately if an MP gives up their position for Poilievre to run. It shows he’s not about playing political games and is wanting to work together with other parties to unify Canada.
I’m referring to the fact that he could have made Poilievre wait until November (I think he has up to 6 months). He did not have to do it immediately, it was Carney’s decision to make.
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.
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.
