this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
91 points (95.0% liked)

Canada

9627 readers
1370 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

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otters_raft@lemmy.ca
91
Carney's decision to let Poilievre run immediately for a seat in Alberta is good strategy and good politics (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

[–] Eranziel@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

This is the perspective every north american inhabitant NEEDS.