[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Sheilbh]

I'm am still confused, who do you think the audience of that speech was?

I looked it up - keynote address at dinner of Canada's "leading, independent, progressive" think tank of which he is also the board chair.

If it's flat at an audience that friendly and engaged, then it's not an issue of misjudging the audience/venue.

[crazy canuck]

I'm am still confused, who do you think the audience of that speech was?

I looked it up - keynote address at dinner of Canada's "leading, independent, progressive" think tank of which he is also the board chair.

If it's flat at an audience that friendly and engaged, then it's not an issue of misjudging the audience/venue.

I think you are missing important context.  This is an audience that is friendly to the Liberal party.  Not to him.  His purpose was to critique the recent budget.  Had he done so using political rhetoric he would have received a very cold reception.  He needed to deliver the message the way he did.

The other context you are missing is he was widely complimented in the newspapers for taking that stand.  It would have been a lot easier for him to do as you suggest he should have done and given a rah rah political speech to adoring supporters.  The fact he did not do that is a good, not a bad sign.

[PRC]

Poilievre got booted from the House today because he wouldn't withdraw a statement calling Trudeau a "wacko".  He instead tried to sidestep and say he was replacing that term with "extremist" and then "radical".  It was over drug policy in BC.  Temperature between these parties continues to rise.

[crazy canuck]

Poilievre got booted from the House today because he wouldn't withdraw a statement calling Trudeau a "wacko".  He instead tried to sidestep and say he was replacing that term with "extremist" and then "radical".  It was over drug policy in BC.  Temperature between these parties continues to rise.

Personal attacks are not allowed.  PP knows this and may even have hoped he would be booted out.

The problem is, according to the Globe reporting, JT also engaged in personal attack "Immediately before the events, Trudeau had accused Poilievre of associating with far-right extremists and said a person who does so is not fit to be prime minister."  And nothing happened to him.

[Barrister]

Poilievre got booted from the House today because he wouldn't withdraw a statement calling Trudeau a "wacko".  He instead tried to sidestep and say he was replacing that term with "extremist" and then "radical".  It was over drug policy in BC.  Temperature between these parties continues to rise.

The drug policy in BC thing is kind of wild.  BC got permission from the Feds to decriminalize small amounts of hard drugs.  This was supposed to be a three year trial period.  One year into the trial BC has asked to backtrack and recriminalize hard drugs - Trudeau's government has been "well let's think about it".

Conduct in Parliament - I'm really of two minds.  You don't want Parliament to be a total circus.  I've said before how I hate the accusations of "lying" which is absolutely prohibited in Parliament and rightly so.  But politics is serious, tempers are allowed to be heated, and I don't want a university debate atmosphere where everyone is super polite either.

"Wacko" is beyond the pale, so the speaker was right to object.  I don't see what's necessarily wrong with "extremist" or "radical" however - unless if it's part of an ongoing strategy to say something unparliamentary and then immediately backtrack.

Trudeau was hardly measured in his words either, calling Poilievre "spineless", engaging in "personal attacks" and most notably courting "white nationalist groups".

[Sheilbh]

Conduct in Parliament - I'm really of two minds.  You don't want Parliament to be a total circus.  I've said before how I hate the accusations of "lying" which is absolutely prohibited in Parliament and rightly so.  But politics is serious, tempers are allowed to be heated, and I don't want a university debate atmosphere where everyone is super polite either.

I agree on "lying" but more generally I think it is good to basically ban people from impugning people's motives because there's no way to know. We don't see into each other's souls and forcing an assumption that everyone is operating on good faith even if you think they're wrong/mad/evil is good - and if they do say something that turns out to be untrue force them back to withdraw it.

Otherwise I tend to admire Aussie robustness While I'm disappointed he's become a China shill in retirement I'm a huge admirer of Paul Keating so I think "wacko" is positively mild (No issue with spineless, consorting with white nationalists, or not fit to be PM either - especially if true).

I think you are missing important context.  This is an audience that is friendly to the Liberal party.  Not to him.  His purpose was to critique the recent budget.  Had he done so using political rhetoric he would have received a very cold reception.  He needed to deliver the message the way he did.

The other context you are missing is he was widely complimented in the newspapers for taking that stand.  It would have been a lot easier for him to do as you suggest he should have done and given a rah rah political speech to adoring supporters.  The fact he did not do that is a good, not a bad sign.

I mean I'm still not convinced this is necessarily a good argument for someone to take a very political role.

The clip he shared was all on the attack on the right - and as I say I think it was flat. Again, not insurmountable and maybe what you'd expect from someone who's new to politics but if I was looking for someone to save the government it'd be a pretty big warning sign for me.

[crazy canuck]

I explained the context of the speech but based on your own research and a short video clip you saw, you got it all figured out.  Excellent.

[Sheilbh]

No it's just an opinion and mine is different and quite possibly very wrong. I barely have dinner figured out but I have views

Although as I say it's based on the clip he shared on social media - so that's I assume where he or his team think he's makinng the point/crux of his argument best.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think so, I think it is more about soothing feelings that might have been hurt by the rest of his speech that was directed at the budget.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree on "lying" but more generally I think it is good to basically ban people from impugning people's motives because there's no way to know. We don't see into each other's souls and forcing an assumption that everyone is operating on good faith even if you think they're wrong/mad/evil is good - and if they do say something that turns out to be untrue force them back to withdraw it.

I've been beating this drum for decades now.  Questioning a person's motives provides no additional information other than you dislike them.  Praising motives does the opposite.  It's what a person does when they are unable to argue the merits.  It also feeds into my previous point that many people's agenda is to get angrier.

[viper37]

PP has a short fuse.

And he's making a show in chambers, with another mp, to get expelled, then whine, as any good conservative would do this day.

Disgusting.

He's making a mockery of our institutions instead of attempting to reforming them

[HVC]

PP has a short fuse.

And he's making a show in chambers, with another mp, to get expelled, then whine, as any good conservative would do this day.

Disgusting.

He's making a mockery of our institutions instead of attempting to reforming them

Your journey of turning into a liberal is coming along nicely

[crazy canuck]

The most rational thing is to be disgusted by the antics of both parties at the moment

[crazy canuck]

I think this description from the Globe accurately describes what PP did

"When Mr. Fergus asked him to withdraw the unparliamentary term, Mr. Poilievre instead said he would replace the term with "extremist." But that's the kind of non-withdrawal the Speakers have been rejecting for decades, and Mr. Poilievre, a veteran of 20 years in the Commons, knows it. It would have been easy enough to say he withdrew the unparliamentary word – MPs do so it all the time, with wildly varying degrees of sincerity – but he obviously wanted to be suspended."

[viper37]

PP has a short fuse.

And he's making a show in chambers, with another mp, to get expelled, then whine, as any good conservative would do this day.

Disgusting.

He's making a mockery of our institutions instead of attempting to reforming them

Your journey of turning into a liberal is coming along nicely

If PP keeps making clown moves he might force me to vote Bloc though.

I doubt Mark Carney can change 157 years of contemps toward French speakers.

Besides, he seems like a competent fellow who knows what he's talking about when discussing economics .  No chance the Libs would want someone like that and any chance of ever uniting the left would be gone.



In all seriousness, I don't think the angle of attack against Carney would be the same as Ignatieff, but more like "WEF" and " Bay Street Banker", trying to paint him as totally disconnected from the average canadian, with more clowneries.

And there's a good segment of the electorate who like that, left and right.  The PPC under Poilièvre has proven, in the polls at least, it cam attract young leftist voters.

Let's see if it translates to real votes with the general election.