this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
52 points (94.8% liked)

Canada

8643 readers
1788 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
52
Liberals already fundraising with Carney (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 day ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Liberal mailing list sent this an hour or two ago. "From" Mark Carney:

I am deeply honoured to be our next Liberal leader – and I’m ready to get to work.

...

We’re going to build the fastest-growing economy in the G7.

We’ll cut taxes that divide us and put money back into your pockets.

We’ll invest in health care, seniors, and affordable child care.

We’ll take bold action on climate, and we’ll protect Canadian workers from Trump’s tariffs.

I really hope that ol affordability crisis just slipped his mind. Tax cuts are fine (even if it's coded language for dropping the carbon tax), but groceries are still crazy expensive and housing is still hard to come by.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Reminder of the Liberal's record on proportional representation: "Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation"

Mark Carney's position on electoral reform: "open". However...

  1. He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quite nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
  2. His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 18 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?

He's trying to play both sides: if he says no, then he alienates NDP and other non-Libs; if he says yes, then he alienates those who like the current system or are afraid of change.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 7 points 23 hours ago

You're bang on! Instead of playing both sides, how about we just play the side of democracy: !fairvote@lemmy.ca

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 7 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

With all due respect, election reform is at the bottom of the list of my priorities as a voter.

I would have liked changed, but no two official parties agree on what the solution is. Trudeau tried it and that’s why he didn’t do it.

Doing this again and making it a big issue is just going to go exactly the same.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think that was why - the special committee report recommended a referendum and switching to Proportional Representation.

Two parties stand to lose the most from that - Liberal and Conservative. NDP, Green, and fringe parties like PPC stand to gain the most, as do the people of Canada, IMO. Trudeau didn't want it to go to a referendum, because the liberals would lose significant power, and likely never again become a majority party, as there is a not-insignificant portion of people who vote Liberal as an anything-but-conservative approach.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks, my understanding may have been wrong then

I will do more homework on this

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

Let me know if there's more nuance I missed! It's been a while since I looked into it.

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 hours ago

Disagree on your assessment of why PR failed, but I agree with it being the bottom of my priorities right now. Back in 2013 I voted Liberal for the first time (normally an NDP voter) purely for electoral reform - it's incredibly important for the long term health of our democracy. However, we're in an economic crisis, and I really think we need to survive the next few years before we can worry about long term health, and I think Carney is the right guy for that. I will be happy to see him replaced with someone more progressive down the road.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 3 points 22 hours ago

But with proportional representation, you'd be able to vote in a government that is able to address your priorities effectively...

In a democracy, the ultimate power should be vested in its citizens. I'm not making it a big issue, it is inherently a big issue.

[–] CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works 5 points 12 hours ago

There was no codes language on dropping the carbon tax. He explicitly said he'd drop it in his acceptance speech. He also said he would not increase capital gains tax.

But he is still the only candidate with a remote chance of depeating PP.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

If he’s cutting taxes, how will he fund health care etc?

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 14 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

As far as I know, he's only planning on cutting the carbon tax ("taxes that divide us"). The carbon tax doesn't fund health care.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 6 points 23 hours ago

He's sorta kinda promising tax cuts, if we're good:

A Mark Carney-led government’s fiscal policy will focus first on reining in wasteful and ineffective government spending, creating room for personal income tax cuts so that Canadians can keep more of their hard-earned money and better cope with the higher cost of living.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Well...

We will slow the growth of government spending, initially cap the size of the public service, and review our spending with an emphasis on outcomes and technology to reduce inefficiencies. By leveraging AI and machine learning to boost productivity and cut costs across government, we will build a highly competitive, technology-enabled public service focused on delivering for Canadians and ensuring funds are allocated where they best serve Canadians.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 5 points 21 hours ago

So lay people off and use technology that tells you to use glue to keep cheese on pizza?

/s

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

Because Trudeau already guaranteed extended healthcare funding for every province.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works -1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

No offence to you Canadians, but goddamn your politicians are fuuucked.

Neoliberal politics will be the doom of us all.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago

lol, you said it. We were able to coast along for a few decades, but I think it's gonna be time to pay the piper soon.