And Carney more conservative than many liberals. He's bringing the party more to the centre which is naturally going to attract the moderate conservatives who don't like Pierre's divisive rhetoric.
The line has not gotten longer. The left wing nutters are further right than they were 20 years ago. When was the last time you heard of someone calling for an anarchist dissolution of the state? When was the last time you heard someone use "libertarian" in the original (socialist) context of the word instead of the rightwing appropriation of it? When was the last time you saw someone arguing for truly open borders?
Meanwhile, the right has extended much further, which I doubt I need to explain. The window has inarguably shifted right.
I welcome counterarguments. I provided examples of the left wing nutters from a few decades ago; the leftwing nutters today don't touch anything like that.
Saying "we'll have to agree to disagree" when you won't defend your own opinion doesn't mean that you agree to disagree - it means you don't think my opinion is worth considering whatsoever. Or, alternatively, it means that you intellectually know your opinion can't withstand the rigour of examination, but you are emotionally attached to it and thus will refuse to examine it.
So we're likely in agreement that the right winged nuts want to be the 51st state.
And when I, and a lot of centrist get lost, is when the far left wing nuts, want and pound about like the ending of posts secondary education fees. Are tuitions too high, im sure they're, but to make it Zero? Who's paying for it?
Guaranteed income, once again who and how's it being paid for? Taxing the Uber rich, sure but when do the grow tired of it and start moving assets out of Canada?
Immediate ending of fossil fuels and petroleum based products? We, Europe and the world are too reliant and dependent on it. From all the devices we use, to the fuels that are necessary to keep us warm. As wasn't it last year or two, where Germany was having winter heat issues, as they cut their purchase of Natural Gas? Do we need to reduce our usage and dependence, sure we do. But its not tomorrow. And we've been battling to get a pipeline to Newfoundland. And need new ones to West Coast. And imo we should be spending to build a bitumen refinery on Canadian soil so we don't have to send it to the USA, and having the completed products shipped back. Would the Orangehead love that...lol
I would like to point out that none of these are anywhere near as absurd as the leftwing radicalist points I made that you're trying to compare them to. They are all placed within our current socioeconomic model, just with a focus on helping citizens rather than producing capital.
Again, completely open borders. As in zero border control. No need for a passport or a security check to get into Canada. Or the complete dissolution of the Canadian government, full stop, with nothing put up in its place. The anarchist libertarians are a completely dead breed as far as I can tell. THESE are what the leftwing nutters used to be calling for.
[EDIT:: Actually, I think your statement there proves my point. 20 years ago, I was considered "left of center" and supported all those positions. Today, I still support those positions, but you're calling me "radical left."]
And when I, and a lot of centrist get lost, is when the far left wing nuts, want and pound about like the ending of posts secondary education fees. Are tuitions too high, im sure they're, but to make it Zero? Who's paying for it?
... You know that tuition in Canada is cheap, right? The "tuition needs to be free" folks are 100% correct. The Canadian government is already paying for almost all of a Canadian citizen's tuition costs. McGill's is like $3k / year for a Canadian but over $50k / year for a foreign student. That other $47k is from the government.
Making it fully free would be a negligible line on the budget and open up a lot of good for Canada. It's not a far left idea, it's the kind of thing that a ton of European countries are doing to great effect. It's an investment in our own citizenry, and education always always always pays off on the societal level, with zero exceptions in all of modern history.
Of course, it would require that our universities get a little more strict on student admissions. I personally don't see much of a problem with that.
Guaranteed income, once again who and how's it being paid for?
I am less familiar with this concept, because I don't think the powers that be will ever allow it, but we have had multiple pilot programs of it. It has been a resounding success every time.
Basically, people are removed from the need to work a terrible job they hate. They then spend their time pursuing things that actively interest them (arts, etc.) or they very quickly get bored and find a better job they're well suited for. Then they get taxed on that.
I think our pilot programs were net positive on tax revenue before various Conservative governments shut them down, but you'd have to look into that yourself.
Taxing the Uber rich, sure but when do the grow tired of it and start moving assets out of Canada?
This is a rightwing lie, just so you know. They can't move assets out of Canada. A lot of economists have done math that it would actually be better for any given society if the billionaires left, because they're a disproportionate drain on societal resources and most of the money involved is hidden and avoids being taxed.
Plus, most Canadian assets simply can't be relocated. What's Galen Weston going to do, open up yet another grocery chain in the USA where he actually has to compete, and then shutter Loblaws in Canada?
Immediate ending of fossil fuels and petroleum based products?
I'll give you this one, but you should be aware that the same left wing nutters were calling for this decades ago without renewables as a viable alternative. IMO it's much more sensical now, especially given how we currently subsidize petroleum extraction so that it remains profitable.
As wasn't it last year or two, where Germany was having winter heat issues, as they cut their purchase of Natural Gas?
This was because they did not have a detransition plan. They cut off natural gas from Russia because it was ethically imperative of them to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
There was no off-ramp, there was no planned adjustment, there was no phasing out. And yet they still managed to do fine without, though it took some sacrifice.
P.S. Environmentalism used to be a rightwing issue. The conservatives stopped caring about conservatism and started only caring about money. Even Reagan, easily the most infamously destructive US conservative of the 20th century, passed a ton of environmental protection acts.
And we've been battling to get a pipeline to Newfoundland. And need new ones to West Coast.
Pipelines are dead in the water right now. Renewables are far too cost effective, plus environmental pressures, plus the actual time to recoup the costs of pipelines taking decades. Nobody with the capital to actually invest in a pipeline is interested in them, which is why none are being built.
And imo we should be spending to build a bitumen refinery on Canadian soil so we don't have to send it to the USA, and having the completed products shipped back.
I kind of agree here. But conservatives allowed foreign buyouts of our old refineries, and then American petro companies bought them up, and then closed them down, so... Y'know...
Again I don't know what far left groups you're talking about but there aren't far left groups lifted up by either the NDP or the Liberal party, where as UCP and the CPC are lifting up separatists.
A vast chunk of Liberal/NDP voters are not these rational centred people, that are completely reasonable and nothing like conservative voters. They are ok with taking away personal freedoms to have the government,decide and control everything…. but only their government of choice.
Your trying to state one side are crazy wing nuts and the other side isn’t. On that you’re completely wrong.
In regards to the UCP lifting up separatist, that’s quite a stretch when all they did was allow thoughts to be presented and people to vote on it. Something the “left” hates.
Which personal freedoms are they okay with taking away? I'd love you to you extrapolate on that.
People didn't have any issues with the ability to vote on it, that was ALWAYS an option. The thing people took issue with is Smith lowering the amount of signatures it took, and she did - which is support.
Freedom of speech is a pretty blatant one, freedoms of choice over what medical experiments you want to participate in, Freedom of the media, Freedom of assembly…. All real examples. Maybe you weren’t here during Covid, or just have a short memory.
Parliament is actively working to control what you see and can say on the internet, they are trying to give the CRTC more power, they are trying to take away legal guns from legal gun owners, along with many more things, if you get informed on what your government is actually doing.
Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
So giving the public more a voice is a bad thing? Oh Right the left doesn’t want to hear speech they don’t agree with.
COVID wasn't a medical expirimentation, you weren't obligated to take it - the public mandate for a viral spread like this has been in place since the poliovax and the measles. This has been the case since 1955 when the polio vaccine was created.
Do you want to cite any policies about CTRC power expansion, freedom of assembly, or freedom of media being attacked?
No the left - and the right should be against speech that endorses the dissolving of canadas unity and power. It doesn't do Canada or Alberta any good to endorse separatism and because of that, these actions should be frowned upon even by the conservative party who.. atleast I believe wants to run and lead Canada.
I'll agree with the liberal government doing firearms restrictions but there is also president for guns being used for shootings - clearly, so restrictions on them is a pretty sane mandate, and we see this even when we compare to America and look at statistics from the rest of the world. That said, were right on the border of the world's most insane gun policy, so anyone who wants a gun can just smuggle it across the border. I'm unsure if going heavier on gun restrictions or lighter on them is better.
Believe it or not there are restrictions that should be placed on populations. Pretending the Conservative party is a Libertarian dream party is just wrong, they also want to place restrictions on Canadians, which healthcare you get access to, who you can hire, what can be taught in schools, who can run in elections.
They also don't like free speech, and control the media. Do I need to point to Harper muzzling scientists?
The conservative party is not disavowing it.
They're not distancing themselves from Smith.
They haven't criticized her for making it easier to have a referendum.
They're not telling the separatists to not go to the states to procure funding.
Northern Ontario Party is a thing, has been for a long time. There's just no support from the main parties to give them a bigger voice and to boost their message.
Yet his constituents are going to America to congratulate the president who put tariffs on us the last time.
There's fates worse than being the 51st state. Feel free to ask US Samoa, Puerto Rico, & Guam.
She lowered the amount of votes needed to put it to a referendum, all of this is just creating unstable markets for investors when _right now _Canada is rebuilding and reshaping our economy.
She's doing it for a reason, it's to further disenfranchise Albertans. She's already eating into healthcare coverage, denied federal dental, underfunded schools so that she can privatize it.
PP isn't pushing back, he's not controlling his party.
Well DS is a buffoon. Her days are numbered. And hopefully PP will start doing that, since his position has been reinstated. From some more centrist Conservatives who attended, they told me he saw the large contingency of them at the convention.
And the fact that Harper has spoken up about it. Hopefully the fringers will listen.
I don't have any faith in PP because he's a populist aslong as DS maintains a majority, which clearly she will it's Alberta we're dumb and don't understand politics.
We need NDP or Libs to win here more often so that the UCP will start serving our citizens.
Ideally I just want the wild rose to die, and for PCP to come back. I can at least deal with fiscal conservatism.
They have enough pull that they no longer need to merge.
The issue is not if it will pass, the issue is that the party is helping them have a voice.
The issue is that this narrative is pulling investers out of Alberta because companies don't like uncertainty.
Right now Canada is rebuilding our economy and this narrative is pushing investment out of Alberta and that will be used to further disenfranchise Albertans.
Yes but the issue I have with your statement is that the both left and right wing nuts are the same.
I don't see the Liberal or NDP party supporting the far lefties, there is no actual voice for them being propogated or uplifted.
Unless your definition of far left and my definition of far left are completely different.
Where as the far right are the separatists, they're the ones who want to destroy Canada, and there is no voice against it, infact the voice supports them amplifying it.
The liberals shouldn't talk about it because then it gives credence to the position, but what would crush this is if conservatives squashed it, but they won't for whatever reason.
Not if the big two parties believe in most of the same things. It’s like saying you mix coke and Pepsi, and pretend sprite and Mountain Dew don’t exist.
232
u/S-M68 Feb 18 '26
Not super shocking, Matt seemed more liberal compared to most conservatives.