This is idiotic. The NDP could easily just make a rule that no identity group from some big list, including cis men, can be more than 50%. Instead, they have a rule just for cis men that gives their political opponents easy ammo. The CPC are explicitly targeting this same demographic, and the NDP gives ammo to them and conservative media like the NP for taking easy shots.
It is so stupid politically that I seriously question the NDP’s basic competence as a political party, and I’m an NDP supporter. I want them to make a comeback, but this will just needlessly alienate a key demographic. 🤦
It’s why we gotta do well in this leadership election. We gotta go to class and universality on every issue. Don’t know which candidates are gonna have that agenda yet.
Carney is ALREADY a conservative. I think Poilievre has hit his ceiling, and will rise no further. I think Carney is going to be our big problem as progressives for the foreseeable future, and I think he has the potential to be a lot more effective in reshaping Canada than PP ever could. PP is interested in silly social nonsense and self-aggrandization, while Carney has a hard on to further amplify the global corporate hegemony.
Don’t discount PP’s abilities. He barely lost to Carney and he might survive to lead in another election. Carney’s honeymoon is already showing signs of fading. The housing situation is likely getting worse for years to come. Grocery prices won’t be going down. So Carney’s in for being the face of worsening material conditions. Surviving that on propaganda alone would be difficult. The next election could very well be between PP and whoever’s on the NDP side.
I’ve been watching PP with horror and dread since Garth Turner was a cabinet minister. I think PP can’t beat Carney because Carney has no moral integrity and will quite happily give the right whatever they would have wanted from PP, dressed up in some slick faux compassionate PR. Honestly, I don’t see a huge difference.
I mean obviously it’s conjecture, I’m not sure why you are highlighting that. I’m also not sure we’re even talking about the same thing, re: “what the CPC do purposefully”. I also did not suggest an accident. Carney is as blue as Liberals come.
I mean I agree in general, but I don’t think we understand the practical difficulties that would follow with a vaguely worded rule like that.
You’d have to have it up to 60% at least I think to allowed for flexibility, otherwise you’d have to have exactly 5050 men and women. And then what about if over 50% are Canadians? Shouldn’t they be? Then if you’re 5050 men and women but you lose a man, you have to take in a man, you can’t take a woman. So then when doing that decision, aren’t they practically very explicitly discriminating. Then they also prolly can’t be the same as the majority ethnicity. But then again also not the majority religion. And depending on what sort of group you have in there and how you define groups, might be kinda challenging.
I get the issue, and I get trying to fix it, but I don’t think the attempts made here today have got anyone closer to that.
I don’t see this as rocket science. These are supposed to be people vying for roles in governing the country. If they can’t figure this out pretty quickly, they shouldn’t be given the responsibility of governance. I mean, to make it simple, they could have just set the rule as a minimum of 50% of votes must come from cis women, non-binary, and trans people. Mission accomplished. It would have been the same rule, but with a framing that is encouraging diversity rather than limiting cis men. Framing it the way they did is like watching them have an easy layup but then tripping on their own shoelaces.
This is idiotic. The NDP could easily just make a rule that no identity group from some big list, including cis men, can be more than 50%. Instead, they have a rule just for cis men that gives their political opponents easy ammo. The CPC are explicitly targeting this same demographic, and the NDP gives ammo to them and conservative media like the NP for taking easy shots.
It is so stupid politically that I seriously question the NDP’s basic competence as a political party, and I’m an NDP supporter. I want them to make a comeback, but this will just needlessly alienate a key demographic. 🤦
It’s why we gotta do well in this leadership election. We gotta go to class and universality on every issue. Don’t know which candidates are gonna have that agenda yet.
We need a Jack Layton spiritual successor or else Carney will lead us to a Poilievre government without any accountability.
Carney is ALREADY a conservative. I think Poilievre has hit his ceiling, and will rise no further. I think Carney is going to be our big problem as progressives for the foreseeable future, and I think he has the potential to be a lot more effective in reshaping Canada than PP ever could. PP is interested in silly social nonsense and self-aggrandization, while Carney has a hard on to further amplify the global corporate hegemony.
Don’t discount PP’s abilities. He barely lost to Carney and he might survive to lead in another election. Carney’s honeymoon is already showing signs of fading. The housing situation is likely getting worse for years to come. Grocery prices won’t be going down. So Carney’s in for being the face of worsening material conditions. Surviving that on propaganda alone would be difficult. The next election could very well be between PP and whoever’s on the NDP side.
I’ve been watching PP with horror and dread since Garth Turner was a cabinet minister. I think PP can’t beat Carney because Carney has no moral integrity and will quite happily give the right whatever they would have wanted from PP, dressed up in some slick faux compassionate PR. Honestly, I don’t see a huge difference.
Exactly, people have been swooning over Carney’s smooth talking lies treating him like he’s our “knight in shining armour”
He definitely won’t vote for proportional representation. He will just ignore the issue avoiding Justin’s public relations blunder.
This is conjecture at best. Assuming anyone can do accidentally what the CPC do purposefully is a bit of a reach.
I mean obviously it’s conjecture, I’m not sure why you are highlighting that. I’m also not sure we’re even talking about the same thing, re: “what the CPC do purposefully”. I also did not suggest an accident. Carney is as blue as Liberals come.
I mean I agree in general, but I don’t think we understand the practical difficulties that would follow with a vaguely worded rule like that.
You’d have to have it up to 60% at least I think to allowed for flexibility, otherwise you’d have to have exactly 5050 men and women. And then what about if over 50% are Canadians? Shouldn’t they be? Then if you’re 5050 men and women but you lose a man, you have to take in a man, you can’t take a woman. So then when doing that decision, aren’t they practically very explicitly discriminating. Then they also prolly can’t be the same as the majority ethnicity. But then again also not the majority religion. And depending on what sort of group you have in there and how you define groups, might be kinda challenging.
I get the issue, and I get trying to fix it, but I don’t think the attempts made here today have got anyone closer to that.
I don’t see this as rocket science. These are supposed to be people vying for roles in governing the country. If they can’t figure this out pretty quickly, they shouldn’t be given the responsibility of governance. I mean, to make it simple, they could have just set the rule as a minimum of 50% of votes must come from cis women, non-binary, and trans people. Mission accomplished. It would have been the same rule, but with a framing that is encouraging diversity rather than limiting cis men. Framing it the way they did is like watching them have an easy layup but then tripping on their own shoelaces.
Yeah that is a much better framing.
Unfortunately politicians don’t have honesty and the wellbeing of others as incentives.