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.

  • AlolanVulpixEnglish
    104·
    11 hours ago

    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.worksOPEnglish
      15·
      11 hours ago

      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.

    • wise_pancake
      72·
      10 hours ago

      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
        3·
        55 minutes ago

        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
          1·
          11 minutes ago

          Thanks, my understanding may have been wrong then

          I will do more homework on this

      • AlolanVulpixEnglish
        42·
        10 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.