47
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 week ago

Carney is a man who somehow, and I will never know how, convinced NDP voters the voting for an ex banker capitalist whose job it was to renovict people and hide the wealth of the 1% from taxation in Canada was the absolute best choice for progressives and left-wing voters to rally behind

[-] GrackleBirb@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago

My support for Carney was to keep PP out. Singh did not give me the confidence that he could do that. I still vote NDP at the provincial level (although my riding has been Conservative forever alas) - the federal NDP hasn’t really inspired much confidence but Marit is killing it at the provincial level in Ontario.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago

We came very close to a PP government. Too close. I don't like Carney much but Poulivre would have been disastrous. I would rank Singh above both, but my riding was heavily Tory.

[-] mister_newbie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I, too, really like Marit, but let's be honest: she's never winning in this province -- where Bob Rae is still seen as the bogeyman.

A rotten head of cabbage could probably beat Doug these days, provided it's red.

[-] Gnumile@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

This is a perfect example of why things are very unlikely to change. Too many people have too little faith in things actually changing, so it remains conservatives vs liberals

[-] mister_newbie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

It's a perfect example on why FPTP sucks hairy ballsacks. I'd vote NDP, happily, if I knew I could transfer that vote to a non-blue candidate.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Bob Rae not as bad as Harris or Ford but I'll never forgive him for letting public servants keep their job admist a recession .

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

He didn't, Pete and Trump did.

[-] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Crazy we have to explain this to non-magats.

[-] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 10 points 1 week ago

Singh unfortunately didn't help the cause much. But I think it was actually Pollievre who helped Carney with such incredible efficiency. I agree, it makes no sense, but PP's innate reality distortion field was apparently large enough to cause some sort of gravitational lensing around Carney too that made him temporarily look like an anti-Trump.

I also think Carney did particularly well on the military topic, especially compared to previous Liberal positions, which might have genuinely appealed to some NDP voters disillusioned with the NDP's traditionally weak stance on defense, in light of the active military threats against us and our allies.

Personally, I understand where the NDP's defense policy is coming from, and I think it's responsible and probably even the right way to approach it holistically. We don't need to beg Europe to partner with us, even if they're obviously willing to, we have everything we need to develop our own military and industry on our own, but it will take time for those investments to pay off, and I get the desire to shortcut some of that with European assistance. But maybe people thought we wouldn't be able to have socialism and kick Trump and Putin's teeth in at the same time. I don't know.

[-] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

Well it's worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there's no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn't believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.

None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn't really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force

I don't know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.

[-] BassetHound@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I gave up on the NDP after years of mismanagement. I voted for the party of Jack and was alright with Mulcair. But under Jagmeet the party has been run into the ground.

That year where Jagmeet and the NDP propped up the obviously dead Trudeau government was the final straw. Willfully choosing to support a wildly unpopular prime minister to avoid the election was gross and made a mockery of their name. If you want to be taken seriously as a party and a leader, you have to be in it to win. There could have been an opportunity to become the opposition again and maybe replace the Liberals in time. Instead they chose to sacrifice their own party. If they don’t even want to be a serious party, why the hell should I vote for them?

[-] kbal@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

Why vote NDP? Because even if we concede that all your criticisms of the party are exactly right and unchanged under its new leadership, that still makes them the best of the main parties available to vote for.

load more comments (19 replies)
[-] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

Jagmeet went to our strike line and said he’d take Trudeau down if they forced a deal on us. When they forced a deal on us, Jagmeet was silent. That’s why I didn’t vote for the NDP. Hopefully their new leadership actually stands by their word.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Because literally the Conservative candidate was dramatically worse on progressive policies and there was only the slimmest chance of avoiding that fate. Until we reform voting the whole song and dance of strategic voting will favour the traditional tradeoffs of these two parties. Without vote reform we're more or less doomed to be the frog that boils slow.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

Did anyone expect anything different? He's a child of the 70s and 80s who became a banker and high ranking technocrat. Neoliberalism is his jam.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

Stirring up nationalist sentiments with the idea of an outside threat to make yourself the national champion and having a populace rally behind you with their political support as they huddle under the flag is incredibly powerful in electoral politics, but politics for the public and politics behind closed doors with powerful stakeholders are never the same.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

with the idea of an outside threat to make yourself the national champion

That threat isn't one of Carney's (or even Trudeau's) making.

[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

A threat so menacing that our government is actively taking steps to integrate defence systems more deeply and hand resource extraction rights to them

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

,,, Carney’s MOU with Alberta calls for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), purportedly to ameliorate environmental damage. But this is still a very costly, unproven technology. In Saskatchewan it has only achieved 60 per cent efficiency

Ccs is a scam. Cheaper energy than coal can be achieved 10 months of the year, in canada, with coal plant as backup. Much lower emissions than 60% capture, and bigger negative of ccs is that it costs 10$ per watt. Ballpark of nuclear plants. Solar + batteries is $1 per watt.

[-] kevincox@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Yeah, carbon capture doesn't math. I think the saying is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The only reason why it is promoted is because the fossil fuel cartels push it as it moves the blame and focus from them to someone else's problem. Then a bunch of garbage "carbon credit" companies start up and make a lot of noise while doing basically nothing. All the while they can keep pushing for fossil fuel projects because "it's fine, carbon capture will solve it".

[-] UserMail@piefed.ca 4 points 1 week ago

I like the NDP and Greens, but I can't vote for them unless their parties merge. They get very little votes here.

If after they merge, pick up a bunch of votes, implement stratgic voting, they could decide to split again afterwards if they wish.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In my experience the NDP is willing to burn ecological resources for trivial short term gains. They are a worker party, which is fine, but they often treat 'jobs' as a goal in itself, rather than a route to quality of people's lives.

You can make lots of jobs logging old growth and building out fossil fuel infrastructure.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I'll still vote for them over other options, but my heart and wallet are with the Greens.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

I don't get that sense of NDP from Avi Lewis at all.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Avi Lewis is good people, but institutionally i don't see the NDP prioroizing economic and environmental sustainability. If it comes down to closing mills or saving scraps of old growth forest, or bulking up our renewables, I'm not yet convinced he'd make what i consider the right call. Unpopular sacrifices will need to happen to forestall dosaster.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

We can do better, which I believe they would do, with balance. Certainly better than carney or pete.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I'm not the type to throw out the baby with the bathwater or fall for the 'every party sucks so why bother' propaganda. I'll vote as closely as I can to my preferences with an eye on the bigger picture.

And of course advocate and vote towards better representation. FPTP is garbage and forces me to make decisions i don't like.

[-] Levi@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I really don't want Green and NDP to merge. NDP seem to hate the environment. I'd have nobody left to vote for.

[-] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The problem is that they only appeal to single issue voters because their candidates are single issue voters. None of these candidates come across as "in it for the people." They come across as idealogues with little consideration for 3/4's of what their job would actually entail.

I would vote for an eco-socialist party, but none exists. Avi seems to be taking the NDP in a better direction, but unless he really steps up his charisma game I don't think he's gonna make middle class folks see the writing on the wall.

[-] Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I wish red & blue would just fuse their parties at this point. Only difference left between LPC & CPC at this point is that the CPC is filled with nazis, the differences end there really. Hopefully we get an orange surge wave next election and then eventually, flush capitalism down the toilet.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
47 points (91.2% liked)

Canada

12142 readers
471 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

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 5 years ago
MODERATORS