###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What you are seeing is the natural political outcome of the last 20 years. It started with the great recession, and it's only got worse. Governments are not listening to the people. I mean, yesterday in Toronto, it was clear the people of the city of Toronto do not want to spend 1 million to rename Dundas Square. The pols came out and said, in their newspeak way, 'fuck off, we do things we think are best'. This is why we'll get a Trump in Canada, and another Rob Ford for mayor. They raise your taxes because they tell us 'we need money for the important stuff' and blow a million on this. Fuck off all of them. I'll vote for the guy that tells me he won't raise taxes, outcomes be dammed.
Their hard right has only risen because the centre isn't addressing their issues. Same thing here. People inclined to moderation will overlook a lot of crazy stuff if they can get a couple things from the far left or right.
Address the issues and the problem goes away. They won't though.
They should pay attention.
We need not fear the “Far Right” here if we stop engaging in mass immigration nobody voted for, actually do something about rampant inflation & housing costs, and enforce our borders & laws.
I agree that championing firm but fair moderate policies on the file would stave off the march of the far right, which seems to benefit from the reaction to extreme openness and/or incompetence. Seems pretty obvious.
Liberals and NDP have paid attention and they've doubled down on mass immigration, and wage suppression of Canadians. Wages are down. Housing is completely unaffordable for the majority of Canadians. Foreign corporations are still buying up properties in mass. In turn, Canadians are projected to vote for a CPC majority.
Liberals and NDP and Conservatives have paid attention and they’ve doubled down on mass immigration, and wage suppression of Canadians.
Fixed it for ya 😉
The Conservatives were part of the formation of the Century Initiative and are part of it today. If you leave them out of the conversation you're being delusional.
So the century initiative is now a real threat to the country, or are you no longer going for "just a thought experiment"? If it's such a big threat to our democracy, it's time the LPC/NDP in power to condemn the goal and cease their immigration rates to 100k a year total.
One party is in power, propped up by another. The NDP doesn’t hold a single cabinet post. It is cabinet that draws up budgets, controls government departments, and introduces most bills that become laws.
Does the NDP propping up the current government not mean holding the LPC to account, or are they just completely subservient to Trudeau's liberals? It's almost as if Singh is just a lapdog for the ruling elites; a champagne socialist.
The CPC voting against business and in favor of workers and consumers would be a night/day conversion. Not likely to happen.
What is likely to happen is the economy takes a nose dive as PP slashes spending. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and PP will tell us that it's all Trudeau's fault.
That is how it is going to go unless...
Liberals and the NDP voting against Canadian workers in favour of foreign temporary workers has already been a night and day flip. CPC campaigning on filling the hole the LPC/NDP left wouldn't be far off.
"The economy nosediving isn't ~~Trudeau~~ Polievre fault and is happening globally." I love hot swapping narratives. Let's see how this goes.
The same TFW Trudeau criticized and now exponentially increased under Trudeau. With multiple new TFW opened up under his government. After both Singh and Trudeau, you still think people will vote for either?
The question is: will PP improve the quality of life for consumers and workers?
He is promising austerity, which has a flawless track record of hurting consumers and workers and solidifying the position of the rich as an uber class.
But you seem to be suggesting that's okay because it will wake up the Liberal Party and the NDP. Wake them up to what exactly?
In the broad sweep of Canadian economic history the Harper government did not do well. It benefited from a strong global economy https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2016/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/
Whereas Trudeau's government has got us through some very difficult global economic times.
In fact when we look at the performance of all political parties in Canada, and include the provincial governments, the economy does best with a NDP government.
https://www.progressive-economics.ca/2015/10/fiscal-and-economic-record-of-political-parties/
So just as in the US the Repulbican party has been the worst steward, in Canada, the Conservative party has been the worst.
>Unfortunately, seeing as the CPC will just be a worse version of this
I’d trust the party of supposed racist/xenophobes to cut immigration before the party of “social capacity” and the party of give everyone PR.
Unfortunately, this narrative that the CPC is no better has kinda left people like you in a corner.
The conservatives have made it clear they have zero intentions on slowing down immigration. Pierre literally said he is gonna make it easier for more immigrants to come here, stop deportations and promised direct flights from India. He doesnt sound like the racist anti-immigrant type to me.
And in the same stroke, he also promised to tie immigration to housing. So who knows at this point what the CPC will do.
But one thing is clear: the LPC and NDP have painted all opposition to current immigration as being purely racism/xenophobia. They face absolutely no pushback internally for these policies, unlike the CPC with the SoCon base who is ideologically against this.
I wanna hope that hes gonna significantly reduce immigration and start deportations, and maybe the only reason why hes saying all these things is to not get targeted by the liberal-ndp lunatics. I just feel somewhat sceptical cuz hes being too straightforward in what hes saying and also goes out of his way to make such statements at religious rallies even more than the liberals and ndp do. Also saying that your not gonna tie immigration to the economy is the most vague ass statement ever. It could mean anything from zero immigrants to a million immigrants, he could argue either way and is just avoiding a straight forward answer. But lets hope that he takes the correct approach.
Except that's not what he said. He said he'd make it easier for people with IN DEMAND SKILLS to bring those to Canada and get priority entry to the country. People like doctors, nurses, scientists, engineers.
Whereas the LPC/NDP just let anyone in and fuck Canadians if they don't like it.
You can continue to fearmongering, it doesn't make it true. PEI has already denied extending work permits for the "international students" demanding to work at tim Hortons.
Do you think PEI will hold out? Is the public strong enough in their support for this? Or do you think the “hunger strikes” will make them cave, like they caved here in Manitoba when the “international students” were protesting here.
Yes I do. The tides are changing in this country, and the CPC should see an easy win compared to the NDP in Manitoba. Talks have broken down, and the "hunger strikes" have restarted.
What if history only remembers the refugee crisis? A refugee crisis which started with the Arab Spring, and has expanded into Ukraine, and various other wars which Canada has an interest in.
Maybe history will remember the South and Central American economic crises which fueled northern migration. Cocaine, bananas and sugar. Also oil (obviously). Maybe Canadians have been voting with their dicks, and defacto voting for the resulting immigration.
Maybe foreign wars affect us. Maybe Canada’s participation in ,or avoidance of, foreign wars has consequences. Maybe petro states,
such as Canada, have no future in a post petroleum world. Maybe Canada has the opportunity and obligation to do the right things, and restore its reputation for being on the right side of history.
There’s no maybe about it. Nation states, including Canada, have no legal or moral obligation to anyone except their own citizens.
Nobody has been de facto voting for large immigration, nor are we obligated to take in people who would rather run then attempt to fix their own countries.
The Jews didn't want to install a Nazi regime in Canada as far as I'm aware unlike the immigrants that come to Europe that cry for Sharia law. These people aren't compatible with us it's just the hard reality.
>>… the immigrants that come to Europe that cry for Sharia law.
While I don’t doubt that someone suggested Sharia law in Europe at some point in time, is implementation of sharia law an actual problem for Europe? Or was some immigrant nobody caught on tape, and now responsible for creating a right wing dog whistle?
No there recently have been demonstrations by islamists in Germany demanding Sharia law. Combined with all the Islamic terror we see its looking pretty obvious. 80+ percent of Europeans want stricter immigration according to recent polls that doesn't come from nothing, they aren't all Nazis or crazy. Gay people are getting increasingly attacked by Muslims on the street.
I agree we can and should do better. But many folks feel like its not Canada's problem other country citizen's problems. Which if you leave morality off the table makes sense I suppose.
Maybe Canadians are trying desperately to gain a measure of financial security before having kids, while governments at all levels instead work to suppress their earning potential by opening the floodgates to cheap labour. Maybe the post petroleum world is much further away than people think and handcuffing our own industries is doing more harm than good. Maybe our addiction to unproductive assets as investment vehicles, chiefly real estate, is being fueled by policies that actively skew the risk/reward ratio in its favour. Maybe doing the right thing in regards to a global humanitarian crisis should be accompanied by corresponding investments at home instead of expecting an entire generation of Canadians to lower their expectations while their parents deploy their golden parachutes.
Maybe governments should stop telling people what they want and start listening to those people instead.
Agreed -- and, for those on the Left who are screaming about Poilievre and calling him "far right" or comparing him to a certain Austrian art student, well, no. Poilievre is the appetizer, but if we ignore *why* he's leading in the polls, the main course will eventually be served later on, and that won't be nearly as soft as Pierre is.
> In 2023 more than 450 federal judges in the U.S. were threatened. A Florida man left a voice message vowing to kill Chief Justice John Roberts.
Hey, thats an interesting fact. Will Mike Harris be writing with as much outrage for the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh (still hasn’t seen the inside of a courtroom thanks to the Biden DOJ), or the constant harassment of Supreme Court justices at their homes by progressive activists? I won’t hold my breath.
> A recent U.S. News and World report ranked Canada as the second-best country in the world, behind Switzerland and ahead of Sweden.
I am begging Pierre’s political opponents to keep producing the listicles of how great we have it.
>Hey, thats an interesting fact. Will Mike Harris be writing with as much outrage for the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh (still hasn’t seen the inside of a courtroom thanks to the Biden DOJ), or the constant harassment of Supreme Court justices at their homes by progressive activists? I won’t hold my breath.
Did he not literally write about harassment of judges in this article? Is that not what you quoted?
Besides, the majority of violence isn't from progressives, as is covered in the next paragraph, *and* progressives are much more likely to denounce violence.
>A study released last year showed one in four Americans thought political violence was justified to “save” the country. Among just supporters of Trump the number jumped to four in ten.
I feel like liberals in North America have spent the better part of the last 2 decades saying “We should be more like Europe” but didn’t realize that the literal birthplace of Nazism, Fascism, and all the -isms in between.
Needless to say, a lot of the things liberals admired European governments for have soured. Military expansionism is going through the roof (including conscription and national service). LGBTQ issues are shifting to the right, and so has immigration.
We are heading down an eerily similar path to the EU, like their migrant crisis. This is why I have been warning many times now that a controlled return to the centre is better than a revenge-filled pendulum swing to the right.
Like it or not, partisans plugging their ears and screaming racism, xenophobia/transphobia, or “trust the experts” are having their narratives blow up in their face and someone like Pierre is going to beat Trudeau. Let that sink in.
It was also the birthplace of communism, which lead to more global deaths than either of the other -isms you just mentioned. Any ideology far from "center" is not good to its people because it involves forfeiting liberty and individual rights to pursue "justice".
I haven't seen any LGBTQ things shift to the right. Except if you mean they vote for the right because the left brought us millions of people that hate and attack gay people every day and that's a reality.
>What are that things liberals admired about Europe have soured?
Universal healthcare, gun control, bountiful social services, LGBTQ rights, low military spending, being overall progressive, etc.
All of these things people admired have been blown out of the water. No longer can progressives argue, “we should be more like Europe”, because Europe has changed.
>How do those things relate to Nazism?
They don’t relate *to* Nazism. North Americans don’t realize that there are literal fascist parties in some democratic European parliaments. We have this cute and fluffy perspective of Europeans being similar to us (Canadians) than anyone else, but that couldn’t be further than the truth.
> Universal healthcare, gun control, bountiful social services, LGBTQ rights, low military spending, being overall progressive, etc.
These things haven't soured. Except perhaps military spending. Which country is rolling back universal healthcare, LGBTQ protections, gun control? East Europeans maybe, but this was never what people meant by a progressive Europe.
>These things haven’t soured. Except perhaps military spending.
Except they have.
No one is rolling back universal healthcare. But countries are facing similar criticism for the state of their healthcare systems, like the UK and NHS.
LGBTQ protections have certainly been on the decline. You have progressive countries like the UK and Sweden taking their sides against children using puberty blockers, Italy removing children from same-sex parents/couples. It’s not just the Eastern European countries being the traditionalists anymore.
Countries like Poland, the Czech Republic have passed concealed carry laws equivalent to those in the USA over the last decade. Mind you, gun control in Europe actually looser than Canada since the 2020 OIC.
When you have people like Le Pen, Meloni, and the AfD coming up in the ranks - progressivism is on the decline and we will soon find ourselves uniquely following these policies.
NHS is in trouble because the Conservative government is pulling funding.
Meanwhile the royal family attends a hospital appointed as a luxury hotel with medical devices.
The problem is not public health. The problem is governments who want to destroy public services so that people can profit off the provision.
I wouldn’t say any of those things have been blown out of the water. Rather, I would say they still want all though things but for their people only. They don’t want others to come in and take advantage.
I'm convinced that proportional representation is the greatest psyop the right has ever pulled on the left. A voting system that rewards extremism and endorses blind party loyalty with the sole reward being a completely arbitrary definition of "Fairness".
How many proportionally represented countries are now flirting with fascism or arguably fascist?
How many proportionally represented countries, formerly idealized by proprep advocates now have progress torn down by sudden right wing majorities?
The hard-right shift in Europe is simply more fruit from this poisoned tree.
Sure, other currently utilized voting systems are not perfect. But proportional representation has proven itself to be uniquely bad, and the "fairness" it delivers is of no societal benefit.
I abhor the far right, but most of them are a farcry from fascism in terms of economics or politics; on the path there, you can make the argument, yes.
Also, I do agree with pure proportional representation not being the ideal system, all it does is reward demagoguery in the long run. I support MMP for the House of Commons and definitely a strong- but reformed- Senate to curb the public’s worst tendencies.
> I'm convinced that proportional representation is the greatest psyop the right has ever pulled on the left. A voting system that rewards extremism and endorses blind party loyalty with the sole reward being a completely arbitrary definition of "Fairness".
Bullshit as under FPTP the far right instead take over mainstream parties like our tories, british tories etc. FPTP just pushes extremists into mainstream parties.
"I dont like the sort of ideologies that certain electoral rules would help elect, so I prefer to legislate rules that would make it tough for a certain class of candidates to enter parliament" is a terrible arguement.
As the supreme court of canada put it, such thinking is not only discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society, but rather is the antithesis of it.
Soooooo, I guess that makes you a fascist? Nice self own there
This article just gets the entire rationale for why this is occurring wrong - and it’s really frustrating to see.
If you look at Europe for the why - it’s clear - housing costs and immigration have gotten out of control. It’s the same here. And the usual politicians - conservatives and liberals alike are not providing solutions on those issues.
The far right comes in and promises to do, what the electorate has been asking for - and takes complete advantage of the situation.
If we don’t want this here - our existing political parties need to start acting more serious. That’s recognizing home prices actually need to go down regardless of what that might do to some retirement plans. That’s recognizing immigration is not a cure all to every problem - and it fact causes as many problems as it’s said to solve. It’s recognizing real change is needed to solve growing inequity.
The issues Europeans and Canadians are facing are not “fake news” and insisting that’s the case will inevitably lead us to some wild party taking power in Canada by promising to fix the issues Canadians need fixed by the existing political establishment refuses to touch. Those investment condos are not worth losing our democracy over.
Nonsense. The Far Right does not register in the big cities like London and Paris that have expensive housing and lots of immigrants. They do best in poor areas with low no immigration and cheap housing.
What motivates the right is that young people clustered in cities want to live differently than their parents did. This scares older rural voters. and they vote for those who promise to halt changes in society.
France has an average unemployment rate of 7,5% (2023), as for Paris 6,9% (2021). However smaller cities like Saint-Denis who has voted for the RN as twice the unemployment rate [15,15%](https://www.villesavivre.fr/classements/taux-de-chomage/grandes-villes/). The people voting far right right now, are for a lot of them, people having difficulties finding jobs and therefore paying their basic needs ans cultural/value clash with some immigrants. Of course it's not all about immigrations level but the fact that the French system is one of the most generous and adding people in it with narrowing possibilities for them to find a great job is making no economical sens.
As for why Paris and London are not voting for the far right, its plain and simple : If you are wealthy or dependent of cheap labor (which is the case of many in those cities), you will less likely to vote for the far right, because hey : statut quo is fine with me.
Saint-Denis is similar to most of the RN voting areas. An industrial area that has lost its purpose.
You are right that it is a cultural/values divide, but not between immigrants and non-immigrants. The cities still have lots of poor people, but they work industries like the arts, retail, and restaurants. These create a different lifestyle than a 9 to 5 shift at a St-Denis factory.
The latter tends to encourage stability, insularity, seeing the same small group of people each day. The threat to your job is someone in China doing your job for less.
The newer industries are precarious, mobile, always changing of jobs and place of residence. A constant meeting of new people of different ethnicity, religions, and sexuality. The economic threat to these jobs is not enough customers walking through the door each day.
This is the fundamental driver of the left/right divide in modern politics.
Incorrect. The Far Right didn't get majorities anywhere. Even Orban didn't get a majority of the Hungarian vote.
In every country the right win vote skewed old and rural. Look for instance at [the map of Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_European_Parliament_election_in_the_Netherlands#/media/File:Elecciones_al_Parlamento_Europeo_de_2024_(Pa%C3%ADses_Bajos).svg) . The PVV won only in rural areas. Places with no immigrants.
Since the beginning of time old people have been upset by what young people are up to. As the world ages this becomes an ever more powerful voting block,
The far right failed to capture majorities, even among the youth votes, correct. But you're incorrect in suggesting the vote is limited to elderly voters - the National Rally/Front has captured about 30% of the vote in France, for example. This is a significant shift in voting intention among the youth and shouldn't be dismissed. Dismissing this as an elderly voting paradigm will only serve to add momentum.
Edit: about 30% of the *youth* vote in France
I dont know about Orban but polling statistics show that the German far-right party AFD is the most popular among young voters in Germany. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/PqPyHnYdst
That doesn't mean much. The AFD are at 21% among young people. A fringe minority. Only top because the centre and left vote is split between many different parties.
I'm not saying no young people vote for the far right, but it is indisputably true that the Far Right doesn't get its votes from places where housing costs are high and immigration is having an effect on the economy.
They get support from areas in terminal economic decline that are looking for someone, anyone to blame for their problems. Immigrants are an easy target, even when immigration has zero to do with why DDR era factory towns are failing.
Yes but compared to 2019 the under 25 demographic saw an 11 point increase and the 25-34 age bracket saw a 7 point increase. Young ppl put together make up a 17 point increase for context the party as a whole saw a 5 point increase. So the vast majority of the parties growth comes from young voters. Its not a fringe movement either since the AFD and other far right parties are the festest growing overall. The afd is 2nd place right now up from 13th a little more than a decade ago, and in France, The Netherlands, Belgium they all got landslide victories. And yea you are right about the fact that the far right doesnt get their votes from wealthy urban centre’s nor do they get their votes from educated and wealthy individuals. The vast majority of the their votes come from poor and economically depressed rural areas. Even the people that vote for them are for the most part poor people. Doesnt come as a surprise that since the majority of poor people are young they are also turning to the far right. You would be correct in stating that immigration has nothing to so with where they live, for example the Afd polls the highest in east germany which has no immigrants at all, but immigrants do make an easy target. But even this is starting to change since the majority of young people live in cities not rural areas.
I think the point being made here is, "underestimate them at your own peril". An election or two ago in the Netherlands, I would have never thought that Geert Wilders would ever find himself where he is today, but in only two years he more than doubled his party's share of the vote. That is Obama levels of meteoric rise, and shouldn't be ignored or handwaved away. A lot of Dutch youth are getting very disillusioned with things there and are voting for the stereotypical "I will fix this mess and make this a great place again" strongman. Ditto Meloni, AfD, Le Pen, and others.
Oh sure, but the important thing is to understand the cause. It's not high immigration and pricey housing that leads to a Geert Wilders. It is hopeless economic decline.
The good news is Canada doesn't have much of that. Though the areas the PPC did well in like Windsor and parts of Northern Ontario come closest.
We have our own problems, and our own sources of conservatism. In the west we have the petro-fundamentalism found in every part of the world with abundant oil resources and religiosity. We have an millions of car driving, homeowning conservatives who have theirs and don't worry about anyone else. We have libertarians who pretend to have read Ayn Rand and dream of utopias.
The CPC is mostly made up of those three groups. With their donor base being the first group, their voting base the second, and their activists the third.
It 100% is. In all of the countries the best areas for the far right is poor areas with cheap homes and very few immigrants.
Take Clacton. There is a reason Nigel Farage is running there, and why it is one of the best seats for UKIP/Reform. It has hardly any immigrants, not much of an economy, and very cheap housing. What it has in abundance are old people.
>What it has in abundance are old people.
Not that this is wrong, but it's clearly not the whole picture when far-right parties across Europe have increased their proportion of the vote among young voters by significant margins.
https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-europe-young-voters-election-2024-foreigners-out-generation-france-germany/
They may not be in majority territory there, but a 10%+ rise of vote share among 18-35 year olds is not something to ignore. Don't comfort yourself thinking this could never happen here. The same underlying social pressures are all there. You can't just hand wave it away. The more disenfranchised people feel, the more likely they are to succumb to a snake oil salesman peddling easy answers.
They have increased their share of the youth vote but its still their weakest demographic by some distance. Interestingly, their second-weakest (at least in France) are the elderly. Their biggest strength is with middle-aged people, the 40-65 range.
Look at PVV support in The Netherlands. The party of Geert Wilders (the "Dutch Trump" with a similar bad toupee/haircut) is concentrated in the rural areas. All over the place there is this rural/urban divide. Thats the SAME in Canada and the US. The countryside feels forgotten, dismissed, and threatened by modern and progressive ideology. Wilders in his speeches talks about the typical Dutch couple (I think they're called Hans and Helga or something like that) that are living a traditional lifestyle as some sort of ideal. The restoration of "common sense" and "traditional values" is a running theme with these guys. Old people and religious people living in these remote areas lap this stuff up.
[The Urban-Rural Divide in Political Attitudes in the Netherlands – EuropeNow (europenowjournal.org)](https://www.europenowjournal.org/2020/11/09/the-urban-rural-divide-in-political-attitudes-in-the-netherlands/)
Actually, after reading your linked article I can confirm your source got it right. The conclusions you have drawn are however in direct contradiction to the conclusions drawn by the writer in your linked article.
Okay then. See HUNGARY. Almost NO immigration. Have had an extreme rightwing government for years that is dismantling democratic institutions. The far-right started gaining support in European countries two decades ago. FFS. Fascism is a reactionary movement against social progress. The backlash against women’s rights, particularly reproductive rights, is not a coincidence, it’s the goddamn front lines.
When a Polish man at a protest against the abortion ban in Poland was interviewed, he said “we know that banning abortion is a red flag for fascism” and its a worry that in North America there is little awaof this fact. The protests in Poland had as many men as women, in the US it’s mostly women protesting. And banning abortion was just the first step, state Republicans are trying to ban types of birth control, travel out of state to get an abortion, some want abortion to be treated as murder and women who get abortions to be executed. It’s insane.
And the targeting of trans women, in particular, is horrific. And it’s because trans women are seen as traitors to “masculinity.” You must have noticed that the extreme rightwing is constantly yapping about masculinity.
Polling also show that while young men are moving increasingly to the right, in multiple countries, young women are moving left.
Blaming the rise of the far-right on economic factors is ignoring the very terrifying hatred of women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, minority rights, and mother earth is also getting shit on.
Exactly. It’s resentment. The feeling of being left behind. And they are. They’re being told how privileged they are by the urban elites, while they live in deprived areas with terrible services and bad economic and social conditions.
The issue is the problems are not solvable. Clacton-on-Sea will never again be a top holiday destination in a world with cheap flights to Spain and Italy. It can never be what it once was.
Areas like that will always be a fertile zone for peddlers of false hope. People like Farage and Le Pen who promise your town will be great again if only you vote to get rid of the EU or immigrants or gays.
This is similar to Texas too. The cities are very liberal, but if you go out into the countryside you'll find yourself in hard-core republican territory.
Houston and Dallas are not 'Very' Liberal. They're probably what we'd call conservative here in Canada. Small government, low taxes, but don't beat up gay people and allow anyone to pay for their abortion. If you look at the local city governments they're very fiscally conservative, but open minded. They'd never elect a Justin.
Oh and you know? Look where the AFD support is concentrated in Germany. They do well in a place like Chemnitz, one of the safest cities in Germany.
[Chemnitz: A stronghold of Germany's far-right AfD – DW – 06/17/2024](https://www.dw.com/en/chemnitz-a-stronghold-of-germanys-far-right-afd/a-69388323)
Wrong. The Far right rage baits and throw populist measures to only be busted ahead.
See Austria and the UK following Brexit.
Edit: it is not that the left is any better; they are exhausted and failed to make things better. But then, when you see how the extreme right in Germany is rising, it is kinda scary
Popularity would not be an insult. Populism is a more defined term. It's the appeal to people's base instincts, using strategies intended to ignore rationality or reasonable explanations.
Really any party or person that's making claims of being for the people, standing against the elites, and anti establishment would be a populist
Bernier, Poilievere, Sing, May, and even Trudeau in 2015 could possibly all be considered populists at any point.
Bernie Sanders and Trump are both populists too, but judging by all of the names I just presented, you can tell that populism is a very wide and blanket term, and with varying degrees of intensity and spans across the political spectrum.
So, overall, I'd say it's not an insult, but populists SHOULD be met with scrutiny, like any politician should be.
But all in all, we should be diligent with the promises being made and by whom.
The problem is calling everything right wing, far right.
Foolish people believe that the left has no far left
There is no difference in far right and far left behavior.
The only way forward is a leveled balance between the two, but has long as there are people who only think right is the issue then there's no moving forward.
All the people shouting that those with right leaning political ideas are some how far right will continue to make those people feel like they have to stay strong in their positions.
My suggestion to every one who calls the entire right wing political spectrum "far right" is this.
STFU
the CPC is on par with the democrats in the US. they arne't hard right at all.
But the lpc and ndp are toast for awhile. SO maybe we see hte PPC gain steam soon
Pretty sure the Democratic caucus believes human caused climate change is real, and don't want to restrict abortion rights.
The CPC under Poilievre is much closer to the GOP, although maybe Bush Jr's GOP rather than Trump's.
Poilievre said his plan to address climate change would be to lower the cost of carbon-free energy alternatives, including hydro electricity projects, nuclear power and tidal power. If he didn’t believe in human caused climate change, then why would he want to incentivize carbon-free energy?
According to the CPCs official policy declaration, “A conservative government would not support any legislation to regulate abortion”. Pretty obvious on that one.
It literally doesn't matter what any party thinks about climate change. If your party cared about Canada's contribution to GHG emissions, it wouldn't be pursuing the highest immigration rate in the developed world.
This is an absurd take. The CPC deny climate change and have absolutely zero issues with the levels of immigration, outside of giving them an opportunity to attack liberals.
It's forever fascinating to me that we will be forced to oscillate between dumb and dumber in this country because nobody can be bothered to look past rhetoric to actual policy.
Unfortunately it's not like the alternative parties have anything interesting to say either.
If Canada produces no GHG emissions it would make no difference to the mean surface temperature of the planet. Zero - none.
You're not going to tax your way into cooler weather in a country that produces a shade less than 2% of aggregate GHG emissions.
Yet if everyone else had the same per capita foot print as Canadians the results would be catastrophic. Really depends how you slice it doesn't it? If every country that has less than 2% used your logic how much of the world would that be?
Our GHG emissions per capita are really skewed because we have a very small population with a globally important upstream oil and gas industry. We are also a cold country with additional energy needs.
I fail to see the pragmatism of carbon taxes considering how completely ineffective they are in Canada, and really how needless they are considering their ineffectiveness.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on carbon taxes but those who criticize them seldom put forth better solutions. Yes, I am aware of the considerations with the per capita metric(I live in rural saskatchewan) but it does a good job of illustrating my point. For us to say Canada's emissions don't matter is irresponsible. Every nation has some pretty reasonable excuses but if no one takes action we get no where.
> in a country that produces a shade less than 2% of aggregate GHG emissions.
If you add up the emissions every country that individually produces a relatively small amount of greenhouse gases you get something like 40% of global emissions. What happens if they all decide to do nothing because they are individually a small part of the problem?
Not much would happen, honestly, because the demand for fossil fuels is relatively inelastic when it pertains to non-utilities consumption. You can mandate phasing out coal, for example, and you can push utilities to adopt cleaner tech. They also think 50 years ahead. Households don't though, if they have to drive to work they're driving to work. If they have to heat their homes, they're heating their homes. They don't use fossil fuels to be jerks, they do it because the alternatives are too expensive right now.
The change has to come by offering a viable alternative in real terms, without adding additional expense to fossil fuels. Adding pigovian taxes to a relatively inelastic good is just going to hose the consumer and stifle economic output.
Lol we live in Canada you clown. Not the place to live if you want to be hanging around in a tee-shirt in January. Can't stand entitled selfish pricks like you who think they should be able to mess the whole world up for future generations to avoid a minor inconvenience at best. If the boomers and silent gen hadn't treater out planet and society the way you want to, our society would be faring far better than it is today.
Beyond that, sweaters are a deeply rooted part of our culture.
Per capita, Canada is one of the biggest emitters in the world and have built a sizable economy from oil. We've been huge polluters for decades and rank lower in scale now primarily due to how much India and China are churning into the atmosphere.
Also doing nothing now costs more later. Common sentiment is that we're all hurting financially and can't possibly spend more as individuals, so let's just push the problem further down the line for when we're healthier and can afford it. But that day will never come and the situation will get worse, creating more financial pressure because everything is fucked. It's actually fucked already, we ARE going to have catastrophic events due to climate change and the best we can do now is limit the catastrophe.
Doing nothing and saying what's the point is incredibly myopic. If that's how you feel, don't bother voting in the next election because your vote will only be a drop in the bucket and statistically insignificant
Also, even if it was a drop in the bucket. What's the worst thing that happens here? We're on the forefront of green tech? Our air is cleaner? Neighbourhoods are quieter? Less plastic waste in our bodies? Save gas money?
Talking about absurd takes. The CPC doesn’t deny climate change at all. Which makes you the ultimate hypocrite, accusing people to not be able to look beyond the rhetoric, while contributing to the rhetoric. Rich.
Please educate me! I did some reading a few months ago trying to parse out what PP actually stands for beyond the rhetoric, but the most cogent climate plans the CPC had put out were under O'Toole.
Since then I have struggled to find anything other than 'carbon tax bad' (sure, alternatives?) repeated denials of climate change by various sitting MP's and mealy mouthed rhetoric on encouraging businesses to reduce their carbon footprint without legislation and passing the buck onto provincial governments.
But yes, I suppose the CPC has brought themselves around to acknowledging climate change. Some of them anyway.
It’s a low effort search to find the CPC’s policy declaration on their website. In that policy declaration is a high level statement on energy transition (it is not an election platform). A statement which wouldn’t have logically been there if they were to deny climate change. Further Poilievre has also stated multiple times that he would reduce carbon emissions by subsidizing and fast tracking approvals for low carbon energy sources. Also keep in mind that we’re not in an election period and the conservatives haven’t or haven’t had the need to release a platform, so logically their plans are undeveloped.
You said the CPC denies climate change which is categorically untrue, hence you’re contributing to the rhetoric. As you’re trying to persuade people in an insincere way that the CPC denies climate change, not individual members, but you said the CPC as in its official stance. Which is why I called you out on it.
I mean if you find it not enough or don’t agree with their approach is totally fine and please start a constructive debate. No need to spread falsehoods, it kills all possible debate and just incentivizes slinging mud, let’s be adults.
Yeah, clearly we should be preventing people from immigrating to Canada in order to keep their emissions attributed to another country. Or to keep their emissions lower as they suffer in poverty? Very good-faith climate policy👌
Conservatives are going to pivot eco-fascism and then, *true to form*, accuse the left of being the real climate change deniers when their solution isn't letting people from poverty stricken nations die en masse.
The CPC are definitely to the right of the democrats. The idea that the dems are a right-leaning party comes from a bad-faith attempt by American leftists to paint their views as more moderate than they are.
the lpc is left of the democrats.
this is a bs narrative by leftists. they have moved so far left that center people now are considered right or alt right
Some of the LPC is to the left of some Democrats, and some Democrats are to the left of some of the LPC.
>they have moved so far left that center people now are considered right or alt right
And what are these ultra far left policies so tilting our political spectrum?
The liberals are very much neo-liberals which is a “right” mindset. They might not be much off to the right from centre but they definitely aren’t anywhere close to “far left” lol.
Ask yourself why they are bringing in so many *temporary* immigrants and not giving them permanent residency if they care two shits about them?
Both the LPC and the democrats shifted considerably to the right in the 90s. It's certainly nothing new, but "third way" politics is not a conspiracy theory, it was a delierate and public shift by the democratic party and the Liberal party, and it is still the dominant ideology among the center-left parties today.
Prior to Reagan / Mulrouney / Thatcher, it was not a completely unthinkable notion that certain industries should be nationalized, or at the very least have significant public participation. The government built houses, and had oil companies, power companies and railways. Nowadays it's accepted as fact that the government shouldn't actually do anything and should just throw money at private companies and hope they do what the government wants.
Hell, the Liberals tried to solve grocery stores price gouging by asking nicely.
The mechanism that the far right will gain influence in Canada is by pushing the CPC rightwards. We don't have a proportional system like many European countries, which means that a shift in politics tends to reflect in the parties moving rather than a new party supplanting another.
O'Toole to Poilievre absolutely was a shift rightward. Definitely not AfD levels, but there's no reason it can't happen again.
Which is why a proportional system would be better in Canada. Instead of the entire mainstream Conservative Party moving right, we would have a small handful of seats going to the far right and the mainstream parties remain in the middle and retain governance.
I mean, per this article, proportional representation is by no means a guarantee that far right parties can't gain momentum. There's other benefits to proportional representation but I don't think that's one of them.
Loved the part around paragraph 8,000 where he said Parliament using a constitutional mechanism as intended is a violation of the rule of law! To be an elderly editorless columnist...
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What you are seeing is the natural political outcome of the last 20 years. It started with the great recession, and it's only got worse. Governments are not listening to the people. I mean, yesterday in Toronto, it was clear the people of the city of Toronto do not want to spend 1 million to rename Dundas Square. The pols came out and said, in their newspeak way, 'fuck off, we do things we think are best'. This is why we'll get a Trump in Canada, and another Rob Ford for mayor. They raise your taxes because they tell us 'we need money for the important stuff' and blow a million on this. Fuck off all of them. I'll vote for the guy that tells me he won't raise taxes, outcomes be dammed.
Their hard right has only risen because the centre isn't addressing their issues. Same thing here. People inclined to moderation will overlook a lot of crazy stuff if they can get a couple things from the far left or right. Address the issues and the problem goes away. They won't though.
They should pay attention. We need not fear the “Far Right” here if we stop engaging in mass immigration nobody voted for, actually do something about rampant inflation & housing costs, and enforce our borders & laws.
I agree that championing firm but fair moderate policies on the file would stave off the march of the far right, which seems to benefit from the reaction to extreme openness and/or incompetence. Seems pretty obvious.
Liberals and NDP have paid attention and they've doubled down on mass immigration, and wage suppression of Canadians. Wages are down. Housing is completely unaffordable for the majority of Canadians. Foreign corporations are still buying up properties in mass. In turn, Canadians are projected to vote for a CPC majority.
Liberals and NDP and Conservatives have paid attention and they’ve doubled down on mass immigration, and wage suppression of Canadians. Fixed it for ya 😉
Two parties are in power. One isn't.
The Conservatives were part of the formation of the Century Initiative and are part of it today. If you leave them out of the conversation you're being delusional.
So the century initiative is now a real threat to the country, or are you no longer going for "just a thought experiment"? If it's such a big threat to our democracy, it's time the LPC/NDP in power to condemn the goal and cease their immigration rates to 100k a year total.
One party is in power, propped up by another. The NDP doesn’t hold a single cabinet post. It is cabinet that draws up budgets, controls government departments, and introduces most bills that become laws.
Does the NDP propping up the current government not mean holding the LPC to account, or are they just completely subservient to Trudeau's liberals? It's almost as if Singh is just a lapdog for the ruling elites; a champagne socialist.
The CPC voting against business and in favor of workers and consumers would be a night/day conversion. Not likely to happen. What is likely to happen is the economy takes a nose dive as PP slashes spending. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and PP will tell us that it's all Trudeau's fault. That is how it is going to go unless...
Liberals and the NDP voting against Canadian workers in favour of foreign temporary workers has already been a night and day flip. CPC campaigning on filling the hole the LPC/NDP left wouldn't be far off. "The economy nosediving isn't ~~Trudeau~~ Polievre fault and is happening globally." I love hot swapping narratives. Let's see how this goes.
TFW program exploded on Harper. Liberals didn't do anything to slow it down. You honestly think PP who is Harper's lapdog is going to change that? lol
The same TFW Trudeau criticized and now exponentially increased under Trudeau. With multiple new TFW opened up under his government. After both Singh and Trudeau, you still think people will vote for either?
So they vote for PP hoping for policy in favor of workers and consumers?
If it means shaking awake the neurodivergent individuals in charge of the LPC/NDP, yes.
The question is: will PP improve the quality of life for consumers and workers? He is promising austerity, which has a flawless track record of hurting consumers and workers and solidifying the position of the rich as an uber class. But you seem to be suggesting that's okay because it will wake up the Liberal Party and the NDP. Wake them up to what exactly?
Last time CPC were in charge economy was doing a heck of a lot better than now. Not sure where you got the economy taking a dive narrative from.
In the broad sweep of Canadian economic history the Harper government did not do well. It benefited from a strong global economy https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2016/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/ Whereas Trudeau's government has got us through some very difficult global economic times. In fact when we look at the performance of all political parties in Canada, and include the provincial governments, the economy does best with a NDP government. https://www.progressive-economics.ca/2015/10/fiscal-and-economic-record-of-political-parties/ So just as in the US the Repulbican party has been the worst steward, in Canada, the Conservative party has been the worst.
Unfortunately, seeing as the CPC will just be a worse version of this
>Unfortunately, seeing as the CPC will just be a worse version of this I’d trust the party of supposed racist/xenophobes to cut immigration before the party of “social capacity” and the party of give everyone PR. Unfortunately, this narrative that the CPC is no better has kinda left people like you in a corner.
The conservatives have made it clear they have zero intentions on slowing down immigration. Pierre literally said he is gonna make it easier for more immigrants to come here, stop deportations and promised direct flights from India. He doesnt sound like the racist anti-immigrant type to me.
And in the same stroke, he also promised to tie immigration to housing. So who knows at this point what the CPC will do. But one thing is clear: the LPC and NDP have painted all opposition to current immigration as being purely racism/xenophobia. They face absolutely no pushback internally for these policies, unlike the CPC with the SoCon base who is ideologically against this.
I wanna hope that hes gonna significantly reduce immigration and start deportations, and maybe the only reason why hes saying all these things is to not get targeted by the liberal-ndp lunatics. I just feel somewhat sceptical cuz hes being too straightforward in what hes saying and also goes out of his way to make such statements at religious rallies even more than the liberals and ndp do. Also saying that your not gonna tie immigration to the economy is the most vague ass statement ever. It could mean anything from zero immigrants to a million immigrants, he could argue either way and is just avoiding a straight forward answer. But lets hope that he takes the correct approach.
Except that's not what he said. He said he'd make it easier for people with IN DEMAND SKILLS to bring those to Canada and get priority entry to the country. People like doctors, nurses, scientists, engineers. Whereas the LPC/NDP just let anyone in and fuck Canadians if they don't like it.
You can continue to fearmongering, it doesn't make it true. PEI has already denied extending work permits for the "international students" demanding to work at tim Hortons.
Do you think PEI will hold out? Is the public strong enough in their support for this? Or do you think the “hunger strikes” will make them cave, like they caved here in Manitoba when the “international students” were protesting here.
Yes I do. The tides are changing in this country, and the CPC should see an easy win compared to the NDP in Manitoba. Talks have broken down, and the "hunger strikes" have restarted.
What if history only remembers the refugee crisis? A refugee crisis which started with the Arab Spring, and has expanded into Ukraine, and various other wars which Canada has an interest in. Maybe history will remember the South and Central American economic crises which fueled northern migration. Cocaine, bananas and sugar. Also oil (obviously). Maybe Canadians have been voting with their dicks, and defacto voting for the resulting immigration. Maybe foreign wars affect us. Maybe Canada’s participation in ,or avoidance of, foreign wars has consequences. Maybe petro states, such as Canada, have no future in a post petroleum world. Maybe Canada has the opportunity and obligation to do the right things, and restore its reputation for being on the right side of history.
There’s no maybe about it. Nation states, including Canada, have no legal or moral obligation to anyone except their own citizens. Nobody has been de facto voting for large immigration, nor are we obligated to take in people who would rather run then attempt to fix their own countries.
Why do you assume refugees have any choice in the matter? In your opinion, were the Jews cowards for running from the Nazi’s?
The Jews didn't want to install a Nazi regime in Canada as far as I'm aware unlike the immigrants that come to Europe that cry for Sharia law. These people aren't compatible with us it's just the hard reality.
>>… the immigrants that come to Europe that cry for Sharia law. While I don’t doubt that someone suggested Sharia law in Europe at some point in time, is implementation of sharia law an actual problem for Europe? Or was some immigrant nobody caught on tape, and now responsible for creating a right wing dog whistle?
No there recently have been demonstrations by islamists in Germany demanding Sharia law. Combined with all the Islamic terror we see its looking pretty obvious. 80+ percent of Europeans want stricter immigration according to recent polls that doesn't come from nothing, they aren't all Nazis or crazy. Gay people are getting increasingly attacked by Muslims on the street.
You do recall Canada among *many* nations refused Jewish immigrants prior to 1940s right?
Yes. Do better.
I agree we can and should do better. But many folks feel like its not Canada's problem other country citizen's problems. Which if you leave morality off the table makes sense I suppose.
Maybe Canadians are trying desperately to gain a measure of financial security before having kids, while governments at all levels instead work to suppress their earning potential by opening the floodgates to cheap labour. Maybe the post petroleum world is much further away than people think and handcuffing our own industries is doing more harm than good. Maybe our addiction to unproductive assets as investment vehicles, chiefly real estate, is being fueled by policies that actively skew the risk/reward ratio in its favour. Maybe doing the right thing in regards to a global humanitarian crisis should be accompanied by corresponding investments at home instead of expecting an entire generation of Canadians to lower their expectations while their parents deploy their golden parachutes. Maybe governments should stop telling people what they want and start listening to those people instead.
Agreed -- and, for those on the Left who are screaming about Poilievre and calling him "far right" or comparing him to a certain Austrian art student, well, no. Poilievre is the appetizer, but if we ignore *why* he's leading in the polls, the main course will eventually be served later on, and that won't be nearly as soft as Pierre is.
> In 2023 more than 450 federal judges in the U.S. were threatened. A Florida man left a voice message vowing to kill Chief Justice John Roberts. Hey, thats an interesting fact. Will Mike Harris be writing with as much outrage for the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh (still hasn’t seen the inside of a courtroom thanks to the Biden DOJ), or the constant harassment of Supreme Court justices at their homes by progressive activists? I won’t hold my breath. > A recent U.S. News and World report ranked Canada as the second-best country in the world, behind Switzerland and ahead of Sweden. I am begging Pierre’s political opponents to keep producing the listicles of how great we have it.
>Hey, thats an interesting fact. Will Mike Harris be writing with as much outrage for the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh (still hasn’t seen the inside of a courtroom thanks to the Biden DOJ), or the constant harassment of Supreme Court justices at their homes by progressive activists? I won’t hold my breath. Did he not literally write about harassment of judges in this article? Is that not what you quoted? Besides, the majority of violence isn't from progressives, as is covered in the next paragraph, *and* progressives are much more likely to denounce violence. >A study released last year showed one in four Americans thought political violence was justified to “save” the country. Among just supporters of Trump the number jumped to four in ten.
>I am begging Pierre’s political opponents to keep producing the listicles of how great we have it. Ok, I'll bite. Why?
I feel like liberals in North America have spent the better part of the last 2 decades saying “We should be more like Europe” but didn’t realize that the literal birthplace of Nazism, Fascism, and all the -isms in between. Needless to say, a lot of the things liberals admired European governments for have soured. Military expansionism is going through the roof (including conscription and national service). LGBTQ issues are shifting to the right, and so has immigration. We are heading down an eerily similar path to the EU, like their migrant crisis. This is why I have been warning many times now that a controlled return to the centre is better than a revenge-filled pendulum swing to the right. Like it or not, partisans plugging their ears and screaming racism, xenophobia/transphobia, or “trust the experts” are having their narratives blow up in their face and someone like Pierre is going to beat Trudeau. Let that sink in.
It was also the birthplace of communism, which lead to more global deaths than either of the other -isms you just mentioned. Any ideology far from "center" is not good to its people because it involves forfeiting liberty and individual rights to pursue "justice".
I haven't seen any LGBTQ things shift to the right. Except if you mean they vote for the right because the left brought us millions of people that hate and attack gay people every day and that's a reality.
Lots of shift to the right with LGBTQ -- that starts with the "T" in LGBTQ
What things that liberals admired about Europe have soured? How do those things relate to Nazism etc?
>What are that things liberals admired about Europe have soured? Universal healthcare, gun control, bountiful social services, LGBTQ rights, low military spending, being overall progressive, etc. All of these things people admired have been blown out of the water. No longer can progressives argue, “we should be more like Europe”, because Europe has changed. >How do those things relate to Nazism? They don’t relate *to* Nazism. North Americans don’t realize that there are literal fascist parties in some democratic European parliaments. We have this cute and fluffy perspective of Europeans being similar to us (Canadians) than anyone else, but that couldn’t be further than the truth.
> Universal healthcare, gun control, bountiful social services, LGBTQ rights, low military spending, being overall progressive, etc. These things haven't soured. Except perhaps military spending. Which country is rolling back universal healthcare, LGBTQ protections, gun control? East Europeans maybe, but this was never what people meant by a progressive Europe.
>These things haven’t soured. Except perhaps military spending. Except they have. No one is rolling back universal healthcare. But countries are facing similar criticism for the state of their healthcare systems, like the UK and NHS. LGBTQ protections have certainly been on the decline. You have progressive countries like the UK and Sweden taking their sides against children using puberty blockers, Italy removing children from same-sex parents/couples. It’s not just the Eastern European countries being the traditionalists anymore. Countries like Poland, the Czech Republic have passed concealed carry laws equivalent to those in the USA over the last decade. Mind you, gun control in Europe actually looser than Canada since the 2020 OIC. When you have people like Le Pen, Meloni, and the AfD coming up in the ranks - progressivism is on the decline and we will soon find ourselves uniquely following these policies.
NHS is in trouble because the Conservative government is pulling funding. Meanwhile the royal family attends a hospital appointed as a luxury hotel with medical devices. The problem is not public health. The problem is governments who want to destroy public services so that people can profit off the provision.
I wouldn’t say any of those things have been blown out of the water. Rather, I would say they still want all though things but for their people only. They don’t want others to come in and take advantage.
How is PP going to save us from the rise of fascism that we see in Europe?
He isn’t. I don’t know how you came to such a wild calculation.
It's not a calculation, it's a question.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm convinced that proportional representation is the greatest psyop the right has ever pulled on the left. A voting system that rewards extremism and endorses blind party loyalty with the sole reward being a completely arbitrary definition of "Fairness". How many proportionally represented countries are now flirting with fascism or arguably fascist? How many proportionally represented countries, formerly idealized by proprep advocates now have progress torn down by sudden right wing majorities? The hard-right shift in Europe is simply more fruit from this poisoned tree. Sure, other currently utilized voting systems are not perfect. But proportional representation has proven itself to be uniquely bad, and the "fairness" it delivers is of no societal benefit.
We have FPTP and we're flirting with fascism too.
I abhor the far right, but most of them are a farcry from fascism in terms of economics or politics; on the path there, you can make the argument, yes. Also, I do agree with pure proportional representation not being the ideal system, all it does is reward demagoguery in the long run. I support MMP for the House of Commons and definitely a strong- but reformed- Senate to curb the public’s worst tendencies.
> I'm convinced that proportional representation is the greatest psyop the right has ever pulled on the left. A voting system that rewards extremism and endorses blind party loyalty with the sole reward being a completely arbitrary definition of "Fairness". Bullshit as under FPTP the far right instead take over mainstream parties like our tories, british tories etc. FPTP just pushes extremists into mainstream parties.
"I dont like the sort of ideologies that certain electoral rules would help elect, so I prefer to legislate rules that would make it tough for a certain class of candidates to enter parliament" is a terrible arguement. As the supreme court of canada put it, such thinking is not only discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society, but rather is the antithesis of it. Soooooo, I guess that makes you a fascist? Nice self own there
Counterpoint: the two party, FPTP system in the US and their history and future likelihood of electing Trump.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This article just gets the entire rationale for why this is occurring wrong - and it’s really frustrating to see. If you look at Europe for the why - it’s clear - housing costs and immigration have gotten out of control. It’s the same here. And the usual politicians - conservatives and liberals alike are not providing solutions on those issues. The far right comes in and promises to do, what the electorate has been asking for - and takes complete advantage of the situation. If we don’t want this here - our existing political parties need to start acting more serious. That’s recognizing home prices actually need to go down regardless of what that might do to some retirement plans. That’s recognizing immigration is not a cure all to every problem - and it fact causes as many problems as it’s said to solve. It’s recognizing real change is needed to solve growing inequity. The issues Europeans and Canadians are facing are not “fake news” and insisting that’s the case will inevitably lead us to some wild party taking power in Canada by promising to fix the issues Canadians need fixed by the existing political establishment refuses to touch. Those investment condos are not worth losing our democracy over.
Nonsense. The Far Right does not register in the big cities like London and Paris that have expensive housing and lots of immigrants. They do best in poor areas with low no immigration and cheap housing. What motivates the right is that young people clustered in cities want to live differently than their parents did. This scares older rural voters. and they vote for those who promise to halt changes in society.
Clueless
France has an average unemployment rate of 7,5% (2023), as for Paris 6,9% (2021). However smaller cities like Saint-Denis who has voted for the RN as twice the unemployment rate [15,15%](https://www.villesavivre.fr/classements/taux-de-chomage/grandes-villes/). The people voting far right right now, are for a lot of them, people having difficulties finding jobs and therefore paying their basic needs ans cultural/value clash with some immigrants. Of course it's not all about immigrations level but the fact that the French system is one of the most generous and adding people in it with narrowing possibilities for them to find a great job is making no economical sens. As for why Paris and London are not voting for the far right, its plain and simple : If you are wealthy or dependent of cheap labor (which is the case of many in those cities), you will less likely to vote for the far right, because hey : statut quo is fine with me.
Saint-Denis is similar to most of the RN voting areas. An industrial area that has lost its purpose. You are right that it is a cultural/values divide, but not between immigrants and non-immigrants. The cities still have lots of poor people, but they work industries like the arts, retail, and restaurants. These create a different lifestyle than a 9 to 5 shift at a St-Denis factory. The latter tends to encourage stability, insularity, seeing the same small group of people each day. The threat to your job is someone in China doing your job for less. The newer industries are precarious, mobile, always changing of jobs and place of residence. A constant meeting of new people of different ethnicity, religions, and sexuality. The economic threat to these jobs is not enough customers walking through the door each day. This is the fundamental driver of the left/right divide in modern politics.
Young people wanna live differently? Buddy wed be lucky to live half as good as our parents did at this point, my only real problem with your argument
…what?
The majority of young people voted far right in almost every EU country, even though young people live in the cities.
Incorrect. The Far Right didn't get majorities anywhere. Even Orban didn't get a majority of the Hungarian vote. In every country the right win vote skewed old and rural. Look for instance at [the map of Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_European_Parliament_election_in_the_Netherlands#/media/File:Elecciones_al_Parlamento_Europeo_de_2024_(Pa%C3%ADses_Bajos).svg) . The PVV won only in rural areas. Places with no immigrants. Since the beginning of time old people have been upset by what young people are up to. As the world ages this becomes an ever more powerful voting block,
The far right failed to capture majorities, even among the youth votes, correct. But you're incorrect in suggesting the vote is limited to elderly voters - the National Rally/Front has captured about 30% of the vote in France, for example. This is a significant shift in voting intention among the youth and shouldn't be dismissed. Dismissing this as an elderly voting paradigm will only serve to add momentum. Edit: about 30% of the *youth* vote in France
I dont know about Orban but polling statistics show that the German far-right party AFD is the most popular among young voters in Germany. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/PqPyHnYdst
That doesn't mean much. The AFD are at 21% among young people. A fringe minority. Only top because the centre and left vote is split between many different parties. I'm not saying no young people vote for the far right, but it is indisputably true that the Far Right doesn't get its votes from places where housing costs are high and immigration is having an effect on the economy. They get support from areas in terminal economic decline that are looking for someone, anyone to blame for their problems. Immigrants are an easy target, even when immigration has zero to do with why DDR era factory towns are failing.
Yes but compared to 2019 the under 25 demographic saw an 11 point increase and the 25-34 age bracket saw a 7 point increase. Young ppl put together make up a 17 point increase for context the party as a whole saw a 5 point increase. So the vast majority of the parties growth comes from young voters. Its not a fringe movement either since the AFD and other far right parties are the festest growing overall. The afd is 2nd place right now up from 13th a little more than a decade ago, and in France, The Netherlands, Belgium they all got landslide victories. And yea you are right about the fact that the far right doesnt get their votes from wealthy urban centre’s nor do they get their votes from educated and wealthy individuals. The vast majority of the their votes come from poor and economically depressed rural areas. Even the people that vote for them are for the most part poor people. Doesnt come as a surprise that since the majority of poor people are young they are also turning to the far right. You would be correct in stating that immigration has nothing to so with where they live, for example the Afd polls the highest in east germany which has no immigrants at all, but immigrants do make an easy target. But even this is starting to change since the majority of young people live in cities not rural areas.
I think the point being made here is, "underestimate them at your own peril". An election or two ago in the Netherlands, I would have never thought that Geert Wilders would ever find himself where he is today, but in only two years he more than doubled his party's share of the vote. That is Obama levels of meteoric rise, and shouldn't be ignored or handwaved away. A lot of Dutch youth are getting very disillusioned with things there and are voting for the stereotypical "I will fix this mess and make this a great place again" strongman. Ditto Meloni, AfD, Le Pen, and others.
Oh sure, but the important thing is to understand the cause. It's not high immigration and pricey housing that leads to a Geert Wilders. It is hopeless economic decline. The good news is Canada doesn't have much of that. Though the areas the PPC did well in like Windsor and parts of Northern Ontario come closest. We have our own problems, and our own sources of conservatism. In the west we have the petro-fundamentalism found in every part of the world with abundant oil resources and religiosity. We have an millions of car driving, homeowning conservatives who have theirs and don't worry about anyone else. We have libertarians who pretend to have read Ayn Rand and dream of utopias. The CPC is mostly made up of those three groups. With their donor base being the first group, their voting base the second, and their activists the third.
That is not what’s occurring in Europe. Far from it.
It 100% is. In all of the countries the best areas for the far right is poor areas with cheap homes and very few immigrants. Take Clacton. There is a reason Nigel Farage is running there, and why it is one of the best seats for UKIP/Reform. It has hardly any immigrants, not much of an economy, and very cheap housing. What it has in abundance are old people.
>What it has in abundance are old people. Not that this is wrong, but it's clearly not the whole picture when far-right parties across Europe have increased their proportion of the vote among young voters by significant margins. https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-europe-young-voters-election-2024-foreigners-out-generation-france-germany/ They may not be in majority territory there, but a 10%+ rise of vote share among 18-35 year olds is not something to ignore. Don't comfort yourself thinking this could never happen here. The same underlying social pressures are all there. You can't just hand wave it away. The more disenfranchised people feel, the more likely they are to succumb to a snake oil salesman peddling easy answers.
They have increased their share of the youth vote but its still their weakest demographic by some distance. Interestingly, their second-weakest (at least in France) are the elderly. Their biggest strength is with middle-aged people, the 40-65 range.
It’s happening here….
Look at PVV support in The Netherlands. The party of Geert Wilders (the "Dutch Trump" with a similar bad toupee/haircut) is concentrated in the rural areas. All over the place there is this rural/urban divide. Thats the SAME in Canada and the US. The countryside feels forgotten, dismissed, and threatened by modern and progressive ideology. Wilders in his speeches talks about the typical Dutch couple (I think they're called Hans and Helga or something like that) that are living a traditional lifestyle as some sort of ideal. The restoration of "common sense" and "traditional values" is a running theme with these guys. Old people and religious people living in these remote areas lap this stuff up. [The Urban-Rural Divide in Political Attitudes in the Netherlands – EuropeNow (europenowjournal.org)](https://www.europenowjournal.org/2020/11/09/the-urban-rural-divide-in-political-attitudes-in-the-netherlands/)
Actually, after reading your linked article I can confirm your source got it right. The conclusions you have drawn are however in direct contradiction to the conclusions drawn by the writer in your linked article.
Making stuff up as usual, typical lib
[удалено]
You seem to just pay attention to Britain and not Europe.
Okay then. See HUNGARY. Almost NO immigration. Have had an extreme rightwing government for years that is dismantling democratic institutions. The far-right started gaining support in European countries two decades ago. FFS. Fascism is a reactionary movement against social progress. The backlash against women’s rights, particularly reproductive rights, is not a coincidence, it’s the goddamn front lines. When a Polish man at a protest against the abortion ban in Poland was interviewed, he said “we know that banning abortion is a red flag for fascism” and its a worry that in North America there is little awaof this fact. The protests in Poland had as many men as women, in the US it’s mostly women protesting. And banning abortion was just the first step, state Republicans are trying to ban types of birth control, travel out of state to get an abortion, some want abortion to be treated as murder and women who get abortions to be executed. It’s insane. And the targeting of trans women, in particular, is horrific. And it’s because trans women are seen as traitors to “masculinity.” You must have noticed that the extreme rightwing is constantly yapping about masculinity. Polling also show that while young men are moving increasingly to the right, in multiple countries, young women are moving left. Blaming the rise of the far-right on economic factors is ignoring the very terrifying hatred of women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, minority rights, and mother earth is also getting shit on.
It's the exact same story. The AFD did best in middle of nowhere Saxony, Much like Clacton it has no jobs, no immigrants, and no young people.
Exactly. It’s resentment. The feeling of being left behind. And they are. They’re being told how privileged they are by the urban elites, while they live in deprived areas with terrible services and bad economic and social conditions.
The issue is the problems are not solvable. Clacton-on-Sea will never again be a top holiday destination in a world with cheap flights to Spain and Italy. It can never be what it once was. Areas like that will always be a fertile zone for peddlers of false hope. People like Farage and Le Pen who promise your town will be great again if only you vote to get rid of the EU or immigrants or gays.
It’s true in Germany and Italy too. Berlin/Munich did not go Afd, and Rome/Milan/Turin did not go for Meloni.
This is similar to Texas too. The cities are very liberal, but if you go out into the countryside you'll find yourself in hard-core republican territory.
Houston and Dallas are not 'Very' Liberal. They're probably what we'd call conservative here in Canada. Small government, low taxes, but don't beat up gay people and allow anyone to pay for their abortion. If you look at the local city governments they're very fiscally conservative, but open minded. They'd never elect a Justin.
Oh and you know? Look where the AFD support is concentrated in Germany. They do well in a place like Chemnitz, one of the safest cities in Germany. [Chemnitz: A stronghold of Germany's far-right AfD – DW – 06/17/2024](https://www.dw.com/en/chemnitz-a-stronghold-of-germanys-far-right-afd/a-69388323)
Eastern Germany has always been a strong hold for the far right. This has more to do with poverty and low opportunity than with safety.
Wrong. The Far right rage baits and throw populist measures to only be busted ahead. See Austria and the UK following Brexit. Edit: it is not that the left is any better; they are exhausted and failed to make things better. But then, when you see how the extreme right in Germany is rising, it is kinda scary
I like how populism is thrown around like an insult.
Popularity would not be an insult. Populism is a more defined term. It's the appeal to people's base instincts, using strategies intended to ignore rationality or reasonable explanations.
Is it an insult though?
Really any party or person that's making claims of being for the people, standing against the elites, and anti establishment would be a populist Bernier, Poilievere, Sing, May, and even Trudeau in 2015 could possibly all be considered populists at any point. Bernie Sanders and Trump are both populists too, but judging by all of the names I just presented, you can tell that populism is a very wide and blanket term, and with varying degrees of intensity and spans across the political spectrum. So, overall, I'd say it's not an insult, but populists SHOULD be met with scrutiny, like any politician should be. But all in all, we should be diligent with the promises being made and by whom.
The problem is calling everything right wing, far right. Foolish people believe that the left has no far left There is no difference in far right and far left behavior. The only way forward is a leveled balance between the two, but has long as there are people who only think right is the issue then there's no moving forward. All the people shouting that those with right leaning political ideas are some how far right will continue to make those people feel like they have to stay strong in their positions. My suggestion to every one who calls the entire right wing political spectrum "far right" is this. STFU
All the “F Trudeau” flags, the “trucker” protest, the WEF conspiracy theories. It’s already happening in Canada. It just looks a little different.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Amazing how only the Left doesn't have a far wing. I guess the ones who try self destruct. Or maybe media just hides that fact.
the CPC is on par with the democrats in the US. they arne't hard right at all. But the lpc and ndp are toast for awhile. SO maybe we see hte PPC gain steam soon
Pretty sure the Democratic caucus believes human caused climate change is real, and don't want to restrict abortion rights. The CPC under Poilievre is much closer to the GOP, although maybe Bush Jr's GOP rather than Trump's.
Poilievre said his plan to address climate change would be to lower the cost of carbon-free energy alternatives, including hydro electricity projects, nuclear power and tidal power. If he didn’t believe in human caused climate change, then why would he want to incentivize carbon-free energy? According to the CPCs official policy declaration, “A conservative government would not support any legislation to regulate abortion”. Pretty obvious on that one.
Now if they could just change their stance on pronouns like the democrats. Maybe lay off the digital ID for porn. That kinda stuff.
Sorry but your logic and acceptance of clear statements isn’t going to work here. You might as well be talking to a wall.
It literally doesn't matter what any party thinks about climate change. If your party cared about Canada's contribution to GHG emissions, it wouldn't be pursuing the highest immigration rate in the developed world.
This is an absurd take. The CPC deny climate change and have absolutely zero issues with the levels of immigration, outside of giving them an opportunity to attack liberals. It's forever fascinating to me that we will be forced to oscillate between dumb and dumber in this country because nobody can be bothered to look past rhetoric to actual policy. Unfortunately it's not like the alternative parties have anything interesting to say either.
If Canada produces no GHG emissions it would make no difference to the mean surface temperature of the planet. Zero - none. You're not going to tax your way into cooler weather in a country that produces a shade less than 2% of aggregate GHG emissions.
Yet if everyone else had the same per capita foot print as Canadians the results would be catastrophic. Really depends how you slice it doesn't it? If every country that has less than 2% used your logic how much of the world would that be?
Our GHG emissions per capita are really skewed because we have a very small population with a globally important upstream oil and gas industry. We are also a cold country with additional energy needs. I fail to see the pragmatism of carbon taxes considering how completely ineffective they are in Canada, and really how needless they are considering their ineffectiveness.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on carbon taxes but those who criticize them seldom put forth better solutions. Yes, I am aware of the considerations with the per capita metric(I live in rural saskatchewan) but it does a good job of illustrating my point. For us to say Canada's emissions don't matter is irresponsible. Every nation has some pretty reasonable excuses but if no one takes action we get no where.
> in a country that produces a shade less than 2% of aggregate GHG emissions. If you add up the emissions every country that individually produces a relatively small amount of greenhouse gases you get something like 40% of global emissions. What happens if they all decide to do nothing because they are individually a small part of the problem?
Not much would happen, honestly, because the demand for fossil fuels is relatively inelastic when it pertains to non-utilities consumption. You can mandate phasing out coal, for example, and you can push utilities to adopt cleaner tech. They also think 50 years ahead. Households don't though, if they have to drive to work they're driving to work. If they have to heat their homes, they're heating their homes. They don't use fossil fuels to be jerks, they do it because the alternatives are too expensive right now. The change has to come by offering a viable alternative in real terms, without adding additional expense to fossil fuels. Adding pigovian taxes to a relatively inelastic good is just going to hose the consumer and stifle economic output.
Might also convince some people to wear a sweater in the winter and not heat their home to 22 °C
Ahh, so reduce our standard of living.
Lol we live in Canada you clown. Not the place to live if you want to be hanging around in a tee-shirt in January. Can't stand entitled selfish pricks like you who think they should be able to mess the whole world up for future generations to avoid a minor inconvenience at best. If the boomers and silent gen hadn't treater out planet and society the way you want to, our society would be faring far better than it is today. Beyond that, sweaters are a deeply rooted part of our culture.
Per capita, Canada is one of the biggest emitters in the world and have built a sizable economy from oil. We've been huge polluters for decades and rank lower in scale now primarily due to how much India and China are churning into the atmosphere. Also doing nothing now costs more later. Common sentiment is that we're all hurting financially and can't possibly spend more as individuals, so let's just push the problem further down the line for when we're healthier and can afford it. But that day will never come and the situation will get worse, creating more financial pressure because everything is fucked. It's actually fucked already, we ARE going to have catastrophic events due to climate change and the best we can do now is limit the catastrophe. Doing nothing and saying what's the point is incredibly myopic. If that's how you feel, don't bother voting in the next election because your vote will only be a drop in the bucket and statistically insignificant
Also, even if it was a drop in the bucket. What's the worst thing that happens here? We're on the forefront of green tech? Our air is cleaner? Neighbourhoods are quieter? Less plastic waste in our bodies? Save gas money?
Talking about absurd takes. The CPC doesn’t deny climate change at all. Which makes you the ultimate hypocrite, accusing people to not be able to look beyond the rhetoric, while contributing to the rhetoric. Rich.
Please educate me! I did some reading a few months ago trying to parse out what PP actually stands for beyond the rhetoric, but the most cogent climate plans the CPC had put out were under O'Toole. Since then I have struggled to find anything other than 'carbon tax bad' (sure, alternatives?) repeated denials of climate change by various sitting MP's and mealy mouthed rhetoric on encouraging businesses to reduce their carbon footprint without legislation and passing the buck onto provincial governments. But yes, I suppose the CPC has brought themselves around to acknowledging climate change. Some of them anyway.
It’s a low effort search to find the CPC’s policy declaration on their website. In that policy declaration is a high level statement on energy transition (it is not an election platform). A statement which wouldn’t have logically been there if they were to deny climate change. Further Poilievre has also stated multiple times that he would reduce carbon emissions by subsidizing and fast tracking approvals for low carbon energy sources. Also keep in mind that we’re not in an election period and the conservatives haven’t or haven’t had the need to release a platform, so logically their plans are undeveloped. You said the CPC denies climate change which is categorically untrue, hence you’re contributing to the rhetoric. As you’re trying to persuade people in an insincere way that the CPC denies climate change, not individual members, but you said the CPC as in its official stance. Which is why I called you out on it. I mean if you find it not enough or don’t agree with their approach is totally fine and please start a constructive debate. No need to spread falsehoods, it kills all possible debate and just incentivizes slinging mud, let’s be adults.
Yeah, clearly we should be preventing people from immigrating to Canada in order to keep their emissions attributed to another country. Or to keep their emissions lower as they suffer in poverty? Very good-faith climate policy👌
Conservatives are going to pivot eco-fascism and then, *true to form*, accuse the left of being the real climate change deniers when their solution isn't letting people from poverty stricken nations die en masse.
the democratic caucus does not believe a bogus tax will endcliamte change. the abortion stuff is fake news
The CPC are definitely to the right of the democrats. The idea that the dems are a right-leaning party comes from a bad-faith attempt by American leftists to paint their views as more moderate than they are.
the lpc is left of the democrats. this is a bs narrative by leftists. they have moved so far left that center people now are considered right or alt right
Some of the LPC is to the left of some Democrats, and some Democrats are to the left of some of the LPC. >they have moved so far left that center people now are considered right or alt right And what are these ultra far left policies so tilting our political spectrum?
The liberals are very much neo-liberals which is a “right” mindset. They might not be much off to the right from centre but they definitely aren’t anywhere close to “far left” lol. Ask yourself why they are bringing in so many *temporary* immigrants and not giving them permanent residency if they care two shits about them?
Are you going to move down to Florida with Maxime?
The lpc and the dems largely overlap. Which policies of their’s are “far left”?
Both the LPC and the democrats shifted considerably to the right in the 90s. It's certainly nothing new, but "third way" politics is not a conspiracy theory, it was a delierate and public shift by the democratic party and the Liberal party, and it is still the dominant ideology among the center-left parties today. Prior to Reagan / Mulrouney / Thatcher, it was not a completely unthinkable notion that certain industries should be nationalized, or at the very least have significant public participation. The government built houses, and had oil companies, power companies and railways. Nowadays it's accepted as fact that the government shouldn't actually do anything and should just throw money at private companies and hope they do what the government wants. Hell, the Liberals tried to solve grocery stores price gouging by asking nicely.
The mechanism that the far right will gain influence in Canada is by pushing the CPC rightwards. We don't have a proportional system like many European countries, which means that a shift in politics tends to reflect in the parties moving rather than a new party supplanting another. O'Toole to Poilievre absolutely was a shift rightward. Definitely not AfD levels, but there's no reason it can't happen again.
Which is why a proportional system would be better in Canada. Instead of the entire mainstream Conservative Party moving right, we would have a small handful of seats going to the far right and the mainstream parties remain in the middle and retain governance.
I mean, per this article, proportional representation is by no means a guarantee that far right parties can't gain momentum. There's other benefits to proportional representation but I don't think that's one of them.
Loved the part around paragraph 8,000 where he said Parliament using a constitutional mechanism as intended is a violation of the rule of law! To be an elderly editorless columnist...
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.