this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
79 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
341 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
79
Poilievre says it would be 'not fair' for Liberals to replace Trudeau as leader (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 2 weeks ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre thinks it would be “not fair” for the Liberals to oust Prime Minister Justin Trudeau now, as in his view they are “morally obligated” to keep him.

Poilievre’s comments come ahead of another potentially significant Liberal caucus meeting Wednesday, during which members are expected to continue discussions around the party’s leadership and the next election.

“I think the Liberals are morally obligated to keep Justin Trudeau,” Poilievre told 580 CFRA’s The Morning Rush host Bill Carroll in a radio interview on Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Giving the highest possible benefit of the doubt - what could Poilievre's angle possibly be by saying this? What does he think it gains him?

Wouldn't a better political move be to say something like "run whoever you want. x, y, and z policies are what matter and that's what our party is going to fight for"? I mean, even if it's a lie, wouldn't that be a much more politically savvy thing to say? Off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 other angles to take that seem a lot better than "the Liberals have a moral responsibility to keep their current leader". That's like, high school debate level shit.

Poilievre has been on Parliament Hill for 20 years. I'm just continually baffled by what appear to me to be obvious blunders in a game he should know very well. Is there something I'm missing?

edit: Is it possible that this is an ego thing for Poilievre? Is there some thread here that, he wanted to be the one to take down Trudeau, and if internal Liberal party operations accomplish that instead, that takes away some kind of marquee victory that Poilievre wanted for himself?

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

My assumption is that this angle is the easiest to get people to be angry about. Most of his platform is getting people angry about things that don't exist or excited about solutions that won't solve anything. IMO getting people to be angry about a leadership change is more of the same.

[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Could be. Even then, it's still so odd. He's in this political win-win situation, where he has an advantage if Trudeau stays on, and he has an advantage if the Liberals make a last-minute change and roll into the election (that we all know is lingering) with an untested newbie.

Although, the CPC and Poilievre didn't earn this excellent spot on the chessboard by any strategic triumph, so maybe it's not so surprising that he appears to have no idea how to work the pieces.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly I make the same assumption about a lot of his positions. Much of what he says or suggests policy wise doesn't hold up if you dig into it. So why say it in the first place?

Most of the platform is being built on people being angry and not understanding the systems that are being talked about.

From that perspective it makes sense that they need to continue to feed lies, half-truths and other nonsense to keep people angry.