That's pretty much true of any political party. I doubt it's exclusive to the Liberals. This is politics, nothing personal. The NDP aren't clean in this and we know the conservative record.
May's willingness to work with other parties have been demonstrated earlier which will help her leech more support away from the ndp. At least she has something to bring back to her voters.
You're absolutely right and it's a part of the Greens' appeal.
I posted this earlier but the most common read of BC election results is that Fed Liberals dissatisfied with the BC Liberals found a home with the Greens. In BC the Greens have positioned themselves where the Federal Liberals do, as a socially progressive, technocratic, free market party. The Fed Greens don't seem that much different. The core difference is they're aggressive on environmental issues, but that's an axis independent of the traditional left/right political axis. There's no reason why a socially conservative or economically Conservative party couldn't also be environmentalist. The centre right BC Liberals for example implemented the most economically conservative approach to climate action with their revenue neutral carbon tax.
The core difference I see between the NDP and Greens (especially now that the NDP seems to be matching and exceeding the Greens on environmental policy) is around labour issues. In BC the minority NDP government has not moved as far as promised on labour policy reform due to a lack of support from their Green minority partners.
I'd suspect that there's also likely a spot of differentiation where the NDP are more likely to support universal programs while the Greens (like the Liberals) would tend more toward means tested programs. Ultimately I think we'll have to wait until more policy documents appear to really sort out where every party is going to land this election.
Quebec is already quite happy to be selling their power to the Americans so there's really no reason for them to play ball on some sort of "grand bargain" energy corridor idea. It's dead in the water already.
The only grid expansion that makes sense would be for Alberta to buy power from BC and for adjacent provinces to buy more power from Manitoba.
I can't say I agree that Liberals hold a technocratic position in politics, their history does not align with that at all. Though it's completely understandable one could make such a conclusion, given that they're the only party to form government that frequently considers relevant work experience when appointing cabinet positions and the only party that has EVER genuinely considered the opinion of peer-reviewed experts, even when it hasn't politically expedient. It's what they do with those considerations that I feel disqualifies them from being labeled technocratic. Their electoral reform actions alone should make it pretty clear that they don't qualify for that distinction.
And I can absolutely see the labour issue being stronger with the NDP, but that has a lot to do with their storied history of being backed by the heads of the labour unions, either financially or otherwise. The NDP is no different from other parties in that their policy is crafted to the benefit of their primary supporters, and in the NDP's case, that's been unions. While that comes off as a good thing, it does lead to the NDP's more whiplash-inducing moments, like Notley's support of oil sands worker unions in opposition of the party's typical environmental stance.
It's also the reason for labour policy hold-ups in BC: the NDP wants to remove secret ballots to form unions, which risks employee privacy and thus opens workers up to persecution and abuse, both from employers (the card check system is supposed to keep this info out of an employer's hands, but let's be real, that's not a guarantee) and less-scrupulous union organizations. Truthfully, I think that there needs to be better enforcement of the rules surrounding unionization, such as employers not being permitted to dictate the timeline of a ballot through loopholes to gain time to impose a broader influence (such as bribery via private pay raises to discourage unionization and other scummy tactics) or having any reasonable suspicion of influence on employees by their employers during this period automatically certifying a union without a vote. Card check is better for unions, secret ballot without better rules for running them benefits employers. There's something in between that's best for workers independent of these 2 forces, especially considering the proposed option the NDP was touting makes electing to form a union less private than voting in provincial and federal elections.
This idea that the NDP is tied to union organizations actually highlights another aspect of the Greens' appeal to voters: while it's likely due to not having much in the way of elected power, the Greens aren't really beholden to big associated groups.
The Liberals are supported by one half of Bay Street's millionaires and voted in by progressives willing to compromise on their larger desires to draw in centrists, the Tories are supported by energy sector tycoons and the other half of Bay Street (once Reform and PC parties merged specifically) and voted in by anyone decidedly right of centre in the given moment, the NDP is supported by union organizations and the dead (no shit, a bulk of their funding was willed to them by dead progressives, moreso than any other party by a large margin) and voted in by the further left and socialists. What's unique to the Greens is that, seemingly by design but most likely by circumstance, there's not any bagmen to speak of, no deep roots to organizations with deep pockets, except for those that donate to them specifically for their pro-science and pro-environment values. No one is putting the David Suzuki Foundation on the same strata of corruptive influence as corporations. If such corruptive influences on the Greens exist, they're certainly not readily apparent to the general public, which makes scrutiny of them all the more important when they're gaining ground.
Not being able to have their principles bought out is something that would appeal to voters in ANY country but Canada in particular, partly because they see scandals like SNC-Lavalin from the Liberals time and again, but aren't stupid enough to think they'll be somehow be free of undue influence by corporate interest with the Tories who have their own storied history there, while those whiplash-inducing moments I mentioned earlier that are meant to appease labour unions and the party's inability to reconcile those moments with its political positions weaken leftist opinion of the NDP for the same reason. And the Bloc is.... well, the Bloc, dead in the water because no one really wants to fight for Quebec sovereignty anymore, as evidenced by the PQ and QS' resounding provincial defeat, being the loudest voices for it.
On this point, the Greens stand alone, and they're leaning into it to their benefit in extremely unsubtle ways. When Andrew Weaver announced that the BC Greens would take no corporate or union money, their funding very sharply increased. It's my understanding that this "party of the people" approach was rolled out by Peter Bevan-Baker in PEI. And given what they have in fundraising compared to other parties and Weaver twisting Horgan's arm on this issue, I'd be inclined to believe them when they say that.
While I'm sure there's some truth to what people say about their political predilections, I'm also aware that a lot of it is hold-over from Jim Harris' tenure as leader and all the diet libertarianism he brought to the table.
We don't have to wait for an election platform to dissect the Green position, since
they already have a document that outlines the guiding principles they use to form their platforms. It's a bit robust and outlines a few of the issues I have with the party (iffy on their anti-nuclear position even though I agree with the reason for their conclusion and definitely opposed to their anti-GMO position, personally), but if there's something decidedly right-wing about the modern Greens, it'll be easily identifiable through this document and such information should probably be teased out of it.
"Nobody in the office of the leader of the official opposition was in touch with Premier Ford's office about his decision to adjourn the legislature."
Double bullshit.
Scheer just better hope that Kenney, Moe and Palliser can carry their weight, as well, because he's inextricably tied to them, too. And if he didn't want that to be the case, he shouldn't have opted to do this:
popcorn.gif
This should be interesting...
I'm not sure "interesting" is the word I'd use, since no matter who's responsible, someone is gonna get torpedoed, and I'd bet the only ones who likely aren't responsible for this are the ones we want to be responsible for this.
That is um, uh. Quite the AMA. Aliens, Illuminati, The Cabal, Gods and Religion. Its like Peak Reddit with so many Conspiracy Theories flying around. That is quite the fascinating read just from a "watching a train crash in slow motion" perspective
Assuming it's actually Hellyer (which I kinda doubt), it IS Peak Reddit, where they're more interested in listening to a clearly dementia-suffering nonagenarian to hear the "truth" about the world than... y'know, listening to people who matter.