Some amount of conflict is inherent to democracy — particularly so in a political system that prominently features His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. And hyperbole has probably existed for as long as humans have been able to communicate.

But has any Canadian politician in recent memory embraced rhetorical conflict as enthusiastically as Pierre Poilievre?

For the Conservative leader, there seems to be no such thing as overstatement. And he seems to feel it’s almost always worth going on the attack.

  • Troy@lemmy.ca
    21·
    6 days ago

    Wake me up when they have a platform published.

    I really hope Trudeau does a last-hour electoral reform shenanigan, as a legacy statement or something. Then I can stop having to decide between strategic voting and throwing my vote away. Alas.

    • Evkob@lemmy.ca
      9·
      6 days ago

      He won’t, and if he does it’s inevitably going to be ranked ballots which unfairly favours the Liberal Party and won’t have the desired effect of increasing the representation of people who vote anything other than Lib or Con.

      Why would the current government do electoral reform years (and two elections) after failing to deliver on the promise that “2015 will be the last federal election under first-past-the-post”?

      Plus public opinion of Trudeau is so poisoned that, at this point, his supporting of electoral reform would likely just make it even more unpopular amongst the electorate.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        4 days ago

        and if he does it’s inevitably going to be ranked ballots

        I think that illustrates part of the difficulty faced by the calls for changing the electoral system. There are multiple other systems, each with their positives and negatives. Determining which is the “best” one to use is not a straightforward process.

        There will be shouts of unfairness from multiple factions no matter which would be ultimately chosen.

  • Sundial@lemm.ee
    21·
    6 days ago

    Instead of being chastened, Poilievre and his fellow Conservatives embraced the term to describe policies and ideas with which they disagree. (After not being used more than three times in the House in any given year between 1994 and 2023, the word “wacko” has so far been uttered 79 times in the House in 2024.)

    This right here is their goal. They copied the GOP handbook to cater to the outrage of people and normalize personal attacks without actually standing for anything yourself.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    8·
    6 days ago

    It’s the same political theatre humans have always had and usually … the grander the theatre, the worse the outcome in the succeeding years.

    No politician or political figure can sustain this kind of crap on their own or through the force of their individual will. It happens because of a well funded multimillion dollar marketing and communications project sponsored by the wealthiest corporations and millionaires and billionaires who are pushing an agenda. I see conservative ads everywhere … internet, website, social media, tv, radio, newspapers … and all I can think of is … this costs millions to do and millions more to maintain. A federal election is nowhere near in sight and conservatives are a public relations campaign … its worth millions to do this stuff … where do you think the money comes from?

    It doesn’t work on me … but it definitely works on most people who really don’t care that much about politics. Hate is an easy marketing strategy and one that everyone easily hitches their wagon onto.

    It’s just another example that we live a plutocracy masked over a thin veil of weak democratic institutions.

    Money runs the system. Not people.

    Always has

    Always will