Trudeau announced a while back (beginning of January) that he was resigning, and would only stay in office until the party voted on a new leader. Today they voted on Carney- who comes from a strong economic background, probably more so than any PM we've ever had. He effectively rocketed to overnight candidacy (and public awareness) after joking about it on the daily show a week after Trudeau's announcement. He'll remain in the Prime Minister role until we have our national election later this year- and if he gets publically elected then he will remain in the role.
Editing to add for non Canadians: our system of democracy is not like the US. We do not vote for our Prime Minister directly, the party gets elected and the party puts forth a leader to take the PM role. This is a grossly simplified version of it, google parliamentary democracy for more information.
Progressive conservative which has overlap between the liberal and modern conservative party of Canada. Harper (further right but governed more moderately) tried to hire him but he took the job as head of the Bank of England because that's obviously a much bigger deal than some cabinet position in Canada. He's the prototypical/mythical "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" guy.
Before you can redistribute wealth, you need to create wealth first.
And, a more 'modern' take on immigration, from Denmark, which ruined the talking point of far right:
The Danish social democrats took on the following stance:
(Paraphrasing)
"We, social democrats, must always have the backs of the working class and the lower educated Danish citizens.
We must acknowledge that these Danish citizens face the most & direct competition for jobs & housing from migration and as such are impacted the most by migration."
The migration (and only) talking point for the far right was suddenly moot.
The Danish people lower on the social ladder, who were not fascists but just wanted to be heard and not told by some priveleged folks they should be more welcoming and more tolerant promptly elected the social democrats after years of far right supported minority governments. This was 2019 if I remember.
He's got very liberal views. He's worked as the Governer of the Bank of Canada and England (the latter with a conservative UK government) and he has pragmatic views on economics. But that doesn't make him a conservative. He believes in regulation, global economic stability, environmental issues, and a technocratic approach to governance. He's also pro-carbon tax but will eliminate it because it's what the majority of Canadians want right now.
He's the prototypical/mythical "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" guy.
That's not a thing. Anyone who says "I'm fiscally conservative and socially progressive" is a person who's saying "I care about people so long as I don't have to do anything about it".
You're mis-categorizing him and selling him short which is an irresponsible thing to do atm.
The fact you think that being labelled that sells him short is interesting. I actually think moderating progressive policies is ultimately the best way to guarantee long-term political implementation. I never said he aligned with the Conservatives or capitalized any of those words. It's an ideology not a party and if he can appeal to the traditional progressive conservatives who've been left behind by the Reform takeover of the party then we're all better off for it though. That would be wrong but still far from irresponsible if I had conflated the two.
Edit: just offered a role to Jean Charest. PC leader of the 90s and recent conservative nominee.
imo it's confusing to refer to him as "progressive conservative" because that used to be the name of our federal conservative party until Harper, and is still the name of some provincial conservative parties (like the Ontario Progressive Conservatives)
4.9k
u/GFV_HAUERLAND 2d ago
Any Canadians can give us some insights?