cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/170859
From BBC News via this RSS feed
Exactly this. I also wasn’t confident cons would handle the southern problem well.
Smokescreen is a good callout, I definitely had no clue when I was younger but now that is all I see when I listen to PP talk.
The sad part for me is, my riding elected a Conservative, and in general he’s a pretty good guy. He’s old school conservative, and does a good job representing his constituency in parliament.
But the party he’s stuck with is not the party it was when Mulroney was PM; people in leadership positions are actively pushing fascist and populist ideology, and feeling it’s fine to actively deceive the Canadian public to gain more power.
That’s not something I can respect. Old school conservatism I often disagreed with, but at least I could respect those who stuck with the party line out of a sense of integrity. I could have good-faith discussions with them about the best way to govern. How do you do that with someone who is only telling you what they think you want to hear, all the while having totally different behaviour where it counts?
Mulroney was Reagan’s lapdog and did a lot of damage to Canada. He signed NAFTA that primarily benefited the US, advanced privatization of Crown corps, cut business taxes, brought in new restrictions to and cut EI benefits, introduced the GST, cut universal healthcare funding, failed to foresee that offering Quebec “distinct society” status - but not to First Nations, Inuit and Metis people - would cause the failure of the Meech Lake accord, and was implicated in the Airbus affair (by accepting bribes/payments).
He was never the face of the ‘good old Conservative party’ because it’s doubtful they ever were “good”.
Maybe, but it wasn’t some faith based (im)moral obsessed party then. That was the reformist party (of I recall).
