I completely agree with Pieter that the CBC has become a mouthpiece for the Liberal Party of Canada and leftist causes, far removed from objective journalism. The CBC's blatantly partisan election coverage last night heavily favoured the LPC. So biased. Know wonder half the county (Conservative voters) want to cut their tax payer funding.
Growing up, I trusted the CBC for its balanced reporting and adherence to journalistic standards, professionally presenting both sides of an issue. That balance has long vanished. The CBC, now a relic, receives over $1.5+ BILLION in taxpayer funding, supporting a government-backed outlet. The CBC is the 10,000 pound elephant that directly competes with private media while only mirroring LPC state propaganda kinda like Pravda ("Truth") in the Soviet era.
I am quite happy about the outcome. I prefer minority governments, I think they are more responsive and creative. One of the CPC's problems is it is not clear who they could partner with.
I have the following reasons for not supporting the CPC. I do not think these are specific to the leader. These are in order of importance to me, though I think the biggest crisis in Canada is around per capita productivity. Solve for that and it becomes easier to solve many other things.
1. Complete lack of any credible strategy or policies on climate change. And yes, I read the platform in detail and also went to the think tanks like the Fraser Institute that help shape CPC policy.
2. An excessive reliance on oil and energy for growth. I have zero faith that additional investment in oil will do anything to improve economic growth and more importantly to address the profound crisis on per capita productivity.
3. A housing affordability strategy based on a misdiagnosis of the root causes and that would make things worse. I have zero confidence that the policies proposed would do anything but make affordability worse.
4. Vague 'anti-woke' gesturing. I do not know what the CPC mean when they say 'woke.' I suspect they are talking about people like me and my family but who knows.
Steven - I learned this election that different groups have total different understandings of what things mean and are. For instance 'woke' but also 'antisemitism'. It leads to confusion and poor discussions. I would love to sit down with you and explore 'woke' as there may be some misunderstandings here and there, on your side, but maybe also on my side.
Happy to have that discussion, perhaps over that long overdue coffee. I think a more interesting and important conversation though is what can be done to improve per capita productivity.
I think the leaders whom the left revere are themselves drawing closed the curtain on the low, dishonest, unscientific religion of climate change. Tony Blair certainly struck a bold blow with his recent announcement. Those lower on the lefts totem pole may soon find their beliefs rendered suddenly unfashionable. Certainly if Carney has any chance to avoid an early election, he will have to placate D. Smith on the development of Alberta’s resources. He certainly has what he would consider a very important reason to do so - Ontario and Quebec could not enjoy their privilege without the largesse from Alberta’s contribution to the budget.
What specific facts are you disagreeing with? That carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gasses that cause warming? That atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily from the 1860s? The average temperature has also risen steadily. That a great deal of economic damage has already been caused by climate change?
Danielle Smith has zero ability to influence a confidence motion in the house of commons.
As you know in absolute terms Ontario contributes far more to the federal budget and Quebec also contributes more than Alberta. I suppose you are talking in per capita terms, where Alberta contributes the most, followed by Ontario and then BC. So what you are making is an argument to get rid of equalization payments. I would be open to that. But Alberta should worry about getting what it wants, in 20 years it will likely be on the receiving end.
And how do you see that happening? And over what timeline? It may well happen, but I suspect the timeline would be several electoral cycles. Carney will not have or want to serve more than two terms. And by that time one can hope there is a meaningful centrist alternative.
But everyone seems to have missed isCarney’‘s plans for Canada‘s relationship with China? I expect China will serve as the lamp post holding up the drunk. Canada will pay an extraordinarily high price for this end of the confederation will be one of the smaller prices they pay.
What makes you think the CBC has conspired to forge and disseminate a certain narrative about the Conservatives? When you call the CBC “state-owned”, are you implying that it is some sort of government propaganda mouthpiece?
Do you know why Patrick Weiler was on the ‘Vote Palestine’ list?
I think the CBC is biased, that is my personal observation, which was confirmed last night during their election reporting. It may be a stretch to call it 'government mouthpiece' but the intimate relationship between the two does raise questions.
Why Weiler is on that list, I don't know. I have approached him but zero answers (much like when I asked about China a few years ago).
Not specifically Steven. It is the way questions are framed, how conservatives on the show are approached differently than say new democrats. It is a soft and subtle bias that has permeated a lot of Canadian media.
I think if you spoke with someone on the left, say a strong environmentalist, they would say the same thing. There is an assumption that the ecoomy is independent of the ecology and that growth is the default assumption. These are never questioned on media like the COC, Globe and Mail or National Post. You might get an occasional glimpse of an alternate view on something like The Tyee, but not often.
I completely agree with Pieter that the CBC has become a mouthpiece for the Liberal Party of Canada and leftist causes, far removed from objective journalism. The CBC's blatantly partisan election coverage last night heavily favoured the LPC. So biased. Know wonder half the county (Conservative voters) want to cut their tax payer funding.
Growing up, I trusted the CBC for its balanced reporting and adherence to journalistic standards, professionally presenting both sides of an issue. That balance has long vanished. The CBC, now a relic, receives over $1.5+ BILLION in taxpayer funding, supporting a government-backed outlet. The CBC is the 10,000 pound elephant that directly competes with private media while only mirroring LPC state propaganda kinda like Pravda ("Truth") in the Soviet era.
I am quite happy about the outcome. I prefer minority governments, I think they are more responsive and creative. One of the CPC's problems is it is not clear who they could partner with.
I have the following reasons for not supporting the CPC. I do not think these are specific to the leader. These are in order of importance to me, though I think the biggest crisis in Canada is around per capita productivity. Solve for that and it becomes easier to solve many other things.
1. Complete lack of any credible strategy or policies on climate change. And yes, I read the platform in detail and also went to the think tanks like the Fraser Institute that help shape CPC policy.
2. An excessive reliance on oil and energy for growth. I have zero faith that additional investment in oil will do anything to improve economic growth and more importantly to address the profound crisis on per capita productivity.
3. A housing affordability strategy based on a misdiagnosis of the root causes and that would make things worse. I have zero confidence that the policies proposed would do anything but make affordability worse.
4. Vague 'anti-woke' gesturing. I do not know what the CPC mean when they say 'woke.' I suspect they are talking about people like me and my family but who knows.
Steven - I learned this election that different groups have total different understandings of what things mean and are. For instance 'woke' but also 'antisemitism'. It leads to confusion and poor discussions. I would love to sit down with you and explore 'woke' as there may be some misunderstandings here and there, on your side, but maybe also on my side.
Happy to have that discussion, perhaps over that long overdue coffee. I think a more interesting and important conversation though is what can be done to improve per capita productivity.
I think the leaders whom the left revere are themselves drawing closed the curtain on the low, dishonest, unscientific religion of climate change. Tony Blair certainly struck a bold blow with his recent announcement. Those lower on the lefts totem pole may soon find their beliefs rendered suddenly unfashionable. Certainly if Carney has any chance to avoid an early election, he will have to placate D. Smith on the development of Alberta’s resources. He certainly has what he would consider a very important reason to do so - Ontario and Quebec could not enjoy their privilege without the largesse from Alberta’s contribution to the budget.
What specific facts are you disagreeing with? That carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gasses that cause warming? That atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily from the 1860s? The average temperature has also risen steadily. That a great deal of economic damage has already been caused by climate change?
Danielle Smith has zero ability to influence a confidence motion in the house of commons.
As you know in absolute terms Ontario contributes far more to the federal budget and Quebec also contributes more than Alberta. I suppose you are talking in per capita terms, where Alberta contributes the most, followed by Ontario and then BC. So what you are making is an argument to get rid of equalization payments. I would be open to that. But Alberta should worry about getting what it wants, in 20 years it will likely be on the receiving end.
Here’s how Smith could guarantee a nc vote: If Smith leads Alberta out of confederation, Carney is gone.
And how do you see that happening? And over what timeline? It may well happen, but I suspect the timeline would be several electoral cycles. Carney will not have or want to serve more than two terms. And by that time one can hope there is a meaningful centrist alternative.
But everyone seems to have missed isCarney’‘s plans for Canada‘s relationship with China? I expect China will serve as the lamp post holding up the drunk. Canada will pay an extraordinarily high price for this end of the confederation will be one of the smaller prices they pay.
What makes you think the CBC has conspired to forge and disseminate a certain narrative about the Conservatives? When you call the CBC “state-owned”, are you implying that it is some sort of government propaganda mouthpiece?
Do you know why Patrick Weiler was on the ‘Vote Palestine’ list?
I think the CBC is biased, that is my personal observation, which was confirmed last night during their election reporting. It may be a stretch to call it 'government mouthpiece' but the intimate relationship between the two does raise questions.
Why Weiler is on that list, I don't know. I have approached him but zero answers (much like when I asked about China a few years ago).
I watched the CBC last night. Can you point out the parts that you thought were biased?
Not specifically Steven. It is the way questions are framed, how conservatives on the show are approached differently than say new democrats. It is a soft and subtle bias that has permeated a lot of Canadian media.
I think if you spoke with someone on the left, say a strong environmentalist, they would say the same thing. There is an assumption that the ecoomy is independent of the ecology and that growth is the default assumption. These are never questioned on media like the COC, Globe and Mail or National Post. You might get an occasional glimpse of an alternate view on something like The Tyee, but not often.