For all of my adult life, I’ve been a Liberal believing in the defence of rights, the constraining of power, an equitable society, and an independent foreign policy. It’s been a narrative that many Canadians have strongly believed and supported.

Since 1982, the Charter gave us a core liberal centre that wasn’t really about party; it was about courts that could check governments, refugee protection as something we owed people, reconciliation as a shared obligation, gender equality, tackling poverty international law, building an activist role to counter Realpolitik.

These weren’t just policies. They were identity. That story is being rewritten.

The language hasn’t changed. Ministers still invoke the Charter, the “rules-based order,” Canada’s role as a constructive middle power. But watch what’s actually happening, and a different picture emerges: human rights moving steadily from the centre of public policy toward its edges, increasingly; poverty and homelessness being ignored.

  • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 days ago

    I disagree. I like that Avi is moving the party further left because that’s where they were for years, and we’ve already got a centrist party (the Liberals). We need another centrist party like we need another hole in our heads.

    For too long Canada has been sliding downward, forgetting our deep social democracy roots. We need to get back at least some of what we’ve lost.

      • patatas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Neither did they.

        Mulcair moved the NDP to the centre and got trounced in that election. It’s bad strategy.

        • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Actually:

          I like that

          We need

          We need to

          And “Canada has been sliding downward” arguably qualifies as well.

          Furthermore, starting with “I disagree” implies that what was said in OP is itself an opposite normative statement. It was actually just a description of the political landscape to help explain how it is that Carney can be so far to Trudeau’s right but still a Liberal.

          • patatas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Fair enough, point taken, however I also provided a perfectly good explanation of why the notion that the NDP would gain by moving rightward has not borne out historically. So sure, the earlier commenter had a perspective, but it’s a perspective that is clearly shared by many potential voters.

            • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              Yup. There is a precedent for moderating not going so well. Although nobody directly after Layton passed had much of a chance.

              It doesn’t guarantee anything in a counterfactual where the NDP goes another way, but it’s a fact that the Liberals aren’t worried about losing MPs and support (kind of the opposite really), even though there’s a lot of Liberals who actually liked the carbon tax - which used to be the signature policy - and aren’t sure why you’d ever put the capital gains tax down below the income tax again.