A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Hang in there Canada - don't let the batshit right wing screw you over too.
I really like Freeland. This is her rage-quitting -- "you can't fire me, I quit!" due to the Liberals resorting to desperate measures to try to salvage their approval ratings. It also positions her outside the leadership structure should a leadership convention occur. I really doubt she runs for leadership though, as the next election is likely a guaranteed party implosion. But it could separate her enough for the leadership race after this one.
She is such a level headed centrist. But the right fucking frotha at the mouth whenever she does anything because she is a woman or something.
This doesn't seem at all level headed. More like jumping ship when they need to work together.
I'd wager there is a leadership race within two months, and she is positioned for that now.
That fits my first impression perfectly, which I commented earlier.
From this show of personality, she is not the kind of person I'd personally vote for.
Seems like she chooses to sabotage a working relation, and use that as a platform to show off for her personal benefit.
Freeland has consistently stood by Trudeau for years, so her deciding to stand her ground shocked everyone. I suspect Trudeau just expected her to fall on the sword, but she gave him the finger instead.
I like her. She's got a solid set of brass ovaries and has stood up to PP and his gaggle of wee-wees for years. But I doubt she'll try for PM next election, especially seeing as the old boy's network is pushing for Carney to take Trudeau's place.
OK fair enough, I don't know enough.
Freeland wrote that Canada needs to keep its “fiscal powder dry today” so they have the reserves for a “coming tariff war”.
I just hate when people use analogies like that. So she agreed on fiscal policies before, but not anymore?
Seems to me she is rocking the boat, while arguing they should keep dry!
I'm sorry I don't know her, but this reeks of opportunism.
Just a tidbit of context for you that the article glosses over here:
Freeland and Trudeau have reportedly disagreed over proposals for temporary tax breaks and other spending measures, which were meant to shore up political support, but risked forcing Freeland to miss her spending goals.
This is talking about Trudeau deciding to remove temporarily remove federal sales taxes on toys, beer, takeout and dine-in meals, probably in hopes to improve his image over Christmas and blunt the impact of the Canada Post strike. These are sudden, expensive measures that to me it makes sense that Freeland didn't agree with it. She didn't start disagreeing out of nowhere.
If they are in a coalition government, how can Trudeau change taxes without her?
He has sufficient support in the Legislature to pass it (where Freeland is only 1 MP), but Freeland was his cabinet minister in charge of the budget and the Deputy PM, who was set to deliver the Fall Economic Statement. The increased spending passed by the Legislature was going to be on her to announce the ramifications of, effectively taking responsibility for the Liberal government. Instead she resigned out of conscience.
How is she only 1 MP when she is deputy PM? IDK how the Canadian parliament works, but here you are part of the government if you have such a title. And the government agree before they make legislation. According to Wikipedia "The office is conferred at the discretion of the prime minister" So the 2 clearly have to work together.
No, the deputy PM is pretty much the subordinate of the PM and can be fired by them at any time.
I know you are genuinely confused just because you are unfamiliar with our system, so I will try to compare it to the US one. It's like if a US House Rep like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also held Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen's position, and also nominated to a title similar to Kamala Harris.
Trudeau and Freeland are not elected directly as leaders, but they were elected individually in their riding as Members of Parliament (MPs). But the leading party caucus of MPs nominates their leader (Trudeau), then the leader selects their deputy PM (Freeland) and cabinet ministers to lead governmental departments (like MacKinnon, Freeland, Holland etc.), usually following certain conventions. You can read about it here.
The spending measure passes the House of Commons and Senate (Parliament, akin to the US Congress). However, as her role as Minister of Finance she disagrees with the move, so she resigns from that. She will stay as an MP unless she resigns as that, but if she really disagrees with her party she can unalign herself from the Liberal caucus.
That sounds a lot like how it works here (Denmark), Where ministers are the actual government with the Prime minister as the leader, and a government composed min ministers from different parties is a coalition government. That cooperate because no single party has a majority.
No offense, but your question is really confusing. I don't understand what her resignation has to do with the former supply-and-confidence agreement the Liberals had with the NDP.
ftr - There was never a coalition government and the NDP ended the supply-and-confidence agreement in September.
The right wing in North America flooded news stories and social media spaces with the talking point that the NDP and Liberals working together to accomplish government-related work was a "coalition government" (which they framed as a horrible undemocratic thing), but the NDP-Liberal supply-and-confidence agreement was in place to get Canadians the beginnings of dental care, affordable housing funding for municipalities, daycare, sick days for federally-regulated workplaces, etc.
According to Wikipedia: "The office is conferred at the discretion of the prime minister"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Prime_Minister_of_Canada
How is that not being part of a coalition government?
A coalition government is created when two or more political parties work together to form a temporary alliance large enough to achieve a majority and gain the confidence of Parliament, ultimately allowing them to form government and pass legislation.
Coalition governments occur when a party wins an election with only a minority of seats in the legislature. They are often formed during tumultuous times, such as those involving political turmoil or war.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6032583/coalition-government-explainer-canada/