×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

[原创]从阿尔伯塔2023省选想到的 –– 致人民党支持者

现在是2023年5月底,阿尔伯塔省2023年的大选结束了,“联合保守党”(UCP)击败了新民主党而继续执政(UCP得票率是52.6%,新民主党得票率是44.0%)。

这次阿尔伯塔省的大选,本来只是一次普通的省选;但由于阿尔伯塔省最近几次大选的特殊性,值得关注。在过去几十年来,本来阿尔伯塔省是由进步保守党(PC)长期执政的。2009年,随着选民对PC政府越来越失望,在2008年由另外两党合并而成立的野玫瑰党的支持率急剧上升。但是,野玫瑰党与保守党的对立导致保守派的严重分裂,在2015年的省选中,进步保守党丢掉了长达40多年的执政地位。在这次大选中,从得票率来说,新民主党获得41%的选票,野玫瑰党24%,而保守党获得的选票是28%。新民主党果然是名不虚传,只一任就把阿尔伯塔省折腾得够呛。显然,阿尔伯塔的保守派意识到分裂下去没有出路,于是在2017年,阿尔伯塔省政坛的两个保守政党––进步保守党和野玫瑰党––合并成为了“联合保守党”(UCP)。UCP在2019年阿尔伯塔省大选中赢得多数席位,组建阿尔伯塔省政府。还是那句话:“团结就是力量”。

如今的加拿大联邦保守党,也是在2003年由当时的两大反对党––进步保守党和加拿大联盟––合并而成。合并后的保守党在2004年的联邦大选中让自由党失去了多数政府地位,并于2006年击败自由党开始执政。由哈珀领导的保守党从2006至2015年执政这一段时期的加拿大,让很多人非常怀念。

保守党在2015年输掉大选后,哈珀辞去党魁。于是保守党在2017年举行党魁选举。MB(Maxime Bernier)竞选党魁,经历13轮记票后最终以非常微弱的差距败于希尔;而且前12轮记票都是MB领先所有其他候选人,只是在最终轮所有其他候选人都出局、只剩希尔与他对决时才以微小差距输掉。这对于MB来说确实是非常不容易接受的结果。在下一年,也就是2018年,MB宣布退出保守党。他在退党声明中表示自己意识到保守党“在智慧和道德上皆过于腐败,并不能将之改革”,又说保守党在希尔领导下失掉原则;人民党就是这样诞生的。MB的退党申明很冠冕堂皇,但政客的话是不能简单地从字面意思来理解的;当时,哈珀发推说:“很明显,Max从来没有接受党魁选举投票的结果,只想分裂保守派。”

在2019年的大选中,MB领导的人民党第一次参加联邦大选。希尔领导的保守党输掉大选,人民党也输掉了MB从保守党带过来的唯一的席位;但是,据说有人作过统计,发现人民党帮助土豆领导的自由党在6个选区击败了保守党。在以后的几次联邦大选中,人民党自己都是颗粒无收、没有赢得席位,但在一些选区帮助土豆的自由党击败保守党。

MB这样打击保守党的理由是保守党没法改革了、需要一个新党。话说得好听,而且保守党确实也有问题;但是,保守党是对抗土豆的主阵地,放弃这个主阵地而另外找一个小阵地自嗨,虽然可能感觉很好,但这实际上是投降和逃跑。美国的共和党也有腐朽的建制派,共和党与民主党被统称为uniparty。在政治斗争中,川普就受到民主党及共和党建制派的双重陷害;但是,川普没有另立新党,而是选择改造共和党。就凭他的巨大影响力,如果他另立新党,无数的川粉可以帮助他在多个州的选战中把腐朽的共和党建制派打得满地找牙。但是,他没有这样做。川普涉足政坛不是为了自己,而是为了挽救这个他所热爱的国家。如果他另立新党,虽然他自己可以玩得很嗨,但是会严重分裂保守派,这就等于在大选中将胜利拱手送给日益极端的民主党,让其毁灭这个他所热爱的国家。而MB所做的恰恰就是分裂保守派。幸好他对保守派所造成的分裂目前还不是灾难性的,还不能凭他一已之力保证土豆赢得多数政府;如果人民党发展壮大,获得15%的得票率,那么,这种分裂对于保守派来说就是灾难性的,这将让土豆欣喜若狂。

如果MB当初没有选择离开保守党,而是在保守党内坚持到希尔下台、自己在2020党魁选举中一举成为党魁、并在2021大选中战胜土豆成为总理,他就可以大展拳脚、实施他现在所宣传的政纲了(如果他现在所宣传的平台确实是他的真实政治主张的话)。但是,如果他以现在宣传的纯保守平台参加加拿大这个左倾国家的全国大选,是很难赢的。

前面讲过,MB在2018年退出保守党并成立人民党的时候,哈珀曾经发推说,MB从来没有接受党魁选举投票的结果,只想分裂保守派。如果MB认为保守党无可救药了,那他为什么又想当这个党的党魁呢,是想与这个无可救药的党同流合污吗?即使MB是真的认为保守党无可救药而必须另立新党,历史也可能不会给他足够的时间,因为土豆正在一步步加速毁灭这个国家;即使人民党经过与保守党漫长的搏斗最后胜出,但土豆在保守派内斗期间已经连任了许多次,可能早已把这个国家的民主自由彻底毁掉,那时候人民党取代保守党已经没有意义。在这个过程中,即使人民党赢得若干席位,也无济于事,因为土豆可以凭借其多数政府的地位强行推进议程;在土豆把加拿大民主自由彻底毁掉后,即使人民党把保守派一统江湖也没有意义,因为自由已经失去、民主已经名存实亡(北朝鲜也有选举)。

让MB输掉党魁的希尔在输掉大选后下台,希尔下台后的保守党党魁EO(Erin O'Toole)太烂了,对于人民党的生存发展作出了重要贡献。EO被赶下台后,如果下一个党魁还是EO那样烂,那人民党就有可能象阿尔伯塔省的野玫瑰党那样进一步发展壮大了,这将造成保守派的灾难性分裂。所以,2022年的保守党党魁选举很重要。在这次党魁选举中,有民调显示 ,PP(Pierre Poilievre)支持率排第一,JC(Jean Charest)排第二,而这个JC就是比EO更糟糕的左派。如果PP被黑倒,那么有可能JC将当选,这会给土豆和人民党带来巨大的利益,而PP对保守派的凝聚力对土豆与人民党都构成威胁。这时候,有趣的一幕出现了:土豆和人民党都不愿意看到PP当选。土豆那边,左媒开动宣传机器,攻击PP与极右分子混在一起;而一些人民党支持者则引导人们把PP与WEF、DS联系起来。不过, PP还是高票当选了。PP是第一轮就当选了,他获得的支持是压倒性的;而2017年MB参加的党魁选举是经过了13轮计票才分出胜负。

在2022年成为保守党党魁的PP,其平台以财政保守、捍卫自由、以及common sense为中心,深受广大保守派的青睐。本来这个时候是保守派团结的好时机;但是,人民党的创始人MB,没有选择团结,反而对PP进行了大量的攻击。

人民党对PP的攻击,其中心点就是把PP描绘成与土豆是“基本一样”的。

那么,土豆与PP真的是“基本一样”的吗?看看他们的一些区别:

  • 土豆是败家子,造成大量赤字,把加拿大推向破产;PP是fiscal conservative,主张控制赤字,控制通胀,小政府。
  • 土豆强迫加拿大人民接种实验性疫苗;PP反对vax mandate。
  • 土豆镇压卡车司机抗议;PP支持卡车司机的和平合法抗议。
  • 土豆推动digital ID和央行数字货币CBDC,这是全球主义者奴役人民的手段;PP反对政府推动digital ID和CBDC。
  • 土豆用税款收买大量传统媒体作为自由党的宣传工具,例如CBC;PP主张defund CBC 。
  • 土豆推动一系列议案(Bill C-11, Bill C-18, Bill C-36, The Online Harms Act)来夺走加拿大人民的言论自由(其中C-11已经成为法律),而失去言论自由意味着将失去所有其它的自由;PP捍卫加拿大人民的言论自由,承诺将废除C-11。
  • WEF主席施瓦布公开吹嘘土豆及其部分内阁是他们向加拿大的渗透;PP不同意WEF的政策,禁止他的内阁成员参加WEF活动。
  • 土豆降低保释门槛,惯犯可以轻易回到社会重复犯罪;PP主张改革惯犯保释制度,让惯犯被关在监狱里、不能轻易地回到社会。
  • 土豆征收和增加carbon tax,给高通胀火上浇油;PP反对carbon tax。
  • 土豆推动woke policies;PP主张结束woke policies。

人民党为了宣传PP与土豆“基本一样”,对PP与土豆的诸多重要区别闭口不谈,而利用他们之间少数的共同点大作文章。这明显是误导;“基本一样”与“存在共同点”是两回事;MB与土豆也存在共同点,例如他和土豆当年都支持大麻合法化。这种误导的宣传倒是与许多所谓的主流媒体是一个套路:似乎告诉你“事实”,但是另外一些重要的事实却故意隐瞒不说,以误导观众。

人民党不仅攻击PP的宣传采用误导的手法,它宣传自己平台时似乎也采用了类似的手法。MB以前当保守党国会议员时,某些方面的立场很接近liberal。保守派网站Campain Life Coalition曾经在2017年对当时正在竞选保守党党魁的MB作过评估,写道:“在他作为国会议员的大部分职业生涯中,伯尼尔在社会问题上像自由主义者(liberal)一样投票,除了他一直反对的安乐死。然而,在这次党魁竞选期间,他显著地向右转。”很明显,他对LGBT非常友好。他参加过“骄傲”流行,走在巨大的“历史的正确面”的横幅后愉快地向人群招手。在2016年于温哥华举行的保守党政策大会上,他积极支持反对传统价值观的LGBTTIQ运动,他发言支持一项政策决议,以废除保守党长期以来对一男一女婚姻的传统定义的支持。他支持的这项政策决议在那次大会通过了,保守党长期支持的一男一女婚姻的传统定义被废除了,当时这让很多坚持传统价值观的人们对保守党非常失望;但如今的MB却向这一人群宣传,称保守党太左、自己才是真正的保守派。他还投票支持“男女同厕”议案(Bill C-16,将保护gender identity or expression加入刑法与人权法)。此议案由自由党提出,在各左派政党及保守党内左倾议员们的支持下通过下议院(所有的反对票都来自保守党);此议案在下议院通过后,保守党在上议院曾经想方设法阻挠、拖延此议案通过,但遭土豆推动强行通过;最终此议案在2017年成为法律,为LBGT尤其是transgender四处出击提供法律保护。前段时间,16岁中学生Josh Alexander看到学校有男生进入女生的厕所,基于信仰与道德的原因,他表示了对学校男女同厕政策的反对,结果因此被停学;后来还因为回到学校而遭到逮捕。MB表示了对Josh的支持。但是,学校的这个政策是有法律依据的,而这个依据恰恰就是MB以国会议员身份投票支持、后成为法律的Bill C-16。现在MB宣传其平台时,对于自己支持LGBT闭口不谈(但当保守党以任何形式支持LGBT时,则可能遭到人民党支持者的攻击,怒斥其太左、已经与自由党无异),对自己过去做保守党国会议员时在社会问题上的liberal投票记录也闭口不谈;而MB所谈的,则是保守派心里想听到的那些话。当MB说出“我是唯一会为真正的保守价值观发言的候选人”时,他大概不希望人们想起他积极支持废除保守党对传统一男一女婚姻的定义,也不希望人们想起他曾经投票支持“男女同厕”、而这一法律正在保护想参观女厕所女浴室的生理男性们自由出入(只要ta们声称自认为女人)。当他的支持者们用“左左”这样的称呼来嘲笑那些支持“男女同厕”的左派时,不知他们有没有想到,他们自己的领袖也是这样一个“左左”。

MB不仅对自己支持LGBT闭口不谈,最近甚至开始跟LGBT对着干了。在05月23日,MB宣布了人民党的关于激进的性别意识形态(radical gender ideology)的政纲,其中赫然包括一条:废除Bill C-16。这可是MB当年投票支持的“男女同厕”啊。他是在自己反对自己啊。MB在公布这条政纲时,首先甩锅自由党,说C-16是自由党推出的议案,有如何如何的危害(他没有说自己投了赞成票、为这个议案成为法律作出了自己的贡献);后来说:“完全不能接受的是,没有一个民选议员勇敢地为妇女儿童和基本的生物现实挺身而出! 多年来我一直在公开反对这种疯狂行为,一旦我当选为 Portage-Lisgar 议员,我将继续在议会中公开反对。”但是,正是MB当年投票支持Bill C-16,把妇女的隐私与安全置于危险之中;他这不是自己打自己的脸吗?!他确实发表过声明,表示对投票支持C-16感到后悔;但是他当初为什么投了赞成票呢,国会就这个议案辩论时双方都发表意见,国会议员不是实习学生;而且他后悔的理由是“它对言论自由构成威胁”,并没有提到妇女的隐私与安全受到威胁,但这个议案的别称就是“厕所法案”,它对妇女的各种隐私场所都构成威胁(而且它对社会还有很多其它的影响)。他当年参加“骄傲”游行,愉快地走在巨大的“历史的正确面”的横幅之后,现在怎么悍然与“历史的正确面”翻脸了呢?MB经常指责别的政客靠不住、上台前一套上台后一套;那么,成立人民党之前的保守党议员MB与成立人民党之后的党魁MB,到底哪个是真的MB呢?他现在所宣传的很受保守派欢迎的政纲,基本上都是他成立人民党以后提出来的;如果这些政纲是他的真实政治主张、而不是为了挖保守党墙角而投保守派所好,那么他在成立人民党之前做保守党国会议员的12年期间怎么没有提出来呢?

MB目前正在竞选曼省的Portage-Lisgar选区的国会议员(选举日在06月)。他现在又是跟LGBT对着干,又是提出要重开关于堕胎的辩论,可能是为了在这次曼省的补选中跟保守党抢夺选票。他现在主张重开关于堕胎的辩论,并不代表他持反堕胎立场(PP的影子内阁成员Leslyn Lewis是真正地持反堕胎立场)。他以前当保守党议员的时候,曾投票反对 Stephen Woodworth 的 312 号议案,该议案试图研究子宫中的孩子何时成为人类; 他还投票反对旨在保护孕妇免受胁迫堕胎的法案 C-510。从他2006年开始做保守党国会议员、到2017年竞选保守党党魁、再到2018年成立人民党至今的记录来看,随着他所处的环境不同,他的立场有多次转变,明显地前后不一致。他现在为了争取保守党地盘选民的支持,不惜与自己积极支持的LGBT翻脸;如果他将来需要争取中间选民群体的支持,我们如何期待他会保持现在的立场?到时候是不是又需要一个人站出来指责人民党假保守、无可救药,再另立新党?那个新党的支持者会不会怒斥:人民党与自由党有什么区别!

很多人已经看出来了,人民党与土豆都可以从保守党的失败中获利:土豆可以连任,人民党可以借机壮大自己;如果保守党反反复复失败,土豆就可以反反复复连任,人民党则可能获得更大的利益。至于土豆对加拿大所造成的严重伤害、土豆正在一步步加速毁灭这个国家,似乎并不是人民党所考虑的范围。

目前看起来,MB并不打算促成保守派团结起来把土豆赶下台,但广大保守派们可以用自己的脚来促成团结。上次大选投票给人民党的选民当中,已有大量的人对PP感到满意、并意识到把土豆赶下台才是最重要的,还有很多人从MB对PP的攻击中看出了问题;他们已经打算在下次大选中支持PP领导的保守党、与广大保守派团结起来集中力量把土豆赶下台。

Sign in and Reply Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下茶话 / 社会政治 / [原创]从阿尔伯塔2023省选想到的 –– 致人民党支持者 +19

    现在是2023年5月底,阿尔伯塔省2023年的大选结束了,“联合保守党”(UCP)击败了新民主党而继续执政(UCP得票率是52.6%,新民主党得票率是44.0%)。

    这次阿尔伯塔省的大选,本来只是一次普通的省选;但由于阿尔伯塔省最近几次大选的特殊性,值得关注。在过去几十年来,本来阿尔伯塔省是由进步保守党(PC)长期执政的。2009年,随着选民对PC政府越来越失望,在2008年由另外两党合并而成立的野玫瑰党的支持率急剧上升。但是,野玫瑰党与保守党的对立导致保守派的严重分裂,在2015年的省选中,进步保守党丢掉了长达40多年的执政地位。在这次大选中,从得票率来说,新民主党获得41%的选票,野玫瑰党24%,而保守党获得的选票是28%。新民主党果然是名不虚传,只一任就把阿尔伯塔省折腾得够呛。显然,阿尔伯塔的保守派意识到分裂下去没有出路,于是在2017年,阿尔伯塔省政坛的两个保守政党––进步保守党和野玫瑰党––合并成为了“联合保守党”(UCP)。UCP在2019年阿尔伯塔省大选中赢得多数席位,组建阿尔伯塔省政府。还是那句话:“团结就是力量”。

    如今的加拿大联邦保守党,也是在2003年由当时的两大反对党––进步保守党和加拿大联盟––合并而成。合并后的保守党在2004年的联邦大选中让自由党失去了多数政府地位,并于2006年击败自由党开始执政。由哈珀领导的保守党从2006至2015年执政这一段时期的加拿大,让很多人非常怀念。

    保守党在2015年输掉大选后,哈珀辞去党魁。于是保守党在2017年举行党魁选举。MB(Maxime Bernier)竞选党魁,经历13轮记票后最终以非常微弱的差距败于希尔;而且前12轮记票都是MB领先所有其他候选人,只是在最终轮所有其他候选人都出局、只剩希尔与他对决时才以微小差距输掉。这对于MB来说确实是非常不容易接受的结果。在下一年,也就是2018年,MB宣布退出保守党。他在退党声明中表示自己意识到保守党“在智慧和道德上皆过于腐败,并不能将之改革”,又说保守党在希尔领导下失掉原则;人民党就是这样诞生的。MB的退党申明很冠冕堂皇,但政客的话是不能简单地从字面意思来理解的;当时,哈珀发推说:“很明显,Max从来没有接受党魁选举投票的结果,只想分裂保守派。”

    在2019年的大选中,MB领导的人民党第一次参加联邦大选。希尔领导的保守党输掉大选,人民党也输掉了MB从保守党带过来的唯一的席位;但是,据说有人作过统计,发现人民党帮助土豆领导的自由党在6个选区击败了保守党。在以后的几次联邦大选中,人民党自己都是颗粒无收、没有赢得席位,但在一些选区帮助土豆的自由党击败保守党。

    MB这样打击保守党的理由是保守党没法改革了、需要一个新党。话说得好听,而且保守党确实也有问题;但是,保守党是对抗土豆的主阵地,放弃这个主阵地而另外找一个小阵地自嗨,虽然可能感觉很好,但这实际上是投降和逃跑。美国的共和党也有腐朽的建制派,共和党与民主党被统称为uniparty。在政治斗争中,川普就受到民主党及共和党建制派的双重陷害;但是,川普没有另立新党,而是选择改造共和党。就凭他的巨大影响力,如果他另立新党,无数的川粉可以帮助他在多个州的选战中把腐朽的共和党建制派打得满地找牙。但是,他没有这样做。川普涉足政坛不是为了自己,而是为了挽救这个他所热爱的国家。如果他另立新党,虽然他自己可以玩得很嗨,但是会严重分裂保守派,这就等于在大选中将胜利拱手送给日益极端的民主党,让其毁灭这个他所热爱的国家。而MB所做的恰恰就是分裂保守派。幸好他对保守派所造成的分裂目前还不是灾难性的,还不能凭他一已之力保证土豆赢得多数政府;如果人民党发展壮大,获得15%的得票率,那么,这种分裂对于保守派来说就是灾难性的,这将让土豆欣喜若狂。

    如果MB当初没有选择离开保守党,而是在保守党内坚持到希尔下台、自己在2020党魁选举中一举成为党魁、并在2021大选中战胜土豆成为总理,他就可以大展拳脚、实施他现在所宣传的政纲了(如果他现在所宣传的平台确实是他的真实政治主张的话)。但是,如果他以现在宣传的纯保守平台参加加拿大这个左倾国家的全国大选,是很难赢的。

    前面讲过,MB在2018年退出保守党并成立人民党的时候,哈珀曾经发推说,MB从来没有接受党魁选举投票的结果,只想分裂保守派。如果MB认为保守党无可救药了,那他为什么又想当这个党的党魁呢,是想与这个无可救药的党同流合污吗?即使MB是真的认为保守党无可救药而必须另立新党,历史也可能不会给他足够的时间,因为土豆正在一步步加速毁灭这个国家;即使人民党经过与保守党漫长的搏斗最后胜出,但土豆在保守派内斗期间已经连任了许多次,可能早已把这个国家的民主自由彻底毁掉,那时候人民党取代保守党已经没有意义。在这个过程中,即使人民党赢得若干席位,也无济于事,因为土豆可以凭借其多数政府的地位强行推进议程;在土豆把加拿大民主自由彻底毁掉后,即使人民党把保守派一统江湖也没有意义,因为自由已经失去、民主已经名存实亡(北朝鲜也有选举)。

    让MB输掉党魁的希尔在输掉大选后下台,希尔下台后的保守党党魁EO(Erin O'Toole)太烂了,对于人民党的生存发展作出了重要贡献。EO被赶下台后,如果下一个党魁还是EO那样烂,那人民党就有可能象阿尔伯塔省的野玫瑰党那样进一步发展壮大了,这将造成保守派的灾难性分裂。所以,2022年的保守党党魁选举很重要。在这次党魁选举中,有民调显示 ,PP(Pierre Poilievre)支持率排第一,JC(Jean Charest)排第二,而这个JC就是比EO更糟糕的左派。如果PP被黑倒,那么有可能JC将当选,这会给土豆和人民党带来巨大的利益,而PP对保守派的凝聚力对土豆与人民党都构成威胁。这时候,有趣的一幕出现了:土豆和人民党都不愿意看到PP当选。土豆那边,左媒开动宣传机器,攻击PP与极右分子混在一起;而一些人民党支持者则引导人们把PP与WEF、DS联系起来。不过, PP还是高票当选了。PP是第一轮就当选了,他获得的支持是压倒性的;而2017年MB参加的党魁选举是经过了13轮计票才分出胜负。

    在2022年成为保守党党魁的PP,其平台以财政保守、捍卫自由、以及common sense为中心,深受广大保守派的青睐。本来这个时候是保守派团结的好时机;但是,人民党的创始人MB,没有选择团结,反而对PP进行了大量的攻击。

    人民党对PP的攻击,其中心点就是把PP描绘成与土豆是“基本一样”的。

    那么,土豆与PP真的是“基本一样”的吗?看看他们的一些区别:

    • 土豆是败家子,造成大量赤字,把加拿大推向破产;PP是fiscal conservative,主张控制赤字,控制通胀,小政府。
    • 土豆强迫加拿大人民接种实验性疫苗;PP反对vax mandate。
    • 土豆镇压卡车司机抗议;PP支持卡车司机的和平合法抗议。
    • 土豆推动digital ID和央行数字货币CBDC,这是全球主义者奴役人民的手段;PP反对政府推动digital ID和CBDC。
    • 土豆用税款收买大量传统媒体作为自由党的宣传工具,例如CBC;PP主张defund CBC 。
    • 土豆推动一系列议案(Bill C-11, Bill C-18, Bill C-36, The Online Harms Act)来夺走加拿大人民的言论自由(其中C-11已经成为法律),而失去言论自由意味着将失去所有其它的自由;PP捍卫加拿大人民的言论自由,承诺将废除C-11。
    • WEF主席施瓦布公开吹嘘土豆及其部分内阁是他们向加拿大的渗透;PP不同意WEF的政策,禁止他的内阁成员参加WEF活动。
    • 土豆降低保释门槛,惯犯可以轻易回到社会重复犯罪;PP主张改革惯犯保释制度,让惯犯被关在监狱里、不能轻易地回到社会。
    • 土豆征收和增加carbon tax,给高通胀火上浇油;PP反对carbon tax。
    • 土豆推动woke policies;PP主张结束woke policies。

    人民党为了宣传PP与土豆“基本一样”,对PP与土豆的诸多重要区别闭口不谈,而利用他们之间少数的共同点大作文章。这明显是误导;“基本一样”与“存在共同点”是两回事;MB与土豆也存在共同点,例如他和土豆当年都支持大麻合法化。这种误导的宣传倒是与许多所谓的主流媒体是一个套路:似乎告诉你“事实”,但是另外一些重要的事实却故意隐瞒不说,以误导观众。

    人民党不仅攻击PP的宣传采用误导的手法,它宣传自己平台时似乎也采用了类似的手法。MB以前当保守党国会议员时,某些方面的立场很接近liberal。保守派网站Campain Life Coalition曾经在2017年对当时正在竞选保守党党魁的MB作过评估,写道:“在他作为国会议员的大部分职业生涯中,伯尼尔在社会问题上像自由主义者(liberal)一样投票,除了他一直反对的安乐死。然而,在这次党魁竞选期间,他显著地向右转。”很明显,他对LGBT非常友好。他参加过“骄傲”流行,走在巨大的“历史的正确面”的横幅后愉快地向人群招手。在2016年于温哥华举行的保守党政策大会上,他积极支持反对传统价值观的LGBTTIQ运动,他发言支持一项政策决议,以废除保守党长期以来对一男一女婚姻的传统定义的支持。他支持的这项政策决议在那次大会通过了,保守党长期支持的一男一女婚姻的传统定义被废除了,当时这让很多坚持传统价值观的人们对保守党非常失望;但如今的MB却向这一人群宣传,称保守党太左、自己才是真正的保守派。他还投票支持“男女同厕”议案(Bill C-16,将保护gender identity or expression加入刑法与人权法)。此议案由自由党提出,在各左派政党及保守党内左倾议员们的支持下通过下议院(所有的反对票都来自保守党);此议案在下议院通过后,保守党在上议院曾经想方设法阻挠、拖延此议案通过,但遭土豆推动强行通过;最终此议案在2017年成为法律,为LBGT尤其是transgender四处出击提供法律保护。前段时间,16岁中学生Josh Alexander看到学校有男生进入女生的厕所,基于信仰与道德的原因,他表示了对学校男女同厕政策的反对,结果因此被停学;后来还因为回到学校而遭到逮捕。MB表示了对Josh的支持。但是,学校的这个政策是有法律依据的,而这个依据恰恰就是MB以国会议员身份投票支持、后成为法律的Bill C-16。现在MB宣传其平台时,对于自己支持LGBT闭口不谈(但当保守党以任何形式支持LGBT时,则可能遭到人民党支持者的攻击,怒斥其太左、已经与自由党无异),对自己过去做保守党国会议员时在社会问题上的liberal投票记录也闭口不谈;而MB所谈的,则是保守派心里想听到的那些话。当MB说出“我是唯一会为真正的保守价值观发言的候选人”时,他大概不希望人们想起他积极支持废除保守党对传统一男一女婚姻的定义,也不希望人们想起他曾经投票支持“男女同厕”、而这一法律正在保护想参观女厕所女浴室的生理男性们自由出入(只要ta们声称自认为女人)。当他的支持者们用“左左”这样的称呼来嘲笑那些支持“男女同厕”的左派时,不知他们有没有想到,他们自己的领袖也是这样一个“左左”。

    MB不仅对自己支持LGBT闭口不谈,最近甚至开始跟LGBT对着干了。在05月23日,MB宣布了人民党的关于激进的性别意识形态(radical gender ideology)的政纲,其中赫然包括一条:废除Bill C-16。这可是MB当年投票支持的“男女同厕”啊。他是在自己反对自己啊。MB在公布这条政纲时,首先甩锅自由党,说C-16是自由党推出的议案,有如何如何的危害(他没有说自己投了赞成票、为这个议案成为法律作出了自己的贡献);后来说:“完全不能接受的是,没有一个民选议员勇敢地为妇女儿童和基本的生物现实挺身而出! 多年来我一直在公开反对这种疯狂行为,一旦我当选为 Portage-Lisgar 议员,我将继续在议会中公开反对。”但是,正是MB当年投票支持Bill C-16,把妇女的隐私与安全置于危险之中;他这不是自己打自己的脸吗?!他确实发表过声明,表示对投票支持C-16感到后悔;但是他当初为什么投了赞成票呢,国会就这个议案辩论时双方都发表意见,国会议员不是实习学生;而且他后悔的理由是“它对言论自由构成威胁”,并没有提到妇女的隐私与安全受到威胁,但这个议案的别称就是“厕所法案”,它对妇女的各种隐私场所都构成威胁(而且它对社会还有很多其它的影响)。他当年参加“骄傲”游行,愉快地走在巨大的“历史的正确面”的横幅之后,现在怎么悍然与“历史的正确面”翻脸了呢?MB经常指责别的政客靠不住、上台前一套上台后一套;那么,成立人民党之前的保守党议员MB与成立人民党之后的党魁MB,到底哪个是真的MB呢?他现在所宣传的很受保守派欢迎的政纲,基本上都是他成立人民党以后提出来的;如果这些政纲是他的真实政治主张、而不是为了挖保守党墙角而投保守派所好,那么他在成立人民党之前做保守党国会议员的12年期间怎么没有提出来呢?

    MB目前正在竞选曼省的Portage-Lisgar选区的国会议员(选举日在06月)。他现在又是跟LGBT对着干,又是提出要重开关于堕胎的辩论,可能是为了在这次曼省的补选中跟保守党抢夺选票。他现在主张重开关于堕胎的辩论,并不代表他持反堕胎立场(PP的影子内阁成员Leslyn Lewis是真正地持反堕胎立场)。他以前当保守党议员的时候,曾投票反对 Stephen Woodworth 的 312 号议案,该议案试图研究子宫中的孩子何时成为人类; 他还投票反对旨在保护孕妇免受胁迫堕胎的法案 C-510。从他2006年开始做保守党国会议员、到2017年竞选保守党党魁、再到2018年成立人民党至今的记录来看,随着他所处的环境不同,他的立场有多次转变,明显地前后不一致。他现在为了争取保守党地盘选民的支持,不惜与自己积极支持的LGBT翻脸;如果他将来需要争取中间选民群体的支持,我们如何期待他会保持现在的立场?到时候是不是又需要一个人站出来指责人民党假保守、无可救药,再另立新党?那个新党的支持者会不会怒斥:人民党与自由党有什么区别!

    很多人已经看出来了,人民党与土豆都可以从保守党的失败中获利:土豆可以连任,人民党可以借机壮大自己;如果保守党反反复复失败,土豆就可以反反复复连任,人民党则可能获得更大的利益。至于土豆对加拿大所造成的严重伤害、土豆正在一步步加速毁灭这个国家,似乎并不是人民党所考虑的范围。

    目前看起来,MB并不打算促成保守派团结起来把土豆赶下台,但广大保守派们可以用自己的脚来促成团结。上次大选投票给人民党的选民当中,已有大量的人对PP感到满意、并意识到把土豆赶下台才是最重要的,还有很多人从MB对PP的攻击中看出了问题;他们已经打算在下次大选中支持PP领导的保守党、与广大保守派团结起来集中力量把土豆赶下台。

    • 写得不错,很及时的稿件. 精华之作。 +13
      • 只获得1.6%选票的人民党完全不能与获得24%选票的野玫瑰相提并论
      • 分析得好!有理有据,必须大赞! +3
    • 中共的政治檄文,什么时候把“土豆”去掉,才能接近点加拿大的民主理念。 +2
      • 同意,应该换成智忧党匪首 +4
      • 土豆是多么亲切的称呼啊😄 +5
    • 说的好! +4
    • 精华,绝对的精华!关键词“团结就是力量”!!谢谢,写得好!!! +10
      • 阿省NDP在2015年赢得大选时,得票率只有41%。今年大选它们得票率其实更高,达44%,但还是输了,就是因为保守派团结起来了。 +11
        • More ppl are waking up! We can DO IT!! +4
      • 句句中肯,肺腑之言。希望PPC的成员可以看到。个人理想和信念固然重要,但更要头脑清醒,搞清楚最大的敌人是谁, +4
        只要最大的敌人自由党在台上,不只是疫苗政策还会重启,更重要15分钟城市,中央数字货币,社会信用评分制度,网络的全面监控诸多WEF的灾难项目实施都在一步一步进行。所以大家特别是PPC的成员需要和保守党拧成一股劲把土豆赶下去,这才是重中之重,当务之急。不然其他什么都是空谈。
    • 保守党要推翻土豆自由党就应该向胖福学习,走中右路线 +4
      • 是的,保守党走纯保守路线是很难赢大选的。MB就是抓住这一点,根据保守派的需要设计出一套纯保守政纲,分流保守党的选票;其实他自己以前的立场不是这样的,相当于保守党里的左派,也就是Red Tory。 +5
        • Red Tory不是啥好东西,多伦多前市长做安省保守党领袖是就是个Red Tory。 +1
          • 政客的本事就是说得比唱得还好听,情真意切,难以分辨 +5
    • 把文章中的"人民"类似的词汇替换成"我"或者类似的词汇, 会让大家看的更舒服一些 :)
      • “人民”只是一个政党的名称,仅此而已。朝鲜的全称是“朝鲜民主主义人民共和国”,这也只是一个国家的名称,仅此而已。
        • 很难得在本论坛看到如此好的文章。不论同意与否,必须赞。希望在此论坛看到更多象楼主这样的文章。 +10
          “误导的宣传倒是与许多所谓的主流媒体是一个套路:似乎告诉你“事实”,但是另外一些重要的事实却故意隐瞒不说,以误导观众。”
    • Jean Charest以前不是自由党的么?
      • 他是Quebec Liberal Party,不是联邦自由党,联邦他是保守党。 +1
    • 弄个英文版的,发到推特上,唤醒更多的人。很乐意授权转发 +8
      • 好,我来把它翻译成英文,再发到这里。我没有推特账号。只要你不修改内容,可以随便转发。 +3
        • 谢谢!!
      • 这是主贴的英文版本,只要不修改内容,大家可以随意转发。我觉得大部分人民党支持者都是善良的爱国者,希望本文对他们有所帮助。

        Thoughts from Alberta's 2023 provincial election -- to PPC supporters

        Now, at the end of May 2023, the provincial election in Alberta has concluded. The United Conservative Party (UCP) defeated the New Democratic Party (NDP) and continued to govern (UCP received 52.6% of the votes, while the NDP received 44.0%).

        This Alberta provincial election was originally just a regular provincial election, but due to the particularity of the previous elections in Alberta, it was noteworthy. In the past few decades, the Progressive Conservative Party (PC) had long been in power in Alberta. However, in 2009, as voters became increasingly disappointed with the PC government, support for the Wildrose Party, which was formed by the merger of two other parties in 2008, surged. The confrontation between the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservatives led to a severe split-up within the conservatives, and in the 2015 provincial election, the Progressive Conservatives lost their decades-long grip on power. In this election, in terms of the popular vote, the NDP received 41%, the Wildrose Party received 24%, and the Progressive Conservatives received 28%. The NDP lived up to its reputation and caused significant damage to Alberta in just one term. Clearly, the conservatives in Alberta realized that there was no way out with further division. Therefore, in 2017, the two conservative parties in the Alberta political arena, the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party, merged to form the United Conservative Party (UCP). The UCP won the majority of seats in the 2019 Alberta provincial election and formed the government of Alberta. As the saying goes, "Unity is strength".

        Today's Conservative Party of Canada was also formed in 2003 from the merger of two major opposition parties at the time - the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance. The merged Conservative Party made the Liberals lose its majority government in the 2004 federal election and came to power in 2006 by defeating the Liberals. The Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper, governed Canada from 2006 to 2015, and many people have fond memories of that period.

        Harper resigned as party leader after the Conservative Party lost the 2015 general election. The Conservative Party held a leadership election in 2017. Maxime Bernier ran for the party leader and lost to Andrew Sheer by a very narrow margin after 13 rounds of tallying; moreover, in the first 12 rounds of tallying, Bernier led all other candidates, only to lose by a small margin when all other candidates were out in the final round and only Sheer was left to face him. This result was indeed very hard to accept for Bernier. The following year, in 2018, Bernier announced his resignation from the Conservative Party. In his statement of resignation from the party, he stated that he realized that the Conservative Party was "too corrupt intellectually and morally to be reformed", and that the Conservative Party had lost its principles under Sheer's leadership. This is how the People’s Party of Canada (PPC) was formed. Bernier's departure statement was high-sounding, but the words of politicians cannot be simply understood literally; At the time, Harper tweeted: " It is clear that Max never accepted the result of the leadership vote and seeks only to divide Conservatives. "

        In the 2019 general election, the People’s Party led by Bernier participated in the federal election for the first time. The Conservative Party led by Sheer lost the general election, and the People’s Party also lost the only seat that Bernier brought over from the Conservative Party; however, it was said that statistics was done to find that the People’s Party helped the Liberal Party led by Trudeau to defeat the Conservatives in 6 ridings. In the next few federal elections, the People’s Party itself failed to win any seat, but it helped the Liberal Party beat the Conservative Party in some ridings.

        Bernier's reason for attacking the Conservative Party in this way is that the Conservative Party cannot be reformed and a new party is needed. While his words sound appealing and there are indeed problems within the Conservative Party, the Conversative Party is the main battleground as Trudeau, and abandoning this main battleground and seeking a smaller arena for self-enjoyment may feel good but is actually surrendering and flight. In the United States, the Republican Party also has a corrupt establishment, and the Republican and Democratic parties are sometimes referred to as the "uniparty". In the political struggle, Donald Trump was framed by both the Democratic Party and the establishment within the Republican Party. However, instead of forming a new party, he chose to reform the Republican Party. With his immense influence, if he had formed a new party, innumerable Trump supporters could have helped him defeat the corrupt establishment within the Republican Party in many states. But he didn't do that. Trump's entrance into politics was not for himself but to save the country he loves. If he had formed a new party, although he could have had a great time himself, it would have seriously divided the conservatives, ultimately handing victory in the general election to the increasingly extreme Democratic Party and allowing them to destroy the country he loves. And that's precisely what Bernier is doing, dividing the conservatives. Fortunately, the division he has caused within the conservatives is not yet catastrophic and he cannot single-handedly guarantee Trudeau a majority government yet. However, if the People’s Party grows and gains 15% of the vote, this division would be catastrophic for the conservatives, making Trudeau ecstatic.

        If Bernier had not chosen to leave the Conservative Party but instead stayed with the party until Andrew Scheer stepped down, became the party leader in the 2020 leadership election, and defeated Trudeau to become the Prime Minister in the 2021 general election, he could have had the opportunity to implement the policy platform he is now advocating (if his current platform is indeed his true political stance). However, it would be difficult for him to win the national election in Canada, a left-leaning country, with the pure conservative platform he is currently promoting.

        As mentioned earlier, when Bernier left the Conservative Party in 2018 and formed the People’s Party, Stephen Harper tweeted that Bernier had never accepted the results of the leadership election and only wanted to divide the conservatives. If Bernier believed that the Conservative Party was beyond redemption, then why did he want to become the leader of that party? Did he want to associate himself with this party that he believed was beyond redemption? Even if Bernier truly believed that the Conservative Party was beyond redemption and a new party was necessary, history may not have given him enough time because Trudeau is progressively destroying this country step by step. Even if the People’s Party eventually emerged victorious after a long struggle with the Conservative Party, Trudeau would have been re-elected many times during the infighting within the conservatives, potentially already destroying the democratic freedoms of this country. In this process, even if the People's Party wins a few seats, it will not help, because Trudeau can forcefully advance the agenda with its majority government status; after Trudeau has completely destroyed Canadian democracy and freedom, it is meaningless even if the People's Party dominates the conservatives, because liberty will have been lost and democracy will have ceased to exist (North Korea also has elections).

        Sheer, who made Bernier lose the party leadership, stepped down after losing the general election. After Sheer stepped down, the Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole was very terrible, and made important contributions to the survival and development of the People's Party. If the next leader is as terrible as Erin O'Toole, the People's Party could potentially grow further, just like the Wildrose Party in Alberta, causing a catastrophic split within the conservatives. Therefore, the 2022 Conservative Party leadership election is crucial. In this leadership race, polling shows that Pierre Poilievre ranks first in terms of support, while Jean Charest, who is even worse than O'Toole, ranks second. If Poilievre is smeared to loss, there is a possibility that Charest will be elected, which would bring tremendous benefits to Trudeau and the People’s Party, while Poilievre's ability to unite the conservatives poses a threat to both Trudeau and the People's Party. At this time, an interesting scene appeared: both Trudeau and the People's Party do not want to see Poilievre elected. On Trudeau's side, the left-wing media has launched a propaganda campaign attacking Poilievre for associating with far-right activists, while some People's Party supporters are trying to help people to link Poilievre with the World Economic Forum and the Deep State. However, Poilievre was ultimately elected with overwhelming support. Poilievre was elected in the first round of tallying, and the support he received was really overwhelming, while in the 2017 leadership race that Bernier participated in, it took 13 rounds of tallying to determine the winner.

        Poilievre, who became the Conservative Party leader in 2022, has a platform centered around fiscal conservatism, defending freedom, and common sense, which has gained significant support among conservatives. This should have been a good opportunity for conservative unity, but the founder of the People's Party, Bernier, chose not to unite and instead launched massive attack on Poilievre.

        The People's Party's attack on Poilievre centers around portraying Poilievre as "basically the same" as Trudeau.

        So, are Trudeau and Poilievre really "basically the same"? Let's look at some of their differences:

        • Trudeau is profligate, causing a large deficit and pushing Canada towards bankruptcy; Poilievre is fiscally conservative, advocating for deficit control, inflation control, and a smaller government.
        • Trudeau mandates experimental vaccine injections for Canadians; Poilievre opposes vaccine mandates.
        • Trudeau suppressed protests by truck drivers; Poilievre supports peaceful and lawful protests by truck drivers.
        • Trudeau promotes digital ID and central bank digital currency (CBDC), which are means of enslaving people by globalists; Poilievre opposes government-promoted digital ID and CBDC.
        • Trudeau uses taxpayer money to buy a large number of traditional media outlets as propaganda tool for the Liberal Party, such as CBC; Poilievre advocates for defunding CBC.
        • Trudeau introduces a series of bills (Bill C-11, Bill C-18, Bill C-36, The Online Harms Act) to take away the freedom of speech of Canadians (with C-11 already becoming law), and losing freedom of speech means losing all other freedoms; Poilievre defends the freedom of speech of Canadians and promises to repeal C-11.
        • WEF Chairman Schwab openly boasted about infiltrating Canada through Trudeau and some members of his cabinet; Poilievre disagrees with WEF policies and prohibits his cabinet members from participating in WEF activities.
        • Trudeau lowers the threshold for bail, allowing repeat offenders to easily return to society and commit crimes again; Poilievre advocates for reforming the bail system for repeat offenders, keeping them in prison and preventing easy return into society.
        • Trudeau imposes and increases carbon taxes, fueling high inflation; Poilievre opposes carbon taxes.
        • Trudeau promotes woke policies; Poilievre advocates for ending woke policies.

        In order to promote that Poilievre and Trudeau are "basically the same", the People's Party keeps silent about the many important differences between them, and focuses on a few points of commonality. This is clearly misleading. "Basically the same" and "having commonalities" are two different things. Bernier and Trudeau also have commonalities, for example, both he and Trudeau supported the legalization of marijuana. After all, this kind of misleading propaganda follows the same pattern as many so-called mainstream media outlets: it appears to present you with "facts", but deliberately conceals other important facts to mislead the audience.

        Not only does the People's Party attack Poilievre using misleading tactics in its propaganda, it appears to use similar tactics when it promotes its own platform. When Bernier was a Conservative Party Member of Parliament, some aspects of his positions were very close to those of liberals. The conservative website Campaign Life Coalition assessed Bernier during his campaign for the Conservative Party leadership in 2017, stating, "Bernier voted like a liberal on social issues throughout most of his career as an MP, with the exception of euthanasia which he consistenly opposed. However, he has shifted significantly more to the right during this leadership campaign." It is evident that he is very friendly towards the LGBT community. He participated in "Pride" parade, happily waving to the crowd behind a huge banner on the "right side of history". At the Conservative Party policy convention held in Vancouver in 2016, he was a vocal supporter of the LGBTTIQ campaign against traditional values, speaking in favour of a policy resolution to abolish the party's long-time support for the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. This policy resolution, which he supported, was passed at that convention, the traditional definition of marriage that the Conservative Party had long supported was abolished, and this greatly disappointed many people who uphold traditional values; but now Bernier is promoting himself to this same group of people, claiming that the Conservative Party is too left-wing and that he is the true conservative. He also voted in favor of the "bathroom bill" (Bill C-16, which adds protection for gender identity or expression to the Criminal Code and human rights law). This bill was introduced by the Liberal Party and passed in the House of Commons with the support of left-wing parties and left-leaning members of the Conservative Party (all opposing votes came from the Conservative Party). After the bill passed in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party in the Senate tried to obstruct and delay its passage, but it was forced through by Trudeau. Finally, this bill became law in 2017, providing legal protection for LBGT, especially transgender people, to push their ways everywhere. Recently, 16-year-old high school student Josh Alexander expressed his opposition to the school's transgender bathroom policy based on his beliefs and morals when he saw boys entering the girls' restroom. As a result, he was suspended from school and later arrested for returning to school. Bernier expressed his support for Josh. However, the school's policy is based on the very law that Bernier, as a Member of Parliament, voted in favor of and that became law (Bill C-16). Now, when Bernier promotes his platform, he remains silent about his support for the LGBT community (while any form of Conservative Party support for the LGBT community may be attacked by People's Party supporters, accusing it of being too left-wing and no different from the Liberal Party). He also remains silent about his liberal voting record on social issues when he served as a Conservative Party Member of Parliament. Instead, Bernier says what conservative-minded individuals want to hear. When Bernier says, "I'm the only candidate who will speak for real conservative values", he probably doesn't want people to remember that he actively supported the repeal of the Conservative Party's definition of traditional marriage between one man and one woman, or that he voted in favor of the "bathroom bill," which allows biological males to freely enter women's restrooms and shower rooms (as long as they claim to identify as women). When his supporters use terms like "lefties" to mock left-wing individuals who support transgender bathroom policy, I wonder if they realize that their own leader is also such a "leftie".

        Bernier not only remains silent about his support for the LGBT community, but recently he has even started to confront them. On May 23rd, Bernier announced the People's Party's platform on radical gender ideology, which prominently includes repealing of Bill C-16. This is the "bathroom bill" that Bernier voted in favor of in the past. He is now contradicting himself. When unveiling this platform, he first blamed the Liberal Party, saying that C-16 was their proposal and highlighting its supposed harms (without mentioning that he voted in favor and contributed to making it law). Later, he said, "It is completely unacceptable that not a single elected MP is brave enough to stand up for women and children, and basic biological realities! I have been speaking out against this madness for many years already, and I will continue to speak out against it in Parliament once I am elected MP for Portage-Lisgar." However, it was Bernier's vote in favor of Bill C-16 that helped put women's privacy and safety at risk. Isn't he contradicting himself? He did issue a statement in the past expressing regret for voting in favor of C-16, but why did he vote in favor of it in the first place? When the bill was debated in Parliament, both sides presented their views. Members of Parliament are not interns; they should be well aware of what they are voting for. Furthermore, his reason for regretting the vote was that "it threatens freedom of speech", without mentioning the threats to women's privacy and safety; however, this bill is commonly referred to as the "bathroom bill", and it poses threats to women's various private spaces (and it has many other societal implications). He participated in "Pride" parade, happily walking behind a huge banner on the "right side of history". Now, why is he suddenly turning against the "right side of history"? Bernier often criticizes other politicians for being unreliable and changing their positions once in power. So, which version of Bernier is the real one: the Conservative Party Member of Parliament before the formation of the People's Party or the Party Leader after its formation? The political platform he is currently promoting, which is very popular with conservatives, was basically put forward after he established the People’s Party; If these policies are his true political beliefs and not just a way to undermine the Conservative Party's support by doing what their supporters like, why didn't he propose those policies during his 12 years as a Conservative Party Member of Parliament?

        Currently, Bernier is running as a candidate for the Portage-Lisgar riding in the Manitoba provincial by-election (scheduled for June). Now, he is confronting the LGBT community and proposes to reopen the abortion debate, perhaps in an attempt to compete with the Conservative Party for votes in this Manitoba by-election. His advocacy for reopening the debate on abortion does not necessarily mean he is pro-life (Leslyn Lewis, a shadow cabinet member of Poilievre, is truly pro-life). When he was a Conservative Party Member of Parliament, he voted against Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 which sought to study when a child in the womb becomes a human being. He also voted against Bill C-510 which sought to protect pregnant women from coercion to abort. Looking at his record from 2006 when he became a Conservative Party Member of Parliament, to his bid for the Conservative Party leadership in 2017, and the formation of the People's Party in 2018 to the present day, his positions have changed multiple times, showing clear inconsistencies. Now, in order to gain the support of conservative voters, he is willing to confront the LGBT community that he once actively supported; If he needs to appeal to the support of centrist voters in the future, how can we expect him to maintain his current positions? At that time, will it be necessary for another person to stand up and accuse the People's Party of being falsely conservative and hopeless, and then form a new party? Will the supporters of that new party be angry: What is the difference between the People's Party and the Liberal Party!

        Many people have already realized that both the People's Party and Trudeau can benefit from the failures of the Conservative Party: Trudeau can be re-elected, and the People's Party can seize the opportunity to grow. If the Conservative Party repeatedly fails, Trudeau can continue to be re-elected, and the People's Party may gain even greater benefits. It seems that the People's Party is not concerned about the serious damage caused by Trudeau to Canada or that Trudeau is destroying this country step by step.

        So far it looks like Bernier doesn't intend to bring the Conservatives together to get Trudeau out of office, but conservative individuals can contribute to unity with their own actions. Many voters who previously supported the People's Party in the last election are satisfied with Poilievre and have recognized that removing Trudeau from power is the most important thing. Many people have also noticed there's something wrong with Bernier's attacks on Poilievre. They have already planned to support the Conservative Party led by Poilievre in the next general election, unite with the majority of conservatives and concentrate their efforts to drive Trudeau out of power.

    • 支持保守党。 +3
    • English version. Translated by ChatGPT. Please verify. +2

      Now, at the end of May 2023, the provincial election in Alberta has concluded. The United Conservative Party (UCP) defeated the New Democratic Party (NDP) and continued to govern (UCP received 52.6% of the votes, while the NDP received 44.0%).

      This Alberta provincial election was originally just a regular provincial election, but due to the unique nature of the previous elections in Alberta, it was noteworthy. In the past few decades, the Progressive Conservative Party (PC) had long been in power in Alberta. However, in 2009, as voters became increasingly disappointed with the PC government, support for the Wildrose Party, which was formed by the merger of two other parties in 2008, surged. The opposition between the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservatives led to a severe split within the conservative camp, and in the 2015 provincial election, the Progressive Conservatives lost their decades-long grip on power. In this election, in terms of the popular vote, the NDP received 41%, the Wildrose Party received 24%, and the Progressive Conservatives received 28%. The NDP lived up to its reputation and caused significant turmoil in Alberta in just one term. Clearly, the conservative forces in Alberta realized that there was no way forward with further division. Therefore, in 2017, the two conservative parties in the Alberta political arena, the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party, merged to form the United Conservative Party (UCP). The UCP won the majority of seats in the 2019 Alberta provincial election and formed the government of Alberta. As the saying goes, "Unity is strength."

      The current federal Conservative Party of Canada also emerged from the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance in 2003. The merged Conservative Party ended the majority government of the Liberal Party in the 2004 federal election and took office by defeating the Liberal Party in 2006. The Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper, governed Canada from 2006 to 2015, and many people have fond memories of that period.

      After losing the 2015 election, Harper stepped down as party leader. The Conservative Party held its leadership election in 2017. Maxime Bernier ran for party leader and narrowly lost to Andrew Scheer after 13 rounds of voting. Bernier had been leading in all 12 previous rounds, but in the final round, when all other candidates were eliminated and only Scheer remained, he lost by a small margin. This was undoubtedly a difficult result for Bernier to accept. The following year, in 2018, Bernier announced his departure from the Conservative Party. In his departure statement, he expressed his realization that the Conservative Party was "too corrupt intellectually and morally to be reformed" and criticized the party for losing its principles under Scheer's leadership. It was during this time that the People's Party of Canada was formed. Bernier's departure statement was lofty, but political statements cannot be simply understood literally. At the time, Harper tweeted, "It's clear Max never accepted the result of the leadership vote and wants to split the Conservative Party."

      In the 2019 election, the People's Party led by Bernier participated in the federal election for the first time. While Scheer's Conservative Party lost the election, the People's Party also lost the only seat it had brought from the Conservative Party. However, it was reported that the People's Party helped the Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau, defeat the Conservative Party in six ridings. In subsequent federal elections, the People's Party itself did not win any seats and did not achieve significant growth, but it helped the Liberal Party defeat the Conservative Party in some ridings.

      Bernier's reason for attacking the Conservative Party is that he believes the party cannot be reformed and a new party is needed. While his words sound appealing and there are indeed problems within the Conservative Party, abandoning the main battleground against the Liberal Party and seeking a smaller arena for self-indulgence may feel good but is actually surrendering and running away. In the United States, the Republican Party also has a corrupt establishment, and the Republican and Democratic parties are sometimes referred to as the "uniparty." In the political struggle, Donald Trump was trapped by both the Democratic Party and the establishment within the Republican Party. However, instead of forming a new party, he chose to reform the Republican Party. With his immense influence, if he had formed a new party, numerous Trump supporters could have helped him defeat the corrupt establishment within the Republican Party in many states. But he didn't do that. Trump's foray into politics was not for himself but to save the country he loves. If he had formed a new party, although he could have had a great time himself, it would have seriously divided the conservative movement, ultimately handing victory to the increasingly extreme Democratic Party in the elections and allowing them to destroy the country he loves. And that's precisely what Bernier is doing, dividing the conservative movement. Fortunately, the division he has caused within the conservative movement is not yet catastrophic and cannot guarantee the Liberal Party a majority government with his efforts alone. However, if the People's Party develops and gains 15% of the vote, this division would be catastrophic for the conservative movement, making the Liberals ecstatic.

      If Bernier had not chosen to leave the Conservative Party but instead persisted within the party until Andrew Scheer stepped down, became the party leader in the 2020 leadership election, and defeated Trudeau to become the Prime Minister in the 2021 general election, he could have had the opportunity to implement the policy platform he is now advocating (if his current platform is indeed his true political stance). However, it would be difficult for him to win the national election in Canada, a left-leaning country, with the pure conservative platform he is currently promoting.

      As mentioned earlier, when Bernier left the Conservative Party in 2018 and formed the People's Party, Stephen Harper once tweeted that Bernier had never accepted the results of the leadership election and only wanted to divide the conservative movement. If Bernier believed that the Conservative Party was beyond redemption, then why did he want to become the leader of that party? Did he want to associate himself with this party that he believed was beyond redemption? Even if Bernier truly believed that the Conservative Party was beyond redemption and a new party was necessary, history may not have given him enough time because Trudeau is progressively destroying this country step by step. Even if the People's Party eventually emerged victorious after a long struggle with the Conservative Party, Trudeau would have been re-elected many times during the infighting within the conservative movement, potentially already destroying the democratic freedoms of this country. At that point, it would be meaningless for the People's Party to replace the Conservative Party, as freedom would have been lost and democracy would have ceased to exist (North Korea also has elections).

      The defeat of Bernier in the leadership race by Scheer, who then stepped down after losing the general election, contributed significantly to the survival and development of the People's Party. If the next leader is as inadequate as Erin O'Toole, the People's Party could potentially grow further, just like the Wildrose Party in Alberta, causing a catastrophic split within the conservative movement. Therefore, the 2022 Conservative Party leadership election is crucial. In this leadership race, polling shows that Pierre Poilievre ranks first in terms of support, while Jean Charest (JC), who is even worse than O'Toole, ranks second. If Poilievre is blacklisted, there is a possibility that JC will be elected, which would bring tremendous benefits to Trudeau and the Liberal Party, while Poilievre's ability to unite the conservative movement poses a threat to both Trudeau and the People's Party. Interestingly, both Trudeau and the People's Party do not want to see Poilievre elected. On Trudeau's side, the left-wing media has launched a propaganda campaign attacking Poilievre for associating with far-right elements, while some People's Party supporters are trying to link Poilievre with the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset. However, Poilievre was ultimately elected with overwhelming support. Poilievre was elected in the first round, and the support he received was overwhelming, while in the 2017 leadership race that Bernier participated in, it took 13 rounds of voting to determine the winner.

      Poilievre, who became the Conservative Party leader in 2022, has a platform centered around fiscal conservatism, defending freedom, and common sense, which has gained significant support among conservatives. This should have been a good opportunity for conservative unity, but the founder of the People's Party, Bernier, chose not to unite and instead launched a significant attack on Poilievre.

      The People's Party's attack on Poilievre centers around portraying Poilievre as "basically the same" as the Liberal Party.

      So, are the Liberal Party and Poilievre really "basically the same"? Let's look at some of their differences:

      The Liberal Party is profligate, causing a large deficit and pushing Canada towards bankruptcy; Poilievre is fiscally conservative, advocating for deficit control, inflation control, and a smaller government.
      The Liberal Party mandates experimental vaccine injections for Canadians; Poilievre opposes vaccine mandates.
      The Liberal Party suppresses protests by truck drivers; Poilievre supports peaceful and lawful protests by truck drivers.
      The Liberal Party promotes digital ID and central bank digital currency (CBDC), which are means of enslaving people by globalists; Poilievre opposes government-promoted digital ID and CBDC.
      The Liberal Party uses taxpayer money to buy a large number of traditional media outlets as propaganda tools, such as CBC; Poilievre advocates for defunding CBC.
      The Liberal Party introduces a series of bills (Bill C-11, Bill C-18, Bill C-36, The Online Harms Act) to take away the freedom of speech of Canadians (with C-11 already becoming law), and losing freedom of speech means losing all other freedoms; Poilievre defends the freedom of speech of Canadians and promises to repeal C-11.
      WEF Chairman Schwab openly boasts about infiltrating Canada through Trudeau and some members of his cabinet; Poilievre disagrees with WEF policies and prohibits his cabinet members from participating in WEF activities.
      The Liberal Party lowers the threshold for bail, allowing repeat offenders to easily return to society and commit crimes again; Poilievre advocates for reforming the bail system for repeat offenders, keeping them in prison and preventing easy reintegration into society.
      The Liberal Party imposes and increases carbon taxes, fueling high inflation; Poilievre opposes carbon taxes.
      The Liberal Party promotes woke policies; Poilievre advocates for ending woke policies.
      The People's Party, in order to propagate the idea that Poilievre and the Liberal Party are "basically the same," remains silent about the many significant differences between Poilievre and the Liberal Party and instead focuses on a few points of commonality. This is clearly misleading. "Basically the same" and "having commonalities" are two different things. Bernier and Trudeau also have commonalities, such as both supporting the legalization of marijuana back in the day. This kind of misleading propaganda follows the same pattern as many so-called mainstream media outlets: it appears to present you with "facts," but deliberately conceals other important facts to mislead the audience.

      The People's Party not only uses misleading tactics in attacking Poilievre, but it seems to employ similar tactics when promoting its own platform. When Bernier was a Conservative Party Member of Parliament, some aspects of his positions were very close to those of liberals. The conservative website Campaign Life Coalition assessed Bernier during his campaign for the Conservative Party leadership in 2017, stating, "Throughout his parliamentary career, Bernier has voted like a liberal on social issues, except for euthanasia, which he has always opposed. However, during this leadership campaign, he has significantly shifted to the right." It is evident that he is very friendly towards the LGBT community. He has participated in "Pride" parades, happily waving to the crowd behind a huge banner on the "right side of history." At the Conservative Party policy convention held in Vancouver in 2016, he actively supported the LGBTTIQ movement opposing traditional values, and he spoke in support of a policy resolution to repeal the Conservative Party's longstanding support for the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. This policy resolution, which he supported, was passed at that convention, abolishing the traditional definition of marriage that the Conservative Party had long supported. This greatly disappointed many people who uphold traditional values, but now Bernier is promoting himself to this group, claiming that the Conservative Party is too left-wing and that he is the true conservative. He also voted in favor of the "bathroom bill" (Bill C-16, which adds protection for gender identity or expression to the Criminal Code and human rights law). This bill was introduced by the Liberal Party and passed in the House of Commons with the support of left-wing parties and left-leaning members of the Conservative Party (all opposing votes came from the Conservative Party). After the bill passed in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party in the Senate tried to obstruct and delay its passage, but it was forced through by Trudeau. In the end, this bill became law in 2017, providing legal protection for the LBGT community, especially transgender individuals. Recently, 16-year-old high school student Josh Alexander expressed his opposition to the school's gender-neutral bathroom policy based on his beliefs and morals when he saw boys entering the girls' restroom. As a result, he was suspended from school and later arrested for returning to school. Bernier expressed his support for Josh. However, the school's policy is based on the very law that Bernier, as a Member of Parliament, voted in favor of and that became law (Bill C-16). Now, when Bernier promotes his platform, he remains silent about his support for the LGBT community (while any form of Conservative Party support for the LGBT community may be attacked by People's Party supporters, accusing it of being too left-wing and no different from the Liberal Party). He also remains silent about his liberal voting record on social issues when he served as a Conservative Party Member of Parliament. Instead, Bernier says what conservative-minded individuals want to hear. When Bernier says, "I am the only candidate who will speak up for true conservative values," he probably doesn't want people to remember that he actively supported the repeal of the Conservative Party's definition of traditional marriage between one man and one woman or that he voted in favor of the "bathroom bill," which allows biological males who identify as female to freely enter women's restrooms (as long as they claim to identify as women). When his supporters use terms like "left-left" to mock left-wing individuals who support gender-neutral bathrooms, I wonder if they realize that their own leader is also such a "left-left."

      Bernier not only remains silent about his support for the LGBT community, but recently he has even started to confront them. On May 23rd, Bernier announced the People's Party's platform on radical gender ideology, which prominently includes the abolition of Bill C-16. This is the same "bathroom bill" that Bernier voted in favor of in the past. He is now contradicting himself. When unveiling this platform, he first blamed the Liberal Party, saying that C-16 was their proposal and highlighting its supposed harms (without mentioning that he voted in favor and contributed to making it law). Later, he said, "What is completely unacceptable is that not a single elected representative had the courage to stand up for women, children, and basic biological reality! I have been publicly opposing this madness for years, and once I am elected as the Member of Parliament for Portage-Lisgar, I will continue to oppose it in the House of Commons." However, it was Bernier's vote in favor of Bill C-16 that put women's privacy and safety at risk. Isn't he contradicting himself? He did issue a statement expressing regret for voting in favor of C-16, but why did he vote in favor of it in the first place? When the bill was debated in Parliament, both sides presented their views. Members of Parliament are not interns; they are well aware of what they are voting for. Furthermore, his reason for regretting the vote was that "it threatens freedom of speech," without mentioning the threats to women's privacy and safety. However, this bill is commonly referred to as the "bathroom bill," and it poses threats to women's various private spaces (and it has many other societal implications). He participated in "Pride" parades, happily walking behind a huge banner on the "right side of history." Now, why is he suddenly turning against the "right side of history"? Bernier often criticizes other politicians for being unreliable and changing their positions once in power. So, which version of Bernier is the real one: the Conservative Party Member of Parliament before the formation of the People's Party or the Party Leader after its formation? Most of the popular policies he is promoting now, which are well-received by conservatives, were proposed after he formed the People's Party. If these policies are his true political beliefs and not just a way to undermine the Conservative Party's support, why didn't he propose them during his 12 years as a Conservative Party Member of Parliament?

      Currently, Bernier is running as a candidate for the Portage-Lisgar constituency in the Manitoba provincial by-election (scheduled for June). Now, he is confronting the LGBT community and raising the debate on abortion, perhaps in an attempt to compete with the Conservative Party for votes in this Manitoba by-election. His advocacy for reopening the debate on abortion does not necessarily mean he is against abortion (Leslyn Lewis, a shadow cabinet member of the People's Party, is the true anti-abortion advocate). When he was a Conservative Party Member of Parliament, he voted against Motion 312 by Stephen Woodworth, which sought to study when a child in the womb becomes a human being. He also voted against Bill C-510, which aimed to protect pregnant women from coercion to have an abortion. Looking at his record from 2006 when he became a Conservative Party Member of Parliament, to his bid for the Conservative Party leadership in 2017, and the formation of the People's Party in 2018 to the present day, his positions have changed multiple times, showing clear inconsistencies. Now, in order to gain the support of conservative voters, he is willing to confront the LGBT community that he once actively supported. If he needs to appeal to the support of centrist voters in the future, how can we expect him to maintain his current positions? Will there be someone standing up to accuse the People's Party of being false conservatives and irredeemable, and then forming another new party? How will the supporters of that new party distinguish it from the Liberal Party?

      Many people have already realized that both the People's Party and Trudeau can benefit from the failures of the Conservative Party: Trudeau can be re-elected, and the People's Party can seize the opportunity to grow. If the Conservative Party repeatedly fails, Trudeau can continue to be re-elected, and the People's Party may gain even greater benefits. It seems that the People's Party is not concerned about the serious damage caused by Trudeau to Canada or the fact that he is gradually accelerating the destruction of this country.

      At present, it appears that Bernier does not intend to unite the conservative movement to remove Trudeau from power, but conservative individuals can contribute to unity with their own actions. Many voters who previously supported the People's Party in the last election were satisfied with the party and recognized that removing Trudeau from power is the most important goal. Many people have also noticed the issues with Bernier's attacks on the People's Party. They are already planning to support the Conservative Party under the leadership of the People's Party and unite with the broader conservative movement to concentrate their efforts on removing Trudeau from power in the next election.

      • 土豆能翻成杜鲁多?看来ChatGPT 还是有几把刷子的
      • 看来,不少翻译真的要失业了 +1
      • 谢谢,这个能帮我省不少时间。但是,我发现ChatGPT所翻译的一些措词对左派比较温和、有利。 +4
        例如,“男女同厕”被翻译成“中性厕所”,而我的原意是指生理男性进入女性专用的厕所。又如,C-16保护transgender四处出击,它翻译了“保护”,但把“四处出击”给去掉了,这样意思就改变了。所以,我得仔细检查。
        • 多谢!辛苦啦!!
      • 谢谢,辛苦啦!
    • MB在整个疫情中为我这样不打针的请命,为此坐牢罚款,不管怎么样,这样的人物值得考虑。我们选区是摇摆区,到选举那天再考虑。MB现在在曼省参加补选,支持他没商量。 +4
      • 如果你的生活中只有疫苗你可以选他,如果你想自由党下台就选保守党,保守党不能再分裂了,NDP都快比保守党厉害了,加拿大不知会变成什么样,要学会妥协和共赢 +13
        • 对我有恩的人我纪念他的好,就这么简单。我所在选区是摇摆区,我有可能投保守党,但我会继续支持MB。 +2
      • 他为你不打针请命,实际上是(有可能是有意地)帮助土豆呆在台上,而土豆会继续对你和加拿大人民强制打针。你们选区就是这样,你们帮助自由党打败了保守党,然后自由党MP对你的诉求不屑一顾。 +7
      • MB 是真反对强制,还是政治作秀,只有他自己知道。从他目前成天攻击PP而非🥔,就可见他的狭窄,把私利放在国家利益之上,吃相难看。 +8
        • 坐牢罚款都是实打实的。你这么说除了让人反感没啥好处。反打针的一直都是少数也始终独立思考,支持不支持保守党,到时候再说。反正,有人民党,保守党就得想想怎么赢得我的票,不再是铁票。 +2
          • 麻烦你帮我脑洞开一下,他为什么现在不追着土豆问他为什么强制这毒针,而是一个劲谴责PP没有反强制?这就像不追责希特勒杀犹太人一样,成天谴责戈培尔有用吗?坐牢?又不是牢底坐穿,他比刘晓波差远了。 +2
          • 咱们实事求是、就事论事。他说为了救加拿大,但是帮助土豆保持权力用来一步步毁灭国家;PP不是他说的那么左,他自己也不是他说的那么右。天啊,他有几句话是真的? +2
            • 各位,到大选的时候再讨论保守党人民党的优劣吧,那时,情况可能就不同了。 +1