Canadian Federal Election

[kool maudit]

If the US finds success under Trump, as measured by money, power and voter satisfaction in that order, Canada is fucked. Allegiance is a cultural non-starter and once you go looking for allies and blocs to play liberal democracy with, you quickly find that they're all just Canadas of varying shapes and sizes. Vassals. Weak horses.

You would end up at worst in some sort of grim little Model UN doing misinformation treaties with England and Estonia while all purchase in the North American economy is removed from your grasp, piece by piece.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by samne

Carney is definitely more of a threat than Trudeau at this point, but I think that's saying more about Trudeau. But no way he would win a general election at this point in time.

What bugs me about Carney and these Trudeau Liberals is that he is going to be hot swapped in as PM without even being at least a member of parliament, cabinet member or even the majority of Canadians having a say in it. This is how these Trudeau Liberals roll though.

Poilievre has been campaigning basically years now and shook hundreds of thousands of hands. This is a head start that is very hard to catch up.

This feels more like, let's get Carney in here now and figure out the details later without a real choice in the matter.

This is how Canadian democracy rolls. Your problem is with the Westminster Model, not with the LPC.

[theman23]

Angus Reid polling showing that the Libs support up +13 points with Carney at the helm (+8 with Freeland) when compared to JT's numbers in December, with most of the support coming from NDP voters. The CPC is -2 (or -1) whereas the NDP are -9 (or -4) compared to late December numbers.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

And Polievre can't run against Trump. This will hurt him. Right-wing leaders campaigning against that populist trend just disappear. By the time you become Mark Rutte, you're better off being Mark Carney.

What he would need to do is to somehow thread the needle and be Trump-like (in the sense of proposing abrupt, unconventional, conceptually simple but intemperate and not-often-practiced measures) but against Trump, for Canada (where they conflict).

Macron has done a bit of this to some effect, but he is someone with a much greater historical view and ambition than Polievre, and even he hasn't found much purchase with it.

It doesn't seem a big challenge - wrap yourself in the flag and come out with "not Trump" policies without ever mentioning the man's name. Both PP and Carney will find it easier to wrap themselves in the flag than to avoid mentioning Trump.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

This is how Canadian democracy rolls. Your problem is with the Westminster Model, not with the LPC.

Canadians are so hopped up on American politics these days, they have no idea how own government works. People like samne want the theatre of American politics because that's what they are familiar with. He'd be calling the British system (which was ours for most of history), where the caucus picks the leader undemocratic.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

If the US finds success under Trump, as measured by money, power and voter satisfaction in that order, Canada is fucked. Allegiance is a cultural non-starter and once you go looking for allies and blocs to play liberal democracy with, you quickly find that they're all just Canadas of varying shapes and sizes. Vassals. Weak horses.

You would end up at worst in some sort of grim little Model UN doing misinformation treaties with England and Estonia while all purchase in the North American economy is removed from your grasp, piece by piece.

Seems like there's the risk of a return to a pre-WW2 world. With added environmental problems and potentially the spread of nuclear weapons. It would not end well.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Canadians are so hopped up on American politics these days, they have no idea how own government works. People like samne want the theatre of American politics because that's what they are familiar with. He'd be calling the British system (which was ours for most of history), where the caucus picks the leader undemocratic.

Do schoolkids even study "civics" anymore?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by theman23

Angus Reid polling showing that the Libs support up +13 points with Carney at the helm (+8 with Freeland) when compared to JT's numbers in December, with most of the support coming from NDP voters. The CPC is -2 (or -1) whereas the NDP are -9 (or -4) compared to late December numbers.

Let's call it the John Turner (aka dead cat) bounce.

[samne]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

This is how Canadian democracy rolls. Your problem is with the Westminster Model, not with the LPC.

If this is just typical Westminster Model….has this ever happened before in Canada when an unelected person in parliament becomes PM?

Never said it’s against the rules….but it is very obvious for what it is.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by samne

If this is just typical Westminster Model….has this ever happened before in Canada when an unelected person in parliament becomes PM?

Never said it’s against the rules….but it is very obvious for what it is.

WLMK and John Turner. We've also had a Senator become PM (Abbot).

[casper]

Originally Posted by samne

If this is just typical Westminster Model….has this ever happened before in Canada when an unelected person in parliament becomes PM?

Never said it’s against the rules….but it is very obvious for what it is.

Not common but it has happened. John Turner is an example at the federal level.

It has happen at the Provincial level as well.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Not since COVID I'd say. Mostly in his first term maybe?

Trudeau mentioned the last administration in relation to a defence spending question last week.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

If the US finds success under Trump, as measured by money, power and voter satisfaction in that order, Canada is fucked. Allegiance is a cultural non-starter and once you go looking for allies and blocs to play liberal democracy with, you quickly find that they're all just Canadas of varying shapes and sizes. Vassals. Weak horses.

You would end up at worst in some sort of grim little Model UN doing misinformation treaties with England and Estonia while all purchase in the North American economy is removed from your grasp, piece by piece.

I’d rep this post if we could do that on here.

[ssiguy]

What an individual poll says means nothing as that is NOT how you judge the public mood. Yes, if all the polls say the Tories are between 35 to 45% then you can make a generalization that the Liberals are about to get pulverized but those are long-term trends and do not necessarily effect recent events or turns in the public views.

ALL polls have biases and it's not just the questions they ask but how they ask them. Another bias is shown on which day of the week the polls are taken and, quite literally the time of the day. As an example, polls taken mostly in the evenings and on weekends tend to favour the Liberals because this is when workers such as teachers and civil servants are most likely to be home due to their working hours being strictly 9 to 5 and such a demographic tend to be heavily left leaning. Accounting for income levels does not get rid of this bias as many labourers make just as much but work more odd hours and they are probably leaning towards the Tories or NDP. Lower income people tend to work more odd hours/shifts in the evenings and weekends and who are more likely to vote similar to labourers.

To get a TRUE reflections of which the public is leaning is not to look at different polls of different companies but rather the polls over the same companies over a period of time which helps get rid of these biases. So look at Nanos/Leger/Ekos etc over time to see how the needle is moving if at all.

[casper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What an individual poll says means nothing as that is NOT how you judge the public mood. Yes, if all the polls say the Tories are between 35 to 45% then you can make a generalization that the Liberals are about to get pulverized but those are long-term trends and do not necessarily effect recent events or turns in the public views.

ALL polls have biases and it's not just the questions they ask but how they ask them. Another bias is shown on which day of the week the polls are taken and, quite literally the time of the day. As an example, polls taken mostly in the evenings and on weekends tend to favour the Liberals because this is when workers such as teachers and civil servants are most likely to be home due to their working hours being strictly 9 to 5 and such a demographic tend to be heavily left leaning. Accounting for income levels does not get rid of this bias as many labourers make just as much but work more odd hours and they are probably leaning towards the Tories or NDP. Lower income people tend to work more odd hours/shifts in the evenings and weekends and who are more likely to vote similar to labourers.

To get a TRUE reflections of which the public is leaning is not to look at different polls of different companies but rather the polls over the same companies over a period of time which helps get rid of these biases. So look at Nanos/Leger/Ekos etc over time to see how the needle is moving if at all.

I would normally agree. However things are moving quickly.

We have two major events that potentially will shift public sentiment. With: (1) consensus coming together on the new liberal leaders and (2) the Trump problem.

The other polls will eventually either confirm one or both of these factors are causing significant shift.

I think the "Trump Problem" is going to be the driver for a large number of Canadians to second-guess their choice. When they look at the leaders of all three political parties, their going to have more confidence in Carney sitting across the table from Trump than the alternatives.

Will the Liberals select Carney? I hope so.
,

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Carney does not believe in free market capitalism.

He is a banker...

[harls]

Of course that spaz Arya is disqualified. What a maroon.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Build.It

The irony.

Do you even know what that means? You and your inane posts are extremely tiresome. And very predictable.

Mark Carney is an economist. He was the governor of the Bank of Canada, and the governor of the Bank of England. He is a former chair of the Financial Stability Board. Prior to his governorships, Carney worked at Goldman Sachs as well as the Department of Finance Canada. Carney spent 13 years at Goldman Sachs and worked in their Boston, London, New York City, Tokyo, and Toronto offices.

Following his governorships, he served as chair and head of impact investing at Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) and as chair of the new board of directors for Bloomberg L.P.

Carney graduated from Harvard in 1988 with a bachelor's degree with high honours in economics, before postgraduate studies at the University of Oxford at St Peter's College and Nuffield College, receiving master's and doctoral degrees in the same field in 1993 and 1995, respectively.

The list goes on. And on.

No PM has ever had more qualifications or experience in the financial world than Mark Carney.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Do you even know what that means? You and your inane posts are extremely tiresome. And very predictable.

Mark Carney is an economist. He was the governor of the Bank of Canada, and the governor of the Bank of England. He is a former chair of the Financial Stability Board. Prior to his governorships, Carney worked at Goldman Sachs as well as the Department of Finance Canada. Carney spent 13 years at Goldman Sachs and worked in their Boston, London, New York City, Tokyo, and Toronto offices.

Following his governorships, he served as chair and head of impact investing at Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) and as chair of the new board of directors for Bloomberg L.P.

Carney graduated from Harvard in 1988 with a bachelor's degree with high honours in economics, before postgraduate studies at the University of Oxford at St Peter's College and Nuffield College, receiving master's and doctoral degrees in the same field in 1993 and 1995, respectively.

The list goes on. And on.

No PM has ever had more qualifications or experience in the financial world than Mark Carney.

But but 90 of his closest friends in Davos banged hookers lol

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Do you even know what that means? You and your inane posts are extremely tiresome. And very predictable.

Mark Carney is an economist. He was the governor of the Bank of Canada, and the governor of the Bank of England. He is a former chair of the Financial Stability Board. Prior to his governorships, Carney worked at Goldman Sachs as well as the Department of Finance Canada. Carney spent 13 years at Goldman Sachs and worked in their Boston, London, New York City, Tokyo, and Toronto offices.

Following his governorships, he served as chair and head of impact investing at Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) and as chair of the new board of directors for Bloomberg L.P.

Carney graduated from Harvard in 1988 with a bachelor's degree with high honours in economics, before postgraduate studies at the University of Oxford at St Peter's College and Nuffield College, receiving master's and doctoral degrees in the same field in 1993 and 1995, respectively.

The list goes on. And on.

No PM has ever had more qualifications or experience in the financial world than Mark Carney.

Carney clearly has Build it feeling nervous.