Canadian Federal Election

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Good catch. Yea I was thinking Caroline Mulroney.

It will indeed be her... and that will be an exciting time.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think Marshsparrow was one of the Liberal operatives who bragged too much about planting fake MAGA buttons at the CPC event. He occasionally gets a little over-enthusiastic,

I am trying my hardest to get an Elections Canada compliance agreement so I can be just like Pierre (who is the only party leader to have one) - caught cheating.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Good catch. Yea I was thinking Caroline Mulroney.

I wouldn't necessarily have considered her franco-Ontarienne, but, she is fluently bilingual. well qualified, moderate, attractive and likeable.

She would be a refreshing change from PP.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

At this point, I’m wondering whether someone in ONPC is eyeing to be the next CPC leader.

Il sera intéressant si une franco-ontarienne devient le chef du Parti Conservateur du Canada.

Are you thinking Caroline Mulroney?

I dunno. She has a lot of strikes against her: for one, I think a lot of people are sick of the prospect of family dynasties. We already had one on the Liberal side. Secondly, she's not that charismatic and she has a tendency to disappear or be disappeared. Her profile in the Ontario provincial government has really shrunk.

Picking a CPC leader is tough. You have to win the Golden Horseshoe/GTA or you don't win. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you pick a political moderate, nor even a political moderate from the GTA. Erin O'Toole didn't win, for example.

The other problem is that the economy of southern Ontario and the economy of Alberta and Saskatchewan are fundamentally opposed to one another, and if one does well the other does poorly. Ontario needs a low dollar to be competitive. Prioritizing oil and gas exports generates a high dollar. Given the two choices, Ontario which is much more vote rich than Alberta and much more fickle in its voting habits has to be prioritized. But that means that a Conservative will have to throw Alberta under the bus.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

CBC Article on the Green party being removed

A bit disappointing, but I agree with the decision. The commission set some very clear criteria for participating in the debates, and the Green party clearly anticipated being able to meet them.

The unprecedented collapse in their (and NDP and BQ) support may have caught them by surprise, but they should still have been able to scrounge up enough candidates at least. That they didn't manage at least that is entirely on them really.

The Green should have seen this coming but I still agree with them being in the debates primarily because they have a seat in the House.

That said, if the Greens aren't in due to not running enough candidates nationally then how is the Bloc still in? They have way fewer candidates than the Greens. Are they getting an exemption strictly because they are in Quebec and the feds don't want anything that will stoke the separatist movement? If that is the case, and I can't think of any other reason, then Elections Canada is being very biased and undermining our democratic process. The rules are clear and there should be no exceptions.

Personally, I happen to agree with the Bloc being at the debates but the hypocrisy is pretty glaring.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Picking a CPC leader is tough. You have to win the Golden Horseshoe/GTA or you don't win. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you pick a political moderate, nor even a political moderate from the GTA. Erin O'Toole didn't win, for example.

The other problem is that the economy of southern Ontario and the economy of Alberta and Saskatchewan are fundamentally opposed to one another, and if one does well the other does poorly. Ontario needs a low dollar to be competitive. Prioritizing oil and gas exports generates a high dollar. Given the two choices, Ontario which is much more vote rich than Alberta and much more fickle in its voting habits has to be prioritized. But that means that a Conservative will have to throw Alberta under the bus.

One solution would be to split the current CPC into a Progressive-Conservative "Tory Party" and a Western-based "Reform Party". Then the Reform Party absorbs the PPC (gaining a couple percentage points right there), AND of course the main idea is that the two parties would not run against each other: in each riding, it's either a PC candidate or a Reform candidate that's in the race, but never both.

This way, the Tories would realistically get minority governments often (thanks to winning in Southern Ontario and the Maritimes whenever the people are fed up with the Liberals), and then they could have a formal agreement with the Reform Party to govern.



(The other possible way out of this problem is to get rid of our winner-takes-all indirect democracy, and make it so that Scheer and O'Toole winning the popular vote by winning rural AB ridings with 80% of the vote does give some sort of extra benefit in Ottawa.)

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Green should have seen this coming but I still agree with them being in the debates primarily because they have a seat in the House.

That said, if the Greens aren't in due to not running enough candidates nationally then how is the Bloc still in? They have way fewer candidates than the Greens. Are they getting an exemption strictly because they are in Quebec and the feds don't want anything that will stoke the separatist movement? If that is the case, and I can't think of any other reason, then Elections Canada is being very biased and undermining our democratic process. The rules are clear and there should be no exceptions.

Personally, I happen to agree with the Bloc being at the debates but the hypocrisy is pretty glaring.

There are 3 criteria for participating in the debates and a party needs to hit at least 2 of the 3:

The first requirement is that the leader has to be represented in the House of Commons by an MP who was elected under the party banner on the day the election is called.

The second criteria is that the leader's party must have the demonstrated support of at least four per cent of the electorate 28 days before voting day.

The third requirement is that the party must have endorsed candidates in at least 90 per cent of federal ridings across Canada 28 days before the federal election. This condition was last in place in the 2019 federal election.

Looking at 338's poll tracker, Green Party Support was only around 3% around April 1st, so it was just under the criteria.

BQ support is constantly almost twice that, being around 6-7% at the cutoff point, so they got in under the 1st and 2nd requirement.

That said, a party that has a seat in the House, is only 1% below the support cutoff and is still running hundreds of candidates across the country (basically hitting 1 requirement and 75% of the other two requirements) you could argue warrants a chance to participate. But ultimately the requirements are there for reasons, and there is usually someone just outside.

Personally, I would probably have let them in on the debates since they are so close; but I recognize why they made the decision they did; and I guess I'm okay if they had gone either way.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Green should have seen this coming but I still agree with them being in the debates primarily because they have a seat in the House.

That said, if the Greens aren't in due to not running enough candidates nationally then how is the Bloc still in? They have way fewer candidates than the Greens. Are they getting an exemption strictly because they are in Quebec and the feds don't want anything that will stoke the separatist movement? If that is the case, and I can't think of any other reason, then Elections Canada is being very biased and undermining our democratic process. The rules are clear and there should be no exceptions.

Personally, I happen to agree with the Bloc being at the debates but the hypocrisy is pretty glaring.

As Taeolas explained, the rules are clear and they're reasonable. The debate is among the "serious" parties, having loons there would just create useless noise.

A Western-based party could also be in the debates, by having some MPs and decent support, even if it didn't run candidates Canada-wide.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Personally, I would probably have let them in on the debates since they are so close; but I recognize why they made the decision they did; and I guess I'm okay if they had gone either way.

If it were me the requirement for MPs would be to have at least a plural number. The Greens back when they had only May and the PPC with only Bernier (potentially elected) are at a different (lower) credibility level, compared to parties that "are more than one person". I'd set the bar at 3+ MPs. Even the NDP if it gets totally routed this time will still meet that bar for being an actual, serious, political party.

When the Greens won a couple other ridings (up to 3 IIRC with one in the Fredericton area, right?) they became a credible party then and there, IMO.

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by lio45

If it were me the requirement for MPs would be to have at least a plural number. The Greens back when they had only May and the PPC with only Bernier (potentially elected) are at a different (lower) credibility level, compared to parties that "are more than one person". I'd set the bar at 3+ MPs. Even the NDP if it gets totally routed this time will still meet that bar for being an actual, serious, political party.

When the Greens won a couple other ridings (up to 3 IIRC with one in the Fredericton area, right?) they became a credible party then and there, IMO.

Given how difficult it can be for a party to win one seat, I'm fine just having a seat in the House being sufficient for the first criteria. (Green Party hit 3 seats 2 elections ago; but the Fredericton member, Atwin, crossed the floor to the Liberals and ran and won under the Liberal banner in the last election).

I'd probably somewhat consider making the other two requirements weighted requirements. Still require 2 points out of 3 to participate, but if you are running in 60% of the ridings, that counts for 0.6 of a point, and if you've got 3% support (out of the 4% needed) that counts for .75 of a point, giving you 1.35 of a point. Having a seat is a point, so the Green party would have 2.35 points under those requirements and could get in.

The PPC would only have 0.5 points from their polling and maybe 0.25 or so points from number of candidates, so without a seat in the house, they'd still be shut out.

That's probably too difficult to express and track though, so its understandable why they keep things simpler. The Green historically has easily had the support numbers and usually has the candidate numbers. That they hit neither this cycle is surprising (and a failure on the party really)

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

One solution would be to split the current CPC into a Progressive-Conservative "Tory Party" and a Western-based "Reform Party". Then the Reform Party absorbs the PPC (gaining a couple percentage points right there), AND of course the main idea is that the two parties would not run against each other: in each riding, it's either a PC candidate or a Reform candidate that's in the race, but never both.

This way, the Tories would realistically get minority governments often (thanks to winning in Southern Ontario and the Maritimes whenever the people are fed up with the Liberals), and then they could have a formal agreement with the Reform Party to govern.



(The other possible way out of this problem is to get rid of our winner-takes-all indirect democracy, and make it so that Scheer and O'Toole winning the popular vote by winning rural AB ridings with 80% of the vote does give some sort of extra benefit in Ottawa.)

Even better would be to have the Liberals tack to the centre and pick a leader that can credibly project confidence, maturity, and level-headed thinking.

Oh wait a minute, they've done this.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I saved a lot of money relative to my income in my youth by scraping by and invested wisely (and luckily).

So did I, the ability and will to do that doesn't change. I know several people who knowingly needlessly spend money, and I am not coming at that from my standards.

My brother had a statement i never thought was true until it happened to me. He used to say the more you make the more you spend. I never thought it was true until I started doing well. I was looking for an excuse to spend money, thankfully I was able to somewhat control it, except for fast food, which thankfully I now haven't had for four? years.

[lio45]

BTW, ssiguy, the current criteria result in the debates being restricted to the parties that could realistically form government and/or actually hold the balance of power. It's logical that it would include regional parties.

The BQ matters way more to you in the Lower Mainland, than the PPC or Greens ever will, because they could be either the Official Opposition in Ottawa (they have been it in the past) or be the ones holding the balance of power (same).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Even better would be to have the Liberals tack to the centre and pick a leader that can credibly project confidence, maturity, and level-headed thinking.

Oh wait a minute, they've done this.

I was talking strictly from the CPC's PoV of solving their current conundrum of incompatibility between the rabid base and the people they need on board to win.

For a Canada-wide view, of course the best is two centrist parties keeping each other honest. Politicians like Poilievre (and JT) would never get anywhere near power, ideally.

[Taeolas]

One thing I don't see mentioned much iwth the CPC, is how they are crippled due to the BQ. I believe the BQ largely fractured off of the Conservatives back in the day, and while the BQ tends to depress Liberal response in Quebec, they decimate Conservatives chances.

So the CPC is constantly hobbled by being blocked in a quarter of the country; and reuniting with the BQ would be politically difficult.

They might be better off fracturing back into Reform and Progressive Conservatives; but run them nationwide, similar to how the left side has the Liberal and NDP (and Green). We've had a decade or two of minority governments, I think the country could handle Coalition governments instead of expecting majorities or dominant parties.

[elly63]

At the risk of my better judgment I'm going to post this knowing full well the usual suspects will respond with their hateful comments.

The reason I'm posting it is because my family is going through something similar and it is very stressful for those who are involved.

As they are with their parents on the election tour, Pierre has been asked questions about his children. His daughter who is six, he describes as non verbal. I'm not a doctor and shouldn't speculate but I assume she is on the autism spectrum.

How would you feel if your child is of school age and doesn't talk and it's not a physical issue. I can't tell you the stress this causes from having so called professionals having no answers to even worse those having the wrong answers. The member of my family has had to spend money on quack evaluations (I know how to read and have read them) to special schools and the like.

They are not as well off as Pierre Poilievre but all the money in the world isn't going to unlock what is in that child's head and the parent's fear for her future, either rich or poor. BTW the child in my family does speak but has issues, I can't imagine not speaking

I can imagine the frustration and fear for her Pierre is going through as I've seen it up close. Any money or time he has (if he quits) ain't gonna fix this problem. I wish the family well in the years ahead.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lio45

BTW, ssiguy, the current criteria result in the debates being restricted to the parties that could realistically form government and/or actually hold the balance of power. It's logical that it would include regional parties.

The BQ matters way more to you in the Lower Mainland, than the PPC or Greens ever will, because they could be either the Official Opposition in Ottawa (they have been it in the past) or be the ones holding the balance of power (same).

True but the Bloc isn't relevant in English Canada. They poll below 4% in English speaking Canada and have no MPs in English speaking Canada. Other than West Island in Montreal and maybe Gatineau they don't have any candidates in places where English is spoken widely.

To reverse it for the French debate would a party polling 20% (So less than 4% nationally) with a candidate in every Quebec riding get to participate in the debate? They might be on track to win 10 seats in that scenario.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by elly63

At the risk of my better judgment I'm going to post this knowing full well the usual suspects will respond with their hateful comments.

The reason I'm posting it is because my family is going through something similar and it is very stressful for those who are involved.

As they are with their parents on the election tour, Pierre has been asked questions about his children. His daughter who is six, he describes as non verbal. I'm not a doctor and shouldn't speculate but I assume she is on the autism spectrum.

How would you feel if your child is of school age and doesn't talk and it's not a physical issue. I can't tell you the stress this causes from having so called professionals having no answers to even worse those having the wrong answers. The member of my family has had to spend money on quack evaluations (I know how to read and have read them) to special schools and the like.

They are not as well off as Pierre Poilievre but all the money in the world isn't going to unlock what is in that child's head and the parent's fear for her future, either rich or poor. BTW the child in my family does speak but has issues, I can't imagine not speaking

I can imagine the frustration and fear for her Pierre is going through as I've seen it up close. Any money or time he has (if he quits) ain't gonna fix this problem. I wish the family well in the years ahead.

Children, especially those under majority age, should absolutely be off limits. No matter who, no matter what party. Full stop.

[Docere]

Liberals polling at 65% in Atlantic Canada - looks like there will be a red sweep there like in 2015:

https://narrativeresearch.ca/the-liberal-party-holds-a-commanding-lead-across-atlantic-canada/

[elly63]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Children, especially those under majority age, should absolutely be off limits. No matter who, no matter what party. Full stop.

I don't know if you are admonishing me or the election campaign but this is being openly discussed in the media and Poilievre is being open about it. There are far worse slurs going on here that fall on deaf ears than a subject the main party concerned is open about. My only intention was to point out the man is under some additional stress and has nothing to do with the politics of the campaign.