Canadian Federal Election

[savevp]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

But the framing of it in their coverage is what a wonderful thing it was to have no conservative voices/talking points, to get to JUST talk about the issues

Quaintly funny because it's harmless, but we'd be rightly concerned if this was coming from the far right instead of the far left. From their website:

Hearing only from progressive candidates offered a beneficial glimpse into the diversity of ideas that exist within Canada’s political spectrum, free from the usual push and pull of centrist or right-wing talking points

Frankly, you'd expect better from an activist student paper at a university. But these sorts of anarcho-communist 'old school hippy' type activists are mostly harmless and self-reinforcing... not really leaving the cafés they've been relegated to. They do seem to be less of a public menace than the young and boisterous far-right, who are still vigorous and inclined to damage the establishment, emboldened by populism abroad.

Self-reinforcing circles and largely outside the political mainstream in either case.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

LOL.

I wonder who the Conservatives will choose next when he gets kicked out of his job this summer. Hopefully, for them, they actually choose a likeable candidate next time, do they even exist in that party?

I would have a hard time believing the Party will kick PP out of his job. He is still going to get 36 to 38% of the vote and in any other election that is hardcore majority territory. The fact that Trudeau left, the Liberals got a poster child leader to replace him, and Trump coming along while he still has managed to secure a high 30% support is pretty amazing.

That said, as much as I don't think the Party will ask him to step down, I can see him doing it himself. Yes, the Tories will need a more likeable candidate next time but I think there are 2 people who could fill that role........Micheal Chong and Caroline Mulroney.

The problem with those 2 is that they are very much in line with the classic "Progressive" Conservative ideology. That may work well in Ont/Qu/AC but, again due to the Party being so polarized between the right-wing West and more progressive East, they may alienate the Western base.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The longer Cons react defensively to valid and useful criticism, the longer they will go without winning a federal election.

I think a lot of it is that the CPC wants - and to an extent needs - to wear two different hats which can't both fit on their heads at the same time. They need to both appeal to a right wing base and to attract some vanilla change voters. The change voters tend to just look for a "We're not them" option which presents them as the natural alternative to an incumbent that people have grown weary of. But to appeal to those people, they need to play coy about lot of the stuff that their base wants. But when you're hiding things, that allows your opposition to fill in the blanks with whatever they want.

Ultimately it comes down to the electoral system. People are being asked to simultaneously choose the platform they want and the person/people they want to implement it. So if there's an option whose platform you like but they aren't attractive in terms of their competence or ethics, then what do you do? Hold your nose and vote based on platform or choose a platform you don't want to get rid of a person or party you're weary of? When I'm voting, I consider three main questions. 1) Which platform (policy package) I prefer, 2) which option is the most honest/ethical, and 3) which is the most effective and competent. And I consider them in that specific order. And on top of that, you have to consider both the local candidate you're actually voting for, and the national leadership of the party.

I just wish there was a way to decouple the three things to vote for each separately. Or at least vote for the candidate and the policy agenda separately. Vote for the local candidate you prefer, then vote for the party platform you prefer. So if 60% of the elected candidates are from party A but they only got 30% of the vote for their platform, each of their candidates would get a vote worth 1/2. While if a party elected 30% of the total candidates but got 60% platform support, each of their candidates would get a vote worth 2 votes. So you wouldn't have to accept a platform you didn't want just to get rid of a party or candidate you didn't like.

[WarrenC12]

I voted, took an hour. The line didn't appear too long though, it just moved painfully slowly. They weren't ready for this.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I tried to vote as well. 1 hour wait. I'll go another day.

Most times I've voted either Provincially or Federally the wait is 5-15 minutes max.

I don't know if they don't have enough advance polls, or turnout is going to be higher than anticipated or both.

1 hr wait at my station too. They were letting in 2 people at a time per polling number on your card.

Might try tomorrow morning.. maybe the kinks will be ironed out by then.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

"Independent" news such as Rebel, Juno, Western Standard, and others should never be accredited again. Levant and company are not journalists, but glorified thugs, that try and make themselves the news, for monetary gain.

If I were Carney, I would also look into passing a bill limiting foreign ownership of Canadian media (I.e. Postmedia). What a clown show Rebel News is.

Those far-right news organizations actually hurt Conservative support in Canada. But I find that they are too blind and deaf to even notice or care. The people involved in them are probably more interested in making money and make more with Liberal and NDP governments in power.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I would have a hard time believing the Party will kick PP out of his job. He is still going to get 36 to 38% of the vote and in any other election that is hardcore majority territory. The fact that Trudeau left, the Liberals got a poster child leader to replace him, and Trump coming along while he still has managed to secure a high 30% support is pretty amazing.

That said, as much as I don't think the Party will ask him to step down, I can see him doing it himself. Yes, the Tories will need a more likeable candidate next time but I think there are 2 people who could fill that role........Micheal Chong and Caroline Mulroney.

The problem with those 2 is that they are very much in line with the classic "Progressive" Conservative ideology. That may work well in Ont/Qu/AC but, again due to the Party being so polarized between the right-wing West and more progressive East, they may alienate the Western base.

If minority, Pierre will see another election. If majority, he and Jenni are toast.

[Marshsparrow]

Another reminder of a Trump move... ugh, not smart.

Poilievre promises to scrap single-use plastics ban and bring back the plastic straw
Conservative leader follows Trump's February executive order banning paper straws across government

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-scrap-plastics-ban-1.7514037

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by savevp

Unfortunately, thats all Singh will ever be. The NDP propped up a reviled Liberal government. And now, fearful of the current Conservative direction, progressive voters are overwhelmingly switching to the Liberals to prevent a Tory government.

If Singh had any political sense, the first thing he'd do is stop inciting fear of the Conservatives, and try to convince progressive voters that the NDP are a safe choice. Instead, and not for the first time, he's wasted his opportunity by sniping at the 'enemy of his enemy' politically, and continuing to do the hard work for the Liberals.

He's got his pension now, so he doesn't care, but the NDP kicking Singh's brand of Rolex identity-socialism to the kerb will be good for the movement.

Maybe his goal is the most progressive society possible and it's not about him. What did Layton accomplish but give us 9 years of Tory rule? 8 NDP seats and a Liberal majority or 40 seats and Poilievre majority isn't a tough choice for most NDP supporters.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Getting a little long in the tooth, no?

Not to mention that Angus just retired

[elly63]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The longer Cons react defensively to valid and useful criticism, the longer they will go without winning a federal election.

Keep drinkin' the Kool Aid, because it's a refreshing drink

[elly63]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The good news for Carney, however, is that Singh was so annoying and disrespectful that he has only hurt his cause. It's yet another reason, amongst a plethora of them, not to vote for him. Those disenfranchised NDP voters will do what the rest of them have already done and shift over to the Liberals.

What was it Andrew Coyne joked about? That Carney and Singh made a deal

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Another reminder of a Trump move... ugh, not smart.

Poilievre promises to scrap single-use plastics ban and bring back the plastic straw
Conservative leader follows Trump's February executive order banning paper straws across government

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-scrap-plastics-ban-1.7514037

They really don't understand how much things changed. They just trudge through with the plan they wrote ignoring all reality. I actually agree with this and some of the other policies but there is nothing worse than reminding voters of Trump which is all this does.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

My incumbent (who I said I like) is Peter Julian, who is the NDP House Leader. He has lived in New Westminster his entire life and has been MP here since 2004, when Jack Layton was first NDP leader. If he wins his seat this election I would not be surprised to see him make a run at the NDP leadership should Jagmeet Singh step down after this election - which would also not surprise me.

He did run in 2017 for the leadership but ended up withdrawing and then endorsing Singh.

Another possible Singh successor could be Charlie Angus.

Angus is currently my MP and it's hard to say if he would return to federal politics. He really should have run for the leadership of the Ontario NDP back in 2023. He lives in a provincial riding that has had an NDP MPP for awhile. It would have been fun watching him in question period with Doug Ford.

As for next federal NDP leader, Angus is a possibility but I'm thinking that the party will want somebody who is on the move upwards in popularity. Wab Kinew would be an obvious choice but I don't see him leaving his job as Premier. Alexandre Boulerice might be a good choice if he gets re-elected in Rosemont - La Petite-Patrie riding of Montreal. He's a former union leader and is big on workers' rights.

I'd have to research to see what other potential NDP leaders are bilingual.

[SignalHillHiker]

Latest Narrative Research poll in Atlantic Canada.

I'm concerned we're an outlier in terms of cost of living. Not surprised, just... concerned.

Surprised, and happy, housing is so low (still issues, of course, but glad it's not dominating most people's lives, which presumably means they have a roof over their heads).

I'm surprised we're lowest in Liberal support.

Biggest issues in this election:



Who are ye voting for b'ys:

[elly63]

After listening to Blanchet and Carney's half hearted responses, I am more and more convinced that there won't be any pipeline built in Quebec. I'll say it again, if Carney doesn't throw a bone to Alberta and kowtows again to central Canada this could be big trouble. And like Trump, people will have voted for it.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

They really don't understand how much things changed. They just trudge through with the plan they wrote ignoring all reality. I actually agree with this and some of the other policies but there is nothing worse than reminding voters of Trump which is all this does.

Reminds me of Trudeau

[elly63]

• Video Link

[theman23]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

They really don't understand how much things changed. They just trudge through with the plan they wrote ignoring all reality. I actually agree with this and some of the other policies but there is nothing worse than reminding voters of Trump which is all this does.

What's the CBC headline going to be tomorrow - Pierre Poilievre wakes up and has a bowel movement, exactly one day after Donald Trump was reported to have one of his own? The plastic ban was first deemed unreasonable and unconstitutional by a Federal court, which as far as I know hasn't been accused of being infiltrated by "Maple MAGA" just yet.

The plastic bag ban is anti-science, and a perfect example of a well meaning policy having unintended consequences (increased plastic consumption and environmental waste). Plastic straws are a different story though.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by theman23

What's the CBC headline going to be tomorrow - Pierre Poilievre wakes up and has a bowel movement, exactly one day after Donald Trump was reported to have one of his own?

The plastic bag ban is anti-science, and a perfect example of a well meaning policy having unintended consequences (increased plastic consumption and environmental waste). Plastic straws are a different story though.

The bag ban is anti-science? I'm struggling to see how that even makes sense. While I agree with hecate that a deposit might be more effective, being less effective isn't anti-science. It's just anti-effectiveness. Anti-science would be something that either reduced funding for science, impeded the availability of scientific information, or attacked the credibility of scientists or well established scientific findings. If it's just decisions that didn't properly consider or acknowledge relevant scientific findings, that's a lapse in reason-based decision making rather than anti-science since science is still there doing it's thing unscathed as long as the first two things don't happen.