Canadian Federal Election

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

What are some differences between strong and slim majorities in terms of implication for policies?

For me - a strong majority means that the party can know they can get legislation passed without having to whip all their MPs into voting for the legislation - whether they like it or not.

The slimmer the majority - the less chance this is an option.

[NotToScale]

lol this thread... the wool over the eyes

[Wigs]

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/04/poilievre-promises-to-make-microplastics-even-bigger/

[csbvan]

The Monday polls after the long weekend are very good for the Libs. 5 show them up by 5 to 8 (5, 6 ,8, 8, and 8). Mainstreet shows a tie. Wonder how many people will have voted by the end of today? 40% of the total that we will see this election?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I agree it was a great interview as Galloway is a genuinely interested interviewer. He let the man speak. I also watched the Peterson interview with Poilivierre which was much longer. Both men are vested in Canada but it looks like Carney will be our P.M. after next Monday and I will be OK with that as the World needs a quiet, accomplished Canadian as the Adult in the Room at this time.

I enjoyed Scott Galloway's interview with Mark Carney. I also listened to most of Jordan Peterson's interview with Pierre Poilievre. If I didn't listen to all of it, it's because it was nearly 3 hours long, not because I think that Peterson or Poilievre are disingenuous.

Believe it or not, I'm one of those people who would not be upset if either PP or Carney won, and I don't think it comes from a position of ignorance like most other undecided voters this election.

There are many scenarios where I would have preferred the Conservatives to win.

The first is that a lot of the worst of Trudeau's cabinet won't be punished, but will win their seats and some of them will, inevitably, form part of Mark Carney's cabinet. I'm thinking people like Sean Fraser (who changed his mind and will seek re-election after all, because the winds are favourable), Chrystia Freeland and Marc Miller. These are controversial people and the analogy would be if Harper resigned in 2015 and Michael Chong became leader but that still meant John Baird and Jason Kenney won their seats and became senior cabinet ministers.

The second is that I think Poilievre would have been better at holding the tension between Western Canada and Ontario/Quebec better. His Quebec caucus would have been made up of people from majority Francophone parts of the province, not just MPs from the island of Montreal, and of course he would have swept Alberta and Saskatchewan and prominent ministers would have been from there. There may be one token Albertan cabinet minister if the Liberals win a seat there, but probably not two. Poilievre speaks better French and has a Quebecois wife. There's a bit more there there.

Finally, whether you think his solutions were well fleshed out or not, Poilievre was the only leader banging the drum on real domestic problems for the last two years, like housing affordability and crime/disorder. We can shove these aside temporarily while Trump is a more urgent problem, but eventually we have to come back to these things. Carney kind of has a plan for housing and I'm not sure PP's is any better, but on crime/disorder/drugs I sense that all the parties to the left of the Conservatives are gaslighting Canadians by sweeping these problems that all of us can see everyday under the rug.

Anyway, I voted for Carney, but I had to really think about my vote.

[suburbanite]

The fact that a significant number of people have already voted without the Conservatives having released a costed platform is interesting to say the least. I was waiting over the weekend the see if anything would be released to compare to Carney's $200 billion in debt but I've been left disappointed.

[SignalHillHiker]

Do we really need a platform? We know what it will be - lower taxes primarily for the wealthy and corporations, creeping privatization for everything from healthcare to postal service, foreign relations more closely aligned to the United States, a less fact-checked media landscape, and notable investments in public nation-building projects that provide benefits primarily for the wealthy and corporations. And, at the end of their term, most of us will be absolutely no better off, probably a little worse off if we rely on, say, public scientific data, or benefits. They might push a pipeline through Quebec if they can, but Marine Atlantic will still cost a fortune, the Bloc will be even strong, etc.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm not sure there actually is a way to prevent significant deficit spending given the circumstances which include a soft economy that could get a lot softer due to the tariffs and a backlog of spending priorities. The only way would be a harsh austerity budget which I don't think anyone wants.

But really, I'm not sure the CPC not releasing a platform is a sign of them being unprepared. Likely more just an aspect of their strategy which is to be the "not them" option where people vote against someone else. They don't want to offer anyone something to vote "for" because they don't tend to support things that are widely popular. Well, other than tax cuts, but even there it won't help them much as part of a platform that shows the impact those cuts would have on the deficit.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And the key source of the current instability in the western world is Vladimir Putin, his bots and his stooge Adolf Drumpf.

Vladimir's plan is progressing as he foresaw it.

Speaking of Poutine and his bots I saw my first bit of Carney disinfo on FB today. Reshared by a clueless Boomer relative. Fake quote. Didn’t even need to research it to know it was fake.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure there actually is a way to prevent significant deficit spending given the circumstances which include a soft economy that could get a lot softer due to the tariffs and a backlog of spending priorities. The only way would be a harsh austerity budget which I don't think anyone wants.

But really, I'm not sure the CPC not releasing a platform is a sign of them being unprepared. Likely more just an aspect of their strategy which is to be the "not them" option where people vote against someone else. They don't want to offer anyone something to vote "for" because they don't tend to support things that are widely popular. Well, other than tax cuts, but even there it won't help them much as part of a platform that shows the impact those cuts would have on the deficit.

It's part of the strategy. But it's so disingenuous and cynical to attack the Liberals on their deficit and not to put out their own costed platform. And I think a big part of the is likely because:

1) It'll probably be a 12 figure cumulative deficit (over $100B).

2) They won't be that different from the Liberals on defence spending despite the rhetoric.

3) They'll have to be honest about what they are cutting in there.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The first is that a lot of the worst of Trudeau's cabinet won't be punished, but will win their seats and some of them will, inevitably, form part of Mark Carney's cabinet. I'm thinking people like Sean Fraser (who changed his mind and will seek re-election after all, because the winds are favourable), Chrystia Freeland and Marc Miller. These are controversial people and the analogy would be if Harper resigned in 2015 and Michael Chong became leader but that still meant John Baird and Jason Kenney won their seats and became senior cabinet ministers.

I'd say that was the inevitable risk when the opposition focuses attacks so heavily on Trudeau. They didn't consider the possibility of him leaving and taking with him all the political attacks that managed to stick so that there's little baggage left to tarnish the rest of the cabinet. And there is some degree of fairness in that Trudeau was criticized for having an overly top-down leadership structure where the PMO controlled or was heavily involved in everything. So it's questionable how much "punishment" anyone else even deserves. Especially considering how hard it could be to determined exactly who played what role in each mistake.

[Dengler Avenue]

Finally, Poilievre whether you think his solutions were well fleshed out or not, he was the only leader banging the drum on real domestic problems for the last two years, like housing affordability and crime/disorder. We can shove these aside temporarily while Trump is a more urgent problem, but eventually we have to come back to these things. Carney kind of has a plan for housing and I'm not sure PP's is any better, but on crime/disorder/drugs I sense that all the parties to the left of the Conservatives are gaslighting Canadians by sweeping these problems that all of us can see everyday under the rug.

I suspect that Carney won’t gaslight like others have done.
These are the 2 scenarios that I can think of for now.
Case 1: Economy does sufficiently well. Maybe that will provide some relief on crime issues so that people can live with them. Or maybe it won’t provide that relief. In the latter case, continual gaslighting will cost LPC the election in 2029.
Case 2: Economy suffers. Crime issues become worse. Again, gaslighting will cost LPC the election in 2029.

I’m sure that Carney is smart enough to realize that.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I enjoyed Scott Galloway's interview with Mark Carney. I also listened to most of Jordan Peterson's interview with Pierre Poilievre. If I didn't listen to all of it, it's because it was nearly 3 hours long, not because I think that Peterson or Poilievre are disingenuous.

Believe it or not, I'm one of those people who would be upset if either PP or Carney won, and I don't think it comes from a position of ignorance like most other undecided voters this election.

There are many scenarios where I would have preferred the Conservatives to win.

The first is that a lot of the worst of Trudeau's cabinet won't be punished, but will win their seats and some of them will, inevitably, form part of Mark Carney's cabinet. I'm thinking people like Sean Fraser (who changed his mind and will seek re-election after all, because the winds are favourable), Chrystia Freeland and Marc Miller. These are controversial people and the analogy would be if Harper resigned in 2015 and Michael Chong became leader but that still meant John Baird and Jason Kenney won their seats and became senior cabinet ministers.

The second is that I think Poilievre would have been better at holding the tension between Western Canada and Ontario/Quebec better. His Quebec caucus would have been made up of people from majority Francophone parts of the province, not just MPs from the island of Montreal, and of course he would have swept Alberta and Saskatchewan and prominent ministers would have been from there. There may be one token Albertan cabinet minister if the Liberals win a seat there, but probably not two. Poilievre speaks better French and has a Quebecois wife. There's a bit more there there.

Finally, Poilievre whether you think his solutions were well fleshed out or not, he was the only leader banging the drum on real domestic problems for the last two years, like housing affordability and crime/disorder. We can shove these aside temporarily while Trump is a more urgent problem, but eventually we have to come back to these things. Carney kind of has a plan for housing and I'm not sure PP's is any better, but on crime/disorder/drugs I sense that all the parties to the left of the Conservatives are gaslighting Canadians by sweeping these problems that all of us can see everyday under the rug.

Anyway, I voted for Carney, but I had to really think about my vote.

I've been in the same boat since Trudeau's resignation. Despite Carney being the best Liberal candidate in a long time, I'm not completely sold that the party has made an about-turn and is willing to flush out all of the worst parts of the last 10 years. I don't think Poilievre is Canadian Trump and we're not going to turn "Maple MAGA" if the Conservative win. However, despite me being cautiously optimistic of Poilievre's ability to put his finger on the pulse of what was truly important to young Canadian voters, he's been unable to turn that into a robust platform that convinces me that it was anything more than a solid vibe check at a time of significant Trudeau fatigue.

If the Trump issue wasn't front and centre, I would be leaning towards a Liberal minority as a trial run to prove that this is not a continuation of the previous government. That Carney is not the actually the architect of an ideology of which Trudeau was a figurehead. However, given the situation we are in, a weak minority government is not optimal for facilitating quick and drastic action that may be required to respond to Trump's bi-polar geopolitical tendencies.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Yah aaah no. If Israel really wanted to Genocide the Gaza population it would have happened already. Hamas used aid money to build a second underground Gaza instead of the above ground social services the aid was intended for. Canada is probably one of the few honest brokers in the Middle East. Canada had offered to Arafat to finance and build the former Gaza airport Runway and aprons. Arafat demanded his 20% five times . Canada walked away five times. Arafat finally realized that we do not play the bribe game that drives a good chunk of the M/E economy. We eventually had the airport facilities built. Without paying Arafats 20%.

Hamas is delaying the release of the hostages as they want to murder all 2,000,000 people of Gaza. You have still not answered the question.
Would the conflict be over in half an hour if Hamas released the hostages and remains?

Having a hard time deciding if this is willful ignorance, prejudice, or stupidity. Maybe all 3?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I suspect that Carney won’t gaslight like others have done.
These are the 2 scenarios that I can think of for now.
Case 1: Economy does sufficiently well. Maybe that will provide some relief on crime issues so that people can live with them. Or maybe it won’t provide that relief. In the latter case, continual gaslighting will cost LPC the election in 2029.
Case 2: Economy suffers. Crime issues become worse. Again, gaslighting will cost LPC the election in 2029.

I’m sure that Carney is smart enough to realize that.

Whoever gets elected now will probably get ejected in 2029, as appetite for change / popular anger with the state of Canada at the time will likely be even greater than it is now. This would apply to Poilievre too.

The economy is addicted to cheap labor, and Quebec just saw what happens when you refuse to grow total GDP through mass importation of bodies with a pulse (credit rating downgrade).

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by lio45

Whoever gets elected now will probably get ejected in 2029, as appetite for change / popular anger with the state of Canada at the time will likely be even greater than it is now. This would apply to Poilievre too.

The economy is addicted to cheap labor, and Quebec just saw what happens when you refuse to grow total GDP through mass importation of bodies with a pulse (credit rating downgrade).

At this point, it may be in the Conservative's best long-term interests for Carney to win, since another four years of the Liberal Lost decade will force the Liberals to own up and wear the generational consequences of their policies.

If PP somehow won a mandate, the Liberals would be able to white wash Trudeau's legacy and blame the Conservatives for the Lost Decade, even if the Conservatives were just at the tail end of Trudeau's destructive decade.

Perhaps giving the keys to Sean Fraser, Freeland and Guillbeault to wreak more structural damage on Canada will finally wake up the electorate, and convince them to take voting seriously in 2029 and not empower such destructive/ineffectual politicans.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Interesting. What is the sentiment among your fellow Québecois? Are you an outlier or have you heard others say the same thing?

Well, among my close friends, there’s a split between the LPC and the Bloc with a slight advantage to the LPC but other than that, I don’t really talk about politics, especially at work because it can be a “toxic” subject.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Guilbeault has already been demoted - there's a good chance he might not even feature in the next cabinet

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The first is that a lot of the worst of Trudeau's cabinet won't be punished, but will win their seats and some of them will, inevitably, form part of Mark Carney's cabinet. I'm thinking people like Sean Fraser (who changed his mind and will seek re-election after all, because the winds are favourable), Chrystia Freeland and Marc Miller. These are controversial people and the analogy would be if Harper resigned in 2015 and Michael Chong became leader but that still meant John Baird and Jason Kenney won their seats and became senior cabinet ministers.

I'd hate to imagine what kind of damage this Trudeau crew will continue to wreak on Canada in the next four years (another immigration ponzi scheme(s) that runs up the GTA's unemployment rate, no critical energy infrastructure built, another massive expansion of government guarantees of CMHC mortgage insurance to keep the housing bubble going, growing army of young people checking out of society etc.), but perhaps it's good for Canada in the long run in the sense that average Canadians can no longer shirk their civic duty and be forced to evaluate the team behind the "Saviour" in future elections.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Well, among my close friends, there’s a split between the LPC and the Bloc with a slight advantage to the LPC but other than that, I don’t really talk about politics, especially at work because it can be a “toxic” subject.

I'm fortunate in that there's very little of the toxic side of things in my personal life. Most of my friends are ABC voters, the few that aren't are thoughtful, tolerant to a point I can't fault, etc. Good people. I'd let them raise my trans child, for example - zero fear they'd cause any additional harm to my child beyond what happens naturally in society, total confidence my child would always feel safe and welcome in their home.

My parents used to be mixed (Dad PC, Mom Liberal), but they're both reliable blue voters now - Dad innocently. He has his beliefs, believes the Cons share those beliefs, but it's not his entire personality. We never fight, lots of laughs and jokes when we debate stuff. Mom, though, had a breakdown, fell deep into the YouTube/Infowars hole where it's no use having a good day because the world is ending and every waking moment needs to be spent praying to Trump for salvation. She ended up hospitalized for psychosis (you might know, I commented on it near-daily in the weather thread as part of my updates, sorry, coping mechanism, but deleted the next day lol), and since then she's basically back to her old self (white Oprah), but the conservative politics have unfortunately stayed. Now, at least, she has the ability to self-regulate and turn it off, change the subject, etc. so it doesn't... it's not a crisis.