Federal Government & Politics | Election 2021 FORUM POLL

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Gatineau implemented this a number of years ago and Sherbrooke followed suit pretty much immediately after, but it's far from all cities that do that. (In your statement, I'd replace that "will" with a "should" and we're in full agreement!)

And that's something I'm personally suffering from (I'm sitting on land in the heart of downtown that I won't develop, as a result I've been paying that special "prime vacant land" tax for years now), yet I can recognize it's for the greater good

C'est tout à votre honneur.

That's probably because unlike some others, you also recognize that you're a citizen and member of society with an identity broader than simply being a money-making and hoarding machine.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

4 Bloc voters in total, I didn't even know the Canada section had that many active Québécois users! (Plus Acajack doesn't vote BQ so there's three others out there, not only two.)

How can you be so sure? No one knows how I vote, not even my wife!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I voted Conservative in my reliably red, inner-suburban/outer-urban Toronto riding.

I was waffling between not voting at all, or writing in the name of my friend's brother, who is a Rhino candidate somewhere else, but in the end I cast my vote for the Cons. I only did this to signal to O'Toole that I appreciate his move to the centre, that it's a good direction for the CPC after 30 years of rightward drift, and that this strategy can pick up some votes, if not seats, in the GTA. The rest of his party isn't ready for this, and he won't win this election, but they should keep him around as leader and keep this overall strategy.

Yeah, I might do exactly that as well and for the same reason as you: wasted vote but still a +1 in the CPC's total, as a reward for their move towards the political center.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

How can you be so sure? No one knows how I vote, not even my wife!

You kinda sorta gave some vague info the other day, and I can read between lines

But you can prove me wrong if you want...

[q12]

Originally Posted by JHikka

EKOS regionals have high margin of error. That 20% could be as low as 10%.

Could also be as high as 30%.

[O-tacular]

Can't decide whether to vote Liberal or NDP in my solid blue riding. On the one hand I want to signal to the LPC that their funding of the Greenline LRT and protection of the Rockies is appreciated, on the other I also support the NDP. In the super rare event that the Con vote is split evenly amongst the CPC, PPC and Maverick parties I'm curious whether LPC or NDP would have a better shot of winning. My riding is Calgary Shepard.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

You kinda sorta gave some vague info the other day, and I can read between lines

But you can prove me wrong if you want...

Unfortunately you'll never know (unless he PMs you).

Maybe Acajack is a deeply closeted CPC supporter!!

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

In the super rare event that the Con vote is split evenly amongst the CPC, PPC and Maverick parties I'm curious whether LPC or NDP would have a better shot of winning. My riding is Calgary Shepard.

Would need to be an incredible votesplit for anyone other than CPC to win.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Said I wouldn't vote for Trudeau again after he walked back his promise on election reform months after I gave him my first vote. Still plan on living up to that commitment so I'll probably be voting conservative in a district that has no chance of going blue.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I voted Conservative in my reliably red, inner-suburban/outer-urban Toronto riding.

I was waffling between not voting at all, or writing in the name of my friend's brother, who is a Rhino candidate somewhere else, but in the end I cast my vote for the Cons. I only did this to signal to O'Toole that I appreciate his move to the centre, that it's a good direction for the CPC after 30 years of rightward drift, and that this strategy can pick up some votes, if not seats, in the GTA. The rest of his party isn't ready for this, and he won't win this election, but they should keep him around as leader and keep this overall strategy.

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah, I might do exactly that as well and for the same reason as you: wasted vote but still a +1 in the CPC's total, as a reward for their move towards the political center.

Consider this at least a little positive reinforcement Myself just came back from voting CPC, though in a solid LPC riding.

Originally Posted by electricmodes

When their actions in the house of commons reflect an actual shift to the centre - voting to open up the abortion debate, voting against banning conversion therapy, voting not to recognize indigenous rights and more. They have not shown they can be trusted while sitting in opposition. Actions speak louder than words and I've seen nothing to suggest they deserve being "rewarded".

There have been clear incremental shifts to the centre with climate change, abortion access, etc. since Andrew Scheer's leadership. Erin O'Toole is publicly pro-choice, and accepts climate change (despite the votes of his own part membership). Again the issue isn't whether or not anyone of us is satisfied with where they are now, it's about reinforcing that the shifts are happening. The alternative is to send the message that these shifts have not been helpful at all, which (along with a rising PPC) would send the Conservatives the other way.

Originally Posted by electricmodes

Does that mean we should hand the keys to government to a spineless flip flopper who has at best a tenuous hold on his own party? Definitely not.

It's not about handing over the keys to government. The polls are clear that a Liberal win is again likely. It's about reinforcing the shifts to the centre.

Originally Posted by JHikka

The CPC has yet to tell us which of its candidates are or are not vaccinated.

Agree with you here this was an easy thing O'Toole could have done to reinforce the move to the centre. (Incidentally I am a federal medical officer of health - one of the key employee groups for which vaccination should be required are public-facing workers, which would include MPs and their staff. Not saying that the MPs are federal employees, but being in the federal workplace, the same considerations apply.)

Originally Posted by JHikka

There are still likely many right-wing CPC supporters who aren't willing to move to the PPC that they still have to balance. Today the PPC are a radical fringe, but if they manage seat(s) then they become more reputable, which in turn makes it more appealing for even more CPC supporters to move, particularly if that party is moving more to the centre and isn't willing to open the book on things like abortion or conversion therapy. There's still more room for the PPC to grow, and it's up to the CPC to ensure that they don't lose (even) more voters than they already have, presumably. Trying to go up against the LPC in the gooey, moderate middle will likely not work as well for the CPC as people think.

It is the historic formula - and the usual practice in a healthy Parliamentary system, to have two viable centrist options. Preserving/restoring this is exactly why positive reinforcement for the CPC today would be helpful.

Originally Posted by JHikka

Trudeau being a not-great PM is not reason enough to vote CPC.

Again, practically speaking not actually about changing PMs given the polls - it's about rewarding the shift under O'Toole.

Originally Posted by esquire

What can a federal government even do regarding restricting access to abortion? I suppose it could be criminalized but that would be regarded as a pretty harsh measure by most.

I would think it's provincial governments that have much more sway on that file anyway, since they're the ones actually funding the service. I know that in Manitoba for many years provincial governments have taken a pretty minimalist approach on abortion, making it technically available but not particularly easy to access, especially for those living in rural or northern areas.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is more a provincial issue than a federal issue, although the feds could without health transfer funding (but then who exactly are they punishing).

In NB there are three hospitals providing abortion access (one in Bathurst and two in Moncton), but curiously none in SJ or Freddy. This absolutely should be addressed.

In Freddy JT has come out in support of funding for abortion services at a private clinic, which is a curious position since he seems so against private health care in general. Is JT talking out of both sides of his mouth?

What the federal government could do is establish a standard on "accessibility" under the Canada Health Act. Obviously this will vary by service. E.g. no one is expecting that transplant surgery should be done in every centre. But it is reasonable that medical abortion can be provided pretty much anywhere; and surgical abortion could be provided in locations that, for example, already provide obstetrical and surgical services - all the medical and ancillary services to support the procedure would be there.

It is odd that many who oppose parallel private delivery (e.g. MRIs, ortho surgery) also support parallel private delivery of abortion services. Ultimately it should be a matter of service delivery/admin by health authorities. I would have thought that NB Health would simply realise it's cheaper to fund the private clinic in Fredericton than sending women across the province. But at least formally embracing parallel private delivery at the national level would normalise such an approach.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In Freddy JT has come out in support of funding for abortion services at a private clinic, which is a curious position since he seems so against private health care in general. Is JT talking out of both sides of his mouth?

The government contracts with private healthcare facilities all the time to provide care when a hospital or public option is not readily available.

I know you know this.

[svlt]

Went LPC anyway even though the riding is, well, guaranteed to be LPC.

I would like to think I could have been swayed but the personal nature of the attacks and especially the daily "opinion pieces" with no facts or substance pushed out by the National Post makes me giddy at the prospect of watching their collective echoes of cries and gnashing of teeth as their "pretty boy" beats their benefactor party's third challenger.

Would also be great to see him retire before a fourth election, just so that someone could perpetually rub the salt in their wounds that they've never been able convince enough readers to beat a drama teacher. And dangle the tantalizing notion that they probably wouldn't have won with a fourth try either.

Of course that isn't the only reason I voted for the LPC, as I like some of the controversial decisions they've taken. They aren't ideological, they generally go with what will make the nation advance in their viewpoints. To me it's quite bold to contradict yourself and make adjustments on the fly when your employer is the fickle minds and opinions of a national voter base. I also think the "scandals" are complete nothings used for scoring political points (to be fair many of that applies to O'Toole too, but he hasn't had six years to have more serious scandals arise anyway). NDP would have been my second choice and would have certainly voted for them if the riding was an NDP/Con split.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The government contracts with private healthcare facilities all the time to provide care when a hospital or public option is not readily available.

I know you know this.

Indeed, and we have a private 3.0T MRI in Moncton, mostly invested with doing work for WCB, DND and RCMP patients (with the occasional privately paying patient thrown into the mix).

It's just so infuriating that JT bays at the moon all the time about the evils of private health care when examples such as this are allowed to exist at the margins of medicare but are not talked about or publicly acknowledged. It almost makes our private MRI seem like something dirty and tawdry when it is providing an important service.

So what is it JT? Are you in favour of private health care or not? Or, are the few remaining vestiges of private health care in this country just a dirty little secret that we should all be ashamed of???

[O-tacular]

Ended up voting LPC. There were 8 candidates including that fringe Alliance party and an independent who I’d never heard of before. Some karen looking woman kept sniffing and coughing and was clearly sick. She was masked but why the hell was she not kicked out?

[q12]

2019 SSP Forum poll results for comparison:

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by q12

2019 SSP Forum poll results for comparison:

For the first time in my life, I voted Conservative. I actually find as I get older, I'm leaning more conservative. I'm a nurse and I know I should support the NDP but I'm just not happy with their platform and I just can't get a grip on Singh. I'm just not sure of his leadership capabilities.

I just am so anti-Trudeau that I would vote for anyone but him. If he stepped down and Freeland were to become party leader, I would vote Liberal in a heartbeat. I have a tonne of respect for her, especially having to navigate a difficult term with Trump in office down south. She really stole the show, in my opinion.

I found it very difficult to make a voting decision in this election.

[Innsertnamehere]

just voted. No line up at all, walked right up to the poll booth. In and out in literally 2 minutes.

[urbandreamer]

Long line ups in the Elmira suburbs and the Mary Allen area of Waterloo.

The blonde "Karen" hairstyle screams "I'm Scots-Irish," grew up in small town Ontario and even though I now live in Summerhill, not gonna change!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

BTW I understand the need for capital to keep the economy rolling and that the very wealthy are a critical source of that capital.

I agree that this is currently the case, but only because so much of society's wealth is controlled by so few people currently. I strongly disagree that this is is in any way a necessary condition. If the very wealthy didn't control such a disproportionate amount of wealth, then obviously they'd be a less critical source of capital.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Fair enough.

I just hope O'Toole does well enough in this election to avoid a purge, and to stay around long enough to put more of a stamp on the party at the riding level. The changes will be incremental.

If however voters remain determined to punish Stephen Harper (seven years later), then O'Toole will be gone and polarized politics will return.

Is this what we want? If you truly want to support change, and to avoid US style polarized politics in this country, then vote for O'Toole. If you want a Canadian style Republican Party to rise from the ashes, then cast your ballot for JT or Singh........

A "first-past-the-post" system always exerts a consolidating force on an electorate which eventually leads to a polarized coalescence down to a two party duopoly. We're lucky (and quite unusual) to still have other fairly large parties under FPTP, but only the two leading parties have ever formed government. If people wants to change this, the only real option is to vote for a party that supports electoral reform toward some form of proportional representation. The Conservative party, at least historically, is not one of them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I agree that this is currently the case, but only because so much of society's wealth is controlled by so few people currently. I strongly disagree that this is is in any way a necessary condition. If the very wealthy didn't control such a disproportionate amount of wealth, then obviously they'd be a less critical source of capital.

One missing aspect here is that many of these rich people have a good track record of effectively running and investing in large businesses. The businesses are not chosen by some central authority, they compete. This process is not reducible to a government funding model.

With the Piketty stuff an obvious criticism was that in an American context the surplus return from capital was equal to the surplus returns from real estate alone. I doubt Canada is any less slanted toward real estate. So it's not all that clear that there's some abstract social bias toward capitalists that needs to be dealt with at that level versus issues with real estate. We already have taxes on real estate that have many obvious problems. So why not expand/reform that area if we need more government revenues? Though I question if we really have a government revenue problem and not a spending efficiency problem.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

One missing aspect here is that many of these rich people have a good track record of effectively running and investing in large businesses. The businesses are not chosen by some central authority, they compete. This process is not reducible to a government funding model.

I don't think that that aspect is "missing", I just don't think that it's relevant. Asset management firms are no less capable of making competent financial decisions when managing investments on behalf of pension funds, RRSPs and 401k etc. for the average investor. And of course there are plenty of examples of wealthy people making foolish and sometimes unethical financial decisions.

I understand there will be endless justifications trotted out to try and paint inequality as being somehow beneficial to society as there are plenty of people who benefit from inventing such ideas. There were monarchists who painted the royals as being the rightful, most capable rulers because they were of the noblest blood lines or had divine mandate, in order to brush off calls for political democracy, So too are there equal many arguments claiming that modern wealthy oligarchs are the most natural, capable rulers to brush off calls for economic democracy. They're every bit as much nonsense. And even if there was any truth to it, the vast ills of inequality due to a lack of economic democracy would be a huge price to pay for a few extra points of GDP growth.