Canadian Federal Election

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Smith has crushed the Tory campaign. She is bound and determined to get Carney elected so her separatists ideals are more palatable to Albertans. Now Manning chimes in to put the final nail in the coffin.

Do Albertans want to separate?.......I don't think so and I think any referendum would fail by a decent margin but not an overwhelming one. No separatists expect a win in the first referendum, it's simply to big a gamble for most. However, the chances of winning a second referendum are much higher.

We saw this in Quebec. The first referendum was 60 to 40 "NON". The second one, however, was a razor thin at 51 to 49. Why the big difference? The reason is simple, the first referendum put the fear of God into people who wanted to stay in Canada and hence left the province. This meant that in the second referendum, many of those opposing independence had left leaving pro-separatists with a much higher percentage of the population. This would be even more so in Alberta. Relatively few Canadians moved to Quebec while Alberta has always been a magnet for Canadians for jobs and a higher standard of living..........they make up a far higher percentage of the population that would rebuke the idea and head back to their home provinces leaving Alberta with a far higher percentage of the population who want to succeed.

In order for a movement to really take off, it often needs a one-time event to give the movement momentum.........the proverbial straw that broke the camels back and Smith has found that with a Carney win. Smith is no friend of Canada but she is even less of one to PP.

Well with global crude prices and demand falling she's going to have much bigger issues on her hands.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Smith has crushed the Tory campaign. She is bound and determined to get Carney elected so her separatists ideals are more palatable to Albertans. Now Manning chimes in to put the final nail in the coffin.

Do Albertans want to separate?.......I don't think so and I think any referendum would fail by a decent margin but not an overwhelming one. No separatists expect a win in the first referendum, it's simply to big a gamble for most. However, the chances of winning a second referendum are much higher.

We saw this in Quebec. The first referendum was 60 to 40 "NON". The second one, however, was a razor thin at 51 to 49. Why the big difference? The reason is simple, the first referendum put the fear of God into people who wanted to stay in Canada and hence left the province. This meant that in the second referendum, many of those opposing independence had left leaving pro-separatists with a much higher percentage of the population. This would be even more so in Alberta. Relatively few Canadians moved to Quebec while Alberta has always been a magnet for Canadians for jobs and a higher standard of living..........they make up a far higher percentage of the population that would rebuke the idea and head back to their home provinces leaving Alberta with a far higher percentage of the population who want to succeed.

In order for a movement to really take off, it often needs a one-time event to give the movement momentum.........the proverbial straw that broke the camels back and Smith has found that with a Carney win. Smith is no friend of Canada but she is even less of one to PP.

The joke is most Calgarians weren’t born here. The thing is that basically everyone I know who moved here from Ontario has now lived here longer and consider themselves Albertans now (including a ton of family from Ontario). They take pride in our province. I don’t see mass flight unless Trump starts targeting Alberta directly and the UCP becomes outright treasonous to our country. I don’t even see a native born Alberta population supporting cessation. I am a proud Canadian, Calgarian and then Albertan (in that order).

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by dleung

There's probably a "statistic" somewhere that claims Asians are actually the worst at math. Anyone who thinks Canada has more violent crime than the US is trolling or not playing with a full deck. And as always, it's the MAGAs who traffic in this nonsense

Wait….. I’m a MAGA?

You might as well call Google MAGA.

I certainly wasn’t trying to say Canada had more violent crimes, that is be foolish. I was just bringing to light the violent crime rate. The USA has 10x the population as Canada!

Jesus….

Anyway, the mudslinging by the left is as bad if not worse from the left as it is from the right. Case in point… MAGA
I appreciate though responses in refuting google first response

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Or you could thank Northern Light for finding the more accurate info.

And not use AI backed search results of aggregators like Statista. They didn't do the research they just copy and pasted someone else's (sloppy or misleading) data
https://bernoff.com/blog/my-big-problem-with-statista

When you get an AI LLM powered aggregator like Google's now top search results that's scraping data from a data aggregator site like Statista finding bad or misleading data, then you get shoddy results.

Which is why relying on AI for correct info in 2025 is sketchy at best. You can ask ChatGPT the same question 3 times and it might reply to you with 3 different answers.

Good rule of thumb for all of us:
When the numbers seem suspect, they usually are. Thanks to the forumers who called this out and Northern Light for finding much more accurate info.

Most Canadians would not believe gun toting USA is less violent than Canada in virtually any crime category.

Thank you Northern Light for finding the more accurate info.

But wait… please correct me if I am wrong … the Wikipedia page that Northern Light provided actually shows that in 2022 the violent crime rate per 100,000 people shows 1,365

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

In the Crime Rates* table

* Number of reported crimes per 100,000 population

I know I know, let’s not try to fool ourselves… on the homicide rate alone the USA takes the cake.

Great discussion!

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Yep, that bad penny has turned up again, with his disgusting views.

I'd like to know what conservative supporters think about this guy.

Most Conservatives were in favour of the convoy (at least the ones that don't live in Ottawa anyway), so they are probably fine with him. If PP doesn't toss him, and I doubt he will considering Andrew has been a good foot soldier for the party the last few years, he probably wins the riding by 20 points.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Most Conservatives were in favour of the convoy (at least the ones that don't live in Ottawa anyway), so they are probably fine with him. If PP doesn't toss him, and I doubt he will considering Andrew has been a good foot soldier for the party the last few years, he probably wins the riding by 20 points.

I don't know how true that statement is. The leader of the Conservative party at the time was not a supporter. After all that is what lead to PP becoming leader.

The Convoy said they represented truckers. At the same time that was going on the CEOs of the major trucking companies were at a pre-planned conference in Toronto. Side meetings were held with the transport minister and they came out against it. The Teamsters (the union that represents many truckers) were also against the convoy.

While the convoy may have represented many owner-operators and many conservatives, it is unclear if that was a majority or not.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Conservatives have now tossed four candidates, the Liberals three.
My bet of 10 this campaign is looking better and better. Maybe the NDP will step up.

Make that Conservatives 5, Liberals 3. I may have been too conservative in my guess.

[kwoldtimer]

Anybody see PP's speech today about crime and punishment? He seemed lifeless, speaking in a very subdued way. What's up with the lack of passion? He used ot be so reliably fiesty.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Anybody see PP's speech today about crime and punishment? He seemed lifeless, speaking in a very subdued way. What's up with the lack of passion? He used ot be so reliably fiesty.

Judging by many comments and viewpoints here on this forum, what you describe as feisty and passion, others here describe as arrogant and intolerant.

I’d say he’s toned it back because he was told to by his campaign. Or he’s just tired.

The way Carney speaks is the furthest from feisty or passion, he is dull, yet judging by the polls people have gravitated to him.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by casper

I don't know how true that statement is. The leader of the Conservative party at the time was not a supporter. After all that is what lead to PP becoming leader.

The Convoy said they represented truckers. At the same time that was going on the CEOs of the major trucking companies were at a pre-planned conference in Toronto. Side meetings were held with the transport minister and they came out against it. The Teamsters (the union that represents many truckers) were also against the convoy.

While the convoy may have represented many owner-operators and many conservatives, it is unclear if that was a majority or not.

PP had the leadership locked up several months earlier, the night of the election loss. The former and now current leaders were supporters of the convoy and it was a western Canadian led initiative. Most of the non-truckers who attended the rallies in Ottawa seemed to be pretty Conservative as well. Most of my right leaning co-workers (all of us truck drivers) were supportive of the convoy, including the one guy who chose early retirement over vaccination when the mandate came in.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Anybody see PP's speech today about crime and punishment? He seemed lifeless, speaking in a very subdued way. What's up with the lack of passion? He used ot be so reliably fiesty.

That's just the way he seems now. I remarked on that last Saturday after watching his speech in Winnipeg in the aircraft hangar.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Judging by many comments and viewpoints here on this forum, what you describe as feisty and passion, others here describe as arrogant and intolerant.

I’d say he’s toned it back because he was told to by his campaign. Or he’s just tired.

The way Carney speaks is the furthest from feisty or passion, he is dull, yet judging by the polls people have gravitated to him.

I wondered if he might be channelling his inner Carney. If so, he needs to take it up a notch so he at least seems engaged.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Anybody see PP's speech today about crime and punishment? He seemed lifeless, speaking in a very subdued way. What's up with the lack of passion? He used ot be so reliably fiesty.

He's seen the internal polling.
He knows he's going to lose, after previously having one of the biggest leads in Canadian politics history

[niwell]

This has been covered above but there is no universal definition of “Violent Crime” - the US and Canada have differing definitions based on their own statistical needs. Hence why homicides are often used as a comparison as they are simply easier to track.

A recent Fraser Institute study (a right wing source I would add) cites that violent crime rates in Canadian CMAs average 231 per 100,000 vs 349 per 100,000 in American MSAs in 2022. This is attempting to adjust for differences in the respective jurisdictional definitions. Also noted that there has been a higher rate of increase in Canadian CMAs in recent years. FWIW: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/de...e-trends-in-canada-and-united-states.pdf

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Judging by many comments and viewpoints here on this forum, what you describe as feisty and passion, others here describe as arrogant and intolerant.

I’d say he’s toned it back because he was told to by his campaign. Or he’s just tired.

The way Carney speaks is the furthest from feisty or passion, he is dull, yet judging by the polls people have gravitated to him.

I think Carney is calm, forthright and reassuring. He speaks like a true leader, not a petty partisan attack dog.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Council housing is a better term than "commie block." It's how they refer to housing projects like this in the UK.

There is certainly a place for housing like this. Canada stopped building social housing sometime in the 1980s. There is currently a large deficit in such housing.

I am concerned however that they may go overboard in their plans and subvert the marketplace. We should be careful and proceed with caution.

I think both terms have negative connotations. We can come up with a better term.


Imo, the federal and provincial governments should basically be funding the construction of apartments built by private companies… the apartments will be owned by the public and rented at affordable prices.

The market isn’t going to fix the housing crisis on there own.


Paying rent to a publicly owned corporation is objectively better than paying rent to for profit private corporations, as all this money can be reinvested in more housing and other essential services.

[casper]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

I think both terms have negative connotations. We can come up with a better term.


Imo, the federal and provincial governments should basically be funding the construction of apartments built by private companies… the apartments will be owned by the public and rented at affordable prices.

The market isn’t going to fix the housing crisis on there own.


Paying rent to a publicly owned corporation is objectively better than paying rent to for profit private corporations, as all this money can be reinvested in more housing and other essential services.

Setup in BC is social housing is mostly managed by a series of not-for-profits. Some times the the not-for-profit owns the building and sometimes it is owned by government and managed by the not for profit.

The different not for profits have independent boards and different focus areas.

[FrAnKs]

Intentions de vote au niveau fédéral, sondage EKOS:

PLC 49%
PCC 34%
NPD 7%
BQ 5% (20% au QC)
PVC 3%
PPC 1%

→ https://qc125.com/canada/20250401-eko.htm

[EKOS, 30 mars-3 avril 2025, n = 1 685]

#canpoli

[Marshsparrow]

I think the Conservatives will try to figure things out until the debates... after the debates I expect them to go full rage / attack and will be an effort to hang on to the bare minimum... Pierre did not look so good today...

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Smith has crushed the Tory campaign. She is bound and determined to get Carney elected so her separatists ideals are more palatable to Albertans. Now Manning chimes in to put the final nail in the coffin.

I am actually starting to believe this. Smith is full-on MAGA, and like Trump, she does not give two shits about her constituents or country. I will even go further, and suggest she probably has the same personality disorder as him. Smith is hell bent on being the supreme leader, who takes orders from nobody. This is precisely why she crossed the floor, and betrayed her constituents in 2014 (Smith realised that the Wildrose were probably never going to form a Government, so she defected to the PC Party), which is arguably what cause the rise of the NDP in 2015.

Do Albertans want to separate?.......I don't think so and I think any referendum would fail by a decent margin but not an overwhelming one. No separatists expect a win in the first referendum, it's simply to big a gamble for most. However, the chances of winning a second referendum are much higher.

Albertans do not want to separate from Canada. At most, probably 15% feel that they would be better off without Canada, or part of the US. Alberta would be completely reliant on the US if they went their own way, since they would be a landlocked country. If they were to join the US, they would legitimately turn into Venezuela, since the Americans would treat them as a northern Puerto Rico. However, Smith and the UCP have never cared about what the public wants, so it would not stop her from attempting a referendum.

We saw this in Quebec. The first referendum was 60 to 40 "NON". The second one, however, was a razor thin at 51 to 49. Why the big difference? The reason is simple, the first referendum put the fear of God into people who wanted to stay in Canada and hence left the province. This meant that in the second referendum, many of those opposing independence had left leaving pro-separatists with a much higher percentage of the population. This would be even more so in Alberta. Relatively few Canadians moved to Quebec while Alberta has always been a magnet for Canadians for jobs and a higher standard of living..........they make up a far higher percentage of the population that would rebuke the idea and head back to their home provinces leaving Alberta with a far higher percentage of the population who want to succeed.

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. Many on the "NO" side complained the referendum question was too vague the second time around, and it almost seemed like it was a "soft" break-up, unlike the 1980 referendum where the question left no room for error. There was an exodus of wealthy Anglophones and Jews, but that mainly occurred in the 1960s and 70s, not from 1981-95.

Additionally, Smith and the UCP know that 80% of Alberta would vote "NO" on any referendum. Having lived in Alberta for 15 years, and worked in many rural areas, there is absolutely no appetite for it. If Carney and the Liberals win, there will be maybe one month of bickering from the extreme right that Alberta should break off from Canada, then it fizzles out. It happened with WEXIT in 2019, after the election. They had a town hall which was jam packed a week after Trudeau won (maybe 500+ people). After a month, they could not get 25 people in a room to discuss it, and it fizzled out.

In order for a movement to really take off, it often needs a one-time event to give the movement momentum.........the proverbial straw that broke the camels back and Smith has found that with a Carney win. Smith is no friend of Canada but she is even less of one to PP.

This always happens in Alberta, in the immediate aftermath of a Liberal Party win. I actually got used to it, since it occurred in 2019 and 2021. I'll just put it this way. The leaders of both parties grew up in Alberta, and Alberta has led Canada in per-capita household wealth for 20+ years. Don't listen to a small but vocal group of insignificant whiners. They do not represent the people of Alberta.