I know a lot of this comes down to Canadians rightly giving Trump and the US the finger, but I can’t help but look on in jealousy of the Liberals properly executing the “replace an unpopular...
I know a lot of this comes down to Canadians rightly giving Trump and the US the finger, but I can’t help but look on in jealousy of the Liberals properly executing the “replace an unpopular incumbent leader to win the election” strategy that Democrats failed at.
:p we can't ignore a few smaller factors: Canadians collectively face an outside threat and are uniting like never before We were choosing between two rich white men -- Mr Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh...
:p we can't ignore the wing a few smaller factors:
Canadians collectively face an outside threat and are uniting like never before
We were choosing between two rich white men -- Mr Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh man, lost official party status; Ms Elizabeth May's party is reduced to just one riding; and her co-leader Mr Pedneault, a Queer man of colour, was defeated in his riding.
Mr Carney's team was actually losing momentum: the election couldn't have come soon enough and the CONs would have won "bigly" if the campaign dragged on another month or two.
At this campaign length, if Harris was a rich white man, Harris might have won 2024 US.
[Edited for many grammatical errors, sorry, shouldn't have stayed up till 4am. I need sleep -..-]
Could this, at least partially, be because of people trying to make sure the Liberals win and seeing it as more important than an NDP or Green MP? Which is also something I'm jealous of as an...
we were choosing between two rich white men -- Mr Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh man, lost official party status, Ms Elizabeth May's party is reduced to just one riding, and her co-leader Mr Pedneault, a Queer man of colour, was defeated in his riding.
Could this, at least partially, be because of people trying to make sure the Liberals win and seeing it as more important than an NDP or Green MP?
At this campaign length
Which is also something I'm jealous of as an American (well, dual-citizen but I've never actually lived in Canada so I can't vote there [yet]). The American election cycle has become 4 year campaigns with unlimited spending
[opinion] It's very much so been a campaign of "I don't want Bad Party to hold majority" rather than "I identify with Good Party's platform passionately". In First Past The Post, we all lose :(...
[opinion]
It's very much so been a campaign of "I don't want Bad Party to hold majority" rather than "I identify with Good Party's platform passionately". In First Past The Post, we all lose :( Carney's said he's not opposed to electoral reform once we clear the economic crisis, so here's hoping.
I didn't think "rich white guy" was a big deal until I heard from a few even very liberal minded friends that they think it's a factor of why Canadians flocked to Carney so quickly, despite not knowing much about him, despite him never having had direct political experience.
That's not to say voters feel he's unqualified though, to be honest he's probably the most qualified expert in international economics and we're fortunate to have him at the helm at this particular time. I am also very cautiously optimistic about his record of championing money making renewable energy and climate stance. Hopefully we will stop selling crown/public infrastructure for pennies and then subsidizing their losses.
But that first impression of "oh an older guy in a suit, let me find out more" has significant impact on such a short campaign. Voters would be much less engaged if they perceive Liberals to be desperately pulling in a hail mary "DEI candidate", much as I hate to say it.
That one supporter who shouted "lead us, Big Daddy " at him might sound funny, but the underlying truth is that someone shouting "big mama" at a politician would be a heckler. We need to keep working towards equity, but it's okay to acknowledge we're not quite there yet, I think
Let’s not forget that no major party has ever run a worse campaign than Singh in living memory. I’m a voracious political news consumer and I struggle to think of a single thing he did or said...
Let’s not forget that no major party has ever run a worse campaign than Singh in living memory. I’m a voracious political news consumer and I struggle to think of a single thing he did or said during the entire campaign. And I’m one of the people out there defending his record in getting the expansion of dental and pharmacare happening through the supply and confidence deal.
Pedneault loosing his riding isn't exactly surprising. It has only been the last handful of elections that greens have even been winning seats at all. Jagmeet... There is an amount of...
Pedneault loosing his riding isn't exactly surprising. It has only been the last handful of elections that greens have even been winning seats at all.
Jagmeet... There is an amount of anti-imigrant/anti-indian sentiment affecting his race but I think largely people aren't happy with him. As someone who wasn't allowed to go on strike after Jagmeet Singh signalled that he would vote no confidence if they forced us back to work... screw that guy in particular. Basically, its easy to see him as almost as responsible as Trudeau for current issues. I think there were some other things he did that started to turn people off as well.
Not really, I knew Jagmeet has family connections, and that Pierre was adopted by teacher parents. But I also know which one kept voting down pharmacare and dental and affordable housing.
Not really, I knew Jagmeet has family connections, and that Pierre was adopted by teacher parents. But I also know which one kept voting down pharmacare and dental and affordable housing.
One is certainly more altruistic and not a total schmuck, but humble beginnings can belong to conservatives as can wealth among those who fight for the working class. I think it's important to air...
One is certainly more altruistic and not a total schmuck, but humble beginnings can belong to conservatives as can wealth among those who fight for the working class. I think it's important to air these things.
I don't see where the claim was Singh was poor? The contrast was between "two rich white men," Singh, and May+Pedneault. If it had been "rich men" emphasizing your point as a contradiction would...
I don't see where the claim was Singh was poor? The contrast was between "two rich white men," Singh, and May+Pedneault. If it had been "rich men" emphasizing your point as a contradiction would make sense but I think it's clear that race/ethnicity was equally important with gender and class in that statement. I don't see anywhere where chocobean assumed otherwise, in fact they told you they didn't.
(Canadian politicians aren't required to disclose their financials afaict so despite looking I don't actually see how much either's net worth is, lots of unsourced claims but no actual numbers. Singh's dad's a doctor, an immigrant who worked as a security guard for some amount of time before getting his license in Canada, I don't know if we're talking deep generational wealth here, doctor money is good for sure. Poilievre certainly had less than that growing up afaict but how either are doing now, I have no clue.)
I disagree, it seemed clear that race, class/wealth and gender (as well as sexual orientation) were all being discussed and were relevant. If your point is that Poilievre isn't rich currently I...
I disagree, it seemed clear that race, class/wealth and gender (as well as sexual orientation) were all being discussed and were relevant.
If your point is that Poilievre isn't rich currently I couldn't find anything accurate about his net worth. He is a landlord, but I don't have any sense of how expensive that is, but you seemed to be discussing familial wealth not current wealth. So maybe I just misunderstood
For what it's worth, it'd still be Justin in the running if his finance minister didn't pull a whoopsie doodle. Dude wasn't going anywhere and it was about to land us a Pierre Pollievre...
For what it's worth, it'd still be Justin in the running if his finance minister didn't pull a whoopsie doodle. Dude wasn't going anywhere and it was about to land us a Pierre Pollievre government.
One of the not so good results of this election is that its basically turned Canada into a two party system. Up til now the NDP were at least a third viable option for many voters but they have...
One of the not so good results of this election is that its basically turned Canada into a two party system. Up til now the NDP were at least a third viable option for many voters but they have been decimated to only 7 seats, which means they dont even have the 12 they need to maintain official party status. They wont receive any gov funding and will need to take a long hard look at how to rebuild their party from the ground up.
The Greens are a one person party with no pull outside that one riding. The Peoples Party and all other fringe parties are essentially neutered. The Bloc is still around but has the odd position of being a party that only votes for issues that help Quebec, so it barely makes any sense for them to be running in a national election when their leader doesnt even want to lead Canada.
That leaves only the Liberals and the Conservatives as choices for the majority of Canadians. And that hasn't worked out well in the US where things have slid into what best can be described as tribalism with some saying its more like cult following. Im not feeling positive about the future for Canadian politics after watching the level of pure propaganda and astroturfing that prevailed through this campaign, much of it masquerading as "news". We're in for some rough years ahead cause I dont currently see how its going to get better instead of worse.
If there IS a bright side its that the elections in Canada are short and in general the results are rarely disputed. There might be a recount here or there but we trust our voting system to be accurate, thank goodness.
Im just glad its over. Honestly not the result I was hoping for, but so glad we can get on with the affairs of actually running the country instead of being stuck in limbo. Time to build on Canada's reignited national pride and get our economy sorted.
This result of us running an effective two-party election also makes me uncomfortable. I noticed even the CBC desk was uneasy about that apparent fact. Here's hoping it's a one-off, or that...
This result of us running an effective two-party election also makes me uncomfortable. I noticed even the CBC desk was uneasy about that apparent fact.
Here's hoping it's a one-off, or that Carney's administration decides FPTP is out and we never have to worry about it happening again.
In 1958, we were closer to 2 parties than we are now, and 4 years later bounced back to a more "normal" party distribution. In 1993 the Conservatives lost official party status. This is very hand...
In 1958, we were closer to 2 parties than we are now, and 4 years later bounced back to a more "normal" party distribution.
In 1993 the Conservatives lost official party status. This is very hand wavey (there's a lot of historical changes in here) but the bones of the CPC are the Progressive Conservatives; they bounced back. I hope that the NDP can also bounce back. Maybe there's an opportunity for Green and NDP to form some kind of alliance, or maybe the NDP can change leadership and adjust, but I don't think they're out.
The BQ is a third party. I realize that they're only present in Quebec, but they are there as a foil to both the Libs and the Cons.
To be fair, an effective 2-party system is far from exclusive to FPTP, although FPTP makes it a lot easier to happen. Almost the entire electional history of post-1975 Greece (i.e. Third Republic)...
To be fair, an effective 2-party system is far from exclusive to FPTP, although FPTP makes it a lot easier to happen. Almost the entire electional history of post-1975 Greece (i.e. Third Republic) has effectively been a 2-party dominance (initially ND-PASOK, and after PASOK ceased to exist, ND-SYRIZA) up to around 2023. Similarly, since Poland joined the EU, it's also effectively had 2-party dominance between PiS and PO. Political polarisation and the status quo ensure that this remains a thing and prevents other parties from breaking any significant threshold where they even have a chance of breaking through.
I will super agree with you that this two party result is very very far from ideal: I 100% blame Justin Trudeau. You said it, neighbour! Let's get focused on building/rebuilding Canada in unity!...
I will super agree with you that this two party result is very very far from ideal: I 100% blame Justin Trudeau.
You said it, neighbour! Let's get focused on building/rebuilding Canada in unity! :) exciting days ahead.
I respect your choice and can understand why many wanted a different party in government, but I'm genuinely interested in whether you thought Pierre Poilievre would have been a good leader faced...
Honestly not the result I was hoping for,
I respect your choice and can understand why many wanted a different party in government, but I'm genuinely interested in whether you thought Pierre Poilievre would have been a good leader faced with Trump's threats. To be clear, I do believe Trump wants to beat Canada into submission so he can get access to our resources, but regardless of the nitty gritty details, he is definitely not a friend to Canada and was going to use our integration against us.
To me, and presumably many in Canada, this election was all about the leader and who was best placed to help Canada through these challenging times. Carney has an impressive resumé and proven successes. Poilievre is a lifelong politician who has had a career of being a professional critic of policies. He really doesn't have any proven track record of success. His platform was weak and vague, and I honestly had no faith that he really knew how to handle the issues facing our country. So, although Carney ultimately won, I'm still surprised that so many had faith in Poilievre.
Not looking for an argument, just genuinely curious about opposing views.
`I am of the very firm belief that the Trump threat is highly overblown and was used to great effect to scare voters into voting for Carney. It was the basis of most of his campaign and fear is a...
`I am of the very firm belief that the Trump threat is highly overblown and was used to great effect to scare voters into voting for Carney. It was the basis of most of his campaign and fear is a great motivator. Unfortunately.
I say that because it's very easy to see that Trump is failing rapidly on every front and he makes outlandish comments like "51st state" to keep himself in the news to distract angry Americans and Canadians from his massive, self destructive policies.
I wish I could talk to the Fanta Menace directly as I hold up charts (he loves charts) showing the facts: "Hey Don how's your economy doing? How's the stock market? Bonds? The dollar? How's that tourism doing? War negotiations with Putin? Your approval ratings? Trade war with China? Any companies flocking to America to build factories? How many lawsuits you racked up so far? No love for the Supreme Court rulings yet, Don? When you bringing back that innocent detainee? How about those growing street protests? Who you kicking out of the press gallery this week? How about those internatioal boycotts, eh? How do you feel about Canada cutting off oil, potash, precious metals and power since you dont need anything we have?"
The man's an utter farce and a complete failure and its VERY obvious to everyone but him. He would of course, say that they are all "Doing great, the best its ever been" while the facts CLEARLY show that America is sinking very fast. Here's his demented tweet today: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff8kgxpe9azxe1.jpeg He's obviously panicking cause the facts dont lie.
So do I think Carney is the man who needs to battle with Trump? No. I dont think it needs to be him because Trump is being neutered by Trump and its only a matter of time til he's a zero. He's got a few more months of pretending and then his own people are going to be knocking on his door asking him to either shut his big yap, or reverse his incredibly damaging policies. The midterm elections will show how badly he's failing.
Would Trump try to bully Poilievre? Sure, but it doesnt take an international banker to fight a bully. It takes a guy who knows how to bully back, and that happens to be one of Poilievre's strengths (a constant complaint from those who dislike him). He got rid of Trudeau, he can get rid of Trump.
Meanwhile, Liberal voters ignored an entire decade where Canadians suffered worsening conditions under a Liberal gov and despite having the same team members and a guy who's even more bent on Net Zero policies than Trudeau, believed that a resume was more important than actual past performance. Its a forehead slapping moment for me indeed.
How much of those worsening conditions can be attributed (directly or indirectly) to the Liberal government? The last decade has been pretty bad worldwide, and in the middle, there was a global...
Meanwhile, Liberal voters ignored an entire decade where Canadians suffered worsening conditions under a Liberal gov and despite having the same team members and a guy who's even more bent on Net Zero policies than Trudeau, believed that a resume was more important than actual past performance. Its a forehead slapping moment for me indeed.
How much of those worsening conditions can be attributed (directly or indirectly) to the Liberal government? The last decade has been pretty bad worldwide, and in the middle, there was a global pandemic.
What is wrong with Net Zero policies?
What is the actual past performance that Pierre Poilievre demonstrated? Isn't a resume just a list of past performances? Why wouldn't that be relevant? Poilievre and the Conservatives spent the last decade complaining that a schoolteacher was running the country, and now that someone with in-depth experience with the economies of two different countries is here... their work history is no longer relevant?
It was the government. We are at the bottom of the barrel for GDP in the G7 Everyone else went through the pandemic too but our gov handled it the worst, not the least of which was handing out...
How much of those worsening conditions can be attributed (directly or indirectly) to the Liberal government? The last decade has been pretty bad worldwide, and in the middle, there was a global pandemic.
It was the government. We are at the bottom of the barrel for GDP in the G7 Everyone else went through the pandemic too but our gov handled it the worst, not the least of which was handing out billions in dollars in subsidies causing massive inflation as more dollars chased the same products.
Net Zero? See my other comment in this thread.
The performance of Poilievre?
A. He united his party and kept them together moving in the same direction. As Carney is about to find out, party unity is actually the hardest part of being a national leader and its no small feat to keep the party onside and united, especially as pressure comes to bear.
B. He kept pounding away at the Liberal's scandals, wastefulness and poor handling of the economy for so long and so hard that in the end, Trudeau's own deputy Prime Minister had to admit he was right and threw Justin under the bus. Trudeau refused to go until other brave MPs finally got the courage to say, "he's right, Justin, it actually IS you they hate" and got rid of him. Major accomplishment for a leader of the Opposition to get a stubborn PM tossed before his term is even up.
C. He got the Carbon Tax killed. The Liberals like to pretend it was just bad messaging but it was clear that the Carbon Tax was just a bad idea and Canadians hated it. But remember this was a KEY policy of Trudeau's gov, the legacy he was going to leave Canada in his great fight against climate change. Nope. Poilievre hounded that bad idea for so long and so hard that Carney, a dyed in the wool climate activist, decided to at least pretend to kill it on day one. What other leader of the Opposition do you recall being able to kill a gov's signature policy just by hounding them to kill it themselves?
You might not like him but the guy's effective when he has a mission. And I'd put Poilievre the bulldog against Trump any day. He's feisty, smart and thinks fast on his feet.
We handed out billions, and saved many lives and jobs. The economy should not be placed at a higher priority than human life, which is something Poilievre and the trucker convoy he supported will...
We handed out billions, and saved many lives and jobs. The economy should not be placed at a higher priority than human life, which is something Poilievre and the trucker convoy he supported will never understand.
But it seems to me that if the economy is a major issue, we should probably listen to an economist. Carney's stated plan to grow our economy seems strong, and we'll have to wait and see if it works out.
RE: Poilievre's performance
A. Sure, he united the party. That's the bare minimum for a leader. Carney united the entire Liberal membership, getting 85% of the votes. That's pretty united.
B. Maybe Trudeau stepped down because it was the right thing for the party, or maybe he got forced out of the party, which would show that the party membership knew what was good for the party. Either way, the correct outcome was achieved, and the party was stronger for it. I don't see how this is a win for Poilievre, because it united the party in a way that they wouldn't have been able to achieve if Trudeau had stayed until the election.
C. The carbon tax was a good thing, and it absolutely suffered from bad messaging. Largely perpetuated via misinformation from the Conservatives. We can certainly give Poilievre credit for poisoning a good idea, but I'd rather he show some initiative and come up with some good ideas of his own.
Which might even have been admirable if it had been done responsibly and with some accountability. But it was done very irresponsibly, the gov just opened the vault and started printing cheques....
We handed out billions, and saved many lives and jobs.
Which might even have been admirable if it had been done responsibly and with some accountability. But it was done very irresponsibly, the gov just opened the vault and started printing cheques.
Which is why we had 330 people who work for Canada Revenue(!) who were fired for fraudulently claiming CERB they didnt deserve along with millions of other Canadians who falsely gamed the system. Which is why we had 300 million handed to a company to build a vaccine plant in QC that just disappeared into thin air. Which is why we bought hundreds of ventilators for thousands apiece that were sold off for scrap at $14 each after never being used. Which is why we will never get an accounting of the millions sent to companies for emergency wage subsidies under false pretenses because the Auditor General can't find any accurate accounting records. Which is why we blew 60 million on the ArriveCan app which went to two guys who ran their sorry company out of a basement. Which is why grifters like MP Randy Boissenault were able to create a shoddy company and grift tens of thousands out of the gov for poor quality products that weren't even delivered.
It was inexcusably bad management. And all of that money the gov so generously wasted wasn't money we actually had in the bank. It was borrowed and added to the deficit, so now we are on the hook for an estimated $21.1 billion in interest costs directly attributable to COVID fiscal waste over the next 10 years. In total, the cost of the federal government’s COVID fiscal waste will reach an estimated $111.0 billion by the end of 2032/33.
The economy should not be placed at a higher priority than human life, which is something Poilievre and the trucker convoy he supported will never understand.
Which lives? The ones that were "saved" by handing out all that money with no oversight? Or the ones that sank into a nation wide drug crisis of epic proportions because they couldn't take the stress of the restrictions? Or the ones that cracked and ended up with major mental health issues? Or the kids who lost two years of their schooling and still have educational deficits and may never catch up? Or the ones who lost family and friendships because our fool of a leader said some Canadians were 'right' while the others were a small, fringe minority full of misogynists and racists and divided Canadians like never before? Or the ones that are currently being ruined by the massively high inflation that 'free money' caused making it harder for ALL Canadians to buy food, to pay for housing, to get their basic needs met? Or the future lives who will have to pay down this massive debt, now costing us over a BILLION dollars a month just in interest, which will be ruined because instead of using that money to build hospitals, treatment centers, schools and much needed social programs, its just going to be wasted on interest?
So, which human lives are the higher priority? The ones he "saved"? Or the ones he screwed over for years to come?
Is being fired not being held accountable? There's no way to hand out that amount of money to everyone in need without allowing people to temporarily slip through the cracks. But they were...
Which is why we had 330 people who work for Canada Revenue(!) who were fired for fraudulently claiming CERB they didnt deserve along with millions of other Canadians who falsely gamed the system
Is being fired not being held accountable? There's no way to hand out that amount of money to everyone in need without allowing people to temporarily slip through the cracks. But they were identified and dealt with. Why is that a problem?
Which is why we bought hundreds of ventilators for thousands apiece that were sold off for scrap at $14 each after never being used.
Early in the pandemic, it seemed like ventilators were a key part in treatment. It turned out to not be the case. But if the government hadn't bought them and they were needed, you'd be saying "why didn't the government buy ventilators?" In emergency situations, it's sometimes better to act fast with the knowledge you have, knowing that you might be wrong.
ArriveCan was awful, and there's no excuse for that.
So, which human lives are the higher priority? The ones he "saved"? Or the ones he screwed over for years to come?
Are you suggesting that the lockdowns and mask mandates should not have happened? And that they are responsible for all these non-inflation things? If so, please be aware that:
The lockdowns and mask mandates were provincial, not federal. Direct your anger at your provincial government.
The lockdowns and mask mandates saved lives. Thank your provincial government.
As for inflation, yes. Canada printed a lot of money, and inflation happened bigly. Compared to the rest of the G7, we're pretty middle of the pack as far as inflation goes. We've also handled it properly, and are well on track to a normal level of inflation. Typically, as bonds mature, the BoC reissues them. But they don't have to. In this case, they used the funds to pay off their debt, reducing the supply through quantitative tightening.
Food prices aren't high in Canada because of inflation, they are high because of corporate greed. Record profits (higher than inflation) from companies like Loblaws prove that.
Poilievre's plan to deal with inflation and Canada's debt is to give a bunch of money to corporations via tax cuts. The same corporations making record profits, but not giving their employees raises commensurate with inflation. How does reducing government revenue result in lower inflation and lower debt?
Or the future lives who will have to pay down this massive debt, now costing us over a BILLION dollars a month just in interest
You're welcome to use BIG SCARY NUMBERS, but a billion dollars in interest isn't that bad. In 2023, the GoC was using 7.5% of their revenues to cover debt. Is 7.5% a lot? For comparison, that's the same rate it was in 2014, and prior to that, it was as high as 30.7% in 1990. USA hasn't had a ratio as low as 7.5% since the '70s. Now, I'm not saying this is great, but it's not nearly as bad as a big capital BILLION makes it seem. Again, compared to the G7, we're pretty middle of the pack.
Because they work for the very department that's in charge of finding cheaters. Im not sure which is more astounding, that 330 of them cheated or that there are that many stupid people working at...
Why is that a problem?
Because they work for the very department that's in charge of finding cheaters. Im not sure which is more astounding, that 330 of them cheated or that there are that many stupid people working at CRA that thought they could get away with it.
Are you suggesting that the lockdowns and mask mandates should not have happened?
The lockdowns and masks made sense in the beginning. They did NOT make sense after two years when the gov overreach moved into 'ludicrous mode'. The tipping point, as you will recall, was trying to force cross border truckers, who had been praised for keeping goods moving over the border for two years, to now prove they were vaccinated and had a vaccine passport in order to continue to do their job. These are guys who spend their entire day alone inside a cab and whose only interaction is talking to a shipper receiver when they need to unload - something they can even do over the phone. To demand they be vaccinated after two years was ridiculous overreach and that was the breaking point for many Canadians who were fed up. Thus thousands showed up in Ottawa to voice their opinion.
My personal line in the sand was stopping at an A&W in North Battleford late at night on a road trip. The restaurant was empty, and yet the 15 yr old behind the counter demanded to see my vaccine passport before she would give me a burger. There was no logic to that, it was just her and I and I didnt even need to go near her to pick up my food. Like millions of others I decided that enough is enough, the constant pushing for more overreach had to end.
More lunacy prevailed when the gov started pushing vaccines for little children. It was already VERY clear that the group at risk were seniors and people with pre-existing co-morbidities who made up almost all the covid deaths and illness. But that didnt stop the gov from saying that everyone needs a vaccine even children under 5. I checked the stats. In my province, in the entire 2 years, there was ONE child who died of covid and that child had complicated pre-existing medical conditions. But anyone who challenged the logic of a vaccine for a group that didnt need it was labelled part of the 'small fringe minority of misogynists and racists' All logic and reason left the room and you either kissed the ring or were denigrated. It no longer made sense.
At that point, Trudeau was actually saying that the federal gov was going to expand the use of electronic vaccine passports so they could be used for other outbreaks and entrance control purposes in the future. Oh hell no. It didnt happen and there was no appetite for that kind of "Papers, please!" mentality. He was just dead wrong and he got the message loud and clear.
For the record, everyone in my family (12 of us) got vaccinated. Two of my children are doctors and had to treat covid patients. We are not anti-vaccine but I am vehemently anti-mandates and that's what I strongly protested.
Are you not holding him accountable for failing to win the election? You can't just blame everyone else when the right leader should easily have won that for the Conservative party. He looked...
You might not like him but the guy's effective when he has a mission. And I'd put Poilievre the bulldog against Trump any day. He's feisty, smart and thinks fast on his feet.
Are you not holding him accountable for failing to win the election? You can't just blame everyone else when the right leader should easily have won that for the Conservative party. He looked utterly lost once Trudeau and the Carbon Tax were gone. He didn't think fast enough, had no clear strategy, and failed to win over enough voters. That election was there for the taking, and he fumbled when it mattered most.
Even if you think he played it well, then the simple fact is that he isn't popular enough. Not enough people like him or preferred him to the alternative, and that's a prerequisite to become the country's leader.
If you take QC out of the equation, they won more seats than the Liberals in the rest of Canada. And QC never likes a Conservative so that was kind of a given. They did much better in ON than...
If you take QC out of the equation, they won more seats than the Liberals in the rest of Canada. And QC never likes a Conservative so that was kind of a given. They did much better in ON than predicted, despite Ford's attempt to undermine their campaign. He garnered a lot of support from the many voters who were fleeing the NDP. He drew in a lot of new, young voters. He also captured 24 more seats overall while the LIberals only gained 8. And he deprived Carney of a majority. In ANY other election those were excellent results but no one could've predicted that Trump would butt in as much as he did.
So no, I dont fault him for not winning. I see the impressive gains, and I think Carney has a few months to prove that he's not Trudeau 2.0, or his minority gov is going to fall and Poilievre will have another chance to prove that voting Liberal isn't going to effect a change until we actually vote for change.
You can't take QC out of the equation. They're a part of Canada, and you can't ignore them. Saying that QC never likes a Conservative is a cop out. Conservatives have been in power in the past,...
You can't take QC out of the equation. They're a part of Canada, and you can't ignore them. Saying that QC never likes a Conservative is a cop out. Conservatives have been in power in the past, and they will be again, and QC has and will be part of the equation.
Polievre's wins could have been done by anyone in this election because lots of people were fed up with the Liberals and wanted change. The deciding vote in Canada rests on the more moderate voters that can swing either left or right, but not too far either way. Once Carney stepped in, those moderates had a choice, and the fact is that Poilievre is too far right on social matters for many. His Trump-lite playbook with slogans and nicknames was not a good strategy when Trump was let loose, and Poilievre was too slow or incapable of pivoting.
I think you're letting him off too lightly. The right leader would have won it for the Conservatives.
Well the 'right' leader would probably have been Mark Carney IF he had run for the right party. He would've had a massive majority. But as Harper said, he's the only man who could say they both...
Well the 'right' leader would probably have been Mark Carney IF he had run for the right party. He would've had a massive majority. But as Harper said, he's the only man who could say they both worked for him, and Poilievre is the one he supported, not Carney. Why would we trust a guy who's a Conservative when it suits and a Liberal when it seems more opportune? I prefer a leader who stands by his convictions.
You can't take QC out of the equation. They're a part of Canada, and you can't ignore them.
Well, I would beg to differ. Even in the debates Blanchet never referred to QC as part of Canada. He consistently referred to them as separate entities, ie. "Quebec and Canada" making it very clear that he doesn't consider QC to be part of Canada. It is a 'nation within a nation' that has no allegiance to the rest of the provinces and territories and thus, I have no allegiance to QC. Its a separate 'nation'.
Because he's a fiscal Conservative and socially more progressive. So, he seized an opportunity that mostly aligned with his convictions. The Conservative party have moved further right ever since...
Why would we trust a guy who's a Conservative when it suits and a Liberal when it seems more opportune?
Because he's a fiscal Conservative and socially more progressive. So, he seized an opportunity that mostly aligned with his convictions. The Conservative party have moved further right ever since joining with Reform, and there's no centre right anymore. That's a shame because right-leaning moderates have no choice but to support Liberal or go much further right than they are comfortable with.
I don't think it makes Carney any less of a man of conviction than Poilievre. Do you really think a career politician won't change convictions to secure the vote? Idolizing a party leader and failing to see through their spin is how the US got into such a mess.
If Poilievre were to cross the floor, he would absolutely lose all support and respect from his party. He's not a Conservative because its convenient for getting more votes, he's a Conservative...
If Poilievre were to cross the floor, he would absolutely lose all support and respect from his party. He's not a Conservative because its convenient for getting more votes, he's a Conservative because the party embodies the values he holds tightly and has promoted his entire career - despite the headwind from every other party in Parliament and most of the press.
Not so with the opportunist apparently. He'll go where the votes are. I dont find that in any way admirable for a guy who wrote a book called "Values".
Thanks for your reply and explanation. This is very interesting, and I think you are putting far too much on just one man and ignoring what is actually going on down there. Yes, he's a buffoon,...
Thanks for your reply and explanation.
I am of the very firm belief that the Trump threat is highly overblown and was used to great effect to scare voters
This is very interesting, and I think you are putting far too much on just one man and ignoring what is actually going on down there. Yes, he's a buffoon, but in 100 days he has caused incredible damage and been allowed to do things that should just not be possible. Regardless of whether he will be around in a few years, he has a lot of people in the background waiting to pick up where he left off. There will be a backlash eventually, but how much damage will be caused in the meantime, including within Canada?
believed that a resume was more important than actual past performance. Its a forehead slapping moment for me indeed.
But that was one of my points, Carney has actual past performance. He helped the UK through Brexit and Harper through the last great recession. And Poilievre? You mention he's a good bully, but what real successes has he got? None, nada. He failed to win the election, which was on a plate, and lost his seat. The Conservatives absolutely should have won that election, and it's a huge failure on Poilievre's part that he didn't manage to win it. But you seem to think that it's not his fault but rather some scaremongering from the Liberals. That's letting him off incredibly lightly. He failed when it really mattered, and I think that's a telling sign of his leadership qualities. We'll see if his uniting of the party lasts now.
I have been somewhat disconnected from Canadian news for over a decade, but this is the second time this week that I've seen a comment using the term Net Zero as if it were obvious to any reader...
I have been somewhat disconnected from Canadian news for over a decade, but this is the second time this week that I've seen a comment using the term Net Zero as if it were obvious to any reader that it's a bad thing. Do you believe that Net Zero is harmful to Canada? Is it caused by specific policies, or do you think the goal itself is bad?
Net Zero is indeed bad for Canada. According to the climate computer modelling (something I have questions about as a former programmer) Canada emits 1.3% of the world's emissions. And only about...
Net Zero is indeed bad for Canada.
According to the climate computer modelling (something I have questions about as a former programmer) Canada emits 1.3% of the world's emissions. And only about half that comes from the oil patch. The oil and gas industry contributes over $70 billion annually to our GDP and generates $95 billion in taxes and royalties for gov nationwide, yet the entire oil economy is barely a rounding error in the modelling calculation.
But Net Zero extremists would gladly force us to shut down the entire industry, at a loss of thousands of high paying jobs, and cripple a major resource sector for the sake of what? Saving 0,6% emissions? The amount China and the US emit in 5 days? Make it make sense. Its irrational at best, cultish at worst.
And dont get me started on the "we all have to do our part" malarkey - there is NO logic in using a thimble to bail out a sinking boat when two troublemakers are using 10 gallon buckets to pour the water in and then claim that you're "doing our part". Actual commitment to "doing our part" would mean something logical like a gov that refuses to trade with the US or China til they clean up their act. But that would kill profits and its VERY clear that the "climate change crisis" is very much about profits, NOT the climate. Especially when you see Mark Carney's Brookfield Asset Management state that 'green' policies are the greatest opportunity to create wealth going forward.
Delighted for my Canadian friends, though I'm sorry your choices boiled down to a neoliberal banker and a Trumpette. I'd hope that PM Carney and the Liberals take to heart the compelling economic...
Delighted for my Canadian friends, though I'm sorry your choices boiled down to a neoliberal banker and a Trumpette. I'd hope that PM Carney and the Liberals take to heart the compelling economic concerns of Canadians, and not just abstract macroeconomic policy.
From what I've seen, Canada has problems with media centralization under corporate and billionaire control, comparable to those elsewhere in the English-speaking world... any comment on how this might have influenced the election? [pinging back to /u/gowestyoungman's complaint about propaganda...]
Edit: my tone is angry. I am angry. I just finished speaking with my father. The question about propaganda hit a very central nerve. This is an anti-conservative rant PostMedia Network aka the...
Edit: my tone is angry. I am angry. I just finished speaking with my father. The question about propaganda hit a very central nerve.
This is an anti-conservative rant
PostMedia Network aka the disinformation machine that is responsible for the degradation of the relationship between me and my father, owns a lot of the Canadian media, despite the fact that it is American owned. Most of those media outlets spend a good amount of time bashing the CBC, which is owned by the government, and wants to shut them down.
I've yet to meet a conservative online or in person who is okay with the existence of the CBC, and I've also not met a conservative that doesn't whole hog gobble down every bit of slop that every single Postmedia outlet serves, without questioning a single thing about why American billionaires want them to believe a particular thing. I hate to paint with such a wide brush, but it is the truth.
Additionally, there is a broad subsection of canadian conservatives that also line up for whatever Rebel media is serving and gobble that down as well.
We are in the same trouble as the US, but maybe they just haven't hit critical mass yet.
We have some good media outlets and some pretty biased ones. In my opinion of the major national broadcasters, CTV News does a very good job of covering our national news with very little...
We have some good media outlets and some pretty biased ones. In my opinion of the major national broadcasters, CTV News does a very good job of covering our national news with very little detectable bias. Its owned by Bell Media which is owned by BCE and they have a stated policy that they are committed to journalistic independence and operate under a policy that ensures non-interference from BCE. I can support that and I think its pretty apparent when you watch their main political analyst, Vassy Kapelos. She'll interview all of the party leaders and MPs and she asks the HARD questions of all of them. No soft pedalling for anyone, she calls them out on their sidestepping regularly and when they try to use political doublespeak she'll often say, "But you didn't answer my question, so can you give me a direct answer?"
On the other side we have the CBC which is supposed to be Canada's 'unbiased' public broadcaster. But Ive been watching and listening to CBC for over 50 years now and they are definitely NOT the same trustworthy broadcaster I grew up with. The biggest tell was when one of their primary producers, Tara Henley, quit her job because in her own words, she leaned left but in the span of 18 months the CBC moved so rapidly far left that she became one of the most conservative voices left in the room and it got to be unbearable. This is worth a read: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tara-henley-why-i-quit-the-cbc. Other examples: CBC went all in on the "256 residential school graves" story and its shaming of Canadians, but no bodies have ever been discovered despite 12 million in grants for that purpose from the gov. But you dont see the CBC covering THAT story. Or the fact that 33 churches have been burned to the ground in the last three years and there is almost no coverage of that travesty, nor any reporting on an investigation or any charges for any of the arsonists. It just 'disappears' because it doesnt fit the leftist agenda.
And yes the National Post leans strongly to the right. But then the Toronto Star leans strongly to the left, so you can pick your poison. I often go to Ground News (https://ground.news/) which actually graphs, for every article, how many left or right sources are reporting on each news piece. Always interesting when you can see that ONLY one side or the other is reporting on a topic. And National Newswatch (https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/) is a great aggregator for getting an overall lay of the land from all sides of the spectrum. And you can always listen to Peter Mansbridge's 'Good Talk' podcast, for some quality commentary on the news of the week.
I agree that independents like Rebel News are so heavily biased that they're not reliable news sources. Then again, we have Press Progress which is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the NDP and only publishes articles that consistently bash the Conservatives. To their credit however, Rebel News lives and dies by their subscribers so they are not sucking the teet of the Canadian taxpayer for their bread and butter, unlike just about every other news source in Canada. Those media subsidies need to end. How in the world do we ever get an independent, fair and unbiased reporting from a source that doesnt want to bite the hand that feeds it?
The only solution to the media bias is to read as broadly as possible and take all viewpoints and biases into account as you do. Just as important is important to go outside Canada and read what the international press is saying - sources from Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia and yes, even Russia and the US can often shed a helpful perspective on Canada's issues.
During the election, I found it very difficult to find any media articles that didnt cast the Conservative candidate in a negative light which undoubtedly had an effect on the outcome. Which makes sense when you know that one of his key promises was to defund the CBC (and by logical extension, likely defund other media outlets). Meanwhile the Liberal candidate said he would increase the CBC funding by 150 million, so which one do you think the CBC promoted the most? That's also the reason Poilievre was very careful about who he gave interviews too, which made the mainstream media howl in protest. They wanted more chances to grab another headline with a 'gotcha' moment or an accusatory question and he mostly deprived them of that so the fact that he garnered 24 more seats for his party was certainly not due to any love from the press. He was well aware of the challenge which is why his campaign spent a lot of money going around the press and appealing directly to the public on social media platforms.
They wont make it to a majority. But ironically, even with their meagre 7 seats the NDP could still hold the balance of power. Or even more stunning, so could the Bloc. Unbelievable.
They wont make it to a majority. But ironically, even with their meagre 7 seats the NDP could still hold the balance of power. Or even more stunning, so could the Bloc. Unbelievable.
Oh that's me!! :D hi TaylorSwiftsPickles!! *Waves frantically for attention~~ (I'm delirious with optimism and not enough sleep, trying to follow the Carleton race well into the morning.)
Oh that's me!! :D hi TaylorSwiftsPickles!! *Waves frantically for attention~~
(I'm delirious with optimism and not enough sleep, trying to follow the Carleton race well into the morning.)
I know a lot of this comes down to Canadians rightly giving Trump and the US the finger, but I can’t help but look on in jealousy of the Liberals properly executing the “replace an unpopular incumbent leader to win the election” strategy that Democrats failed at.
Turns out, when you have to set yourself apart from your predecessor, the answer is not "I would have a Republican in my cabinet." I am gobsmacked.
:p we can't ignore
the winga few smaller factors:Canadians collectively face an outside threat and are uniting like never before
We were choosing between two rich white men -- Mr Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh man, lost official party status; Ms Elizabeth May's party is reduced to just one riding; and her co-leader Mr Pedneault, a Queer man of colour, was defeated in his riding.
Mr Carney's team was actually losing momentum: the election couldn't have come soon enough and the CONs would have won "bigly" if the campaign dragged on another month or two.
At this campaign length, if Harris was a rich white man, Harris might have won 2024 US.
[Edited for many grammatical errors, sorry, shouldn't have stayed up till 4am. I need sleep -..-]
Could this, at least partially, be because of people trying to make sure the Liberals win and seeing it as more important than an NDP or Green MP?
Which is also something I'm jealous of as an American (well, dual-citizen but I've never actually lived in Canada so I can't vote there [yet]). The American election cycle has become 4 year campaigns with unlimited spending
[opinion]
It's very much so been a campaign of "I don't want Bad Party to hold majority" rather than "I identify with Good Party's platform passionately". In First Past The Post, we all lose :( Carney's said he's not opposed to electoral reform once we clear the economic crisis, so here's hoping.
I didn't think "rich white guy" was a big deal until I heard from a few even very liberal minded friends that they think it's a factor of why Canadians flocked to Carney so quickly, despite not knowing much about him, despite him never having had direct political experience.
That's not to say voters feel he's unqualified though, to be honest he's probably the most qualified expert in international economics and we're fortunate to have him at the helm at this particular time. I am also very cautiously optimistic about his record of championing money making renewable energy and climate stance. Hopefully we will stop selling crown/public infrastructure for pennies and then subsidizing their losses.
But that first impression of "oh an older guy in a suit, let me find out more" has significant impact on such a short campaign. Voters would be much less engaged if they perceive Liberals to be desperately pulling in a hail mary "DEI candidate", much as I hate to say it.
That one supporter who shouted "lead us, Big Daddy " at him might sound funny, but the underlying truth is that someone shouting "big mama" at a politician would be a heckler. We need to keep working towards equity, but it's okay to acknowledge we're not quite there yet, I think
Let’s not forget that no major party has ever run a worse campaign than Singh in living memory. I’m a voracious political news consumer and I struggle to think of a single thing he did or said during the entire campaign. And I’m one of the people out there defending his record in getting the expansion of dental and pharmacare happening through the supply and confidence deal.
Pedneault loosing his riding isn't exactly surprising. It has only been the last handful of elections that greens have even been winning seats at all.
Jagmeet... There is an amount of anti-imigrant/anti-indian sentiment affecting his race but I think largely people aren't happy with him. As someone who wasn't allowed to go on strike after Jagmeet Singh signalled that he would vote no confidence if they forced us back to work... screw that guy in particular. Basically, its easy to see him as almost as responsible as Trudeau for current issues. I think there were some other things he did that started to turn people off as well.
You might be surprised on who has more money, Pierre or Jagmeet. One was born into money and it wasn't the former.
Not really, I knew Jagmeet has family connections, and that Pierre was adopted by teacher parents. But I also know which one kept voting down pharmacare and dental and affordable housing.
One is certainly more altruistic and not a total schmuck, but humble beginnings can belong to conservatives as can wealth among those who fight for the working class. I think it's important to air these things.
I don't see where the claim was Singh was poor? The contrast was between "two rich white men," Singh, and May+Pedneault. If it had been "rich men" emphasizing your point as a contradiction would make sense but I think it's clear that race/ethnicity was equally important with gender and class in that statement. I don't see anywhere where chocobean assumed otherwise, in fact they told you they didn't.
(Canadian politicians aren't required to disclose their financials afaict so despite looking I don't actually see how much either's net worth is, lots of unsourced claims but no actual numbers. Singh's dad's a doctor, an immigrant who worked as a security guard for some amount of time before getting his license in Canada, I don't know if we're talking deep generational wealth here, doctor money is good for sure. Poilievre certainly had less than that growing up afaict but how either are doing now, I have no clue.)
The comment was mostly about one white man not being rich. If we're talking about who's rich, let's broaden out who gets to wear the label.
I disagree, it seemed clear that race, class/wealth and gender (as well as sexual orientation) were all being discussed and were relevant.
If your point is that Poilievre isn't rich currently I couldn't find anything accurate about his net worth. He is a landlord, but I don't have any sense of how expensive that is, but you seemed to be discussing familial wealth not current wealth. So maybe I just misunderstood
For what it's worth, it'd still be Justin in the running if his finance minister didn't pull a whoopsie doodle. Dude wasn't going anywhere and it was about to land us a Pierre Pollievre government.
They all said, I'll give this government a year.
Liberal Bruce Fanjoy topples Pierre Poilievre in Carleton
One of the not so good results of this election is that its basically turned Canada into a two party system. Up til now the NDP were at least a third viable option for many voters but they have been decimated to only 7 seats, which means they dont even have the 12 they need to maintain official party status. They wont receive any gov funding and will need to take a long hard look at how to rebuild their party from the ground up.
The Greens are a one person party with no pull outside that one riding. The Peoples Party and all other fringe parties are essentially neutered. The Bloc is still around but has the odd position of being a party that only votes for issues that help Quebec, so it barely makes any sense for them to be running in a national election when their leader doesnt even want to lead Canada.
That leaves only the Liberals and the Conservatives as choices for the majority of Canadians. And that hasn't worked out well in the US where things have slid into what best can be described as tribalism with some saying its more like cult following. Im not feeling positive about the future for Canadian politics after watching the level of pure propaganda and astroturfing that prevailed through this campaign, much of it masquerading as "news". We're in for some rough years ahead cause I dont currently see how its going to get better instead of worse.
If there IS a bright side its that the elections in Canada are short and in general the results are rarely disputed. There might be a recount here or there but we trust our voting system to be accurate, thank goodness.
Im just glad its over. Honestly not the result I was hoping for, but so glad we can get on with the affairs of actually running the country instead of being stuck in limbo. Time to build on Canada's reignited national pride and get our economy sorted.
This result of us running an effective two-party election also makes me uncomfortable. I noticed even the CBC desk was uneasy about that apparent fact.
Here's hoping it's a one-off, or that Carney's administration decides FPTP is out and we never have to worry about it happening again.
In 1958, we were closer to 2 parties than we are now, and 4 years later bounced back to a more "normal" party distribution.
In 1993 the Conservatives lost official party status. This is very hand wavey (there's a lot of historical changes in here) but the bones of the CPC are the Progressive Conservatives; they bounced back. I hope that the NDP can also bounce back. Maybe there's an opportunity for Green and NDP to form some kind of alliance, or maybe the NDP can change leadership and adjust, but I don't think they're out.
The BQ is a third party. I realize that they're only present in Quebec, but they are there as a foil to both the Libs and the Cons.
To be fair, an effective 2-party system is far from exclusive to FPTP, although FPTP makes it a lot easier to happen. Almost the entire electional history of post-1975 Greece (i.e. Third Republic) has effectively been a 2-party dominance (initially ND-PASOK, and after PASOK ceased to exist, ND-SYRIZA) up to around 2023. Similarly, since Poland joined the EU, it's also effectively had 2-party dominance between PiS and PO. Political polarisation and the status quo ensure that this remains a thing and prevents other parties from breaking any significant threshold where they even have a chance of breaking through.
I will super agree with you that this two party result is very very far from ideal: I 100% blame Justin Trudeau.
You said it, neighbour! Let's get focused on building/rebuilding Canada in unity! :) exciting days ahead.
I respect your choice and can understand why many wanted a different party in government, but I'm genuinely interested in whether you thought Pierre Poilievre would have been a good leader faced with Trump's threats. To be clear, I do believe Trump wants to beat Canada into submission so he can get access to our resources, but regardless of the nitty gritty details, he is definitely not a friend to Canada and was going to use our integration against us.
To me, and presumably many in Canada, this election was all about the leader and who was best placed to help Canada through these challenging times. Carney has an impressive resumé and proven successes. Poilievre is a lifelong politician who has had a career of being a professional critic of policies. He really doesn't have any proven track record of success. His platform was weak and vague, and I honestly had no faith that he really knew how to handle the issues facing our country. So, although Carney ultimately won, I'm still surprised that so many had faith in Poilievre.
Not looking for an argument, just genuinely curious about opposing views.
`I am of the very firm belief that the Trump threat is highly overblown and was used to great effect to scare voters into voting for Carney. It was the basis of most of his campaign and fear is a great motivator. Unfortunately.
I say that because it's very easy to see that Trump is failing rapidly on every front and he makes outlandish comments like "51st state" to keep himself in the news to distract angry Americans and Canadians from his massive, self destructive policies.
I wish I could talk to the Fanta Menace directly as I hold up charts (he loves charts) showing the facts: "Hey Don how's your economy doing? How's the stock market? Bonds? The dollar? How's that tourism doing? War negotiations with Putin? Your approval ratings? Trade war with China? Any companies flocking to America to build factories? How many lawsuits you racked up so far? No love for the Supreme Court rulings yet, Don? When you bringing back that innocent detainee? How about those growing street protests? Who you kicking out of the press gallery this week? How about those internatioal boycotts, eh? How do you feel about Canada cutting off oil, potash, precious metals and power since you dont need anything we have?"
The man's an utter farce and a complete failure and its VERY obvious to everyone but him. He would of course, say that they are all "Doing great, the best its ever been" while the facts CLEARLY show that America is sinking very fast. Here's his demented tweet today: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff8kgxpe9azxe1.jpeg He's obviously panicking cause the facts dont lie.
So do I think Carney is the man who needs to battle with Trump? No. I dont think it needs to be him because Trump is being neutered by Trump and its only a matter of time til he's a zero. He's got a few more months of pretending and then his own people are going to be knocking on his door asking him to either shut his big yap, or reverse his incredibly damaging policies. The midterm elections will show how badly he's failing.
Would Trump try to bully Poilievre? Sure, but it doesnt take an international banker to fight a bully. It takes a guy who knows how to bully back, and that happens to be one of Poilievre's strengths (a constant complaint from those who dislike him). He got rid of Trudeau, he can get rid of Trump.
Meanwhile, Liberal voters ignored an entire decade where Canadians suffered worsening conditions under a Liberal gov and despite having the same team members and a guy who's even more bent on Net Zero policies than Trudeau, believed that a resume was more important than actual past performance. Its a forehead slapping moment for me indeed.
How much of those worsening conditions can be attributed (directly or indirectly) to the Liberal government? The last decade has been pretty bad worldwide, and in the middle, there was a global pandemic.
What is wrong with Net Zero policies?
What is the actual past performance that Pierre Poilievre demonstrated? Isn't a resume just a list of past performances? Why wouldn't that be relevant? Poilievre and the Conservatives spent the last decade complaining that a schoolteacher was running the country, and now that someone with in-depth experience with the economies of two different countries is here... their work history is no longer relevant?
It was the government. We are at the bottom of the barrel for GDP in the G7 Everyone else went through the pandemic too but our gov handled it the worst, not the least of which was handing out billions in dollars in subsidies causing massive inflation as more dollars chased the same products.
Net Zero? See my other comment in this thread.
The performance of Poilievre?
A. He united his party and kept them together moving in the same direction. As Carney is about to find out, party unity is actually the hardest part of being a national leader and its no small feat to keep the party onside and united, especially as pressure comes to bear.
B. He kept pounding away at the Liberal's scandals, wastefulness and poor handling of the economy for so long and so hard that in the end, Trudeau's own deputy Prime Minister had to admit he was right and threw Justin under the bus. Trudeau refused to go until other brave MPs finally got the courage to say, "he's right, Justin, it actually IS you they hate" and got rid of him. Major accomplishment for a leader of the Opposition to get a stubborn PM tossed before his term is even up.
C. He got the Carbon Tax killed. The Liberals like to pretend it was just bad messaging but it was clear that the Carbon Tax was just a bad idea and Canadians hated it. But remember this was a KEY policy of Trudeau's gov, the legacy he was going to leave Canada in his great fight against climate change. Nope. Poilievre hounded that bad idea for so long and so hard that Carney, a dyed in the wool climate activist, decided to at least pretend to kill it on day one. What other leader of the Opposition do you recall being able to kill a gov's signature policy just by hounding them to kill it themselves?
You might not like him but the guy's effective when he has a mission. And I'd put Poilievre the bulldog against Trump any day. He's feisty, smart and thinks fast on his feet.
We handed out billions, and saved many lives and jobs. The economy should not be placed at a higher priority than human life, which is something Poilievre and the trucker convoy he supported will never understand.
But it seems to me that if the economy is a major issue, we should probably listen to an economist. Carney's stated plan to grow our economy seems strong, and we'll have to wait and see if it works out.
RE: Poilievre's performance
A. Sure, he united the party. That's the bare minimum for a leader. Carney united the entire Liberal membership, getting 85% of the votes. That's pretty united.
B. Maybe Trudeau stepped down because it was the right thing for the party, or maybe he got forced out of the party, which would show that the party membership knew what was good for the party. Either way, the correct outcome was achieved, and the party was stronger for it. I don't see how this is a win for Poilievre, because it united the party in a way that they wouldn't have been able to achieve if Trudeau had stayed until the election.
C. The carbon tax was a good thing, and it absolutely suffered from bad messaging. Largely perpetuated via misinformation from the Conservatives. We can certainly give Poilievre credit for poisoning a good idea, but I'd rather he show some initiative and come up with some good ideas of his own.
Which might even have been admirable if it had been done responsibly and with some accountability. But it was done very irresponsibly, the gov just opened the vault and started printing cheques.
Which is why we had 330 people who work for Canada Revenue(!) who were fired for fraudulently claiming CERB they didnt deserve along with millions of other Canadians who falsely gamed the system. Which is why we had 300 million handed to a company to build a vaccine plant in QC that just disappeared into thin air. Which is why we bought hundreds of ventilators for thousands apiece that were sold off for scrap at $14 each after never being used. Which is why we will never get an accounting of the millions sent to companies for emergency wage subsidies under false pretenses because the Auditor General can't find any accurate accounting records. Which is why we blew 60 million on the ArriveCan app which went to two guys who ran their sorry company out of a basement. Which is why grifters like MP Randy Boissenault were able to create a shoddy company and grift tens of thousands out of the gov for poor quality products that weren't even delivered.
It was inexcusably bad management. And all of that money the gov so generously wasted wasn't money we actually had in the bank. It was borrowed and added to the deficit, so now we are on the hook for an estimated $21.1 billion in interest costs directly attributable to COVID fiscal waste over the next 10 years. In total, the cost of the federal government’s COVID fiscal waste will reach an estimated $111.0 billion by the end of 2032/33.
Which lives? The ones that were "saved" by handing out all that money with no oversight? Or the ones that sank into a nation wide drug crisis of epic proportions because they couldn't take the stress of the restrictions? Or the ones that cracked and ended up with major mental health issues? Or the kids who lost two years of their schooling and still have educational deficits and may never catch up? Or the ones who lost family and friendships because our fool of a leader said some Canadians were 'right' while the others were a small, fringe minority full of misogynists and racists and divided Canadians like never before? Or the ones that are currently being ruined by the massively high inflation that 'free money' caused making it harder for ALL Canadians to buy food, to pay for housing, to get their basic needs met? Or the future lives who will have to pay down this massive debt, now costing us over a BILLION dollars a month just in interest, which will be ruined because instead of using that money to build hospitals, treatment centers, schools and much needed social programs, its just going to be wasted on interest?
So, which human lives are the higher priority? The ones he "saved"? Or the ones he screwed over for years to come?
Is being fired not being held accountable? There's no way to hand out that amount of money to everyone in need without allowing people to temporarily slip through the cracks. But they were identified and dealt with. Why is that a problem?
Early in the pandemic, it seemed like ventilators were a key part in treatment. It turned out to not be the case. But if the government hadn't bought them and they were needed, you'd be saying "why didn't the government buy ventilators?" In emergency situations, it's sometimes better to act fast with the knowledge you have, knowing that you might be wrong.
ArriveCan was awful, and there's no excuse for that.
Are you suggesting that the lockdowns and mask mandates should not have happened? And that they are responsible for all these non-inflation things? If so, please be aware that:
The lockdowns and mask mandates were provincial, not federal. Direct your anger at your provincial government.
The lockdowns and mask mandates saved lives. Thank your provincial government.
As for inflation, yes. Canada printed a lot of money, and inflation happened bigly. Compared to the rest of the G7, we're pretty middle of the pack as far as inflation goes. We've also handled it properly, and are well on track to a normal level of inflation. Typically, as bonds mature, the BoC reissues them. But they don't have to. In this case, they used the funds to pay off their debt, reducing the supply through quantitative tightening.
Food prices aren't high in Canada because of inflation, they are high because of corporate greed. Record profits (higher than inflation) from companies like Loblaws prove that.
Poilievre's plan to deal with inflation and Canada's debt is to give a bunch of money to corporations via tax cuts. The same corporations making record profits, but not giving their employees raises commensurate with inflation. How does reducing government revenue result in lower inflation and lower debt?
You're welcome to use BIG SCARY NUMBERS, but a billion dollars in interest isn't that bad. In 2023, the GoC was using 7.5% of their revenues to cover debt. Is 7.5% a lot? For comparison, that's the same rate it was in 2014, and prior to that, it was as high as 30.7% in 1990. USA hasn't had a ratio as low as 7.5% since the '70s. Now, I'm not saying this is great, but it's not nearly as bad as a big capital BILLION makes it seem. Again, compared to the G7, we're pretty middle of the pack.
Because they work for the very department that's in charge of finding cheaters. Im not sure which is more astounding, that 330 of them cheated or that there are that many stupid people working at CRA that thought they could get away with it.
The lockdowns and masks made sense in the beginning. They did NOT make sense after two years when the gov overreach moved into 'ludicrous mode'. The tipping point, as you will recall, was trying to force cross border truckers, who had been praised for keeping goods moving over the border for two years, to now prove they were vaccinated and had a vaccine passport in order to continue to do their job. These are guys who spend their entire day alone inside a cab and whose only interaction is talking to a shipper receiver when they need to unload - something they can even do over the phone. To demand they be vaccinated after two years was ridiculous overreach and that was the breaking point for many Canadians who were fed up. Thus thousands showed up in Ottawa to voice their opinion.
My personal line in the sand was stopping at an A&W in North Battleford late at night on a road trip. The restaurant was empty, and yet the 15 yr old behind the counter demanded to see my vaccine passport before she would give me a burger. There was no logic to that, it was just her and I and I didnt even need to go near her to pick up my food. Like millions of others I decided that enough is enough, the constant pushing for more overreach had to end.
More lunacy prevailed when the gov started pushing vaccines for little children. It was already VERY clear that the group at risk were seniors and people with pre-existing co-morbidities who made up almost all the covid deaths and illness. But that didnt stop the gov from saying that everyone needs a vaccine even children under 5. I checked the stats. In my province, in the entire 2 years, there was ONE child who died of covid and that child had complicated pre-existing medical conditions. But anyone who challenged the logic of a vaccine for a group that didnt need it was labelled part of the 'small fringe minority of misogynists and racists' All logic and reason left the room and you either kissed the ring or were denigrated. It no longer made sense.
At that point, Trudeau was actually saying that the federal gov was going to expand the use of electronic vaccine passports so they could be used for other outbreaks and entrance control purposes in the future. Oh hell no. It didnt happen and there was no appetite for that kind of "Papers, please!" mentality. He was just dead wrong and he got the message loud and clear.
For the record, everyone in my family (12 of us) got vaccinated. Two of my children are doctors and had to treat covid patients. We are not anti-vaccine but I am vehemently anti-mandates and that's what I strongly protested.
Are you not holding him accountable for failing to win the election? You can't just blame everyone else when the right leader should easily have won that for the Conservative party. He looked utterly lost once Trudeau and the Carbon Tax were gone. He didn't think fast enough, had no clear strategy, and failed to win over enough voters. That election was there for the taking, and he fumbled when it mattered most.
Even if you think he played it well, then the simple fact is that he isn't popular enough. Not enough people like him or preferred him to the alternative, and that's a prerequisite to become the country's leader.
If you take QC out of the equation, they won more seats than the Liberals in the rest of Canada. And QC never likes a Conservative so that was kind of a given. They did much better in ON than predicted, despite Ford's attempt to undermine their campaign. He garnered a lot of support from the many voters who were fleeing the NDP. He drew in a lot of new, young voters. He also captured 24 more seats overall while the LIberals only gained 8. And he deprived Carney of a majority. In ANY other election those were excellent results but no one could've predicted that Trump would butt in as much as he did.
So no, I dont fault him for not winning. I see the impressive gains, and I think Carney has a few months to prove that he's not Trudeau 2.0, or his minority gov is going to fall and Poilievre will have another chance to prove that voting Liberal isn't going to effect a change until we actually vote for change.
You can't take QC out of the equation. They're a part of Canada, and you can't ignore them. Saying that QC never likes a Conservative is a cop out. Conservatives have been in power in the past, and they will be again, and QC has and will be part of the equation.
Polievre's wins could have been done by anyone in this election because lots of people were fed up with the Liberals and wanted change. The deciding vote in Canada rests on the more moderate voters that can swing either left or right, but not too far either way. Once Carney stepped in, those moderates had a choice, and the fact is that Poilievre is too far right on social matters for many. His Trump-lite playbook with slogans and nicknames was not a good strategy when Trump was let loose, and Poilievre was too slow or incapable of pivoting.
I think you're letting him off too lightly. The right leader would have won it for the Conservatives.
Well the 'right' leader would probably have been Mark Carney IF he had run for the right party. He would've had a massive majority. But as Harper said, he's the only man who could say they both worked for him, and Poilievre is the one he supported, not Carney. Why would we trust a guy who's a Conservative when it suits and a Liberal when it seems more opportune? I prefer a leader who stands by his convictions.
Well, I would beg to differ. Even in the debates Blanchet never referred to QC as part of Canada. He consistently referred to them as separate entities, ie. "Quebec and Canada" making it very clear that he doesn't consider QC to be part of Canada. It is a 'nation within a nation' that has no allegiance to the rest of the provinces and territories and thus, I have no allegiance to QC. Its a separate 'nation'.
Because he's a fiscal Conservative and socially more progressive. So, he seized an opportunity that mostly aligned with his convictions. The Conservative party have moved further right ever since joining with Reform, and there's no centre right anymore. That's a shame because right-leaning moderates have no choice but to support Liberal or go much further right than they are comfortable with.
I don't think it makes Carney any less of a man of conviction than Poilievre. Do you really think a career politician won't change convictions to secure the vote? Idolizing a party leader and failing to see through their spin is how the US got into such a mess.
If Poilievre were to cross the floor, he would absolutely lose all support and respect from his party. He's not a Conservative because its convenient for getting more votes, he's a Conservative because the party embodies the values he holds tightly and has promoted his entire career - despite the headwind from every other party in Parliament and most of the press.
Not so with the opportunist apparently. He'll go where the votes are. I dont find that in any way admirable for a guy who wrote a book called "Values".
Thanks for your reply and explanation.
This is very interesting, and I think you are putting far too much on just one man and ignoring what is actually going on down there. Yes, he's a buffoon, but in 100 days he has caused incredible damage and been allowed to do things that should just not be possible. Regardless of whether he will be around in a few years, he has a lot of people in the background waiting to pick up where he left off. There will be a backlash eventually, but how much damage will be caused in the meantime, including within Canada?
But that was one of my points, Carney has actual past performance. He helped the UK through Brexit and Harper through the last great recession. And Poilievre? You mention he's a good bully, but what real successes has he got? None, nada. He failed to win the election, which was on a plate, and lost his seat. The Conservatives absolutely should have won that election, and it's a huge failure on Poilievre's part that he didn't manage to win it. But you seem to think that it's not his fault but rather some scaremongering from the Liberals. That's letting him off incredibly lightly. He failed when it really mattered, and I think that's a telling sign of his leadership qualities. We'll see if his uniting of the party lasts now.
I have been somewhat disconnected from Canadian news for over a decade, but this is the second time this week that I've seen a comment using the term Net Zero as if it were obvious to any reader that it's a bad thing. Do you believe that Net Zero is harmful to Canada? Is it caused by specific policies, or do you think the goal itself is bad?
Net Zero is indeed bad for Canada.
According to the climate computer modelling (something I have questions about as a former programmer) Canada emits 1.3% of the world's emissions. And only about half that comes from the oil patch. The oil and gas industry contributes over $70 billion annually to our GDP and generates $95 billion in taxes and royalties for gov nationwide, yet the entire oil economy is barely a rounding error in the modelling calculation.
But Net Zero extremists would gladly force us to shut down the entire industry, at a loss of thousands of high paying jobs, and cripple a major resource sector for the sake of what? Saving 0,6% emissions? The amount China and the US emit in 5 days? Make it make sense. Its irrational at best, cultish at worst.
And dont get me started on the "we all have to do our part" malarkey - there is NO logic in using a thimble to bail out a sinking boat when two troublemakers are using 10 gallon buckets to pour the water in and then claim that you're "doing our part". Actual commitment to "doing our part" would mean something logical like a gov that refuses to trade with the US or China til they clean up their act. But that would kill profits and its VERY clear that the "climate change crisis" is very much about profits, NOT the climate. Especially when you see Mark Carney's Brookfield Asset Management state that 'green' policies are the greatest opportunity to create wealth going forward.
Delighted for my Canadian friends, though I'm sorry your choices boiled down to a neoliberal banker and a Trumpette. I'd hope that PM Carney and the Liberals take to heart the compelling economic concerns of Canadians, and not just abstract macroeconomic policy.
From what I've seen, Canada has problems with media centralization under corporate and billionaire control, comparable to those elsewhere in the English-speaking world... any comment on how this might have influenced the election? [pinging back to /u/gowestyoungman's complaint about propaganda...]
Edit: my tone is angry. I am angry. I just finished speaking with my father. The question about propaganda hit a very central nerve.
This is an anti-conservative rant
PostMedia Network aka the disinformation machine that is responsible for the degradation of the relationship between me and my father, owns a lot of the Canadian media, despite the fact that it is American owned. Most of those media outlets spend a good amount of time bashing the CBC, which is owned by the government, and wants to shut them down.
I've yet to meet a conservative online or in person who is okay with the existence of the CBC, and I've also not met a conservative that doesn't whole hog gobble down every bit of slop that every single Postmedia outlet serves, without questioning a single thing about why American billionaires want them to believe a particular thing. I hate to paint with such a wide brush, but it is the truth.
Additionally, there is a broad subsection of canadian conservatives that also line up for whatever Rebel media is serving and gobble that down as well.
We are in the same trouble as the US, but maybe they just haven't hit critical mass yet.
We have some good media outlets and some pretty biased ones. In my opinion of the major national broadcasters, CTV News does a very good job of covering our national news with very little detectable bias. Its owned by Bell Media which is owned by BCE and they have a stated policy that they are committed to journalistic independence and operate under a policy that ensures non-interference from BCE. I can support that and I think its pretty apparent when you watch their main political analyst, Vassy Kapelos. She'll interview all of the party leaders and MPs and she asks the HARD questions of all of them. No soft pedalling for anyone, she calls them out on their sidestepping regularly and when they try to use political doublespeak she'll often say, "But you didn't answer my question, so can you give me a direct answer?"
On the other side we have the CBC which is supposed to be Canada's 'unbiased' public broadcaster. But Ive been watching and listening to CBC for over 50 years now and they are definitely NOT the same trustworthy broadcaster I grew up with. The biggest tell was when one of their primary producers, Tara Henley, quit her job because in her own words, she leaned left but in the span of 18 months the CBC moved so rapidly far left that she became one of the most conservative voices left in the room and it got to be unbearable. This is worth a read: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tara-henley-why-i-quit-the-cbc. Other examples: CBC went all in on the "256 residential school graves" story and its shaming of Canadians, but no bodies have ever been discovered despite 12 million in grants for that purpose from the gov. But you dont see the CBC covering THAT story. Or the fact that 33 churches have been burned to the ground in the last three years and there is almost no coverage of that travesty, nor any reporting on an investigation or any charges for any of the arsonists. It just 'disappears' because it doesnt fit the leftist agenda.
And yes the National Post leans strongly to the right. But then the Toronto Star leans strongly to the left, so you can pick your poison. I often go to Ground News (https://ground.news/) which actually graphs, for every article, how many left or right sources are reporting on each news piece. Always interesting when you can see that ONLY one side or the other is reporting on a topic. And National Newswatch (https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/) is a great aggregator for getting an overall lay of the land from all sides of the spectrum. And you can always listen to Peter Mansbridge's 'Good Talk' podcast, for some quality commentary on the news of the week.
I agree that independents like Rebel News are so heavily biased that they're not reliable news sources. Then again, we have Press Progress which is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the NDP and only publishes articles that consistently bash the Conservatives. To their credit however, Rebel News lives and dies by their subscribers so they are not sucking the teet of the Canadian taxpayer for their bread and butter, unlike just about every other news source in Canada. Those media subsidies need to end. How in the world do we ever get an independent, fair and unbiased reporting from a source that doesnt want to bite the hand that feeds it?
The only solution to the media bias is to read as broadly as possible and take all viewpoints and biases into account as you do. Just as important is important to go outside Canada and read what the international press is saying - sources from Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia and yes, even Russia and the US can often shed a helpful perspective on Canada's issues.
During the election, I found it very difficult to find any media articles that didnt cast the Conservative candidate in a negative light which undoubtedly had an effect on the outcome. Which makes sense when you know that one of his key promises was to defund the CBC (and by logical extension, likely defund other media outlets). Meanwhile the Liberal candidate said he would increase the CBC funding by 150 million, so which one do you think the CBC promoted the most? That's also the reason Poilievre was very careful about who he gave interviews too, which made the mainstream media howl in protest. They wanted more chances to grab another headline with a 'gotcha' moment or an accusatory question and he mostly deprived them of that so the fact that he garnered 24 more seats for his party was certainly not due to any love from the press. He was well aware of the challenge which is why his campaign spent a lot of money going around the press and appealing directly to the public on social media platforms.
At 74843 of 75479 (99.16 %) polls reporting, Liberals are 4 seats away from the seats required for a majority
They wont make it to a majority. But ironically, even with their meagre 7 seats the NDP could still hold the balance of power. Or even more stunning, so could the Bloc. Unbelievable.
Sounds right. Very interesting results nonetheless.
Early congratulations to all of my beloved Canadian Tilderiños of course. You know who you are.
Oh that's me!! :D hi TaylorSwiftsPickles!! *Waves frantically for attention~~
(I'm delirious with optimism and not enough sleep, trying to follow the Carleton race well into the morning.)
You can nap for thirty minutes at least until they start counting again :P
Phew.