|||| Canadian Election 🍁 Sorry |||| Liberals win plurality, stay in power.

[Dodger]

Looks a lot like American politics just mercifully much shorter tbh

[AbsolutSurgen]

On 9/22/2019 at 2:38 PM, CitizenVectron said:

 

In most places that will be the choice, as the NDP appear to be collapsing nationally and may only be competitive in 10-15 ridings.

 

On 9/22/2019 at 2:08 PM, Brick said:

So if I want to keep Sheer out, it looks like I'll have to vote Liberal here in Ontario. The current MP of my town is Liberal. 

Who should I vote for to keep Trudeau out?

 

My choices are:

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%	Expenditures
	People's	Hazar Alsabagh
	Green	Remo Boscarino-Gaetano
	Liberal	Iqra Khalid
	None of the Above	Steve Riley
	Conservative	Hani Tawfilis

Last election results were:

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%	Expenditures
	Liberal	Iqra Khalid	27,520	49.72	+15.34	$76,451.79
	Conservative	Bob Dechert	21,716	39.24	-7.35	$193,213.89
	New Democratic	Michelle Bilek	5,206	9.41	-6.74	$16,151.22
	Green	Andrew Roblin	905	1.64	-1.11	–

I'm thinking I should vote for "None of the Above".

[CitizenVectron]

I wish there was a way to vote for a party but also trigger a leadership contest should they win. I am voting Liberal since my MP is maybe the best in Canada (Ralph Goodale), but I want Trudeau out as leader. Even so, I would rather have a buffoon Trudeau than a malicious Scheer.

[CitizenVectron]

Also as an update to the election - Liberals now promising to introduce the first steps of national pharmacare. That is a good thing. Unfortunately it relies on provinces buying in...which they should since it would be free money...but some leaders here like Ford and Kenny are like the GOP where they would rather refuse federal money than improve their constituents' lives.

[Guest]

I sat next to a guy from Canada at the Astros game on Sunday, he had a long layover on his trip from somewhere in South America back to Canada and thought he’d catch a base game since there are no pro baseball teams close to his corner of Canada.

 

He said something along the lines of he hates having to apologize for what an idiot his Prime Minister is and as an American in 2019 all I could think was “That’s cute”.

[AbsolutSurgen]

13 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Also as an update to the election - Liberals now promising to introduce the first steps of national pharmacare. That is a good thing. Unfortunately it relies on provinces buying in...which they should since it would be free money...but some leaders here like Ford and Kenny are like the GOP where they would rather refuse federal money than improve their constituents' lives.

There is no such thing as free money.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There is no such thing as free money.

 

Yes there is.

 

-sent from my Obamaphone

[CitizenVectron]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I sat next to a guy from Canada at the Astros game on Sunday, he had a long layover on his trip from somewhere in South America back to Canada and thought he’d catch a base game since there are no pro baseball teams close to his corner of Canada.

 

He said something along the lines of he hates having to apologize for what an idiot his Prime Minister is and as an American in 2019 all I could think was “That’s cute”.

 

The major difference is that while Trudeau is a dufus, his government has actually been pretty good at implementing some good progressive policies, like the expansion of the child tax credit. He's basically an idiot with good intentions who does stupid things, while Trump is an idiot with bad intentions who does stupid things. One is more easily forgiven considering their other accomplishments, though is still not really forgivable.

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There is no such thing as free money.

 

Obviously it comes through taxes, but is also offset through the elimination of private/corporate drug plans. And the government in Canada (at the provincial level) already covers the vast majority of expensive drugs through the special support programs. I know this because my fiance has had over $200,000 covered in the last 4 years in our province (with a few thousand covered by her private plan). Basically, private plans will only cover you if the government will not...and the government will if you make less than $100,000-$200,000/yr (amount scales back as you make more).

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The major difference is that while Trudeau is a dufus, his government has actually been pretty good at implementing some good progressive policies, like the expansion of the child tax credit. He's basically an idiot with good intentions who does stupid things, while Trump is an idiot with bad intentions who does stupid things. One is more easily forgiven considering their other accomplishments, though is still not really forgivable.

I think we agree he is a dufus.  I think we disagree on how effective he has been.  The #1 promise he made was electroral reform -- which as far as I can tell, he has made zero progress.  As far as I can tell, he did very little to back up his promises to deal with climate change.  He did legalize marijuana though.

[AbsolutSurgen]

An old photo of Stephen Harper is being used to "play-down" Justin Trudeau's blackface:

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[chakoo]

I'm still voting liberal in the next election because I like my MP (Chrystia Freeland) and hope she possibly becomes the next party leader. 

 

Also Scheer's latest policy announcement today was just down right awful. It's just going to make housing more expensive and screw the market up even more. -.-

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, chakoo said:

Also Scheer's latest policy announcement today was just down right awful. It's just going to make housing more expensive and screw the market up even more. -.-

I'm curious, what are his plans?

[chakoo]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'm curious, what are his plans?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-housing-mortgages-1.5293794

 

headline says it all...

 

”Andrew Scheer promises to review mortgage 'stress test,' allow for longer mortgages”

[dualhunter]

My riding has a candidate for the Rhinoceros Party.

[dualhunter]

On my way home I saw signs for 2 different Green Party candidates with the last name Green. Hopefully they realize that that's not what the party is all about 

 

Turns out there are 2 more candidates named Green as well:

 

https://www.missioncityrecord.com/news/green-party-boasts-four-candidates-with-the-last-name-green/

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[CitizenVectron]

Really interesting stuff happening with the polls. Two big pollsters (Mainstreet and Nanos) show the overall numbers staying the same...but support for CPC rising in the west and support for LPC rising in Ontario. We could be seeing a repeat of Chretien victories in the 90s where the Liberals won entirely on the support of Ontario and Quebec. It's possible that Trudeau could theoretically win a majority with only 33% of the popular vote if a few ridings swing his way in tight races.

[CitizenVectron]

It appears from Nanos, Leger, Mainstream and Ekos that the Liberals are back on top (as in tied in pop vote, so ahead in seats due to vote distribution).

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Let's assume that the Tories win the most seats - would the NDP enter into a coalition with the Liberals to prevent them from forming the government?

[CitizenVectron]

2 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Let's assume that the Tories win the most seats - would the NDP enter into a coalition with the Liberals to prevent them from forming the government?

 

Tough to say. The Liberals would go for it...but a similar thing happened in the mid-2000s and the NDP (and Bloc) propped up a Conservative minority for two terms rather than out the Liberals in power. Legally the Liberals get first crack at forming government, but they'd have to convince the NDP (or Greens) that they deserve it.

 

The NDP did that in the 3000s because they thought it would help them grow...and it actually did, they supplanted the Liberals as official opposition in 2011. But then they dropped hard in 2015.

[dualhunter]

8 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Tough to say. The Liberals would go for it...but a similar thing happened in the mid-2000s and the NDP (and Bloc) propped up a Conservative minority for two terms rather than out the Liberals in power. Legally the Liberals get first crack at forming government, but they'd have to convince the NDP (or Greens) that they deserve it.

 

The NDP did that in the 3000s because they thought it would help them grow...and it actually did, they supplanted the Liberals as official opposition in 2011. But then they dropped hard in 2015.

 

Dropped so hard it sent them back almost a thousand years 

[AbsolutSurgen]

11 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Let's assume that the Tories win the most seats - would the NDP enter into a coalition with the Liberals to prevent them from forming the government?

There is no history of successful coalition governments in modern Canadian federal politics -- although the Liberals and NDP almost formed one about 10-years ago, but the Liberals backed out of the agreement while Harper had prorogued parliament.

 

IMHO, the only way a coalition makes sense is if the combined Liberal/NDP coalition would form a majority government.  And, it is hard to imagine a situation where the Tories have the most seats, and the combined Liberal/NDP coalition would get that majority -- largely because of the existence of the Bloq (and to a smaller extent the Green party).  In the most likely scenario where the Tories win a minority government, an opposition coalition would need the support of the Bloq (and perhaps the Greens as well) to form a government.  The Greens are unlikely to support it (without serious concessions), and no federal party is likely to want to portray itself as aligning with separatists.  That's before considering the practical considerations of forming a coalition, and how it would be viewed by the voting public.

 

The most likely result right now in this election, IMHO, is a relatively short-lived minority government (most likely by the Grits, rather than the Tories) -- followed by an election when one of the parties thinks they can improve their lot in parliament.  (But support can swing quickly and seat projections are notoriously bad from polls in Canada.)

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There is no history of successful coalition governments in modern Canadian federal politics -- although the Liberals and NDP almost formed one about 10-years ago, but the Liberals backed out of the agreement while Harper had prorogued parliament.

 

IMHO, the only way a coalition makes sense is if the combined Liberal/NDP coalition would form a majority government.  And, it is hard to imagine a situation where the Tories have the most seats, and the combined Liberal/NDP coalition would get that majority -- largely because of the existence of the Bloq (and to a smaller extent the Green party).  In the most likely scenario where the Tories win a minority government, an opposition coalition would need the support of the Bloq (and perhaps the Greens as well) to form a government.  The Greens are unlikely to support it (without serious concessions), and no federal party is likely to want to portray itself as aligning with separatists.  That's before considering the practical considerations of forming a coalition, and how it would be viewed by the voting public.

 

The most likely result right now in this election, IMHO, is a relatively short-lived minority government (most likely by the Grits, rather than the Tories) -- followed by an election when one of the parties thinks they can improve their lot in parliament.  (But support can swing quickly and seat projections are notoriously bad from polls in Canada.)

 

That's definitely one likely possibility. Right now the seat count points to around 160 for the LPC, 14-16 for the NDP, and 130-140 for the CPC. The LPC+NDP is enough to form majority (170 needed). Singh has already indicated he is willing to support the Liberals in a minority situation (over the Conservatives), but I would expect some strong conditions of course.

 

Historically, there have been no official coalitions federally in Canada, but there have been quite a few instances of unofficial ones where the NDP/CCF propped up a Liberal government for a while. The most famous would be Lester B. Pearson's two terms as PM, where he brought in universal healthcare. I could see the NDP propping up Trudeau (if the numbers added up) on the condition of starting universal pharmacare.

[AbsolutSurgen]

7 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

That's definitely one likely possibility. Right now the seat count points to around 160 for the LPC, 14-16 for the NDP, and 130-140 for the CPC. The LPC+NDP is enough to form majority (170 needed). Singh has already indicated he is willing to support the Liberals in a minority situation (over the Conservatives), but I would expect some strong conditions of course.

 

Historically, there have been no official coalitions federally in Canada, but there have been quite a few instances of unofficial ones where the NDP/CCF propped up a Liberal government for a while. The most famous would be Lester B. Pearson's two terms as PM, where he brought in universal healthcare. I could see the NDP propping up Trudeau (if the numbers added up) on the condition of starting universal pharmacare.

There have been lots of minority governments in Canada, but that is a very different situation than a formal coalition forming to prevent the party that won the most seats forming the government.

[CitizenVectron]

16 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There have been lots of minority governments in Canada, but that is a very different situation than a formal coalition forming to prevent the party that won the most seats forming the government.

 

Correct, and that has never happened federally. It has provincially, but not federally. It's perfectly legal (especially if they already were government), as having a plurality doesn't matter. In fact, the Green Party could form government if they informed the Governor General that they had the confidence of the house, and succeeded in passing a throne speech. But it's never been done because there's never been the correct situation. Well, there was in 2008, but Harper stopped it by proroguing Parliament. What is interesting is that if the Boris Johnson UK Supreme Court ruling had happened prior to 2008, there is a very good chance that Harper would have been held to the precedent (since Canada considers UK rulings to be part of Canadian common law) and would not have been allowed to suspend Parliament. I have a feeling that going forward, Canadian PMs will not be allowed (or will now not attempt) to suspend Parliament for political purposes.

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Correct, and that has never happened federally. It has provincially, but not federally. It's perfectly legal (especially if they already were government), as having a plurality doesn't matter. In fact, the Green Party could form government if they informed the Governor General that they had the confidence of the house, and succeeded in passing a throne speech. But it's never been done because there's never been the correct situation. Well, there was in 2008, but Harper stopped it by proroguing Parliament. What is interesting is that if the Boris Johnson UK Supreme Court ruling had happened prior to 2008, there is a very good chance that Harper would have been held to the precedent (since Canada considers UK rulings to be part of Canadian common law) and would not have been allowed to suspend Parliament. I have a feeling that going forward, Canadian PMs will not be allowed (or will now not attempt) to suspend Parliament for political purposes.

Correct, in order to demonstrate that the coalition had the confidence of a coalition, they would need to have the support of a plurality of the parliamentary seats.  In Canadian tradition, the Governor General will normally default to selecting the party with the most seats in Parliament -- so they would need to demonstrate they have this.

 

For the reasons stated above, I don't believe the Grits or NDP would be interested in forming a coalition if they had to formally gain the support of the Bloq -- and I don't think the Greens would support them without major concessions.

So mathematically, IF the Tories were to have the most seats of any party, in order to have a combined majority between Liberal/NDP -- NDP would need to win this number of seats: BQ seats + Green seats + Independent seats + amount Liberals are behind Conservatives + 1  (which I believe is unlikely).

But you're right, if the Liberals/NDP were willing to make a deal with the BQ, they could convince the GG to let them form a coalition government.

 

But this is all hypothetical anyways, I would be shocked if we got into this situation.

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Correct, in order to demonstrate that the coalition had the confidence of a coalition, they would need to have the support of a plurality of the parliamentary seats.  In Canadian tradition, the Governor General will normally default to selecting the party with the most seats in Parliament -- so they would need to demonstrate they have this.

 

For the reasons stated above, I don't believe the Grits or NDP would be interested in forming a coalition if they had to formally gain the support of the Bloq -- and I don't think the Greens would support them without major concessions.

So mathematically, IF the Tories were to have the most seats of any party, in order to have a combined majority between Liberal/NDP -- NDP would need to win this number of seats: BQ seats + Green seats + Independent seats + amount Liberals are behind Conservatives + 1  (which I believe is unlikely).

But you're right, if the Liberals/NDP were willing to make a deal with the BQ, they could convince the GG to let them form a coalition government.

 

But this is all hypothetical anyways, I would be shocked if we got into this situation.

 

Actually, the previous government always gets first crack at forming government no matter what. But they typically resign if they know they can't hold confidence. So if the CPC had plurality but LPC thought they could have NDP support to form government, the GG would have to give LPC first chance at vote.

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

It looks like the Conservatives have very little chance to win this election because lack of progress in Ontario.  The Reason?  Doug Ford.

 

[CitizenVectron]

41 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

It looks like the Conservatives have very little chance to win this election because lack of progress in Ontario.  The Reason?  Doug Ford.

 

 

That's probably the case. It will hurt them even more that an analysis came out today that says 10,000 teacher jobs will be lost in the next 5 years because of his cuts/changes to public education. Ford is also on video (released today) saying that he loves Trump, and loves Republicans. 

 

However, the one sliver of hope is that a Nanos poll in the 905 region of Toronto showed that Conservatives and Liberals are basically tied. It's a little bit old (taken starting over a week ago) so numbers have maybe shifted back to LPC since then, but if the CPC can take some 905 seats then they can hold LPC to slim minority, possibly.

 

Scheer was strategically correct in telling the Ontario PCs to go on a 5-month recess, and for Ford to stay out of the press. In fact, if Scheer loses this election, I have no doubt that he will blame the loss on Ford (correctly) for poisoning the conservative brand in ON.

[SilentWorld]

Maybe, just maybe conservatives are poison that’s why they always have to keep their goddamn mouths shut to have any chance of winning an election. 

[Brick]

After seeing far right politics winning again, and again all over the world (Brexit, Trump, Bolsonairo, Doug Ford, etc.), I'm just really hoping we can avoid that happening in Canada federally. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

The conservatives aren’t far right. In many ways they are further left than the US Democratic Party.