~*Official Canada Thread of Good Governance and Unnecessary Apologizing*~

[AbsolutSurgen]

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

He has no friends  

My recollection is that he won because of Alberta / Quebec.  The old school PC folks largely wanted MacKay.

[CitizenVectron]

6 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

My recollection is that he won because of Alberta / Quebec.  The old school PC folks largely wanted MacKay.

 

That's true, I'd forgotten. I wonder if MacKay will push to take over should O'Toole lose the election. I'd much prefer MacKay over almost any other alternative the CPC is likely to offer.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

That's true, I'd forgotten. I wonder if MacKay will push to take over should O'Toole lose the election. I'd much prefer MacKay over almost any other alternative the CPC is likely to offer.

I really can't see O'Toole winning the election.

[CitizenVectron]

Yeah I think he'll lose. The really interesting questions to me, are:

• What direction does the party take? Moderate, under MacKay, or a shift to the base, like Bernier (but someone different)?
• Does Trudeau attempt a fourth term in the future?
  • If he doesn't, who wins the battle to replace him, Freeland (heir apparent and new-gen Trudeau preference), or Carney, preferred by the old-school business Liberals?
• If the NDP make gains, I think Singh will stay. If they are stagnant, is there a push to oust him?

 

[silentbob]

O’Toole is nothing but a tool himself and so is most of the party/provincial leaders. I think if he looses badly, they would have no choice but replace him. If the Liberals win a majority, the PC party will probably wait out on changing their leadership and set up some interim leader instead. They will have 3 or so years to hopefully learn what the Canadian people really want in a leader, and then spend the next 2 years promoting the new guy for the next election. Maybe in 5 years most of this Trump mentality type of world will fizzle out too I can fucking hope right

[CitizenVectron]

Vaccination still going strong:

 

 

70-75% is not enough to reach herd immunity (likely need 85-90% with Delta, it sounds like), but it should be enough to stop massive outbreaks and spread in urban centres...and the vaccinated should be mostly safe.

 

Also, CPC issues getting paper pages in the US:

 

Opinion | Canada’s Conservative Party is in shambles - The Washington Post

WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM

---

The Conservative leadership can’t read the room — and even if they could, it’s not clear they could persuade the rest of the party to join them.

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

Vaccination still going strong:

 

 

70-75% is not enough to reach herd immunity (likely need 85-90% with Delta, it sounds like), but it should be enough to stop massive outbreaks and spread in urban centres...and the vaccinated should be mostly safe.

 

Also, CPC issues getting paper pages in the US:

 

Opinion | Canada’s Conservative Party is in shambles - The Washington Post

WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM

---

The Conservative leadership can’t read the room — and even if they could, it’s not clear they could persuade the rest of the party to join them.

 

FWIW, David Moscrop is Canadian that has very frequent opinion pieces at WAPO.

 

If herd immunity exists it is probably 90%+ fully vaccinated.  We're not on track to get even 70% fully vaccinated at this point.

[CitizenVectron]

58 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

FWIW, David Moscrop is Canadian that has very frequent opinion pieces at WAPO.

 

If herd immunity exists it is probably 90%+ fully vaccinated.  We're not on track to get even 70% fully vaccinated at this point.

 

Right now we're at 70% of total pop with one dose. If that doesn't rise any higher, then I'd expect around 70% first dose, 65% fully vaccinated (since it seems like around 5% don't get their second shot for some reason). However, I expect the first dosing to still rise up a bit over time, maybe reaching 72-73%. When you throw in kids in late Sept/Oct, then I think we'll likely get to near 80% with first, 75-77% fully vaxxed. Not where we should be, but I think it will be the highest in the developed world among larger (>10 million) nations.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

Right now we're at 70% of total pop with one dose. If that doesn't rise any higher, then I'd expect around 70% first dose, 65% fully vaccinated (since it seems like around 5% don't get their second shot for some reason). However, I expect the first dosing to still rise up a bit over time, maybe reaching 72-73%. When you throw in kids in late Sept/Oct, then I think we'll likely get to near 80% with first, 75-77% fully vaxxed. Not where we should be, but I think it will be the highest in the developed world among larger (>10 million) nations.

The amount of people not getting their second dose is higher than that.

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

The amount of people not getting their second dose is higher than that.

 

I am just basing it on what has been seen in the UK and US. Second dosing is still going quite strong, and people are just not getting it the first day they are eligible. I know a lot of people who were eligible after 28 days, but took until 36 or 40 days because of the convenience factor. I hope that is the reason for the gap, and that it will slowly close over time.

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I am just basing it on what has been seen in the UK and US. Second dosing is still going quite strong, and people are just not getting it the first day they are eligible. I know a lot of people who were eligible after 28 days, but took until 36 or 40 days because of the convenience factor. I hope that is the reason for the gap, and that it will slowly close over time.

It has averaged about 8% in the US.

My region breaks down the data by age group/by dose.  Second dosing is still going strong -- but only for the younger age groups.  Daily numbers have slowed to a trickle, with a large amount still partially vaccinated. (11% of over 80, 15% of 70-79)  Our 80+ largely got vaccinated in early March, and 70s the end of March.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I'd be shocked if Canada didn't have a significantly lower % not getting shot #2

[silentbob]

16 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I am just basing it on what has been seen in the UK and US. Second dosing is still going quite strong, and people are just not getting it the first day they are eligible. I know a lot of people who were eligible after 28 days, but took until 36 or 40 days because of the convenience factor. I hope that is the reason for the gap, and that it will slowly close over time.

Watching the Toronto news and all the pop up sites. The reporters say a good chunk of people leave before getting their 2nd shot because most don’t wanna mix dosages. Nothing but Moderna was really available for a bit and a lot of people wanted to stick with Pfizer. I think numbers would be better if we can supply what the public wants/needs. I believe Ontario is 68% first shots for 12-17 year olds

[Brick]

My sister was one of those people who walked out after learning the second shot she was supposed to get sad Moderna instead of Pfizer. I think she's finally been convinced to go back and just get her second shot regardless of what it is. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[CitizenVectron]

38 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

 

To say that any modern Prime Minister is in the top 5 or bottom 5 is frankly ridiculous. If we count the PMs that have served at least one term in our lifetimes (and have won elections), each was good and bad in their own way:

• Mulroney (8.5 years)
• Chretien (10 years)
• Martin (2 years)
• Harper (9.5 years)
• Trudeau (5.5 years)

None have been exceptional or horrible. Of those listed, I'd say that historically Chretien will probably come out on top as being the most important (1995 referendum, saying no to Iraq War, handling the deficit, etc), and that Mulroney will be considered at the bottom (mostly due to the deficit, GST, and his government's role in the rise of the BQ and Reform movements). But even Mulroney had some great stuff, especially his work on ending Apartheid and his stance on environmentalism. Martin was a small fish (though will likely be more remembered for his work in Finance under Chretien), though did at least pass equal marriage. Harper honestly will likely be remembered almost as a caretaker Prime Minister that didn't affect Canadian direction strongly one way or another, too much (mostly being stuck on a set path due to the financial crisis). Time will tell with Trudeau, of course, since he is still in office, but I assume he'll also be remember mostly as a middling PM who wasn't bad, shepherded the country through a crisis of his own, and perhaps for beefing up social programs. Who knows about climate change stuff, etc, time will tell.

 

Overall the last 35-40 years of PMs have been perfectly fine, and nothing too bad.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Don't forget Kim Campbell!

[CitizenVectron]

19 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Don't forget Kim Campbell!

 

She wasn't elected, so she's unlisted!

[AbsolutSurgen]

17 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

To say that any modern Prime Minister is in the top 5 or bottom 5 is frankly ridiculous. If we count the PMs that have served at least one term in our lifetimes (and have won elections), each was good and bad in their own way:

• Mulroney (8.5 years)
• Chretien (10 years)
• Martin (2 years)
• Harper (9.5 years)
• Trudeau (5.5 years)

None have been exceptional or horrible. Of those listed, I'd say that historically Chretien will probably come out on top as being the most important (1995 referendum, saying no to Iraq War, handling the deficit, etc), and that Mulroney will be considered at the bottom (mostly due to the deficit, GST, and his government's role in the rise of the BQ and Reform movements). But even Mulroney had some great stuff, especially his work on ending Apartheid and his stance on environmentalism. Martin was a small fish (though will likely be more remembered for his work in Finance under Chretien), though did at least pass equal marriage. Harper honestly will likely be remembered almost as a caretaker Prime Minister that didn't affect Canadian direction strongly one way or another, too much (mostly being stuck on a set path due to the financial crisis). Time will tell with Trudeau, of course, since he is still in office, but I assume he'll also be remember mostly as a middling PM who wasn't bad, shepherded the country through a crisis of his own, and perhaps for beefing up social programs. Who knows about climate change stuff, etc, time will tell.

 

Overall the last 35-40 years of PMs have been perfectly fine, and nothing too bad.

It is a little ridiculous -- but I am assuming they asked a specific question that limited the choices to modern PMs.  There is, however, a shockingly bad understanding of Canadian history.

In terms of best.  In the modern age, there is a very good argument to be made in the favour of Diefenbaker.  He named the first female minister, and did a tremendous amount to increase the rights of indigenous Canadians.  For all time, I would have to do some more research, but Macdonald, Laurier, and Mackenzie King all have to be candidates.

 

In terms of worst, I think Justin Trudeau and Chretien both have cases to make.  Justin -- for lack of ethics, poor leadership during the pandemic and the shocking increases in deficit debt (both relative to other countries in the world and vs. historic situations).  Chretien -- for some of his proposals on indigenous rights (before he became Prime Minister) and his handling of the Quebec separation referendum / subsequently agreeing to the distinct society clause.

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

I don't know why an element within the CPC is clearly trying to push the idea that Harper should return in the next month to lead them into an election...it's clearly not a great idea:

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

17 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I don't know why an element within the CPC is clearly trying to push the idea that Harper should return in the next month to lead them into an election...it's clearly not a great idea:

 

 

That was Maclean's.  Not an element of CPC.

Quote

We don’t spend enough time indulging hypotheticals. “That would never happen,” as a reason not to think about something, is given way too much room to run these days. Things that would never happen are fun and may be useful to contemplate. It’s in that spirit that Maclean’s asked pollster Greg Lyle what would happen if Stephen Harper led the Conservative Party of Canada into the imminent federal election. The answer, it seems, is: a lot. A lot would happen.

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

3 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

 

 

Polls are all over the place right now, it's crazy. The Liberals have anywhere from a 3% lead to a 14% lead, it's crazy. I think they are the overwhelming favourite to win an election at this point, but I don't know if they can get a majority. The biggest thing helping the Liberals is that Canadians don't seem too keen on O'Toole, but Singh is pretty popular, so could sap some centre-left support in places like suburban Ontario and BC. However, the article headline is correct—it's a series of regional elections, really, and that is what makes it so difficult for the CPC. Most of their overwhelming support is located in a single place (AB/SK/MB), and so the national polls make them look stronger than they actually are, whereas the Liberals are much more spread out over vote-rich areas (with enough lead to win those areas). Better to win 5 seats by 5% than 1 seat by 25%, effectively. NDP have it worst of all, of course, since they are incredibly spread out.

 

If I were the CPC right now, I don't know exactly what I would be doing. They won the popular vote by 1% but still lost the seat count by a decent margin. If the Liberals are even ahead by 4 or 5% (I would guess it's realistically between 5 and 8% based on all the polls, but certainly not 12%), then a Liberal government is a lock. Possibly a majority, but they would have to win a lot of close races to pull that off.

 

With the NDP having risen in the last few months (and assuming the current numbers are roughly accurate), I'd guess the most likely outcome is a strong Liberal minority able to be propped up only by the NDP or Bloc (not Greens).

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Polls are all over the place right now, it's crazy. The Liberals have anywhere from a 3% lead to a 14% lead, it's crazy. I think they are the overwhelming favourite to win an election at this point, but I don't know if they can get a majority. The biggest thing helping the Liberals is that Canadians don't seem too keen on O'Toole, but Singh is pretty popular, so could sap some centre-left support in places like suburban Ontario and BC. However, the article headline is correct—it's a series of regional elections, really, and that is what makes it so difficult for the CPC. Most of their overwhelming support is located in a single place (AB/SK/MB), and so the national polls make them look stronger than they actually are, whereas the Liberals are much more spread out over vote-rich areas (with enough lead to win those areas). Better to win 5 seats by 5% than 1 seat by 25%, effectively. NDP have it worst of all, of course, since they are incredibly spread out.

NDP don't have any credible way of winning an election -- or even coming remotely close.

The only reason for the Liberals to call an election right now is to get a majority -- if they aren't confident of that result, there is no point of going to the polls.

[CitizenVectron]

4 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

NDP don't have any credible way of winning an election -- or even coming remotely close.

The only reason for the Liberals to call an election right now is to get a majority -- if they aren't confident of that result, there is no point of going to the polls.

 

Oh for sure, the NDP only had a real shot in 2015 (and I think they could have done it in 2015 if Layton had still been alive, potentially, or if the Liberals had still had Ignatieff or someone similar). Ironically, what might hurt Trudeau the most is that people assume he will win. There are a large number of strategic voters in Canada (I count myself among them) who are happy to vote for either Liberal or NDP, depending on the riding (I voted for Ralph Goodale when I lived in Regina-Wascana, but now I will vote NDP in Regina-Lewvan). In the prairies it's almost always a two-party race, but in places like BC or suburban Ontario it's often three-way. So if you are confident a government will be elected that you are comfortable with, you feel easier voting who you really want (in this case NDP, potentially). So a bump of even 2-3% in Ontario for the NDP (and away from the Liberals) can be enough to swing a dozen ridings from the Liberals to either the NDP or the CPC. If, on the other hand, it looks like a right race between the LPC and CPC, then I'd expect the NDP to drop back down.

 

Honestly the same is kind of true about the PPC or Maverick parties in the prairies—they might get 5-10% in some ridings in AB or SK because some Conservatives don't like O'Toole. But if those ridings are close with the NDP (mostly in Saskatoon and Regina), you'll see them remain with the CPC.

[AbsolutSurgen]

8 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Oh for sure, the NDP only had a real shot in 2015 (and I think they could have done it in 2015 if Layton had still been alive, potentially, or if the Liberals had still had Ignatieff or someone similar). Ironically, what might hurt Trudeau the most is that people assume he will win. There are a large number of strategic voters in Canada (I count myself among them) who are happy to vote for either Liberal or NDP, depending on the riding (I voted for Ralph Goodale when I lived in Regina-Wascana, but now I will vote NDP in Regina-Lewvan). In the prairies it's almost always a two-party race, but in places like BC or suburban Ontario it's often three-way. So if you are confident a government will be elected that you are comfortable with, you feel easier voting who you really want (in this case NDP, potentially). So a bump of even 2-3% in Ontario for the NDP (and away from the Liberals) can be enough to swing a dozen ridings from the Liberals to either the NDP or the CPC. If, on the other hand, it looks like a right race between the LPC and CPC, then I'd expect the NDP to drop back down.

 

Honestly the same is kind of true about the PPC or Maverick parties in the prairies—they might get 5-10% in some ridings in AB or SK because some Conservatives don't like O'Toole. But if those ridings are close with the NDP (mostly in Saskatoon and Regina), you'll see them remain with the CPC.

There have been lots of NDP voters who have been willing to vote Liberal to prevent a Conservative candidate.

 

As someone who lives in a riding in the Suburban GTA, that is provincially Conservative, and federally Liberal.  I can assure you that there are a LOT of swing votes between those two parties -- most who would never dream of voting NDP.  I remember what an NDP government looks like (Bob Rae in Ontario), and have no intention of ever seeing anything like that again.

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

lol oh good, another batshit right-wing party to join the ranks of PPC, Maverick, and Buffalo.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

lol oh good, another batshit right-wing party to join the ranks of PPC, Maverick, and Buffalo.

It's better than another batshit left-wing party like the Communist Party or the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) parties... 

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

I still think it will be called for Sept 27, but we'll see!

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

 

Like, I get why O'Toole is low in BC, Ontario, and the Maritimes...but Singh is #1 preferred PM in AB, SK, and MB...the conservative heartland of Canada. Is it because O'Toole's not right-wing enough for those regions?

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

I think that's a pretty good estimate of where an election would land us, right now, a slightly-stronger Liberal minority.

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

 

The CBC continues to demonstrate that they have lost their grip on reality.

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

 

The CBC continues to demonstrate that they have lost their grip on reality.

 

Like, I get the point academically (that naming things after Columbus is incredibly dumb since he was a truly awful human being who has been whitewashed), but it's also not as easy as renaming a sports team or a school. Also, perhaps even worse, the article doesn't even mention the best alternative name—Cascadia!

[CitizenVectron]