Canadian politics thread

[supafamous]

[unit]

PP knows their base is made up of a not so insignificant # of trump supporters. he is trying to navigate how to be pro canada and not anti trump at the same time.. quite hilarious. all he can really do is watch his comfortable lead erode as the liberals are trying and not doing such a terrible job at defending canadian interests. the blame game continues for PP tho, it's what he's does best... its actually all he does and now he's taking aim at mark carney.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

So which would be the best result in light of current 'new world politics and economics' ?

1. Cons minority?
2. Libs minority?
3. Cons majority? (no one thinks Libs will win a majority so I won't include in option)

Bloc Majority

[supafamous]

Danielle Smith (and Doug Ford) are making it clear which team they are on with how they've bought into the false narrative that the trade war is about border security:

Twitter X

[Traum]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

So which would be the best result in light of current 'new world politics and economics' ?

1. Cons minority?
2. Libs minority?
3. Cons majority? (no one thinks Libs will win a majority so I won't include in option)

As much as I'd like to see a Liberals minority as our next gov, I also think that for the longer term health of Canada, a slim Conservative minority gov would actually be better, with the requirement that the Cons does something repulsive enough some time during its term to really piss off Canadians. And then the opposition parties vote down the gov in a non-confidence vote, and we head for an early election again.

The problem is -- if the Cons doesn't get a win right now, PeePee is still going to stick around as the Cons leader for at least the next round of election, if not longer. With Trump as POTUS in the next 4 years, the times are going to be difficult not matter who becomes our PM, and Canadian voters will very likely put at least some of that blame towards the next PM, regardless of whether it is justified or not. If PeePee loses the next next election, then there is a pretty good chance he would have to resign as the party leader. If the Libs can somehow manage to form a minority gov, PeePee is just gonna stick around and become even more emboldened to make another run for the Prime Ministership.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

So which would be the best result in light of current 'new world politics and economics' ?

1. Cons minority?
2. Libs minority?
3. Cons majority? (no one thinks Libs will win a majority so I won't include in option)

I don't think there's a good choice here but I think a majority is a necessity considering the turbulence we'll be facing in the next few years as Trump treats us like a real estate opportunity so my order is:

1. Lib Majority
2. Cons Majority
3. Lib Minority

I don't include a Cons minority as I don't think they'd be able to form a gov't - their policies are so far away from the Libs or Bloc that I'd expect the gov't to fall quickly.

I think the Liberals are a mess with a lot of debris that accumulates when parties are in power for a long time - Carney's going to have a big job finding capable new MPs and advisors but he should have a lot of pull to do that but it will take time. A minority gov't compromises him too much.

The Cons are just not a credible party - too much of their base are Trump supporters and they will not be able to defend us from Trump's attack. We're seeing that already - PP doesn't know what to say or do because he's trying to stay onboard with the Trump train but can't also defend Canada.

[6793026]

Originally Posted by Traum

The problem is -- if the Cons doesn't get a win right now, PeePee is still going to stick around as the Cons leader for at least the next round of election, if not longer. With Trump as POTUS in the next 4 years, the times are going to be difficult not matter who becomes our PM, and Canadian voters will very likely put at least some of that blame towards the next PM, regardless of whether it is justified or not. If PeePee loses the next next election, then there is a pretty good chance he would have to resign as the party leader. If the Libs can somehow manage to form a minority gov, PeePee is just gonna stick around and become even more emboldened to make another run for the Prime Ministership.

You're right. PP will be there for a while. He's much better than previous who ran. i've never seen PM elected into an easy 8 yrs. It'll always be tragic and tough. Yes COVID was unique but if it wasn't for Bush, Gulf wars, trump, it was COVID....

[whitev70r]

Originally Posted by supafamous

I don't think there's a good choice here but I think a majority is a necessity considering the turbulence we'll be facing in the next few years as Trump treats us like a real estate opportunity so my order is:

1. Lib Majority
2. Cons Majority
3. Lib Minority

I don't include a Cons minority as I don't think they'd be able to form a gov't - their policies are so far away from the Libs or Bloc that I'd expect the gov't to fall quickly.

I see your reasoning but I don't see any party forming a majority. Who knows?

But I think (not what I want) will be a Cons minority. I want a Libs minority if Carney wins leadership (which it appears that way). I want the Libs to be held in check. If for any reason Freeland wins the Liberal party race, I want a UK passport cuz between Freeland and PP ... or Trinidad for 4 yrs?

[Harvey Specter]

......

Speaking on his LBC show, former BBC presenter Andrew Marr said: “The British government may or may not try to stay neutral in Canada versus the US, but the monarch can’t… it’s all a bit rum.”

Mr Marr discussed the issue with Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London, who said the Canadian government may end up pleading with Charles to make a public intervention against Mr Trump.

Any such intervention would be made “very cautiously”, he told LBC, but said “it’s conceivable the Canadian government may plead with him, because it is known Trump is very impressed by the royal family, to make some kind of intervention”.

Professor Hazell said Charles would not speak to Sir Keir directly about the issue, but would instead consult the Canadian government about the situation, citing the split between the 15 countries of which he is head of state, including the UK.

Sir Keir has been reluctant to criticise the US president over its stance on Canada or his desire to take over Greenland, an island which is currently part of Denmark, an ally of the UK.

The prime minister is keen to maintain what has been a positive start to his relationship with Mr Trump, hoping that Britain may be able to dodge any targeted tariffs and even strike a trade deal with the US.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has accused Mr Trump of deploying “playground bully” tactics towards Canada, adding that “we mustn’t let Donald Trump bully the UK or our close ally Canada, who we share a head of state with.

“Trump’s tariffs on our Commonwealth partner are a shocking way to treat a country that stood alongside both the US and the UK during the Second World War,” Sir Ed added.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

I see your reasoning but I don't see any party forming a majority. Who knows?

But I think (not what I want) will be a Cons minority. I want a Libs minority if Carney wins leadership (which it appears that way). I want the Libs to be held in check. If for any reason Freeland wins the Liberal party race, I want a UK passport cuz between Freeland and PP ... or Trinidad for 4 yrs?

https://338canada.com/federal.htm

338 right now says the Cons win a majority and usually if you can get 40% support you can get it and they're showing up around 42% at the moment. I imagine a focused attack on them around how they're tied up with Trump and MAGA will knock a bunch of points off them and could bring them into minority territory.

If that happens I don't see how the Cons can form government as no one will support them. They have to win a majority while the Liberals can form a minority govt with NDP support (I don't know where the Bloc will sit on things). We could actually see a situation where the Cons have the most seats but it's the Liberals who form gov't.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by supafamous

Danielle Smith (and Doug Ford) are making it clear which team they are on with how they've bought into the false narrative that the trade war is about border security:

https://x.com/ABDanielleSmith/status...44632550216163

JT is just going to hire his buddy and give a fat pay cheque.

Smith is in a lot of hot water right now for taking bribes for goverment health contracts.

[Harvey Specter]

Too early to take any polls serious because we already know the Liberals and NDP will flood the zone with ads showing PP’s admiration for Trump and his various appearances with far-right media personalities. How much this will move the needle remains to be seen, but if Trump wanted to install a Conservative government in Canada, his tactics are having the opposite effect.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by supafamous

If that happens I don't see how the Cons can form government as no one will support them. They have to win a majority while the Liberals can form a minority govt with NDP support (I don't know where the Bloc will sit on things). We could actually see a situation where the Cons have the most seats but it's the Liberals who form gov't.

If the Cons can only get enough seat to form a minority gov, I would expect them to cater to the BQ to form a loose alliance. BQ has never shied away from an opportunity that could benefit Quebec and only Quebec, and they have always openly admit that this is how they operate. So as long as PeePee is willing to give into BQ at some degree of expense to the rest of Canada, the Cons will form gov if they have enough seats.

BQ has been doing this for 30+ years, so they know how the game is played. They know they need Alberta's money to keep leur belle province afloat, so they will only go far enough to upset some Canadians with respect to the disproportionate amount of federal perks they receive, but they won't actually get too greedy to completely piss off the rest of the country. And when the times call for it -- such as now when Trump is bullying us -- they will proudly identify as Canadiens aussi (unlike some of our next door redneck neighbours).

[whitev70r]

To my memory, federally, the party with the 2nd most seats won in an election has never formed government with an Alliance. The party with the most elected seats gets 1st chance at it, they can try to work with BQ (which I believe has happened in the past). Even if they fail, they usually go to the polls and not try for some sort of Alliance.

[68style]

Originally Posted by Manic!

JT is just going to hire his buddy and give a fat pay cheque.

Smith is in a lot of hot water right now for taking bribes for goverment health contracts.

Danielle also apparently couldn't understand that both Trudeau and Sheinbaum basically air handjobbed Trump with all their promises. A fentanyl czar at the border to oversee almost nothing when we have a paid team of experts over in China with the Americans working on shutting down chemical supplies at the SOURCE... yah that makes sense.

[rymack]

Curious as to understand how people on here define right wing ( right of center) vs far right. Someone mentioned far right media personalities..I’m assuming the usual cast of character between Peterson and Ben Shapriro would be considered by some here as far right? If so who do you consider moderate right

I personally see a polarization on both sides ( mostly media driven) that try’s to paint the entire “side” as being far left/far right. Who would you guys consider reasonable on the other side of things relative to your own position?

[rymack]

I should probably mention that I’ve voted left my entire voting life but was quite tempted last time to vote for O’toole as I saw him ( rightly or wrongly) trying to Drag the cons back to the middle a bit. And that if it didn’t work ( which it didn’t ) that we would see the cons pull further right.

[westopher]

Doug ford, Ken sim?
I mean I wouldn't even call PP far right, although he DID table a bill in 2007 to REVERSE MARRIAGE EQUALITY in case anyone forgot.
That's pretty far, but I think conservative milhouse has calmed down a bit since then. Not that it matters because in 17 years of politics he's never successfully had a bill moved forward.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by westopher

Doug ford, Ken sim?

In addition to the above 2, I'd also add Christy Clark to be right wing. Personally, I'd consider right of center to be a bit closer to the center than right wing, and I'd say O'Toole is right of center. But that may or may not be just my own definition.

Maxime Bernier would be far right. John Rustad would be solidly right wing, with certain things showing far right tendencies -- climate change denialism, anti-vax conspiracies, etc.

As another example, I'd label the BC NDP to be left of center, whereas I'd say Jagmeet Singh tries to make himself look left-leaning, more so than the BC NDP. Then again, I don't really know where Jagmeet stands, bcos I consistently find him too useless to present a consistent and coherent front on the left side of the political spectrum.

[68style]

American.. but I consider Jon Stewart to be left leaning centrist... he seems extremely reasonable on things and often call out Dems for stupid shit they do.

[westopher]

That video of Jon Stewart making that republican senator eat shit about gun laws is an absolute masterpiece.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by rymack

Curious as to understand how people on here define right wing ( right of center) vs far right. Someone mentioned far right media personalities..I’m assuming the usual cast of character between Peterson and Ben Shapriro would be considered by some here as far right? If so who do you consider moderate right

Very loosely, I think of Conservatives as the party of "No Change" - their name pretty much says as much - they don't want progress and generally will want to gently revert whatever Liberals have done as long as it doesn't override public sentiment too dramatically (eg. they wouldn't reverse something really popular/accepted - interracial marriage for example). Conservatives aren't static - they do gradually move with the times - they become less racist for example. Conservatives may include both fiscal and religious conservatives who have different notions of "no change" (like being pro-life or being anti-regulation)

OTOH, the Far Right seeks a reversal of the changes that have happened - they want a return to the way things were before and to reclaim what once was regardless of what public sentiment and current morals/values say or what science or facts say. They will often reference how things used to be and how it was better then - it's coded language for white nationalism. They often want to reclaim power they've lost - thus you'll see an overtly "masculine" set of beliefs (like Andrew Tate) or overtly racist behaviour. The far right is commonly associated with fascism due to the desire for control/power.

Liberals (small L) are the people of progress defined as more equality in all forms - more rights for everyone, more economic opportunity for everyone, etc. The more equality they advocate for the more left they are. Some think of far left being Communism which is different than Socialism - I think the latter is more accurate. Something that I'd consider a far left idea is universal basic income - it's a radical idea that would require dramatic change in society.

Originally Posted by rymack

I personally see a polarization on both sides ( mostly media driven) that try’s to paint the entire “side” as being far left/far right. Who would you guys consider reasonable on the other side of things relative to your own position?

Keep in mind that the media is invariably owned and operated by right of centre or right wing organisations/people so the reporting is inherently biased even if you consider that some claim to be left. The Washington Post, pretty centre in most things is owned by Jeff Bezos who recently didn't allow the Post staff to endorse a Presidential candidate for reasons of staying out of the fray - lo and behold Jeff is hanging out with Trump a few weeks later.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by 68style

American.. but I consider Jon Stewart to be left leaning centrist... he seems extremely reasonable on things and often call out Dems for stupid shit they do.

There's Jon Stewart the talk show host and there's Jon Stewart the private individual and I think the latter is very much left wing (at least how I see him) - both still rip the Dems for stupid shit but what Jon will talk about when people interview him or in more informal settings is very much left. He's just bummed that the Dems do such a shit job of being left (his interview with AOC was great)

I think of him as more left leaning than me and I think of myself of being right around the John Horgan NDP/Mark Carney Liberal of a voter.

If I were to do a left to right spectrum of politicians it might look like:

Jack Layton --> David Eby --> Horgan/Carney --> Trudeau/Chretien --> Freeland/Martin --> Mulroney --> O'Toole --> Harper/Christy ------> Ford/PP ---> Danielle Smith/Far Right

[Manic!]

PP may not be far right but he is to weak to control his party. harper use to crack the whip an they would all fall in line. pp can't do that. Multiple members of his party have also been seen wearing maga hats.

[68style]

There’s a lot of comments on that Danielle Smith X link above from purported Albertans saying they’d be happy to annex from Canada and become the 51st state…. I’m surrounded by morons and Russian bots.