Languish.org

I know we have a general interest Canada thread.

But let's use this for the election.

Without pics I cannot give meaningful input.

Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2021, 10:46:01 AM
Without pics I cannot give meaningful input.

Canada doesn't have any political parties led by a h0ttie.  :(

I don't know, Trudeau is prettier then most other countries politicians, male or female.

Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2021, 03:53:29 PM
I don't know, Trudeau is prettier then most other countries politicians, male or female.

He's definitely hotter than any other Canadian federal party leader.

Quote from: Josephus on August 15, 2021, 07:04:28 PM

Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2021, 03:53:29 PM
I don't know, Trudeau is prettier then most other countries politicians, male or female.

He's definitely hotter than any other Canadian federal party leader.

But the media keeps telling me how popular Jagmeet Singh is with teh yoots? :unsure:

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2021, 09:28:32 PM
But the media keeps telling me how popular Jagmeet Singh is with teh yoots? :unsure:

You should probably treat Josephus opinion on the hotness of Singh vs Trudeau as a reflection of Josephus' tastes rather than some sort of universal aesthetic truth.

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2021, 09:28:32 PM

Quote from: Josephus on August 15, 2021, 07:04:28 PM

Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2021, 03:53:29 PM
I don't know, Trudeau is prettier then most other countries politicians, male or female.

He's definitely hotter than any other Canadian federal party leader.

But the media keeps telling me how popular Jagmeet Singh is with teh yoots? :unsure:

but they don't vote :)

Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2021, 01:24:56 AM

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2021, 09:28:32 PM
But the media keeps telling me how popular Jagmeet Singh is with teh yoots? :unsure:

You should probably treat Josephus opinion on the hotness of Singh vs Trudeau as a reflection of Josephus' tastes rather than some sort of universal aesthetic truth.

You saying I is racilss?  :mad:

I never liked long hair on men.

Quote from: Josephus on August 16, 2021, 06:38:54 AM
You saying I is racilss?  :mad:

I am not :hug:

I am saying that since reportedly a number of people find Singh hotter than Trudeau. So Beebs should take your opinion as just that, your opinion.

QuoteI never liked long hair on men.

Which is entirely your prerogative.

I find that Singh's turban is too narrow.  I prefer a slightly fuller look for a turban, like Tim Uppal, for example.  Tim Uppal always chooses the richest of blues for his turban.  It might be my favorite turban in Canadian politics. 

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2021, 10:11:02 AM
I find that Singh's turban is too narrow.  I prefer a slightly fuller look for a turban, like Tim Uppal, for example.  Tim Uppal always chooses the richest of blues for his turban.  It might be my favorite turban in Canadian politics.

Has Trudau ever worn I turban, I wonder? And if so, what style was it?

Alas, we voted out our man with the golden turban.  It truly whirled 'bout his head like the dervishs of old.   :(

The Conservatives - if they win - will scrap the childcare plan and "send the money directly to parents" (by converting the existing child care expense deduction inot a refundable tax credit to cover up to 75% of the cost of child care for lower income families). Seems on brand.

Other elements of the Conservative platform, according to the CBC:

Robust role for government spending to prop up the economy thorugh the pandemic, with cash injections for businesses.

Increases the Canada Health Transfer by "at least 6%."

Tax credits on investment (of up to $100K) in small businesses, as well as Federal loans of up to $200K (with 25% potentially forgivable) to small businesses.

A one month GST holiday.

Doubling the Canada Workers Benefit for low income Canadians, payed as a monthly direct deposit rather than an end-of-year tax refund.

Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2021, 10:35:13 AM

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2021, 10:11:02 AM
I find that Singh's turban is too narrow.  I prefer a slightly fuller look for a turban, like Tim Uppal, for example.  Tim Uppal always chooses the richest of blues for his turban.  It might be my favorite turban in Canadian politics.

Has Trudau ever worn I turban, I wonder? And if so, what style was it?

Very fancy, and not appropriate for daily use. 

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5289171.1568999202!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/justin-trudeau-brownface.jpg

A GST holiday?  That might be the worst idea I've ever heard of. 

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2021, 12:45:03 PM
Very fancy, and not appropriate for daily use. 

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5289171.1568999202!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/justin-trudeau-brownface.jpg

Good to have you back :hug:

MacLeans has an overview of the different platforms by issue and party here: https://www.macleans.ca/rankings/2021-federal-election-platform-guide/

The NDP climate platform is disappointingly vague - they promise to set targets.  They seem much more interested in dealing with plastics, which is about .0001% of the climate problem.

The Conservative climate platform is completely inadequate - but what can we expect from a party that can't even acknowledge climate change is real.

The Liberal plan is going to throw a lot of money at things that may develop ideas (and actually I like the R&D spending) but really beyond throwing around a lot of money around there is not much there in terms of what they plan to do in the next 4 years.

The Greens are not an option even for a protest vote this election.

I despair.

I feel like there's a lot of things that'll get fleshed out over the next couple of days.  Otherwise, the Conservative platform is almost non-existent.  And we all know that the Greens don't really care about the election.  They're busy fighting each other over whether Jews should be allowed to exist or not. 

I'm concerned about people proposing emissions free vehicles.  Until the technology gets there, they're not really practical for many Canadians yet. 

Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2021, 10:35:13 AM

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2021, 10:11:02 AM
I find that Singh's turban is too narrow.  I prefer a slightly fuller look for a turban, like Tim Uppal, for example.  Tim Uppal always chooses the richest of blues for his turban.  It might be my favorite turban in Canadian politics.

Has Trudau ever worn I turban, I wonder? And if so, what style was it?

orange:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/02/22/trudeaus-india-trip-is-a-total-disaster-and-he-has-himself-to-blame/

Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2021, 10:58:02 AM
1) The Conservatives - if they win - will scrap the childcare plan and "send the money directly to parents" (by converting the existing child care expense deduction inot a refundable tax credit to cover up to 75% of the cost of child care for lower income families). Seems on brand.

Other elements of the Conservative platform, according to the CBC:

2) Robust role for government spending to prop up the economy thorugh the pandemic, with cash injections for businesses.

3) Increases the Canada Health Transfer by "at least 6%."

4) Tax credits on investment (of up to $100K) in small businesses, as well as Federal loans of up to $200K (with 25% potentially forgivable) to small businesses.

5) A one month GST holiday.

6) Doubling the Canada Workers Benefit for low income Canadians, payed as a monthly direct deposit rather than an end-of-year tax refund.

I like all proposals except #2.  I especially like #1, economically speaking, it makes much more sense since it achieves the main objective: get women back to work instead of staying at home to raise children instead of promoting wellfarers to use the service and pushing working families out of the system due to induced shortages of the program.  However, it's not going to be popular among most Canadians, and will be easy to demonize by opponents, as Trudeau has demonstrated right away. :(

Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2021, 01:52:49 PM
MacLeans has an overview of the different platforms by issue and party here: https://www.macleans.ca/rankings/2021-federal-election-platform-guide/ (https://www.macleans.ca/rankings/2021-federal-election-platform-guide/)

Libs:

• luxury tax has been ineffective everywhere else.  I doubt it will bring much in terms of revenue. It's a populist measure, like 90% of their platform.
• I like taxing properties of non residents.  I think it should be for all properties though, like the NDP proposal.
  
• Reduce the tax rates of zero-emission technology firms by 50 per cent: another populist measure.  Even the playing field by removing those tax credits on oil&gaz exploration instead.
  
• tax credit for cc projects: I like.
• Strengthen the Canadian Revenue Agency's ability to combat complex tax schemes.  The Conservatives had it right: small, dedicated teams entirely devoted to that issue.  The Libs scrapped that as soon as they gained power and instead increase the number of bureaucrats in the agency.  Net result: 0$.  Colour me skeptical.  They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by actively fighting this.
• Establish a $15 per hour federal minimum wage: No.  Fucking. Way.  That is not a Federal concern.
• Make it easier for Canadians to find unclaimed federal assets: so basically, they are announcing that they won't fight us as hard as they can to give us what we are owed?  Nice... (sarcasm)
• Make Employment Insurance simpler and more accessible, including uniform access to benefits across regions.  Back when the Libs changed it, it was to consider regional disparities.  better idea: give the money to the provinces and let them handle it how they see fit.  stupid centralizing bullshit again.
  
• Allow Canadian-controlled private firms to immediately expense up to $1.5 million of eligible investment: why?  the economy is already restarting nicely, they want to tax everyone a little more, but then they give money to large corporations?  Tyipical Lib shit of favouring their donors.
  
• Launch a National Quantum Strategy: Oh yeah! A totally new, nice thing to give money to!  Just a decade too late tp have any real effect...
• Regional Development Agency for British Columbia: What's happening with Pacifican?
  

Cons:

• introduce flow-through shares (a tax-based financing incentive) to make investment in small tech start-ups more attractive. (source (https://www.conservative.ca/canadas-conservatives-announce-plan-to-unleash-innovation/))Cut the income tax rate in half for new patented technologies developed in Canada.The first part has no real use, there is already a lot of incentives to invest in small tech start-up.  The problem is not with small tech start up, the problem is when they want to become large tech start-up from medium tech start-up. They get swallowed by American corporations/equity funds.  Access to risk capital to grow up is still largely limited to government financing in many provinces.
• Implement a new carbon pricing scheme: Their system is needlessly complicated.  A carbon tax for people that don't want a carbon tax.If the Cons want to be smart on this, they should propose to work with provinces to provide alternatives for those who need to use oil for heating to convert to natural gaz at the very least, if no other affordable options exists.  Or help provinces upgrade their energy grid while compensating those who already made the smart choices.  As it is now, even if you tax people who need to heat their homes and they switch to electricity in provinces where they burn coal, fuel or gaz (maybe?) to produce electicity, the environmental gain will be nil.
  
• Establish a Canadian Advanced Research Agency: Nice, but nearly a decade too late there too.

Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2021, 10:58:02 AM
The Conservatives - if they win - will scrap the childcare plan and "send the money directly to parents" (by converting the existing child care expense deduction inot a refundable tax credit to cover up to 75% of the cost of child care for lower income families). Seems on brand.

Look, as a parent, I think we've used pretty much every available form of child-care out there: formal day-care, nanny, informal day-home, stay-at-home parent.  Only think we didn't manage to use was extended family child care - and not for lack of trying.

It seems ridiculous to me that 100% of government child care resources should go to only 1 model of child care, and ignore all others.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2021, 04:33:53 PM
The NDP climate platform is disappointingly vague - they promise to set targets.  They seem much more interested in dealing with plastics, which is about .0001% of the climate problem.

Polar bears floating on little patch of ice is so passé.All the rage in on sea turtles now.

Quote
The Conservative climate platform is completely inadequate - but what can we expect from a party that can't even acknowledge climate change is real.

Un "tient" vaut mieux que deux "tu l'auras".(A bird in hand is worth two in the bush; if I trust Google...)

I prefer something real, albeit inadequate, to some vague promise that will never be implemented anyway.  Not like the carbon tax has produced any results.  Quebec has had one for many years, our GHG emissions still increase and there are still report from the auditor general's office that it finances many things with tenuous or no links at all to environment, or specifically to reduce our emissions.

Quote
The Liberal plan is going to throw a lot of money at things that may develop ideas (and actually I like the R&D spending) but really beyond throwing around a lot of money around there is not much there in terms of what they plan to do in the next 4 years.

they plan to talk a lot about it and remind us how evil the Conservatives are for nor adopting a tax hike on heating homes.
Basically, the same since 1993.

Honestly, I don't think the plan to ban single-use plastics is going to hold up.  There's a significant number of disabled people (who also tend to be low-income) who are going to have a very hard time without things like plastic straws.

Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2021, 08:53:50 PM
Establish a $15 per hour federal minimum wage: No.  Fucking. Way.  That is not a Federal concern.

• 
  

Fyi the Federal government has always, since Canada was founded, regulated employment standards for employees of federal undertakings.  You are confusing that with the regulation of non federal undertakings which is within provincial jurisdiction.

Jagmeet Singh attacks Jason Kenney on campaign stop (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/singh-sees-largest-crowd-of-supporters-in-alberta-attacks-kenney-on-campaign-stop/ar-AANvzLa?li=AAggFp5)

and here I thought we were having a Federal election...  I did not sleep much, this week, but apparently, I missed Jason Kenney's return to the Federal scene :P

So, basically, if the provincial Conservatives are of a paler shade of blue than the federal ones, they're exactly the same devil worshippers as them.  If howerver they are "true" blue, then it means the federal Conservatives are exactly like them.

Was it Murphy's law, it was called? ;)

I'd really like to see some real campaigning instead of fearmongering.

Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2021, 11:20:49 PM

I'd really like to see some real campaigning instead of fearmongering.

Alas , that's a thing of the past these days.

Quote from: Josephus on August 20, 2021, 07:24:36 AM
Alas , that's a thing of the past these days.

What do you consider "real campaigning", and when point in the past did it occur?

Real campaigning is going out and promoting your platform.

Viper is arguing that these days it seems to be, "vote for me, cause the other guy (or girl, or transgender non binary) sucks."

When did this happen? It's been a gradual shift over the last few campaigns, primarily picking it up from the U.S. style campaigns.

In this election, for instance, "Trudeau sucks" seems to be the general Conservative position.

Notorious anti-vaxxer and movement conservative Derek Sloan, having been ejected from the Conservative Party, is abandoning his Ontario seat to run in Banff-Airdrie against an eight-term CPC incumbent. 

He's going to get crushed, and I'm happy to see him get beaten.  I do not like the movement, and I think a guy who started his announcement off with a 'Make Alberta Great Again' slogan probably shouldn't be elected to anything.  It's unfortunate that Canada is more and more ceasing to exist, and we're fighting our elections around terms set by the United States. 

Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2021, 01:24:03 PM
Notorious anti-vaxxer and movement conservative Derek Sloan, having been ejected from the Conservative Party, is abandoning his Ontario seat to run in Banff-Airdrie against an eight-term CPC incumbent. 

He's going to get crushed, and I'm happy to see him get beaten.  I do not like the movement, and I think a guy who started his announcement off with a 'Make Alberta Great Again' slogan probably shouldn't be elected to anything.  It's unfortunate that Canada is more and more ceasing to exist, and we're fighting our elections around terms set by the United States.

Agreed on all counts.

Another thing that is alien to the Quebec reality. Good luck, RoC.

Quote from: Josephus on August 20, 2021, 07:24:36 AM

Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2021, 11:20:49 PM

I'd really like to see some real campaigning instead of fearmongering.

Alas , that's a thing of the past these days.

yeah, it seems so.  A former QLP minister once said that "campaigns ain't the place to debate policies and ideas".  Really.

This should gladden the hearts of our Conservative sympathizers: Twitter adds warning label to Freedland tweet where O'Toole is shown as answering "yes" to the question if he would bring for-profit healthcare to Canada, due to missing and important context.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/twitter-labels-freeland-tweet-manipulated-media-1.6149734

I'm not going to argue anything about this specific action, but the degree to which Twitter gets involved in the back and forth of competing claims and general political he-said-she-said is a pretty interesting development. Where do they draw the line? How much does the public care about it? How much, if any bias, do they exhibit? And will they expose themselves to regulation in return?

Insofar as the NS provincial election was decided on health care and spending positions, it looks like the federal Libs are moving to make sure they're not being outflanked on the left in a similar fashion. Trudeau (while in Halifax) has promised $6 Billion in federal spending for new family doctors, and - as my previous post reflects - the Libs are continuing to paint the Cons as a threat to medicare.

Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2021, 10:43:48 AM
This should gladden the hearts of our Conservative sympathizers: Twitter adds warning label to Freedland tweet where O'Toole is shown as answering "yes" to the question if he would bring for-profit healthcare to Canada, due to missing and important context.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/twitter-labels-freeland-tweet-manipulated-media-1.6149734

I'm not going to argue anything about this specific action, but the degree to which Twitter gets involved in the back and forth of competing claims and general political he-said-she-said is a pretty interesting development. Where do they draw the line? How much does the public care about it? How much, if any bias, do they exhibit? And will they expose themselves to regulation in return?

I think it's a very slippery slope. Note, I was against Trump being banned on Twitter.

Quote from: Josephus on August 23, 2021, 11:44:35 AM
I think it's a very slippery slope. Note, I was against Trump being banned on Twitter.

I agree it's a slippery slope. I am in favour of Trump being banned on Twitter.

Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2021, 10:55:31 AM
Insofar as the NS provincial election was decided on health care and spending positions, it looks like the federal Libs are moving to make sure they're not being outflanked on the left in a similar fashion. Trudeau (while in Halifax) has promised $6 Billion in federal spending for new family doctors, and - as my previous post reflects - the Libs are continuing to paint the Cons as a threat to medicare.

Incomplete and misleading statement. ;)
The Libs want to transfer 6b$ more, but only if provinces follow their specific rules.  It is ending most of the provincial autonomy on how they manager their healthcare spending.
Basically, same old Liberal crap.

You have to remember Viper. Our friends in the RoC keep electing weak provincial governments and then turn to the Federal to fix the issues.

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 23, 2021, 10:21:59 PM
You have to remember Viper. Our friends in the RoC keep electing weak provincial governments and then turn to the Federal to fix the issues.

:yeahright:

I live in Alberta.  AKA God's Country.

Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2021, 01:20:04 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 23, 2021, 10:21:59 PM
You have to remember Viper. Our friends in the RoC keep electing weak provincial governments and then turn to the Federal to fix the issues.

:yeahright:

I live in Alberta.  AKA God's Country.

Quebec: the Alberta of the east.  ;)

Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2021, 01:20:04 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 23, 2021, 10:21:59 PM
You have to remember Viper. Our friends in the RoC keep electing weak provincial governments and then turn to the Federal to fix the issues.

:yeahright:

I live in Alberta.  AKA God's Country.

Your government still depends on the Federal gov for their taxation.  I think it's because you love to complain you ain't receiving enough :P  Quebec has solved the problem 60 years ago ;)
We now some huge bunker-city, actually, it kinds looks like Metropolis in Transformers :P , to do our taxes. :cool:

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 23, 2021, 10:21:59 PM
You have to remember Viper. Our friends in the RoC keep electing weak provincial governments and then turn to the Federal to fix the issues.

I have heard governments in BC called a lot of things, weak has never been one of the adjectives.

The CBC has the following probabilities right now, based on the polls.

Quote from: the CBC
28% - Probability of the Liberals winning a majority

53% -Probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority

18% - Probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority

1% -Probability of the Conservatives winning a majority

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
I wonder what the triggers are for leadership challenges in the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives respecively.

If the Conservatives win the plurality of seats will they feel entitled to try to govern as a minority? Is there any way they could actually succeed at that? Or will it be relatively non-controversial for the Lib-NDP gov't to continue governing (assuming they in fact do have enough seats in event of a Conservative seat plurality)?

Trudeau may regret calling the election:

T

Quotehe poll, which surveyed 1,500 Canadians online last weekend, suggests 33 per cent of voters would vote for the Liberals if the election were held tomorrow — down three points from last week — while the Conservatives gained one point to earn 32 per cent of the vote.

The NDP also improved by one point and would earn 21 per cent of the vote, the poll suggests. The Greens and Bloc Quebecois remained unchanged at five and six per cent support, respectively, while a combined 22 per cent were either undecided, would vote for another party or would not vote at all.

Yeah, if the current trends continue unabated things could go wrong for Trudeau. I haven't investigated the CBC's statistical model, but they say there's still quite a low chance for a Conservative majority (though that could change, of course).

I don't think there's much question what will happen if O'Toole gets a majority (though I wonder if Trudeau will face a leadership challenge or not). What I am curious about, however, is how things will play out if the Conservatives get a plurality of the seats.

I kind of assume that they won't be able to find anyone to support them, but maybe they can? Would the BQ play ball? I somehow don't see the Liberals or the NDP propping up O'Toole. On the other hand, if the Cons get the plurality, how controversial would it be for a Liberal minority government?

I'm sure everybody here will be disappointed to learn that Bernier is not making it to the debates: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/five-federal-party-leaders-invited-to-election-debates-bernier-out-1.5556178

Also, apparently, the PPC slogan is "the other options suck."

Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2021, 02:14:18 PM
Yeah, if the current trends continue unabated things could go wrong for Trudeau. I haven't investigated the CBC's statistical model, but they say there's still quite a low chance for a Conservative majority (though that could change, of course).

I don't think there's much question what will happen if O'Toole gets a majority (though I wonder if Trudeau will face a leadership challenge or not). What I am curious about, however, is how things will play out if the Conservatives get a plurality of the seats.

I kind of assume that they won't be able to find anyone to support them, but maybe they can? Would the BQ play ball? I somehow don't see the Liberals or the NDP propping up O'Toole. On the other hand, if the Cons get the plurality, how controversial would it be for a Liberal minority government?

If the Conservatives win the most seats, but not a majority, they will be asked by the GG to form government.  It will then be up to the NDP and Liberals to decide if they want to trigger another election through a non confidence vote.  The NDP will likely not want to do so.  Politically it is better for them to have a minority government they can try influence.  Same with the Bloc.  The Liberals might be itching to get back to election mode but I think it more likely Trudeau will step down and they will start selecting their new leader.  Enter Mark Carney.  And the Liberals become credible again.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2021, 02:22:35 PM
If the Conservatives win the most seats, but not a majority, they will be asked by the GG to form government.  It will then be up to the NDP and Liberals to decide if they want to trigger another election through a non confidence vote.  The NDP will likely not want to do so.  Politically it is better for them to have a minority government they can try influence.  Same with the Bloc.  The Liberals might be itching to get back to election mode but I think it more likely Trudeau will step down and they will start selecting their new leader.  Enter Mark Carney.  And the Liberals become credible again.

So only the party that gains the most seats can form a government?

... I still can't wrap my head around that, after however many years.

Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2021, 02:26:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2021, 02:22:35 PM
If the Conservatives win the most seats, but not a majority, they will be asked by the GG to form government.  It will then be up to the NDP and Liberals to decide if they want to trigger another election through a non confidence vote.  The NDP will likely not want to do so.  Politically it is better for them to have a minority government they can try influence.  Same with the Bloc.  The Liberals might be itching to get back to election mode but I think it more likely Trudeau will step down and they will start selecting their new leader.  Enter Mark Carney.  And the Liberals become credible again.

So only the party that gains the most seats can form a government?

... I still can't wrap my head around that, after however many years.

The GG has some discretion if it is clear that they cannot form government - ie they will certainly lose the first confidence vote.  That is what happened in BC - the Liberals won the most seats (by 1) but the Greens entered into a confidence and supply agreement with the NDP which assured the Liberal defeat in the Legislature.  I don't see something like that happening in the Federal context.

Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2021, 02:03:47 PM
I wonder what the triggers are for leadership challenges in the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives respecively.

NDP: no real trigger, unless the score is abysmal, like below 10%.
For the Liberals: having a Conservative majority.  Back to square one, they'll let it pass.  Majority, now way Trudeau stays on.
Same for the Conservatives: Minority LPC govt, no change.  Majority LPC, O'Toole is most likely out.  If it's a very narrow majority, he might stay.

Quote
If the Conservatives win the plurality of seats will they feel entitled to try to govern as a minority? Is there any way they could actually succeed at that? Or will it be relatively non-controversial for the Lib-NDP gov't to continue governing (assuming they in fact do have enough seats in event of a Conservative seat plurality)?

Non controversial, I don't think so.  Legal, sure.  Controversial, it will be, because by tradition the govt goes to the party with the plurality of seats, unless there would be some kind of formal deal between the Libs and NDP to immediatly defeat the Cons.

Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2021, 02:16:53 PM
I'm sure everybody here will be disappointed to learn that Bernier is not making it to the debates: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/five-federal-party-leaders-invited-to-election-debates-bernier-out-1.5556178 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/five-federal-party-leaders-invited-to-election-debates-bernier-out-1.5556178)

Also, apparently, the PPC slogan is "the other options suck."

Yeah, last time, he sneaked in by providing a fake poll.  So sad to see such a great leader fade to obscurity... ;)

Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2021, 02:26:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2021, 02:22:35 PM
If the Conservatives win the most seats, but not a majority, they will be asked by the GG to form government.  It will then be up to the NDP and Liberals to decide if they want to trigger another election through a non confidence vote.  The NDP will likely not want to do so.  Politically it is better for them to have a minority government they can try influence.  Same with the Bloc.  The Liberals might be itching to get back to election mode but I think it more likely Trudeau will step down and they will start selecting their new leader.  Enter Mark Carney.  And the Liberals become credible again.

So only the party that gains the most seats can form a government?

... I still can't wrap my head around that, after however many years.

My understanding is that the Liberals, as the existing government, do have the first shot at trying to form a government. If it's clear they won't be able to have the confidence of the House they will forego that chance however (much like in 2006 when Martin lost to a minority Conservative government).  The BC example cited by CC was different because the BC Liberals were the incumbe t government there.

It's kind of pointless to speculate at this point because it will depend on the final numbers for all parties.  If Liberals + NDP is enough for a majority there may well be some impulse to form government even with a Conservative plurality.  But once you add the BQ into the mix things get dicier - that's what blew up Dion's attempt to form a government in 2008.

Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2021, 02:26:03 PM
So only the party that gains the most seats can form a government?

Theoritically, I suppose even the Bloc Québécois or the Popular Party of Canada (if one MP is elected) could form the government, if they were part of a coallition or formal alliance and they convinced the other major parties to let them rule and be the main participant in government.  Obviously, in practice, the party with the second plurality of elected MPs would not let a 3rd party govern.
Basically, when you meet the GG, as a party leader, you must assure him/her that you have the chamber's confidence.  If the NDP and the Bloc and the Cons all say they will vote against any throne speech by the Libs, then the GG will turn to the next party.

Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2021, 05:36:24 PM
My understanding is that the Liberals, as the existing government, do have the first shot at trying to form a government. If it's clear they won't be able to have the confidence of the House they will forego that chance however (much like in 2006 when Martin lost to a minority Conservative government).  The BC example cited by CC was different because the BC Liberals were the incumbe t government there.

It's kind of pointless to speculate at this point because it will depend on the final numbers for all parties.  If Liberals + NDP is enough for a majority there may well be some impulse to form government even with a Conservative plurality.  But once you add the BQ into the mix things get dicier - that's what blew up Dion's attempt to form a government in 2008.

That makes sense, thanks.

I'm just trying to calibrate my expectations for each of the different potential outcomes.

FPTP is a joke. Didn't Trudeau promise electoral reforms last time?

The options are depressing.

Look at my federal riding for the last 2 elections:

(https://i.imgur.com/f2JXR2u.png)

Liberal+NDP+Green beats the Conservatives each time, even in Alberta-lite where I now live.

Gives us proportional, ranked voting or 2 rounds of voting, something. This is dumb.

Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2021, 02:07:49 AM
Liberal+NDP+Green beats the Conservatives each time, even in Alberta-lite where I now live.

Gives us proportional, ranked voting or 2 rounds of voting, something. This is dumb.

Dude, the Conservative candidate in your riding won with 48% of the vote last time around.

You can not assume that Liberal+NDP+Green will always go together.  Back from my Reform Party days I remember the number of Reform/NDP voters was shockingly huge.  My own brother is a former Green voter now back to the Conservatives.  Voters are not nearly as ideological as you might think.

The one time I was a campaign manager in a federal election was in 1997 (I still keep in touch with my candidate over Facebook).  The Liberal Lloyd Axworthy won over 50% of the vote, destroying the NDP, PCs and us.  We knew that was what was likely going in.  But those kinds of margins are highly unusual.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2021, 02:06:19 PM
Trudeau may regret calling the election:

T

Quotehe poll, which surveyed 1,500 Canadians online last weekend, suggests 33 per cent of voters would vote for the Liberals if the election were held tomorrow — down three points from last week — while the Conservatives gained one point to earn 32 per cent of the vote.

The NDP also improved by one point and would earn 21 per cent of the vote, the poll suggests. The Greens and Bloc Quebecois remained unchanged at five and six per cent support, respectively, while a combined 22 per cent were either undecided, would vote for another party or would not vote at all.

Probably.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the same happen to Harper? Didn't he call an early election, believing he had the numbers on his side, only to lose to Trudeau?
Politicians never learn.

Quote from: Josephus on August 25, 2021, 06:00:35 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2021, 02:06:19 PM
Trudeau may regret calling the election:

T

Quotehe poll, which surveyed 1,500 Canadians online last weekend, suggests 33 per cent of voters would vote for the Liberals if the election were held tomorrow — down three points from last week — while the Conservatives gained one point to earn 32 per cent of the vote.

The NDP also improved by one point and would earn 21 per cent of the vote, the poll suggests. The Greens and Bloc Quebecois remained unchanged at five and six per cent support, respectively, while a combined 22 per cent were either undecided, would vote for another party or would not vote at all.

Probably.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the same happen to Harper? Didn't he call an early election, believing he had the numbers on his side, only to lose to Trudeau?
Politicians never learn.

Yep, deja vu all over again..  Harper called an election to take advantage of a new and seemingly unready leader of the Liberal party.   In fairness to Harper, Trudeau had given a terrible interview with Mansbridge and it was clear he could not think on his feet.  Once he ran out of his scripted answers he was dead in the water.  But it turned out the Liberals are good at writing scripting answers and Trudeau is good at memorizing them and staying on script.  Where the Conservatives really screwed up is calling an extra long election, thinking they could destroy the liberal party.  But that gave Trudeau enough time to recover from early blunders and come back to steal the election - from the NDP.

I won't talk about how badly the NDP screwed up in that election - your wounds from that may not yet have healed.  :)

Quote from: Josephus on August 25, 2021, 06:00:35 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2021, 02:06:19 PM
Trudeau may regret calling the election:

T

Quotehe poll, which surveyed 1,500 Canadians online last weekend, suggests 33 per cent of voters would vote for the Liberals if the election were held tomorrow — down three points from last week — while the Conservatives gained one point to earn 32 per cent of the vote.

The NDP also improved by one point and would earn 21 per cent of the vote, the poll suggests. The Greens and Bloc Quebecois remained unchanged at five and six per cent support, respectively, while a combined 22 per cent were either undecided, would vote for another party or would not vote at all.

Probably.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the same happen to Harper? Didn't he call an early election, believing he had the numbers on his side, only to lose to Trudeau?
Politicians never learn.

The 2015 election was 4 years after the 2011 election (actually 4 years, 5 months) so it was in no way an early election.

Conservatives knew they were in trouble (though as noted it was the NDP that was the main opposition). Conservatives called an extra-long writ period in order to try and give themselves extra time to turn things around.  Based on the pre-election polling Trudeau winning was a surprise, but the Harper losing not so much.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2021, 01:06:34 PM

Quote from: Josephus on August 25, 2021, 06:00:35 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2021, 02:06:19 PM
Trudeau may regret calling the election:

T

Quotehe poll, which surveyed 1,500 Canadians online last weekend, suggests 33 per cent of voters would vote for the Liberals if the election were held tomorrow — down three points from last week — while the Conservatives gained one point to earn 32 per cent of the vote.

The NDP also improved by one point and would earn 21 per cent of the vote, the poll suggests. The Greens and Bloc Quebecois remained unchanged at five and six per cent support, respectively, while a combined 22 per cent were either undecided, would vote for another party or would not vote at all.

Probably.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the same happen to Harper? Didn't he call an early election, believing he had the numbers on his side, only to lose to Trudeau?
Politicians never learn.

The 2015 election was 4 years after the 2011 election (actually 4 years, 5 months) so it was in no way an early election.

Conservatives knew they were in trouble (though as noted it was the NDP that was the main opposition). Conservatives called an extra-long writ period in order to try and give themselves extra time to turn things around.  Based on the pre-election polling Trudeau winning was a surprise, but the Harper losing not so much.

Right..it was just an unusually long campaign. I knew there was something controversial around it.

How accurately does this reflect the state of affairs in Alberta?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-o-toole-jean-alberta-conservatism-1.6153167

Can't tell you about how things are generally, but all of Mrs. CC's family living in that province, once conservative voters, are definitely not now.

Well I don't live there but having spent the last two weeks in the province, including a Sunday dinner with my cousin who is an MLA, it appears like Kenney has handled covid with a striking degree of ineptness. It's just anecdotal, but I could definitely see him losing to the NDP due to how badly he has alienated both the hard-right and the center.

Brian Jean.  Interesting...  It's a little odd for him to be calling for a more centrist alternative when his highest profile was as the leader of the protest party that was the right wing of the old Progressive Conservatives.  Given how poorly regarded Jason Kenney is in the province by almost everyone, maybe he can put something together. 

It's hard for me to say how things are in the province right now.  I stand at the intersection of a fairly politically conservative group in the form of my wife's family and my own friend group which tends to be urban professionals that trend towards the NDP.  Professionally, I know a lot of working people that will ride or die with the UCP because of how disastrous the NDP government was for investment in Alberta's energy sector.  In general, there doesn't seem to be much trust in anybody. 

Personally, the handling of Covid by the government is irrelevant for me.  My voting decision will primarily be made on the willingness of any prospective provincial government to handle the ongoing disaster that is the province's insurance market.  However, I don't think I'm all that representative, despite that being the most important issue that people are likely to face where the provincial government can actually do something.  It seems that many people get caught up with non-issues like climate change, American issues or wrangling over school curriculums and the like.  Despite my social conservatism, it'll be almost impossible for me to vote for the UCP in the next Alberta provincial election. 

Federally, there's no doubt that I'll vote Conservative, but that's entirely based on matters of identity.  The other two parties are opposed to my province, so what else can I do.  I don't really think the federal election matters though, since nobody is really interested in doing anything to try and improve Canada.  The country is just a cash register to them.

Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2021, 11:35:53 AM
How accurately does this reflect the state of affairs in Alberta?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-o-toole-jean-alberta-conservatism-1.6153167

I mean - obviously he's correct.  The UCP is in trouble.  They've been trailing the NDP for quite awhile.

I would argue with a couple of points the author makes though.  You can't dismiss the trouble Kenney is having with his own right wing.  The author points to the polling results of the Federal far-right parties (Maverick and PPC), which are nowhere, and then moves on.

But there is a Provincial far-right party - the Wildrose Independence Party.  In recent polling it's been anywhere from 8 to 20% in the polls.  That's not nowhere.

And that's where Kenney's problems come from.  His rural base is strongly taken with anti-Covid-restrictions.  My wife got quite upset with a bunch of social media posts from people from her small town home on the topic, and you can see it in the actions of some members of Kenney's cabinet.

Kenney's not an idiot, and he's not going to surrender to Covid-19 and "let 'er rip".  But in order to satisfy his right-wing base he has consistently tried to go with as light a touch as possible.  And that has not gone over well in my suburban Edmonton social circle, who is all pretty well educated and more worried about their kids safety, and wants more protection, not less.

The author's preferred policy of 'secure the right wing then tack centre' is far more easily said than done.

And Brian Jean taking over the Alberta Party is sheer fantasy.  Jean has always struck me as a very decent person but a lousy politician, and his suddenly moving to the political centre doesn't seem like it would appeal to much of anyone.


Myself I will almost certainly be voting UCP again.  The NDP shows no interest in fiscal discipline, and no interest in criminal justice (if I remember correctly their last election platform said all of nothing on the topic).  But those appear to not be the interests of many Alberta voters.

Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2021, 02:30:29 PM
My wife got quite upset with a bunch of social media posts from people from her small town home on the topic, and you can see it in the actions of some members of Kenney's cabinet.

Yeah, the things I see on there from my wife's aunts...

QuoteAnd Brian Jean taking over the Alberta Party is sheer fantasy.  Jean has always struck me as a very decent person but a lousy politician, and his suddenly moving to the political centre doesn't seem like it would appeal to much of anyone.

Yeah, I can't see how that would work.  The Alberta Party was created as a rebrand of the Liberals and attracted some of the left wing of the PCs.  I can't imagine that their existing membership would take kindly to Brian Jean. 

Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2021, 02:59:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2021, 02:30:29 PM
My wife got quite upset with a bunch of social media posts from people from her small town home on the topic, and you can see it in the actions of some members of Kenney's cabinet.

Yeah, the things I see on there from my wife's aunts...

QuoteAnd Brian Jean taking over the Alberta Party is sheer fantasy.  Jean has always struck me as a very decent person but a lousy politician, and his suddenly moving to the political centre doesn't seem like it would appeal to much of anyone.

Yeah, I can't see how that would work.  The Alberta Party was created as a rebrand of the Liberals and attracted some of the left wing of the PCs.  I can't imagine that their existing membership would take kindly to Brian Jean.

Maybe it will happen the way it did in BC.  When the Social Credit party was destroyed at the polls and the provincial Liberal party (who at that time were actually Liberals) became the official opposition, the Social Crediters just moved over to the Liberals in the next election and it essentially became the same old coalition Social Credit party with a new brand name.

A repeat from what I said in the Afghanistan thread, Trudeau says he takes no personal responsibility for failing to take out more people who should have been taken out.  If I were a Conservative or NDP strategist I would be finding everything Trudeau said to take advantage of the drowning of that little kurdish boy during the 2015 election.   A tag line of all talk or something like that might work.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2021, 03:48:50 PM
Maybe it will happen the way it did in BC.  When the Social Credit party was destroyed at the polls and the provincial Liberal party (who at that time were actually Liberals) became the official opposition, the Social Crediters just moved over to the Liberals in the next election and it essentially became the same old coalition Social Credit party with a new brand name.

This already happened to the Alberta Party.  They got taken over by the Progressive wing of the old PCs after the UPC merger.  The 2019 election was the first time they ran candidates in all ridings in the province, and their vote total increased fivefold from the 2015 election.

Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2021, 03:57:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2021, 03:48:50 PM
Maybe it will happen the way it did in BC.  When the Social Credit party was destroyed at the polls and the provincial Liberal party (who at that time were actually Liberals) became the official opposition, the Social Crediters just moved over to the Liberals in the next election and it essentially became the same old coalition Social Credit party with a new brand name.

This already happened to the Alberta Party.  They got taken over by the Progressive wing of the old PCs after the UPC merger.  The 2019 election was the first time they ran candidates in all ridings in the province, and their vote total increased fivefold from the 2015 election.

Ah, many thanks.  I can see now why it makes no sense for Jean to make noises about leading that party.

I was entering this campaign with the conviction to void my vote like I did 2 years ago. I am a Quebec nationalist and federal politics are relevant to me. Still, I will vote because it is my duty.

However, far from being an ecologist, I am a lot more concerned about environment than I was a few years ago.
On the other site, I just read a blog from a French CBC  journalist about O'Toole seduction program for Legault and Quebec. He named a few points that he would implement for Québec during a Conservative Government:

QuoteAugmentation des transferts en santé. Plus de pouvoir en immigration. La loi 101 appliquée aux entreprises fédérales. Déclaration de revenus unique. Ne pas intervenir en cour contre la Loi sur la laïcité de l'État. Financer 40 % du projet de tunnel entre Québec et Lévis.
Increase of Health transfer, more control over immigration, Law 101 applied to companies having a federal chart, single tax form (no more 1 provincial and 1 federal), no intervention against Law on Secularity (Laïcité), and fork 40% of the tunnel project between Québec and Lévis.

Except the meh (health transfer, financing Québec tunnel - I am against in the current form), the remaining proposals are quite interesting for a Québec nationalist. As we know the devil is in the details, It will be interesting how he wants to implement that. Other topic that will influence my vote for Conservative: their plan against Climate change.

So, TL;DR: I may vote Conservative IF.... :hmm: :ph34r:

Quote from: Rex Francorum on August 27, 2021, 11:22:32 AM
I am a Quebec nationalist and federal politics are relevant to me.

I am glad you recognize that -_-

He is not going to be able to apply law 101 to federal undertakings within Quebec without passing legislation in Parliament.  And he will not be able to do that without invoking the notwithstanding clause.  Both because of the contents of 101 but also because of its specific geographical application. The Quebec press should ask him about the details of how the Conservatives plan to do that. 

This moves me even further away from considering voting for them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 11:51:38 AM
This moves me even further away from considering voting for them.

CC I Love you man, but you were never, ever going to vote Conservative. :lol:

Quote from: Josephus on August 25, 2021, 06:00:35 AM
Probably.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the same happen to Harper? Didn't he call an early election, believing he had the numbers on his side, only to lose to Trudeau?
Politicians never learn.

One of my few absolutely firm beliefs is that most people really don't like politics and resent being made to think or talk about it or vote outside of a normal electoral cycle and will generally punish whoever makes them do it through a snap election (especially if it's just to "increase their mandate" or strengthen their majority).

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 12:03:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 11:51:38 AM
This moves me even further away from considering voting for them.

CC I Love you man, but you were never, ever going to vote Conservative. :lol:

Not true.  Before their convention I was giving them serious thought.  What really turned me off was the rejection of the resolution affirming that human caused global warming is real - a truism but one the party could not bring itself to accept.  The only thing that would have fixed that was a policy in their platform that addressed it in a serious way.  The platform is something that would have been great - 20 years ago.  But is now not near ambitious enough. 

Proposing to twist federal law in knots to create a special application of language laws is just one more nail in the coffin.  I have no difficulty with a province legislating within its constitutional jurisdiction.  The Feds have no constitutional jurisdiction to create special regional federal laws.  It is political pandering pure and simple.

This may be the first time I vote NDP Federally.  It seems to me the only valid option left. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2021, 12:08:24 PM

Quote from: Josephus on August 25, 2021, 06:00:35 AM
Probably.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the same happen to Harper? Didn't he call an early election, believing he had the numbers on his side, only to lose to Trudeau?
Politicians never learn.

One of my few absolutely firm beliefs is that most people really don't like politics and resent being made to think or talk about it or vote outside of a normal electoral cycle and will generally punish whoever makes them do it through a snap election (especially if it's just to "increase their mandate" or strengthen their majority).

To be fair to the Liberals, the strategy worked well for the provincial NDP party in BC during our last election.  The problem for the Liberals is that they are not nearly as popular as the BC NDP.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:12:16 PM
To be fair to the Liberals, the strategy worked well for the provincial NDP party in BC during our last election.  The problem for the Liberals is that they are not nearly as popular as the BC NDP.

Yeah it can work for sure - also I think if there's a hung parliament. But generally I just always think of Brenda from Bristol at the start of this clip who summed up the country's reaction to the 2017 snap election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6-IQAdFU3w
:lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:10:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 12:03:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 11:51:38 AM
This moves me even further away from considering voting for them.

CC I Love you man, but you were never, ever going to vote Conservative. :lol:

Not true.  Before their convention I was giving them serious thought.  What really turned me off was the rejection of the resolution affirming that human caused global warming is real - a truism but one the party could not bring itself to accept.  The only thing that would have fixed that was a policy in their platform that addressed it in a serious way.  The platform is something that would have been great - 20 years ago.  But is now not near ambitious enough. 

Proposing to twist federal law in knots to create a special application of language laws is just one more nail in the coffin.  I have no difficulty with a province legislating within its constitutional jurisdiction.  The Feds have no constitutional jurisdiction to create special regional federal laws.  It is political pandering pure and simple.

This may be the first time I vote NDP Federally.  It seems to me the only valid option left.

That's like me saying I would consider voting Green if they endorsed fiscal responsibility and nuclear power.

I mean it's true - I would - but that's never going to happen.

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
That's like me saying I would consider voting Green if they endorsed fiscal responsibility and nuclear power.

I mean it's true - I would - but that's never going to happen.

See that is why I don't believe O'Toole when he says the Conservatives will take climate change seriously. Ain't never going to happen.  As you say.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2021, 12:15:13 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:12:16 PM
To be fair to the Liberals, the strategy worked well for the provincial NDP party in BC during our last election.  The problem for the Liberals is that they are not nearly as popular as the BC NDP.

Yeah it can work for sure - also I think if there's a hung parliament. But generally I just always think of Brenda from Bristol at the start of this clip who summed up the country's reaction to the 2017 snap election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6-IQAdFU3w
:lol:

:lol:

I think she expressed the view of a lot of Canadians atm.

Has CC voted Conservative in the past?

Has Beeb voted Green in the past?

I think that informs the level of credibility of any statement that the were seriously considering voting for either party in the future.

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Has CC voted Conservative in the past?

Has Beeb voted Green in the past?

I think that informs the level of credibility of any statement that the were seriously considering voting for either party in the future.

We've been over this before - I'm VERY open to voting for different parties.  In the past I've voted for the Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives, the United Conservatives, Reform, Canadian Alliance, Wildrose, Yukon Party and once even the Libertarian Party! :P

With respect to the Greens... I think I mentioned this in the past, but my brother was moderately involved in the Green Party pre-Elizabeth May.  He made a reasonably compelling argument - that they were fiscally pretty conservative with a middle of the road stance on social issues but of course a strong emphasis on the environment.  The reason I didn't follow him there was at that time (mid 2000s) they were a fringe party getting low single digits in elections (and no MPs) and thus seemed very much like a wasted vote.

Under Elizabeth May the Greens went hard left.  I mean I guess I can't argue with them - they're far more successful now then they were 15 years ago - but they're no longer a party I would ever seriously consider.  My brother agrees and long ago left the party.


As for CC - having talked politics with him for 18 years now I believe he has gone through quite an evolution in his political views.  Again this is not a criticism of him, but the fact that he maybe once long ago voted for the Conservatives or PCs or Socreds or whomever doesn't necessarily shine much light on his voting intentions in 2021.

CBC's poll tracker (which aggregates different poll results) has the Liberals at 32.8% versus the Conservatives at 32.2% (NDP at 19.9%).  That's a significant drop by the Liberals (and corresponding gain by the Conservatives).

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/

That though of course is an aggregate of multiple polls, some taken weeks ago.  The most recent poll (by Mainstreet / iPolitics) has the Conservatives at 37% and the Liberals at 31%.  This may well just be a rogue poll - but it is in line with recent trends.  :ph34r:

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:41:43 PM
CBC's poll tracker (which aggregates different poll results) has the Liberals at 32.8% versus the Conservatives at 32.2% (NDP at 19.9%).  That's a significant drop by the Liberals (and corresponding gain by the Conservatives).

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/

That though of course is an aggregate of multiple polls, some taken weeks ago.  The most recent poll (by Mainstreet / iPolitics) has the Conservatives at 37% and the Liberals at 31%.  This may well just be a rogue poll - but it is in line with recent trends.  :ph34r:

Yeah, plenty of reason for O'Toole and his supporters to be optimistic. I guess maybe we won't get inexpensive daycare after all.

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 02:43:39 PM
Yeah, plenty of reason for O'Toole and his supporters to be optimistic. I guess maybe we won't get inexpensive daycare after all.

Child care is one of the issues I feel most strongly that the Conservatives are on the right track.

The Liberal $10 / day daycare plan is great - IF you want to have you kids in daycare, and IF you manage to get one of the spots (the roll out will take years and years).

The Conservative plan though benefits all parents with tax credits that cover up to 75% of child care costs for low-income families.

Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2021, 11:47:47 AM

Quote from: Rex Francorum on August 27, 2021, 11:22:32 AM
I am a Quebec nationalist and federal politics are relevant to me.

I am glad you recognize that -_-

:P
I meant not relevant. Besides, nationalist does not = independantist, per se.

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:52:06 PM
The Conservative plan though benefits all parents with tax credits that cover up to 75% of child care costs for low-income families.

Tax credits are vastly inferior to point-of-purchase price reductions if you're living pay-cheque to pay-cheque, which most low-income families are. Also, tax credits do very little to establish additional daycare spots, while direct subsidies to daycares per student provides a much more reliable business case for people looking to open new daycares.

IMO the Conservative tax credit plan is an attempt to sound like they want to help poor people while catering to the preferences of the comfortable middle class.

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:34:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Has CC voted Conservative in the past?

Has Beeb voted Green in the past?

I think that informs the level of credibility of any statement that the were seriously considering voting for either party in the future.

We've been over this before - I'm VERY open to voting for different parties.  In the past I've voted for the Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives, the United Conservatives, Reform, Canadian Alliance, Wildrose, Yukon Party and once even the Libertarian Party! :P

For those who might be fooled by all the names, they are actually the same thing - the most conservative option available to BB at the time.  Canadian Alliance was just a rebranding of the Reform party and the Conservatives are the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance.

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:52:06 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 02:43:39 PM
Yeah, plenty of reason for O'Toole and his supporters to be optimistic. I guess maybe we won't get inexpensive daycare after all.

Child care is one of the issues I feel most strongly that the Conservatives are on the right track.

The Liberal $10 / day daycare plan is great - IF you want to have you kids in daycare, and IF you manage to get one of the spots (the roll out will take years and years).

The Conservative plan though benefits all parents with tax credits that cover up to 75% of child care costs for low-income families.

Yeah that is just the point.  The Conservative plan will benefit those parents who can afford to pay for daycare and wait for their tax refund a year later.  So not many low income families will actually benefit.  The Liberal plan is much better if one wants to benefit low income families.  And especially workers, mainly women, who cannot now work because the cost of daycare is too high or it is unavailable to them.

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 03:19:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:52:06 PM
The Conservative plan though benefits all parents with tax credits that cover up to 75% of child care costs for low-income families.

Tax credits are vastly inferior to point-of-purchase price reductions if you're living pay-cheque to pay-cheque, which most low-income families are. Also, tax credits do very little to establish additional daycare spots, while direct subsidies to daycares per student provides a much more reliable business case for people looking to open new daycares.

IMO the Conservative tax credit plan is an attempt to sound like they want to help poor people while catering to the preferences of the comfortable middle class.

The Conservative plan will have those credits paid out over the year to cover objection number one.

Their plan is also heavily weighted by income.  One quote (from a CBC artcle):

QuoteOn Monday, Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole released his party's full policy platform document, which detailed that a Conservative government would scrap the $30-billion Liberal child-care program.

The Conservative platform document explained that the party would replace the Liberal system by converting the existing child-care expense deduction into a refundable tax credit to cover up to 75 per cent child-care costs for low-income families.

The party projects that a family with an income of $30,000 would receive up to $6,000 to cover child-care costs, more than the $1,200 they can claim under the refund today, and that a family with an income of $50,000 would get $5,200.

The money would be paid out during the year to avoid forcing parents to wait for their tax refunds to pay for child care.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/child-care-conservatives-liberals-ndp-greens-bloc-1.6144317

(which also covers CC's objection on the same point)

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 03:23:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:34:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Has CC voted Conservative in the past?

Has Beeb voted Green in the past?

I think that informs the level of credibility of any statement that the were seriously considering voting for either party in the future.

We've been over this before - I'm VERY open to voting for different parties.  In the past I've voted for the Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives, the United Conservatives, Reform, Canadian Alliance, Wildrose, Yukon Party and once even the Libertarian Party! :P

For those who might be fooled by all the names, they are actually the same thing - the most conservative option available to BB at the time.  Canadian Alliance was just a rebranding of the Reform party and the Conservatives are the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance.

Did you miss the :P?

Yes - I'm an ideological voter (which puts me in a tiny minority).  But it goes to show you I'm not a party-above-all voter.  Wat I care about are ideas, not party labels.

Have you done the math regarding how many days of day care $5,200 pays for? 

How does this remotely help the poor afford day care better than the Liberal plan? 

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 03:29:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 03:23:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:34:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Has CC voted Conservative in the past?

Has Beeb voted Green in the past?

I think that informs the level of credibility of any statement that the were seriously considering voting for either party in the future.

We've been over this before - I'm VERY open to voting for different parties.  In the past I've voted for the Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives, the United Conservatives, Reform, Canadian Alliance, Wildrose, Yukon Party and once even the Libertarian Party! :P

For those who might be fooled by all the names, they are actually the same thing - the most conservative option available to BB at the time.  Canadian Alliance was just a rebranding of the Reform party and the Conservatives are the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance.

Did you miss the :P?

Yes - I'm an ideological voter (which puts me in a tiny minority).  But it goes to show you I'm not a party-above-all voter.  Wat I care about are ideas, not party labels.

Of course you are, you have been a consistent Reform voter throughout your whole adult life.  It is just that the Reform party changes its name from time to time.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 03:32:12 PM
Have you done the math regarding how many days of day care $5,200 pays for? 

How does this remotely help the poor afford day care better than the Liberal plan?

Well for starters the poor get $6,000, not $5,200.  Which is $500 per month.  I seem to recall paying something like $700 per kid, so what seems like it works out pretty well.

And the other point is that the Conservative plan looks after child care, not day care.  Child care comes in many different forms - not only in organized and regulated day care spots.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 03:32:12 PM
Have you done the math regarding how many days of day care $5,200 pays for? 

How does this remotely help the poor afford day care better than the Liberal plan?

The daycare we sent my boy to is $1,350/ month which ends up at $16,200/ year. For arguments sake, lets say my family is low income and gets the full $5,200/ year. That leaves the cost at $11,000 year, which in turn is $917 month. For arguments sake, let's call it 22 working days in a month, that works out $42/ day.

With no subsidy, using the same 22 working days but paying the full $1,350, that's $61/ day. So a savings of $19/ day.

Conversely, $10/ day for 22 working days is $220/ month or  $2,640/ year.

Now maybe there's some trickery around the $10/ day figure, and maybe the Liberal plan will fall down in implementation. But $10/ day at point of purchase sounds significantly superior to $42/ day.

EDIT:

So $6,000/ year would reduce the monthly payable to $750, which brings the daily down to $34.

EDIT #2: Using the average Vancouver fee of $1,112/ month with the Conservative plan that then becomes $512/ month, which takes the daily down to $23 (assuming prices haven't changed since 2019).

Report on the average (median) daycare fees in Canada's largest 37 urban centres: https://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/20/03/progress-child-care-fees-canada-2019

Excluding Quebec markets (which already has the subsidy and comes in at $179 for infants, toddlers, and pre-school in all markets)

Five of the cheapest are (for infants/ toddlers/ pre-school):

Winnipeg ($651 / $451/ $451)
Charlottetown ($738/ $608/ $586)
Moncton ($856/ $716/ $722)
Fredricton ($850/ $727/ $690)
Regina ($856/ $680/ $620)

Five of the most expensive are:

Iqualut ($1,300/ $1,213/ $1,213)
Oakville ($1,503/ $1,327/ $1,210)
Markham ($1,541/ $1,285/ $1,180)
Vaughan ($1,545/ $1,327/ $1,120)
Toronto ($1,774/ $1,457/ $1,207)

For local reference:

Vancouver ($1,112/ $1,112/ $954)
Edmonton ($1,075/ $917/ $875)

These are all 2019 figures.

I guess it's evident that the tax credit that maxes out at $6,000/ year is significantly better for people who live in markets with lower daycare costs, and significantly less good than the Liberals proposed plan for people living in expensive markets.

There are probably political implications there....

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 03:45:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 03:32:12 PM
Have you done the math regarding how many days of day care $5,200 pays for? 

How does this remotely help the poor afford day care better than the Liberal plan?

Well for starters the poor get $6,000, not $5,200.  Which is $500 per month.  I seem to recall paying something like $700 per kid, so what seems like it works out pretty well.

And the other point is that the Conservative plan looks after child care, not day care.  Child care comes in many different forms - not only in organized and regulated day care spots.

50k a year in Vancouver is, with the cost of housing here, pretty much poor.

But that aside, the median cost of daycare in Vancouver in 2019, according to this article - which is the first google hit.  was 1400 per month.  Toronto was $1,685.  Edmonton was 975 (so it seems you are an outlier).

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/report-vancouver-still-among-most-expensive-cities-for-child-care-but-new-policies-offer-hope#:~:text=The%20median%20cost%20of%20full,and%20%241%2C000%20for%20a%20preschooler.

edit: Jacob beat me to it.  The Conservative plan seems tailored to appeal to their base rather than, as they claim, helping all people in Canada have affordable child care.

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 02:34:48 PM
With respect to the Greens... I think I mentioned this in the past, but my brother was moderately involved in the Green Party pre-Elizabeth May.  He made a reasonably compelling argument - that they were fiscally pretty conservative with a middle of the road stance on social issues but of course a strong emphasis on the environment.  The reason I didn't follow him there was at that time (mid 2000s) they were a fringe party getting low single digits in elections (and no MPs) and thus seemed very much like a wasted vote.

I'd been saying that for years. Despite what people thought, the Greens were fairly right-centrists. Yes, they switched under May.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:10:24 PM
Proposing to twist federal law in knots to create a special application of language laws is just one more nail in the coffin.  I have no difficulty with a province legislating within its constitutional jurisdiction.  The Feds have no constitutional jurisdiction to create special regional federal laws.  It is political pandering pure and simple.

How would your protect the rights of French speaking workers in Quebec then?

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:19:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
That's like me saying I would consider voting Green if they endorsed fiscal responsibility and nuclear power.

I mean it's true - I would - but that's never going to happen.

See that is why I don't believe O'Toole when he says the Conservatives will take climate change seriously. Ain't never going to happen.  As you say.

Which party takes global warming seriously?
Which party has ever taken global warming seriously, with realistic, concrete proposals to be implemented/implemented once they won the election?

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 02:43:39 PM
Yeah, plenty of reason for O'Toole and his supporters to be optimistic. I guess maybe we won't get inexpensive daycare after all.

Would you rather pay for one place at 30$/day with a 20$ tax credit or 3 places (for one unborn kid) at 10$/day, no tax credit?

Most parents here reserve -and pay- for at least 2 places for their kids, before they are born.  7$/day.  And even at this minimum, it's cheaper in the long run to pay the full price (20-25$/day/child) and take the tax credits. And you only need one place, since the private has no shortage of places.  Unlike the public, always in shortage.

Beware of Libs bearing gifts.  ;)

Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2021, 10:24:14 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 02:43:39 PM
Yeah, plenty of reason for O'Toole and his supporters to be optimistic. I guess maybe we won't get inexpensive daycare after all.

Would you rather pay for one place at 30$/day with a 20$ tax credit or 3 places (for one unborn kid) at 10$/day, no tax credit?

Most parents here reserve -and pay- for at least 2 places for their kids, before they are born.  7$/day.  And even at this minimum, it's cheaper in the long run to pay the full price (20-25$/day/child) and take the tax credits. And you only need one place, since the private has no shortage of places.  Unlike the public, always in shortage.

Beware of Libs bearing gifts.  ;)

You can't afford 30 a day. You can only afford 10 a day. What do you do?

Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2021, 10:16:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:10:24 PM
Proposing to twist federal law in knots to create a special application of language laws is just one more nail in the coffin.  I have no difficulty with a province legislating within its constitutional jurisdiction.  The Feds have no constitutional jurisdiction to create special regional federal laws.  It is political pandering pure and simple.

How would your protect the rights of French speaking workers in Quebec then?

Did you read the second sentence in my post?

Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2021, 10:19:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:19:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
That's like me saying I would consider voting Green if they endorsed fiscal responsibility and nuclear power.

I mean it's true - I would - but that's never going to happen.

See that is why I don't believe O'Toole when he says the Conservatives will take climate change seriously. Ain't never going to happen.  As you say.

Which party takes global warming seriously?
Which party has ever taken global warming seriously, with realistic, concrete proposals to be implemented/implemented once they won the election?

What do you mean by seriously?  The Liberal party created a nation wide carbon tax and with the other enhancements to their policy platform are widely regarded by the scientific community as the party with the most credible plan. Go back and read the Globe and Mail analysis one or two weeks ago if you are interested.

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 28, 2021, 04:26:21 PM
You can't afford 30 a day. You can only afford 10 a day. What do you do?

In the end, it cost lest.  If you absolutely can't afford it immediatlty and wait for the tax credit/child care payement 4 momths later, then you find a less costly alternative until you can, or you find a better job.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
What do you mean by seriously?  The Liberal party created a nation wide carbon tax

Very nice thing.  Everything costs more, but our carbon emissions have increased, while other OECD countries have seen theirs go down.

How are they serious about it?

Quote
and with the other enhancements to their policy platform are widely regarded by the scientific community as the party with the most credible plan. Go back and read the Globe and Mail analysis one or two weeks ago if you are interested.

they've been regarded as the party witht he most credible plan since 1993.  How have our emissions gone since then?

Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2021, 08:32:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
What do you mean by seriously?  The Liberal party created a nation wide carbon tax

Very nice thing.  Everything costs more, but our carbon emissions have increased, while other OECD countries have seen theirs go down.

How are they serious about it?

Quote
and with the other enhancements to their policy platform are widely regarded by the scientific community as the party with the most credible plan. Go back and read the Globe and Mail analysis one or two weeks ago if you are interested.

they've been regarded as the party witht he most credible plan since 1993.  How have our emissions gone since then?

So by serious you meant policies that you agree with?

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2021, 12:22:50 AM

So by serious you meant policies that you agree with?

Policies that are implemented and effective.  The carbon tax in itself does not do anything, unless you jack it up 10x.  Demand for oil is inelastic.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 04:35:06 PM
edit: Jacob beat me to it.  The Conservative plan seems tailored to appeal to their base rather than, as they claim, helping all people in Canada have affordable child care.

If the people of Canada truly wanted affordable child care, they would already have provincial programs for this.  But since you all rely on the Feds to do something about every single problem in your provinces, here we go.

Unless the Feds modulate their program to tailor the reality of every area in Canada, there'll be no such thing as a universal, affordable daycare program.  The cost of a daycare in Vancouver ain't the same as in my hometown. Either you give too much to one, or not enough to another.

What's the deal with Jagmeet Singh? How delusional is the idea that he could end up prime minister as part of a deal with liberals in a split parliament?

Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2021, 05:18:31 AM
What's the deal with Jagmeet Singh? How delusional is the idea that he could end up prime minister as part of a deal with liberals in a split parliament?

100%. If Singh is PM it will be because the NDP has won the plurality of seats. There will be no formal deals.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2021, 05:18:31 AM
What's the deal with Jagmeet Singh? How delusional is the idea that he could end up prime minister as part of a deal with liberals in a split parliament?

You may have misunderstood an answer he gave to a question of whether he would support a Conservative minority government.  He answered that he was running to become PM (which means winning a plurality of seats).  But he did again confirm that if the Conservatives had a minority government he did not see how he could support it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 03:32:12 PM
How does this remotely help the poor afford day care better than the Liberal plan? 

Non working poor do not need access to daycare, unless they are actively seeking a job.

Working poor certainly need access to daycare, but among these, even at 7$ or 5$ a day, if they have many children (like >2), if they're going to work at close to minimum wage, it's often better for one of the parent (usually the mom) to stay home with the kids.  Financial/fiscal help from the governments will often make that more advantageous.  In the case of someone I know, combined family income would put them at 7-8$/day for daycare, for 5 kids.  If she stays home, she saves the daycare costs and she gets increase family allocations.

There are certainly better ways to help low income workers than access to relatively cheap daycare that will most likely never materialize in many areas due to shortage of places.  And again, paying 2x 10$ for the kid before it is even born kinda negates the benefits.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2021, 05:49:20 PM

Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2021, 10:16:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2021, 12:10:24 PM
Proposing to twist federal law in knots to create a special application of language laws is just one more nail in the coffin.  I have no difficulty with a province legislating within its constitutional jurisdiction.  The Feds have no constitutional jurisdiction to create special regional federal laws.  It is political pandering pure and simple.

How would your protect the rights of French speaking workers in Quebec then?

Did you read the second sentence in my post?

It does not address how to protect the rights of French speaking workers in Quebec.  And I still haven't seen anything from any party to protect the rights of French speaking workers across Canada.

In Manitoba, the head of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and the head of another organization that represents northern Manitoba first nations, endorse the Liberal candidate in the northern riding of Churchill.  A big part of their reasoning is that the Liberal candidate is first nations, while the NDP MP (Niki Ashton) is not.

So far nothing too unusual.

What was unusual was they did so standing in front of Jagmeet Singh at an NDP-organized event.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first-nations-leader-endorse-liberal-candidate-1.6159401?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

That's a bit funny.  I'm sure it was extreme galling for Niki Ashton.  If she could find a way to become non-white, she would have already. 

Kind of a jerk move. But funny too.

Quote from: Jacob on August 31, 2021, 01:22:32 PM
Kind of a jerk move. But funny too.

I think it kind of reflects badly on the NDP's advance planning for an event like this.

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 01:26:34 PM
I think it kind of reflects badly on the NDP's advance planning for an event like this.

It doesn't reflect well on anyone involved including - as you say - the NDP.

Quote from: Jacob on August 31, 2021, 02:03:25 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 01:26:34 PM
I think it kind of reflects badly on the NDP's advance planning for an event like this.

It doesn't reflect well on anyone involved including - as you say - the NDP.

I think it depends on what was said in advance by both sides, but it's not necessarily a jerk move by the two chiefs involved if they were never asked what they were going to say.

Making their endorsement in this fashion gives it, oh, 100x more impact than if they had announced it on their own.

And remember - I've got no horse in this race (since you seem to think everything I say is through a partisan lens).  If anything I want the NDP to do better to eat into Liberal support.


On another point I'd a little distressed the PPC are doing so "well" (at 4-5%).  If you assume most of those voters would otherwise vote Conservative that could be a huge difference in an otherwise tight race.  Mostly just rabid anti-vaxxers?

It is funny though that the CBC at least has them listed as "Other", while the Greens (who are polling at 2%) get listed separately.

If the PPC ever get an MP elected, maybe they'd get to be distinct too.  At least the Greens can say that, although it'll probably decline as the party wastes away into self-destruction. 

As it stands, the PPC just a haven for antisocial movement conservatives. 

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 02:08:53 PM
And remember - I've got no horse in this race (since you seem to think everything I say is through a partisan lens).  If anything I want the NDP to do better to eat into Liberal support.

How is that not partisan? :P

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 01:26:34 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 31, 2021, 01:22:32 PM
Kind of a jerk move. But funny too.

I think it kind of reflects badly on the NDP's advance planning for an event like this.

Yeah, the first speaker tried to cushion the blow a bit by saying it was the policy of the organization to support indigenous candidates - the NDP really dropped the ball not knowing that.  And underscored the reason why the organizations support indigenous candidates, who would have known that...

Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2021, 03:48:59 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 02:08:53 PM
And remember - I've got no horse in this race (since you seem to think everything I say is through a partisan lens).  If anything I want the NDP to do better to eat into Liberal support.

How is that not partisan? :P

That is about a close to non partisan as BB gets  :D

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 02:08:53 PM
I think it depends on what was said in advance by both sides, but it's not necessarily a jerk move by the two chiefs involved if they were never asked what they were going to say.

I think those chiefs have enough political acumen to know that saying "we're endorsing another candidate" at a party event is a bit of a "fuck you."

QuoteMaking their endorsement in this fashion gives it, oh, 100x more impact than if they had announced it on their own.

For sure.

QuoteAnd remember - I've got no horse in this race (since you seem to think everything I say is through a partisan lens).

:huh: ... I think you're applying your own lens to my words.

QuoteIf anything I want the NDP to do better to eat into Liberal support.

... but wait... now you are applying a partisan lens...  :lol: :hug:

QuoteOn another point I'd a little distressed the PPC are doing so "well" (at 4-5%).  If you assume most of those voters would otherwise vote Conservative that could be a huge difference in an otherwise tight race.  Mostly just rabid anti-vaxxers?

Yeah probably the hard core of anti-vaxxers, white supremacists, and other hard regressives. You'd probably lose significantly more in the centre if you did what it'd take to get them on board.

QuoteIt is funny though that the CBC at least has them listed as "Other", while the Greens (who are polling at 2%) get listed separately.

Based on who got invited to the leaders debate, I'm assuming.

Quote from: Jacob on August 31, 2021, 03:58:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 02:08:53 PM
I think it depends on what was said in advance by both sides, but it's not necessarily a jerk move by the two chiefs involved if they were never asked what they were going to say.

I think those chiefs have enough political acumen to know that saying "we're endorsing another candidate" at a party event is a bit of a "fuck you."

[/quote]

I'm sure it is - I just don't think it reflects badly on the chiefs as you say.

All kinds of moves against your political opponents can be seen as a "fuck you" - but if they're effective then good for you.

So the last couple of days political news has been about these anti-mask protests at each of Trudeau's political stops.  The protestors have been quite graphic, rude and even threatening.

Does this move the political dial?  On the one hand the causes the protestors are supporting (anti-mask, anti-vaccine) are not popular, so by allowing to present himself as being pro-mask and pro-vaccine might help him.  But on two other hands - can he really tie the protestors to the Conservatives?  And doesn't it reflect badly on the Trudeau team they're not able to better handle these protestors?


Back in the 1993 election I went with a bunch of U of M students to protest / be visible at a Chretien stop to advocate for student issues.  The Liberal team of the day did a masterful job of boxing us out / making sure we wouldn't get on camera.

The Conservatives have already tied the protesters to them by saying that those who participated are no longer welcome to campaign for the Conservatives.  A good move by O'Toole and makes him look like the moderate he wishes to portray.   I don't think anyone will think this reflects badly on the Liberal organizers of those events.  Rather the narrative being reported is that these protests are beyond the pale and in excess of anything seen before.  So how were the organizers supposed to anticipate that kind of crazy.

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 04:38:19 PM
I'm sure it is - I just don't think it reflects badly on the chiefs as you say.

All kinds of moves against your political opponents can be seen as a "fuck you" - but if they're effective then good for you.

Ah yeah, you may have context I don't. I assumed that the chiefs are politicians with an interest in working with a variety of politicians to further the interests of the people they represent - and that they might want to maintain good working relationships with the NDP. If that's the case, then I think the move reflects poorly on them.

If that's not the case and those chiefs are partisans of the Liberal party then yeah and this was deliberately staged to mess with the NDP, then it's clever.

But that's on me an my assumptions :)

Quote from: Jacob on August 31, 2021, 05:00:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2021, 04:38:19 PM
I'm sure it is - I just don't think it reflects badly on the chiefs as you say.

All kinds of moves against your political opponents can be seen as a "fuck you" - but if they're effective then good for you.

Ah yeah, you may have context I don't. I assumed that the chiefs are politicians with an interest in working with a variety of politicians to further the interests of the people they represent - and that they might want to maintain good working relationships with the NDP. If that's the case, then I think the move reflects poorly on them.

If that's not the case and those chiefs are partisans of the Liberal party then yeah and this was deliberately staged to mess with the NDP, then it's clever.

But that's on me an my assumptions :)

I think you both have it wrong.  You are both making assumptions based on the Chiefs supporting one party over the other.  As they made clear, that is definitely not what they are doing.  The are supporting indigenous candidates - whatever party they are running for.  It just so happens there is one such candidate in that riding.  As I said, above, the NDP illustrated why simply being ally is not enough.  The NDP should have known that was the policy of the Chiefs, but did not take the time to know that particular detail.

Fair point CC.

(https://montreal.citynews.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/sites/19/2021/09/putine-scaled.jpg)


Putting aside the potential symbolism of a truck with Singh's name and picture losing it's wheel, what a very, very strange photo op to set up.  Apparently the plan was for Singh to hand out "Punjabi Poutine" to people in Montreal prior to the debate tonight.

That sounds delicious - I assume a version of poutine with curry sauce exists? :mmm:

The photo-op reminds me of the time Labour launched their posters/message for the last week of their campaign and there was a literal car-crash :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hut7FDCXcKA
(At about 35 seconds)

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2021, 12:40:52 PM
That sounds delicious - I assume a version of poutine with curry sauce exists? :mmm:

Here's the recipe:

https://cmkl.ca/2020/05/01/punjabi-poutine-jagmeet-singh/

It's not exactly "poutine" - rather you do make a curry sauce, oven roast some sweet potatoes then add to the curry sauce, then add the cheese curds and serve.  But then again making french fries at home is a PITA so this sounds like a more accessible way to go.

I'm confident it would be delicious though.

My first instinct is no - but I will be trying that recipe :blush:

I want chips with a curry sauce and cheese curds - or maybe paneer fries - like halloumi fries? :o :hmm:

Edit: I should say for context that there is a standard curry sauce you can get in every fish and chip shop in the country which goes amazingly with chips - and I'm imagining that in particular :ph34r:

Edit: oh no - I really want a curry takeaway for dinner now :weep:

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 12:51:03 PM
But then again making french fries at home is a PITA so this sounds like a more accessible way to go.

You need this (https://www.amazon.ca/Innsky-Electric-Stainless-Touchscreen-Nonstick/dp/B07MR3KWSL/ref=sr_1_5?crid=2JVRKI1S2BK0N&dchild=1&keywords=air+fryer&qid=1630606987&sprefix=air+fryer%2Caps%2C200&sr=8-5)

Quote from: viper37 on September 02, 2021, 01:23:44 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 12:51:03 PM
But then again making french fries at home is a PITA so this sounds like a more accessible way to go.

You need this (https://www.amazon.ca/Innsky-Electric-Stainless-Touchscreen-Nonstick/dp/B07MR3KWSL/ref=sr_1_5?crid=2JVRKI1S2BK0N&dchild=1&keywords=air+fryer&qid=1630606987&sprefix=air+fryer%2Caps%2C200&sr=8-5)

No way.

This is what you need to make fries at home.

https://www.amazon.ca/T-fal-FR800051-Ultimate-Clean-Fryer/dp/B00QC2XBYM/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=deep+fryer&qid=1630607321&sr=8-6

The only thing that bothers me about Trudeau is that he called an election now, two years ahead of schedule .He thought he could grab that majority. I've always been a fan of kharma. And for that reason alone I may vote NDP. (I've gone back and forth between Liberals and NDP all my voting life (except my first election when I turned 18 and voted Communist)).

But although I am not partisan in this election, I certainly don't want the Conservatives to win, I'm not irrational after all, and so I may have to vote Liberals. My riding tends to have some close battles between the Liberals and either the NDP or Liberals. So once election gets close I'll check the local polls and vote ABC.

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 01:29:29 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 02, 2021, 01:23:44 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 12:51:03 PM
But then again making french fries at home is a PITA so this sounds like a more accessible way to go.

You need this (https://www.amazon.ca/Innsky-Electric-Stainless-Touchscreen-Nonstick/dp/B07MR3KWSL/ref=sr_1_5?crid=2JVRKI1S2BK0N&dchild=1&keywords=air+fryer&qid=1630606987&sprefix=air+fryer%2Caps%2C200&sr=8-5)

No way.

This is what you need to make fries at home.

https://www.amazon.ca/T-fal-FR800051-Ultimate-Clean-Fryer/dp/B00QC2XBYM/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=deep+fryer&qid=1630607321&sr=8-6

Both of you are crazy.  There's too many limited-use kitchen appliances already, and each one I have breaks my heart. 

Oven.  Baking sheet.  Frozen fries packaged by a good, reputable Canadian firm.  That's all you need. 

Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2021, 03:33:56 PM
Both of you are crazy.  There's too many limited-use kitchen appliances already, and each one I have breaks my heart. 

Oven.  Baking sheet.  Frozen fries packaged by a good, reputable Canadian firm.  That's all you need.

To be clear - I do not have a home deep-fryer because of the reason you stated - too many limited use appliances already.  And the ones I already have (like a chopper, blender, rice cooker, or Instant Pot) I use more often than I would a home fryer.

But you're fooling yourself if oven fries are anywhere near as good as actually deep-fried fries.  In particular in a poutine.


And McCain's?  All you're getting are frozen potatoes.  Just get something generic.  I'll often buy name-brand food products, but not for frozen fries.


(God Damn we're all old)

People without fryers are insane. They have more range than a rice cooker, ffs. Get one. Make awesome fish & chips.

Also McCain is the only brand not to use Soy oil when pre-cooking their fries. A god send for my family.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 02, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
People without fryers are insane. They have more range than a rice cooker, ffs. Get one. Make awesome fish & chips.

I can't speak to the range of fryers, but rice cookers have a massive range of applications depending on your diet.

I saw a twitter thread (by some rando) bemoaning that abortion rights are at risk in Canada and how important it is not to elect the Conservatives.

This when O'toole openly describes himself as being pro-choice.  When the party platform says nothing about abortion.  Where the party platform explicitly promises not to regulate abortion.  Where, under Harper's majority, they passed no laws about abortion.

So please tell me what threat the Conservatives are to abortion rights in Canada?

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 02, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
People without fryers are insane. They have more range than a rice cooker, ffs. Get one. Make awesome fish & chips.

Also McCain is the only brand not to use Soy oil when pre-cooking their fries. A god send for my family.

A rice maker does one thing, but it does it very well.  I'm sure we have rice about once a week - certainly a lot more often than we would have fish and chips..  Not to mention which one is healthier for you.

Besides if you really want to fry something you just get out a big pot and some oil.


And if health reasons makes McCain's the better option for your family then by all means buy McCains :hug:.

Their are 96 forced birth MP in the CPC caucus. That's the threat.

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 03:50:48 PM
To be clear - I do not have a home deep-fryer because of the reason you stated - too many limited use appliances already.  And the ones I already have (like a chopper, blender, rice cooker, or Instant Pot) I use more often than I would a home fryer.

But you're fooling yourself if oven fries are anywhere near as good as actually deep-fried fries.  In particular in a poutine.


And McCain's?  All you're getting are frozen potatoes.  Just get something generic.  I'll often buy name-brand food products, but not for frozen fries.


(God Damn we're all old)

To be honest, I haven't actually bought frozen fries from the store myself since before I got married, so I have no idea what kind of brand I would have eaten over the years.  It's very possible that a more economical option was purchased.  Really, with salt, pepper and either vinegar or ketchup, the fries thus produced are perfectly adequate, especially on a cold winter evening. 

And yes, every single one of us is terribly old.  Even the Languishites who were teenagers when we started this are almost forty now. 

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 04:00:20 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 02, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
People without fryers are insane. They have more range than a rice cooker, ffs. Get one. Make awesome fish & chips.

Also McCain is the only brand not to use Soy oil when pre-cooking their fries. A god send for my family.

A rice maker does one thing, but it does it very well.  I'm sure we have rice about once a week - certainly a lot more often than we would have fish and chips..  Not to mention which one is healthier for you.

Besides if you really want to fry something you just get out a big pot and some oil.


And if health reasons makes McCain's the better option for your family then by all means buy McCains :hug:.

Soy sensitivity sucks in these times.

Hi Neil, I was 16 when this started.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 02, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
People without fryers are insane. They have more range than a rice cooker, ffs. Get one. Make awesome fish & chips.

I love my rice cooker :blush:

I think it was the second appliance I got (after the kettle).

I feel I should mention.

I have a rice cooker, I love it.

I have a food processor and a blender and a mixer and a single-serving coffeemaker and various oddly-shaped pans and I don't know how to use any of them.  But at the same time I can't get rid of them. 

The kettle at least is the kind that goes on the stove, but I can't imagine that I'll ever use it. 

I'm pretty sure I could figure out how to microwave rice.  I've seen that done. 

I have used the toaster twice in the last three months, so at least there's some value there. 

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 03:58:11 PM
I saw a twitter thread (by some rando) bemoaning that abortion rights are at risk in Canada and how important it is not to elect the Conservatives.

This when O'toole openly describes himself as being pro-choice.  When the party platform says nothing about abortion.  Where the party platform explicitly promises not to regulate abortion.  Where, under Harper's majority, they passed no laws about abortion.

So please tell me what threat the Conservatives are to abortion rights in Canada?

As recently as June this year, 72% of Conservative Party MPs voted in favour of an anti-abortion bill (Bill C-233 (https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/125?view=party)). That's not exactly confidence inducing, in spite of anything O'Toole says.

Last time the Conservatives were in government they cut foreign aid to womens health across the board as concession to their anti-abortion caucus. I absolutely expect that to happen again.

Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 04:20:58 PM
As recently as June this year, 72% of Conservative Party MPs voted in favour of an anti-abortion bill (Bill C-233 (https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/125?view=party)). That's not exactly confidence inducing, in spite of anything O'Toole says.

Last time the Conservatives were in government they cut foreign aid to womens health across the board as concession to their anti-abortion caucus. I absolutely expect that to happen again.

Bill C-233 banned selective sex abortions.  To call it "an anti-abortion bill" while leaving out that details seems pretty intellectually dishonest Jacob.

I'll give you the second point.  But that's hardly endangering abortion rights in Canada, which was the argument I've seen on social media.

I love abortion as a policy, but I do think it's odd that people on social media who were decrying the foreign practice of aborting female fetuses as unforgivable misogyny ten or fifteen years ago are now lining up to hammer people who voted against permitting the procedure here in Canada.  It seems like political opportunism, and like trying to fight a Canadian election on American terms. 

Then again, this is quite possibly the least important election in Canadian history, so I expect that with the stakes being so low, people are going to be even more excited than they usually are come election time. 

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 04:25:53 PM
Bill C-233 banned selective sex abortions.  To call it "an anti-abortion bill" while leaving out that details seems pretty intellectually dishonest Jacob.

My mistake responding to you.

I keep falling for your "you know me, I like to engage in earnest political discussion" act and then you pull shit like this. I know plenty of reasonable Conservative voters, including people who are absolutely committed partisans. You, however, are not one of them.

When you say your political posts are more like "political masturbation" that is very apt. I'll engage with you on those terms moving forward.

Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 04:44:56 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 04:25:53 PM
Bill C-233 banned selective sex abortions.  To call it "an anti-abortion bill" while leaving out that details seems pretty intellectually dishonest Jacob.

My mistake responding to you.

I keep falling for your "you know me, I like to engage in earnest political discussion" act and then you pull shit like this. I know plenty of reasonable Conservative voters, including people who are absolutely committed partisans. You, however, are not one of them.

When you say your political posts are more like "political masturbation" that is very apt. I'll engage with you on those terms moving forward.

Fuck you too. :hug:

Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 04:44:56 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 04:25:53 PM
Bill C-233 banned selective sex abortions.  To call it "an anti-abortion bill" while leaving out that details seems pretty intellectually dishonest Jacob.

My mistake responding to you.

I keep falling for your "you know me, I like to engage in earnest political discussion" act and then you pull shit like this. I know plenty of reasonable Conservative voters, including people who are absolutely committed partisans. You, however, are not one of them.

When you say your political posts are more like "political masturbation" that is very apt. I'll engage with you on those terms moving forward.

But really.  You can make arguments on either side of C-233.  You can link it to the overall abortion debate as well if you want as well, maybe arguing it's part of the dreaded Conservative "hidden agenda".

But to just call it an "anti-abortion bill"?  How is that good faith?

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 04:50:23 PM
But really.  You can make arguments on either side of C-233.  You can link it to the overall abortion debate as well if you want as well, maybe arguing it's part of the dreaded Conservative "hidden agenda".

But to just call it an "anti-abortion bill"?  How is that good faith?

You're a fucking pissant. I'm not falling for your shit for... well, for at least a few days. Go fuck yourself.

Maybe we should just use this thread to talk about food and kitchen appliances.  It seems more useful than everybody just piling on Beeb, viper posting random stuff about how everyone hates Quebec and everybody else talking about how their vote is ABC.  Then it would be something that everyone can enjoy. 

Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 04:52:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 04:50:23 PM
But really.  You can make arguments on either side of C-233.  You can link it to the overall abortion debate as well if you want as well, maybe arguing it's part of the dreaded Conservative "hidden agenda".

But to just call it an "anti-abortion bill"?  How is that good faith?

You're a fucking pissant. I'm not falling for your shit for... well, for at least a few days. Go fuck yourself.

Whatever.

You know I tried to be fair and accurate when summing up the Senate scandal in the "Redux" thread, while not writing a damn essay.  For example when I touched on Sen Brazeau being kicked out of caucus for "unrelated" matters - it was a sex assault allegation.  I figured if you thought that was important you could bring it up.  I made sure to get my numbers correct so you couldn't accuse me of minimizing the dollars involved, and consulted a couple of websites to get all the details right.

Look you could have said "yes, I probably should have mentioned that it banned selective sex abortions".  You could have said "I didn't realize what the bill is about".  You could have said "I thought everyone knew what the bill was about" (I didn't - I had to google it to remind myself).  Or something else.

But you don't get to be upset at me for calling you out for mischaracterizing the bill.

A rice cooker is good for all kinds of steaming applications. In my house we use it for steamed vegetables, mantou, some meat dishes, congee, and also for reheating food as well - especially rice dishes.

A brief search shows a bunch of other dishes that can be cooked in a rice cooker - okonomiyaki, various rice dishes (as opposed to plain rice), cakes (including Japanese cheesecake), and even Mac & Cheese.

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 03:58:11 PM
I saw a twitter thread (by some rando) bemoaning that abortion rights are at risk in Canada and how important it is not to elect the Conservatives.

This when O'toole openly describes himself as being pro-choice.  When the party platform says nothing about abortion.  Where the party platform explicitly promises not to regulate abortion.  Where, under Harper's majority, they passed no laws about abortion.

So please tell me what threat the Conservatives are to abortion rights in Canada?

If you're upset by some rando tweet, you have issues.
I mean Twitter says all sorts of things about Trudeau.

Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2021, 04:55:17 PM
Maybe we should just use this thread to talk about food and kitchen appliances.  It seems more useful than everybody just piling on Beeb, viper posting random stuff about how everyone hates Quebec and everybody else talking about how their vote is ABC.  Then it would be something that everyone can enjoy.

You know Fidel Castro once promised a rice cooker in every Cuban household. How come Trudeau doesn't promise that? :(

The single use appliances that get the most use in my household are:

Hot water kettle
Milk frother
Espresso machine

The rice-cooker, as mentioned in my previous post is not really a single use gadget in my house, though the primary use is for rice. It also gets used almost daily.

We also have a big noisy gadget that can be used to make smoothies and any kind of bean and nut milk (soy bean milk, red bean milk, almond milk). It gets some use, but it takes up a lot of counter space.

Other than that, every other kitchen gadget is in a cabinet somewhere and basically doesn't get used.

Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 05:14:21 PM
A rice cooker is good for all kinds of steaming applications. In my house we use it for steamed vegetables, mantou, some meat dishes, congee, and also for reheating food as well - especially rice dishes.

A brief search shows a bunch of other dishes that can be cooked in a rice cooker - okonomiyaki, various rice dishes (as opposed to plain rice), cakes (including Japanese cheesecake), and even Mac & Cheese.

I have the manual steamer that you put into a pot with some water, which you then proceed to boil.  Does a rice cooker work in the same way? 

Obviously I'm not going to buy another appliance, (although I'll likely steam plenty of vegetables for dinner when winter comes) but I'm curious as to if it would do the same kind of thing. 

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 05:03:34 PM
You know I tried to be fair and accurate...

Nicely done. Too bad you poisoned the well immediately before your attempt at fair accuracy.

QuoteLook you could have said...

And you could've gone with all kinds of versions of "actually you're wrong" from the diplomatic to the abrasive, but you went straight to "you're intellectually dishonest" and "you're arguing in bad faith."

I simply don't have time to waste on you in this context. Especially given your own petulant behaviour when a discussion doesn't go your way.

QuoteBut you don't get to be upset at me for calling you out for mischaracterizing the bill.

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who determines what I'm upset at, at that very much includes you being a fucking pissant.

In conclusion, you're on time-out for at least fourty-eight hours. Go fuck yourself.

Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2021, 05:41:07 PM
I have the manual steamer that you put into a pot with some water, which you then proceed to boil.  Does a rice cooker work in the same way?

It does... though, I think a key part is that the timer and the measurements make for very consistent results. I don't know if that's the case for manual rice cookers?

QuoteObviously I'm not going to buy another appliance, (although I'll likely steam plenty of vegetables for dinner when winter comes) but I'm curious as to if it would do the same kind of thing.

In principle I don't see why not but I don't know enough to say. With the rice cooker, I do think it's very much a "we have this for rice because we eat a lot of it - so lets figure out what else we can use it for as well" thing.

Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 05:21:15 PM
The single use appliances that get the most use in my household are:

Hot water kettle
Milk frother
Espresso machine

Kettle (tea and aeropress or pourover coffee), rice cooker, microwave - I eat rice most days :blush:

Microwave is normally for re-heating whatever is going with the rice.

Edit: Oh and I have a coffee grinder and a hand blender for soup-stuff. Coffee grinder is on the counter, blender lives in a drawer.

Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
No way.

This is what you need to make fries at home.

https://www.amazon.ca/T-fal-FR800051-Ultimate-Clean-Fryer/dp/B00QC2XBYM/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=deep+fryer&qid=1630607321&sr=8-6 (https://www.amazon.ca/T-fal-FR800051-Ultimate-Clean-Fryer/dp/B00QC2XBYM/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=deep+fryer&qid=1630607321&sr=8-6)

I haven't tried yet with real potatoes, so I don't know. But with frozen McCain fries (I reserve the right to be a Canadian patriot when it truly counts), it tastes just as good and is a lot easier to clean.

My cheese wire broke tonight, after almost fifteen years of service.  I am unreasonably devastated and will have to make a trip to Homesense tomorrow. 

I work in a kitchen and have pulled off some quite awesome vinaigrettes recently. I'm happy with those. Otherwise, it's pretty mundane stuff. Today I made 76 hamburgers (halal, beef and veggie), 50 cheese sandwiches, 2 pans of steamed potatoes, a tuna salad, an egg salad and packaged and shipped out 400 meals.

I got to take home a pile of leftover steamed eggplant and veg, some perogies, a bean salad and a pasta salad. Later this weekend I look forward to roasting some beef.

Worst election ever. For the first time in my life, I may not be voting. If I do, I'll be voting for Singh & co.

Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
Worst election ever. For the first time in my life, I may not be voting. If I do, I'll be voting for Singh & co.

You should go with your first instinct. ;)

I had to look at three different stores for a new cheese wire.  For some reason, stores carry worthless cheese planes, but not useful cheese wires. 

I'm getting slightly annoyed by so many phone polls.  I just had the fifth one this week, the second one today.

Justin Trudeau is on my television, telling me that a tax on the big banks is going to help make home ownership more affordable.  Won't banks just increase the cost to consumers to pay the tax while maintaining the margins that investors expect of them, frustrating the whole purpose?  I guess the tax code is all they have, since decreasing regulatory bars to allow people to spend ever-greater portions of their incomes on housing is pretty unwise, and a lot of the supply restrictions are because of municipal governments.  At the same time, I guess substantive action is tricky, since you want to drive home ownership in a way that doesn't make landlording impossible, since we don't want the people who will never be able to handle owning a home to become homeless. 

Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2021, 04:32:29 PM

Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
Worst election ever. For the first time in my life, I may not be voting. If I do, I'll be voting for Singh & co.

You should go with your first instinct. ;)

Good old fashioned conservative voter suppression  :P

My riding remains a safe Liberal victory doubling up in 2nd the BQ candidate. I'll be voting for the NDP who in all likelihood will finish 4th.

Where is the NDP getting all their money from?  I've seen more Jagmeet Singh commercials than everyone else combined.

Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2021, 11:50:22 AM
Where is the NDP getting all their money from?  I've seen more Jagmeet Singh commercials than everyone else combined.

A lot more of him on TikTok too.  ;)

Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2021, 11:50:22 AM
Where is the NDP getting all their money from?  I've seen more Jagmeet Singh commercials than everyone else combined.

I wonder if the Liberals and PCs are waiting till the last 10 days or so before they blitz.

Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2021, 11:50:22 AM
Where is the NDP getting all their money from?  I've seen more Jagmeet Singh commercials than everyone else combined.

It's magic!



I thought it was well known they often cheat on their financing with the help or large workers unions in this country.

It'll be interesting to see how (if) the boisterous anti-Trudeau protests impact the election.

Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2021, 01:50:24 PM
It'll be interesting to see how (if) the boisterous anti-Trudeau protests impact the election.

Or the loons picketing hospitals in BC.  Sure, they're PPC-types, but the Liberal machine will hang them on the Tories. 

Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2021, 03:01:28 PM

Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2021, 01:50:24 PM
It'll be interesting to see how (if) the boisterous anti-Trudeau protests impact the election.

Or the loons picketing hospitals in BC.  Sure, they're PPC-types, but the Liberal machine will hang them on the Tories. 

Some of them are registered to the PCC, but O'Toole told them to go elsewhere.  Not gonna change anything with the Libs though.

Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2021, 03:01:28 PM
Or the loons picketing hospitals in BC.  Sure, they're PPC-types, but the Liberal machine will hang them on the Tories.

Well, PPC types are an off-shoot of the Conservative Party. And it's not like deeply felt and vehemently expressed anti-Trudeau sentiment is that rare among Conservative supporters either.

Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2021, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2021, 03:01:28 PM
Or the loons picketing hospitals in BC.  Sure, they're PPC-types, but the Liberal machine will hang them on the Tories.

Well, PPC types are an off-shoot of the Conservative Party. And it's not like deeply felt and vehemently expressed anti-Trudeau sentiment is that rare among Conservative supporters either.

Define "vehemently".  It seems like it's the first time such a violent protest has taken place from the right.  We usually see these kind of things from the leftist mobs.

Speaking of which, the NDP is now into book burning.  I *wish* I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not, really.  The moment I read the news about the burning of Tintin and Lucky Luke's books (among 5000 others) as they were judged insulting for First Nations and other ethnic minorities, I knew Singh would approve of the gesture.  One more reason among the many why he's unfit to be a Prime Minister for all Canadians.


Btw, BB, what can you tell us about the dude from that New Albertan/Western Bloc?  A separatist devil or a simple nationalist devil? ;)

Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2021, 05:10:21 PM
Define "vehemently".

Vehemently - in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling.

I've come across a non-trivial number of Conservative voters who loathe Trudeau vehemently. And loathing of Trudeau certainly seems like a consistent and central part of the pitch from many of the Conservative voters I've discussed politics with.

I mean to be fair Trudeau has a very punchable face...I mean not to Ted Cruz levels but he has it bad.

To be Fair and Balanced (tm), Valmy.

There has been a very large anti-Trudeau faction ever since he got elected. Mostly stupid people who blame him for everything, even things he's got nothing to do with.

Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2021, 06:51:38 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2021, 05:10:21 PM
Define "vehemently".

Vehemently - in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling.

I've come across a non-trivial number of Conservative voters who loathe Trudeau vehemently. And loathing of Trudeau certainly seems like a consistent and central part of the pitch from many of the Conservative voters I've discussed politics with.

would you say you and CC vehemently oppose the Conservative Party of Canada?

You should too.

They are what you hate the most; religious.

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 06:23:39 AM
There has been a very large anti-Trudeau faction ever since he got elected. Mostly stupid people who blame him for everything, even things he's got nothing to do with.

Like his inaction on climate change, his inaction on First Nations reconciliation, his inaction on protecting women from sexual harassment in his own party, his inaction on protection the financial future of the next generation, his inaction on making Canada an international leader like he promised, his inaction on planting the billion trees he was supposed to (we have 800 000 so far) plant during his first mandate, his inaction in tackling the rise in gun crimes in Canada since he was elected, his inaction on protection French speakers rights in Canada, his inaction on dealing with provinces from equal to equal, his inaction on shifting Canada from a leader in oil production to a leader in green energy production?

Yeah, I kinda see where you're going to with that.  Soooo unfair.  It's like all those evil (tm) people who can not see all the good Donald Trump has done for the USA and only insists on criticizing him for doing nothing. ;)

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 08:55:42 AM
You should too.

They are what you hate the most; religious.

I don't hate religious people.  I hate it when they govern with religion in mind.  Trudeau is much, much worst in this aspect: he let religious extremists dictate how our laws should be shaped and implemented and he cuddles them.

Under Harper, the worst we had with religion was a reshaping of international aid according to their religious principles.  That was a stupid move, but far from a catastrophe.  Canada's international aid does not in itself shape how poor, foreign countries treat issues like abortion and women's rights.

The Conservatives took a stand against China.  Under the PLC policy of appeasement, we have two citizens indefinitely detained in China.  How is this better?

Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2021, 08:58:07 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 06:23:39 AM
There has been a very large anti-Trudeau faction ever since he got elected. Mostly stupid people who blame him for everything, even things he's got nothing to do with.

Like his inaction on climate change, his inaction on First Nations reconciliation, his inaction on protecting women from sexual harassment in his own party, his inaction on protection the financial future of the next generation, his inaction on making Canada an international leader like he promised, his inaction on planting the billion trees he was supposed to (we have 800 000 so far) plant during his first mandate, his inaction in tackling the rise in gun crimes in Canada since he was elected, his inaction on protection French speakers rights in Canada, his inaction on dealing with provinces from equal to equal, his inaction on shifting Canada from a leader in oil production to a leader in green energy production?

Yeah, I kinda see where you're going to with that.  Soooo unfair.  It's like all those evil (tm) people who can not see all the good Donald Trump has done for the USA and only insists on criticizing him for doing nothing. ;)

See y'all forget that we had this COVID thing, which really got in the way of governing.

Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2021, 09:02:52 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 08:55:42 AM
You should too.

They are what you hate the most; religious.

I don't hate religious people.  I hate it when they govern with religion in mind.  Trudeau is much, much worst in this aspect: he let religious extremists dictate how our laws should be shaped and implemented and he cuddles them.

Under Harper, the worst we had with religion was a reshaping of international aid according to their religious principles.  That was a stupid move, but far from a catastrophe.  Canada's international aid does not in itself shape how poor, foreign countries treat issues like abortion and women's rights.

The Conservatives took a stand against China.  Under the PLC policy of appeasement, we have two citizens indefinitely detained in China.  How is this better?

Harper is gone. The socon hold the party now & they will govern with religion in mind. 96 members of the current caucus, 96!, are forced birth assholes raging war against women.

They didn't take a stand, they sold us out! The whole reason the Liberal government had to buy the Pipeline was to keep with the terms of the China deal.


Don't make the same mistakes our friends in the RoC keep doing & expect the federal government to fix things that are in the provincial sphere. We elect strong provincial governments for a reason.

Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2021, 05:10:21 PM
Btw, BB, what can you tell us about the dude from that New Albertan/Western Bloc?  A separatist devil or a simple nationalist devil? ;)

Who are you referring to?

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 09:09:57 AM
The whole reason the Liberal government had to buy the Pipeline was to keep with the terms of the China deal.

That is not accurate at all.  The pipeline was an upgrade of an existing pipeline which needed to be replaced and the company that owned the pipeline decided to attempt to double the pipeline while they were at it.  The expansion had nothing to do with a deal with China.  It had everything to do with providing more throughput for producers to sell into the Asian market.

The Liberals should not have bought that pipeline.  The role of government is to regulate, not own, these ventures.  I am still very unhappy that our tax dollars were used to bail out investors from Texas by buying all their shares.  I still think the project makes no sense for a long list of reasons. But if it does make economic sense to do it, sell the damn thing and let the private sector do it.  If it does not make economic sense, don't pour our tax money into it just to please Alberta.

QuoteDon't make the same mistakes our friends in the RoC keep doing & expect the federal government to fix things that are in the provincial sphere. We elect strong provincial governments for a reason.

This seems to be a narrative that pops up a lot.  I can only assume it is because people in Quebec don't get much news about what other provincial governments are doing - particularly in BC.

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 06:23:39 AM
There has been a very large anti-Trudeau faction ever since he got elected. Mostly stupid people who blame him for everything, even things he's got nothing to do with.

There are also people, me among them, who are not too keen on Trudeau for a number of valid reasons, but since I have just been labelled as stupid - you seem not to want to hear them  :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:09:39 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 09:09:57 AM
Don't make the same mistakes our friends in the RoC keep doing & expect the federal government to fix things that are in the provincial sphere. We elect strong provincial governments for a reason.

This seems to be a narrative that pops up a lot.  I can only assume it is because people in Quebec don't get much news about what other provincial governments are doing - particularly in BC.

From another forum I frequent where there I am on the right side of issues. It is a constant barrage of progressive people from Alberta, BC & Ontario complaining that the federal government need to fix things that are provincial issues. It's true, I have no idea what the BC NDP does or doesn't do but I'm guessing those people do & that is what they complain about so much.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:26:29 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 06:23:39 AM
There has been a very large anti-Trudeau faction ever since he got elected. Mostly stupid people who blame him for everything, even things he's got nothing to do with.

There are also people, me among them, who are not too keen on Trudeau for a number of valid reasons, but since I have just been labelled as stupid - you seem not to want to hear them  :P

Meh---you know I've got nothing against reasonable debate; and you know that's not what I mean. I appreciate that there are different political points of view; and I appreciate that there are valid reasons to not like Trudeau.

I'm talking about the majority of those who show up outside Trudeau's campaign speeches, most of whom are the same crowd who shows up at anti vax rallies and anti mask rallies. A crowd who blames Trudeau, as I said, not for a few things, or several things, or many things. But for everything.

My rent is high. Fuck Trudeau. Gas prices are high. Fuck Trudeau. My Internet is slow. Fuck Trudeau. I can't find a job. Fuck Trudeau. I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

So please tell me what you don't like about JT

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 11:33:00 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:09:39 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 09:09:57 AM
Don't make the same mistakes our friends in the RoC keep doing & expect the federal government to fix things that are in the provincial sphere. We elect strong provincial governments for a reason.

This seems to be a narrative that pops up a lot.  I can only assume it is because people in Quebec don't get much news about what other provincial governments are doing - particularly in BC.

From another forum I frequent where there I am on the right side of issues. It is a constant barrage of progressive people from Alberta, BC & Ontario complaining that the federal government need to fix things that are provincial issues. It's true, I have no idea what the BC NDP does or doesn't do but I'm guessing those people do & that is what they complain about so much.

A lot of logic leaps there my friend.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:46:07 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 11:33:00 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:09:39 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 09:09:57 AM
Don't make the same mistakes our friends in the RoC keep doing & expect the federal government to fix things that are in the provincial sphere. We elect strong provincial governments for a reason.

This seems to be a narrative that pops up a lot.  I can only assume it is because people in Quebec don't get much news about what other provincial governments are doing - particularly in BC.

From another forum I frequent where there I am on the right side of issues. It is a constant barrage of progressive people from Alberta, BC & Ontario complaining that the federal government need to fix things that are provincial issues. It's true, I have no idea what the BC NDP does or doesn't do but I'm guessing those people do & that is what they complain about so much.

A lot of logic leaps there my friend.

#internet

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 11:33:16 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:26:29 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 06:23:39 AM
There has been a very large anti-Trudeau faction ever since he got elected. Mostly stupid people who blame him for everything, even things he's got nothing to do with.

There are also people, me among them, who are not too keen on Trudeau for a number of valid reasons, but since I have just been labelled as stupid - you seem not to want to hear them  :P

Meh---you know I've got nothing against reasonable debate; and you know that's not what I mean. I appreciate that there are different political points of view; and I appreciate that there are valid reasons to not like Trudeau.

I'm talking about the majority of those who show up outside Trudeau's campaign speeches, most of whom are the same crowd who shows up at anti vax rallies and anti mask rallies. A crowd who blames Trudeau, as I said, not for a few things, or several things, or many things. But for everything.

My rent is high. Fuck Trudeau. Gas prices are high. Fuck Trudeau. My Internet is slow. Fuck Trudeau. I can't find a job. Fuck Trudeau. I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

So please tell me what you don't like about JT

1) I don't like how he has centralized all governmental decision making within the PMO - something he promised he would not do but he has gone further down that road than Harper.

2) I really don't like his ongoing policy regarding TMX, as noted above that policy still makes no sense.  There is a recent study out regarding just how foolish the whole thing is.

3) I really don't like how he has handed the indigenous file.  He should have replaced that minister a long time ago.  They are unresponsive and lack any innovation or common sense.  They are even failing to do what Liberals do best - throwing money at the problem.  It is definitely time for a better approach on what is becoming one of the most significant costs to the Federal budget.

4) The thing I like the least is his apparent lack of ability to think deeply about any of his policy choices.  WE was not corruption, it was stupidly.  TMX was political expediency at a huge cost.  The indigenous issues is a paralysis of ideas and solutions.  The COVID response has been terrible at the federal level.  If it was not for BC shaming the Feds into closing the border we would have had several more weeks of infected Americans coming across.  He should also have been working with the provinces to create a Canada wide vaccine passport months ago.  etc etc etc.



The only good thing to say about Trudeau is at least he is not burdened by knuckle dragging social conservatives.  That is O'Toole's problem.

But Singh is also unburdened by that problem and he does not present the same problems Trudeau does.  My main hope is that Trudeau will have to step aside and then then the Liberals can get a leader we can have more confidence in - perhaps Carney.

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 11:33:16 AM
My rent is high. Fuck Trudeau. Gas prices are high. Fuck Trudeau. My Internet is slow. Fuck Trudeau. I can't find a job. Fuck Trudeau. I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

But JT isn't the new guy any more - he's a 6 year incumbent.  He gets to wear that stuff.  His attempts to keep blaming Harper are ringing hollow.


"My rent is high" - housing prices is a real and valid issue in this campaign.  He's had 6 years to do something about it and hasn't.

"Gas prices are high" - Trudeau killed the Energy East pipeline which would have brought in cheaper oil and gas from western Canada.  Also carbon tax.

"My internet is slow" - okay maybe not slow, but he DID promise in the past to lower our cell phone bills.  Which hasn't happened.

"I can't find a job" - yes we're coming out of the global Covid-19 pandemic, but it's fair to grade Trudeau on how he's handled the economy.

"I didn't get into university" - maybe not get into, but last time around he did promise to make education more affordable.  Which hasn't happened.

None of these things are really tied to the "Fuck Trudeau" crowd. The "Fuck Trudeau" crowd is people who have merged their conservative identity with a figure of hatred, egged on by conservative trash radio.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:46:07 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 11:33:00 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 11:09:39 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 09:09:57 AM
Don't make the same mistakes our friends in the RoC keep doing & expect the federal government to fix things that are in the provincial sphere. We elect strong provincial governments for a reason.

This seems to be a narrative that pops up a lot.  I can only assume it is because people in Quebec don't get much news about what other provincial governments are doing - particularly in BC.

From another forum I frequent where there I am on the right side of issues. It is a constant barrage of progressive people from Alberta, BC & Ontario complaining that the federal government need to fix things that are provincial issues. It's true, I have no idea what the BC NDP does or doesn't do but I'm guessing those people do & that is what they complain about so much.

A lot of logic leaps there my friend.

#internet

:D

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2021, 12:29:50 PM
None of these things are really tied to the "Fuck Trudeau" crowd. The "Fuck Trudeau" crowd is people who have merged their conservative identity with a figure of hatred, egged on by conservative trash radio.

Frankly if someone can't get a job during this period of labour shortages, that is not Trudeau's fault.

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 12:13:26 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 11:33:16 AM
My rent is high. Fuck Trudeau. Gas prices are high. Fuck Trudeau. My Internet is slow. Fuck Trudeau. I can't find a job. Fuck Trudeau. I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

But JT isn't the new guy any more - he's a 6 year incumbent.  He gets to wear that stuff.  His attempts to keep blaming Harper are ringing hollow.


"My rent is high" - housing prices is a real and valid issue in this campaign.  He's had 6 years to do something about it and hasn't.

"Gas prices are high" - Trudeau killed the Energy East pipeline which would have brought in cheaper oil and gas from western Canada.  Also carbon tax.

"My internet is slow" - okay maybe not slow, but he DID promise in the past to lower our cell phone bills.  Which hasn't happened.

"I can't find a job" - yes we're coming out of the global Covid-19 pandemic, but it's fair to grade Trudeau on how he's handled the economy.

"I didn't get into university" - maybe not get into, but last time around he did promise to make education more affordable.  Which hasn't happened.

1 federal issue, 1 that could be shared, the others are provincial issues.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 12:45:57 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 12:13:26 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 11:33:16 AM
My rent is high. Fuck Trudeau. Gas prices are high. Fuck Trudeau. My Internet is slow. Fuck Trudeau. I can't find a job. Fuck Trudeau. I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

But JT isn't the new guy any more - he's a 6 year incumbent.  He gets to wear that stuff.  His attempts to keep blaming Harper are ringing hollow.


"My rent is high" - housing prices is a real and valid issue in this campaign.  He's had 6 years to do something about it and hasn't.

"Gas prices are high" - Trudeau killed the Energy East pipeline which would have brought in cheaper oil and gas from western Canada.  Also carbon tax.

"My internet is slow" - okay maybe not slow, but he DID promise in the past to lower our cell phone bills.  Which hasn't happened.

"I can't find a job" - yes we're coming out of the global Covid-19 pandemic, but it's fair to grade Trudeau on how he's handled the economy.

"I didn't get into university" - maybe not get into, but last time around he did promise to make education more affordable.  Which hasn't happened.

1 federal issue, 1 that could be shared, the others are provincial issues.

Telecoms are definitely a federal-only issue.

Pipelines are definitely a federal issue.  The economy, while provinces have an impact, is more dependent on the federal government (the feds have some power over monetary policy, trade, taxation).

All the others have some levels of federal impact (Housing - CMHC, university - federal student loan programs).

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 12:45:57 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 12:13:26 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 11:33:16 AM
My rent is high. Fuck Trudeau. Gas prices are high. Fuck Trudeau. My Internet is slow. Fuck Trudeau. I can't find a job. Fuck Trudeau. I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

But JT isn't the new guy any more - he's a 6 year incumbent.  He gets to wear that stuff.  His attempts to keep blaming Harper are ringing hollow.


"My rent is high" - housing prices is a real and valid issue in this campaign.  He's had 6 years to do something about it and hasn't.

"Gas prices are high" - Trudeau killed the Energy East pipeline which would have brought in cheaper oil and gas from western Canada.  Also carbon tax.

"My internet is slow" - okay maybe not slow, but he DID promise in the past to lower our cell phone bills.  Which hasn't happened.

"I can't find a job" - yes we're coming out of the global Covid-19 pandemic, but it's fair to grade Trudeau on how he's handled the economy.

"I didn't get into university" - maybe not get into, but last time around he did promise to make education more affordable.  Which hasn't happened.

1 federal issue, 1 that could be shared, the others are provincial issues.

Hey if Quebec wants to give up all of its Tri-Council funding for its research universities, BC universities would be happy to take it. But I suspect the profs in Quebec would have a thing or two to say about that.  ;)

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 12:57:00 PM
Telecoms are definitely a federal-only issue.

Telecom is interesting because there are lower price plans available & the average low tier price has actually gone down.

Customers are simply not picking those plans and the companies are not marketing them either.

So, the Liberal government can claim to have lowered prices while not having fixed anything.

A very Liberal thing to do.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 01:14:32 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 12:45:57 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 12:13:26 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 11:33:16 AM
My rent is high. Fuck Trudeau. Gas prices are high. Fuck Trudeau. My Internet is slow. Fuck Trudeau. I can't find a job. Fuck Trudeau. I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

But JT isn't the new guy any more - he's a 6 year incumbent.  He gets to wear that stuff.  His attempts to keep blaming Harper are ringing hollow.


"My rent is high" - housing prices is a real and valid issue in this campaign.  He's had 6 years to do something about it and hasn't.

"Gas prices are high" - Trudeau killed the Energy East pipeline which would have brought in cheaper oil and gas from western Canada.  Also carbon tax.

"My internet is slow" - okay maybe not slow, but he DID promise in the past to lower our cell phone bills.  Which hasn't happened.

"I can't find a job" - yes we're coming out of the global Covid-19 pandemic, but it's fair to grade Trudeau on how he's handled the economy.

"I didn't get into university" - maybe not get into, but last time around he did promise to make education more affordable.  Which hasn't happened.

1 federal issue, 1 that could be shared, the others are provincial issues.

Hey if Quebec wants to give up all of its Tri-Council funding for its research universities, BC universities would be happy to take it. But I suspect the profs in Quebec would have a thing or two to say about that.  ;)

No. Give us the money & ask no questions. Such is the way of Quebec.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2021, 12:29:50 PM
None of these things are really tied to the "Fuck Trudeau" crowd. The "Fuck Trudeau" crowd is people who have merged their conservative identity with a figure of hatred, egged on by conservative trash radio.

Who will then go on to blame Trudeau for their misfortunes. Including all the above mentioned stuff. Trip on a pothole? It's because Trudeau isn't transferring enough money to the cities. Etc. ETc.

I'm not a Trudeau apologist. CC makes some valid points above, but Trudeau is the target of unjustified attacks. Do you think the people throwing gravel at him have any clue what TMX is? That they give a shit about the Indigenous? You're right though a lot of the crowd there are the trash radio, tabloid reading type. And those are whom I mean by my epithet stupid.

Funny thing is, I'm not even voting Liberal  :P

edit: for instance: On Facebook I belong to a local community group. And anytime someone writes in something like "be careful there's been a string of break-ins on XX Streeet, someone, inevitably pipes in "Crime has gone up so much since Trudeau came to power." That's who I mean.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 01:19:30 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 12:57:00 PM
Telecoms are definitely a federal-only issue.

Telecom is interesting because there are lower price plans available & the average low tier price has actually gone down.

Customers are simply not picking those plans and the companies are not marketing them either.

So, the Liberal government can claim to have lowered prices while not having fixed anything.

A very Liberal thing to do.

Yeah I just went through that with my german exchange student.  If you have your own phone you can get ridiculously cheap plans - like $15 / month.  But they have no data.  Because he's a teenager and it's 2021 he wants data.  So instead he's playing I think $45 / month to get a somewhat reasonable amount of data.

Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2021, 10:57:43 PM
To be Fair and Balanced (tm), Valmy.

Well actually I was being petty and juvenile.

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2021, 01:30:48 PM
Well actually I was being petty and juvenile.

:lol: :hug:

The Green Party of Canada is just not a serious political party.

They released their platform today (although Paul did not have a press conference and did not answer questions).  In it they promise:

-end all fossil fuel extraction
-bas the sale of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2030
-ensure 100% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2030

beyond the environment they promise:
-universal pharmacare
-universal dental care
-free university
-affordable child care
-universal long-term care
-guaranteed minimum income

Why not promise everyone a puppy while you're at it?  I mean I get that the Green Party is not seriously running to form the next government, but instead to help push the next government towards a certain direction, but shouldn't their platform at least give a wink and a nod towards being realistic?

https://www.greenparty.ca/sites/default/files/platform_2021_en_web_-_20210907.pdf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/annamie-paul-green-party-platform-1.6167167

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 03:29:07 PM
The Green Party of Canada is just not a serious political party.

They released their platform today (although Paul did not have a press conference and did not answer questions).  In it they promise:

-end all fossil fuel extraction
-bas the sale of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2030
-ensure 100% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2030

beyond the environment they promise:
-universal pharmacare
-universal dental care
-free university
-affordable child care
-universal long-term care
-guaranteed minimum income

Why not promise everyone a puppy while you're at it?

Or a rice cooker, damn it.

Although free university, free dental care, free pharma shouldn't be pipe dreams. Most decent countries in Europe have that stuff.

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 04:16:59 PM

Or a rice cooker, damn it.

Although free university, free dental care, free pharma shouldn't be pipe dreams. Most decent countries in Europe have that stuff.

It's what they're promising it all at once - all while you're shutting down 17% of your entire economy.

Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2021, 09:28:45 PM
I mean to be fair Trudeau has a very punchable face...I mean not to Ted Cruz levels but he has it bad.

Oh yes. He looks extraordinarily smug :lol:

QuoteThe Green Party of Canada is just not a serious political party.

They released their platform today (although Paul did not have a press conference and did not answer questions).

:lol: I have a friend who's very involved in the Green Party here and she's said their manifesto is a disaster waiting to happen if they ever poll well enough to get serious media attention.

Basically their approach is a "living manifesto" so policies are voted on at conference and added to the manifesto. Then they just stay in the manifesto unless they're expressly voted out. So they have some policies (for example around population control :ph34r:) that date to the 1970s, but no-one's noticed or got rid of them.

In part it's something that makes them distinctive, but it may be something they have to change.

QuoteAlthough free university, free dental care, free pharma shouldn't be pipe dreams. Most decent countries in Europe have that stuff.

On free university, worth noting those countries have about half the % of graduates as Canada does. I think there's probably a bit of a trade off there (one we face in the UK and my preference - which has shifted - would be fewer graduates but free).

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 09:04:53 AM

Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2021, 08:58:07 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 06:23:39 AM
There has been a very large anti-Trudeau faction ever since he got elected. Mostly stupid people who blame him for everything, even things he's got nothing to do with.

Like his inaction on climate change, his inaction on First Nations reconciliation, his inaction on protecting women from sexual harassment in his own party, his inaction on protection the financial future of the next generation, his inaction on making Canada an international leader like he promised, his inaction on planting the billion trees he was supposed to (we have 800 000 so far) plant during his first mandate, his inaction in tackling the rise in gun crimes in Canada since he was elected, his inaction on protection French speakers rights in Canada, his inaction on dealing with provinces from equal to equal, his inaction on shifting Canada from a leader in oil production to a leader in green energy production?

Yeah, I kinda see where you're going to with that.  Soooo unfair.  It's like all those evil (tm) people who can not see all the good Donald Trump has done for the USA and only insists on criticizing him for doing nothing. ;)

See y'all forget that we had this COVID thing, which really got in the way of governing.

Covid appeared in Canada in early March 2020.
The Liberals won their first election in October 19th 2015.  5 years before covid.  Their promise to plant 1 billion trees wasn't made in July 2020.
The deficit was already running amok by March 2020, and it was seen as "refreshing" in 2015 by many journalists and Liberal partisans that a government would "dare" to waste tax payers money.

Now, we see the results: the debt is spiraling out of control and we have to tackle inflation while everyone is strapped for cash but the most whealthy among us.

Had we had surplus between 2015-2020, spending would not have been a problem.  As it is now, Trudeau governed exactly the same as Trump.  I criticize Trump's (mis)management of the economy, I'm certainly not going to applaud Trudeau for racking up a deficit like the other moron.

ANd since you talk about covid, let's talk about it:
- the Feds dragged its feet in closing the border, letting travelers come in without even questioning them on their symptoms or requiring a quarantine.  Trudeau only acted when Quebec threatened to send the Provincial police to the airport.
- the Feds dragged their feet all along to enact any kind of sensible measure to protect the Canadian population, like mandatory quarantine of visitors and returning travelers<
- when it was enacted, there were almost no check done, only about 20-25% of all concerned where verified, and often, by a simple phone call on their cell phone.
- While CC keeps bragging about how the LPC is so superior for requiring proof of vaccination for its workers, the party is a late comer to the idea: Trudeau always opposed such measures as they were "divisive".  He was against Quebec implemening a vaccine passport at first and only relented when other provinces began to talk about it too.  Even now, they may say they will require it, but they have no plan to implement this.  Like always.  They have no phone app or QR code to keep track of vaccination proofs and have yet to beging working with the provinces for this.  It is only pure talk, as always.

Covid has made it so that many countries, many OECD countries have reduced their GHG emissions since spring 2020.  Canada has increase its emissions.  Why is covid affecting us and not England, or Germany?

By all mean, if you guys are seduced by smooth talkers, go & vote for the Libs.  I simply prefer a government that will act to tackle the issues that the next generation will face.

If the green party wasn't so racist, I might have made a protest vote for them like last time, but ain't gonna happen this year.  Not gonna vote for that Bloc moron either.  Certainly not for any of the parties that like a good book burning from time to time.  Not many choices left.  And no, I ain't talking about the PPC.

Either I vote Conservative or I cancel my vote or I don't vote.  I haven't decided yet.  There are lots of things I don't like about O'toole, first among many his ambiguous discourse towards Quebec's laicity law.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2021, 09:09:57 AM

Don't make the same mistakes our friends in the RoC keep doing & expect the federal government to fix things that are in the provincial sphere. We elect strong provincial governments for a reason.

Quebec should not have to fight endlessly to keep the Feds out of our affairs.
If the Canadians want a pan-national kindergarden program despite its obvious flaws and failures in Quebec, so be it.  I can live with that as long as the Libs honor their promise to compensate us.
But when it comes to global warming, we can't act each&everyone in our corner like the US, it only leads to failure.  If Alberta is unwilling to change its economy, it shouldn't be artificially subsidized to keep it in place.  The same with Ontario and nuclear power: they don't want nuclear reactors, they don't want to buy our electricity, so they'll restart thermal plants.  Who's gonna end up paying?  The provinces who already trying to reduce their GHG emisssions.  Just like we are globally paying for China's negligence on everything.
As for the religious right being in control of the CPC, they have always been more numerous, yet they could never truly control the party for a simple reason: it would split again like in the 90s and lead to decades of Liberal rule, something no one in there is keen to live again.

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2021, 09:40:53 AM

Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2021, 05:10:21 PM
Btw, BB, what can you tell us about the dude from that New Albertan/Western Bloc?  A separatist devil or a simple nationalist devil? ;)

Who are you referring to?

Ah, Maverick Party.  I've seen it listed and created in 2020, but haven't read much about them.

Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2021, 11:33:16 AM
I didn't get into university. Fuck Trudeau.

Not true at all.

These people absolutely loathe university (and education at large) and consider "life experience" to be 1000% times better.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2021, 12:01:15 PM
1) I don't like how he has centralized all governmental decision making within the PMO - something he promised he would not do but he has gone further down that road than Harper.

That begun under his father, got a tiny little respite during Mulroney's years and started again, at an unprecedented pace under Chrétien.  You can't seriously be surprised about this.  It's like someone voting for Trump suddenly surprised that he's naming conservative judges to the USSC or cutting medicare&medicaid funds.

Quote
3) I really don't like how he has handed the indigenous file.  He should have replaced that minister a long time ago.  They are unresponsive and lack any innovation or common sense.  They are even failing to do what Liberals do best - throwing money at the problem.  It is definitely time for a better approach on what is becoming one of the most significant costs to the Federal budget.

What Liberals do best is talking about something.  Only when that fails do they throw money at it.  ;)

Quote
4) The thing I like the least is his apparent lack of ability to think deeply about any of his policy choices.

Nothing really new there.  He made an empty campaign in 2015 and was elected because of his promise to tackle the Quebec problem, like Chrétien did.  And because he also promised to not care about the deficit and the debt.  I guess we should be happy of seeing a Liberal keep his promises.

Quote
But Singh is also unburdened by that problem and he does not present the same problems Trudeau does.

I agree.  He presents other problems.

Quote
My main hope is that Trudeau will have to step aside and then then the Liberals can get a leader we can have more confidence in - perhaps Carney.

Forget it.  He's the last person they want at their head.  He's the one they need, but they don't want him.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2021, 12:29:50 PM
by conservative trash radio.

and how many channels with how many auditors are we talking about for Canada?

So Frenchies: How was the debate?

Quote from: Josephus on September 09, 2021, 06:15:28 AM
So Frenchies: How was the debate?

haven't watched, was busy with something else.

The polling seems to indicate that the Conservatives are coming in about where they were in the last election - no big surprise there.  The big surprise is if they grew from that number.  And the Liberal support has shrunk down to where they were at the last election.

Their support is bleeding to the NDP.  So the question is going to be will Singh be able to convince enough liberal voters that he is the best bet for an ABC vote. 

Not having any luck connecting to the debate right now  :(

... okay I'm in, and it's just pre-game blah-blah-blah.

Starting in about 10 minutes.

Trudeau and Singh wearing masks, Paul just took hers off. Bernier and O'Toole without them.

... now the masks are off across the board.

I really enjoy watching these debates. My boy is watching too.

"What would you have done differently about Afghanistan"?

Singh & O'Toole - "Trudeau selfishly called an election! I wouldn't have done that."

The moderator just shut Singh down.

"During this pandemic, a poor showing on leadership and accountability was..."

"Mr. Singh, the topic is China and human rights." :D

I have to admit that I do like Blanchet. Alas I'm not Quebecois  :lol:

Of course, he has a different hand of cards to play - being able to be a gadfly to Alberta and not worrying about having to represent all of Canada as PM.

O'Toole - "I'll be straight up, we have to earn a bit of trust on climate change, so we're introducing a carbon savings account."

Blanchet - "We need to cap oil production or we're getting nowhere."

Trudeau - "Our plan is actually the best according to most experts in the field. Also, O'Toole can't convince his own caucus that climate change is real."

Singh - "O'Toole and Trudeau are both arguing about who of them is worst... friends, you can do better than both of them."

Blanchet - "O'Toole said in French 'no pipeline through Quebec' - will he please say that in English tonight?"

Paul - "Let's treat Climate Change like we did the pandemic, across party lines."

Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2021, 05:49:06 PM
The polling seems to indicate that the Conservatives are coming in about where they were in the last election - no big surprise there.  The big surprise is if they grew from that number.  And the Liberal support has shrunk down to where they were at the last election.

Their support is bleeding to the NDP.  So the question is going to be will Singh be able to convince enough liberal voters that he is the best bet for an ABC vote.

No. And as usual votes will split giving the Conservatives a way in.

Canada338 has my riding, for instance, with the Conservatives at 39 per cent; the NDP at 31 and the Liberals at 22. Guess who's gonna grab the seat? :-(

And yes, I know, that's the rules. Just saying, if the NDP and Liberals merged, it would really change our political landscape.

Quote from: Jacob on September 09, 2021, 08:24:29 PM
The moderator just shut Singh down.

She was terrible. Any time something got interested she just shut it down. It was a terrible format of a debate.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2021, 09:03:18 PM
Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

what'd they say?

Quote from: HVC on September 10, 2021, 06:56:45 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2021, 09:03:18 PM
Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

what'd they say?

Kurl ask Blanchet to justify/explain Bill 21 & Bill 96. Paul also jump in because she's desperate to paint any other leader as a asshole too. The other 3 wisely didn't say anything.

If you want information on National Assembly bills pertaining to Quebec you should ask our provincial government not the leader of the Quebec based separatist party leader whose goal is to paint the RoC has anti-Quebec.

I voted.  The Maverick Party was not on the ballot, with the crazy quota being filled by the PPC.  The only other joke parties on the ballot were the Greens and the Communists. 

Anyways, my take on the debates (gathered while while helping with grade 3 homework and minding a 2-year old beginning her I-don't-want-to-go-to-bed campaign a bit early, and missing the last 15-20 minutes):

Everybody did their job credibly, keeping in mind that they have different objectives going in. They all more or less made the impression they needed to do, with no massive oh-my-god moments either way.

O'Toole - tacked to the centre, making clear statements such as "I am pro choice" and the like; on things like climate change and affordability he maintained the line of "we take it very seriously, and we want realistic solutions that work for everyday Canadians" suggesting that the Conservatives take the topics seriously, while assuring his core voters that the boat won't be rocked too vigorously. O'Toole didn't have an answer for "how can you say you want to lead Canada to a 90% vaccination rate when you can't even get your own caucus to get vaccinated at 90%?" He was solid in hitting the main Conservative themes of "we are promising realistic things which we'll hit, unlike Mr. Trudeau who just talks," "Trudeau is an untrustworthy putz," and "we have a plan to get Canada working

Trudeau - main strategy was "we have in fact done a whole bunch of things very solidly. Yes we haven't reached everything we said we would do, but this stuff is not as easy as the other leaders are tryng to make out" and "we have made progress, and we'll continue to make progress." I think he did a credible job on that, but obviously it'll be more or less convincing depending on your own starting point. He landed a few jabs here and there - "your plan isn't costed", "your caucus is a mess", "your caucus is not vaccinated" etc, but they were generally light IMO. On the environement he leaned into "experts rate our plan as the best of the ones on offer, so yeah we're the best choice here" which was countered by "you set targets, but you don't meet them, so whatever", which then went back to "we did alright, you're being cynical which harms real progress." I think he did alright. He's not going to convince many people who aren't inclined to like the Liberals, but he did well enough to provide narratives for those who are.

Paul - went in with a clear agenda to be seen as the progressive choice. She hit Trudeau a bunch on Philpott and Wilson-Raybould. She also drove hard on "maybe things would be different if the decision makers weren't all white men" and "as someone who grew up sort of poor and definitely not white, I totally empathize." In general she was big on aspirational "we should all work together", "this is a massive crisis, we have to take real steps", and "green energy is an economic opportunity." She made a solid number of gestures on "the patriarchy" and "institutional racism" and the like, without getting into language that's directly off-putting to regular folks (I think). She made a solid pitch for the voters who care about such things, and definitely positioned herself as a left alternative to the NDP.

Singh - went with "we are here with real, believable policies that will positively impact regular folks" for most of it, but also got a "we should tax the very rich to pay for this stuff" which will sit well with his core consituencies. He definitely piled in on the "we can't really trust our boy Trudeau, can we" whenever the opportunity presented itself. One of his go-tos were "I believe Mr. Trudeau[ cares, but...", favouring a narrative that the Prime Minister is ineffectual rather than corrupt or manipulative. He didn't have much of an answer to "so hey, why don't you have a costed plan" but generally came across as both caring and credible.

Blanchet - came across as a solid champion for the people of Quebec, willing to compromise with other reasonable parties, and speaking truth to power. He said things like "to make an impact on climate change, we have to put a cap on oil production" which is pretty true IMO, but not something you can say if you're hoping to become PM of Canada... but he isn't. He had a bit of a quip about "can we talk about Francophones outside of Quebec" to which the answer was "no, the topic is affordability" which reinforced his image as the champion of Quebec and Francophones. He definitely wasn't afraid to jab at people from angles that are a little different from the standard discourse in Anglophone Canada. Unlike the other leaders, Blanchet did not pile in with any "here's why Trudeau sucks" arguments.

I didn't mind the moderation or the format, and I thought the questions from "regular Canadians" and journalists were fine. It wasn't perfect, but pretty decent and I enjoyed the whole thing.

Quote from: Josephus on September 10, 2021, 06:28:29 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2021, 05:49:06 PM
The polling seems to indicate that the Conservatives are coming in about where they were in the last election - no big surprise there.  The big surprise is if they grew from that number.  And the Liberal support has shrunk down to where they were at the last election.

Their support is bleeding to the NDP.  So the question is going to be will Singh be able to convince enough liberal voters that he is the best bet for an ABC vote.

No. And as usual votes will split giving the Conservatives a way in.

Canada338 has my riding, for instance, with the Conservatives at 39 per cent; the NDP at 31 and the Liberals at 22. Guess who's gonna grab the seat? :-(

And yes, I know, that's the rules. Just saying, if the NDP and Liberals merged, it would really change our political landscape.

In the ridings the Conservatives will win in BC, they would only hold 2 for sure if the NDP/Liberal vote was combined.  There is only one riding where there is a tight three way race.  There is one other riding where the Liberal and Conservative candidates are tied, with the NDP way back, if those NDP voters vote ABC the Liberal will win.

In my own riding the Liberal candidate will win even if the Conservative and NDP vote was combined.

The problem with the debate is that it's all about the soundbite. Granted a debate between 5 people is hard to do, unlike, say, the American one.

But for instance.

Question: We have a very important question about affordability. Lots of people can't afford rent, young people will never be able to rent a home.
Mr. Trudeau you have 45 seconds on this very important subject, the rest of you can counter with 5 seconds.

Like, really?


I watched the whole thing. I doubt these things change anybody's minds do they?
I was impressed with Paul, actually. I can see women voting for her. There she was unable to get a word in with these four bullying guys around her. Her attitude was, "I can't keep repeating my mantra with these guys saying different things all the time."
I felt for Blanchet. He made a fair point about not having as much time. But quite frankly--what is he doing in a national debate? Most of the time his answers began with, "Well, I would do nothing for Canada."
The other three were exactly as I'd expect.
I thought Trudeau made a good point with Singh when he said that Singh doesn't seem to think it matters whether the Liberals or the Conservatives win. O'Toole came across as a nice, clean cut guy. Very WASPY. I'm sure both my parents will vote for him. Lots of vacuous statements like "we want to help all Canadians."
Trudeau looked like he was  struggling not to reach over and punch the shit out of both O'Toole and Singh-- and even the moderator. He was on the defensive a lot, but that's the norm for the incumbent.

I'm voting tomorrow.

Quote from: Josephus on September 10, 2021, 03:28:14 PM
The problem with the debate is that it's all about the soundbite. Granted a debate between 5 people is hard to do, unlike, say, the American one.

Yeah the debates are about sound bites, about poise, about narrative, and about political spectacle. They'll suck if you want them to be something else. But far what they are, I think they're fine and valuable.

Debates are also supposed to be about debating policies.  That was actually the stated purpose for this debate.  But the people who created the structure made that impossible.  It was worse than useless, it was detrimental because a candidate like Paul could talk all she wanted because no one had an interest in interrupting her.  Not so for the serious candidates.  Having 5 there makes no sense.  Let the I am only for Quebec guy speak in a debate that only involves Quebec issues (oh and never have a debate that only involves Quebec issues).  And get rid of the fringe parties that don't poll over 10% nationally.

Quote from: HVC on September 10, 2021, 06:56:45 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2021, 09:03:18 PM
Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

what'd they say?

It's worth it to listen to her loaded questions just to understand how QC bashing forms.

Here you have a supposedly neutral moderator, on probably one of the most watched tv program of the last few years in Canada, asking biased questions. It'd be as if the moderator asked Biden how come he supports murdering babies since he supports Roe v Wade.

Then you have a relatively uninformed public that rarely follows politics take it at face value, and the cycle continues.

Today Trudeau and even O'Toole criticized the moderator/questions. The damage is done of course. Business as usual.

... and because noone wanted to be talked about as the guy who spoke over the only woman on stage.

Anyways, I disagree with you about leaving "the Quebec guy" out. The BQ has a large number of seats in Parliament, they absolutely should be heard. If you don't like their policies and priorities, that's no reason to exclude them.

Personally, I think it's good to have the smaller parties there. The whole FPTP system is already heavily rigged against alternative voices being heard, I don't think the debates should stifle them further.

As for the debates being about debating policies, which debate has been the best at achieving that in previous elections, in your view?

On Quebec bashing - Zoupa, Grey Fox - just to make sure I'm clear on where you're coming from.

While folks often use Quebecs secularism laws as a bludgeon for Quebec bashing, it is possible to make good faith arguments that those laws are in fact racist without bashing Quebec, yes?

The Quebec bashing aspect of the question in the debate last night was about the timing (opening with it) and appropriateness (it's not really relevant to the Federal election) rather than the question itself, right?

Or is it your view that the secularism laws are racist inherently Quebec bashing, full stop?

I'm not looking to get into the weeds on the discussion here, but - as a member of what Zoupa calls "the relatively uninformed public" - I'd like to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2021, 07:44:36 PM
While folks often use Quebecs secularism laws as a bludgeon for Quebec bashing, it is possible to make good faith arguments that those laws are in fact racist without bashing Quebec, yes?

I think that can be done, yes. A useless thing to do but possible. Maybe Scholars could.

Quote
The Quebec bashing aspect of the question in the debate last night was about the timing (opening with it) and appropriateness (it's not really relevant to the Federal election) rather than the question itself, right?

Yes that's a big aspect of it. RoC politicians & pundits have no floor to stand on to argue any of it.

Quote
Or is it your view that the secularism laws are racist inherently Quebec bashing, full stop?

When a RoC pundit/politicians says so yes. It is willful ignorance of what has lead to Quebec adopting laws that strengthen secularism while weakening religiousness for the purpose of marking points on the look how much better than them we are front.

She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2021, 07:44:36 PM
The Quebec bashing aspect of the question in the debate last night was about the timing (opening with it) and appropriateness (it's not really relevant to the Federal election) rather than the question itself, right?

It was the timing, appropriateness but MOSTLY the question itself. Imagine this question "Ms Paul, why do you support apartheid against Palestinians?"

Quote from: Zoupa on September 11, 2021, 04:31:13 AM
She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2021, 06:41:52 PM
... and because noone wanted to be talked about as the guy who spoke over the only woman on stage.

Anyways, I disagree with you about leaving "the Quebec guy" out. The BQ has a large number of seats in Parliament, they absolutely should be heard. If you don't like their policies and priorities, that's no reason to exclude them.

Personally, I think it's good to have the smaller parties there. The whole FPTP system is already heavily rigged against alternative voices being heard, I don't think the debates should stifle them further.

As for the debates being about debating policies, which debate has been the best at achieving that in previous elections, in your view?

The principle should be that only parties contending to form government should be permitted to appear.  The BQ guy said that is not his goal and of course it isn't.

Thanks Grey Fox and Zoupa. That makes sense.

Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2021, 09:50:39 AM
Thanks Grey Fox and Zoupa. That makes sense.

A discriminatory law never makes sense.  If it was happening in the US you would be all over it. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 07:45:48 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 11, 2021, 04:31:13 AM
She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

Yeah the secularism law is discriminatory, but it is not the purpose of it to be discriminatory. It is just that secularism is viewed as more important as religious freedom when employee represents the State. And I am very fine with the idea of discriminating people at work to fulfill that higher idea of separation of Church and State. It is a debate of collective rights vs individual freedom. When both are against each other, I usually prefer the collective rights.

Is there any political appetite in Canada for fixing the electoral system at all?
Or is it similar to the UK and US where things are broken but any thought of change is madness?

Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2021, 11:57:21 AM
Is there any political appetite in Canada for fixing the electoral system at all?
Or is it similar to the UK and US where things are broken but any thought of change is madness?

There are discussion to add more proportional results because third parties are consistently under representated in parliaments, but I think Trudeau broke his promise. In Québec, the implementation of a proportional rule is postpone to the 2026 election.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 10:47:29 AM
A discriminatory law never makes sense.  If it was happening in the US you would be all over it.

I wanted to understand why our Quebec posters thought asking the question was Quebec bashing, and I understand that better now. This country has a long history of anti-French discrimination and prejudice, and the effects of that are still felt today. As such, I think it's important to understand the perspectives of Quebecois and other French-Canadians. If the population of Quebec broadly - as exemplified by our posters here - viewed the question as Quebec bashing then I want to understand why, and you saying essentially "it wasn't because the question was TRUE" helps exactly nothing in achieving that.

I do believe Quebec's secularity laws are discriminatory, as I understand them. It's a discussion we've had here more than once and I'm sure we'll have it again. Maybe we'll even have it right now if you find any takers. Personally I don't think anything has changed particularly on that front recently and I don't think it's particularly topical in this federal election either, so I'm going to pass.

Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2021, 11:57:21 AM
Is there any political appetite in Canada for fixing the electoral system at all?
Or is it similar to the UK and US where things are broken but any thought of change is madness?

No. Trudeau promised he would look at it. But didn't. Strangely no one's bringing that up now.

Here's the thing, no elected governemnt will ever want to change the system that got it elected in the first place.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 10:47:29 AM
A discriminatory law never makes sense.  If it was happening in the US you would be all over it.

Laws always discriminate, by creating categories of licit and illicit behavior, some of which may indeed be claimed as core to one's identity - as the current debate over vaccines illustrates well, or debates around, say, the necessity of wearing a hard hat on construction sites. The issue at stake is whether this particular discrimination, around matters of religious clothing, ought to happen or not.

As Jacob mentions, it's a real debate - and so it ought to be treated as such, which is to say: an issue where one could perhaps acknowledge that the other party may have valid points. In this context, the role of the moderator isn't to already embed the conclusion in her question - but rather, to offer the opportunity to discuss the point. This isn't what happened. My particular beef about the debate isn't too much that Law 21 was brought up, because the federal government could have a role to play in challenging it, or not. But the moderator's intervention and tone was yet again another iteration of making Quebec the convenient "Other" of Canada:  "help us understand why you are so racist".

Let's imagine an equivalent question to Erin O'Toole: "For those of you outside of Alberta, help us understand why your party is such a welcoming home for men who wish to control women's bodies".

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 07:45:48 AM
Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

It is as discriminatory has any law of the land.  Laws restricting tobacco and marijuana use inside public buildings discriminate against smokers.  All the covid laws are discriminatory as they burden the healthy to protect the unhealthy.  But we do accept them because we see the bigger context.

I did appreciate that each of the five leaders of the parties from the debate shot a video promoting vaccination. Good to see vax vs anti-vax is not turning into a partisan issue in the election.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 07:45:48 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 11, 2021, 04:31:13 AM
She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

:shrug:

I see the Conservative Party is going on the record as being against mandatory vaccinations.

Have the other parties made definitive statements in favour or against, or are they leaving it unaddressed?

Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2021, 11:20:09 AM
I see the Conservative Party is going on the record as being against mandatory vaccinations.

Have the other parties made definitive statements in favour or against, or are they leaving it unaddressed?

Against my better judgment I'll respond.

I don't believe any party has come out in favour of "mandatory vaccinations", as in mandating vaccination for all citizens (absent legit medical conditions).  Where the debate has been is over vaccine passports, or mandating vaccinations for certain jobs or positions.

Thank you.

Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2021, 11:20:09 AM
I see the Conservative Party is going on the record as being against mandatory vaccinations.

Have the other parties made definitive statements in favour or against, or are they leaving it unaddressed?

Define mandatory vaccinations? No one is going to force people to have vaccines, no.

The Liberals recently legislated that you will require to have a vaccine to board national transports, such as planes and VIA trains. They have ensured vaccinations across the federal public service
O'Toole is against this.

Most provinces already have rules on that. In Conservative Ontario, for instance, starting next month you will require a vaccine passport to go to movies, concerts, etc.

Quote from: Josephus on September 13, 2021, 11:05:04 AM
Define mandatory vaccinations? No one is going to force people to have vaccines, no.

The Liberals recently legislated that you will require to have a vaccine to board national transports, such as planes and VIA trains. They have ensured vaccinations across the federal public service
O'Toole is against this.

Most provinces already have rules on that. In Conservative Ontario, for instance, starting next month you will require a vaccine passport to go to movies, concerts, etc.

I think that's what was meant when it was stated that the "Conservatives don't support mandatory vaccinations", but what in what I saw it reported (IIRC it was an Alberta or Saskatchewan MP up for reelection making the statement) it wasn't defined in more detail.

Quote from: Rex Francorum on September 11, 2021, 11:53:50 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 07:45:48 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 11, 2021, 04:31:13 AM
She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

Yeah the secularism law is discriminatory, but it is not the purpose of it to be discriminatory. It is just that secularism is viewed as more important as religious freedom when employee represents the State. And I am very fine with the idea of discriminating people at work to fulfill that higher idea of separation of Church and State. It is a debate of collective rights vs individual freedom. When both are against each other, I usually prefer the collective rights.

I appreciate the way you are approaching this.   You have explained the arguments justifying a discriminatory law.  That is the answer that could have been given during the debate.  However, what we got was a denial that the law is discriminatory.  You and I will disagree over the whether the law as currently drafted strikes the appropriate balance to achieve its objective.  But at least we would would be discussing the question directly rather than some who become outraged at the suggestion that the law is in fact discriminatory.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 12, 2021, 01:59:15 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 07:45:48 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 11, 2021, 04:31:13 AM
She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

:shrug:

Are you in the group of people who deny the fact the law is discriminatory or do you accept it is discriminatory and justify having a discriminatory law on some basis?

Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2021, 12:03:43 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 13, 2021, 11:05:04 AM
Define mandatory vaccinations? No one is going to force people to have vaccines, no.

The Liberals recently legislated that you will require to have a vaccine to board national transports, such as planes and VIA trains. They have ensured vaccinations across the federal public service
O'Toole is against this.

Most provinces already have rules on that. In Conservative Ontario, for instance, starting next month you will require a vaccine passport to go to movies, concerts, etc.

I think that's what was meant when it was stated that the "Conservatives don't support mandatory vaccinations", but what in what I saw it reported (IIRC it was an Alberta or Saskatchewan MP up for reelection making the statement) it wasn't defined in more detail.

And this ambiguity is what the Conservative position depends on.  But I think it is really a moot point Federally.  All the important mandate requirements come at the provincial level - where imo, it should be.  The main concern I have with vaccine mandates from the federal parties is that a Conservative government would not help fund the extra expenses associated with the provinces implementing vaccine mandates.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 12:32:34 PM

Quote from: Rex Francorum on September 11, 2021, 11:53:50 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 07:45:48 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 11, 2021, 04:31:13 AM
She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

Yeah the secularism law is discriminatory, but it is not the purpose of it to be discriminatory. It is just that secularism is viewed as more important as religious freedom when employee represents the State. And I am very fine with the idea of discriminating people at work to fulfill that higher idea of separation of Church and State. It is a debate of collective rights vs individual freedom. When both are against each other, I usually prefer the collective rights.

I appreciate the way you are approaching this.   You have explained the arguments justifying a discriminatory law.  That is the answer that could have been given during the debate.  However, what we got was a denial that the law is discriminatory.  You and I will disagree over the whether the law as currently drafted strikes the appropriate balance to achieve its objective.  But at least we would would be discussing the question directly rather than some who become outraged at the suggestion that the law is in fact discriminatory.

That's only because Rex & you agree on that interpretation of discriminatory. I suspect Blanchet doesn't.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 12:43:31 PM
That's only because Rex & you agree on that interpretation of discriminatory. I suspect Blanchet doesn't.

Those who do not acknowledge it is discriminatory are operating on the level of Trumpian alternative facts.  The Quebec Superior Court has already ruled that it is discriminatory.  As I noted before, the only reason the law is still on the books is because Quebec invoked the Notwithstanding clause.

It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 12:51:54 PM
It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

"Anglo-saxon based law"?  You seem to be saying that this ruling was forced upon Quebec from outside.

But no, it was the Quebec Superior Court that ruled Bill 21 violated the Charter of Rights, in a decision by Justice Marc-André Blanchard.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-21-religious-symbols-ban-quebec-court-ruling-1.5993431

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 12:51:54 PM
It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

That the law has already been found to be discriminatory is a certain objective fact.  The Rule of Law still means something.  Trump did much to destroy it.  And we are seeing the effects reverberate, including a leader of a political party becoming outraged at a question which is entirely factual. 

There are arguments that can be made for justifying the discriminatory effect of the law - which Rex eloquently summarized.  If that is what you mean by philosophical, then fine.  But if one wishes to sweep the troublesome question under the rug by ignoring the discriminatory effect, that is intellectually dishonest.

The Charter is from outside, like the constitution it is attached to.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 12:59:59 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 12:51:54 PM
It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

That the law has already been found to be discriminatory is a certain objective fact.  The Rule of Law still means something.  Trump did much to destroy it.  And we are seeing the effects reverberate, including a leader of a political party becoming outraged at a question which is entirely factual. 

There are arguments that can be made for justifying the discriminatory effect of the law - which Rex eloquently summarized.  If that is what you mean by philosophical, then fine.  But if one wishes to sweep the troublesome question under the rug by ignoring the discriminatory effect, that is intellectually dishonest.

Yes, that's fair. The modern BQ narrative is to paint Canada has anti-Quebec and for some reason last Thursday Kurl & Paul decided to help Blanchet paint it.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 01:00:57 PM
That Charter is from outside, like the constitution it is attached to.

And the Quebec government invoked the Notwithstanding clause.  They did not engage in the fantasy that the law is not discriminatory. They fully realized it was and so put in the Constitutional mechanism to protect it from being overturned.

Yes. Our plans for independence have failed...twice. :(

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 01:03:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 12:59:59 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 12:51:54 PM
It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

That the law has already been found to be discriminatory is a certain objective fact.  The Rule of Law still means something.  Trump did much to destroy it.  And we are seeing the effects reverberate, including a leader of a political party becoming outraged at a question which is entirely factual. 

There are arguments that can be made for justifying the discriminatory effect of the law - which Rex eloquently summarized.  If that is what you mean by philosophical, then fine.  But if one wishes to sweep the troublesome question under the rug by ignoring the discriminatory effect, that is intellectually dishonest.

Yes, that's fair. The modern BQ narrative is to paint Canada has anti-Quebec and for some reason last Thursday Kurl & Paul decided to help Blanchet paint it.

I agree.  Kurl created a platform, I think unwittingly.  There is a lot I did not like about how she moderated the debate, and that tops the list.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:04:33 PM
And the Quebec government invoked the Notwithstanding clause.  They did not engage in the fantasy that the law is not discriminatory. They fully realized it was and so put in the Constitutional mechanism to protect it from being overturned.

I don't think that follows. Surely you can dispute the court's ruling and say they got it wrong and still reject that it's discriminatory, but acknowledge they're the court so you have to invoke the appropriate constitutional mechanism?

Well, it's a political debate. A careful considerations of philosophical points, it is not. And a neutral expression of fact by the moderator, it wasn't either. Context, and tone, is important. By framing her intervention under the rubric of "racism", it was clear she did not intend to discuss the merit of relative discriminatory clauses, but was rather using it in the commonsensical meaning of "bad, bad thing", as in, "why are you in favor of this bad, bad thing?". 

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 01:00:57 PM
The Charter is from outside, like the constitution it is attached to.

The Charter was never Quebec's point of opposition - at least as long as it included the Notwithstanding clause.

On the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords (which Quebec did sign, although they were not implemented) would not have amended the Charter.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 01:06:00 PM
Yes. Our plans for independence have failed...twice. :(

It is worth noting that Quebec was able to do as it wished by implementing the Notwithstanding clause.  That was its purpose.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:09:25 PM
Well, it's a political debate. A careful considerations of philosophical points, it is not. And a neutral expression of fact by the moderator, it wasn't either. Context, and tone, is important. By framing her intervention under the rubric of "racism", it was clear she did not intend to discuss the merit of relative discriminatory clauses, but was rather using it in the commonsensical meaning of "bad, bad thing", as in, "why are you in favor of this bad, bad thing?".

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing.  And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2021, 01:08:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:04:33 PM
And the Quebec government invoked the Notwithstanding clause.  They did not engage in the fantasy that the law is not discriminatory. They fully realized it was and so put in the Constitutional mechanism to protect it from being overturned.

I don't think that follows. Surely you can dispute the court's ruling and say they got it wrong and still reject that it's discriminatory, but acknowledge they're the court so you have to invoke the appropriate constitutional mechanism?

The Notwithstanding clause was not invoked after the court decision - it was drafted into the legislation.  A clear recognition that law required that protection.

Further, it would be very hard to argue that the law has no discriminatory effect and I don't think that argument was made.  The legal argument of those who support it is not to deny the discriminatory effect but to argue that it is justified under our constitution.  To get further into the weeds, we have a saving provision that a law which breaches a Charter right can still stand if it can be justified - something called the Oakes Test.  But they did not have to press that argument very hard because, as noted, they could rely on the Notwithstanding clause.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:19:33 PM
But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:26:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:19:33 PM
But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

This is the second time you've raised a hypothetical about Erin O'Toole having to defend something happening in Alberta.

Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

Question for the Quebecers: is Francois Legault's effective endorsement of the Conservatives something that is likely to move the needle?

It's certainly different than here in Alberta where Jason Kenney has gone into witness protection for the duration of the campaign.

I am distraught to have to agree that YFBlanchet is a political leader :(

Dude is a power standing agent hack. :(

Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2021, 01:35:05 PM
Question for the Quebecers: is Francois Legault's effective endorsement of the Conservatives something that is likely to move the needle?

It's certainly different than here in Alberta where Jason Kenney has gone into witness protection for the duration of the campaign.

Yes, against the CAQ next election. It was a very dumb move for him. Will probably help the PPC outside of Beauce.

Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2021, 01:32:12 PM
Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

And the CPC has about half its MPs from Alberta, which reliably delivers the overwhelming majority of its MPs to that single party. And yet, I am pretty sure people within the CPC, and within Alberta, exist somewhere alongside a spectrum about what we ought to do about the environment. My point has little to do with the reality of O'Toole personally, and more about the sort of asumptions embedded in the moderator's question.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:26:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:19:33 PM
But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

The question asked how he could justify a law which is discriminatory - that seems a fair framing and asks the same question as whether the Notwithstanding clause was appropriate.

The issue of whether the question should have been asked at all is different.  I think it detracted from what the debate should have been about - national issues.

Your analogy would be more accurate if the question directed to O'Toole asked him to justify his policy on climate change - and the roll back of targets, with the implication that it was harmful.  And in fact that is the question that was asked of him. 

Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2021, 01:32:12 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:26:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:19:33 PM
But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

This is the second time you've raised a hypothetical about Erin O'Toole having to defend something happening in Alberta.

Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

O'Toole is the leader of a party which derives a significant amount of its political and financial support from the province of Alberta.  Where he was born and where he lives as an individual does not change that fact.

I can only tell you how the question was received here - and there is a pretty wide consensus, including between people both for and against Bill 21.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:42:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2021, 01:32:12 PM
Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

And the CPC has about half its MPs from Alberta, which reliably delivers the overwhelming majority of its MPs to that single party. And yet, I am pretty sure people within the CPC, and within Alberta, exist somewhere alongside a spectrum about what we ought to do about the environment. My point has little to do with the reality of O'Toole personally, and more about the sort of asumptions embedded in the moderator's question.

Last elections the Conservatives elected 121 MPs, 33 of which were from Alberta.

I feel like this tangentially says more about your own assumptions.  Bill 21 is a specific law that Blanchet has specifically supported.  It is thus fair game to ask him about it.  You can argue how the question was asked (I didn't watch the debate).

O'Toole is responsible for the things he has said, and the policies of the party he leads.  But he's not responsible for answering things that happen in Alberta.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:51:25 PM
I can only tell you how the question was received here - and there is a pretty wide consensus, including between people both for and against Bill 21.

Perhaps that had more to do with the tone in which she asked the question - a discernable sneer in the moderator's voice.  Rather than the content of the question. 

This goes to a fundamental problem I had with the whole thing - the moderator and media personalities brought on stage were not there to facilitate a discussion amongst the candidates, they were there to put the spotlight on themselves.  And boy did the moderator do that with the opening question.  I think we need to nuke that format from orbit just to be sure.

If the question "Please explain why your party supports a law which is discriminatory" had been posed in a way that anticipated there was a valid answer for consideration and discussion, I think that would have created a much more interesting and meaningful debate.

Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2021, 01:52:07 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:42:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2021, 01:32:12 PM
Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

And the CPC has about half its MPs from Alberta, which reliably delivers the overwhelming majority of its MPs to that single party. And yet, I am pretty sure people within the CPC, and within Alberta, exist somewhere alongside a spectrum about what we ought to do about the environment. My point has little to do with the reality of O'Toole personally, and more about the sort of asumptions embedded in the moderator's question.

Last elections the Conservatives elected 121 MPs, 33 of which were from Alberta.

I feel like this tangentially says more about your own assumptions.  Bill 21 is a specific law that Blanchet has specifically supported.  It is thus fair game to ask him about it.  You can argue how the question was asked (I didn't watch the debate).

O'Toole is responsible for the things he has said, and the policies of the party he leads.  But he's not responsible for answering things that happen in Alberta.

But the Federal Conservative party has supported the Alberta constitutional challenge to overturn the carbon tax.  It has also expressly agreed with the Alberta position that the carbon tax should be scrapped.  I am not sure how one can claim that O'Toole is not tied to the climate change policies of Alberta.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:19:33 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2021, 01:09:25 PM
Well, it's a political debate. A careful considerations of philosophical points, it is not. And a neutral expression of fact by the moderator, it wasn't either. Context, and tone, is important. By framing her intervention under the rubric of "racism", it was clear she did not intend to discuss the merit of relative discriminatory clauses, but was rather using it in the commonsensical meaning of "bad, bad thing", as in, "why are you in favor of this bad, bad thing?".

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing.  And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

It all depends on context doesn't it. Laws and customs evolve. Laws discriminate and rein in people's freedoms in a zillion ways. Discriminatory has a very negative connotation in English, yet we never hear it applied to anti-smoking laws or speed limits.

I don't even know why the BQ leaders participate in the English debates to be honest. What's the point?

Quote from: Zoupa on September 13, 2021, 09:45:16 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 01:19:33 PM
But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing.  And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

It all depends on context doesn't it. Laws and customs evolve. Laws discriminate and rein in people's freedoms in a zillion ways. Discriminatory has a very negative connotation in English, yet we never hear it applied to anti-smoking laws or speed limits.

I don't even know why the BQ leaders participate in the English debates to be honest. What's the point?

Can you clarify? I'm not sure "discriminatory" anti-smoking laws or speed limits are best examples of why it may not be problematic for a law to discriminate.

Well since cc went all semantic, Merriam-Webster defines discriminatory as making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things.

Calling something discriminatory implies that the treatment is unfair and/or prejudicial. I don't think Bill 21 is unfair, fairness is subjective. As for prejudice, I don't see it either but then again I'm not a lawyer. If people want a particular job, they can remove their cross/kippah/hijab/pasta strainer during work hours. Is that really prejudicial?

Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

Like say stop speaking a language?

Quote from: HVC on September 14, 2021, 08:08:53 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

Like say stop speaking a language?

Yes, like those.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

:huh:

Quote from: Zoupa on September 14, 2021, 06:09:06 AM
Calling something discriminatory implies that the treatment is unfair and/or prejudicial. I don't think Bill 21 is unfair, fairness is subjective. As for prejudice, I don't see it either but then again I'm not a lawyer. If people want a particular job, they can remove their cross/kippah/hijab/pasta strainer during work hours. Is that really prejudicial?

The kippah or the hijab are seen as religious requirements - their faith demands them to wear them.  In a country that guarantees freedom of religion it is unfair and prejudicial to force someone to violate their religious faith if they want to work in a government job.  In particular because there is no evidence that such signs of religious devotion impact the ability of someone to do their job.

I've mentioned before my colleague who is a practicing sikh and wears his turban to court (and everywhere else).  Doesn't impact his ability to do his job in the slightest.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 14, 2021, 06:09:06 AM
Well since cc went all semantic, Merriam-Webster defines discriminatory as making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things.

Calling something discriminatory implies that the treatment is unfair and/or prejudicial. I don't think Bill 21 is unfair, fairness is subjective. As for prejudice, I don't see it either but then again I'm not a lawyer. If people want a particular job, they can remove their cross/kippah/hijab/pasta strainer during work hours. Is that really prejudicial?

Is it prejudicial?  Yes, it is.  I urge you to read the decision of the Quebec Superior Court which sets out why that is.

The people suggesting that the law is not discriminatory are the ones engaging in semantics.  The position justifying the discriminatory effect of the law is a lot more credible.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

Yes, a Black person can stop wanting to ride in the front of the bus and a law requiring them to ride in the back is discriminatory.  As terrible as that is, the law in Quebec goes further.  People who wear a Turban (Sikhs) or a Hijab (Muslim women) cannot even get on the metaphorical bus.


 

Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 14, 2021, 11:05:49 AM
Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

The law expects people to abandon their religious beliefs to work. The analogy is apt. 

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 14, 2021, 11:05:49 AM
Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

It's not just a piece of clothing - it's a piece of clothing required by certain religions.

Here's section 15 of the Charter:

Quote15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Since both race/ethnic origin, and religion, are both mentioned, the comparison feels apt.

And religion is perhaps even more protected since section 2 states:

Quote2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a. freedom of conscience and religion;

Look, if you want to argue why this particular form of discrimination is required you're free to do so.  Canada is not an absolute on such questions - the Charter is limited by both section 1 (rights may be limited as can be justified in a free and democratic society) and section 33 (notwithstanding clause).  But it's still discrimination.

The Conservative momentum has stalled out and reversed a bit, and the Liberals now seem to have a slight lead (which given how the votes are distributed means it's likely they'll win the largest number of seats).

Singh's current message: Trudeau means well, sure, but he is ineffectual. We will push harder to make life better for Canadians.

O'Toole's current message: We've laid out a serious plan that's better for Canada. Also Trudeau is a putz and should be punished for selfishly calling this election that nobody wants.

Trudeau's current message: The Conservatives will take us backwards, just look at them being insubstantial on vaccines. The NDP isn't really serious.

Early voting closed yesterday. Six days to go.

I really think that Bernier's PPC is going to fuck this up for the Conservatives.

The PPC was a non-factor in 2019, and was a non-factor at the start of this campaign.  But they saw an opening for being anti-vax mandate, anti-vax passport that no other party was appealing to, and they're now getting 5-9% in the most recent polls.  As I always warn you can't simply say that 5-9% would automatically go to the Conservatives, but it does appear that some 60% of their support is coming from those who voted Conservative in 2019.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-maxime-bernier-peoples-party-1.6174014

Still very unlikely the PPC elects any candidates so they're playing the ultimate spoiler, but that appears to be what is happening.

I know that the Conservative Party's platform is not anti-vax, but I do wonder to what degree the current situation in Alberta and obnoxious anti-vax loons targeting Trudeau is influencing public perception.

I haven't - contrary to what Neil suggested - seen much overt effort to saddle the CCP with that, but when looking for explanations for the reason slow-down and slide in CCP poll numbers I wonder if that may be the explanation?

Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2021, 11:44:40 AM
I really think that Bernier's PPC is going to fuck this up for the Conservatives.

The PPC was a non-factor in 2019, and was a non-factor at the start of this campaign.  But they saw an opening for being anti-vax mandate, anti-vax passport that no other party was appealing to, and they're now getting 5-9% in the most recent polls.  As I always warn you can't simply say that 5-9% would automatically go to the Conservatives, but it does appear that some 60% of their support is coming from those who voted Conservative in 2019.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-maxime-bernier-peoples-party-1.6174014

Still very unlikely the PPC elects any candidates so they're playing the ultimate spoiler, but that appears to be what is happening.

Yeah, that makes sense. I wonder whether the PPC will stick around in future elections when - presumably (hopefully) - anti-vax is not an issue anymore....

I think the Conservative numbers would have been stable but for the PPC.   Jacob, the issues you were talking about would have given people who were choosing between the NDP and Liberals another reason not to vote Conservative - so that should not have brought the Conservative numbers down. 

The thing I think hurting O'Toole's numbers the most is summed up in the Globe and Mail piece from last week saying he is the most liberal leader the Conservatives have had.  The author of the piece meant it as a compliment regarding O'Toole's reading the mood of the public.  But I don't think dyed in the wool Conservatives necessarily see it that way.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2021, 12:09:10 PM
I think the Conservative numbers would have been stable but for the PPC.   Jacob, the issues you were talking about would have given people who were choosing between the NDP and Liberals another reason not to vote Conservative - so that should not have brought the Conservative numbers down.

I was thinking that there might be people on the edge of voting Conservative - who might not like Trudeau etc - who's more put off by anti-vax shenanigans than Trudeau. But maybe that's a tiny demographic.

QuoteThe thing I think hurting O'Toole's numbers the most is summed up in the Globe and Mail piece from last week saying he is the most liberal leader the Conservatives have had.  The author of the piece meant it as a compliment regarding O'Toole's reading the mood of the public.  But I don't think dyed in the wool Conservatives necessarily see it that way.

Yeah that makes sense. The PPC numbers seem to bear that out. But conversely, if O'Toole attempted to rein PPC supporters back into the fold, how much would he lose from his centre-right and centre voters?

O'Toole and the Conservative party have, apparently, sent a letter to Premier Legault saying that while they will scrap the Liberal child care plan, they will negotiate to keep Quebec's money on the table.

Sorry, RoC. No affordable Child care for you.

The people who might be thinking about maybe voting conservative would not have shown up in the polling numbers as supporters.  Their support has dropped because Conservative supporters are going elsewhere and likely mostly to the PPC.  Incidentally someone tried to create the PPs in BC back with the Socreds collapsed - the Pacific Party.  But when someone pointed out they would be known as the pee pees, the idea lost lustre.

The numbers show O'Toole is not having a great deal of success attracting people beyond the core Conservative vote - hence his declining numbers.  It was just too late for him to try to pitch himself as something other than the usual Conservative especially when he pitched himself as a right wing Conservative at their leadership contest.  Not to mention he leads of party that is very much influenced by social conservatives.  It is the balancing act everyone Conservative leader has who tries to pull the party toward policies more acceptable to Canadians - they always risk the hard right breaking off like the Reformers did back in the day.   The Canadian Conservative party is a lot like the UK Labour party - they can't seem to keep their eyes on what it will take to actually govern the country for more than a limited period of time.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 01:31:43 PM
O'Toole and the Conservative party have, apparently, sent a letter to Premier Legault saying that while they will scrap the Liberal child care plan, they will negotiate to keep Quebec's money on the table.

Sorry, RoC. No affordable Child care for you.

Once again it is valuable to know what he is saying to Quebec.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 01:31:43 PM
O'Toole and the Conservative party have, apparently, sent a letter to Premier Legault saying that while they will scrap the Liberal child care plan, they will negotiate to keep Quebec's money on the table.

Sorry, RoC. No affordable Child care for you.

... if the Conservatives win. But we know that. We'll be getting an anemic tax credit plan instead.

Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2021, 01:37:44 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 01:31:43 PM
O'Toole and the Conservative party have, apparently, sent a letter to Premier Legault saying that while they will scrap the Liberal child care plan, they will negotiate to keep Quebec's money on the table.

Sorry, RoC. No affordable Child care for you.

... if the Conservatives win. But we know that. We'll be getting an anemic tax credit plan instead.

If a majority yes.  But that is not likely.  If a minority it will all depend on whether they can stand with only the Bloc supporting them.  That would be a truly terrifying result.  Shovel as much money as necessary to Quebec to keep the Bloc support and then provide the rest of the country with (I like your word) anemic policies.

Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2021, 01:37:44 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 01:31:43 PM
O'Toole and the Conservative party have, apparently, sent a letter to Premier Legault saying that while they will scrap the Liberal child care plan, they will negotiate to keep Quebec's money on the table.

Sorry, RoC. No affordable Child care for you.

... if the Conservatives win. But we know that. We'll be getting an anemic tax credit plan instead.

Yes but we won't. We'll still get the money.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2021, 01:47:02 PM
Yes but we won't. We'll still get the money.

:cheers:

Quote from: Zoupa on September 13, 2021, 09:45:16 PM
I don't even know why the BQ leaders participate in the English debates to be honest. What's the point?

The Anglo vote in Montreal?

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2021, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 14, 2021, 11:05:49 AM
Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

The law expects people to abandon their religious beliefs to work. The analogy is apt.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss this - but I fear this may not be the thread to do so.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 14, 2021, 06:32:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2021, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 14, 2021, 11:05:49 AM
Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

The law expects people to abandon their religious beliefs to work. The analogy is apt.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss this - but I fear this may not be the thread to do so.

The Canada Politics Redux thread is a bit all over the place right now. Might be an okay place for Bill 21 discussion...?

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 14, 2021, 06:32:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2021, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 14, 2021, 11:05:49 AM
Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

The law expects people to abandon their religious beliefs to work. The analogy is apt.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss this - but I fear this may not be the thread to do so.

I would enjoy that. 

As Jacob suggested, let's reconvene in Josephus' general Canadian Politics thread.

Exciting announcement made by Jagmeet Singh today!

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1437909278006910981

That's right - the NDP is launching their very own island in Animal Crossing!  Text the NDP to get access today.

Quote from: Neil on September 14, 2021, 03:23:11 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 13, 2021, 09:45:16 PM
I don't even know why the BQ leaders participate in the English debates to be honest. What's the point?

The Anglo vote in Montreal?

Not sure if serious...

I'm guessing they participate in the Anglo debate generally because parts of it will get covered in Francophone media, and that's typically a good thing during a campaign. More specifically, because it's a great opportunity to emphasize how they stand up for Quebec interest against the ignorant ROC (as the discussion about Quebec bashing in this thread exemplifies).

It's a great opportunity for Blanchet to say things like "yesterday O'Toole/ Trudeau said such-and-such in French, I wonder if he is willing to make the same statement tonight in English", which makes the BQ look like they're doing great work keeping the other parties honest in terms of what they say in French.

Also I think Blanchet takes a certain amount of personal pleasure in baiting Alberta once in a while.

Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2021, 12:28:51 AM
Also I think Blanchet takes a certain amount of personal pleasure in baiting Alberta once in a while.

As well he should.

Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2021, 07:44:36 PM
On Quebec bashing - Zoupa, Grey Fox - just to make sure I'm clear on where you're coming from.

While folks often use Quebecs secularism laws as a bludgeon for Quebec bashing, it is possible to make good faith arguments that those laws are in fact racist without bashing Quebec, yes?

"Tell Mr Singh, can you explain why terrorism is so popular among the Sikh and Muslim communities?".

Sure, it can be debated...

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 12:34:06 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 12, 2021, 01:59:15 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2021, 07:45:48 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 11, 2021, 04:31:13 AM
She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

:shrug:

Are you in the group of people who deny the fact the law is discriminatory or do you accept it is discriminatory and justify having a discriminatory law on some basis?

Isn't mandatory vaccination discriminatory?  Actually, simply requiring it for non essential purposes is discriminatory.  I can't seem to recall you defending the freedom of anti-vax.  Why not? Because you are personally concerned over this situation?

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2021, 12:45:50 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2021, 12:43:31 PM
That's only because Rex & you agree on that interpretation of discriminatory. I suspect Blanchet doesn't.

Those who do not acknowledge it is discriminatory are operating on the level of Trumpian alternative facts.  The Quebec Superior Court has already ruled that it is discriminatory.  As I noted before, the only reason the law is still on the books is because Quebec invoked the Notwithstanding clause.

Link me to that judgement please.

Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2021, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2021, 07:44:36 PM
On Quebec bashing - Zoupa, Grey Fox - just to make sure I'm clear on where you're coming from.

While folks often use Quebecs secularism laws as a bludgeon for Quebec bashing, it is possible to make good faith arguments that those laws are in fact racist without bashing Quebec, yes?

"Tell Mr Singh, can you explain why terrorism is so popular among the Sikh and Muslim communities?".

Sure, it can be debated...

Despite Jagmeet Singh's appearance at a pro-Khalistan rally in 2015 where posters and banners of a Sikh terrorist were displayed, Singh has been quite vocal that he is opposed to terrorism in all forms and that should be good enough for everyone.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-sikh-independence-rally-1.4575762

Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2021, 11:38:33 AM
Actually, simply requiring it for non essential purposes is discriminatory.  I can't seem to recall you defending the freedom of anti-vax.  Why not? Because you are personally concerned over this situation?

You are attributing a meaning to the word discriminatory that is seems to be rather unique.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_bRVYDXsAYf1nz?format=jpg&name=small)

:wub:

Savage Love :wub:

BB, this must be exhausting! You have so much energy. I'm impressed.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 16, 2021, 01:40:11 PM
BB, this must be exhausting! You have so much energy. I'm impressed.

The zeal of the newly converted.

the greying in his beard is nicely symmetrical.

Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2021, 11:44:31 AM

Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2021, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2021, 07:44:36 PM
On Quebec bashing - Zoupa, Grey Fox - just to make sure I'm clear on where you're coming from.

While folks often use Quebecs secularism laws as a bludgeon for Quebec bashing, it is possible to make good faith arguments that those laws are in fact racist without bashing Quebec, yes?

"Tell Mr Singh, can you explain why terrorism is so popular among the Sikh and Muslim communities?".

Sure, it can be debated...

Despite Jagmeet Singh's appearance at a pro-Khalistan rally in 2015 where posters and banners of a Sikh terrorist were displayed, Singh has been quite vocal that he is opposed to terrorism in all forms and that should be good enough for everyone.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-sikh-independence-rally-1.4575762

sure.  But it's the way you frame questions that matters.

It's getting close in my oshawa riding, currently held by CPC's Colin Carrie.  PPC have definately made a dent there. Wish more Liberal voters think strategically



Latest 338 projections have  %

CPC 36
NDP 33
LPC22
PPC7

I was watching a Botez Twitch stream the other day, and Andrea Botez was taking part in a game with other streamers and Jagmeet Singh.  Jagmeet seems like a cool dude.  I don't know what he stands for, but he'll have my vote after I move to Canada in 2025.

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 09:50:28 AM
I was watching a Botez Twitch stream the other day, and Andrea Botez was taking part in a game with other streamers and Jagmeet Singh.  Jagmeet seems like a cool dude.  I don't know what he stands for, but he'll have my vote after I move to Canada in 2025.

He's in the North American social democrat space, more or less, which makes him anywhere from "imminently sensible" through "hopelessly naive" to "a danger to society" depending on where you stand.

They're sitting at roughly 20% of the national vote, with potentially 10-15% of the seats in parliament. The best case for them - which is very possible - is for the NDP to get enough seats that the Liberals need them (and only them) to govern. In this case, the NDP could potentially influence policy somewhat.

Other scenarios include the Libs getting a majority, the Libs needing the NDP and the BQ (the Quebec party) to govern, and - of course - the Conservatives winning.

My riding:
https://qc125.com/canada/24051f.htm (https://qc125.com/canada/24051f.htm)



:wub:

Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2021, 10:10:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 09:50:28 AM
I was watching a Botez Twitch stream the other day, and Andrea Botez was taking part in a game with other streamers and Jagmeet Singh.  Jagmeet seems like a cool dude.  I don't know what he stands for, but he'll have my vote after I move to Canada in 2025.

He's in the North American social democrat space, more or less, which makes him anywhere from "imminently sensible" through "hopelessly naive" to "a danger to society" depending on where you stand.

You missed just plain "dreamy". :wub:

Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2021, 10:55:00 AM
You missed just plain "dreamy". :wub:

Didn't want to steal your niche :hug:

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 09:50:28 AM
I was watching a Botez Twitch stream the other day, and Andrea Botez was taking part in a game with other streamers and Jagmeet Singh.  Jagmeet seems like a cool dude.  I don't know what he stands for, but he'll have my vote after I move to Canada in 2025.

He's borderline communist and he has a chip on his shoulder due to the racism he suffered growing up.  Any white person disagreeing with him is a racist, and visible minorities have no fault, they are all victims, regardless of their status.  Basically, he's slightly to the left of AOC.  He has shown a total lack of respect for French Canadians and Quebecers, despite spending a part of his life in Montreal, and he constantly proposes for the Federal govt to intervene in provincial jurisdictions.  On this, he's a clone of Justin Trudeau, hence why he was willing to go with him despite the clear evidence of corruption and parliamentary obstruction.  Just like any other leftist, he'll sell his soul to the devil if that brings him closer to a socialist Canada.

Case in point re: "depending on where you stand"  :lol:

:lol:

Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2021, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 09:50:28 AM
I was watching a Botez Twitch stream the other day, and Andrea Botez was taking part in a game with other streamers and Jagmeet Singh.  Jagmeet seems like a cool dude.  I don't know what he stands for, but he'll have my vote after I move to Canada in 2025.

He's borderline communist and he has a chip on his shoulder due to the racism he suffered growing up.  Any white person disagreeing with him is a racist, and visible minorities have no fault, they are all victims, regardless of their status.  Basically, he's slightly to the left of AOC.  He has shown a total lack of respect for French Canadians and Quebecers, despite spending a part of his life in Montreal, and he constantly proposes for the Federal govt to intervene in provincial jurisdictions.  On this, he's a clone of Justin Trudeau, hence why he was willing to go with him despite the clear evidence of corruption and parliamentary obstruction.  Just like any other leftist, he'll sell his soul to the devil if that brings him closer to a socialist Canada.

:rolleyes: He was speaking French during the stream, you know?  And if he really were all that, would Beeb be supporting him so ardently?

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 02:11:20 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2021, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 09:50:28 AM
I was watching a Botez Twitch stream the other day, and Andrea Botez was taking part in a game with other streamers and Jagmeet Singh.  Jagmeet seems like a cool dude.  I don't know what he stands for, but he'll have my vote after I move to Canada in 2025.

He's borderline communist and he has a chip on his shoulder due to the racism he suffered growing up.  Any white person disagreeing with him is a racist, and visible minorities have no fault, they are all victims, regardless of their status.  Basically, he's slightly to the left of AOC.  He has shown a total lack of respect for French Canadians and Quebecers, despite spending a part of his life in Montreal, and he constantly proposes for the Federal govt to intervene in provincial jurisdictions.  On this, he's a clone of Justin Trudeau, hence why he was willing to go with him despite the clear evidence of corruption and parliamentary obstruction.  Just like any other leftist, he'll sell his soul to the devil if that brings him closer to a socialist Canada.

:rolleyes: He was speaking French during the stream, you know?  And if he really were all that, would Beeb be supporting him so ardently?

:lol:

https://twitter.com/AnnieClaireBO/status/1438930408356335626

Singh shows off his moves on a skateboard upon his arrival to Halifax. :wub:

Bernie Sanders weighs in as well, endorsing Jagmeet Singh. :o

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1438936022159593474


Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton endorses Justin Trudeau.  He's doomed. :(

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1438902448442195971

So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

Unlikely I think, based on current poll numbers.  No one is really ready in the wings for either party to push for a leadership contest.

Obviously a more decisive win by either party might change that analysis, but I don't see that happening.

Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

I think the knifes will be out for O'Toole almost immediately. 

I hope Justin decides to spend more time with his family but I think that is unlikely as he will be PM in a continuing minority government.

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 02:11:20 PM
:rolleyes: He was speaking French during the stream, you know?  And if he really were all that, would Beeb be supporting him so ardently?

I can speak French too.  Doesn't make me a candidate for sainthood.
As for BB, in case you haven't guessed, he was sarcastic.  He's not voting NDP this election.

Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2021, 07:33:59 PM
I can speak French too.  Doesn't make me a candidate for sainthood.

:o

Quote
As for BB, in case you haven't guessed, he was sarcastic.  He's not voting NDP this election.

:o

Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2021, 12:18:28 PM
Case in point re: "depending on where you stand"  :lol:

Of course.  :)  I don't deny it: I am attached to my culture and my language and my autonomy as an individual.  My provincial government is the best once in position to guarantee my rights, albeit, sometimes, it needs a little bit of push by the Federal government. 

We certainly do not need anyone deciding everything for us.  If that's what English Canada wants, they can have it.  Then they can whine when we tell them they have weak provincial governments and insists the Feds do everything in their place.

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 07:35:59 PM
:o

:lol:

This is turning out way more hillariously than I had first anticipated :cheers:

Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2021, 07:33:59 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 02:11:20 PM
:rolleyes: He was speaking French during the stream, you know?  And if he really were all that, would Beeb be supporting him so ardently?

I can speak French too.  Doesn't make me a candidate for sainthood.
As for BB, in case you haven't guessed, he was sarcastic.  He's not voting NDP this election.

Keep listening to CC, Viper.  He'll make you see the True Path of Progressivism.(tm)

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2021, 04:56:18 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

I think the knifes will be out for O'Toole almost immediately. 

I hope Justin decides to spend more time with his family but I think that is unlikely as he will be PM in a continuing minority government.

I don't think O'Toole is on his way out yet. Expectations were low, and, I think he was, until recently in the campaign, doing much better than those low expectations. I am sure some old Reform Party people will hold a grudge for recentering and trotting out Mulroney, but the current discredit of Alberta's policies may smother that fire a bit.

I voted NDP. This is the way.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2021, 09:36:55 PM
I voted NDP. This is the way.

CC is obviously very persuasive... first BB, then you.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2021, 09:36:55 PM
I voted NDP. This is the way.

:cheers:

me too.

Hmmm...what do you make of this? Shades of the U.S. election. mail in ballots may not be counted until Tuesday

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-counting-elections-canada-2021-1.6179742

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 17, 2021, 09:14:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2021, 04:56:18 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

I think the knifes will be out for O'Toole almost immediately. 

I hope Justin decides to spend more time with his family but I think that is unlikely as he will be PM in a continuing minority government.

I don't think O'Toole is on his way out yet. Expectations were low, and, I think he was, until recently in the campaign, doing much better than those low expectations. I am sure some old Reform Party people will hold a grudge for recentering and trotting out Mulroney, but the current discredit of Alberta's policies may smother that fire a bit.

I think your second point is the key.  This is the Conservative (Reform, Alliance) party we are talking about here.  Plus there is a long tradition of bringing knives out at the slightest sign of weakness.  If he can do no better than Scheer did, they will probably dump him they way they did with Scheer.  And Scheer was politically more acceptable to the Reform core of the party. 

Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2021, 10:27:23 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2021, 09:36:55 PM
I voted NDP. This is the way.

CC is obviously very persuasive... first BB, then you.

My work here is almost done.  When Viper reports he will vote NDP I can retire.

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 08:15:13 AM
Hmmm...what do you make of this? Shades of the U.S. election. mail in ballots may not be counted until Tuesday

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-counting-elections-canada-2021-1.6179742

Perhaps more like shades of BC two elections ago.  Not only will we have to wait for the mail in ballots to be counted, but we may have to see who can form a government that would have the confidence of Parliament.

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 05:56:48 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2021, 09:36:55 PM
I voted NDP. This is the way.

:cheers:

me too.

Congrats on your assistance in potentially putting the conservatives in power :P

Quote from: HVC on September 18, 2021, 10:14:33 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 05:56:48 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2021, 09:36:55 PM
I voted NDP. This is the way.

:cheers:

me too.

Congrats on your assistance in potentially putting the conservatives in power :P

Actually in Josephus' riding it is the Liberal voters who would be doing that.  The NDP candidate has the best chance of winning that riding.

In mine the Liberal candidate is far out in front.  I am about 99% certain how I am going to vote on Monday, the one factor I don't have to worry about is the Conservative candidate winning.

If that was a factor I would not be at 99% certainty.  :)

I always vote NDP. My riding is  going to be Liberal with 40% or so.

Quote from: HVC on September 18, 2021, 10:14:33 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 05:56:48 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2021, 09:36:55 PM
I voted NDP. This is the way.

:cheers:

me too.

Congrats on your assistance in potentially putting the conservatives in power :P

Yes, as CC explained. in my Oshawa riding, currently held by a Conservative, the NDP are polling second. Voting Liberal would guarantee a Conservative win. Trying to stop that. (Though latest poll shows a sizable  5 point lead for the Conservative. :-(

So Trudeau pulled out the electoral reform promise - OK Lucy, put that football down in front of me again.  I am positive you will not pull it away this time.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2021, 10:47:09 AM
So Trudeau pulled out the electoral reform promise - OK Lucy, put that football down in front of me again.  I am positive you will not pull it away this time.

Well, he's saying no proportional representation (which would lower the chances of future majority governments, Liberal and Conservative) but that he's interested in ranked preferences (which would help consolidate Liberal/ NDP votes vs Conservatives while also, presumably reducing the Conservative loss to PPC type splitters).

I mean, I'd happily look at a proposal. Like you, I don't expect one, but even if there is a proposal I'd expect it to be self-serving for the Libs.

It's certainly not an additional reason to vote Liberal, I don't think.

He is trying to say now that he has always been a supporter of ranked ballots - but he was talking about proportional representation in the 2015 election.  Even more reason not to vote for this PM.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2021, 10:47:09 AM
So Trudeau pulled out the electoral reform promise - OK Lucy, put that football down in front of me again.  I am positive you will not pull it away this time.

Yeah, thought that was odd.

But as I said before, no elected government will reform a system that gets them elected.

Latest 338 poll shows Liberals and Conservatives neck in neck in percentage votes, with the Liberals getting 4 more seats than the Conservatives. This is gonna be a close one, folks.

Being tied in across the country is bad news for the Conservatives since they have concentrated support in two provinces. 

 

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 08:15:13 AM
Hmmm...what do you make of this? Shades of the U.S. election. mail in ballots may not be counted until Tuesday

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-counting-elections-canada-2021-1.6179742

In some ridings, it may be hard to know who's won by the end of the evening, but it is unlikely to affect the national result.  The election is decided in the east, after all, well before we finalize BC and Alberta's results.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2021, 10:06:29 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 08:15:13 AM
Hmmm...what do you make of this? Shades of the U.S. election. mail in ballots may not be counted until Tuesday

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-counting-elections-canada-2021-1.6179742

In some ridings, it may be hard to know who's won by the end of the evening, but it is unlikely to affect the national result.  The election is decided in the east, after all, well before we finalize BC and Alberta's results.

Do you think there will be a sufficient margin before polls close in the West for one party to claim victory - I doubt that will occur this election.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2021, 10:08:22 AM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2021, 10:06:29 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 08:15:13 AM
Hmmm...what do you make of this? Shades of the U.S. election. mail in ballots may not be counted until Tuesday

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-counting-elections-canada-2021-1.6179742

In some ridings, it may be hard to know who's won by the end of the evening, but it is unlikely to affect the national result.  The election is decided in the east, after all, well before we finalize BC and Alberta's results.

Do you think there will be a sufficient margin before polls close in the West for one party to claim victory - I doubt that will occur this election.

We'll see tonight.  Might not be able to vote, after all.  Stupid meeting tonight that risk going late in the night.  I much prefer these sessions when there's NHL hockey on tv, the councilors have a vetted interest in making things get over quickly. :P

Two separate Facebook friends of mine (both old fraternity brothers) have posted about supporting the PPC. :rolleyes: <_<

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2021, 10:06:29 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2021, 08:15:13 AM
Hmmm...what do you make of this? Shades of the U.S. election. mail in ballots may not be counted until Tuesday

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-counting-elections-canada-2021-1.6179742

In some ridings, it may be hard to know who's won by the end of the evening, but it is unlikely to affect the national result.  The election is decided in the east, after all, well before we finalize BC and Alberta's results.

Yeah but there's quite a few close ridings in the east, and with up to possibly a million mail-ins, and with the vote so close, it might be tough to call this one before Wednesday. We'll see.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2021, 10:10:41 AM
I much prefer these sessions when there's NHL hockey on tv, the councilors have a vetted interest in making things get over quickly. :P

:lol:

Quote from: Josephus on September 20, 2021, 06:27:01 AM
Latest 338 poll shows Liberals and Conservatives neck in neck in percentage votes, with the Liberals getting 4 more seats than the Conservatives. This is gonna be a close one, folks.

Interesting. The CBC aggregate tracker (https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/) agrees that the Libs and Cons are neck and neck in percentages (31.5% vs 30.0%), but for seats they project 155 vs 119, and 32 NDP (though "likely" ranges of 121-168, 105 - 143, and 24 - 48 respectively).

It'll be interesting to see which one is closer, 338 or the CBC.

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 10:53:22 AM
Two separate Facebook friends of mine (both old fraternity brothers) have posted about supporting the PPC. :rolleyes: <_<

That has to be frustrating.

I wonder to what extent the PPC vote is driven by vacccine and lock-down frustration compared to other issues.

Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2021, 11:33:47 AM

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 10:53:22 AM
Two separate Facebook friends of mine (both old fraternity brothers) have posted about supporting the PPC. :rolleyes: <_<

That has to be frustrating.

I wonder to what extent the PPC vote is driven by vacccine and lock-down frustration compared to other issues.

Almost 100%.


In other words, the Conservatives put out a Facebook message touting all the endorsements they've received.  Pretty standard stuff really.

(https://scontent.fybz2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/s640x640/242201268_10159392103094204_4820266296603771070_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_rgb565=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=_EaySnVlNEgAX-kvCjJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fybz2-2.fna&oh=62b38221be739b52afdd05031aabf547&oe=616CD53D)

But what they don't tell you is that every single one of those newspapers is owned by the same company, Postmedia.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2021, 10:06:29 AM
In some ridings, it may be hard to know who's won by the end of the evening, but it is unlikely to affect the national result.  The election is decided in the east, after all, well before we finalize BC and Alberta's results.

Given the current distributions, it's possible that the BC results are what determines the shape of the government. If the Libs get close to a majority, it could be BC results that put them over the hump (or not). Similarly, it's possible BC determines whether the Libs can only reach a majority with the NDP, another where they could have a choice between the BQ and NDP, and another where they'll need both.

... or maybe the election will be determined before the BC votes are tallied, as usual :D

Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2021, 12:14:44 PM
... or maybe the election will be determined before the BC votes are tallied, as usual :D

I certainly remember as a kid, and even into my 20s or 30s turning on the election results before a single ballot in western Canada had been counted, only to find that the winner had already been announced.

But they "fixed" that a couple of elections ago.  Now the polls close from Quebec all the way to Alberta all at the same time - 9:30 EDT, 7:30 MDT.  Polls in BC then close just 30 minutes later at 7pm PDT.  There won't really be meaningful results from the bulk of the country in just 30 minutes.

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 12:20:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2021, 12:14:44 PM
... or maybe the election will be determined before the BC votes are tallied, as usual :D

I certainly remember as a kid, and even into my 20s or 30s turning on the election results before a single ballot in western Canada had been counted, only to find that the winner had already been announced.

But they "fixed" that a couple of elections ago.  Now the polls close from Quebec all the way to Alberta all at the same time - 9:30 EDT, 7:30 MDT.  Polls in BC then close just 30 minutes later at 7pm PDT.  There won't really be meaningful results from the bulk of the country in just 30 minutes.

I think your memory is faulty.  When you were in your 20s and 30s you could not turn on the election results prior to the close of polls in the West because those were blocked.  There was one election where that did not happen and viewers in the West could see the results coming in from the East.  But that was a one off owing to the fact that the constitutional challenge was successful at the BCSC but had not yet been overturned by the appellate court and then the SCC on a 5/4 split.  Now it happens because the legislation was changed and the blackout is no longer in effect.

Note that it was not the time shift that changed - they were essentially the same during the constitutional challenge.  What changed is the ban on showing results where the polling has not closed was removed.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2021, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 12:20:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2021, 12:14:44 PM
... or maybe the election will be determined before the BC votes are tallied, as usual :D

I certainly remember as a kid, and even into my 20s or 30s turning on the election results before a single ballot in western Canada had been counted, only to find that the winner had already been announced.

But they "fixed" that a couple of elections ago.  Now the polls close from Quebec all the way to Alberta all at the same time - 9:30 EDT, 7:30 MDT.  Polls in BC then close just 30 minutes later at 7pm PDT.  There won't really be meaningful results from the bulk of the country in just 30 minutes.

I think your memory is faulty.  When you were in your 20s and 30s you could not turn on the election results prior to the close of polls in the West because those were blocked.  There was one election where that did not happen and viewers in the West could see the results coming in from the East.  But that was a one off owing to the fact that the constitutional challenge was successful at the BCSC but had not yet been overturned by the appellate court and then the SCC on a 5/4 split.  Now it happens because the legislation was changed and the blackout is no longer in effect.

Note that it was not the time shift that changed - they were essentially the same during the constitutional challenge.  What changed is the ban on showing results where the polling has not closed was removed.

My memory is just fine CC.

You are correct that results were blocked.  But if the polls closed at say 8pm, you'd turn on the TV at 8:01 to find that a winner had already been declared in some elections.

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 01:25:28 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2021, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 12:20:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2021, 12:14:44 PM
... or maybe the election will be determined before the BC votes are tallied, as usual :D

I certainly remember as a kid, and even into my 20s or 30s turning on the election results before a single ballot in western Canada had been counted, only to find that the winner had already been announced.

But they "fixed" that a couple of elections ago.  Now the polls close from Quebec all the way to Alberta all at the same time - 9:30 EDT, 7:30 MDT.  Polls in BC then close just 30 minutes later at 7pm PDT.  There won't really be meaningful results from the bulk of the country in just 30 minutes.

I think your memory is faulty.  When you were in your 20s and 30s you could not turn on the election results prior to the close of polls in the West because those were blocked.  There was one election where that did not happen and viewers in the West could see the results coming in from the East.  But that was a one off owing to the fact that the constitutional challenge was successful at the BCSC but had not yet been overturned by the appellate court and then the SCC on a 5/4 split.  Now it happens because the legislation was changed and the blackout is no longer in effect.

Note that it was not the time shift that changed - they were essentially the same during the constitutional challenge.  What changed is the ban on showing results where the polling has not closed was removed.

My memory is just fine CC.

You are correct that results were blocked.  But if the polls closed at say 8pm, you'd turn on the TV at 8:01 to find that a winner had already been declared in some elections.

Again that would not have occurred in your 30s. The vote stagger was in place by then.  It was put in place to deal with the very phenomenon you are talking about.  In your 30s there was a 30 minute window between polls closing in Alberta and those in Quebec and Ontario.  So unless those provinces had extreme vote counting speedsters, voters in those provinces would not even know the results before the polls closed in Alberta.  :P

Voting was quick and easy.  But because of COVID the polling station was moved from a spacious school gym to a cramped church.  I am not sure that is the right decision - felt sorry for all those election workers jammed into that small space.

Yeah same. It was quick. Strangely, I read on Radio-Canada that there was a shortage of election workers and that waiting could be longer this year. I guess I was lucky.

Voted Bloc. They are head to head with the liberal Jean-Yves Duclos in my riding (Québec). If Duclos wins, I won't be sad. I kinda like him.

I heard the same thing and so I went at 10am thinking that would be a slow time.  I was talking to one of the election staff and she told me they were completely empty in the early morning and I had come at a high volume time.  So I got the timing all wrong, but really they were not that busy, so I am a bit worried that turnout is going to be low for this election, at least in my riding.

Voting took about 10 minutes for me.  I made it there for 4:30, so not quite the after-work rush but seemed like it was building.  About the typical length.

The orange wave is certainly not starting in the maritimes... :(

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 08:28:39 PM
The orange wave is certainly not starting in the maritimes... :(

The problem with your recent turn as an NDP partisan is that I don't know if this is you pretending to be progressive and thus disappointed, or whether you're genuinely disappointed because you were hoping for an NDP wave to undermine the Liberals :D

I voted back in advanced polling. I had to wait 1 hour. It was a mistake.

I should have voted in advanced polling, I couldn't make it in time tonight.  Oh well.

Still hoping for a minority Conservative government.

Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2021, 08:35:36 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 08:28:39 PM
The orange wave is certainly not starting in the maritimes... :(

The problem with your recent turn as an NDP partisan is that I don't know if this is you pretending to be progressive and thus disappointed, or whether you're genuinely disappointed because you were hoping for an NDP wave to undermine the Liberals :D

You don't think a leopard can change his spots? :(

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2021, 09:21:52 PM
I should have voted in advanced polling, I couldn't make it in time tonight.  Oh well.

Still hoping for a minority Conservative government.

Won't happen.

CBC just called a Liberal victory.

Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2021, 09:24:26 PM
You don't think a leopard can change his spots? :(

I believe in redemption, yes.

I was not, however, completely convinced by your recent turn as progressive partisan :(

Not again!  :(

Oh well.  Hopefully, they won't have a majority.  I'll be curious about the Greens and PPC score, and where they scored the most.

If the current elected + leading holds (which is still a bit early), it looks like a minority Liberal government that can rely on either the BQ or the NDP to pass something.

So 600+ millions later and we get the same parliament. Great job Trudeau.

I can't believe people turned up the chance to vote for dreamy Jagmeet Singh in favour of that corrupt piece of shit Trudeau.

Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2021, 09:46:37 PM
it looks like a minority Liberal government that can rely on either the BQ or the NDP to pass something. anything they want.

Fixed it for you.  No need to thank me.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 20, 2021, 10:32:56 PM
So 600+ millions later and we get the same parliament. Great job Trudeau.

It was expected. It was either a minority PLC or a minority PCC.

Mad Max was defeated in his Beauce riding.

Quote« Aujourd'hui, nous avons fait l'histoire. La politique canadienne sera changée à tout jamais », a déclaré Maxime Bernier devant ses sympathisants réunis à Saskatoon, en Saskatchewan.

Selon des résultats encore préliminaires, le PPC récoltait un peu plus de 5 % des votes, contre moins de 2 % en 2019. Il n'a toutefois pas réussi à faire élire un candidat. En Beauce, Maxime Bernier a été défait par le conservateur Richard Lehoux. Il avait ravi le siège de Maxime Bernier en 2019.

« J'aime mieux perdre debout avec mes principes qu'à genoux sans principes », a commenté Maxime Bernier en entrevue à Radio-Canada.

L'absence de députés élus à la Chambre des communes n'empêchera pas le PPC de continuer « le combat pour les libertés en dehors du Parlement, dans la rue, pour influencer l'opinion publique », a déclaré M. Bernier devant ses partisans, qui scandaient « freedom » (liberté).

« C'est une révolution idéologique que nous entamons aujourd'hui même », a déclaré M. Bernier, estimant que les votes en sa faveur témoignaient de citoyens qui « en ont assez de l'hystérie covidienne ».

Translation here (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.lapresse.ca/elections-federales/2021-09-20/parti-populaire-du-canada/nous-avons-fait-l-histoire-dit-maxime-bernier.php)

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2021, 10:57:38 PM
Fixed it for you.  No need to thank me.

Don't worry, I won't.

If I was writing for the Beaverton my headline would be - Trudeau rewards Bernier with trip to Agha Khans private island

Conservative vote in Alberta was down 13% from 2019, while steady or upwards in every other part of Canada.

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
Conservative vote in Alberta was down 13% from 2019, while steady or upwards in every other part of Canada.

Your advocacy for the NDP must've been highly effective. :thumbsup:

Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2021, 12:17:25 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
Conservative vote in Alberta was down 13% from 2019, while steady or upwards in every other part of Canada.

Your advocacy for the NDP must've been highly effective. :thumbsup:

Why thank you, but it probably has more to do with how badly Alberta screwed up this 4th wave of Covid.

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
Conservative vote in Alberta was down 13% from 2019, while steady or upwards in every other part of Canada.

In theory a worthwhile tradeoff, but you'll need more of it.

BTW, do you have a good site that shows the vote percentages and comparables by region and sub-region?

Locally in the Lower Mainland the Conservatives lost several suburban ridings that typically go Conservative, and I think the story was similar in various Ontario suburbs. If I were to speculate I think Covid (having to guard the right flank vs the PPC and Kenney's less then stellar record here) was probably a key driver. Maybe daycare, transit, and energy/ oil as well... but I'm less sure there.

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:20:50 PM
Why thank you, but it probably has more to do with how badly Alberta screwed up this 4th wave of Covid.

I concur. I think other issues may have impacted the election as well - nothing is ever simple - but I think Covid-19 handling was a key factor. There's very little patience for Covidiot coddling and nuance on vaccinations in the cities and suburbs, I think.

I was discussing the election yesterday and - in spite of the decline for the Lib on calling the election and the whole "you're wasting our time and money for this election" - it may have been a good tactical move. Assuming we're more clear of Covid in a year or two, the PPC is probably going to be less of a vote-splitter to the Conservatives unless they find another issue beyond end-the-lockdowns-and-vax-choice... and I'm not sure what that would be.

Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2021, 12:23:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
Conservative vote in Alberta was down 13% from 2019, while steady or upwards in every other part of Canada.

In theory a worthwhile tradeoff, but you'll need more of it.

BTW, do you have a good site that shows the vote percentages and comparables by region and sub-region?

Locally in the Lower Mainland the Conservatives lost several suburban ridings that typically go Conservative, and I think the story was similar in various Ontario suburbs. If I were to speculate I think Covid (having to guard the right flank vs the PPC and Kenney's less then stellar record here) was probably a key driver. Maybe daycare, transit, and energy/ oil as well... but I'm less sure there.

I don't.  I can pull some of this by hand.

In BC in 2019 he vote percentages were Con 34.0, Lib 26.2, NDP 24.4, Grn 12.5, PPC 1.7
In 2021 the results are Con 33.4, Lib 26.8, NDP 29.0, Grn 5.3, PPC 5.1

Hard to draw a lot of conclusions other than a shift from the Greens to the NDP and the growth of the PPC.  The big 2 are virtually unchanged.

I saw an analysis that the rise in PPC support across the country could have affected up to 24 ridings.

This might work for you Jacob.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canadian-federal-election-2021-live-results-map/

Alice Wong lost a long time Conservative riding in Richmond - really the last conservative stronghold in Metro Vancouver.  And even in Alberta the Conservatives did not do well in urban ridings.  The Conservatives are going to have to figure out how to appeal to urban voters.

I don't think that will happen though and we are likely going to be in a long cycle of minority governments.  I don't think that will be a bad thing.

I think gun control is going to continue to be a problem for the Conservatives.  It is the wedge issue that will never go away unless the Conservatives can manage their base to accept the reality that Canadians living in cities want strong gun control laws.

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:35:35 PM
In BC in 2019 he vote percentages were Con 34.0, Lib 26.2, NDP 24.4, Grn 12.5, PPC 1.7
In 2021 the results are Con 33.4, Lib 26.8, NDP 29.0, Grn 5.3, PPC 5.1

Hard to draw a lot of conclusions other than a shift from the Greens to the NDP and the growth of the PPC.  The big 2 are virtually unchanged.

I think the Greens did not go to the NDP.  They are foes in this province.  I think the Green vote went to the PPC (as we discussed there are a lot of right of centre green members and Bernier's anti vax stance likely resonated with some of them) and the Liberals - for the non wing nuts.  I think the NDP increase was at the expense of the Liberals - ie NDP voters who did not feel the need to vote strategically in this election.

The PPC had an impact on the Richmond election put probably did not decide the seat if I am right about how the votes migrated from the last election.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2021, 12:41:22 PM
I think the Greens did not go to the NDP.  They are foes in this province.  I think the Green vote went to the PPC (as we discussed there are a lot of right of centre green members and Bernier's anti vax stance likely resonated with some of them) and the Liberals - for the non wing nuts.  I think the NDP increase was at the expense of the Liberals - ie NDP voters who did not feel the need to vote strategically in this election.

The PPC had an impact on the Richmond election put probably did not decide the seat if I am right about how the votes migrated from the last election.

I saw an analysis where over half of PPC voters had voted Conservative in 2019.  The next biggest group was people who had voted PPC.

Interesting, is there a regional breakdown for that analysis.  I can see that being entirely accurate for the prairie provinces, and maybe Ontario.  But I am not sure about BC.

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:35:35 PM
I don't.  I can pull some of this by hand.

In BC in 2019 he vote percentages were Con 34.0, Lib 26.2, NDP 24.4, Grn 12.5, PPC 1.7
In 2021 the results are Con 33.4, Lib 26.8, NDP 29.0, Grn 5.3, PPC 5.1

Hard to draw a lot of conclusions other than a shift from the Greens to the NDP and the growth of the PPC.  The big 2 are virtually unchanged.

I saw an analysis that the rise in PPC support across the country could have affected up to 24 ridings.

Thank you :cheers:

... and agreed on the conclusions.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2021, 12:37:27 PM
This might work for you Jacob.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canadian-federal-election-2021-live-results-map/

Thanks :cheers:

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
Conservative vote in Alberta was down 13% from 2019, while steady or upwards in every other part of Canada.

Right...so as per my comment to your post in the Canada Politics thread....the Conservatives CAN win an election, yes even in a first-past the post election. If they continue to solidify those gains. First past the post also hurts the Liberals when "progressives" split their votes, as happens in many ridings too.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2021, 12:37:27 PM
I think gun control is going to continue to be a problem for the Conservatives.  It is the wedge issue that will never go away unless the Conservatives can manage their base to accept the reality that Canadians living in cities want strong gun control laws.

give more autonomy to the cities and let them ban guns in their territory while hunters and professional shooters can still partake in their hobby.

the protrait does not seem to have changed much for Quebec.

Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2021, 12:23:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
Conservative vote in Alberta was down 13% from 2019, while steady or upwards in every other part of Canada.

In theory a worthwhile tradeoff, but you'll need more of it.

BTW, do you have a good site that shows the vote percentages and comparables by region and sub-region?

This is the best I've found

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2021/results/

Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

Going back to this. It will be interesting to see if either runs next time.

O'Toole, it is clear, is seeing daggers all over the place and will likely not survive the next leadership review.
Trudeau: Will he seek a fourth term? Or is it likely, he'll step down as leader of the party in three years or so and let a new leader lead the party into the next election?

Quote from: Josephus on September 22, 2021, 11:05:10 AM

Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

Going back to this. It will be interesting to see if either runs next time.

O'Toole, it is clear, is seeing daggers all over the place and will likely not survive the next leadership review.
Trudeau: Will he seek a fourth term? Or is it likely, he'll step down as leader of the party in three years or so and let a new leader lead the party into the next election?

Pierre Trudeau was prime minister for 15 years (with the brief 9 month Joe Clark interregnum).  Justin is not terribly old at 49.  He has no obvious challengers for leadership (it's not like the Chretien / Martin leadership struggles).  Why wouldn't he stay as leader as long as he can, to maybe break his old man's duration?

Yeah, I don't see why Trudeau would step down unless there's some sort of scandal that really gets legs.

As for O'Toole, I'll defer to Beeb on that on how precarious his situation is.

I'm a progressive now, so I have no inside information about O'Toole.

But based on my former colleagues I suspect there will definitely be some knives out for O'Toole.  It hasn't gone without notice how he ran for leadership as a "true blue" conservative, but immediately shifted very hard to the middle in the election.  To some extent that's to be expected, but the firearms lobby won't ignore how quickly he threw the guns issue under the bus in the election.  Canada's NFA is nothing like the NRA used to be in the US but firearms is a very motivating issue for a sub-set of Conservative voters.

On the other hand that's twice now that the Conservatives have gone into an election with a brand new largely unknown leader (and where Trudeau seemed vulnerable), and twice that they've lost.  From a purely tactical decision there's a lot to be said for sticking with your leader and letting Canadians get more comfortable with him.  Much like Trudeau there's no obvious saviour waiting in the wings to challenge O'Toole (former me was kind of rooting for Pierre Poilievre, but only because I like low-charisma technocratic politicians).

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2021, 04:56:18 PM

Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So do you think it's fair to say that come Monday we'll see the last of either Justin or O'toole?

I think the knifes will be out for O'Toole almost immediately. 

I hope Justin decides to spend more time with his family but I think that is unlikely as he will be PM in a continuing minority government.

Josephus, my answer is the same as I gave before the election.

Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2021, 11:40:40 AM
I'm a progressive now, so I have no inside information about O'Toole.

But based on my former colleagues I suspect there will definitely be some knives out for O'Toole.  It hasn't gone without notice how he ran for leadership as a "true blue" conservative, but immediately shifted very hard to the middle in the election.  To some extent that's to be expected, but the firearms lobby won't ignore how quickly he threw the guns issue under the bus in the election.  Canada's NFA is nothing like the NRA used to be in the US but firearms is a very motivating issue for a sub-set of Conservative voters.

On the other hand that's twice now that the Conservatives have gone into an election with a brand new largely unknown leader (and where Trudeau seemed vulnerable), and twice that they've lost.  From a purely tactical decision there's a lot to be said for sticking with your leader and letting Canadians get more comfortable with him.  Much like Trudeau there's no obvious saviour waiting in the wings to challenge O'Toole (former me was kind of rooting for Pierre Poilievre, but only because I like low-charisma technocratic politicians).

Thanks :hug:

Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2021, 12:11:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2021, 11:40:40 AM
I'm a progressive now, so I have no inside information about O'Toole.

But based on my former colleagues I suspect there will definitely be some knives out for O'Toole.  It hasn't gone without notice how he ran for leadership as a "true blue" conservative, but immediately shifted very hard to the middle in the election.  To some extent that's to be expected, but the firearms lobby won't ignore how quickly he threw the guns issue under the bus in the election.  Canada's NFA is nothing like the NRA used to be in the US but firearms is a very motivating issue for a sub-set of Conservative voters.

On the other hand that's twice now that the Conservatives have gone into an election with a brand new largely unknown leader (and where Trudeau seemed vulnerable), and twice that they've lost.  From a purely tactical decision there's a lot to be said for sticking with your leader and letting Canadians get more comfortable with him.  Much like Trudeau there's no obvious saviour waiting in the wings to challenge O'Toole (former me was kind of rooting for Pierre Poilievre, but only because I like low-charisma technocratic politicians).

Thanks :hug:

Take it inside you two...sheesh.

Quote from: Josephus on September 22, 2021, 01:10:49 PM
Take it inside you two...sheesh.

Do you conceptualize languish as being "outside"?

Yeah feels like get a room would be more appropriate.