[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Mainstreet Research: CPC 46% / Liberal 25% / NDP 15% / Bloc 6% / Green 4%

MPs:


210 / 63 / 37 / 26 / 2
https://338canada.com/federal.htm

Man oh man.

I don't think I've ever seen the Conservative Party poll so high.  I'm pretty sure Harper was never at 42%.

You'd have to go back to Mulroney in the 80s - and as I've noted that was a different party, the PCs.

But as the saying goes, "polls are for dogs".  I'm pretty sure back in the 80s also the NDP was polling to be a majority government under Ed Broadbent.

[Jacob]

It's a little disconcerting for those of us who are unconvinced by Poilievre.

[Barrister]

It's a little disconcerting for those of us who are unconvinced by Poilievre.

So look - I'm sure a Conservative government will do things you disagree with.  On the one hand you should go and advocate for the Libs or NDP in the coming election.  Almost certainly they'll cut the carbon tax (which is a move I disagree with).  Probably won't spend as much on social programs as you'd like.

On the other hand - the country will move on.

I see this from the "Fuck Trudeau" people (and let's remember before that it was "Fuck Harper").  The country won't be destroyed.  Another election will come.


(now you can bring up Trump, which I think is a whole different story - but Poilievre is not Trump)

[crazy canuck]

Ed Broadbent never polled to be a majority government.  The first time that ever happened for the NDP was prior to the 2015 election.

Don't buy BB's rhetoric the Conservative party is the result of the Reformers and PCs rejoining.  Really its just the PCs under a different brand and of course leadership.  Which brings me to the main point. Mulroney was a very popular politician moving into his first term of office.  People voted for him more than against the Liberals.  It is the reverse today.  The popularity of the Poilievre is explained entirely by the unpopularity of Trudeau.  But for that the Conservatives would be stuck at their convoy trucker and Alberta base.

[crazy canuck]

It's a little disconcerting for those of us who are unconvinced by Poilievre.

So look - I'm sure a Conservative government will do things you disagree with.  On the one hand you should go and advocate for the Libs or NDP in the coming election.  Almost certainly they'll cut the carbon tax (which is a move I disagree with).  Probably won't spend as much on social programs as you'd like.

On the other hand - the country will move on.

I see this from the "Fuck Trudeau" people (and let's remember before that it was "Fuck Harper").  The country won't be destroyed.  Another election will come.


(now you can bring up Trump, which I think is a whole different story - but Poilievre is not Trump)

You do a good job of proclaiming that you are traditional conservative who beliefs in incremental change all the while supporting a party that will bring radical change.

[Grey Fox]

The country won't be destroyed.  Another election will come.

He'll erode, even more, the role of the federal government in multiple spheres of our society. Everytime that happens the RoC becomes a little more like the GOP USA. Fascism lies that way.

This could be our last federal election.

[Barrister]

Ed Broadbent never polled to be a majority government.  The first time that ever happened for the NDP was prior to the 2015 election.

Don't buy BB's rhetoric the Conservative party is the result of the Reformers and PCs rejoining.  Really its just the PCs under a different brand and of course leadership.  Which brings me to the main point. Mulroney was a very popular politician moving into his first term of office.  People voted for him more than against the Liberals.  It is the reverse today.  The popularity of the Poilievre is explained entirely by the unpopularity of Trudeau.  But for that the Conservatives would be stuck at their convoy trucker and Alberta base.

Why do you think Mulroney won the biggest majority in Canadian history?

It was explained entirely by the unpopularity of (Pierre) Trudeau!

Mulroney did some good things.  I'll defend his Free Trade deal until the day I die.  But there was no wave of Mulroney-mania in 1984.  But Pierre Trudeau, who'd already resigned once in 1979, was just well past his "best before" date and people were ready to move on.

I'll happily admit the same is true today.  Poilievre is no Obama-like figure inspiring waves of enthusiastic supporters across the country.  But he seems good enough, and safe enough to vote for instead of (Justin) Trudeau, who is also past his best-before date.


And I don't know if I can find it, but I know you're wrong - during Mulroney's days the NDP was in the lead in the polls.

Here's the best I can find:

https://jacobin.com/2024/02/ed-broadbent-new-democratic-party-social-democracy

In the mid-1980s, the press began to give equal treatment to Broadbent and the NDP alongside the Conservatives and Liberals. In 1987, the NDP was leading in national polls and even reached 25 percent support in Quebec. The party held its convention in Montreal, and membership in Quebec spiked from a few hundred to ten thousand.

(First and probably last time you'll see me cite Jacobin as an authority)

Maybe I over-stated when I said "majority" (I can't find the actual results) but back in 1987 the NDP appeared set to win the election.  Then of course 1988 election became a free trade referendum which Mulroney and the PCs won.

[Jacob]

So look - I'm sure a Conservative government will do things you disagree with.  On the one hand you should go and advocate for the Libs or NDP in the coming election.  Almost certainly they'll cut the carbon tax (which is a move I disagree with).  Probably won't spend as much on social programs as you'd like.

On the other hand - the country will move on.

I see this from the "Fuck Trudeau" people (and let's remember before that it was "Fuck Harper").  The country won't be destroyed.  Another election will come.


(now you can bring up Trump, which I think is a whole different story - but Poilievre is not Trump)

Yeah, I don't dread Poilievre the way I dread Trump. I don't think our democracy is under threat

... and the optimist in me hopes that if they do get a large majority like that, that will somehow soften the more radical tendencies of the party because they won't be easily held hostage by a small extremist caucus within the party or whatever.

[Barrister]

The country won't be destroyed.  Another election will come.

He'll erode, even more, the role of the federal government in multiple spheres of our society. Everytime that happens the RoC becomes a little more like the GOP USA. Fascism lies that way.

This could be our last federal election.

                                             

[crazy canuck]

The country won't be destroyed.  Another election will come.

He'll erode, even more, the role of the federal government in multiple spheres of our society. Everytime that happens the RoC becomes a little more like the GOP USA. Fascism lies that way.

This could be our last federal election.

                                             

Democracy dies with an eyeroll.

If you don't see the GOP playbook being used by the Conservatives you are not paying attention or are being willfully blind.

[crazy canuck]

But there was no wave of Mulroney-mania in 1984.

I suppose you have to belief that given you were beginning your journey into the Reform movement that ultimately destroyed the party.

But your view is not at all consistent with the facts.

[Barrister]

But there was no wave of Mulroney-mania in 1984.

I suppose you have to belief that given you were beginning your journey into the Reform movement that ultimately destroyed the party.

But your view is not at all consistent with the facts.

"Beginning my journey into the Reform movement"...

Do you ever listen to yourself?

First of all, the Reform Party didn't form until 1987, 3 years later (and was a complete fringe party in the 1988 election).

Second of all - I was 9 in 1984.  I do remember watching the election results - well I remember my parents turning on the tv only to be immediately informed Mulroney had already won.

Third - I can read.  I've read about the 1984 election.  I remember reading a biography of Mulroney.  And much like most elections - it's rarely the opposition that wins the election, but rather the government that loses them.  And the 1984 Liberals lost that election - even without Pierre Trudeau at the helm.

Fourth - I will repeat "Mulroney-mania" is not a phrase ever uttered in human history.  I in fact googled it - two hits.  One talking about Mulroney's "mania" about free markets (it's a Google books hit of what appears to be a fairly marxist text - I didn't bother reading further)

The second - and this is awesome actually - is an article from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reporting on the 1984 election.

But he gives few hints of what changes he has in mind. "This is a very shrewd calculation of what it is that most Canadians probably want change but without any drastic difference except stylistically," columnist Richard Gwyn wrote in the Toronto Star. Mulroney's appeal for change, however, seems to be catching on. In Magpie, a tiny village where the Mulroney caravan stopped briefly Monday, fisherman Alcide Derosby says he supports Mulroney because "he'll make some changes." Sid Collin in nearby Longue-pointe de Mingan said he would vote Tory "because we need change." Lysiane Gagnon, political columnist for the Montreal daily La Presse, said in an interview that many Quebecers seem to be going to Mulroney because "they want to be on the winning bandwagon." "Lots of people are going to vote Conservative for the first time in their lives," she said. "It's not a Mulroney-mania.

People aren't crazy about him. I hear people say, 'He doesn't say But he looks like a good guy." loday. The School of the Holy Childhood is facing a very special challenge the purchase and renovation of a new school By Charle Campbell Associated Press HAVRE ST. PIERRE. Quebec Brian Mulroney, whose Progressive Conservative Party has governed Canada for only nine months in the past 21 years, has caught the scent of Although the Tories trailed Prime 1 Minister John Turner's Liberals just last month, three polls in the past i week put Mulroney's troops solidly in front, suggesting the possibility of a Conservative landslide in the Sept 4 election.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/137133056/

So anyways - "Mulroney-Mania" appears to have only been uttered once in human history, and only to say that no such thing exists.



So actually I have to thank you.  Out of spite I hit up google expecting to find zero hits, only to find a contemporaneous news article that exactly proved the point I was making.  Thank you CC.  

[crazy canuck]

Oh boy, you got one person saying it's not, in a whole bunch of quotes saying people are voting for him because they like what he stood for.

Good bye Conservative fan boi

[viper37]

Mainstreet Research: CPC 46% / Liberal 25% / NDP 15% / Bloc 6% / Green 4%

MPs:


210 / 63 / 37 / 26 / 2
https://338canada.com/federal.htm

I'm pretty sure back in the 80s also the NDP was polling to be a majority government under Ed Broadbent.

My political memory does not extend that far and into such precise, minor events.  

[viper37]

The country won't be destroyed.  Another election will come.

It's what they said with Trump.

Sure, another election came.  But there are damages, visible damages to the US that they haven't recovered yet.  The US is not in the same position it was under Obama and the world has suffered.

The world will not suffer because of us, we're too small.  But we will suffer because of continued mismanagement.  Either option is bad for the country.  One is worst because they enter our private lives and fuck up the environment.