[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

'semi-witting or witting participants" in foreign interference activities.

CSIS is unwilling to divulge their sources publicly.

As well they shouldn't.

PP is unwilling to compromise one of his electoral base and lose financial support.

All he has to do is get the clearance, get the list of compromised or targeted MPs, Senators, candidates and clean up his party.  He will simply not sign their documents pertaining to their candidacy for the next election and they will go out quietly.  End of story.

So are you suggesting that part of Poilievre's base is either Chinese voters, or Indian(or Sikh) voters?  While the Conservatives have support in both groups, so do the Liberals and I don't see either as possibly being a "electoral base".

Otherwise - spell this out more literally for me please.

The Liberal Party relies on Sikh voters and money for their support.

The Conservative Party relies on Indian voters and money.  They do not want to be seen as being pro-Sikh or anti-Modi for fear of alienating part of their new base.

Just after India's diplomates were expelled, Poilièvre attended a Diawali event with India's high commissioner as if nothing happened.  He has also remained very silent on the matter, for a leader of the opposition.

Something does not add up here.

He needs to get his security clearance and clear up the air around his party.  This is smelling like Trump and Russia.  We need to know who's involved with who in our political parties, or at least, be certain they won't be at the next election.

I don't think that is accurate.  The support for the Conservative Party amongst Sikh's in the lower mainland of B.C. is high.  It is one of the reasons Conservative candidates have historically done well in Ridings where there is a significant Sikh population.

As another example, if the B.C. Conservatives win the hotly contested ridings in Surrey in the provincial election today, it will be because they get a lot of support in the Sikh community.

Viper, as a follow up.  The BC Conservatives did swing a number of seats in Surrey, and to do it they relied on the support of the South Asian (predominantly Sikh) community.

Here is an article in today's Globe speculating that if the Federal Conservatives can gain that kind of support in Toronto ridings that have similar demographics, the Liberals will be in serious trouble. Gifted link

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/XSJV3VRF4BCGBGMMQAOI22LKMU/

Interesting.

But I see a divided community, and that's what political organizers see too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sikh/comments/1d99d7e/with_elections_around_the_corner_in_canadaus/


There's this kind of opinion:

Is everyone forgetting that Trudeau and Singh want to ban guns? What next, Kirpans too? They're even taking guns away from farmers and natives, like WTH. This is an important factor when voting.
All Trudeau and Singh care about is votes, they're all for promoting abortion, idealizing the woke agenda, indoctrinating kids in schools, removing the identity of a "woman" from everything, they're not even thinking about the housing crisis, lack of food, poverty increasing, more and more people living below the poverty line, grocery prices, rent increases, etc etc.

And this kind of opinion:

so you'd rather vote for pierre who was literally put in place by the indian government?

why do you think he doesn't request security access to view allegations of foreign interference against him? Wake up he doesn't respect us and conservative power will only negatively affect Canadian Sikhs

Selective posts that represents the mood of their board.  It's more divided than I thought.


Dimitri Soudas is still unconvinced there's a love affair between them and the Conservative Party.  He sees them as strong Liberal supporters, while he sees the Indian community as more conservative.  Also more Conservative.

[viper37]

Last Liberal Party convention looks like it was in 2023.  Not sure when the next one would be (no convention in 2024) but understandably a 2025 convention forcing Trudeau to step down would be very little time given a fall 2025 federal election.

There is only a party caucus happening this weekend or the next.

He could face a mini-rebellion and be forced out though, like many cabinet ministers and MPs resigning from their seats, quitting the party.  That would force his hand with so many independents. 

But it will not happen.

Apparently, unless they're liars, no more cabinet minister should resign until the next election and all remaining ones should be there when the election comes.

As for the MPs themselves, they won't quit the party.

[viper37]

People in Quebec may view immigration more favourably because Quebec has more control over immigration than any other province.

The rest of have to live with the mistakes made by the Liberals over the last few years.

No, that's not it. I think we need to examine why white anglophone Canadians are so inherently racists. It must be something about culture or language. You guys need to open yourself up to the world more. Nationalism and ethnostate thinking is a thing of the past. Join us in the 21st century, anglos.

[Sheilbh]

This is going off of memory from the old Chretien/Martin tilts, but cabinet itself has no ability to remove a leader.  It can only be done through a vote of delegates at a party convention.

Although surely it would become very difficult to remain as leader if your cabinet colleagues started to resign. For example that's what brought about Johnson's removal as leader - he resigned because cabinet (and junior ministers) were resigning in a very damaging way.

What about the parliamentary party removing him as PM if not party leader? Or the classic stalking horse - I get they might not be able to remove him as leader but could one of them challenge him and force a leadership vote (how Thatcher was critically weakened was a backbench MP challenging her for leader - he lost very badly, but not as badly as expected)?

Edit: Also I suppose a vote of no confidence among MPs while not doing anything could have an impact - though it'd depend entirely on how Trudeau would respond to that sort of humiliation.

I think the "play" here is similar to Biden - just convince him it's time to go, thus giving any successor enough time to be selected.  Obvious difference of course is Trudeau's age versus Biden.

Yeah - as I say I find the lack of impatience/personal ambition very baffling from the outside (thought the same about the Democrats). Just kind of going along with a disaster. The Democrats at least, finally, managed to correct course a bit.

[Barrister]

This is going off of memory from the old Chretien/Martin tilts, but cabinet itself has no ability to remove a leader.  It can only be done through a vote of delegates at a party convention.

Although surely it would become very difficult to remain as leader if your cabinet colleagues started to resign. For example that's what brought about Johnson's removal as leader - he resigned because cabinet (and junior ministers) were resigning in a very damaging way.

What about the parliamentary party removing him as PM if not party leader? Or the classic stalking horse - I get they might not be able to remove him as leader but could one of them challenge him and force a leadership vote (how Thatcher was critically weakened was a backbench MP challenging her for leader - he lost very badly, but not as badly as expected)?

Edit: Also I suppose a vote of no confidence among MPs while not doing anything could have an impact - though it'd depend entirely on how Trudeau would respond to that sort of humiliation.

I think the "play" here is similar to Biden - just convince him it's time to go, thus giving any successor enough time to be selected.  Obvious difference of course is Trudeau's age versus Biden.

Yeah - as I say I find the lack of impatience/personal ambition very baffling from the outside (thought the same about the Democrats). Just kind of going along with a disaster. The Democrats at least, finally, managed to correct course a bit.

So there are very muffled reports of a back-bench revolt.  But nothing very public - just off-the-record reports.

I mean it's partially responsible because if you're a back-bench MP or a junior minister - you don't have any fall-back.  You're not going to be able to go sit on some corporate board.  You resign from caucus and Trudeau remains - you're out in the cold.  Your nomination papers won't be signed for the next election and you're back to working at your car dealership or insurance brokerage you left before politics.

WHich (just as a total aside) is what is so different in the US for example.  Mitt Romney doesn't have to worry about his Parliamentary pension - so why doesn't he speak out more clearly about Trump?  And the same for a lot of lesser figures - they have corporate board that will set them up for life.

[Grey Fox]

Yeah - as I say I find the lack of impatience/personal ambition very baffling from the outside (thought the same about the Democrats). Just kind of going along with a disaster. The Democrats at least, finally, managed to correct course a bit.

There is no need for any haste. Canada swings between Conservative and Liberal governments all on its own thru government fatigue. Why be the leader for the inevitable collapse when you can be the saviour in 4 more years?

Trudeau himself was that for the LPC.

[Barrister]

Yeah - as I say I find the lack of impatience/personal ambition very baffling from the outside (thought the same about the Democrats). Just kind of going along with a disaster. The Democrats at least, finally, managed to correct course a bit.

There is no need for any haste. Canada swings between Conservative and Liberal governments all on its own thru government fatigue. Why be the leader for the inevitable collapse when you can be the saviour in 4 more years?

Trudeau himself was that for the LPC.

Before Trudeau was the saviour of the Liberals, there was Michael Ignatieff.  Before that there was Stephan Dion.  Before that was Paul Martin.

The problem with your thesis is there is no "inevitable collapse" after 4 years.  In fact if you go through history the last leader to serve only one term in office was Joe Clark (and then he only lasted a few months).  Before that you have to go to Diefenbaker.

And while there are few examples at the federal level of  a new leader saving a party seemingly sure to go down in defeat, you can find numerous examples at the provincial level.

History is full of people who waited "until next time", but then never really got their shot.  If you have the massive ego that you want to be the Prime Minister, you take your shot when it becomes open.

[saskganesh]

That is the system working as it should.

The out of riding ballots are mail in ballots. There usually is a better deadline for those, yea?

The recount issue is fair. We usually have few of those, so having several to many would take more time, I suspect.

Every vote counts. Even for the goofs who thought they were  voting against Trudeau.

[crazy canuck]

That is the system working as it should.

The out of riding ballots are mail in ballots. There usually is a better deadline for those, yea?

The recount issue is fair. We usually have few of those, so having several to many would take more time, I suspect.

Every vote counts. Even for the goofs who thought they were  voting against Trudeau.

The way I understand it is that the mail in ballets have always taken days to finalize.  And especially when the race is tight and judicial recounts are expected.  All the paperwork has to be done perfectly.

It's just that normally we don't notice because the mail in ballots rarely matter.

To your last point, there are all kinds of anecdotes being reported in the media that a lot of people did think they were voting for the Federal Conservatives, and when asked why they voted Conservative in this election, it was because they didn't like a federal issue - like immigration.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the level of understanding of basic civics is not encouraging.

[crazy canuck]

A bit more detail to answer Sheilbh's question

From the Globe

Should Mr. Trudeau refuse to quit, the next steps are also unclear. Liberal MPs don't have an automatic way to force Mr. Trudeau out, as Conservative MPs did when they chose to vote out former leader Erin O'Toole in 2022 under the provisions of a law known as the Reform Act. Parliamentary caucuses must vote at their first meeting after a general election on whether to adopt the legislation, and the Liberals did not do so after the 2021 campaign.

[Barrister]

At today's caucus meeting, 24 Liberal MPs did ask Trudeau to resign.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/what-happened-liberal-meeting-trudeau-leadership-1.7361018

The only response recorded in the media:

The prime minister himself addressed the meeting and two MPs told CBC News that he became emotional when he talked about his children having to see "F--- Trudeau" signs in public.

At the end of the meeting, Trudeau said he would reflect on what he heard but didn't indicate that he would resign.

So look - anything is possible.  One can't resist the historical parallels of Pierre Trudeau "taking a walk in the snow" - but no firm indication any similar announcement is coming.

[Sheilbh]

A bit more detail to answer Sheilbh's question

From the Globe

Should Mr. Trudeau refuse to quit, the next steps are also unclear. Liberal MPs don't have an automatic way to force Mr. Trudeau out, as Conservative MPs did when they chose to vote out former leader Erin O'Toole in 2022 under the provisions of a law known as the Reform Act. Parliamentary caucuses must vote at their first meeting after a general election on whether to adopt the legislation, and the Liberals did not do so after the 2021 campaign.

Yeah that makes sense.

But I think there is a layer that isn't about party rules or formalities. It's ministers resigning, backbenchers going public with no confidence - no resigning from the caucus but saying you can't serve under that leader. It's the politics of it. And the UK is nowhere near as extreme as Australia in our leadership spills but here I'm not actually sure any recent leader (including Thatcher) were removed by using the party mechanism to remove a leader - their position became untenable so they stepped down rather than face that humiliation. So I suppose the constraint on the Liberals with those rules is Trudeau may not have to face that ultimate humiliation - but everything up to.

Also (again in a big difference from Australia), here it only works for the Tories and Liberals here. With Corbyn Labour had a leader who had 80% of his MPs vote no confidence in him, but he still had the backing of the party membership and was a true believer in his cause so carried on with an incredibly unhappy and fractious parliamentary party "behind" him.

[viper37]

At today's caucus meeting, 24 Liberal MPs did ask Trudeau to resign.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/what-happened-liberal-meeting-trudeau-leadership-1.7361018

The only response recorded in the media:

The prime minister himself addressed the meeting and two MPs told CBC News that he became emotional when he talked about his children having to see "F--- Trudeau" signs in public.

At the end of the meeting, Trudeau said he would reflect on what he heard but didn't indicate that he would resign.

So look - anything is possible.  One can't resist the historical parallels of Pierre Trudeau "taking a walk in the snow" - but no firm indication any similar announcement is coming.

1 asked for a secret vote and that didn't happen, since it's not in the party rules.

[crazy canuck]

A bit more detail to answer Sheilbh's question

From the Globe

Should Mr. Trudeau refuse to quit, the next steps are also unclear. Liberal MPs don't have an automatic way to force Mr. Trudeau out, as Conservative MPs did when they chose to vote out former leader Erin O'Toole in 2022 under the provisions of a law known as the Reform Act. Parliamentary caucuses must vote at their first meeting after a general election on whether to adopt the legislation, and the Liberals did not do so after the 2021 campaign.

Yeah that makes sense.

But I think there is a layer that isn't about party rules or formalities. It's ministers resigning, backbenchers going public with no confidence - no resigning from the caucus but saying you can't serve under that leader. It's the politics of it. And the UK is nowhere near as extreme as Australia in our leadership spills but here I'm not actually sure any recent leader (including Thatcher) were removed by using the party mechanism to remove a leader - their position became untenable so they stepped down rather than face that humiliation. So I suppose the constraint on the Liberals with those rules is Trudeau may not have to face that ultimate humiliation - but everything up to.

Also (again in a big difference from Australia), here it only works for the Tories and Liberals here. With Corbyn Labour had a leader who had 80% of his MPs vote no confidence in him, but he still had the backing of the party membership and was a true believer in his cause so carried on with an incredibly unhappy and fractious parliamentary party "behind" him.

Yes, and I think those dynamics are playing out here.  Following up on BB's post, his position as leader has become untenable.  The only question now is does he leave with some dignity left or does he try to hang on and risk somebody posing the question whether he lasts longer than a head of lettuce.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - a tabloid buying a lettuce is now a new but constant risk for any unpopular leader in a parliamentary system.