[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Tying money to a city over funding they don't control doesn't sound like a good policy to me. You could make an argument for tying funding to the province (though I don't know if that's legal, what with transfers and all that). You're endorsing punishing a city over the actions of the province. 

*edit* "you're" being Poilievre, not BB

Well funding is the only leverage the Feds have.

The Conservatives are promising that federal housing funding will be tied to housing starts.  More housing means more funding, less housing means less funding.

The number of housing starts is very much something a city can influence.  Now putting the province in the middle does muddy the accountability the Conservatives are looking for, but certainly doesn't make it illegal.

And stupidly PP chose to antagonized the mayors instead of talking directly to them and by passing Quebec.

A missed opportunity that seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Federal government's role in Quebec.

A Quebec person interactions directly with the federal government is quite limited. Our federal taxes and subsidies, the border and passports, and EI.

[HVC]

You're assuming Trump of the North* knows how the federal government works wity the other provinces.


*mainly to annoy BB

[crazy canuck]

Tying money to a city over funding they don't control doesn't sound like a good policy to me. You could make an argument for tying funding to the province (though I don't know if that's legal, what with transfers and all that). You're endorsing punishing a city over the actions of the province. 

*edit* "you're" being Poilievre, not BB

Well funding is the only leverage the Feds have.

The Conservatives are promising that federal housing funding will be tied to housing starts.  More housing means more funding, less housing means less funding.

The number of housing starts is very much something a city can influence.  Now putting the province in the middle does muddy the accountability the Conservatives are looking for, but certainly doesn't make it illegal.

And stupidly PP chose to antagonized the mayors instead of talking directly to them and by passing Quebec.

A missed opportunity that seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Federal government's role in Quebec.

A Quebec person interactions directly with the federal government is quite limited. Our federal taxes and subsidies, the border and passports, and EI.

Yeah, according to the CBC article that was pretty much the point the  mayors were making.

And for sure, that was a major misunderstanding of what happens in Quebec, but so is his main platform on funding cities. It completely ignores or misunderstands the central role, that each of the provinces plays in the development of land, and infrastructure within the cities.

Cities are all creatures of provincial statute.

I don't know where this assault on big cities comes from, but I think the conservatives have to rethink it. It might appeal to small town rural supporters, but it isn't gonna get them much support outside those who probably already support them.

But I suppose the other way of looking at it is the conservative don't care about getting the support of anybody else. They think they can win by just getting their core to the voting stations on election day. And perhaps they are right about that.

[crazy canuck]

I think we should start a pool on how many months from now Trudeau will announce his departure from politics. It's all going downhill rapidly for him. The wildcard will be how long his inner circle takes to break the bad news to him that it's just not working.

[Jacob]

I think we should start a pool on how many months from now Trudeau will announce his departure from politics. It's all going downhill rapidly for him. The wildcard will be how long his inner circle takes to break the bad news to him that it's just not working.

Has something changed recently? Or is it just slow death by a thousand cuts?

[Grey Fox]

I think that's wishful thinking cause by the simple fact that he hasn't started campaigning yet. The Liberal party will pivot, as it always does. Building housing is a very lucrative thing to do for LPV friends to do when the government is taking on all the risks.

He'll be there in 2025 and while he might lose power, it will not be a defeat like the CPP of 1993.

[crazy canuck]

I think we should start a pool on how many months from now Trudeau will announce his departure from politics. It's all going downhill rapidly for him. The wildcard will be how long his inner circle takes to break the bad news to him that it's just not working.

Has something changed recently? Or is it just slow death by a thousand cuts?

A little of both. The thing that prompted me to post it now is all of the contradictory statements he's been making about his Christmas trip (some may even be called lies). An opinion piece writer at the globe made the observation that he has become so sloppy in his explanations of wrongdoing that one wonders whether he even cares anymore, leading to the conclusion that he has already mentally checked out.

[Josephus]

Yeah, I don't know. I hope he leaves. I think a rejuvenated Liberal party might be able to win an election, but the way it looks with Trudeau it doesn't seem likely

[viper37]

Tying money to a city over funding they don't control doesn't sound like a good policy to me. You could make an argument for tying funding to the province (though I don't know if that's legal, what with transfers and all that). You're endorsing punishing a city over the actions of the province. 

*edit* "you're" being Poilievre, not BB

Well funding is the only leverage the Feds have.

The Conservatives are promising that federal housing funding will be tied to housing starts.  More housing means more funding, less housing means less funding.

The number of housing starts is very much something a city can influence.  Now putting the province in the middle does muddy the accountability the Conservatives are looking for, but certainly doesn't make it illegal.

And stupidly PP chose to antagonized the mayors instead of talking directly to them and by passing Quebec.

A missed opportunity that seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Federal government's role in Quebec.

A Quebec person interactions directly with the federal government is quite limited. Our federal taxes and subsidies, the border and passports, and EI.

Yeah, according to the CBC article that was pretty much the point the  mayors were making.

And for sure, that was a major misunderstanding of what happens in Quebec, but so is his main platform on funding cities. It completely ignores or misunderstands the central role, that each of the provinces plays in the development of land, and infrastructure within the cities.

Cities are all creatures of provincial statute.

I don't know where this assault on big cities comes from, but I think the conservatives have to rethink it. It might appeal to small town rural supporters, but it isn't gonna get them much support outside those who probably already support them.

But I suppose the other way of looking at it is the conservative don't care about getting the support of anybody else. They think they can win by just getting their core to the voting stations on election day. And perhaps they are right about that.

The mayors went from woke to incompetent in about a year.  That is a lot of progress.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-trudeau-incomprehensible-stance-genocide-case-icj-1.7091031

Poilievre calls Trudeau's stance on genocide case against Israel 'incomprehensible'
Joly standing by previous statement that neither rejects nor supports South Africa's allegations

Brennan MacDonald · CBC News · Posted: Jan 22, 2024 12:08 PM MST | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre slammed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's position on South Africa's genocide claim against Israel on Monday, calling it "incomprehensible" and accusing the prime minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly of deliberately giving answers no one can understand.

Trudeau told reporters two weeks ago that Canada's "wholehearted" support for the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is adjudicating South Africa's case against Israel, "does not mean we support the premise of the case brought forward by South Africa."

Joly released a written statement hours later echoing Trudeau's language and adding that proving genocidal intent requires a high threshold of evidence.

Sources told CBC News last week that the wording of the statements was crafted to indicate that no one should assume the government supports or rejects the genocide claim outright.

"You would need a linguist with a PhD and a magnifying glass to figure out the garble that comes out of the foreign minister and the prime minister on this question, because they are deliberately giving answers that no one can comprehend," Poilievre told reporters Monday in West Vancouver. "He's divided the country on this just like every other issue."

I mean - he's not wrong.

[Barrister]

I think we should start a pool on how many months from now Trudeau will announce his departure from politics. It's all going downhill rapidly for him. The wildcard will be how long his inner circle takes to break the bad news to him that it's just not working.

I really can't say.

Justin is still quite a young man - only 53 years old.  I don't mean this as a slight but he's not a man who ever really accomplished much before going into politics (that being said he became the friggin Prime Minister - so good on him).  He's also now separated from his wife, so it's not like he can necessarily fall back on the "spend more time with my family" excuse.

There's also no real obvious successor.  I mean Chrystia Freeland I guess (who I rather like - always good to have Ukrainian-Canadians in positions of power) but I'm not sure has a ton of popular support.

But on the other hand - the polls do look bad.  Far worse than they ever have for Trudeau (other than when he first won Liberal leadership and the party was in third place).  I remember Stephen Harper going into the 2015 election - an election he was almost certain to lose3, and did - but as being quite unusual as leaders often prefer to go out as a winner, rather than be defeated.

[Sheilbh]

But on the other hand - the polls do look bad.  Far worse than they ever have for Trudeau (other than when he first won Liberal leadership and the party was in third place).  I remember Stephen Harper going into the 2015 election - an election he was almost certain to lose3, and did - but as being quite unusual as leaders often prefer to go out as a winner, rather than be defeated.

This is interesting - the cliche here is that all politicl careers end in failure.

The last PM to leave on in some sense their own terms was arguably Wilson in 76 - but even then his health was declining and successors were circling. Everyone since then (and most before then too) either voted out or forced out by their own party.

Not sure who's the last leader to leave a winner - maybe Stanley Baldwin?

[Barrister]

But on the other hand - the polls do look bad.  Far worse than they ever have for Trudeau (other than when he first won Liberal leadership and the party was in third place).  I remember Stephen Harper going into the 2015 election - an election he was almost certain to lose3, and did - but as being quite unusual as leaders often prefer to go out as a winner, rather than be defeated.

This is interesting - the cliche here is that all politicl careers end in failure.

The last PM to leave on in some sense their own terms was arguably Wilson in 76 - but even then his health was declining and successors were circling. Everyone since then (and most before then too) either voted out or forced out by their own party.

Not sure who's the last leader to leave a winner - maybe Stanley Baldwin?

So going back over past Canadian PMs...

I already covered Harper, who took an incredibly long writ period back in 2015 and went down in defeat.  But before that (and not counting care-taker PMs):

-Jean Chretien: ultimately resigned ahead of losing a leadership challenge to Paul Martin
-Brian Mulroney: resigned ahead of losing the 1993 election
-Pierre Trudeau: defeated in 1979, resigned, but because the Joe Clarke-led PCs were quickly defeated in Parliament, went back to win the 1980 election - resigned ahead of 1984.
-Lester Pearson - resigned and handed power over to Trudeau Sr
-John Deifenbaker - last PM (other than Harper) to go down in defeat in an election

[Sheilbh]

We got a lot of Chretien-Martin as a Blair-Brown analogy (with a heavy streak of be careful what you wish for ). Aside from that were the others who resigned under any internal pressure or would they all have been allowed to carry on to defeat?

How many of them to an extent annoint their own successor?

It's interesting because it's such a different attitude by leaders to the UK (with a similar-ish system) or Australia (more different, but they love a leadership spill over there - and have the most baffling ones I think ).

[Barrister]

We got a lot of Chretien-Martin as a Blair-Brown analogy (with a heavy streak of be careful what you wish for ). Aside from that were the others who resigned under any internal pressure or would they all have been allowed to carry on to defeat?

How many of them to an extent annoint their own successor?

It's interesting because it's such a different attitude by leaders to the UK (with a similar-ish system) or Australia (more different, but they love a leadership spill over there - and have the most baffling ones I think ).

It's funny how similar the Chretien/Martin and Blair/Brown situations were.

So I guess Chretien might have been able to win in 2004 - but then again the Liberals did win that election anyways.

But past that - Mulroney in 1993 was toxic.  So was Trudeau in 1984.  Their parties went down to spectacular defeats in the subsequent elections.  Going back to Lester Pearson - that's really before my time, so I can't say if he was forced out or not.