Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Altair]

No rebellion. Desertion yes. But I see no rebellion against PP.

Depends on the leadership review, no?

Weak result and suddenly there is blood in the water.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Red Tories seem to have an escape hatch if they end up on the enemies list.

I'm not going to lie, I didn't have a Tory rebellion on my 2025 bingo card, but I guess with a Red Tory in Carney running the LPC it makes it much more tolerable to cross the floor.

At this point I think you're letting your glee and excitement get the better of you. If we see more cross over then you can dance your smarmy dance.

Chris, was pissed off that he didn't get some position he wanted and also only very narrowly won by 1.1%. I think this floor crossing has as much to do with personal gain and a temper tantrum as it does him having some Liberal equivalent of a come to Jesus moment.

As previously stated he needs to do what's best for his constituents. If this what he feels is best, so be it. The people of Acadie-Annapolis will tell the truth in time.

 

[Altair]

At this point I think you're letting your glee and excitement get the better of you. If we see more cross over then you can dance your smarmy dance.

Chris, was pissed off that he didn't get some position he wanted and also only very narrowly won by 1.1%. I think this floor crossing has as much to do with personal gain and a temper tantrum as it does him having some Liberal equivalent of a come to Jesus moment.

As previously stated he needs to do what's best for his constituents. If this what he feels is best, so be it. The people of Acadie-Annapolis will tell the truth in time.

Hey, if it was just Chris, I would have chalked it up to personal grievance and not really cared all that much.

But when there is talk, from Chris and others, about there being others, well, that does change things a lot.

I just want a majority so I can stop hearing about the million and one ways we will stumble into another election and the polling industry living off the resulting sugar rush.

 

[HavokFour]

Possibly unrelated, but CPC MP Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) very and I mean very recently locked his X account. I found this interesting with all the talk of 2 more CPC MP's considering jumping ship, though one from Alberta isn't on my bingo card but weird things happen.

https://x.com/jeneroux

Then again it could be a nothing burger.

 

[Remius]

At this point I think you're letting your glee and excitement get the better of you. If we see more cross over then you can dance your smarmy dance.

Chris, was pissed off that he didn't get some position he wanted and also only very narrowly won by 1.1%. I think this floor crossing has as much to do with personal gain and a temper tantrum as it does him having some Liberal equivalent of a come to Jesus moment.

As previously stated he needs to do what's best for his constituents. If this what he feels is best, so be it. The people of Acadie-Annapolis will tell the truth in time.

His take is that he didn’t like PPs leadership style.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chris-dentremont-liberals-poilievre-9.6967559

 

[Brad Sallows]

The budget is terrible - not because it is entirely bereft of some positive ideas, but for its bottom line.

Borrowing 1/6th of total proposed spending. I haven't checked the details, but suspect we are finally slipping from an operating surplus (did most people even realize we still had one?) to deficit.

Cost of servicing debt over 10% of proposed spending, and no reason to expect BoC to continue dropping interest rates. Increased demand for borrowing (private interests still need access to capital, too) will cause lenders to keep their rates a little higher.

In 2015, LPC campaigned on going back to deficit spending and an "investment in infrastructure" budget. In 2025, we have more of the same. Observers should expect government "investment" picks to work out about as well as those of the past decades. Massive opportunities for misallocation of capital.

Without any extraordinary measures that have had time to have an effect so far, we've managed to avoid the dreaded Trump recession, which means extraordinary spending is most likely not required. If the aim is to grow Canada's economy, empirical evidence of past decades suggests money left un-taxed and un-borrowed (ie. available to proper capitalists) promotes economic growth more efficiently than government pick-and-choose. But of course supporters will tout what is "seen" - they will talk loudly and frequently about successes, and claim that we are getting 1.5% growing instead of 0.5% growth. They will not think to mention - or will avoid mentioning - we might be doing 2.5% by less taxed horrible capitalists not competing with governments for available capital.

The federal government has its own fiscal picture which supporters are quick to claim isn't so bad, but Canadian taxpayers are supporting the entire edifice of federal, provincial, and local spending commitments (and debts).

 

[Jarnhamar]

As previously stated he needs to do what's best for his constituents. If this what he feels is best, so be it. The people of Acadie-Annapolis will tell the truth in time.

At the end of the day he's going to vote however the Liberal party whip tells him to vote. If the people of Acadie-Annapolis want a blue fence and the LPC want a red fence he's going to vote for a red fence.

 

[Altair]

At the end of the day he's going to vote however the Liberal party whip tells him to vote. If the people of Acadie-Annapolis want a blue fence and the LPC want a red fence he's going to vote for a red fence.

Single transferable vote voting system would fix this issue.

 

[Kilted]

I have been surprised that the knives didn't come out for PP after the election, probably due to a lack of competition. However, you do have to think that those thoughts are there considering that the last election was likely originally going to result in a Conservative majority. Now we have a Liberal minority potentially turning into a majority because of a few floor crossers.

 

[Altair]

I have been surprised that the knives didn't come out for PP after the election, probably due to a lack of competition. However, you do have to think that those thoughts are there considering that the last election was likely originally going to result in a Conservative majority. Now we have a Liberal minority potentially turning into a majority because of a few floor crossers.

I think if Trudeau held on by some miracle and won 169 seats, not a single conservative would have crossed the floor.

This is the Carney effect.

 

[MilEME09]

Without any extraordinary measures that have had time to have an effect so far, we've managed to avoid the dreaded Trump recession, which means extraordinary spending is most likely not required. If the aim is to grow Canada's economy, empirical evidence of past decades suggests money left un-taxed and un-borrowed (ie. available to proper capitalists) promotes economic growth more efficiently than government pick-and-choose. But of course supporters will tout what is "seen" - they will talk loudly and frequently about successes, and claim that we are getting 1.5% growing instead of 0.5% growth. They will not think to mention - or will avoid mentioning - we might be doing 2.5% by less taxed horrible capitalists not competing with governments for available capital.

The federal government has its own fiscal picture which supporters are quick to claim isn't so bad, but Canadian taxpayers are supporting the entire edifice of federal, provincial, and local spending commitments (and debts).

Are you essentially suggesting the economy will grow it self without the government trying to incentivize investment? What evidence do you have to support we would be any better or even close to 2.5%? compared to the rest of the G7 we are right in the middle for corporate tax rates, with only america dramatically below us at 21% with the UK and france being very comparable to us.

 

[Cloud Cover]

PP is responsible for the end of JT and the Carbon Tax. Perhaps that was his role ?

I also think that was his cue to move … perhaps he’s waiting for a Senate appointment lol.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The budget is terrible - not because it is entirely bereft of some positive ideas, but for its bottom line.

Borrowing 1/6th of total proposed spending. I haven't checked the details, but suspect we are finally slipping from an operating surplus (did most people even realize we still had one?) to deficit.

Cost of servicing debt over 10% of proposed spending, and no reason to expect BoC to continue dropping interest rates. Increased demand for borrowing (private interests still need access to capital, too) will cause lenders to keep their rates a little higher.

In 2015, LPC campaigned on going back to deficit spending and an "investment in infrastructure" budget. In 2025, we have more of the same. Observers should expect government "investment" picks to work out about as well as those of the past decades. Massive opportunities for misallocation of capital.

Without any extraordinary measures that have had time to have an effect so far, we've managed to avoid the dreaded Trump recession, which means extraordinary spending is most likely not required. If the aim is to grow Canada's economy, empirical evidence of past decades suggests money left un-taxed and un-borrowed (ie. available to proper capitalists) promotes economic growth more efficiently than government pick-and-choose. But of course supporters will tout what is "seen" - they will talk loudly and frequently about successes, and claim that we are getting 1.5% growing instead of 0.5% growth. They will not think to mention - or will avoid mentioning - we might be doing 2.5% by less taxed horrible capitalists not competing with governments for available capital.

The federal government has its own fiscal picture which supporters are quick to claim isn't so bad, but Canadian taxpayers are supporting the entire edifice of federal, provincial, and local spending commitments (and debts).

Except for defence spending I also think that all this extra spending is unnecessary and will lead to more Ottawa incompetence and corruption on a scale that makes Trudeau look like an amateur.

And it won’t resonate with voters unless and until it does something about things like this:

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think if Trudeau held on by some miracle and won 169 seats, not a single conservative would have crossed the floor.

This is the Carney effect.

That's why it's so self-serving.

 

[MilEME09]

Except for defence spending I also think that all this extra spending is unnecessary and will lead to more Ottawa incompetence and corruption on a scale that makes Trudeau look like an amateur.

And it won’t resonate with voters unless and until it does something about things like this:

well lets look at how it may grow the economy,

• With the shift toward capital investment and ambitious private-investment goals, the budget projects that real GDP could be about 3.5 % higher than otherwise by 2030, assuming CA$500 billion of additional private investment over five years.
• It also suggests average annual real-wage gains of over CA$3,000 (on average) for Canadians as productivity and capital deepen.
• Through infrastructure + housing + innovation, the economy can become more productive (more output per hour worked), which is essential because Canada has had productivity growth issues.

This is hardly un-needed spending if it achieves this kind of growth

---

 

[brihard]

Possibly unrelated, but CPC MP Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) very and I mean very recently locked his X account. I found this interesting with all the talk of 2 more CPC MP's considering jumping ship, though one from Alberta isn't on my bingo card but weird things happen.

https://x.com/jeneroux

Then again it could be a nothing burger.

How confident are you that that’s actually recent? I saw that this morning but also saw replies to the effect that it’s been locked for some time, so I didn’t mention it.

I struggle to imagine a CPC MP in Alberta crossing. That would be a hell of a thing to subject himself and his family to.

 

[Quirky]

The budget is terrible

Not entirely a disaster. PSAC is pissed, means the fed gov is on the right track.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Are you essentially suggesting the economy will grow it self without the government trying to incentivize investment?

Yes. What is the foundation for assuming government has to "incentivize" people to seek to better themselves? Mostly government has to avoid discouraging investment. When government picks a player and backs it with money or contracts or special access to resources or regulations crafted to favour selected incumbents, that discourages competitors. Why try to compete against someone with an obvious and unfair advantage? Competition is how we get lower prices (effectively, wealth creation by freeing up resources for other uses) and more innovation (effectively, betterment of our lives through improving technology and efficiency). If Canadians can't push themselves to do big things nationally and internationally without a government sugar daddy, Canada has much, much worse problems than the existence of Donald Trump.

What evidence do you have to support we would be any better or even close to 2.5%?

I don't know what the numbers would be. Do you understand the concept of an illustration? Empirical observation demonstrates that freer markets over the long run produce more wealth than centrally planned markets. Government choosing and backing investments is just domestic protectionism. Domestic protectionism is not exempt from the ill effects of protectionism that everyone seems to understand when it happens to international trade.

compared to the rest of the G7 we are right in the middle for corporate tax rates, with only america dramatically below us at 21% with the UK and france being very comparable to us.

What is the compelling reason to not be more favourable, and thus competitive? Taxes discourage. Lower taxes discourage less than higher taxes. Lower taxes are just about the easiest "incentivization" available to governments. What stops them from going lower are a few things. One is fretting over profits being taken out of the country. Another is companies' use of public works (ie. "they would not pay!"), but that can be covered by property taxes. Another is "companies should pay their fair share", which is a nebulous unquantified moral assertion of no practical use. The most commonly cited is just an intersection with profits going abroad - governments losing a source of revenue because even if they simply gave up taxing the corporate middlemen and just taxed owners and shareholders when they realize profits, there'd presumably still be some small fraction going abroad to people not paying Canadian income taxes. All of it is too much taking counsel of fears due to lack of imagination, but even without zeroing taxes it is possible to do a great deal of "incentivizing" them by making Canada highly tax-competitive. Of course, this would go entirely against the instincts of the class of technocrats angling to set a floor under corporate taxation by colluding among nations to set minimums (and then presumably gradually raise them), citing a mystical "race to the bottom" (in tax rates) as a boogeyman. There is no boogeyman. Tax profits when realized by individuals.

What governments can do is mobilize/conscript resources for particular aims. But it must always be understood that is an inefficient use and that the aim should justify the losses to inefficiency.

 

[YZT580]

Hey, if it was just Chris, I would have chalked it up to personal grievance and not really cared all that much.

But when there is talk, from Chris and others, about there being others, well, that does change things a lot.

I just want a majority so I can stop hearing about the million and one ways we will stumble into another election and the polling industry living off the resulting sugar rush.

I like what we have thank you. Turning Carney loose with a majority would be no better than having re-elected Justin with a majority. With the numbers as close as they are, he has to consider us lowly voters rather than the party and his own personal goals.

 

[lenaitch]

I miss when things were built really well, but also looked good

R. C. Harris water treatment plant, Toronto.

Japan has some serious demographic challenges but they:

-remain the 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world;
-have extremely high productivity;
-have massive capital reserves;
-are a world leader in automation and robotics;
-have social stability;
-low crime;
-high quality of life; and
-strong export industries.

They're also not being flooded with new guests.

These strengths give it more resilience than many other declining population countries. Smaller but still wealthy.

Japan's economy rose from the ashes of WWII on western - largely US - money. Left to their own devices they, like Germany, would likely have become a communist satellite. When Japanese products started landing on North American shores, they were often called 'Jap scrap', and in many cases were sub-par in quality or durability, but they learned. If they hadn't upped their game, I'm not sure their industrial base would have survived. It wasn't really an off-shoring since I don't think many NA manufacturers moved production. Now, if you want quality, you buy Japanese (or Korean); if you want 'stuff', you buy Chinese. I'm not convinced the Chinese have the same incentive to up their quality game since they have cheap on their side and total government control of just about everything.

Japan is a lot of people on a small archipelago. It has virtually no natural resources. With a declining birthrate and a cultural aversion to immigration, I'm not sure what its future holds.