Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[Altair]

Because his party won't let him.

The party has more to lose by a internal leadership battle than by letting him run till he decides he doesn't want to anymore.

If the party has learned anything from the Martin Chretien years its that.

 

[Good2Golf]

In terms of racism, which party leader took a knee at the BLM protests? Which party has 30 percent of its caucus be BIPOC?

same party where the leader had his apparatchiks pressure an indigenous woman to do his bidding to support a party-friendly ethics-challenged company, then kicked her out of caucus when she wouldn’t subvert the justice system; and the same party whose leader paraded a black woman around in front of foreign leaders as a token of his wokeness, then later also jettisoned her from the party for daring to refuse to continue to be used as a virtue-signaling pawn.

Nor does it seem that supporters of that party have any issues with any of that, or they convince themselves that’s not really how such actions were to be experienced by the outcast.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It less about a bar than it is about relevancy. Did Trudeau do blackface? Yes. Was it recent? No. Has he shown himself to be racist in recent memory? No. So its not relevant.

Did O'Toole laugh at an indigenous woman who had to scrape together $2000 to get an audience to talk about not having clean water to drink?

No of course not, that would have destroyed him. We know there is a giant double standard when it comes to the low-bar behavior the Liberal party gets away with compared to anyone else. They've successfully branded themselves. Trudeau successfully branded himself.

That's why Trudeau can get a general fired for a sexual misconduct allegation from 30 years ago while he can admit to one himself and the rest of Canada learns a lesson.

Trudeau can get away with anything because his voters let him, not because they give a shit about policies.

 

[Altair]

same party where the leader had his apparatchiks pressure an indigenous woman to do his bidding to support a party-friendly ethics-challenged company, then kicked her out of caucus when she wouldn’t subvert the justice system;

You believe this happened because she was indigenous or or regardless of if she was indigenous?

and the same party whose leader paraded a black woman around in front of foreign leaders as a token of his wholeness, then later also jettisoned her from the party for daring to refuse to continue to be used as a virtue-signaling pawn.

Take this, weight it against all the other things I mentioned and ponder if its enough to undo all of that.

Nor does it seem that supporters of that party don’t have an issue with any of that, or they convince themselves that’s not really how such actions were to be experienced by the outcast.

Just another sign that policies matter more than the individuals actions.

 

[Altair]

Did O'Toole laugh at an indigenous woman who had to scrape together $2000 to get an audience to talk about not having clean water to drink?

He did not. However, again, you are expecting an individuals actions to overcome all else.

No of course not, that would have destroyed him.

I don't know about that, this is the guy caught on camera saying the initial goal of residential schools was to “provide education”, and he apologized and everyone moved on.

We know there is a giant double standard when it comes to the low-bar behavior the Liberal party gets away with compared to anyone else. They've successfully branded themselves. Trudeau successfully branded himself.

Yes, which, again, is why I continue to be amused by people putting so much emphasis on the individual actions Trudeau does.

That's why Trudeau can get a general fired for a sexual misconduct allegation from 30 years ago while he can admit to one himself and the rest of Canada learns a lesson.

Trudeau can get away with anything because his voters let him, not because they give a shit about policies.

I maintain that if O'Toole left daycare alone, left guns alone, left the carbon tax alone, and got every one of his candidates vaccinated he would be PM using the rest of his platform.

Otherwise, if its all on the leader, and we all agree Trudeau is pretty teflon, what makes anyone think he wont continue winning elections going forward? And if that's the case, why would he not run in the next election?

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Most vote because of the names of the parties name and what they think that entails ...

... or for names/faces they know.

 

[Remius]

The NDP ran jack layton a bunch of times and the only time the NDP made any traction as after they agreed with 50 percent plus 1 after the Sherbrooke conference. That was policy.

Scheer was not liked because of his utter failure to make a coherent response to the abortion issue.

Canadians could just have easily elected Mulcair, in fact Mulcair was in the lead for a good portion of the campaign. After the LPC said screw it to balanced budgets and ran to the left of the NDP who were trying to appear more responsible under mulcair, and thus more electable, the NDP started to falter. Was Trudeau the right guy to deliver said message? Sure. But lets not pretend that he became leader and overnight the LPC was polling in majority territory. They were still the 3rd place party going into that election, and once there was a clear divergence on issues between them and the NDP, they started their rise.

No, its a opinion.

Again, you give too much credit to the Canadian Voter. They are notorious for not wanting change.

Again, Trudeau lucked out due to being the right contrast to Harper and the right time.

No, the NDP policies did not get them elected. After Layton passed they were wiped out in QC. Quebec votes with its heart. Plain and simple. They liked Jack Layton after his stint on QC television and his debate performances.

You also discount the voters who vote against rather than for.

Trudeau is exactly like Trump. One side of same coin. Both have supporters who will vote because of whatever superficial reason and couldn’t care less about policy.

So factor in the percentage of how many people ACTUALLY voted for the LPC. From that extrapolate how many are die hard LPC. Then substract the people who vote the same way their family or spouse does or did, then substract the people who don’t like what the others offer, then remove the ones who have no clue how any of policies really work or even care etc etc. How many does that leave you with that voted for actual policy? Not a lot and certainly not a majority of Canadians.

You think Canadians vote for policy. Some do, but not in the numbers you think.

 

[Jarnhamar]

He did not. However, again, you are expecting an individuals actions to overcome all else.

I'm poitning out the double standard Trudeau armours himself with and how when his guard is down his true self shines through.

I don't know about that, this is the guy caught on camera saying the initial goal of residential schools was to “provide education”, and he apologized and everyone moved on.

People made a lot of noise about it.

Yes, which, again, is why I continue to be amused by people putting so much emphasis on the individual actions Trudeau does.

Yup. Lots of honour bound suckers out there.

I maintain that if O'Toole left daycare alone, left guns alone, left the carbon tax alone, and got every one of his candidates vaccinated he would be PM using the rest of his platform.

Daycare was the 2nd least popular thing Canadians were concerned about in the graph you posted up thread. Guns weren't mentioned, carbon tax (climate change) was around the middle.
O'Toole had no chance of winning because the election is decided by Toronto and Quebec.

Otherwise, if its all on the leader, and we all agree Trudeau is pretty teflon, what makes anyone think he wont continue winning elections going forward? And if that's the case, why would he not run in the next election?

Agreed. He'll continue to run and continue to win, because he speaks Toronto and Quebec.

 

[Altair]

I'm poitning out the double standard Trudeau armours himself with and how when his guard is down his true self shines through.

People care less about true self and more about what politicians can do for them.

People made a lot of noise about it.

People made a lot of noise about how Trudeau treated that protester.

Point is it didn't sink either of them.

It's amazing how far an apology will go.

Yup. Lots of honour bound suckers out there.

Politics for ya.

Daycare was the 2nd least popular thing Canadians were concerned about in the graph you posted up thread. Guns weren't mentioned, carbon tax (climate change) was around the middle.

This is my opinion, take it or leave it, but I think it would have allowed a lot more Canadians be more comfortable with replacing Trudeau with O'Toole if O'Toole left well enough alone.

O'Toole had no chance of winning because the election is decided by Toronto and Quebec.

O'Toole, and any conservative can be competitive in Quebec or Toronto if they picked policies popular with Toronto and Quebec.

Agreed. He'll continue to run and continue to win, because he speaks Toronto and Quebec.

Cynical.

Wont complain about that though.

 

[mariomike]

CPC is 95 percent of European descent.

How does that compare to LPC?

 

[Altair]

How does that compare to LPC?

30 percent of the LPC caucus this time around is BIPOC

 

[Altair]

Rupa Subramanya: Yes, Tofino Trudeau is entitled, but he’s not clueless

Trudeau critics who justifiably continue to hammer away at his personal foibles ultimately miss the plot when they stop there

nationalpost.com

A striking refrain I hear from those who voted for the Liberals this time around is that they don’t particularly like Trudeau’s sense of entitlement or his arrogance, but they still think he and the Liberals are better than the alternative. In particular, despite his pivot to the centre, many seemed unconvinced by Erin O’Toole and fear the regressive right wing of the Conservative party. One particular Liberal supporter described the newly rebranded and likeable Tories as “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. Nor were they impressed by the TikTok antics of Jagmeet Singh, whom they see as a little more than the class clown — entertaining and likeable but light on substance and not someone who could credibly lead the country.

Trudeau critics who justifiably continue to hammer away at his personal foibles ultimately miss the plot when they stop there. As the last two elections proved beyond any doubt, most Canadians, at least Liberal supporters, don’t give a toss. Nor is the public likely to be moved by the sanctimony of critics who themselves probably enjoyed Thursday as yet another holiday, much as Trudeau did. Certainly on the evidence of the overflowing pubs in downtown Ottawa last Thursday, most average folks were more concerned with enjoying a pint on a patio on one of the last warm days rather than cloistered at home in a state of reflection and reconciliation.

Most Canadians, I think, are jaded by the competitive sanctimony and self-righteousness of both Trudeau and his critics. And Trudeau knows this. His critics often make the mistake of assuming not just that he’s entitled, which he clearly is, but also that he’s clueless, which he clearly is not. He knows full well that most Canadians are not bothered by the competitive politics of self-righteous symbolism but rather are concerned with pocketbook issues, and many have given Trudeau credit for the safe return of the two Michaels from Chinese captivity.

I could write for the National Post.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I maintain that if O'Toole left daycare alone, left guns alone, left the carbon tax alone, and got every one of his candidates vaccinated he would be PM using the rest of his platform.

Otherwise, if its all on the leader, and we all agree Trudeau is pretty teflon, what makes anyone think he wont continue winning elections going forward? And if that's the case, why would he not run in the next election?

The Conservatives need a real climate change plan, and they could easily do away with the Carbon tax if they had a actual plan to back it up. For example if they said instead of a carbon tax we are now going to start limiting products made in other countries in environmentally unfriendly ways (or manners that would be illegal here) from being allowed in and sold in Canada. We are also going to create jobs and encourage industry to set up shop in Canada to produce goods in a environmentally friendly manner (or at least friendlier than anywhere else) creating a ton of good paying jobs which don't require extreme amounts of education. You would likely see a bunch of blue collar votes going their way and the NDP losing what blue collar support is left there.

If the Conservatives left guns alone they would lose rural Canada and those votes would shift to the PPC which would likely end up as the opposition or at least a very credible party.

The Liberals can also learn a bunch from the Conservatives, they don't have much rural support. The more they continue to pander to the cities and actively hurt rural areas for no actual practical reason the less viable their party shall be in those regions and the more likely they shall never move past a minority government again.

 

[mariomike]

CPC is 95 percent of European descent.

Altair said:
30 percent of the LPC caucus this time around is BIPOC

For reference to the disussion,

Percentage of women in the House of Commons:

Liberal 16.6%

Conservative 6.5%

Women in the 44th Canadian Parliament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Brad Sallows]

Canadians vote for topics, not policies. Pretty much every time I look at a list of polled "top concerns" and compare to the policies of the parties and the actual policies of the government, there is little to no useful alignment of the two (eg. firearms control and firearms violence mitigation; almost everything to do with economic measures). Policies are often wishful thinking born of decades of ideological conviction that ideas hatched in university seminars can be effected in society in the way that the dreamers dream. Voters do not enforce a connection of efforts to aims; I suspect most voters subscribe to a lot of popular myths about the way the world is, how it got that way, and how it could be changed.

The implication is that all that matters is what is said - speak the correct words; get elected. Also, meet conventional standards of physical attractiveness and demonstrate habits that are whatever contemporarily passes for "cool".

 

[Altair]

The Conservatives need a real climate change plan, and they could easily do away with the Carbon tax if they had a actual plan to back it up. For example if they said instead of a carbon tax we are now going to start limiting products made in other countries in environmentally unfriendly ways (or manners that would be illegal here) from being allowed in and sold in Canada. We are also going to create jobs and encourage industry to set up shop in Canada to produce goods in a environmentally friendly manner (or at least friendlier than anywhere else) creating a ton of good paying jobs which don't require extreme amounts of education. You would likely see a bunch of blue collar votes going their way and the NDP losing what blue collar support is left there.

One of the easiest ways to show that you have an environmental plan is to reduce emissions and meet or exceed the Paris climate targets.

Nothing you wrote would reduce emissions, in fact by removing the carbon tax I think you would see an increase.

Once other parties started to point that out any CPC climate plan along those lines would be dead in the water.

If the Conservatives left guns alone they would lose rural Canada and those votes would shift to the PPC which would likely end up as the opposition or at least a very credible party.

How much can they afford to lose to the PPC is the calculus they need to make. If they lose 2-5 seats to them in the west and have to fight them for 10 more, does that make up for being competitive in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver?

The Liberals can also learn a bunch from the Conservatives, they don't have much rural support. The more they continue to pander to the cities and actively hurt rural areas for no actual practical reason the less viable their party shall be in those regions and the more likely they shall never move past a minority government again.

The LPC could try to win in rural Canada but they could easily lose urban Canada to the NDP if they do so.

But seeing as the LPC need just a dozen or so seats more they could also just try to get them from the bloc or the NDP. The problem for rural Canada is that they are not exactly open to voting LPC and for that reason the LPC are not courting them. When you look at which parties supporters would vote LPC as a second choice the NDP and BQ are more likely than CPC voters.

That said, I do not mind the age of minority parliaments. One of the perks of PR is that it's very rare for a party to win a majority and they need to work together to make parliament work. Well, 5 of the last 7 elections have resulted in minority parliaments and the with the bloc and PPC potentially cementing themselves in the electoral landscape, its making getting to 36-40 percent of the popular vote needed to secure a majority harder and harder to get.

So maybe parliament needs to stop the gamesmanship and

A)Stop calling snap elections

B) stop bringing down the minority government when it's politically convenient for the opposition parties.

 

[McG]

30 percent of the LPC caucus this time around is BIPOC

"BIPOC" is probably an overly American lens for the purpose of looking at Canadian politics. Consider this argument from UoT professor Joseph Heath:

The term ‘BIPOC’ is a bad fit for the Canadian discourse on race​

One of the biggest problems in Canadian politics is that large segments of our population seem to think they live in the United States. How else can one explain the fools running around in MAGA hats and holding demonstrations in support of former U.S. president Donald Trump? Sometimes, I feel like I should shake them by the shoulders and shout, “You live in Canada!”


Unfortunately, I am beginning to feel the same way toward people who talk about “BIPOC issues,” as though it were normal for Canadians to use that expression. After all, BIPOC (“Black, Indigenous and People of Color”) is an acronym developed in the U.S. to discuss domestic race relations, just as BAME (“Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic”) is used in Britain.


Rather than developing our own acronym to reflect the reality of race relations and multiculturalism in Canada, far too many people have chosen just to use the American term. This cognitive capture by American social-justice discourse is, in many ways, just a left-wing version of what’s been happening with MAGA on the right.

...


Because of their distinctive history in the U.S., it makes sense to treat Black people as a separate category in that country. And because of their demographics, it may make some sense to put them before Indigenous people, who make up only 1.6 per cent of the U.S. population. In Canada, however, where Indigenous people make up almost 5 per cent of the population, it makes no sense at all to put the B before the I, or even to treat Black people as a separate category from other ethnic groups. Indeed, it is in many ways offensive to the distinctive status of Indigenous peoples in Canada to put the B first. From the perspective of many Indigenous people, the Black population of Canada are settlers, just like white Canadians – that is, part and parcel of the continuing colonial project.

...

... if there is the need for an acronym to identify the most important minority groups in Canada, I would propose “FIVM”: Francophone, Indigenous, and Visible Minority.

...

Maybe the same party comes out ahead if we use a Canadian metric but, if we are going to measure and recognize extent of representation in a party's caucus, then we should use a Canadian metric.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Colonials victimized by colonialism. Only in Canada.

 

[Altair]

"BIPOC" is probably an overly American lens for the purpose of looking at Canadian politics. Consider this argument from UoT professor Joseph Heath:

If you want to piss off black Canadians and completely disregard the existence of anti black racism in Canada, go with this. I'm sure black canadians, a lot of whom live in urban Quebec and Ontario would love that issues specific to their community just gets lumped in with visible minority.

Great idea. And while we are done telling blacks that their issues are in the same vain as any other visible minority, let's promote the French, and because this author thinks order means anything, let's put them at the front of the line. Because the present day struggles of the french are in the same league as those the Indigenous people and black people and other people of color.

If the order of things matter so much, just use IBPOC and call it a day. But to use FIVM makes the authors agenda abundantly clear.

Maybe the same party comes out ahead if we use a Canadian metric but, if we are going to measure and recognize extent of representation in a party's caucus, then we should use a Canadian metric.

Using this ridiculous metric, and not willing to go into the linguistic and racial background of every candidate background, let's just do a rough estimate of 10 CPC francos from Quebec and 34 LPC francos from Quebec.

That gives the LPC 51 percent of their caucus using that ridiculous metric compared to 14 percent CPC.

Just to note, this is the first and last time I will be using that ridiculous acronym and metric and will be using BIPOC from now on.

 

[McG]

If you want to pass off black Canadians and completely disregard the existence of anti black racism in Canada, go with this. I'm sure black canadians, a lot of whom live in urban Quebec and Ontario would love that issues specific to their community just gets lumped in with visible minority.

Great idea. And while we are done telling blacks that their issues are in the same vain as any other visible minority, let's promote the French, and because this author thinks order means anything, let's put them at the front of the line. Because the present day struggles of the french are in the same league as those the Indigenous people and black people and other people of color.

Can I infer from your reply that you completely dismiss the merits of a Canadian specific metric, even if it is something other that FIVM? Do you not agree that indigenous communities in Canada are far more disadvantaged? Do your concerns about burying "B" in "VM" not apply to burying "I" in "POC"?