• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

Also, national debt is shared, so take your share.
In principle I believe that is how it ought to be, but in reality how is that supposed to work? A truck shows up at the separating Parliament's door and shovels a bunch of debt certificates across the threshold and the driver says, "Here, these are yours now"? The creditors have an arrangement with Canada; they'll expect their money back from Canada, in Canadian dollars.

If a separating jurisdiction refused to accept any liability for GoC debts and decided not to borrow to fund its operations - to strictly balance its budgets - how could a "share" be forced on it?
 
Ignore the headline of the article.

What's interesting is the comments she made in the video. I can't find a transcript of the video and it's not actually quoted in the article, but what she says in the video in that article (you're welcome for transcribing it):

"I think that over 300 MPs got elected because they stood on a platform to get our resources developed, to work with provinces to establish economic corridors, and to get our products to market. I think the NDP got crushed, the Green Party got crushed, and the Bloc Quebecois lost ground, because they were opposed to that agenda. So I would hope that the current prime minister realizes that his mandate comes from moderate voters who actually want this province to be a genuine energy super power, and the country to be a genuine energy super power. And so, that's why I believe we saw the outcome that we got last night. It wasn't because they doubled down on extremist environmental policy that would crush our industry, it was the opposite. They depicted themselves as wanting to create a new approach, one that would be in sync with what all the provinces are asking for, and that's what I'll be asking the Prime Minister to do."

I think that's really interesting for two reasons:

1. She just lumped all of the Liberal MPs in with the Conservatives ones as being part of a "pro resource development platform", and those who voted for them as "moderates".
2. She seems to take Carney's claim to want to work with the provinces to develop resources as genuine, with no visible hint that she thinks it's just political BS.

In this interview, former premier, Rachel Notley provides what I think is an apt characterization of Premier Smith's comments as to the Alberta/CanadaLiberal relationship. Ms. Notley starts making the specific reference to it at around 9:02 and rounds it out with Smith "channeling the separatist elements of the base in order to hold on to her leadership".

That's something I would agree with Notley about. Smith is an opportunist, always has been an opportunist, always will be an opportunist and the opportunity that she has often courted (and then occasionally abandons) is the more right of Alberta conservatism (they've had other names over the years). It was demonstrated in 1999, when as a newly (first time) elected Calgary Board of Education trustee, the board became so dysfunctional under her as President of Trustees that the provincial government dissolved the board within months and called another election the same year. Likewise, when as Leader of the Wildrose (the more conservative Alberta conservative political party) that was the official opposition to the Progressive Conservative government, she crossed the floor, bringing along a few more Wildrose members. In the provincial election that followed not only did Smith lose her seat, but the NDP came from third party to form government under Notley.

 
I had a bit of a panic attack at some earlier numbers that looked more solid than I thought. The minority looks a bit more solid and the NDP contingent does not strike me as overly strong. Here’s hoping Carney doesn’t bother with a formal agreement with the NDP.

After mulling things over, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Tories lost support since the current unpleasantness started; they seem to have remained stable while the Liberals are the NDP’s lunch. If the Liberals continue on this way, this presents an opportunity for the Tories to play for the middle. I still think that they should abandon the Popular Front mentality of “no enemies on our right” and get their comms team to grow up. If they don’t, I fear they may have hit their ceiling, which while higher than ever, is not high enough if they want to defeat a Liberal/NDP hybrid Frankenstein monster.

I still hold out hope for either a Liberal/Conservative Grand Coalition, or the Liberals getting half a dozen sober-minded Tories to defect.
I also forgot to add…

Although I’ve been critical of Poilievre, I believe he should get another kick at the cat. If he learns the lessons of the last few months, or if Carney thunders, he might pull a rabbit out of his hat next time.
 
If a separating jurisdiction refused to accept any liability for GoC debts and decided not to borrow to fund its operations - to strictly balance its budgets - how could a "share" be forced on it?
The same way governments get people to pay taxes; force, or the threat of force.
 
Tick, tick, tick ...
... with this voice piping up again:
... "My view is he's not going anywhere," said Kory Teneycke, Ontario Premier Doug Ford's former campaign manager and a former director of communications for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

Teneycke — who made headlines during the election when he told media that Poilievre's team had committed "campaign malpractice" — said the Conservative campaign pivoted and improved as time went on.

He said Poilievre will stay on because he finished "strong enough that there'll be a lot of people in the party that will want that to happen."

"I think the caucus that was elected this election is chock-full of Poilievre loyalists and people who owe their seat to his leadership, and I think they'll very much want to see him stay," he added ...
 
rumors Kerry Diotte has offered to relinquish his seat so Pierre can run in a by-election in edmonton. This would be a gutsy move considering the CPC won this riding due to vote spliting, the LPC and NDP took 52% of the vote
Yeah, about that …
7E75A371-C845-4E88-95CD-1AE0160E6D74.png
#WildernessOfPoliticalMirrors?
 
Elizabeth May is apparently open to being Speaker.

Oh hell yea! Ensure that she has an ample supply of bourbon to go with her morning coffee and question period would be lit!
 
Oh hell yea! Ensure that she has an ample supply of bourbon to go with her morning coffee and question period would be lit!
Job comes with a hospitality budget. Not sure if the office still has a wet bar or not.
 
I feel like she's a little biased against the Conservatives.
I think out of every sitting MP, she's probably got the most experience in Parliamentary procedure as it's the only way she's gotten to do anything as in independent for the last 14 years (despite the Greens getting about 8-10% of the vote.

A lot of the Conservatives are pretty polarizing, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't have a bias against (or for them from the CPC). Pollievre has gone out of his way at cultivating biases against him, so will be hard to find anyone to do the official opposition leader role that would be more aggravating, as he's got the natural gift of a resting smugly sneering face.

She already clearly said the only way she would do it would be still as under the Green Party banner, but she may also go out of her way to try and be even handed in that role to prove she's independent.
 
Oh hell yea! Ensure that she has an ample supply of bourbon to go with her morning coffee and question period would be lit!
First order of business is reopening the bar behind the throne.
 
I think she'd actually be a pretty good Speaker, as she really knows Parliamentary rules, and has really nothing to lose by enforcing them even handedly.
Knowing Parliamentary rules and enforcing them evenly are two very different things.

Personally I think she would be a terrible one. After that big stink she made about the 'F word' (fart), I question what value she can really bring to the role.
 
It's an interesting theory, but I suspect the Liberals, like any other party in power, would want to have a Speaker who is 'in the tent', not just a camp follower.


Jeez. do we have to mimic everything the US does. According to Wiki, the 'First Hundred Days' was something started by FDR and he was apparently actually referring to the first 100 days of the Congressional session, not his Administration.

I want 'the government' to do stuff, not a guy at a desk with a Sharpie surrounded by a bunch of sycophants.
So in my defense, I didn't actually know this was an American thing...

People were commenting that Trump hadn't ended the Russia vs Ukraine war on 'Day 1' like he said he would - I was just trying to LIGHTLY suggest those same people hold Carney to the same level of accountability
 
Back
Top