Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[HavokFour]

I can identify 90 billion to balance the loss (HSR) Seriously though, Carney has a difficult choice. He can keep spending or he can cut costs to enable us to spend. Which one would do the most for the most Canadians and buy him the most votes at the same time? His predecessor hasn't left him a lot of room to maneuver.

We could also go back to sub 1% on defense like the Harper years.

If the CPC's plan for forming government was to sit on hands for 3 years and take it from our neighbors to the south, then I hope they enjoy being loyal opposition perpetually.

 

[MilEME09]

Welcome back, King of the slogans.

Anyone have any idea of how deep of a hole doing that would create?

If the 10c gas tax would be 18B for the full year. Then 25c would be about 45B. Not exactly a small hole in the coffers

 

[Jarnhamar]

If the 10c gas tax would be 18B for the full year. Then 25c would be about 45B. Not exactly a small hole in the coffers

More of a rounding error.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the 10c gas tax would be 18B for the full year. Then 25c would be about 45B. Not exactly a small hole in the coffers

No need for "if..."

Here:

"It is estimated this will provide over $2.4 billion in total tax relief that will ease the pressure of high fuel prices on Canadians in 2026." (That is for a four-and-a-half month tax holiday.)

 

[lenaitch]

Welcome back, King of the slogans.

At least it has more sentence structure than <verb> the <noun>.

 

[CBH99]

I would add 1 more thing into the mix - the loss of his seat that he held for quite a long while. Now he no longer resides in the same riding that he represents, he's an 'absentee MP' in essence, lives in another place that he supposedly represents.

Yes. But being an "absentee MP" would apply to most MP's who end up in a Cabinet position...would it not?

(They spend most of their time in Ottawa, so it's understandable.)


As leader of the official opposition, doesn't he have an equally justified reason for never actually being in his home riding?

(Since he is required to spend most of his time in Ottawa too?)

 

[Maxman1]

We could also go back to sub 1% on defense like the Harper years.

That actually only happened once, in 2014.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

 

[Gunplumber]

I would add 1 more thing into the mix - the loss of his seat that he held for quite a long while. Now he no longer resides in the same riding that he represents, he's an 'absentee MP' in essence, lives in another place that he supposedly represents.

Which he only lost as they restructured his riding by adding a heavy lieberal section of Kanata north to the largely rural riding which skewed things a bit,

 

[Eaglelord17]

Which he only lost as they restructured his riding by adding a heavy lieberal section of Kanata north to the largely rural riding which skewed things a bit,

He lost because his constituents decided they didn’t want him representing them.

Maybe it was the fact he supported the trucker convoy in a area direct affected by them. We shall never know the exact reason why.

 

[Gunplumber]

He lost because his constituents decided they didn’t want him representing them.

Maybe it was the fact he supported the trucker convoy in a area direct affected by them. We shall never know the exact reason why.

We do know why. When you add a new bunch of people who vote for the other side to the riding it skews it. He had the riding for 20 years and then they enlarge it and see what happens? Maybe if they didn't Gerrymander things would go different.

 

[dapaterson]

We do know why. When you add a new bunch of people who vote for the other side to the riding it skews it. He had the riding for 20 years and then they enlarge it and see what happens? Maybe if they didn't Gerrymander things would go different.

Based on the voting in the prior election, he was still strongly favored to win it.

It was not gerrymandered. He lost to an opponent who was knocking on doors for a few years to get out in front of the voters on the riding.

 

[Gunplumber]

Based on the voting in the prior election, he was still strongly favored to win it.

It was not gerrymandered. He lost to an opponent who was knocking on doors for a few years to get out in front of the voters on the riding.

The prior election had the old boundaries. The new riding added a heavily liberal voting riding which outnumbered the rural people in the old bouderies. How is that fair?

 

[lenaitch]

We do know why. When you add a new bunch of people who vote for the other side to the riding it skews it. He had the riding for 20 years and then they enlarge it and see what happens? Maybe if they didn't Gerrymander things would go different.

Adjusting ridings by an independent elections agency is a far cry from the partisan-driven adjustment of electoral districts into something that look like paint spatter.

 

[Gunplumber]

Adjusting ridings by an independent elections agency is a far cry from the partisan-driven adjustment of electoral districts into something that look like paint spatter.

So why did it need to be changed?

 

[dapaterson]

The prior election had the old boundaries. The new riding added a heavily liberal voting riding which outnumbered the rural people in the old bouderies. How is that fair?

He actually increased the number of votes he received.

So why did it need to be changed?

Because, by law, ridings are adjusted following the decennial census to attempt to retain balanced ridings - so areas that grow do not become under represented.

There are public consultations in advance of a change. The principles are spelled out in writing.

 

[brihard]

Which he only lost as they restructured his riding by adding a heavy lieberal section of Kanata north to the largely rural riding which skewed things a bit,

Not how it played out. The riding also shed a major suburb in the south end that definitely did not skew CPC.

In fact, as they always do when there are redrawing of ridings, Elections Canada released the poll by poll data from the previous election for both the new and old boundaries. In 2021, Poilievre took 49.9% of the riding, or 35,356 votes. Had 2021 been tallied under the new riding boundaries, he instead would have won 51.86%, or 36,534 votes. Both the LPC and NDP would have seen both a percentage and a vote count drop.

So, based on poll by poll results from 2021, the changed riding boundaries actually made Carleton lean slightly more Conservative than it was before. He simply lost anyway despite the slightly more downhill fight he had under the new, slightly more advantageous boundaries.

He also lost by a full 5+%, or 4,500 votes. It wasn’t close. Even if the shift in riding lean had been the exact opposite direction from what it actually was and HAD advantaged the Liberals (though it did not), he still lost by a margin several times any measurable change in votes in any direction. He earned an utterly honest loss.

Data and methodology here: Transposition of Votes from the 44th General Election to the 2023 Representation Orders

 

[brihard]

Which he only lost as they restructured his riding by adding a heavy lieberal section of Kanata north to the largely rural riding which skewed things a bit,

Not how it played out. The riding also shed a major suburb in the south end that definitely did not skew CPC.

In fact, as they always do when there are redrawing of ridings, Elections Canada released the poll by poll data from the previous election for both the new and old boundaries. In 2021, Poilievre took 49.9% of the riding, or 35,356 votes. Had 2021 been tallied under the new riding boundaries, he instead would have won 51.86%, or 36,534 votes. Both the LPC and NDP would have seen both a percentage and a vote count drop.

So, based on poll by poll results from 2021, the changed riding boundaries actually made Carleton lean slightly more Conservative than it was before. He simply lost anyway despite the slightly more downhill fight he had under the new, slightly more advantageous boundaries.

He also lost by a full 5+%, or 4,500 votes. It wasn’t close. Even if the shift in riding lean had been the exact opposite direction from what it actually was and HAD advantaged the Liberals (though it did not), he still lost by a margin several times any measurable change in votes in any direction. He earned an utterly honest loss.

Data and methodology here: Transposition of Votes from the 44th General Election to the 2023 Representation Orders

 

[Gunplumber]

He actually increased the number of votes he received.


Because, by law, ridings are adjusted following the decennial census to attempt to retain balanced ridings - so areas that grow do not become under represented.

There are public consultations in advance of a change. The principles are spelled out in writing.

Well I find the whole thing suspect and that's why I will never vote again. It is all a big scam and the Liberals will destroy the country and we will do it to ourselves by letting the government get away with corruption. Im done. Welcome to the end.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Based on the voting in the prior election, he was still strongly favored to win it.

It was not gerrymandered. He lost to an opponent who was knocking on doors for a few years to get out in front of the voters on the riding.

Would it be accurate to say Poilievere was honest and said public service jobs needed to be cut, which didn't land well with his constituents whom many were public service employees.

His opponent promised caps not cuts, which was manifestly popular with the constituents?

 

[AmmoTech90]

Well I find the whole thing suspect and that's why I will never vote again. It is all a big scam and the Liberals will destroy the country and we will do it to ourselves by letting the government get away with corruption. Im done. Welcome to the end.

So because your incorrect, preconceived notions are wrong, rather than accepting the truth, you are going to take your teddy and leave rather than continue to contribute to the electoral process that selects out government?

Absolutely rational and reasonable decision.