- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
Yeah, HE LIED!
Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 40,436
- Points
- 1,210
His support for the convoy likely also cost him support.
Definitely. With a home constituency of Ottawa that was absolutely a factor much more than would have been the case elsewhere.
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
Yeah WTF is the truth any more? Contributing will d nothing while people are being lied to by the politicians lie to the voters and do a 180% on what they promised. Elbows up, what a croc. The government will bankrupt the country.
- Reaction score
- 12,342
- Points
- 1,160
It probably cost him some support yeah.
I bet taking the honest road and telling constituents (Liberal AND Conservative) that his government would need to cut their jobs cost him more support than supporting the convoy.
Lots of similarities to Poilievre vs Carney's approach how to deal with Trump, and the ultimate outcome.
- Reaction score
- 12,342
- Points
- 1,160
Best we can do is stock up on food, water, ammunition, and learn to be self sufficient.
Maybe start an underground army.ca network of buried caches around the country
Yes. It's like arguing that when the retail carbon tax ended we wouldn't see lower gas prices.
Unfortunately, global oil prices can go up faster than any gas tax cut the government can give. And the feds really only have excise and HSR they can cut anyway. Anything more requires the provinces to cooperate. Not sure how down they are with that.
People have pulled poll level data and looked at past voting. The boundaries became more favourable to him. Not less. If he had his old riding, he would have had a larger loss. By the way, this is from a commentator who is anything but a fan of the LPC:
But I get that vibes rule these days and people will tell themselves what they want. Dude is an Ottawa area MP who was vocal about supporting the convoy and seemed to relish the idea of cutting public service jobs if elected. Why is anybody surprised with the result?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 6,729
- Points
- 1,160
This is the very dark place where politics has been heading. The whole "stolen election" narrative and the ideas being pushed that the system itself is rigged against one side or the other could lead to a situation where a significant portion of the population doesn't believe their elected government is legitimate. That's when extremists can turn a sense of disenfranchisement into violence.
It's easy to see signs of it even on here.
- Suggestions that the First Past the Post system isn't legitimate because you can get elected with a plurality of the votes rather than an outright majority. The current flavour of this argument is that it's rigged to support the Liberals despite the fact that the same system has in recent history resulted in just under a decade each of Conservative rule under Mulroney and then Harper. The system may not be perfect (which system is?) but it is far from rigged against one party or the other.
- Claims of partisan "gerrymandering" of riding boundaries to tip local elections in favour of a particular party like what happens in the US even when it can be demonstrated that the redistribution system in Canada is non-partisan and makes every effort to not unfairly change the balance.
- The current spate of floor crossings while certainly controversial are not anything new in our parliamentary system and in fact happens on a fairly regular basis. See this quite long list of floor crossers in both our Federal and Provincial parliaments. In this case however, there are some people suggesting that coercion and corruption are the only possible reasons for these floor crossings and that it somehow makes the current Liberal majority illegitimate.
- Lastly and most importantly is the increasing characterization of those on the other side of issues being the "other" and that their actions will "destroy" the country. The highlighted portion of the quote above is one example as are the commonly trotted out terms of "Lie-berals" on one side and "Maple MAGA" on the other side.
Canada certainly is facing a number of very serious issues, both economic and social but I challenge anyone to walk outside, look around at the country we are currently living in and honestly say "Welcome to the end". I am quite confident that the Carney Liberal government will not result in the destruction of our nation. I am equally confident that the Conservatives when they eventually form the government after the Liberals have run out of steam will not destroy the country either. In fact, I doubt that on a day to day basis the average Canadian will notice a significant difference in their lives as a result of changes in the House of Parliament compared to the impacts they experience from external Global events.
The real risk to Canada is not Carney or Poilievre, it's people being led to believe that a government led by the side that is not "theirs" is not just a government with policy differences from their own views but rather an illegitimate and evil group intent on the destruction of the country and their way of life. When that is the case it can become an excuse for extreme and violent actions. That is not a road I want to see us go down.
- Reaction score
- 11,792
- Points
- 1,040
The risk isn't people merely believing that government "by the other side" is against them. The risk is people who win government and manifestly use it to impose cultural dominance. IOW, it isn't paranoia if they're really out to get you.
The cure is to limit the power of governments to do a lot of things. We don't have a constitution that does that.
- Reaction score
- 7,220
- Points
- 1,260
Very well said. I too fear this trend of demonising anyone or anything that does not align with one's own views. Polarisation seems to lead to demonisation these days, which is indeed worrisome.
That's a problem to be sure. But I'm not sure it's as bad in Canada, as the US. Just the fact that we have so many swing voters and ridings, says there's a lot more open minded people here. I actually think this frustrates partisans who wish we were more like the US.
Personally, very grateful we have a non-partisan election authority. It prevents a lot of the partisan over-reach seen in the US.
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Points
- 1,140
I think HSR was only allocated 4 billion in this years budget.
That all said, I do find it hilarious that the CPC needs to break into the urban ridings in Quebec and Ontario and they are specifically against a project that would benefit the urban ridings of Quebec and Ontario.
I would love to see where Pierre would cut in the budget to get it down to a 31b dollar deficit though, especially when we are increasing defense spending and looking to get major projects on the go.
Last edited:
By cutting the gas tax, obviously.
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Points
- 1,140
I wish I could take the CPC seriously.
And that's the amount through 2029 when construction start is planned. So it's not even $4B every year. More like $1-1.5B a year over the next 3 years.
Magic.
Balanced budgets don't let you wage fiscal culture wars. Need at least a small deficits to provide cover for things you don't like.
This is why if you're left leaning, it's better to have a centre-left government balance the books in line with your priorities. You won't like the other side doing it. Better to have Paul Martin to balance your budget (remember his balanced cuts approach?). Compare that to shenanigans like stopping federal scientists from traveling to climate conferences or cutting the census. We're probably going to go through that kind of a vindictive era again, thanks to Trudeau's incompetence.
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Points
- 1,140
That's even more embarrassing.
As leader of the opposition, what I expect is to show you are the government in waiting. So you don't agree with the government, that's fine, what do you plan to do instead?
In this case, you want a deficit of no more than 31b. Fine, how do we get there Mr Poilievre? Cancel HSR to save 1-2 b a year, and cut the gas tax for the rest of the year which will cost near 5b? So how do you get the other....carry the one....43 BILLION?
A serious plan would be nice, instead we get sound bites and nonsense.
Nah. It's intentional. Gotta make the number sound as big as possible to get people riled up.
Honestly, don't blame them. I genuinely wish our opposition parties were forced to present alternative budgets every year so we can see exactly what their priorities are. But they aren't. So the job is reduced to bitching and moaning till the public elects you. I don't fault Poilievre for living up to exactly the expectations Canadians have of him. He nearly became PM. And he still might. What incentive does he have to change? If it works....
- Reaction score
- 11,792
- Points
- 1,040
Budget deficits are a problem for future taxpayers in the upper quintile, and possibly anyone exposed to the return of surtaxes if debt servicing becomes a problem. For the most part, no-one else has to worry.
Similar threads
