Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[PuckChaser]

She won’t.

Harper set the precedent for gvts to avoid non confidence motions using prorogation.

For the uneducated, yes. The nuance is that Harper prorogued parliament to stop a coalition that none of the 3 parties had campaigned on just a month and change before. His party wasn't falling apart, his polling numbers weren't taking. I much would have preferred he just call an election instead of proroguing to call the bluff of the Lib/NDP/BQ power grab.

In this circumstance, the only reason to prorogue is to prevent an election that Canadians and a majority of MPs clearly want. Not a single opposition party has talked about a coalition to take over governing, they want it sent to the electorate where it should go. For Trudeau to prorogue to hold onto power in this way would be wholly undemocratic but very on-brand for this current iteration of the LPC.

 

[Remius]

Pierre Trudeau Prorogued 11 Times. 11.

Sure. Prorogation used to be used routinely. Just not routinely to avoid confidence motions.

 

[Remius]

For the uneducated, yes. The nuance is that Harper prorogued parliament to stop a coalition that none of the 3 parties had campaigned on just a month and change before. His party wasn't falling apart, his polling numbers weren't taking. I much would have preferred he just call an election instead of proroguing to call the bluff of the Lib/NDP/BQ power grab.

In this circumstance, the only reason to prorogue is to prevent an election that Canadians and a majority of MPs clearly want. Not a single opposition party has talked about a coalition to take over governing, they want it sent to the electorate where it should go. For Trudeau to prorogue to hold onto power in this way would be wholly undemocratic but very on-brand for this current iteration of the LPC.

I’ll ignore the passive insult of being uneducated. Yes It’s definitely different circumstances. But I will say what I said then. It’s legal and valid parliamentary procedure. The voters will determine eventually if it is worth the risk.

People did warn that it would set a precedent back then. And here we are.

Like it or not, JT is in the driver seat. He’s headed for a cliff drop but he’s still driving.

 

[dimsum]

Ahhh, but universal basic income isn't Mincome though. The Mincome trial involved people who already had jobs whom were topped up.

Universal income would include people who don't work. I think it was estimated at $50B or $60B a year?

One of the trials main concerns was incentivizing people not to work, and that was in the 70s. I'd say 2024s sense of entitlement is considerably bigger.


Trudeau is going to promise it and Canadians will vote for him thinking they can sit home on their ass and get paid.

The Dauphin part of the trial was open to anyone, working or not. And yes, one of the reasons why they decided to do the trial was to see whether getting “free money” would disincentivize people from working.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Happy new year, Team Red!

The Federal Liberals’ New Year’s Eve Nightmare: Party vote intent sinks to 16%, Trudeau approval at all-time low -

46% say PM should resign, prorogue House for leadership race; two-in-five want a Feb. 2025 election December 30, 2024 – At the end of what has already been a bruising year for federal Liberals, they are on the precipice of a very unhappy New Year. Amid growing calls for their leader to resign...

angusreid.org

Also attached as PDF in case link doesn't work.

Highlights:

• "Approval of Trudeau hits all-time low
• Favourability of Poilievre unchanged
• Negative views of Singh at all-time high
• Electoral fortunes of Liberal Party sink
• Voter retention – majority of 2021 Liberal party supporters looking elsewhere
• Voter commitment – CPC supporters twice as likely to be ‘very committed’ to choice (of which party they say they'll vote for)
• Three-in-five Liberal supporters want leadership contest to replace Trudeau"

Some pictures...

 

[suffolkowner]

I think it’s a stretch to group the Liberals and NDP together. The Liberals were traditionally the party of Bay Street and Laurentian Elite. Before Trudeau, they were centre-left only so much to keep the NDP down.

No one can tell me the NDP has anything in common with the Paul Martins, John Manleys, Bill Morneau, etc.

but neither do the liberals right now

 

[brihard]

Pierre Trudeau Prorogued 11 Times. 11.

Prorogue is, generally, a completely normal and acceptable parliamentary procedure. It used to be the norm rather than the long winter and summer recesses we tend to see now. It makes a parliament reaching an accepted end of the achievable short term, sucking back, consolidating, and then crossing a fresh line of departure with fresh objectives. Nothing wrong with that.

Where some of us object is where we see that normal mechanism on deck to potentially be used in a way that dodges the ability of the house to challenge confidence.

 

[RangerRay]

I wonder if we will get back to old school political ways or is this "the new normal?"

The traditional views?

LPC? The academic minded, socially thinking but fiscally reasonable Center/left party

CPC? The business minded, tax reducing, money saving Center/right party

NDP? The Union/disabled/Single parents/poverty stricken people matter too party (Can dance either side of the center line)

BQ? Having things so good in Canada that they don't exist

Green? Not needed.

The way I understood things till recently:

LPC: party of the boardroom plus the professional class and federalist Quebecois. Throw in ethnic politics and Maritimers “me pa was a Liberal and me gramps was a Liberal so I’m a Liberal!” for good measure.

CPC: party of the managerial class and the small business owners

NDP: party of the workers and prairie farmers.

None of these three parties were natural coalition partners. Closest was possibly LPC and CPC. But they hate each other too much. In any other country, they would form coalitions to keep out radicals and the separatists.

But that paradigm has completely blown up. Thing is, a lot of people haven’t realized that yet.

 

[Remius]

It was a garbage precedent to set then and would be a garbage one to uphold now. However it would be a worse precedent for the GG to go against that constitutional convention.

I would be more open to the three opposition leaders jointly approaching the GG to say that the government no longer has the confidence of the House, but that they are being blocked from the opportunity to demonstrate that in a vote. As such, any prorogue should be short in duration so as to permit a prompt confidence vote. In the present circumstances, I don’t believe that would be unreasonable.

My guess is the reason will be that with the US inauguration with tariffs incoming that now is not the time for an election. Or something to that effect

 

[suffolkowner]

Pierre Trudeau Prorogued 11 Times. 11.

interesting
Trudeau1 11 times in 15.5 yrs
Mulroney 3 times in 9 yrs
Chretien 4 times in 10 yrs
Harper 4 times in 7.5 yrs
Trudeau 2 once? in 9 yrs

 

[suffolkowner]

Prorogue is, generally, a completely normal and acceptable parliamentary procedure. It used to be the norm rather than the long winter and summer recesses we tend to see now. It makes a parliament reaching an accepted end of the achievable short term, sucking back, consolidating, and then crossing a fresh line of departure with fresh objectives. Nothing wrong with that.

Where some of us object is where we see that normal mechanism on deck to potentially be used in a way that dodges the ability of the house to challenge confidence.

yes prorogation was the rule not the exemption. The House meeting was shorter than our prorogations back in the day

Not sure what caused the change?

 

[brihard]

Although, I notice that only when the CPC is winning, does it become fashionable to aggregate the non-CPC vote.

Missed this earlier but I’m gonna quibble with it. I don’t think it’s difficult to find instances of people pointing out that the currently elected government represents only 32.6% of votes cast. Griping that we can see a majority government with a plurality well short of a popular majority is a favourite pastime in Canadian political discussion.

 

[RangerRay]

Missed this earlier but I’m gonna quibble with it. I don’t think it’s difficult to find instances of people pointing out that the currently elected government represents only 32.6% of votes cast. Griping that we can see a majority government with a plurality well short of a popular majority is a favourite pastime in Canadian political discussion.

Except very few people say “If only the Tories and NDP were merged, we wouldn’t have this Liberal government…”

 

[Good2Golf]

interesting
Trudeau1 11 times in 15.5 yrs
Mulroney 3 times in 9 yrs
Chretien 4 times in 10 yrs
Harper 4 times in 7.5 yrs
Trudeau 2 once? in 9 yrs

Clearly JT is the paragon of transparency and parliamentary respect…let’s do another 10 years of him.

 

[Cloud Cover]

She won’t.

Harper set the precedent for gvts to avoid non confidence motions using prorogation.

Yea indeed, RH Harper most definitely mastered the art of the prorogue.
This is a tool available to sitting governments which requires safeguards and limitations.
Enough is enough.

 

[Remius]

Yea indeed, RH Harper most definitely mastered the art of the prorogue.
This is a tool available to sitting governments which requires safeguards and limitations.
Enough is enough.

Something tells me the next government won’t want to limit themselves by weakening that tool but we’ll see. Maybe they read the reaction to a potential upcoming prorogation and make that an electoral promise?

 

[PuckChaser]

I’ll ignore the passive insult of being uneducated. Yes It’s definitely different circumstances. But I will say what I said then. It’s legal and valid parliamentary procedure. The voters will determine eventually if it is worth the risk.

People did warn that it would set a precedent back then. And here we are.

Like it or not, JT is in the driver seat. He’s headed for a cliff drop but he’s still driving.

It wasn't meant that way. The vast majority of the electorate, including LPC or die faithful will believe exactly what you said "Harper did it so it's ok" without understanding the nuance or will be willfully ignorant to it. It shouldn't be surprising, we've heard about the Harper boogeyman for almost 6 years into Trudeau's tenure.

 

[Remius]

It wasn't meant that way.

Fair enough.

The vast majority of the electorate, including LPC or die faithful will believe exactly what you said "Harper did it so it's ok" without understanding the nuance or will be willfully ignorant to it. It shouldn't be surprising, we've heard about the Harper boogeyman for almost 6 years into Trudeau's tenure.

To be clear, I am only saying:

That it is a legal procedural tool available to a sitting government

That precedent was set by using this tool to avoid a non confidence motion (something that some talking heads and experts warned against back in the day)

Whether it’s ok or not is another discussion. Relevant yes but not what I was bringing forward. The GG will likely lean on precedence when weighing her options.

I’m not sure the electorate, assuming most want an election sooner rather than later, will care if Harper did it or not or believe that it’s is ok precedence or not.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

@The Bread Guy

I love this graph:



I love it because it shows the natural lifespan of a Government in Canada.

The trend line for the Libs is slowly trending downward over time with briefs spikes upward. No bump is ever as large as the previous one though.

Political fortune can pivot on a dime though.

Libs were polling low 20s just prior to 2015 election and then spikes to Majority territory just prior to election. They weren't polling well in the lead up to 2021 either.

Libs may be in the dumps but they probably have a Trump Card to play before the election and a bump to 30% isn't out of the question.

Unlikely but stranger things have happened.

 

[suffolkowner]

Fair enough.

To be clear, I am only saying:

That it is a legal procedural tool available to a sitting government

That precedent was set by using this took to avoid a non confidence motion (something that some talking heads and experts warned against back in the day)

Whether it’s ok or not is another discussion. Relevant yes but not what I was bringing forward. The GG will likely lean on precedence when weighing her options.

I’m not sure the electorate, assuming most want an election sooner rather than later, will care if Harper did it or not or believe that it’s is ok precedence or not.

something strikes me as off on this usage of precedent

Is a GG bound by the decision of another? I think the answer is clearly no

Did this decision set a precedent? In the sense that it was done yes
but does it suggest that this is the way of doing things precedent going forward? Im not so sure. Obviously it makes it easier to ask and easier to not refuse

I dont have the vocabulary or reasoning on it worked out