Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

They elected a representative, not a team jersey. If that person believes crossing the floor better serves their constituents, that's their prerogative. Pretending it's illegitimate just because it's not your team is the actual partisanship here.

How do you explain Kevin Vuong being elected?

By how our political system is designed we do vote for a representative but that's not at all how most Canadians vote. Vuong would not have been elected if not for his Liberal party status next to his name.

Heck he tried to join the Conservatives but was denied.

Let's be frank, crossing the floor has always been for selfish reasons (even if they may have merit). Jenica Atwin's very public spat with the Green party leader and crossing the floor was over Israel-Palestine, not exactly a hard hitting Fredericton, NB agenda.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The job of the opposition, especially with a minority government, is to represent the interests of their constituents.
Sometimes that means opposing the government.
Sometimes that means working with them to find a better/more workable solution.

It doesn't always work that way, but PP has made it his whole personality/platform, that he will only ever do the former.

His job is to work to get the best outcome for Canada, not to whine, complain, and produce useless soundbites.

Haha, no. The role of Official Opposition is to hold the government accountable and to act as a government in waiting.

The latter point is arguably pretty hard to do as the record of Opposition leaders becoming PM is not... good.

We do not have a collaborative system like some of the Europeans do. It's a winner take-all, confrontational system. It usually produces decent results, but as I mentioned earlier, Canadian demographics and our ever tense regional differences are really pulling this system apart.

You may criticize Poilievre for his slogans, but they work. Axe the Tax was annoying, but look we have no consumer carbon tax anymore.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think there is anything wrong with the party's stance at all. What exactly is so "extreme" about it? It's position on the carbon tax? Oh right.

Poilievre deserves to stay. He increased the CPC vote share to its highest ever, won a ton of seats in Ontario, and won his leadership review.

If you don't like how he "opposes this government," well you should read a bit more. It's his job and he's very good at it.

For the record, I'm not a big CPC or Poilievre guy (although I did support them in last election), but I really respect the way Poilievre has hammered on the cost of living issues faced by people under 35 in a way that Carney will never do.

We're looking at a real generational split in the way Canadians see our politics.

LOL, a true PP fan! Tell us how much you admire all the ways in which he's following Trump's lead.

Oh, wait! You also said Trump is smart. Right! OK, it all makes sense again.

Imagine looking south and saying, "ya, gimme some of THAT #### sandwich!"

The person who thinks that is not someone who should lead Canada under any circumstances. That you don't see that as instantly disqualifying is wild.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, I kind of dont really know how to feel about this. Fundamentally I agree with you, but at the same time the constituents elected 'that' representative because presumably they are more Conservative?

So in that context the concept of not serving his constituents could technically hold true if those people were more hardcore Cons, however by the same token if that representative feels that they are not 'hardcore Cons' and would be better served by Carney's Liberals then by that measure he would indeed be fulfilling his Mandate.

The Devil is in the details really and I guess we'll see what happens when the next Election rolls around.

Its kind of strange right now because, there are people who voted Conservative only to see that party sliding too far right, in which case their elected representative could see his way to more accurately representing his constituents by taking this action.

If he's a hardcore Con and people voting for him want a hardcore Con, he doesn't cross the floor. If they wanted to vote for a hardcore Con and he's not one, there's a PPC candidate to vote for.

The results of this particular riding were 47.7% versus 46.6%, CPC versus LPC respectively. Given how Carney's governed so far, it's fair to think a good share of that 47.7% are fine with the direction he's taking, and the 46.6% who already backed the Liberals now have their guy on their side. That's about as representative as politics gets.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by btimbit

CBC News is top notch, and a huge deal these days as the bulk of our media is owned by Americans with right wing ties.

But the rest of CBC programming? Not for me

CBC Radio and Podcasts are first rate.

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by peter12

We're looking at a real generational split in the way Canadians see our politics.

Not in my house and extended family.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Not in my house and extended family.

Thank you for your anecdotal observation.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Haha, no. The role of Official Opposition is to hold the government accountable and to act as a government in waiting.

The latter point is arguably pretty hard to do as the record of Opposition leaders becoming PM is not... good.

We do not have a collaborative system like some of the Europeans do. It's a winner take-all, confrontational system. It usually produces decent results, but as I mentioned earlier, Canadian demographics and our ever tense regional differences are really pulling this system apart.

You may criticize Poilievre for his slogans, but they work. Axe the Tax was annoying, but look we have no consumer carbon tax anymore.

Holding the Government accountable does not mean simply voting no on everything.

Holding the Government accountable can/should mean proposing compromises that you will vote for, and that will benefit Canadians as whole and/or your constituents.

Conservatives whine that the NDP got everything they wanted under the Trudeau/Singh partnership, but what they don't bother to consider is that if the CPC wasn't lead by someone incapable of compromise that the CPC could have considered support on key issues in exchange for whatever it is they wanted.

When there is a Majority Government, sure, the opposition can sit back and say "No" to everything regardless of their actual stance. But an Official Opposition, under a minority government, that doesn't even try to force concessions isn't doing their job, which should be to try to get the best outcome for Canadians.

[Sol]

Originally Posted by peter12

Thank you for your anecdotal observation.

Thank you for your insincere gratitude.

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Thank you for your anecdotal observation.

You're welcome .... wait until your kid gets old enough to vote.

I've never quite believed the polling that has the CPC ahead of the Liberals with young adults. Must have polled significantly more young males because by far the majority of young women I come across can't stand the CPC led by PP.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Firebot

How do you explain Kevin Vuong being elected?

By how our political system is designed we do vote for a representative but that's not at all how most Canadians vote. Vuong would not have been elected if not for his Liberal party status next to his name.

Heck he tried to join the Conservatives but was denied.

Let's be frank, crossing the floor has always been for selfish reasons (even if they may have merit). Jenica Atwin's very public spat with the Green party leader and crossing the floor was over Israel-Palestine, not exactly a hard hitting Fredericton, NB agenda.

Sure, Vuong's a good example of how voters treat the ballot as a party-choice rather than a person-choice, even though our system isn't designed that way. It was also just two days prior to the election, which means a healthy helping of those votes that propelled him to Parliament might have come in the form of advance voting (before the news came out).

This is muddying the waters and I'm not defending every floor-crosser, each should be looked at as an individual case. An MP's job is to represent constituents, and if that means switching parties to do it, it's within their mandate. Whether voters punish them for it next time is the check on that power.

You know very well that I -- and most here, probably -- would agree that floor-crossing over f-cking Israel-Palestine is idiotic. It is also not even remotely comparable to what we're discussing.

[Looch City]

The CPC is getting awfully close to Maple MAGA with PP at the helm. Seems like those on the inside are seeing it as well.

I'm all for floor crossings for this reason alone.

Nip it in the ####ing bud.

[troutman]

Lessons from Ireland: How the country’s electoral system would strengthen Canadian democracy

https://theconversation.com/lessons-...mocracy-247541

Ireland has a proportional representation system that’s very different from first-past-the-post. Each voter has a single transferable vote, and each constituency elects several candidates. Voters can rank all the candidates on the ballot in order of their preference.

To be successful, a candidate must reach the constituency’s quota, which is calculated based on the total number of votes and the number of seats. When a candidate reaches or exceeds the quota on the first count, they are elected, and their surplus votes are distributed among the other candidates, based on voters’ second or lower preferences.

If nobody reaches the quota on the first count, as often happens, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their votes are distributed among the other candidates. The process continues until all seats are filled.

Canada’s system poses two major challenges to democracy.

The first is voter disengagement. Under the first-past-the-post system, a candidate does not need to win more than 50 per cent of the votes; they just need to win more than their opponents. All the votes cast in favour of other candidates are discounted.

The second challenge exacerbated by the first-past-the-post system is increasing polarization in politics. In a winner-takes-all system, there is no incentive for candidates to try to appeal to voters to become their second or third choice. This leads to a much more adversarial style of politics.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think there is anything wrong with the party's stance at all. What exactly is so "extreme" about it? It's position on the carbon tax? Oh right.

Poilievre deserves to stay. He increased the CPC vote share to its highest ever, won a ton of seats in Ontario, and won his leadership review.

If you don't like how he "opposes this government," well you should read a bit more. It's his job and he's very good at it.

For the record, I'm not a big CPC or Poilievre guy (although I did support them in last election), but I really respect the way Poilievre has hammered on the cost of living issues faced by people under 35 in a way that Carney will never do.

We're looking at a real generational split in the way Canadians see our politics.

Slow your roll. His leadership review is in January, and if people keep crossing the floor, something tells me that he isn't winning that.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by troutman

Lessons from Ireland: How the country’s electoral system would strengthen Canadian democracy

https://theconversation.com/lessons-...mocracy-247541

May I introduce you to https://www.fairvote.ca/

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

I've never quite believed the polling that has the CPC ahead of the Liberals with young adults. Must have polled significantly more young males because by far the majority of young women I come across can't stand the CPC led by PP.

And that's backed up by the high quality pollsters. Leger, Angus Reid, Abacus, etc. all had the Liberals leading in the youngest demographic in their last pre-election polls and that trend holds true today for the most part.

I think a lot of that "young people are going conservative" thinking in Canada comes from one of two places:

1) People remembering polls when Conservatives had a 20 point lead and ignoring what happened subsequently.

2) Middle aged or soon to be middle aged people whose 35-54 year old contemporaries are strongly supporting the Conservatives not realizing that they're not young anymore.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Slava

Slow your roll. His leadership review is in January, and if people keep crossing the floor, something tells me that he isn't winning that.

He also managed to lose an election that they should have won, until his continuous series tone-deaf missteps in messaging related to Trump. I am surprised he was allowed to parachute into a new riding after he lost.

[peter12]

You’re right. I knew I ####ed that up. I was thinking about his post-election soul-searching.

[puffnstuff]

He has a soul?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And that's backed up by the high quality pollsters. Leger, Angus Reid, Abacus, etc. all had the Liberals leading in the youngest demographic in their last pre-election polls and that trend holds true today for the most part.

I think a lot of that "young people are going conservative" thinking in Canada comes from one of two places:

1) People remembering polls when Conservatives had a 20 point lead and ignoring what happened subsequently.

2) Middle aged or soon to be middle aged people whose 35-54 year old contemporaries are strongly supporting the Conservatives not realizing that they're not young anymore.

Brief Carney bump. Abacus just released a poll showing CPC leading in voters under 35. Fairly significant lead among Canadians 35-44.
https://abacusdata.ca/abacus-data-po...ead-of-budget/