GT: Canadian Federal Election 2019

[peter12]

One major takeaway from this election is that neither of the big parties can command much of a mandate anymore. For all the talk of the Conservative vote staying the same, the Liberals have seen consistent decline over the last two decades of politics. Both are in need of a major overhaul in terms of policy.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Looks like many things in politics are temporary, no?

Well unless you're a big proponent of "what's old is new again" the current landscape kind of looks as it always has for at least 50 years.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well unless you're a big proponent of "what's old is new again" the current landscape kind of looks as it always has for at least 50 years.

This is absolutely wrong. 50 years ago, you had a very strong brokerage model of politics in this country with both parties being able to command strong mandates of 40% plus of the electorate. Now, both are barely able to break 35% and have basically garrisoned themselves into the West (in the case of the CPC) and a handful of cities and Atlantic Canada (LPC).

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think Conservatives need to start recognizing that the decade of Harper represented an aberration and not the norm.

The political lesson is that the rot of social conservatism will eventually kill any party momentum.

When Harper took over and brought together the PCs and the Alliance, he had to cater somewhat to the notion of not re-fracturing this new agreement. Big tent governing. You have to remember that things were not exactly hugs and kisses between the two at the time. Peter MacKay basically sewered his leadership hopes by lying about his intention to merge the parties.

It was frequent bozo interruptions during the 2004 election cycle that probably created enough drag on the CPC momentum to stall out their ability to form government, and had former PC support shift to the Liberals rather than drift further to the right.

With the way Kenney and Ford have governed thus far it's likely we see a similar correction during their provincial election cycles.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

One major takeaway from this election is that neither of the big parties can command much of a mandate anymore. For all the talk of the Conservative vote staying the same, the Liberals have seen consistent decline over the last two decades of politics. Both are in need of a major overhaul in terms of policy.

How do you define "decline?" And can you post the numbers to show the decline?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by indes

This is what baffles me, why cater to the far right? Who the hell else are they going to vote for?

They are the most reliable voting block in the country and they will form their own party if they have to (as they have done time and again).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

How do you define "decline?" And can you post the numbers to show the decline?

With the exception of 2015, the Liberal Party of Canada has not broken 38.5% of the popular vote since 1993. Liberals should be asking themselves whether or not 2015 was an aberration, to be honest.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

They are the most reliable voting block in the country and they will form their own party if they have to (as they have done time and again).

Reliable, but increasingly isolated. A smart CPC leader would be able to push them into a corner.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is absolutely wrong.

Since 1963 we've had a whopping 18 years of Conservative governments? The Conservative seat count is the same as it usually is when they're in second place (or combined in the Reform years), and the NDP are back to where they are historically. The only major difference is the Bloc, and they're inching back to where they were in the 90s and early 2000s. How is it different?

[The Fonz]

Does anyone know where I could find actual vote #s, by province?

BC/AB/SK/MB seats ended up:

CPC - 71
LPC - 15
NDP - 15
GRN - 2
IND - 1

I’m curious to see actual vote share though over this geography.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Makarov

That was more just a "brag" than a "humble-brag" IMO.

Nah, it was "I'm not making this stuff up". It was years and years ago.

Clerking is a pretty hard job to get but a surprisingly easy job to do.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Since 1963 we've had a whopping 18 years of Conservative governments? The Conservative seat count is the same as it usually is when they're in second place (or combined in the Reform years), and the NDP are back to where they are historically. The only major difference is the Bloc, and they're inching back to where they were in the 90s and early 2000s. How is it different?

So rube, you are basically just conducting surface-level analysis here. The major difference is that party preference has basically crystallized on the right, while progressive party preferences remain highly volatile. Neither of the two large parties is able to make a strong plea for the other party's voters to switch allegiances. This has significant ramifications for the constitutional and national unity of the country.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Lisa Raitt losing her seat should be perhaps the biggest wake up call for Conservatives. Canada lost a very good MP because of who the CPC put forward as their leader.

Do you have evidence she lost because of Scheer, or is this wishful thinking?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Do you have evidence she lost because of Scheer, or is this wishful thinking?

It's partially wishful thinking, but Raitt's loss cannot be understated. She was the most moderate Conservative running in Ontario, and the avatar of the party's potential in the highly competitive, but lucrative Ontario 905 ridings. The loss of her voice and her seat doesn't bode well for CPC chances west of Manitoba unless some serious strategic rethinking occurs at the highest level of the CPC.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Singh can't run another election any time soon. He has no money.



There's a lot of posters using the word "corrupt". If that is in reference to SNC, I don't think it's the right word, only because that connotes personal gain (eg. SNC paid Trudeau kickbacks or something). It's clear he went across ethics boundaries by trying to convince a Minister to do something, but that didn't seem to be motivated by greed. It's either "saving Quebec jobs" if you're charitable or "winning Quebec votes" if you're not. Would we be complaining as much if he was phoning the Minister of Environment to try and convince him to impose a lesser penalty or remediation on a big oil sands project rather than shutting it down?



Or maybe I'm wrong and people are referring to something else?

As others have responded, you have to look farther back into the SLCL file to get a true appreciation of the corruption. Having spent millions of dollars bribing the horrible Muammar Gaddafi regime of Libya (including hiring prostitutes to entertain his son) to award them government contracts, SNCL could see the writing on the wall and realized they needed a stronger voice in Ottawa to possibly avoid prosecution for their crimes. They encouraged employees to make contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada by promising to reimburse any such contributions with a bonus equal to the amount contributed to the Liberals. This resulted in $110,000 dollars in illegal contributions to the federal Liberals in the last election. As a reward to SNCL, the Liberals consulted with the company heavily in the drafting of the omnibus bill that would potentially allow the company to potentially avoid criminal prosecution for its well-documented bribery. The government also failed to prosecute company executives and party members for their involvement in the illegal donations. The PM then went to the Attorney General, JWR, and reminded her that they had passed a law that allowed for deferred prosecution (euphemism for dropping criminal charges in favour of a slap on the wrist/nominal fine and allowing the offender to continue to have favoured status in bids for government contracts) of SNCL for bribery, and that it would be in everyone’s best interests to do so. When JWR refused, the PM sent his personal attack dog Butts and the head of the Privy Council repeatedly to her to try to talk some sense into her. When she stood her ground and insisted that the judicial branch of the government should remain independent from the legislative and executive branches (basically the only thing that keeps a majority government from having a 4-5 year dictatorship), he removed her from the post to replace her with a more pliable appointee. Then, when the commons justice committee investigating the affair learned that JWR had secretly recorded conversations of Trudeau’s cronies bullying her into compromising the country’s judicial independence, she was removed from cabinet and the party. Of course, we don’t know the full story, because JWR was threatened with prosecution for violation of cabinet privilege if she told the RCMP the truth, and the Liberal-dominated justice committee vetoed a full gathering of information from everyone involved in the sordid affair.

What is already public knowledge already has clear evidence of criminal activity and rampant influence peddling to a corrupt company. But why won’t the Liberals let us know the full story? What else are they still hiding? It’s like Watergate except with all of the witnesses being muzzled with threats of criminal charges for telling the truth (granted, the reporters investigating Watergate were threatened).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

As others have responded, you have to look farther back into the SLCL file to get a true appreciation of the corruption. Having spent millions of dollars bribing the horrible Muammar Gaddafi regime of Libya (including hiring prostitutes to entertain his son) to award them government contracts, SNCL could see the writing on the wall and realized they needed a stronger voice in Ottawa to possibly avoid prosecution for their crimes. They encouraged employees to make contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada by promising to reimburse any such contributions with a bonus equal to the amount contributed to the Liberals. This resulted in $110,000 dollars in illegal contributions to the federal Liberals in the last election. As a reward to SNCL, the Liberals consulted with the company heavily in the drafting of the omnibus bill that would potentially allow the company to potentially avoid criminal prosecution for its well-documented bribery. The government also failed to prosecute company executives and party members for their involvement in the illegal donations. The PM then went to the Attorney General, JWR, and reminded her that they had passed a law that allowed for deferred prosecution (euphemism for dropping criminal charges in favour of a slap on the wrist/nominal fine and allowing the offender to continue to have favoured status in bids for government contracts) of SNCL for bribery, and that it would be in everyone’s best interests to do so. When JWR refused, the PM sent his personal attack dog Butts and the head of the Privy Council repeatedly to her to try to talk some sense into her. When she stood her ground and insisted that the judicial branch of the government should remain independent from the legislative and executive branches (basically the only thing that keeps a majority government from having a 4-5 year dictatorship), he removed her from the post to replace her with a more pliable appointee. Then, when the commons justice committee investigating the affair learned that JWR had secretly recorded conversations of Trudeau’s cronies bullying her into compromising the country’s judicial independence, she was removed from cabinet and the party. Of course, we don’t know the full story, because JWR was threatened with prosecution for violation of cabinet privilege if she told the RCMP the truth, and the Liberal-dominated justice committee vetoed a full gathering of information from everyone involved in the sordid affair.

What is already public knowledge already has clear evidence of criminal activity and rampant influence peddling to a corrupt company. But why won’t the Liberals let us know the full story? What else are they still hiding? It’s like Watergate except with all of the witnesses being muzzled with threats of criminal charges for telling the truth (granted, the reporters investigating Watergate were threatened).

link, for that wall of text?

[transplant99]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1186711091570597888

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Do you have evidence she lost because of Scheer, or is this wishful thinking?

She won that riding by an average of 8 points in the last 3 elections and lost this one by 15. I'm sure Scheer wasn't the only factor, but considering she was a fairly popular MP with little baggage, it sure seems like he played a role.

[peter12]

You know what? I will be the first to say it. Everyone needs to drop the SNC Lavalin thing now. The damage has been done. Trudeau's effectively lost his celebrity status over it - and the many other terrible things this year. Let parliamentary committees sort it out, if they wish.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by peter12

With the exception of 2015, the Liberal Party of Canada has not broken 38.5% of the popular vote since 1993. Liberals should be asking themselves whether or not 2015 was an aberration, to be honest.

Of course it was. Side-swept Quaif, + Legalizing pot.