Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Maybe Fuzz is like me, I don't know.

But i could actually see Carney fitting in with the old (and sadly dead) PC Party.

I would have voted for him if he was a PC.

The CPC is not the PC party.

This is pretty much where I stand. I thought they finally had a decent leader in Erin O'Toole, and if he were still around, the cons would definitely have my vote. But the far right cons pushed him out of the party and elected a far right guy as the leader. I just can't put myself behind Poilievre and his constant fearmongering, Canada is broken rhetoric.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by simmer2

How did you justify voting in Justin Trudeau then?

The first two votes for Trudeau were no brainers for me. Apart from being more aligned to my values, it was time to turn over the leadership after a decade of Harper. Scheer was the least appealing candidate across the board that I had ever seen in my voting life...until PP and Smith came along.

O'Toole had the experience and appeal to finally make me start analyzing conservative polices and their platform for the first time in years. Then he started appealing to the...undesirable parts of the base for some inexplainable reason. So once again, the best of the bunch was Trudeau, even though I was pretty well ready to move on from him and the Liberals.

PP and his approach to social policies is an absolute non-starter for me. He's embraced the toxic parts of populism to the point that voting for him is entirely antithetical to everything Canada is about. He's a repulsive, smug, unqualified, out of touch little man that does not have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And I would have voted for him and the CPC against Trudeau Liberals any day.

Agreed. Even more so if JT did not step down.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, but just saying "Liberals are bad at this" /= "Conservatives will be better at this."

Using your own logic, you should actually be voting NDP, as they're the only party who hasn't demonstrated corruption and economic futility at the federal level.

I'm just going with what debt levels were when Conservatives were in power and what they became when Liberals were running things.

That's just using data and history to attempt to predict the future. Drawing a conclusion from say 15 years of history seems a reasonably scientific approach.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why didn’t you vote for Trudeau?

Because I disagreed with the Liberals' approach to fiscal policy. I think they spend too much.

And that's exactly what happened.

See debt post from earlier.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I'm just going with what debt levels were when Conservatives were in power and what they became when Liberals were running things.

That's just using data and history to attempt to predict the future. Drawing a conclusion from say 15 years of history seems a reasonably scientific approach.

You don't think using 10 years of data from when the CPC last held power, especially considering the current leader is a disciple from the same ideology, is also relevant?

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

errrrrrrr

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Hey everybody, look at this guy over here!! What a CPC voter he is!!

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

LOL!!

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I'm just going with what debt levels were when Conservatives were in power and what they became when Liberals were running things.

That's just using data and history to attempt to predict the future. Drawing a conclusion from say 15 years of history seems a reasonably scientific approach.

Originally Posted by simmer2

Because I disagreed with the Liberals' approach to fiscal policy. I think they spend too much.

And that's exactly what happened.

See debt post from earlier.

Gee, what could possibly have happened in the last 10 years to impact government spending? How can you not take a global pandemic into account?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I'm just going with what debt levels were when Conservatives were in power and what they became when Liberals were running things.

That's just using data and history to attempt to predict the future. Drawing a conclusion from say 15 years of history seems a reasonably scientific approach.

But if you look at the data for the debt to GDP ratio, you'll see the Liberals were pretty much the same as the Harper conservatives until Covid. They ended up taking on more debt early, but until 2020 the ratio was trending down.

Compared to the conservatives ,
2012: 55.729
2013: 56.917
2014: 53.638
2015: 52.892

2016: 55.403
2017: 55.696
2018: 54.582
2019: 53.917
2020: 55.111
2021: 74.693

So yeah, the Liberals added some debt in 2016/2017 but immediately put it to work increasing the GDP.

So drawing a conclusion from the Data is that there is very little different in spending between the parties as it addresses GDP. You could say that since Liberal debt increased, but the % of GDP decreased, they were doing a very good job of putting that debt to work, increasing GDP faster than increasing debt.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Gee, what could possibly have happened in the last 10 years to impact government spending? How can you not take a global pandemic into account?

This is a feature, not a bug in conservative logic and policy.

Cut services when you're in power, but don't bother balancing the budget because you're too busy giving tax cuts and benefits to your corporate/wealthy buddies.

When the next party gets into power and has to spend extra to bring services up to the standard they were prior to when you malicious ####s got into power, blame them for spending too much and slowing down the economy.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I'm just going with what debt levels were when Conservatives were in power and what they became when Liberals were running things.

That's just using data and history to attempt to predict the future. Drawing a conclusion from say 15 years of history seems a reasonably scientific approach.

I went and found this image that comes out of a report from the Fraser institute (just so it is more trustworthy for right wingers), what you are going to notice by in large is that increase in debt have come with exogenous events WWII, Stageflation, Housing Crisis, Covid, regardless of party. But if you look carefully, you will also notice that there is a much much stronger history of the red line creating a downward trajectory, and virtually no history of the blue lines doing that. In fact I am fairly confident because this chart is inflation adjusted that if you had 2023 / 2024 included it would prove out a downward trend in the red.

If you want to talk scientific, it is a fact that liberals have had stronger fiscal policy. Partially because they are more reluctant to cut revenue, and both parties are very reluctant to cut spending.

[Bill Bumface]

^ It's not worth looking at this data if it's not per capita.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It is kinda crazy how all the non-stop corruption and scandals are just forgotten and swept under the rug now. Just off the top of my head, interfering in criminal charges to save SNC for bribes, pressuring the Attorney General, all the ethics violations, refusing to hand over documents to the Speaker and RCMP about foreign interference, WE Charity scandal, ArriveCan fraud, derailing parliamentary committee meeting on violence against women to fear monger on abortion, the Randy not that Randy it's the other Randy falsifying Indigenous heritage for money, etc.

Nevermind the actual policies of economic suicide, a self made housing crisis, self described uncontrolled immigration crisis, Provinces begging for the bail reform to fix the problems that the federal government caused, falling productivity and lack of investment, etc.

But Ooga Booga Trump and we're happy to just forget and potentially bend over to do it all again. Little wonder it'll keep happening I guess.

I haven't forgotten the Liberals corruption and destructive policies. Absolutely far from it. Liberals as a party absolutely do not deserve to get reelected especially after the complete ideological nonsense Trudeau-Singh's coalition put us through especially the last 4 years. December - January I would 100% have been voting CPC to get rid of Trudeau.

But here's the problem. When it comes to Canada's sovereignty being under threat and tariffs being unfairly put against, one party acted to protect Canada, while the other party continued to play petty politics and double down on ideologic rhetoric. Campaigning how weak Canada has become, how poorly managed it is, it's hard to at the same time defend it. CPC took the "elected by default" projection for granted, while never really giving people reason to vote for them. It was always about fixing everything bad Trudeau has done.

This is not ooga booga Trump. Trump has once against reiterated for Canada to become the 51st state today. Trump has also stated he wants to double the tariffs on auto, and put tariffs despite a so called deal and Canada putting a fentanyl czar to appease his ego. Trump is turning the US into a full fledged fascist state and ignoring the constitution and they are not an ally. Trump plays a big part of our policies now because he has forced it on us. Trump cannot be ignored.

When Poilievre says in his campaign he will negotiate to eliminate tariffs, there is no negotiating to be had here. It's already happened, that's why we have the fricking fentanyl czar. People have become more nationalistic than ever, something that the conservatives should have pounced on as Doug Ford did. Tough on Trump, protect Canada, work together against a common foe. ArriveCAN is peanuts when compared to the threat to our sovereignty.

That we also have a new party leader that has shifted significantly away from Trudeau and to the right (don't let the fearmongering fool you, Carney is exactly what a radical centrist and old PC member would look like), made very strong actions and suddenly we have an actual viable alternative in the center. CPC was not a great alternative, they were simply the better choice compared to the disaster of Trudeau-Singh brand champagne socialism.

How on earth does Ford poll to be the strongest against Trump in the Ontario election, while Poilievre polled significantly behind Carney, Freeland AND Trudeau? That is the perception that Poilievre gave, and it's a very negative one. Both are conservative leaders and prioritized very differently.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/mark-car...-trump-tariffs

It turns out people just really really hated Trudeau / Singh, which doesn't mean they liked Poilievre. Poilievre chose to effectively ignore the Trump threat and barely changed his plan even as the polls completely turned upside down, believing that the focus should stay on Liberal / Trudeau versus how the CPC would protect Canada and fight against Trump.

On a side note looks like the CPC took down justlikejustin.ca recently as it's a dead link.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, but not effective enough is different than saying "when the vaccines were shown to be ineffective against the later variants."

Yes. That is correct. I figured that within the context of my post you could have deduced that that was what I meant. But fair enough Fuzz

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

As can be seen by what Doug Ford is doing in Ontario, this is something that provinces can tackle.

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2025/04/2...doug-ford/amp/

A bit issue is a lack of judges and court rooms, causing large backlogs.

Bingo.

My cousin is a city cop and talks about the frustration of arresting the same person repeatedly within short time spans.

99.9% of the cause is that Provincial courts are swamped. They are underfunded and none of the "tough on crime" parties have done anything here.

The City can crank up CPS funding and the feds can make it rain on the RCMP - none of this will do anything to curb the high frequency repeat criminals running around the city.

[fotze2]

I think Edie Mcclurg said it best to Steve Martin. You're fooked Pierre!

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by #-3

I went and found this image that comes out of a report from the Fraser institute (just so it is more trustworthy for right wingers), what you are going to notice by in large is that increase in debt have come with exogenous events WWII, Stageflation, Housing Crisis, Covid, regardless of party. But if you look carefully, you will also notice that there is a much much stronger history of the red line creating a downward trajectory, and virtually no history of the blue lines doing that. In fact I am fairly confident because this chart is inflation adjusted that if you had 2023 / 2024 included it would prove out a downward trend in the red.

If you want to talk scientific, it is a fact that liberals have had stronger fiscal policy. Partially because they are more reluctant to cut revenue, and both parties are very reluctant to cut spending.

Yeah, based on that chart, gross debt went up by about 47-48% under the Liberals. Sounds like a lot, but when you consider GDP increased by about 57% in the same time span, it's actually still going in the right direction.

Really, based on the way conservatives talk about the US economy, the Liberals didn't tack on enough debt. The US increased their debt by 92% in the same time span while their economy grew by about 60%.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Bingo.

My cousin is a city cop and talks about the frustration of arresting the same person repeatedly within short time spans.

99.9% of the cause is that Provincial courts are swamped. They are underfunded and none of the "tough on crime" parties have done anything here.

The City can crank up CPS funding and the feds can make it rain on the RCMP - none of this will do anything to curb the high frequency repeat criminals running around the city.

It makes you wonder how much ‘tough on crime’ politicians genuinely want to reduce crime. I get that increased funding for courtrooms, clerk, and lawyers doesn’t have the popular appeal of hiring more cops, or the even easier gesture of minimum sentencing. But the underfunding of courts has persisted for so long, and is so clearly the big logjam in the system, that at this point politicians have to be wilfully neglecting it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by #-3

I went and found this image that comes out of a report from the Fraser institute (just so it is more trustworthy for right wingers), what you are going to notice by in large is that increase in debt have come with exogenous events WWII, Stageflation, Housing Crisis, Covid, regardless of party. But if you look carefully, you will also notice that there is a much much stronger history of the red line creating a downward trajectory, and virtually no history of the blue lines doing that. In fact I am fairly confident because this chart is inflation adjusted that if you had 2023 / 2024 included it would prove out a downward trend in the red.

If you want to talk scientific, it is a fact that liberals have had stronger fiscal policy. Partially because they are more reluctant to cut revenue, and both parties are very reluctant to cut spending.

NSFW!

There is one notable downward trajectory that occurred under Chretien/Martin and this trend continued (it even accelerated) under Harper until he ran into the global financial crisis. The post WW2 debt reduction continued under Diefenbaker until the recessions of the 1960s.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is a feature, not a bug in conservative logic and policy.

Cut services when you're in power, but don't bother balancing the budget because you're too busy giving tax cuts and benefits to your corporate/wealthy buddies.

When the next party gets into power and has to spend extra to bring services up to the standard they were prior to when you malicious ####s got into power, blame them for spending too much and slowing down the economy.

The only Conservative Prime Minister in this millennium literally did balance the budget after a financial crisis much worse than COVID, so not sure how this comment is relevant in any way unless you want to go back to the 80s with Mulroney.

I'll definitely agree that Carney was a big reason why Canada fared well through that crisis, but just pointing out that your comment makes no sense when you look at the last 30 years.