Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I for one feel much better knowing that the best detectives that reddit has to offer are on the case.

[PepsiFree]

Not really detective work when they’re just explaining things but I understand how even that is intimidating.

[Firebot]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/reg...view-1.7576704

"Cutting unnecessary red tape is essential to unlocking Canada's full economic potential."



What is the relevance of Poilievre / CPC at this point, if Carney does everything many Canadians want and then some in a responsible centrist government without catering to the crazy socialist conservative part?

Canadian politics has been really boring since Carney has taken over because he is doing actions that many Canadians actually want, without grifting the other side or pandering. Such a welcome change from the past decade and the reality that the CPC / Poilievre would have grifted hard had they won as well.

[CliffFletcher]

It’s refreshing to see a Canadian leader pushing forward policies A) that most Canadians actually want, and B) not attacking and denouncing other Canadians while he’s doing it.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/reg...view-1.7576704

"Cutting unnecessary red tape is essential to unlocking Canada's full economic potential."



What is the relevance of Poilievre / CPC at this point, if Carney does everything many Canadians want and then some in a responsible centrist government without catering to the crazy socialist conservative part?

Canadian politics has been really boring since Carney has taken over because he is doing actions that many Canadians actually want, without grifting the other side or pandering. Such a welcome change from the past decade and the reality that the CPC / Poilievre would have grifted hard had they won as well.

Bolded is the worst part, since its boring now this thread is quiet and I actually have to do my dayjob. Where's the drama people?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

Bolded is the worst part, since its boring now this thread is quiet and I actually have to do my dayjob. Where's the drama people?

Look south. We have a few threads to stay entertained. Chaos is best enjoyed at a distance.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/reg...view-1.7576704

"Cutting unnecessary red tape is essential to unlocking Canada's full economic potential."



What is the relevance of Poilievre / CPC at this point, if Carney does everything many Canadians want and then some in a responsible centrist government without catering to the crazy socialist conservative part?

Canadian politics has been really boring since Carney has taken over because he is doing actions that many Canadians actually want, without grifting the other side or pandering. Such a welcome change from the past decade and the reality that the CPC / Poilievre would have grifted hard had they won as well.

Have no fear

I've seen a couple of #### Carney stickers on trucks, and heard a few people sneer about how in a couple years we'll have a chance to get rid of these socialists.

So the fact that the CPC ceded all of the ground that fiscal conservatism covers to thoroughly that a conservative economist was able to prance in take over the liberals and win election, and still these people are worried about the "socialists" might be an indication that they aren't conservatives, don't care about about policy or outcomes, they might not even understand what the distinction is. These are often very smart people who just know which side they are on, and will believe / justify anything to stay on that side.

By next election Albertans will be dreading the planned market oppression this criminal robing the blind with taxes, when the clear solution is to stop taxing them personally and the businesses they own, then some how cut the cost of government without cutting any services to the point that they get everything for free, because that's capitalism.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

What is the relevance of Poilievre / CPC at this point, if Carney does everything many Canadians want and then some in a responsible centrist government without catering to the crazy socialist conservative part?

Who are this “crazy socialist conservative part” of the CPC?

[Johnny Makarov]

LOL! "Cons are great with our finances" said the deplorables.. hahaha

According to records filed with Elections Canada, the party brought in about $42 million in donations and another $5 million in membership fees last year, with total revenues of just over $48.5 million.

The party spent just shy of $50 million over the same period — an increase of nearly $13 million over 2023.


They were also targeting then NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and his party's decision to prop up the Liberal government.
DeLorey said attacking the NDP leader was "a foolish waste of money."

Money well spent!!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/con...sing-1.7581132

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

LOL! "Cons are great with our finances" said the deplorables.. hahaha

Money well spent!!

To play devil's advocate it was a good spend of money if their underlaying assumptions held true (namely that the overarching political landscape would remain a constant and they would be facing Justin Trudeau as their principal adversary in the next election)... they just didn't hold true.

If that was their assumption (and everything about their behavior indicates to me that it was) then spending money attacking Singh makes all kinds of sense because if they can use the attacks to expedite the election before any of the fundamentals change then they are in a very very good spot. It almost worked too... after their attacks Singh broke his agreement with the LPC and was blustering about bringing down the government at the next opportunity... but then Justin Trudeau said "I'm outsies!", Donald Trump upended the applecart, and the Liberal had a guy with real gravitas dominate their leadership race.

Who are this “crazy socialist conservative part” of the CPC?

I assume that was a mistype on his part but IMO MAGA are as close as you can get to "crazy socialist conservatives”. I mean it's pretty clear that they don't give a single wit about free markets and think a more state ordered economy is a small price to pay to keep the brown people out and the gays down.

[iggy_oi]

I thought the sarcasm would have been obvious. At the same time I was kinda hoping Firebot did mean to write what he posted because the explanation would have been gold!

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Parallex

To play devil's advocate it was a good spend of money if their underlaying assumptions held true (namely that the overarching political landscape would remain a constant and they would be facing Justin Trudeau as their principal adversary in the next election)... they just didn't hold true.

If that was their assumption (and everything about their behavior indicates to me that it was) then spending money attacking Singh makes all kinds of sense because if they can use the attacks to expedite the election before any of the fundamentals change then they are in a very very good spot. It almost worked too... after their attacks Singh broke his agreement with the LPC and was blustering about bringing down the government at the next opportunity... but then Justin Trudeau said "I'm outsies!", Donald Trump upended the applecart, and the Liberal had a guy with real gravitas dominate their leadership race.
.

Pivot! Pivot! and they didn't do it. lol $50mil well spent!

Their attack on the NDP worked too good. Too bad most of their votes went to the Libs. lol

[CliffFletcher]

On the subject of election funding, the NDP’s catastrophic election results could spell the financial ruin of the party.

Yes, the loss was brutal. The NDP won just seven seats in the federal election, not enough to maintain official party status in the House of Commons. They lost funding for the leader’s office, their research bureau, and their spots on parliamentary committees, along with most of their relevance. But the worst of it isn’t in the headlines. It’s buried in spreadsheets, legal clauses, and bank ledgers.

Here’s the real crisis: the NDP appears to be millions of dollars short on paying back its national campaign loan, and there may be no obvious way out.

Fewer than 50 of 343 NDP candidates reached the 10 percent vote threshold needed to qualify for a campaign expense rebate from Elections Canada. That’s not just an embarrassing stat, it’s financial ruin. Those rebates, worth several million dollars collectively, are normally how the NDP repays its election loan. No rebates means no repayment.

Now let’s add up the risk. The NDP supposedly ran a fully-funded national campaign. (I say supposedly because it’s hard to believe they spent that much and got so little in return.) Their legal spending cap was roughly $35.8 million. Several insiders say the party borrowed close to the max, or at least enough to require those rebates to service the debt. With only about 15 percent of ridings qualifying, the NDP’s repayment plan has collapsed.

https://freddelorey.substack.com/p/t...bigger-trouble

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I thought the sarcasm would have been obvious. At the same time I was kinda hoping Firebot did mean to write what he posted because the explanation would have been gold!

It's clearly a type too fast typo, but Google AI overview does try to explain it

AI Overview
The term "socialist conservative" refers to a political viewpoint that combines socialist economic policies with socially conservative values. It's not a widely recognized, unified ideology, but rather a description of certain political stances that don't neatly fit into traditional left-right spectrums.
Here's a breakdown:
Socialism: Generally, socialism involves social ownership or control of the means of production, aiming for greater economic equality and social welfare.
Conservatism: Conservatism, in its various forms, often emphasizes tradition, social stability, and limited government intervention in the economy.
Combining the two: A "socialist conservative" might support government intervention to address economic inequality (e.g., progressive taxation, social safety nets) while also holding socially conservative views on issues like traditional family structures, religious values, or national identity.
Examples of related concepts:
Paternalistic conservatism:
This form of conservatism emphasizes social responsibility and the role of the state in protecting citizens, which can overlap with socialist ideas of social welfare.
Tory socialism:
In the UK, this term refers to a tradition of conservative politics that includes social reform and interventionist policies, often with a focus on national identity and tradition.
Right-wing socialism:
This term, sometimes used pejoratively, can refer to conservative stances that support a more active role for the state in economic affairs, but within a capitalist framework.
In essence, a socialist conservative is someone who embraces certain socialist economic principles while maintaining a socially conservative outlook.

But really I meant the good old social book burning conservative kind.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

LOL! "Cons are great with our finances" said the deplorables.. hahaha




Money well spent!!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/con...sing-1.7581132

It worked wonders on a few centrists who still beat that noble drum today. Didn’t turn into votes, but they influenced the ever-valuable argumentative repertoire of the terminally online.

[Firebot]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...8fa22f70d.html

Brace for layoffs, budget watchdog says, as Carney government aims to slash spending by $25B
Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux said the scope of the cuts is “doable,” but not without consequences: “It’s just a matter of how much pain will that inflict on public servants and on Canadians.”

This has already been happening and is expected to ramp up significantly, a stark contrast to the Trudeau government bloat that ballooned public service by 40% in just 10 years

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/articl...-by-9800-jobs/

It will be quite interesting to see the current take from some who have consistently defended the public service bloat in the past whenever the subject came up. During the election the Liberal campaign tried to stay away from the Elon Musk chainsaw style of deep cuts imagery by mentioning it will be capping public service instead of cutting, but it's great to see responsible and badly needed austerity measures proceeding with no lip service and actual actions. No complaints here.

Even the Beaverton has its take

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/07...or-him-to-cut/

[woob]

Haha Beaverton's headlines are so good.

[Amethyst]

Responsible and austerity are different things.

Massive job cuts mean actual human beings losing their jobs. Either they find other jobs, they need government support, or they suffer a life of poverty, unable to pay their bills, losing their homes, etc. Since there doesn't seem to be an abundance of unfilled jobs waiting, why is this a good thing?

I would rather the public service be the size it needs to be to fulfil its job, not ideologically high or low.

And I think the government needs to be careful when it cuts jobs, because massive unemployment is not good for the country either.

It sounds like you are cheering people's suffering because you don't like where they work.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...8fa22f70d.html




This has already been happening and is expected to ramp up significantly, a stark contrast to the Trudeau government bloat that ballooned public service by 40% in just 10 years

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/articl...-by-9800-jobs/

It will be quite interesting to see the current take from some who have consistently defended the public service bloat in the past whenever the subject came up. During the election the Liberal campaign tried to stay away from the Elon Musk chainsaw style of deep cuts imagery by mentioning it will be capping public service instead of cutting, but it's great to see responsible and badly needed austerity measures proceeding with no lip service and actual actions. No complaints here.

Even the Beaverton has its take

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/07...or-him-to-cut/

My take on the increase in public service is that it should have also equated to a reduction in third party contracts. I hated how the Harper government slashed public service jobs and outsourced that work, and was optimistic that Trudeau was restrengthen the public service and reducing the outsourcing.

When in fact we ended up with a larger government and even larger 3rd party contracts then something clearly failed there. I am hoping to see the majority of that $25B be that patronage outsourcing the liberals haven become known for and not outright reduction in public service staff.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Responsible and austerity are different things.

Massive job cuts mean actual human beings losing their jobs. Either they find other jobs, they need government support, or they suffer a life of poverty, unable to pay their bills, losing their homes, etc. Since there doesn't seem to be an abundance of unfilled jobs waiting, why is this a good thing?

I would rather the public service be the size it needs to be to fulfil its job, not ideologically high or low.

And I think the government needs to be careful when it cuts jobs, because massive unemployment is not good for the country either.

It sounds like you are cheering people's suffering because you don't like where they work.

I agree on a number of points. It does mean real people losing their jobs and, while thats unfortunate, its also part of life.

Just because you work for the Government shouldn't necessarily mean you have a 'Guaranteed Job for Life' any more than it would to any employee who works anywhere else.

Furthermore, despite Trudeau's 40% increase in the Public Sector over his tenure has anyone noticed an increase in services or the distribution thereof? Even so much as a minor decline in telephone wait-times? Any form of improvement whatsoever? At all? In any department?

So I fundamentally agree with your points, but its not the Government's responsibility to keep these people employed if they're not supplying a benefit and further, we do not want Government cutting jobs over ideological purposes, however, by the same token, one could make the case that the Government created these jobs over ideological purposes in the first place.